between a .177 and a .22 cal at 20, 40, 60 yards with 600 and 900 fps with 10 to 16 gr. pellets

let's make this easy, a M34 in .177 shooting 900 fps with 7 gr. pellet at those ranges

VS

a M34 in .22 cal shooting 650 fps with a 14 gr. pellet at 20 yards, then at 40 yards and at 60 yards

you will get the RAINbow effect of as I called it the BANANA shoot


others called it HOLDover but with a mil scope

well the .177 will perform at a certain range the .22 does not because of air drag and gravity pull, does that mean the .177 is better?? than the .22 cal.

am I biased agains/t the .22?? cal.

warren

and remember "it's 30% the gun and 70% the shooter"

Give me the .177 with heavy pellets for the 60 yrd shot.

For the closer range with that velocity, I'd take either one equally, but if I wanted to get a greater "reaction" from a spinning target, or can, or punch a larger hole in a squirrel, then I'd grab the .22 for the closer range shots.

Parra:

saddle the horse with an extra load

yep:

give me a 10 gr. pellet in .177 to cross the point between A and B, it will reach the target faster and without a lot of guess-timation at 900 fps compared to 800 in .22 cal with a 14 ^ 16 gr. pellet

warren

and remember "it's 30% the gun and 70% the shooter"

my 31 .177 with 8.1gr pellets shooting at 899fps seems to reach and knock down targets faster than my 54 .22 with 18.5gr shooting at 796fps...

PK:

.177 with 8.1 at 890 FPS will beat in speed a

.22 with 18.5 at 796 FPS

by 94 FPS but the difference is

8.1 gr VS 16.5 = 10.4 gr,

translate this to real #'s

FPS, GR, CAL and you get ?????? between the .177 and .22 cal

ex: .177 X 8.1 x 890 = 1.277

or: .22 X 18.5 X 796 = 3.239

warren

PS: will a SLOW .22 be more effective than a fast .177

Ain't you the one who's always preaching "learn to shoot"? I should think someone really familiar with their gun, be it .22 or .177, at those ranges would do equally well. It's not always about the "tragedy", as someone once said (Al Miller - 40 Years with the .45-70). So the heavier slug has a bit more arc. It also has a bit more carry-up.

Let's crunch some numbers using your latest comparison:

.177 8.1 @ 890 = 14.3 fpe and a TKO factor of .182
.22 18.5 @ 796 = 26.0 fpe and a TKO factor of .372
372/182 = 200% knock down power

Let's consider a slower, standard weight .22:

14.3 @ 700 = 15.6fpe and a TKO factor of .253, or 139% over your .177 load. Stands to reason that, if you can hit at the same yardage, the .22 will still carry up very well, despite the arc and slower speed.

Put another way, if I drop a .58 500 grain Minie bullet which leaves the muzzle at about 1000 fps onto a deer at three to four hundred yards, I can probably shoot, lean back, check the time on my watch, observe a birdie in a nearby tree, and then watch as it knocks the ()&*$% out of that deer. It ain't only speed that kills.


Shoot 'em if you got 'em.

I'm a numbers guy myself... and the differences in time of of flight for a .177 at 8/900 vs a .22 at 7/800 on realatively short range targets are very small. Therefore I like the .22 (operative word is like.) Keep in mind that the .22 weighs nearly twice the .177 at (not quite) the same velocity....In my mind and in my experience that heavier weight and greater frontal area translates into harder hits and more penetration on target. The principal of momentum....However, in theory, as we have discussed here, a .177 and .22 with the same powerplant have the same potential energy (no lets not get that whole discussion going again!!!) and therefore theoretically same the energy to deliver on target. In the real world however there are so many variables its difficult to get our arms around them and there are exceptions to everyone's rules (but not the laws of physics!! We just can't control or account for all of the variables in our experiements.) So in my book - shoot what you like and learn to shoot it well. What the heck - as most of you do - shoot them both when the spirit moves you!!

Good Shooting to All
Model48

you are right in a sense but not so in the other;

never said anything about accuracy but SPEED

700 fps in .22 cal. reaches the target at 20 yards in 7.5 secds.

900 fps in .177 does the same thing in 5.83 secds.

granted the TKO power is NOT the same because the kinetic power is not the same between the .177 in a 10 gr. and the .22 in 14.3 gr.

and you do not hit at the same distance with .177 or .22, the shooter has to compensate for a heavier pellet

the .22 cal has a little more difficulty to shoot as the .177 at the range of 20-60 yards, beyond that the .22 WIN's in the 600-700 fps but the .177 can go 800 to 900 fps

shoot SMALL, aim SMALL, miss SMALL

warren

PS: and YES you can obliterate the squirrel at 40 yards with a .22 cal air rifle or you can kill it at 60 yards with a .177 cal

and remember "it's 30% the gun and 70% the shooter"

7.5 seconds to go twenty yards? You must shoot the pellet at the firing line, not run and carry the gun to the target, then shoot. And, man, you must be kind of slow. That's, what? A 37.5 second hundred yard?

Just jokin'.

.0857s and .0667s respectively......

i have tuned my gun for two differnt velocities (more than two actually)
i can shoot 8.4 grn .177 at 920 fps or at 840 with 7.9 gr depending on which spring i use. i get better groups with 7.9 gn at 840. my far i have shot better scores at 920. i think the reason is that the longer point blank range and the supperior wind bucking of the faster pellet is more forgiving. that does not mean that with suffucient practice and better wind doping that would not eventuall shoot better with the more accurate lower velocity.

the fact that the .22 weighs more than .177 does not make it drop faster. that is a fuction of velocity (time of flight between muzzle and target). the .22 drops more because it is slower but if it had the same velocity it would not drop faster UNLESS THERE IS SOME OTHER VARIABLE such as a lower ballistic
coeficiant. the frontal area relative to the kinetic energy would have an effect on retained velocity as well. this effect is present regardless of caliber.

JC:

I have always liked your #'s, don't need a new computer just a brain that thinks like you, decimal point's just magnifies tha picture it does not reduce the effect

Larry:

you left out another variable between weight and the flight path, it is called Gravity, that is why a hammer that weights 2 pounds will never hit the same as one that is 4 pounds

RF:

if you correct my idea then you agree with it, you are only refining it

the efficiency of the faster pellet in a FPS cycle depends in the speed and the weight it carries at a knowen distance since the wind affects whatever caliber

and I still believe that a 9.8 gr pellet lobbed at 900 fps is more accurate than a 14.2 at 800 at 20, 40, 60 yards

silly me that I have XYZ air guns in .22 and never paid attention to the .177 cal.

warren




and remember "it's 30% the gun and 70% the shooter"

not relavant. Newton taught us that two objects dropped from the same height at the same moment will hit the ground at the same time regardless of how much they weigh. a one pound ball will fall at the same speed as a two pound ball. the only variable that can effect them is wind resistance but for pellets that are falling that is not a factor in their rate of fall. look up newtons law of gravity and you will see what i mean. to say this a different way a 7.9 grain pellet and a 10 grain pellet dropped from a 10 foot high ladder will both hit the ground at the same time. your hammer analogy is not relavant because the hammer is being driven by your arm and basically stores the energy put into it. take those hammers up on your balcony and drop them off together and they will both hit the ground at the same time. this is irrefutable. it is newtons law. look it up.

fire those two bullets on a horizontal plane and the SLOWER bullet will hit the ground first, not the heavier bullet. drive a 10 grain pellet at 700 feet
per second and a 7 gran pellet at 600 and the 7 grain pellet will hit lower on the target paper than the 10 grain. thats because it will be in flight longer and will be effected by gravity longer.

"fire those two bullets on a horizontal plane and the SLOWER bullet will hit the ground first, not the heavier bullet."

All you just taught us would say they both hit the ground at the same time as gravity works equally on the vertical component; the faster bullet just goes farther before it hits.

Warren, and while I am doubting, I'm not buying into the heavier/slower/less accurate story(that's probably because I have two sets of identical guns with only caliber differences). They both have the same accuracy! Granted, it is a lot easier for a person to compensate for the minimal drop of a faster pellet, but in the end, if you set up (as in sighted in) and shot the two guns at each of the different distances, I am confident that the results would be too similar to give the edge to one or the other.

you are absolutely correct.

"
All you just taught us would say they both hit the ground at the same time as gravity works equally on the vertical component; the faster bullet just goes farther before".

I think.....?? Given equal muzzle velocities, the .177 will have a greater range, but the .22 will deliver a greater amount of energy. It, (the .22 ), will not travel as far, but if both are shot at their optimal trajectory the .22 will deliver more energy at the end of it's flight than the .177, given it's greater weight.

I am not here to LOCK horns' with anyone just to post an idea and get feedback and on some of it, more than I can CHEW but we are still friends or that is what I want to think

let's try another angle here:

is it the pellet!!

the barrel!!

the trigger!!!

or the shooter????

maybe it is the brand!!!

two M34's, one in .177 shoting 860 fps and the other in .22 shooting 720 and their flight path

there is stored energy in any tool that has weight in them and a chisel will not do the work of a jack-hammer, different tools for different jobs

a pencil brush will not cover the same amount as a 4" one and they both use paint

one uses a delicate motion and the other brute force

while the .22 has more kinetic energy than the .177 so does the .25 compared to the .22, that is a fact

what is not clear is the fps factor, find a .177 shooting 900 fps and a .22 doing the same fps and shoot them then compare the CTC in each one of them

now SHOW ME how they are the same OR

shoot a .177 doing 860 fps and a .22 in 720 fps and compare the CTC again

you can do this at 20, 40, 60, 80 yards

and I will tell you that you will not get the same results, now you tell me if you can and why???

take out the wind and the shooter factor, just to make it easy for you to play with this idea

warren

PS: maybe Dr. Beeman was right when he introduced the .20 cal pellet, and he said it was "the best of both world's"



and remember "it's 30% the gun and 70% the shooter"

... in every aspect of his analysis.

Let's take the air resistance (drag coefficient and frontal area) out of the equation and assume that we are shooting in vacuum. In addition we ought to keep all the other variables the same too, so we are using the same powerplant, barrel type/length, choke, range, etc...

FACT the smaller caliber tends to shoot flatter - that's an indirect consequence of it's higher velocity in the same powerplant/barrel length combination - not because it is a smaller caliber (smaller diameter) or it's lower weight. The reason is that with it's higher speed is reaching faster (in less time) the target at any given distance and gives less time for the gravity (whose effect by the way is the exact same for any object - independent of it's mass i.e. weight) to act upon it and drop it less at the y (vertical) axis of the parabolic path by the time it reaches the target at the same distance. Taking into account that the pellet is flying actually through a fluid medium (air), does not change that it just exaggerates it, since the larger caliber pellet with it's larger frontal area slows down faster (even if they have the same shape/aerodymanic coefficient).

That phenomenon might be an interesting conversation subject but is totaly irrelevant to the accuracy of a gun. The accuracy by definition is the ability for a given gun/projectile combination to shoot consistently a certain group size at a certain distance. The larger caliber might need a larger inclination angle (bore to LOS angle) when you sight your scope for a given distance and that's about it. It has the potential to shoot as accurate (or not accurate if you want) as any other caliber.

Of course if you shoot a smaller caliber pellet that happens to travel slower than another of larger caliber (fired for example through a more powerful airgun) the observations will obviously be the opposite. The larger caliber one will shoot flatter - why? You guessed it! Because it's faster!

Now lets talk about energy retention at long range.

Yes the .177 is faster att the muzzle and faster at 20,30,50,75 hell even at 100yard it still clocks faster than the larger calibers right? Does this mean that .177 has some inherent energy retention properties that the other calibers lack?

The answer is NO! Exactly the opposite actually, since this energy retention "thing" is called momentum and is dependent on the mass! Yes - at last here is something that the mass actually does play a role at. And the big advantage of mass is that it not lost along the flight path! It's there the whole time from the moment you load the pellet in the breech until the time it hits that little critter's skull.  

And here is the irony! Let's just say that small caliber airgunners are fortunate enough not to be able to observe the miserable performance of their guns/pellets at long range, just because they don't get to shoot far enough. After a certain distance the smaller caliber (lower mass to frontal area ration) is bleeding so much speed that the momentum is disappearing, the "in flight" time to cover the next 50 yards is getting very long and the trajectory is falling on it's face in a totally unpredictable way (unlike the .22's parabola) that is impossible to be corrected with a holdover or zeroing. Not to mention the aerodymamic and instabilty issues that arise under a certain speed...

For all these reasons please think of all the parameters (try to break them down for easier "mental study") before you jump to conclusions and aphorisms.

Dimitris

excellent analysis where you explain SPEED regardless of weight

the concept of "energy retention, is called momentum and is dependent on the mass!"

is not new that is why the sniper rifle for the US Army (one shot, one kill) is the 50 cal. reaching more than 2 miles and is not (MAXed out) and not a .22 or .38 cal

but you still cannot produce the same speed in .22 cal that the .177 does easily and if speed is the King of Hearts the .177 will always win over the .22

on the subject of accuracy??? I will leave it to all of you to define for yourself's, just try to find out why is it that there are plenty of air rifles brands that shoot 900-1,000 fps in .177 and none in .22 that can acomplish this

warren

Warren,

I am guessing the reason you find many .177 springers capable of 1000fps and not that many (if any) @ .22 is that it's getting impractical to cock such a big mechanical powerplant, plus all the other drawbacks that come with it (vibrations, piston recoil, etc...).

But there are a lot of ultra accurate PCPs that accomplish this at .22 and that by itself proves you wrong doesn't it?

Think about it:

All the pellet guns have their practical upper limit at low transonic speeds (1050-1100fps)  - if we care to have some kind of decent accuracy - and that does not change no matter the caliber, weight, airgun type since it's dictated by the same projectile we are using which becomes aerodymanically unstable at higher speeds... The pellet!

So if we want to stretch airgun world's long range accuracy/knock down power/penetration/momentum/kinetic energy to the limits we have only one parameter to play with and that's increasing the pellet's weight and that in turn comes hand in hand with increasing caliber, because there is so much extra material you can add in a certain caliber's projectile before it becomes too long.

Dimitris

 

 

D:

"But there are a lot of ultra accurate PCPs that accomplish this at .22 and that by itself proves you wrong doesn't it?"

never did I ever mention a PCP, read all my posts' and find PCP in them and that proves YOU wrong

if you want to compare apples to apples that is OK just don't bring an orange to the party to compare and that still makes YOU wrong

if the object is to win the argument, then I will say you are right and you win

NOW; is the PCP the answer???? just because it shoots' 1,000 fps in .22

well then we have to take ALL the .177 spring air rifles away and replace them with PCP's air ones so they can shoot 1,000 fps in .22 cal and start this discussion again

warren

Wait a second Warren,

1. You say that .177 shoots more accurate

2. I am telling you a .177 is not more accurate - it just shoots flatter. 

3. You are telling me it shoots flatter because it's faster and you can't find a .22 that shoots that fast

4. I am reminding that airrifles that fast DO exist @.22

And now, in other words you are accusing me of changing the subject, since we are not talking PCPs here.

What you challenged from the start is the larger caliber's accuracy potential - that is ballistics not the airguns principle of operation!

 

.... the larger caliber pellet - with it's larger frontal area - does NOT slow down faster. It's just slower to start with - at the muzzle.

Dimitris

 

you win

warren

"let's try another angle here:
is it the pellet!!
the barrel!!
the trigger!!!
or the shooter????
maybe it is the brand!!!

Warren, you've already answered these questions every time you post and truer words were never spoken (er written....):

"it's 30% the gun and 70% the shooter"

Which caliber do you prefer (or even own)? If you like the .177, then, by all means, shoot one. The .22 floats your boat? Weclome aboard, matey! For some reason I like .22 pellet rifles, although most of mine are .177's. Some of my .22's are as accurate as some of the .177's. I'm not too concerned with extreme accuracy, so they serve me equally well. (Most are really hunting guns, anyway.) Now, at ten meters, the world concensus is on the .177. Why, I'm not sure? Maybe, like the .22 long rifle, it is just the best combination of caliber and low fps/power plants.

As to PCP's shooting well with .22's, I think the higher fps guns are not shooting the 14.3 standard profile pellets, are they? The PCP boys seem to lean more towards heavier, higher BC pills. And a 1000 fps springer in .22 is probably infeasible unless you have a special built gun like a Whiscombe. The main reason you are seeing 1000 fps .177's is the quest for more power from the smaller caliber, either for up close or to extend the range a bit. Don't forget that a good Blue Streak with .20 14.3 grainers will be just as deadly at sixty yards as your .177 springer. Those old dogs are under-rated. Again, you don't always need high speed to get the job done.

Warren, what you really need is a good wildcat varmint gun! It will keep you busy from here to eternity fine tuning rounds.

To re-cap the truths discussed here....

-a .177 and .22 at the same velocity will drop the same amount at a given distance.

-a FASTER .177 will drop less than a SLOWER .22 at a given distance.

-A FASTER .22 will drop less than a SLOWER .177 at a given distance.

-If a .177 and a .22 are shot at the same velocity, the .22 has more energy to deliver on target than a .22 (and conversely, a .177 has less)

And finally, to resurrect another discussion - If a .177 and a .22 could be fired from the same gun, the .177 would shoot faster, the .22 would shoot slower, but both would have the same energy on target. The .177 would drop less for a given point of aim than the .22 because of the faster velocity.

Now lets assume that the .177 and .22 are at the same velocity. Each hits a bushtail in the vitals - which is more lethal - The answer? IMHO - IN THEORY - there is no difference if viewed from the energy perspective. Both can hit as hard as the other. Throw in different pellet shapes, subtle but important slight differences in point of impact, and now you have differences.

As for inherent accuracy of .177 vs. .22 - It would be interesting to compare the dimesions of two identical pellets in .177 and .22.

And lastly - when did the .50 cal become the caliber of choice for Army snipers!!!!!!? Where the heck did that come from. Are we talking .50bmg or .50cal muzzel loader. Its just not believable to think Army "snipers" are lugging around .50 cal rifles. That reeks of something that was read on the vast wasteland of misinformation - the internet! Seriously - the .50 cal may have application as a sniper weapon for (very) long range applications, but not as the one and only sniper caliber of the grand old USA of A sniper caliber/weapon. I guess that cruise missles and smart bombs and laser and GPS guided missles should be considered sniper weapons as well.....Actually, maybe they should, given their ability to accurately strike a target....But so is a .177 or .22 pellet. Maybe the Army should look into air rifles for sniping purposes. Wait, this has been done in movies....Sorry for the rant - the .50 cal is not the 'sniper' caliber of the army, in spite of videos of human target being blown up from distance by a .50 cal projectile.......

Model48

In 2002, Furlong participated in Operation Anaconda in Afghanistan's Shah-i-Kot Valley as a member of the 3rd Battalion of Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry (PPCLI). His sniper team included MCpl. Graham Ragsdale (Team Commander), MCpl. Tim McMeekin, MCpl. Arron Perry, and Cpl. Dennis Eason. A three-man al-Qaeda weapons team was moving into a mountainside position when Furlong took aim with his Long Range Sniper Weapon (LRSW), a .50-caliber McMillan Brothers Tac-50 rifle. He began firing at a fighter carrying an RPK machine gun. His first shot missed entirely, and his second shot hit the knapsack on the militant's back. The third struck the target's torso, killing him. The distance was measured as 2,430 metres (2,657 yd / 1.509 miles).

They do carry a back up. But why put yourself in harms way if you don't have to.

Happy Canuck

"Now lets assume that the .177 and .22 are at the same velocity. Each hits a bushtail in the vitals - which is more lethal - The answer? IMHO - IN THEORY - there is no difference if viewed from the energy perspective."

Model 48,

in THEORY actually the .22 with the larger mass will carry more energy at that point, since the kinetic energy formula is:

E=1/2 * m * v^2

Dimitris

 

Rabbits are VERY susceptible to shock. (I know - got two house rabbits.) So, it's not good to determine lethality of a given pellet/gun/range combination using rabbits as the game. Better to use a tough old grey squirrel.

US snipers are now using custom built guns. At least, that's what I've seen on a program filmed at Quantico. They are not based on the .50BMG, although bolt actions and semi-autos in that caliber are available. There was some development of a .500 Whisper and .300 Whisper for harrasment/covert ops purposes a few years ago, but don't know if they are deployed. These are subsonic rounds.

Is there a particular reason snipers are using subsonic rounds?

Dimitris

"And finally, to resurrect another discussion - If a .177 and a .22 could be fired from the same gun, the .177 would shoot faster, the .22 would shoot slower, but both would have the same energy on target."

Nope - Another springer truth comes into play: The .22 will have approximately 20% more energy.

That the .22 will have more kinetic energy is true most of the time since it's usually a good deal heavier but not that slower in comparisson to the .177 (despite the fact that velocity is squared in the formula).

The 20%, is a debatable percentage though....

If you were to rebarrel a gun from .177 to .22, it's not easy to say how fast the .22 will go compared to the .177 or vice versa. Depends upon the power plant. One gun might be more efficient in .177 and less so in .22 or the other way around.

The Whisper bullets are designed not to produce a sonic boom or crack when fired. Also, the .300 was designed for police sniper work, replacing something like the 9mm's used today. Both round, although slow, have good knockdown power. The .500 was also tried with experimental explosive and incendiary rounds for harassment of enemy camps. Plenty of guys died on both sides during the American Civil War from subsonic Minie bullets.

"The 20%, is a debatable percentage though...."

Test data:

RWS 46 = 22.46%
TX200 = 5.72%

What's so debatable! Your mileage may vary. LOL!

put the word "theoretically" in front of that statement......Good point however, and if the 20% figure is accurate, then the logical explanation is that for some reason the .22 converts more of the stored energy in the spring to kinetic energy of the pellet.....

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m107.htm

not everyone can shoot 1.5 miles but the GUN exists

warren

and remember "it's 30% the gun and 70% the shooter"

OK. It's a Barret Light 50. Friend of mine had one, played around with it, then sold it. Guys in Viet Nam used .50 Browning machine guns converted to single shots to make some long shots, so it's nothing new. Just another special use weapon. Not a cure-all since I'm sure it kicks up some dust, revealing the position when fired. Anyway, not the main sniper arm for the US military.

I need to correct my previous statement about "another springer truth" that .22 shoots with more power in "air rifles, not just springers" - for an example, do rhe math on talon .177's and .22's. They use CPL's for .177 and CP's for .22.

Now it's getting into PCP's. Warren, here's a good link comparing .177 and .22 trajectories.

http://www.whfta.org/hft.html