All the fuss over .177 vs. .22?

[bigferret]

I'm confused about the advantage that people say the .22 has over the .177.  I'm looking at the velocity tests that are at www.straightshooters.com has.  For an example a Diana 350 in .177 has a best of 21FPE at the muzzle and 12 FPE at 50 yards.  In .22 the same gun has 24 FPE at the muzzle and 14 FPE at 50 yards.  Those figures are from different pellets though.  If you just use only one example of pellet the difference is is even smaller sometimes with the .177 having more energy at long distance from a given pellet.  I actually just got a .177 350 for this reason.  I like the Crosman Premier heavies because they shoot nice groups and it so happens they have the best energy at distance in this .177 gun.   Shooting this gun in .177 with the CPHs it has 15 FPE at 25 yards vs 17 FPE in the .22.  Is that really good enough reason to get a .22 because when you start shooting at 50 yards or more it seems like the .177 will be shooting flatter with almost as much energy?  The tab bit of energy and the slightly larger hole it will make seem the only reason to go with the .22 at least in this gun.  Every forum seems to have this argument so does the .177 vs .22 mainly only apply to PCP guns?

[Bugflipper]

 Your 350 in .177 has more energy than my .22 springer, so the comparison isn't aplicable. Your 350 will kill small game better than the average springer in .22.  Now if you look at what the average guy is shooting, say  low 900 fps for a light weight .177 and low 700 fps for a light weight .22. there is a distinct advantage in power, maybe only 1 or 2 fpe, but at this power level 1 or 2 fpe is a big difference. Now take into considderation that the diameter size is larger and a bigger diameter hole is being punched through, plus the advantage of more weight vs. momentum in the longer ranges and the .22 looks better and better. With the average springer most people recomend a .177 for head shots on squirrels and a .22 can be used for vital body shots, the added power is what allows people to do this.

[sixgunSal]

Another thing to consider when comparing .177 and .22 is the flight of the pellet.  When you're shooting at the longer ranges, a .177 pellet will be blown off track more by less wind then a .22 will.  And because a .177 is so much lighter then the .22, it will be affected more.  Those 2 pellets you mentioned the max's for - CP Heavy .177 and a Kodiak .22 - the Kodiak is twice as heavy as the CP and if they are close to the same speed the one with the more weight is going to have the most energy to transfer when it hits something and be less affected by the wind.  A very poor analogy (very poor) but I hope it makes the point is which would hurt more - getting hit by a tennis ball or a baseball?  With airguns, accuracy is first with energy second, especially in the field.

[Larry Gibson]

Over the years I've thumped quite a few critters with .177s, .20 and .22 springer air rifles of various power ranges with numerous different pellet designs.  Critters have ranges from small field mice, small and large rats, Columbian ground squirrels, California ground squirrels, smaller brush rabbits and jack rabitts of various sizes.  One thing I can say is that regardles of FPE the .20s thump harder than the .177s and the .22s thump harder than either the .117 or the .20s. This is withpellets of equal design.  Simply a matter of the cross sectional mass that hits home.  The larger the diameter the larger the thump.  Comparison of .177, .20 and .22 CPs out of M48/M54 RWS rifles for instance; the comparison is pretty valid as all three calibers are in the 20 FPE range.  Yet visual anallysis of "kills" will plainly tell that the .20 kills better than the .177 and the .22 kills better than both of them.  My guestimate based on quite a few kills is that the R9 .20 cal with CPs at 666 fps kills about as well as .117s with CPs in the 850 to 900 fps range. Over the 20 to 40 yard practical range most air rifle kills are made at I haven't found "flatness" of trajectory to be that much of benifit to the faster .177s.  All of them will do quite nicely with the right pellets and proper placement of the shot. No matter how you slice it though, bigger is better.

Larry Gibson   

[swampthing]

The key word is momentum. I have a .22 cal Talon SS. I turn "down" the power and shoot 21g Kodiak's at 600fps. Those pellets go completely through squirrels at ranges out to 50 yds. If I try a head shot... it goes through, if I go for the heart/lung... it goes through. They never get away. I have shot the same gun at 750fps and the only practical difference was the noise.

           

[bigferret]

The comparison to a tennis ball and baseball makes sense but only if they are going at the same speed at impact.  The baseball of course will do more damage but only because it weighs approximately two and a half times more than a tennis ball.  A child size(4 OZ.) baseball thrown at 80 mph and a official weight(6.8 OZ.) softball thrown at 60 mph is I guess would be a example.  If a .177 has less weight but more speed and the .22 has more weight but less speed where do they "equal" each other?  Apparently you can't use the FPE because everybody says to go with the .20 or .22 even though they may have the same FPE as the .177.  Or does it come down to the size of entrance and/or exit hole that pushes people towards the larger caliber with FPE being equal?  

[jamaldog87]

so like .177 some like .22.  If you have a .22 going 850fps or faster then it can out power any .177 out to 50 yards. From what i seem from shoot both is this, if you want to hunt bigger game(coons, nutra, bobcats, yotes) then the .22 is whats needed and if you are shooting pest(rats, starling, rocks doves) that you need more range then power then get the .177. If i have to just get one i would get the .22 because it better to have killer power at a short range then have ife killing power at long range. I have a crosman 2200 in .22 and 766 in .177. the .22 goes 600fps and the .177 goes 685fps or 700fps with light pellets. the .177 drops 2'' at 50 yards and has about 2.3fp of killer power and my .22 drops 5-6" but has 5fp of killing power. I have found that a scope with a mil dot or a bullet drop on it you can get it for the range you are shooting.

[jcn59]

Like Larry, I shot many critters with .177, .20, & .22 cal air rifles, but in my younger years.  Squirrels were the toughest small game we shot.  My Benjamin pneumatic would send a .22 pellet to the hide on the off-side, seldom requiring more than one shot.  The Crossman .177 pneumatic would usually completely penetrate a squirrel, and then it would run away, needing more shooting if we were to collect it.  This was the general rule for over 200 Wisconsin gray & fox squirrels.  Of course, after we found how much more effective the .22s were we stopped using the .177s.   The .20 Sheridan pneumatics would completely penetrate a squirrel and kill better than the 177s.  I think they used a semi-pointed solid pellet which was the only one I remember being available for them in the late 1950s.

Regardless of the differences in velocity (in air rifles at the time) the .22 created more tissue damage with flat point pellets than smaller calibers with the same flat point pellets. 

[Mike Pearson]

Over the years I've thumped quite a few critters with .177s, .20 and .22 springer air rifles of various power ranges with numerous different pellet designs.  Critters have ranges from small field mice, small and large rats, Columbian ground squirrels, California ground squirrels, smaller brush rabbits and jack rabitts of various sizes.  One thing I can say is that regardles of FPE the .20s thump harder than the .177s and the .22s thump harder than either the .117 or the .20s. This is withpellets of equal design.  Simply a matter of the cross sectional mass that hits home.  The larger the diameter the larger the thump.  Comparison of .177, .20 and .22 CPs out of M48/M54 RWS rifles for instance; the comparison is pretty valid as all three calibers are in the 20 FPE range.  Yet visual anallysis of "kills" will plainly tell that the .20 kills better than the .177 and the .22 kills better than both of them.  My guestimate based on quite a few kills is that the R9 .20 cal with CPs at 666 fps kills about as well as .117s with CPs in the 850 to 900 fps range. Over the 20 to 40 yard practical range most air rifle kills are made at I haven't found "flatness" of trajectory to be that much of benifit to the faster .177s.  All of them will do quite nicely with the right pellets and proper placement of the shot. No matter how you slice it though, bigger is better.

Larry Gibson   

Absolutely Larry!  A  .20 pellet has a 21.7% superior frontal area surface advantage over .177 and that advantage is 35% for a .22 over .177. The diamater could literally be an invisible or thin line over the broadest points of a circle. Take for example, a two bladed broadhead. That's a perfect example of diameter. Not much frontal surface on a two bladed broadhead (even a large diameter one) to be sure but still some!
The frontal area of a bullet (or pellet) is that part of the bullet (it's surface if you will) that is actually making contact with tissue. With every increment of penetration, a .22 pellet is crushing 35% MORE tissue, bone, and organ. How much does that 35% matter? If I hit a sparrow or starling flush in the breast, the .177 will kill it as cleanly as anything, including the .22.  Likewise, if I put a .177 pellet through the brain of a woodchuck (even a large one), that animal may do alot of flopping around but he ain't EVER going to be any deader than the split second I squeezed that trigger! A .22 pellet won't kill that 'chuck any faster or deader. Finally, the 35% superiority of the .22 won't help me with critters that are beyond it's capabilities. A lung shot coyote,for example, is most likely to be lost with either .177 OR .22.
The advantages of the .20 and the .22 start with 1 pound animals and birds. Crows and pigeons start showing the differences of the .20 pellet, let alone .22 and .25. Needless to say small game and pests of a pound and more that CAN be taken with a good chest shot (squirrels and rabbits) are best taken with .20 and larger. I am speaking chest shots here!
Larry, I KNOW you know all this stuff. I used to enjoy your posts  on the old AGLF. I just thought I'd add a few thoughts to the already excellent post you wrote! ---Mike

[IOWA DON]

I have an old 124 FWB in .177 caliber (25 plus years old). It has taken many birds, squirrels and rabbits. I think the 127 FWB in .22 caliber would have been a better choice. The .177 may have a flatter trejectory, but most animals were shot within 25 yards where the trejectory of the .22 was plenty good. What was lacking was the more "thump" of the larger pellet.

[Mike Pearson]

Truth be told, I try to keep my shots to within 30 yards even when I'm using a rimfire. I did this with all my airguns too including my Kodiak .25. For one thing, hunting is a challenge that I enjoy. Second, by being patient enough to keep my ranges to a more modest range, I have been better able to place my shots under hunting conditions.
Back on the old AGLF (Air Gun Letter Forum) that Larry and I used to post on some years ago, an old timer (can't remember his name but it sounded Dutch or German) put this airgun stopping power thing in very succinct and easy to understand terms. The pellets that make the biggest holes in the vital organs are the ones that kill the fastest. I've never heard it worded better! ---Mike

[LEO]

Another advantage of the 22 caliber air rifle may well be legality.  In my state it has to be at least 22 caliber to be legal for hunting.  Obviously not a factor if you only want a plinker but very important if you plan on hunting with it.