A lot of Beemans are now made in China!
And if my figures are correct, The .22 cal pellet
strikes with about 78%+ more force than a 177
traveling at equal velocity? All of my Sheridans
will also tear one ragged hole in the target..
But so can my Beeman. And my ancient Crosman
Pellmaster. High price doesn't always make something
infinitely better. My Beeman and My Sheridan Are
both great guns and both will do the job I ask
of them.
The poster's figures above ARE NOT correct, at least in the real world sense, because the same gun in .22 isn't going to shoot with the same velocity that the .177 version will. It could be and often is as much as 200 FPS less.
Assume that you're shooting the three common smallbore air rifle calibers out of rifles with the same powerplant, i.e. three Beeman R-1's with one being .177, one being .20, and the other being .22
I am willing to stipulate that the R-1 will be slightly more effecient in transfering spring energy to the pellet in the larger bore sizes. Untuned .177 R-1's are normally good for 16 to 17 ft/lbs of muzzle energy. The .20's are normally good for 17 to 18, while the .22's can get 19 ft/lb at the muzzle -sometimes more.
The problem is that we don't normally shoot game or targets right at the muzzle.
If you have a .177 R-1 and shoot Crossman Premier Light or Crosman Premier Heavies, you'll be shooting a pellet with a ballistic coeffecient of AT LEAST .028 when discharged from an R-1.
It will arrive at the fifty yard line with around 10 ft/lb of thump. That is enough to drive the pellet DEEP into a very large jackrabbit's noggin.
The .20, on the other hand, will yeild a bc about the same as above with Kodiaks. Velocity will be lower, but the pellets have more mass. At the fifty yard line, this combo will typically yield a tick over 10 ft/lb of thump. This will also be enough to drive the .20 pellets DEEP into a very large jackrabbit's noggin.
Most pellet choices in .22 don't have ballistic coeffecients that high, so they shed their already reduced velocity more quickly. It is entirely possible for a .22 R-1 to deliver LESS power to the fifty yard mark than the smaller bore versions will, particularly if no attention is paid to the ballistic coeffecient of the pellets used and if the pellets used have a lower BC.
This is one of the reasons why Robert Beeman was a STAUNCH advocate of the .20 caliber when he still ran Beeman and why he reamins one even now, when he no longer has any financial ties to the company that bears his name.
The .177 has MANY advantages over the .22 in a springer applied to the hunting field. First, the velocity is usually higher. This means dwell time in the bore is reduced, which is a very good thing for consistant shot placement. Second, that same higher velocity that reduces bore dwell time also yields a potentially flatter trajectory than can be achieved with .22. It will be flatter if you're shooting CPL, CPH, JSB Exacts, or any of a number of other pellets with bc's over .027.
If you sight in to maximize point blank range, you'll have a flat enough trajectory to score hits on the kill zone of most small game out to an honest 50 yards without worring about how much hold over you need at distance. You won't with a .22 R-1 and will give up somewhere between 5 and 10 precious yards of point blank range distance compared to what you could have had with the .177
Not only that, but the added velocity advantage of the .177 over .22 in guns using the same powerplant also yeilds reduced flight time to target, and it is significant enough to dramatically minimize wind drift issues at the limit of practical game taking range.
This whole deal about ballistic coefficent is why my weenie little R-9, which is both much lighter and much less bulky than its bigger R-1 brother, might start with a two or three foot-pound muzzle energy disadvantage but still deliver 9 foot pounds of thump at the fifty yard line. There isn't a game animal around that will notice the difference between the two when hit with one or the other at 50 yards.
That's why I hunt with the lighter, handier, R-9.
I prefer the .20 caliber because you get the deep digging penetration that .177 is known for, with a wound channel diameter more like a .22 pellet makes, and with a max PBR closer to the .177 than the .22, assuming we're comparing the same rifle in different calibers.
-JP
