Quote Originally Posted by Artfull-Bodger View Post
A rabbits head creates even less resistance than the waxhow do you know??? And if this is the case why is pass through more common in .177??so produces even less braking effect on a heavy pellet than the wax does, so the impact velocity and the amount of energy dumped is even more important, what the wax shows, unlike ballistic gel which is elastic so closes up, is the actual cavity the pellet creates, Only in terracotta wax which will respond in one way which is completely different to bone, flesh and as you say ballistic gel.... I really don't think it shows anything. In the delrin thread on here it has been said that turning delrin is funny as you have to cut it fast to get a good finish which is the opposite to most other materials. I really don't think that the "splash" trauma that you see in wax gives a true representation of anything other than what it is so it's highly possible it's reverse is the case when it comes to flesh & bone. You never ever see gigantic holes in rabbits heads from .177 and very rarely see there skulls cracked and soft around the wound but you do with a .22.the bigger the cavity the greater the trauma that is caused, a good example was the .20 pellet which heavier than a .177 but only slightly larger in surface area it's core was extremely small, it took most of it's energy with it, and that's exactly what you don't want, ideally you want the hollowpoint or wadcutter, but as we all know few of these pellets will group at longer ranges.

But even then, because the energy levels are so low, because the rabbit your shooting has very little resistance to the pellet, shot placement is the critical function, and the flatter flying light pellet is more forgiving than the slower more looping trajectory of the heavy, when you then add in the pellet creating more impact damage and getting there faster the choice is clear.
I think your slightly miss lead by somthing akin to false advertising here.. and I fear this happens alot.
I'm not saying that you are wrong in your conclusion at all I want that to be duely noted, I just think these tests aren't being concluded in a true analytical way that derives truth from the subject.

Rhys