Retained energy - .22 vs .177

[TonyL]

The last time I looked, the H&N website showed quite a lot of detail on retained velocity.

I also seem to remember that the 10.5 grain Barracudas come out well in velocity / energy retention stakes? So, if velocity retention is important to you, maybe worth a try? Subject to the given that accuracy has to be your major consideration.

I used to use the old Silhouettes years ago (9.2 grains?) and they were excellent. I wouldn't personally want to run the heavier Barracudas in my springers, but they'll be fine in your PCP.

I have no experience of the JSB heavies but could only guess that they'll be superb as long as your barrel likes them.

[krisko]

shoot 10.3 JSB heavies or over 13 grain monsters. the heavies have quite high BC even for a .177
there is H&N sniper magnum even heavier or the piledrivers. i think the last 2 are too heavy and pricey really.

in the US they shoot 2-5x more powerful airguns, and i can tell you they cant shoot them 5x our distances.

[Carpharp]

The last time I looked, the H&N website showed quite a lot of detail on retained velocity.

I also seem to remember that the 10.5 grain Barracudas come out well in velocity / energy retention stakes? So, if velocity retention is important to you, maybe worth a try? Subject to the given that accuracy has to be your major consideration.

I used to use the old Silhouettes years ago (9.2 grains?) and they were excellent. I wouldn't personally want to run the heavier Barracudas in my springers, but they'll be fine in your PCP.

I have no experience of the JSB heavies but could only guess that they'll be superb as long as your barrel likes them.

Thanks for the tip, the H&N site is very useful and shows clearly the superior energy retaining properties of heavier pellets in either calibre.

Totally agree that BC coupled with ease and accuracy of shot placement are the other cornerstones.

[rabbitwrecker]

With any sub-12 ft/lb air rifle, all this talk of retained energy, 'knockdown' power and the like is utterly meaningless without pin-point placement...

[harvey_s]

And any talk of pin-point accuracy is pointless without learning your trajectories, granted one is less demanding than the other at longer ranges - but without practice neither is any good

[Artfull-Bodger]

With any sub-12 ft/lb air rifle, all this talk of retained energy, 'knockdown' power and the like is utterly meaningless without pin-point placement...

there's a fallacy that heavier pellets hit harder, take a look at this test-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJX3xg1nUAY

You will note the faster pellet creates a larger wound channel and the wadcutters and hollowpoints transmit the most impact force, a lighter high velocity pellet is not only superior in it's less range critical, but it has greater impact creating a larger cavity, when your messing about with power as low as 5-7ftlbs at the target 1ftlb makes no practical difference!

when your using power levels this low It's ALL about accuracy, add to that the greater impact of a faster pellet and the choice is self explanatory.

[rhyslightnin]

there's a fallacy that heavier pellets hit harder, take a look at this test-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJX3xg1nUAY

You will note the faster pellet creates a larger wound channel and the wadcutters and hollowpoints transmit the most impact force, a lighter high velocity pellet is not only superior in it's less range critical, but it has greater impact creating a larger cavity, when your messing about with power as low as 5-7ftlbs at the target 1ftlb makes no practical difference!

when your using power levels this low It's ALL about accuracy, add to that the greater impact of a faster pellet and the choice is self explanatory.

One thing that gets me with these tests is that terracotta wax just isn't flesh & bone... Just simply down to the fact you can mold it with your hands means it's very different. So I don't understand how this can be used as a reliable test substrate at all, it's bound to react differently to a pellet passing through than a rabbits head.

It's a bit like saying I'm going to test this rope strength using a different type of rope to the one I'm doing the test for !!!!??

[Artfull-Bodger]

One thing that gets me with these tests is that terracotta wax just isn't flesh & bone... Just simply down to the fact you can mold it with your hands means it's very different. So I don't understand how this can be used as a reliable test substrate at all, it's bound to react differently to a pellet passing through than a rabbits head.

It's a bit like saying I'm going to test this rope strength using a different type of rope to the one I'm doing the test for !!!!??

A rabbits head creates even less resistance than the wax 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, 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.

[rhyslightnin]

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

[MarkHolding]

If you use the Chairgun software, it has a range of pellets in its data base that you can put in at the various ranges, including your expected muzzle velocity. From this you will be able to click on the chart shot curve at the different ranges to see what the retained energy is. It's down to coefficient and weight of the pellet overall, but will give you a rough idea.

[Yafflle1234]

I think its also important to balance the need for penetration versus energy transferred to/retained in the target.

i.e A .177 at 15 yards passing straight through, for example, a squirrel thus unless a vital organ it hit the actual knockdown/damage potential is wasted as the pellet continues its flight. On the flipside and other end of the of the scale a .25 at the same range/target can also rely on the pellet remaining in the target thus the full energy is transferred into said target as well as the physical damage caused by a larger projectile.

[lensman57]

One thing that gets me with these tests is that terracotta wax just isn't flesh & bone... Just simply down to the fact you can mold it with your hands means it's very different. So I don't understand how this can be used as a reliable test substrate at all, it's bound to react differently to a pellet passing through than a rabbits head.

It's a bit like saying I'm going to test this rope strength using a different type of rope to the one I'm doing the test for !!!!??

I find such tests misleading even though they have been conducted in good faith. There was an on going one in AGW and although it didn't reveal anything we didn't know it also fell into the same trap of using clay. Clay is not fiberous like the skin and flesh of an animal so the deductions should be treated with a degree of caution. Using a 5 grs pellet to make a large hole in the clay does not mean the same will be happen to an animal nor using an ultra heavy pellet in a sub 12 ft.lbs air rifle. A pellet that is travelling at a pedestrian pace of 460 ft/s is hardly going to show its best at 20 yards.
For .177 at sub 12 ft.lbs any well desigend pellet between 7.9 grs and 10.5 will do the job. Either side of that and the bets are off.

A.G

[harvey_s]

there's a fallacy that heavier pellets hit harder, take a look at this test-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJX3xg1nUAY

You will note the faster pellet creates a larger wound channel and the wadcutters and hollowpoints transmit the most impact force, a lighter high velocity pellet is not only superior in it's less range critical, but it has greater impact creating a larger cavity, when your messing about with power as low as 5-7ftlbs at the target 1ftlb makes no practical difference!

when your using power levels this low It's ALL about accuracy, add to that the greater impact of a faster pellet and the choice is self explanatory.

Couldn't disagree more - muckin' around at the range at 50 yards shooting an enamel plate the .177 boys got a 'ding' and a bit of chipped enamel - .22 punched through.

Accuracy is important, but the larger calibre does deliver and always has done - that bit has never changed.

[Artfull-Bodger]

Couldn't disagree more - muckin' around at the range at 50 yards shooting an enamel plate the .177 boys got a 'ding' and a bit of chipped enamel - .22 punched through.

Accuracy is important, but the larger calibre does deliver and always has done - that bit has never changed.

you missed the point there, we were talking about .177 light vers heavy.

I completely agree with you however the larger frontal area of the .22 does cause greater cavities than the smaller .177, the downside is the greater curved trajectory makes range estimation far more critical!

The principle is the same however , hobbies at 660fps make a bigger cavity than JSB 16gr at 570fps

Don't agree on penetration however, the smaller area of the .177 has always penetrated better in every test I have done due to the simple formula of force over area?

[harvey_s]

Don't agree on penetration however, the smaller area of the .177 has always penetrated better in every test I have done due to the simple formula of force over area?

I understand the theory and agree it makes sense, but I can only tell you what happened in practice on a tin plate - other materials will react differently...and there are fur/feather sayings that I suspect have some truth in them to support this.
But not being a particularly enthusiastic hunter I'm probably not the one to present a reasoned argument either way on the subject.