Retained energy - .22 vs .177

[air-tech]

A typical 8.4 grain .177 pellet will knock a swinging target back about 40 degrees where as . 22 pelted will knock it back 90 degrees.

That really sums it up, .22 hit harder but there are other factors to consider.

It does not really, because of the differing velocities. With a low velocity impact, more of the kinetic energy is transferred as kinetic energy to the target, compared to a high velocity impact, where less is transferred as kinetic energy to the target but correspondingly more is converted to deformation of the pellet and the target. Sort of why hammer blows are not very suitable if you want to push your car, but the same energy in the form of a gentle push over a longer time will do the job.

Unfortunately when it comes to effectiveness on live quarry - it gets a bit more complicated than that but I'd hazard a guess that in most situations a faster pellet will be better at penetrating bone, especially at an angle.

[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.

[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

[Artfull-Bodger]

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

Yeah but you need to give a reason why really, not just go "I don't want to believe it"!

you have to comprehend the physics is relative to the very low energy levels we use.

The cavities are a function of the physics of the shockwaves created by impact, drop a pebble in water you get a splash and ripples, its the same principle regardless of the material, what the cavity shows is the extent the shockwave displaced the material it was shot into, change the material (heavy clay or a cow pat) and you get different sized cavities but they will remain the same relative to each other as in light to heavy, the faster a projectile impacts the greater the ripple, its also a function of surface area the greater the area the more material will be displaced.

What the weight gives you is momentum and this is why a heavier pellet penetrates further but it retains it's energy and passes through as its surface area cannot create enough drag in the material (drag = energy dump) , the whole point of a hollowpoint is to create a greater braking effect so the pellet displaces more material by using the energy it has, hence the larger cores shown!

In your head you can get the idea it's heavier therefore hits harder but in reality its surface area (the actual area that transmits the energy) is the same as a lightweight pellet, and as its travelling slower its impact is less, but its momentum is greater, it's such a complex interaction that its very hard to grasp what's happening, but the cores give a visual example of the effect, bigger cores equal more physical trauma!

The trajectory comparison however is black and white , it's indisputable that a fast light pellet is less range critical than a heavy one, and in our 12ftlbs world the small differences in trauma come second to the ability to hit where you need to.

Shot placement is everything, we don't have the energy to rely on shock damage alone.

[Muskett]

There is very little practical shock damage, even less than the wax plugs suggest as flesh is more elastic and the hydraulic shock given isn't explosive enough at these energy levels to do much. So shot placement is everything, and that shot placement has to travel through to destroy a vital organ. For instantaneous results that equates to a brain shot. Be it pigeon, squirrel or rabbit then its a small target with little room for error.
Which is why .177 rules.

Higher energies, even FAC air rifles, everything changes. At energies that hydraulic effect works then the cells are destroyed and tissue shredded within a massive wound tract. How big is all to do with energy dumped and bullet construction. Just not happening much with sub 12ft/lbs and their pellets. All too marginal.

Round head and accurate remains the best compromise.

[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

[rhyslightnin]

Yeah but you need to give a reason why really, not just go "I don't want to believe it"!

you have to comprehend the physics is relative to the very low energy levels we use.

The cavities are a function of the physics of the shockwaves created by impact, drop a pebble in water you get a splash and ripples, its the same principle regardless of the material, what the cavity shows is the extent the shockwave displaced the material it was shot into, change the material (heavy clay or a cow pat) and you get different sized cavities but they will remain the same relative to each other as in light to heavy, the faster a projectile impacts the greater the ripple, its also a function of surface area the greater the area the more material will be displaced.

What the weight gives you is momentum and this is why a heavier pellet penetrates further but it retains it's energy and passes through as its surface area cannot create enough drag in the material (drag = energy dump) , the whole point of a hollowpoint is to create a greater braking effect so the pellet displaces more material by using the energy it has, hence the larger cores shown!

In your head you can get the idea it's heavier therefore hits harder but in reality its surface area (the actual area that transmits the energy) is the same as a lightweight pellet, and as its travelling slower its impact is less, but its momentum is greater, it's such a complex interaction that its very hard to grasp what's happening, but the cores give a visual example of the effect, bigger cores equal more physical trauma!

The trajectory comparison however is black and white , it's indisputable that a fast light pellet is less range critical than a heavy one, and in our 12ftlbs world the small differences in trauma come second to the ability to hit where you need to.

Shot placement is everything, we don't have the energy to rely on shock damage alone.

The reason Is actually getting to the bottom of what is real and asking the correct questions to get the right answers., I believe that the "terracotta wax question" so to speak is the incorrect question as the subject matter (massive intentional pun) isn't correct on so many levels. I asked you "how do you know" purposely, not to prove you are wrong but to acquire the foundations of the statement that you made. I actually want to know the truth of this situation and the source so I can go look and experientially learn it for myself, I couldn't give a monkeys who is right or wrong.
It's funny how people in this type of discussion always get mixed up between belief and hard facts, then they use YouTube videos of someone elses inconclusive experiment to create more weight to there belief.
I'm here, right now, offering an opportunity to see exactly what is going on here by carefully thinking about the questions to ask, or presenting a reasonable reason or angle as to why possibly that we shouldn't believe what the YouTube video shows because it is easy to "Imagen" (this is an important word here) what it might be like if you apply what you see to a rabbits head, in our own heads... Which is just plain wrong.
Please don't argue with me I'm not here to do that, I just want to learn as I'm sure do you, what is exactly right
Rhys

[Artfull-Bodger]

The reason Is actually getting to the bottom of what is real and asking the correct questions to get the right answers., I believe that the "terracotta wax question" so to speak is the incorrect question as the subject matter (massive intentional pun) isn't correct on so many levels. I asked you "how do you know" purposely, not to prove you are wrong but to acquire the foundations of the statement that you made. I actually want to know the truth of this situation and the source so I can go look and experientially learn it for myself, I couldn't give a monkeys who is right or wrong.
It's funny how people in this type of discussion always get mixed up between belief and hard facts, then they use YouTube videos of someone elses inconclusive experiment to create more weight to there belief.
I'm here, right now, offering an opportunity to see exactly what is going on here by carefully thinking about the questions to ask, or presenting a reasonable reason or angle as to why possibly that we shouldn't believe what the YouTube video shows because it is easy to "Imagen" (this is an important word here) what it might be like if you apply what you see to a rabbits head, in our own heads... Which is just plain wrong.
Please don't argue with me I'm not here to do that, I just want to learn as I'm sure do you, what is exactly right
Rhys

I'm expressing my experiences messing with this kind of thing not arguing , this is a discussion.

You see I'm a complete geek who spends more time testing things than actually shooting!

I spent ages a number of years ago experimenting with different materials to see if hollowpoints worked, if pointed pellets worked etc
I tried plasticine, lard at different temperatures, gelatine (strawberry jelly), putty, clays, in the end I got a small box of ballistic gel off a guy on the net!

What did I learn ,

12ftlbs is not enough to properly deform a hollowpoint pellet unless the material was extremely dense, quite hard clay in my experiments.

that the results were mirrored no matter what the material I used, the more dense, the less the physical effect, and less dense the greater the effect but all behaved the same relative to each other, except the Ballistic gel which was great for testing penetration but without a high speed camera didn't give any other info.

what was clear was velocity was paramount, and the reason is simple if you take ten different pellets of the same calibre and look at them end on they are all the same area, and that's what the target is struck by, the frontal area, the different profiles flat, hollow, pointed etc varied the physical effect but the main criteria was speed!

I used a different measuring principle to the guy in the video , I used a syringe and measured the cc's of water each hole held , but the results the guy in the video has found is pretty much the same as what I did.

Rabbits heads are not made of terracotta wax, nor jelly or lard, but the results were the same relative to each pellet no matter what the material, and that's going to be the same for a rabbits head, their skulls are paper thin and their brains similar to gel, so yes you can use a similar material to get a picture of what does what.

As I said I'm not arguing I'm expressing my findings, I have tested this I suggest shooters try it to actually understand the principles, the problem is its a very long process and you have to have a very controlled system in place to eliminate errors.

Or in my case making a right old mess in the garage.

[airgunnut]

Around December 2009- April 2010 Airgun world did extensive testing regarding terminal ballistics, they looked at what happens to the shape of the pellet, they tested using jelly (they said it was closest to ballistics jell)
Every one seems to focus on the external ballistics (internal ballistics - what happens to the pellet in the barrel, external ballistics - pellet in flight, terminal ballistics - what happens when the pellet hits) if hunting you need a balance of power (foot pounds), accuracy and energy transfer.
Domed pellets, perfect for mid-long range but at 5-15m it's over kill (literately) so you need flat or hollow points, to be truly efficient, efective and safe you need to choose sutable pellets for each shot, as said in previous posts the pellet needs to transfer ALL it's energy to the live target, preferably with a head shot failing that a heart shot (you need to know there the heart is from every angle and if there is any bones/muscle that can stop the pellet before it hits the heart) an old shooter once told me that you shouldn't shoot an animal untill you have dissected one to see where all the internal bits are, so you know what is where, take a crow, (commonly thought of to be armor plated,) head is obscured, so a heart shot is needed, from the front there is large breast muscles and a large breast bone, both of these can stop/defect the pellet before it gets to the heart, side/profile shot, folded wings with bones, the multiple lares of feathers will absorb energy, back shot if you avoid the spine there is very little muscle to impead the pellet on the way to the heart.
Airgun pellets do produce hydrostatic shock, not that much, but it's there, the talk of wound tracks is pointless, there should be NO wound track as it should be head shots, with heart shots there should be very small wound tracks as you should know the best angle to avoid the energy sapping muscle and bone, some butchers ask for head shot rabbit only as they can get a premium price for un damaged rabbit meat (same goes for birds)

With pellets it's houses for courses, you have to know what your gun/pellet combo can/cannot do, having a 'good all rounder' pellet is not good enough, you have to have the best pellet for a perticuler job.

[Artfull-Bodger]

you can use jelly, strawberry in my case , you have to mix it at roughly a third the water your supposed to use and leave it for a day or two, it goes a bit rubbery, big problem is it tends to blow apart if you don't use a big enough block, so you have to make a load, it also has the disadvantage of gel in that it closes up the cavity after, so you can see the pellet track but not the cavity.

I found lard was good, (several blocks melted into a tub and frozen) but you have to use it from the freezer very quickly or by eck you end up with a right mess, as soon as it starts to warm its waay too soft!

in the end I had to accept the gels were good for testing penetration, and the clays and such were good for testing cavities, but there was no ideal material which did both so you just have to repeat the tests.

[lensman57]

I'm expressing my experiences messing with this kind of thing not arguing , this is a discussion.

You see I'm a complete geek who spends more time testing things than actually shooting!

I spent ages a number of years ago experimenting with different materials to see if hollowpoints worked, if pointed pellets worked etc
I tried plasticine, lard at different temperatures, gelatine (strawberry jelly), putty, clays, in the end I got a small box of ballistic gel off a guy on the net!

What did I learn ,

12ftlbs is not enough to properly deform a hollowpoint pellet unless the material was extremely dense, quite hard clay in my experiments.

that the results were mirrored no matter what the material I used, the more dense, the less the physical effect, and less dense the greater the effect but all behaved the same relative to each other, except the Ballistic gel which was great for testing penetration but without a high speed camera didn't give any other info.

what was clear was velocity was paramount, and the reason is simple if you take ten different pellets of the same calibre and look at them end on they are all the same area, and that's what the target is struck by, the frontal area, the different profiles flat, hollow, pointed etc varied the physical effect but the main criteria was speed!

I used a different measuring principle to the guy in the video , I used a syringe and measured the cc's of water each hole held , but the results the guy in the video has found is pretty much the same as what I did.

Rabbits heads are not made of terracotta wax, nor jelly or lard, but the results were the same relative to each pellet no matter what the material, and that's going to be the same for a rabbits head, their skulls are paper thin and their brains similar to gel, so yes you can use a similar material to get a picture of what does what.

As I said I'm not arguing I'm expressing my findings, I have tested this I suggest shooters try it to actually understand the principles, the problem is its a very long process and you have to have a very controlled system in place to eliminate errors.

Or in my case making a right old mess in the garage.

I tend to agree with you. I too spend much more time " testing" my gear than I really should. Anyway a couple of months ago I did a reasonably accurate test of the ft.lbs required to properly mushroom the better .177 hollow points . Predator polymag, Crosman Destroyer and Barracuda Hunter and Hunter Extreme. The lightest pellet was the Crosman Destroyer and surpisingly accurate in my Hw 100. I crancked the gun up from its target point of 10.8 ft.lbs to a full 11.6 ft.lbs with JSB 8.44s. This is right on the legal limit with JSB Heavies with my gun.
I did quite a bit of testing in different materials including water and my very unscientifc conclusion is that almost all of those pellets properly mushroomed as intended given an impact energy of around 10.00 ft.lbs. any reduction from this figure and the mushrooming effect quickly dissapeares.
The pellets I tested returned an ME of around 11.2~11.4 ft.lbs depending.
Now I said Impact energy not muzzle energy. To achieve 10. ft.lbs from a rifle of 11.6ft.lbs of ME the range has to be around 8~12 yards max. Within this short range with those pellets and a gun set up for hunting and not the usual 10. something ft.lbs target nonesense, the hollow points are deadly. But TBH if these were to be used at anything like the typical 25~35 yards range then much more muzzle energy is required, atleast 20 ft.lbs. The 12 ft.lbs limit just does not hack it.
At longer ranges it is best to stick to a decent diabolo design pellet or the heavier quasi bullet JSB Heavies.

A.G

[Muskett]

If you make a perfect brain shot, or a perfect under the wing pit on pigeon shot, then what pellet is irrelevant at normal ranges. No pellet shape will make any difference to the outcome of poor shot placement. A .177 is marketably easier to get perfect shot placement due to its higher velocity over a .22. A .22 certainly sounds to give more wallop but if it doesn't hit the mark it won't do the job.

So, use the most accurate and consistent pellet in your rifle, and make that one good shot of it.

It really is as simple as that.
Anything more is the fun of testing, just like testing the rest of your kit. Its part of the fun of the hobby and the results are fun too. The more confident and familiar with your kit the better you will be.

[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]

I tend to agree with you. I too spend much more time " testing" my gear than I really should. Anyway a couple of months ago I did a reasonably accurate test of the ft.lbs required to properly mushroom the better .177 hollow points . Predator polymag, Crosman Destroyer and Barracuda Hunter and Hunter Extreme. The lightest pellet was the Crosman Destroyer and surpisingly accurate in my Hw 100. I crancked the gun up from its target point of 10.8 ft.lbs to a full 11.6 ft.lbs with JSB 8.44s. This is right on the legal limit with JSB Heavies with my gun.
I did quite a bit of testing in different materials including water and my very unscientifc conclusion is that almost all of those pellets properly mushroomed as intended given an impact energy of around 10.00 ft.lbs. any reduction from this figure and the mushrooming effect quickly dissapeares.
The pellets I tested returned an ME of around 11.2~11.4 ft.lbs depending.
Now I said Impact energy not muzzle energy. To achieve 10. ft.lbs from a rifle of 11.6ft.lbs of ME the range has to be around 8~12 yards max. Within this short range with those pellets and a gun set up for hunting and not the usual 10. something ft.lbs target nonesense, the hollow points are deadly. But TBH if these were to be used at anything like the typical 25~35 yards range then much more muzzle energy is required, atleast 20 ft.lbs. The 12 ft.lbs limit just does not hack it.
At longer ranges it is best to stick to a decent diabolo design pellet or the heavier quasi bullet JSB Heavies.

A.G

Well said that man!

I did my testing for a range of 35yds which worked out in the 7-8ftlb range, as you say testing at 11.5ftlbs is pointless, you don't stick the barrel in a rabbits ear!

[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?