0.22 and 0.177 - What is the history?

[chieffool]

Apologies if this has been covered before. If it has, just point me at the previous thread please. I am sure someone is going to point out the bleeding obvious that has escaped me. That's why i'm asking so my soul can be filled with that beautiful 'eureka moment' when the answer is gently lowered into my lap. I realise my lack of good general education will probably account for this serious gap in my general knowledge - but i'm happy to risk ridicule among you chosen few just so i know.

SO:

ACCORDING TO WIKIPEDIA:
"The 5.6 mm caliber or .22 caliber, is a small, extremely common size of ammunition, fitted to firearms with a bore diameter of 5.6 mm (0.22 in). It is the most common bore for rimfire ammunition, and has gained popularity in the air gun discipline as a hunting/field target/HFT pellet caliber."

WHY? Why have we ended up with 0.22 and (subsequently) 0.177 as the main calibres? [with no disrespect to others intended]

I have always assumed that the derivation came about as some form of logical starting point within the scheme of Imperial measurement.
Because, after all, at some point - somewhere - mass manufacturing techniques would have needed an imperial equivalent to run lathes, and mills, and all the other lovely post-industrial-age monsters that churned out armaments. I believe i've seen quotes and articles that attribute BSA's capabilities (from everything from early air rifles to military production barrels) as capable of tolerances measured in 100,000th of an inch. Frankly, even 10,000th inch of an inch is impressive. And I'm sure BSA was not unusual when compared to other manufacturers such as remington, winchester, mauser, etc.

But again (seriously)... Why? What's the 'link' that is eluding me which meant someone (somewhere) suddenly said:

" Hey guys. What we need is a new calibre - so why don't we call it '0.22' ?
Oh: and then we can arbitrarily [?] invent 0.177 as well,
and eventually we can even refer to '0.22' as 5.6mm "

FOR EXAMPLE:

Giffard adopted '8mm' as a standard - and at least that equates to 5/16 inch (0.314 inch i think).

We all refer to 0.22 as 5.6mm, even though 5.6mm is actually 0.220472 of an inch.

But: 5mm translates as 3/16 inch, and 6mm is a 'gnats todger' less than 1/4 inch (or 4/16).

And it gets worse: 7/32 inch = 0.21875 inch (ie too small)
and yet 15/64 inch = 0.234375 inch (ie too large)

- - - - -
SO: how did we end up with 0.22 and 0.177?

(and apologies if i've got any errors in the above but that is a lot of number stuff and i had to use all my fingers and toes!)

[JLB]

When airguns became popular they were made in the manly calibre of .22 to allow clean dispatch of large predatory UK game such as rabbits & pigeons. Then sometime in the 90's the new suffragette's got wind of this marvellous hobby, so they had to introduce .177 for the girls to shoot paper bullseye's and steel one's that fall over if you hit them in the right place.

John

[chieffool]

When airguns became popular they were made in the manly calibre of .22 to allow clean dispatch of large predatory UK game such as rabbits & pigeons. Then sometime in the 90's the new suffragette's got wind of this marvellous hobby, so they had to introduce .177 for the girls to shoot paper bullseye's and steel one's that fall over if you hit them in the right place.

John

YUP. AGREED. Know that....

My question is WHERE did 0.22 come from?

[bighit]

https://www.pyramydair.com/article/A...rs_June_2003/4

.22--the hunter's choice
The .22 caliber pellet grew out of the .22 rimfire, which, at the start of the 20th century was the choice for most small shooting jobs such as pest elimination. But, a .22 caliber pellet is no longer the same diameter as a .22 rimfire bullet, nor will a rimfire barrel work well for pellets. The rimfire barrel is sized 0.222" to 0.223" across the grooves, while the airgun barrel is sized 0.217" to 0.218

But don't take that as the truth as it may just be their take on it.

[Seamaster]

It's true that .22 derived from the popular rimfire calibre. In less enlightened times the less educated equated the two.
Unfortunately, those challenged by logic or cognitive thought, we'll call them the hard of thinking, didn't factor in the much lower velocities involved in airgunning. The poor benighted souls had a connection and that was good enough for them. Even now, when faced with intelligent argument from the .177 camp, they resort to grunts of "knock down power" and "terminal shock" or some other phrase completely irrelevent to airgun ballistics.
They do have a place in society and some even contribute to it. I find it best to smile at them and say something like "Yes mate, as long as you're happy with it."
That seems to placate them and they bungle on with their own business for a while before they go for a nice cup of tea or something shiney shows up and they amble towards it.
Don't think badly of them, they're more to be pitied than scolded as my Granny used to say.
Bless 'em.

Chris

[bighit]

It's true that .22 derived from the popular rimfire calibre. In less enlightened times the less educated equated the two.
Unfortunately, those challenged by logic or cognitive thought, we'll call them the hard of thinking, didn't factor in the much lower velocities involved in airgunning. The poor benighted souls had a connection and that was good enough for them. Even now, when faced with intelligent argument from the .177 camp, they resort to grunts of "knock down power" and "terminal shock" or some other phrase completely irrelevent to airgun ballistics.
They do have a place in society and some even contribute to it. I find it best to smile at them and say something like "Yes mate, as long as you're happy with it."
That seems to placate them and they bungle on with their own business for a while before they go for a nice cup of tea or something shiney shows up and they amble towards it.
Don't think badly of them, they're more to be pitied than scolded as my Granny used to say.
Bless 'em.

Chris

By stating this
"But don't take that as the truth as it may just be their take on it".

I meant the rest of the article . some people think that Tom Gaylord gives out mistruths or hearsay .

I knew the .22 pellet was derived from the .22 rimfire

[chieffool]

https://www.pyramydair.com/article/A...rs_June_2003/4

.22--the hunter's choice
The .22 caliber pellet grew out of the .22 rimfire, which, at the start of the 20th century was the choice for most small shooting jobs such as pest elimination. But, a .22 caliber pellet is no longer the same diameter as a .22 rimfire bullet, nor will a rimfire barrel work well for pellets. The rimfire barrel is sized 0.222" to 0.223" across the grooves, while the airgun barrel is sized 0.217" to 0.218

But don't take that as the truth as it may just be their take on it.

And I also know about the transition from rimfire (.22 and all its derivatives all the way up to .22 Magnum), and eventually to centrefire - with the first .22 derivative being .22 Hornet. And from that point we can also see the whole .22 family tree expand into all the other associated 'hotloads' from hornet, and on through other boat-tail loads like .222, .223, and development (via winchester and remington) into faster and faster muzzle velocities. That's all 'rifle' stuff, which was the precursor for the calibres we ended up choosing for air rifle, though interestingly the '0.20' pellet was apparently exclusively invented for the Sheridan Pump Action Rifle first manufactured after 1947 - a fact i didn't know until i read the article you kindly sent the link for.

But somewhere, and for some reason, '0.22' was the starting point. But I can't find WHY?
I assumed there was a mathematical reason, or perhaps something derived from Imperial Measurement (ie fractions of an inch) - but so far, i can't find any reason at all.

History-wise '0.22' it has been around for a long time. The .22 LR (long Rifle) was developed by J. Stevens Arms and Tool Company in 1887 and is probably the MOST manufactured cartridge of all time. And that was developed from the invention of the rimfire cartridge by Flobert in 1845.

All fascinating stuff - but still leaves my original question unanswered:

Why .22? What was the derivation and/or the logic behind the choice?

[cooper_dan]

I have no idea so this is purely a guess

What if its similar to shotgun bores. Someone decided on a weight of bullet. A sphere of lead of that weight then just happened to measure 5.6mm?

I'm going to have to look into this because now I want to know!

[cooper_dan]

I have no idea so this is purely a guess

What if its similar to shotgun bores. Someone decided on a weight of bullet. A sphere of lead of that weight then just happened to measure 5.6mm?

I'm going to have to look into this because now I want to know!

A 5.6mm sphere is 91.95mm3 = 0.09195cm3
Density of lead is 11.34g/cm3
So 5.6mm sphere = 1.043 grams roughly = 0.036791 ounces
16 ounces to a pound gives 1/435th of a pound

Don't think this idea has got any legs to be honest. Thinking cap back on!

[bighit]

/forums/showthread.php/175392-Marksman-5-6mm-Pellets

Part of the post

There was a time when British barreled rifles were made slightly larger than their European counterparts. The reason I believe was due to the British imperial measurements of .22 differing slightly to other countries that had the metric of .22 measuring 5.5mm. The British reading it as 5.6mm. This meant that normal 5.5mm pellets were a loose fit in British barrels such as BSA and Webley. This wasn't really a problem then as everyone had perfect 5.6mm pellets in the guise of Eley wasp pellets.


Maybe ask in the collectables section.

[Hsing-ee]

In t'old days .177 was called No.1 bore and .22 was called No.2 bore. This has nothing to do with the system of bore diameters for shotguns, whereby the size of the bore was equivalent to the diameter of a ball of lead which could be made from the fraction of one Imperial Pound of lead i.e. a 12-bore cylinder could take a spherical bullet made of 1/12th of a pound of lead. By this system No.1 bore should be 1.66 inches, which would make quite a convincing anti-tank gun of the interwar period. But it ain't, it is only 4.5 mm.

Weird these measures...

[Rickenbacker]

Aye, to answer the OP, It's simply that they are metric cals. 5.5mm and 4.5mm

.20 cal being 5mm.

[majex45]

The answer lies in the rifling:
If the pellet size is .177 and the rifling is .0025 deep therefore the land size is .172 which is a fraction over 11/64 inch so the barrel could be drilled with an 11/64 drill.
For .22 pellets the barrel drill is 7/32 (.218) giving 2 thou rifling.

[Shed tuner]

The answer lies in the rifling:
If the pellet size is .177 and the rifling is .0025 deep therefore the land size is .172 which is a fraction over 11/64 inch so the barrel could be drilled with an 11/64 drill.
For .22 pellets the barrel drill is 7/32 (.218) giving 2 thou rifling.

oohh, that's an interesting idea....

[harvey_s]

.22 is obvious, but for .177 I assume as lead ball predates diablo or slug ammunition they used the American BB shot size which is .177 diameter (there were obviously many others to choose from, but maybe this size was more prevalent or cheaper?)