Your thoughts on .20 cal rifles?

[madcarlos]

For sub 12, like a reliant robin, worst of both worlds and only owners rate them.

Got to agree , I had a rapid 7 in .20 cal but had to run it at around 10ftlbs , Not much pellet choice and they vary weights from 177 to 22 cal, The pellets vary to much in weight which can be a bugger to stay pre 12ftlbs, Defo better for 12+ and higher ,

[Blackmax]

Best all round sub 12 calibre out there!

[Geezer]

Whatever the merits or not of the calibre, the (never great) range both of available .20” rifles and pellets has shrunk fast in only a few years, and shows no sign of recovering.

And I can’t imagine what might drive a resurgence - unless possible restrictions on lead ammo give the .20” a significant advantage in non-lead form over .177” in some way in certain circumstances (eg sub-12 pest control?).

Anyway, I genuinely think this is a calibre that might cease to exist in new production guns and ammo within five to ten years.

[severnsider]

Best all round sub 12 calibre out there!

Not bad in FAC either........ just had a very productive evening on the bunnies with my 24fpe .20 Rapid and Pard 007.

[Neil.]

Problem with .20 is the selection of ammo
Some barrels like X some like Y. with .177 and .22 you have a vast array to chose from. With .20 you dont.

And anything on the general licence can be terminated with a .177. A 4.5 mm hole in the head is just as terminal as a .22. Airgun ammo sub 12lbs doesn't carry enough energy to make any difference with regard to Hydrostatic shock.

[angrybear]

Problem with .20 is the selection of ammo
Some barrels like X some like Y. with .177 and .22 you have a vast array to chose from. With .20 you dont.

And anything on the general licence can be terminated with a .177. A 4.5 mm hole in the head is just as terminal as a .22. Airgun ammo sub 12lbs doesn't carry enough energy to make any difference with regard to Hydrostatic shock.

Surely an advantage, far less faffing around pellet testing

Actually there is quite a reasonable amount of hydrostatic shock (soft tissue damage) even with sub 12 if you cross section the wound channel.
(that may not be true of .177 I don't know, I don't use it)

As usual on the subject I refer back to the 4 calibre comparison from AGW,
.20 happened to be the most efficient sub 12 calibre.

Those of us who shoot it know how good it is as a hunting calibre,
I strongly suspect many of those who rubbish it, will either have never used it or only on a target range

[angrybear]

Got to agree , I had a rapid 7 in .20 cal but had to run it at around 10ftlbs , Not much pellet choice and they vary weights from 177 to 22 cal, The pellets vary to much in weight which can be a bugger to stay pre 12ftlbs, Defo better for 12+ and higher ,

This has me baffled

why did you have to run it at 10ftlbs ?
Not much pellet choice, well yes but that's because there's no garbage, all .20 pellets are from the top manufacturers.

but I really don't understand what you mean about weights vary too much ??

It's exactly the same in every other calibre there are light pellets all the way through to very heavy pellets, in fact it's less an issue in .20 than in any other calibre
both .177 & .22 the heaviest pellets are more than double the weight of the lightest, in .20 it's just over 1.5x
but that just typifies the groundless arguments (or outright lies) put about by (mainly) .177 fans

[madcarlos]

This has me baffled

why did you have to run it at 10ftlbs ?
Not much pellet choice, well yes but that's because there's no garbage, all .20 pellets are from the top manufacturers.

but I really don't understand what you mean about weights vary too much ??

It's exactly the same in every other calibre there are light pellets all the way through to very heavy pellets, in fact it's less an issue in .20 than in any other calibre
both .177 & .22 the heaviest pellets are more than double the weight of the lightest, in .20 it's just over 1.5x
but that just typifies the groundless arguments (or outright lies) put about by (mainly) .177 fans

Basically I was running heavy pellets at one time , From memory 14gn or here abouts , The problem was some pellets were near enough 177 pellet weight , When set around 11 ftlbs for the heavier ones and then using lighter ones the reading was quite low, Dont always mean a lot but if you use lighter pellets then use heavier ones it was reading over , I know both 177 and 22 pellet weights vary aswell but the difference in .20 was quite different, Is what I found anyway, The pellet choice was restricted,

[Bonzo!]

I have 2 rapids in .20 ,one on fac set at 18ft-lb awsome accuracy and stopping power out to around 55yrds.
I have also have a huntsman in .20 sub 12 again awsome accuracy and stopping power, I use it on the hft range and find it keeps me happy.

[ken69]

I have an Impact GSX200 in .20 and really like the way it shoots. For me it is the best of both worlds. I don’t have any problems sourcing pellets and it shoots great regardless of pellet type

[bootneckbob]

I had a FAC .20 Ripley AR5s which was amazing at 50m, but when I revoked my ticket and sold it it was worth next to bugger all being both FAC and .20

[where's it gone]

Nowadays, I think we're lucky having the choice of different calibre pellets and guns. The financial outlay for retailer must be daunting in stocking these items. I mean, take a look at when you were a lot younger. Most sport and ironmonger shops kept a shelf of .177 and .22 pellets, often only one brand. A box or maybe a tin of pellets cost was affordable, even for young and old. Nowadays, you have to go to a specialised shop, maybe miles away, apart from on line, and there you can see vast amounts of different makes, calibres and even shapes of pellets. But try and buy a gun for the aray of calibre's and it's odds on it'll be .177 or .22
The .20 and .25 guns and pellets will probably fizzle out of production eventually, collectors take note.
More socially acceptable hobbies in our society today, will flourish, alas not the .20 or .25 imo.