Your thoughts on .20 cal rifles?

[Anothermiss]

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

And the best of both worlds. People that own them more than often keep them. That says quite a bit.

[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

[Steyr]

And the best of both worlds. People that own them more than often keep them. That says quite a bit.

Not really when viewed by the numbers who choose to shoot .177 cal. Add to that those who decide on .22.

Potentially, the only cal .20 can claim to worry would be .25 and sub 12 FPE thats a close range ratter or barn basher.

.20 simply didnt catch on. Makers dont make and pellet producers dont support it.

Ultra lights and ultra heavies in .177 and .22 together will match the claimed benefits of the .20 cal ethis. It just doesnt past muster and is a poor choice in a sub 12 rifle.

That said, its.a free country. If you want to shoot .20 then crack on. But the truth is, the .20 cal didnt get made by the makers. The users didnt use it and the pellet market is significantly less than that offered by the main players.

It would be interesting to see trade figures as to how many .20 cals are sold compared to .177 and .22 and even .25 in non fac guise..... the compromise cal is just that, an undersupported theoretical advantag3 that doesnt actually exist.

[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

[Muskett]

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

This in heaps ^
The .177 only has an advantage because of its flatter shooting at ranges beyond the farmyard.
.22 only has an advantage because it is bigger within farmyard ranges.
There really isn't any trauma advantage in the size of pellet with 12ft/lns air rifles with typical critters they are used on, so lethality is all in shot placement.

Once above 18ft/lbs then use the .22 or bigger.

[ajohn]

It's worse than the 22 177 argument and offers nothing compared with them really.

Many eventually decide flat trajectory is the best option and go for 177. Pellet weight can be changed on any calibre and some time on chairgun can show the differences even impact power at various distances. Trajectory too which can give some idea of the ranging accuracy that is needed.

What it can't show is actually accuracy. For testing for instance I shot some 16.2gr 177 jsb's. They had problems landing head on even at 10m. Totally unstable.

[--ped--]

long let all the nay sayers think that .20's are rubbish as then there'll be more available to buy for those with wisdom to shoot the best sub 12 caliber
i have a fair few .20's inc Sheridans a Falcon an s200 and a few ones i made based on Crosmans

[the growler]

Good in .20. I've got a fac rapid mk2 30ftlbs and fac logun mk1 24ftlbs

[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.