Why does .177 exist?

[eyebull]

I knew it.

.22 being eschewed in favour of .177, unleaded petrol, man buns, E Scooters, E Bikes, and more recently E cars and vans... we are slowly being emasculated, even when it comes down to calibre choice.

Leaded petrol is certainly a good explanation for the existence of this thread.

[angrybear]

Again completely missing the point. I only mention FT/HFT because I used to shoot them a lot, I don't do BR or 10m etc. I learned a lot during that time, shooting techniques, range finding techniques, different manufacturers, how important balance is, pellet types and probably more important the info gathered from proper practice and testing. Different set ups, calibres scopes and yes calibres. Accuracy tests, consistency tests and coping against wind tests. Its not so much weight or calibre but BC and quality of consistent manufacture.
The point is people talk, and that's what sells guns, scopes, pellets and calibres. Did a .22 mercury kill any less than a .22 80? No.
My Diana 52 was as accurate as 77 Mk1, did it sell as well? No. Why did the Rapid 7 out sell almost every other PCP when it came out?
People talk, at RFD, at club, on here or in pub. The 80 was deemed very powerful so it sold (could easy make 18ftlb), 77 was more accurate so it sold (77 won FT comps in .177) etc. What has .20 actually done.

This is not the .20 thread this is why does .177 exist
But to answer you,
What .20 has done is prove itself as the best compromise FOR UK HUNTING AT SUB 12, because it's more efficient with air, retains more energy %, hits hard, flies flat & is the best balance across the calibres when the muzzle energy is fixed.

The reason it's the best compromise is because every other calibre will come last in one comparison test, but .20 doesn't.

[angrybear]

Now we’re getting somewhere! Was that the first no.1 bore airgun?

Yes as far as I know,
I think it was also BSA that introduced the diabolo shape pellet in 1906 but I'm less sure about that.

[angrybear]

Assuming both are shot from sub 12ft/lb, .177" shoots faster and has a flatter trajectory. If a .22" makes a bigger hole, does a .177" have more penetration at the same range and energy - which is better for hunting? Which calibre is most common in competitive target shooting and why? Does .20" have all the advantages and none of the disadvantages of the larger and smaller calibres, or is the opposite actually the case? Do all .22" shooters sexualise their ammunition, or only the anti-.177" ones?

Because of the sub 12 law, every calibre has to make some sort of compromise, be it the weight, velocity, trajectory, wind deflection, retained energy, frontal area for energy transfer or risk of pass through.

Compare every aspect of performance between the 3 main sub 12 calibres and both .177 & .22 will be the worst at something,
but .20 is never last, equally it's never first,
so for HUNTING it's the best compromise.

On paper/tin some aspects don't matter like retained energy, energy transfer & pass through, while frontal area can be an actual drawback, if you need to avoid touching an outer ring smaller is better,
Targets will also be at a known range, or if random the use of LRF will be prohibited, so a flatter trajectory benefits poor range finding.
so on TARGETS .177 is obviously a better choice.

Do away with the 12fpe limit (or use lead free ammo) & everything changes.

[gsxrman]

This is not the .20 thread this is why does .177 exist
But to answer you,
What .20 has done is prove itself as the best compromise FOR UK HUNTING AT SUB 12, because it's more efficient with air, retains more energy %, hits hard, flies flat & is the best balance across the calibres when the muzzle energy is fixed.

The reason it's the best compromise is because every other calibre will come last in one comparison test, but .20 doesn't.

Ya right I do get a bit transfixed on .20 cos I think it is totally pointless.
.177 is used across the board for everything at sub 12 and delivers. Others calibres don't.
Like energy retention, anything over 4-5ftlb at 50m is a waste so what is the advantage.
Like a bigger hole, on air rifle quarry which is very small is not an advantage.
Being more accurate and having a flatter easier to use trajectory is an advantage when your target is tiny whether it be paper, a silhouette or covered in fur.
.177 has had more development because of its "overall" use and that alone is why it exists as the better sub 12 calibre.
If power retention and hitting hard was that important, then why didn't .3 take off?
Hitting the mark is what's important and not relying on oversized ammo to hopefully do enough residual damage after you miss the mark.
Any good .177 groups tighter than all the larger calibres, across all the ranges, therefore stands more chance of hitting the spot required on paper or feather/fur.

[Muskett]

I have five minutes...so:
I've always thought UK air rifles were six to eight ft/lbs too low powered to be absolute farmyard critter winners. They completely rely on shot placement for dead drop lethal. They have no energy for hydro shock explosive wound expansion that nearly every other vermin getter enjoys. A .22LR even at subs is doing a golf ball sized absolute carnage in any flesh type material. .17HMR causes an absolute orange sized mush mess. 12 ft/lbs air rifles just cause a stiletto wound tract only slightly bigger than their calibre size.
A .177 through a rat is a massive hole. .20, .22, and .25 are just more massive. Heavier vermin can take a "bite" from all four calibres though may die later. So, however you look at it for drop dead it means taking out a vital like brain or heart.

Most air rifles can hit a polo mint at 15m. Heck, even the poor performance ones. After 15 then the "loop" of trajectory has to be catered for. A .177 generally fly at a higher velocity than any of the other calibres. That makes them difficult to see through a scope. Unlike a .22 that can be seen looping off to the target. .25 is so slow its like waiting for a bus. Which just shows just how much faster a typical .177 is going.
The bigger calibres do have their place at the closer ranges. They do give a solid wallop on target. Often they will knock the critter over, though not always dead. Fine if you can pick up and dispatch fast, or have a terrier to clear up. But, in this high ethics age, dropped but not lights out isn't really good enough.
Beyond 15m then hitting a polo mint takes are pretty consistent and forgiving air rifle; one that tac drives. A lot of air rifles are no more than 25m polo mint hitting rifles and for many 20m is more their limit. 1/2" off isn't good enough today.

Modern PCPs now give a far higher level of accuracy with all the calibres. Hunters are hitting vitals far more often with all the calibres. However, the .177 is still flying the flattest at all ranges. It absolutely has the advantage of first time hit on a vital at all normal ranges and even greater an advantage at the longer ranges now attempted.
Given a range finding scope, or laser rangefinder, then all the calibres can be shot to hit the mark. Without range finding aids then most calibres are poor compared to the .177. It is not because the .177 is groovy, it is because they fly flatter and generally accurately with it.

What calibre isn't important, but hitting that vital; is. What range you can consistently hit a polo sized vital is what determines shooter/combos range. Most people will do better with a .177 and concentrating on shooting for a vital properly. A "hit' isn't what is done today. Those more advanced shooters may well get similar results with the other calibres, but they are putting more input into the equation.

[PCPShooter]

177 exists to make airgun shooters politically correct cos they look so tiny and ineffectual that even anti shooters would laff at the size of the pellet

Especially if the shooter is dressed like a commando with something that looks like an assault rifle and likes lying down a lot !

[true_blue]

I'm certainly no expert and have only got one of each calibre rifle but I'd say the 177 has better penetration at long range.
Also, as someone with a moderate understanding of physics, I think a larger projectile will also encounter more air, wind, rain etc resistance causing a slightly higher probability of deviation, again, over longer distances.

[angrybear]

I'm certainly no expert and have only got one of each calibre rifle but I'd say the 177 has better penetration at long range.
Also, as someone with a moderate understanding of physics, I think a larger projectile will also encounter more air, wind, rain etc resistance causing a slightly higher probability of deviation, again, over longer distances.

.177 can have too much penetration, if it passes through the prey it wastes energy.
The ideal is that the pellet remains inside the prey, the impact/shock energy all aids the lethal effect,
while true that pellets don't cause a fraction of the soft tissue damage that cartridge rifles do, they do cause some, & that little bit can make the difference for an impact a few mm off perfect.

If you have a "moderate" understanding of Physics you should understand that a moving projectile with more mass contains more energy & takes far more force to deflect from it's course
A ping-pong ball is easier to deflect than a squash ball which is easier to deflect than a golf ball etc etc

[gsxrman]

.177 can have too much penetration, if it passes through the prey it wastes energy.
The ideal is that the pellet remains inside the prey, the impact/shock energy all aids the lethal effect,
while true that pellets don't cause a fraction of the soft tissue damage that cartridge rifles do, they do cause some, & that little bit can make the difference for an impact a few mm off perfect.

If you have a "moderate" understanding of Physics you should understand that a moving projectile with more mass contains more energy & takes far more force to deflect from it's course
A ping-pong ball is easier to deflect than a squash ball which is easier to deflect than a golf ball etc etc

Not quite. If a pellet travels half way into its prey can you guarantee max damage of brain or even reach the heart?
Surely its better to drill a hole right through the heart and lungs or right through the brain causing max damage. Remember to airgun sized quarry all calibres are massive!!!
The extra energy retained by the larger projectile is used up pushing the pellet through the skin/fur/bone and Cartledge etc and so does less damage to vital area than if full penetration had been achieved.
It might look impressive to knock a pigeon off its perch or bowl a rat over, but unless enough of a vital is penetrated fully the shot could not be fatal.

[Muskett]

.177 can have too much penetration, if it passes through the prey it wastes energy.
The ideal is that the pellet remains inside the prey, the impact/shock energy all aids the lethal effect,
while true that pellets don't cause a fraction of the soft tissue damage that cartridge rifles do, they do cause some, & that little bit can make the difference for an impact a few mm off perfect.

If you have a "moderate" understanding of Physics you should understand that a moving projectile with more mass contains more energy & takes far more force to deflect from it's course
A ping-pong ball is easier to deflect than a squash ball which is easier to deflect than a golf ball etc etc

Unfortunately energy retained within the body is too small to have any meaningful effect. The only thing that matters is the wound tract and what that destroys.
I had a squirrel once take five .22 pellets in the body from a Webley MKIII probably running at close to 11 ft/bls and as it was directly up a tree no more than 15m. Four of the 5 pellets found in the body when skinned out. There was enough life left in the squirrel for it to run down the tree and leap at me It landed dead at my feet.
Rabbits are even bigger and unless heart or brain destroyed can easily take all the energy from a 12 ft/lbs rifle.
Beyond 25m .22 can feather plug in wood pigeon, though a .22 is very effective at wing route shot at close range barn pigeon shooting.

You say a couple of mm off perfect. Well most people can't drive a .22 a couple of mm off what they can with a flatter shooting, and better behaved .177. The real issue is are they shooting polo mint accurately enough?
The crux for ethical air rifle shooting today is accuracy with perfect shot placement. Make a poor shot of it and bigger calibres have nothing to make up for that error, and they are just that more difficult to drop judge perfectly. Shoot perfect with any of the calibres and they should bring in the bacon.

I actually prefer .22 for rats, but then I'm not testing the range at all. For opportune walk about then it is accuracy, and the .177. Be familiar with a good shooting .20 combo and that works fine too. PCP means anyone should be able to manage some really useful consistent accuracy.

Add 6 to 12 ft/lbs of energy, FAC, then everything changes.

[zephyr]

When I read the first post, I thought it was a good intentioned jest. By some replies, others may have also thought so, and some not. I guffawed at the suggestion of rainbow pellets - the pellets I use are calibre fluid and don't like to be tied down to any particular caliber pronoun ��

[Biker_Bob]

Given the benefits to target shooters of a 4.5mm pellet and this modern age of PCPs why not have a 3.5mm pellet? It would fly even faster and flatter.

I actually prefer 5.5mm myself...

[flyingfish]

When I read the first post, I thought it was a good intentioned jest. By some replies, others may have also thought so, and some not. I guffawed at the suggestion of rainbow pellets - the pellets I use are calibre fluid and don't like to be tied down to any particular caliber pronoun ��

This all boils down to Tinbum getting his excuses in early for his dismal number of hits on the bucket at the next Bash
It will be oh yeah you Craig, Chris and Gary hit it more often but I was using .22

[eyebull]

This all boils down to Tinbum getting his excuses in early for his dismal number of hits on the bucket at the next Bash
It will be oh yeah you Craig, Chris and Gary hit it more often but I was using .22

I think it's because his main basis for comparison is the Tactical Gat.