Pro's and con's....Originally Posted by S6PNJ
The full-length and carbine versions are identical and interchangeable, apart from their barrel, air cylinder and stock.
You could take the barrel/cylinder/stock from and swap the three between full-length and carbine, so long as the calibre was the same.
Calibre change is not so easy - it requires much more than you'd think.
I generally prefer the carbine because it's lighter and better handling. It also fits better into a car boot. Some rifles are too long and have to sit on your back seat (in their bag, of course).
Generally speaking, I've found full-length versions to be fractionally more accurate (especially at very long range). I've also found full-length versions to have a slightly flatter trajectory. Additionally, the internals are less stressed.
But....and it's a big (and surprising but....).
I seem to find that long-barrelled .177's, despite their slightly better accuracy and slightly better trajectory, they don't have the "knock down" power on small vermin.
That probably sounds strange, but I believe it's because the shorter carbine versions have more muzzle blast, which causes a slightly unstable pellet.
That instability is what gives a carbine a slightly inferior accuracy/trajectory performance, but it may facilitate tumbling of the pellet upon impact, which causes a lot more damage.
I sold my longer-barreled .177's because they just didn't seem to have the stopping power of my shorter-barreled .177's. In fact, I used to be very "anti- .177" because my HW100 and AAS410 rifles would just drill holes without killing. When I bought my HW100K's, my hunting experience changed dramatically for the better.
For .177 hunting, I'd definitely go carbine.
For HFT, either would do for sufficient accuracy.
For FT, I'd prefer the full-length version (or fit a rifle barrel to a carbine and adjust the interals - to improve shot count and accuracy), for the likelihood of extra accuracy at the extreme ranges.
Reply With Quote