poguemahone wrote:maddoghutty wrote: have a word with a pathologist who has experience of gunshot wounds, i did![]()
Whaaaaaat ????















poguemahone wrote:maddoghutty wrote: have a word with a pathologist who has experience of gunshot wounds, i did![]()
Raj wrote:But Zippy ... Arent you forgetting that .22s have so much more power left down range compared to .177s? And on a windy day, isnt a .22 so much better for holding its course as it doesnt get blown about so much? All that stuff you said about better technology and better accuracy ... surely, the same company that makes the nicer .177s also makes really nice .22s so I really think .22s are better, mate.
zippy wrote:Forget about hunting for a moment here.
I did a test in reasonable weather conditions, and this test was 100% true, at the 80,yard range at our club,,, I placed two 3" inch shoot un see targets out at the 80 yard line, laser measured. using two tx200hc one in.177 cal the other .22, the results were much easier too achieve any groups at that range with the .177 rifle rather than the .22
The theory here is that with .22 been slow velocity it stays in the air longer before reaching the target therefore having more wind pushing at it to stray it from the target and of course more dreaded holdover ect... this kind of balance's things out using the .177 as it is faster flight time to the target and flatter trajectory.
Shot placement will out do the heaver .22 caliber. and the extra holdover and drop is annoying and frustrating at longer ranges.
zippy wrote:Raj wrote:But Zippy ... Arent you forgetting that .22s have so much more power left down range compared to .177s? And on a windy day, isnt a .22 so much better for holding its course as it doesnt get blown about so much? All that stuff you said about better technology and better accuracy ... surely, the same company that makes the nicer .177s also makes really nice .22s so I really think .22s are better, mate.
Forget about hunting for a moment here..... And we are using sub 12 fpe. and topic is based on the use of sub 12fpe
I did a test in reasonable weather conditions, and this test was 100% true, at the 80,yard range at our club,,, I placed two 3" inch shoot un see targets with tiny bulls-eye's out at the 80 yard line, laser measured. using two tx200hc one in.177 cal the other .22, the results were much easier too achieve any sort of groups at that range with the .177 rifle rather than the .22
The theory here is that with .22 been slow velocity it stays in the air longer before reaching the target therefore having more wind pushing at it to stray it from the target and of course more dreaded holdover ect... this kind of balance's things out using the .177 as it is faster flight time to the target and flatter trajectory.
If you look at most 100, meter air rifle shooting, this sport more Favored in other country's, if look at this 100,meter yard shooting they all use .177 cal for good reason and they are using light weight pellets like JSB exact express.
more accurate Shot placement from the .177 will out do the heaver .22 caliber. and the extra holdover and drop is annoying and frustrating at longer ranges when using the .22 and this is why? most air rifle competitions sports like HFT, FT all favor and use .177 cal... there is a valid reason here and this makes .177 even more desirable caliber too own as it can be used for HFT and FT competitions.
It seems so silly to pay more money for .22 pellets,,, when .177 is more enjoyable too shoot at longer ranges with less drop and holdover and under along with been able to use .177 for most air rifle shooting sports like HFT, FT...
Well, put this way HFT, FT is a hunting simulated competition... and they are using .177 cal....... says it all really.
Dr B wrote:I think calibre debates should be banned from forums. As some of the chaps have already said, put the pellet in the right place and its all over. Let's just enjoy the sport.
Raj wrote:Whaaaaaat ????![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
You shot Edna with a .177 !!!! ??
![]()
![]()
eboswan wrote:You could have shot edna with a howitzer ....the rippling folds of fat would have absorbed the shot.....
poguemahone wrote:Raj wrote:Whaaaaaat ????![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
You shot Edna with a .177 !!!! ??
![]()
eboswan wrote:You could have shot edna with a howitzer ....the rippling folds of fat would have absorbed the shot.....
well, i'd almost got over the sheer joy and elation of losing Edna, my dear mother in law, then you 2 come along and cheer me up again![]()
i keep having flashbacks to when i saw her in her open coffin. one of the neighbours said to me, ''doesnt she looks lovely wearing those mink gloves'' ??
i said ''she's not wearing any gloves''
poguemahone wrote:the extra velocity of .177 causes a greater ''temporary wound cavity'' than the .22, so the damage done by both calibres is the same.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 30 guests