Question on PCP shot count - .177 vs. .22

[AirNGasman]

The measure of projectile power is energy, not velocity. At equal energies, .22 PCPs (and Co2 guns) return more shots per charge than identical .177s. 

Of course a 900 FPS .22 producing over 31 foot-pounds won't get as many shots per charge as a 900 FPS .177 producing less than 18; but that's hardly a fair comparison (as pertains shot-count), is it?

Since the OP questions mention shot-count and FPE with no mention of FPS, all my comments about .22 PCPs returning higher shot-counts than .177s pertain to identical guns of both calibers producing equal muzzle energies. And in that comparison the answer remains yes, .22s are more efficient; as confirmed in my own extensive testing and several PCP manufacturers' specs that include both calibers' shot-counts at equal muzzle energies. Manufacturers' specs that confirm it are usually at 12 foot-pound power levels, but I've also confirmed it many times at higher power levels of 20-30 FP in both calibers.

But since I'm not trying to sell anything here, I'll stop trying to convince anyone of anything they don't want to believe. Happy shooting, Gentlemen. 

 

[Motorhead]

Arguing semantics ...... You see and fight for your perspective on how you read the question, others the same.

has absolutely nothing to do with believing.

 

[ackuric]

The measure of projectile power is energy, not velocity. At equal energies, .22 PCPs (and Co2 guns) return more shots per charge than identical .177s. 

Of course a 900 FPS .22 producing over 31 foot-pounds won't get as many shots per charge as a 900 FPS .177 producing less than 18; but that's hardly a fair comparison (as pertains shot-count), is it?

Since the OP questions mention shot-count and FPE with no mention of FPS, all my comments about .22 PCPs returning higher shot-counts than .177s pertain to identical guns of both calibers producing equal muzzle energies. And in that comparison the answer remains yes, .22s are more efficient; as confirmed in my own extensive testing and several PCP manufacturers' specs that include both calibers' shot-counts at equal muzzle energies. Manufacturers' specs that confirm it are usually at 12 foot-pound power levels, but I've also confirmed it many times at higher power levels of 20-30 FP in both calibers.

But since I'm not trying to sell anything here, I'll stop trying to convince anyone of anything they don't want to believe. Happy shooting, Gentlemen.

Again, you're wrong and manipulating OP's words to favor your 'outcome'...which I partially agree with...but its not what the OP asked...here is WORD FOR WORD quote from op..and his questions do NOT pertain to fpe or shot count alone...it pertains to efficiency and how does a .22 cal make more fpe..."And in general the fpe is much higher in the .22 version. How is this possible? Does it have something to do with the bore size of the .177 being less efficient than a larger bore? " 



No mention of equal energies...in fact its mentioned the .22 cal is higher energy...


It was then explained more power is obtained due to increased Surface Area, however at their nominal power levels the smaller caliber is more efficient...when detuning a higher caliber down to a lower calibers level, they are generally more efficient...its really simple and you continue try to debate that your insight is the only truthful one, when you're painting yourself into a corner, I am trying to paint an entire picture...take offense to that if you must, but its the truth.



Additionally..larger calibers have more volume per inch than smaller calibers, meaning given the same MASS of air ejected, the pellets distance down the barrel relative to valve closure will be shorter, thus providing more barrel length for the remaining pressure gradient to be applied to the projectile, this also has an effect of greater pressure drop post valve closure for every single inch of barrel remaining, however, the majority of energy/speed transfered from air to pellet is within the first 30% of the barrels length...which further explains why larger calibers that are detuned CAN be more efficient than small calibers, but is this nominal? No...is it static? Definitely not...its applicable when a larger caliber porting is choked @ the throat via reduced valve duration / poppet lift, or port restriction, both inhibiting its power/air usage...need I explain more? Because I can....



-Matt

 

[AirNGasman]

I may be incorrect, but not on this subject; just politically incorrect. One last time for anyone misinterpreting my posts, "my comments about .22 PCPs returning higher shot-counts than .177s pertain to identical guns of both calibers producing equal muzzle energies." 

 

[markT]

I could be wrong but yesterday I was looking at the EBR Champs rifle, Brocock Sniper HR on-line and I think I saw where it got more shots per fill in 22 than in 177.. I thought it was strange..

When I think of shots per fill, it's just that..We in USA (at least I do) don't think about ft/lbs of energy.. I know a 22 is going hit harder than a 177.. So, in my mind the 177 should give "more shots per fill." 

 

[ackuric]

I may be incorrect, but not on this subject; just politically incorrect. One last time for anyone misinterpreting my posts, "my comments about .22 PCPs returning higher shot-counts than .177s pertain to identical guns of both calibers producing equal muzzle energies." 

You're incorrect in that you're not providing a full answer, only a partial one...sorry you're unable to understand this...

"Does it have something to do with the bore size of the .177 being less efficient than a larger bore?"

In a nutshell, yes.

clearly you're answering your own questions and not the op's, so then whats the point? Maybe re-read my original response to the OP where I gave him the same answer you are, and MORE....

Efficiency is not force x area. Efficiency is measured thermally or volumetrically, but not with surface area or force...efficiency is based on energy output with either model...each caliber respectively being able to hit the same efficiencies...just at different power levels...force X area can however calculate the energy obtainable, much as I do here to calculate a pcp's performance. The FPE/FPS predictions are simply force X area X distance...

View attachment 1548808227_8361655505c50f023f2df57.21062466_PCP_Performance.ods




Given the same valve duration, a larger caliber/port will always flow more air because of how much mass of ejected air is able to fit into said space in said time...



Given the same energy level, the larger caliber (.25 for example) will generally have reduced valve duration requirements to hit 12 fpe than a smaller caliber (.177 for example)...thus being more efficient and capable of more shot count at equal energy levels to the smaller caliber. HTH



-Matt

 

[ackuric]

Just to throw another wrench in your or anyones gears, and to cover even ANOTHER aspect of pcp's...consider THIS



.177 vs .22, ALL things equal...from ENERGY level, to PRESSURE, to BARREL VOLUME (not length, because hey, who said anything about length, theres been no mention of it, so I get to use volume).

.22 caliber barrel with a standard 19.5" barrel that has a total volume of 12.13 cc's. To get that same barrel volume in .177 the barrel length must be...30.125 inches in length


Now ask, which caliber is more efficient provided ALL things equal? hmmmm?



Some people just don't think outside the box..



-Matt

 

[Motorhead]

Ron,

I AGREE that set to equal power independent of projectiles weight with the caliber difference ... indeed a .22 makes better use of the air in terms of efficiency.



Tho that is not a realistic argument because in real life applications seldom are the two caliber operating at equal power levels.



We can all agree to disagree and still be on the same page.



Respectfully,

Scott s

 

[John "spysir" Blount]

Thought about this tears ago, just as a simple squirrel hunter tho.

I used a huntsman in .177 w/24" barrel & 16g ( albit hard ) pellets and swapped a 24" .22 barrel using 15.9g. First as it was set then with a variety of tunes.

Wouldn't have a clue about any math but I did get an answer , and, it was fun like airguns should be.



John

 

[AirNGasman]

"Incorrect..."

"You're incorrect..."

"Again, you're wrong and manipulating OP's words to favor your 'outcome'..." 

"its really simple and you continue try to debate that your insight is the only truthful one, when you're painting yourself into a corner, I am trying to paint an entire picture…take offense to that if you must, but its the truth."

"need I explain more? Because I can…"

"You're incorrect in that you're not providing a full answer…"

"sorry you're unable to understand this…"

"Just to throw another wrench in your or anyones gears," 

"Some people just don't think outside the box.."

I probably owe you an apology Matt. In all honesty, I quit thoroughly reading your extremely detailed posts in this thread when i realized we were arguing different perspectives, you weren't a-hearin' what I was a-sayin', instead insisting (repeatedly) simply that I'm wrong, and I realized what an extremely rude online debater you are. I'm sure you're not that rude in person. But FWIW, my discounting your posts had nothing to do with any inability to understand the physics; I simply didn't care to devote the time and energy.

So consider this an apology for discounting your posts. I'm sure you made some excellent points... but many of them had little to do with the point I made from the get-go.



.

 

[Vetmx]

You guys still arguing. Good grief. I think the OP got scared off.

 

[ackuric]

"Incorrect..."

"You're incorrect..."

"Again, you're wrong and manipulating OP's words to favor your 'outcome'..." 

"its really simple and you continue try to debate that your insight is the only truthful one, when you're painting yourself into a corner, I am trying to paint an entire picture…take offense to that if you must, but its the truth."

"need I explain more? Because I can…"

"You're incorrect in that you're not providing a full answer…"

"sorry you're unable to understand this…"

"Just to throw another wrench in your or anyones gears," 

"Some people just don't think outside the box.."

I probably owe you an apology Matt. In all honesty, I quit thoroughly reading your extremely detailed posts in this thread when i realized we were arguing different perspectives, you weren't a-hearin' what I was a-sayin', instead insisting (repeatedly) simply that I'm wrong, and I realized what an extremely rude online debater you are. I'm sure you're not that rude in person. But FWIW, my discounting your posts had nothing to do with any inability to understand the physics; I simply didn't care to devote the time and energy.

So consider this an apology for discounting your posts. I'm sure you made some excellent points... but many of them had little to do with the point I made from the get-go.



.

Notice each one of those quotes progresses...because you were so insistent that you were right and everyone else was wrong. You literally manipulated OP's questions so that your answer applied.

You don't have to take things to a personal level just because I pointed out, as nicely as possible, that you were not correct. If you think being told you're wrong is rude then, maybe forum discussion is not the place for you...I certainly don't find being corrected and educated rude...but to each their own. I cannot accept an apology that calls me rude in the same breathe for attempting to educate you...regardless of how you perceive my methods of teaching, leave the personal feelings out of it...you'll be a bigger person for it. I don't recall defining you by any adjectives...there are healthier ways to criticize someones forum etiquette than just to call them 'extremely rude', if you harbor such feelings...

 

[ackuric]

You guys still arguing. Good grief. I think the OP got scared off.

I'm not here to argue or debate. I am here to provide clarity to a discussion that I'm educated on, to those that lack it, so that pcp's are better understood. Although I grasp your sentiment...and couldn't agree more...teaching the willing is a lot easier than teaching those who are not.

 

[jarmstrong]

ROTFLMAO

and I am out of popcorn

 

[tor47]

If you visit some of the UK based forums, it is usually common knowledge that a .22 is more efficient at same power levels than a .177. They should be experts in using guns with same power output, as they are limited by law to not exceed 12 footpounds. So most guns they shoot stays just below that. If they say, so I would believe they are right 

 

[AirNGasman]

All, I've been given a heads-up by an observer to pay no attention to my debater, as he has an established history and reputation for just such behavior on another forum site where he no longer participates. And though I had already decided to simply consider the source, it was nice to have that sentiment reinforced by a witness more familiar with said source. Thank you Sir, for restoring my faith in humanity!