I did this mostly to satisfy my own curiosity, but since I did, I thought I would go ahead and share it. This is not an examination of which caliber is better, but simply how they differ in terms of trajectory and energy in a typical springer producing 15 FPE at the muzzle. The trends are clear, 177 generally provides a flatter trajectory, while 22 potentially provides more downrange energy. Also, one might expect that 177 might provide better penetration, while 22 might provide more "knock down" power. Ballistic coefficients were pulled from the HAM tables.
22 or 177 for Springer
- Thread starter Michigander
- Start date
Nice. This is the issue I always struggle with. Guess thats why I have both calibers.
Thank you!!!
Thank you!!!
Upvote 0
Very interesting. If my math is correct there is only a difference of .25 of an inch at 40 yards between the 177 cp 10.65 and the 22 JSB 15.89 grain.
And at 50 yards just over an inch difference. Not much difference is there really in these calibres at those weights especially enery at 50 yards. Thanks for the comparison.
Gary
And at 50 yards just over an inch difference. Not much difference is there really in these calibres at those weights especially enery at 50 yards. Thanks for the comparison.
Gary
Upvote 0
Interesting but isn't it usually true that the same model springer, in a larger caliber, yields more power? That suggests it is unfair to compare the velocities and trajectories at the same power level.
Also, the .22 has an advantage delivering damage to the target because of it's larger diameter, though the .177 can be sufficient given enough velocity and the right pellet.
Also, the .22 has an advantage delivering damage to the target because of it's larger diameter, though the .177 can be sufficient given enough velocity and the right pellet.
Upvote 0
As for whether the 22 can be counted on to provide more power than 177 in the same model rifle, I don't think there is a definitive answer. Another member recently bought a TX200 in 22 and initial tests showed muzzle energies ranging from 14.0 to 15.9 ft-lb depending on the pellet being tested. Yet my TX200HC in 177 before tuning was providing up to 16.8 ft-lb at the muzzle. On the other hand, the magnum springers with large swept volume may only provide maximum efficiency in the larger calibers. I don't know if that is true, but I could see where it might be.
Because I own a TX200, I chose to consider the situation that appeared to exist for a my rifle. Other rifles may produce a different outcome.
Because I own a TX200, I chose to consider the situation that appeared to exist for a my rifle. Other rifles may produce a different outcome.
Upvote 0
Agree. I shoot .177 predominantly and modern heavy pellets have made the caliber much more functional. I regularly hunted small game successfully with .177 40+ years ago when rifles and pellet choices were much more limited than today. .177 has advantages for some as does .22 for others and .25 (and beyond) for still others.
Seems a really useful comparison for .177 to .22 would involve both the lighter and heavier pellets in each and how they would compare across various power level guns. Anyone have a bunch of guns and a few months to spare?
Upvote 0
I thought the larger skirt area of the .22 gave the .22 a more efficient push at the start of the shot cycle??
I wonder how the GTO .22 @11. 7gr would look at 16 FT-LB compared to the .177 10.65 gr shown above.
I wonder how the GTO .22 @11. 7gr would look at 16 FT-LB compared to the .177 10.65 gr shown above.
Upvote 0
That is the entire point of my post above. Conversely, how would a 7 gr. .177 compare to a 25 gr. .22? The GTO .22 in your question above would have higher velocity in relation to a 15 gr. (or heavier) .22 (from the same gun of course) and therefore probably better trajectory, at least at closer ranges until velocity starts to bleed off. But it would also trade off muzzle energy to do so and would shed both velocity and energy quicker downrange. Seems the question then becomes at what energy level and trajectory balance does any possible generic advantage shift from one caliber to the other? Seems it probably depends on both the shooters needs as well as the gun doing the powering. All relative.
Upvote 0
Interesting chart, Thanks for sharing.
I have always equated springers with .177 and .22 (and larger) with pneumatic rifles (pumpers or PCPs) for velocity/trajectory reasons.
I have always equated springers with .177 and .22 (and larger) with pneumatic rifles (pumpers or PCPs) for velocity/trajectory reasons.
Upvote 0
I have an R1 that was making 14.5 - 15 fpe with a .177 K barrel. I installed a full length .22 barrel and it made 18 + fpe with no changes to the internals.
The barrels were different lengths, but I doubt barrel length would account for 3 fpe difference.
Upvote 0
My best guess would be that 1~1.5 FPE is from the larger skirt surface area in .22 being more efficient than the small skirt area in .177. The barrel length on a springer could add 1 FPE or less, if the myth that springers reach 95% power in 12 inches is correct. The other 1 FPE is within the margin of error we always see with different fit in the barrel. Switching from 14.3 gr JSB to 14.3 Crosman or H&N 14.6 will vary by 1 FPE.
Upvote 0
My gut instinct for springers is that I prefer .177 at 14 FPE or less and I prefer .22 at 17.5 FPE or more. I'm not claiming it's "science", just my preference.
Upvote 0
To take into account the possibility that some springers only reach maximum efficiency with calibers larger than .177, I worked up a new scenario where a springer in .22 obtained a 2 ft-lb advantage in muzzle energy over the same gun in .177 caliber. As expected, the gap between the two calibers has closed considerably, especially in the case of the lighter .22 caliber pellets. The heavy JSB 15.89 still has a rather loopy trajectory, although it does deliver a lot of energy downrange.
Upvote 0
Why not? All else being equal, is it possible the pellet is absorbing more energy delivered by the piston as a result of being in the barrel for a little longer?
Upvote 0
DanD is correct. The barrel length would not add 3 fpe. Springers benefit less from extra barrel length than do PCPs. In this case it is about swept volume. The higher area of the larger caliber makes it more efficient with the same shot of air.
Upvote 0
I shoot only .177, years ago taking a short plunge into .20. While the discussion is mildly interesting I find that it doesn't sway my beliefs a bit. And that goes as follows. My primary use for air rifles is small pests and casual trigger time to keep me sharp for modern firearms. There is no typical small pest of interest to me that the .177 has failed to dispatch so I know the energy is adequate and in many cases more than needed. It doesn't take huge energy to dispatch a grackle. More important to me is the time it takes the shot to reach the target. Especially at distances wary targets like to keep to be comfortable, the sound of the shot can reach them long before the shot does. This gives them time to react to the shot and cause a miss so I'll take velocity over energy at the target any day.
Placing that shot is also important and that leads me back to the .20. Back in the day I liked the idea of the .20 as a compromise between with energy and velocity worlds. My trial was with a field/target R1 and I spent an entire summer trying to learn the rifle. Burned money on pellets and time, the rifle was a very accurate shooter, as would be expected. When ever I took the rifle to the field, however, I missed way more than I hit. I'd go back, verify zero, and try again, still missing at the varied distances of targets in the field. Ultimately I came to believe that the trajectory and velocity were just enough different than what I'd been shooting for a decade at the time that I wasn't adapting to it. Just couldn't learn the ability to on-the-spot determine aiming corrections for pop up targets from as short at five yards out to fifty with a 35 yard zero.
I sold that rifle and have never looked into another caliber. Today there are rifles (PCP) that can make .177 velocities with .22 cal fodder and those I imagine I could do well with. But that takes me back to my current use of the rifles and I cannot justify a new and expensive gun to do exactly what I'm doing with the guns I currently have. Some of the comparisons above are interesting, though. Especially where .177 and .22 seem to perform the same in places.
Placing that shot is also important and that leads me back to the .20. Back in the day I liked the idea of the .20 as a compromise between with energy and velocity worlds. My trial was with a field/target R1 and I spent an entire summer trying to learn the rifle. Burned money on pellets and time, the rifle was a very accurate shooter, as would be expected. When ever I took the rifle to the field, however, I missed way more than I hit. I'd go back, verify zero, and try again, still missing at the varied distances of targets in the field. Ultimately I came to believe that the trajectory and velocity were just enough different than what I'd been shooting for a decade at the time that I wasn't adapting to it. Just couldn't learn the ability to on-the-spot determine aiming corrections for pop up targets from as short at five yards out to fifty with a 35 yard zero.
I sold that rifle and have never looked into another caliber. Today there are rifles (PCP) that can make .177 velocities with .22 cal fodder and those I imagine I could do well with. But that takes me back to my current use of the rifles and I cannot justify a new and expensive gun to do exactly what I'm doing with the guns I currently have. Some of the comparisons above are interesting, though. Especially where .177 and .22 seem to perform the same in places.
Upvote 0
.22 is excellent when there are no conditions involved (can use 30 fpe). If max power limit is 20 fpe then .177 outshines.
Upvote 0