caliber or power

Jump to latest Follow Reply
C

CharlieSierra

Member
Apr 26, 2019
3
0
NH
I've been watching a lot of videos where there’s a common graphic about the difference in calibers. The effectiveness of a .25 caliber round over the .22 caliber pellet as a hunting round seems to be attributed to the 50% increase in surface area. 

I don’t really buy this. To me it seems more likely that the heavier and slower moving pellet is dumping more energy into the target because it has....more energy to dump. 

I assert that if I shot a squirrel with a .22 caliber bullet/pellet weighing 30 grains and a .25 caliber bullet/pellet weighing in at 25 grains they would deliver nearly the same energy to the target, and the caliber difference will be deminimis in the “knockdown” equation. 

Knockdown is more a function of energy delivered to target, how one gets there is less important, including “caliber” choice. 
 
Both are true. It's not strictly the larger size of the pellet nor the energy it's carrying when it arrives at the target. The larger caliber operates on a larger area of tissue, thus has more opportunity to transfer a larger amount of energy.

With that said, I don't find "knockdown power" to be particularly useful predictor of hunting efficacy. With airguns, shot placement is vastly more important than energy delivered. Granted, making a bigger hole through the lungs or heart will more quickly stop them from doing the thing they're meant to do. I'm just saying a .25 cal at 50fpe that misses the vitals is far less effective than a .177 at 10fpe that goes through the fusebox. I've tried numerous hollowpoints and expanding pellets that propose to have tremendous knockdown power, and indeed some of them work very well...when they connect. The issue I have with them is that they rarely have adequate accuracy at distances beyond 30 yards or so to be able to hit the small kill zone of a squirrel. Meanwhile although a domed pellet does little more than icepick through the critter, I can put it into the brain and it's instant lights out.
 
Upvote 0
I agree that shot placement is probably the most effective predictor of a “clean kill” but again I assert that if all things are equal; energy to target and shot placement, the caliber is going to be least of concern or predictor.
Click to expand...

I agree. For small game, caliber is of little importance with proper shot placement as long as there is adequate energy to assure penetration. That is especially true of brain shots. With body shots, caliber plays a larger role...still not as important as placement, but a bigger hole causes a faster loss of blood pressure and/or respiration. And for the same reason, 2 holes (a passthru) is more useful than a pellet which manages to dump all of its energy and stay in the critter.
 
Upvote 0
Okay, I'm interested to hear your rationale.

Consider this scenario: I shoot a squirrel with a .177 at 9fpe and the pellet passes through both lungs and comes to rest under the hide on the opposite side of its body. It dumped all its energy into the squirrel.

Then suppose instead I shoot the squirrel with the same pellet in exactly the same spot, only this time at 15fpe. The pellet passes through. It still needed 9fpe to get all the way through to the hide on the other side, but this time still had energy remaining so it kept going and "wasted" 5 or 6fpe.

How is the first one more effective than the second?

The only way I can see implementing the goal of a total energy dump (or perhaps maximizing energy transfer would be a better way to look at it) is to limit oneself to a shot that puts the pellet on the longest possible path through the animal. Lengthwise, let's say. But that's not how we do it. We either put it through the brain or through the vitals. In the unlikely event a shot is presented that somehow permits the pellet to both penetrate the vitals and then continue on through the rest of the body cavity, then certainly I will agree that is more effective. However that is simply not practical most of the time. What is practical is to take the best shot presented, and have sufficient energy to ensure the pellet can make it all the way through so as to damage as much tissue as possible along the way.
 
Upvote 0
Okay, I'm interested to hear your rationale.

Consider this scenario: I shoot a squirrel with a .177 at 9fpe and the pellet passes through both lungs and comes to rest under the hide on the opposite side of its body. It dumped all its energy into the squirrel.

Then suppose instead I shoot the squirrel with the same pellet in exactly the same spot, only this time at 15fpe. The pellet passes through. It still needed 9fpe to get all the way through to the hide on the other side, but this time still had energy remaining so it kept going and "wasted" 5 or 6fpe.

How is the first one more effective than the second?

The only way I can see implementing the goal of a total energy dump (or perhaps maximizing energy transfer would be a better way to look at it) is to limit oneself to a shot that puts the pellet on the longest possible path through the animal. Lengthwise, let's say. But that's not how we do it. We either put it through the brain or through the vitals. In the unlikely event a shot is presented that somehow permits the pellet to both penetrate the vitals and then continue on through the rest of the body cavity, then certainly I will agree that is more effective. However that is simply not practical most of the time. What is practical is to take the best shot presented, and have sufficient energy to ensure the pellet can make it all the way through so as to damage as much tissue as possible along the way.
Click to expand...

The man has a point. For those that have noticed, CPHP’s are much harder than JSB’s. I don’t know the BH # but most JSB’s do dump all energy into most animals. In fact I’ve decided NEVER to use a JSB for a brain shot because I missed a Groundhogs ear canal. It went right above and rode under the skin to other ear. I am wondering if I’d used a Crosman Premier or say H&N, some new harder copper plated, would it have penetrated the skull on first shot. 

That’s the thing about some of these big bores. There’s a point where BC drops over a certain speed. There’s a optimum that hasn’t been decided upon but since air guns need soft cast lead preferably BHS # 5-6 though some stuff we shoot is as hard as 10-12, things are all screwed up. Fragment or mushroom? Pass through or stay in? Hard penetration or soft core precise placement? Lol.
 
Upvote 0
All things being equal, (speed, pellet design) the larger pellet will transfer more energy on soft, fleshy targets. Take a 20fpe .177 and a 20fpe .22.. The difference in stopping power is pretty profound. Some would argue it’s partly a function of retained energy, and they’d be right. BUT, if those two projectiles arrived at their furry target with exactly the same energy, the larger diameter pellet will always deliver more “Thwack!” Hydrostatic shock, stopping power, whatever you want to call it.

One example of many I could give, is the time I owned 2 Benjamin disco’s at the same time. One in .177 and the other in .22. Both tuned to the HFT limit of 20fpe. ZERO question which one I’d grab to nail a backyard pest. It’s true, dead is dead, but that .22 put em on the ground instantly, hehe. 

HTH(?) 

Brian 
 
Upvote 0
Yes I agree on both points. In that hypothetical scenario I made up, the one that stops under the hide is equally effective as the one that passes through. It isn't more effective however, and since I have no practical way to make it stop under the hide (full energy dump), I prefer instead to be sure there is adequate energy to ensure the pellet will pass all the way through. 

In other words, regardless of whether it's an expanding pellet or a domed pellet, I want it to pass through because that is the outcome that will produce maximum damage for that particular trigger pull.
 
Upvote 0
Yes I agree on both points. In that hypothetical scenario I made up, the one that stops under the hide is equally effective as the one that passes through. It isn't more effective however, and since I have no practical way to make it stop under the hide (full energy dump), I prefer instead to be sure there is adequate energy to ensure the pellet will pass all the way through. 

In other words, regardless of whether it's an expanding pellet or a domed pellet, I want it to pass through because that is the outcome that will produce maximum damage for that particular trigger pull.
Click to expand...


With a violently expanding or fragmenting projectile more energy produces less penetration. I had to shoot a squirrel that was damaging my porch roof a few days ago and I shot it with a 22.5gn Varmint Knocker hollow point at 1040fps from about six feet away. I had to aim down the side of the barrel. The bullet went in low on it's shoulder and stopped just behind the opposite shoulder at the squirrels back creating a pulsing hematoma about the size of a marble that only lasted a couple of seconds. 54 fpe stayed in that squirrel. I do agree that dead is dead. Poke a hole in the right place and anything dies.
 
Upvote 0
Agree that dead is dead. That being said. We have taken over 1,500 pest birds this calendar year with .25 and .22.



There is no doubt the .25 is more forgiving on pigeons. It also drops woodchucks better/faster. Im talking about chest and neck shots. Obviously the brain is the brain and if u hit it your golden. But thats not always possible or likely. If you want the option to chest shoot tougher critters and have a chance at recovering them .25 is the way to go for me
 
Upvote 0
Kind of hard to say what is more effective a bb traveling 800fps and hitting a squirrel in the brain or dropping a bowling ball on its head. Shot placement is the answer. You could hit 1/8 inch and possibly miss the brain with a .177cal and with the same exact shot in .25cal would be a clean kill is what I think the point is with those youtube videos. 
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Resources
Menu