Bear with me... lol
I have found that my favorite overall pellet (for shooting past 15 yards) are the domed ones. I'm particularly high on H&N FTT's, they are giving me great results.
However, I can't help but wonder "what if?" in terms of all the learning I did years ago when the rimfire .17 HMR and .17 HM2 debuted. For those of you who have owned or shot either, you know exactly just how INSANELY accurate these rifles/rounds can be. The HM2 is all but dead now, but has an interesting story. At one time, it was considered one of the most accurate target guns at 50 yards. Unfortunately for the slower-shooting HM2, popularity favored the HMR because of the much higher velocity (Mach 2.3+), and it was really splitting hairs between the two anyway as owners found the HMR to be almost as insanely accurate as the HM2, even with the higher velocities (and the frankly explosive impacts with frangible Hornady rounds).
So what does this have to do with air rifles? Well, apparently not much... But the question is, why doesn't it? Back when the HM2/HMR rounds were designed by Hornady, the bullets were identical, but the HM2 was the most accurate due to slower velocity (as we see with pellets). However, even the "slower" HM2 was still flying well above the sound barrier from the muzzle (Mach 1.6+ if my memory serves me right).
So here is where things get interesting: Hornady specifically designed that 17-gr bullet as a long and slender tipped boattail because it "stabilized flight" the best after several re-designs and testing of numerous concepts. Now, we all know that shooting accurately at subsonic, transonic, and supersonic velocities are three completely different beasts. But there was obviously SOMETHING that the good people at Hornady saw in their testing that made the pointed boattail design a winner for their ballistic tests.
But safely removing a .17 HMR bullet from an assembled rimfire casing would not be for the faint of heart (don't want to ignite that primer in the rim BOOM). And even if one did, IIRC, the .17 HMR bullet couldn't be test-shot well enough out of a magnum springer or NP2 etc accurately, because the .17 HMR round is technically .172 if my memory serves me right. Even if it were .177/4.51, copper jacketing could be problematic in certain types of airgun barrels from what I have learned.
So, now that I covered some of the bases to preface my question: Has anyone attempted to make a pellet that closely resembles the .17 HMR rimfire bullet? I understand that a bullet moving at Mach 2.3+ will enjoy much more stability than a bullet/pellet traveling right at Mach 1, but Hornady was anal about fine-tuning design for a reason.
So, why don't we see anyone selling a polymer-tipped smooth boattail pellet for air rifles? My first thought was "it's because of lack of a skirt," but we see Piledrivers and others being sold without skirts, so... hmm. Did anyone ever attempt anything like what I am getting at here?
I have found that my favorite overall pellet (for shooting past 15 yards) are the domed ones. I'm particularly high on H&N FTT's, they are giving me great results.
However, I can't help but wonder "what if?" in terms of all the learning I did years ago when the rimfire .17 HMR and .17 HM2 debuted. For those of you who have owned or shot either, you know exactly just how INSANELY accurate these rifles/rounds can be. The HM2 is all but dead now, but has an interesting story. At one time, it was considered one of the most accurate target guns at 50 yards. Unfortunately for the slower-shooting HM2, popularity favored the HMR because of the much higher velocity (Mach 2.3+), and it was really splitting hairs between the two anyway as owners found the HMR to be almost as insanely accurate as the HM2, even with the higher velocities (and the frankly explosive impacts with frangible Hornady rounds).
So what does this have to do with air rifles? Well, apparently not much... But the question is, why doesn't it? Back when the HM2/HMR rounds were designed by Hornady, the bullets were identical, but the HM2 was the most accurate due to slower velocity (as we see with pellets). However, even the "slower" HM2 was still flying well above the sound barrier from the muzzle (Mach 1.6+ if my memory serves me right).
So here is where things get interesting: Hornady specifically designed that 17-gr bullet as a long and slender tipped boattail because it "stabilized flight" the best after several re-designs and testing of numerous concepts. Now, we all know that shooting accurately at subsonic, transonic, and supersonic velocities are three completely different beasts. But there was obviously SOMETHING that the good people at Hornady saw in their testing that made the pointed boattail design a winner for their ballistic tests.
But safely removing a .17 HMR bullet from an assembled rimfire casing would not be for the faint of heart (don't want to ignite that primer in the rim BOOM). And even if one did, IIRC, the .17 HMR bullet couldn't be test-shot well enough out of a magnum springer or NP2 etc accurately, because the .17 HMR round is technically .172 if my memory serves me right. Even if it were .177/4.51, copper jacketing could be problematic in certain types of airgun barrels from what I have learned.
So, now that I covered some of the bases to preface my question: Has anyone attempted to make a pellet that closely resembles the .17 HMR rimfire bullet? I understand that a bullet moving at Mach 2.3+ will enjoy much more stability than a bullet/pellet traveling right at Mach 1, but Hornady was anal about fine-tuning design for a reason.
So, why don't we see anyone selling a polymer-tipped smooth boattail pellet for air rifles? My first thought was "it's because of lack of a skirt," but we see Piledrivers and others being sold without skirts, so... hmm. Did anyone ever attempt anything like what I am getting at here?