What calibre do you hunt with

[santaman2000]

Can you find a link to the actual CFR? The links you posted are to private organizations and their opinions. Unfortunately my search didn't turn up anything better.

Please PM me though, we're drifting the thread.

[bradleybuckman]

You're right, the thread is drifting and I'm sure these gentlemen are not interested in the debate of US gun laws. Besides, I have already clearly presented the facts with links to back it up to organizations that clearly state what I have maintained all along. PM sent.

[mrcharly]

Not if you have a safe backstop

Well, yes of course - but needing a really good backstop is also a restriction. There is lots of farmland near me (Vale of York) where it is pretty much flat for a mile in any direction. Using even a .22lr would require great care and checking about what is around in any direction.
With a pellet gun, you can look and see if it is safe - a pellet is not going to go through a hedge 100yards away, cross another 200yards, go through another hedge and hit the person behind it.

[HillBill]

Yeah i remember the discussion.

I never go for body shots, i wouldn't even advise it with a legal limit rifle.

.22 has far better down range energy retention than .177 too. So at that 50 yards, the .22 still hits harder and knocks down better than .177.

I'm not unreasonably biased towards .22. I've had several .177s over the years due to all the fuss about them, i though i'd give it a go. Good rifles too ( Logun mk2, bsa hornet, theoben MFR, TX200HC). I really did not rate their performance at the side of .22. The ONLY advantage, and i do mean ONLY is the flatter trajectory for the 15 yards or so that folk may need. Personally i feel that if i'm taking a shot over 30 yards then i need to work on my fieldcraft. I can and do shoot out to 80 yards with .22, only when needed though or when its not possible to stalk closer.

There is a reason why .177 was never popular for hunting, and only popular for target shooting. Also the current trend towards .177 is driven by a target shooting discipline, HFT. It may be called hunter field target, but its still only a target sport similar to FT and as such requires similar kit. Its amazing really how much influence HFT has had in the airgun world over the last decade or so. Before that, .177 was the girlie calibre only used by target shooters.

Now come come Bill - I'm sure you and I had this argument when I joined the forum some years back.

While I agree with almost all of your post I feel I must make a few comments.

A .22 is indeed a slower more looping calibre and does indeed take much more skill to hit targets are serious range. However to state that a .22 will always take down quarry better than a .177 to me leaves out a slight detail.

a .22 will do everything a .177 will do - however it has one benefit - the heavier larger pellet will kill cleanly at closer distances - where the .177 "can" over penetrate and simply not kill your target due to less energy transfer (I believe)

IIRC (it may have been another member here Bill?) you hunt at shorter distances than I do. Averaging 25m - at these closer ranges a .22 does indeed have an advantage over .177 - particularly at under 20m. (slower velocity and larger size means more put down at shorter distance compared to over penetration with .177)

However this over penetration is often slated by .22 shooters who seem to forget that this is only at short distances.
This is a generalization but I have known .22 shooters to always go for the "easier" body shot rather than make head shots. (this is also often the case with .22lr shooters who rely on the power of their calibre to do the job)
It takes a skilled shooter to do this and hats off if you can. Personally I dislike this aim point when hunting as in my opinion it leaves too much space for error.
I favour head shots.

What I mean to say here is that slating the .177 because of over penetration is probably only considering body shots. And ignores the whole truth. (it is true a .177 will go through a rabbit at short distance) - Head shots will still kill.

At distances over 35m the .22 will drop more so than a .177 so a .22 shooter does need to know his/her ranges much better to take advantage of the weapon. (a hard skill I will admit.)

The .177 however does of course have that flatter trajectory so it is "easier" to shoot. That is to say that slight miscalculations in range to don't have such an effect.
But the .177 has no less put down capability than the .22 - its just that it is at slightly longer distances.

So there really is no better calibre in my eyes. I would say that the .22 is more versatile but the looping trajectory makes it more difficult to shoot. .177 is much easier to shoot, will easily kill at normal hunting ranges.

If the OP thinks he will require the weapon to be making kills at below 20m on rats and rabbits then a .22 would be the better option.

If however the primary quarry will be rabbits and pigeons at greater distances such as 35m+ then a .177 would be my recommendation.


I suppose it boils down to personal preference and choosing the right calibre for the job.

Frankly if you plan on doing rat shooting I'd get a proper dedicated rifle for it in .25 and do it properly.

Andy

[Everything Mac]

he he - funny how one remembers such things.

You make very valid points. None of which I can disagree with.

I haven't shot .22 for years now. It would be quite interesting to have a play with something decent now rather than the crappy springers I used to use back in the day.

I've read arguments that indicate .177 is less affected by wind due to the smaller surface area - an interesting point of view.

I guess it comes down to if it ain't broke don't fix it.


Atb
Andy

[HillBill]

I really gave a lot of thought to the wind issue. In my mind it seemed that there couldn't be much difference between the two calibres in windy conditions. My reasoning was that while .177 was lighter, it was also smaller and faster so spent less time being effected by the wind. Compare that to the .22 which was larger and slower so spent more time in the wind, yet was heavier so didn't move as easily.

It wasn't until i spent a day on the range comparing the two that the difference was apparent. .177 definately grouped poorer than .22 at 30 yards. Even more so at further range. So thinking cap on again. My current theory, is that with .177 being lighter, it is affected sooner after leaving the barrel than .22. Basically the closer to the barrel the pellet is affected, the greater the deviation at target.

he he - funny how one remembers such things.

You make very valid points. None of which I can disagree with.

I haven't shot .22 for years now. It would be quite interesting to have a play with something decent now rather than the crappy springers I used to use back in the day.

I've read arguments that indicate .177 is less affected by wind due to the smaller surface area - an interesting point of view.

I guess it comes down to if it ain't broke don't fix it.


Atb
Andy

[Silverback 1]

Well, yes of course - but needing a really good backstop is also a restriction. There is lots of farmland near me (Vale of York) where it is pretty much flat for a mile in any direction. Using even a .22lr would require great care and checking about what is around in any direction.
With a pellet gun, you can look and see if it is safe - a pellet is not going to go through a hedge 100yards away, cross another 200yards, go through another hedge and hit the person behind it.

Needing a good backstop is an absolute requirement not a restriction.
All shooting sports should be practised with SAFETY as the NO. 1 priority.
If person think that the shot (pellet,rimfire or centrefire) is unsafe or there is no substantial backstop the shot should never be taken or even contemplated.
If the land is deemed unsuitable for the calibre,it will not be passed for shooting purposes by the police authority in the area when the FAC holder applies for it to be added to the conditions of his FAC.

[Vyvsdad]

.300 win mag, .243, 22-250, .22lr, 12g, 17hmr .22 air

Always used .22 for air rifle, never saw the need to change, not that there is anything wrong with .177. My first air rifle was .22, so I stuck with it, simple as that. I've not brought pellets for years now, but when I did I used accupels.

[Aaron Rushton]

.177 unfortunately does not always dispatch quarry quickly even when you hit what you are aiming at. I've had .177 pellets go clean through the head of a rabbit and the rabbit has run off. Sometimes they only get a few yards, others they dont stop running until you lose them. If its near a warren you've lost it and have a badly injured animal stuck underground.

The only thing .177 does better than .22 is to have a flatter trajectory between 35 and 50 yards. But all you have to do us aim a couple of inches higher with a .22 at 50 yards, it aint difficult.

Go .177 if your not a competent shot, go .22 if you are.

i have been hunting with .177 for quite a while and have never taken a headshot which has not resulted with a dead animal in less than a few seconds. i am not sure of the mechanics of it, but surely if you put a hole in an animals brain it will be dead? i shoot mainly pigeons and squirrels and have not shot rabbits in a long time so i am talking about these quarry species which i have the most experience on. i used to shoot a .22 on these quarry and apart from the noticeably louder 'smack' there have been no quicker or slower deaths? although one bonus of shooting a .22 is that it did allow me to take chest shots on squirrels which i do not take with a .177.

[joejoe]

practicepractice, practice, practice, practice, practice,

[Silverback 1]

Remington VSSF Sendero in Cal 25-06 Remington, Leuopold VX3 6.5-20X50 LRT scope, Ken Farrell 20 MOA Picatinny base and Nightforce rings, my favourite hunting rig in her natural environment during a recent trip.

[Everything Mac]

Oo err misses! Very nice rifle there mate.


I saw an interesting video from the fieldsports channel on YouTube the other day. They shot a book with .177, .20 and .22 for a penetration comparison. I was surprised by the results I must say, with .20 penetrating further than the .177

a combination of extra weight versus the surface area must come into play I suspect.

They didn't shoot .25 sadly. That would have been interesting too see as well.

Andy