In the right hands is a .22 as accurate as .177? If a top hft shot in .177 competed against a top .22 man ,would the samller calibre have the edge,or is it down to skill? Im thinking about a .22,prefer the pellet size and if i learnt the reticle 100% i would hope to shoot aswell as i do with .177. Any thoughts on this?
.177 Yes .177 all the way I hunt with both and its .177 over .22 easy no contest simples no brainer and if you disagree your wrong. unless your talking FAC!
Look at Johnny Smith's scores (Top .22 shooter) compared to the Top lads in open class, there's your answer.
. Both are accurate, its all in the range finding. .22 has a loopyer trajectory and as such you have to be really good and range finding. The margin for error in. 177 thus is more wider.
With ? With a good scope , the range finding can be sorted . BUT the windage is too , too much at the longer ranges on a windy day ??? HOLLY
.177 rifles have a flatter trajectory, because their pellets travel faster, and therefore gravity has less time to act upon them. If you could find a .22 pellet that had the same weight as a .177 pellet, both would have exactly the same trajectory and therefore the same aim points.
No, the .22 is still larger (frontal area) so would have more drag and hence would drop more. In a vacuum you'd be correct, but not in air.
As this was the original question asked and NOT which is better, both are just as accurate IMO However for the purist in terms of high precision and group size, the .177 will always have a smaller one hole group size ctc than a .22 due the the difference in head size. In like for like situations the .177 will always produce a smaller one hole group than a .22 at 45yrds. Lastly neither FT of HFT is about grouping so in terms of accuracy for both sports the .22 would be the same as .177....trajectory is a different ball game all together as of course is wind drift
Actually, it's the .177 pellet that experiences more drag, (it has a greater surface area in relation to its mass). For the purposes of this discussion, .22 pellets drop more, .177 pellets slide more. As such, .177 is more forgiving of ranging errors, and .22 is more forgiving of windage errors.
Not necessarily, depends on the BC of the pellets in question. In many cases .177 can take less wind.
The example you gave was a .177 and a .22 of the same mass. As I said, the .22 would have a greater frontal area (50% more) and therefore will drop more than the .177 even though it left the barrel at the same velocity.
If you compare group sizes with the same gun at the same range,the .22 groups just as well and therfore is as accutate as .177. The rapid drop of the .22 puts it at a big disadvantage for variable range shooting such as FT and HFT. I shoot Lightweight sport Rifel at fixed 20yd with .22 R10.
If comparing group size purely on ctc, then the holy grail one hole group in .22 will be slightly less accurate than a .177 due the the slightly larger hole The diffeence of 1mm in diameter of the head size would cause this. But for accuracy for FT and HFT they would be both as accurate for kill zones, but as you suggest the .22 would drop more so rangefinding would be more crucial.
The question was, which was the most accurate. At known distances I would suggest the .22 would be less affected by wind variations so will be the most accurate. The lighter the pellet the more wind it requires is a good rule of thumb. In practical terms shooting at estimated distances the .177 wins hands down and the further the estimated distance the better .177 will perform.
It's the BC that is the prime factor in windage. You can pick pellets with the same mass, and the same calibre, and have quite marked differences in windage... a .22 pellet with the same BC as a .177 pellet takes about the same wind... so in the end, if ranging is an issue and you have the same BC, then .177 is more accurate. That said, you can get better (and worse) BC's with some .22 pellets, so if windage errors are more of an issue than rangefinding, then that's where it might be worth looking. Depends what the problem is as to the approach...