The Duncan 802 Posted January 23, 2012 Report Share Posted January 23, 2012 discuss! over to you Richmcgin Quote Link to post
tegater 789 Posted January 23, 2012 Report Share Posted January 23, 2012 discuss! over to you Richmcgin I never thought you would actually do it Quote Link to post
Buster321c 1,010 Posted January 23, 2012 Report Share Posted January 23, 2012 Are you asking us or telling us ?? Quote Link to post
The Duncan 802 Posted January 23, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 23, 2012 Waiting for richmcgin (self-professed firearms expert) to describe his assertion that no1 bore is more easily deflected in the hunting field than .22. We'll see if he can put forward a plausible explanation: thread is in hmr on fox in the rimfire, centrefire shotguns area, p6. Yes Tegater, I damned well would lol! Duncan Quote Link to post
Buster321c 1,010 Posted January 23, 2012 Report Share Posted January 23, 2012 I see ....... Wondered why it did`nt make sense Quote Link to post
matt_hooks 188 Posted January 23, 2012 Report Share Posted January 23, 2012 I'm interested in his theory too. I mean, define "deflected". Does he mean deflected by physical obstructions such as grass, or does he mean wind deflection? Five posts on one thread, a self confessed "firearms instructor" (I feel sorry for the poor ba####ds he "instructs") Quote Link to post
charlie caller 3,654 Posted January 23, 2012 Report Share Posted January 23, 2012 Assuming that is a question mate,the simple answer is no,they are faster,flatter,and penetrate further,and in over 30 years of shooting air rifles to centerfire,I like to think I have learned a thing or two,.177 drops more quarry stone dead than .22, in a 12 ftlbs rifle of course Quote Link to post
Elmer_Fudd 28 Posted January 23, 2012 Report Share Posted January 23, 2012 I see ....... Wondered why it did`nt make sense i'm on the not making sense page.... wow Quote Link to post
matt_hooks 188 Posted January 23, 2012 Report Share Posted January 23, 2012 Have a look here. Quote Link to post
The Duncan 802 Posted January 23, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 23, 2012 Cheers Matt - I think the salient bit was on the previous page richmcgin said: 'As a firearms instructor i have a fair experience of most caliburs and a fair knowledge of how they behave during their short journey. its like using a .177 air rifle for shoting rabbits we all know its posible but the diflection risk is higher than that of the .22. if you would like a complete lesson on balistics and resonsible behavour i do charge.' 3 Quote Link to post
Rake aboot 4,936 Posted January 23, 2012 Report Share Posted January 23, 2012 The mans a buffoon.. Knows hee haw about it !! Quote Link to post
robwelsh 354 Posted January 23, 2012 Report Share Posted January 23, 2012 "..special forces.." that bit made me laugh, what an utter twat! Quote Link to post
andyfr1968 772 Posted January 24, 2012 Report Share Posted January 24, 2012 I've just read through the post. I don't know about special forces but the bloke's certainly special in other ways. What a knob Quote Link to post
ghillies 209 Posted January 24, 2012 Report Share Posted January 24, 2012 (edited) a .22's has more 'mass' so theory dictates yup would be harder to change its direction.. a piddly bit though. .177 for 30 years..np's with at all. tried .22, and yes it does have its uses but all be it at shorter rangers, heres the good bit, shorter ranges for the way i use it lol. truth of the matter is .22 is slightly more acurate downrange, does reatain slightly more energy etc etc, if you can cope with the seriously changing tragectry..at legal limits that it............slightly at these piddly velosities but not enough to get hung about unless your on it day in day out..night n day. every one forgets about the velosity value, send a .22 at higher velosities and you have a different kettle of fish arriving like a .177 at legal powers. then the fun begins on the caliber debate, deflctions aside. yu learn what use basically. on a peace of wood (i.e hard material) aa .177 goes in a shed load further than a .22, but the .22 will crack the wood better..so its one thing against the other and a load of winging in between, short range have you ever hit a solid surface in .177 and in .22? the .17 dunt arf like to penatrate and stops dead or at least whats left of it, a .22.. well will do the same ish but at a shorter distance starts to seriously bounce bck at you.. where the 17 is still piling in and stopping dead all bar askirt. weeeee-w..heads up lol, ooo thats gotta hurt lol. deflections? hmmmm.. loss of practicality over this pellet doesnt deflect as much, i'd say the odds are still on .177 for. (for over all benifits, little as they are). Edited January 24, 2012 by ghillies Quote Link to post
secretagentmole 1,701 Posted January 24, 2012 Report Share Posted January 24, 2012 richmcgin said: 'As a firearms instructor i have a fair experience of most caliburs and a fair knowledge of how they behave during their short journey. its like using a .177 air rifle for shoting rabbits we all know its posible but the diflection risk is higher than that of the .22. if you would like a complete lesson on balistics and resonsible behavour i do charge.' There are not many firearms instructors of his calibur around.... Besides what happens if you are using a heavy .177 (say a Crosman Premier Ultra Magnum of 10.5 grain) and a light .22 (RWS Hobby 11.8 grain), the larger .22 will have more surface area therefore with the lower weight per square millimetre of surface area and will get blown off course more easily! Quote Link to post
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.