• please note we the Owners and Admin of this site accept no responsibility for any content in any threads in this section.......... we do request you all adhere to your appropriate GL's......... if you see anything wrong please report it.......all posts with mention of / images of dispatched birds, must clearly mention the relevant GL. England GL's. Wales GL's. Scotland GL's. Northern Ireland GL's.
  • the Daily hi thread just say hi :)

.22 vs .177 for hunting- please indulge me on why i think 22 is more humane

B

billy_boy_2010

Super member
BANNED
Joined
Jul 9, 2022
Messages
1,015
Reaction score
934
Location
UK
Hi guys

Following on this thread on hunting-


I made a brief comment that I thought 22 was better for hunting than 177- provided the shooter has a range finder.

It was was challenged by

******

@Mice!


Sorry but that makes no sense at all.



I've shot hundreds of squirrels now with 177, well placed shots drop them fine.

******

and not wanting to hijack the thread- I have started this one with my thoughts

Hoping it will lead to some really interesting experiences. Perhaps I'm missing something?

I didn't want this to become a 177 vs 22 debate :) But in brief-

I have shot a lot more squirrels in 177 than I have 22 as it happens. I have shot even more with firearms but that's irrelevant.

The only advantage of 177 over 22 for hunting is its flatter trajectory right?

This advantage is eliminated with a range finder.

22 deposits more energy into the quarry because it doesn't over penetrate. I shan't go into the marginal benefits of 22 (energy retention, wind drift etc) because they probably aren't significant enought to make a difference.

I absolutely agree with you- if you put the pellet in the right place- both calibres will kill every time :)

But it doesn't always work like that in hunting does it ?

For most shots which aren't quite in the right place- the additional energy deposited into the quarry from a .22 is more likely to kill or disable it.

The 177 will make a smaller hole and exit the quarry with more energy (depending on range and quarry- I often find 22 doesn't exit where 177 normally does). Does it exit with 1ft lb or 5 ft lbs ?! who knows?!

There probably are examples where a .177 kills quicker- perhaps in nicking an artery or a vein- having an exit wound would speed up the bleeding out process- and thus kill quicker than a 22 which doesn't exit?

But- for the majority of shots which are a little off target- you're more likely to get a kill (or a significant wounding- which allows a follow up shot) from 22 than you are 177.

Chest shot squirrels are a good example of this. Squirrels will run more frequently from chest shots in 177.

Pigeons are another example. I have had far more "runners" from chest shot pigeons in 177 than I have 22.

Very happy to hear your opinion if you think I have missed something :)


I will state that for walked up squirrel stalking (especially those which are a little twitchy from shooting pressure or unfamiliarity of humans) the advantages of a 177 can make me choose one. In this situation when I really don't have time to rangefind- I will sometimes pick the 177.

For plinking squirrels off a feeder at 25 yards from a bipod & hide- it's probably safe to assume that 97/100 shots will land perfectly in such calm settings- but for those 3/100- I would predict that a 22 calibre would kill/disable the squirrel where a 177 wouldn't.

In less controlled conditions- perhaps where 85/100 pellets are perfectly placed- the benefits of .22 are greater IMO.

Very happy to be educated or informed if I'm missing something ? I know I have shortlisted the pros and cons of each calibre- but the advantage of .22 I have listed above is significant and not normally listed- mainly because its hard to quantify.

But I think that- provided the range is known- 22 is a more humane killer than 177.


Thanks 👍
 
I now only have 22 air rifles, but I'm curious as why 1 caliber would be better than the other so I'm gonna read this with interest
 
I use all calibres to shoot tree rats , it makes no size
of the brick its the accuracy that counts .
my .25 cal drops tree rats with even upper body shots it hammers them,
at night with my NV i use either.177 or .20 cal because the flatter trajectory makes it easier
at 25 yds my .25 blows tree rats heads open.
atb brian
 
Makes no difference what calibre you use as long as the placement is correct and no shot should be taken unless you are highly confident of this. Knowledge of your target species' anatomy and the capabilities of the calibre you shoot is vital as well as hold over/under, effects of wind etc - range finders are a relatively new accessory available to sub-12FPE shooters, but we did alright before they became available.
 
I've shot hundreds of squirrels mainly with .177, while stalking finding the exact range through foliage and then allowing for the more loopy trajectory of .22 is hard work.
Most of my squirreling was done before I had a rangefinder, parallax adjustable scope and with a springer, it was just easier to see the thing know at worst case I was going to be 10-20mm out if the range was guess wildly wrong and that 'if I could see it the pellet would get to it' that was what kept me on .177.

These days the conversation is swayed by rangefinders, trajectory apps, gradations on reticles etc, it is a different world.
If I can measure the range correctly including cant, and put that pellet right on target then sure .22 would be fine, it's just hard to tell someone brought up without ABS that there is is no need to know how to brake manually.
 
billy_boy_2010 said:
The only advantage of 177 over 22 for hunting is its flatter trajectory right?

This advantage is eliminated with a range finder.
Click to expand...
Advantage not eliminated as .177 is much more forgiving in terms of ranging errors. Getting your hold correct at a known range isn't a big issue. Using a range finder your ranging isn't precise (most rangefinders are only accurate to +/- 1m) this will affect your vertical positioning of your shot. For example, at 50 yds the error is +/->1cm in .22. Add that to your group spread and any wobble. I'm not suggesting you shoot live quarry at any particular distance. You can use a ballistics app to work out for yourself what the advantage is over your ranges and the max at which it's acceptable to use either calibre.
 
That hurts said:
Makes no difference what calibre you use as long as the placement is correct and no shot should be taken unless you are highly confident of this. Knowledge of your target species' anatomy and the capabilities of the calibre you shoot is vital as well as hold over/under, effects of wind etc - range finders are a relatively new accessory available to sub-12FPE shooters, but we did alright before they became available.
Click to expand...
It's not necessary for me to read any further this is the perfect reply 💪
 
@billy_boy_2010 That's a good argument for .25 :D

I can definitely say .22 can pass through pigeons.

But this is with a hard compound Superfield, not a soft pellet such as JSB.

With a higher mounted scope the trajectory of a .22 can be flattened somewhat in the hunting distance ranges.

I now have a .177 and a .25 and need to use more to comment.

But as you say a well placed shot, head - .177, head or heart .22, head or heart .25?
 
I agree with Billy_Boy_2010 on when one calibre has an advantage. However, I seem to be either shooting squirrels in a highly controlled situation at feeders (97% good shots, perhaps) or walking up without time to range find. I'll take the .177 as I think it significantly increases my % kills when range isn't certain. I stock to lighter pellets, e.g. 8.44 over 10.34, to keep trajectory flatter. It's different at night on rabbits - a little more time to range find. I have an LE032 range finder that I use at night on rabbits and I do as well with .22 as .177. At the moment I much prefer an optical scope over a camera. When (and it will happen) a digital sight looks as good as optical and has a range finder and ballistics calculator that automates range compensation, it will take drop out of the equation and, as long as the pellet (or slug) is consistent, then the harder hitting pellet (.22 almost certainly) seems a more humane choice. Right now, with current tech and my usual targets, I;ll stick to .177 with a lighter pellet.

Cheers
Andrew
 
To kill humanely, all that's needed is a well placed shot. End of.

I shot .22 exclusively for over 25 years on live quarry.
Since then for the last 15 years, I've shot mainly .177.

Fur or feather, they all drop the same, with a well placed head shot.
Body shots are risky in any calibre
 
For me , at sub 12 power levels, the .177 is by far the better caliber in most departments, above sub 12 power levels .22 and better still .25 really come into their own.
I`ve hunted with .177 this last 10 years after 40 years of .22 only, that says it all really.
 
Andrew357 said:
I agree with Billy_Boy_2010 on when one calibre has an advantage. However, I seem to be either shooting squirrels in a highly controlled situation at feeders (97% good shots, perhaps) or walking up without time to range find. I'll take the .177 as I think it significantly increases my % kills when range isn't certain. I stock to lighter pellets, e.g. 8.44 over 10.34, to keep trajectory flatter. It's different at night on rabbits - a little more time to range find. I have an LE032 range finder that I use at night on rabbits and I do as well with .22 as .177. At the moment I much prefer an optical scope over a camera. When (and it will happen) a digital sight looks as good as optical and has a range finder and ballistics calculator that automates range compensation, it will take drop out of the equation and, as long as the pellet (or slug) is consistent, then the harder hitting pellet (.22 almost certainly) seems a more humane choice. Right now, with current tech and my usual targets, I;ll stick to .177 with a lighter pellet.

Cheers
Andrew
Click to expand...
And @That_Hurts is spot on that "no shot should be taken unless you are highly confident"
 
brian747 said:
I use all calibres to shoot tree rats , it makes no size
of the brick its the accuracy that counts .
my .25 cal drops tree rats with even upper body shots it hammers them,
at night with my NV i use either.177 or .20 cal because the flatter trajectory makes it easier
at 25 yds my .25 blows tree rats heads open.
atb brian
Click to expand...

Accuracy is indeed the most important factor. But if we control all variables (including the shooter and the rifle)- and only vary the calibre- we can assume that the accuracy is the same (there's probably a v small argument for .22 being more accurate- given springers shoot with less recoil in .22 and they are slightly less effected by wind.

The point im trying to make is- if that brick is slightly off target- which calibre is more likely to kill/seriously injure?
 
That hurts said:
Makes no difference what calibre you use as long as the placement is correct and no shot should be taken unless you are highly confident of this. Knowledge of your target species' anatomy and the capabilities of the calibre you shoot is vital as well as hold over/under, effects of wind etc - range finders are a relatively new accessory available to sub-12FPE shooters, but we did alright before they became available.
Click to expand...

I agree- but the difference between "highly confident" and "certain" will lead to some shots which miss the "certain" kill zone. Many of these shots will still hit the quarry in a less vital area. Which calibre- hitting these less vital areas- are more likely to kill quicker?
 
OldStock said:
I've shot hundreds of squirrels mainly with .177, while stalking finding the exact range through foliage and then allowing for the more loopy trajectory of .22 is hard work.
Most of my squirreling was done before I had a rangefinder, parallax adjustable scope and with a springer, it was just easier to see the thing know at worst case I was going to be 10-20mm out if the range was guess wildly wrong and that 'if I could see it the pellet would get to it' that was what kept me on .177.

These days the conversation is swayed by rangefinders, trajectory apps, gradations on reticles etc, it is a different world.
If I can measure the range correctly including cant, and put that pellet right on target then sure .22 would be fine, it's just hard to tell someone brought up without ABS that there is is no need to know how to brake manually.
Click to expand...

As i said in my original post- i do think that walked up squirrel stalking is an example where 177 may be better- where range finding is difficult and takes time. They are twitchy little things- and most run unless they are real sure they haven't seen you.

And changing calibre after decades of farmiliarity with the trajectory of one does pose its disadvantages.

I dont think the advent of a range finder is useful. I would encourage any shooter to learn to estimate range. Just check it afterwards with a finder. If anything- it speeds the process up- because you get the real answer immediately.
 
BallisticBill said:
Advantage not eliminated as .177 is much more forgiving in terms of ranging errors. Getting your hold correct at a known range isn't a big issue. Using a range finder your ranging isn't precise (most rangefinders are only accurate to +/- 1m) this will affect your vertical positioning of your shot. For example, at 50 yds the error is +/->1cm in .22. Add that to your group spread and any wobble. I'm not suggesting you shoot live quarry at any particular distance. You can use a ballistics app to work out for yourself what the advantage is over your ranges and the max at which it's acceptable to use either calibre.
Click to expand...

Good point- the range error from the rangemeter should still be considered. I hadn't considered that :) I would add that most range finders will ping very quickly. They round to the nearest meter/yard normally- but i often ping a few times and go with the mode average. This will likely reduce the range error to 0.5m. But lets take your worst case scenario of 1m :)

IMO The difference that 1m error makes with 177 and 22 - even at your extreme 50 yards example- is TINY. A quick calculation means-if the rangemeter is 1m out (worst case scenario)- at 50 yards (how many people are regularly shooting quarry at 50 yards?) the .177 will drop an additional 0.38cm and the .22 will drop an additional 0.6cm. 0.28cm difference in drop.

Curiously- the 177 drops an additional 177 pellet size- and the .22 drops an additional .25 pellet size. The larger diameter of the .22 pellet minimises the .28cm pellet drop of the .22- to nearly half that. 0.14cm.

Do you consider that significant?

If we take your extreme range example- how much pellet energy is retained by each calibre? From a 12 ft lb gun- the .22 will be carrying 1ft lb more- 5 vs 6 give or take.......

Is that more significant than the .14cm of extra bullet drop the .22 will encounter?

Good point though. But im happy to largely ignore it- and wrap it up with the other smaller factors like wind drift and pellet energy retention etc :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top