GTA
General Discussion To Gateway To Airguns => Gamo Gate => : navyseals101 June 11, 2008, 04:54:19 AM
-
Which has more Kinetic Energy, a .177 projectile at 1000 fps or a .22 projectile shooting at (whatevr the CFX's .22 fps is, I think 600)
which of these will have more energy at 50 yards? I know the .22 will have slowed down tremendously so i'm still wondering if it has a lot of impact
Why would the .22 have more pentrating power if theye is more pressure on smaller surfaces?
-
A .177 CFX will be more along the lines of 850-900fps. The .22 CFX that I had was 685fps IIRC.
Take a look here,, http://gatewaytoairguns.com/pellet_energy.htm
Mike
-
Which has more Kinetic Energy, a .177 projectile at 1000 fps or a .22 projectile shooting at (whatevr the CFX's .22 fps is, I think 600)
Kenitic Energy = 1/2 Mass x Velocity x Velocity
which of these will have more energy at 50 yards?
A function of wind resistance which varies due to ballistic coefficient of the projectile. See #1
I know the .22 will have slowed down tremendously so i'm still wondering if it has a lot of impact
If the impact with the target stops the projectile in an in-elastic collision (ie, the pellet doesn't go through the target or bounce off the target), then all of the Kinetic Energy is transferred to the target
Why would the .22 have more pentrating power if theye is more pressure on smaller surfaces?
Inertia, ballistic co-efficient (wind resistance). If you can throw a 95 MPH fast-ball with a plastic whiffle ball, but only a 50 MPH slow curve with a regulation baseball, which do you think you can throw further? Which would your rather be beaned with?
-
I dont know how to use that kinetic energy formula, i'm stumped on the velocity x velocty part but i could figure it out if you explained a bit more what you mean by velocity times velocity
which gun will have more energy at 50 yards the .22 or the .177 ??? --- Are you saying it varies with wind resistance?
Assuming that there is none then which has more kinetic energy? :o
-
Splash - 6/11/2008 10:13 AM
A .177 CFX will be more along the lines of 850-900fps. The .22 CFX that I had was 685fps IIRC.
Take a look here,, http://gatewaytoairguns.com/pellet_energy.htm
Mike
isn't there a pellet that increases accuracy byt atleast 25%?
Are these pellets accurate with .22 gamo Cfx's
-
also I dont know *_*_*_*_*_* about baseball? can you elaborate more on answering the question or can you rephrase that possibly?
I dont know if your analogy here holds true. Linking a baseball between a whiffle ball and comparing them to a .22 lead pellet and a .177 lead pellet is off
what % more does the .22 pellet weigh than the .177 pellet
and what % more does the whiffle ball weigh than the basebal?
how did you derive 50mph and 90mph? IS that somehow proportionate with the fps's of the .177 and .22???
So is the analogy true or what? certainly this is not whiffle balls here, its more like saying which would you rather get hit by a .22 point peice of lead going 600 fps or a .177 pointed peice of lead going 900 fps
-
blah, sorry for all the words...
basically i'm thinking that a 95 mph whiffle bat isn't proportionate with a .177 177 are closer to a 22's weight than a whiffle ball and a baseball...
-
Gregg,throw a bb & than throw a marble,tell which you would rather get hit with & WHICH WOULD TRAVEL BETTER.....& which would carry more impact power.......you would rather get hit with a bb & the marble wiil carry more impact power...............BTW... POWER WITHOUT ACCURACY=WASTED SHOT.............
-
still. the same problem arises. a .177 is closer to a .22 then a bb is to a marble
-
Gregg, try this. Since I don't have a CFX I will use a similar gun to draw comparison. The Beeman R-9 available in .177 and .22 cal.While were at it lets use the Crossman Premier 7.9gr. pellet for a reference in .177 and 14.3 gr in .22cal. These are comparable to what you would expect with the similar powerplant of the CFX. OK... in .177 the 7.9gr. pellet avgs.876fps@ the muzzle. Using the formula of velocity squaredXmass(7.9gr)divided by 450240 will deliver13.46ft.lbs of energy at the muzzle. (876 X 876 X7.9=6062270.4 divided by 450240=13.46453 ft.lbs. energy) At 50 yds that same pellet is going 685 fps for 8.233 ft.lbs of energy. In .22cal, the 14.3 gr pellet is going 685fps at the muzzle for an energy of(use same formula as above) 13.75 fpe. At 50 yds that pellet in that gun will be traveling at 494 fps. for an energy level of 7.75 fpe. In this powerplant therefore, energy levels are quite similar with .177 and .22 cal. but the .177 wll have a flatter eliptical curve.Get the .177.
-
Progun - 6/11/2008 11:38 AM
Gregg, try this. Since I don't have a CFX I will use a similar gun to draw comparison. The Beeman R-9 available in .177 and .22 cal.While were at it lets use the Crossman Premier 7.9gr. pellet for a reference in .177 and 14.3 gr in .22cal. These are comparable to what you would expect with the similar powerplant of the CFX. OK... in .177 the 7.9gr. pellet avgs.876fps@ the muzzle. Using the formula of velocity squaredXmass(7.9gr)divided by 450240 will deliver13.46ft.lbs of energy at the muzzle. (876 X 876 X7.9=6062270.4 divided by 450240=13.46453 ft.lbs. energy) At 50 yds that same pellet is going 685 fps for 8.233 ft.lbs of energy. In .22cal, the 14.3 gr pellet is going 685fps at the muzzle for an energy of(use same formula as above) 13.75 fpe. At 50 yds that pellet in that gun will be traveling at 494 fps. for an energy level of 7.75 fpe. In this powerplant therefore, energy levels are quite similar with .177 and .22 cal. but the .177 wll have a flatter eliptical curve.Get the .177.
ok, danm
I cant wait till physics !
-
[/QUOTE] isn't there a pellet that increases accuracy byt atleast 25%? Are these pellets accurate with .22 gamo Cfx's[/QUOTE]
1. Some pellets shoot better than others, but that same pellet may not shoot well, in another gun of the same make.(http://../jscripts/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-foot-in-mouth.gif)
2. See above each has there own preference of diet.(http://../jscripts/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-tongue-out.gif)
If you would use the above link, you would see, that a 14.3grCP @ 500fps down range, would have the same energy, as a 7.9grCP @ 675FPS down range.(http://../jscripts/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-wink.gif)
Many members here have answered your ?'s, but apparently your not liking the answers your getting.(http://../jscripts/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-wink.gif)
Mike
-
i never sat down and ran schematic tests on the kenetic energy level on my cfx22. i can say it easily drops 6-8 pound jack rabbits at 40-50yards with 14.0gr rws hollowpoints vs. my hunter220 wich is a .177. the 220 using 7.9gr cphp's still lets the rabbit run a good 10-15 yards before the rabbit stops. both rabbits were hit in the same exact spot on the left shoulder. the cfx left a bald ring around the entrance wound and the rabbit at impact jolted sideways and died instantly. the 220 went in deeper but lacked in shock. the rabbit didn't flinch or anything it just took off running and then came to a stop.
-
In a perfect set up, if there is no wind resistance, no friction, etc. etc., then both would have the same kinetic energy -- the same kinetic energy you stored in the spring when you cocked the gun. The energy output of the spring is relatively constant. The gun is just throwing pellets of different weight with the same strength in its throwing arm. And yes, the kinetic energy goes up as a linear function of the mass of the projectile and goes up exponentially with the velocity of the projectile. That is, if you double the "weight" of the pellet, at the same velocity, it has twice as much kinetic energy as the lighter pellet. But if you double the velocity of the same weight pellet, its kinetic energy goes up by a factor of 4 ("velocity squared").
The gun accelerates the the less massive pellet more easily, to a higher velocity, because the pellet has less inertia (mass). But you pay the price down range. The air resistance decelerates the less massive pellet more efficiently for the same reason. And . . . if the piston power plant produces a constant energy in terms of pressure in the tube (ie, pounds per square inch) at the back end of the barrel, then there is relatively more force (PSI) pushing the larger pellet because it has more surface area (sq inches) for the expanding gas to push on.
Think of it like squirting water out of a garden hose. Restrict the end of the hose with a nozzle and you will get a very fast jet of water (high velocity), but at a price - less volume of water coming through the nozzle per unit of time. Now, think about (but don't) dry firing a springer. Restrict the bore of the rifle to 177 and you will get a faster jet of air (higher velocity) but the total volume of air can't come out as quickly, so some efficiency is lost. A larger 22 bore, same spring/piston will give less potential velocity but it pushes the total volume of compressed air (ie, stored energy from the spring) out the barrel more efficiently. It's ike filling a bucket from a garden hose. Is it going to fill more quickly with a jet spray of water or with just the open end of the hose pouring a larger, slower stream of water? A large hose delivers water more efficiently, albeit at a lower velocity. Or think about it this way -- you are always limited on how quickly even the most powerful spring/piston can deliver it's total stored energy (volume of compressed air) through a smaller bore than a larger bore. The velocity of the pellet isn't limited, but the total amount of energy imparted by the compressed air available is limited.
I suspect the tuning gurus know this intuitively and work at getting the spring/piston to deliver just the right volume of air at just the right pressure optimum for the caliber of the airgun.
-
Greg:
Sorry, don't mean to put you off here. The weights of the pellets you know. There is a chart of these in the library, BTW. Once the pellet leaves the muzzle, it doesn't care how efficient your airguns power plant was -- the energy is strictly a function of the mass (weight) of the pellet and the initial velocity, and there are several calculators that will give that to you in foot-pounds. You can pick up a chrony for around $65-70 bucks at Walmart on line and then just experiment.
As for the whiffle ball thing, just an off the cuff example. Consider instead picking rocks from small to large size and seeing which you can throw furthest. It won't be the a small pebble or a brick-size hunk of granite. Bus somewhere in between, likely at about the size and weight of a baseball, is where the power plant of a man's arm can throw most efficiently and have the longest range. Your throwing arm won't get more powerful with a smaller or larger rock, but the amount of energy you can bean me in the head with at 25 paces will definitely vary. And empirically, somewhere in that range will be the one you can throw the hardest and most accurately (hopefully not at me). And it will be different for me if I try throwing them, because I have a lousy throwing arm.
So, in general, larger bores "throw" projectiles more efficiently, and offer, at least potentially, higher ft-lbs of energy, if they are properly tuned. And airgunners are constantly playing with the size, weight and shape of pellets in each caliber to find out which works best for their gun's particular power plant -- most efficiently and the most reproducible trajectory. There is no one absolute right answer. So try several guns in several calibers and you will eventually find a sweet-shooting piece that suits you, personally, and then, to heck with all of this other stuff.
-
Read this.
http://www.gatewaytoairguns.com/airguns/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=8022&mid=58090#M58090
The same stuff applies to air guns.
-
Gregg, the comparisons I used with the 7.9 gr. and the 14.3 gr. pellets will give almost equal energy levels in the Beeman R-9 .177 and .22. These particular pellets have a higher ballistic coefficient so if you use a different pellet for this energy comparison test you will get a different result.Bottom line is in the CFX power class with high ballistic coefficient pellets you will be hard pressed to have measurable advantages in"killing effectiveness" I suggested the .177 because of it's flatter trajectory which for most people means it's easier to hit the target. If you just shoot the lightest, fastest .177 pellets they will have considerably less energy at 50yards than the slower, heavier .22 pellet. So you see it's not all about velocity. Pellet choice matters too. Hope this clears that up. Good luck and happy shooting.
-
Greg, I don't think that we on the forum here are going to be able to answer your questions to either your understanding or your satisfaction.:0
I suggest that you find a copy of "Airguns from Trigger to Target" by Cardew and do a little reading and also research past posts on not only this forum but other forums also. You might also want to consider doing a little research on the Internet. The answer to your questions are all out there if you just look for them. I suggest that you don't come here and be argumentative because you don't get the answer that you like or don't want to accept or object to.:o
And one thing for sure....WE DON"T LIKE TROLLS HERE....and they will not be tolerated
-
I'm not a troll, and i'm not trying to be intentionally argumentative. However, when people are not using logic, i will question their premises and reasoning.
i dont even know what the argument was
-
but essentially i was right as progun proved with his mathematics.
the whiffle ball analogy was incorrect....
-
You asked ?'s got answers,what more do you want.
Mike
-
Steve, take it else where, we don't like BS here.
I apologize to our to our members, but this has gone on long enough. How many times do ?'s have to be answered?
Mike
-
if you know what is correct & what is incorrect why are you having such a hard time with your decision,there were some good analogies,choose the one that is easiest for you to understand & go from there........I could throw a 14 gr pellet harder than a 7 gr......what do you think...........
-
SIZE DOES MATTER??????????? Mr. navyseals101