What's better?

An expensive gun that shoots a .22 at 920fps...or a gun less than half that, shooting 852fps in 22?
both wood stock the 920 gun is a little better in fit and finish.
What gun would you buy?

[Gene_SC]

To many varieables.... he he

Gene

[raterminator]

That’s a very tricky question. Naming the brands might be helpful but not final. You can find high priced bad shooter and be very lucky/happy with an inexpensive one. Don’t pay to much attention to fps numbers, unless they are lower than 750 fps and you planning too use heavy pellets. All numbers are relative.

Not meant to be. just more asking opinions. Dollar for dollar. It's not meant to ruffle any feathers.
Bart

[Gene_SC]

I did not mean in my post that it was a bad question. Just that there are so many variables..

Let me ask you something Bart..

What do you want to use the air gun for that you will purchase?

Gene

[ribbonstone]

Which ever of the two had the better trigger, least vibration, and the best reputaion for accurracy.  (20fps that shoots poorly...or that wears you out to shoot it...is at a big disadvantage to a lower speed rifle that shoots smoothly, accurately, and doesn't bounce your eyeballs every shot.

Hunting of small game.
This is just a question that I propose to get people to think about what they want. And by the way what would you or anyone else answering the question do with the gun.
I should also state that this is a "real world question in the budget department. Some of us have budgets that are limited some don't and some just want good honest value, answer accordingly.
Bart

A reply for the 2 question above. 1 if you me or anyone with half a brain bought a bad shooter we would send it back, so both are good shooters with proper technique. 2 the more power the more vibration and more recoil is a standard rule of thumb so the 920fps gun has more vibe & recoil. 3 the triggers, the cheper gun has a better trigger but plastic, the other is metal but stiff (needs a little work to make it perfect). 4 both guns are name brands but not the "king of the hill" both made in Euro.
hmmmm
I believe it's more personal taste and flavor then the gun. some really want the most power they can get from a gun (these are springers by the way) no matter what the cost.

[raterminator]

LOL, I thought you’re really asking for an opinion. Now, if it’s the test, here is my personal preference: exterior design of any rifle is a big deal to me. I wouldn’t buy the gun which esthetically did not please my eye, BUT I’m not interested in its beauty if it couldn’t do the job either. I would like to have most available powerful springer, but they are all big and heavy, so I stick to more light, not long(43”), 1000fps .177 Gamo Hunter 440 and 720fps .22 Hunter 440.They have a nice look and fair shooters for the money I spend. Another one I would like to have, just because of reputation and caliber differences (.20) is Beeman’s R9. As you see, my preferences are very simple and easy to fulfill.
But theoretically, then money isn’t issue, for a collection I would buy the rifle with best reputation, because it’s a good investment.

Bwess:

In all honesty, I wouldn't speend my money on either of them, as I'd rather shoot a .20 or a .177.

But having said that, yours is an interesting question, so I'll play along, save a little money, and take the 852 fps unit.

That ought to be in the 17 ft/lb class or close to it, which is more power than I need anyhow.

-JP

The whole point was to play along and thank you for doing so. Sometime we "want" the biggest and fast things not taking into account "need". A gun shooting a .22 pellet at 852 has more than enough fpe for hunting small game, but some want more for the sake of more, not that it's a bad thing. I just wanted to see what reaction there was and what gun would get the majority of the vote.
Bart

[Gene_SC]

Gene

I'm just throwing out topics for discussion. all of this is hypothetical. The .20 cal was not in the discussion due to the fact so few manufactures make them. I personally don't want a canon to lug around, If  lighter means less fps but enough to do the job then I'm all for that. Personally as of right now all of my guns are .177 and they have plenty of punch. The question of esthetics, both guns look nice but the more costly gun has better detail.
Bart

It was indeed interesting.  A couple of times a week, I get e-mail through my Uplandhunter.net site inquiring as to why I use such "whimpy" rifles for hunting.

"Surely, if you need a certain amount of power to make a clean kill, then more has to be better, right?"

I reckon it depends on your point of view.  I tend to not put a lot of faith in hydrostatic shock or energy transfer, even when these things are applied to the take of big game with my .30-'06 or the take of even bigger game with my .375 H&H Magnum.

I do, however, have a lot of faith in placement and penetration, and in the idea that there is only one degree of dead.  I also know that as little as 4 ft/bs of impact enegy with the three common smallbore air rifle calibers is enough to a cottontail.  My wimpy rifles will deliver twice that amount at 50 yards, so if I already have two times the needed power, what is the point of having three or four times the power required?

There isn't, for me.  But then again, I hardly need my Porsche to drive to the market for a milk run when a Focus or Cobalt would get the job done just as well, so I can appreciate power and performance for the mere sake of it, too.

-JP
http://www.uplandhunter.net