The basic flaw in the 2 videos is that the guns aren't set up the way they would be set up for people that decide to buy those calibers.
I don't see many buying a .30 and shooting it at 70 FPE and so I don't see many buying a .25 and shooting it at 70 FPE .....yes we will have out of the norm shooters but generally not.
A more representative to reality video would be:
34gr JSB .25 @ 900 fps
51gr JSB .30 @ 900 fps
try do that video I would be very interested to see the results and I bet you many other members will be too 🙂
The basic flaw in the 2 videos is that the guns aren't set up the way they would be set up for people that decide to buy those calibers.
I don't see many buying a .30 and shooting it at 70 FPE and so I don't see many buying a .25 and shooting it at 70 FPE .....yes we will have out of the norm shooters but generally not.
A more representative to reality video would be:
34gr JSB .25 @ 900 fps
51gr JSB .30 @ 900 fps
try do that video I would be very interested to see the results and I bet you many other members will be too 🙂
Until the dawn of the FX Power Plenum, most FX .30 cal guns shot between 70-75fpe.
These days, 80fpe is probably more common.
While .25 guns used to be more like 45-50fpe, these days 70fpe is not uncommon.
The gun used for these tests was my old (sold it to a friend) 100yd benchrest gun.
I did an experiment on pellet stabilization using the Slug A barrel (faster twist rate) at high velocity (tested up to 1000fps).
I found the sweet spot at precisely 965fps average.
That gun is ABSURDLY accurate at 100yd....as long as you're indoor.
Outdoor, the .30 tends to buck the wind better.
Regardless, this is why I chose 70fpe.
It's a realistic crossover point for the two guns.
Admittedly, I'd love to do more testing on this subject...but I have to direct my efforts elsewhere for a while.
I have to do some product reviews and other things, but perhaps I'll revisit this subject in the future.
-Donnie
70 FPE was the early FX Boss and the FX guns, even the Daystate 303 that came out at that time of the Boss was already 100 FPE every other .30 was way more powerful then the FX line, My Evanix came at 95 FPE.
Now a days .30s are in the 90-100 FPE range, while the was majority of .25 are in the 50-60 FPE range
Yeah sorry but 70 FPE is a good overlapping point but way far from real application for them calibers
Click bait confirmed:
""Admittedly, I'd love to do more testing on this subject...but I have to direct my efforts elsewhere for a while.
I have to do some product reviews and other things, but perhaps I'll revisit this subject in the future".
Click bait confirmed:
""Admittedly, I'd love to do more testing on this subject...but I have to direct my efforts elsewhere for a while.
I have to do some product reviews and other things, but perhaps I'll revisit this subject in the future".
For the life of me, I just cannot figure out why you speak.
You're not witty, you're not funny, and you offer nothing of value.
You're not even a passable troll.
You remind me of the kid who was proud of his bowel movements at school.
"Look what I did!"
Good for you, buddy.
Good for you.
You're very special.
I suppose I'm special since I can see exactly what you are doing. Lame, irrelevant posts that waste everyone's time. It's obvious to me you are only trying to push baker's wares and nothing else. The selling point at Baker is to offer the latest and greatest, so the products sell themselves, right?
So, will you buy my product? Hurry up, I need to keep working on this XL pizza.
You have questions? No worries, call (385) 685-5951.
Dear Donnie;
Thanks for this second part. It is laudable to try to put everything into an "even comparison".
It is also hard.
Nomadic Pirate is a hard core hunter, so he sees things from his end and it is a very useful end. I like to see things more under a scientific lens and understand your idea of the "common ground".
I tried to put into your ear the bug that domed pellets are not exactly what a hard-core hunter would use for this particular endeavour but, clearly, I missed the mark. Apologies.
So, I find the conclusions you get to be very valid for precisely these set of circumstances, as I am sure you were very well aware were not "field typical".
Posting the original reason for the blog entry also illustrates my main objection about hunters that do not want to "do their homework". The "lowest common denominator" hunter would go to a department store, buy an established cartridge (.30"-'06, .270") , or any other in the "Biz-Buzz" and just work within the parameters of what is long / established literature. PERHAPS, he will take a few shots to check his zero on opening day (not always and not many, mind you, because ammo is expensive), and then be happy. Sure! there are 1,500 ft-lbs there to spare!
Airgun hunters need to be "top of the cream of the crop" because we are working with very little energy.
In the same way that for smaller targets there are specialty pellets (from the old, venerable, but not always accurate CrowMag, to the current Baracuda Hunter / Hunter Extreme, and the Predators), serious hunters look for those pellets that can afford excellent accuracy (First priority and we all agree on that), and IF POSSIBLE, some expansion so as to create a permanent wound channel that will facilitate the quickness of the kill (second priority). For larger game, IMHO, this requires a deep knowledge and dedication to the craft that is best embodied in specialized projectiles, whether cast or swaged, by the shooter himself or a custom maker, and lots of testing. This should be part of the fun/preparation of the hunt, or it can be a chore.
Where each one of us finds a balance will depend on a number of things and I really do not feel like anyone can say anything that is valid for all, so it will have to remain in the minds of each one of us when we decide on the system to take hunting what we are doing, what obligations we are imposing on ourselves, and what responsibilities we are taking on. And we need to be conscious and serious about all of those.
Others have already pointed out the use of other projectiles, so I will not go there.
The ONLY note I will make is that although the wounds may look the same, when preparing results for publication I would have encouraged you to CAST a silicon mold of the wounds before cutting them open, as there is a "Schrödinger's Cat" situation here. Just to illustrate: the Volume of a 0.30" cal wound that is 17" deep is 1.2 in³, the wound channel of a 0.25" cal wound that is 21" deep is 1.03 in³. This difference would be telling in inflated lung tissue.
Again, thanks for an interesting read, but above all, thanks for being objective and candid and setting out very clearly the conditions under which the results were obtained. Good work!
HM
Dear Donnie;
Thanks for this second part. It is laudable to try to put everything into an "even comparison".
It is also hard.
Nomadic Pirate is a hard core hunter, so he sees things from his end and it is a very useful end. I like to see things more under a scientific lens and understand your idea of the "common ground".
I tried to put into your ear the bug that domed pellets are not exactly what a hard-core hunter would use for this particular endeavour but, clearly, I missed the mark. Apologies.
So, I find the conclusions you get to be very valid for precisely these set of circumstances, as I am sure you were very well aware were not "field typical".
Posting the original reason for the blog entry also illustrates my main objection about hunters that do not want to "do their homework". The "lowest common denominator" hunter would go to a department store, buy an established cartridge (.30"-'06, .270") , or any other in the "Biz-Buzz" and just work within the parameters of what is long / established literature. PERHAPS, he will take a few shots to check his zero on opening day (not always and not many, mind you, because ammo is expensive), and then be happy. Sure! there are 1,500 ft-lbs there to spare!
Airgun hunters need to be "top of the cream of the crop" because we are working with very little energy.
In the same way that for smaller targets there are specialty pellets (from the old, venerable, but not always accurate CrowMag, to the current Baracuda Hunter / Hunter Extreme, and the Predators), serious hunters look for those pellets that can afford excellent accuracy (First priority and we all agree on that), and IF POSSIBLE, some expansion so as to create a permanent wound channel that will facilitate the quickness of the kill (second priority). For larger game, IMHO, this requires a deep knowledge and dedication to the craft that is best embodied in specialized projectiles, whether cast or swaged, by the shooter himself or a custom maker, and lots of testing. This should be part of the fun/preparation of the hunt, or it can be a chore.
Where each one of us finds a balance will depend on a number of things and I really do not feel like anyone can say anything that is valid for all, so it will have to remain in the minds of each one of us when we decide on the system to take hunting what we are doing, what obligations we are imposing on ourselves, and what responsibilities we are taking on. And we need to be conscious and serious about all of those.
Others have already pointed out the use of other projectiles, so I will not go there.
The ONLY note I will make is that although the wounds may look the same, when preparing results for publication I would have encouraged you to CAST a silicon mold of the wounds before cutting them open, as there is a "Schrödinger's Cat" situation here. Just to illustrate: the Volume of a 0.30" cal wound that is 17" deep is 1.2 in³, the wound channel of a 0.25" cal wound that is 21" deep is 1.03 in³. This difference would be telling in inflated lung tissue.
Again, thanks for an interesting read, but above all, thanks for being objective and candid and setting out very clearly the conditions under which the results were obtained. Good work!
HM
Hello Hector,
Very nice to hear from you again.
Thank you very much for evaluating this Part II of my presentation on the subject.
While I always appreciate what you have to say, I very much disagree with the basis of your evaluation.
I am also a hardcore, and long-time, airgun hunter.
I ONLY use round nosed domed pellets.
I know many airgunners who only use round nosed domed pellets.
The only time I deviate from a domed pellet is when I purposely want to impede penetration, such as when I shoot rats at my friend's farm.
I do not want to put holes in his barn or chicken coups, so I use a hollowpoint and only take body shots.
Having said that, on anything but a rat, I will ONLY take headshots.
Projectile expansion is meaningless to me.
As far as the amount of tissue damaged, you would be correct in your calculations if a round nosed domed pellet had sharp shoulders like a wadcutter and completely removed all of the tissue in it's way like a drill.
That is not what happens.
A good amount of tissue is simply displaced and stretched.
It is my observation that in both ballistics gel and in muscle tissue, that there is no observable difference in the size of the permanent wound cavity.
Perhaps you should conduct an experiment yourself and see if your results differ from mine?
While I admit that it's possible there's a MEASURABLE difference, it would be so minor that I would consider it insignificant.
Again, I thank you for your reply.
-Donnie
Stop confusing the issue with facts ? ? ?
And, how good was that smoked pork loin???
@baker-airguns-donnie
Hello Donnie!
We agree more than you think. I would also like to take ONLY head shots, but sometimes the "job" is not that.
And then you need to be not only effective, but efficient. And it is then that body shots become important. Yes you need to know the anatomy of the animal in question intimately.
And it is then that lethality takes a new meaning. Things need to be dead and "pronto", there is no tracking, no waiting out for the animal to bleed, no extra time. The Mike Pearson rule of 5/5 (5 seconds and not more than 5 feet from where it was hit) applies.
I've seen my share of jawless squirrels and beakless pigeons to not know that some head shots go terribly wrong.
Anyway, I applaud you again for imposing on yourself the limitation of taking only head shots. It's just not always possible for me.
Just as a note, here are my current/present favourites and, what I hope will be my future favourite pellet:
From left: H&N Baracuda Hunter Extreme 0.177", Predator 0.20" , Predator 0.25" , Commercial cast 0.457" , Griffin SPRBTHP 0.457"
Yes, some tests will be forthcoming sometime in the future. For now, too engrossed in the Nationals.
Hope to see you soon!
HM
I am all about Head shots, even with 400 FPE .50, 300 FPE ,45 and a variety of .357s ranging from 130 FPE to 275 FPE I still took headshots on Wild boar.
But I also used .22 a lot even on big boars or even .177 once,
.......so is .22 deadlier then .50 then ? it sure achieved the same results,
for that matter a .50 would have had the same results that the .177 did.
My problem with this thread is the blanket statements and the obvious flaw of using guns for the most out of the parameters those guns would have been bought for.
i don't know about the .30 cal, but my Seneca Eagle Claw .25 is a very hard hitting .25- (it's supposed to get aroudn 70 fpe with the 33.94 gr pellets)
I put up a metal shower stall wall just to test what the pellets would do- I don't know what kind of metal it is- it's a bit softer metal, as i could bend it fairly easily- unlike harder tempered metal- and i shot the metal several times-I'm thinking maybe it was tin? The older soft style? I dunno for sure- not sure how thick it was- but a 5 foot by 3 foot section had some weight to it- Anyways-
2 of the pellets broke holes in it, but didn't go all the way through- but lemme just say though, I could have hit i n the same spot twice, as i wasn't really aiming at anything in particular, just trying to hit the metal to see what woudl happen- I examined the two posts that broke through, and it didn't look to me like they were double hits- but i can't tell for sure- I'd have to use another part of the metal for another test to be sure- The other shots put serious dents- and looked like they were about to break through judging by how stressed the back of the metal looked where it was hit-
For comparison- my .22 Avenger hardly even dents the metal- the dent that is there is about a little larger than a pencil eraser with the .22, and a small dimple on the back- Dents from the .25 are much larger- about maybe 1/3 golf-ball size maybe- with serious bulging on the back of the sheet-
Wish i had the .30 cal to test beside the .25 on the metal to see- but i don't- I'm thinking it might be similar or more go through? woudl be interesting to see-
how about clay blocks- they hold the impact cavity pretty well, and can be seen by slicing them open with a string- but not sure how accurate they are compared to hunting say hogs? I have seen some videos showing the impact different pellet types have on the clay- some have larger expansion cavities (right after the pellet enters, and starts meeting the resistance- the initial expansion area can get pretty large-)than others-
But again- clay may be different than other substance? When you shot the .30, the entrance hole seemed to expand more than the .25, but settled back down to a smaller hole as the tissue settled into place- it was hard ot tell- super slow mo would have helped see the initial impact -
The .30 almost flipped the loin over- the .25 made it jump pretty good too, but not as severe- BUT that could have been, and likely was, because of where the impacts were- the .25 was more towards center- the .30 on the side, so the expanding flesh pushed that side up off the table more, and was lighter than where the .25 hit-
