by B.B. Pelletier
Photos and testing by Earl “Mac” McDonald
Ruger’s Air Magnum Combo is a big, new, powerful breakbarrel.
Today, we’re back with the .177 caliber Ruger Air Magnum Combo rifle. You’ll remember that this is a very powerful breakbarrel springer, and we want to see how close to the advertising it comes. You’ll also remember that this rifle cocks with 58 lbs. of force, so it’s meant for hunting, not for casual plinking. And, the barrel comes back farther than most breakbarrels when the rifle is cocked, giving you a short area where the cocking becomes very difficult because of how your hands have to hold it.
Right into testing
The first pellet tested was the JSB Exact heavy, a 10.2-grain domed lead pellet. Knowing up front that this rifle is a blaster, we can also predict that the heavier pellets will be better suited to the power of this powerplant because their weight will prevent them from going supersonic.
Mac recorded 10 JSBs at an average of 970 f.p.s., with a 15 foot-second spread from 966 to 981 f.p.s. At that speed, this pellet generates 21.32 foot-pounds of energy at the muzzle.
Next, he tried 8.3-grain RWS Superdomes.. These averaged 1108 f.p.s., with a 20 foot-second spread from 1092 to 1112 f.p.s. They produced an average 22.6 foot-pounds, which is really pushing it for a .177 pellet. However, at that velocity they’re also right at the sound barrier, and I doubt they’ll hold together for accuracy at range.
The lightest all-lead pellet he has are RWS Hobbys. At just 7 grains, they’re far too light for this powerplant. They averaged 1186 f.p.s., so good luck trying to keep them quiet. The spread was also large, at 36 f.p.s., running from 1169 to 1.205 f.p.s. And, at the average speed, they produced an average 21.9 foot-pounds of muzzle energy.
Next, Mac tried Crosman Premier heavies, the 10.5-grain pellet. This pellet should certainly slow down the big rifle to a useful level for accuracy. But, they averaged 1011 f.p.s., which is a little on the fast side for best accuracy. They produced a 25 foot-second spread that ran from 998 to 1023 f.p.s., and the average muzzle energy was 23.8 foot-pounds — the highest of the test.
Finally, Mac tried RWS HyperMAX lead-free pellets. In a powerhouse like this Ruger, these 5.2-grain pellets are nothing more than bragging rights. At first, Mac got velocities in the high 1300s, but he noticed a very loose fit in the bore. When he flared the skirts, the velocities went up to 1430-1435 f.p.s. and were very consistent. He didn’t give me an average string to work with, but using 1430 as an average, this pellet produced an average muzzle energy of 23.62 foot-pounds.
In the next report, Mac will show us the accuracy he saw with the test rifle, and then he has a special bonus feature. He’ll show us how to change the parallax of the scope, as I mentioned in Part 1 of this report. The 4x scope that comes with the rifle has no parallax adjustment, but an owner can select the optimum range and adjust the parallax for that one distance. It should be an interesting time.
68 thoughts on “Ruger Air Magnum Combo – Part 2”
Benjamin Marauder Pistol number 76 to 100 are going on sale today at 11 eastern time.
Get one and enjoy it for me lucky bunch of %?&)#$%?
I’m wondering about the accuracy of the RWS HyperMax pellets. I’ve forgotten which rifle review I was reading on PA’s sight in which the reviewer said something to the effect that he was getting excellent accuracy with them.
Defenition of ‘excellent accuracy’……….minute of oil drum at 50feet, minute of cow barn at 50 yds.
Sent you an email Friday evening. Haven’t seen you on the blog since. Are you in circulation?
The trigger and safety on this rifle look strangely like the D48. Do you know if the similarity ends there?
If by D48 you mean the Diana 48 sidelever, here’s my observation.
Looks can be deceiving. Just because metal is bent in a certain way is no guarantee that it will function the same as something else. The trigger on this rifle is definitely not like the trigger on a Diana 48.
I did not expect it to be the same in function and quality. I only wondered if the similarity stopped on the outside. Possibly an attempt to copy the Diana in some way.
Hi twotalon -all you need is to compare Ruger Blackhawk and Diana 34 P -they have some similar parts i would say 😉 but for Blackhawk i have heard (read) some nice reviews -but i will stay skeptic still.
Crosman has the next 25 Marauder pistols available today at 11:00 am.
I’m going to pass, but I’ve had my eye on the Rossi Puma remake of the Winchester 92 in .357. This is a long shot, but anyone own one of these?
Looks like a fun plinker that I can use up heavy .357 magnum ammo in that I tend to avoid out of a 2.1 inch barrel.
Mac has one that he likes a lot. Very accurate and a smooth shooter. He shoots 158-grain JHP loaded hot.
Volvo: I have one of the older Rossi 92’s ,but not in .357 but in .44-40 cal and like it very much and I have an original 92to compare it to. The fit and finish is excellent , functioning and accuracy is very good. Wood on my gun is very plain and not walnut ,but some south American hardwood. I have mounted a Williams peep sight on mine and replaced the front blade which is pined on in mine. I made a blade out of a front sight from a Ruger 10-22 that had a cracked base. I just milled it into a flat blade the same thickness as the factory blade, and pinned it on the same way. I have shot many .357 levers (92’s&94 Marlins) and all are very pleasant to shoot with .38 special loads. About like shooting a rimfire ,zero recoil and very good accuracy. The .38 special and .357 magnum loads are quite a bit more potent in the rifle than the pistol. I have shot a moderately loaded .357cast lead bullet completely through the skull of a 1500 lb steer with the one we used when we used to butcher our own meat. I would have no trouble hunting deer with one at ranges under 100 yards,Robert.
B.B. and Robert,
Thanks for the info. Glad to hear they work okay. I read that the older ones lack the a safety which is appealing too.
The only thing I found cheap about the Rossi was the open sights,which is why I mentioned what I replaced them with. Mine doesn’t have a safety , and it wasn’t drilled or tapped for the receiver sight. My Marlin 1894 CL’s all are drilled and tapped for receiver sights and scope mounts, and all have the crossbar safety. Another thing is the rifling. The Marlin .44 mag and .357 mag , we used had the micro -groove rifling. Not so good with most cast bullet loads. My CL’s have the “Ballard ” style rifling, and the Rossi also has regular type rifling which is OK for both cast and jacketed bullets. The cross bar safety on the newer Marlins isn’t such a bad thing, as it allows unloading safer, Robert.
I like the Marlin 1892, just because I’m different, (and its high on my list of ctg. rifles to buy), but either one is a great idea for fun shooting and hunting within reason. 100 yards would cover most if not all deer situations in woods here handily.
Make that Marlin 1894, although it doesn’t matter — looks like they are still hard to find.
I like the Rossi remake ’cause it’s cheap!
Well, you know I won’t argue with that :). I just checked Bud’s and the price difference is more than I thought it was — they seem to sell like hotcakes either way. The Marlin 1894 is a different design from the Winchester 1894, in case you didn’t realize it — short action for pistol-like calibers like the Winchester 1892. Should check one out if you think it is something you’d like to keep for a while. I like the Marlin 1894 and the 1895 (longer action), and hope to get one of both if I ever have time, money and opportunity to mess with them :). The Rossi doesn’t sound bad either.
Has anyone heard from rikib? He hasn’t commented in quite sometime. Rikib–If you’re reading, let us know that you’re okay 🙂
I just emailed him and asked him to stop by and say hey. I have not heard from him either.
Edith and Gene.
I know Rikib has been real busy getting jobs done at home recently.
I gave him some advice on how to get the workmen to pull their finger out(hurry up)lol
Funny you should bring that up because I was thinking about Rikib this morning and wondering if he’s ok.
I exchange emails with Rikib (Rick) from time to time. He last emailed me on Nov. 27th. I’m sure he’s ok. He has lots of family that are spread all out. This being the holiday season, I’m sure he’s quite busy. Even without the holiday season, he has like 14 animals or more that he has rescued, bless his heart.
He will be by to drop a poignant quote any day I’m sure.
🙂 I’m here along with a couple quotes:
“All I can do is be me, whoever that is.”
“Friends can help each other. A true friend is someone who lets you have total freedom to be yourself – and especially to feel. Or, not feel. Whatever you happen to be feeling at the moment is fine with them. That’s what real love amounts to – letting a person be what he really is.”
BB, Need your comments/ suggestions on the Tech Force TF79 rifle.
Is it basically a clone of the old Crosman 160 guns?
Have you shot a TF79 and any comments?
How are the cosmetics and the “cleanliness” of the actions etc?
Last, can you shoot a Diopter Cup Sight with glasses on? (I never shot with a Diopter)
There is a huge history of the Chinese version of the Crosman 160, beginning with the QB 22. But to cut through all the stuff, yes, the TF 79 is a 160 clone.
I have tested many of them and find them to be very nice. They are fully as clean and well-finished as a 160, but the barrels are more iffy. Some are great and some are only okay.
I’ve never tried to use a diopter cup with glasses, but I think that the lenses will defeat the purpose of the cup.
10.2gr – 966 to 981 f.p.s.
10.5gr – 998 to 1023 f.p.s.
????? Are the laws of physics suspended here? Did they not both fit tight?
Is it possible someone read what’s on the lid rather than weighing?
We’ve had differences between lid numbers and scale numbers before, you know?
This happens all the time. It has to do with the fit of the pellet, relative to the power of the gun. In a lesser-powered rifle the lighter pellets will be faster.
The weights are correct.
If they both fit tight, wouldn’t that mean that the lighter pellet was shorter, thereby making it fit just as tight as the heavier pellet? Both would have the same girth but not the same length. Just throwing out ideas off the top of my head.
Edith: Off topic , but I have a question on shipping from PA. Can a customer specify that an item be shipped by UPS? I don’t care if I have to phone in the order or if I don’t get free shipping. I have had several problems with Fed Ex delivery from PA and I have offered feed back and a summary of those problems via E-mail to PA’s customer service ,but have not ever received any responce back. I will not waste space here with the problems I’ve had. It may be that it is just a problem with my area , but I’ve had it with them, so much so that I am reluctant to order stuff ,Robert.
Robert from Arcade,
Call in your order to request UPS shipping.
Edith: Thank-you for that information, and I will do that with future orders. We have a very good relationship with our UPS guy as he has had the route for several years.I would like to stress that it is not PA’s fault on the Fed-ex delivery issues I’ve had. We have had very bad luck with FedEx delivery of other packages from other vendors as well, and prefer not to reward such service with repeat business. You folks really promote the sport through this blog, and through donations such as those gift certificates on the recent yellow forum raffel, and the round-off for the NRA. I like to do business with suppliers like yourselves, as it’s not just about a price point. Take care,Robert.
Chuck, I’ve found that lighter pellets will sometimes not fly as fast as slightly heavier ones in a particular gun…I guess it has to do with the fit of the pellet in the breech and/or the bore combined with velocity. Advertised pellet weights may not be accurate or consistent. My RWS 350 Compact throws CP domes (14.3 gr) at 840 fps average but 13.43 grain JSB Jumbo RS domes shoot 30 fps slower! RWS Superdomes are listed as being slightly heavier than the CP’s at 14.5 grain, but fly slightly faster at 845 to 850 fps. Unfortunately, my gun is very pellet-sensitive and only the CP’s shoot accurately enough for me…I hope they keep making them!
I was wondering how lone the nitro pistons would last, so contacted PA and they don’t handle them yet, but told me to go to crosman. Crosman says that the pistons should last many many years and the replacement nitro pistons would run about 25.00 depending on the gun.
Oracle (B.B. and all of you),
I humbly come to you once again to ask for help. Maybe in five years I will be able to return all favors and start helping others for a change, instead of always asking for help…
The reason I asked that question yesterday about the scope is that i am having issues with the TX200 (.177). Yes, the one I got two months ago. I cannot hold a group of less than 1 inch at 13 yd.
When I got it, I did several tests with the benched rifle and got these wonderful one-hole groups that inspired awe. I did not shoot it benched again until this week. I have been exclusively shooting off-hand at 25 yd off hand at a gun range, and at 13 yd at home. Last week I noticed that I was not able to hit consistently the 1-inch target spot at 25 yd. Then, I decided to go back to bench and see if there was a problem.
The rifle is spraying the shots. Sometimes, I get two, and maybe three consecutive in the same place, then it opens up to the right, left, up, or down (more often to the left or right and slightly up, but not always). I initially thought it was the new shipment of CP lights I got last week, which were fitting a little bit easier in the breech than the previous batch. Nope, it is not that. The old CP lights are shooting as bad. I also used wadcutters: same thing (even worse). It is not the pellets
I thought I had lost the touch for benchrest of so much shooting offhand. Nope, getting good groups with Diana. So it is not me for sure
Last night, I dialed down the scope, and up, and then down again. I got better groups when I dialed it down. Not perfect as before, but I would not expect them to be when POI is 3 inches below POA. So, I thought that it was the scope (Leapers 6-24×50). Then switched to a smaller Leapers 4-9. I was hopeful. However, I was getting the same horrible groups again ( I recently used this scope on the DIsco and was doing fine)
I hate boxing somethign and putting it in the mail, so I am determined to figure this out by myself. Do you have ideas as to what the possible issue is? I have the following:
– Abnormal firing behavior due to shot or unlubricated spring? The rifle is more twangy than before. I had already gotten a new spring and lubricants just to be prepared in case this ever happened….
– Pellets hitting the shroud? I cannot even fathom how this could happen
– Dirty and leaded bore. I think this could be an issue but, the rifle is new, I have shot it less than 1,000 times, and I do not think it would decrease accuracy that much
– Two broken scopes (1 in million chance)
I will take the rifle apart and examine it. I will apply tar to the spring (sparingly, I know). I was going to that anyway before this happened. Most likely, the tar will not fix it. What should I be looking at for signs of trouble? Anything that can tell me whether I need to replace the spring? Any other ideas?
I will shine a light down the bore tonight and check the shroud.
To clean the bore, in case I decide to go that route, any advice that I can use? I would need to clean from the muzzle right? I would use JB paste.
Your problem sounds like a classic one of the scope erector tube floating. Try raising the rear of the scope and see what that does.
To test to see if I am right, crank the scope 100 clicks down and see how tight the groups are. That will tell you positively whether it is the scope.
Tunnel Engineer, afraid that I don’t know the answer to your problem. But I very much doubt that offhand shooting will disturb your rested shooting. Offhand seems to translate very well on the rare occasions when I get out to the shooting range.
Doubt if the twang is doing it. My 48 started buzzing before I tuned it, but did not bother the rifle.
My 97K twanged so loud it completely covered up any other sound, and kept shaking all the screws loose, but did not hurt accuracy.
Clean the barrel good with a brush and lube those cp. Do that first. When they start to lead up, they lead fast.
I am a fellow TX200 owner who once had serious accuracy problems out of nowhere. My problem was that I had removed the little rubber bumper that fits into the barrel shroud that cushions the cocking lever when returned home. I installed a grub screw into that hole, but made the mistake of adjusting it after the loctite had dried. It moved upwards into the barrel and into the path of the pellet. Talk about vibration!
BB graciously did a blog about tearing down the TX200 when I was having my problems. If you follow that procedure, and do a little extra dissassembly, you will be able to access the barrel from the breech end, for inspection and cleaning (with JB’s nebcc). My barrel was quite dirty after about 2000 pellets. My TX200 likes CPLs, but I make sure to only used lubed pellets in that rifle now.
I admire your marksmanship in off hand shooting. Mine weighs so much, I have to stabilize it somehow.
I think you’re on the right track. I assume when you mount the two scopes on other guns they perform well? Don’t forget to check all your screws for tightness, i.e., stock, mount, rings, trigger guard etc.
My best guess is a leaded barrel since the TX shoots fast and you’ve shot over 1,000 cp’s through it. Yes, scrub the bore with jb bore paste and a bronze brush. Run patches until clean then put a thin film of krytech or fp 10. Do you lube your premiers?
no, I do not lube the CPs. All screws are tight. I even loosened them some to see what would happen…Velocity is up to spec
Same problem with the other scope. I did 132 clicks down, then up, and then down again. When down, I got better groups, which made me think it was the scope. The I switched scopes and same problem. Maybe both are damaged… Can a damaged spring be responsible for this? Again, velocity seems unchanged
My vote is to clean the bore. I’d also suggest trying to shoot a few pellets lubed with krytech and see how they do.
Are you referring to Finish Line Krytech (I did a search for Krytech)? I never heard of Krytech, nor any other product for lubricating pellets. There aren’t any adverse effects if you use this on a high velocity springer?
No reason to dial the elevation back when doing this experiment. And I doubt that both scopes are bad. I still think it’s a drooper problem, but Kevin may have something about the bore being leaded, too.
I’m going to share a recent experience that was similar to your issue but may or may not apply.
A friend brought over his new HW50S and when we shot the gun the poi started shifting. It would group 2 or 3 shots tightly then open up left right high low etc. Tightened all his screws, including the mounts and rings. Didn’t help. Cleaned the barrel. Didn’t help.
The scope he had mounted was a bushnell legend 5-15 that I sold him and the last time I used the scope it was fine so as a last resort I suggested that maybe the scope was shot. In other words I sold him a bill of goods. I had a leupold still in the mounts sitting on the bench and we took his mount off and slapped the leupold and mount I had laying there on the gun. Viola! The gun shot a small one hole group at 30 yards. I was disgusted since I knew I just bought my scope back. BUT, before we finished I suggested we put the bushnell legend in my mounts that were now on his gun. Took the leupold off put the bushnell on and the gun shot a small one hole group at 30 yards!!! Yep, you guessed it. His mount was not slipping on his dovetail, the rings were tight but the rings were slightly oversize and the scope was moving in the rings. The rings were tight enough that you couldn’t rotate the scope by hand but the shot cycle was moving the scope. He admitted to taking the black tape from the inside of his rings and now the rings were oversized. Not sure if this is your problem but thought I would share this experience.
The upcoming article on changing the parallax distance on a fixed parallax scope sounds intriguing. I have a few 100 yd scopes that I’l like to set to 30 yds or so.
Looking forward to the lesson.
I heard from rikib the other day. He’s probably out tearing it up in the mud on his motorcycle.
I’ve got a couple new fans of your nip club.
I’ve misplaced, the computer ate, or most likely my last three functioning brain cells are on a winter break, because I no longer have your e-mail address. I’ve got some cat pictures for you. Please contact me at Dropdog2@Aol.com. Thanks
Anyone know offhand how the muzzle energy compares to the RWS 350 which is my gold standard for powerful air rifles?
Gene, how interesting about the birds of prey. They are one of my passions. The bump in the nose of hawks and falcons sounds just like the carbuncles on the humpback whales. There may be something in this yet for airgunning. In reference to the high speed dives of peregrine falcons, the bump sounds similar to the dive flap used on p-38 Lightning fighters to over come compressibility. The p-38 was one of the first planes to approach the sound barrier in a dive because of its radical and clean design, and this speed produced buffeting forces on the tail that could tear the plane apart. Pilots were so frightened of this that they would not put their planes into a dive which could seriously hinder your aerial tactics. The problem was fixed by a dive flap that could be lowered and would somehow change the airflow to eliminate compressibility (without reducing the plane’s speed). Sounds like the nose bump of your hawks. By the way, I am developing the new sport of interactive bird watching by flying my rc airplanes with the local raptors. They like the powered glider which soars like they do, but they want nothing to do with my Corsair which they can easily evade. That would be the summit of pilot skill to be able to fly with them in a friendly interactive way but not to be expected for some time.
Pete, your considerations of fluid flow make a lot of sense. I remember the F-104 Starfighter as a certain culmination of fighter design. What an exciting plane with its great speed and wings with edges like razorblades. However, it never got a chance to show itself in combat which we should be grateful for I suppose since its role was for defense against strategic nuclear bombers in the Cold War. It also appears to have been a certain dead end in fighter design since it could go very fast in a straight line but not do much else. The trend now appears to be toward supermaneuverability. Indeed in the development of the F-15/16 generation of aircraft, the wisdom is that a plane can be too fast to be effective. It will either go over the horizon and out of the action of a dogfight. Or high speed will work against turn radius and open it up. However, the “manned missile” ideal of fighters may be making a comeback with the F-35 whose sensors are so sophisticated that its missiles will find the right direction as the plane flies straight. We’ll see if they ever get that plane off the ground.
On the subject of high technology, it would seem that our new XM25 grenade launcher is shortly to be cast into the shade by a .50 caliber smart bullet. This time Chairgun is built into the bullet and will compensate for wind and humidity. Let’s speculate on the price of that ammo….
I’m glad the Starfighter never saw action! In some sense it pushed the envelope a bit too far, as the German F-104G had the nickname of “Widow Maker” because of the enormous number of operational crashes. I’ve never seen an explanation, but I imagine there is one somewhere.
You’re dead right about the fact that fighters can be too fast to do much but wave at a target as the whiz past w/o acquisition. It’s also true that globally fighter design converged on a couple of very similar designs — call them the F-15 style and the F-16 style for convenience. If you go through an old recognition book from the 90s you’ll find that Soviet US European and Swedish fighters all got very similar looking, broken down into those 2 categories. MiG-29, for example being hard to tell from F-15 at a quick glance, so much did the technologies converge. MiG-23 and F-14 Tomcat again pretty similar.
A buddy of mine worked on the earliest concept studies for the smart bullet. Quite an interesting concept!
Here’s some information on the F-104. “In many quarters, the F-104 has the unenviable reputation of being a difficult and dangerous aircraft to fly, an aircraft with unforgiving handling characteristics. Certainly, it has had an appallingly poor safety record in use with some air forces but a relatively good one in others. In fairness, the record seems to suggest that the aircraft can be flown with reasonable safety if the pilots are properly trained and the aircraft is maintained and flown strictly in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations. Apparently, however, the aircraft can be terribly unforgiving of any departure from these recommended procedures.”
It’s not an aircraft for the poorly trained or careless, kind of like the P-38 during WWII.
That anonymous was me; my office machine doesn’t list me automatically, I just realized.
In fact, Starfighter was used in combat thrice.
First – in Vietnam. AFAIR, no kills for F-104, but 1 kills for MiG-19 of CPLA, Starfighter crossed Chinese border. Other losses for that flying coffin were SAMs, gunfire and its favourites – engine failure and crash landing.
Second – India-Pakistan wars of 1965 and 1971. AFAIR in ’65 PAF 104’s shot down some subsonic IAF planes (British-buit) and in ’71 IAF took back the initiative with newly-bought MiG-21s, taking down 2 104s and providing very good data for USSR specialists on 104’s avionics and combat characteristics.
Third – some brawl between PRC and Taiwan for some island in Taiwan strait in 1967. 2 kills by surprise attack by Taiwanese F-104, both MiG-19, 1 aircraft lost.
However, there were even crazier projects in terms of high-speed-fly-straight 😉 E.g. Skunk Works planned to make what later became SR-71 into fighter. Well, some dogfight with its agility… It was planned to use as an interceptor agains Soviet bombers with air-to-air nukes.
As for me, most beautiful fighter is a Spitfire IX or M.B.5. I don’t like supersonic whistles.
I should add that the theoretical limit to top speed for fighter effectiveness seems to be not that far above the speed of sound. (Like airguns!) 1500mph for the F-15 is too fast–besides consuming an exorbitant amount of fuel. But this barrier seems to be set by the speed of human reaction times, so maybe with new technology and instrumentation things will change.
The email address you have must be for a different kevin that posts on the yellow. My email address is klentz4 “at” comcast.net
Yep, figured it was a different Kevin after I started browsing the BOI and found you there. This other Kevin sells a LOT of guns on there.
🙂 I’M STILL AROUND!
Thanks to all concerned! I’ve had a lot going on. Home improvements that didn’t go according to plan, but are finished for the most part. Health issues ongoing, getting worse not better.
I received some personal e-mails asking me where I was on the blog/forum and I appreciate that. I have not been on the blog in quite some time.
Maybe ya’ll miss some of my quotes, lol 🙂 🙂
I’ll try and check in more often while I sort myself out. Just need to remember to: Think Happy Thoughts, like they said in Peter Pan
Rikib glad to see ya on the blog again 🙂
It seems I was quite right whet I told Milan not to worry about new Ruger’s power 🙂 Fantastic 1400 fps is achieved only with lightest pellets possible. Well, anyway, 1000 fps with heavies sounds very respectable, I like CP Heavies the way they flew from this monster. Tightest-fitting pellet made from relatively hard alloy, I was almost sure it’ll beat all the others.
And that old trick with 1400 fps…
I should say that’s a bit worrying me. I mean marketologists’ approach to airguns. It worsens their reputation – cheaper technologies, less quality, less durablity and shining numbers instead of a reliable, precision tool that will serve one for decades without loosing its effectiveness. Of course, such rifles have their niche and there are buyers, but as far as I see springer world – less quality tools, more shining numbers. Or maybe it’s just me getting old and grouchy? 🙂
Yep, you are getting old and grouchy. It happens to most of us, I guess, as we live to see some things we would never wish on anyone, and they slip through the system. 😉
I would normally choose .22 for hunting, but pushing those 10+ grain .177’s at 970 fps and 21 fpe sounds perfect for any birds, squirrels, rabbits etc at extended ranges. BB…at what range would the energy of this pellet fall to around the 5 fpe level needed to take smaller game? I understand the ballistic coefficient of different pellets comes into play but I’m just looking for an approximate answer. Seems ideal to be shooting at just under sonic level, and the potential for a nice flat trajectory is very appealing. There seems to be a lot of general advisory against magnums in .177 and while I understand going supersonic is not good, it’s also easy enough to simply select the heavier pellets when ordering!
BTW, I did the JB Bore Paste “new gun” procedure on my RWS 350 Pro Compact .22 and the groups are very, very good…thanks BB!
Ken, a while ago we were having a discussion on just how far a pellet travels before it drops from supersonic to subsonic speeds given it’s weight, ballistic coefficient and starting speed. Someone here and I apologize for forgetting whom, came up with the answers with Chairgun software. I don’t have this software but this should be able to tell you how far a pellet would travel before it’s energy drops to 5 ft.lbs. Go to http://www.chairgun.com for the software. Heck, maybe I’ll download it, too.
I’ll give it a look, thanks Fred!
I would guess that a pellet from the Ruger would still be above 5 foot-pounds at 80 yards or so.
And isn’t it amazing how JB bore paste can turn accuracy around?
BB, I basically look at it as the final step of manufacture; we just need to do it ourselves. Thanks for pointing me in that direction. I’ll look up that blog topic and comment there in some detail on what I did and a couple things I tried slightly differently. Shooting 1″ ctc 10-shot groups at 35 yards, with many 3/4″ ctc 5-shot groups and a few 1/2″ ctc 5-shot groups. Gun is RWS 350 Compact .22 w/ Leapers T/S scope.
Nice to hear from you my friend. Yes, there a quite a few of us that miss your quotes. Home improvements never seem to go to plan here. My house was built in the early 20’s and the saying in the neighborhood is beware the 20 minute job cause they’ll take at least a day and a half.
How are your animals doing–any new additions?
Home improvements about 90% complete for now. Some went well, others not so.
Since I was last blogging I’m not sure if I mentioned our latest addition to the family is a Pomeranian. Previous owners were keeping her as an outdoor dog, rarely letting her in the house.
Unfortunately I had to bury one of our cats. It was struck down by a vehicle in front of our house. So our current tally is 6 dogs and 9 cats.