EDgun Matador shooting 150 meters.
Here is another video of EDgun Matador shooting .22 caliber. The speed of 18 grain pellet (I haven’t selected pellets by their weights, just “from the can”) is 885 f/sec. The distance is 150 meters (164 yards). We used as a target cans with disgusting chemical alcohol beverage, they poison our youth with 🙁 The size of the can is 65.75 mm (2.58 inches). The weather conditions is not perfect, the wind from the right to the left from 6 f/sec up to 16 f/sec. The disadvantage is the new gun rest, I used for the first time and just didn’t get used to it. In fact the shooting is much more comfortable with them and I do hope there will be better results in the future with them. The .22 caliber for can shooting is much more effective in comparison to .177. Remember the Lelya shooting with 7.5 grain pellets at the speed 885 f/sec at the distance 75 meters (twice as closer as this shooting) no one pellet was able to penetrate the liquid inside the can through to hit the opposite side of the can. In .22 as you see there is no problem to hit both sides of the can through the liquid.
The next range for us is 200 meters (219 yards). We are trying to find that range in our area but there is nothing we can use 🙁 But we will go on trying and I do hope will be in a success 🙂
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uL5m0mzTuSA
Here is slow motion 10 times slower:
All Replies
Ed, what about the new .25 predator polymag thats coming out? That should be a good pellet for the .25 right?
Being certain to assert at the outset, in the words of our famed member ‘Akula’, that all parties understand:
[i]”Penetration, however insignificant, is sufficient to complete the act!“[/i]
An actual measurement of relative accuracy, impact depth/width, with pictures, should resolve at least the issue of fpe.
As far as shooting “flatter” If the scope is zeroed with the .22, then the POI with the .25 should not experience a major change.
These results must be certified by no fewer than two women, no more than 30 years of age, and by pictures of these young women, from all angles, before, during, and after, this event.
Short of this pictoral evidence, in color, from a camera of no less than 10 megapixels, I must stand unconvinced!
I call upon our bretheran in Hawaii, where scant clothing is not untoward, nor unseemly, to beseech young women of Asian extraction to participate, with due diligence, and appropriate bikini-wear, so as not to detract from the seriousness of this event. With these two capable assistants at hand, a qualified male shooter, with a member of his posse to take pictures, should undertake this task!
Gentlemen, this is hard core science at work. And Hawaii, as a sovereign nation, should be the independent proving grounds.
Humbly…..
Kindly ‘Ol Uncle Hoot 😯
PS: Of course, we could always let Mamcrackin do it…..but why???
I look forward to your report on those great ideas Hoot… Should be just
as interesting as all of the other useful information and comparisons you
have posted… How long do you think it will take for you to complete that
project? I bow to your expertise and relinquish the responsibility to
you…
What we need is a two caliber shoot off, from the same type rifle, same pressure, same distance, same muzzle fps, into ballistic jelly.
Being certain to assert at the outset, in the words of our famed member ‘Akula’, that all parties understand:
[i]”Penetration, however insignificant, is sufficient to complete the act!“[/i]
An actual measurement of relative accuracy, impact depth/width, with pictures, should resolve at least the issue of fpe.
As far as shooting “flatter” If the scope is zeroed with the .22, then the POI with the .25 should not experience a major change.
These results must be certified by no fewer than two women, no more than 30 years of age, and by pictures of these young women, from all angles, before, during, and after, this event.
Short of this pictoral evidence, in color, from a camera of no less than 10 megapixels, I must stand unconvinced!
I call upon our bretheran in Hawaii, where scant clothing is not untoward, nor unseemly, to beseech young women of Asian extraction to participate, with due diligence, and appropriate bikini-wear, so as not to detract from the seriousness of this event. With these two capable assistants at hand, a qualified male shooter, with a member of his posse to take pictures, should undertake this task!
Gentlemen, this is hard core science at work. And Hawaii, as a sovereign nation, should be the independent proving grounds.
Humbly…..
Kindly ‘Ol Uncle Hoot 😯
PS: Of course, we could always let Mamcrackin do it…..but why???
Nice shooting Ed… a few more days and I can test the .22 and .25 my self…
It is simple… If the .25 does not perform as well as the .22 then I send back
to Russia…Yes? Just kidding.. Every gun has it’s place and use and is better
in one particular situation than another…. That is why I need all of the
EDguns… I have a lot of situations out here…lol
Hoot, I know im not even touching on BC calculations etc.
The thing is that I am talking about the exact same pellet in each calibre. The diablo shape of the JSB in .22, if it is increased in size equally so it was .25 in diameter, then the BC would be greater, surely there is no argument about that.
My statement of
” In fact, .22 pellets loose energy quicker than .25 pellets and .177 are even worse.”
Has no mention on accuracy because that wasn’t the subject of my sentance. I was responding to the fact that ED said that he didn’t like the .25 as much as .22 because it looses its energy in such a short time, where this is not true.
I have used both .22 and .25 and, for the same pellet in each calibre, at the same speeds, the .25 shoots flatter.
Dave
Dave
Ballastic Co-Effenciency as a product of Sectional density is a very complicated aspect of a bullet, and is the ratio of frontal surface area (half the bullet diameter squared, times pi) to bullet mass. Since, for a given bullet shape, frontal surface increases as the square of the caliber, and mass increases as the cube of the diameter, then sectional density grows linearly with bore diameter. In other words, a big flat faced projectile won’t perform the same as a pointed tip, boat-tailed projectile, of the same caliber and weight.
Use of ballistics tables or ballistics software based on the Siacci/Mayevski G1 drag model, introduced in 1881, are the most common method used to work with external ballistics. Bullets are described by a ballistic coefficient, or BC, which combines the air resistance of the bullet shape (the drag coefficient) and its sectional density (a function of mass and bullet diameter).
Or, in plain English, or plain Russian, what Ed is saying is correct! There are so many factors involved in BC that a single formula cannot correctly calculate the given BC of any projectile. The projectile design is all important in achieving the end product, which is correct placement of the shot, so the energy can then do its work.
The point is very simple: The shape of the projectile, its linear design, its weight distribution, and surface features are ALL IMPORTANT in determining the effective BC of any projectile.
In a perfect world, this would be simple to understand, but there are too many variables involved. To say a .25 caliber projectile will travel as fast, hit harder, and travel in a flatter trajectory than a .22 caliber is an over simplification of a very complicated matter.
In fact, most articles on ballastic co-effenciency simply imply that “empirical evidence” is required to make a correct observation and determination. In other words, go out and shoot it and see which works better.
Ed did that. His statement stands on actual trials, not formula or buzz words. Barring tests to the contrary, I must stand behind him as possessing the correct answer to this question.
Kindest Regards,
Simple Minded ‘Ol Uncle Hoot 😯
PS: You said “ In fact, .22 pellets loose energy quicker than .25 pellets and .177 are even worse.”
You are over simplifying the matter again….accuracy MUST be a factor, because all the energy in the world won’t correct for a missed shot. Energy is but one factor in our sport. Accuracy must reign supreme.
The thing about that ED, is that you were using two diffrent pellets. There are .25 JSB’s that would and will shoot flatter than a .22 JSB when shot at the same speeds.
Infact, .22 pellets loose energy quicker than .25 pellets and .177 are even worse.
Dave
Yeah, that’s amazing shooting @ the distance 150 meter, I don’t know if I could see that far out either 😆 😆 😆
Great shooting nice video, thanks Ed.
Once we went to shoot with a friend of mine. He has Matador long .25 tuned for EUNJIN 35 grains up to 285 m/sec. I had Matador standard .22, with 270 m/sec for 18 grain pellets. We shot at the target fixed to a list of veneer about 5 mm thick. My .22 just penetrated that as it was not veneer, my friend’s .25 ENJINS all were under it 🙂 The good energy but that pellet loose it so quickly that on the distnaces more then 50 meters I would prefer .22 There is no good, reall good pellets in .25 🙁
No point?…. Much more kinetic energy, transfers more force to the target, increases kill zones when hunting, uses air more efficiently, flatter shooting than lower calibres shooting at the same speed……..the list goes on and on
Dave
I personally also see no point in .25 as an airgun caliber…we can already achieve so much with the JSB 18 grainers…they are absolutely clinical in my 2 Rapid 12s and my modified Steyr LG110…can’t wait for some Edguns to join the stable.
I have more faith in an Edgun which can shoot the 5.5mm Monsters more accurately…
Hoot, the .25 pellets have a greater BC than .22 pellets which means that for the same speed, the .25 shoots flatter. Its all about sectional density 😀
Dave
The power of the .22 is really impressive at that range. I had no idea that an 18 gr pellet had enough energy at that distance to puncture a full can of stinky alcohol, through and through! There seems to be a very good ballastic co-effecient between the velocity of 885/fps and a pellet weight of 18gr in a .22 caliber. An ideal combination for accuracy and reasonable power.
Everyone is excited about the .25 rifles coming out. However, would you not have to greatly increase the 885/fps for a .25, to give the heavier pellet the same performance at such a long distance? Would there be a penalty of reduced accuracy, or a need to go supersonic in speed? There must be a trade off in going to ever larger calibers.
Regards,
Hoot 😯
Me, personally, do not like .25 as I told already due to the lack of the reall good pellets for that caliber. And I am sure I will destroy target more with .22 rather then with .25 at such a distance due to the very bad BC of pellets in .25. Yes, there is JSB 25 grains for .25, but to my oppinion they are too light for the serious work.
Ed, I can’t even see 150 meters! That’s amazing shooting.
The power of the .22 is really impressive at that range. I had no idea that an 18 gr pellet had enough energy at that distance to puncture a full can of stinky alcohol, through and through! There seems to be a very good ballastic co-effecient between the velocity of 885/fps and a pellet weight of 18gr in a .22 caliber. An ideal combination for accuracy and reasonable power.
Everyone is excited about the .25 rifles coming out. However, would you not have to greatly increase the 885/fps for a .25, to give the heavier pellet the same performance at such a long distance? Would there be a penalty of reduced accuracy, or a need to go supersonic in speed? There must be a trade off in going to ever larger calibers.
Regards,
Hoot 😯
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
I honestly do not know why anyone would think the .25 loses power at longer ranges.
This target was shot 30 times at 100 yards, using the .25 42gr EJ. This hardwood was penetrated each and every shot, at 100 yards.
Subsequent firing at this same target board with .22 Kodiaks, the pellets were barely buried beyond the skirt. This is very hard material.
Take it was you will, heres the photo. I used to have a 2nd photo of this same target board which showed the pellets embedded in the bottom half of this peice of furniture. (It was water damaged, warped and already ruined). The board is 1.25″ thick, Im sure somebody here remembers seeing that 2nd photo.
–edit, found it–