Airgun World – July 2019

48 AIRGUN WORLD http://www.airgunshooting.co.uk

The bottom row of the target is dedicated to
the .22 pellets. The H&Ns give a group of
20mm, but the JSBs let themselves down with
a group of 30mm.
I should point out that it could have been
me, or the fact that the flyer was the first shot
through the .22 Daystate after the H&Ns, that
led to the errant pellet, and excluding the flyer
and the variables above, the truer reading of
the JSBs was a group of 21mm, which is
essentially identical to the H&Ns.
So, in accuracy terms, the .177s are more
accurate than the .22s, but not by much, and
the H&Ns are more accurate than the JSBs,
but again, not by much. Personally, I don’t
think accuracy is a real factor here, so if you’re
interested, order yourself a sample pack of
each from Pellet Perfect, and see for yourself
which works better with your rifle.

DIFFERENT RESULTS
From a ballistic standpoint, why do two
apparently identical pellets give such differing
results? My theory is that the JSB Metal Mags
were parting with their pointed metal tips more
easily than the H&Ns, and with the metal tip
discarded, allowed their lead cores to expand
more readily within the target material.
Conversely, the H&Ns were retaining their
metal tips on entry, which caused the pellet to
penetrate through and not surrender its energy

into the target material.
To find out if I was right, I had to do two things:

1. To shoot the pellets into a large block of
   terracotta wax, and then take plaster casts of
   each cavity. This would enable me to examine
   the ballistic pathway and resultant pellet
   deformity.


2. To remove the pointed metal heads
   manually from unfired pellets in order to look
   at the shape of the cavity left behind in the
   lead part of the pellet. The idea was that the

metal tip detaches on impact, allowing the

lead part to expand.

BALLISTIC RESULTS

I’d shot both pellets into old-school blocks of clay

and then taken plaster casts from the cavities, so

I was able to determine that the JSBs left a

much greater ballistic cavity than the H&Ns.

When I examined the casts, I was able to

find the H&N pellet with its intact tip, and

although I could locate the JSB pellet, its tip,

as intended, had been discarded and lodged

elsewhere, allowing for expansion of the pellet

and a greater wound cavity.

I then set about detaching the metal tips

from the main body of the pellets; the JSBs

came apart within moments with just a gentle

grip from some snipe-nosed pliers. On the other

hand, the H&Ns required much more

concentrated effort, necessitating trying many

tools and much grunting before the lead

eventually parted company from the meatal tip.

To me, this speaks volumes, and serves to

support the findings of the ballistic testing.

Simply put, the H&Ns aren’t discarding their

metal tips, and allowing the main body of the

lead pellet to expand. That’s a bit of a shame

because if you look at the interior of the lead

cups retaining the heads, it looks like the

H&Ns would be much more devastating if only

the metal part could detach more easily.

THE WINNER – OR NOT

This month, it’s not as clear cut as usual.

Certainly, the H&Ns are more accurate than

the JSBs, but not by much. However, the

JSBs are quite a bit more ballistically

impressive than the H&Ns, as discussed

above. If I had to choose, I’d go for the JSB

Metal Mag in .177, but this is one of those

occasions when you’ll have to get yourself

some sample packs, and see which works

best for you.

As always, if you’ve got some pellets you’d like

me to look at, or some brands or types you’d like

me to compare, then let us know through the

website, or email our esteemed editor. 

PELLET TESTING

“you’ll have to get yourself some sample packs

and see which works best for you”

Which pellet was

the most accurate?

Do the entry wounds

tell the whole story?

One tip detached,

the other did not.

The scars show

which pellet tip was

harder to remove.