by B.B. Pelletier
Let’s look at the rear aperture sight in the AirForce sight set, which is the item of greatest interest in this set. There isn’t anything like it in its price range. Let me show you.
The sight base clamps to conventional 11mm scope base dovetails. There’s no scope stop, but I didn’t need one when I tested the sight.
The entire sight is clamped to a vertical post on the left side. Like the front unit, this aperture has a broad range of gross vertical adjustability. And that’s before the adjustment knobs are used. It was very easy to match the height of the rear sight to the HW55 target rifle I tested it on, and it was using the rifle’s own front sight.
The click adjustments are 1/8 minute of angle, which is half the distance found on current plastic sights. Shooters will be able to move pellets around the target by hundredths of an inch. Certainly, they’ll have more control over where they’re sighted than is humanly possible to use, which is reassuring for a competitor.
I counted the number of clicks up and down and side to side. There were 245 clicks from one side to the other and 254 clicks from top to bottom. That works out to just over 30.5 minutes of horizontal adjustment and 31.75 minutes of vertical adjustment.
Clicks felt more than heard
The clicks are more tactile than audible and can easily be felt throughout the entire range. They never became harder or easier to adjust at any point in the test, all the way to lock at both ends of the range. The knobs were easy to turn, but stopped positively in every detent, so there’s no chance of accidental movement.
Shooters will want some kind of sight movement directions on the knobs that were not on the pre-production prototype I tested. A simple arrow that indicates one direction should be sufficient for each knob.
The knobs do have index numbers around their periphery. A dot for each knob is located on the sight body to be used as the point of reference. These are the smallest adjustments that will be made after all gross adjustments have gotten the rifle in the black.
And the function?
This new sight is a positive step forward from the plastic aperture sights that come on youth models today. It has sharp, positive adjustments with no backlash or slop. I’ll show that in a moment.
Compared to the expensive target aperture sights, the AirForce sight feels less crisp. I think that’s because the clicks are less audible, yet on target paper this sight is just as positive as any of the big boys. The broad range of movement gives you a sense of security, knowing that once you’re in the neighborhood, you’ll never run out of adjustment.
I discovered that my Gehmann adjustable aperture fits the same hole as the removable aperture disk. And AirForce may bring out a range of apertures for shooters to adjust to different lighting conditions.
Let’s test
Whether testing a scope, dot sight or an aperture like this one, there is one way to positively determine whether the click adjustments are precise or not. That is to adjust the sight in a box pattern and see where the final shots go.
I used Wayne’s HW55 Tyrolean for this test. Only the rear sight was on the gun, as the barrel lacks 11mm dovetails for the front sight.
Begin by making a group at some spot on a target. It doesn’t have to be centered on the 10-ring, but that does add visual effect. Then, turn one of the adjustment knobs a specific number of clicks to the side, then up, then to the other side, then down. The last group should land exactly on top of the first group. If it does, the sight is returning to the exact same place after being adjusted away.
For my test, I centered the first three-shot group on the bullseye. While I admit that a three-shot group is not statistically sound for accuracy testing, it works for this procedure.
After the first three shots, I adjusted the sight 40 clicks to the left and fired a second group. The distance to the target was only 10 meters, and these are 1/8-minute clicks, so 40 isn’t as big a move as you might think.
Following that, I adjusted the sight 40 clicks up and fired a third group. When that was finished, I adjusted the sight 40 clicks to the right to cancel the initial 40 clicks to the left. After another three shots, the sight was adjusted 40 clicks down to cancel the 40 clicks of elevation put on the sight for the third group.
The final group of three shots were then fired. If you’ve followed my directions and if the sight adjusts with precision, it should be back where the test began and the last group should fall on top of the first.
As you can see, my last group of three shots did fall exactly on top of the first at the center of the bull. The upper two groups are more open than the bottom two, which is due to my own shooting error, but the sight tracked the way it was supposed to. So, this sight works as advertised.
The bottom line
I’ve been waiting for a sight set like this for more than 30 years. Ever since the days when Air Rifle Headquarters and Beeman sold expensive target rifles without sights, starting back in the 1970s, I’ve seen too many great airguns sold sans sights. Sure, the initial buyers saved a few bucks and it was possible to use small scopes on them; but when someone wants to put one of these vintage beauties back into serious service today, they’re always shocked by the $400-$500 cost for a new set of precision sights. Until now, the only alternative has been the inexpensive sights used on youth rifles.
Now, thanks to AirForce Airguns, you can afford to put a real target sight set on your heirloom rifle. And because this sight is budget-priced, it qualifies as a Sporter-class sight, so competitors can give their target rifles a new lease on life. Best of all, this one is made in America!
Good Morning B.B., How would the AirForce sights work on a plinking/hunting rifle. I would like to put them or maybe just the rear sight on a Diana rifle. Would have to use a suitable appature in the rear sight of course. Would the front sight fit or would the rear work with the stock sight? Thanks much Mr B.
BB,
From the pictures it looks like there are some additional constraints on the dovetail, i.e., must be open at rear and elevated above any endcaps or screws. Is that correct? I think one could use an elevated offset mount to work around these limitations, although probably most match rifles are OK.
Mr. B.,
The stock front sight would work. The AirForce front sight has nothing to mount to on a Diana gun.
The rear sight would work fine, I think. I just installed it on my 36 Panther after removing the rear screw from the sight base on the rifle.
B.B.
BG_Farmer,
Yes, you have it right. But like I said to Mr. B., I mounted it on my Panther in less than a minute. Raised dovetail and no big screw.
B.B.
To Diana gun owners,
Don’t forget, even though the airforce front sight may not work on your diana, if you want a front globe sight that will accept inserts pyramydair has the diana globe sight:
/product/rws-diana-front-sight-fits-models-35-50?a=2030
Even though it says this works on diana models 35-50 this sight worked on my model 27. For inserts this sight is 17mm.
kevin
BB I liked the last sentence most of all. Made in the good ol U.S. of A. From SavageSam
I couldn’t find your listing of books to read.
Have you read the book Elliot on Airguns by Jock Elliot or Spring Air Pistols by John Griffiths?
ajvenom,
I have the Griffiths book. Good reference!
I have written several bnook reports. Here is one:
/blog/2005/8/airgun-books/
B.B.
B.B.
Yes! For heaven’s sake, directional arrows on the adjustment knobs are a necessity. I don’t know why they would be left off. But that box-test is a clever idea. I’m going to try it on my Leapers 6-24X50 scope although I’m already pretty satisfied with its movement.
I remember what you said about the statistical unreliability of the three-shot groups. But how do things change as you increase the number of three-shot groups? Is reliability tied to the total number of shots so that, for example, three 5 shot groups are equivalent to five 3 shot groups?
Matt61
Mat5t,
As I am sure you know – the answer depends on what you do with the numbers. How do you portray them?
B.B.
I have a question on what airgun to buy and I don’t know where else to ask it.
I am interested in buying a high quality gun that will last me a long time.
I am thinking about the Beeman R1. I have read great things about it and it seems like a great rifle, and a classic.
I am also interested about the RWS 350, which is a good 200 bucks cheaper than the Beeman R1.
What is your guys take on this? Are there any other guns I should look into?
Both the R1 and the RWS Diana 350 Magnum are fine guns. The R1 is one order of magnitude finer than the 350, but you have to look closely to see it.
However, since you asked for help and since I love spending other people’s money, please allow me to make two suggestions.
The TX 200 is even better than the R1. The TX 200 is gorgeous from the start in all ways (looks and performance). It does not have open sights so you must mount a scope.
The RWS Diana 54 is the other rifle. It is equally nice to shoot and the quality is high, though not in the R1 TX 200 class. However, it may be the sweetest-shooting rifle of them all.
Both are large heavy rifles, but so are your two choices. The TX 200 cocks easier than either of your two choices. The RWS Diana 54 is only a little harder to cock.
The 54 does have open sights, though I believe you will want to put a scope on it.
Both the TX 200 and the RWS Diana 54 will shoot more accurately than the R1, which is somewhat more accurate than the RWS Diana 350 Magnum.
That’s my two cents,
B.B.
All great spring gun choices! A TX200 is really tough to beat.
Don’t forget the R9, too if you want a break-barrel.
Derrick
I forgot to mention, I really don’t like scopes. I like shooting open sights, so I’d really like a gun that has open sights, or open sights can be bought and put on. Thanks for the input 🙂
B.B.
If you’re looking for the most statistically reliable predictor of accuracy, would the average of five 3 shot groups be better than three 5 shot groups or are they the same?
That cracks me up about spending other people’s money. I can do that with Wayne…
By the way, the Lyman reloading manual is on the way. You weren’t kidding about age; I’m getting the 49th edition. But the reviews are so enthusiastic that I would get one just for my general education. “How long is a string?” sounds like one of those Zen koans like, “What is the sound of one hand clapping?” and “What is the face you had before you were born?” As I understand it, the stock answer is some sort of irrational behavior indicating that you have moved beyond the bounds of mere logic. I’m trusting that reloading is simpler.
Volvo, thanks for the preview of the QB 78. You’re a man of rare self-control. Once my little fingers open the package, I’m lost.
Matt61
Matt,
The answer is, “No, Hao Long is a village in Viet Nam.”
Once again, the answer to your question is this — how are you presenting the data?
The average of three 5-shot groups will be much larger than the average of five 3-shot groups. Think about it.
So, in terms of which is a more valid predictor of the accuracy of a gun, the five-shot groups win.
By getting two more averages from the 3-shot groups you don’t change the fact that they are 3-shot groups.
In other words, you get a better look at 3-shot groups.
B.B.
Matt61,
RE: Statistical reliability of groups
As BB said, it depends on how you want to analyze the data. What sort of variation are you trying to quantify?
One factor in this could be “wild” shots. Are you going to make some, and do you want to try to remove them from the underlying data?
Question: But how do things change as you increase the number of three-shot groups?
If you had about 30 groups of three then you could calculate a mean and a standard deviation for the group size. You could then “throw out” abnormally large groups.
Question: Is reliability tied to the total number of shots so that, for example, three 5 shot groups are equivalent to five 3 shot groups?
More data values is generally better. But three 5 shot groups or five 3 shot groups are both small statistical samples.
If you wanted to zero scope, or compare two types of pellets, I’d go with 5 three shot groups.
If you had 15 shots, then the absolutely best way to analyze them would be to have the X and Y deflection for each shot. Calculate average POI for X and Y, then calculate the average distance for a shot to the average POI. In shooting this seems to be named the radial standard deviation (RSD).
RSD vs group size:
(1) To calculate RSD is a lot of number grinding which is why group size survives.
(2)To calculate RSD also requires you to be able to find position of each shot on the target. So a 15 shot group with one big ragged hole is no good.
(3) With small sample statistics group size is fairly efficient. Let’s assume that we have thirty groups of 3. Calculate a group size and the RSD for each group and the standard devaition for group size and RSD. The RSD will vary less than the group size, but not by much. If you had 30 groups of 2, the distance between the shots is all of the information on the within a group variability. So the group size would be 100 % efficient. If you had 30 groups of 10, then you’d see a much larger difference and the efficiency of group size would drop to about 30% or so.
Herb
BB,
I know how much you love the old BB guns and thought you’d like to see this.
http://www.shorpy.com/node/5004#comment-47698
It’s a window display of a sporting goods store from 1921. If you click on the high definition view, you’ll see an interesting assortment of guns. One of them looks to be an old Daisy.
Shawn
Shawn,
Thank you. That’s a Number 40 Daisy military model with toy bayonet. It’s $4.95!
B.B.
Wow 87 years later and we still stand and drool over air rifles.
That winchester on the right looks like my .22 1906 model.
The boxing gloves looks like the ones we had one time. They were so old and hard from years of neglect that you were better off getting hit by a sack of cement.
Daisy’s from $1.00 to $4.50.
I wonder if similiar items today would cost 10 times the amount listed in the photo?
ajvenom,
The other question is “Do we make 10 times as much now as we did then…
On the perfect springer with open sights, for the money, how about the HW77? The guy I traded the HW77 and TX200 carbine to, for the Air Arms S410 walnut stock, likes the HW77 better than the TX200 carbine…..
as I did….
Wayne
Matt61,
‘Rare self-control” may not be 100% accurate. Giving a gift to your wife to give to you is sort of like stacking the deck. : )
Not that ties and underwear from the kids are unneeded, a good Father always smiles and proclaims any gift is exactly what he wanted.
Sometimes however, Santa can use a little help.
Volvo
B.B.
Maybe enlightenment isn’t so difficult… You’re right. If five shot groups tend to be twice as large as three shot groups, I suppose the average of the five shot groups would be larger. But a couple of issues come to mind. If a three shot group is really so unpredictable, then its group size should vary quite a bit, fairly randomly within the area that you would get with a 30 shot group which is supposed to be conclusive. But if you can count on a three shot group being half the size of a five shot group, maybe its reliability is not so bad. The other issue was shooter fatigue of trying to hold it together with additional groups–something I have noticed.
Herb, that’s pretty intense. If group size survives this procedure, I don’t know that I would. I guess what I was getting at was the relative contribution of group size versus number of groups towards an estimate of accuracy. But I suppose that if one were to pursue things this far, he is better off with the RSD procedure you outlined which makes a lot of sense.
Wayne, how interesting that you prefer the HW77 to the TX200. So we have another contender for top springer.
Volvo, you’re right. Gift-giving and receiving is getting more complicated for me. Now that people know of my fascination with shooting they are purchasing all sorts of imitation toy guns that shoot ping-pong balls and plastic darts. Actually, I would enjoy them except that I don’t have time to shoot my own guns. I hate to see them waste their money, and I know just the right causes it could go to: a year’s supply of JSB Exacts or the glittering treasure of a thousand rounds of Black Hills match grade ammo. I suppose that asking just for money would be crass….
Matt61
Matt,
I think you have missed the point about three-shot groups. They are not unpredictable, by themselves. It’s just that they are poor predictors of what the gun will do when more shots are fired.
A three-shot group will always be a very good predictor of what the gun will do with three shots. Just not what it will do with a thousand shots. A five-shot group will be better. Ten is better still, and thirty shots will almost equal a thousand shots in size.
That’s what I have been saying about group size.
In fact, if you know that a three-shot group is a poor predictor of what the gun will do, and you know how it relates to a thousand-shot group, it can be a fairly good predictor. However, until you shoot the thousand shots, this is all speculation, while if you shoot a thirty-shot group, it’s not.
And finally, my Gift Guide is how to communicate to all those folks who have misguided ideas about what you want. I created it because my sister gave me a potato gun a few years ago.
B.B.
Matt,
The other thing about group size is “wild” shots – for whatever reason. The group size depends on the two most deviant shots.
You can come up with “fudge factors” to cover a n-size group to say a 1000-shot group. Then if you apply the fudge factor to each size group you’re comparing apples to apples. But when converted to the 1000-shot size a 3 shot group will have more variability than a 20 shot group.
Another perhaps odd thing in all of this is shooter skill level. A good shooter could probably shoot a good ten shot group. I don’t think I can. I have cheap guns, don’t size or weigh pellets and so on. So if I were going to shoot 30 shots, I’d do ten 3 shot groups, with the notion that I might throw out one or two of the groups. That would be impossible to justify mathematically if you only had three 10 shot groups.
Herb
I’m very interested in this sight set. Would it be a good fit for an R7? Also, what about a stop pin? I’ve recently had a bad experience with an old Suhl sight that damaged my gun from slipping. It shaved the rights side dovetail grove nicely at the clamp points!
You don’t need the whole set. Just the rear sight to work with your front sight.
As for a scope stop, you can put a long Allen screw in the rear stop hole and butt the sight against it. The screw is not engaging threads – it’s simply pressing against the back of the hole. Or use any piece of steel the same way. Once the sight is butted against it, it cannot move.
B.B.
BB,
Thanks for the tip, I’ll have to give it a try. I’m a little neverous about mounting the Suhl or another diopter sight though, since I’m running out of fresh scope rail material fast.
Wow, adjustable aperture. My palms are getting all sweaty, though I’d really love to pair this with a 10-meter target version of the Discovery… 😎
Matt61,
B.B. has praised the HW77 and HW97, that’s why I got my 77, and I’ll get another one, and a TX200 non Carbine this time, in the future. The HW77 is about a pound lighter, and is just a little nicer to shoulder for me. But in the sitting field target position I like the extra weight of the TX200. But for some reason, I get slightly better overall groups with the HW-77, even though the best group might be from the TX200.. The TX has won more springer FT contests than the HW-77, but the 77 does come with open sights and the TX doesn’t…
It really depends on the shooter, and I am not consistent with any springer… so I prefer to shoot a PCP, like the Air Arms S410
I picked up a used RWS .177 cal 48/52. Just to have a FT quality springer in the inventory… I like it a lot, it’s very smooth…
B.B.
I wonder why it says “48/52” on the receiver, I thought they were different models.
Wayne,
Ashland Air Rifle Range
Wayne,
No, the metal parts are identical. Only the stocks differ.
It’s like the RWS Diana 34/36/387, which were also the same guns in different stocks.
B.B.
B.B.
This used one has a few small scratches, but beautiful marble grain stock and checkering on the pistol grip and forearm, so I guess it's a 52. The PA site shows the 48 as a plain stock and the 52 with checkering.
I haven't tried to scope it yet, I assume it needs the new mount base to overcome the barrel droop, that these guns have, right? And PA is back ordered on them now.
It is pretty darn accurate with the open sights at 15 yards, which all I can do with my old eyes. The recoil is very min. I think I will like it even better than the HW-77 or TX200, especially since I got it used for only $250. That always makes them more accurate and fun to shoot, Right?
Wayne
AARR&R
Wayne,
Yes, that’s a 52. And you may not need a drooper base with a 52. Some droop and others don’t. You can always give it a try by hanging the stop pin in front of the base — the old way.
The 48/52 is a very accurate rifle, no doubt about it. The trigger isn’t up to Rekord performance, but it is very good. There are shooters competing in field target with .177 versions of these guns.
B.B.
All this talk of field-target level springers forces me to ask; what does anything think of the BSA Lightning XL?
And is the TX200 the only one of the group available in a left-hand model?
TC
Trout Underground,
BSA is a most-respected name in spring-piston airguns. Indeed, they are the makers of the first modern air rifle, in 1905.
Their barrels are the equivalent of Lothar Walther and Anschutz.
However, they have never been represented well in the U.S. For whatever reasons, they always select smaller distributors to represent them and they don’t have the exposure that other brands do. Hence, less is known about them and their guns are harder to get.
I have found BSAs to be harder to work on, in general, than Weihrauch, Air Arms and even RWS Diana. In fact, if you look, you’ll find that not as many tuners deal with BSA.
However, the guns are fine, the parts are very well made and you should have no second thoughts about buying a BSA spring gun.
As for field target, the Lightning XL is a breakbarrel, which is twitchy for hold. That would be a reason not to use it for field target, I think. The underlever SuperStar was used for field target with some success about 10 years ago, but because of the lack of wide support, the interest died off.
B.B.
B.B.
Thanks, I do have the new base on order, but I’ll try to scope the .177 cal RWS-52 as is…
Wayne
Trout Underground,
Until recently I had a BSA Lightning XL in .25 cal. A sweet shooter out of the box, a tune from Rich in Mich made it really nice.
They are extremely short, light and high powered. But that combination makes them very “lively”. I think they would make an outstanding hunter in .22 cal. But, not so great for .177 field target.
My heavy HW97K just lies their after a shot plus with the fixed barrel = what most people look for if they are going to use a Springer.
The BSA is probably one of the rifles I’ve sold that I miss the most. But it seems the English have a different take on what .25 caliber is as pellets were very limited that would fit.
The demise of the Webley Misquotes in .25 cal really sealed the deal when I looked at the rack for my next sale.
I can confirm what Tom said about fewer folks wanting to work on them. When I checked with Paul Watts for a tune, he said he would do it, but I could tell he was not thrilled at the prospect.
Anyway, Rich in Mich had been so fond of it when he tuned it; he had asked to purchase it if I ever sold. So it now belongs to him. I think that is a good endorsement for XL. I would like to pick up another one in .22 someday.
Volvo
Hey BB.
My dad and I recently bought a cheap, crosman quest just for all around plinking and target shooting. It’s got great accuracy so far, but we feel that iron sights would be much more accurate than the tru-glo sites it has now.
Could you recommend any iron sights, rear and front, for the quest (if possible)? We’d prefer if it wasn’t too much (below 100 for sure, even below 50)
Thanks,
Pat
Pat,
There are no replacement sights for the Crosman Quest. To replace the sights you have to go to a gunsmith or airgunsmith, and the bill will probably top $100.
Why not just paint over the fiberoptic element with black paint? Then you have what you want for very little.
B.B.
Thanks for the answers regarding the BSA Lightning. Sounds like a good hunting springer, but not exactly what I’m looking for.
And sadly, like so many high-end springers, it looks to come only in a right-hand style stock.
Someday, the left-hand/left-eye shooters of the world will rise up against the right-hand tryanny. Once we do, there will be purges… 8)
Trout Underground,
I note that the TX 200 does have left-hand stocks available.
B.B.
Sorry to bust this in here but Im just getting started, and thus still hunting for resources.When browsing .22’s would you all consider a Diana RWS 350 Feuerkraft to be a “higher powered” .22 ( in relation to springers at least)? I’ve just ordered one and I am planning to test a spectrum of various weights/tips, but is there a good starting point for this gun? 14-16 grain(diabolo or JSB preds)? and would Kodiak 21 be too much?(and any advantage to double gold??? hmmm)- PS does anyone have any experience with this rifle? ( I ordered the leapers 1-piece accushot mount but have yet to select a scope)- sorry to bomb you guys out with questions but once I get my bearings Im good,I am just relatively new to “magnum” airguns, and I am very much looking forward to hunting with them this year
It is okay to ask any question on any post, so that is no problem.
But you asked this elsewhere and I already answered it. I think you have forgotten where you asked the question. Am I right?
I say this because I am now answering in excess of 100 comments every day. So I try to answer them just one time.
No harm done, just remember where you ask a question.
Here is your answer:
The RWS Diana 350 Magnum, which is several different models including the Feuerkraft, is considered powerful for a spring piston rifle but not for a precharged pneumatic. In .22 caliber it is in the 20-24 foot-pounds range. The most powerful spring rifles get up to 28 foot-pounds in .22 caliber, but the average rifle is probably a little under 20 foot-pounds.
As I said in the other answer, I don’t think you will find JSB Predators to be accurate beyond about 25-30 yards, while the JBS Exacts ( a domed pellet weighing 15.8 grains) will probably be the most accurate pellet of all.
I don’t think the Kodiaks are too heavy but many people do. They think heavy pellets are hard on mainsprings.
As far as your scope mounts go how do you plan to anchor them on your rifle?
B.B.
oh I thought you told me to post it on a current blog – my apologies
” At December 08, 2008 2:02 PM, B.B. Pelletier said…
Among the spring guns the 350 Mag is definitely higher-power. Of course it isn’t compared to the PCPs.
Try all the heavy pellets. I don’t think the Predators will group well, but the Exacts will and maybe the Kodiaks, too.
To get answers from everyone, post your comments on the current blog page. The topic doesn’t matter. “
in the way of scope mounts I assumed 11mm would match up and mount right to the gun… then again I could be an idiot (strong possibility)
I ordered this mount
/product/leapers-accushot-1-pc-mount-w-1-rings-high-11mm-dovetail?a=636
and this scope
/product/leapers-5th-gen-6-24×50-ao-varmint-rifle-scope-illuminated-mil-dot?a=338
I only hope that the mount attaches to the rail, that droop on a high powered scope isnt an issue, and that the “high” mount accomdates the fact that its a x50
now Im nervous…
350 Magnum,
NO – MY APOLOGIES!!
Everyone, I asked this reader to do exactly what he did, and then I lectured him for doing it. I guess I am answering too many questions, if I can’t remember saying something like that.
You did what I asked and I bit your head off for it. Please forgive me and don’t think that you will be treated that way on this blog. Please keep right on asking all the questions you want.
I am so sorry this happened!
B.B. Pelletier — aka Tom Gaylord
Nervous,
I don’t know who you are, so I don’t know what gun you refer to. Are you the guy with the Diana 350 Magnum, or do you have a different rifle?
an 11mm scope mount will match up to a Diana 350 Magnum, but you need to be concerned about the mount slipping from recoil.
Please tell me what gun we are talking about and I will answer you specifically.
B.B.
hi everyone. can these magnificent sights fit in the daisy rifles? like the 853 and 953?
Yes.
B.B.
ok cool..but um, can you help me on how to install it in the 953? or, instead of buying the set for a lot, can you recomend me an affordable match air rifle that might already include good sights? either one you might think is ok. thanks!
What you want is probably a used target rifle. You can get a good one for $500 or sometimes less. They will come with a good set of target sights, so nothing but pellets to buy.
Here is where to look:
http://www.network54.com/Forum/79537/
You want a Diana 75 or an FWB 300 or 150. A Gamo/Daisy 126 that's working would also be good.
B.B.
Anonymous looking for an "affordable match air rifle that might already include good sights",
Here's a great 4 part series that B.B. did on match/10-meter guns. This link will take you to part 4 (Used 10-Meter rifles), but you can click on the first 3 parts and read them in order. You'll need to copy and paste this link:
/blog/2008/3/10-meter-rifles-part-4-used-10-meter-rifles/
kevin
Thank you guys very much for the links, but man, I can't resist wishing to buy those high priced guns! But yup, i gotta save a lotta money for the family. Considering the below $500, are the daisy competition guns all the same? like same barrel, just difirent stocks? or, would a step up and the airforce edge be a good package? also, for the teens, would saving some dough and buying the daisy 953 be a good deal? thanks again for all the help!
Anonymous,
Be very careful. It sounds like you may be close to being bitten by the airgun bug and one gun isn't enough. Resistance is futile.
Couple of suggestions to add fuel to your fire.
There is a search box on the upper right side of this article and every article that B.B. has written. This "library" now consists of over 1,100 articles that B.B. has written. A wealth of information!
Typing in a model number will usually reveal an article that B.B. has done on the model or even a multi-part series. Since the search box also searches the comments that were left by airgunners like you, the deep of the information is almost bottomless.
If you can't find your answer in these searches, ask your question(s) on the current blog. Most airgunners, like you, are asking and answering each others questions and sharing airgunning stories. You can access this current chat by going to the most recent article that B.B. has written (he writes a new article every day, Monday-Friday) scrolling down to the bottom of that article then clicking on "comments". Here's a link you will need to copy and paste:
/blog//
Look forward to seeing you there!
kevin