The Umarex EBOS – Part 3

by B.B. Pelletier

Part 1
Part 2


The new EBOS is a loud, powerful BB submachine gun.

Today, I’ll finish the test of the Umarex Electronic Burst of Steel — the Umarex EBOS. This is accuracy day, and the test runs exactly as it has for the other two BB submachine guns I’ve tested — the HK MP5 K-PDW and the Umarex Steel Storm. That means 10 aimed shots at 15 feet on semi-auto, followed by several bursts of full-auto fire.

I have three BBs to test today, and the EBOS brings us a complex set of operating parameters. You can select from either one shot, which simulates semiautomatic fire, a 4-shot burst or an 8-shot burst. But there’s also the rate of fire to select. It can be set for 300, 400 or 500 rounds per minute (RPM). I discovered very quickly that 300 RPM is too much like shooting an M3 grease gun, which bounces around in your hand without much possibility for accurate aimed fire. So I did what every EBOS owner will eventually decide to do. Set it to 8-shot bursts and 500 RPM. Once I did that, I made no attempt to test the other rates or the lower burst count. Nor would a cigarette boat owner use a trolling motor for better fuel economy!

At first
In the beginning, I was just trying to adjust the rear sight so the groups would be centered on the bull. The rear sight is fiddly and I found it difficult to adjust. When I shot, I felt the rear notch was too close to my eye for good accuracy, but the gun proved me wrong on that count. I’ve had the same problem with 9mm MP5s, and they always seem to hit their target as well. Apparently, mine are just the ramblings of an old dog who cannot learn new tricks.

Once the rear sight was centered in adjustment, the gun shot to the point of aim. I wish there was an elevation adjustment on the rear sight as well, but I suppose most owners will slap a red dot on the top Picatinny rail and be done with it.

Crosman Copperhead BBs
The first BBs I tried were Crosman Copperhead BBs. As I fired 10 semiauto shots, I was impressed by how smooth the EBOS trigger is. That’s no doubt due to the electrical drive unit in the pistol grip. All the trigger has to do is make contact and the gun fires.

The first group was impressive, especially in light of the tests of the other two guns. You can’t even see 10 holes in the target, but one hole at the bottom of the group is clearly larger than the rest, and apparently swallowed four BBs.


An impressive group that demonstrates the EBOS stability in the semiauto mode.

Then, I switched to rock ‘n’ roll. I first tried 300 RPM rate of fire and a 4-round burst, but it soon became obvious that wasn’t the way to go. So, all the switches were set to the max, and that’s the way the rest of the test was conducted.


Compared to the other tests, this constitutes a screamer target for full-auto.

Daisy zinc-plated BBs
Next, I loaded Daisy zinc-plated BBs and ran a second 10-shot semiauto test. Oh, my gosh! I got accuracy that’s not too far from the Avanti Champion 499 target gun! And this was with the sights I was complaining about! Imagine what this gun could do with dot sights!


Now, THAT is a group! For a BB gun, you aren’t going to do much better.

At this point, I was wondering what would happen when I switch over to warp drive. Well, you know the answer. I switch and the gun continued to group tight. I kept shooting and reloading, shooting and reloading. At this point, my test design was blown because I hadn’t tested the other two guns the same way, nor am I going to. But I figured a part of this evaluation was the fun factor, and any day you can keep my finger on the trigger of a full-auto gun, you know I must be having fun!


Holy cow! I’m not that good a shot. This gun shoots like it has radar or something.

RWS BBs
Finally it came time to test the new RWS BBs. You may recall from the Steel Storm test that these BBs were almost as good as the Daisy zincs, and I said that more testing would be needed. Well, look at what happened with the EBOS.


Every bit as tight as the Daisy target on semiauto fire.

When I switched to overdrive with the RWS BBs, something wonderful happened. The group stayed the same size. It just has about four times as many BBs through it. I could not stop shooting, and I know the full-auto group has at least 40 rounds in it.


Oh, boy! Now we’re having fun!

Crosman 850 trap
Wow! It’s been a while since an airgun made me smile like this one does! And do you remember that I said I would be using the Crosman model 850 BB trap for this test? Well, I did, and despite the power of the EBOS, the trap did not suffer one bit.

So, now I’ve tested all three BB submachine guns completely. And here’s my assessment. The Steel Storm is the best value, but the EBOS is THE boss!

76 Responses to “The Umarex EBOS – Part 3”

  • fred PRoNJ Says:

    Hey, did we readers say you could have fun. :) ?

    We never said you couldn’t. Looks like this Umarex design is going to give Daisy some heartburn if Umarex decides to bring in a target BB rifle to challenge the Avanti line.

    Fred PRoNJ

  • Paul Says:

    B.B.,

    Why do you think the EBOS is so accurate relative to the others – did Umarex just use a better barrel? Does the electric trigger help? It looks like the sights cannot claim credit.

    Paul in Liberty County

    • B.B. Pelletier Says:

      Paul,

      I think the EBOS is the most stable of all three guns and that is why it is so good. I also think Umarex used some good tight seamless tubing for the barrels, just like Daisy does with the 499.

      B.B.

  • CJr Says:

    Well! I never thought I’d be impressed with a bb gun let alone an automatic one. Whew! that is some shooting. Well worth the extra $35. I wonder how far those groups would open up at 10m?
    -CJr

  • CowBoyStar Dad Says:

    That’s impressive.
    I wonder if the Storm could shoot like this if someone were to bring out an aftermarket stock. At first I thought it could be the barrel length, but according to the Umarex website the Storm has a 15″ barrel, the EBOS 9.5″. This has to be wrong as I measured one of the boys Storms last night and the whole thing isn’t 15″ long.
    Could you please confirm the barrel lenghts b.b.
    As well…it’s nice to see the RWS b.b.’s (which I recommended) are finally coming into their own.

    • B.B. Pelletier Says:

      CSD,

      I measured both barrels by running a .177 rod down them until it stopped. The EBOS measures just under 10 inches. The Steel storm measures 8.75 inches.

      B.B.

  • NiTr0_FiSh Says:

    Hi BB,
    Hey – I just noticed a BB/.177 pellet gun that is powered by a 209 shotgun primer.
    It is being sold right now in Cabela’s winter catalog. Here is a link:

    http://www.cabelas.com/product/Davide-Pedersoli-209-Hawk-Rifle/706417.uts

    …any chance of you getting your hands on one & giving us your thoughts? ;-D

    • B.B. Pelletier Says:

      NiTrO_FiSh,

      Although I haven’t tried this particular gun, I have tested guns that shot pellets with primers. They all suck! On a major level, they are horribly inaccurate. Like two feet at ten feet.

      B.B.

    • CJr Says:

      Am I missing something here? The ad say “uses no powder only a 209 shotgun primer”. Well, what causes the primer to detonate?
      -CJr

      • B.B. Pelletier Says:

        Chuck,

        The primer is detonated by concussion of the firing pin striking it. The primer is what sets off the gun powder, which is not explosive and will not detonate under pressure.

        B.B.

        • CJr Says:

          Yes I knew that, but what is the detonating substance inside the primer made of?

          Wikipedia says: “The primer is a small charge of impact-sensitive chemical that may be located at the center of the case head (centerfire ammunition) or at its rim (rimfire ammunition).” Impact-sensitive chemical?

          Remember cap guns back “in-the-day”? What was the substance in the caps that made the bang? Was that gunpowder or was it impact-sensitive chemicals?

          -CJr

          • B.B. Pelletier Says:

            Chuck,

            Gun powder is not sensitive to impact. You can hit it with a hammer all day and never see any reaction. Now, BLACK powder is a different substance, and nothing I am saying applies to it.

            The powder in toy caps is an impact-sensitive chemical compound, just as Wiki says.

            Nitroglycerin is an impact-sensitive chemical, but dynamite, which is nitroglycerin in a dry binding agent, isn’t supposed to be. It can be, though if it gets hot and the nitroglycerin “sweats” out.

            You can shoot rifle bullets through blocks of TNT and it will not explode. Same with C4. When I was in the Army we used to heat our C ration meals with small marbles of C4, because it burns so long and so hot.

            Didn’t you read my reloading report? I thought I explained how primers work in that report.

            http://airgun-academy.pyramydair.com/blog/2010/10/how-to-reload/

            Okay, I re-read that report and I see that I did not explain that primers provide the fire that ignites the gun powder in cartridges. I probably should have also explained that gun powder doesn’t explode unless it is burned within a confined space. Burned in the open, all it does is make a hot fire.

            B.B.

            • CJr Says:

              BB,
              Also, an explanation of the difference between black powder and “regular powder” would be nice. What makes them different, why is one impact resistant and not the other, when do you use one and not the other, etc.
              -CJr

              • B.B. Pelletier Says:

                Chuck,

                What we call black powder today was called gunpowder 125 years ago. Before smokeless powder came along, what we now call black powder was almost all there was. Actually there were also yellow powder, beige powder, brown powder and white powder, depending on what oxidizer was mixed in. But black powder was commonly just gun powder.

                Now, here is the difference. Black powder is an explosive! It is considered a medium-, and more often a low-explosive, referring to the speed at which it burns. No, I don’t mean out in the open. I mean when confined to a small volume. Black powder burns at about 11,000 f.p.s., where TNT burns at around 21,000 f.p.s. and detonation chord burns at 26,000 f.p.s. The latter two are called high explosives, based on their burn rate.

                Gun powder, the modern stuff, is comprised of various chemicals, most notably nitrocellulose. You can get it to ignite with a hot sustained flame, such as from a primer. If it is confined to a small space, such as the volume inside a cartridge, the rate of burn increases dramatically, but it doesn’t explode. A metal can of modern gun powder set on fire will burn very hot, but it will not explode.

                Black powder, on the other hand, does explode. A one pound can, can be used as a blasting agent to remove small stumps. I have set off black powder charges with ordinary flash bulbs. The only way to make black powder not explode is to burn it outside in a very small pile, where it cannot build up pressure. Even a large pile of black powder could explode if set afire.

                A black powder gun can be blown apart if the bullet is not seated firmly against the powder. If there is even a small space between them, the powder explodes and hits the bullet with a hammer blow of several tens of thousands of pounds of pressure, causing the barrel to swell. These swellings are called “walnuts” among black powder shooters and they are a sign of an improperly loaded gun.

                B.B.

            • Paul Says:

              Priming compound and gunpowder are made for two different purposes. A primer needs to ignite the main powder charge so it needs to burn very rapidly and produce a hot flame. A firing pin is used to strike the primer so the priming compound must be impact-sensitive.

              Gunpowder on the other hand must burn in a controlled manner so as to not have too fast of a pressure rise and destroy the firearm. A cartridge case full of priming compound would produce pressures far in excess of what any firearm is designed to contain. Modern smokeless powder is described as “progressive” because its burn rate is affected by the chamber pressure, temperature, surface area, surface coatings, and other factors. The higher the pressure and/or temperature the faster a progressive powder will burn. As BB mentioned you can light a small quantity of gunpowder on the ground and all it will do is produce a pretty flame and burn for several seconds. In the confines of a cartridge case in a gun it will burn much more rapidly and produce little or no smoke or ash.

              Black powder is a much simpler mixture of charcoal, sulfur, and potassium nitrate. It is not progressive – its burn rate is pretty much unaffected by pressure but is controlled by the grain size and ratios of the components. Black powder also generates alot of smoke and residue. It also works well at the lower pressures that older firearm designs and weaker metals were able to contain.

              Paul in Liberty County

              • CJr Says:

                Paul,
                Thanks for that explanation. It’s a good one.
                -Cjr

              • Fred PRoNJ Says:

                Cjr., Lead staphnate and lead azide are the prime ingredients (depending on the manufacuturer) now used in primers along with some other chemicals. The early manufacturers of primers used to use fulminate of mercury along with some other chemicals (charcoal, potassium and so on) but that was a corrosive compound whereas the current impact sensitive primers aren’t.

                Fred PRoNJ.

  • pcp4me Says:

    BB,

    Wow! You da man! This is exactly what I had hoped to see from the EBOS. Clearly the one I would go to for fun!

    Looks good, shoots terrific! Nice fun gun. Soon as I can I will get one and have some fun with it!

    Thanks for the report!

  • Jim Says:

    In regards to yesterdays blog, I understand there are two models of the Crosman Titan GP. Both
    models (lower and the higher velocity) look identical. Is there a marking on the rifle the differentiate
    the two?

  • Ton Says:

    BB
    I posted this in yesterday’s comments as well:
    Are the Nitro pistons sold separately with different power levels as an after market item? Eg. can I buy a Trail NP All Weather 495 rifle and fit a Crosman Titan Lower power Nitro piston in it? In other words are the Nitro pistons interchangeable among these rifles to any degree?

    Thanks
    Ton

    • B.B. Pelletier Says:

      Ton,

      I already answered you in your first post.

      No, the Canadian 495 rifle has been de-stroked to achieve such low velocity, I believe, A regular Nitro Piston would not fit such a rifle. That’s how they keep Canadian-spec air rifles legal.

      B.B.

  • J-F Says:

    Wow I may just have to get used to the look of this one instead of waiting for an aftermarket stock for the Steel Storm. Oh no wait our stupid regulations makes the EBOS illegal to own here :(

    J-F

  • Wayne Burns Says:

    B.B. or whoever…

    Do you think it’s possible ( or will ever be possible), to get 1- 1/2″- 5 shot groups with steel balls like a bb at 50 yards???

    What is the best anyone has heard of as yet?? and with what air gun?? and what cal.??

    Wacky Wayne,
    Match Director,
    Ashland Air Rifle Range

    • B.B. Pelletier Says:

      Wayne,

      Getting accuracy at range from a smoothbore shooting round balls has always been difficult. I don’t think it would ever be possible to do what you mention, unless the balls were altered in some way, like putting a high-drag tail on them.

      In Ohio in the 1850s there was a club of shooters who shot round-ball smoothbores at range to see just how accurate they could be. I don’t know much about these guys or what level of accuracy they achieved, but I do think that bore fit of the ball proved to be the most important thing.

      B.B.

      • Robert from Arcade Says:

        BB: Off topic, but I was researching for another project and I came across another good article on the Ballard Rifle. It is in the 2005 Gun Digest , pages 72-78, thought you might be interested. Also a very good article on using cast bullets with plain bases for hunting deer and black bear with the old timers, like the .38-55,405Win, and .348Win, on page 34,Robert.

        • B.B. Pelletier Says:

          Robert,

          Thanks for that lead. I’ll get it and read both articles. I’m very hot to get all the Ballard info I can acquire.

          The saga of the Ballard continues to unfold. A Ballard collector Kevin knows says I have something very special. It’s not a No. 9 Union Hill but a Special Order Factory Made rifle. As soon as I know all about it (and put a few rounds downrange) I will make a full report.

          B.B.

          • Robert from Arcade Says:

            BB: Glad to help, and I agree that your gun is probably a special order gun. Your blog on the Ballard has me thinking of a project of my own. I have this Ruger # 3 in .223 that I don’t shoot ever, my .375 Lyman mould, and a 50 round box of .38-55 brass but no gun …. The article in that Gun Digest on .38-55 cast bullet hunting loads has got me thinking about building an .38-55 carbine,Robert.

            • B.B. Pelletier Says:

              Robert,

              Oh, this sounds exciting! If you do do this project, please take some pictures and let us publish the results of the new gun.

              I have a gun buddy now advising me to not shoot my Ballard because it is too valuable. While I certainly don’t want to degrade the rifle in any way, I am its legitimate owner and I feel I have a right to shoot it a little if I want to. I would never do anything to harm it, of course. When it finally passes on I want it to thrill the next owner just as much as it now does me.

              But here is a rifle with everything I always wanted in a rifle. It’s Matthew Quigley’s rifle, only in a caliber I can handle, and it is the real deal. I think I should have a crack at it, like any former owner.

              B.B.

              • kevin Says:

                B.B.,

                The epitome of a conundrum. Shoot a museum grade collectible gun or hang it on a wall or trade it for something shootable that is past collectible grade. Hmmmm. Tough decision for anyone.

                I have no intention of influencing your decision but merely offer observations.

                An original Marlin Ballard Special Factory-Made is in a category by itself even when compared to other ORIGINAL Ballard’s and especially when compared to other period guns of the same ilk. Sharps comes to mind. A Marlin Ballard is the cream that rises to the top when it comes to legendary accuracy. Charles H. Ballard had one paramount goal for his design. Accuracy. Customization for accuracy was almost infinite in the options from the factory for these guns. He wanted small, tall, fat and slim shooters to be able to order an accurate rifle that would fit.

                I can’t help but think that Charles is disappointed in the number of his guns that sit unused in the hands of collectors gathering dust. I also can’t help but think he smiles widely when one of his masterful creations is shot accurately consistently by a gun enthusiast especially if that shooter has loaded his own rounds.

                These guns were designed to be shot and enjoyed by enthusiasts that have shot enough other guns to appreciate how special they really are. In the next 100 years there may be another hand made gun that will be produced that is as accurate and well made as the Marlin Ballard. If so, it will only further elevate the stature of these magnificent guns that were produced in the late 1800′s.

                If you do decide to shoot your fine Ballard and commit to produce the most accurate load for that rifle you will have carried on the tradition that Charles H. Ballard intended. At the same time you will be transported back into a time when serious long range shooting matches were the gentlemanly norm (pre-country club), belonging to a club with the best shooters in the land was prestigious and 85% of them owned Ballard’s.

                kevin

                • B.B. Pelletier Says:

                  Kevin,

                  It has taken me 24 hours to arrive at the same conclusion as you. This rifle was built to be shot. And I am not a museum curator, nor do I have the collector’s gene. I enjoy sampling different guns, but only to discover how well they shoot.

                  I have waited all my life for a rifle like this, and I believe I’m going to thoroughly enjoy it while I am able. It goes without saying that I will protect it at all times, but should the unthinkable happen, I’ll have to face that if it comes. I want to shoot this rifle!

                  In the past 45 years I have gotten rid of some wonderful shooters. I can remember them all, and I wish I still owned them, so I could continue to enjoy their accuracy.

                  Perhaps the one rifle I regret getting rid of the most was a custom .458 Winchester Magnum built on a 1903 Springfield action. It had a Douglas premium barrel and I shot it with a special handload that barely recoiled. I could put ten 550-grain slugs through two inches at 100 yards with that rifle, and that was measuring the outside diameter of the group! I think about that gun all the time, and I want the Ballard to take its place.

                  Thanks for your thoughts on this.

                  B.B.

  • Wayne Burns Says:

    B.B.

    Thanks… kind of what I thought.

    Just wondering what is possible with steel… instead of lead…

    With some states forcing steel shot around waterways and all…

    So, maybe a steel ball with some kind of tail attached..

    How about the same shape as a our drag pellets in steel with little nubbs perfectly spaced to fit into rifling of a special barrel???

    Wacky Wayne

    • B.B. Pelletier Says:

      Wayne,

      No need to reinvent the wheel. It’s already been done.

      Look here:

      http://www.ddupleks.lv/EN/ddupleks_products/show/Monolit28

      This idea was done by the French Balle Blondeau in the 1960s and it is the idea Gary Barnes used to make such accurate big bore projectiles for his rifles.

      It’s a pellet by another name.

      B.B.

      • Wayne Burns Says:

        Thanks again B.B.

        Those looking promising! Especially the way they cut through brush! I’ll be trying some in my shotgun real soon.

        Wacky Wayne

    • Robert from Arcade Says:

      Wacky Wayne: I shoot RB in my smooth bore, flint lock, .69 cal Trade gun and can get 4-6 inch groups out to fifty yards. Also tried lead ball with no patch in my rifled muzzle loaders,( in case I needed to re-load fast), and accuracy isn’t bad at close range. A inch and a half would be a stretch though, without sabot or patch,Robert.

      • Robert from Arcade Says:

        Wayne: FWIW, shotgun slugs no matter what they are made of deflect badly in brush. I’ve shot many deer with them and will say that none of them are brush busters ,despite what some folks say. In fact, a moderate load with a decent bullet in a .6.5 Swede or 7mm will do better than any shotgun projectile in the brush. I used to place skulls from freshly butchered hogs and steers down in the goldenrod, and shoot them with slugs of all kinds at ranges inside of 100 yards. You can miss, or worse, wound a deer if it’s standing broadside in such cover easier than you would think, Robert.

        • Wayne Burns Says:

          Thanks Robert,

          Did you check that link B.B. posted? They say their product does cut through brush better than rifle bullets or lead shotgun slugs.. just wondering

          Wacky Wayne

          • Robert from Arcade Says:

            Wayne : Yes I did, and those look a lot like the ones marketed by S&W( I think?) that I tried years ago. We had great accuracy with them, but also some un-explained key-holes on targets when tested. I still maintain that any slug could deflect and that’s hard to predict. What I found is the most important thing in deer hunting with slugs or hunting anything ,with whatever you use,(we are required to use slugs for deer, where I hunt), is to hone your fieldcraft. I simply try to avoid iffy shots. Even then you will loose a deer if you shoot at enough of them. Using 12 ga slugs, I’ve shot at 19 deer in the last ten seasons. Out of those, 14 were killed, one was lost, and four were missed. None were shot at or more than twice, most were one shot kills. The one that was lost ,was due to a deflection for sure. I struck a thumb sized poplar branch within ten yards of the gun. Not making excuses for myself, stuff happens sometimes, and if you haven’t ever missed or lost game you probably haven’t hunted much, Robert.

  • J-F Says:

    For those of you lucky enough to have the right to buy a Marauder Pistol there’s little less than 24 hours to wait to order the first ones straight from Crosman right here :

    http://www.crosman.com/airguns/pistols/marauder-pistol

    I’m not jealous AT ALL…. ok maybe a little
    OK make that A LOT!!!

  • Jim K Says:

    B.B.

    How did your Crosman 850 Trap hold up during your testing of these semi-auto BB guns?

    Jim K.

    • B.B. Pelletier Says:

      Jim,

      The second-to-last paragraph:

      “Crosman 850 trap
      Wow! It’s been a while since an airgun made me smile like this one does! And do you remember that I said I would be using the Crosman model 850 BB trap for this test? Well, I did, and despite the power of the EBOS, the trap did not suffer one bit.”

      B.B.

  • Matt61 Says:

    Very impressive. I’m reminded of test of the 9mm HK MP5 submachine gun where operators could shoot fingers off silhouette targets at close quarter distances. As long as accuracy is so good, what is the barrier to a full-auto gun with pellets? I’m guessing that it would be the complexity and expense of the feeding mechanism.

    On the subject of gunpowder, my reloading manual says that gunpowder creates its own oxygen to burn. That is quite astounding. My sense of combustion is that it requires a lot of oxygen in the environment. To create its own oxygen to consume seems to be quite a technological leap. No wonder gunpowder took so long to invent, and I’m more skeptical than ever that Kirk could mix it up properly to fight the Gorn.

    More news on the 1911 in cold weather. Further research comes up with two independent accounts from the Chosin Reservoir saying that in extreme cold weather, the 1911 was one of the few weapons that worked perfectly. That’s good enough for me. Does anyone have more information on S.L.A. Marshall? I believe he is better known for publishing an after-action study of WWII claiming that some ridiculously low number of soldiers, like 30%, actually fired their weapons in combat. This study was supposedly key to the shift to the assault rifle doctrine. Since soldiers could barely fire their weapons, the thinking was that marksmanship was a waste of time, so the army went with spray guns. Thus, we have been saddled with the problematic AR-15 platform and are getting outgunned at longer range in Afghanistan. That 30% figure doesn’t sound right to me and there have been recent studies challenging it. I’ve never been a soldier but if the enemy horde was howling down on me, you can bet that I would be pulling the trigger just as fast as I could. Maybe Marshall was looking for things to criticize. I don’t believe him and am all for the 1911 once again.

    Matt61

    • J-F Says:

      You need to watch more mythbusters ;-) they tested the gorn myth and not only weren’t they able to replicate anything even remotely ressembling gun powder but when using real gun powder the canon made by Kirk was more lethal to the user of the canon than for the target.

      JF

      • Matt61 Says:

        J-f, I can believe this about the self-destructive effects of the cannon. There is a hysterical video series on YouTube called “Kirk’s best fighting moves.” One is called “The Wall of Destruction” where Kirk is fighting an alien on the Enterprise. Once he gets the alien to his knees, Kirk leaps up to a wall, springs off of it and slams his hip into the opponent as he falls to the ground. The comments tell it all:

        Comment 1: “Kirk’s powerful butt attack really destroyed that Andorian.”

        Comment 2: “You guys have it all wrong. It wasn’t a head butt; it was a butt-butt. But the butt move will leave you more dazed than your opponent and will leave your back exposed to a knife attack.”

        Matt61

    • B.B. Pelletier Says:

      Matt,

      You got it right about the feed mechanism being the barrier to full-auto pellet guns. Only one has been semi-successful and that one is the .22-caliber copy of the M16. And even it can only fire round balls. 26 rounds in the inline magazine and a cyclic rate of 800-900 RPM. Half-inch groups are possible at 10 yards with semi-auto fire. I tested it for Airgun Illustrated.

      And Matt, what’s so odd about gun powder creating it’s own oxygen? Solid Rocket fuel does the same, otherwise it wouldn’t burn in space.

      B.B.

    • pete zimmerman Says:

      Depends upon what you mean by “create its own oxygen”. Black powder contains charcoal, sulfur and potassium nitrate (KNO3). As combustion begins, the KNO3 is heated and disintegrates releasing oxygen. Much the same thing happens in modern solid rocket fuels where the oxidizer of choice is ammonium chlorate or ammonium perchlorate and the fuel is a plastic or asphalt-like compound mixed with powdered metals, usually aluminum. There are some tricks to mixing black powder; it is not a simple mixture of the ingredients above.

      Smokeless powder burns by, in a sense, rearranging the atoms in the molecule to release oxygen that combines with other parts of the nitrated-hydrocarbon compound to reach a lower energy state. I say ‘nitrated-hydrocarbon’ to keep a lot of generality. The major ingredients look chemically a lot like a nitroglycerine derivative (because they are close cousins).

    • Matt61 Says:

      B.B., as far as the rocket fuel, I had never thought about that but I probably would have supposed that they carried an extra tank of oxygen and mixed it with the fuel? :-) Pete, the reloading manual just says “produces its own oxygen” without elaboration. Your chemistry explanation makes sense. It reminds me of reactions in biochemistry which can release quite a bit of water and oxygen contained internally in various compounds. In the case of combustion, I just never associated internal stores of oxygen with the quantities necessary for an explosion, especially since one way of putting out a fire is depriving it of oxygen.

      Also of interest relative to the EBOS is how firing rate on full-auto is related to accuracy. As usual with a complex topic, there are wildly divergent examples. The M3 grease gun with its low rate was known for inaccuracy. Yet the state-of-the-art SCAR assault rifles have intentionally low cyclic rates of around 600 rpm to improve accuracy. This is no doubt in response to the experience of the M14 with a higher cyclic rate that was completely uncontrollable. After-action reports by the U.S. Army about the German MG42 at ~1200 rpm claim that the high rate of fire “undercut the inherent accuracy of the 7.7mm cartridge.” I take that to mean inaccurate although I hope their research is more sound than S.L.A. Marshall’s. But if you go up to 1800 rpm with the new Russian assault rifle, the AK-94 or something like that–you find extremely high accuracy. This cyclic rate is designed to defeat body armor by essentially placing two shots right on top of the other in the same place. There is also the example of the AA12 shotgun with a high cyclic rate (don’t remember what) which fires a 12 gauge round with essentially no recoil at all.

      There are a lot of factors involved including the power of the cartridge, the ergonomics of the weapon, and other features of the shooter/weapon interface such as the ability to perceive and respond to a round’s impact as you are walking your shots. However, it makes sense to me that the heart of the physics involved is based on wave mechanics which can describe the oscillating nature of an action’s cycle. The key concept would be interference. Waves in different phases (degrees of overlap) will interfere in different ways and at certain values will cancel all amplitudes. This in turn implies that stability with full-auto does not trend in one direction with higher or lower cyclic rates but is associated with particular values. This is supported suggestively by a couple of examples. The recoil of the AA12 is somehow designed so that the cycling of the action cancels out recoil. Also, Sgt. Mitchell Paige who won the Medal of Honor at Guadalcanal for the leadership of his machine gun section claims that before the war, he replaced the recoil springs of the 1917 Browning HMG with a stiffer spring that would increase the cyclic rate and reduce recoil. He must have lucked onto the right value since he claims that he had much increased accuracy at 1000 yards with the new set-up. So my guess is that within a window of cyclic rates, wave mechanics govern certain optimum values at which recoil will be minimized up to a limit of a very high rate–like a minigun–where, assuming you can control the weapon, you should have high accuracy because you are approximating a solid beam of rounds.

      Matt61

      • pete zimmerman Says:

        Hi, Matt,

        There actually are hybrid rockets which use a solid fuel and a bottle of liquid oxygen. The fuel is usually an asphalt or rubber. They’re quite reliable, pretty safe, and very low powered because the fuel molecule is so heavy.

        Don’t even think about squirting conventional fire extinguisher materials, not even halon, on burning gunpowder — black or smokeless. Won’t help a bit.

    • Mike Says:

      Matt 61;

      Firing rates for soldiers during combat went up dramatically during the Vietnam War after the Army change the way they were training troops. They went from bulls-eye targets to human shaped ones. That did it. You fight like you train.

      Mike

  • Toby T. Says:

    Something completely off the subject. BB, I am really enjoying shooting my Bronco, what a great gun. I tore a ligament in my right arm last August and have difficulty cocking my larger airguns. The Bronco and my R7 have been my go to springer’s lately. Last spring I was reading the blog and you were going to reveal which rifle is the Bronco’s big brother(or Dad). Maybe I missed it or can’t find the blog which has the answer. My guess would be the Avenger. Oh, and what’s up with Mendoza ? I don’t see them listed on PA’s site. Thanks once again. Toby

    • Slinging Lead Says:

      Toby

      I believe BB stated that he had not completed designing the Bronco’s bigger brother when his health problems started. So I guess it is still on the drawing board.

    • B.B. Pelletier Says:

      Toby,

      Mendoza was having problems supplying the Bronco, so they almost ended its production. For that reason, the bigger gun, called the Mustang, was never ordered. It’s an RM 200 in the same western stock and with the same other features as the Bronco.

      At this time the future of the Bronco in uncertain. However, if Mendoza can continue to provide them, then the Mustang could become a reality some time in the future.

      B.B.

      • Toby T. Says:

        Muchas gracias por la info. It would be a shame if the Bronco was discontinued. I am really glad that you are feeling better and your health is improving. I really enjoy reading this blog and you do a fine job orchestrating it ( Edith too, of course!). Thank you for everything you do.

  • CJr Says:

    Pete, Matt, Paul, Fred, BB,
    You guys are an incredible wealth of knowledge. Thanks for all the info.

    Pete,
    You told us what not to use on powder…any idea what should be used? I assume by conventional fire extinguishing materials that includes CO2? When we start dabbling in reloading (no matter how safe it really is) this might be useful to know, too.
    -CJr

    • twotalon Says:

      I doubt if it would matter much. Powder burns fast enough that you would not have time to do anything about it.
      Just don’t have open containers near where you are reloading. Only have as much powder near the reloading operation as you expect to use.
      In case of a secondary fire caused by the powder you would use something suitable for the type of fire.

      As far as I know, black powder is the most hazardous to work with. Pressure or electrostatic sparks are to be avoided with this stuff.

      twotalon

    • B.B. Pelletier Says:

      Chuck,

      The trick is to never have the fire in the first place. Black powder is so volatile that we handle it with special spark-less utensils. Handling black powder is a lot like handling any other explosive, only of all of them that I know of, save nitroglycerin, black powder is the most sensitive.

      B.B.

  • pcp4me Says:

    BB,

    Or any one else for that matter. Does anyone have any experience with Mountain Air custom airguns?

    These are based on the 2XXX series guns.

    I have an opertunity to trade for a MA custom gun based on a 2300S gun. It has a BSA scope, BKL mounts, Ricks grips, Muzzle Mack stock and Rick from Mich. LDC. The guy wants a .22 pcp and would take my Discovery with a tech force 2 X 7 X 32 scope in trade.

    Ny question is the MA gun worth the same or more than the Discovery. Since I have recently acquired a Sumatra 2500 carbine and no longer shoot the Disco it is expendable.

    So is this a good trade in your opinion?

    Thanks!

    • Mr B. Says:

      pcp4me,

      I’ve looked at their web sight many times, but have no first hand knowledge about their wares.

      How about re posting you questions on the current blog where everyone can see it. Certainly someone out there has one or has had one and will give you their opinion on Mountain Air and their custom guns.

      Bruce

  • AIROSOK Says:

    BB-
    Have you, or anyone, tried a Lead BB such as the GAMO Rounds or BEEMAN Perfect Rounds in the EBOS??
    -JD

    • Alex Says:

      Hi,

      Finally someone asking THE question about the Umarex EBoS (as far as I’m concerned)! Have you found any more info on the subject? Or better yet, have you tried it yourself successfully?

      I would love to get my hands on an automatic gun (who wouldn’t?), but one that can actually do some damage (like killing mice and rats or at least break stuff ). Otherwise, what’s the point? So I asked someone at PyramydAir. His answer was “the only auto BB guns that take lead BB’s are the “IZH Drodz.”. What a bummer! The Drozd start at about $300! So I am super happy to hear someone doing it successfully! A second opinion would be great though.

      Thanks a lot

  • B.B. Pelletier Says:

    AIROSOK,

    No, I haven’t.

    B.B.

  • AIROSOK Says:

    I have and they seemed to fire great. I plan to put them across the CHRONY soon.
    I measured 3 random BBs for each Brand/Type that I have on hand and found the Daisy Copper Heads to be .170 average, Daisy Zincs were .172 average, the GAMO Rounds were all .176 and the Beeman Perfect Rounds were .171 on average.
    Obviously the smaller diameter BBs fed into the magazine from the hopper better.
    I agree…………remove the stock rear sight and put on a Red Dot………………..BINGO!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • AIROSOK Says:

    Correction……….the BEEMAN Perfect Rounds averaged .176 and not .171. Whatever came with the EBOS were zinc and averaged .171.

    • Alex Says:

      Hi,
      This is a long post, so here’s the summary: PyramydAir support tells me not to use lead BBs in the EBOS. You’ve done it successfully. So my questions are: (1) How did you set the EBOS for your tests: auto/semi-auto, shots per min? (2) did you run into any problems using lead BBs since your initial tests? and (3) In case of a jam, would it be easy to fix?
      Thanks

      —————————————-
      Now the long story…

      I had a chat with Rick at PyramydAir a few days ago and was very disappointed when he advised me not to use lead BB’s in the EBOS. I did a little research and found your post. I got really excited when you said you actually tested lead BB’s in the EBOS without any problem. So I went back to PyramydAir, told Rick about my discovery (I think he’s the only guy in chat support, very nice guy though). Here’s some of what he had to say about it:

      “Rick: A couple of things.. having used the lead ball ammo in the IZH.. it works better there for 1 reason… the IZH has a rifled barrel. [...] The EBOS does not. It is smooth bore. Also, the lead balls are very soft and can get deformed very easily.. the IZH was pretty easy to take apart and clear a jam.. it happened every time I tried to fill the mag all the way up.
      [...]
      Alex: but the Umarex is 1/3 price of IZH
      Rick: Yes the EBOS is 1/3 the price but there wouldn’t be any advantage to shooting lead.. the BBs are VERY expensive compared to the standard bbs and you’d be asking for jamming issues with a massive reservoir feeding into a secondary mag. [...] IF the EBOS had a rifled barrel, THEN it may be worth the trial and error of it… with the smooth bore, velocity is going to be your best friend.. you lose that when you go to the heavier lead shot.
      [...]
      Alex: [...] can I kill a mouse, or a rat with Zinc BB’s?
      Rick: Many a squirrel have fallen at the hands of a red ryder bb gun.. so if you are shooting the EBOS or the Steel Storm you should be fine…”

      Looking back at the conversation:
      #1: if the IZH works “better” than the EBOS, that means the EBOS works too
      #2: If the IZH gets jammed “every time” you fill it up all the way, then maybe the solution is to not fill it (or the EBOS) up all the way.
      #3: I know heavier pellet means lower velocity, but the impact and even precision of lead blows away any other metal (including silver).

      So here I am back to square one.

  • tom Says:

    i did 500 beeman leads thru mine without a prob and were very accurate. although ill stick to steel cause of cost. im currently using crosman and they are great, also. i went out yesterday, and at 25yds, i was hitting a soda can 8 out of ten shots offhand in semi mode. i do have a bushnell trophyred dot on it but that still speaks very highly of the accuracy of this smoothbore. im gonna order some daisy zinc and try them. but the number of posts on here that dont even have to do with the ebos is aggrivating

    • B.B. Pelletier Says:

      Tom,

      This blog allows off-topic comments and we have no plans to change that. You simply don’t have to read those comments.

      B.B.

  • tom Says:

    and i also had questions about the shot count i was getting and even was responded to. i questioned PAs own paul c. integrity about his “honest reviews” and all the posts about that mysteriously dissapeared. i bought the ebos because of his recommendations and he said it gets 300 rnds a cart. im getting 150-200 and the temp in fl is around 85. when he did his test it was in the mid to lower 70s. his review showed full auto(shooting out a diamond shaped target) when he did that and i even tried semi for my tests with a few sec between shots but no luck. when people say they do honest reviews and get a fat paycheck from the comp. they are doing it for, dont listen cause its all pure bs. they make the gun look good so people like me will see how great he says it is and spend their hard earned money to get it. just to line their pockets. mine is going back tomorow

    • B.B. Pelletier Says:

      Tom,

      I’m sorry about your experience, but you are always welcome to make comments here. The only reason comments are ever eliminated is if they are spams or if they are off-color.

      B.B.

    • Edith Gaylord Says:

      “when people say they do honest reviews and get a fat paycheck from the comp.”

      tom,

      I can’t stop laughing…”fat paycheck.”

      Edith

  • tom Says:

    im sure paul does very well

  • tom Says:

    he has his own cable show and keeps all the guns he tests and gets a check from PA. and i dont know why he has no way to comment on his vids directly. one tester that is real is rick eusler. and he is up front with me about what he makes from PA and you can comment on his reviews and even call him cause his number is on his website. i do call him once a month or so just to bs. i reckon paul dosnt want to be bothered answering emails

  • john D Says:

    After about 600 bbs the gun started to miss fire with a full tank, I found the only way it would function normally was to hold the gun at a 90 deg angle from the normal firing position. This was very disapointing since I was showing a bunch of possible new buyers (6).

    What was happening is that the gun would cycle but not fire, then a bb would roll out, yes roll out. then it would fire at half force ( with a full co2 and new batteries) then it would fire a normal for a second the then back to the misfiring.

    • Jeff Says:

      I too would like this question answered, but seeing as it’s been almost a year since this post, we must be the only 2version people to ever have this problem.

Leave a Reply


6 + 4 =

Swiss Arms P92 replica pistol
Swiss Arms P92 CO2 BB pistol

More and more, we're hearing that airguns are ideal for firearm training when it comes to improving trigger control, acquiring a target and increasing accuracy. While all those are big pluses, let's remember the other reasons: (1) Save a fortune on ammo (if you can even get firearm ammo!). (2) Shoot at home. (3) No hearing protection needed. (4) Airguns are a fraction of the cost of firearms. So, click on the image & add this to your gun vault.

New .22-cal. Sheridan!
Sheridan 2260MB CO2 rifle

Sheridan has always made .20-cal. airguns. So, this new .22-cal. rifle is particularly exciting. And, it's available only in limited quantities. If you collect Sheridans (or just love them for their quality), you MUST add this to your gun vault. It's a single-shot CO2 rifle with a metal breech. Bolt-action single shots like the 2260 are ideal for teaching proper gun handling. Everything you love about Sheridan guns…and more. Get yours NOW before they sell out!