by Tom Gaylord, a.k.a. B.B. Pelletier
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
Part 7
Part 8
Part 9
Part 10
Brand new TX200 Mark III. It’s very similar to my TX; but the checkering is different, and the line of the forearm is more scalloped.
Today, we’ll look at the accuracy of the Air Arms TX200 Mark III at 50 yards. I can tell you that I learned a lot from this test. But that will all be summarized as we go. Let’s get started!
I shot the new TX directly off the same sandbag that was used at 25 yards. As you remember, I showed (after much coaxing from you readers!) that the TX shoots as well or better when rested directly on sandbags as it does with an artillery hold. The bag was crossways to the rifle, so the contact with the stock was minimized.
The day was perfect for the test. Not a breath of wind the entire time I was on the line!
The rifle is mounted with the AirForce 4-16X50 scope, which was selected so I could conduct another test for reader Duskwight after the regular test was completed. This scope is clear and sharp; and at 50 yards, I was able to bisect the small bullseyes with the reticle.
Sight-in
The rifle was still zeroed for 25 yards, so it had to be adjusted for 50 yards before anything else could happen. The first shot landed 3-1/4 inches low and 1-1/2 inches to the left. It then took another 2 shots before I was reasonable on the target. Then, I fired the first group with H&N Baracuda Match pellets. Ten landed in a group measuring 1.562 inches. It’s a fairly round group, but not as small as I would like from this rifle. So, I switched pellets.
Ten H&N Baracuda Match pellets made this 1.562-inch group. It’s a bit large for a TX200.
JSB Exact Monsters
Next I tried some JSB Exact Monsters, which weigh 13.4 grains in .177 caliber. They went all over the place. When I went dowrange to retrieve the target, I saw that they were tumbling or yawing. They must be too heavy for the velocity the TX is able to generate.
Crosman Premier heavy
The third pellet I tried was the Crosman Premier heavy. I meant to bring Crosman Premier lites, but I grabbed the wrong box when loading up for the range. Fortunately, the heavy pellet was wonderful! Ten of them gave me a group that measured 0.658 inches between centers — or about as good as a top-flight PCP can do at the same distance! This is phenomenal accuracy for any air rifle at 50 yards!
Ten Crosman Premier heavies went into a tight 0.658-inch group at 50 yards. This one is a screamer!
First lesson learned
The new TX200 Mark III is every bit as accurate as my TX that’s well broken-in. No accuracy has been lost over the years, and the rifle can shoot this well right out of the box!
With lesson one under my belt, I adjusted the scope to lower the point of impact and moved to the next bull. The first shot landed where the last group was, then the pellets moved to the new sight adjustment.
Second lesson learned
Some scopes have stiction. After adjusting them, it’s best to shoot a couple shots to vibrate the reticle to its new location. I knew that, but made the mistake anyway. So, I’ve included the first shot, along with the group, to show you what it looks like. If this group had been as small as the one before, that first shot would really stand out. But I lost my concentration on this one and wasn’t holding the rifle as softly as I might have. This group of 10 measures 1.435 inches between centers, which isn’t that far from the first group of H&N Baracudas!
The second group of Premier heavies opened to 1.435 inches. That’s more than double the size of the first group! Top hole to the left of the pellet was the first shot, which I disregarded, after the scope was adjusted.
Third lesson learned
While a rifle may be capable of shooting 10-shot 50-yard groups smaller than one inch, it may not do it every time! That small group may represent what the rifle is capable of, but not what it will always do.
Special test
Duskwight, our blog reader from Moscow, asked me to test the difference between a rifle shot with a low-power scope and the same rifle shot with a high-power scope. In other words, does magnification improve a rifle’s ability to group?
Well, common sense tells us that it does. Right? I mean, surely, if you’re able to parse the target to a finer degree, you must be able to group your shots closer together. Right? That’s what this test will determine.
That’s why I used a 4-16x scope on this rifle. I’d been shooting with 16x to this point, so now I dialed the power back to 4x and shot another group.
Wow! At 4x, the intersection of the crosshairs almost completely covers the small bullseye at 50 yards. As I shoot, I’m almost certain how this test is going to turn out. And it does. Ten shots on 4x with the same Premier heavy pellets landed in 2.208 inches. Looks like I was right about what low magnification would do.
The third group of Premier heavies — shot with the scope set to 4x — was 2.208 inches between centers at 50 yards. That’s quite a difference from the previous group, even though that group was already admittedly large.
But something nagged me about this group. I knew in my heart that I’d not given the rifle my best. I knew this group was going to be bigger than the last one while I was shooting it, so I was even sloppier with my hold.
It probably sounds like I need medication to suppress my dual personalities while at the range, but I assure you I’m not talking to myself — at least not loud enough for others to hear. What I’m doing is a little soul searching while I’m still out at the range and have the time to do something about it.
I adjusted the scope back to 16x and shot another 50-yard group. This time, I did everything the way I should have. The hold was completely relaxed. I fully expected to be rewarded with another of those sub-inch groups, but that didn’t happen. This time, I shot a 10-shot group measuring 1.935 inches between centers. Oh, well! I was probably tiring out from all the concentration.
Ten shots at 50 yards with the scope set to 16x netted this 1.935-inch group.
Fourth lesson learned
Sometimes, you just can’t will the results to happen the way you would like. I put my whole heart into this group, and this is what I got. Maybe that’s what it feels like to be 66, dried-out and ready for the old-folks home!
Fifth lesson learned
I called that first great group of Premiers a screamer. Now you see why that is.
Nevertheless, I owed it to Duskwight to try the rifle on low scope magnification one more time, and this time to do my very best. So I did. This time, 10 pellets went into a group that measures 1.481 inches between centers. That’s right, it’s SMALLER than the group shot on 16 power! I noticed that the bull was just visible behind the crosshairs; and if I really tried, I could hold on the target in exactly the same way every time. Apparently, I did, because this group fired on 4x is smaller than the previous group that was fired on 16x.
Ten shots at 50 yards with the scope set to 4x made this 1.481-inch group.
Sixth lesson learned
Although it isn’t conclusive, it looks like you can shoot just as accurately on low scope magnification as you can on high magnification if you take the time to do things right.
Seventh lesson learned
Looking at both groups fired on 16x and both groups fired on 4x, it sure looks like the point of impact never changed! Some of you have asked about that in the past. The design of the scope determines whether the impact point will move when the scope’s power is changed, but these days a lot of variable scopes stay right where they were when the power’s adjusted.
Eighth lesson learned
Of the five groups fired with Premier heavy pellets on this day, only one is smaller than one inch. And it’s significantly smaller! When you see those great groups in the future, you must ask yourselves what the rest of the groups look like.
Ninth lesson learned
I may be old and dried-out, but I can still shoot — a little. I get tired as the shot count increases, so that needs to be factored in to my tests from now on.
Summary
I’m very pleased with what this new TX200 Mark III has done so far. I think the rumors that the TX quality may have slipped are just that — rumors! Individual guns may have problems; but overall, the TX200 is one fine air rifle. Next, I plan on mounting a red dot sight and testing it for accuracy, again, to see what the differences are.
Howdy Mr. BB, thanx sir. Exactly where I’m at. Shootin’ at 23 yrds, I can get a .300ish group once in awhile. The beauty of the T-reX for me is when my groups open up, I know it’s me & can go to work on my fundamentals, cuz it sure ain’t the rifle! Thanx again for the recommendation & this extensive test. Shoot/ride safe.
Beaz
.
BB
Wow, .658 inches. That is some fancy shooting. That just happens to be the exact same size group you shot at 50 yards with your personal TX200. Quite a coincidence.
The last time you tested the updated TX200 you kept it. Do you plan on doing the same with this one?
SL,
Let me answer that for you: No, we are not going to buy the new TX200 🙂 There are some new guns coming out that we’ll buy after testing…but not this one.
Edith
SL,
The Chancellor of the Exchequer has spoken!
B.B.
I’m going to ask a very controversial question.
So BB don’t get offended. I know your telling what it is. And by all means I think (in my opinion) that the TX is what all other spring guns should be based on. (I read that some where before I know)
And I have to say this first also. I know groups change when you shoot a gun. And I have had good groups and bad groups out of the same gun in the same day. But how in the heck could I have confidence shooting field target if I couldn’t get more consistent shots out of a gun. Ain’t that what they thrive for?
(*And remember I didn’t say a TX. I said More consistent shots out of a Gun*) As in any Field Target air gun.
Am I missing something about field target that I should know so I can understand better? Remember I straight up said I never competed in field target but would love to. Are them guys really that good. I set up some challenging targets at home. But at home it don’t matter if I win or loose by making that shot count.
One of these days maybe you can do a article on Field Target and how the guns and other aspects of that sport work. Since your like the Godfather inventor and all of Field Target. I mean like what kind of accuracy and testing they do to make sure the gun and themselves are gong to be doing the best they can.
Believe me I’m a like listening and waiting for it to happen ok. Man how do ya do a Italian accent in writing anyway?
Oh and I think the 10th lesson will top it off. The dot sight. That’s the one I want to see. I shot my first Disco with a red dot for the longest time pest controlling inside of 35 yards with nice results.
I think you will like it. I know all I had to do was put the dot at center mass of the pest I was shooting and I had pretty good results. And I could find the pest fast kind of like open sights but with less time to get everything lined up for the shot. And I shoot dot sights with both eyes open and that helps with the fast find of the pest. Well will see soon I hope what you think about the dot sight.
Man I always forget something. I was pesting starlings, and an occasional squirrel here or there.
And BB how the heck do you have any luck with the black targets you are using. I like a white target with black lines or circles. I think you will be amazed at how that will tighten up your groups.
GF1,
You have to remember that maybe the two pellets shown in this report are not the two most accurate pellets for this rifle. I’d like to think that they are (when I packed for the range), but after seeing the results here, I’m not so sure.
Inadvertently, you answered your own question. You like to shoot critters with a dot sight because you can aim center of mass and get the job done. That is field target in macro, except that instead of the center of the mass we shoot the center of the kill zone paddle. “Aim small, miss small.”
I other words. instead of trying to place each shot through the same holes, like I was doing here. you are shooting at the center of a different target every time. Get close enough to the center and you knock the target down. Stray too far and you hit the target face and lock it in the upright position.
It’s like plinking at spinners. You either hit them or you don’t. And a shot that hits the center of the spinner smacks it with authority. That’s what a good hit in field target is — a good hit in the center of the target.
B.B.
Thanks for taking the time to answer the question I’m sure you answered many times before. And a very clear answer at that.
And you brought something up in the first part of the answer that always slips my mind.
“You have to remember that maybe the two pellets shown in this report are not the two most accurate pellets for this rifle. I’d like to think that they are (when I packed for the range), but after seeing the results here, I’m not so sure”
I always think in my mind that you have the magic pellet already figured out. Now there’s a thought process I need to change.
Gunfun1,
B.B. has written many good articles on FT (Field Target).
Here’s a good one with 8 parts:
/blog/2007/09/introduction-to-field-target-part-8-the-scopes-part-2/
Although this FT article is not a multi-part I like it better because of the gorgeous woman pictured:
/blog/2009/1/accessories/targets-for-the-rest-of-us/
kevin
kevin
Thanks.
I glanced through some. And I’m definitely going to start at Part1 and read through them all.
Gunfun1, I would venture to say that you research a good gun, like the TX200 and then you keep practicing. Those are all the variables in play although it certainly takes a lot of practice. Maybe we can get an answer out of Wayne Burns who went from airgun novice to world-class field target shooter. (And massive buyer of airguns.)
Matt61
I would like that. I have mentioned in the past that he sounds like a very intresting person.
I would like to hear some of his ideas.
Well, i shoot field target with a TM 1000 pcp but for about 5 years shot a TX and a Pros Sport. For me the Pro Sport had the edge mostly because of balance. With all of these guns I tend to get a better group from a cold gun than from a warmed up gun. It may not be the guns at all though. I think that when we shoot group after group we experience concentration slippage. It just may be internal. When I shoot FT, once I have sighted the gun in and confirmed my ballistics I am not longer shooting groups. Once the match starts I am relaxing between lanes while I score my partner. I even meditate a bit between shots. Since I am rested when I engage the new target it is easier to maintain concentration for the two shots on each target. Just a theory based on my own experience.
By the way, I never shoot off a bench rest in practice. I shoot all practice in FT position which for me is sitting on the bum bag on the ground. When I do shoot groups in practice I shoot mostly at my zero range which happens to be 34 yards and at my max FT range of 55 yards.
Larry
I like what you said about how you practice. You practice in the position like your doing your match.
When you shoot from the sitting position does that help you stay more level with the target and help to place the shot better when you figure out your distance?
I think so. I try to have my paper target bulls fairly close to the ground. Having said that, our course has lots of angled shots both uphill and downhill so there is no way to duplicate that during sight in. What I have found is that at the distances we shoot the angle issue is not significant. For the most part I do not compensate. I suppose if we went over 45 degrees it might be important. I think people tend to over estimate the angle that they are presented with and may over compensate. If you are shooting off a bench at 50 yards and shooting from the ground I don’t think the angle is significant.
So if you shoot within the distances you said above you realy dont have to hold over or under because of the distance you have your scope sited at I guess.
When you practice do you put targets at different distances and aim at bulls eye to see if the pellet will hit the kill zone without putting hold over or under in.
Sounds like your trying to get the perfect sife in distance so there is less worry about copensating with the scope hold.
i was referring to compensating for shooting at acute angles, not different distances. If I am sighted in at 34 yds I will have to compensate if the target is at 55 yds. I use a system of turret clicks, not hold over. As an example, I use 13 clicks of elevation at 55 yds. I use 12 at 10 yds. I have used Chairgun and testing to create my ballistics chart. My scope is mounted pretty high. Center of bore to center of scope is 2.86 inches. By mounting hte scope this high it moves the apex of my trajectory further out than if I mounted it at say, 2.0 inches. That moves the flat spot in my trajectory out further and makes for a shallower slope in the trajectory at the longer distances. Since rangefinding accuracy of most scopes is less accurate at longer distances this is a benefit.
Ok now I know what you mean. I have used clicks before also. And Chairgun.
But what do you think about stiction when using clicks though? Isn’t mil-dots more reliable? And do any of the people you shoot field target with use mil-dots instead of clicks? Just asking. Interested in your opinion.
And I like the idea of the way you have your scope mounted. I think that’s why my .177 Talon SS shoots easily at different distances. And one more question. I have a Crosman 1720T with the Crosman 1399 stock on it. Could I use that gun in (FT rifle) since it has a stock on it? And by the way the scope on my 1720T is 2.375 inches from center to center. It makes for some good shooting too.
BB,
Another excellent series of blog posts…
I have a perception that groups fired from low power scopes can be as accurate as high power, but honestly, I can’t see the target sometimes… I use contact lenses so I feel that early in the morning my eyes are not so sharp (or maybe I am still sleeping…) and I need more power from the scope to shoot well.
May I ask if you have seen any amount of change in POI as you turned your scope from 16X to 4X and back to 16X? One of my rifles, a Gamo 440 Hunter .22 has a BSA 4-16X40 on it, and I feel that past 10X the change in POI is sufficient to take the group out of the bullseye when it was perfectly centered below 10X.
Fred,
No. That was the point I was making. The point of impact did not change as the power changed, and I did it twice. That won’t be true for all scopes, but for most of the ones made in the past 20 years, that will be the case.
B.B.
Wicked group off those Premier Heavies, i bought a tin 6 months back to try them and i was impressed. I mainly use them in my .177 SMK B45.3 multi pump because they have a bit more knock down power, are amazingly accurate, and don’t get chewed up in the rotary mag like softer, thinner skirted pellets.
It’s like people say, ‘try different pellets till you find the one your gun performs best with’, and believe me i find nothing more satisfying than knocking down targets at 40 yards and rabbits at 30 with a cheap Chinese multi pump and a tin of Premier Heavies.
TTFN
Best wishes, Wing Commander Sir Nigel Tetlington-Smythe.
P.S. Say B.B., Have you ever tested the AA Prosport, I’ve heard very good reports about them, and they look very sexy indeed.
Sir Nigel,
I have actually owned a .22-caliber ProSport. It had the same high build quality of all Air Arms spring guns and the same hold characteristics as a Beeman R1/HW 80, which is to say it is very sensitive to how it is held. When I realized that I couldn’t get great consistency from it without a superhuman artillery hold, I let it go.
B.B.
That is an interesting observation about the Pro-Sport. I just bought one and don’t find that at all. Perhaps I have a super duper artillery hold, or perhaps different guns fit different people in different ways. I would also note mine shoots sub .250 at 20 yds off of a soft rest.
Thanks for your emphasis on this gun. I really enjoy your blog.
Mr. B.,
Well, I never said I was right about everything! 😉
B.B.
I just meant it was “interesting.” I’ve seen a lot of comments across various forums report that the ProSport is the same as you have observed — hold sensitive.
I honestly don’t think my artillery hold is all that. I wonder. I wonder if anatomical differences and shooting style make a big difference in how certain guns behave for certain shooters. For me, I have a lot of experience in off-hand shooting and pistol shooting. Maybe that is why the PS “appears” to be not hold sensitive to me.
Would the Prosport you owned produce more muzzle velocity than the sub 12 ft/lb ones we have in the UK?
Sir Nigel
Yes. It is the FAC version that is sent to the USA. I tested 32 different types of pellets for the gun (10×10 shot groups each (soft rested), and the “magic pellet” is the AA Falcon 4.52. The second tier, but with a statistically significant difference, are JSB Match Exact RS (7.33), JSB Match Express Exact (7.87), and CPL’s (7.9). Heavier pellets were about twice as large on average (8.4 gr all the way to 10.65 gr).
Sir Nigel,
Yes, my Pro Sport was an FAC .22 model. As close as I can remember, I think it produced 21-23 ft. lbs. I remember it being more powerful than my tuned R1 (HW 80).
B.B.
I’m a big fan of 4x scopes. Probably because I’m a complete dunderkoph with variables. I have never been able to manage the parallax change. I don’t know if it is lack of practice or what but at 66 (67 in two weeks) I prefer 4x. I was able to shoot 5/8″ groups at 100 yds with my .243 with a 4x.
If I use a scope on my air rifles it is no larger than a 4x. As I’m a confirmed plinker and not an experienced bench shooter I actually like a red dot better than a scope. A soda can at 50 yards is in real danger.
Korak,
I like 4X scopes, too. I have an old Leupold M8 in 4X that’s as sharp as anything I own. And I guess today’s little test shows that they can do the job.
B.B.
I have the Hawke 3-7x Airmax on my Slavia 631 and their Tactical Sidewinder 6.5-20x on my Savage. They both have never been used at their max powers.
I recall reading a post on SnipersHide that many snipers consider 4x/100 yards to be the ideal compromise of power along with a wide field of view.
If you can sometime and want to try something different , try out a rifle set up in the scout rifle configuration. For the last three seasons, I’ve been deer hunting with a .308 cal remodeled only as to the stock ,and the additionof a Burris IER scope in 2 3/4 X ,( mounted in SK no drill /tap mounts where the military rear sight would go) Mauser 98 rifle. It is very fast to get on target, and you shoot with both eyes open. The Benji and Sheridan MSP are good for this use. I often wonder why more break barrel air guns are not set up this way as barrel droop, and some scope mounting /recoil issues would be eliminated.
There are people that close the off-side eye? Shame! shame!
Closing one eye puts a bit of tension on the other side… If one really can’t learn to ignore the off-side eye, I’d recommend they obtain a black eye-patch for that eye.
{Said by the person whose primary eyeglasses are configured with right-eye => infinity, left-eye => 18 inches [computer monitor]; I basically live having to ignore one or the other eye}
Yes, shame on me :). I close that eye most of the time, as it isn’t dominant, but it isn’t completely submissive either. I need to try a patch, but I’ve been doing it the wrong way so long that the patch would probably require a painful adjustment period.
i have to shoot with both eyes open. I have a wind indicator hanging to the left of my barrel. I am watching that with my left eye while shooting with my right. In field target a sudden change in wind direction and strength can easily result in a miss at most ft distances. You really have to be on top of it. You also have to watch the mirage out at the target while watching the wind at the muzzle.
For anyone interested in the “scout scope” concept, either because you’re already a believer or you just want to try it out, you may want to check out the recent comment activity on a January post (on SHOT 2013) regarding a promising new glass from Leapers. This link takes you to the start of the recent comment thread.
I’ve been a “Jeff Cooper scout rifle” devotee for many years now, and in what I now call “previous life” I was able to first acquire a copy of the Steyr rifle that was the culmination of Cooper’s 15-year project to discover the ideal general-purpose rifle design and bring a production example to market, and then “go to class” to learn how to use it. (That latter experience, by the way, is on my short-short list of Things That Change Your Life.)
The intermediate eye relief glass is indeed amazingly fast. I can’t claim to have had much experience with red dot optics, but it’s hard to imagine that system being faster in any way that I’d notice. Used properly with binocular vision, it’s as fast as my mount is. On the last day of that five-day rifle class, we shot at straight-away clay birds from a trap thrower, “international style”: start with the butt on your belt, round chambered and safety on, and call for the bird. When it flies, you mount, acquire the bird at the apex of its flight path (where it presents a momentarily stationary target), and break the shot. Of the eight of us in that class, there were five Steyr Scouts, two custom built Scouts, and one M1 Garand. Every one of us hit at least once (out of perhaps 20 attempts) and let me tell you, that is a thrill. (The class high-water mark was when the septuagenarian with the M1 made his hit. The exercise was more about bringing technique together than the choice of optics, and among irons I don’t know if you can do better than the M1’s ghost-ring aperture, but I do suspect we had it easier than he did, and it was awesome to see him dust a clay pigeon, in flight, with a full-house .30/06.) At any rate, it’s safe to say that over the 15-year period of “scout rifle” optimization and design, the features that wound up on the Steyr Scout got there for very good reasons. The forward glass is one of the two elements that are the most startling to newcomers, and which most need to be used in action to appreciate. (The other element is the Ching Sling, which Cooper felt was a more important feature than glass sights of any kind.)
I would be skeptical about mounting an IER scope on the breakbarrel designs I’ve seen. I certainly think your idea of having the sight anchored to the barrel is sound logic, but because of where the barrel “breaks” (at least on my Air Venturi Bronco), the mount would need to be so far forward that it would be out of the optimum eye relief range–at least without an unreasonably substantial cantilever to the rear. Mounted on the action forward of the customary dovetail, it might well crowd access to the breech, which ironically is one of the arguments for the IER on a centerfire rifle–the forward glass gives complete access to the ejection/loading port. I love the idea too, but I’d think that would be a PITA with a breakbarrel springer.
Now…on a PCP (I’m thinking P-rod and/or M-rod, myself), or multi-pump (I’m totally with you on the Benji 392/397 idea), or any number of Airsoft guns that are set up like their firearm counterparts–heck yeah! If I ever wind up with a TX (and believe me, that’s on the drool list), you can bet I’ll look at it with the idea in mind. Thing is, with a piece as flat-gorgeous as the TX is, one must consider aesthetic lines as well, not just functional ones. I rather like the aesthetic of the forward glass, and with a trim and elegant mount–and provided access to the loading port remains functional–I’d strongly consider it. 🙂
Kevin,
I just added a new Leapers Scout scope to Pyramyd Air’s site:
/product/2-7×44-ao-accushot-scout-swat-rifle-scope-ez-tap-ill-mil-dot-reticle-1?a=5035
Edith
Thanks Edith. I’ll put the word out as best I can. 🙂
Kevin W. : thanks for the reply as often I think I ‘m alone on The Scout concept. Many think that the low power of the glass used and the long eye relief to be a handicap. Most who see it don’t give it a chance because it doesn’t look traditional, or are convinced they need high power glass to hit anything. I never had the opportunity to shoot a Steyr Scout , but I first used the concept with a 94 Winchester and the old Redfield mount and scope for that gun, then on the mauser with the burris scope . Personally I don’t care for red dot sights. The break barrel I was thinking of mounting one on was my Diana 34. The scope would hang over the breech, but I think it would still be easy to load, and avoid the problems of barrel droop, and having the scope and mounts directly over the parts that vibrate most. It would solve the opposite problem many have with long scopes that often prevent any loading in some guns. IMO, a straight 4X scope has enough power for hunting even smaller pests with the average springer air rifle in the power range of 12-23 ft/lbs considering it’s useful range.
I’m curious about your third lesson learned. Assuming hold, ammo and condtions are the same, why wouldn’t you expect the same group size every time?
dangerdongle,
Well, that’s the lesson. I showed these groups to drive that point home. It almost never works out that you get the same sized group, even when all things are done the same.
B.B.
Groups are not identical because so many different things are minutely different each time. 14 different minute variations equal a not-so-minute variation on the target, especially at longer ranges.
1. Wind
2. Very slight variations in pellet head shape
3. Slight variations in pellet weight
4. Slight (in the case of a TX) variations in shot velocity
5 and 6. Slight variations in the position of each hand
7 and 8. Slight variations in the grip tension of each hand
9. Slight differences in placement on the bag
10. Slight variations in heart rate and blood pressure
11. Increase in fatigue with each successive shot
12. Slight decrease in fatigue after a few moments of rest
13. Slight differences in breath control
14. Slight differences in the depth of the pellet in the breech
Michael
And that list could keep on going the more you think about it.
When I get that one great group from the gun I’m shooting. I save it till the end of my shooting session and compare it with the rest of the groups that I shoot that day.
Guess what after I look at them that’s the first one that gets thrown in the trash. And I save the rest and make notes on them like weather condition, time of day when it was shot and so on.
I usually set 2 or 3 days of targets on my work bench and compare.(always same gun and sight if I’m testing for the best pellet). And the groups will tend to pattern the same. What I like to see is the pattern getting smaller and hopefully no flyer’s. And I try to make a note by a pellet hole if I think I pulled that shot.
Hmm maybe one of these days the earth wind and stars will all line up in my favor and I will shoot my first ever 10 shot group at 50 yrds. all in one hole! Will see how many more years It takes for that to happen. Or maybe that day was yesterday and I missed it and it wont happen for another 1,000 years.
Ah but I’m going to have fun trying. 🙂
GF1,
“Several day’s worth of targets…”
Therein lies a blog!
Thanks,
B.B.
you know that would be a interesting topic.
I have done that throughout at different times when I have a problem.
And the reason I throw the good group out is because I know that isnt what the gun will always produce. It looks good but probably not the whole truth about what the gun will do.
Hmm. Let’s take the human part out of the equation and deal with just the mechanical aspect for a moment. We’ve found the best pellet, mic’d and weighed and sorted into matching lots, and shoot each group from a solid rest (lead sled or the like) using our highly calibrated pellet seater and a trigger pull gauge mounted permanently to the rest. Lets say this is done indoors to eliminate any wind or temperature issues. Under these circumstances if the rifle is capable of shooting 10 into .658″ on day one it should shoot the exact same group on day 100. I’d expect larger groups only after many thousands of rounds, after the gun has loosened up, and the barrel has worn. In this scenario I would amend the third lesson to read “what the gun is always capable of doing.”
Obviously being human none of us will be able duplicate our practices consistently or repeatedly, though some can come closer than others.
Also, isn’t this more of an issue for springers than it would be for anything else?
Sorry about rambling on, but this interests me because of an issue I’m having with my Contender. I’ve recently had to switch powders due to the ridiculous shortages around here, but have managed to develop a load that most closely matches my favorite recipe. It chronos at just 1fps faster, yet my groups have opened up by almost 3 inches! In my mind, all else being equal, this thing should be shooting the same groups it always has. Or at least close with the powder change.
dangerdongle,
Here is the flaw in your argument. You said that, if on day one the rifle is capable of shooting such a target it should shoot the exact same group on day 100, too!
No. It should be “capable” of shooting such a target on day 100, but there is no guarantee that it will or even can.
B.B.
So how much variation should you expect if the human element is removed? Not too much I wouldn’t think.
Matt61
I don’t understand. You said there was a flaw in dangerdongle’s argument… the flaw was there is no guarantee.
But a guarantee is not a flaw; at least, not a specific flaw. Could you flesh out the “why” of the flaw?
With all of the variables dangerdongle removed, why shouldn’t the rifle give the same group.
The answer would be useful and interesting to many of us.
Thanks
Bob,
Dangerdongle said if the gun was capable of shooting a certain group on day one it should also shoot that group on day 100. I pointed out that while it might certainly be capable of shooting that group on day 100, there is no guarantee that it can or will shoot a group that good. That’s what probability is about.
Dangerdongle stated it in such a way that if it was capable, then it must also shoot that well. What I said was capability is no guarantee of actual performance.
B.B.
Ok… thank you. I think you are saying, pellet guns don’t have to do what we want them to do, and I trust you know about that.
I get groups with my TX200 like you got today. I know the human and enviromental variables to work on. As a relatively new shooter, I was hoping for a tid-bit of something else I could work on to be more consistent. I think this example today sparked interest, and hope, in several of us: “Is there something else to being consistent?” Sounds like at times life is just life.
Thanks,
Bob
Bob,
I struggle with shooters all the tme, getting them to the point of realization at which you have arrived. A famous book was written in the early 1900s called “The bullet’s flight from powder to target.” It was the report of 35 years of research and experimentation to find out why bullets sometimes group well and other times they don’t — from the same guns with the same loads.
All the research was done with the barrels clamped in a 3,500 lb. concrete and steel vice, so no human factor was involved. It was done inside a tunnel, so no wind affected the bullets. And the author still never did find out why it happens.
But try to get someone to believe that! They all think that a vice will solve everything. The fact is, no one know to this day why this happens, but we know for certain that it does.
B.B.
There is the tid-bit I can use.
It will provide me solice and comfort at times 🙂
knowing it came from an experienced shooter.
Thank you for your persistence and providing additional info until it clicked.
Bob
just to amplify what you have said, the guns we shoot are a dynamic system. They are constantly changing due to wear and even atmosphere. Especially springers but even pcp’s. Temperature and barometric pressure have their influence. One fellow I know who makes guns stated that springers are either broken or on their way to being broken. Something like that. It is just a matter of time. Over that time period they are going to change where they shoot. That is why we have sight in before Ft matches. it is not about “practice”.
Are the powders similar? Ball, flake, extruded? Do they take similar volumes in the cases? Do they have similar burn rates.
Any of those variables could influence the result. A powder taking less space in the cartridge case is going to be very sensitive to how the powder lies in the case when shooting. Powder piled against the primer will ignite only at the primer hole and have to burn to the rest; powder stacked at the bullet end would be exposed to wider spread of primer fire, so may reach pressure sooner.
Extruded powders by be getting cut by the powder measure (also a possibility with flake — ball is less likely to be cut).
Wulfraed thanks for your response, I think you may have set me on the right path.
They’re both flake powders with identical burn rates, (at least, that’s what the manufacturers claim)but after reading your response I took a closer look and I think I may have found an issue. (It may not be THE issue) I use 330gr lrn’s that I cast myself and it looks like the sprue plate has warped a bit..maybe warped isn’t the right term but it won’t sit flat in any case. I pulled the bullet from one of the rounds I’ve recently loaded and sure enough there’s a tiny bit of flashing at the base. Weird thing is, I weigh every round cast and have seen no change….maybe a defective scale as well?
It wouldn’t surprise me. When it rains it pours.
I’ll try straightening the plate and see what happens.
Are you relying on a volumetric powder measure, or weighing the loads? Even being flake vs flake there may be some difference in density, so using a volume based measure could be throwing a different weight.
B.B.
For what its worth, IMO these groups are what they are because of the rifle or the pellets, not your shooting skills. I have the newer version of the TX200 and my best results are with the JSB Exacts, both 8.44 gr. and 10.34 gr. Exactly which one depends on target distance.
Also, as far as springers go I am doing much better with the Walther LGV these days than I am with the TX200. Although I suspect that may be due to me and not because of the rifles abilities. I just seem to be more comfortable with the Walther.
I also want to get something off my chest that’s been bothering me. This seems to be a week for that. A couple of months ago we were discussing something here(I don’t remember exactly what) but another blogger asked me what my group sizes were at 50 yds. I said I was averaging about 1″ but I forgot to clarify that by saying my 1″ average is at 40 yds., not 50, because my backyard range only allows me to get out to 40 yds. I just needed to clear that up.
As far as scope power is concerned I for one can not do as well at longer distances with 4x. At 40 yds. I need at least 12x.
G&G
I forgot to add that my TX200 does not do well at all rested directly on a bag. I have to rest it on my palm. On the other hand my Walther does very well rested on a bag. Its odd how two different rifles of the same model can behave so differently.
G&G
G&G,
Between the TX200 and LGV, which one do find is quieter? I know you can de-cock the TX200, what about the LGV. My best long distance shots require 7-8X. Also, what pellets does your LGV like?
TC,
I find the TX 200 quieter.
B.B.
TC,
Regarding the loudness of the rifles, I would say they are about the same, although I think the piston hitting home seems to be a little more muffled on the LGV. As far as pellets are concerned I use the JSB Exact 8.44 Gr. and the Premier Lites 7.9 Gr. As an example, I frequently get groups slightly under 1/2″ at 25 yds. and I am averaging about 1″ at 40 yds. This gun shoots nearly as well as my best PCPs. Of course, so does the TX200 although for me at least it is more hold sensitive. I would never directly contradict B.B. I can only tell you what my experience has been.
I have never attempted to uncock the LGV but you can do it by opening the barrel, release the safety and while holding the barrel VERY firmly pull the trigger and close the barrel.
G&G
G&G,
Thank you for responding. I’m torn between the two. I had high hopes for the LGV, but some of BB’s tests indicated accuracy less than I expected from such a premium priced rifle. The TX200 is a quality platform that has been around for awhile. I like the LGV break barrel design and that several users find that it is not very hold sensitive. At these price points, I expect “fully tuned” out of the box. You are very lucky to own both.
TC,
The only thing I might add is that if I could only get one of these the TX200, along with the Walther LGV are, in my opinion, both as good as it gets for springers as far as accuracy goes. I’m certain there are plenty of shooters out there that would disagree with me on that so take my opinion as just that, an opinion.
But, if I could only get one the TX200 is an absolutely beautiful rifle. Don’t get me wrong, the Walther is a very attractive rifle as well, more contemporary I suppose, but it’s tough to beat the checkering and the bluing of the TX200, if you take that sort of thing into consideration in your purchases. For me, accuracy is everything.
Good luck with your deliberations as to which rifle to buy. Enjoy it though. It is a tough decision.
G&G
I was referring to mine and your TX200’s.
G&G
This thing does pretty good at 50 yards. Not too bad for a springer. You can tell a quality airgun from a cheap one at 50 yards. A cheap one hits a target at this distance it’s luck.
That screamer certainly makes one sit up and take notice. Yes, fatigue definitely sets in. Even after discovering the killer shooting technique for myself, I find that it’s hard to follow it exactly through my whole course of shooting. I’m trying to think of the perceived effort as arbitrary. My model is primitive man who could do all sorts of feats of endurance that seem impossible by today’s standards.
Wulfraed, I’ve heard that .25 caliber rounds (firearms) will bounce of heads, but not .22s.
Kevin, I’ve seen that Jerry Miculek video with my interest in all things Garand. He can shoot a lick, and his high praise for the M1 testifies to his discrimination. That second video looks like a way to get an M1 thumb. The fact is that I kind of differ on the way John Garand himself loaded the M1. He pushed the clip in then rapped the charging handle to close the bolt. Why not push the clip in until the bolt releases (restraining the charging handle with the back of your hand), then just clear your hand and let the bolt fly shut. No danger of an M1 thumb that way.
Matt61
BB,
That one group is amazing and blows away anything I could ever hope to get with my 36-2, even when it is 100% :)! Your experience however adds to my already massive skepticism about “common” internet 50+ yard head shots on squirrels and such.
Fatigue is my problem with 10 shot groups, and one of the objections I believe I raised when you started the practice. You are very consistent, however, and I bet 50 yards with a springer is on the edge of testing tolerance! Anyway, my point is not to be critical — your 10 shot groups have impressed me in general, but to give you a safe out. I am more than happy to see 5 shot groups under trying circumstances. I shoot better “groups” in chunk matches than in bench mode many times because I am forced to take 10-15 minutes between shots and don’t get tired, whereas on my own, I have a hard time sitting around between shots, so I break bench shooting up into 5 shot groups (unless it is a hunting rifle, where 3 are fine — with a rest between groups to get cold barrel back). Do you think 5 shot groups would be more consistently toward the better size than 10 shot groups in this situation (TXmkIII at 50 yards) and would the cause be predominantly statistics or shooter? Are you thinking of changing your methodology in some cases?
BG_Farmer,
I have changed my 10-shot methodology several times, when circumstances dictated it. And yes, I think I could almost always hold 5 better than 10, so there is a bit of me in all those groups. But when I see the huge difference in size between 5 and 10-shot groups, the 10-shot groups mean so much more when they are good and tight. I guess that is what keeps me going.
B.B.
B.B.
Unfortunately for me you are exactly right. I know for certain I would be a much better shooter, on paper, if I only shot 5 shot groups.
G&G
B.B.
Thank you for spending time on me and my crazy theories 🙂
I’ve just landed a few minuted ago, so I can’t write a long post (2 am).
I hope this weekend I’ll be able to take my shillelagh with me and shoot the same test as you did, indoors with JSBs .
duskwight
You guys are talking about how many shots you fire to check your group with.
I have shot my PCP guns up to 40 shots at one target with the same pellet to see what kind of pattern the group made. Try it once on a couple different guns. Its fun to compare. And it shows how each gun has a different personality.
B.B., a question occurred to me today that I don’t think I’ve seen addressed before. Is there any possible story to the twist rate of the rifling? In the centerfire rifle world at least, it is common to look at twist rate as a factor, especially if you notice any problems with in-flight stability like keyholing.
I certainly don’t see any obvious evidence of that in your photos here, and I’d think that given the reputation of the TX that if there were any sort of an issue, that AA would at least recommend certain pellets over others, as a result. Thirdly, I would guess that if there were any story there, it would probably have occurred to you already. 🙂
Nonetheless: either here, or for the sort of “wild flier” problem you were seeing with the Crosman gas-spring AR, might it have anything to do with the twist rate?
Kevin,
Are you aware of the twist-rate test I recently did with a Talon SS?
B.B.
Oh, I probably read it and promptly forgot about it, in the vein of “a detail that I’ll come back to after I manage to acquire my own Talon SS”. 🙂
Thank you for the reference. I’ll go back and take a look!
One more, B.B. In the very first installment of this TX series you said:
You went to some trouble to frame that comment, and I’d like to get a little closer to the details of what you meant. My natural inclination in rifles is for short, compact, and light, and although “light” seems to be out of the question with this design, the Hunter Carbine does seem to be at least a little shorter, and I would naturally incline toward that, especially given that power seems at least functionally equivalent. (Now…given that, the full-size TX isn’t offensively long itself, compared to many others.)
So: what is it about the HC that you find inferior to the TX200 MkIII? You’ve already mentioned the cocking effort, which I don’t have much comparative experience with yet (I’m happy to trust you on the topic), but which still seems measurably less than many of the “magnum springers”. What else? Is it the accuracy? Trigger? Build quality? Or something else?
Kevin,
The TX 200 Hunter Carbine shoots very harsh. And it’s harder to cock. Yet is is no more accurate than the standard rifle. Those are the reasons I recommended not getting one.
B.B.
BB, You mentioned stiction when adjusting the scope. I know that guitar players always tune a string up by losening & then tightening the string up to overcome stiction. I sometimes do the same thing when adjusting my scope – back off 2 clicks then tighten up 3 clicks. Do you think that makes sense or not?
I have thought about doing some tests but to be conclusive the scope would need to sit long enough between each test for stiction to set in. Followed by several disciplined shots to measure if there was any scope drift. Frankly, my skills are not up to that degree of benchmarking.
I do the same thing as you unless a scope has proven not to need it; I call it “backlash compensation” :). I also rap the turret GENTLY after making an adjustment. The scopes that need a shot to “take the adjustment” are usually on the way out or adjusted to far from optimum range of adjustment. The really good scopes will shoot a perfect square (within the limitations of the attached rifle) without any extraneous action besides adjustment.
Steve,
That is an interesting thought. No, I haven;t done this on a scope, but yes, I have done it on Daisy’s plastic target sight, for the reasons of backlash compensation, as BG_Farmer mentions. It might also work on a scope, but I have no experience with it.
Thanks for the idea!
B.B.
I’m another that does the “adjust slightly past the target, then back onto it” technique, as well as the turret tap. I’m not aware of any hard evidence for this; it’s just what I was taught to do. But I’ve had “good luck” with it in the sense that when I do it, the likelihood of further “settling” seems to be lower. (Just like with instrument strings, it’s not that the slippage or “settling” doesn’t happen, it’s just less likely.)
The analogy to tuning an instrument string also made me wonder about the exact construction in modern scopes. With a guitar, for example, the reason you always pull up to final pitch is that that works with the direction of tension on the string. That is: that string is never going to go sharp by itself, just because of settling within the tuning system–it can only go flat. With a scope turret, though, if I understand things correctly, the settling could occur either way, not just in one direction.
Is that right?
There have been some comments about shooting dot sights with both eyes open. Which I do.
But I shoot my scope guns with both eyes open also. And I do alternate between both eyes open or one closed just to keep in practice. Even with a scope with both eyes open I have a better field of view.
Am I the only one doing scopes with both eyes open?
I’m not sure I’ve heard anyone argue that monocular vision is better than binocular vision, in and of itself. So why do people deliberately occlude one eye (patch, squint, or close)?
In my experience there are three reasons; two legitimate and one arbitrary.
The arbitrary one is that with some people it has just never occurred to them to use both eyes. Either they were taught to close one, or they learned by watching others who close an eye, etc. So they always do it, and never question that. This is easily remedied with a little attention, and most folks are profusely thankful after the fact. 🙂
Another reason is for eye dominance, and that is a legitimate reason. If you are constrained either by hardware or environment and must shoot with your non-dominant eye, then closing the dominant one is a trade-off worth making. Certainly it’s optimal to use guns set up to work with your dominant eye, but sometimes the world is…sub-optimal, and we do what we can.
The third reason is for disparity in vision between the two eyes. The brain has to work hard to focus binocularly, if the un-assisted eye is at 1x and the assisted eye is at, say, 9x. The ol’ noggin can do this (at least arguably), but it is harder and slower than simply closing the off eye and shifting focus deliberately. (During the development of the idealized “scout rifle” in the 1980s, the Conference reported that for most people the disparity problem becomes noticeable somewhere above 3x of magnification, which is why most “scout scopes” are somewhere between 2x and 3x in power.) I’ve got no evidence for this other than my own experience, but I suspect that this is the reason why most people begin their practice of closing the off eye when looking through riflescopes. They go straight to the bench, crank that big glass up as far as it will go (seriously…I know a whole lot of people whose “3-9x” scopes are essentially fixed-power 9x glasses), and quite sensibly block out the brain’s attempt to reconcile the input from both eyes.
The “speed” question seems to be a personal one. Some folks simply don’t care about speed, and if that’s the case, closing one eye wouldn’t seem to harm anything. People who do care about speed seem either to gravitate toward lower-powered fixed optics (e.g., the “scout rifle” crowd), or to leave their variable powered glasses at their lowest possible setting, dialing up only as field circumstances permit. My understanding is that this latter is a common practice among African hunters, and I have certainly read anecdotal accounts of people “getting lost” in a scope left dialed up when the target unexpectedly shows up at very close range. With a lion, that would be a Really Bad Thing.
I’ve certainly become a believer in binocular vision at all times (I didn’t start that way), but nor do I hesitate, when a problem presents itself, to revert in order to make the shot, and then go back and assess what happened. 🙂
Dear Gunfun, I keep both eyes open when I shoot (iron and scope sights).I am 77 years old, a former medical lab tech, and a science teacher, photographer , bird watcher, astronomer, etc. I have used a variety of monocular optical instruments, and I always kept (and still keep) both eyes open. I have tried closing one eye while shooting. I am more comfortable and get better results with both eyes open (even when shooting left handed). You are not alone. When teaching or coaching beginners, I always urge them to keep both eyes open when they are shooting (including archery with and without sights). Ed
zimbabwaeed
Its funny you mention iron or I’m guessing your referring to open sights.
I use to open sight shoot that way when I was a kid. But the older I got the harder it was for me to focus. So that’s how the dot sights came about for me. And I guess I just transferred over to scope shooting with both eyes open. Although I do open and close the off eye when I’m lining up a shot.
I usually have both eyes open when I find the target then close my off eye to get on bulls eye then open back up when I make the shot. That helps me see if my pest decides to run off If I miss. And It keeps me in practice when I target shoot with the way I described. When I plink and I’m shooting a semi-auto gun scoped or whatever type of sight. And I’m moving around fast and fixing on different targets and shooting fast both eyes are definitely open.
Then you mention archery. I’m going to also include slingshots and blow guns. I shoot all of these with both eyes open. I’m not that good with a bow and arrow. But fairly good with a sling shot or blow gun.
My 16 year old daughter shoots bow and arrow with both eyes open. And my younger daughter has lazy eye and has to get her prescription changed sometimes twice a year in the past when she was younger. Now its just once a year. She likes shooting rifles. And the only thing that worked for her was a dot sight with both eyes open. She’s now 13 yrs. old and shoots scoped guns. And still with both eyes open.
I often wondered if I was teaching them the wrong way and allowing them to shoot with both eye’s open. But its what worked for them and it was the only way the younger daughter could see to shoot.
And come to think of it now. As much as my dad was involved with teaching me to shoot. I can’t remember him ever saying anything to me about shooting with both eyes open or one eye closed. I remember him drawing a picture of how to line up open sights. But never said anything about how I should use my eyes.
I alo want to bring somethig up that Mr. Brought up.
It was about how one person could maybe shoot a gun and get different results because of the way the gun fits them.
I believe ergonomics plays a big effect on the results of your shot.
Look at all the adjustments that can be made on competion target guns.
Get a comfortable gun and I bet youwill shoot better.
I hate my phone too.
It is supposed to be.
Something that Mr. B braught up.
Sorry
Gunfun, when I say iron sights I mean both open and aperture sights. I use both and keep both eyes open with them. I always show beginners more than one technique and encourage them to find the one that they are most comfortable with ( after I show them what I do and what works for me).I also use a method when firing groups that no one has mentioned. I use 2 targets back to back. I fire 5 rounds, remove the first target and fire 5 more. Now I have both a 5 and a 10 round group. When this method is not practical (200 yds), I use two adjacent targets, fire 5 rounds at each , and then superimpose the targets for the 10 round group. In effect, I get two 5 round and one 10 round group with this method. PS Way back , in 1954, at the start of my shooting career, an older shooter showed me an interesting trick. He punched a hole in a playing card, put it over the muzzle of his .22 rifle. Keeping both eyes open, he could still hit the target, even though the card blocked the target ( right eye). He combined the image of the front sight (right eye) with the image of the target (left eye). I have tried this stunt on many occasions and it works for me, but not everyone can do it. Ed
Ed
I have heard of that or something similar to the playing card trick before that your talking about.
I have never tryed it. But I’m going to for the heck of it to see what it does to my eye sight when I shoot.
Oh And I figured you meant open sights.
But you also do it with aperture sights too. I don’t know if my eyes can do that anymore. I will have to give it a try.
And I have tryed both ways your talking about with the targets. What I like to do is take the targets I shot the day before. (5 or 10 shot group and sometimes 36 shots at the same target)
The reason I mentioned the 36 shot group is that I just did some pellet tests on the FX Monsoon I just got. I had 1 target for each pellet I was trying attached to my target board. Shot 36 Crosman Premieres, 36 Crosman Premiere hollow points and then 36 JSB 16 grn pellets all at their own target.
(the reason I did 36 shots because that’s how many usable shots the gun will shoot from one fill of the compressed air and I wanted to know what the full pattern was going to turn out like)
Now here is the interesting part. I took the 2 different days of targets and compared them. And the gun is zeroed for 50 yards to the bulls-eye. The first day the wind was as calm as could be. The next day I had about a 8 mph wind coming from behind me and from the right.
The first days group was pretty well centered to the target with a few flyers that I know I didn’t pull. And the JSB’s were definitely showing their stuff. And then believe it or not the hollow points were next.
Then the next day was the shots with the wind. Those shots were to the left a bit and a little lower and the group was spread out more. Also had probably 9 flyers from each Crosman pellet and only 3 from the JSB’s. The first day only had 4 flyers from each Crosman pellet. And the JSB’s had 1 flyer.
And the no wind day group had pellets that were contacting each other and starting to produce a hole about the size of a quarter with shots all around the hole and the main group was round. The day with the wind did not produce any hole that you could put a coin over. They were hitting more speratic.
And the group wasn’t round it looked more like an upside down smile with the widest part over to the left of bulls-eye.
That’s why I believe more shots will tell the true story. And I just wanted to add it was definitely easier to do the 36 shot groups with the availability of the semi-auto with the Monsoon. Makes it a little easier to keep the concentration going and I don’t have to keep moving the gun around to do the next shot. It works for me with the bigger shot count groups. And I like shooting so it doesn’t bother me. But I know now the JSB’s will be my serious pellet when I shoot the gun.