Firearm pellet adaptor: Part 2

by Tom Gaylord
Writing as B.B. Pelletier

Part 1

This report covers:

  • Loading
  • Loading takes time
  • Loading a pellet
  • Velocity JSB Exact Jumbo
  • Eley Wasps
  • Longer pellets failed to work
  • JSB Exact RS
  • Evaluation so far

Today I fire the pellet adaptor with several pellets to both find out what it can do and also to get familiar with its operation. Let’s get right to it.

Loading

Several things have to happen to load the adaptor. First I use a cotton swab to wipe the carbon from the previous shot off the inside of the case neck. Then I wipe the outside of the cartridge neck and shoulder with a rag.

The primer is removed with a small Phillips head screwdriver pushed through the case mouth. Remember that the primer pocket was enlarged to accept a 209 shotgun primer, so it’s much larger than a conventional primer flash hole. There is no primer pocket anymore — just a huge hole with an o-ring inside.

That o-ring must be lubricated every time or the primer is too hard to insert. To do that I put some airgun oil on the tip of a clean cotton swab and wipe the o-ring once. I used Napier airgun oil that comes packaged with a lot of British airguns. It works well for this.

Next I load a pellet. I will describe the pellet preparation in a moment, but know that they don’t come straight from the tin.

The primer is the last thing I insert. If the o-ring is lubed, the primer goes in easily, though it isn’t loose.

Loading takes time

I timed myself several times, and getting the adaptor ready for a shot takes 90+ seconds. That doesn’t include the time it takes to load the adaptor into the rifle, which does take more time, because I’m shooting this in an AR-15. Single-loading cartridges in an AR is fiddly at best. But the adaptor fits well and always fired, so reliability wasn’t a problem.

Loading a pellet

This operation is the trickiest of all. You have to stuff a lead pellet tail-first into a brass cartridge case mouth. They don’t want to go, and if you use brute force you will simply damage one side of the pellet skirt.

What I did was use a flat steel plate to roll the skirt of the pellet on my desk top. The skirt is the widest part of the pellet, so the pellet naturally centers itself as you roll it on the flat desk top with the steel plate. You are sizing the edges of the skirt down to fit into the case mouth, and with a little practice, you get the hang of it. A die you could shove the pellet through would be far more precise, but I don’t have one.

Velocity JSB Exact Jumbo

I tried the 15.89-grain JSB Exact Jumbo pellet first. No particular reason for that. But this pellet has a relatively soft skirt that did size down, once I got the hang of it.

I shot 5 shots rather than 10 for this test because of all the time to prepare each one. On this first try, though, I shot 6 pellets. The reason I shot 6 instead of 5 is the first shot went 385 f.p.s. and shot 2 went 695 f.p.s. The difference was in how deep I seated the pellet, so before I give you the average velocity, let’s look at that.

The first pellet I seated until the domed head was touching the case mouth evenly all around. It looked good, but gave me the 385 f.p.s.

Jumbo seated 1
The pellet skirt wants to cock the pellet when you seat it. You have to use some force to seat it correctly.

Jumbo seated 2
This may look good, but the pellet isn’t seated deep enough to give good velocity.

The first shot was with a pellet seated to the point where the head just touches the case mouth all around. It looks good, but doesn’t give as much velocity as a deeper-seated pellet gives.I accidentally deep-seated pellet number 2, because it’s hard to control your thumb pressure when seating.

Jumbo seated 3
This deep-seated pellet gave both the highest and the most consistent velocity.

Now, let’s look at the velocity of the JSB pellet. Six shots averaged 605 f.p.s., but that includes the first shot that only went 385 f.p.s. After I started seating the same pellet deep the next 5 shots looked like this.

Shot……Velocity (f.p.s.)
2…………..695
3…………..596
4…………..627
5…………..658
6…………..677

These 5 shots averaged 651 f.p.s. Yes the total spread is 99 f.p.s., but that’s better than the 310 f.p.s. if we include shot number one. I am surprised I got even this much consistency. I was expecting a variation of 250 f.p.s. or more. At the average velocity this 15.89-grain pellet produces 14.96 foot-pounds of muzzle energy.

Eley Wasps

Someone suggested I try Eley Wasps in the adaptor. They have very large skirts, so the rolling had to be longer and harder, but I got them to fit. I deep-seated all of them and here are the results.

Shot……Velocity (f.p.s.)
1…………..426
2…………..407
3…………..670
4…………..389
5…………..667

Wow! The spread for Wasps was 281 f.p.s. That’s more in line with my past experience with primer-powered pellets. The difficulty is fitting these large pellets into the adaptor. There is very little uniformity, because of the way I am sizing the skirts, so that’s where the velocity variation arises. No doubt a sizing die would be much more uniform.

At the average velocity of 512 f.p.s. Wasps generate 8.44 foot-pounds at the muzzle. I doubt they are going to be very accurate.

Longer pellets failed to work

I tried both H&N Baracuda Match and RWS Superpoints, but both pellets have skirts that are too long for the adaptor. They simply would not enter past the two dimples in the adaptor case neck. What I needed was a lead pellet with a thin skirt that was also short.

JSB Exact RS

The last pellet I tried was the 13.34-grain JSB Exact Jumbo RS. This pellet is both light and has a short skirt. But they surprised me! Let’s look.

Shot……Velocity (f.p.s.)
1…………..286
2…………..312
3…………..602
4…………..259
5…………..224

My gosh! The spread for RS pellets was 378 f.p.s. The “average” velocity was 336 f.p.s. I have no hope whatsoever for this pellet and I’m not going to post the energy, since not one pellet came close to the “average” velocity..

Evaluation so far

This test is turning out pretty much like I imagined. Unless these pellets have any accuracy, I think these adaptors are a failure. But there are folks who swear by them, so let’s wait.

78 thoughts on “Firearm pellet adaptor: Part 2

  1. BB,
    This reminds me of those halcyon days when life stretched on foreseeabley forever and we all had the time to engage in time-intensive projects like this. Way-Back-When I found it useful as a life lesson on the subjects of prioritizing, efficiency, and rewards vs. efforts.
    Not to diss anyone but I learned the value of getting someone else doing the development, and manufacture, of a .22 LR, including delivery, But not me.
    Now I realize, not only is it a interesting project, but potentially useful should one find oneself stalking the dinner sized bunny (been there done that.)
    What I found much more useful was (your) afore mentioned .32 to ,308/.30-06/.30 Carbine/7.65R/anything else in .30 Caliber adapters commonly available on EBay or wherever.
    I’ve a selection of these adapters and I’ve found them accurate and QUIET. Let’s face it. Sometimes the task at hand 1:) requires some shooting. Gophers in the garden, as an example. You probably don’t wish to light-up the Harridan next door by touching-off a couple of .30-06’s in your urban situation, so 2:) perhaps a precise .32 ACP from a long (quieting) barrel maybe just the thing to preserve your tomatos. And the strawberries, and raspberries, and greenbeans, and…well, you get the idea. (Also been there done that.)
    The Terriers worked out really well in the the field but not so well in the confines of the garden. (The story of how I, unbeknownst to me, was recruited as a key-player in the cooperative-pack-hunting thing is a story in itself for another her day but…don’t be a gopher and underestimate them poofy little pet-like critters. They’re real killers…
    If you’re wearing your giant gopher suit…or your UPS costume…or…well, you get the idea…
    In any case, is doesn’t take a great deal of imagination to appreciate having the option of an alternate signature in almost any foreseeable likely (or unforseeable, unlikely) scenario.


    • David,

      I have thought those adapters to be interesting in concept and that they could produce good results. I am glad to hear a first hand account of such. I myself would not avail myself of them as I have air rifles that are quite capable, but I can see where the novelty of these would be enjoyable. To be able to dispatch a gopher with your Garand and not have everyone within five miles be aware of such could be quite pleasurable.


      • RR,

        You know me. I am a junkyard dog who, once aroused, won’t settle down until he has found out everything. We gonna chew on this one and digest it and see what it really is. I’ll give it every chance to win, but I’m not going to settle for a 3-inch 3-shot group at 10 meters or one lucky shot!

        B.B.


      • That one particular year we suffered an intense infestation of gophers. They were everywhere and, between them and the deer, we got exactly zilch from our garden. Now nobody was starving on our end, but it was somewhat discouraging to watch a healthy tomato plant literally be pulled underground by these critters. In broad daylight no less.
        Oddly enough, letting our mini-flock of four chickens out of the coop to patrol was pretty effective in keeping the gopher tribe somewhat at bay. It’s just that four chickens on the loose in the back yard can, before your very eyes, re-landscape said backyard in about five minutes. And they chicken-chuckle the whole time.
        What, you didn’t know you can make a chicken laugh out loud?
        One of the things I learned on my way as a proto-urban farmer.
        Be that as it may, (and there’s at least a novella if not a book here) where Dad’s Garand comes into this is the lessons learned about potting gophers in the backyard.
        1:) sight it in before you use it in earnest. A .32 ACP out of a Garand will print a tight group but not in the same place a .30-06/.308 out of said Garand. Usually somewhat higher, but one never know, do one? Until you you try, in reality.
        1a:) Greatly reduced power, yes, but still ain’t no toy. Proceed with caution and pay special attention to the background.
        2:) Never let the neighbors see you do it. Or passers-by. They get upset at seeing you honk-on with a major battle-rifle…against those poor defenseless furry little XXXX’s. (Probably the fixed bayonet was a little too much.)
        Again, oddly enough, serious gardening types feel your pain and mostly are sympathetic. Kind of interesting when an elderly Bay Area card-carrying liberal little lady, seeing the obvious utility of such a device, asks you, “…just where might I obtain one of these…’Garand’ items?”
        And that’s how I came to Air Gunning.


        • David,

          LOL! Indeed a most pleasant read! Please forgive me for quoting a most infamous liberal when I say “I feel your pain.”

          Where I live, I have a large enough “yard” where I could safely use a Garand without the use of cartridge adapters and though the neighbors may take note of such, none would complain unless I was doing such in the middle of the night and even then I would not likely be the only one.

          I have four apple trees and a cherry tree in my front yard. Between the squirrels, deer, turkeys and other birds we got nary a one this past year. On at least three occasions this year we have counted thirteen deer in the front yard. We watched two doe raise three fawns right around the house this year.

          I have air rifles quite capable of taking any and all of these critters, but am not allowed to do such. The law is not a hindrance, it is my wife. I have to admit is quite enjoyable to sit and watch these creatures at peace in our yard, but when the Mrs. talks of the possibility of having a garden I must look at her askance.

          Perhaps I should let her have a garden. Maybe she would then allow me to at least “thin the herd” a bit.




  2. BB,

    Perhaps with the use of a sizing die and a cylindrical type pellet the results would be better? Seems hardly worth the effort to me. I would be more inclined to work down a low velocity load.


  3. B.B.,

    Bizarre. That is about all I can think of. I would be inclined to head for the bullet shaped H+N Grizzlies. A photo of the pellet shown next to the case, with the pellet set to the finished height would be interesting. It looks like the skirt would be getting smashed by the dimples at the neck when seated at the depth that you show. Or, press a pellet in without a primer and then press it back out and see what you have. Accuracy testing should prove “interesting”.

    Chris


    • A round ball would be another option.

      (For a bit of a “re-cap” from a Part 1 commenter) :

      Check-out Convert-a-Pell at: convert-a-pell.com
      22 cal Centerfire Rifles:
      “The Convert-a-Pell .22 Centerfire kit enables you to shoot .22 caliber pellets through your .22 Centerfire rifle or pistol, utilizing a patented “O”-ringed primer pocket that assures easy primer insertion and ejection. Calibers available include .221 Fireball, .222, .223, .225 WIN, .22-250, and .220 Swift, all machined to accept a .209 shotshell primer, and .22 Hornet, machined to accept a standard large rifle primer. Each Convert-a-Pell .22 Centerfire kit contains four cartridges. Trajectory of the Convert-a-Pell .22 Centerfire kit will average 2″ low with exceptional groups at 20-60 feet and beyond.”

      Note that last sentence,….. “exceptional groups at 20-60 feet and beyond”,…. (6.6 – 20 yards, plus). This looked to be a quote from the company web site. I am not sure how,.. with the extreme spreads and low fps of some shots.



    • Chris U
      I was thinking that after bbsized the skirts to fit the cartridge the next step would be to insert the pellet in the cartridge with a slight amount of oil or even wax. The trick would be to seat the pellet in the cartridge very gently. And stop the instant you feel it touch the dimples. Or remove the dimples and seat each pellet to the same depth like you would a bullet in a cartridge.


      • GF1,

        While B.B. did not confirm,… from the above pictures it looks like that skirt is well into the dimples. Unless that re-expands the results would be a lot of blow by. If you go to the site from my above post, you will see the pistol cartridges are near full length and the pellet appears to drop onto a shoulder. Those are for bigger calibers, but the idea is better. This is essentially a .22 going into a .223, so no extra room for added metal. To me, a steel ring, creating a shoulder and then stake that ring in place would be the way to go. That is assuming that there is enough room to do that and still get a pellet fully seated. Even a tube that went from the primer to the bottom of the neck (inside).

        Also, with the pistol rounds, the pellet has less to travel to the barrel. With the rifle shell, a good amount of length is lost that would normally be the exposed bullet. I am not saying that this will not work, but things are not looking good so far.


        • Chris,
          I like the idea of the tube going from the primer to the neck of the cartridge and loading the pellet from the rear. Perhaps the tube can be secured at the neck with dimples. Drill the hole in the rear a little smaller than the diameter of the primer and then punch the proper size hole ( with the tube already inserted in the cartridge ) material from the circumference of the under sized hole would be forced inward securing the metal “shot tube”. If you can do away with the o ring that would be even better??
          I think you may get more consistent velocities and might even get a boost of power- the exploding primer has to fill the large cavity of the shell casing before exiting the neck and with the pellets seated at odd angles this provides lots of opportunity for blow by.
          However this idea does not address the problem of an undersized pellet in an oversized barrel. Flairing the skirts might help in that regard.
          Pete


          • Pete,

            Many good points. The skirts are already being reduced to even load. I do think that the fact that there is no bullet taking up the chamber space,…. and that it is a trapped environment,…. that the skirt may well expand upon leaving the shell/prior to entering the barrel. (?)

            The diabolo seems ill suited. Round ball maybe best. A inner tube would put a lot more force to the back of the projectile. I think it could be even fairly light in wall thickness. Press fit in the rear, self centered at the neck.

            I don’t know. It is all a bit gimmicky. I say modify the rear of the case (as is), leave the neck alone and use a .223 sized ball and be done with it.

            Or,…. just shoot a nice, powerful PCP.


        • Chris U
          I think if the pellet would be seated in the cartridge the way you reload bullets in cartridges would be the way to go.

          If the skirt of the pellet is sized right. And the cartridge held in a fixture and press the pellet in square from the center of the top of the pellet head would be the way to go.

          And yes without the dimples or anything else inside the cartridge where the pellet would be.


  4. BB
    I would of liked to see a side by side picture of a pellet you sized the skirt on and one that comes straight from the tin. No particular reason why. Just would like to see the difference.

    I know those skirts I flared when I was testing them in my TechForce 99 looked almost bulged out a little above the opening of the skirt. Well and the opening too.



    • Yogi,

      Why? Someone had an idea and it “worked” and they then had an idea that with the proper marketing they could convince some people to buy their idea. Their investment is minimal, they can fill an order within one hour and should their company not succeed, they have not lost anything.

      Sounds like a great idea to me.


  5. B.B.,

    While I’ll probably never mess with pellet adapters, it is an interesting topic, nonetheless. Most airgun presenters restrict their content to reviews of current airgun models and related current events. You give me history and context, which increases my enjoyment. I don’t have to know this stuff to shoot well, but it makes the hobby a lot more meaningful.
    Thanks!

    Walt


  6. B.B.,

    Off today’s topic, but on a subject recently touched on here, I found a video of a fellow who regularly hits a small board (5 by 7 inch, perhaps) from 100 meters / roughly 109 yards using OPEN SIGHTS on a .177 Gamo Shadow. Granted, he is shooting slightly downhill but still . . .

    His accent tells me he is either Australian or a New Zealander. Might he be a descendant of Quigley?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Im1GnuJRPyA

    Michael



      • Gunfun1,

        Yep! That was it exactly. In the same vein I also found an old report on this blog where B.B. reported his late friend Mac’s preference for heavier (i.e. subsonic) .177 pellets over medium weight .22 pellets with a given powerplant because of their flatter trajectory. I know that many of us here remember that he was one excellent shot with an air rifle, so it is a good bet he was right. (And we miss him.)

        Lesson learned. :^)

        Rather than simply standing my .177 Gamo Socom Extreme in a corner and never even giving it a chance, perhaps I ought to try it out with some JSB Exact Monsters (13.43 gr), H&N Sniper Magnums (15 gr), and Eun Jins (16.1 gr). Who knows? Maybe it’ll surprise me and be accurate. I only ended up with it as a “sweetener” in a multiple air gun trade to make the trade work. I have shot it into the ground a few times at point blank with CPHs, and it had to cock in the neighborhood of 45 pounds, so if I do shoot it, it will be five round groups, not ten!

        Michael


        • Michael
          Like I always say. You never know until you try. I know I have been surprised many times in my life time.

          I say shoot that Gamo you got and see. And I definitely want to hear about the results.


          • Gunfun1,

            I remember the guy I received it from said it had never been out of the box, which I can attest to. It diesled slightly and it was very loud. I seem to remember being surprised that there was no vibration or twang but that it had a kick like a mule. The concern I would have with trying it out it that it would turn any scope out there into dust.

            Anyone here have an opinion on who makes the most robust, magnum-springer-proof scope?

            Michael



            • Michael
              I have 3 Hawke Varmint scopes that are probably close to 5 or 6 years old. Had them on magnum springers to pcp’s and pump guns. Including two dreaded scope killing speingers. Well that’s what people say anyway. They were Diana 54 air kings. And here’s one for ya. Even had one of them on a Gamo whisper years ago. One was on a Stoeger x50. Another on a magnum Hatsan springer. And a hw50s. And let’s see. A hw97. Oh heck I’ll stop. Can’t remember all the air guns they been on.

              Guess what. Right now one is on my Savage bolt action rimfire, and another on my .25 Marauder and my Maximus. Been real good scopes. Etched glass reticle even. Problem is they don’t make them anymore. Think they are the new Air Max design.

              But I have had UTG scopes that have been good too. Won’t mention the ones I had trouble with cause other people might have good luck with those.

              What scope you got in your mind that you have thought about?


            • Michael,

              Reticle appearance is pretty big for me. The UTG’s have a nice fine mil dot-dash. The Hawke Varmint that GF1 is talking about has a much thicker line and the dot/dash’s are much closer together. For me,… UTG. Ridge Runner liked his new UTG reticle as well.

              The tuff part,….. it is hard sometimes to find good accurate info./illustrations of just what you are going to get.


              • Chris U
                I keep wanting to say something about this when you bring it up and I’m at work or something and I forget to comment.

                Here’s where I’ll start. My Hawke Varmint scopes I have are like the one you have that was on the LGU you got from me.

                Here’s where it gets interesting. Mine all have very fine lines. And I remember that one did also. But maybe it didn’t.

                Here is what’s on my mind. I’m sure when you got that scope and gun from me you adjusted the eye piece that you look through the scope with. Of course trying to get a sharp reticle line for your vision. We’ll get than gun and scope and look out in your yard at something or at a wall on your house. And I know you know all this of how to get the line sharp.

                But tell me if when you look through it and turn the adjustment does the reticle appear to get thinner or fatter when you do get the reticle to sharpen up. I think that may be why you have a thick reticle.

                I know it won’t change it drastically. But I do believe if you try it you will notice the reticle getting thinner or fatter. It’s been a while since I adjusted mine. But try it and tell me if it works.


                • GF1,

                  So you are saying the ocular lens may be out of adjustment, fuzzy and reticle is appearing fatter than it really is. I can not say I ever adjusted it that I remember,.. but I think I would have checked it. Either way, I will do it today. I will also check it against the UTG’s to see how much the mil dots cover (at the same mag level) to see if there is something there also. I would think that at 10 mag., both scopes should cover the same area of a target. ( example: 3mil dots cover 6″ at 41′ )

                  There is a slight difference in UTG’s with the 56mm obj. being slightly finer than the 44mm. obj.. The Hawke is a 44mm. too.

                  I will check today and get back.


                  • Chris U
                    Yes the ocular lens. And not nesaserily out of focus. But I think you’ll see what I mean when you try it.

                    And mildots are suppose to be true at 10 magnification. Hawke scopes are suppose to be true mildot reticles. Don’t know about the UTG you have. And there are range indentifying reticles. The little fixed 4 magnification UTG I just got when I got the TechForce 99 is a range finding rectical. The dots are bigger and placed farther apart. Plus there are more dots above and below and side to side on the reticle. So it makes a difference what reticle you have also.


                    • GF1,

                      Test done. Ocular adj. on the Hawke was fine. 1/2 turn each way was all it took.

                      For the mil dot test I put a piece of paper up with marks at each inch set at 41′ with all scopes on 10 mag.

                      – 44mm UTG took 1 dash + 1 dot to cover 1″ (1 mil dot)
                      – 56mm UTG took 1 dash + 1 dot to cover 7/8″(almost 1 mil dot)
                      – 44mm Hawke took 1 dash, 1 dot, 1dash and 1 dot to cover 1″ (2 mil dots)

                      So for viewing the same target, the Hawke has 2x the marks for the same distance. So that is what is making it look more crowded. I think the lines are a little thicker too,… but maybe not.

                      Oddly, none of the 5 reticles in the UTG scope manual show a mil dot reticle with lines between the dots.


                  • Chris and Gunfun1,

                    Thanks for your input regarding sturdy scopes. I have a UTG Bugbuster that I like quite a bit. It seems to me to offer all the important bells and whistles at a reasonable price. I also like that they are not too heavy and their short length is nice with breakbarrels.

                    Michael


                  • Chris U
                    Ok you did that with the ocular lense. But did it appear that the thickness of the reticle lines get fatter or skinnyer. Not so much that you were looking for a sharp focus in that range of focus you mentioned. Once you found that focus area is the time to turn left farther then right farther and see if it changes the thickness.

                    And the dots and dashes are called 1/2 mildot reticles.


    • Michael,

      Thanks for the link. Watched it and got me really thinking about what sight I’m using. Definitely good for thought for people who believe you need a scope to hit a far target. Sight Picture, Sight Alignment and Concentration are critical to duplicate what he did especially the condition where there is hardly any wind.

      Siraniko


      • Siraniko,

        That is the thing that simply amazed me, open sights. He isn’t even using an aperture! That and his attitude. He is making these impressive shots, but he is very matter-of-fact and casual about it. There is none of that, “Look at me!” in the video, no bravado. Puffery, as I think the English call it, really grates on me.

        The one advantage he has — but his shooting is still impressive — is that he is shooting from a high position to a lower position.

        Michael


        • Michael,

          Granting that he was shooting downhill that would only negate probably 20 yards from his distance. 80 yards with open sights is not something I would have thought of attempting. I don’t think I would be able to see the target at that distance. Might try tomorrow though if I can see the target. Can’t shoot it since I live in a highly urbanized neighborhood, but I will see if I can see a target of that size with my bespectacled vision.

          Siraniko


  7. BB,

    Perhaps you could make a sizing die by cutting the base off of an empty cartridge and push the pellet through from the base end. It should make sizing much quicker.


    • RR
      That’s a very good idea. But I would say that the kneck of the doner cartridge diameter would need to be opened a little also so the pellet would have nice precise slip fit in the fireing cartridge.


  8. Pingback: Firearm pellet adaptor: Part 2 | Airguns: Air Rifles and Pistols


  9. Hi BB, thanks for part 2 of this blog as I was anticipating it with excitement! 🙂 this might be covered later, but how does the bigger bore handle a smaller projectile? wouldn’t the pellet not catch any of the rifling and like flying through a smooth bore barrel? your thoughts?

    Thanks,
    Peter


    • Peter,

      I think the answer to your question is, “Not well.” That’s why I believe these adaptors are a bust. But I have been wrong many times before and would enjoy it this time.

      The accuracy test should tell us everything we want to know.

      B.B.



    • Peter
      I think that will be the trick to get the cartridge and pellet to shoot accurately.

      I think maybe expanding the kneck diameter of the cartridge BB is using to size it to the barrel. Then when the cartridge is fired it just might exspand the skirt to engage the rifling.

      This is just thinking of what might make this system get accurate results. But no telling what could happen. It would be fun to try out though.


      • Gunfun1
        there are so many variables that will affect accuracy here. good point about skirt expansion, though it will take a lot of expanding, even with a .22 pellet 🙂 I think BB takes many of our suggestions and try them out, within reason of course……what a job! 🙂


        • Peter
          Oh yes a lot of variables. And think you would be surprised how much the skirt of a pellet exspandss when shot from a PCP gun.

          I don’t know how much power the primer has but I bet there is some skirt flaring happening to the pellet from the cartridge BB is testing. It will be interesting to see how this test goes when it gets to the point of accuracy testing.


          • GF1,

            On the above scope conversation,… the more out of adjustment the reticle got, the thicker the lines got. What I am curious about is why the Hawke take 2 mil dots to cover 1″ at 41′ and the UTG’s required only 1 mil dot?


            • Chris U
              Both scopes on same magnification?

              And so where you able to get a thinner rectical line than you had and still have a focused reticle. That’s what I want to know.


              • GF1,

                Everything is the same. Yes, all scopes were on 10x magnification. So why does the Hawke requires 2 mil dots to span 1″ at 41′ and the UTG’s require only 1 mil dot? I just rechecked to be sure. Don’t bust your brain thinking about it,… but that is what it is.

                Oh yea,…. “pulled the trigger” on the Maximus. Buldawg had good info.


                • Chris U
                  I just checked 3 of my Hawke Varmint scopes like the one you have. All 3 scopes did use 2 mildots for 1″ at 41′ with 10 magnification.

                  Here is what Hawke says. At 10 magnification the mildots are suppose to be true. And true mildot ranging is based off of 10 magnification.

                  Can you go on the Pyramyd Air website and pull up the exact UTG scope you have. Then copy the link at the top left of your computer. Paste it on you reply back to me here. I want to see exactly what reticle they say your scope has.

                  And good glad you got the Maximus. But I’ll tell you this right now. It will not have the kind of trigger your use to. When you get it I will ask you about the trigger again then.

                  But I want to make sure I see what reticle your UTG scope has.

                  And thanks for confirming that the reticle thickness did increase when you adjusted the ocular lens. Maybe that might make your mildots change on your UTG scope. I never payed attention to if it also changes mildot distance when the ocular lens is adjusted.


  10. Chris U
    Yes I’m with you. I don’t understand why both scopes are rated the same for mildots but show different distances when checked on paper. Something has to be different between the scopes.

    But then again once you document your holds you need for different distances it’s irrelevant. As long as you know what hold to use for the pellet weight and velocity for your shot it doesn’t matter.

    And I do agree. The first thing I look at when buying a scope is what the reticle looks like. There absalutly should be a picture of the reticle that is a true representation of what your getting.


    • GF1,

      Like you said,… when you actually shoot and get your hold overs with your mag levels,… then none of it matters. Range finding might be a different issue. Perhaps B.B. will have a thought on the matter.

      That does explain why I thought the Hawke lines looked thick,….. they got double the dots and lines to do the same thing that the UTG is doing. It does give you additional hold over points I suppose.

      What was the reticle on that UTG on the Tech Force 99 you just got?



        • GF1,

          Well, I would call that the mil-dot reticle,… though it still could be used for range estimation. The UTG’s I have, have lines between the dots. What?,…is “range estimating” some new term that they are applying to mil dot scopes? I thought that WAS the purpose of the mil dot reticle besides more precise holdover and windage.

          No picture I could find of my scopes show the lines between the dots.

          Oh well,…. I am not going to think about anymore. I am starting to get ticked off. 🙁



            • GF1,

              The Leaper’s manual does say, “Each model comes with its own formula and pre-calculated mil-dot table of most used distance estimates to aid the user”. (each model/its own) So if any model is showing variance in the use of mil-dots,.. it is the Leapers brand. I still like them for their less crowded sight picture, while at the same time having plenty of useful holdover marks.


              • Chris U
                Hmm interesting I didn’t catch that when I read the manual. That would explain the difference in what the scopes were seeing with the different scopes we was talking about.


Leave a Reply