by B.B. Pelletier
Photos and test by Earl “Mac” McDonald
The RWS Diana 350 Feuerkraft is a powerful magnum spring rifle. Today, we’ll begin the accuracy test.
Get ready to learn!
Today’s blog about the .177 RWS 350 Feuerkraft air rifle is going to be very educational, especially for newer shooters. What you’re about to see is a comparison of the potential accuracy when using fiberoptic sights, and then the same gun with the same pellet but using a precision peep sight and a solid black front post.
Because of the length of time this test took, we won’t explore the rifle’s accuracy with a scope today. That will be reported on in a special Part 4 report.
Fiberoptic sights
The 350 Feuerkraft has fiberoptic open sights, front and rear. Fiberoptic sights have special light-gathering tubes inserted in them. When you sight the gun, you see a red dot for the front sight and two green dots for the rear. This type of sight is designed to be very fast to acquire, so hunters use them for rapid acquisition in the field. But there’s a tradeoff.
These two green dots in the rear are supposed to frame the one red dot from the front.
This is the thousand-word picture. Here you see the enlarged front fiberoptic tube that presents a wide dot to the shooter to use as an aim point. With this much width, coupled with the imprecision of locating this dot exactly in the center of the two green rear dots, the shooter has no chance for a precise aiming point. The best you get is a general location.
Less precision
The tradeoff is a loss of precision. Because of the size of the optical dots and the difficulty in centering them exactly the same every time, your sight picture allows for several minutes of slop in all directions. In other words, you can be several inches off with every shot at 100 yards. That won’t matter to a deer hunter who is looking to make a quick shot at an eight-inch wide kill zone. But a target shooter could not do so well with that kind of setup.
As airgunners, we don’t shoot at 100 yards very often, and the amount of slop diminishes as the target gets closer. If there’s a four-minute slop at 100 yards, you would be unable to sight any closer than four inches at 100 yards. So, at 25 yards you would have a one-inch error in your aim point. Some hunters can tolerate that much sighting error, but airgunners often can’t, so you need to give this some thought. Let’s see what Mac experienced.
Ten 10.5-grain Crosman Premier pellets made this 2-inch group with the 350 Feuerkraft rifle at 30 yards. This target is a 10-meter pistol target, which Mac needed because he was using open sights at 30 yards.
Ten 9.3-grain RWS Supermag pellets made this 2-inch group at 30 yards. This wadcutter pellet cuts a nice round hole.
Ten JSB Exact 10.2-grain domes made this 1.5-inch group at 30 yards. This was the best group of the test with fiberoptic sights.
Okay, it’s easy to see that Mac is getting between 1.5 and 2 inches for 10 shots at 30 yards with the standard fiberoptic open sights that come on the 350 Feuerkraft. You probably don’t think that’s very good, and I would have to agree. But, let’s not condemn the rifle for this, because it’s not the rifle’s fault.
Kill the fiberoptics and switch to peep sights
Both Mac and I knew the rifle should be more accurate than this. And, we both know that fiberoptic sights are less than precise. Mac had a good idea — mount a peep sight on the rifle and shoot more groups. I told him my method for turning fiberoptic sights into plain sights by changing the lighting. As long as bright light doesn’t fall on the fiberoptic tubes, they don’t glow. Then the sights act just like regular open sights. In this case, Mac removed the rear sight and used a Mendoza peep sight with the front sight of the rifle. By not allowing light to fall on the front sight, he turned it into a black post that he was able to use like any other front target post. The difference in the results is stunning!
Here are 10 shots with the same JSB Exact heavy pellet and the same 350 Feuerkraft rifle at the same 30 yards. This group measures 0.66 inches center-to-center. Pretty dramatic change, no?
Mac shot a couple of groups; but since the temperature was just 16 degrees, he didn’t test all pellets. He chose to use the pellet that had been the most accurate in the first test, and the group shown was the best group he got, though he says they were all sized similarly.
Amazing difference!
This test shows two things very clearly. First, it shows that fiberoptic open sights are not very precise. That’s why I’ve objected to their use on air rifles for so many years. We need enough accuracy to hit ants at 25 yards, and fiberoptic sights have only tin-can accuracy at that distance. That should be very plain and clear to everyone who’s read this report. Mac is a great shooter, as we have seen over the past several months, and fiberoptics were a huge limiting factor to shooting the 350 Feuerkraft well.
The second thing to take away from this report is that the 350 Feuerkraft is a very accurate spring rifle. Putting 10 shots into 0.66 inches at 30 yards is equivalent to putting 5 into a third of an inch at the same distance. So, this rifle can shoot! No question about that. Mac suffered a scope failure when he was testing the rifle with a scope, though he did get a couple half-inch 10-shot groups before that happened. We’re getting him a replacement scope for a part four report.
How do you black out the front fiber optic sight? Bub
Bub,
Simple. Just don’t allow any light to fall on the front sight and let the target be in strong light. The light does the trick.
B.B.
Isn’t the size of the front post the issue, or does the light make it look larger? Light or no light the post should still be the same size…..I think!
Aaron
Aaron,
You are right. This trick doesn’t change the width of the front sight. But because that makes no difference (you rest the black bull in the CENTER of the front post), it works. The illuminated dot is so bright that you cannot rest anything on top of it. So you have to try to aim at the center of the bull.
That’s the difference.
B.B.
That makes sense, Thanks!
Aaron
Hello, great article yesterday on the 717, I love anything to do with the Daisy 7xx’s. Didn’t have a chance to comment yesterday, but I do have a request hopefully someone can help me out with… A while back reading this blog, in the comments someone talked about the 717 and said that they had a factory wire stock for these pistols. I would love to just see one, let alone buy one. Anybody have a picture of one or by chance one for sale?
Morning B.B.,
The change in the group size is simply amazing. I bought a Mendoza peep from PA and couldn’t mount it on my 350 Magnum. How did you fit this gun with it? Thanks
Bruce
Mr B : I have a 34 that I mounted a Mendozza peep on, but you’ll probably find that the front sight needs a ramp because it’s to low.Robert
Mr. B.,
Mac didn’t get the sight sighted-in. You will notice the group is in the white part of the paper. The gun shot too high. He was just demonstrating that the gun is accurate. A Williams peep is required to get the adjustment right.
B.B.
To black out sights, a quick fix is Birchwood Casey’s “Sight Black”. Just spray it on. A little powder solvent will remove it. It works great on all open sight. I gets rid of the shine. BTW, other brands of sight black will work too. It is also sold under the Remington label. However, the Birchwood Casey version seems a little “flatter in color” to me.
Mike
I owned a 350 mag in 177 for 3 years and it broke scope after scope… Leapers, Bushnell, Gamo, and yes I used several mounts including the RWS lockdown. When the scope worked… it wouldn’t group consistently. I put it down to inconsistent shouldering which scopes allow with their eye relief.
For over a year I ran simple post+globe and notch rear sights that came with the gun and I could group reliably at 30 yards day-in, day-out. The open sights allow for only one head position and shoulder to shoot… fostering a more consistent hold.
I would recommend iron sights only for this hard kicking gun… a scope is a waste of time and money… as Mac has already found with his first of many broken scopes.
Same experience, only with a .22 cal.
g. austin,
Well, we will certainly be on our guard for that! If Mac breaks the second scope we will probably not go on.
B.B.
Likewise on a RWS 48, 3 scopes.
Our stress engineer at work (not an airgun guy) had told me that in his opinion, mounting an increasingly rigid scope mount was counter-intuitive to eliminating scope breakage, although it stops scope movement to the rear, it also increasingly transmits shock and harmonics more directly into the scope due to it’s more rigid and tighter mounting to the gun.
Doesn’t Sports Match UK make an isolated mount (rubber laminated) for just this problem?
When we talk about “scopes breaking”, what is it we are talking about? In general, is it the erector tube springs?
Gene,
The erector tube spring can jump out of place and the tub falls down. The lenses can also vibrate out of focus and alignment. The older wire reticles can suffer broken wires.
When a scope stops being able to be sighted-in, we say it is broken. We don’t often give the reasons why.
B.B.
thanks BB.
I just went through the effort of buying the special mount for the m54 and a set of 1″ rings; then transferring the original BSA airgun scope from the RWS ring/mount system… Only to discover when leveling the cross hairs that the reticle was rotated about 10-15 degrees relative to the adjustment turrets… I don’t think I’ve shot 100 pellets in the m54 since I bought it new (t01 trigger, so that may date it).
Wish I’d discovered that sooner — the choice in 1″ scopes seems to have become limited relative to 30mm tubes; I could have saved on the quick-release rings. Ah well… an ~$80 Leapers 5th Gen for the m54… Since I have spare Weaver rings I’m going to stick the cocked BSA scope on my UTG air-soft M14…
As BB said… I had the reticle rotate 30 degrees inside the tube of the Bushnell Banner after 4000-5000 rounds. I had the Leapers TrueStrength completely dismantle inside the adjustable objective leaving a tube of some sort bouncing around. The $20 Gamo – I was desperate – never shot the same place twice after 50 rounds.
Even before the scopes failed I had inconsistent POI… with open sights (post+globe and rear notch) it was deadly – no question.
Brian,
I have tested two “elastomeric-damped” scope mounts. Both broke scopes. One, the Theoben, broke five in a row. So much for the rubber-damped scope mounts.
No, the shock gets through. The scope has to be rugged enough to absorb the recoil and shock. So are and others aren’t.
We will test a really good scope next time.
B.B.
B.B.,
Isn’t it the case that any Leapers TS (True Strength) should be able to handle the recoil of any springer? That’s my impression from the claims.
Victor
Victor,
Yes, that is the case.
B.B.
I broke a Leapers TrueStrength scope on the 350… In fact the Bushnell Banner scope lasted the longest but couldn’t group as well as open sight…. I know I’m beating a dead horse but I could pick up the open sight gun and bet you money that I would hit 1″ inside 25 yards. If you handed me a scoped 350 I would hand it back and $10 to save myself the time.
If Mac succeeds in getting 25-100 rounds – great! but it will not finish 1000 rounds before breaking the scope or mount.
I have shot an RWS 34 with a Bushnell scope about 100-200 rounds and found the recoil almost non-existent. Deadly accurate and not hold sensitive.
I have a .22 cal 48 with a RWS lock-down mount and the 4X AO RWS scope and it has well over 3000 shots on it. I think that some of the scope failures on some magnum springers could be mitigated if the user used a fixed power scope . I have found that the more bells and whistles on a gun/scope ,the more there is to go wrong. I did dis-assemble the 48 and properly lubed it, so maybe taking the harshness out of the equation helps,Robert.
BB Can you give us a short list of scope brands that you have found to be rugged enough for magnum springers? Thanks
PS I had a Bushnell 3-12 x 40 AO that lasted about 5 years on the HW97 and then one day, the windage turret housing actually broke loose from the main body. Guess 5 years and 5000-ish pellets is all we can expect?
Brian,
I have found NO scope brand tough enough for airguns all the time. Even premium scopes like Leupolds can break.
Leapers work good enough for me, so I recommend them. I get very few complaints, whereas I used to get a lot of complaints when I recommended Bushnells.
So, no more recommendations.
B.B.
Wuffraed,
Well, I actually ASKED Leupold about airguns and their scopes at the SHOT Show, and they assured me that their scopes were built to take the punishment that firearms dealt. No airgun could ever hurt one of their scopes. So I put it to the test and their scope failed on a Beeman Crow Magnum.
B.B.
BB,
That is funny. Sad but funny. I have an acquaintance who remarked that he couldn’t put his springer scope on his AR-15 or it would tear it up. I told him, based on what I’ve heard, it was the other way around. All I got was a snort. (But those 15’s do recoil a lot.)
-Chuck
Chuck,
You think an AR-15 recoils a lot!!! You should shoot the stuff I do.
An AR-15 is one of the lightest-recoiling centerfire rifles I know of. However, I will admit that listening to that buzzy buffer spring does make it sound worse than it is. 😉
B.B.
You didn’t state how they responded after you presented the after-shooting scope back to them
I suspect the staff answering didn’t realize just how much reverse kick a spring/air unit can generate — and that having a reticle tube braced against being shoved out the front under heavy recoil is no security to it getting slid out the back.
g. autin,
I’ve got 4 springers, including a Gamo Hunter Extreme, which kicks are hard as any springer can, and all have been fine with the Leapers scopes with TS. I’ve shot at least a couple thousand pellets through each with no problem, other than having to re-tighten the screws on the Hunter Extreme.
I guess I’ve been very lucky.
Victor
BB and Mac,
perhaps in the next installment, you can show a photo of how the peep sight was mounted. My 350 is back to iron sights and I wouldn’t mind changing the rear sight for a peep. My rifle did not come with fibre optics but with a scope which, by the way, is still working! Maybe I haven’t shot the rifle enough to break it but now it’s on another one of my rifles.
Fred PRoNJ
Fred,
I don’t get it! What is the difficulty is installing a peep on a 350? You just attach it to the scope mount, don’t you?
B.B.
BB,
my bad – I got lazy and didn’t bother to check out the Mendoza peep sight – I thought Mac was putting it on in place of the existing rear iron sight and was curious if everything (holes) lined up. It didn’t occur to me that the sight will attach easily to the dovetail.
Never mind. Now you get it. 🙂
Fred PRoNJ
“my bad, I got lazy and…”
Why I oughta…
B.B., Mac,
I have also found that these fiber optic sights are not very precise, because they have a little bit of play from side to side, and I’m talking about from different manufacturers. I would never trust them to determine the accuracy of a gun. Yes, I would install some other rear sight on the dovetail, like a peep sight. Looking at the group shot with wad-cutters, because the holes were so perfectly round, my thought was that the gun was shooting fine (especially for the high velocity), and so the group didn’t make sense. I’m glad you tried something different to provide a better representation of the guns real potential.
Because this rifle is so powerful, I’d be interested in seeing how well it does at a further difference, but with a scope. When I think of this much power, I think about that flat trajectory that some have been mentioning in recent post’s.
Victor
Victor,
Mac only has 30 yards where he can shoot, so that’s all the distance we’re going to get.
B.B.
B.B.,
Understood. Look forward to part 4, with a scope.
Victor
To fix the lateral rear sight movement – open the clamshell, place a little friction tape (Home Depot / Lowes electrical section) over the inner mental and close the clam. You will remove all lateral slop BUT you will have to help the rear when you adjust up vs down as the friction tape will hold on a little.
g. austin,
Thanks,
Victor
BB&Mac:
Oh dear the fore sight on this Diana 350 looks a bit chewed up.
Exactly the same as my friends fibre optic on his Gamo Vipermax(Whisper).He rests the rifle against a wall you see.
Being exposed and made of plastic it doesn’t stand a chance.
The fibre optic sights for the HW rifles are a lot better made but can you get hold of the bloody things?Nope.
DaveUK
before you buy one make SURE you know how to shoot a springer, have had more than one come back with customer comments that said it wasn’t accurate………when tested no problem….save your dealer some headaches…
mikeiniowa
Do you sell airguns?
I’m not sure about the 350 but when I removed the front sight from my 34P, the barrel has two dove tails to mount a different front sight. I have a rear peep and a globe front ordered for my 34P. If it ever stops snowing, they get delivered.
Tom
It may come with crappy sights, and it may be hell on scopes, but that rifle has beautiful lines. I want one even though I have a perfectly good FWB 124.
Reminds me of a similar comment about the first Shelby Cobra cars… crappy seats, crummy comfort level but, man, what a beauty!
I was wondering why Mac didn’t just use a scope from the outset. I would expect fine accuracy with a scope from this rifle. I didn’t realize fiberoptic sights were that bad and am now wondering why one would use them at all. The only reason that comes to mind is to shoot in low light. But that means you are giving up the superior accuracy of iron sights during normal lighting conditions when one would prefer to shoot for the chance at substandard accuracy in low-light which is a chancy proposition at best. It doesn’t seem to add up. Is there a “cool” factor driving this too?
Victor, thanks for your thoughts on the trigger squeeze. I had initially shied away from the surprise break because I had associated it with an overly long trigger squeeze. Now, I’m beginning to get the hang of the intermediate stage you talked about where there is some intention buried in the motion and you sort of know and don’t know when the trigger releases. I’m finding that language becomes inadequate to describing these subtleties as in other high performance activities. For example, in martial arts the wisdom is that striking with the open-hand is much more powerful and devastating than hitting with a closed fist (more actionable under the law). This seems highly unintuitive. One misunderstanding of the open hand technique is to hit with the harder base of the hand, often with a frenzied scream like you see in self-defense courses. But at best this will just save your knuckles without adding much power. The higher-level technique is to be very relaxed and hit with the hand as the end of a wave-like motion of the whole body as if you are cracking a whip. The difficulty here is equating a soft hand with the tip of a whip. It doesn’t compute because it is outside our experience, but it does indeed work. And there are even more sophisticated techniques of hitting with a pocket of air in the palm. Anyway, that may be why treatments of subtle technique in shooting seem flaky and touchy-feely. They’re not. It is just that language is being stretched outside of normal usage although that’s not a surprise if you are stretching your performance beyond the norm to excel.
Did you ever lose points because you released the Anschutz trigger prematurely? I have it mostly under control but I can never be entirely sure, and I can imagine world championships blown for this reason.
Matt61
Cool factor and latest gizmo factor combined. The front F.O. sights in particular are to thick/large for our mini-sized targets or sweet spots on small game/birds.
F.O. sights are for point-shoot IMHO. Not for determined target type stance and sighting techniques.
Even better suited for bows and shotguns IMHO.My personal favorite sighting system with illumination
was the old Beeman Blue Ribbon line of scopes with a roof lit retical.The ambient light was collected
by a little orange or red doodad and transmitted through a hole in the top of the scope tube directly above the crosshair.The scope had storage places for the doodad when it wasn’t desirable to use.It threaded into a hole on the scope base,at the ready for the next use.It didn’t hurt that the scopes were made in Hakko Japan……where all the best camera lenses also came from!
Sadly,they became so popular with the assault rifle crowd that the going rate for one went well above
the $300 mark when the economy was good.They were advertised as strong enough to handle the recoil of a .50 cal BMG.I personally believe that,the ones I have all have 360 degree epoxied in lenses.
I don’t EVER expect to part with the three I have.As you can tell….I really like them!
Matt61,
This is why an important part of the correct language must include the word “deliberate”. I don’t remember ever releasing the Anschutz trigger prematurely. However anything is possible over time. Sometimes when a shooter reaches a certain plateau, and cannot break out of it, or they slip back down, the reason is a loss of the fundamentals. This is why a concerted effort is sometimes necessary to go back and check your basics. The most common area where we slip is in trigger squeeze and follow through.
What is common among all sports, including Martial Arts and shooting, is the need to be relaxed. When you are relaxed, you are faster and more powerful. To prove it, take a stop watch and try to see how fast you can start and stop it. Like hitting a baseball, the harder you try, the worse you get. Relax, and you’ll perform your best.
Stan Hulstrom was one of the greatest pistol shooters of the 60’s, winning many state, national, and world titles with over a dozen national and world records to his credit, often spoke of the importance of being relaxed. He taught that you should NEVER shoot a shot unless certain parts of your anatomy are in a certain state. This specific advice may sound crude, and only for that reason I never state the specifics in mixed company, but it’s VERY practical. Again, for specifics, ask at vector@collector.org.
Victor
Victor,I really hope you realize there are plenty of us learning from your posts.I read them like my dog eats food.We just let Matt61 ask all the questions…..because he asks such good ones.You are an excellent teacher.Thank you. Frank B
Frank B,
I truly do appreciate the kind words. I had really great coaches, including world class shooters. What I got from coaches with super accomplished backgrounds had more to do with the mental aspects, as opposed to mechanical. Also, at the time that I shot competitively, southern CA was among the best areas to be for competitive marksmanship. Growing up in such an environment gave one little option but to set their sights high (no pun intended). I was passionate about shooting, and wish I had never quit. I never stopped loving the sport. Since I found this community, I feel this passion coming back to life. This is why I love sharing my experience. If it ever seems like I am bragging, I apologize, because that is not what I intend to do. I realize how fortunately was to have been given the opportunity to shoot competitively. The one person who made this possible for me was Mr. James Bristow. Mr. Bristow’s own personal dreams were to 1) create a successful junior marksmanship program, and 2) to one day officiate in an Olympics (shooting, of course). Mr. Bristow was able to realize both. My greatest pride was to add success to one of his dreams. Winning for him was much more important than winning for me.
Victor
My Drill Instructor likened that indescribable trigger pull transition to slowly squeezing a new razor blade between two fingers until it is just shy of cutting your finger then letting go. You know how to do it and you recognize the hundreds of subtle feedback sensations that allow you to do it but, you can’t actually write it down on paper for someone and have them do it without cutting themselves. Too many variables and too much variation in each humans feedback mechanisms.
I think all of these types of subtleties in hobbies, sports or other precision oriented activities line up under the “You either get it or you don’t” category?
Yup. And if you do get it, you then have to practice until it all happens naturally.
don’att61,
Regarding the “frenzied scream”, or kiai, if taught correctly, it’s more about control than anything else. Some people say that it’s about intimidation, but that’s really only a smart part what the kiai is about. A good sensei should teach “tension” and breathing. Those are fundamental elements of inner (core) strength and control. A properly taught kiai is an extension of those things. Similar to the purpose of kata, too many students never learn why kata is so important. What I find interesting is the fact that many martial arts businesses will tell you that kata is a waste of time. What they don’t tell you is that they got to where they are at by first mastering the fundamentals THROUGH FORMAL TRADITIONAL TRAINING. For the true master, kata is how you perfect your body for kumite. Again, it’s about learning body control.
Shooting is no different. That coach that spent the most amount of time with me was a former Marine drill instructor. Everything that I learned at the beginning of my shooting career was by the book, and that served me very well. Formal training gives you the fundamentals without coloration. There is a good reason for the techniques taught by someone like a good drill instructor. Those fundamentals form a foundation that you will later build upon. ONLY when you truly advance should start to deviate from those basics. What I’m referring to specifically are things like stance, hold, and other details that turn out to work best for your body.
When I started shooting, I had to use a very inexpensive Remington target rifle. It was light (too much so for me), had a heavy trigger (which you really don’t want with a light rifle), and the apertures where way too wide (less precise) for my eyes. BUT, we had to prove that we had mastered the basics by cleaning prone in competition before we were allowed to move up to an Anschutz. EVERY successful shooter has to go through the same steps. First you learn the basics, then you practice until you’re reached a certain level of competence, then you keep practicing until start winning in local matches, then you win state, then national, etc. However far you go, like every one else, you have to start with LEARNING the basics.
As Brian in Idaho said, “You either get it or you don’t”. Another way of looking at it is, “Either your teachable, or your not”.
Victor
The only time when optic fibers have advantage is in very low light conditions.
You lose a long time to make sure they are aligned, I believe they could create optic fiber in square shape and with very narrow space that could make the alignment as fast as iron sights, but I have no idea why they don’t do it..
By the way, great group with 10 pellets at 30 yards without magnification!
Square Fiber Optics?
Theoretically yes but, a circle or a round shape transmits light more evenly than a flat surface and it also has no “edges” to reflect or distort the light (theoretically).
I think airguns sights would benefit more from the miniature Trijicon dot or triangle pattern inserts front and rear. Cost is an issue though, as the cheaper fiber optic sights are just colored plastic with no additional enhancement in the colored polymers (glow factor).
I have to give Airforce extra credit for designing the most durable front fiberoptic sight,as well as the longest light gathering strand! Their design is much more bow-like,but they had the most height to work with.
Yes probably a square shape will have less light, but it will be mush better at aligning, and I don’t think that its needed that much light.
What about the rear sights in square shape, or better in U shape (an U made in fiber optics) and in the front a typical black square/rectangular iron sight but with a thin optical rectangular and vertical line in the middle of it.
Hi
Is Paul Capello doing any new episodes of airgun reporter?
RE Paul Capello,
As far as we know, he still is doing them.
B.B.
I use the fiberoptic sights on my TF97 like a shotgun bead: I put the red front directly above the
left green, cover what I want to hit with the red dot. Bang. It hits the same hole all day until
the seal needs more oil (about 200 shots). The sights are just to wonky to use them any other way.
-B
BB,
Is Mac using a 6 o’clock hold or dead center? I’m tempted to think it is a 6 o’clock hold, which I can see might cause more of a problem with the fiber optics.
BG_Farmer,
Mac is using a center hold. You can’t use a 6 o’clock hold with fiberoptics.
B.B.
BB,
Who are (or were) the Cardews and what was the reason they were/are considered the engineering experts? Yes, I know they wrote “The Airgun from Trigger to Muzzle” and “…from Trigger to Target,” but what was the elder Cardew’s background and experience. I admit I’ve gone through my copy of Trigger to Target at least 4 times, and often I can’t figure out what they are doing and why they plot the variables they do. And I’ve found more than a few confusing and probably downright wrong statements and equations.
(remember that I’m a physicist with some professional experience in interior and exterior ballistics in addition to my nuclear work; still, air guns interior ballistics /are/ different than those of powder burners so I could stand corrected in spots)
pete
Pete,
I had communicated with the younger Cardew when I purchased my copy of from Trigger to Target. I believe he is/was an electrical engineer who now runs a fine watch shop somewhere in the UK. I also noticed as the book got closer to the end, more and more typographical errors crept in. I pointed out one or two to Mr. Cardew advising him at the next printing, he might want to correct those formula. I do not know about the elder who is the father – that is, what his vocation was.
Be interesting to see if BB chimes in and with what.
Fred PRoNJ
Pete, what do you think of their experiments where they attempt to get rid of any combustion of lubricant = especially the nitrogen-only test?
I think it’s a tough experiment to do, but I can also think of some much better ways to have done it. I think I would have threaded the muzzle to accept an O-ring seal and a thin mylar diaphragm. Then I could have pumped out the barrel without the difficulty of doing it inside a plastic bag. Then I would have tapped into the compression chamber, evacuated it, and bled back dry nitrogen. Again, now plastic baggie and much more shot-to-shot consistency. The pellet would have gone through the diaphragm w/o much loss of energy.
When I said something like “strange conclusions,” I really meant “likely wrong.”
And yes, for decades they’ve been the only authors publicly trying to do science about air gun physics. And they did the work on a self-funded shoe string budget. But I have to believe that the top engineers at the major air gun factories have a lot more reliable experiments and computations under their belts. You don’t make tack drivers or big-bore air arms without knowing how to optimize the design for a given performance.
Pete I have read very mixed and several uncomplimentary comments and reviews of the Cardews literature. In the latest BB of Airgun Values, there is a comment that much of their conclusions were incorrect, incomplete or as you noted, somewhat strange (from a statistical or logical perpective).
It brings to mind the great line from the first Ghostbusters movie, wherein the Dean of the science college (as he is evicting the “boys”) tells Bill Murray’s character Dr. Vinkman, “you are a poor scientist Dr. Vinkman, and your works are the worst type of popular tripe…”
I think that they (Cardews) were one of the very few to write about airguns back in the day and thus their fame as such and unique standing among airgunners? Dr. Robert Beeman has also commented on their “flawed” works but, is quick to add that it was the only game in town at that time.
Your question begs an answer “Who were the Cardews?” (in the more esoteric sense)
Pete,
I never knew either the son or the father. If you have read the book then you know as much as I do about them.
Some of their experiments might be questionable, but others, like the length of barrel required for a spring rifle, were very far-thinking. Those truths are still true today.
B.B.
I was surprised at the crudeness in the front fiber optic element of this gun. If the gun left the factory that way, or if it was the result of rough handling we don’t know.
If that were my personal gun, before I gave up on the front fiber optic sight, I would try to correct it.
The roughness of the element at the muzzel end should be smoothed with fine sandpaper. The aft end of the element is the worse. It is both mushroomed and bent. I would cut the element with a cutoff disc in a Dremel tool flush with the rear surface of the front sight. A drop of Testor’s liquid plastic cement on each end of the element will result in a perfectly smooth surface. If the element is loose in the sight (in danger of falling out) a drop of clear acrylic (like Future floor polish) will secure it.
These fixes should result in a smaller, perfectly centered fiber optic element.
The problems with reticles rotating within scope tubes is a vexing one. I have given away three scopes that have developed that problem on my springers. I don’t have a clue as to how to fix them.
The problem is worst when the guns are new, before they settle down and smooth out. I have found Tasco scopes to be good low-cost replacements which hold up well to shock (as least so far).
If anyone here can tell me how to correct the rotating reticle problem I would appreciate it. I have never taken a scope apart, and would not know what to do if I were to. The problem is exactly as described in the other posts: the reticles move in relation to the tube. I try to correct this by rotating the scope tube in the mounts. By the time the reticles have moved about 45 degrees, the turrets are at 45 degrees from vertical/horizontal. At this point I give up and buy another scope.
At least I’m not the only one having this problem.
Les
I have an RWS pistol that had a similar front sight. The red plastic is rather soft to warrant using a Dremel.
I cut the rear face of the red front sight flush with the black plastic holding it with a new razor blade.
Then I put a drop of superglue in the joint from the front side of the black plastic.
I left the muzzle side surface alone as it gathers light nicely.
It”s much better and has held up for a year now.
Can’t help you with the reticle. I have my own scope problems. I think I’ll just buy cheap ones from now on and treat them like disposable items.
Les,
It isn’t mushroomed by accident. That’s how it is anchored. And also why you can’t use it in a 6 o’clock hold.
B.B.
The reason I trimmed the one on the above mentioned pistol was because it wasn’t merely mushroomed, it was disturbingly warped. Magic mushroomed maybe.
BB
First I’d like to say thank you for all the information you put out here. I’ve read many of your post and found them to be highly informative. I bought a RWS 350 Magnum about a week ago and went with a Leapers accushot 1-pc mount. I’m having two problem’s with this set up. The first is that being a one piece mount I’m coming up a little short on eye relief with a Leapers 3-9×40 1″ scope, about a 1/4″ – 1/2″ to far away for comfort. The second is that it shoots about 6″ low and about 4 1/2″ to the right at 20 yds without any scope adjustment. I shimmed under the rear ring and it brought it up to around 3″ low. I would like to optically center my scope and was wondering if you could offer some advice on adjustable mounts. I’m considering the new style RWS C mount, B-Square 11mm adj rings, or your leapers mount for RWS’s with no barrel droop and a set of B-Square adj weaver rings. From reading through some of your older articles I noticed that it seems like B-Square’s QC has degraded a bit and I’m a little weary of going with them. Would any of these be a good choice or is there something better out there. Thanks.
BK
BK,
if your RWS is shooting low, you will need the Leapers mount with barrel droop compensation. I have a RWS 350 and needed that mount. As for rings, using that mount will require you to use scope rings for a Weaver/Picatinny rail – go with the two individual rings.
Fred PRoNJ
BK,
That is why I always recommend two-piece rings. One-piece never give the right positioning.
Get a UTG scope base for the Diana 460 Magnum that will compensate for the droop. Some 350s have it.
/product/utg-scope-mount-base-fits-rws-diana-48-52-54-460-magnum-with-to5?a=2297
Yes to a set of B-Square adjustable Weaver rings, if you can get them. Then read my 3-part blog on how to adjust them:
/blog/2007/7/b-square-adjustable-scope-mounts-part-3/
B.B.
Thanks, went ahead and ordered the UTG base from Pyramid and found a set of B-Square weaver rings for $35 with shipping from a place in TX called SWFA. I’ll follow your post on how to adjust them. Thanks again for the help.
BK