by B.B. Pelletier
Announcement: Mark Barnes is this week’s winner of Pyramyd Air’s Big Shot of the Week on their facebook page. He’ll receive a $50 Pyramyd Air gift card.
This is Mark’s winning photo. I really like his caption: “Shoot like a girl — if you can! – My daughters.”
TalonP air pistol from AirForce is a powerful, new .25-caliber pneumatic hunter.
It was a blustery day at the range this past Wednesday. Texas is noted for being windy most of the time, and this day was a classic. I noticed it while loading my truck at the house, and when that happens it never gets any better. Today I would be shooting the TalonP air pistol at 50 yards — a challenge to any airgun, and certainly in this wind it would be an acid test.
Once I got to the range about 15 miles away the wind was still blowing, even though the entire range facility is set in a small valley. The 50-yard range has a solid 12-foot-high earth berm all the way down to the backstop on both sides, so the wind really has to blow to affect you. But it was. My shooting glasses blew off the bench and a sack of loaded centerfire cartridges did the same. Nothing was safe.
By the time I had everything set up the wind was gusting to 15 mph and blowing at least 5 mph during the lulls. So I thought about writing the day off and doing something else. But this was the first time I had the TalonP pistol at this range and I really wanted to salvage something out of all the effort.
However, I didn’t have an especially accurate pellet for the gun yet. Beeman Kodiaks were the best I had tested so far and, as many readers had pointed out after reading Part 2, they were only average. I figured I could find a sweet spot in the pressure curve where the Kodiaks would perform at their best, but I really had hoped for a better-performing pellet for this test.
No great .25-caliber pellets
But the odds were against me. You see, there has never been an especially accurate .25-caliber pellet. It is the one caliber of all four smallbore calibers that really has no pellets of note. Oh, they are okay for hunting at close range, but they simply cannot compete with the superb accuracy that some of the premium .22-caliber pellets give at longer distances. And, since the TalonP only comes in .25 caliber at this time, I needed to find a .25-caliber pellet that worked — even if it was only satisfactory and not really notable.
Years ago RWS imported a .25-caliber pellet called the Diana Magnum. It was a 21-grain dome and it showed real promise in my Whiscombe. Shooters everywhere thought the Diana Magnum was the best .25 caliber pellet ever made. I have a couple tins of them in reserve, but what’s the purpose of showing you a great pellet that you cannot buy? I needed something that worked and was available.
So hoping against hope I took some of every decent .25-caliber pellet I had to the range — in hopes that one of them might miraculously work. When I began shooting, the wind speed had increased. Now the gusts were as high as 25 mph and I had to wait a long time for a 5 mph lull. So I shot into wind moving 10 mpg and hoped one of the pellets I had brought would somehow be able to buck the odds.
I took every decent .25-caliber pellet I had to the test range. Here are just a few of them. Notice the optional stock on the pistol that will soon be available.
Since I already knew how well Beeman Kodiaks and Eun Jin heavies do, I began shooting with Beeman Silver Arrows. No dice. They flew everywhere. Then I tried the Beeman Ram Jet pellet that is apparently no longer available in .25 caliber. Another loser.
Then I spied a tin of JSB Exact Kings. These are relatively new to the .25-caliber world, but JSB has a solid reputation for making some of the world’s best pellets in the other three calibers. I hoped their expertise carried over into the quarter-inch bore.
And it did! The second shot went into the same hole made by the first! I didn’t start celebrating, but things definitely looked better, because when two pellets go into the same hole at 50 yards on a windy day you are onto something! So I kept shooting that pellet and hoping it might be the one. The first hole with two pellets was soon followed by another two pellets in the same hole when the aim point was changed. This was looking promising.
A bunch of random holes scattered over the 50-yard target until, bam! Two pellets went into the same hole (bottom left). Then I selected a different aim point and, bam! Two more pellets in the same hole (upper left). Was I on to something?
I set the power level of the pistol on eight and refilled the gun to 3,000 psi. I know this should give at least 10-12 good shots, but since I hadn’t tested this pellet through the chonograph yet, I couldn’t say much more. Then I adjusted the Hawke scope and tried to shoot a group of ten. This time I got what would be a decent group for any .25-caliber airgun. Ten shots went into a group that measured 1.242-inches. Given the wind that was now gusting most of the time, that seemed pretty reasonable, however within the 10-shot group were two separate smaller groups that baited me. This gun had more to offer.
The first good ten-shot group. It was impressive, but because of the two smaller groups within, I suspected it could be even better.
I refilled the reservoir then switched targets to a larger bull and shot another ten-shot group. This was the one that got me so excited! Although it is larger than the first group, at 1.343-inches overall, there are nine pellets in a group measuring 0.817-inches. That’s at 50 yards on a blustery day! No reason for the stray shot except the wind. But look at the nine! That would be good performance from any PCP on a calm day. This pistol really wants to shoot.
There it is. The group that caused me to reschedule today’s report. This is outstanding performance from any air rifle at 50 yards on a windy day. Note the group is strung horizontal by the wind. No excuse for that lone pellet hole. That’s just where it went.
The next step is to get out on a better day and shoot at 50 yards again. I won’t be testing any other pellets, because I’ve found the one that works. I know how that reads when you are sitting there wanting to know absolutely everything about this airgun, but here is the deal. I have shot enough .25-caliber airguns to know great performance when I see it. And this is it. You won’t get a group like that from Kodiaks, and as for the rest of the pellets on the market — good luck. If I were going to hunt with the TalonP, I would lay in a good supply of these JSB Exact Kings and go with it.
I also want to chronograph the pistol, but not in my office! I need to be out at the range to shoot a gun that is as potentially loud as a .22 rimfire.
The shoulder stock
AirForce loaned me the optional shoulder stock extension you see in the photo and I used it for this test. I discovered that the scope was positioned too far to the rear, so I relocated it during the test. The shoulder stock works very well, but the smaller size of the pistol’s reservoir means you need to find an alternative placement for your cheek when firing. It took a while but I found a hold that works for me and the last group was shot with it.
The really good news
I know the folks at AirForce will celebrate the performance of the JSB pellet in their gun, and for me finding this pellet is just as major as discovering how well the pistol shoots. I am reminded of the movie Back to the Future, Part III in which Doc Brown was trapped in the year 1885 with his DeLorean time machine and no gasoline. He had the greatest vehicle in the world, but without gas it was going nowhere. Well, the .25-caliber airgun world just got gas, in the form of this JSB pellet. Finally there is a no-apologies pellet that can hold its own with a .22 at distance! I think I will have to explore this pellet’s performance a little more in the future.
I was also able to retrieve several fired pellets from the thick rubber backstop and from their appearance it can be seen that they hit with a lot of force. I think this will make a good long-range hunting pellet.
The JSB Exact King is the most accurate .25 caliber pellet I have ever tested. They mushroom well when driven by the force of the TalonP.
The rest of the day
Just to put this day into perspective, my shooting partner shot a half-inch ten-shot group at 50 yards with one of those hyper-accurate .22 HM2 conversions he makes, but when we moved to the unprotected 100-yard range, a FIVE-shot group blossomed to 1.5-inches!
My .250 Savage that shot five shots into 0.8-inches at 100 yards last time shot three into 1.25-inches this time. The day was just too windy to do well with anything. And that is why I did not even bother shooting the Ballard.
162 thoughts on “TalonP PCP air pistol from AirForce: Part 4”
You clearly found a pellet that shoots good at the fill and power setting you used. And holds groups well in a bad wind to boot !!!!
It should shoot even better in good conditions.
It would be interesting to see how the other pellets do under good conditions with the right fill and power setting, but what you came up with would not require any more investigation unless you feel a need for a backup pellet if there were a shortage of the Kings.
From what I can tell, different pellets hold a group better than others in the wind. At first there is primarily a drift with the wind with the groups opening a little. That’s something you can allow for. At some point in wind speed the wind beats them around a little too much and they go shotgun.
The best shooting pellet under calm conditions could be really bad in the wind. That’s when you use the pellet that hangs in there better under field conditions and not the one that shoots the best in dead air. Keeping it practical.
New R9 .22…….
A little buzz but not much on firing. Groans when being cocked or uncocked unless done very slowly. No smoke or detonations. Some droop.
Have to tighten the breech bolt. It feels tight enough, but it is the cocking shoe dragging. There is that bit of play in barrel movement when cocked and the breech open that is the giveaway.
Scope installed with drooper mount, barrel polished, preliminary zero set at close range, chrono shows about 14 ft lb. Getting a bit more KE and MV with Superdomes than with CP even though Superdomes are a bit heavier. Don’t know if it is closer to the preferred weight, or the pellet fit doing this. Maybe both.
What mount are you using for the droop? Do you like it?
I am using the BKL six screw mounts on both R7 #2 and R9#2. I like them with some reservation….
They are hard to tighten down. Could use some lube on the screws to help. The one on the R7 had to be filed because of interference with the Hawke scope turret (3-9×40). The one on the R9 had a little room under the turret (Leapers 3-9×40 TS) and required no modification.
Niether rifle has had any scope movement yet, but I will be watching the R9 for a while. The R7 has been shot a lot without problems. My Talons have the two piece ones that were discontinued a while back. They are the ones that swivel and twist all over the place until tightened down.
My HW50S needs an an adjustable mount – so wanted to see what you thought. I have one of the older ones that moves all over too, but they kinda give me fits. It is for a BSA however with the 13 mm rails, so won’t work on an HW. Thanks for the input, I will order one.
The thing about these mounts that makes them hard to tighten is that it is one piece …no seperate jaw. The mount has to be bent when tightening. They do hold, but watch the turret clearance. File or use a dremel if needed. Otherwise the scope gets bent.
They are marked for which end is which. In the instructions. Front of mount is marked on the bottom.
You could use them for an upward drooper if you reverse the installation.
Internet problems today . Seem to be online now.
By the way…this mount is NOT adjustable. It has a built in droop factor.
It’s elevation only. It’s a solid frame mount. It slopes down at the front.
Have you considered the burris signature rings for your HW50? These two piece rings have inserts that will adjust for windage AND elevation and come with an optional stop pin that works well on the Weihrauch rifles. Very sleek, effective and lightweight especially when compared to a heavy one piece mount.
As we expected AirForce has an interesting pistol in their TalonP shooting the JBS Exact King pellet. Thanks for persevering in your testing. I think some of us would like to see some testing done when the wind is absent.
If you have the time to do the measuring, would you tell me how much space is there between the end of the barrel and the end of the frame in this pistol?
There is about 1.5 inches of space. They are looking at what can be done about the sound.
I plan on returning to the range when the conditions are better and perhaps I will shoot some other pellets besides the JSBs, though I don’t expect anything to match it. This is really a breakthrough pellet.
The only other .25 cal pellet that I have found accurate are the FTT/FTS twins. The current production Diana Domes are also identical to these. At 50 yards these will make a 5-shot group around 3/4″ c-t-c in my UK Patriot. The TalonP may drive these too fast to be accurate, though.
I haven’t heard that these pellet were accurate. I will order some and give them a try.
.25 caliber is so lacking in good pellets that I want to have everything that works on hand.
Weren’t we supposed to be reading about something wonderful at the range today? Another day maybe?
Are you saying that the last group I show isn’t the best you’ve ever seen for a .25-caliber airgun? And this was in a windstorm.
It doesn’t get much better than this.
Lol. No, I am not saying that. I do not own a .25 airgun. Nor do I know any one who does. Nor have I even seen a .25 air gun in my whole life!
So these are the first .25 airgun groups I have seen in my entire life! Hence I know zilch about .25 airguns, groups, or what ever. So I am not qualified to speak about .25 group sizes!
Do such guns even exist? If so I should buy one why?
It seems manufacturers of said guns and ammunition are telling me to accept much less accuracy to have greater power. But will said gun kill a sparrow deader than my .177 Sumatra carbine? Or would I just miss more of said sparrows?
My Sumatra carbine puts out a measured and verified 32.XX foe! More than enough for any game up to and including coyote. The cost of said shooting is 1/5 – 1/10 or less of what .25 guns cost to shoot.
So for the foreseeable future, I will stick with .177 guns or at the most, .22 guns. If I want to hedge my bets, I could get a Talon with all three barrels and have the ultimate shooting platform!
I have been conversing with Jules-Jublins from Germany who owns a beautiful BSF S54 underlever rifle. He is on an older post, but he sent in photos of his rifle and it’s so pretty that I thought I would share it with you here:
I was trying to do a post on his blog last night, but couldn’t make it work. I wanted to invite him to join us on a regular basis. I should have known that you were on top of this one.
Jules Jublin, a lot of us are asking you to join us on a regular basis if you have the time and inclination.
PS I’ll bet you that Van, at AirHog, has a solution for that sound. Maybe AirForce wants to do some outsourcing.
I have been in the Dallas area since wednesday. Today, I finally have about 3 hours of free time. I was wondering if there are any interesting gun ranges I could visit or any other gun-related activities I can do before catching my flight back. Sorry for this post but internet searches do not help
Well, there is a good pawn shop in Plano, near Dallas, but I don’t know if you have time enough to see it.
Plano Pawn Shop
1202 K Ave
Plano, TX 75074
Thank you! I think I do have time.
How about adopting some cast- or pressed-lead hollowpoint pistol bullets in .25 for a pellet? I believe there’s a great selection of them in US and modern day cast or press forms allow a great deal of uniformity.
I see two problems with that. First, all the cast bullet designs are too heavy for airguns. The lightest you can find will be 60-grains, and will not stabilize in an air rifle that shoots it much slower than anticipated.
The second problem is the size of the bullets are different than the size of pellets of the same caliber. And the bullets have less grooves and more lead in contact with the bore, which boost friction to the point they become impossible to load.
I’ve read that .22 in airgun is different from .22 powder calber. Here it’s simple – 5.5 for airguns and 5.6 for powderburners. But I’ve never heard about .25 difference, as 6.35 is the same for both. Maybe we all should ask you to make a post on differences 😉
So it all comes to friction…and in this case one’s got to find or order some custom forms to make light belted pellets, so it’ll become too expensive and time-consuming. Bother. All right, finding pellets seems to be cheaper and faster solution 🙂
Nice photo although I’d say that the girls need to raise their rear arms…. Nice color coordination.
I’d say the Air Force pistol deserves decent conditions.
I wonder how the roaches are faring in the high wind. Thanks for the suggestions about Boric acid and defense in depth. I’ll pass them along.
Dave/, B.B. and all, thanks for the info about the Mosin. I take it that the 2 inches groups were shot with iron sights? My goal is with my Mosin sniper rifle is 1 MOA which was the standard for the original sniper rifles. I don’t believe it is really possible to know if mine is the real thing or a replica. In any case, to preserve the historical authenticity of what I’ve got, I’m going to build the sniper rifle entirely out of reloading based partly on my theory that the snug fit of the cartridge is a major determinant of accuracy. The plan is to slug the bore, measure the exact chamber length with a bullet seating depth gauge, use Sierra Match King bullets, and install a Huber Concepts Anti-Friction Ball trigger. The Huber trigger has a drop in design so it can be installed without changing the rifle at all. With these resources, I’m confident of success unless I bought a real lemon.
Flobert, you have played into my hands. 🙂 Here’s the link to the medieval madness.
Maybe he weighed 300 pounds with his armor on.
Hm, interesting article! I’ll have to say that after reading it and thinking a bit, I have to agree with commenters John McKay and Dr. Redwolf in the comments.
I’m not sure about the position of the girls’ right arms in the photo, I’ve seen a lot of world-class shooters with their arms in about that position. It’s good to look at what world-class shooters are doing currently, go to as many matches where there’s a high level of competition or maybe there’s stuff on youtube now.
Current coaching and ‘modern’ form suggest the lower arm position. I’ve been trying to break old habits. The lower arm provides more of a ‘barrel’ to absorb the small recoil without twisting the gun. A bit like the artillery hold adapted for offhand.
Interesting. yeah I remember seeing low elbows in the UIT journal pictures. The rifle stance has sure changed over the decades as has the pistol stance.
Those new rifles in the picture are like 3 grand each! Bet the shooting coats/pants/shoes/glove/special lucky silver-impregnated underwear run another couple’a grand.
Have I missed a paradigm shift? Maybe I’ve been watching too many WWII videos where the narrator says that holding out the right elbow perpendicular is the ultimate shooting position and no better one exists! Maybe this is the tone you have to take with trainees.
Also I wonder if the low elbow with the rear arm goes with supporting the front elbow with the hip as the girls are doing very obviously in the photo. Clint Fowler, two-time winner of the Nathan Hale Trophy at Camp Perry told me that he did not like to rest the front elbow on the body when this method was introduced. (He’s about 80 years old now.) But he did say that his two trophy wins came during contests with relatively high wind. He seemed to imply that these conditions favored his method.
I’ve seen the right elbow sticking out to the side in high-power shooting. Gary Anderson was an Olympic medalist in the (discontinued) even of 300-meter rifle, maybe there are some photos of him around that show what his elbow position was like. I’m not sure what cartridge was in favor for that event, but it had to have some recoil.
OK I’m going to reply to my own post here with a link I found to a good run-down on 300-meter rifle. Sounds like Anderson was probably shooting 7.62 NATO.
Flobert, I don’t pretend to know what was going on in that family or to assume that the girl may not have needed some kind of discipline, but the whole medieval warrior fantasy seems over the top. If anyone is worried about society falling apart now, I’m sure it doesn’t being to compare to the reality of the middle ages (not the recreation with costumes). I actually have a strong interest in medievalism myself, mostly in the form of a grotesque fascination. Did you know that the Knights Templar, fighting in the desert, supposedly had a prohibition against bathing so that they would not experience or provoke sexual temptation with the spectacle of the naked body?! I was attending an “eco-tour” of Hawaii once where the guide was holding forth on how wonderful Hawaii was in the pre-contact era and how the people were in harmony with nature. After visiting an old temple which contained a tooth from a human sacrifice, I asked the guide if he really wished he had lived in old Hawaii. He was man enough to say, no, and rightly so since you could lose your head for letting the shadow of the ali’i (chiefs) fall on you and other feudal nonsense.
And I have dealt directly with these feudal reenactors. Whether they use weaponry made out of nerf foam or harder materials like this guy, their focus seems to be to whale away at each other rather than learning the extremely sophisticated martial arts styles that the European medievals actually practiced. Their Fechtbuchs or fighting manuals which significantly predate the founding of the Japanese schools of Jiu-Jitsu show many of the same techniques. But I found that you could never slow down the re-enactors enough to get them to learn any of this because they were too eager to give you a cheap shot with their wooden swords.
Reading the comments on there, it seems the guy’s daughter had been heading down the wrong path and I mean, “crack smoking and involved in gangs” sort of path. Australia apparently has some really bad areas, and it looks like these folks were living at least near one etc. And frankly, the girl was a little bruised all over, was about it.
Everyone thinks Australia is this wonderful place full of upper-middle-class people who say “Bonzer” a lot. It’s actually got some really bad problems, people kinda like chavs, guess they call them yobs or yobbos or something.
Matt and BB,
Yes, iron sights. I did paint them white, which seems to help my bad eyes. I know the M44 will need faster powder. It throws a heck of a flame when I shoot surplus ammo! Speaking of harmonics, the M44 has a permanent mounted, folding, spike bayonet and it shoots much better with the bayonet locked open than it does with it closed. The 5 plus inch groups with it closed shrink to just under 4″ with it locked out!
Look at IMR 3031. It’s faster than 4895 and you can load it lighter. And try a 130-grain bullet if you can find one in .310. Less recoil.
Thanksfor the tip, BB! I’ll pick up a pound give it a try. I’m trying .303 bullets in it for now. I know the bore is supposed to be .310-.311 but it’s an old rifle… The 150 gr Hot-Cor’s I used for the last ladder were .312, so they’re not hugely oversized. And I didn’t see any signs of over pressure. One of these days I’ll need to slug all of my barrels…. I have 2 Mosins and 2 8mm Mausers that I reload for among some 9’s, 10’s, .44’s and 5.7’s (talk about a super-sensitive caliber! Some guys won’t even consider reloading that one, but all you need to do is take care…) 🙂
You reload for the 5.7 Johnson Spitfire???!!! I thought I was the only person still doing that.
I have gotten mine to 90 percent feeding reliability and a ten-shot group of around 2.5 inches at 50 yards. How about you?
Sorry for the confusion! I meant 5.7x28mm for FNH’s FiveseveN and PS90 (the bizarre looking bullpup….). So, you still are the only one! 🙂
B.B., I guess you are the only one who reloads for the 5.7 Johnson Spitfire which I have never heard of before. 🙂
The 5.7 Johnson Spitfire is the great-grandfather of the current 5.56 mm U.S. round. It is a .30 carbine round necked down to .224 caliber and chambered in an M1 Carbine. Melvin Johnson (of the Johnson light machinegun and Johnson automatic rifle fame) showed it to the U.S. Army around 1950. He had shown them the Johnson automatic rifle just after they adopted the Garand and they passed, and so they did again on this round, but it started them thinking. It was both more accurate and also more lethal than the .30 Carbine round.
First they looked at the .222 Remington in the Carbine. That worked but wasn’t good enough.
They went through a five-year development cycle in which they convinced Remington to make the .222 Rem. Mag., and then they abandoned that for the current .223 that they call the 5.56 mm. The 5.56 is slightly too long to fit in a Carbine action, so they had Eugene Stoner adapt his .308 AR-10 to contain it, thus giving birth to the M16.
Wow, I had no idea. Okay, I guess this is the strongest possible case to reload for the Johnson Spitfire. 🙂
Yes, I’ve heard that the Russian armorers zeroed the guns with the bayonets opened. Fortunately, the sniper rifles, like mine, have had the bayonet removed, so I don’t have to worry about that. Supposedly the front sight of the sniper rifles was raised 1mm so the the iron sights could be used at a closer distance than the regular battlefield zero, but that remains to be seen.
Either the front sight is too high on my 91/30, or more likely, the rear ramp is worn or has been modified for some reason prior to my ownership. It is an old gun… It shoots way low @ 25 yds with the rear sight backed all the way down to the 100 meter mark. Shooting lower than the distance from the tip of the front sight to the center of the bore. That distance should be less than that since the bullet is still on the rise of its trajectory at 25 yds. I wish the range I belong to had more than 25 yds to shoot. It’s a pistol range that has a backstop that will stop .50bmg, so they let us shoot rifles in there too.
Anyone know the latest on the search for a new service pistol? I heard that a search was on and then the Defense Department canceled it without explanation….
Closer to home, my CPSport is still having problems. Dry firing the gun, the trigger works fine. But loaded with a clip, the pull increases a great deal. The first shot from the clip requires about a 25 pound pull weight. Frequently, it doesn’t happen and I have to reset the magazine. The remaining shots in the clip get easier although maybe that’s a matter of perception. Anyone know what is going on here? As to the issue of my trigger finger getting crushed, this is apparently a problem with the firearm P99 which has a little “snow hill” built into the bottom of the trigger guard for no apparent reason. The P99 sounds like a mediocre weapon with so-so accuracy, but the CPSport is probably good enough for my purposes apart from its trigger.
I’d like to see a Smith and Wesson, either the 1911 or the SWM&P as the new service pistol. 🙂
PeteZ, it would seem that the error analysis from the first neutrino experiment is not quite the slam dunk that I thought. They’re running the experiment again.
So, the door hasn’t quite closed.
From your description I would think that one or more pellets had come out of their chambers in the clip and are binding as the trigger is pulled.
Try changing pellets.
Matt, I’d look at b.b.’s recommendation.
A couple of weeks ago my Colt developed the same problem as your CPsport. I’d load a new clip and just as you describe the trigger pull would be so heavy that I was sure damage was going to occur.
Yet the next shot would be easier.
I was just figuring I was going to have to sent it back when I decided to give it one more try. I loaded a clip and the trigger was really heavy. Instead of heaving on the trigger an firing it I opened the slide and found the pellet skirt was not flush with the clip (though I seat each pellet carefully).
I tried a different tin of pellets and have not had the problem since (about 150 shots).
The only thing I can figure is that I had got a tin of pellets with a high number of duds.
Pointed pellets especially are bad, as they tend to physically be too long for Umarex type holders — either the skirt is scraped on the transfer port [at least, in the CP99 the port looks brass and protrudes just a hair], or the point scrapes the O-ring/barrel.
Thanks, B.B. As a matter of fact, I’ve noticed that pellets seem to be falling out of the clip now with greater frequency than before. But it never occurred to me that the pellet could be the problem since I’ve been using RWS Hobbys for a long time. I guess I might have bought a bad lot or maybe the manufacturing specs have shifted. I’ll give it a try. And thanks CowboyStar Dad for your observations.
My P99 in .40S&W is my current nightstand gun — as my range time with it showed it to be hitting under point-of-aim on the short range… Whereas my SW4006 was hitting low and LEFT. I have since put the shortest front sight on the P99 to raise the impact point.
As for the “ramp”… I suspect the original idea was that it would lead one’s finger up and into the hollow of the trigger face when used as a defensive weapon. Walther has changed the design some over the years (among other things, the underbarrel attachment base on mine is incompatible with 99&44/100% of the commonly available lights/lasers; I think the new one is a Weaver/Picatinny compatible design — the CP99 actual had that feature first).
In contrast, compare:
Note the more useful attachment point on the CP99, though the ramp is quite incorrect
Wulfraed, I don’t notice that my finger is guided into the trigger by the snow hill but it sure can get crushed as I squeeze the trigger if I insert up to the first joint which I’ve had to do to apply sufficient pressure. But if this is your nightstand gun, you must be impressed. What do you like about this gun?
Well… As stated, it was hitting in vertical alignment with my point of aim (considering it has minimal, relatively speaking, adjustments — I barely touched the windage adjust, and elevation adjust requires swapping out the front sight [I’ve now put in the lowest front to raise the point of impact — I can’t imagine what anyone would need the two tall sights for]).
In contrast, both the (used) S&W 459, and then the S&W 4006, with fully adjustable rear sights were hitting low and to the left at defensive distances [7-15 yards]. I wasn’t comfortable with cranking the windage the full adjustment length for that range. (Both have the adjustable rear sights in the “carry gun” winged guards — sight design seen on the 4506 and 659 at http://world.guns.ru/handguns/hg/usa/sw-39-59-and-others-e.html )
Hitting low I could live with — means I’d be hitting lower chest rather than upper chest. And part of that I blame on my eyesight — target and sights both blurring, so using a “target” sighting (bull on top of front post) adds the blurs and puts me quite low (I must confess — I had orange 1-2″ dots pasted at the top of the bull as an aim point, to have the shots hit the bottom of the bull).
I know exactly what you mean about “good” quarter bore pellets.You now have me hot to get some for the Whizzer.Up till now I have felt lousy about the accuracy my JW 80 has been showing me.It is very hard to feel good about the HOTS setting when your lesser caliber go-to pellets do horrible in .25.
I’m glad to see it’s not ME alone.(No wind effect here to “blame”)
This has been an ongoing crusade of mine for the past decade, at least. I used to cringe whenever someone told me they were buying a .25, because I knew what was about to happen. Hopefully that’s now over.
How about a report when you try them in the Whiscombe? Nothing fancy; just “they work” with maybe a short report on how well. I have to keep the .177 barrel in until the accuracy versus velocity test is completed.
For You?? NO problem.Hell,as much as I paid for the .25 barrel (had to buy the .177 as part of the deal)
and given the fact that NOBODY sells their Whizzer barrels separately,I will be heard shouting from the mountaintop when the .25 finally performs as it should!!
Well, I hope that it does. Since I tested it in a PCP the question remains to be answered whether it will also work well in a springer. I sure hope so, because I’m down pretty low in my Diana Magnums, and I occasionally need them for testing.
I’m left to wonder what essential ingredient is missing when you get so much better performance from
pellets with the same shape and QC in just a 12% smaller caliber.Maybe twist rate…..maybe too little
or too much drag stabilization?It just seems that it would be a glaring difference to give such lousy results comparatively!
I have been wondering the same thing about the .25 cal pellets. In my Patriot there are three pellets that are very accurate, a couple more that are so-so, and the rest are just awful (as in 3 to 5 inches at 25 yards for five shots.) I have not run into that in .177 or .22.
Probably something to do with ballistic coefficient… You are looking at 12% in diameter, but consider it in volume for pellets of the same shape.
29% increase in cylindrical AREA, now add length to maintain proportion and you get? I suspect on spring guns the trajectory is a nasty arc — presuming the powerplant stays similar to the .22, the velocity of the .25 should be a casual stroll (more surface area in contact with the barrel => more friction, higher mass => less acceleration, Don’t have ballistic coefficient, but can compute sectional density..
JSB Match Diabolo Exact King .25 Cal, 25.4 Grains, Domed => 5.8057E-2
JSB .22 Cal, 14.3 Grains, Diabolo Exact Jumbo Express => 4.2208E-2
JSB Diabolo Exact Jumbo .22 Cal, 15.9 Grains, Dome, => 4.6930E-2
JSB Match Diabolo Exact Jumbo Heavy .22 Cal, 18.13 Grains, Domed => 5.3512E-2
(and since we are talking AirForce PCP rather than a spring, and PCPs like heavier pellets, lets put a similar weight .22 through the numbers)
Eun Jin .22 Cal, 28.4 Grains, Domed => 8.3825E-2
Wulfraed,thank you for computing those numbers.I contemplated something similar,remembering that
a similar logic defying thing happens between the .22 & .20 fired from an otherwise identical platform.
IIRC,the .22 gets the edge there.
It’s interesting! Some things just don’t scale up, or down for that matter, the way you think it should….
Hopefully the “Dreamliner” 787 from Boeing won’t fit that observation!
I would hope they’d have that one figured out…. Pretty sure they do though. Billions in R&D is too much if they don’t. I worked at “The Lazy B” back in the 80’s on the then new 747-400. Some of the stress tests of what they did to airplanes were amazing!
I finally decided myself, I’m making the jump, I’m coming over to the dark side, I’m buying my first ever PCP!
I don’t want to go with a firearm permit and licensing trouble so I’m limited to a CZ200 or a Hatsan AT44 (Hammerli Pneuma/AirVenturi Hailstorm) and since I wanted a repeater I decided to go with the Hatsan AT44 with the synthetic thumbhole stock BUT (and this is where I need your help) I’m not sure about which caliber to go with… I don’t hunt and don’t intend to, it’s mostly plinking and target shooting, the .22 are easier to handle than the .177 but the .177 are easier to find. I already have pistols and rifles in both caliber and the price of the ammo is not important enough to justify one over the other for me.
I asked owners of the detuned version and they’re getting around 120 shots per fill on .22 and 130 shots per fill in .177, again not enough difference to justify one over the other…
Loudness reports on both caliber again seem to be pretty close without any scientific proof of it.
I’m currently leaning towards the .22 for the ease of loading and the little extra oomph it carries, even if both pellets are exiting the barrel at the same speed the .22 will have more energy and might be a bit more accurate.
Did I forget something in my decision making process?
Here is the manufacturer link to the model I wish to buy:
Your advices will be greatly appreciated,
p.s. I should be in for a bit under 600$ with the Hatsan pump, shipping and taxes etc.
Your choice of .177 caliber is good because of economy. The .22 PCP should get M
Interesting… I’d heard the CZ200 was better than the Marauder for target shooting (better barrel, more vertical grip, and much easier for offhand due to weight) but not good for hunting (power, single shot), and the Marauder was better for hunting (power, 10 shot) but still pretty good for FT. Do you disagree BB ?
John: Where are you leaning on your rifle and scope purchase?
I’m considering the R9, Marauder, and CZ – with a Centerpoint or Bushnell Banner (or maybe Trophy) scope. All the rifles seem to have advantages: No tank & good off-hand balance -vs- Super Fun bolt action and flat shooting velocity -vs- more accurate hammer forged barrel and better offhand balance. Not sure how the optical sharpness and adjustment repeat-ability compare between the Centerpoint and Banner (or Trohpy) scopes.
Why can’t someone make one of the fixed barrel, pistol grip 10M guns (like the HW55) in a 12 FPE version ???
Hey, John. Have you been to any of the matches when Rex was shooting his FWB 300? It’s just 6 fpe, but it does NOT stop him from having a good time (or from shooting great scores!). If you’re interested in one of those classic 10m rifles, I say go for it! Assuming of course you’re out for a good time and camaraderie versus a cutthroat need for the ideal score. And assuming you choose one that can be scoped without too much trouble.
FT is for fun, and you cannot wipe the smile from Rex’s face when he’s shooting with that FWB, even though his score would be better with one of his other rifles.
I wish I could just have fun bettering my previous score, but I’m cursed with a competitive streak…
I’m hoping that with a little extra practice, I can be competitive against the TX200’s with an R9, or be competitive with the Daystates and FWBs with a Marauder or CZ. Mostly, I’m looking for the rifle that shoots best from the offhand position and has the least FPS variation.
No, I don’t necessarily disagree, because several people have shown wonderful results with the CZ 200. But the handful of CZ 200s that I have tested over the past ten years (maybe six?) were not that accurate. Everybody keeps wanting me to test it again because it is such a wonderful gun, but when I do, the one I test doesn’t stand up. I’ve tested them in both CO2 and PCP trim, including ones that were converted from CO2 to air. None of them was more than average.
And the couple Marauders I have tested have been accurate. I know they are supposed to have had barrel problems, but now that they use Green Mountain barrels I think those days are over. The Crosman barrels I have tested have all been accurate — except for the .25 that Mac tested for me last year. It was mediocre, but I laid that to the lack of a good pellet, which we now have.
But none of this matters to a Canadian like J-F, because he cannot own a gun that has a shrouded barrel.
Booohooohooo why are you reminding me I can’t have shrouded gun 🙁
Ultimatly I can live the 500fps and energy limit, sure it’s robbing us of a lot of guns but I don’t really need the extra power but the shrouded part REALLY sucks. The point (to me anyways) of airguns is to be able to shoot in your backyard. If I could do so without bothering my neighbors it would awesome.
Maybe all is not lost. A Diana 27 is just as quiet as a Marauder set on low power. A Hammerli 490 Express is just as quiet as a Diana 27.
You just have to choose the right gun.
But still not as quiet as the marauder with the magic eraser trick apparently or the guy on airgun artisans where you only hear the ping of the hammer on the valve and the wack of the pellet on the target.
I’d give a big chunk of my airgun collection for a Marauder rifle and pistol combo, more than enough accuracy a power for what I will ever need.
J-F, would obtaining a firearms permit allow you to own a shrouded Marauder, or does that just get you over that 500fps limit? How much hassle is it to obtain the (is it called a FAC there?)?
Having a PAL (Possession Aquisition License) would allow me to buy a full powered airgun or firearm but a shrouded anything is a big no-no here.
Most 10m match rifles have an actual rifled barrel around 16″-17″ long, but the rest of the length of the ‘barrel’ is a sort of shroud to put the sights at the right distance for iron sights, as well as for appearance and balance. The muzzle diameter is considerably larger than 0.177″. Does that count as a shroud in Canada, and can you not get and use those rifles up north?
I’m glad I didn’t buy the Marauder pistol, even though it’s “free” in California… Any handgun with a rifled barrel or over .17 BB needs to under the “Handgun Safety Inspection” (aka, registration) in Michigan — and shrouds aren’t supposed to be allowed there either (what they don’t know about my Marauder rifle, the better for me).
As for the other follow-up — if those 10m rifles are fully open tube, they may not qualify as a shroud; it would be like taking a Marauder (or Talon SS) and removing the end-cap and any baffles… So, if one is willing to cut off the outer tube on the Marauder until it is shorter than the barrel? (though what that does to the barrel I’m not sure of — aren’t the Marauder baffles in compression with the end of the barrel?)
I was a bit worried about the reports that a significant percentage of the Crossman Marauder Barrel weren’t very accurate (while the rest were excellent) . Do the .177 and .22 Marauders have Green Mountain Barrels now ? I read the .25’s got one, but hadn’t heard about the other calibers.
Also, the 30 FPS variation across a 30 shot string from the Marauder seems much larger than a Springer (6 FPS-ish) – and that bothers me quite a bit… Are there any reliable regulators being made for the Marauder ?
Using factory settings, I ran a 60 shot sequence starting at 3000PSI and ending around 2000PSI. (the .177 Marauder is the only PCP I’ve done such a test on — since it has a gauge; hard to do this with a Condor /in my 15 ft living room/).
From shot 23 to shot 53 I had
St. Dev. 5.34
(there were three failures to read in that sequence — one of which was probably a double pellet condition). Shot 11 was at 2800PSI (and 21 was at 2600PSI, so shot 14 was likely just over 2700PSI). Shot 51 was at 2200PSI (and shot 60 left 2000PSI, so shot 53 was around 2150PSI).
Shot 23 (~2580PSI) to shot 50 (~2210PSI) give
St. Dev. 4.19
As I recall, the factory settings are supposed to be optimized for a fill of 2500-2600PSI.
These were shot with H&N Barracuda Match 10.7grain pellets. Since the magazine holds ten pellets, I also summarized them as:
Benjamin Marauder .177 factory settings Start End Spread
H&N Barracuda Match 10.7 853.1 17.21 3000 2800 25.8
H&N Barracuda Match 10.7 865.9 17.72 2800 2600 21.4
H&N Barracuda Match 10.7 872.9 18.02 2600 2500 10.6
H&N Barracuda Match 10.7 878.4 18.25 2500 2375 11.6
H&N Barracuda Match 10.7 874.0 18.06 2375 2200 11.7
H&N Barracuda Match 10.7 857.8 17.40 2200 2000 21.3
Notice how the first two runs of 10, and the last run, each used 200PSI; the third run of 10 only used 100PSI, the fourth run used 125PSI, and the fifth run was 175PSI.
I’m considering 2700-2200PSI to be the working range with these settings, and the speeds are probably where they should be for the pellet (I might favor a nudge higher to 900 — but need lots of range time before making any changes)
Whoops, should be
shot 14 to 53
Hi, J-F. A couple of random thoughts… 1) I *think* the CZ200 can be fitted with a repeating magazine. I don’t have one, so am just engaging in hearsay. I believe this magazine is pretty expensive, though ($80?). 2) At reduced Canuck power levels, the .22 is going to have even loopier ballistics than the .177. Choosing 17 caliber might make longer-distance target shooting a bit more fun. And if you’re gonna be shooting mostly from repeating magazines, handling the .17’s v. .22’s might not be as big a hassle as fumbling them into a breech. 3) Speaking as someone who has used hand pumps and tanks, I recommend that you strongly consider jumping straight to a tank, assuming of course you can easily have one filled. It’s true that hand pumping is not so bad (though I’ve only routinely hand-pumped 2000 and 2500 psi Benji’s), but it does take valuable range time, and can be distracting when you’re at the range and in the zone to do some serious shooting. They’re not all that much pricier than a good handpump (my rather nice 44 cu. ft. carbon fiber SCBA tank was $430, shipped with all the trimmings). If your journey to the dark side lasts, you’re pretty much going to get a tank eventually, again assuming handy fill locations.
Enjoy the new toys!!!
Oh, wait. I was wrong about the .177 v. .22 trajectories under the Canadian regulations, wasn’t I? If it’s all regulated by muzzle velocity and both calibers are limited to the same MV, the .22 is probably a tad LESS loopy, assuming a somewhat better BC. Am I understanding this correctly now, J-F?
Jan to be considered a firearm an air gun has to be over 500 fps AND 5.7 joules (or 4.2 ft/lbs), the caliber is of NO importance, so if you want to build a 9mm or .357 as long as you’re at 500fps or less your fine, it’s not considered a firearm, that’s why I wanted a “locked” Rogue, if you “lock” the programming so it won’t shoot over 500fps it’s perfectly legal to own.
The scuba gear is a big step from my 185$ pump and at 120/130 shots per fill I have to pump a while but I’ll be able to shoot for a while too. I’ll try the pump but will eventually try to find a dive shop or straight to a shoebox compressor.
The CZ 200 T is interesting BUT the price tag of almost 700$ is a downer, a bit expensive for a first PCP.
If only I could get the Marauder… someone on the Canadian Airgun Forum was able to import a shroudless model, he had to jump thru hoops and LOTS of paperwork, the Marauder pistol is my dream airgun. It’s everything I want and need in an airgun, I would consider selling a few airguns if I could get my hands on one (maybe).
Jan (or anyone else) could you please explain the term “Loopy”? I’ll be shooting mostly at close range with a venture in longer distance and maybe (MAYBE) FT someday.
“Loopy” is an american expression that means the pellet follows a more parabolic path rather than a flatter trajectory.
So if I’m getting that right the .22 would shoot straighter than the .177 which would be more loopy right?
So the .22 would be a better choice?
I was 55% for the .22 / 45% for the .177 but I’m more at 60/40 towards the .22 now…
What would you guys pick and why?
In my opinion, if you’re going to shoot any kind of animal get the .22. If not, there are more pellet choices and shooting match venues for the .177.
Get scuba tank prices at your local dive shop. I bought a new one for around $160. The $400+ for the carbon fibre seems exessive to me unless I wanted to carry a tank through the woods all day. Pumping seems to me like a good way to learn to dislike shooting unless your into exercising then it’s a good way to enjoy exercising and a good reason to do it.
many SCUBA divers will trade in their tanks for newer/different tanks. I just missed getting an aluminum tank for US$99 here in Westfield, NJ that operated at 3,000 psi to go with my 2,000 psi steel tank. A new 88 cu.ft. aluminum high pressure tank at the local shop goes for US$160 so, assuming the used tank didn’t need to be hydrostatically tested (required every 5 years by law here), it would have been a nice savings.
However, since I only own the Marauder that requires the higher pressure, I don’t know that it’s worth my while getting the high pressure tank. I just fill to 2,000 and pump the extra 1,000 psi when I want a full charge. Had I been able to buy a .22 cal Marauder at Roanoke, then I would still be searching for that high pressure tank.
Yeah, the luggability of the CF tank is a plus. My 44 cu. ft. tank is pretty light, and it fits real well in a small daypack. WAY smaller and lighter than an aluminum 80 cu. ft. SCUBA. If you’re talking about the base cost of the tank, without the fittings and shipping costs, I think my 3-yr-old 44 cu. ft. CF tank would have been about $300 “naked”.
Of course, the other plus is the higher pressure of the CF tanks: 4500 psi v. 3000. On paper, the 44 cu. ft. tank will fill my Marauder (set for 2500 psi) 77 times, versus 53 times for an 80 cu. ft. SCUBA. And if you’re filling to 3000 psi from a 3000 psi tank, you have to live with less-than-full fills from the getgo. Again, all assuming you have a place to fill said tank to 4500 psi. Many SCUBA shops will only do 3000 or 3500. There are several near me in the Baltimore area that do 4500.
I reckon either a CF SCBA tank OR an aluminum (or steel!) SCUBA tank are a better buy than a handpump if you have a way to get them filled. If I had it to do over, I’d have skipped the handpump.
J-F / JohnG10
I have a CZ200S like the one pictured here:
I also have a .22 cal Marauder and the Marauder pistol.
I prefer the CZ200S hands down. Despite the funky shape, and the funky look, it feels good in my hands and shoulders nicely. I wish mine had come with the target sights. I also ordered the Air Arms magazine kit for the AAS200 from PA which DOES fit the CZ200S as Jan pointed out (the AAS200 is in fact made by CZ) So now it is a 10 shot repeater, and the clips are made out of actual metal with no moving parts. Yes, extra mags are pricey… but have you seen the price for extra FX magazines?! Sheeesh.
On the other hand, if I am shooting at some dang-blasted varmit, I use the Marauder.
Good luck to both you gents on your upcoming airgun purchases.
Thanks for the insights. Why to you use the Marauder rather than the CZ to shoot at varmits ? Is it just the extra power, or is it more accurate, or does the magazine (or bolt) work easier/faster ?
Also, do you find any differences in accuracy between the 2 rifles ?
I use the Marauder on varmits because it is .22 cal, so it hits much harder and doesn’t overpenatrate. The CZ certainly has enough power for a humane kill, but I don’t want to risk the furry bugger limping off to die with a gutshot. I only want them gone, not hurt.
The Marauder is also much more backyard friendly as far as noise. A shot from the CZ is a good bit louder. I use the 200S for target shooting and plinking.
Let us know what route you go.
One never knows when they will cross over to the dark side. 🙂 Tell us how it goes.
Seems to me that an airgun developer, let’s call it Air Force, when developing a new gun — perhaps known as the Talon or the Claw — would not do all the engineering with physics and CAD-CAM, but would also develop from concept to prototype to production using real compressed air and real pellets. Is it reasonable to think that the engineers probably had a favorite pellet and optimized the system that way? Surely they want the gun to work with any pellet on the market, but they may have favorites. Can you find out and use that information?
I’ve been checking with CERN people and Japanese experiment staff as well. The OPERA CERN-Gran Sasso experiment is too important to only do once. CERN is repeating, as you point out, with better measurements of the pulse shape of the neutrinos. Fermilab in the US is hard at work; it will take between 6 months and a year. And the OPERA people strongly deny that they could have made as simple a mistake as the possible problem with the GPS analysis. But I haven’t seen a technical rebuttal from them, and I don’t think they’re going to issue one.
Thanks to the tsunami and earthquake, the Japan-based experiment is behind schedule.
Realize that if the OPERA results are correct, and their analysis of the data is right, they will get a Nobel Prize in record time and show up in all the physics books almost overnight. I don’t know when I’ve seen a more fundamentally important experimental result claimed by reasonable people.
If only the world worked that way! Then Mustangs would have Chevy small block V8s and Michelin tires.
But, alas, nothing works like that. When Gamo (BSA) develops a gun little thought is given to the best pellet. And, Heaven forbid that it should turn out to be a Crosman Premier. They would never acknowledge it.
I would have expected Air Force to be more rational. Of course Gamo engineers are restricted to their own branded pellets, but AF doesn’t market pellets. Surely they do favor something.
They favor what works. Right now it’s this JSB pellet.
Imagine this. It’s 1960 and you are Crosman, making the model 160 target rifle. You know it should be accurate and of course it isn’t. It looks like a target rifle, but doesn’t perform like one. Then it’s 1995 and the .22-caliber Premier pellet comes out. Suddenly that rifle you made way back in 1960 IS accurate. That’s how it is for AirForce with the .25 caliber. Until now, they had an accurate gun and nothing to shoot in it.
OTOH — how often does Gamo really develop a new gun…
Looking at their catalog I get the impression that they have maybe three power-plants (piston/spring/cylinder sets)[the hunter extreme, the “regular”, and maybe a lower power one], and then ring the changes over that: with/without Whisper unit, wood or plastic stock, traditional or skeletal shape plastic, with/without factory scope, with/without celebrity endorsement. Okay — they do have a split on break barrels, and a few underlevers…
Don’t forget how many gussied up versions of the barrel sleeve they’ve been through.I still have an “English” Hunter extreme with the big barrel brake hanging around here.I couldn’t turn it down on clearance from a gun store for $200……but other than shoot holes in pennies I’ve yet to figure out why I got it.It shoots CP heavies at 1000fps on the nose.My best friend had one(we’re both big guys),
and I remember his broke in to shoot decent with 30yd groups around dime size,but the lg. Leapers
scope took a real beating!I just have too many high power PCP’s to want to invest time in it.Plus a .177 with that much ooomph really likes to overpenetrate,and gives me safety concerns.But if I get attacked by a wild hog………LOL
PeteZ, thanks for the insider’s look at the latest physics. But if the OPERA people didn’t make the simple mistake that was described, why not explain how they accounted for it? I thought science was supposed to be very up front. Whether they have an answer or not, it seems like they have everything to gain by showing their cards and nothing to gain by hiding them since they will be found out anyway. Meanwhile, it seems like the universe is hanging in the balance…
PeteZ, thanks for the insider’s look at the latest physics. But if the OPERA people didn’t make the simple mistake that was described, why not explain how they accounted for it? I thought science was supposed to be very up front. Whether they have an answer or not, it seems like they have everything to gain by showing their cards and nothing to gain by hiding them since they will be found out anyway. Meanwhile, it seems like the universe is hanging in the balance…
Well and good but don’t look for conspiracy or sneakiness so fast. OPERA says we already took that into account. Could just be one person saying that off handedly tossing out the comment. Maybe their proof that they did take it into account can’t easily be broken out separately, but they think they already made the check. Or this may have sent them back to the drawing board for a significant recheck and rewrite, and they don’t want to say anything until they are positive. Nothing damages a reputation like just dancing around with small changes in and out and in again, etc. Say it once more, and get it right that one more time.
And yes, our view of the universe is in the balance. People might get awfully gun shy. You’ll pardon the language in this context.
Here’s another possibility why they’re reluctant to tell all:
Their discovery is known world wide and there is a tremendous amout of fame and fortune hanging on the verification of their success. If I were them I’d be very worried about someone else stealing the show, and there are countries with the resources that could do it. I would be working with lawyers about now.
Just my paranoia peeking out.
Chuck, that’s a good point. How many inventors have lost the fruits of their work to opportunistic people because of some misstep at the release point.
PeteZ, that’s a good observation on how a reputation is made. As the Bible says, “Let your ‘yes’ mean yes and your ‘no’ mean no.”(!)
Nonsense. There are only 3 places in the world that can do similar experiments: CERN-Gran Sasso; Tokai Japan to Kamioka (aka T2K); and Fermilab to Minnesota (aka MINOS). It would take at least three years before a new lab could even begin taking data!
My son is one of the senior US guys on T2K; he says OPERA is being very open about what they have and haven’t done. If the OPERA result is wrong, it will be found out within a year! Far better for OPERA to help that work than to do anything to obstruct it!!
Lucrative? These experiments cost about $half-a-Billion to build and run. A Nobel is only worth about $1.4 Million, and no industrial spinoffs likely.
It is good to know that there are people who do things for the betterment of mankind, or just to see if they can do them, to discover something about the universe. No conniving shysters with curly mustaches lurking around at CERN I would wager.
Physicists aren’t all white hats; some are black mustached Mafiosi or Asian warlords. See if you can get an unexpurgated bio of either Carlo Rubia of CERN or of Samuel C.C. Ting of MIT. Look carefully, and ye shall find. I won’t put the info on a public board; both are Nobel Laureates. Whoooo, yeah, there’s Nobelist Brian Josephson who believes in “mind-matter” direct interactions. He’s easier to find the dope on. And if you write and show interest he will write back!!
If it all possible please try the Benjamin Domed 27.8gr pellets in your next test:
I already tried them once. They were in Part 2:
However, several people have asked me to show some comparative groups so I will use the Benjamins for that.
I do notice that both the Kodiaks and the Benjamins beat the JSBs at 25 yards, so I wonder what is happening out at 50. I could have sworn that I tested them at longer distance, but perhaps not.
I’m intrigued by this pistol with the stock extension. “Little Carbines” that are accurate attract me.
You said, “The shoulder stock works very well, but the smaller size of the pistol’s reservoir means you need to find an alternative placement for your cheek when firing. It took a while but I found a hold that works for me and the last group was shot with it.”
When you re-visit this accuracy test would you mind taking a picture of or briefly explaining this hold since all I see is air where you would normally place your cheek. Thanks.
I was thinking of doing just that. The reservoir doesn’t extend back far enough to rest your cheek against, so the hold is a bit complex. It would be best to show it rather than try to explain it.
Yes they attract me also. I’d try putting the stock on top of the tank and experimenting with some foam pipe insulation for the spot weld. Then I might make something out of a nice piece of wood to do the same thing.
I’m also very attracted by these small carbines, the Crosman 2289 is by far my favorite pumper and a great sized rifle (same size as the Marauder pistol) and smaller reservoir means less pumping.
PeteZ I’ll answer your question here because I can’t write anything under your comment.
I have no idea, I think the shroud thing means the silencer kind… I have a Trail NP which has a shrouded barrel but it’s still legal. Would you have a particular popular model in mind? I could check it out, I know the TX200 isn’t allowed here because of it’s shroud.
Lots of guns have shrouds, yet that really has nothing to do with being silenced. For instance, the new AirForce TalonP pistol has a shroud, but it’s very loud. The Talon SS has a shroud, but it also has baffles in the shroud that seriously reduce the report.
Unfortunately, we’ve gotten sloppy and now the word “shroud” has come to mean the same as being silenced or muffled. Mfrs have also gotten sloppy, and most who have silenced guns simply state that the guns are shrouded, and carefully avoiding the terms silencer, muffler and baffle.
In states where silencers/mufflers are not allowed, Pyramyd Air is unable to ship guns with shrouds that also have baffles and will silence the report.
A question please about the “shroud” and the Talon SS. A shroud is a covering, which in the case of the these two AirForce guns is the cylinder which surrounds and extends beyond the end of the barrels. The SS is “quiet” with the end cap that comes with it that covers the end of the cylinder. This end cap is what “quiets” the gun. If I shoot the SS without the end cap it sure is loud. My SS came with no baffles between the end of the barrel and the end of the “shroud”. Has AirForce added baffles to the Talon SS?
B.B. said that the Talon Pistol only has about an inch and one half between the end of the barrel and the end its “shroud” which is not enough space even with an end cap to quiet the pistol. However, I am sire that is a problem that the after market guys can solve.
I’ll admit to not being up to date on every nuance of this subject, but anything that quiets the report of a gun will get it banned in states that do not allow silencers.
No, the SS as it exists today doesn’t have baffles. Edith got confused, but she’s usually ahead of us all on the specs, because she’s the one who does all the research.
They’re lazier here, if an airgun comes with a shroud they think can reduce the report of said airgun it becomes prohibited and once prohibited it becomes almost impossible to change, and if some gun isn’t restricted it becomes the importer responsability to check his gun will be legal here, like the recent AK (no 47 right Dusk) fiasco. Someone imported a great deal of AK BB guns which feature the firearm receiver and wether it can be made to fire bullets using gun powder has little to do with the gun in question. When they prohibit a weapon it’s the receiver or frame that is considered a weapon or firearm.
So technicaly I could buy all the 1911 slides and barrels I want but no frame. Since the AK BB guns use the receiver from the firearm, the receiver is deemed a prohibited weapon and the importer was handcuffed while they raided his place and some sellers of said gun also ended up loosing part of their stock.
I was thinking of my own fifteen yr old FWB C-62in particular, but today’s match rifles like the FWB
P-700 are built the same way.
I’m not sure Pete. I don’t know these rifles good enough, you would have to take a look here:
it’s the Feinwerbau page but there is too many 700’s for me, I don’t know if I’m looking at the actual barrel or some kind of barrel shroud. Some of them have a small muzzle break, those are perfectly legal as long as it’s not reducing the report of the rifle.
Airforce Condor and Talon are available here but not the SS model (of course all you have to do is buy a shorter barrel and the plug that goes at the end of the frame and voilà instant SS but you would then be illegal and you should report yourself to the closest police station so they can arrest you and seize your big bad guns.
I don’t have anything illegal home but if they ever decided to raid my house the news would report finding several rifles and pistol and thousands of rounds of ammo… all airguns and pellets but that’s not what would be reported.
What in those small pictures looks like a muzzle brake isn’t. It’s some barrel weights and the front sight tunnel. ISSF doesn’t allow any kind of “barrel perforation” in air rifles, and a muzzle brake counts as a barrel perforation. So FWB doesn’t use them on its match rifles, only on AP which allows perforations. What I meant, and find hard to say w/o using the word “shroud” is that the barrel is about 16″ long, but it has a surrounding, protecting tube glued to it, or otherwise fixed, that extends past the muzzle and on for several inches. The front sight is mounted to this tube which is steel on the P-700 ALU and Universal, but aluminum on the P-700 Evolution and Evolution Top, both to save money and to save weight. I think of this as a permanent *shroud*, but not one intended to reduce the report.
It’s called a barrel sleeve on the exploded parts diagram on the FWB site; part
126.96.36.199 Laufmantel Barrel sleeve F3
You reach the diagram via
then you’re looking at a list of models. Click on Model 700 Alu after 720,000 serial number.
Anyway, I bet the Canadian government can differentiate between a barrel sleeve and a silencer (no baffles, among other things).
I think it has a lot to do with what the manufacturers or importer tells them.
If they say barrel sleeve or bull barrel it’s hot knife in warm butter if they mention quiet it becomes a no-no.
They call the Trail NP a bull barreled rifle, I didn’t notice any difference shooting it with or without it but it has little holes inside the bull barrel that may be there to lower the reporte on full power versions (I have the 495 fps one) or to keep the turbulences away from the pellet but it doesn’t say anywhere that the bull barrel quiets the report so it’s available everywhere.
It’s all lawyer crap, firearm replicas are illegal unless they can badly hurt or kill someone. Meaning no black airsoft guns but pellet and BB guns are fine unless like the AK’s I was refering to they have a firearm receiver which is considered a firearm even if could neber be made to fire a live round of ammo without killing the shooter.
That’s also why I don’t own any firearms, it’s just too much of a pain and if you get into hand guns it becomes much worst because the length of the barrel and overall length of the gun change and you uave to be a member of a gun club or range, the permits are not the same, you need to have it registered etc.
I was not trying to put you on the spot. You are absolutely correct in your statement about silencers. The gray area is silencers and air guns. I’m going to refer anyone interested in silencing an air gun to read B.B.’s article here: /article/Airgun_silencers_What_s_the_big_deal_August_2006/32
A must read for anyone making or buying a silencer for an air gun.
I am fairly careful of using My TSS.
No hunting of game species with it. The game warden would be curious about it. It is silenced by any definition, and would land me in trouble. Forget the “extra parts” in the front. All he has to do is say that it is silenced in court and I am busted. No hunting tag for at least 3 yrs, a fine, jail time, forfit weapon.
I could use a RR and all he has to do is say it’s illegal for any reason and the judge will back him up. GUILTY. I could have a hundred witnesses but would do no good.
Thanks for your reply. I sure will check out the regs both here in Maryland and also back home in New York State.
I’ve never hunted any game species with an air rifle. Most of my hunting is done when I’m back home in the summer at the cabin on Cayuga Lake. Woodchucks and red squirrels, the little SOB’s, that like to eat holes through the exterior walls and use the cabin as their winter home, are what I hunt with the pellet guns.
I don’t really do much hunting here at home in Maryland. However, the occasional coon or possum that raids my garden usually doesn’t survive his dinner. I like to watch the tree rats in the walnut tree, but don’t like to see them eating the bird seed. Instead of shooting them, I’ve made an absolutely squirrel proof bird feeder using an electric fencer that runs on a solar charged battery. Sure is entertaining to watch a new tree rat trying to get some bird seed.
Okay, folks, have a look at physical evidence of the Jaws of the Subconscious.
Those are all 10 shot groups offhand at my shooting range of 20 feet. I wonder if I’m in the running for the smallest of all shooting ranges. And since I shoot downward at my target which is resting on the floor, the actual shooting distance which is on a diagonal is significantly different from the measured distance on the floor. Anyway, the middle two rows are with my B30. You can see the massive bulging snout of the Jaws as they burst into view. But clearly they are absent with the top and bottom rows which were shot with my Daisy 747. The Jaws can only be coaxed out with ceaseless practice of my shooting routine until it becomes familiar. I just haven’t put in the same time with the 747 as with my rifles, so the Jaws remain hidden below the surface.
If I remember correctly ( and a lot of times anymore I don’t) it is the horizontal distance that counts.
That is why the tendency is to over shoot when shooting up or down hill.
I believe BB has discussed this in the past – holding low for shots that are above or below horizontal. Kevin has posted a very neat article trying to explain this but it’s for firearms. I rationalize this by remembering the pellet is rising once fired. That’s because your scope and even iron sights are above the line of fire from the barrel so the barrel is tilted up slightly so at your specific distance you have zeroed, the line of fire matches or intersects the line of sight. For instance, when I zero a scoped air rifle at 10 yards, I find that at 30 yards, I’m about an inch high. At 30 yards zero, I’m about an inch low at 10. From 30 to 40 and this is not hard and fast as it will depend on several other factors (speed of pellet, height of scope or iron sights above barrel bore, weight of pellet and so on), the pellet stays within 1/4 to 1/2″ of it’s arc – hence the ‘two zeros’ at 30 and 40 yards – approximately. So at a horizontal distance of 30 yards, if you’re shooting at an angle, the pellet is going to travel a bit farther and therefore, rise a bit before it starts to drop. Anyhow, that’s how I compensate for it. Now I expect all the superior shooters who are also more knowledgeable, to come on line and tell me I don’t know what I’m talking about :).
I’ve always had trouble working out the mental gymnastics for up or downhill point of impact changes.
After all, mentally, shooting uphill means some of the gravitational force is now being applied to decelerate the projectile, in addition to just air drag. This also means less gravitational drop… So on the one hand you have a longer time-of-flight (more time for gravity to drop the projectile) but for equal time-of-flight relative to horizontal you don’t have as much gravitational induced drop.
Downhill… Well, some of the gravitational force is now acting to accelerate the projectile, so time-of-flight will be shorter — less overall time for gravity to induce drop.
So… Downhill is easy to understand a higher POI — shorter time-of-flight is equivalent to moving the target closer to the gun without changing zero (and presuming you are shooting “second zero” configuration where the mid-range flight path is above line of sight).
Uphill is confusing by these visualizations then, as the longer time-of-flight would be like moving the target further away, and thereby implies the POI should be lower…
But, perhaps I’m overthinking everything, and the triangle solution overrides all the gravitational effects. That is, the line-of-sight is the hypotenuse of the triangle, but all projectile ballistics is just based upon the horizontal component only. In this case, both up or down hill results in a horizontal component being shorter than the line-of-sight — equivalent to moving the target closer to the gun.
I hadn’t even thought about correction for uphill and downhill shooting. I guess I’m grateful that I can even get my sights zeroed at this distance.
I was impressed with your groups at first glance even though you are 10 feet closer than I shoot. However, when I reread your comment and saw you shot those off-hand my jaw dropped. Realy nice shooting, that!
By the way, you’re holding your ruler inside out.
Thanks. 🙂 Is it possible to hold a ruler inside out? It’s the mirror reversal effect of my computer-mounted camera which I discovered when I was photographing written messages for friends. The solution? Write the message correctly on the back of the sheet, then trace out the letters on the front side that is exposed to the camera.
That is excellent; I’m more impressed with the consistency b/t groups than anything else.
I managed to split the ball on the axe and hit two targets with the flintlock today, and was quite proud of myself — I’ve been denied that one so many times before, but now that just seems like a cheap trick!
Very impressive groups to say the least. How about pointing me towards the Jaws of the Subconscious because my 10 shot offhand groups look more like they’re coming from the jaws of the unconscious.
If I shot 10 shot groups offhand with a rifle as heavy as a B30 they would look like they came from the jaws with no conscience whatsoever. Nice shooting my friend!
(with apologies to Mr B. for co-opting his joke)
Thanks you guys. It is one of my entertainments to lie back in the shower at the end of the day and muse over my accomplishments which include not crashing my rc plane or the groups I’ve shot. That target I showed made for a good day, and I like to think that the groups wouldn’t be THAT different if the pellets had been allowed to fly another 10 feet now would they? 🙂 On the other hand, that doesn’t explain the appalling performance with the Anschutz offhand at 50 yards. The MOA geometry was just not working. I tend to think it was because my earmuff was getting in the way of the buttstock, and there were some glimmers of hope when I sorted that out. But I need to go and re-establish myself.
As for how to access the Jaws of the Subconscious or Unconscious, your names already indicate that you are on the right path….(!) Like a wild animal the Jaws are skittish and they will flee away if you seek them out. The only way to get them is patient coaxing by endless repetition of the same shooting sequence. Lulled in this way, the Jaws will approach you on their own, and when they’re ready….CHOMP. There will be no mistaking them. As another way to think about them, you can recall the original Star Trek episode where Captain Kirk is divided into his good and evil halves. As Mr. Spock says, “Here we have an unprecedented opportunity to explore the human mind. It would appear, Captain, that your decisiveness is bound to your evil half.” Indeed, that is what it feels like when the Jaws work: me as I would like to be with no wishy-washiness or nervousness but acting with utter conviction and certainty! There’s a scene in the Star Trek episode where the evil Kirk sits down in the command chair on the bridge and gives the order to warp out of orbit. The crew says, “But what about Mr. Sulu and his team down on the planet with the temperature dropping to 120 degrees below zero?!” “There’s nothing we can do,” says the evil Kirk. “Set a course to our next assignment”…. Decisive. 🙂
I forgot to tell you nice groups much better than I can do. I have good reason for using the name shaky.
I googled shooting up and down hill and found this.
Sometime back this topic about shooting uphill was discussed by BB on this blog. I don’t remember if it was part of the blog article itself or if it was in one of its following comments. I remember him saying to aim low if you’re shooting at a squirrel in a tree. I find it interesting that this guy in your link says it doesn’t matter if you’re under 100 yards, just shoot normally. Perhaps, in his defense, the author in your link isn’t looking for the anal preciseness that us airgun shooters want to achieve.
Chuck and Shaky,
Shooting up and down is exactly the same. You have to visualize the linear distance to the target and compensate for that. The verticality is meaningless.
If a squirrel is in a tree 40 yards up but only ten yards from where you are standing if he were to fall straight down, hold for ten yards. Yes the pellet has longer to fall (the 40 yards to the squirrel) but it is rising as it does so, because you had to aim up.
I finally picked .22 as my first PCP and if it doesn’t workout the way I like i can always buy a second one in .177, maybe with the walnut stock or maybe I’ll get the bigger BT-65 or maybe I should save a bit and get a Talon?
I can’t wait to try it out, anything I should know before firing the first shot? Any advice you wish you had?
I put a fresh battery in my chrony, won’t wipe the lube of the pump shaft, bleed the hose before disconnecting it from the rifle… Anything else?
Yes. Forget the chronograph and just shoot the rifle for the first hundred shots. There is always time to chronograph it later, but doing it to a new gun is like driving a new car with your eye on the speedometer rather than the road. Get used to the trigger and find a good pellet and leave the chronograph in the box. Once you know your gun it’s time for the chrono.
Enjoy your new gun.
You forgot one thing – take good notes so you can report back to us. Oh, and get those Crosman Premires in the box. I have the .22 Marauder and it loves those. Your’s might, also.
OK, here’s one to give the theorists a chance to express their opinions and the rest of us, a headache. I was watching “Through the Wormhole” yesterday on cable and it was pointed out that the 2nd law of thermodynamics states that as time increases, so does a system’s entropy or disorder. Look at it this way – if you introduce two separate gases to each other, at first they are both concentrated and in a state of high order, as time lapses, the gases intermingle / combine, and entropy or disorder increases.
Now comes the fun part, our Universe is expanding and it’s entropy is increasing – more disorder as it spreads out. At some point in time, some physicists believe the Universe will stop expanding and start to collapse again. Will time then run backwards?
Will time run backwards?
Given the absolutely stupid things I’ve done in the past, “Oh, God! I hope not….!!”
Time running backwards is an interesting concept. Your parents’ lives would begin by you having them dug up out of a grave and putting them in a hospital. They would go home from the hospital and slowly start taking care of you more and more. You would then start doing less and less then more and more and then again less and less stupid things until eventually they were changing your diapers. Then (and please quickly wipe this out of your mind) you would crawl back into your mother’s womb and disappear forever. /Dave I agree, “Oh, God! I hope not…!!”
Think what that does for an Oedipus complex…
I think the number of cosmologists that believe the universe will eventually collapse has been dwindling… The dark matter/dark energy crowd are filling in the space left by measurements that the rate of universe expansion is itself increasing, with no evidence of something that could reverse the expansion.
Up until the last 10-20 years, measurements had still been uncertain enough to allow for gravitational deceleration of the expansion leading to eventual collapse [with a hypothetical ability to then explode again — a yo-yo universe]; balanced with no expansion nor contraction; and eternal expansion. The third option seems to be the current prevalent attitude. The yo-yo view has a zombie life in the “brane” theories, wherein colliding branes will produce a new universe.
Given the speeds at which galaxies are rotating, and this is an observable from earth, the amount of glowing visible matter we can see in them is not massive enough for the gravitational force to keep the galaxy from flying apart. This was well known even when I was in grad school a long long time ago. Over the years we looked for modifications in General Relativity and didn’t find one that worked. The only other long range force (falls off as 1/R^2 or more slowly) we know of is the electric field, but we really believe that galaxies are electrically neutral and anyway the electric force can also be repulsive. So almost by default physicists and astrophysicists were led to the notion of “dark matter.” It doesn’t glow; it doesn’t affect light; but it does have gravitational mass. And if you assume dark matter you can get the galaxies to hold together. Since we were out of other good ideas, that one stuck.
“Dark energy” arose when people did very precise observations of the expansion of the universe (red shifted quasars and such) that we saw clearly. The speed of expansion was found to be accelerating — exactly the opposite of what you would expect from a bunch of gravitationally attracting masses. There is a “gravitational constant” term in Einstein’s General Relativity, the modern theory of gravity, that — depending on its value — could be a repulsive add-on to the 1/R^2 gravitational force we learned about in school. It takes the form of an energy density everywhere in space, and if it is not exactly equal to zero, it disturbs the symmetry of GR. Einstein thought it made the equations “ugly’ and for most of the 20th century the gravitational constant was just set to zero to make things “pretty” again. Einstein called the constant the worst mistake he ever made, but in fact it was an inspired guess, because it appears to be right.
The oscillating universe now seems dead, ruled out by measurements. Pity; it gave rise to an astounding novel: Poul Anderson’s “Tau Zero”. I do recommend the book to SF fans, old and obsolete as it is.
Fred PRoNJ, in the scenario that you’re describing, I’ve never understood why if the universe starts to collapse inward, presumably from gravitational pull, entropy must decrease. Entropy isn’t tied strictly to how close things are together. (Could the statistics that we talk about be one way of measuring entropy?)
But as Wulfraed mentioned, the oscillating universe concept is pretty much bankrupt I believe. In fact, I think it is pretty well established that the universe is flying apart too fast to ever come back together again and in fact they need to invent dark matter as a source of gravitation to explain why it’s not flying apart even faster than it is.
As to the direction of time, Stephen Hawking in his book A Brief History of the Universe does say that there is no obvious reason why what he calls the “thermodynamic arrow” of time has point one way (forward) which it does in our experience. But his reasoning about this escaped me at some point. Nevertheless, I am quite incredulous about his larger speculations and those of other scientists on the non-existence of God based on their scientific work. The accomplishments of the physical sciences starting with the Enlightenment are truly astounding, no question about that. But to suppose that they serve as a basis for denying the existence of God (apart from purely religious issues) seems to me not too add up. There is so much they have yet to explain from reconciling quantum physics with relativity, explaining dark matter and the even more mysterious dark energy, explaining where the Big Bang came from, that they are far away from pronouncing on the source of it all based on their scientific work.
A fully expanded universe is in a state of maximum disorder. It’s clear that a fully collapsed universe is in a state of very high order (a single giant atom or some such), so its entropy is less than that of a fully disordered state. Make sense?
Or some such indeed.
Most physicists are unconvinced by any of the explanations of “time’s arrow” and why you cannot go backwards along the T-axis as you can along the three space axes. While I would like to know, neither the invocation of entropy nor of some matter-anti-matter asymmetry is convincing. For now, it just is.
As to religion, existence of God, etc., that’s a personal matter and lies outside the framework within which physics operates. I think that there is very little in the way of physics on the human scale that we don’t understand. I think we do have a good handle on dark matter and maybe dark energy (see above your post, Matt61). It is true that we cannot unify General Relativity with quantum mechanics, but quantum mechanics and special relativity are fully integrated forming quantum electrodynamics which even explains the weak interaction (but the strong interaction is still a subject of study). Google “quantum electrodynamics” to get very good explanations.
If you’re getting a PCP gun, do yourself an enormous favor and buy a used dive tank. You should be able to get one for a lot less than a pump, and if you can’t find a dive shop nearby, your local fire department should be able to fill it from the compressor they use for breathing air. Don’t fill it at a paintball shop because (at least the one near me) they don’t filter and dry the air well enough. If you get “paintball use only” tape put on your tank, you shouldn’t have any trouble with the kind of inspections a dive shop makes you go through with human life at stake.
Be careful when buying a used scuba tank. A hydrostatic test ensures the safety of the 3,000psi tank to hold 5,000lbs of air. The testing process itself stretches the tank permanently and a tank can handle only so much stretching before it is damaged beyond safe parameters. Only the testing process itself can tell if a tank reaches its stretch limit.
You may be paying a lot of money for a tank that must be tested soon or that can’t be tested again or only be tested one more time. A new scuba tank will cost around $160. It cost about $40 to test a used one, if it needs it. You’d better have gotten a really good deal. So, if you get a used tank make sure the testing was done recently or you may have been better off getting a new one.
I would think no scuba tank filling business (dive shop, firedept, or other) would in its right mind fill a non-tested or outdated or over-tested tank, due to the chance of it exploding. By law, a scuba tank must be hydro-statically tested every 5 years in the US. Other countries the frequency is more often. I believe Australia it is every year. I don’t know Canada’s law
Also, make sure the tank valve seats well to the PCP fill adapter with no air escaping. Valves and the o-rings at that connection can be damaged by carelessness and/or accidents such as falling off the tailgate of a pickup truck. (insert throat clearing noise)
B.B., how does it feel to be right all the time. I tried out my JSB Exacts in my Walther CPSport, and it worked perfectly. Trigger itself was actually quite nice although the trigger guard was still scraping my finger. >:-(
I’ve indulged the weekend with more viewings of Lizard Lick towing, and I see that a disproportionate number of people who get their cars repossessed are strippers. Maybe this is what keeps the Lizard Lick people going although the strippers are not at their most charming. They are prone to cursing and slapping to the face. If I was able to roam cross-country like Chuck or J-F, I would contemplate a visit to old Lizard Lick Towing in North Carolina. 🙂
It would be impossible for B.B. to be right all the time. As his wife, I’m right all the time. He’s never right. I bet your wife has a similar viewpoint 🙂
o/~ Right or wrong I’ll be with you
I’ll do what you ask me to o/~
You have a good idea there about visiting the Lizard Lick people but what’s to keep them from trying to repossess my motorcycle while I’m there just prove I’m wrong about them being scripted?
Anybody have an opinion on which is the better scope (in terms of optical quality, ability to return to the same point when adjusted for each shot, and ability to hold zero over time) ?
Bushnell Trophy (Is this the same as the Banner with an amber coating to differentiate browns better ?
Leupold, Swarovski, Zeiss
Just don’t put them on a spring gun as they’ll probably fall apart in a day <G>
I haven’t studied enough high end scopes to make a definite conclusion, but one thing I notice with the Leapers/Centerpoint, and other chinese made designs… One sees an awful lot of the inside of the scope tube on those models when in viewing position. Maybe it’s the zoom, though I don’t think my Leupold is quite that blatant about it. My ancient (ca. 1971) Weaver K1.5, when at proper eye-relief, shows NO tube innards — all one sees is the metal ring of the ocular bell. My Leapers units, OTOH, show bulges for the LED emitters, various steps and joints, etc.
You’re probably right about the Zeiss and Swarovski scopes being eaten by springers. Never had one on a springer. I’d be tempted if they had AO that would allow focus down to 10 yards at least.
The Leupold EFR’s work well on springers. The Leupold 3-9×33 EFR with AO is a classic springer airgun scope. The leupold 6.5-20×40 EFR with AO has been on many of my springers and still works fine. The Leupold lifetime warranty is gold in my experience so I don’t have any hesitation putting any leupold on any springer.
I think the value of warranties is often overlooked in pricing scopes.
I will never buy nor will I endorse a Leapers scope again because their warranty is disingenuous. I used to praise Leapers scopes until I had a problem with a mini swat scope. Leapers basically said tough. I will forever discourage everyone from buying a leapers scope. For the price point they’re fine if they work but if they have problems you might as well cook the scope and eat it.
The test is worth repeating on a calm day. In my opinion you can not discredit the rest of the pellets with the kind of wind you described. It seems to be a good little pistol, very powerful with good accuracy potential. I am surprised the JSBs performed as well as they did in such windy conditions.
The .25 slug moves slower and has a bigger surface for the wind to grab on. Please shoot it on a calm day.
Thanks for responding. I did mention that I plan to shoot this gun on a calm day, so your concerns are met.