by Tom Gaylord
Writing as B.B. Pelletier
This report covers:
- Sights okay
- First target
- Shooting fast
- RWS Hobby pellets
- Air Arms Falcon pellets
This is the report people have been waiting for. How accurate is the Gamo PR-776 pellet revolver? If it proves accurate, the price is certainly in the right place for a revolver that has a real crane and swing out cylinder.
The day before performing this test, I had the revolver out on a test of the Rocket Shot target. I found the revolver doesn’t point naturally for me, and I was unsuccessful on the moving target. But I had a lot more confidence in this test.
I had thought I’d need to paint over the white dot sight on the front post to get real aiming precision; but when I lit the target brightly and shot from a darkened room, the dot became invisible. Dot sights are okay for pointing at a large mass, but they destroy any precision the sights may offer. Fortunately, the PR 776 sights have very rectangular angles; so, when they’re dark, they’re also pretty crisp.
The sights are adjustable; but as they came from the package, they were pretty close. I left them that way for the entire test.
I shot the gun from a sandbag rest at 10 meters, using a 10-meter pistol target. Two of the three pellets I selected were wadcutters that I feel suit the power of this revolver quite well. Except for one target, I waited a minimum of 20 second between all shots. For that one target, I took the request of several readers and fired the gun faster.
For the first target, I shot 8 H&N Finale Match Pistol pellets. Eight shots went into 1.21 inches at 10 meters. Five of those shots went into a much smaller group that measured 0.412 inches between centers. This was the smallest group I shot in this test, but I want you to remember that I purposely waited 20 or more seconds between shots.
The Gamo PR-776 revolver put 8 H&N Finale Match Pistol pellets into 1.21 inches at 10 meters. Five are in a single hole that measured 0.412 inches between centers.
Several readers said they didn’t think that waiting for the gun to warm between shots was realistic. They wanted to see how the gun would do when fired as fast as possible, while still taking deliberate aim. So, that test was next.
I already knew the Finale Match Pistol pellets were accurate, so all I did was speed up the shooting to one shot every 5 seconds or less. That may sound slow to you, but time yourself some time shooting 8 shots from a revolver and using a precise 6 o’clock hold. It isn’t as easy as it sounds. Eight pellets went into 1.64 inches at 10 meters with no central cluster of shots. That’s the difference between waiting for the gun to warm up and shooting it rapidly. I was still taking a very precise aim on every shot — the pellets simply didn’t go to the same place.
The Gamo PR-776 revolver put 8 H&N Finale Match Pistol pellets into 1.64 inches at 10 meters when fired as fast as possible with a precise aim.
RWS Hobby pellets
Next, I tried RWS Hobbys in the gun. I went back to waiting 20 seconds or more between shots. Eight Hobbys landed in 1.389 inches, with 6 pellets going into 0.962 inches. Not as good as the Finale Match target pellets, but not too shabby.
The Gamo PR-776 revolver put 8 H&N Finale Match Pistol pellets into 1.389 inches at 10 meters when fired slow. Six are in 0.962 inches.
Air Arms Falcon pellets
Lastly, I tried the Air Arms Falcon pellets. Since they’re domes, I also tried a trick that several readers have talked about — putting duct tape on the back of the target so the pellet holes are sharper. The Falcon was the worst pellet in the test. Eight went into 1.916 inches when fired slow from a sandbag rest.
Eight Air Arms Falcon pellets went into this 1.916-inch group when fired slowly — so the revolver could warm up. The top shot was not backed by duct tape.
One shot did not hit the target where the tape was. I will say that the tape did seem to make the pellet holes a little sharper. They seemed to stay open better, though the difference isn’t that great. I may try this technique again some time.
First, I noticed that all the pellets used in this test seemed to go to the same aim point. Of course, there are small variations, but all of them were slightly to the left of center.
Next, I was surprised by the accuracy seen with the first target. That is exactly what I would expect from an S&W 586, which makes the Gamo PR-776 an accurate air pistol.
The bottom line is that I think the Gamo PR 776 revolver is a wonderful value. If you like revolvers that shoot pellets and you like to hit what you shoot at, this is a pellet pistol to consider.
57 thoughts on “Gamo PR-776 pellet revolver: Part 3”
Great test. Thank you for trying the “speed round” as well as the duct tape idea. It really helps when you have several pellets touching each other, such as the 2 shots in the center of the group. We have all seen major tears/rips in paper,… this stops that.
Not that it would make much of a difference, but do you mount the target paper onto to any type of backer?
Since I use a plastic electric fence pole for a target holder,…I have to use a backer. Just plain ‘ol box cardboard. The pole is cool in that has all sorts of clips built in to hold stuff. Plastic I-beam, sturdy, light, a sturdy steel stake on the bottom and a plastic foot/pin to prevent stake spin. Made by “Fi-Shock”. It looks like a flag pole with the backer/target standing proud mounted at the top/right. Mounted this way, to prevent shooting the pole. Works great. Picked up several at a local farm related store. TSC in my area.
Again, great report and thanks again for the “experimenting”,….Chris
I mount the target paper to a cardboard backer in the trap.
I should add, for those of us that make our own paper targets, the duct tape makes a huge difference. I use a quality/heavier graph paper. Lines already on it,…. to draw/trace cross-hair lines.
I will admit, the targets you use, do “yeild” to the shot nicely, as seen from the other groups. Obviously a “special” paper make-up that is perhaps looser “grained”.
Target paper is special. It is made to show pellet holes.
Does anyone know a source for blank “target paper”, or the equivalent, that I might try to run through my lazer printer?
Try card stock paper in the 110# range. It is a thick and heavy paper. Some home printers have a problem printing card stock because of its thickness and stiffness. If your printer will not feed 110# card stock try 60 to 70# card stock; it is thinner and less stiff.
Maybe Office Depot? Staples?
There are places that sell it online.
Here is the first one I found, never used them.
$3 for 100 blank 8×11 sheets.
I can’t believe my eyes! I had no idea such a place existed. Well, this sure solves all the target questions I ever had. Thank You very much.
I will say for the benefit of our PyramydAir overlords, this is a product in great demand by airgunners and they should sell it.
Thanks for both comments. I figured it was “special”. Good article and good comments.
And, thanks again for the “experimenting” with reader’s ideas.
For me C02 will never make any sense until the valve is variable and temperature controlled, probably in a higher end rifle and with a battery pack so the sensor and servo can work….it’s a massive elephant in the room that your zero shifts depending on the ambient temperature and rapidity of shots….surely there is another gas that could be used, Nitrogen is famously temperature insensitive
“Spot on” in all comments. Why not Nitrogen “Powerlets”/cartridges ? B.B. ?
Cost? Safety? Potentiol for miss-use? Really,..not a clue.
You get about 3 shots from a nitrogen cartridge. I have already tried it. It’s the same as compressed air.
Since CO2 will stay liquid at normal pressure and relatively low pressure much more of it will fit in a powerlet. The critical point of CO2 is almost 88F, the critical point of Nitrogen is about -232F. With enough pressure one can make a supercritical fluid, but none of us is going to pay for such a thing.
Liquid nitrogen containers called dewars all have boil off valves. There is simply no reasonable method to keep it a liquid via pressure.
Now what I wonder about is using remote lines like paint ballers do and an HPA tank. If regulated to 850psi it should be safer than CO2. Since temperature is not going to increase the pressure much over that, unlike CO2. Other than dealing with the remote. If the line is 3 feet long and you hang the tank off your belt, it should be fairly reasonable to deal with. Plus you get all the advantages of a regulated gun.
Arg, I meant to say normal temperature.
I believe that CO2 is a liquid at relatively low pressure, thereby having more volume once returning to a gas. If nitrogen or HPA is used it is not liquified and must be stored at much higher pressures, which means the containers would need to be stronger or heavier, and therefor more expensive. I don’t think that it is feasible for use in such a small container such as used in this application.
I’m pretty certain I’m showing my lack of knowledge about compressable liquid gasses here, Nitrogen makes up 85% of air…but compressed and in liquid form it’s known for it’s freezing temperature…and is pretty dangerous for that fact…
Straight compressed nitrogen is pretty much fine in most applications you might use breathing air…tyres, even PCP’s it is, after all, air with no Oxygen….liquid Nitrogen might provide other challenges 🙂
What about Helium, Argon, surely there’s something out there that doesn’t shrink so badly under low temperatures?
The problem is not the shrinking, the problem is actually the expanding. Confining liquid nitrogen to a bottle would just make a bomb. The pressures required are so high, even the gas producers do not do that. They let it boil off to keep the pressures reasonable. Helium would be even worse. Not that you are likely to want to pay for liquid helium. Argon is getting closer, but still way too low a temperature to keep it liquid and way to expensive.
You might want to look at the wikipedia article for critical point. It gives the temperature and pressure required to hold something as a liquid. Any less pressure or higher temperature and a gas forms.
CO2 gives its high shot count out of a small volume because it is liquid at 88F with only 1071 psi. We tend to say CO2 gives about 850psi, since that is a good approximation at room temperature. If we increase the temperature the pressure goes up. This is why CO2 guns left in the sun will valve lock.
All these other gasses you mention require much lower temperatures and that means at room temp the pressures become too high to reasonably achieve.
CO2 is also cheap.
Helium is also far less abundant than CO2.
Yeah, and due to the geniuses in congress we are selling it off at far lower than market prices.
When an MRI costs 10 times as much in a decade or two, remember to thank them for wanting to privatize that industry.
If they sold it at market rates that would not be so bad, but since they want it gone and to close the reserves they are selling it for peanuts.
Aha, I knew someone would be able to explain it….Xenon has potential as far as I can understand it…though again would need a much stronger capsule…and, isn’t very good for the environment and would oxidise your pistol to dust in no time.
So, Co2 it is…useless as the day is long though it is….having to rezero your rifle depending on whether it’s a cool day or a warm one…counts it straight out for pest control…for me anyway (you could remove the turrets from my scopes once I’ve found the pellet and zeroed for 30m…I wouldn’t notice)
And the worse possible propellent for the rapid fire pistols it’s commonly used in. Well, at least where actual accuracy is concerned.
I can see why HPA conversions are so popular on Crosman 22xx series guns….now if crosman could just see fit to make a double action or blowback version, heck, even a coil springed rotary magazine with a bounce back valve striker…
Xenon cannot oxidize anything. Only Oxygen can do that. Xenon is a noble gas, meaning it reacts with very little. So it is not bad for the environment at all.
With a critical point at 61F it might work out, depending on how the pressure chart for it is.
The biggest problem would be the cost.
I googled the toxicity, and it suggested various things
I read a thread on the yellow about substituting “Whippit”cartridges, designed to charge whipped cream dispensers.
Aah, Nitrous Oxide.
That would sure as heck oxidize your gun.
Nitrous Oxide is powerful oxidizer used in rocketry and in racing. N20 is not holding onto that oxygen very hard at all. They are at similar pressures, so it should be safe from that point of view. It would be slower than CO2 though. Plus the gun damage. I don’t see the point.
What were they trying to gain?
I’m sure it was for laughs as well as tryin to get around the temperature sensitivity of Co2.
Incidentally, I believe combustion is required to break the bond holding the oxygen in the molecule.
I don’t think so, since it is used in rocketry. Not enough oxygen to light the fuel without it.
I think 5 seconds is still rather “fast” if you’re after accuracy. I don’t think I can reacquire the target and line up the sights in less time. But then, others are probqably better at this.
I think a 10 second delay between shots would be totally fine for me. If it’s significantly more than that, I would question the need for a repeating pistol because then I would have enough time to reload single shot.
At the moment, my HW45 is seeing more use than my Hämmerli S26 CO² pistol. I don’t need to insert a cartridge and load magazines, so I usually grab the HW when I want to shoot a pistol.
I still tend to “create” quite a lot of flyers and it seems to me that they’re mostly a result of my general lack of technique rather than the HW45’s recoil. I always get the impression that the pistol “wants” to be very accurate, but I’m doing something differently. The same thing happens with the Hämmerli as well.
I have read the blog about Col. Bonsall and I’m trying to apply that advice, but it seems I’m making fairly slow progress 🙂
BB & Bulldawg- again, thanks for all the info. I was the guy interested in the Daisy quickkill bb guns and instinctive shooting. My Chief AJ stock came in- man is it a help! I got the large loop lever from him too. It’s steel and adds weight, which is good, but the jury is still out on it. I also found a great deal on daisy zinc bbs- I ordered 60,000. I’ll pop in every now and then and let you know how this goes. So far I’ve about 2000 bbs downrange (10ft).
You are going to love Tuesday’s report!
Tried this weekend to get to the ChiefAJ site but could not get it to show/come up. Just the little round spinning thingy. Any ideas? I am interested in a lever action plinker thats adult sized(ish).
Chief AJ no longer sells his version of the Daisy Red Ryder, but he does sell an aftermarket stock.
I don’t know if links to other sites are frowned upon here or not, but if you do a google search for “ADULT SIZED STOCK – Chief AJ” the first google hit you get should be for that page.
I tried it and it worked ! 🙂 Thanks !
Just replied, no show. Do they have an address or phone # ? I would rather pay direct, bank check, etc. or something besides paypal.
Thanks for the quick reply,…..Chris
As far as I know, it’s Paypal. He shipped it out fast and I got it within two days. He could be out and about. He’s out west and just looking at his site and what he talks about, he seems like a guy who stays busy:)
Bummer, Just talked to PA customer service and they say they still haven’t received the order back for further processing.
I reviewed the order and it was placed on 5/26 and it’s looking like it’s gonna take a couple more weeks.
Where does the CO2 we use in our cartridges come from? Are we going to be under fire from the environmentalists for using a greenhouse gas? Some one told me once that the volume of CO2 used by airgunners is negligible, but never said anything about the source or the volumes involved. Does airgun use significantly contribute to CO2 levels in the atmosphere? Or do they just extract CO2 from the air to compress it for us in catridges?
It would be good to know in case anti-airgunners bring it up.
The UK used to regulate the use of CO2 for airguns because it was classified by the British government as a “noxious gas”. Then somebody pointed out that we and all animals exhale it and plants need it. Part of life. And so it was de-regulated.
That is the argument to restrict CO2 guns here in Brazil too. But we don’t buy it… we think it is the similarities to real guns that put them into the restricted category. But this is the first time I have seen the same “insane” argument being used elsewhere.
Distillation of air is not commonly used as it is quite expensive.
Steam reformation of natural gas to produce hydrogen has CO2 as a waste product. That is where most of it comes from. Also ammonia synthesis, which again produces CO2 as a waste product. This CO2 was going into the atmosphere either way. So airguns don’t enter into it. If there was no market for this CO2 it would just be allowed to escape into the atmosphere.
a Smart car will produce around 100 grams of CO² for *every kilometer*
That’s the same as 8.33 12g powerlets.
My CO² pistol will give me 80 good shots from one powerlet which means I could shoot a whole 500pc tin of pellets and then some for every kilometer, if I had a Smart 🙂
I have an old mid-sized Toyota and I drove a whopping 8 km today. I also could have shot almost 10.000 pellets for the same CO² output…
So… yeah… it *is* negligible.
Better don’t buy any sodas… the sparkling stuff is CO². And also, don’t burp and fart. Methane is a *much* more potent greenhouse gas. Just kidding 🙂
This CO2 was going into the atmosphere either way, so I don’t think the amount of it matters.
All the CO2 shot out of your airguns was waste from another process we were going to do either way. Same thing with the soda.
I am plenty satisfied with this gun’s accuracy. I can’t shoot any better than this, although I hardly shoot any handgun from a rest anyway, so my groups (or should I say “patterns”?) are always larger.
Yay, nice to see a good gun proving itself, and nice shooting.
Mike, you’re the man with your groups for the Arsenal. In fact, I think you may have completed our AK test for us. The original test was to see how an AK design with good accessories as opposed to a Third World context could perform. My Saiga takes all the accessories one could want unless you want to rescue hostages at night. For accuracy, Larry Vickers has supplied the standard in saying that a rifle that shoots into 2.5 inches at 100 yards with 10 shots is as accurate as Delta Force operators can make use of in combat. I suspect that your sub 2 minute groups were made with five shots. But as I recall, a five shot group is no greater than 80% of an equivalent 10 shot group. That brings your sub 2MOA groups just in under the standard. So there is nothing more you can ask of a combat rifle, and I, certainly, am not anywhere close to a Delta Force operator.
Based on this I would say that the AK leaves nothing to be desired in accuracy for a combat rifle although I doubt it is equal to an AR for hunting or target shooting. Its worth noting that even a top-end Arsenal gun like Mike’s is at the low end of cost for ARs, but still that doesn’t overturn the well-established record of AR accuracy.
On the subject of AK accuracy, there seem to be three obstacles. The first is loose parts which can be refit. The second is the short sight radius which can be eliminated with a scope. The third is the mass of the long stroke piston moving back and forth. This, however, is suggestively similar to the mechanics of the artillery hold with the spring piston moving back and forth. And while the spring guns are more difficult to shoot, they can be plenty accurate? Is there an analogy with shooting the AK for accuracy. The fact that the artillery hold is modeled on artillery pieces suggests that there is a broad range of application to various gun sizes which the AK sits comfortably within. So, the question is whether an artillery hold can be adapted to high powered centerfires like the AK or the M1 series.
One component of the artillery hold which I emphasize heavily is the loose hold. While in theory this can be done with centerfire rifles, according to the blog, this isn’t for me. And on my side are the Marines involved in early trials of the M1. There was a test involving volume of sustained fire. At the end of it, Marines in top shape who had shot the Springfield were physically wiped out while those with the Garand felt fine. So, I’m not up for getting pounded by a heavy caliber rifle.
The only remaining element of the artillery hold would be improved follow through. That’s always good although I’ve found it to be more difficult with firearms because of the violence of the shot. So, maybe in fact, there is no technique modification for shooting piston-driven centerfire rifles and the artillery principle takes care of itself.
Mike, what is the deal with the green laser on your scope? I can’t see what use it would be under the distances and lighting conditions where you would use a long-range scope. And what are the virtues of a green laser over red? I would guess that the red is more visible which would be preferable. For this question, I would like to invoke Slinging Lead who is very fond of the ND3 green lasers although I never figured out exactly what they can be used for.
Mike, I hope you enjoyed your cowboy action shooting. Here’s a technique question. My quick draw technique is drawn from none other than Wild Bill Hickok himself who advocated aiming your shot by pushing the gun toward the target before shooting. He considered this to be a worthwhile tradeoff for the extra time, and he used this method to shoot some guy at 75 yards. The pushing of the gun is also embedded in the two handed quick draw technique for modern pistols which involves joining the hands at the midsection and thrusting forward.
On the other hand, cowboy action events that I’ve seen seem to favor quick response by rotating the pistol out of the holster at the hip, Clint Eastwood style. So, which method do you use?
Once long ago in a very hot green hell, I ended up shooting M-16s at folks in the bushes with AK47s (who were shooting at us!) From the sound no doubt who was around. Along the way we all picked up an AK or two. Got to give it credit as nearly indestructible and drop it in the mud and it still shoots. Accurate? Well in our very scientific beer can shooting (empty of course!) you needed to get down to something like 50 meters to really hit reliably. The M-16 (after they got the man killing glitches out of it and put the right ammo in it) could in the hands of a competent shooter (and we were just navy not real riflemen like the marines 😉 easily hit a man sized target at 300 meters. At 50m it was shooting fish in a barrel. I’d say the M-16 (or whatever it’s called today) takes more training to use well, but I’d sure rather have it than an AK47 clone. YMMV as they say.
Great report and many thanks to all the folks who have commented on, target paper, CO2 usage etc. For me , this was a classic, informative blog covering many aspects of our hobby. With my eyesight, I can shoot my Colt Commander with the white dot sights better then any other CO2 pistol I have. I get frustrated with the shot pattern changing as CO2 loses pressure. To wait the recommended time. I could shoot my Beeman P17, Webley Tempest, or for ease of cocking my little Browning Buck Mark. If Umarex would bring out a Buck Mark that would shoot BBs, I would order one in a minute . Thanks again folks for fun blog. Harvey
There’s one for all the manufacturer s to squabble over, a barrel cocking BB repeater!
Well Reb if we have to wait 60 seconds between accurate shots, not much of a repeater in my observation !
Considering that you shot 8, not 6, pellets at each target, I think this is impressive. It’s not over-the-moon accurate, but this gun is for spinners and tin cans. So many of your tests of CO2 revolvers of late have been of BB guns that you had to test at half of the distance at which you conducted this test. I realized while reading this that I was comparing 8 shots at 10 meters with this to, say, 6 shots at 5 meters with the Colt Python or SAA. To me THAT is the real extra value of firing lead through a rifled barrel — how far out the gun can reach.
Another interesting revolver is the new pellet-shooting Nagant with rifled barrel. Hmmm.
Is there some reason airgun companies can’t design revolvers that look more like classic revolvers like the old Crosman T38? I have the Dan Wesson bb revolvers and they are ok ,but they, like this one, have overly large frames for the Co2 valve. The most accurate revolver for looks is the Webley, hopefully more along that type will be coming out. Will probably get one of these in the meantime. See the Gletcher Nagant has a pellet version ,but creeps along at about 75-100fps less than these
Good one, not just the article but also the input from all have been extremely useful. I read through everything and found something useful in each one of them. The CO2 revolver which I got for myself from Mach 1 Airsoft in Toronto which looks the real deal with it’s mind blowing looks which can give the original a run for it’s money. Functionality wise there are few pistols who can match it.
As this gun has the dovetail base for optical sights extremely narrow have you discover something that works on it? And for the second rib underneath the barrel? Do you know when it is supposed to have the rotary clips on the market? Tks
I haven’t found any optical sight that will fit this revolver. I suspect something inexpensive that has an infinitely adjustable sight base will work.
As for the clips — no words yet.
Any news on extra clips or sights or mounts for those narrow dovetails?
Not that I am aware of.