by Tom Gaylord
Writing as B.B. Pelletier
Millita air rifle.
This report covers:
- An important lesson
- RWS Hobby
- JSB Exact RS
- Air Arms Falcons
- Cocking effort
- It’s been lubricated
- What have we learned?
Today we look at the power of the Millita rifle I bought at Findlay. The numbers will sound slow, but please remember this rifle is from the 1930s. It’s not a youth rifle, despite the velocity.
An important lesson
We will also learn something important from today’s test. I will show it to you in a little bit. Let’s get started.
RWS Hobby
The first pellet I tried was the venerable RWS Hobby. At 7 grains the Hobby is the quintessential high-speed pellet that gives the top velocity numbers that can be believed. Yes, there are lighter lead-free pellets that get thrown into the mix, but everyone knows they do not represent an airgun very well. Many manufacturers have taken to quoting two top velocity figures, one for lead pellets and the other for lead-free pellets.
I will show you the first string because it’s part of that special thing I want you to see.
Shot………….Velocity
1………………..535
2………………..491
3………………..485
4………………..474
5………………..492
6………………..475
7………………..481
8………………..478
9………………..486
10………………475
The average velocity for this string is 487 f.p.s. That’s 3.69 foot pounds. The spread ranges from a low of 474 to a high of 535 f.p.s. That’s 61 f.p.s., a huge spread for a spring gun. But let’s examine the string and see if we can learn anything.
Notice the first shot was 535 f.p.s. and it was also the only shot that went over 500 f.p.s. The next-fastest shot went out at 492 f.p.s. — 43 f.p.s. slower. Throw that first shot out and the spread ranges from 474 to 492, a difference of just 18 f.p.s.
If I was to shoot a second string with this same Hobby pellet what do you think would happen? Would the spread tighten up? Where would the average be? Let’s try it and see.
Shot………….Velocity
1………………..481
2………………..486
3………………..471
4………………..499
5………………..476
6………………..493
7………………..510
8………………..466
9………………..476
10………………478
The average for this second string was 484 f.p.s. That works out to 3.64 foot pounds. The range went from 466 to 510 f.p.s. — a span of 44 f.p.s. The average dropped just a little and so did the spread, but what this what you expected? I didn’t.
I expected an average about the same as what we actually got, but I expected a spread of perhaps 20 f.p.s. — based on those 9 shots from the first string. The low of 466 and the high of 510 were not expected.
JSB Exact RS
What does this tell you? It suggests to me that the RWS Hobby pellet may not be the best in this Millita rifle. I didn’t tell you that Hobbys loaded hard into the breech, but they did. Are you ready to say that this air rifle is in need of an overhaul? Hold that thought and let me shoot a different lightweight pellet — the JSB Exact RS.
I’m going to show you the velocity for each of these pellets, as well, so you can see what I saw.
Shot………….Velocity
1………………..560
2………………..562
3………………..563
4………………..578
5………………..569
6………………..568
7………………..572
8………………..557
9………………..569
10………………570
Ahh! JSB Exact RS pellets that weigh an average 7.33 grains (that’s heavier than the Hobby) went an average 567 f.p.s. The energy is 5.23 foot pounds. These pellets average 80 f.p.s. faster than the Hobbys at their fastest average. The spread ranged from a low of 557 to a high of 578 — just 21 f.p.s. What do you think? Are JSB RS pellets performing better in the Millita? This is why a chronograph is so handy! Incidentally, the pellet that produced the slowest velocity (shot 8) also loaded the hardest. I predicted it would be slow and it was.
Air Arms Falcons
The final pellet I tested was the Falcon from Air Arms. It is also a dome that weighs the same 7.33 grains as the JSB Exact RS. JSB produces this pellet for Air Arms on dies owned by Air Arms. It’s similar to the RS pellet, but it’s not the same.
Shot………….Velocity
1………………..563
2………………..558
3………………..539
4………………..553
5………………..558
6………………..558
7………………..555
8………………..562
9………………..544
10………………567
The average for the Falcon was 556 f.p.s. and the spread ranged from a low of 539 to a high of 567. That’s 28 f.p.s. It produces 5.03 foot pounds at the muzzle. To me this pellet also seems a lot more uniform and efficient in this rifle than the Hobby.
Cocking effort
The Millita cocks with 28 pounds of force. While that isn’t hard, it’s considerably more effort than a youth rifle should require. As I said before — this one is for adults.
Trigger pull
The single-stage trigger breaks at 3 lbs. 11 oz. While that sounds heavy, the break is crisp and it doesn’t feel that hard. Remember this trigger is adjustable, but since the adjustment changes the amount of sear contact, I’m not going to do it.
What have we learned?
To show you what we have learned today I will quote myself from Part 1, where I said, “After a day of [the oil] soaking-in, the rifle was shooting smartly which is not an exact velocity but I will guess it’s somewhere in the 500s.” My estimate was this rifle should shoot in the 500 f.p.s. range somewhere. I based that on years of experience with similar air rifles. With two of the pellets it averages 567 f.p.s. and 556 f.p.s., so I guess I hit the number on the head!
My point it, if you just looked at the first two shot strings with Hobbys you might be inclined to think this Millita was tired and needed an overhaul. But with two other pellets it performs exactly as expected. So, the lesson is twofold — first, get a chronograph and second, test more than one pellet, because, as you will soon discover, anomalies happen.
There may be faster examples of this Millita air rifle around, but I think this one is doing well. The lube tune I spotted in Part 1 was apparently done right!
A very neat gun.
The lines of the stock and trigger guard remind me of an under hammer muzzle loader.
So, it’s been a week of springers, some vintage ones, and some help for a brother airgunner with his rifle, you did a fine deed for him, not many writers would have done that.
So, can we get some gas or hpa love for a few days?
Vintage, new, obscure, or commonplace, we don’t care.
What’s the prognosis on the Lovena 21?
Is it still having issues?
I am still seeking one of these, but no luck yet.
When I contacted Tyler about one, they had sold out.
I don’t know if you surf the airgun sales pages online, but have you noticed that after you write a blog about an older or obscure gun, there suddenly are several forsale on the forums?
Coincidence?
I doubt it, I think you just jog the memory of some people, and they blow the dust off one from the closet…
45Bravo,
The Lov 21 cap is jammed in the gun so tight that I have to ruin it to get it out — if that will even be possible. I do plan to remove it and to have a new cap made to replace it. I will design the piercing pin and select the o-rings so this never happens again.
I am testing the Kral Puncher Pro, but a misalignment of the end cap caused failure at 50 yards. When I get that sorted out I will test it again and report. I have a different Kral to test after that, plus a couple AirForce big bores.
But there are more spring guns in the que, as well. So, hunker down! 😉
B.B.
B.B.,
What factors allows some springs to last for years in some rifles and break too soon in others (e.g. Diana)? I take it from your statements that the spring of the Millita is the same as when it was first manufactured. By the way is the Original V stated as Vee or is it the Roman numeral 5?
Siraniko
Siraniko,
Springs last based on their metallurgy and the stress they are under. Springs in rifles like the Millita are under-stressed, where the Diana springs are hardened too much (they become brittle) for the application.
Given that the Millita was made in the 1930s, I’m sure the Vee is a Roman numeral five.
B.B.
B.B.,
Fascinating and simply amazing! I am (thrilled) to see it perform so well. It must be real exciting to shoot something that old and have it perform like that? I am very happy for you. I did not expect the fps to be that high.
Good day to you and to all,…. Chris
BB,
This was a good lesson for many today to have a chrony and test more than one pellet. My 1906 BSA is shooting just a wee bit hotter than that, but I know this is not the original spring. The last time I shot over a chrony it was pushing RWS Superdomes an average of around 600 FPS. I have been seriously thinking of changing the spring out.
So, where to from here? A 10 yard test, certainly. But after that, without the ability to easily scope this rifle, does it warrant a test at longer distances? (A test at longer distances, if nothing else, would give us a point of comparison for spring guns of this era . . . a reminder of how far we have come . . . or how good things used to be, depending.)
General L,
The sproingers of this era, most especially the European ones, were mostly for target and competition shooting. The ranges were typically 10 yards or 10 meters.
You would be surprised at how little the design of sproingers have changed. My 1906 BSA was designed by Lincoln Jeffries. He is almost unanimously heralded as the father of the modern sproinger. This air rifle is based on another of his designs. I would not be the least bit surprised if the trigger assembly of this air rifle would fit on mine.
Chris USA,
I’ll “hang tough.” I’m not giving up, just moving slowly because I’m dealing with a whole set of information about which I am uninformed. Kind of feeling my way. It’s like the “Good decisions” joke. ” How do you make good decisions? Experience! How do you gain experience? Making bad decisions.”
At this point I think that I have a pump problem. If I were debugging software I would be setting up a test with code that was a “known good” to test against. Just now I don’t know of anyone who has a “known good” pump to test against. I’m in North Central Penna. I think that PA is about 4 hours West of our home. That trip may be my best option if they would deal with a “walk-in.”
The subconscious is never idle. This AM I recall that there was moisture in the pump case. Last night I read a review of a Benjamin pump on PA in which the reviewer was “dissing” the Benjamin pump because the o-rings failed frequently. He updated his review to say that adding a desiccant kit to the pump solved the early o-ring failure problem. HHHMMMMmmmm…
Reviewing the problem: The problem is not air escaping, the problem is that air is not going to the place it should, the Maximus. The pump does hold air because releasing the pressure relief screw is met with escaping air. I weigh 165# and putting as much of my weight on the pump as I can will not close the last two inches of the down stroke. It seems “bound.” I am able to blow through the hose, so that is not blocked. When I operate the pump with nothing attached it moves freely. When I connect everything, pump to hose, hose to Maximus, pressure builds until I can’t complete a down-stroke with all my weight on the pump handle. I do note that the pump pressure gauge shows very little movement.
B.B.rightly suggested that the definition of “hard” is relative and that a pump may not be a good option for me. While am a “seasoned citizen” at 77 years, I have no physical limitations (other than age) that would prevent me from successfully using the pump. I built our home, I maintain it and the grounds and my two-day-a-week job is all physical activity. I think that I have sufficient strength to be able to use a pump.
I’m wondering whether I should take this off line and ask for email addresses of others who have a pump. Or better, give my email address so that others can contact me. Perhaps the comments section of B.B.’s wonderfully detailed blog may not be the place to think aloud about my pump problem.
GrandpaDan
GrandpaDan,
You are living in an airgunning hot spot. There are more airgunners in your area than any other I know of. Of course “area” is another subjective word.
Here are some diagnostics for the pump. You say the handle comes up hard? Does it try to snap back down when you release it? That’s a sign of failure.
The air guage will move about 1/10 of a line per pump stroke. In other words, 10 strokes to move it to the next line. Are you perhaps thinking that it should move faster?
Not going all the way to the bottom is another fault. That is where the third stage pumps out to the gun. That last two inches is where all the work goes.
If your pump is a Benjamin you are in luck because that, The AirForce pump and perhaps the G6 are the few that are easily rebuildable.
Call Pyramyd AIR and ask to speak to the Tech team — Gene or Tracy. They both know pumps better than anyone I know.
B.B.
B.B.,
An airgunning “hot spot”. Who knew? 🙂
Your diagnostics are right on the money. Upstroke returns, down stroke stops about 2″ shy of the bottom as if it ran into a solid object and I can’t force it past that point. Fifteen strokes is as far as I can go then things “lock up” with no movement on the Maximus or the pump gauge. I am pumping slowly and pausing at the top and bottom of the stroke. I think there’s an internal problem with the pump.
I appreciate PA but I didn’t buy the Maximus from them and I’m not sure the seller did either. PA needs to make money in order to continue to exist. I have a hard time asking for help for a product that they didn’t sell. I do know that the pump is an eBay purchase.
I don’t know everything but I have a fair mechanical aptitude. When I was a teener and a bit older, I had a series of $300 cars. Learned to do repairs to keep them on the road and make a buck when I sold them. Also figured out to build our geodesic dome home. A little more complex than the standard ranch.
I’ll take a shot a pump repair. It’s broken now, I sure can’t make it much worse. I’ll take lots of photos and make notes and drawings. In this case more documentation is better.
There is a hand-full of o-rings with the pump, but no diagram. In this case Google may be my friend, we’ll see.
Thanks for your help.
GrandpaDan
Hmmm,
Re-reading that post, I sure sound full of myself. Ouch! Sorry, I just mean that I’m not daunted by the unknown.
I used to tell my computer system/software clients, “I have no systems that don’t perform. Sometimes it just takes a little longer.” So it may be with this.
One does not gain knowledge when everything goes exactly by the book. It’s when things go awry and have to be set right that we begin to learn the workings of the machine/technology. This is just an advanced course in sproingers, PCP pumps and gas pistons. Yes, I bought one of those too. PA had a Crosman VantageNP for $79, cheap. I don’t have high expectations for it but I want to see what that power plant is about.
Might as well be all in. ;-D
GrandpaDan
Talk to Tracy. She is much prettier. 😉
RR,
And on the phone I’m young and handsome… ;-D
Gottta change my login name.
GrandpaDan
LOL! I do not do much running these days and only for very short distances.
Grandpa Dan,
B.B.’s advice is good. P.A. would be a good start. They are happy to help. You may have to wait until Monday though,.. with this being late Friday. I have called them before.
I am sure a man of your talents will be able to make a good call and a “what’s what” on the pump. The tear down and the spare O-rings might be enough to do the trick. I would tear into too if it were mine.
P.A does sell rebuild kits if I am not mistaken. I see you decided to post on today’s blog, which is good, as it is a “weekender” and hopefully some (more?,.. come on guys!) people will weigh in on their experiences with hand pumps and rebuilds. I am 0% help there.
Glad to see you are hanging tuff. If it is any consolation, remember that B.B. said that you should be able to do it with one hand. So, if you fix this one ,.. or get another one,.. you have that to look forwards to.
Please keep us posted,… Chris
Grandpa Dan,
A couple of things that I forgot,.. that I have picked up through comments,.. if you do a tear down,… do it (ultra) clean and use (only) pure silicone oils that will not combust. Petrol based oils (WILL!). Like a diesel engine I guess you could compare it to.
Spring piston guns will do the same thing if oil/grease gets up into the compression chamber. It (will) sound like a .22 rifle going off. Dielectric Silicone Compound is common and should be available at any hardware store. P.A. sells some silicone variations and oils as well. Compression chamber lubricant/oil is what it is commonly called.
Grampa Dan
I don’t know how much help I can be but I have the Benjamin hand pump. When I refill an air gun it takes about 7 strokes to have the pump gage up to about 100 bar where it starts adding air to the resivior on the gun. I’m filling an M-rod and they’re filled to 3000psi so I refill at a higher low pressure than your Maximus.
Hey Gopher,
I get no needle movement on the pump OR on the Maximus. Everything just “locks up” at about 15 strokes.
Until I get into the insides of the pump, I think that the o-rings are good, else I’d not be able to build pressure so quickly. So far all of the videos that I’ve seen focus on o-ring replacement, but they do offer a good view of the general layout of the inside of a pump. Most pumps seem to be pretty similar. I think that this one has problems in control and switching rather than o-ring leaking, or not. I’ll find out.
GrandpaDan
GrandpaDan
You must be very discouraged by the pump not working. I know you were anticipating getting that Maximus out and shooting it this weekend. Many of us here are anxious to see how it shoots for you too. Oh well, you’ll get there eventually. Keep hanging tough and good luck fixing that pump. It sounds like it has an inherent defect or something has come loose inside.
Dan
If you lubed it and too much it will cause hydraulic lock on the third stage of the pump. When you finally build to that pressure you will not be able to pump the gun. Been there done that. Also dirt will help compound that.
Most of the time it ruins that small hard white o-ring. So even when you take it apart and clean it. It will probably not pump the gun up past a certain pressure. Probably around 2000 psi or so. Then it will still pump but you won’t build no more pressure.
Dan
Forgot to say. When you do clean it and it won’t pump past the 2000 psi it’s probably that small white o-ring on the small rod when you take it apart.
Chris U
Have you got to look at your scopes yet to see if the ocular/eye peice lens where you look through the scope moves and makes the reticle move?
And just some info from what I been watching lately since humidity has been unormally low for my area. And maybe this is why some differences with chrony readings. You know like how when I chrony a given gun then Buldawg chronys the same gun and gets different be readings or vise versa.
Today the humidity is down at 46% which is very low. Usually we are at 70% and higher. What I been seeing is the guns I have are shooting as much as a 1/4″ higher today than the 70% humidity day. Also on the very high humidity days like 90% I see up to a 1/4″ lower than the 70% days. That right there is a whole 1/2″ in POI (point of impact) change.
I have been watching the weather on my phone while I been shooting. And thinking about that I remember my dad always had the weather radio going when we was shooting.
GF1,
No I have not. They do all move some, but they are all pretty stiff at the same time. I can see this being an issue on a hard recoiling powder burner, or a harsh springer,…. not so sure on a PCP. I did get some O-rings though today. Not exactly what I was after, but they should fit the TX and the Maximus.
Today was shot. Hopefully tomorrow will be better. I will also give you a 499 report at 41′ at some time in the future. I think I still have the target from the last time you asked me to try it.
Very interesting on the humidity. That is probably something that somebody that has studied ballistics heavily already knows. Very nice that you reported your observations. Thanks.
Chris U
Don’t let that stiff at the same time statement fool ya. When you get that ocular lens secured you will see some kind of better groups I assure you. It might not be a drastically better group. But it will be better.
And yes for a note. My dad was very big into keep weather statistics when he shot. That’s were I got the writing shooting conditions and scope zeroes and parallax settings and pellet type and weight and so on.
Heck there was more writing all over the target then pellet holes by time I got through. And you know what. I taught my daughter’s to do the same when they shoot.
If you get a chance search the info snipers log when they shoot.
Oh and speaking of snipers. The new longest kill is by a Canadian sniper at 2-1/2 miles. If you look at the scope angle to barrel angle on a similar gun that was used. I bet the rear ring of the scope was 4 inches from the barrel line and the front ring was about a inch away with only enough room so the front objective lens wasn’t hitting the barrel.
How’s that for needing some up adjustment on the scope. It looks like the gun has barrel rise by about 20°.
GF1,
Looking forwards to trying it. Do you have any of your dad’s old targets? That would be a real treasured keepsake to say the least. It sounds as if it became a hobby that he stayed with based on his experience’s in the Service.
2 1/2 miles huh? That is (beyond) amazing. I would like to see an article on that or some pictures of the gun,… if you happen to be able to provide anything. How did you happen to hear about it?
Chris U
I really don’t know what happen to the targets. I’m thinking that probably he eventually through them away like I did. I know why did I do that. Guess I felt they were irrelevant after I figured the gun out and seen what the different conditions affected.
And here is some of the u tube videos of the sniper stuff. I don’t think it’s actual footage though.
Here is the gun I was talking about with the drastic scope rings.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VE8agUUdBfQ
Here is the sniper video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzwY6jIwr2o
GF1,
VERY NICE!!!!! For anyone interested, the first one is about 14 min. long and the second, about 30 min. Worth a watch in my opinion. At the least you will get to see some top end equipment. That will be a nice distraction for the regular weekend crowd,.. in “B.B. Town”.
Thank You GF1!!!!
Chris U
Thanks. Glad you liked the video’s.
I think that is just amazing stuff.
Chris U
Forgot. Did you pay attention on that first video how much scope angle that’s in the mounts and rings.
I bet the scope centerline or line of sight is intersecting with the barrel about 4″ back from the muzzle.
That’s how much the barrel is pointed up when the scope is held level. Crazy is all I can say.
GF1,
At about 4 minutes in, you can hold a ruler/straight edge to the screen and see that the center scope line (does) clear the muzzle by about 1″.
Chris U
So at what degree angle do you think the scope is pointing down to the barrel?
GF1,
3-4 degrees. Froze screen, taped a zip lock bag to screen, traced barrel and then traced scope center line, measured with a protractor. You were close,… I was giving you +/- 20 degrees anyways,….. 😉
Chris U
Ok now check one of your guns with the drooper mount on it with the same method.
Tell me what degree angle it’s at.
GF1,
Let me get this straight,… you want me to tape a zip lock bag, to my TX, and then “attempt” to trace the barrel center,.. and then the scope center,.. and then measure the whole mess?
If I were to do that,.. I would use calipers to measure the front and rear of the drooper mount,.. and then calculate from that. Sorry, I am not pulling the mount to check that.
Chris U
lol. No you don’t have to do that. But a paper straight edge would work.
Or like you said measure the distances. It’s basically trigonometry. Measure the length of the 3 lines where they intersect. And that will give you the angle.
Chris U
Or just use a protractor.
GF1,
Ok,… I am (officially) handing this experiment off to you. As I figure it,… trace the bore center line, trace the scope center line, and at some point to my left, they will (intersect), at which time I can obtain a measurement with my protractor. Or, use straight edges, or whatever. That would be like 100 feet out into the woods.
Chris U
Here check it out.
Whoops for got the link.
http://www.calculator.net/triangle-calculator.html
GF1,
Ouch!!! That made my head hurt! 🙂 Like I said Bud,… (it is all yours). Get on the lap top later and do what I did. It worked just fine,… and anyways,… we (were) talking about the scope angle on the video. How the heck did you get on me checking the mount on the TX anyways?
Nice link though,.. just not now.
Chris U
Go to the bottom.
Chris I just watched the first video again.
That scope is pointed at the barrel. Like I said the first time.
If the scope is h ld level the muzzle of the barrel of s probably 2 inches or maybe re above the scope tube.
There is extreme scope angle the way it’s mounted. Way more than 2° or whatever you said.
You better check again
GF1,
Yes, it does point (towards) the barrel plane. It looks pretty severe in the video. If you use the easy method that I described though, you will see that I got it right @ 3-4 degrees. I just repeated it and got 5 degrees.
Chris U
5° is pretty radical though come to think about it.
But the good thing is you were able to see the scope and how much of a angle it was mounted at.
GF1 and Chris U,
Perhaps this can clarify things for you somewhat. Back in the mid nineties, I purchased a Harris – McMillan M-87R sniper rifle. The Weaver base that came with it was 6.5″ long, tapered and was .125″ higher at the rear than the front. The angle trigged out to slightly over 2 degrees. I mounted a Weaver T15 target scope on it and initially shot it at 50 yards to get it “on paper”, actually, the target was a large, thick, steel burn out.
At that range, the rifle was shooting 14.5″ high with the elevation fully depressed on the scope. I don’t recall exactly if I was using ball or AP at the time, but at that short distance, it would have made no difference.
Military ball or AP rounds can be anywhere between 647 to 700 grains and when I shot it at 1000 yards with the ball ammo (sure about that) it was still shooting too high to get on target. Only until I switched over to my match ammo, which was a solid bronze 750 grain spitzer boat-tail, did I have to add some elevation to the scope.
Bugbuster
Bugbuster
No place to leave a reply.
But yes I do understand how it all works. Me and Chris had a discussion the other day about the Diana barrel droop problem. I wanted to post those videos of the long range shots to show that ballistics is also a factor as well as weather and all types of other variables.
And that’s what I explained also the other day that Channing the weight and velocity and shape of the projectile can in deed cause sighting issues. Not only because a barrel wasn’t made true to the dovetail where the scope would mount.
But yep thanks for your explanation also. 🙂
Gunfun1
Thanks for giving all of us the tip about the reticle getting loose when screwed out to adjust. I found one scope for certain and maybe two that required fixing. I have a few scopes that have no AO adjustment so I manually scew the lens in or out to get a clear image at one distance. These inexpensive scopes work well at 10 meters but may be more apt to have loose reticle tendency.
Decksniper
Decksniper
No problem.
Let me know what happens when you get to shoot after you secure them.
It sounds to me as though the probe from the pump is not making a connection into the gun’s reservoir. I’m sure you’ve checked this so disregard if it doesn’t apply but are you positive the fill probe is fully ‘home’ in the gun?
The lightest pellet was the slowest, so it must be friction slowing the speed down ? Other than the first shot with the hobbys the rest were pretty consistent albeit slower. So what do you think that group would have looked like? I guess I’m asking could a tighter fitting pellet actually be more accurate because of better engagement with the rifling, just slower?
Coduece,
Hobbys were so difficult to load that I didn’t test them for accuracy. The group at 10 meters would probably have been about like the groups of all other pellets.
B.B.
BB,
This is a little off subject, but I have a question about bore cleaning. In your report, “Why Do I Miss?” you stated that all new air guns should have their barrels cleaned.( I think you recommended bore paste,not sure,though) Thoughtful opinions sometimes change over time as new information and experiences reshape them and I wonder if you still recommend this practice, in general, and for a .22 Marauder specifically. I am going to be shooting groups at distance soon and want to be sure I get it right.
Halfstep,
Spring guns often do need their barrels cleaned. I haven’t found the same with PCPs. Shoot it first before cleaning.
Use JB Non-Embedding Bore Cleaning Compound on a brass or bronze brush.
B.B.
This is way off topic but I stumbled across an online auction site that was mostly for firearms, but I came across an AR style rifle that is CO2 powered and shoots arrows. Looked interesting to me. Just thought to share it.
https://www.rockislandauction.com/detail/2014/345/airrow-model-a8s-stealth-archery-rifle-with-case-and-accessories
Bob
Bob,
That’s the swivel Machine Corp. Airrow Stealth. They sold for $1600 new. I’ve tested it. It’s good but with the Air Venturi Air Bolt who need a whole gun anymore?
B.B.
Love those RWS Hobbys. They have worked so well that I have never needed to do exhaustive ammo testing.
Thanks for all the thoughts on barrel drooping. I missed LarryMo’s explanation and don’t have time to find it, but it sounds like the drooping is meant to help unsupported offhand shots. My question is how exactly does barrel drooping solve this problem. My answer is that, in this situation, the eye tends to be higher above the rear sight than it should be, and drooping decreases the angle between the boreline and the sight line which improves accuracy. This is fundamentally the same problem as the angle between the scope axis (high off the barrel) and the boreline. However, it seems to me that my explanation was in error and that drooping does not improve scoping at the short distances that I was talking about. The geometry does not work out.
My new theory is that, a little further out, drooping might dampen the variations in angle that you would get between a scope and a perfectly straight boreline as you moved between different distances. But anyway, the explanation about offhand shooting with open sights would be sufficient. Perhaps when Dr. Beeman made his claim, scopes were not as common as they are today, and no one thought about how drooping would affect them.
Yogi, I agree that one can try to justify anything by working hard, but that doesn’t mean you will succeed. I’m not a believer in relative truth, at least for most real world experiences and believe that you should be able to discern better or worse by looking hard enough. As for scopes that focus at 5 yards, my UTG Bugbuster and 4X scopes can do that. Their elevation is 95 clicks higher than at 25 yards, but they hold zero at both ranges.
Matt61
Matt61
And with the barrel droop and open sighting that would also have to do with the design of the stock. Mostly the comb height and butt location to the guns action centerline and open sight hight.
That’s why adjustable Combs and and butt pads are nice. You can make the gun fit your line of sight by adjusting both.
Look at some of the feild target gun stocks. They can be adjusted in more ways than could be explained.
Gunfun1
Exactly! And, going back to my statement about European vs US preferences on shooting, what Americans prefer is the Winchester 70 type straight line stock and Europeans seem to go for that lower comb stock that IIFC was referred to as the Hogback style.
Larry in Algona
Correction – IIRC not IIFC for If I Remember Correctly. LMo
Larry
Like this and this I suppose you mean.
https://goo.gl/images/NfyBgi
https://goo.gl/images/9f3DmX
I myself actually like both types of stocks.
Yup, here’s a good example of both together – that is if I can work this correctly.
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSV0RSSU7WrJaFsPVsya7KsQ_SGQPmiC2dr3tqypNrwwLFWmGvT1g
L in A
Larry
Yep perfect.
Can definitely tell that the comb of the stock comes straight back on the Winchester at the bottom of the picture you gave the link to.
The CZ definitely has the slanted comb and butt.
GF1,
I would say that the Maximus has the Euro style comb/cheek.
Chris U
Yep.
GF1,
It does point and hold nice,.. real nice,.. in an off-hand position.
Chris U
Yep.
Ruger has a cleverly designed stock that’s easily adjustable for LOP and comb height by swapping the stock ‘modules’. Takes just removing the rear sling stud. I have one on a 10/22 and they also use a version of it on the American Rimfire. I wouldn’t mind seeing that concept catch on more.
Cobalt
Can you post a link so we can see what you mean.
https://www.google.com/search?q=ruger+modular+stock+system&newwindow=1&sa=X&rlz=1T4GGHP_enUS731US731&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&ved=0ahUKEwi0v9SjwPvUAhUD4SYKHXwuBK4QsAQIPQ&biw=1329&bih=541
Cobalt,
That is a nice idea. Thank you for the link. I have not seen that before.
When I bought the RAI stock for the Mrod, I got quite familiar with AR style rear stocks and the different methods and designs to adjust comb height. The one I ended up is the FAB Defense one. The cheek is easily adjustable with 1 1/4″ range of adjustment. LOP is no problem with the typical 6 position tube.
You are right though, LOP and comb adjustment should be a consideration to air guns. I will say though that since the 3 years I have been here, I see it showing up more and more in varying degrees with regards to air guns, at least the comb adjustment anyways.
Cobalt
Pretty cool.
BB— I have a Healthways Plainsman pistol that has a feeding problem. It will shoot 2-10 bb,s and then stop feeding them. I have to invert the pistol, and shake it to get it to feed another 2-10 bb,s. Have you encountered this problem with your Plainsman? How can I fix this pistol? This is the model that uses bb,s . It is marked .175 and uses 8 gram powerlets. Thank you, —–Ed
A few days ago I had mentioned wanting to compare using “Tune in a Tube” to an auto store-sourced #2 grease in my 2003 Gamo Shadow 1000. A little history: the gun was only used as a necessity to control a tree rat infestation when I was in FL. Since then the gun has been sitting unused because it was just so darned unpleasant to shoot.
A couple days ago I went out to the shop and picked out a fresh tube of Mobil 1 synthetic NLGI #2 lithium complex grease (it’s even red 😉 and applied it to my Gamo spring. The difference is astounding. The gun still recoils- after all it IS a 15 ft-lb springer that weighs in at barely 6 pounds- but the shot cycle is MUCH calmer, almost subdued. It just gives a solid *thunk* instead of the uber annoying buzzy harmonics that were set off when shot.
I’ve taken to shooting it as often as any of my others now that it’s actually fun to use, and another plus side is it’s still like new. And the accuracy is very good to boot. I couldn’t be happier! The bad part is I’m putting off using the TIAT indefinitely. It’s my firm belief that there’s not going to be a single thing gained by switching from the Mobil 1 synthetic grease. However, should I encounter any problems down the road, I will post them here.
Cobalt327
I originally was going to reply here by congratulating you on your discovery and commenting that I am thinking Gamo’s actually get better with age, like my Bone Collector 1300. After a moments reflection it occurred to me that I would just be parroting B.B. again. So, I did a search on the blog for the Gamo Shadow 1000. Sure enough, been covered, and how! Check this out:
Posted June 24, 2005 – Gamo Shadow 1000 Combo – one of the best buys in Gamo’s line!
Got off to a really slow start: Only four comments on 6/24/05, then 2 more on Jul 4. Nothing till 10/20/05 then three comments in Nov. Again, nothing till Christmas Eve of ’05 but steady entries followed thru November of 2008 (three years!) Then another pause until 7/14/10, and pause until May 7,’13.
There were 452 comments all during this time and a vast amount of information was exchanged. Comparisons were made, most notably to the CF-X and even the Diana 34 P. Scopes and ammo were both discussed, ad infinitum.
My respect and admiration for B.B. now has no bounds – no way would I be able to stay calm in such an inferno. Also, while I agree with B.B. that there’s no such thing as a stupid question, I really do believe it is possible to have a stupidly asked question like one that’s been answered over and over. There was a bit of that there. Again, B.B. displayed the patience of Job.
Larry in Algona
P.S. I just lost a lot of time that I should have been pitting the wild plums from my yard for jam. LMo
LarryMo,
You spent so much time evaluating one past blog that you got your wild plums in a jam? 😉
B.B.
hahahaha – quite the contrary – the wild plums have managed to elude execution. LMo
Larry
On the commenting to Cobalt about the conversation we had about the Premieres below. And there was no where to reply to you below.
It’s all ok. I don’t sweat that stuff. He was after a answer and he didn’t want to hear it from me.
Which is ok. BB has seen more than I have in the air gun world. All I’m looking for out of all this blog talk is that we learn from it. Really that’s how I think. I said this before about myself. Maybe a curse, maybe a blessing that I am the way I am.
But glad you did comment below and you did bring up other points about the conversation we was having that didn’t come to mind at the time
Thanks though.
I agree with your comment- in a way Gamos DO get better with age, at least the triggers do. Maybe it’s more noticeable due to how bad the trigger is when new, but either way it does get better after much use. I didn’t want to wait that long so I did the much-publicized RC bearing modification and it helped a lot. Then I got a gold trigger in a trade deal so I installed it and that’s what is still in it today. Anyhow, it stands to reason that a device made of stamped and machined metal, and synthetics will require the moving parts to bed in with one another (some more than others but all to some degree) before it can settle in to a stable state. So yeah, “get better with age” is accurate in my opinion.
Cobalt,
Thank you for the follow up report,.. and the time and effort to get to that point.
Well, the time and effort on this deal was negligible, at least for applying the grease. But thanks just the same. I know I’m not the only one who curious about this type of thing (I know you like to push the envelope a little yourself lol). And it doesn’t always pan out, so there’s the very real possibility that it would be a waste of time. But personally I get no small amount of satisfaction when it DOES pan out…
Cobalt327
I used to use Mobil synthetic grease to grease the suspension on my ’96 Blazer which had like 10 grease zerks on the front end. The grease was red as you described. I am big believer in Mobil-1 synthetic oils and thought that the Mobil syn grease would be better than conventional greases as well. The problem I had with using the grease was that some of it in my grease gun would liquefy and drip out of my grease gun leaving red puddles. It was never exposed to excessive heat and I could never understand why it did that. I had to go around my garage and clean up the red drips after greasing my Blazer. I finally switched to another synthetic grease called green grease from Autozone. That syn grease never dripped like the Mobil grease. Still am a strong believer in Mobil-1 synthetic oils though. Hope you don’t see red droplets exude from your springer later.
Geo,
With you on the Mobile1. If you ever get the chance, find someone that sells Amsoil products. There is like 10 test that are performed on oils. Mobile one ranked very high out of about 8 or so tested. They (Amsoil)have free brochures that tell all about it. It might be on-line too.
Chris
Mobil-1 synthetic oil is the factory fill in Corvettes and several exotic European autos so if it’s good enough for them, it’s definitely good enough for me. I did some extensive research on various oils before settling on Mobil-1. There are only a few truly synthetic oils, Mobil-1, Redline, Royal Purple, and Amsoil as I recall. Amsoil is very expensive and can be difficult to find. Belle Tire sells it I know. But Mobil-1 can be purchased in any Walmart or Meijer store at reasonable prices. Some of the testing is not comparable to what actually happens in an engine. It’s just like our airguns, what’s important is what the results are in the real world based on experience.
Geo,
Thank you for that added insight,…. none of which I knew. Yes, based on what I quickly learned,.. Mobil1 was the best “bang for the buck” and the easiest to obtain.
I know exactly what you’re referring to about how grease can separate- I have two old grease guns that will do the same thing. As far as the Mobil 1 grease I used, I should have qualified my description of it a bit differently than “a fresh tube”. The tube WAS unused… but it had been sitting in an unheated and uncooled shop building for over TEN YEARS, so “fresh” wasn’t entirely accurate. When I opened it, I wasn’t sure exactly what I would find- but the grease was the exact same as any grease that would be on an auto store shelf today as far as appearance. In other words, the grease had not formed any sort of oily layer, hadn’t separated, was normal appearing in all regards. Had it been anything but that, I would not have used it. But as I said, if I encounter any problems after using it, I will report them here.
Cobalt
Search food grade lube.
We use it at work. It’s unbelievably sticky. It makes things strings when you pull your finger away from it. I can’t remember exactly what it is but I will find out at work Monday. And it is synthetic I know that for sure.
But I think a tad bit of it will go on my next spring guns tune.
Cobalt
Suppose to say (thin) strings. Not (things) spring.
That’s my phone again.
Oh my gosh again.
Not (things spring).
(thin strings)
Oh and I should say someone else mentioned food grade grease in the past.
I did not realize that’s what we used until I found out what it was.
Gunfun1
Sure, I’m familiar w/food grade grease and oils, a friend owned a bakery and used these type lubricants for the machinery.
As far as grease in my Gamo, I’ve made my bed and imma go ahead and lie in it. I WILL be interested in hearing how your experiment turns out, though. Maybe we should market it as the next “bestest thing around”. haha
Cobalt
I want to try a bit of it in a springer.
But my secret mixture has actually been lithium grease mixed with some motor honey. It stays ain place nice. And I don’t use much.
But yep let me know how it goes with your gun.
Cobalt
Oh and I hope I ain’t making a bomb inside my springer. 🙂
Tom, an excellent and thoughtful test on this lovely oldster!
I have to say my own experience shooting old guns very much backs up your two main points:
1. The RWS Hobby is my “common denominator” ammo, LOL. It’s light weight and solid construction make it the one pellet I chrono in every gun for comparison purposes, giving a baseline “reasonable top speed” not dependent on gimmicky pellet designs.
2. In spite of the Hobby’s weight…other pellets will sometimes go faster, and I find the 7.3 JSB designs are often the ones making that very exception to the rule.
My observation has always been that pellet can be as important as weight. The classic RWS designs in particular (Hobby, Meisterkugeln, Superdome, Superpoint) have a rather large-diameter, and stoutly-constructed skirt that can mean a very tight fit in a snug bore. The JSB’s have smaller skirts with thinner walls that can work better in those.
But other old guns thrive with RWS ammo–most notably in my stable, old HW 55’s which have a long tapered flare on the breech end of the barrel. Any other brand fits so loose it’s almost like dry-firing, I’ve just about given up using anything but RWS in those.
MDriskill
I have seen the same thing about Hobby vs. heavier pellets. The following is part of a recent pellet test I did with my Daisy 853:
RWS Superpoint 8.2 gr (7-1)
• 500 high
• 470 low
• 491 avg
o 4.39 foot-pounds
• 30 ES
• 9 SD
RWS Hobby 7.0 gr (7-2)
• 493 high
• 458 low
• 478 avg
o 3.55 foot-pounds
• 35 ES (27)
• 11 SD (10)
Chris U
Here’s we’re I was going.
Remember yesterday we was talking about Diana’s and drooper mounts and scope rings and all that.
Well that’s what I’m talking about.
You seen in the video links I posted above about the long range shots. I wanted you to see what scope angle does for a shot.
And those gun’s don’t have drooper barrels. But for the distance they were shooting that’s how much upward the barrel needed tilted up. To keep the scope reticle adjustment centered they needed a extreme scope angle points down.
They did it right by keeping the front and back of the scope true to the angle they needed the scope raised in the rear.
But you notice also in the second video the scope is level for the 2-1/2 mile shot. But uses high scope rings.
That’s why I posted the links. I wanted you to see what raising the rear of the scope does. 🙂
GF1,
I get it. I will however say that you sure do have a VERY LONG way of getting around to the point that you are trying to make. (Long shots and droopers require higher elevation at the scope rear.) Not sure about you,.. but didn’t we already know that? 😉
Out’a here. Hope to get the needed stuff done early and do some shootin’ later in the afternoon, tomorrow.
Have a good one.
Chris U
Yes we did but yesterday you said you needed to think about how the high rings would work.
And wanted to say that even if we do have guns with whatever way we want to call it. Droop or trajectory that it can be overcome with mounts or rings to keep the turrets centered.
And the point also is that barrels can droop. They can be compensated for. But also trajectory plays a role in it also.
Whoops forgot.
Of course with only what is available to us.
Now custom made stuff is another story.
🙂
BB
Has anything changed regarding the lead/lead alloy or pellet size between tins versus brown boxed Crosman .177 Premier pellets in 7.9 and 10.5 gr since 2006 when you posted “I don’t like shooting any Crosman pellets except the genuine Premiers (they only come in a cardboard box) in a powerful spring rifle. Crosman pellets are made from too hard a lead alloy to expand the skirt when fired, and they are too small (except for the real Premiers).”
Thanks.
Cobalt
I shot them when I got back into air guns. In the box in the tins in the different weights. I thought they were good until I started shooting JSB pellets.
Plus the hardness is there in all the Crosman pellets I just mentioned. I don’t like that.
Cobalt327,
Nothing obvious has changed. I doubt Crosman has changed their alloy because it works. The packaging has changed and they don’t lot sort the pellets in tins, but they seem to do pretty well.
B.B.
BB
First, thank you for responding. I appreciate it. Please forgive me for asking for clarification, I’m trying to be sure of what’s being said because sometimes I struggle to comprehend.
Am I understanding you correctly, that the boxed 7.9 gr and 10.5 gr domed Crosman Premier pellets, aka ” genuine Premiers” are still made today from a softer alloy (as you said was the case in 2006) than the same pellet sizes currently packaged in tins?
Again, thanks.
Mark
Mark,
I don’t remember saying that boxed Premiers were made from a softer material. If I did, that was wrong. I have been in the room where all Crosman pellets are made and I have watched the process.
Crosman has preforms — lead slugs from which all their pellets of given weights are made. In other words, a 7.9-grain Premier and a 7.9-grain wadcutter start out from the same material. To make them otherwise would be ruinously expensive.
All Premiers are the same hardness.
B.B.
Okay. What I was going by was the following blog post, made by you in 2006 and I may have misunderstood the exact meaning, especially at the end in parenthesis:
“I don’t like shooting any Crosman pellets except the genuine Premiers (they only come in a cardboard box) in a powerful spring rifle. Crosman pellets are made from too hard a lead alloy to expand the skirt when fired, and they are too small (except for the real Premiers).”
I’m hesitant to ask, but in another blog you said:
“I believe Crosman’s investment in repeaters caused them to think about hardening the lead in their pellets when they came out with their new line of pellets at the end of the 1980s. Premiers are not the only pellet that’s made from hardened lead – the entire Crosman lead pellet line is hardened with antimony. As a result, they deform less and feed better through mechanisms than soft lead pellets. ***However, they also deposit lead in the barrel at lower velocities than pure lead pellets.*** That’s a drawback. The repeaters Crosman makes are all low velocity and aren’t bothered by it, but when Premiers are shot from magnum guns at high velocities, they need to be lubricated or they’ll lead the bore.”
If hard pellet alloys like Crosman uses causes lead deposits to form in the bore, should a lube like your Whiscombe Honey or FP-10 or something else be used to prevent this in so-called “magnum” springers?
Cobalt327,
The punctuation in that sentence makes all the difference. The too small what what I was referring to.
You need to either lube Premiers or shooting them at lower velocities. In springers they lead up less but they still lead up. PCPs lead the most. Whiscombe Honey was invented for Crosman Premiers!
B.B.
bb
Beautiful. Much obliged, sir!
Whew. Moving on… lol
What I was hoping to hear from BB is, are the boxed pellets still smaller and softer than the tins. I’m referring specifically current production Crosman 7.9 gr and 10.5 gr domes in .177.
Cobalt
In your first comment I think you answered that question didn’t you?
Oh ok I just reread your comment. You quoting BB.
My bad.
No problem, Gunfun. My dilemma is this: I don’t mind spending $50 for 2 boxes of pellets, just don’t want to buy them if the tins are the same pellet as what’s in the brown boxes because I already have them in the tins.
Cobalt
I use to by the boxed premiers by the lot.
They are identified by a letter stamp on the box. The idea was to get pellets made by the same die at that given time. The tin of pellets is suppose to be whatever was produced at a given time. No real traceability of how consistent they wee to each other when put in that tin.
What I have seen from shooting them is that it really didn’t matter if they were from the tin or the box. One tin would perform better than the box. The next box would be better than the tin.
Here’s the big thing. I shot bunches of pellets of given brands and repeatability in performance is what to look for. So in reality you have to try a bunch of a given pellet for a considerable amount of time to come to a accurate conclusion.
And now that’s where I will mention other brands. Some can repeat their performance better than others. And some are real good at repeating their performance. One word is all I can say for repeated performance.
JSB
GF
While that’s all interesting, the questions I want to have answered, remains:
BB
HAS ANYTHING CHANGED REGARDING THE LEAD/LEAD ALLOY OR PELLET SIZE BETWEEN TINS VERSUS BROWN BOXED CROSMAN .177 PREMIER PELLETS IN 7.9 AND 10.5 GR SINCE 2006…
Cobalt
Sounds like BB answered that above already. Did you miss it?
All I know is that’s one of the reasons I stopped using the Crosman premier’s. Because of the hardness. Just my preference but I don’t like a harder pellet in my guns.
GF
I saw the response from BB. I am still struggling to understand what he’s saying- this is MY problem with comprehension. So do you take his answer to mean the new production boxed pellets are still made from a softer alloy- like they were in 2006- than new production pellets packaged in tins?
This is a yes or no.
Cobalt
From my take on BB’s answer is that he thinks they are still the same now as they was then.
And on another note. I was shooting with them back in 2006. And to me they were hard back then like they are right now.
And I’m comparing the Premieres to the JSB’s.
That’s all I can give you. Maybe BB can explain his answer more.
Are you saying the BOXED pellets TODAY are the same, soft alloy as was being used in 2006?
Soft means softer than the alloy used in pellets that come in tins.
Cobalt
No. What I’m saying is they never seemed soft to me now or then.
2006 hard.
2017 hard.
Cobalt,
Can anyone say (for sure)? Have you tried to E-mail Crosman directly? Would they even know? Your question seems to bring together size (pellet molds) and the metallurgy of the lead. Crosman Sales “might” be aware of the history, past sales strategies, new products. Their Q.C, or Engineering depts. “might” be aware of any metallurgy changes. A lot of might’s and if’s in there.
I had thought that they were doing away with the boxed pellets anyways? Maybe I have that wrong, but I thought that it was mentioned right here.
Yes! B.B can say for sure!! But I’m not sure anyone else here was paying as much attention to details the way he was in 2006 when he shot the so-called ‘genuine’ Premier pellets from the brown box. And he certainly knows what the current production pellets are like, regarding their size and hardness (or lack thereof).
To repeat, the following is what I’m trying so hard to have BB answer:
Am I understanding you correctly, that the boxed 7.9 gr and 10.5 gr domed Crosman Premier pellets, aka ”genuine Premiers” are still made today from a softer alloy (as you said was the case in 2006) than the same pellet sizes currently packaged in tins?
Cobalt
Again. What I’m saying is 2006 hard.
2017 hard.
Yes I was paying attention back then to hardness as well as now. The Premieres were hard no matter what they were packaged in. Now or then.
So you are basically saying B.B. was wrong? Look- I know you have good intensions but this is getting me no closer to an answer. So how’s about we all sit back and let B.B. have a shot at saying one way or another whether the BOXED pellets, aka “genuine Premiers” made in 2006 are the same as, or different than, the current boxed pellets.
Cobalt
BB can say whatever he wants to say.
Just like I did. All I’m saying is that’s what I remember from my experience now and then with be them.
Sounds like your wanting lie to you with my answer or something.
It is what it is. I’m done with this topic.
Good luck with finding the answer you want to hear.
All I will say regarding your last reply below that has no reply option under it is, thank god you are done w/this topic.
Cobalt
Well that was for the moment. Back in now.
😉
Do some searches about the Crosman Premieres and see what you find. And even make the search specific to 2006.
Cobalt327
1. You’re being overly hard on Gunfun1 – he was obviously trying to help.
2. You’re trying to put B.B. in a losing position – though I doubt he’ll fall for the bait.
If you want to know EXACTLY what people are saying about hard or soft lead then invest in a hardness tester – there’s a variety available for between $35 and $80.
You might get more help if you let us know what it is you are trying to accomplish. It seems like you want to load up on Crosman Premiers but can’t make up your mind to buy tins or boxes. One things for sure, you can’t buy any boxes from 2006 unless you have a time machine.
One thing most of us have learned about springers is that there are no hard and fast rules – anyone can have a completely different experience with the same make/model of springer and you just have to try out what works best for YOU.
Here’s a good example, also from 2005, and my favorite B.B. quote, so far: (To Springlover on 9/27/05 about a scope problem) “We won’t discuss solutions until I know the problem for sure, but here’s another tip. Try doing everything I said NOT to do! – B.B. Pelletier
Larry in Algona
All my questions have been answered already- by B.B. like I had asked in the very beginning. Please try to keep up. Again- MOVING ON…
Took the pump apart and reassembled it. Was surprised at the amount of water in droplets throughout the pump. This is good reason to use a desiccant with a pcp pump. I have no experience so I certainly may have missed something, but nothing seemed wrong. No crushed or torn o-rings, other than the water in the pump nothing seemed amiss.
Now I can get about 50 strokes. The gauge on the pump registers 100 psi. I think that the gauge on the Maximus *may* have moved about a needle width. Not a success yet. I think that I’m going to post on Facebook to try to find an airgunner in this area. I refuse to accept that I can’t handle a pcp pump. I do need to find a pump and gun that is being used successfully to try it for myself. Something is not right yet.
Moving on…I’m going to get *something* working!
Applied TIAT (Tune In A Tube) to the Gamo. Removed the scope. Going back to open sights. Reduce the variables. K.I.S.S.
I have a commitment after church Sunday, So Monday I’m going to start with the Gamo Hunter pellets to get “on paper.” If the Hunter pellets are at all useful, I’ll start experimenting with moving the front support as B.B. does. Digging through some odd & ends, found two more tins of Hunter pellets. That find brings me up to six tins of Hunter pellets. What was I thinking? Oh well…
Then I plan to use the pellets that thedavemyster sent me to find which of those the Gamo “likes” best. I also have a tin of four JSB pellets to try.
One of these guns IS going to be reliable.
GrandpaDan
Dan
Yep water will cause hydraulicing also.
Dan
Oh and can’t wait to see what that Gamo does.
Do you know what they were called back in the early 70’s?
GF1,
No idea what they were called. At the time the only airgun I knew of was a Daisy.
GrandpsDan
Dan
ElGamo. If I remember right they were made in Spain back then.
BB has done some reports on the old ElGamo’s.
And come to think about I don’t know where the Gamo is made at now.
Dan
Here check it out.
Thought maybe you Gamo fans would be interested.
http://www.gamousa.com/aboutus.aspx
Dan
And how about the check valve in the pump. If it’s got contaminants in it it won’t seat right. That will stop it from pumping past a certain psi.
I’ll bet a dollar to a donut (come to think about it- that’s close to even odds these days lol) that you’re going to really like the way your gun shoots after applying the grease. Good luck and do let us know how it works out for you!
Grandpa Dan,
Thank you for the update. It sounds as if you did everything you could with the video and internet research. It did change, so something you did helped. I was more surprised that more people did not weigh in on the topic. I remember it being discussed in the past. I will say though, B. B. and Gunfun1 would be 2 of the best, so right away you started at “the top”. Please keep us posted as to your next move and any further progress in the future. (I would call P.A. and speak with the shop. Now that you are educated on the topic/tear down, you can speak on more of a 1 on 1 level with a repair tech.)
Good luck with the Gamo. From everything I have seen thus far, it can only make things better.
Chris
Bugbuster,
Thank you for the input that you added to the conversation that GF1 and I were having (way above) on the scope angle from the video he posted of sniper rifle doing 2.2 miles.
It only makes sense that the mount in the video would be extra high at the rear given the distance being shot. A quick paper/pencil trace with the dimensions you gave show 1 degree with a protractor.
Chris USA,
CORRECTION
You were very close with your protractor measurement. I made a couple of mistakes when figured out the original angle. To begin with, The rise was only .112″ instead of .125″ so the angle would be only .98715 decimal degrees, less than half as I initially stated. The base is 6.5″ long .251″ high at the front and .363″ high at the rear. Another senior moment, sigh.
Bugbuster
Bugbuster,
I would site a few of my own “senior moment’s”,.. but just now I have forgotten them all. 😉
Everyone,
Are you trying to argue me into agreeing with you that Premiers are made at different hardnesses? Because they aren’t.
Crosman buys their lead in wire, as I recall, on pallets of spools that weigh tons. THEY ARE ALL THE SAME. The wire is cut to lengths that correspond to different weights. Those pieces are called preforms — and they make them by the tens of millions each day! The preforms are swaged by dies into pellets. When a 7.9-grain preform falls into a box with 10.5 grain preforms they get a “peewee” — an undersized pellet Sometimes those make it into the containers.
If they even had two hardnesses there would be such a confusion in the pellet manufacturing process that they would be unprofitable. Then you would have preforms by weight and by hardness. See where this is going?
All the same hardness.
B.B.
BB
I guess when you say “Everyone” your talking in general.
There was one person worried about the hardness and it wasn’t me.
Just say’n.
I asked YOU for clarification of a statement made in 2006, which you resolved in a single sentence. No argument and no bias towards what the exact answer was except as it related to allowing me to understand the original statement.
For anyone interested,… 40 yards, .22 Maximus, 9x scope mag., 3 different pellets, 2000 fill per 20 shots*,…… tried GF1’s idea of using an O-ring at the ocular lens gap to stabilize the ocular lens.
I will say the O-ring did worse, but [I will] continue to use it as I think it is a good idea. It may not help, but it can not hurt either. Anything worse, I will chalk up to me. {All 10 shot groups.}
2000 fill. Start.
JSB 15.89 39mm
JSB 18.13 35mm (2000 fill, after)
AA 13.43 27mm,…. (((all with O-ring))) (2000 fill after)
JSB 15.89 20mm
JSB 18.13 24mm (2000 fill after)
AA 13.43 25mm,…. (( all without O-ring))
Any conclusions? Not much. I would say though that I was “not on my best game” today,.. to coin a phrase. I usually shoot only on the weekend and there were no “warm up” shots.
* = I refilled after 10 shots on the first 3 groups to keep the test the same.
Make what you want of it,… but that is some real world testing. Chris
Chris U
You got to tape it tight after the o-rings with electrical tape.
Plus the o-rings need to squeeze down in between each other. They can’t just sit side by side. Matter of fact before I tape and have the o-rings in place I tighten the ocular lens in tighter to the o-rings. I then check to see if the reticle focus is still sharp. If I’m satisfied with all that. Then I tape it tight.
I’m sure you probably did all that but wanted to say incase someone else wants to try it out.
But glad you tryed it. Plus it kind of needs to settle in and find it’s natural seating after you do it. And the tape is a must.
GF1,
499 w/Red Ryder spring at 41 feet test,
Prior,… 10 @ 2 1/8″, w/ 8 @ 1″,… 3 1/4″ low from aim point (sighted at 24′)
Modified,…. 10 @ 1/2″ with 1″ drop from aim point (sighted at 24′)
Peepers were a bit iffy, but that is what it was. Change of bull style might improve that by a good bit.
Said I would do it,.. did it,…. (Out’a here),…………….
Chris U
Thanks. And significant difference with aim point drop. And big time better groups with the modified spring. If I’m reading your data right.
Makes me think that Daisy should see that and ponder the what if.
I like what I see.
🙂
GF1,
Yes, you are reading everything correct. What is confusing? I did mention the sight in distance because stock was sighted at 24′ and the modified was sighted at 24′. After the RR spring install, I had to adjust the sights upwards for what seemed forever at 24′. It was hitting 3″ high prior to any sight adjustment with the new spring. Groups at 24′ now are very close to 1/4″. Prior, groups were very close to 1/2″,.. if everything went well.
As a refresher, it was 247 fps and is now 412 fps, 10 shot average. Trigger pull remained unchanged. Cocking effort went from 5# to 10#. It definitely shoots with “authority” now.
That’s some fine trigger work, guy! The gun/spring combo might have helped but you had to be doing your part- and doing it pretty well at that- to get that group. No more paper punching with mine, although after seeing what you were able to accomplish, yours is totally capable of punching paper with the best of the smooth bore BB guns I know of- and could embarrass quite a few rifled pellet rifles to boot!.
FWIW, I couldn’t get the 5899 peep sight that comes with the 499B to sight in past about 15 yards when the original spring was in it. Just wasn’t enough elevation adjustment available. I don’t know if the Avanti/Gamo peep sight would be better of not, but I’m using open sights from a Daisy 953 on mine now; they’re FO but still better for the type of shooting I use my 499 for (woods walking and offhand shooting).
Should have mentioned that I didn’t really try the peep sights with the new spring installed. IIRC by then I had switched to an Industry brand “field sight” similar to what Archer sells. If you haven’t done it yet, give the 499 front globe sight a try using the post insert.
Cobalt,
Yes, the peepers are limited to the range they are set at. I do not use the post insert, but may try. I took the smallest O and inserted an even smaller washer in it. Works great and “frames” ring binder reinforcement stickers perfectly at 24′. It is pretty much a no-miss set up. I do not know how far up mine will adjust, or how close that I may be now. (Just looked), the block is down almost all the way with maybe 1/16″ of the block showing. There is 7-8mm of upward adjustment left.
It would be nice to have an open/clear insert that would have something akin to mil-dots. That way it could be used at different distances with hold-over/under. More suited to your application/use.
Chris U
Not confused. Just how your listing your sub groups and overall group I guess.
It’s ok. I got it though. 😉
GF1,
Glad you “got it”,….. now get one! 🙂 and a 😉
Chris U
Ok but you get you a Crosman 1077 or a Daisy 74. When you do let me know and I’ll get a 499. A double 😉 and a 🙂
And heck maybe I’ll have the 499 shipped to you and you can get a spring and put it in for me. And whatever other mods you did to yours and I’ll pay you for the spring and tune.
Well how does that sound?
GF1,
Frankly,… I am utterly shocked! A man of your “tuning talents”,.. asking someone else to mess with your gun! I am at a total loss for words! Heck,… you could do it and show me and Cobalt a thing or two!
And no,.. I am not buying some other plinker just to get you to buy a 499. I have enough “plinker’s”,… and good ones at that. I just thought that my having one, and tuning one, might be enough for you to get one.
Just trying to turn you on to a good thing. It is “only” the World’s most accurate bb gun that is now twice as accurate and nearly twice as powerful. Just sayin’.
I would love to hang out,… but the AM comes early. I will check in,.. in the early AM.
Out’a here,… Chris
Chris U
Figured since you already did one it would be easier for you to do it than me. 🙂
And I really don’t need anymore plinkers either. The only reason I suggested the 1077 and 74 to you was to try to get you into some fast action open sight shooting.
But I guess you could throw some cans out in the yard and use your pellet pistol. And a laser ain’t the type of open sights I’m talking about.
But that’s where I was going with my comment.