by Tom Gaylord
Writing as B.B. Pelletier
This report covers:
- Carbon dioxide
- Green gas/red gas
- Catapult guns
- Not the end!
- Ulterior motive
Simple enough question, no? Maybe you get confused by certain air-powered tools or perhaps a slang reference to a paint sprayer, but most folks know exactly what you mean when you say airgun.
Think so? Think again.
The term airgun isn’t found in most dictionaries, yet. You’ll find that your spell-checker wants you to write it as two words, but that’s not what today’s blog is about. I really want to know if you know all that is encompassed by the term airgun.
Some of you have already stopped reading to formulate an official-sounding definition that goes something like this: An airgun is any smoothbore or rifled gun that propels a projectile by means of compressed air. As you stand back to admire your work, it suddenly dawns on you that your definition doesn’t encompass any of the guns that are powered by CO2. Don’t you hate it when that happens?
Airguns, it turns out, can be a great many different things. Air is only one of their defining characteristics.
Before we move on, however, let’s deal with the CO2 issue. Clearly carbon dioxide isn’t air. If you doubt that, try breathing it for 20 minutes, and then we’ll talk — or not. I’ve had arguments at length with airgun collectors who were stubbornly opposed to labeling CO2 guns as airguns. While that’s a fun subject for two people to banter about as they watch the fireflies rise on a warm summer evening, it doesn’t serve a person who is drafting state legislation regarding new hunting laws!
So, are CO2 guns airguns, or not? Well — let’s see. They’re sold by airgun dealers, they travel under the same restrictions as guns that do operate on air, they use the same ammunition and they perform similarly. And, heck, there have even been a few amphibious models such as Benjamin’s Discovery that operate on either compressed air or CO2. Wasn’t it Robert Kennedy who observed that if something walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it probably is a duck? So, yes, guns that use CO2 are also airguns.
Green gas/red gas
Wouldn’t it be nice if it ended there? Well, it doesn’t. There are other propellant gasses that power guns that must also be considered, now that the door has been opened for CO2. I’m talking about green gas and red gas. The airsoft industry hates to admit it publicly, but green gas is actually propane. A tiny bit of silicone oil is added to the gas to lubricate the gun’s parts as it functions, and they leave out the odor that’s added to commercial propane to identify gas leaks (real propane doesn’t smell like onions; it has no smell at all).
The same dealers who tell you green gas is special will even sell you adapters to fill your green gas guns from five-pound propane tanks, all the while backpeddling on admitting that green gas is propane! The Orient, where a lot of airsoft guns are made, is quite good at doublespeak!
Here’s where it becomes interesting. Green gas develops a pressure of around 115 PSI at room temperature. That’s plenty of push to propel a 3-grain plastic ball (they call them BBs) out the spout at a fairly good clip.
Red gas is more exotic. It has a higher vapor pressure than green gas, so the guns that use it require some modifications. If you read all the warnings, you’ll get the idea that red gas is like nuclear fuel, but for one thing. Some airsoft guns also operate on CO2, which has a vapor pressure of 853 PSI at room temperature, which goes way beyond the pressure of red gas. To operate on CO2, airsoft guns have to be modified even more, and this is done by restricting the gas flow through special valving that has very small gas ports. There you are. Guns that run on green gas, red gas and CO2, none of which is air — yet they fall into the airgun category because there’s no other category for them.
Airsoft guns do receive special legislation of their own because many are built to simulate firearms (called “real guns” by many), and they’re used in force-on-force skirmishes, with people shooting at each other. There are legal issues concerning brandishing these non-guns in public and special markings on the guns that are not as applicable to the kind of pellet guns I generally write about. But airsoft guns are sold by the same dealers and often made by the same companies that make conventional airguns. They quack just like ducks.
We’re not finished with the non-air powerplants, yet, Sparky. There are still catapult guns to consider.
Catapult guns propel their projectiles by means of a spring, in the form of an elastic band or even a conventional coiled steel spring. If you think CO2 guns cause controversy among the anal airgun collectors, try raising this subject and see what happens!
The most common catapult guns are the Bulls Eye and Sharpshooter-series guns dating from 1923 and produced as toy novelties in the U.S. through at least the 1980s. These guns all shoot .118 lead shot, which is more commonly known as No. 6 birdshot.
This Bulls Eye pistol was the first of many so-called Sharpshooter pistols powered by rubber bands. It fired No. 6 birdshot up to ~150 f.p.s. when multiple rubber bands were used.
In most airguns, the use of dropped shot (shotgun shot is made by either dropping it from a high tower so that it forms a ball as it solidifies or forced through small holes by centrifugal force) can be a problem, because of inconsistent size. The shot can easily get jammed in barrels when it’s oversized, which is why we seldom see real BB-sized shot (shot size BB is nominally 0.180 inches in diameter) used in antique BB guns. It simply isn’t regular enough. But catapult guns seldom use barrels. They usually place the shot to be fired in a shaped seat to hold it during acceleration, then release it cleanly at the end of the acceleration phase — no barrel needed. Marvel if you must, but common slingshots work the same way.
The Johnson Indoor Target Gun fired conventional steel BBs from a submachine gun-looking plastic frame. It used tubular elastic bands much like modern surgical tubing to launch a 5.1-grain BB at 100-150 f.p.s., depending on the strength of the bands.
The Johnson Indoor Target Gun sold for $15 in 1949. It shot steel BBs at 100-150 f.p.s.
But Daisy made a catapult gun that used steel springs. Their model 179 is a Spittin’ Image replica of a Colt single-action revolver that I reported in this blog some time back. Instead of just flinging the BB with the force of the spring, the spring in the 179 pushed a paddle that actually hit the BB like a croquet mallet smacks a ball. Instead of just pushing the BB out the barrel (and this is one of the few catapult guns that really does have a smoothbore barrel), it was whacked out like a line drive off a baseball bat.
Daisy’s 179 was an early Spittin’ Image catapult gun. Production began in 1960.
Rigid airgun collectors are really challenged by catapult guns, because of the Daisy connection. They don’t want to include them in the body of legitimate airguns; but with Daisy being such a key player, they usually cave.
That sets them up for a huge disappointment when they suddenly learn that in the 1840s there was another catapult gun that launched lead balls of approximately .43 caliber with sufficient force to kill small game. The Hodges catapult gun is a long gun with no barrel but with all the Victorian styling expected of a naval weapon made in the 1840s. The thought among advanced collectors is that it could have been a foraging gun made for naval vessels. Except for the few parts that absolutely had to be made of iron for durability, the rest of the gun is fashioned from bronze and English walnut!
The Hodges catapult gun dates from the 1840s. The popular belief is it was a ship’s foraging gun that made little sound, yet could take game of reasonable size without alerting hostile natives. The Roman soldier statues at the front are for anchoring the elastic bands.
The Hodges ball carrier is pushed back until the sear hooks it. Then the elastic bands are stretched one at a time to increase power. This way, the shooter can build in a lot more power than he can possibly handle when cocking the gun.
The elastic bands were anchored at the forward end by looping them over two Roman soldiers cast in detailed bronze relief. I’ve seen two such guns — the one pictured here is in remarkable preservation and the other one has been restored to working order and shot by its owner, using 122-grain swaged lead balls. Velocity is low. If we read the book, The Practical Guide to Man-Powered Bullets, by Richard Middleton, we learn that it’s probably in the low 200 f.p.s. range. Not only is the Hodges gun limited by the maximum contraction rate of the best elastic bands, in it’s day it had only primitive elastic to work with. By the way, this is a plug for having an airgun library, and Richard Middleton is a reader of this blog.
The next branch on the oddity tree deviates toward those guns that shoot BBs and shot by means of the power of an exploding toy cap. Wamo made a minimum of six different models, and new ones seem to surface every couple years. The most recent Wamo I’ve discovered shoots potato plugs!
Wamo made this Kruger (Luger?) 98 that used toy caps to propel a .12-caliber bead ball. There was also one that shot genuine steel BBs.
Wamo also made the Westerm Haig single-shot “revolver.” It was also .12 caliber and sold for $2.98 in comic books of the 1960s. Wamo took their name off the gun and sold it from a P.O. Box, but patent numbers and the location of the P.O. box link the gun to Wamo.
If a toy cap can launch a BB, what’s to prevent it from igniting a small charge of black powder? And who decides what a “small charge” is? There have been .22-caliber, .36-caliber and even .45-caliber rifles made by Rocky Mountain Arms Corporation in modern times that operate by means of exploding caps igniting black powder. If you go back 100 years, there were some made then, as well. They’re clearly firearms when they use black powder, but what about those using caps only?
Rocky Mountain Arms Corporation sold blackpowder rifles in .22, .36 and .45 calibers. The powder charge was ignited by toy caps.
As long as we’re talking about caps, what prevents someone from using percussion caps and even primers to propel pellets and BBs? Apparently nothing, because it’s been done. You have even read about it in this blog. Are these all airguns, as well? The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives doesn’t think so. They consider them to be firearms, because they propel a projectile by means of a chemical explosion. Yet every few years I see where someone else has “invented” the ultimate pellet gun using this approach.
Not the end!
As you now can see, the question of what constitutes an airgun is far from clear. Once you accept any of these deviations, the rest will come streaming through the same loophole. For instance, is a gun that also launches an arrow then considered a bow? And if so, is it legal to use during bow season? That question is being debated right now in fish and game commissions all around the United States.
It is for reasons like this that I am sometimes so rigid and precise in my terminology. Because you never know what’s waiting in the wings.
Today’s report was supposed to be Part 2 of the Daisy Targeteer, but I couldn’t get either one of my two pistols to fire. That’s the problem with these weak air pistols. They are terribly finicky. I am working to correct it, but if I can’t get them to fire I’ll switch over to a Sharpshooter catapult pistol that is always reliable. The power is about the same and the Sharpshooter is far more accurate.
138 thoughts on “Must an airgun use air?”
A great subject. I need to sleep on this one. I will say an airgun propells a projectile with a compressed gas. The compressed gas is used to store and/or transfer energy from an external work force to the projectile.
The different categories in punkin chunkin make some sence. I would say catapults are not air guns. Also hitting a steel bb with a hammer is not an air gun. When the gas propelling the projectile is from combustion that is not an airgun.
When a gas with a pressure greater than atmouspheric is pushing a projectile down a barrel that is an airgun as long as the gas pressure is from mechanical means.
Defining the mechanisum of propopulsion in a gun for regulation laws is a poor choice there are too many loopholes. Laws need to be based on an individuals actions. All ducks are not equal.
What will we call it when there’s a hand held or shouldered fired elect-magnetice “rail gun” out on the market? We all know it just a mater of time before the plug in Daisy Electro 5000 or the battery pack Daisy Electro 7500 are introduced. 🙂 🙂
Ventrue Crew 357
With the high energy stored in modern batteries and advances every day. It won’t be long. That is a bb gun with 20,000 fps. Might need to be in a vacume though.
I would like a pcp pressurized with an internal pump and battery.
So did you ever get a response to your email at Crosman?
First off I would like to say that Kevin in Product Support at Crosman has been outstanding. He has cleared more than a few logjams I was up against in getting the WildFire valve ordered. I was able to make the order today. It is too bad there are some folks at Crosman Product Support that seem to have a bad attitude and obstruct rather than provide top notch support like Kevin.
I did as you suggested and sent a message to Crosman customer support through their web site. They responded early Monday morning. The response was a little fragmented but I figure that was from trying to catch up with all the messages over the weekend. The message was promising and sounded sincere.
I was at my cabin, off grid for a while, and was not able to make a quick follow up. I have since sent a follow up message to Crosman on the status of the WildFire valve assembly. The response was the next day and provided me the part number. The part number was not listed yet so it had to be placed in the data base so it could be ordered. Kevin took it on himself to see that was done.
The valve has a revised part from the original and a new part number. Obviously the original valve had some issues. The new CrosFire valve assembly part number is 1077PCPA090. They are trying to catch up on valve replacements and the valve order may be hit and miss for a while.
In the last paragraph “CrosFire” should be “Crosman WildFire”.
Thanks for the info. I was wondering what happened.
Have you tried 22 air rifle pellets powered by Ramset in a 22 rifle. 2800fps is impressive!
The effect on steel plate is amazing and its use is probably dangerous.
What is old is new again. I did not watch it but I saw a YouTube clip where some guy was doing that. I have heard of doing such over the years. The Germans have been doing it since the 1800’s with their Zimmer thingys.
The term ‘Airgun’ is basically a ‘Synonym’ for an array of ‘relatively’ low powered guns, with various names, that generally use a compressed gas or alternate mechanical device to propel a projectile through the air.
If an Airgun, through modern development, becomes lethal in power we call it a ‘High Powered’ Airgun.
Wachadink ? 🙂
Where I live (rural Canada), most kids learn to shoot .22 rimfires and progress to centerfire rifles and shotguns from there. There are still a lot of people who refer to non-powder burners as “BB guns” and it is fun to educate them 🙂
Earlier this year I invited the sports department manager of the local hardware store (they have a couple of Daisys and break-action airguns for sale) to see some of my “BB guns” as he calls them. He was totally unprepared when I handed him my .25 cal FX Royale and even more shocked when he saw the holes it had blasted through a 2×4. Plinking soda cans at 50 yards impressed him as well. He now correctly uses the terms “BB gun” and “High Powered Airgun”. LOL!
This is a BB gun. It will put your eye out.
This is not a BB gun. It will put a hole through your head.
Nice simple definition, like it 🙂
I like it!
High powered airguns are not new. I refer you to the airguns of Lewis and Clark.
From 1790 to 1815, the Austrian Army used a 22-shot .46 caliber repeating air rifle known as the Girandoni air rifle because unlike single shot gun powder muskets there was no smoke to be seen and very little noise to be heard. Soldiers had to be specially trained and hand pumping the air reservoir 1500 times to a working pressure of 800 psi finally gave way to newly developed repeating gun powder rifles that were arriving on the scene.
Consensus has it that the Girandoni air rifle was carried by Lewis and Clark on their famous expedition in 1803 to 1806.
Bob, old air guns were not always low powered. I think of the guns that Lewis and Clark used.
From 1790 to 1815, the Austrian Army used a 22-shot .46 caliber repeating air rifle known as the Girandoni air rifle because unlike single shot gun powder muskets there was no smoke to be seen and very little noise to be heard. Soldiers had to be specially trained and hand pumping the air reservoir 1500 times to a working pressure of 800 psi finally gave way to newly developed repeating gun powder rifles that were arriving on the scene.
Consensus has it that the Girandoni air rifle was carried by Lewis and Clark on their famous expedition in 1803 to 1806.
There are always exceptions and by todays standards I would call it High-Powered, an early example ?
They probably had not used the term High-Powered Airgun back then either, Air Rifle.
Noticed I used the word ‘relatively’ low powered. Not a lot to compare it to back then. But compared to a firearm I’m sure it was.
Went to Wikipedia just now to see how they defined the word airgun and they said see Tom Gaylord…All kidding aside he is mentioned as an authority… with an outside link to his History of Airguns.
Regarding your comment from awhile ago about the M1 carbine, I have heard that it was designed as a support weapon to replace the pistol and should be judged by those standards. True enough, and it’s a credit to the rifle that it exceeded its design parameters in being used in the front lines. The difficulty for me is that when talking about great firearms, at least military ones, front line combat is the natural standard and the big leagues. It is a little paradoxical to talk about a terrific support weapon just as it is to talk about a great minor leaguer.
This is especially true when you think about guns that did perform extraordinarily well in frontline service such as the original assault rifle, the Sturmgewehr 44. This did outsize damage in one of the most violent battlefield environments in history, the Eastern Front. Some even think it could have changed the course of the war had it been issued earlier. And it’s interesting too that it was not all that different from the M1 carbine, which some have called the first assault rifle. But the difference in performance was real. Exactly what was responsible is a matter of interpretation. Was it as little as the difference between a pistol caliber cartridge and an intermediate rifle cartridge? At any rate, there was a genuine difference between a great front line weapon and a great support weapon. I would agree that the carbine is an ingenious mechanical design and a successful infantry weapon, but calling it a great gun seems, potentially, a little misleading.
What do you mean CO2 is not air? It is a component of such. Plants would not be happy campers without CO2. Neither would we, actually. The plants take in the CO2 and give off O2, which we prefer.
RR, I agree that CO2 is much like air, but the difference (and the reason I don’t care for this power source) is that when it is compressed in the manner used for “airguns”, it becomes a liquid. And then, as it is used, it must change state, i.e. it goes from liquid to gas. This change of state – evaporation – always results in a lot of temperature shift. Evaporation is a cooling process, and in this case a powerful one. The parts of the gun that are exposed to the evaporation will be cold. So the process of releasing the pressure to initiate firing the projectile is going to absorb heat, and the entire process is affected by temperature. So as the ambient temperature drops, the system is affected – if that heat absorption is slowed down (as though the gun were in a freezer) the amount of liquid changing to pressurized gas is lower, as that evaporation is slower. HPA in our PCP’s does not change state, it is always a gas. That’s why it is better as a propellant, in my view.
I concur. I have no CO2 guns.
So in general an airgun is any manner of low powered gun that propels a projectile without the use of an ignited component? Propane is flammable and may explode but in this use it is not ignited.
Well, that wouldn’t be a legal definition, but it probably is exactly correct! That is how the world in general and people individually see airguns. As I said in the report, there are some who are very legalistic and won’t even call CO2 guns airguns, but more people would follow your definition.
If it’s not a firearm, it’s an airgun. What doesn’t quack like a duck or walls like a duck is not a duck.
You can’t say low powered. Big bore PCP’s and the old Lewis & Clark guns are not low powered. 700 ft lbs of energy from the Umarex Hammer is a good example.
I therefore amend my definition also based on Shootski pointing out that there steam catapult could also be construed as such.
An airgun is any manner of gun that propels a projectile without the use of an ignited component.
That means the HW 54 Barakuda which ignites ether when an ampule is also loaded is a firearm.
What about a pellet propelled by an absence of air?
What do you consider that to be, an anti air gun?
That has been done. It’s called a vacuum gun. Works best at sea level.
I believe the duck quote came from Dan Rather.
Dan Rather (bless his Texas heart) may have made the phrase popular, but he did not originate that concept. Like many of his ideas, purely Euro.
Actually the first attributions predate the Euro usage and are tentatively credited to a poet from the state roughly mid nineteenth century.
The phrase is often misquoted and should use “swims like a duck” instead of walks like duck.
I belive Occam’s Razor (sometimes given as: Ockham’s Razor) is a better one for this (logic) debate about what is an airgun. Since this is turning into a competition of theories and legalities; the simplest one is most often the best!
Therefore an airgun launches a projectile from a bore of some length using compressed air or a constituent liquid or gasious component of Earths atmosphere used as a gas. Also think of Steam Catapultson aircraft carrier!!! FIFTY plus tons from Zero to 200 MPH in under two seconds. Now that’s some FPE! The launch officer is called The Shooter.
Now let’s all get out there with the gun of your choice and blow some gas around and less HOT air! Lol!
Here’s a look at what can be done without any air at all https://www.pyramydair.com/blog/2009/04/the-gasser-kanardly-vacuum-gun/
You did notice the date it was posted didn’t you?
Oh my, no I did not I guess I put the I b in gullible.
Let me add another source of “air” that has been used to propel a BB. In the 1980’s, I purchased a “machine gun” BB launcher that fired BB’s in great volume. It was powered by a can of refrigerant (Freon) which you used to charge the AC system of your automobile. You need to remember that in those days you could walk into any auto parts store and purchase a one pound can on sale for 99 cents. You then screwed the can to the bottom of your BB “machine gun” and the liquid refrigerant would turn into a gaseous state (just like the cycle in your auto AC system) and propel a whole lot of BBs out the barrel.
Now while this BB gun was a hoot to shoot, just like in basic physics, as the liquid was lowered in pressure and cooled, you were limited to how much you can use the propellant before it frosted over and stopped functioning.
Just like any shooter, once the can was empty, you just added another cheap can of refrigerant and it was “loaded” again.
This is frowned on today as Freon is destructive to the ozone layer in the atmosphere. I assume using this BB gun today would not only be very expensive, not only for the can if you can find one, but also the fine for pollution.
Bob in Pearland, TX
Yes, the Larc BB machine gun was a hoot to shoot.
Thanks B.B.! A very interesting read!
An easy subject for us to banter around but, as you say it must be giving the law-makers fits. In Ontario they cover it off by defining a “firearm” and specifying what firearm(s) are permitted for what game animal.
Copied from the Hunting Regulations…
Firearms include rifles, shotguns, muzzle-loading guns, air or
pellet guns, bows and crossbows. You may use semi-automatic or
repeating firearms for hunting in Ontario, but not handguns that are
restricted or prohibited firearms or fully automatic firearms. Air
and pellet pistols with a muzzle velocity less than 152 metres (500
feet) per second may be used for hunting in Ontario.
Maybe the Brits have it right in regulating by energy levels. A .177 at 700-800 fps can be a backyard plinker but a .50 at the same velocity is a totally different animal (beast??).
So, just to stir the pot. As a kid I made a crossbow that was designed to shoot “fence staples” – what kind of a duck would that be? 🙂
Always fun to read about the Sharpshooter pistols. Once upon a time I sent one with it’s original box to Burleson.
Seems like the HW Barakuda should be in the mix in today’s article since it used ether ampules to assist in firing pellets. I only shot the one I owned about 5 times and each time it made me nervous.
I may use the Sharpshooter you sent for the test! Thank you.
Ah — the HW 54 Barakuda! How to classify it? It uses a chemical explosion with the rapid compression of the piston to ignite the charge. Is that a firearm? Well, since the VL cartridge is ignited the same way and we know that it is considered a firearm, I guess the answer is yes.
All I know is that when I posted an ad to sell the HW 54 Barakuda on the old Yellow Forum Classifieds the ad was removed immediately because they considered it a firearm and they were following the BATF guidelines. Ended up selling it on gunbroker.
No kidding? I haven’t heard of that before! I see so many of them at airgun shows.
Sorry for the delay. Had a tough couple of days. Still in hospital. My wife has instructgions. you’ll get a big gbox
Praying for a speedy recovery from whatever ails you.
I’m adding you to my daily prayer list. May you walk out of there soon.
Here in Michigan, we don’t have bb guns anymore. We haven’t had bb guns since 2015. Now we offically and legally have “pneumatic guns”.
(d) “Pneumatic gun” means any implement, designed as a gun, that will expel a BB or pellet by spring, gas, or air. Pneumatic gun includes a paintball gun that expels by pneumatic pressure plastic balls filled with paint for the purpose of marking the point of impact.
Thank you for that information. And as I recall, Michigan also has some peculiar law regarding air pistols with either rifled or smooth bores?
We sure did until 2015. Then the Air Gun Reorganization Act was signed into law that brought Michigan’s definition of firearm into line with the Federal law. Up until 2015 air pistols, now “pneumatic guns”, that were greater than .177 or had rifled barrels had to go through an FFL. Before 2015, Pyarmyd wouldn’t ship air pistols to Michigan. Of course some people just drove to Ohio where there was no such foolishness.
Ok so when we ask the question to some one about a air gun. Yes air gun. And they never seen one for whatever reason. How do we explain to them what it shoots and how it shoots that projectile that we call pellets or round balls or even bullets.
Something propels the projectile. It’s a type of pressure that doesn’t ignite. And yes some propellents could ignite. But that’s not how a air gun uses it’s propellant.
A air gun doesn’t ignite a fuel sorce. It uses pressure of that fuel source to propel it.
I could use nitrous oxide or as every one calls it now days. Nitrous or NOS. By itself it’s not combustible. But add a fuel source and ignite it. Then it’s “fire” that makes the pressure to move the projectile.
To me if it combusts to make the projectile move down the barrel then it’s a firearm.
If there is no combustion to move the projectile then it’s powered by pressurized air. ???
Or should I say pressurized gasses.
Ok em-ge update I have so much to report that I don’t have time for everything today. So as far as barrel lockup after getting the wedges oriented properly I ended op using a hole punch and putting a small circle of thin cardboard under the stationary wedge increasing the tightness of the guns lock up. I’m also expecting a shipment of .177 pellets today so I’ll be updating periodically this weekend. However here’s a preliminary 5 shot group at 10 yds using JSB 8.4 pellets one flyer that I’m not sure about but things are looking up.
Here it is
I think definitions are most usefully based on propulsion method, and there seems to be a fundamental difference between compressed gas and chemical explosions. True that the power can overlap and that the most powerful airgun is more powerful than guns using caps and primers. But that doesn’t change the fact that chemical reactions have potentially much more power than you can get from compressing gas. I would classify catapult guns as slingshots. To deal with overlapping performance between types, a definition could include both power plant and actual power level.
For compression of gas, I have wondered if you could get different performance depending on the type of gas. However, that doesn’t seem to be the case among the types of gas used like CO2, pure nitrogen, pure oxygen, and air. As I read into thermodynamics, I think I may be understanding the reason. What is called an ideal gas is one where the molecules are so dispersed that they have no chemical influence on each other. So, the nature of the molecules does not matter in the gas phase, only the dispersion which is controlled by temperature and volume. I suppose that you can get gases which change phase at different temperatures like CO2, but all you get out of that is a gas that can liquefy which makes it unusable. In gas form, it works like any other gas. In any case, access is always an issue and the abundance of atmospheric air will always make it the propellant of choice for airguns.
It appears that the major division between types of projectile weapons is the means of energy storage. On the one hand, we have mechanical energy storage, whether it is compressed air, a spring, etc. On the other hand, we have chemical energy storage.
Would battery-powered rifles constitute a third category (electrical)?
One could also view them from the viewpoint of energy density. What we consider “airguns” range on the low end of energy density when you consider all of the parts which must exist in order to re-charge the system for a new round.
In any case, a very enjoyable blog post, and excellent food for thought!
Energy density is certainly at the core. What if we add a weak force weapon with the greatest energy density w humans have managed to release; I dare not say harness atomic/nuclear energy.
As far as airgun power the volume and mass of gas flow is an issue for most designs; He (Helium has been shown to provide large increases in both) no other factors changed with resultant increases in MV (muzzle velocity.)
I wonder how I can garner respect in the community when I want to make airguns that shoot pingpong balls and tennis balls at high speeds.
You have my respect already. That kind of sounds like a potato gun that uses hair spray and a Coleman stove striker in a PVC set up. It would be all about (fit to bore).
Seriously, friend had pvc combination that could shoot beer can size projectiles. Left big dents in corregated tin roofing. I support the production of air cannons. 🙂
Do you mean like this: http://nerf.wikia.com/wiki/Ballzooka. These are fun! My family has four of them and when we get together we usually have a round of bonding blasting! Keeps us young.
Or do you mean the version from the middle of the last century that was red and clear plastic ND shot actual ping-pong balls. It was a slide or pump action as I recall.
Good by me too!
Not enough power, what you need is this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYNCGZCul1Q
Me likes! 🙂 So?,… I can take the 1/2″-20 thread on my Maximus muzzle,.. add a solid tube,.. cap the end (via foil),… pull a vacuum on the barrel (via side port on add on tube),… and then fire?
Or something along those lines anyways. 😉 (Theory being,…. fire under vacuum pressures)
Without air in the barrel the velocity should pick up quite a bit, but breaking thru the foil may remove any accuracy.
Interesting concept anyway.
If you wanted to really do that I would think that the breach seal would seal that end, than there would be a muzzle seal that was opened by the trigger. No additional propulsion would be needed. So an iris like a camera lens at both sides that would be vacuum tight. Release the barrel end and then at the right time open the muzzle. And you would have an anti-airgun.
Mike in ATL,
Thanks for sharing that! I remember fluidics did similar stuff in the lab. I like the concept and think it along with the booster ports shaped like inverse NACA vents along the barrel electronically opened as projectile passes by would be the BANG plus!
The Ballzookas are for fun that thing would hurt worse than a paintball or simunition!!!
There are still advances to be made in air gunning and we are probably going to see it in our life times!
Now THAT is way AIR!
There are those that built air launchers out of big pvc, yeah awesum to the max 🙂
Do you mean those black scoped PVC bazooka looking sabot launchers that get pumped up to 100psi, have a 9 volt battery electric garden sprinkler valve that transfers air ASAP and can put a 1/2″ diameter steel bolt through 3/4″ plywood and makes an outrageous sound when fired …. They don’t exist and were never offered in adds in gun magazines ….Shush. 🙂
I’ve only seen schedual 40 white pipe as I think it has a high use pressure. Sounds like the method.
I better get away from this topic before I invest in any lawn art
Don’t get me started on spud guns.
My brother made one that had interchangable barrels. They were different diameters as well as legnths.
Let’s just say the right diameter barrel and legnth made for a very interesting result. Rembsr the old galvanized trash cans. Well at 50 yards it almost smashed one side of the car to the other. And it was powered by hair spray and a BBQ grill electronic igniter.
Oh yeah. By the way that’s part of what our 4th of July consists of. And yes the 4th of July is one of my favorite holidays. 🙂
Last night I was tortured with the thoughts of air cannons, and what I could use as a projectile, as I looked over my wine corks…
Why not. That would be one heck of a cork gun. 🙂
Only if you are making your own valves. Are you doing a sprinkler valve or a diy coaxial valve?
Nice article. The pics of the old stuff is really cool. Maybe some would show up in the Blue Book.
For me,.. if it has a cartridge and bullet in the cartridge (with gun powder),.. it is a firearm,.. and should be legislated as such.
Anything else is an air gun to me, regardless of how the projectile is propelled down the barrel, and should be legislated as such.
Then again,… I am not a fan of legislation in the first place. (Serious tongue biting occurring about now),… just sayin’. 😉 …or rather,.. NOT sayin’. Just sayin’.
As for anyone using a nail gun cartridge in a .22 PB rifle,..and using it to propel a pellet… to me, that is a firearm. People will always find a way to push the existing normal.
P.S.,.. I did look for the Firearms News mag. today while shopping,… and found it,.. but it must be an older issue as there was no mention of you and the Air Force article. Will keep an eye out,.. as you said that it is your best work to date
That is the June 2018 Issue 12.
What’s up with the dragonfly?
Anyways airguns use a gas of some kind. The catapults are just refined slingshots.
He always does get us on the 1st of April every year or so until we realize the date.
Yes I used that same blog. Another mistake I made with the first seal was not allowing for the thickness of the leather so it was less than 1/4” actual wall /lip height, coupled with leather as limp as a wet noodle and detonation all contributed.
Ok the em-ge, well I blew it up Wednesday. The first seal I made blew out almost immediately I had soaked it in Pellgun oil over night and it was extremely pliable and the 1/4 lip of the parachute just blew back. So I made a new seal with a taller lip about 1/2” tall soaked it over night and it seemed to work ok. However I was getting a lot of smoke with every shot and occasional dieseling or now I’m thinking actual detonation. I thought about the Pellgun oil being petroleum based but I wasn’t concerned because this is a low powered airgun. Obviously I’m no stranger to embarrassment ( vacuum gun) so I’m going to show a pic of what’s left of the seal. It also popped the head off the seal screw. That I think was a direct result of the seal wall being too tall and slamming into the compression chamber. Part two coming soon.
I’m assuming you used these instructions: https://www.pyramydair.com/blog/2007/12/how-to-make-a-leather-piston-seal/
I think you sized it smaller than the cylinder’s bore allowing it to travel without sufficiently expanding to slow it down or you are using a very loose fitting pellet.
Wow!,…. that hit very hard. The threads are compressed at the head end and the fact that the head broke off AND split is amazing. Heck,… it even looks to bent. The end of the bolt looks to have stripped threads too. Maybe the female side could benefit from a bottom tap.
I admire your desire to keep it leather, but if I was fooling with it,… I would be looking at synthetics.
The original bolt head was very thin almost like an elevator bolt. I thought the end of the bolt was purposely made with a taper on the end, and yes I retapped the female threads.
An elevator (type) bolt would have been my first choice as well.
Chores are done I’m back so after looking at everything I made a new seal this time a true 1/4” wall/ lip and after it dried in the mold instead of using Pellgun oil I used pure silicon oil I had and forgot about, but found when I cleaned the barn a couple weeks ago. This is oil I got when we relocated a turtle wax plant and one of the maintenance guys hooked me up with a quart of the good stuff. Instead of soaking it over night I just applied it to the outside of the seal a couple times this way the seal retains some ridgidity. As far as the screw, I had a 5 mm socket capscrew ground it down to the bottom of the Allen key socket then cut a screwdriver slot in it. Since the original screw had a large head I had to back it up with a thin small fender washer. So now ive put about a hundred shots through it it seems ok no smoke no dieseling. I’m going to take it back apart tonight or tomorrow and will take some pics.
This is off topic today
In reading Thursday’s blog I realized that I had not shot my M-rod in about two months. I corrected this but the reason behind it is because the Gauntlet has been so much fun that it is hard to put aside. Initially I had to take the bottle off to get it to start filling but other than that I have not made any changes to it.
My Gauntlet is definitely a shooter. I’ll say this quietly. But it’s definitely worth more than what they charge for it. Very, very happy with mine so far. And I’m still keeping my eye out for the .25 caliber gun.
And I haven’t owned a Marauder rifle for some time now. But I had good results with the ones I had. I had them in all calibers and in gen1 and 2 all calibers. I had one .22 caliber Marauder rifle that wasn’t good but the other was. They was very accurate. Especially the .177 and .25 gen 1 and 2 Marauder rifles.
And that’s why we keep the accuate ones. 🙂
Ouch is right.
Seems there is always something to be learned with these air guns isn’t there.
Have you seen this video yet?
Why yes I have. Thank you! Info. is limited. I did join the Daystate owners site and while I am still learning to navigate it,… it does appear to have all of the info. that anyone would ever need. It should be here Wed. 6/20. I am having it delivered to a PakMail store.
I do not want some low down, scum sucking maggot following the UPS truck and making off with my new beauty 30 seconds after it delivered. With work, it will likely be the weekend before it gets a good look over.
I did get an extra bed pillow the other day,.. just so she will be comfy. 😉 Ok,… not really,… but you get the “general” idea.
Well there you go. A Daystate. From what I heard about them you made a good choice for brand.
What caliber did you go with? I’m like scringing right now. I know you like .22 caliber for some reason. Did you go .22 or did you go .25? I know RidgeRunner was talking .30 caliber. That caliber would definitely interest me. I have been bouncing back and forth about getting a upper caliber air gun. But so far the .25 caliber has served me well. Out at longer distances I’m talking anyway.
It will be interesting to see how it does for you. And knowing you we could see a long term test here of how it does.
So did you get a good scope this time for it?
And I read that one link the other day. And I’m curious how the battery holds up in it.
.25,.. because I like to shoot 100 yards. The battery goes in the pistol grip. No scope yet. Thinking about a 24-32 max. mag.. The 16 on the UTG was awesome on target clarity. I will be taking my time on scope choice. And,… rings.
.22 was a better choice for economy (pellet cost),.. but for no more than what I shoot,… the .25 is better for long range stability.
Imagine if you shot left and you wanted something very good. Look around. You do not see much. Like the TX,…. I was forced to go all the way to get what I wanted.
I did mention the other day,… by the way,… that the M-rod with RAI and 6 position and RAI offset and the bolt flip made me (appreciate) all that. It fits.
It will be interesting to see how it goes. There is some learning curve due to the tech.. Like I said,… I will be taking my time. The acquisition was a bit of rush due to the limited quantity. I had to move pretty fast. Only 200 and only 50 of that made it to the U.S..
Man, what a gorgeous airgun. That 50 yard group was very impressive. I would be afraid to use it for fear of scratching it. This looks like the Ferrari of airguns. Unfortunately not many of us can afford a Ferrari though. I’ll have to stay with a Chevy or Buick and just dream about the Ferrari.
Looking forward to your comments on this beauty. You are such a lucky guy 😀
Now this is a FATHERS DAY PRESENT! Happy Fathers Day Chris.
Thank you. Yes, it should be nice to shoot. See this AM’s comment to GF1 and that will help explain some of the reasoning behind the choice, plus the prior comments to RR and GF1.
As for economics, I am single and not a Dad. I am not paying to send kids through college,.. nor could I. I live very simple, work hard and save well. Simple as that. I am (not even close) to anything that resembles well off. Trust me.
I looked the FX line over real hard, but nothing fit the total want list. I would have been happy with something else if it had everything I wanted. It just so happened that this had it all and is a fine looker as well. Supposedly, it is the best features of their entire line up, rolled into one package. Without looking again, I am not even sure anything else in their line up fit what I wanted. What does that tell you on choice?
Remember too, I shoot left. That eliminates nearly 90% of what is out there and in my case I found it to be nearly 100%.
As for scratching it. I got that covered,…. as soon as I get it, it will get wrapped in 3 yards of bubble wrap and remain in that. I figure this will work out good too for carrying stuff out to the bench. Instead of having to carry the rifle, I can just kick/roll it out to the bench. I am not quite sure of just what hold to use for that though. 😉
I get your reasoning, and you deserve it too. I am glad you are able to afford exactly what you want. I too am a lefty, but an an early age I discovered that I was very right eye dominant and so I changed to shooting a rifle right handed. I shoot a bow left handed for the same reason. Now I am kind of ambidextrous and do some things left handed and some right handed.
I have developed some nerve damage or something in my left hand which causes it to shake to the point that I can barely write with that hand now. Pretty crazy but it is what it is.
I look forward to your comments about the new airgun. I think it is just great.
Sorry to hear that you are alone with no wife and no children…but happy Fathers Day anyway.
The one I got is the Serri Rosso edition. It has a hard case and the stock is more red with some black, whereas the std. Red Wolf (in the video RR linked) is more black with some red. The breech area is colored a bit different too. Other than that, it is the same as the one in the video.
The HP (high power) version has a longer barrel, which I got. The trigger has a post and shoe configuration that is fully adjustable. I look forward to trying that feature.
I still need to get some glass for it and really have only started to look at my options there,… so it will be awhile before it sees any range time. 🙁
And here I am wasting all these words when all I had to say was “WOW”. Yup,… that does sum it up pretty well. I could not even get that out when I first saw it. It is a bit foggy now,… but I do remember copious amount of drool! 😉
All looks (and kidding) aside, it was more about function and fit options that I was after.
When you get the best of form and function what not to like. I have been thinking along the same lines, I will be waiting for your results and review of the Serie Rosso. I am also waiting B.B.’s review of the RAW air rifle.
I would be looking for an etched glass and consider a first focal retical scope. I know you will be doing a lot of research and comparisons.
FFP and etched are a must. At least the etched anyways. While I have still yet to do any thorough scope research, FFP choices do seem “a bit” limited at this time. I do like the concept though. Reviews are a crap shoot. That is where it really pays to “read between the lines” as “they” say. Who is getting paid to say what they say?,… or something to that general effect. 😉
Firearm scopes do seem to be showing up more and more,… at least for PCP applications. That is a whole other world on offerings.
Will post results as I progress. Of course.
As for “thinking along the same lines”,… I can relate.
Would love to see some pictures of your new baby when it arrives. I know you have some difficulty posting pictures here in the blog. Do you have a digital camera? I don’t use a smartphone so I take my pictures with a digital camera and transfer them to my desktop computer. Then I open the picture in MS Office and compress the file size down to less than one MB so it will post. It sounds like a lot to do but it’s rather easy if you know how.
I know that GF1 helps you to post pictures too. Just want to let you know that I would be happy to help you with that anytime as well. You could email the picture to me and I would compress it for you and send it back so you could post it yourself if you liked. I could post it for you too if it would be easier. Just throwing that out there as a possibility. As I recall, you use a laptop to comment and post here. There are other programs capable of compressing a photo image size too. If you ever want, or need any instruction on how to do it…I am available. Have a good day Chris.
I am totally right handed and left eye dominate. I have never shot any rifle any other way than left. Shooting right is well,…. awkward beyond awkwards. I appreciate the offer for posting pics and may take you up on it someday. I have a dumb flipper that I thought I had hooked up via cord and they seemed to “see” each other,.. but no dice. No big deal for now. I will explore options later. I am pretty sure my dumb phone only has 1 of them pixel thingies anyways. 😉
I am sure it can not look any better than the existing video’s, so really there is nothing to see. A couple of guys unboxed one and did some reviewing. The one guy was a air gun writer and the other guy works for Daystate and was involved in the development. A 4 part-er I do believe.
Being single has it’s benefits. Mucho simpler for one. There is some real nut cases out there. I am getting too old to put up with crap. I am happy. That is what counts.
No matter my dominate eye or handedness, I shoot Daisy no 25s either handed, as fast as I can, with either eye, upside down, sideways, and sometimes normal. I am getting better. 🙂
Oh yea,… M-rod = cheek riser too. Me like!
So what made you really go upper end this time?
I know what made me go FX at that time.
You should really look at the FX line again. With many of them you can change calibers in moments.
As for long range, the Extreme Benchrest winners have been using the FX Impact in .25. There is also a large selection in that caliber. With the .357 that I have and the .30 the selection of pellets is quite limited, but it is slowly growing. Fortunately the ones that are available are top shelf. With these larger calibers cast rounds become available though. I have a few I need to experiment with.
This reply goes with what I replied to Chris about why I do choose the two FX Monsoons I had.
I was looking for a good quality gun and heard alot good about the FX brand. And I figured that was the reason they cost so much. Around $1800 for one of them.
But here is the other part of why I won’t get another one. The first one I had worked great. The second one went back for warrenty work 3 times. And each time it took about 3 weeks to get the gun back. Well that’s not what I expect out of a $1800 gun.
So no I will not be looking at a FX gun again unless someone gives me one.
That’s crazy! You know all manufactured products, including airguns, can have defects. The bigger thing is, how does the company respond to the problem. Customer service is everything and if they had handled your problem promptly and fixed it right the first time, you would probably not have that bad taste in your mouth about the FX airguns. Shame on them, and it’s good to know how FX handles quality problems in the field. Don’t blame you one bit for not wanting to try another one. They really should have offered to compensate you for your trouble.
Yep that would of made me feel better about spending that much money on the gun if they fixed it right the first time. And as I have said before. 3 strikes and your out. Two times in for repair was to much really let alone three times.
And I should mention the gun didn’t go back to FX to get fixed. It went back to were I got it from. They are a authorized repair place for FX. And just to say it wasn’t PA or AGD were I got the FX guns from. And they did allow me to trade the gun in for a different brand gun. So they at least tryed on their part to make it right. And I have got other guns from them. It’s just that I won’t get a FX again. Just don’t want to spend that kind of money again. I have had better luck with lower cost guns. So that’s how I’ll go from now on.
They really do seem to be on the cutting edge of matching barrel twist to pellets. No? From what I gather,…. they are perfecting that more and more every day. Just a guess,… but I would bet that within 2 years that they will be selling pellet specific rifles. As in,…. this rifle does the best with 25.39 JSB’s.
Caliber swap does not interest me much. That is a whole other re-sight hassle.
Yep the smooth twist barrels are cool. And I do like the guns they offer. But…don’t want to take the chance spending that much money again and deal with taking a chance if it’s got problems.
I was not really speaking to the smooth twist design or their new one. I was speaking more (in general) in that they really seem to be taking twist variations and specific pellets to the next level. It will be interesting to watch going forwards. I would like to see them put out something like the Red Wolf in a regulated model with all of the adjustment options. (all of the bells and whistles) Non-electronic of course.
All of the nice ambi-options are nothing though without the bolt/lever flip ability.
Yep on the different twist rates that could be interchanged. I talked about that for a long time.
And maybe if they had a price point pcp that had those features for of course a good price. Then maybe I would give FX another thought. Until then I doubt it.
Price point,.. and all of the bells and whistles do not often come together,… if ever. Something has to give,… somewhere. Mods add cost and then what do you have? (MY) M-rod might be offered as an example of such? A fine shooter, but it took a bit of $ to get it to how I wanted it. Progress is being made though. In my opinion, the M-rod is a fine example.
That’s true. But also remember this price point pcp’s might just start catching on with more manufacturers.
Maybe somewhere down the line more manufacturers might have at least one price point pcp’s in thier lineup.
That would catch my attention.
I understand your feelings on that. When I get ready to drop some big bucks down, I give a lot of thought to it. Part of me regrets getting my RAW HM1000X because I have not been able to get any kind of response to various communications to them since I bought it. Fortunately they now belong to AirForce and I have been getting much better results through them.
Glad your getting a better response from AirForce now.
But now you make have to ask why was you trying to get ahold of them.
You been having problems with it?
I have not had any problems except the last time I shot it recently I lost a set screw for the bullet probe adjustment. I called AirForce and ordered the parts through them.
AirForce is now handling all communications with RAW. Now I can at least get answers to my questions and parts if I need them.
If I had known at the time that RAW was so uncommunicative, I would not have bought it. It is a superb air rifle, but the lack of communication with them is a big hit. I hope the quality remains top shelf now that AirForce owns them. We’ll see.
Well that’s good AirForce has the parts available too for the RAW. And yep that does make a difference.
With Air Force picking up RAW,…. from all of the other rouge start ups,… that must be saying something good about what/how they think of RAW. Me thinks,.. anyways.
I would say so too.
This is something else you should give much consideration to.
As far as rings, I really like these.
With long range shooting, you might want to give these serious consideration.
I have also been thinking about these particular mounts, but as a one piece it does present some issues. They are also very expensive.
Here are those bases.
Thanks for the links. I remember that adjustable base from awhile back and have it saved I think. If not, I did it again.
On the rings,…. did you use the elevation and windage adjustments in your set up?
(If so,… when did you adjust the elevation,.. and why? Same for the windage.)
For me,.. I would use the windage if was on at 50, right at 25 and left at 75,… for example.
I would use the elevation to build in some droop compensation to keep the elevation knob set lower,… for example.
Or am I missing other benefits/uses? I have not looked at them real seriously yet.
After a shot with the MRAB (or a MOAB if your scope is MOA) on my .308 DAQ I can read the MILDOT reticle distance my POINT is off From my POI and a simple twist of the elevation dial on the Cold Shot base and the next shot should be spot on. NOT being cranked to the limit of travel on Elevation and into the distortion is what I think makes this base worth the cost. Also, if you hunt you can use a balistic calculator for the shot and then correct the programs small error (almost always present) and add it to your DOPE quicker and then use it much more effectively for that one ethical shot you may be blessed with on a hunt at a much greater range han with standard rings and bases.
So in short: if you want to shoot long range tagets at varying distance it is a nice to have; however for long range hunting it becomes necessary if you want to be an ethical Hunter a bit farther out.
Ok,… first of all,…thanks for the info.. Second,…. most all of that went (way) over my head! 😉 Just being honest.
I did however make note of a “cold shot” base and will be looking further into it. I like easy. I like sure.
I learn what I can, when I can. I do not live and breathe the stuff. I can tell from your previous post that you know a thing or two and I look forwards to learning more in the future.
100 yards on a regular basis is my ultimate reality with an air gun. If I can make that boring,… I am all ears. 😉
My bad Chris!
As a former instructor of various skills that means I failed you!
The adjustable bases/rings from the various providers will more than covered your needs even beyond 100 yards by at lrast another 50 yards. It will keep you using the center of your scope and away from the problems of max turret travel.
Starting with an optically centered scope mounted in the adjustable rings/base, the key is to measure the difference from your POA to your POI just like you do on a paper target with a ruler or calipers but instead you use your scope reticle. You adjust the adjustable ring the estimated (as you know it is a small amount for a big shift of POI) required up or down tighten the ring/base adjustment screw(s) and shoot. If on target you are good to go for that distance (ZERO) with that pellet and rifle settings. If not you just repeat until you are POA-POI the same without ever having touched the turret(s.) The adjustable rings and bases take the abuse instead of a much more delicate errector in a much more expensive scope.
Once that becomes boring you can think about spending the bucks for Cold Shot bases and one of those 2-4+ grand scopes to go with it!
When you have some time the do take a look at the videos and PDF manuals on the Cold Shot recision adjustable bases. They are a real learning tool and a way to avoid a lot of frustration with shooting out well beyond the NORMAL range of airguns and even powder burners.
Come to think of it! For Crossbows too! (Hope B.B. reads this too! Lol!!!!!)
Thank you. I have studied up on scopes in the past, but is has been a few. I understand what you say. For my range, 100 yards is max..
Then too, I am reminded of “turret turners”, like a sniper or some of the air gun pro’s that turn the turrets for every range. I am more of the hold over school myself. Of course, equipment repeatability and very good notes are must,.. whichever way one chooses to go.
A dot and dash reticle with windage marks on the bottom is the basic direction I am heading. The better UTG’s I have are very nice in that regards. Very crisp. None of mine have lower windage marks though. Also, FFP are of high interest as we discussed before.
Thanks again, Chris
I guess you didn’t get what shootski was talking about.
Rember that’s what we talked about back when you got your Tx. That’s why you got the drooper mount so you could keep the elevation turret adjustment in the middle of it’s adjusting range.
And remember we talked about some scopes when you make click adjustments that they don’t always accept or settle in on the first shot. That’s why I try to stay away from clicking the turret. I was going to say doping the scope. But that’s a little too different in meaning that what we are talking about. Doping is using notes from previous times to have some starting point on a similar shot. Kind of like when we make cheat sheets for holdover. And remember that’s why I like using lower magnification because it let’s your holdovers stay more at the center of the scope. That’s were the glass will be more optically true.
You may of forgot that’s how the conversations about mirror centering the turrets came about. You done been there and done all that just incase you forgot. 🙂
See my reply to Shootski just now. I do remember. It has been a few. I prefer hold over like you. Were we part ways is that I am looking at exploring the much higher mag. settings. 24+. At least 16+.
The 16 I shot at the other day was very nice at 100. I could hold/see much more exactly and the group sizes showed that. Front and rear bags would be the set up or some other front and rear set up. Like I said,…. still looking and just getting started again.
I had a 30 mm tube Hawke sidewinder scope on the Monsoon I had. It was one of the $500 24 magnification scopes. And I should add had a very thin etched glass 1/2 mildot reticle.
And the reason I’m bringing that up is I did shoot that gun at 100 yards also at my old house and out at my brother’s.
But here’s where I’m going with this. And this is what I done with it and how my .25 Condor SS and Maximus is set up. The Condor SS is and the monsoon was sighted for a 1 mildot hold under at 50 yards. The Maximus is sighted at a 1/2 mildot under at 50 yards just because I do shoot in at closer distances with it as well as out farther.
But what I’m getting at is if your using the high magnification with your new Daystate yo may want to sight it at 1 mildot under at 50 yards with 10 magnification. Then do some shots out at the hundred yards on the 24 magnification and see where your shots fall. That way you shouldn’t need as much holdover. And if I remember right you said you shoot up hill. So that should help you on your hold over too. Remember we talked about that with how range holds differ at angles verses level shooting.
But I will have to say that I did like that particular Hawke scope. It came with a big wheel and a pointer that you clamped on the scope tube so you could get precise stop points. Plus it all came with a bubble level that mounted on athe scope tube. Oh and don’t know if you were around when we talked about incline meters that you could mount on the scope also that showed what angle you was shooting. Yep had one of those on that scope that was on that Monsoon. I definitely should of kept that scope setup that was on that Monsoon. Oh well got good money for it all back then.
But just thought I would throw that out at you since you are ur wanting try the higher magnification shooting at longer distances.
Oh and remember when your using hold overs or hold under you have to be more aware of gun cant. The more hold over or under you use will show your POI off to POA. So the more stable and repeatable your hold needs to be. Plus as distance grows. A slight POA error will show a greater POI error. And I know you remember we talked about that already.
So if your new scope you pick out doesn’t have a bubble level with it you should get one. Just one more thing to help you get repeatable if your trying for the ultimate group at a 100+ yards. And yes I said a 100+. Rember when you was shooting in at 25 yards then 50 then finally 100. Heck I shoot pretty routinely out at 200 with my Condor SS. Just say’n. 😉
You have it right in your head, most especially with what Shootski and GF1 discussed with you. I set my scope to adjustable center and then adjusted the bases to as close as I could to zero the rifle at 50 yards. Then I fine tuned it with the scope. If you find you have a windage cant as you described you can then adjust the mounts to correct for such.
As Shootski stated, the Cold Shot mounts are for when you get real serious. They allow you to adjust for different ranges without you having to adjust the settings on your scope.
The one I got comes with a very nice case. But yes,… it would get one if not. Really though, that is open cell foam and BB has said that is a no-no for storage.
I looked the FX line over very hard. Some had ambi stocks. Some had cheek risers. I do not think the bolts flipped however. The Crown or Royal I think is where I ended up at. I was not going to do a right lever/bolt.
PCP, adjustable butt pad, adj. cheek riser, pistol grip/thumbhole stock, finger grooved grip, regulated, left bolt/ lever, magazine. All things I wanted. Try to find all that. That is why.
The large capacity mags. on the FX line really pushed/forced the scope up too. I did not care for that.
Supposedly too, loosen 2 set screws on the breech and the barrel comes right off, unlike the M-rod that has to be torn down to get the transfer port out of the way.
Read my reply to RidgeRunner above.
So,…. did anyone get any air guns or air gun related “goodies” for Father’s Day? I would think that Father’s Day would be the “big one”. Even more so than Christmas, maybe?