Artemis PP700S-A PCP pistol: Part 4

by Tom Gaylord
Writing as B.B. Pelletier

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3

Artemis
Artemis PCP air pistol.

This report covers:

  • Fill with Nomad II
  • Sight-in
  • The test
  • First group — Hades pellets
  • Remember…
  • Baracuda with 5.50mm heads
  • Second Baracuda group
  • Final pellet — the JSB Exact Jumbo
  • Next
  • Summary

It’s been a long time since we looked at this Artemis PP700S-A PCP pistol. Jungle Shooter — I haven’t forgotten.

Fill with Nomad II

Both my carbon fiber tanks are dedicated to other airguns right now and, for reasons of incompatibility, I can’t switch the fill adaptors. Neither hose’s female Foster fitting will accept the Artemis fitting. So, once again I used the super-handy Nomad II air compressor that is becoming an essential part of my equipment as time passes. I better ask Pyramyd Air to make me a price because I don’t think I can send it back.

I filled to 2800 psi because, although this pistol is rated to fill to 250 bar, when I tested it in Part 2 I discovered that the useful power curve starts at 2800 psi (193 bar). I know there are at least 20 good shots on a fill when I start at that pressure.

I had to read Part 3 to remember everything I had learned, and even then I overlooked one important thing that I will tell you about in a bit. However, for today’s test I scoped the pistol, and I want to address that first.

I mounted a UTG 1-4X28 variable scope with a parallax fixed at 100 yards. This is just the scope most of us wouldn’t look at twice — EXCEPT — it really works. The image is very clear, the reticle is clear and right-sized (Goldilocks reticle — not too small, not too big). Remember that this is going on a pistol, not a rifle. And the eye relief is less than 4 inches, so I have to hold it close to my eye to see the whole image. I’m sorry Pyramyd Air no longer carries this one, but at over $100, people just didn’t want a 1-4 power scope.

Artemis scoped
The Artemis scoped. I took this picture while holding a kitty in my hands, because she really wanted to be on the furry backdrop! When the pistol was removed she possessed it and slept there for a couple hours.

On the other hand — it works. And you will see that in a bit. I mounted it in 2-piece UTG 30mm P.O.I. high rings that Pyramyd Air no longer stocks. I shimmed the rear one, which was good because even then the Artemis shot low.

Sight-in

I fired the first shot from 12 feet and noted that it dropped 2.75 inches below the aim point when the center of the scope is about 1.75 inches above the center of the bore. That means the shot was at least an inch too low, so I cranked in a lot of elevation (several full rotations of the knob) and backed up to 10 meters to shoot the second shot. Shot two landed 1.5-inches below the aim point and in line with the first shot, so more elevation and a lot more left adjustment. Time to shoot some groups.

The test

I shot from 10 meters today with the pistol resting directly on a sandbag. I had planned to sight the pistol in with the scope at 10 meters, check for the best pellets and then back up to 25 yards, but the test got long as you will soon read. So all of today’s shooting is from 10 meters.

First group — Hades pellets

The first group is still an inch below the aim point and a half-inch too far to the left. I shot the group, though, to see if this pellet was right for the gun. I was shooting the JSB Hades hollowpoint that did the best by a slight margin in the last test. This time 5 pellets went into 0.585-inches at 10 meters. In the last test with open sights the best group with this same pellet was 0.716-inches between centers, so we are already better.

Artemis Hades group 1
The first group of 5 Hades pellets was shot without waiting for the regulator to recharge completely. It measures 0.585-inches between centers — much better than the 0.716-inch Hades group that was the best with open sights.

Remember…

And that was when it hit me! I hadn’t paused between the shots. In Part Three I learned to let 2 minutes pass between the shots to let the slow regulator in this pistol recharge. It does get faster as the pistol breaks in, but this one is still new. Sooooo — I shot a second group, and this time I waited between each shot. Oh boy! Four of the five pellets are in 0.315-inches, but the other shot (I think it was the second one) opens the group to 0.709-inches. Phooey!

Artemis Hades group 2
So near and yet so far! Five Hades pellets went into 0.709-inches when I waited 2 minutes between each shot. Oh, well.

Baracuda with 5.50mm heads

In the last test I found H&N H&N Baracuda pellets with a 5.50mm head seemed very accurate. So I tried them again with the scoped gun. They were off the aim point by 2.5 inches high and left, so after a LOT of scope adjusting I got them back on target. It appeared through the scope that the first two shots went wide and then shots 3 through 5 drilled the center of the bull. What I didn’t see until I went downrange to retrieve the target was that the last shot landed very low and almost off the target paper. I was really excited that the scope had “settled down” and I would have a great group to show if I shot again. But the actual group measures 1.229-inches between centers.

Artemis Baracuda group 1
This first group of Baracuda pellets looked good through the scope because the hole on the lower right was hidden by tape when I looked through the spotting scope. I thought the final three pellets went to the center of the bull, but the last one dropped to that lower hole. Five shots in 1.229-inches at 10 meters.

Second Baracuda group

Thinking the gun and scope had settled down (I hadn’t gone downrange yet) I shot a second group of Baracudas. This one measures 1.261-inches between centers. That’s actually a little worst than the first group. Baracudas are not for the Artemis.

Artemis Baracuda group 2
The second group of Baracudas was a little larger than the first group, at 1.261-inches between centers. I only discovered that when I retrieved the target.

Final pellet — the JSB Exact Jumbo

The final pellet I tested was the 15.89-grain JSB Exact Jumbo dome. I had to adjust the scope back to pretty close to where it had been fore the Hades pellet, as both pellets weigh the same. The first two shots landed separately on target but then shots 3 through five went into the first hole. So 4 pellets in 0.085-inches (where is that gold dollar?) with the last pellet (actually shot 2) opening the group to 0.371-inches. Oh, fudge!

Artemis JSB Exact group
Houston, the Eagle has landed! Five JSB Exact Jumbo pellets in 0.317-inches at 10 meters.

I believe we have arrived. Now, this is the point where somebody on the blog asks me to show them the inside of the action with the barrel removed. Sure — I’ll do that. Please sit right there and wait at your keyboard while I do it.

Next

We have heard from several readers who own one of these pistols that the Artemis is very accurate, but it takes some time to break one in. I think we are watching that happen in real time as this test progresses.

Next time I want to back up to 25 yards and, starting with the JSB Exact Jumbo that is now sighted in, I will test the accuracy again.

The scope is extremely easy to use with this pistol. I just have to hold the gun close enough that my eye can see the image through the eyepiece.

Summary

I  now declare the Artemis PP700S-A PCP air pistol to be , “Muy goodyoso!”

63 thoughts on “Artemis PP700S-A PCP pistol: Part 4


  1. BB,

    WARNING: The following is the express opinion of RidgeRunner and does not necessarily reflect such of Pyramyd Air, it’s affiliates or associates. This opinion should be taken with a grain of salt, unless you agree. Then it should become the “gold standard” of life.

    On that scope there are two issues why most people do not care for it. As you stated, the power is so low. The truth is 4X is a good magnification for hunting furry tailed tree rats. If you go above 6X you start having issues with finding your quarry. With the exception of the high enders, most sproingers are not good for hunting past 25 yards so why mount a 50X scope on one unless you are shooting FT and then I still question the wisdom of such.

    Likely the main issue with it is the parallax range. 100 yards? With an airgun? If I am shooting that far with any accuracy I am going to want a little more power than that. Yes, as you are demonstrating here it can still be used at closer ranges, but not ideally.

    PA was probably carrying this scope for the Mattelomatic crowd. They did not buy it as most of them were dreaming of shooting sub MOA at 500 yards because they have heard of the “legendary” accuracy of the Mattelomatic at longer ranges than this “dinky powered” scope is capable of.


    • YRR you hit the bullseye, from a distance more than 100 yards, with this comment, and you did it with a low magnification scope… If only more people realized what can be accomplished with good quality low power scopes. That is without any hint of diminishing the necessity of high power scopes for certain demands.
      Bill


      • Bill
        I shoot at 4 magnification.

        I have two of the UTG Leaper fixed power magnification scopes that the parallax is fixed at a 100 yards. I can see crystal clear from around 15 yards out to 100 yards no problem. That’s what the lower magnification does for the scope.

        Matter of fact is I have a 3-9 magnification 100 yard parallax scope on my Sig MPX. I have it on 3 magnification and shoot from around 15-40 yards plinking with no vision problems at all.

        And to say this is wearing my bifocal prescription glasses looking through my normal vision part of the glasses.

        Getting hung up on high magnification shooting makes you use your parallax adjustment if you have it. I say for those people to try out your gun with the scope set at 100 yards parallax and go down to 4 magnification and see how clear your scope is. Might get some surprised people after they try.


      • Bill,

        In my powder burner years, the most powerful scope my father and I had was a 12X mounted on a .25-06. It was for long range shooting. The deer rifles had a Quickpoint and a 2.5X post. The rimfires were mostly equipped with a 3-6X except for my favorite which had a 1.5-4.5X.

        More and more I find my high power scopes are going away and being replaced by smaller, lighter low power scopes. I am relearning what I knew fifty years ago.


    • R.R.,

      Low powered scopes are good for pistols as you say but your passionate dislike for the AR platform always make me want to shreek! The Stoner Battle Rifle has been upgraded over the past 50 years to the point that even with iron sights in the hands of a mediocre skilled Marksman can shoot to 300yards/meters with fantastic accuracy. Reliability issues are no problem if you occasionally clean it and run the thing wet with lubricant.

      END OF COUNTER RANT!

      shootski


      • RR and Shootski,

        Nobody hated the M16 platform more than I did. I shot it back in 1968 when it was still infused with all those bad things (slow twist, wrong powder and loads of engineering changes yet to be made) that gave it such a miserable reputation. It was horrible back then.

        But today I own an AR-15 that I have shown many times on this blog. I shoot it single shot because the cartridges are too long to feed through the magazine. And, at 600 yards, it will shoot its 77-grain bullet right along with the best .30 caliber and 6.5mm rifles. I haven’t cleaned it in 500 rounds and it still functions reliably and shoots great.

        The platform has been fixed, RidgeRunner. I almost replied to your comment this morning, but I had to now.

        B.B.


        • BB,

          LOL! I just knew I would get a rise out of that one!

          Hey, the Mattelomatic has come a long way. It had to. It was making it a lot easier for the enemy to kill our soldiers.

          As I said to Shootski up above, I was shooing the .223 when the Mattelomatic was born. I know what the cartridge is capable of. I too was shooting hand loads singly.

          I guess my main diss is it is still considered by our government as a battle rifle. I thought back then that this was a dandy varmint round, but a battle round?! You and I both know that no matter what the range, that .30 is going to do a whole lot more damage than the .223.

          It is also still made out of pot metal and plastic. 😉


      • Shootski,

        Go ahead and shriek. I do not mind.

        I was shooting the .223 cartridge when the Mattelomatic was born. I know what the cartridge is capable of. When I saw the version that the Seals were carrying, I immediately thought it was a dandy submachinegun. A battle rifle?! That is like calling a 9mm a battle sidearm. A good backup maybe…


        • R.R.,

          IIRC the adoption of the 5.56 x 45 mm round as the NATO standard was in 1963, Remington introduced a .223 caliber “civilian” version of the round not long after the NATO round the following year (1964.)

          shootski


          • Shootski,

            Being a dumb old hillbilly, I am a bit slow. What does IIRC mean? I see it all the time, but I am not up on that newfangled “smart” phone language. I only speak American.


  2. BB,

    Here are some groups that I shot with my Onix Sport with a shoulder stock at 13 yards. I shot them from a bag pretty much as soon as I got the gun and stock. No real break in period. I’ll post a pic of the gun first. I’m pretty sure it’s the same as the Artemis with a different name.

    Half



  3. B.B.
    Question, my first airgun was a Crosman Nitro Venom gas spring breakbarrel. It came bundled with a Centerpoint 3-9×32 non AO scope. As a newbie, I was not aware of the need for an adjustable parallax, or even what that meant. I was attempting to shoot at distances of 25 yards, or less, and the image was fuzzy and not very clear. I discovered that I could adjust the objective lens manually by removing the exterior ring at the front. There were a couple of slots on the ring inside that housed the lens and I was able to rotate the lens a bit to make the image clear and reduce the parallax at the shorter distances. I am not sure what the fixed parallax of that scope was, but I was able to make it usable by adjusting that front lens. Is this something that could possibly be done on your UTG scope? Or, maybe at the lower power, it is a non issue?
    Geo


    • George,

      Yes, most scopes with fixed parallax can be corrected to be clear at closer distances that way. My late friend, Mac, was going to writer a guest blog about that for me.

      The one problem with some scopes can be that you lose the nitrogen inside when you open them up to do that.

      B.B.


    • Geo,

      The current Centerpoint 3-9×32 is parallax free at 50 yards. If you’re a good shot, and I’m not, you put your eyeball in the same place for every shot and parallax becomes a non issue. I have not been able to figure out how to do that with a pistol scope and it is causing accuracy issues with my P17 because there is quite a bit of error ( over 3/4 ” side to side and up and down ) at 13 yrds with the cheap scope I have mounted. Do they make A.O. pistol scopes? This scopes front ring doesn’t come off, at least not yet. I may have to put Maximum Effort into it soon though, if you know what I mean. It is no good as is for what I want it for.

      Half




          • Halfstep
            Neither of the ones you just said. Here this.

            “The current Centerpoint 3-9×32 is parallax free at 50 yards.”

            What magnification on this scope. And I don’t see anything about these other scopes in the comment I replied to.

            “The 4 X 32 Daisy / Winchester scope only has 4 power, if your talking about the one on the ONIX. The one on the P17 is a 2.5 X 30 pistol scope.”

            It was your comment to Geo. You made it sound like you have shot that scope and know that it’s parallax free.


      • Geo,

        Just had a chance to apply that Max effort and was able to get the end cell loose and readjusted on both of my pistol scopes. They are now parallax free at 13 -20 yards.

        Half


        • Halfstep
          I keep hearing you say parallax free. To me that means move your head and the reticle moves.

          What about good focus at a given parallax setting at multiple distances and not adjusting parallax. Low magnification is the way to accomplish that.

          That’s what I’m talking about with using high or low magnification.

          And when I talk low magnification I mean 6 mag and under.


          • GF1,

            Sorry it took awhile to respond. My wife and I had to step out to keep Dr. appointments.

            1) When I say “parallax free” I mean the reticle DOESN’T move relative to the target.

            2) I don’t own the Centerpoint scope and I’m sorry that assumption caused the confusion. The information was available online so I looked it up out of curiosity and shared what I found with Geo and anyone else that was curious.

            3) The comment that you hung your question on also included a discussion of the parallax problem that I was having with a pistol scope on my P17. In another comment in this report I mentioned the scope on my Artemis clone, the ONIX. For that reason I didn’t know what scope and gun you were asking about. Since I didn’t say that I had ever shot with a Centerpoint scope, it didn’t occur to me that that might be the scope you were asking about.

            4) “What about good focus at a given parallax setting at multiple distances and not adjusting parallax. Low magnification is the way to accomplish that.”

            I don’t know how to respond to that because I’m not certain that I understand what you are asking. Are all of my scopes always in perfect focus when I get the parallax corrected, sometimes yes, sometimes not ,perfectly. I use scopes in the first place because I have very poor eyesight. My ultimate goal is just to have a sighting system that serves me better than iron sights.

            If you are asking me how I feel about adjusting the Power ring instead of the Objective’s focal point to correct for parallax, I’d have to say I don’t see how that would work. If you can point me to the science of that I’ll read it.

            5) All my scopes are cheap and none are more than 9 power. Because they are cheap, I’d be surprised if they were actually 9 power, probably less, if I had to guess. So if 6X is your cutoff point, I probably always shoot at low power or very close to it.

            Half


    • Geo,

      Just had a chance to apply that Max effort and was able to get the end cell loose and readjusted on both of my pistol scopes. They are now parallax free at 13 -20 yards.

      Half



  4. ….and these are 10 shots at 30 yards from a bag. BTW the scope is just a Daisy / Winchester 4 X 32 AO.

    The groups on the left are sub 1″ and the ones on the right are near 1″



  5. BB ,

    Next time You re-air the pistol , put some silicon oil in the fill probe . This should get to the regulator plunger and free it up so it recovers faster , sounds like a dry regulator plunger . This works on any regulated PCP .

    Gene






          • BB
            Well there’s another ate up comment.

            “On top of that this one is going away after the next review.”

            So you test a gun, your excited about it’s performance then your done. I’m think that there is behind the scene issues that cause this all the time. But it sounds like you feel you done your duty and that’s enough and now your done.

            That’s what I see. It just seems like you cut things short all the time but you sure are wound on taking up time on the 10 yard test. So be it. Your way of thinking I guess.


            • GF1,

              Yes I do cut my reports short. First because I have too many other things in the pipeline and second, because people get tired of things after the third report. I have been studying this for the past 14 years and have seen that pretty consistently.

              B.B.


              • BB
                That’s what I meant by my comment.
                ” I’m thinking that there is behind the scene issues that cause this all the time.” You sending the gun back before we know other important things about the gun.

                And of course you have been studying it for 14 years.

                So you think it would boost the guns power if you raised the regulated pressure. Looks like more study time to me. It could go both ways. Again depending on the guns valve and striker spring pressure. You could slow the gun down and increase shot count by raising the guns regulated pressure. Or loose shot count and increase velocity.

                That’s why I say tuning the guns regulated pressure is very important if you don’t have the other adjustments on the gun.

                And I don’t care what other guns you have exsperianced it on. Have you tryed adjusting the regulated pressure yet on this one like Bill suggested.


              • BB,

                If you tried to answer all the questions that I sometimes think of after one of your reports, with your own experimentation, you may have found that you only got through about a fourth of the reports that you’ve done since I started following your blog. What you do report inspires me to do my own “work” to satisfy the curiosity that you woke in me. That being said, I’m not one of the readers that loses interest after 3 reports, so when your own curiosity leads you to the 6th, 7th, even 8th report, rap on, brother, rap on! Detractors should write their own blog.

                Half


        • Bill
          No problem. I just wish more would see that low magnification shooting does work. Literally.

          And in my opinion if you can’t adjust a transfer port flow or how the striker hits the valve then yes adjusting the regulator gives the most efficiency out of the guns air use.


        • Bill
          This is something else with adjusting to a higher regulator pressure.

          If the gun again had a fixed transfer port flow and the striker hit can be adjusted you could actually slow the guns velocity down by increasing the regulated pressure. Which maybe is what someone would want. It all depends on balancing the system.

          As it goes it all depends on how deep you want to go.


          • GF you are certainly right but as I have already mentioned, in part one I believe, striker power and air transfer are also adjustable. Pitty that the test will be over on part 4. So much adjusting potential for such a low price deserves a deeper look.
            Bill



              • GF1,

                I seriously think that you would love this gun as a carbine. It would require buying the folding stock (about $100) in addition to the gun, but you would have a platform that had an adjustable trigger, an adjustable hammer strike, an adjustable transfer port, and an adjustable regulator, although the regulator IS a little squirrely at this point, I admit. I’m hoping that Gene’s suggestion with the silicone oil will straighten that out. And it can be shot as a pistol with the folding stock still attached.

                I posted photos of how accurate my .177 cal version of the gun is using a cheap scope ( $30 ish ) that is both low powered and can be adjusted for parallax, though I don’t guess you’d need that feature. But it’s there if you do. The gun is flat accurate, in spite of any regulator issues, out to 30 yards. That’s a pretty good distance, I think, when we are talking about a pistol.

                I know that you like to tinker and modify your guns, but this one already has about every feature and adjustment you could ask for ( lengthening the barrel would take some work, but as a machinist, you could do that more easily than most ). You could kill A LOT of time just experimenting with all the features that are already on the gun.

                If you ever fool with one, and I’m guessing you will if you give it some thought, let us know your results.

                Half


        • Arcadian,

          I remember doing some adjustments to the regulator and the transfer port screw when I first started testing the gun without the stock. I was plotting the shot curve with a few pellets and was getting more of a roller coaster than a curve ( the graph went up slowly then peaked , went down slowly, then back up, then back down over about 60 shots) and hoped that adjusting the reg up or down would make it steadier. It did raise and lower the range of velocities but it was still a roller coaster. The transfer port adjustment had little effect until it was practically closed off. I even tried firing every 6 seconds, which is as fast as I can load the gun, and firing every 90 seconds to see if the gun grafted differently. It didn’t. So I put everything back like it was and started shooting groups when I got my stock. After seeing the groups that I was getting ( there are some pics elsewhere in this comment section ) I didn’t care about the weird velocity plots. It didn’t seem to make any difference at the distances that I was shooting. I do intend to put some silicone oil in the tank to see if that frees up the reg, but I don’t intend to do much monkeying with a gun that shoots this well.

          Are you saying that your gun regulates better now at a higher setting? Can you post what your shot curve is like? I’m afraid more speed could destabilize the pellets out of my gun and would be reluctant to just crank it up for more power.

          Half


          • Halfstep
            At least you tryed with your gun is the big thing.

            And I guess you didn’t read my comment.

            So raising regulated pressure would increase velocity? That’s not going to happen unless you can adjust the striker to hit the valve with more spring pressure.

            I’m sitting here wondering what you mean. How do you believe that increasing regulated pressure will give you more velocity. The only way that would happen is if you don’t have your striker spring set right.

            Or am I missing some tune secret that’s flying past me.


            • GF1,

              I adjusted the regulator on this gun UP and DOWN and the velocity went UP and DOWN. I don’t know why you wouldn’t expect that to happen. It is a fact, in fluid dynamics, that if you increase the pressure on one side of an orifice, the flow of the fluid through that orifice will increase.

              Half


          • I’m afraid that this comment will have to wait for awhile since I left it at the country house. Please keep in mind that mine is now .25 cal. As far as I can recall it is quite powerful on the lower green area. I promise to do the crony testing when I have the chance.
            Bill


  6. B.B.
    So, I went ahead and put the somewhat heavier UTG 2×7/44 with 30mm tube scout scope on a pistol. It has electronics in it,which I don’t really need, but what the hey, it comes with, and focuses down to 10 yds.
    Coming from a BSA Edge 3×7 variable that is parralax adjusted to just 35yds I think, there is no comparison.
    Its like going from an old BW t.v. set to IMAX.
    For off hand shooting, a bit much, sure. But for the bench, works great. Nice pistol scopes start at around $400. or so ? It was about $170. My favorite scope so far, better than my full sized leapers 4×16 with AO and a newer 4×16 UTG, because its half the size of those good scopes, that don’t work on a pistol. Great dual purpose piece of kit.
    1stblue


  7. BB,
    I think you are suffering accuracy issues due to not being able to keep you eye in one location for a whole group.
    I think a scope with proper AO would get rid of the fliers you are getting. I think using a rifle scope on a pistol magnifies the issue because you do not have a cheek piece to keep you head in a constant place in relation to the scope.

    David Enoch


    • David,

      I should have explained that I hold the eyepiece in my left had with my hand against my eyebrow. The hold is the same every time.

      I used to shoot my scopes Mark I from LD that way, so I’ve done this before. It’s a modified Creedmore hold for pistols..

      B.B.


Leave a Reply