Dragonfly Mark 2.
This report covers:
- How hard to pump?
- Residual pressure
- DonnyFL Ronin silencer masks the open sights
- The test
- Trigger
- Sight-in JSB Exact Jumbo Heavy
- JSB group
- Baracuda 18
- Baracuda 15
- Apolo Air Boss
- Summary
We are going to look at many things about the .22-caliber Seneca Dragonfly Mark 2 multi-pump rifle today and hopefully answer some questions. Let’s go.
How hard to pump?
Reader Halfstep said:
“BB,
In part 1 you pumped up to 8 pumps and confirmed that the gun didn’t get any harder to pump. Now that you have pumped this one all the way to 15 pumps, what say ye, now?”
Halfstep, here is what I say.
Pumps……Effort (lbs.)
3…………….16
4…………….16
5…………….16
6…………….16
7…………….16
8…………….15
9…………….17
10……………15
11……………16
12……………18
13……………17
14……………17
15……………16
The small differences in the numbers were due to how fast the pump was worked. The slower I went the lower the effort. Yes, pumping over and over can be a pain when you want to shoot a lot of pellets fast, such as in an accuracy test like I’m doing today. But relax and let the rifle dictate your pace and it’s no trouble to pump.
Residual pressure
Reader Shootski asked me to comment on the pressure remaining in the gun after a large number of pumps. There is none. I did check for this many times but didn’t mention it.
DonnyFL Ronin silencer masks the open sights
I wanted to use the DonnyFL Ronin silencer, but it masks the open sights. Still, with as few pumps as were used in today’s test, the Dragonfly Mark 2 was quite quiet. It was perhaps 80-84 dB. My fussy cat slept through the entire test just 10 feet from where I was shooting.
The test
I shot the rifle with 4 pumps for every shot fired in all groups today. I shot from 10 meters with the rifle resting on a sandbag. All groups were five shots because of the amount of pumping involved.
I used a 6 o’clock hold. The manual says to use a center hold on bullseye targets but that is impossible. The center hold is for tin cans and other irregular targets.
The front sight is twice the size of the 10 meter bullseyes I was shooting at. The good news is, the rear sight adjusts up high enough to use a 6 o’clock hold. I wore my reading glasses to make the front sight sharp. I think you will see that it worked.
Trigger
I test so many airguns that I forget the triggers from test to test. This Dragonfly Mark 2 trigger has a long first stage followed by a crisp stage 2. It’s as perfect as I could ask for on a sporting rifle like this.
Sight-in JSB Exact Jumbo Heavy
The first pellet tested was the 18.13-grain JSB Exact Jumbo Heavy dome. But before I shot a group I had to adjust the open sights. The sights were on the centerline, left to right, but were sighted low for 10 meters. I shot 6 pellets at a target and the first five hit the bull two and one-half inches below the target I aimed at. Then I adjusted the rear sight up a bit and shot six hit between the two bulls. I finally adjusted up a little more than before and landed in the center of the bull I aimed at.
When I sighted in, the first five pellets hit the bull below the one I aimed at. After I adjusted the rear sight up the sixth pellet hit about midway between the two bulls.
JSB group
After adjusting the rear sight up a second time I put five JSB Exact Jumbo Heavy pellets into 0.18-inches at 10 meters. This Dragonfly Mark 2 can shoot!
The first group of five JSB Exact Jumbo Heavy pellets was the best of the test at 0.18-inches between centers. This rifle can shoot!
Baracuda 18
The second pellet I tried was the new H&N Baracuda 18. We have seen some astounding groups from this pellet recently, but the Dragonfly Mark 2 doesn’t like them as well as the JSB Jumbo Heavy. Five made a 0.377-inch group at 10 meters.
The Dragonfly Mark 2 put five H&N Baracuda 18s into 0.377-inches at 10 meters.
Baracuda 15
The next pellet I tried was the H&N Baracuda 15 — another new offering from H&N. Five of them went into 0.306-inches at 10 meters. That looks significantly better than the Baracuda 18 group.
The Dragonfly Mark 1 put five Baracuda 15 pellets into a 0.306-inch group at 10 meters.
Apolo Air Boss
Now for something entirely new. In the Day 3 report on this year’s SHOT Show I told you about AirgunDivisionUSA, distributors of Argentine-made Apolo pellets. Carlos Iglesias told me he is aware of this blog and knew how I test things. He invited me to try some of his Air Boss pellets. He gave me samples of .177, .22 and .25-caliber Air Boss pellets to test for you.
Air Boss pellets are made in Argentina.
The Air Boss pellets are evenly made, bright and look good.
I told him I would test them and that they would get a fair trial and he responded that they were some of the best pellets he ever shot. I said I would withhold my judgement until I saw them in action, and today is the first day for that.
So I shot a 5-shot group with them and, lo and behold, they made the second-smallest group of the test. And it was very close to the smallest group. Five pellets went into 0.204-inches, center-to-center at 10 meters.
The Dragonfly Mark 2 put five Air Boss pellets into a 10-meter group that measures 0.204-inches between centers.
Summary
There is no question that the Dragonfly Mark 2 is an accurate air rifle. And this was just the first of several tests I plan on doing. So, hurray for all of you who made the purchase decision already.
The rifle continues to pump up to 15 times without the effort increasing. And there is no air remaining in the gun after 15 pump strokes and a shot.
What we have is a winner in almost all ways. I could do without the fiberoptic front sight blade, but apart from that the trigger is great and the rifle looks and holds like a champ.
And the Air Boss .22 pellets have earned their own report! Coming to a blog near you soon.
B.B.
Please tell us more about the Apolo pellets. Will PA sell them? What sizes and weights do they come in. Are there shortages like every other pellet?
Thanks,
-Yogi
Yogi,
Well, This .22-caliber pellet weighs 18 grains. I have three to test — .177, .22 and .25. They are all Air Boss, that I’m assured are the most accurate they have.
Go to the website I linked to to see more.
BB
Website has NOTHING. Under constuction, ufta….
-Y
Yogi,
Here is a little more info on the Apolo Pellets, https://airgunpelletdb.com/brand/apolo/
Mike
Thanks,
That was great. Seems they offer a large line-up for .177 and .22. Nothing for .25, mistake IMHO.
Wonder who the importer will be and $$?
What is the point of a 17 grain .177 wadcutter pellet? Nevermind, seems a mistake on the website. It is a .22 17 gain wadcutter!?!?!?!?
-Y
Yogi,
It seems that that site is simply a wiki of pellets, a lot of info but they do not sell or endorse any pellets.
They do not show any .25 cal Apolo pellets but as BB said he got some so they do exist and he will be testing them in the future.
We will see if these take off or not as time goes by.
Mike
BB,
The Apolo pellets in the picture appear rather shiny. Are they pure lead or is it an alloy of lead? How hard are they in comparison to JSB and Crosman pellets?
Siraniko
Siraniko,
They are shiny. Probably an alloy, though I don’t know for certain.
BB
B.B.,
They look shinier than any pure lead I’ve ever seen, so you must be right. I wonder how hard or soft they are compared to, say, RWS and Premiers. Anyway, no one will likely complain about them being dirty out of the tin. :^)
And it’s always very nice to have one more accurate, well-made pellet to choose from.
Michael
Anyone else noticing a trend here?
Tom is starting to turn in some amazing groups lately.
He is getting his groove back!
Great shooting!
Ian
Hi everybody,
these groups look very good and the rifle does, too.
I have been wondering about the efficiency of pneumatic vs spring airguns lately and I’m not quite sure I understand the physics correctly.
My impression is that single or multistroke pneumatics are less efficient than spring guns:
For example I find the cocking effort of my Weihrauch HW75 (P2) similar to the HW45 (P1). The HW45 is, of course, much more powerful. My (old, non-magnum) Diana 5 is much easier to cock than the HW75 and still shoots quite a bit faster (this seems to be true for other, similar guns as well).
It also seems that most multi-stroke pneumatic rifles require several strokes to generate the same power as a powerful breakbarrel.
Normally you would think the spring process should be less efficient because energy changes forms one more time which should be “lossy”.
Springer: Muscle power –> stored spring energy –> air pressure –> pellet motion.
Pneumatic: Muscle power –> air pressure –> pellet motion.
I can think of two reasons why the spring powerplant might be more powerful: Swept volume (the piston can use the whole length of the compression chamber) and combustion (dieseling).
I do wonder if weaker spring guns (like my Diana 5) actually diesel all that much and whether pneumatics never do (I once tried to cock the HW75 after putting some oil on the pump mechanism. When I was almost through the stroke, the gun “fought back” and forced my hand back. It’s perhaps not totally inconceivable that this might happen during the shot cycle, too)
Maybe the answer to this is obvious and I haven’t found it yet. If not, it might be a topic for a blog post 🙂
Stephan
CK,
I am nobody from nowhere, but I find this question intriguing. Some thoughts from my own perspective. First, I think the spring piston is almost certainly more efficient if we are comparing energy in vs energy out. The compression heat is in your favor with the spring piston, and against you with the pneumatic. At least in my mind, I don’t have a study to reference.
The real question is what and how are we comparing? Gun vs gun, or power plant vs power plant? Gun vs gun would be the easiest, I think. Come up with a formula for calculating force and degrees of travel to get a rating. You could tie in distance from the pivot point if so desired to use the same comparison for rifles and pistols. For the pneumatic, you would have to multiply times the number of pumps, which is another area where I think it is going to lose the race.
Power plant vs power plant would be more specific to your question, but now you have to know diameter, stroke, and force on the piston. Force for compression on the pneumatic, and to cock on the springer.
OR, if I picked up what you are asking, go an entirely different direction, and only look at the efficiency of the different power plants AFTER the shot is prepared. PSI stored in the pneumatic, vs the spring tension on the piston in the springer.
There sure would be a lot to cover on that topic.
Captain Bravo
Captain Bravo,
those are some very good points.
I would agree that the ratio of power input and output seems to be much better for spring piston guns.
I hadn’t considered the heat, but that might be a factor whether there’s dieseling or not since hot air will expand.
I am fairly useless at math and not terribly knowledgeable when it comes to mechanics either. But more competent people could probably come up with some calculations.
Powerplant vs. powerplant might be interesting but the question would be what parameters to choose (similar weight, similar diameter or piston stroke, etc…).
Gun vs. gun would perhaps give us more “real world” data, but even then, there’s the question which parameters to compare (price, weight, length, type of gun, …).
I would expect that something like a longer lever would cancel out in the calculations as it would give you a lighter but longer cocking stroke.
Stephan
CK,
I am not good enough with math either. But it is an interesting idea. There are so many ways you could go with it.
In calculating the actual horsepower input you would have to bring time into the equation. But for simplicity’s sake, I think we could assume that the time would be the same for both. Then using force, degrees of travel, distance from the pivot, and number of strokes for the pneumatic, total energy input could be calculated. A comparison to the ft lbs of energy output could be made to get some efficiency rating.
The more I think of it, the more difficult it becomes. Even different pellets will give you a different output energy. Then you could compare within power plants.
I guess for me, my interest would be more proving (or disproving) my hypothesis of power in (HP input) vs power out (ft lbs pellet energy). At least as a starting place.
Now getting the time to do it…
CB
CB,
I think you’re onto something with the heat/energy loss vs. retention in pneumatics and springers, respectively. Consider how a pcp’s tank will drop slightly in pressure when it cools after filling. The same effect would take place in a multi-pump, as you suggest, thus translating into wasted effort.
One might also consider that the energy of a spring piston is expended in 10-or-so inches of barrel, while the barrel necessary for a small-bore pneumatic to operate at maximum efficiency would probably be far longer than anyone cares to lug around; therefore, in a real-life comparison between typical representatives of the two power plants, I expect that multi-pumps would always lose out on an energy-for-effort basis.
Nevertheless, pneumatics have the advantage of a fast shot cycle and thus hold insensitivity relative to springers, and in my mind this can outweigh the extra effort required.
Daniel
CptKlotz,
Stephan I think the Diesel Cycle is your simple answer: https://www.nuclear-power.com/nuclear-engineering/thermodynamics/thermodynamic-cycles/diesel-cycle-diesel-engine/thermal-efficiency-for-diesel-cycle/
The efficiency of that combustion makes it interesting.
As a DarkSider I will say that Spoinger shooters are, strictly speaking, NOT airgunners! To borrow a term from the wind and human powered World of boating and Soaring you all are Stinkpot Operators! LOL!
The pneumatics under normal operation never achieve Diesel Cycle conditions since the compression occurs at a much earlier point and the actual shot cycle is an Adiabatic (heat loss) Process.
shootski
Gerat stuff! Being a technical type I like this kind of discussion.
Technical stuff aside, my favorite way of comparing airguns is to take them out and plink tin cans and spinners 😉
Thanks for posting! Now I have something to ponder while drinking my coffee.
Hank
Stephan,
I gave it some more thought as I was downing my post workout protein recovery drink. Just take a springer and test it over a chronograph then scrupulously strip it of all petroleum and other combustibles and run the same test. The resultant DELTA P will be the Diesel component of Spoinger power.
shootski
CptKlotz,
The makeup of the guns in question will dictate which seems more efficient. The barrel is a force multiplier on a springer, for instance, and after you’ve tried to grip the barrel where it enters the block and cock it from there, you might find that a typical multi-pump is easier. Long barrels make easy cocking and since you can make a barrel as long as you can reach to, but can’t really make the cocking arm very long, because of mechanical limits, a singe stroke on a springer will usually feel like less effort than several strokes on a multi-pump.
With guns like the Seneca Aspen, once you get that tank filled up, each shot after takes just a pump or two, making it essentially a multi-pump that takes little effort for each shot and yields power levels that I don’t think will ever be achieved with a spring.
One thing I’ve wondered about for a while is what is the most power that can be generated with a single stroke pneumatic and why does it seem to be less than a spring piston gun? Based on the single strokes I’ve used, it also takes a lot of effort on that one pump to get less power. OSenn a spring gun you cock against the spring then compress the air as you fire and let it down the barrel at the same time. With a single stroke you compress the air first then release it down the barrel. Is it because the spring is pre-loaded with energy that you don’t provide with your cocking stroke, but you do get to take advantage of when the gun fires? The Aspen would be operating the same way by having a store of air already in it and your pump stroke is just topping up the pressure. On firing, you aren’t exhausting the original air, just the air that you topped off with, that is, if you use the gun that way, as I do. There are other schools of thought on how to best utilize the Aspen, but I like to do it this way.
I think the Origin works similarly. There is an accumulator in the tank that is pre-charged with gas or air and as you pump the gun up, you compress that gas in the accumulator and that pressure is transferred to the air that you just pumped in raising it more quickly than would be the case if the gun just had the typical holding tank. The result is fewer pumps to get to full power on the first shot. The same thing is done in hydraulic systems to increase overall system efficiency.
I wonder if anyone has ever connected a hand pump to the air port of a springer and tested to see how much effort would be required to move the piston back until it locks into place? Hummm?
Well that’s my thoughts on the subject, anyway.
Half
I am looking forward to your testing the Air Boss pellets. I for one am always searching for “the” pellet. There seems to be quite an interest in them.
PS: it sure looks like Umarex is going to be the hot manufacturer this year. Lots and lots of new ones.
https://hardairmagazine.com/news/the-new-umarex-notos-a-versatile-new-compact-pcp/
Now we know that if you do not have a Db meter but your cat is cooperative, it can confirm whether your airgun’s report is backyard-friendly or not.
Went to the Apolo website, but it is mostly “under construction” so there is little one can do there except contact the company directly. At least B.B. has some of their pellets to test for us.
BB
Before I pass go on this rifle I want to know its accuracy at 25 yards. Mounting a scope or dot optic and a couple of 10 shot groups with 2 best pellets would be much appreciated. I hope you will consider a 25 yard test of your choosing.
Interesting rifle and Argentine pellets. Hope they both will be able to meet demand if accurate at distance.
Deck
“I wore my reading glasses to make the front sight sharp.”
BB,
Every time I read this I stop to think how different formal (deliberate) target shooting is from the fast instinctive style I use most of the time.
I focus on the target (at close to moderate ranges, 0 – 25 ish yards) and shoot by “feel”. At longer ranges or for fine aiming at small targets (insects) I use sights but mostly I shoot instinctively.
Guess this comes from rabbit hunting with slingshots and bows. There are no sights and you have to keep your eyes focused on the target – it’s gone if you don’t. LOL!
I actually find it very difficult to consciously aim and deliberately trigger the shot as I’ve always let my subconscious take care of those details.
Over the years I’ve had many people (hunters) ask for me to teach them my style of shooting and they are all surprised that the first session starts with bows and arrows.
IMHO, there is no better way to demonstrate the importance of focus, stance, breathing, release and follow through than shooting a bow. The guys who learn to shoot a bow well become exceptional rifle shots.
Cold and lots of snow, I’m enjoying my 10 meter pistol. Have you been shooting your P44? I was hoping that you would have some more 10 meter training tips for us.
Cheers!
Hank
Hank,
No, I haven’t been shooting my P44 like I said I would. Poor BB! So many airguns to shoot. So little time! 😉
BB
“So many airguns to shoot. So little time”
What can I say BB? …It’s a dirty job but someone has to do it! LOL!
A lot of us are envious of your “problem” and would be happy to help 🙂
Hank
Hank,
I’ve been looking through my books today, and it appears I gave away my book on “Trick Shooting,” which is too bad, as it discusses the shooting methodology about which you are speaking here. Annie Oakley and her ilk shot the way you are describing, so you are in good company. 🙂
Cheers,
dave
Dave,
Yeah, have heard it called “trick shooting” before – it’s not.
Anyone who can hit their mouth with a fork can shoot “instinctively”.
It’s built into us already. It just needs some understanding and a bit of training/practice and the confidence/trust that it works.
Cheers,
Hank
Hank,
I was not trying to be disparaging in any way; “Trick Shooting” just happened to be the actual title of the book, but it was mostly about how to shoot instinctively. My first try at such things was using an old longbow I found in my Grandma’s attic; our yard was very small, so I had my brother throw some small round pillows down the basement stairway; I’d yell “pull,” he’d throw them, and when they cleared the wall covering the stairway I’d shoot at them against a plywood backstop (it was not a very powerful bow, maybe 30 lbs). It didn’t take long to learn how to pin them to the plywood…I’m not sure my Mom ever figured out what happened with those two missing pillows…thanks for the memories! 🙂
I think B.B. once wrote a report about instinctive shooting with sightless airguns *rummages around the archives*
Yes, here it is:
/blog/2011/09/lucky-mcdaniel-instinct-shooting-trainer-outfit/
Good stuff.
Cheers,
dave
Thanks for that link Dave!
The cork balls are a good idea, it’s the same idea as arrows – you can see what is happening.
Tried gun vs bow for training. IMHO, the best way to learn instinctive shooting is with a bow.
Been asked a number of times to write a book/blog on the subject. Been thinking about it. Would be a lot of work and don’t know if people would be interested.
Hank
“Been asked a number of times to write a book/blog on the subject.”
Hank, yes it would be a lot of work for you; but it would not be in vain; there would be interest (to me for one!), plus your work be would preserved here for future generations…
…just my 2 cents! 🙂
Hank,
I’d be interested in what you write about the subject. Better than simply concluding that nothing can be learned from what you know.
Siraniko
Siraniko,
I’ll consider it. It’s something that’s easier to demonstrate (one on one) without a deep background discussion the would be required to explain the concepts.
Kinda like “do this, don’t ask why, just trust me” as opposed to explaining all about the “why” so the person understands.
But if there enough interest I would give it a go.
Hank.
The TX makes the same power as this on 4 pumps. About the same at 25yds, the edge to the .177.
but the .22 pellet will penetrate less. A little more thwok with the .22. A Winchester 807 is a much more powerful gun, and expensive. The Iron Dragonfly is just wee little sporter, I hope the 25 yd test goes smoothly.
Also, Lance Armstrong championrd the idea of high cadence high repitions over bigger heavier gears on bikes in the mountains especially. Trying to keep up with a springer interms of rate of fire is the wrong approach. Hope the shot cycle is very calm too.
Rob
1stblue,
Rob I think you have got the comparison of powerplant efficiency nut!
So unless you are shooting a gas piston you can’t keep the Sproingers (metal coil spring piston) compressed for all too much time or risk damage. With the pneumatics most single strokes are in the same boat of it not being advisable to keep them compressed for long. With multipumpers some can be kept pumped up, almost all do best with a pump or two before storage. But only the PCP with external pressure input (yes there are a few hybrids) have the ultimate efficiency of being pumped up to FULL power for days, weeks, months…even years without problems!
As far as high cadence (turnover) Lance borrowed that from; paddlers kayakers and rowers. Lol!
shootski
“There is no question that the Dragonfly Mark 2 is an accurate air rifle. And this was just the first of several tests I plan on doing. So, hurray for all of you who made the purchase decision already.”
B.B.,
This is what I was waiting to hear, as I am in that group who pre-ordered one of these rifles. I am so happy that I stepped out in faith that this gun would be accurate…and I am looking forward to even more happiness when you publish the results of the 25-yard testing…yay! 🙂
Take care & God bless,
dave
1stblue,
Rob I think you have got the comparison of powerplant efficiency nut!
So unless you are shooting a gas piston you can’t keep the Sproingers (metal coil spring piston) compressed for all too much time or risk damage. With the pneumatics most single strokes are in the same boat of it not being advisable to keep them compressed for long. With multipumpers some can be kept pumped up, almost all do best with a pump or two before storage. But only the PCP with external pressure input (yes there are a few hybrids) have the ultimate efficiency of being pumped up to FULL power for days, weeks, months…even years without problems!
As far as high cadence (turnover) Lance borrowed that from; paddlers kayakers and rowers. Lol!
shootski
You know I really like this air rifle and would have it on order already if I did not already own ten or so multi-pumpers including the Nova Freedom, Aspen and two FX Indy PCP’s, long and short. But none of them have a nice wood stock and this new technology for easier use. Impressive for the price.
The Crosman Legacy may have more power but it’s a plastic hard pumping single shot ‘pellet’ shooter.
The Aspen and Freedom may require less pumping once full but you will pay a third more and still not have a nice traditional wood stock.
I believe a half dozen MGD’s may change my mind. I would not even try to make it look like an Assault Weapon either, but I’m not even going to try to resist the M3 Grease Gun replica, the work is already done 😉
Bob M
BB,
When do you think that you’ll have a long range test? I’m not being pushy, I just really think I want one of these, but only if it’s accurate. I’m skeptical about the accuracy because I see some parts similarities to a couple of Diana PCP and CO2 guns that I have that didn’t prove to have very good barrels. I bought a 392 that hasn’t worked out with open sights and is just too hard to pump for my tastes. This gal looks like she might be “The One” if she shoots straight. And thanks for that final pump figure. That’s part of what has me gnawing at the bit.
Half
Half,
By long range for this rifle I hope you mean 25 yards. That should come soon.
BB
BB,
Old eyes + open sights +25 yds = All I can handle.
I want it to tote around in the wagon, just to have available if a shooting opportunity pops up while I’m out and about. No scope to get knocked about or to require a larger than necessary case for the gun.
Do you see a resemblance to Diana’s low end guns like the Chaser and Stormrider? If it’s accurate, I don’t care about the resemblance. I just don’t want it to share the inaccuracy of mine
Half
The Dragonfly Mark 2 seems to be a fine unit, first it seems that they have made a stock from front to rear from one piece of wood then cut off the front for the cocking handle, nice, at least that is what it seems looking at many pictures of the rifle and seeing that the grain lines up just fine.
Second BB shows that it is accurate at 10 meters, that is great and we hope when he takes it out to 25 yards the groups do not expand too much.
Third at 200 bucks it is not overly expensive.
Fourth the ease of pumping is kinda amazing.
I find myself quite impressed with this item and hope that it may shine on in further testing.
Still searching for a spare 200 bucks.
Mike
Me too Mike. With BB, I almost feel like I got to shoot it, and thats a pretty good deal to me!
Best, Rob