FWB 127. It’s the same rifle as the 124 only in .22 caliber.
This report covers:
- Surprises
- The test
- The sights
- Sight-in
- First group
- Trigger
- Group two
- What to do?
- Falcon artillery group one
- Falcon artillery group two
- Falcon artillery group three
- Confirm the best hold
- Back to Benjamin Bullseyes
- JSB Exact Jumbo RS
- Summary
Today we start looking at the accuracy of the FWB 127, which is the .22-caliber version of the better-known 124.
Surprises
There have been some surprises in this series. The first came in Part 2 when we discovered that the velocity of this rifle was way lower than I thought it should have been. I was basing my estimate on the power of a 124, which we know very well. But this 127 was apparently tuned. I say that because it cocked very easily — a little too easily. And it is also a VERY early rifle with a San Anselmo address. According to Jim Maccari, the early 124s have a tapered compression chamber that limits their power potential. I have to assume the 127s do as well, because only a barrel change and markings on the spring tube make this one a .22.
In Part 3 we took the rifle apart and discovered that it had indeed been tuned. The job was good but the tune was on the weak side, so in Part 4 we installed a fresh factory mainspring and breech seal. We tested velocity at the end of that job and found that the power had improved but not as much as I anticipated. That may be the tapered compression chamber thing. But it now has all the velocity/power I need so today we start looking at accuracy.
The test
I shot the rifle off a rest at 10 meters today because I’m still learning things about it. I spent over two hours shooting different pellets and trying different things, so I’ll address them as needed. Let’s get started.
The sights
You will recall that this rifle came to me with the standard front sight and an FWB target rear peep sight. The 124/127 rifle front sight is a tapered post, so I attempted to mount a target front sight to be able to select the correct insert. I wanted an aperture front sight insert. But no target front sight I have will fit the FWB dovetails, so the standard sporting front sight had to remain.
Sight-in
I shot the new Benjamin .22-caliber domed pellet that I call the Bullseye for sight-in. I sighted in from 10 meters because with non-optical sights I find I can do that safely. It took me 4 shots to get close to the center of the bull. I couldn’t hit the exact center because I had to use all the rear sight’s left adjustment to get as close as I came. Then it was time to shoot a group.
First group
I rested the rifle directly on the sandbag for the first group and I shot 10 Benjamin Bullseye pellets. Ten went into 0.339-inches at 10 meters. That’s okay but I expected better.
Ten Benjamin Bullseye domed pellets went into 0.339-inches at 10 meters. It’s a good group but not as small as I expected.
Trigger
I said I would report on the trigger during accuracy testing. It’s pretty good. Stage one has some creep but stage two is very positive. I will not touch the adjustments.
Group two
I switched to the Air Arms Falcon pellet for group two. I was still resting the rifle directly on the sandbag. This time ten pellets made a very horizontal group that measures 0.533-inches between centers. It’s a horrible group for this rifle from so close but 7 of the 10 pellets are in a much smaller group between the three that stretch it out horizontally. I won’t measure that hole for you, but I will try this pellet some more.
This group of 10 Falcons measures 0.533-inches between centers but seven of the pellets are in a much smaller group between the three outliers.
What to do?
At this point I wondered how best to proceed. I thought the Falcon pellets were probably better than the previous group showed, so I decided to shoot them some more. But resting on the sandbag may not have been best, so I tried the artillery hold. Since I wanted to try several different things I went to five-shot groups from this point on.
Falcon artillery group one
For the first group of five Falcons I rested the rifle on my off hand with the hand at the midpoint of the cocking slot. Five pellets went into 0.501-inches. That’s not so good, but four of those five are in 0.072-inches between centers I’m intrigued. It makes sense to explore this pellet more.
Five Falcon pellets are in 0.501-inches but four are in 0.072-inches between centers. Are we onto something?
Falcon artillery group two
The second group of five Falcons was shot with the rifle resting on my off hand located at the rear of the cocking slot. Five pellets went into 0.218-inches. This is quite good and worth remembering.
The FWB 127 put five Falcon pellets into 0.218-inches when held in the artillery hold with the off hand at the rear of the cocking slot.
Falcon artillery group three
When the off hand was under the front of the cocking slot the 127 put five pellets into a 0.363-inch group at ten meters. It’s okay but I think the rifle can do better.
When the off hand is moved to the front of the cocking slot five Falcon pellets made a 0.363-inch group at 10 meters. This is probably not the way the 127 likes to be held.
Confirm the best hold
I’ve tried the artillery hold by resting my off hand at the the rear, midpoint and front of the cocking slot. At this point the midpoint looks best. That’s not because it produced the smallest group of five but because the rifle tends to move less when it’s rested there. So I shot a second group of five Falcons with the artillery hold and the rifle rested on my off hand at the midpoint of the cocking slot. This time five Falcons went into 0.22-inches between centers.
A second five-shot group with the rifle rested at the midpoint of the cocking slot measures 0.22-inches between centers.
Back to Benjamin Bullseyes
At this point I figured I knew the best way to hold the rifle, so I wanted to try the Benjamin Bullseyes again. This time I put five pellets into an open group that measures 0.445-inches between centers. It’s larger than the group of 10 I shot at the beginning. That means I was getting tired and it was time to stop.
When held in the artillery hold the 127 put five Benjamin Bullseyes into this open 0.445-inch group at ten meters. BB is tiring!
JSB Exact Jumbo RS
I wanted to try five JSB Exact Jumbo RS domes before I quit. Same hold, same everything. The 127 put five into 0.308-inches between centers at 10 meters. I quit on a high note!
Five JSB Exact Jumbo RS pellets went into 0.308-inches at 10 meters.
Summary
I learned how the 127 likes to be held today. I also learned that the tapered post front sight is a limiting factor. I need to try something else for the next accuracy test. At least I’m learning.
B.B.
When I shoot for groups, I am very happy when all the pellets are touching.
You FWB 127 may not have much umph, but boy does it stack pellets.
I assume that all groups are at 10 meters? I guess I missed it…
-Yogi
PS Now you should send it out to get the compression chamber honed to create a perpendicular cylinder.
Currently, it like a Harley-Davidson motorcycle with too small carburetor jets. LET IT BREATH!
Tom,
This really illustrates why only .177 should be used in 10 meter competitions. Then again nothing much will beat a .22 in regards to power, weight and cost in thumping a reactive target. When I was glancing at the outline I was imagining that you were shooting the Falcons at 25 meters/yards and farther with the resulting arc resembling artillery.
Siraniko
B.B., try the old trick where you slip a piece of 12 Gauge black wire insulation or some black shrink wrap tubing over the tapered front sight post. It will look like a square post from your perspective.
Nice shooting!
You were able to mount the Crosman Precision Diopter sights on your FWB 600. Are the front sight dovetails on the FWB 127 different than the FWB 600? Anyway, thanks for the good report. Looking forward to the next one.
Elmer,
Yes, the front dovetails on the 127 are different than those on the 600. I tried mounting the Crosman front sight but it is too large to fit the 127 dovetails.
BB
Speaking of aperture sights, I just now noticed something about this image (that is included in the blog regarding 10-meter Olympic competition shooting). The shooter appears to be holding the rifle on her right shoulder, but aiming through the sights with her left eye. And I am trying to understand how this might be possible. Could the rear sight have a sideways periscope type alignment using mirrors?
Elmer Fudd,
I believe she is cross eye dominant and that there is a significant cast off (?) of the stock aligning the rear sight to her left eye while shouldering it on the right side.
Siraniko
Elmer,
Actually I think the cheekpiece is pushed to the right to allow her left eye to align with the peephole. That kind of adjustability is one reason 10-meter target rifles cost so much.
BB
Yes, I am left eye dominant but right handed. I learned to shoot off of my left shoulder. But guns that are made for left handed shooting are hard to find. I hadn’t previously thought about this option. Something that might be worth experimenting with.
Yes, I think I see that now. Thanks! There appears to be a way to pivot the stock so that this is possible.
Elmer,
I think Siraniko is correct. I had noticed the same “illusion” previously myself.
Once upon a time Gary Barnes would manufacture sight mounts that would move the sights far enough for someone who was left eye dominant to shoot accurately with the air rifle on their left shoulder. It looked even stranger than this.
I can only imagine how it looked. It seems to me that both the rear and front sights would need to be offset the same amount.
Elmer,
Imagine no more. Gary made this scope mount for my wife, Edith.
BB
Thanks, I can see how that would work sighted in at one specific distance. I suppose that even scopes that are directly above the bore have to be compensated for (elevation-wise) at other distances than what it is sighted in at. Compensating for both windage and elevation would be difficult. But if target shooting at a consistent distance I think that Gary’s mount made for Edith mount ought to be fine. Very nice!
Tom Gaylord (B.B. Pelletier) and others,
looks like there’s enough room for a second scope, you know, for the right eye! 🙂
Has anyone ever come across binoculars fixed to a rifle as a sighting device?
hihihi,
What problem will a binocular targeting scope solve?
How are you going to mount it and still be able to get a cheek weld on the stock? What will it do better ergonomically and at what higher cost?
I can see that two reticle would cause all manner of co-witness issues.
I suspect it may lengthen the optic nerve to brain impulse time and who knows how the brain will deal with controlling the trigger finger muscle response.
AND Finally… that’s just not how WE have always done it!
shootski
shootski,
ah, I’m glad you saw my comment. And questioning it, shows some interest. Thanks! 🙂
——–
Here’s a fun fact: one of the words that describes me well, is, “slow”! So, when I have a ‘Eureka Moment’ notion of using binoculars instead of monoculars as a sighting aid, you can safely bet, that a previous million inventors have long since refined that idea. 🙂
But where are the discussions, the information and those rifles?
It appears that even you, have yet to hear of a binocular-equipped long arm, hmm…
——–
As for direct answers to your questions, the problem solved, lies in the alternative, ie it would give another option. It certainly is one that I would like to try! Besides, I normally see things better when I look at them with both my eyes. 🙂
The late Mrs Gaylord’s air rifle looks like it would easily support two side-by-side scopes and therefore binoculars, while still allowing for a cheek weld. I suspect, but don’t know, that focusing with both eyes, will feel effortlessly natural.
For those who rarely use binoculars, correctly adjusted, they allow for one circular picture with the point of interest magnified, crisp and clear, ie not two circular pictures as it is often portrayed in films. 🙂
Finally, if something has always been done a certain way, then I honestly cannot think of a better reason to try to change and hopefully improve it ! 🙂
I wonder if Mr Gary Barnes has dabbled with the idea? 🙂
Hix3
Actually, a mount using two scopes is already in existence. The reason so few have heard of it is because it is used by blind hunters.
As a disabled person, I have had the pleasure of hunting with many others with handicaps. On two of those occasions the hunter was blind. the scope mount allowed a second scope to be mounted just far enough for a helper to look through it over the shoulder of the hunter.
It worked for one such hunter to take an antelope in Wyoming at the “HellofaHunt” that was an annual thing for about 30 years in Douglas, Wyoming.
It worked well enough for him to take a nice one at a bit over two hundred yards, so the difference in POI wasn’t significant enough to hamper him.
Obviously, the two scopes (one was redundant I suppose but it was on there nonetheless) were not used in the same binocular sense but I suppose they could have been with enough effort.
It is a shame that the HellofaHunt is no more. The main organizers simply “aged out” and no-one picked up the reins.
Ed
BB,
I know you like the square front post or a small circle front iris (which I like also), but I myself would prefer the tapered post on the front to a square post. Of course, I prefer the old timey perlkorn that is on some of these “old gals” around here. 😉
Concerning the front sight dovetail on the FWB 124/127, Beeman milled the Weihrauch globe front sight for the guns. My first FWB 124, later stolen, was punchased from Beeman in January 1975 with the milled front sight and the Williams micro adjustable rear sight along with what Beeman called “scope angle adjustment”. The front sight was No. S70 Unit No. S69 for $12.95. The Williams rear sight was No. S82 for $16.85. I paid $139.50 for the gun and $1 for the scope angle adjustment.
Wish I had that front sight on my replacement FWB 124. I’ve often thought of buying another Weihauch front sight and milling it to fit the FWB 124 front dovetail. I still have the inserts for that Weihauch sight. I’m 83, so maybe I should get off of my rear end before it’s too late, determine the dovetail angle and buy a Weihauch sight and mill it to fit.
Jonah,
I tried a Weihrauch globe front sight, too. The base is too small.
BB
Hi BB, on my 124 I have the same rear site, the standard front globe, AND installed a clear acrylic aperture front insert. It’s great! I think mine came from Champs Choice a decade ago. Is a clear aperture insert something you could have on hand in a parts bin? I could prob mail one to you, fingers crossed I can find the others from the set.
Best,
Andy
Andy,
I have clear aperture inserts. Did you cut off the front post?
BB
BB
It occurred to me that were you of a mind to try it, and if the angles of the dovetails are very close to the same, you could use a bit of plastic of appropriate thickness to shim them.
I have read of this being done on older guns where the sight was damaged and another used to replace it. It could easily be undone, should you choose, since the shim would be plastic.
Ed
edlee,
what an interesting comment, thanks! 🙂
I am reminded of the kind of high scope mount that supports rings on legs to look between, you know, giving the option to either use the scope up high or the gun’s open sights below.
Similarly, there are side-hinged scope mounts that permit the scope to be swiftly flipped out of the way of the open sights.
Of course, side- or offset mounts can be set up to allow each eye to focus on a different sighting system.
However, I have yet to find anything on binocular scopes for long arms.
——–
Interestingly, I noticed all manner of regular- and weird looking monoculars, binoculars, 2-into-1 thingies and even trinoculars. 🙂
edlee,
oh no! I’ve only just realised my mistake of having wrongly posted my reply to your earlier Helluvahunt comment in the wrong conversation down here. Oops… 🙁
Instead of fixing it, all I can do now, is offer my apologies. Sorry.
My front post was an insert, removable by unscrewing a knurled fixing nut. Maybe my front site is altogether different, if yours won’t disassemble to exchange inserts.
-Andy
“I was getting tired and it was time to stop”
Pests don’t always show up when you are well rested and eager to pick up your airgun so I never considered that fatigue might affect my accuracy. The shot was going to be taken regardless, there was no option.
So now I’m wondering if, “I really don’t feel like shooting now, but it’s the only time I have available.” might not be a good time to check out a rifle’s accuracy.
I can see now, I really need to just get it over with, may affect your concentration. I will consider the fun factor now.
Mount a scope that you trust in FWB mounts. Shoot this FWB 127 at 25 yards and if it doesn’t group I’ll buy it from you.
Kevin,
You can even buy it if it does group. I just bought it for the blog. I’ve never seen any testing on a 127 and I wanted to know how they work.
BB
“The FWB 127 put five Falcon pellets into 0.218-inches when held in the artillery hold with the off hand at the rear of the cocking slot.”
BB, that’s pretty sweet! 🙂