When is a gun finished?
As a gunsmith I would have to declare that the project is finished when the scope of work agreed to with the customer has been achieved. OR, when the budget runs out.
I've handled projects under BOTH mechanisms and, they both have advantages and disadvantages.
There is always the feeling that "we can improve on this"
At the same time, my first "boss" in real life used to tell me (more often than I wished) "Done is better than perfect".
And so, there has to be a balance, and even more important than the balance is the fact that your customer / user needs to end up a "Happy Camper".
In my projects with Official entities, there is a clear spec. from Average MV, to sSd, to weight, range, autonomy, energy, etc. It's easier to deal with professionals because they can put their needs in numbers.
In THIS case, the "want/need" was a rifle capable of tackling the FT lanes with some confidence. As my friend put it: "A gun you would be happy taking to a serious Match".
:-\ Built on an HW50? .... that's a tall order! Still, we proceeded and tested many combinations to arrive at a stability and a quality of shot cycle that belied the light weight of the system and the smallness of the rifle.
You can read all the internal aspects here.
Now, as promised, we will look , briefly, into the accuracy potential of the "finished" system:
I've handled projects under BOTH mechanisms and, they both have advantages and disadvantages.
There is always the feeling that "we can improve on this"
At the same time, my first "boss" in real life used to tell me (more often than I wished) "Done is better than perfect".
And so, there has to be a balance, and even more important than the balance is the fact that your customer / user needs to end up a "Happy Camper".
In my projects with Official entities, there is a clear spec. from Average MV, to sSd, to weight, range, autonomy, energy, etc. It's easier to deal with professionals because they can put their needs in numbers.
In THIS case, the "want/need" was a rifle capable of tackling the FT lanes with some confidence. As my friend put it: "A gun you would be happy taking to a serious Match".
:-\ Built on an HW50? .... that's a tall order! Still, we proceeded and tested many combinations to arrive at a stability and a quality of shot cycle that belied the light weight of the system and the smallness of the rifle.
You can read all the internal aspects here.
Now, as promised, we will look , briefly, into the accuracy potential of the "finished" system:
The barrel was sleeved in a very tight fitting CF sleeve, and the HPM (High Performance Muzzle weight) at the muzzle allows for tuning to the harmonics of the specific pellet in question.
The HPM will be "cerakoted" in a color to approximate the CF dark grey.
Because of the way the HPM works, there is a rather strong tension in the barrel when in use.
Scope is for tests only; a SIGHTRON SI 4-12 X 40 MOA-20 reticle SFP AO, and is mounted in an Accurized ZR mount 1" rings.
The HPM will be "cerakoted" in a color to approximate the CF dark grey.
Because of the way the HPM works, there is a rather strong tension in the barrel when in use.
Scope is for tests only; a SIGHTRON SI 4-12 X 40 MOA-20 reticle SFP AO, and is mounted in an Accurized ZR mount 1" rings.
Testing at short range
Tests at 10 meters were absolutely boring.
Stacking pellet on pellet in a hole hardly larger than the pellet itself gave us no differentiation between the two most efficient pellets tested in the powerplant tests.
So, we waited for a good day, and proceeded to test at 25 meters.
Unbeknownst to me, the gun will be used in the AAFTA version of "Hunter" Division, Piston Class.
So this test was performed shooting off the knee in the FT shooting position.
Rather than shoot one group, I shot the US standard test taking the average of 5 X 5 shot groups (at least).
The gun performed well with the first batch of pellets at hand, lubed with T-9:
Stacking pellet on pellet in a hole hardly larger than the pellet itself gave us no differentiation between the two most efficient pellets tested in the powerplant tests.
So, we waited for a good day, and proceeded to test at 25 meters.
Unbeknownst to me, the gun will be used in the AAFTA version of "Hunter" Division, Piston Class.
So this test was performed shooting off the knee in the FT shooting position.
Rather than shoot one group, I shot the US standard test taking the average of 5 X 5 shot groups (at least).
The gun performed well with the first batch of pellets at hand, lubed with T-9:
As is normal, some groups are better than others, and for an unknown gun with a small scope, with about HALF the weight of my normal FT rig (8# and change vs. a bit less than 15#), I think the little rifle did quite well.
The shooter,. . . not so much, ROFL!
In all groups there is ONE shot that spoils everything.... well up to a point. Reality is that even with that "little martian" floating around included (totally attributable to the shooter), the groups are not bad and they do represent that, properly sighted in, all of the shots would have gone into a reduced KZ (15 mm's) at 20 meters
Weather dictated that we stop the testing and for several days weather simply did not cooperate.
By the time we could tackle the tests again, several days had passed and we had not had the chance to pitch one "flavour" of pellets vs. the other.
Finally, we had the chance and this is the result:
The shooter,. . . not so much, ROFL!
In all groups there is ONE shot that spoils everything.... well up to a point. Reality is that even with that "little martian" floating around included (totally attributable to the shooter), the groups are not bad and they do represent that, properly sighted in, all of the shots would have gone into a reduced KZ (15 mm's) at 20 meters
Weather dictated that we stop the testing and for several days weather simply did not cooperate.
By the time we could tackle the tests again, several days had passed and we had not had the chance to pitch one "flavour" of pellets vs. the other.
Finally, we had the chance and this is the result:
There's a ton of info in this target, so I might as well explain what is going on.
First of all, these shots were taken from the seating position but with a crossed sticks bi-pod, because that is the way the gun will be used. Not my favourite position, and not one in which I have a ton of experience.
I do have to say that it seemed to me that the gun shot better when the bi-pod was placed forward, near the end of the forearm, close to the location of the front stock screw.
It is my firm belief that IN THE END, what matters is that the guns I make are "shootable" by the end user in the way he/she wants to use the gun. I cannot see any value in producing benchrest guns that are absolutely horrid to shoot in a more practical way.
Coming back to the target:
First two rows we tested different lubes, the top row tests the T-9 lube that is applied cold; the second row we tested Pledge that needs to be baked in.
There was 2 MOA's difference in POI between one and the other, putting into relevance how impactful can be a change of lube in the functioning of the rifle. BOTH lubes are non-dieseling, BTW. AND both lubes produced pretty much the same energy at the muzzle.
Wind was predominantly flowing from right to left, so we "zeroed" in to each distance using the first one or two bullseyes.
Rows 1 & 2 were shot at 25 meters
Row 3 was shot at 38 meters
Row 4 was shot at 50 meters
all from right to left.
When we started, the wind was ebbing and flowing at around 5 kph (3 mph), but towards the middle of row 3 all hell was breaking loose and gusts and switches were happening and caught me off of my guard many times.
Still, counting the bullseyes that were shot "purposefully and properly sighted in", we would have to take into account:
Bullseyes 3,4, and 5 of Row 2 with a score of 3/5; 3/5; and 4-5/5 (depending how you look at them)
All bullseyes in row 3, acknowledging that I was being moved by the wind, let alone the pellet in flight. Scores for that row would be: 4/5; 1/5; 1/5; 1/5; and 3/5
And then row 4, where I tried to wait till the proper conditions presented themselves, bur clearly failed to fully identify the conditions. With scores of: 2/5; 4/5; 3/5; 4/5; and 1/5 because I simply gave up and shot a group when conditions were what I had hoped for. It is reassuring that 4 pellets clustered in a tight group, meaning that I need to learn more about wind, LOL!
After the card was done, I went into my weather app and this is what it said:
First of all, these shots were taken from the seating position but with a crossed sticks bi-pod, because that is the way the gun will be used. Not my favourite position, and not one in which I have a ton of experience.
I do have to say that it seemed to me that the gun shot better when the bi-pod was placed forward, near the end of the forearm, close to the location of the front stock screw.
It is my firm belief that IN THE END, what matters is that the guns I make are "shootable" by the end user in the way he/she wants to use the gun. I cannot see any value in producing benchrest guns that are absolutely horrid to shoot in a more practical way.
Coming back to the target:
First two rows we tested different lubes, the top row tests the T-9 lube that is applied cold; the second row we tested Pledge that needs to be baked in.
There was 2 MOA's difference in POI between one and the other, putting into relevance how impactful can be a change of lube in the functioning of the rifle. BOTH lubes are non-dieseling, BTW. AND both lubes produced pretty much the same energy at the muzzle.
Wind was predominantly flowing from right to left, so we "zeroed" in to each distance using the first one or two bullseyes.
Rows 1 & 2 were shot at 25 meters
Row 3 was shot at 38 meters
Row 4 was shot at 50 meters
all from right to left.
When we started, the wind was ebbing and flowing at around 5 kph (3 mph), but towards the middle of row 3 all hell was breaking loose and gusts and switches were happening and caught me off of my guard many times.
Still, counting the bullseyes that were shot "purposefully and properly sighted in", we would have to take into account:
Bullseyes 3,4, and 5 of Row 2 with a score of 3/5; 3/5; and 4-5/5 (depending how you look at them)
All bullseyes in row 3, acknowledging that I was being moved by the wind, let alone the pellet in flight. Scores for that row would be: 4/5; 1/5; 1/5; 1/5; and 3/5
And then row 4, where I tried to wait till the proper conditions presented themselves, bur clearly failed to fully identify the conditions. With scores of: 2/5; 4/5; 3/5; 4/5; and 1/5 because I simply gave up and shot a group when conditions were what I had hoped for. It is reassuring that 4 pellets clustered in a tight group, meaning that I need to learn more about wind, LOL!
After the card was done, I went into my weather app and this is what it said:
When I started, wind was a leisurely 5 kph, by the time I was finished, it was 3 times that! LOL!
The crux of the matter is that the little gun proved more capable than expected. Delightful to shoot, and a pleasure to carry.
I should have gone into the woods for some squirrels, but there was no time.
I still cannot see the much vaunted "quality" difference between this HW and a normal, run of the mill, 34 EMS.
I do concede that the HW50/99 is the "basic" / "beginner" model in the HW lineup.
Hopefully, I will soon get a reasonably priced HW97 of RECENT manufacture and see for myself "what gives".
While the HPM is off being cerakoted I will take the time to look into the concentricity, homogeneity and uniformity of the compression chamber, if I find anything relevant, I may post a "Epilogue". Mostly to satisfy myself, as it is clear from the performance at the target, that the gun achieved the "ready for FT" status.
And so, as far as this project is concerned, the gun is "finished".
;-)
Keep well and shoot straight!
HM
The crux of the matter is that the little gun proved more capable than expected. Delightful to shoot, and a pleasure to carry.
I should have gone into the woods for some squirrels, but there was no time.
I still cannot see the much vaunted "quality" difference between this HW and a normal, run of the mill, 34 EMS.
I do concede that the HW50/99 is the "basic" / "beginner" model in the HW lineup.
Hopefully, I will soon get a reasonably priced HW97 of RECENT manufacture and see for myself "what gives".
While the HPM is off being cerakoted I will take the time to look into the concentricity, homogeneity and uniformity of the compression chamber, if I find anything relevant, I may post a "Epilogue". Mostly to satisfy myself, as it is clear from the performance at the target, that the gun achieved the "ready for FT" status.
And so, as far as this project is concerned, the gun is "finished".
;-)
Keep well and shoot straight!
HM
RSS Feed