For some time now, I've been wanting to post this entry, but had been unable to find the time.
Courtesy of our friends at Aer Lingus, that delayed my departure from Washington (Dulles) and made me loose my connection to Birmingham (and the World's FT Matches), I've had to sit in the airport then attempt a boarding, only to be denied boarding on account of my "firearm".
You see, there are planes in the Aer Lingus fleet where you can access the hold, so in those planes, "firearms" cannot travel.
It doesn't matter that it is a single shot, pellet rifle, disassembled, and unloaded (obviously, who in their right mind would carry a cocked springer without a stock and with an exposed trigger?!)
The computer terminal says it cannot travel and the employees cannot exercise neither judgement, nor criterion, they are not allowed to think.

We'll limit ourselves to the metal (steel) coiled spring for this entry. If there is enough interest, we can talk a little about gas springs, but the metal spring is complex enough to warrant a complete entry on its own.
Let's start with some clarification of concepts:

A steel spring is a series of coils. You might say that is obvious, but the truth is that what is not obvious is that each coil behaves more or less independently and in those things where they act together are those factors that affect the interlinkage of the coils and have the most effect in the long term life of the spring.

Like a train, if a spring is not properly "loaded" it will get de-railed.
Experienced railroaders know that if you put the light cars in the middle, and the heavy ones in front and in back the train "stretches" and cannot follow the tracks (like "Tootle").
So, trains are "loaded" in certain order and then locomotives are inserted at strategic points in very long trains (in excess of 100 cars).
It is not uncommon in the US to see long haul cargo trains with up to 16 locomotives distributed along the beginning, the end, and both(1st and 2nd) thirds of over 170 cars.

An airgun mainspring is not that different.
Its relation of Overall length (OAL) to Outside Diameter (OD) renders them very "slender", and so, prone to "derailment" (kinking), stretching and knocking (twang), and even bumping (buzzing or vibrating).

So, how could we build a better spring?

​SOME improvements could come from the science of materials.

In the automotive industry the effect of different alloys, heat treatment, methods of heat treatment, surface finishes and even coatings has been studied in depth.

Those of you that are old enough will remember that valve springs would hardly last 10-15,000 miles without loosing some of its "oomph", this required constant "tuning" of the engine. Usually, every 3-5,000 miles, and then change of springs.
Modern valve springs will last well over 100,000 miles.  Even "racing" springs can now last at least a season (not an interesting aspect in high budget racing, like F1, but interesting in other forms).
Up until 50 years ago, High Carbon steel spring as produced by the US or Swedish firms was the top material. A concerted effort on the part of Japanese car makers brought a full range of innovations: Chromium was added, then Silicon, then heat treatment prior to winding, then Vanadium was added to the wire (not as an alloy), lastly Cobalt; and very serious studies have been conducted about what is what TRULY defines the fatigue and temperature resistance of springs, to this date, most (by volume) truly high quality spring steel is produced in Japan.

Of course, given the vertical integration of the Japanese economy where the same "group" is composed of companies ranging from mining conglomerates to car making (Mitsubishi is a good example), or where the close alliances between industry, banking and commerce create de-facto groups (Sumitomo), it is not complicated to setup an institute to research these things.

Luckily, they are generally open with those things that are at least 5-7 years old, and we can take a peek into what it is the current, published, state of the art.

So, let's compare how successive generations of valve spring steel compare to "piano wire" or "conventional steel":

Do note that this table is courtesy of Sumitomo Electric, so the names  of the steel are "commercial":

This is how the Japanese standards call and classify the steels used:

Do note that, by now, the Carbon (C), Manganese (Mn), Nickel (Ni), Chromium (Cr), and Vanadium (V), have reached pretty uniform compositions, and the difference between one "normal" grade (SOTHN) and the "super" grade (SWOHS) is a small further addition of Silicon (Si) 

And this is where Sumitomo is currently, adding Cobalt (Co):

Now, if you are wondering why the complication in adding more and more materials to the alloy, and also to the metal itself, it is mainly because the current, complete process of spring fabrication is a lot more complicated than just "winding":

Those of you that have some experience with materials and heat treatment will wonder why the quenching shows a higher temperature than the drawing or the tempering, and this is something that is peculiar to these very complex steels:

Pulling the wire through dies creates some work hardening as it is "drawn", but then this hardening needs to be quenched in molten baths (either lead or salt composites) at a higher temperature than that of the drawing.
Steel at this point would have little hardness and little tenacity/toughness, so it needs tempering.
After tempering, then the spring is wound or coiled.
But this tempering process, even if it is conducted at relatively low temperature, requires some annealing in order to make the spring less fragile.
Then the surface is treated with Nitrides in order to create a "case" that exhibits superior resistance to the starting of cracks and fissures which are the weak spots where the spring breaks, while still retaining a "core" with tenacity and toughness.
But while niitriding creates the chemical aspects conducive  to surface hardness, it also stresses the surface itself. So these stresses need to be relieved and the most economical way to relieve them is to "shot-peen" the spring (some manufacturers use small bits of wire to shot peen, not actual spherical shot).
Finally, the spring is subject to a certain portion of maximum allowable stress and "aged" by the strain this stress creates (what we would call "setting", though we set the springs by compressing the FIRST time to fully solid condition).

There are techniques to strain-age airgun springs, but not all airguns are suitable for them.

After all these processes, the resultant spring is capable of MILLIONS of operations within the design parameters, and here we note that NO AUTOMOTIVE spring reaches the compression ratio of airgun mainsprings.

Would an airgun spring manufacturer be able to buy these super-special steels?

Maybe, I really do not know. My calls for information went somewhat unheeded as to what material each manufacturer uses, so I cannot tell you who uses what and what processes are applied to our airgun springs.
I am sure that they all do the best they can within the constraints of the costs they can face. And this is an important consideration.
An OEM spring costs between $0.50 and $4, an aftermarket spring costs about $10, some VERY special aftermarket springs can cost up to $25, most of them are sold for between 2 and 3 times the cost, not all of them are truly worth the price the consumer pays but, when you consider that a gas spring, in industrial assembly quantities can cost between $5 and $25, it is clear that extremely advanced steel springs will never make it to the OEM piston gun.

We said in the beginning that a spring is a series of coils that act more or less independently from each other, and that is a good way to start to understand springs.
The first coil supports and pushes the second that in turn does the same with the third, etc. BUT if we think about this closely, we will understand that the first coil is pushing ALL the next coils, and that in the other extreme, the last coil is pushing the piston itself. 
Yes it receives the support and push from all the previous coils, but this difference make the "distribution of labor" different for each coil depending on WHERE that coil is in the spring.
This concept also clarifies that the WEIGHT each coil is pushing, depends on the position in the spring.
And lastly, this concept also helps us understand that once the whole length of the compression chamber has been run by the piston, and the piston itself suffers the pushback from the pellet's inertia/resistance and high pressure thereby developed, a whole mayhem of disorderly conduct ensues. Some coils go back while others go forward, and some stay more or less stationary. These "travelling waves" of steel actually make the spring perform several compressions and decompressions for every shot cycle.

The most common way to solve that is to use a tight fitting guide.
A tight fitting guide will provide some coils with enough friction to dampen their movement.
And so, we eliminate the twang and the buzz.
We also reduce the double and triple duty cycle that some coils perform.
But, as much as we would like to reduce completely this aspect, we cannot. We cannot introduce so much friction that the extra movement of the coils is completely arrested. We would not get the speed we need to drive the pellet.
So, we need to accept that as long as we use a coiled steel spring, we will need a tight guide, or accept the twang and the buzz.

The natural question here is: Why don't manufacturers use a tight guide from the start?
Answer lies in the cost, of course.
And the REAL answer is that to make the springs, the steel needs to be coiled (remember the 4th step in the manufacturing process?). 
How do we do that?
Some of you may answer that you take a mandrel, and coil the spring around the mandrel. 
Well, that was true in the old days.
Fairly elaborate mandrels were turned to set the "pitch" of the spring, and the diameters had to be not only calculated, but then rectified by actually making a number of springs.
Because, depending on the force you use to restrain the wire from winding freely, the spring will always be fatter than the mandrel; more force, less difference between mandrel's outside diameter and spring's inside diameter.

Nowadays, springs are wound using mandrel-less machines that simply start bending the wire along an adjustable curve and the spring wire is "pushed" into form, not stretched.

This means that you are not limited by the length of your mandrel. You can make REALLY long springs. And you can also adjust the dimensions to a fine degree: Inside Diameter (ID), Outside Diameter (OD), Pitch (P).
​
Some aspects that are seldom questioned are:  What is the INTERNAL geometry of the spring, and why, where and how does the spring accumulated energy?

To understand that we need to look into what is the "Neutral Fiber", "Neutral plane", or "Neutral Axis"

INTRODUCTION.-
One of the privileges, and pleasures, of being a custom airgunsmith and, partly, a sort of "Ambassador" for a well known brand (DIANA), is that I get to meet extremely interesting persons.
In particular, I have found airgunners to be a special breed of shooters and hunters.
Most of us are VERY ETHICAL in our hunting practices, and also extremely sportspersonlike.
Not that we can be characterized as "Adults",  LOL! but we are truly mature and rational "human beans" (yes, I do joke now and then).
For the most part.
Yes there are exceptions, but they are few and far between.

I met Matt Coulter when he reported in a well known forum (GTA) that his DIANA 48 would not cock and, finally, the cause was traced to the stem coming completely separated from the body of the piston. That, obviously, was a "Red Alert"; and with Matt's help, we were able to trace the lot and date where that piston was produced and steps were taken, and are still being taken, to improve on a method that is about 80 years old and that was useful when materials and precision machining capabilities were not what they are today.

Matt has an excellent background on Photography and Technical Writing, so it was almost natural for me to invite him to write, not about that piston, UMAREX stood honourably up to the plate and that situation was resolved, but on a specific interest of his, which was shooting with light-weight guns and, in particular, iron sights.

We've been working at this over the last 8 months, and there have been some of the normal (to spring-guns) disruptions and "events". All in all, Matt handled them all with aplomb and the resulting article is full of useful information that, for sure, will help those airgunners that are interested in good marksmanship, but not at the cost of adding a 2 lb optical "brick" atop their airguns.

So, without further ado, here are Matt's experiences and findings, hope you all enjoy the hard work presented here as much as I did.

OK, I will admit that I’m guilty of having a “Turn it up to 11!” mentality when it comes to rifle scopes and their magnification. Having studied photography and being a former photojournalist, I have always enjoyed and appreciated anything with a lens.  But, as “luck” would have it, my .22 caliber Diana model 48 ate my scope and fortunately, an opportunity to try a very different scope was presented to me and I jumped at the opportunity!    
 
Late last year I shared this scope-busting experience in an online post titled “Open sight fun w/D48” on the Gateway to Airguns forum.  Following this post came an offer to evaluate a diminutive, low-power scope.  To be quite blunt, I would have been quick to overlook this little scope when researching options for a new scope.  Outside of this offer to check it out, this specific model scope would not have been on my radar.  

And I’ll just come out and say it... on paper it’s really hard to get excited about a 3x32 scope.  But hold on a minute -  I’m really glad that I’ve been able to shoot with this glass.  There’s a TON that can be learned from a low-power scope.

Oh, by the way, I should also mention this is actually a crossbow scope.  Yes, a crossbow scope.   Specifically the Sightmark Core SX 3x32 Crossbow Scope. (Note by the Editor.- This scope is now discontinued and has been replaced by the 1.5-4.5X32 scope that presents the same facilities and more versatility)

Below are five revelations from shooting with the Core SX scope:
 
1.    Weight matters
Eight ounces may not sound like much, but when this mass is perched up on top of your rifle in rings, that extra half-pound difference can definitely be felt. The Core SX scope weighs in at 14 ounces and that’s a nice savings that can be felt over the 22 ounces of the other scopes I’ve used.

This 9-inch long scope works particularly well with the shorter length-of-pull on the Diana 48.  Would this smaller scope work on every gun?  Nope.  Using the Core SX scope on some rifles (without offset or cantilever mounts) simply would not be feasible.  My Kral PCP, with its very long (15-inch) length-of-pull, is  barely usable with my 3-12x44 compact scope.   For reference, here is how the Sightmark compares in length with a couple other of scopes:
Sightmark Core SX = 8.9 inches long
3-12x44 compact = 11.2 inches long
4-16x40 = 14.6 inches long

3.    KISS and relax
“Keep It Simple, Stupid” or KISS is a laudable credo to follow.  It is also one that pretty much defines the Core SX.  Its magnification is fixed at 3-power and its parallax set for 30 yards.  It does have an adjustable diopter (3 to -3), of course it has windage and elevation adjustments (.5 MOA), and an illuminated reticle.  The reticle markings are finely etched (not fat wires) and are quite crisp. The crosshairs and four holdover points below it are very easy to read and are specifically configured for crossbow usage.  These holdover points and are calibrated to 20, 30, 40, 50, and 60 yards with a crossbow shooting at 320 fps.
Spoiler alert - you may not need very many of the hold-over points with your typical airgun at 3x power  :-) ​

During my first weekend of informal testing I shot the Diana 48 off a monopod at distances that ranged from 10 yards to nearly 60 yards using JSB 15.9 grain pellets.  Here in Central New York it’s winter and temperatures during this testing were just above 20f.  The scope’s image at my zeroing distance of 10 yards was soft but usable.  The actual zeroing of the scope was uneventful.  Five shots downrange and I was hitting my bullseye.  Aside from my initial zeroing and then an elevation adjustment for a further distance, I did not do ANY further fiddling with the scope.  
The bulk of my shooting at 25 yards.  I can truly say that I was all smiles shooting at this distance with the Core SX.  While seeing how this scope and my rifle got along, it was not long before individual shots became groups.   Then those groups became defined enough to see through - even with a 3x scope at 75 feet!  ​

At this point I realized just how relaxed I was while shooting.  This became even more apparent when switching from the Diana 48 with the 3x Sightmark scope to my Kral PCP with a 4-16 scope.  One would presume that greater magnification would translate into better accuracy.  Well, my experience was a bit different.  I would consider accuracy between the Diana 48 springer and Kral PCP quite comparable at this distance.  What WAS significantly different was the additional energy and “focus” that was required to keep the crosshairs on target when shooting the Kral with the higher-powered scope.  I found that some of the fundamentals of shooting - natural breathing, relaxed muscles, and generally being in the “zone” - just came more naturally with the lower powered scope.  ​

With the winter cold beginning to reach my bones and my fingers getting numb, I figured it would be time for my final “Hail Mary” shots at a longer distance.  I set my target at roughly 58 yards and guessed the holdover might be the second mark below the crosshairs.  Fire the shot and listen… No telltale smack of the pellet punching its hole in the target.  Hmmm… This would be my 1st lesson on holdover with a 3x scope.  I was simply shooting too high.  I little bit of holdover at this distance was all that was needed.  A lower point of aim resulted in that satisfying smack of the pellet hitting the target.  No, I didn’t have a chance of seeing the .22 inch holes on my 60-yards target, but what is missing in magnification is made up for by a wonderfully bright and clear image.  Ultimately, I was quite pleased with not only hitting the target with a minor adjustment, but when I walked around the frozen pond that I was shooting over, I was actually pretty pleased with the resulting groups!

4.    Is seeing the barrel a bad thing?
The first view that I took through the scope after mounting it was an interesting combination of amazement and disappointment.  I was amazed at the brightness and sharpness of the image, but I was feeling deflated by the fact that the scope’s low-magnification allowed the barrel to be clearly visible in the bottom of the scope’s sight picture.  This dark blob at the bottom of the sight-picture slowly became something new and rather unexpected.  Seeing the barrel can actually be a HUGE advantage!    ​

5.    The incredible disappearing scope
No, I’m not talking about hocus-pocus here, but saying that the scope “disappeared” really was the best way to describe how it seems shooting with this scope.  I’m sure this effect is just a combination of the scope’s  low-magnification and large exit pupil, but more than any scope that I have used, this one allows me to see and visually engage both what is inside the scope’s field-of-view along with what is within my peripheral vision.   I found my brain really was able to blend the two seamlessly. ​

Trajectory Testing

The week following my initial scope testing brought weather that cooperated well enough to continue testing with the Sightmark crossbow scope. Even though the weather in Central New York is typical for mid-winter - cold with temperatures hovering around 20f - the wind was manageable, so testing was a go!  

I’m fortunate enough to live in a location where I’m able to shoot to distances just over 60 yards in my backyard which I would consider a reasonable upper limit for target shooting with a 3x scope.  Most importantly, this time of year, I was able to do this from inside a nice shed to be out of the elements.   ​

Initial scope calibration and trajectory testing began at 23-yards.  One of the first evaluations I wanted to run testing how changes to the point-of-aim (by using the hold-over points or “subtensions” on this 3-power scope) would  translate into changes in the point of impact.  ​

​As we can see, the results were quite uniform and  as expected we can see greater changes in point-of-impact between the reticle’s “plus-sign” markers than with the aimpoints within the “plus-signs”.  However, as I moved my target to different distances, I soon noticed that the trajectory was still rising and I soon ran out of scope markings ABOVE the main crosshairs.  Using Chairgun Pro’s “Optimum Zero” function, I selected 37-yards as my next distance for my zeroing the Sightmark Core SX scope.  Chairgun Pro estimated a 1-inch “killzone” from 10 yards out to 40 yards.

Having used scopes in the 12+ power range for years, I was shocked how little adjustment (holdover) was needed with a 3x scope!  
Speaking of bullseyes, I did not have any trouble seeing ¾ inch stickers at distances up to 40 yards.  At 50 and 60 yards I switched 2 inch splatterburst stickers for better visibility and perhaps better consistency. ​​

The most fun (and probably meaningful) test of the day was placing cardboard targets in the snow at distances of 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, and 60 yards.  Each  target had two aim points.  At each distance, I would first aim directly at the left target to see where the pellet was impacting, then I would use the right target to determine elevation correction using the subtensions in the reticle.​

It is worth noting that the reticle’s illumination did start acting up after 200 or so shots.  The scope just decided to turn its illumination on all by itself!  I actually had to rotate the illumination brightness adjustment “on” to actually turn it “off”.  That being said, I did sneak outside in the evening - actually just after dusk - to see how effective the illumination was in dim lighting conditions.  In short besides the on/off issue, the actual quality of illumination was was both effective and pleasing to use.  ​

​Summary (so far…)

In short, this scope has been a pleasure to use.  There is a lot to be said for its relative light weight and size.  It truly matches-up well to the Diana/RWS 48 air rifle with its shorter length-of-pull.  The scope’s clarity is great and this certainly contributes to it's ability to be VERY accurate out to 40 yards on targets that are ¾ of an inch in size.  At 50 to 60 yard distances a ¾ inch dot is  too difficult to resolve (to this shooter’s eyes at least) to accurately place the point-of-aim.  
​
I will also be performing some comparisons to shooting unscoped with the rifle’s open-sights at varying distances.  Stay tuned!

And 4 months later . . .

​​​After sending many pellets downrange using the Sightmark Core SX 3x32 VXR-L Crossbow scope on my .22 caliber RWS / Diana 48, I wanted to see how I may be able to simplify using this scope in a hunting scenario.  Since real quarry typically refuse to hang out at the distances I specify, I decided to use the goat from the Air Venturi Airgun Metal Silhouette target pack!

Though it looks big, it is not that big:

I have found this little 3X scope to be a great tool out to 35-yards (and in right conditions 40-yards).  Compared to most of my other scopes, this one adds little weight, it has a VERY clear image, and as can be used accurately at distances from 8-yards to 35-yards.  While the distances and sight pictures I mention here are unique to my rifle, its ballistics, and my zeroing distances, they should be fairly representative of other users’ experiences. ​
​
​In my case, I found two aiming-points covered the 15 to 35 yard distances which I suspect are some of the most common distances for backyard hunters.  I have also included a closer distance (8-yards) and the longest distance I felt comfortable shooting my silhouette (40-yards)

​o   8-yards = use second set of crosshairs (set one down from main crosshairs)

​o  20-yards = use main crosshairs

​o  30-yards = use top segment of main crosshairs

It was not that I couldn’t hit the target at 40-yards, but I could not hit it consistently given the lighting I was shooting in.  Additionally, my ability to see the yellow silhouette target during my testing made me expect that might be the upper range for effective hunting.  In the shots I took in this testing, I missed once at 30 yards, and a few times at 40 yards. 
​
In graphical terms:

Which is a pretty simple scheme to remember.
The added "advantage" of a low magnification scope is that it is not easy to forget where the limit of an ethical shot lies.

High magnification scopes makes targets look so big that we may take a shot we really should not have.

After several months of using the Sightmark Core SX 3x32 VXR-L Crossbow scope on my Diana/RWS 48 in .22 caliber I wanted to see how shooting with a relatively low-powered scope was compared with shooting open sights.  I began this round of testing shooting paper targets with the simple goal of sighting the rifle in.  For consistency, I am using the same .22 caliber JSB 15.9 grain pellets that I used with the scope testing.  I’ll state up front that the vast majority of shooting I do is with scopes.  None of my PCP rifles even have open sites!  Because of this, I decided to use 20-yards as a my zero distance for the open sight testing. 

Up to this point my “go-to” target was a 3/4 inch colored dot sticker that is found in most any Walmart or office supply store.  These brightly colored dots just plain work for me.  I can slap as many (or as few) of these on normal paper and just shoot.  However, this time shooting 3/4 inch dots at 20-yards without magnification simply wasn’t possible for my eyes.  It took me less than 5-shots to figure this one out!  I next tried drawing similarly sized black dots with a Sharpie marker.  Nope, not going to work either…  ​

So lesson number one is that my visual acuity is so incredibly used to the magnification that even a 3-power scope provides.  I simply could not make out a brightly-colored 3/4 inch target at 20-yards.  The 2-inch Shoot-N-C target was large enough for me to feel that I could place shots using the open-sights that I hoped to test. 

After going through a zeroing and then shooting targets at 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, and 35 yards, I learned a few more lessons!  
One: the amount of adjustment / compensation needed in my sight picture is absolutely minimal.  Where I could use distinct parts of the crosshairs in the scope for repeatable aiming, I found myself measuring changes in “smidgens”…  as in “place the post a smidgen higher”.  
And two: even a 2-inch target is small at 30-yards!  
Three: The harder you look at your target, the more “evasive” it becomes.   I think the best way to describe this is to analogize to stargazing.  Have you ever tried to look at a faint star only to have it hide from you when you try to focus on it?  To see it you almost have to look just to the side of it.  While the effect was not quite as dramatic as stargazing, the target does seem to get more evasive the longer you try to look at it! 

Here are my sample targets where I was compensating for the trajectory.  There are three shots on each target.  As you can see my “smidgen” adjustment for closer distances (10 and 15-yards) still placed the shots a bit high.  The 20-yard target was my zero and 25-yards was just as good.  But you can see my “groups” falling apart at 30 and 35 yards.  Based on this I would limit myself to 25-yards when hunting with open-sights. ​

This is the normal view of a 30 yards target:

Now, some detail focusing on the target:

And what it looks like when focusing on the front sight (as all handbooks say):

​·        15 yards = two misses (high) before hitting it

​·        20 yards = hit

To be blunt, I found the holdover at closer distances was tricky!  And I was shocked that I was able to hit the goat at the longer distances.  There is ZERO chance of me actually placing a shot much past 20 or maybe 25 yards without magnification.  And it’s really quite amazing what a lowly 3x magnification actually does for you!    See pics of each shot at these distances.

In conclusion,

This has been an awesome project to work through!  More than anything else, doing this has reinforced the benefits that even a low-magnification scope brings.  Namely, repeatable aim-points and added “resolution” of your target.  I would encourage every reader who has a pellet gun with open sights to spend a few days shooting without your scope.  It will give you both a new appreciation of those who have gone before us who did amazing things never having a scope, you get a feel for what your rifle may feel like when it sheds the weight of your scope, and it’s fun!

The flip-side of this is a bit more practical.   In my opinion, this modest crossbow scope is an AWESOME tool.  It really does have a great image and adds little weight to you gun.  Most importantly, it WILL allow more accurate shot placement with a minimum of fuss.


Matt Coulter

It has been written that in the Old West (whatever that was), some "Pistoleros" used to pay dubious characters to go into town a couple of days before they did and spread the word about how fast and deadly the "Hombre"  was.
Were they looking to draw out the real fighters? Or to avoid the gunfights?
Who knows, it could have worked both ways.

It is a fact that many of them took advantage of the "press" of those days and gave freely of their "experiences" (colorful, and colored, undoubtedly) to journalists (really novelists) that wrote about the "life on the frontier" for newspapers, whether East or West Coast; the newly created class of "urbanites" had little excitement in their lives and, specially the ladies, simply devoured those accounts of shooting, rampaging  and pillaging.

If you think across time to the "Real Housewives of . . . " you see that humanity has not changed much in 200 years.
Sad, or funny; it all depends how you look at it.

Bottom line here is "Caveat Emptor" (Buyer Beware), the words that were chiselled into every Roman market's entrance lintel for all to see, if only they kept their gaze above the ground.
For our purposes it means that EVERYONE should understand that airguns are fickle beasts and that no two barrels are the same.
Therefore, even the "best of pellets", may not shoot from a specific barrel and some barrels may shoot VERY well really cheap pellets.

I have come across people that vastly prefer the second case. They argue they can buy a bunch of pellets for the same outlay and shoot a lot, thereby "practicing" and becoming better shooters. The problem comes when that brand disappears, or changes "maker" for the sake of economy and/or improved margins, those shooters end up down river without a paddle.
​
Personally, I prefer to pay more for pellets as long as the quality and consistency is there. Sometimes, even the best pellets differ from batch to batch and that creates the peculiar problem of having to buy the whole batch, or at least a case (50 tins of 500), just to get through a season or two of shooting. My only advantage is that 99% of the time, when I shoot for myself, it is the same gun.
Remember the "Beware the man with one gun  . . . ."?

Anyway, what this entry is about is consistency, and quality. And it will be a surprise for some of you because it comes from a completely unexpected corner of the world.

But let's go back a little more than a year and tackle the story from the beginning:

I was commissioned by a friend, and customer, to look into an old Match Pistol. Good brand, no longer made, in need of resealing.
With no spare parts available, you know how hard that can be.
This particular gun, which will remain unnamed, because the brand is irrelevant, got specially turned/"cast" in place (plastic) bronze seals which worked like a charm because the compression chamber was an absolute jewel. Consistent and homogeneous to the 0.0005" so we thought the gun was worth recovering from the dead and the customer was willing to pay the intricate job.
However, after getting the power plant up to snuff, it was discovered that the gun would not shoot as accurately as a Match gun should.
In the end, we narrowed the problem down to the barrel.
So, a new barrel was made but then the new barrel was "Inefficient". The gun would not yield the necessary MV for proper Match shooting (a problem encountered by most entry level pistols of current manufacture). The holes were hard to score and sometimes it would be more a tear than a hole.

After gauging the slug from the original barrel, it was discovered to be oversize. That is how it originally developed enough power to punch neat holes, and the accuracy came from the absolute consistency of the powerplant.
Interesting as a concept but not really what we were looking for.

Testing some different barrels I found that a L-W polygonal barrel of our own design was providing improved efficiency, so I decided to test one of those barrel sections (without the choke to retain as much energy as possible) in this pistol. And then the pistol shone as it should. BUT, the pistol needed pellets of ABSOLUTE consistency.
R-10's didn't cut it, H&N FM's didn't cut, finally, a friend of mine that is a good pistol shot (he shoots FT "hands only" and he scores well with iron sights, he is that good), told me about some "Chinese Olympic pellets" that had proven VERY good from his pistol (a Project Alfa).
I really didn't know where to start, and I had to go IWA (remember this is 2018).
So, I put the project on hold and off I went.

IWA 2018 was very good to me, I enjoyed it immensely and we started our formal collaboration with DIANA.

As I was walking down the aisles, I saw a stand of a Chinese company that was almost empty of "giveaways", except for the flyers and documents, they did have a super-sized domed pellet "sculpture" (imagine a 6.00"  cal pellet)  that looked extremely interesting. I approached the stand and found out that the domed pellets had been held at Customs and they didn't have any to give for testing.
But the persons at the stand were knowledgeable, spoke reasonably good English, took notes, and overall were very professional. Upon departure they gave me a flyer about their "Olympic Grade" Match pellets.

Ah! That rung a bell in the back of my overcrowded brain.

When I got home, I looked for the Qiang-Yuan (QYS for short) pellets, found them at Pyramyd Air in boxes of 200, balked a little at the price but bought them and tested them in the "Paleo-Pistol"; lo and behold! They WORKED!.

Now, those of you that know me, know that I deeply dislike weighing and sorting pellets. Back in the day I used to sort the Crosman Premier 0.20"s using a BIC pen's barrel. That helped me measure not only the head diameter (MOST important in a Crosman Premier, if you need to understand why read this), but the overall fit of the pellet to the chamber and therefore it was a good predictor of the proper seating of the pellet in the barrel just before it got launched. In a 20 ft-lbs PCP it was very effective.

But in spring-piston airguns that is not as important as other aspects, mainly the harmonics developed in the barrel by the violent piston movements (read more about it here and here). So I no longer test/measure/weigh pellets. Too much work for relatively little gain.
​
BUT when it is time to get a handle on the capabilities of a manufacturer, then that MERITS a special effort and so, when the QYS Olympic Grade pellets did provide the wanted results, I got out my gauging tools and started gauging and weighing.

After running the 90 pellets I had remaining from the Paleo-pistol shooting tests through the scale and the head measuring template, I was astonished. They were the most consistent pellets I had ever found, bar none.

As far as dimensions are concerned it is, within industrial manufacturing tolerances, ABSOLUTE consistency.

My good friends at Pyramyd told me that the Importers of Record for these pellets were the good folks at Predator International, so I "bit the pellet" and got 20 boxes.

When the boxes arrived, of course, they were different batches, so I proceeded to test the second batch.

Same results.

And when comparing pellets of DIFFERENT batches?

You guessed it, same results.

Obviously, at this year's IWA I made it a purposeful visit to QYS's stand because last year we had talked about some "long range" pellets and that, obviously, piqued this FT shooter's interest.
I found that this year, not only did they have one version, but TWO, one they called "Streamlined" and another called "Domed".

Well, the domed is the time-honored shape of most domed pellets, a little bit more pronounced than the "English Bulldog" but less than the Crosman Copperhead Pointed's or the H&N Baracuda's, that do exhibit a slight apex.

​Since the introduction of the "Baracuda FT" about 2 years ago, I have been insisting with H&N on producing a "light" version of this pellet in the 8.5 grs. region, alas, the powers that control the production at H&N have repeatedly said  it was impossible: too deep a punch, too much "sticktion" upon extraction, too . . .

And, now, before my very eyes, I had it!

​There is also word of a new FT Premium pellet from JSB, so definitely, next year should prove VERY interesting for all of us long range airgunners.

But, let's come back to the present and see what the fuzz is all about.

I wrote above how much I dislike weighing and sorting pellets, but that does not mean that I don't do it when the situation arises and testing a manufacturer's capabilities is one of those situations.
​So, here is my setup:

At bottom, the excellent pellet gauge. The ONLY thing mine differs from the standard OEM version is that I add very slim washers between the gauge plate and the plastic face to make the face even with the tail of the skirt when the pellet's lip is hitting the gauge plate. The setup becomes almost unique to THAT pellet, as most pellets differ in length.
Why is that? because then the pellet tries to enter the gauge plate in a perpendicular manner. I avoid the measuring error of gauging an out-of-round pellet as a certain size because it managed to "wiggle" its way in.
And, to be honest, that is something each shooter should do for himself.
With the enormous variety of pellets in the market, Mr. Cupples would be hard tasked indeed to provide for all the possibilities.
The tool is excellent, it just takes some patience and a little knowledge to wring the best out of it.

The picture above was taken about halfway through the process, after measuring 50 pellets and finding ONE that was 4.49 while all the others were 4.50, I decided to quit. And even the 4.49 one, I would label as a "big 4.49"  because it did not drop completely on its own, just a touch and it dropped, but not on its own.
Surely some BR'ers will air gauge these pellets in the future, I just hope the manufacturer keeps the dimensions control he has so far.

Now, what about the weight?
Well, the weight is not THAT important as long as it is kept within reasonable limits.
Some shooters weigh their pellets to the hundredth of a grain and set classes within every two or three hundredth, some don't care too much for such differentiation and set classes of 5 hundredths (Half a tenth).
IMHO, the trajectory will not change much due to the weight variation, rather, large weight variations tell us that there is a SHAPE variation, and that is more important than the weight variation itself.

So, when I weighed pellets (again the Crosman Premiers in 0.20"  cal), I was contented with establishing classes by tenths of a grain, which was what my old Bonanza scale was able to differentiate, anyway.
Now I use a carat-capable electronic balance and have found that the reliability is within 2 hundredths. Meaning that the same pellet will weigh either x.x2, or x.x4 in several consecutive measurements. And that if I blow gently on the scale, the number will increase and then come back within 0.02 of what the scale measured before.

Previous runs of "Premium" pellets had yielded consistencies of all pellets within a tenth of a grain, and that was considered VERY good.
I am happy to report that these Streamlined pellets comply with that criterion

Again, after weighing 30 pellets, with ALL pellets within 0.1 grs, I decided to call it quits.

There were :
2 pellets at 8.54
6 pellets at 8.56
8 pellets at 8.58
6 pellets at 8.60
4 pellets at 8.62
4 pellets at 8.64

Total of 30 pellets.

Please consider that 0.1 grs is a tad more than 1% of the "base"  weight.
I will definitely not loose sleep over this.
​;-)

So, having ascertained that the pellets are all true 4.50 head size and uniform in weight, the next question is which barrels should we test them in?

For that, I have found that the best test is to put a pellet into the barrel and drive it with a plastic shaft to just before the choke.
This will tell us how closely the pellet matches the barrel and will allow us to weed those barrels out that have very little probability of shooting well.
Some may think that the test should include the choke, but my experience has been that if the pellet is allowed by the bore to enter/travel crooked, or to not engrave equally all around, the choke will not improve dramatically the results at the target beyond the 30 yards line.
This simple test saves a lot of time.
Knowing that QYS's background is Match pellets, it came almost as a confirmation of expectations that the most appropriate barrels would be those on the "tight"  side, in other words, barrels that come from the precision/match world.

This is a parade of 5 pellets that were driven through barrels of recognized quality.

The Steyr HF means a Hammer Forged barrel from an LG-100, commonly called "barelycorn"  barrels in the US
The Steyr L-W means a button rifled barrel under Steyr specs from an LG-110
The DIANA T-06 is a button rifled barrel from a current production DIANA (Post Ense Move)
The L-W Conv. means a L-W (L-W specs) with conventional rifling
The L-W Poly label means a L-W (CCA Specs) with polygonal rifling.

But we cannot see too much from this angle and distance, so let's take a closer look at each pellet:

In this picture you can see the clear imprints of the relatively narrow lands and the wide grooves typical of hammer forged barrels, what is notable is that the head is lightly marked all around. Clearly this pellet should travel evenly and uniformly through this barrel.

Now we can compare a Button Rifled barrel more or less within the same specs (remember they are both Steyr specs). We see the land and grooves are closer in dimensions and the marks are smoother, the head is also lightly marked, telling us that the barrel holds the same internal dimensions as the original HF barrel had. Again, a typical result of a top quality barrel made with the button rifling process.

This is the result of using a DIANA barrel of current manufacture, you can see the wide lands and narrow grooves at the skirt, but what was not there (and I apologize for the picture) is that the head had absolutely no marks. This is worrisome because it means that this pellet's probability of shooting well out of this barrel is very low.

While it wasn't part of the original parade, the rifling marks of an old T-01 rifle are presented here. You can see the clear marks of the wide lands and narrow grooves that have been the halmark of DIANA barrels for a long time, BUT you can ALSO see the marks on the head. Light, but they are there. This pellet entered the "contest"  when I remembered that it used to shoot "thin" pellets real well, and the tests were not disappointing as we will see later.

Next in our parade of pellets comes the L-W conventional rifling. In here I have to make the precision that the rifling design is the standard L-W design, but since this barrel was specced for break barrel rifles, the steel it is made of is not the standard steel used by L-W. So what we see here is the result of my modest collaboration with an excellent barrel maker such as L-W. You can see the wider lands and narrower grooves that is typical of the L-W design, but the internal dimensions enable the pellet's head to be fully supported by the top of the barrel's lands.
This is something that definitely merits some future in depth testing.

Now, last in our Pellet Parade, comes the ultra-efficient, CCA specs L-W Polygonal barrel.
While this is still a project in testing phase, the engraving of the pellet tells us that a LITTLE more tightness of the flats of the polygon would be beneficial (probably just 0.02 mm's), and some fired pellet capturing should be in order because the pellet's skirt does not really fill the "corners" (in reality very small radii)  of the polygon.

Now, most of you will be tired of reading and wanting to see some groups, here is a battery run through a T06 (Post Ense move) DIANA Mauser AM03 that has been steel-springed, uses an Anti-Bounce Piston and is set to 12 ft-lbs:

You can see clearly that the short range groups (17 meters, about 19 yards) are not bad, but when the range is almost doubled, the groups "explode", clearly an instability produced by the lack of support of the head by the rifling.
On the other hand, I don't really complain about the gun or the barrel because it shoots real well the 4.53 head diameter Exacts.

After that test I didn't have great expectations from these pellets out of spring-piston airguns, and installing one of the barrels where it would perform, for sure, is not a question of a few hours of work.
Very few spring gun shooters would take the trouble of re-barreling their rifles.
​While theoretically possible in some guns, like the Walther LG and the AA TX family, it is very difficult in other guns. Hopefully that will change in the near future, but until there is a large number of easily re-barrellable rifles, these great pellets would appeal only to those shooters that already enjoy great accuracy from other pellet makers' products.

Suddenly, I remembered that one my guns seemed to like slender pellets, and so, I brought it out, scoped it, and shot two targets, one to sight in and then another for grouping.
It is always encouraging when the sighting in goes well and you can get it done in a few shots:

As you can see, the results were most pleasing because the black blobs are a little under ½"  across, and the distance was 37 yards (34 meters), so the gun/pellet combination is perfectly capable of putting the pellet into a 60T (½" at 30 yards) field target

NOT shabby at all.

Looking at the group in more detail, it is clear that the gun is still settling in, as there are two distinct "sub-groups". We will look into that at some other time.

I am in contact with QYS. The persons, again, seem to be sincere and understanding, and I hope that in the future, more shooters can benefit from this great offering.

Contrary to the situation at the beginning of our article, the "Durango Kid" that is coming to town is for real, and so are his capabilities.
The rest of the "hombres"  around should start honing their skills, or risk a defeat.

There is still work to do and I will try to tackle the "Domed"  version in another entry that will be Part 2

Till, then, and till these pellets are more widely available in the US, keep well and shoot straight!





​HM

It is not often that I invite someone to write an entry to my blog. As a matter of fact, I've refused offered money to accept blog entries skewed to some commercial purpose. Obviously, I don't want that for this blog. It is one of the few that remain completely devoid of ads/banners and other forms of propaganda.
So, when I find someone who is conscientious, dedicated, patient and perseverant enough to solve a problem many would have simply quit, or sent back to the retailer, I have to take notice.
Not everyone accepts the invitation, but those that do, usually end up writing VERY good entries, and so, without further ado, let me introduce Mr. Ken Wheeler.
Ken spent a good time battling some issues that the Stormrider has, he went through two guns to find the one he wanted to keep, and he listened to advise and was patient. The results he obtained are "professional grade". So I am happy to recognize Ken's dedication by publishing his adventure with the Stormrider.

Happy reading!

​HM

​Late last fall (Nov. of 2018) I entered into a struggle against the local gray squirrel population that was destroying my lawn and a playhouse intended for my grandchildren.  My initial weapon of choice was a .22 caliber Benjamin Prowler.  I chose this air rifle because it was inexpensive and readily available at my local Walmart.  Initially I was happy with my purchase and used it to dispatch several of the squirrels plaguing my property, but after a while I realized it was a rather difficult rifle to be accurate with, it was relatively loud and very slow to reload for follow up shots, so I began exploring other options.  This exploration led me to Pyramyd Air and GatewayToAirGuns.com where my eyes were opened to the large world of air guns.  These sources helped me decide I wanted a PCP and narrowed the options to a Diana Stormrider, a Benjamin Maximus or a Beeman Chief.  I read all the reviews and watched all the videos I could find on these rifles and had almost decided on the Beeman when I ran across Hector’s blog posts outlining the potential of the Stormrider.  Hector’s blog posts prompted me to reconsider and I took another look at the Stormrider.  Coincidentally at about the same time DIANA was releasing the second generation of the rifle which incorporated a better trigger, bolt handle and sound moderator. 

​The primary motivations for moving to a PCP were their lack of the double recoil of a spring piston (making them easier to shoot accurately) and no requirement for multiple pumps between each shot.  I also had a strong desire to be able to “tune” the gun to be back yard friendly (whatever that means), which is more difficult to do to with spring piston and multi-pump guns.  My goal was to eliminate, if possible, the pass-through shots I experienced quite often when shooting the squirrels in my back yard with the Prowler and reduce the volume of the report so it wouldn’t bother the neighbors.  According to Hector’s blog posts and the general research into PCPs I’d done it seemed the Stormrider was a good candidate, assuming I could install a regulator and find a source for transfer ports I could modify.  I decided to purchase a .22 caliber second generation Stormrider from Pyramyd Air.

​This began my initial love/hate relationship with this delightful little carbine.  I say love/hate because the first one I received was not the best example of the weapon.  The shipping box showed damage where the bolt handle had punctured it and the gun was slathered with a significant quantity of the preservative oil used by Chinese manufacturers (I hate that stuff), but this was just the beginning of my frustrations with it.  Once I cleaned it up and filled it with air I found it didn’t leak so I ran a few pellets through it and was pleasantly surprised at how well it grouped right out of the box.  I had to run close to 500 pellets through the Prowler to break it in before it began to group this well.  I let it sit for a couple days just to make sure it wasn’t going to leak (it didn’t appear to) and then decided to mount a scope and adjust the trigger.  This is where the frustration returned, first off there were (and as far as I know still aren’t) no instructions to be found anywhere on how to do this.  This is one of the primary advertised changes to the new gun and there are no instructions on how to adjust it.  Anyway, being the “do it myself” type I just dove in and figured it out, but in the process I also ended up completely degassing the gun.  Not a big deal, just pump it back up, which I did.
At this point I should comment that this first gun did not require the hammer to be cocked in order to fill from empty, I don’t know why but that’s how it was.
Anyway, this is when the frustration level really rose as I discovered the gun now leaked, it lost ~500psi overnight.  I found the leak locations using bubble juice, it was the fill port itself, the fill port cap where it threaded into the air tube and where the gauge threads into the sleeve.  So, I destocked the gun, took the fill port cap off and removed the gauge from the sleeve.  This is when I found the major issues that caused me to return this gun.  First, there was a noticeable quantity of the preservative oil and associated crud in the air tube.  Second, the o-ring at the base of the gauge was badly swollen and had to be replaced, fortunately a complete set of replacement o-rings is included with the gun.
I suspect the o-ring was exposed to and had absorbed the preservative oil ruining it.  I cleaned as much of the crud and oil out of the air tube as I could but could never get this gun to stop leaking.  
After finding these issues I thought it would be good for DIANA to be informed of the QC issue and remembering Hector’s blog I decided to inform him of my experience.  This began a conversation and ultimately a friendship.  This first gun ended up returned to Pyramyd Air for replacement. And in here I would like to thank PA for their great customer service.

​My experience with the second gun has been more positive but not without its trials.  I’ve had problems with this gun leaking as well but none of the QC problems of the first.  Yes, it did have some of that NASTY preservative oil on it when it arrived but it was reasonable. (DIANA: I suggest forgoing the oil and instead pack the guns in a plastic bag with a single desiccant pack).  After my experience with the first gun I kept in contact with Hector and let him know whenever I encountered a problem, partly to document it and partly to see if Hector had suggestions for resolution.  The issues were almost exclusively isolated to small leaks at the fill port cap.  In one particular email Hector commented that the machining on these guns is not the most precise and there are usually micro-burs present that when eliminated can resolve leaks.  This comment prompted me to tap the cap off the air tube and using a soft towel “polish” the threads on it and in the air tube.  This procedure along with applying lube to the o-rings in the cap resolved the leaks and I was completely happy.   Up to this point I was uncertain whether I’d keep this gun and if I returned it I planned to replace it with something besides a Stormrider.
To summarize the results and allow readers to come to their own conclusions, I implemented a "standard test" consisting of filling up the gun and shooting "economy priced" pellets to find where the powerplant exited the "sweet spot"  for that specific configuration, the results of the gun as received (but corrected for trigger pull and leaks), with open sights, no regulator, max fill 200bar produced ~12 usable shots with a max FPS of ~900 using Crosman Hollow Point 14.3gr pellets and a relatively loud report making it marginally back yard friendly.

​During our conversations I had informed Hector I planned to install an Altaros regulator and somehow obtain a transfer port that hadn’t been drilled yet to use in tuning the gun.  At the time I planned to tune it for ~12fpe thinking this would be a good level for backyard use.  Well, apparently I impressed Hector with my tenacity and attention to detail because he offered to sell me a gunsmith version of the Altaros regulator and a transfer port drilled to 2mm as a starting point.  He told me he felt confident I could install the regulator which replaces the stock gauge block, of course I agreed to the idea, although I have to say I was a bit nervous about the prospect of opening the gun again and taking all the guts out of the air tube.  So, we made a deal where Hector sold me the regulator, the TP, a new fill cap with a gauge and some additional o-rings.  Long story short here is I was able to successfully install the regulator without removing all the parts in the air tube.  I was able to extract the gauge block using a wire hook made from a hanger.  Maybe not the best idea looking back (if I’d scratched the inside of the air tube I might have created a leak that could not have been fixed) but its history and the gun does not leak at the regulator.

​Now I have a working gun with the regulator and the smaller TP installed, it’s time to see how it shoots.  Hector set the regulator to ~150bar and the TP has a 2mm opening, this was the starting point.
Here are a couple shot strings with this configuration:

​These show the base tune to produce ~15fpe while on the regulator and a slight rise then drop when off the regulator.  The gun does well with the heavier H&N BHE pellets giving about 27 good shots and more than 30 usable (I neglected to waste the first 2 shots after filling to settle the regulator) with a fill to ~210bar.
Falling back on the "standard test", the gun yielded15 good shots with an avg FPS of 695 and 20 usable shots if you’re willing to allow an FPS as low as 650 using Crosman Hollow Point 14.3gr pellets, starting at a 200bar fill, the report is still loud but the rifle is more backyard friendly.

​I then decided to invest in a Free Flight Hammer (FFH) device in a quest for a few more shots and a reduction in report volume (the gun is loud even with the “improved” moderator).  The only device I could find for sale relies on a micro-paracord arrestor for the hammer spring. I’m not thrilled with the design (it’s difficult to install and who knows how long the cord will last) but reviews online were positive so I took the plunge.  The goal of such devices is to eliminate hammer bounce, which I believe the stock Stormrider suffers from, and this device accomplishes it.  Here is a shot string with the H&N BHE after installation:

​With this configuration 31 good shots are produced, 33 or 34 usable and the rise/drop when the string falls off the regulator is gone.  If just the first 30 shots are examined a very stable setup is shown. Part of the increase in shots is due to a starting fill pressure of ~230 bar instead of 210.
​
Again, listing the results for the "standard test", the gun produced 25 good shots with an avg FPS of 690 and 31 usable shots if you’re willing to allow an FPS as low as 650 using Crosman Hollow Point 14.3gr pellets, the report is quieter still but still a bit loud for back yard. It is to be noted that this time the fill pressure was 230 BAR's

​My original plan was to “tune” for ~12fpe but I’ve changed my mind after reading one of Hector’s posts where he discusses the BHE and its terminal ballistics.  Coincidentally I had chosen the H&N Crow Magnum and Barracuda Hunter Extremes as my primary hunting ammo while I was still using the Prowler. Hector’s post reinforced my choice and convinced me to leave the gun tuned as is.  The Crow Magnum and BHE pellets need more energy than 12fpe to be the most effective.  In the time since I completed the tune I’ve taken 8 squirrels and 2 Starlings, only 2 of those shots resulted in a pass-throughs and those were relatively close head shots.  For me the jury is still out on this topic, the Prowler produces ~14fpe with these pellets but seemed to be more likely to produce a passthrough.

I added sling studs and a sling, as you can see in the pictures above.
This addition doesn’t increase performance but in my opinion adds the last bit that makes this carbine a very nice hunting setup.

I’m happy with the “final” result considering the goal was to create a backyard friendly pellet gun that can also serve as a general hunting rifle.

The one aspect of it that I find subpar is the magazine which was part of the original attraction of this rifle.  In real world use I find the use of the single shot tray to be more than acceptable.  Using it prompts me to slow down and take a better shot the first time and if a follow up is needed the reload time is not comparable to a break barrel.  Overall I would recommend the Stormrider to anyone looking for a first PCP or an experienced air gunner looking for a gun that can be made into a good hunting setup.

​Sorry for the delay in getting to this point. I have been extremely busy with some ABP's, but those are done and hopefully, we can now get to work on other things. Though an ABP would seem an ideal addition to the 430L, LOL!
I need to find a a way to make them less complicated.  ;-)

Anyway, after a full tin of pellets had been put through the 430L, we started testing pellets:

We tested the old trusted standby's, as well as some innovative pellets that I received  from unexpected sources. Funny how things happen just out of the blue, but it is rewarding to see that the Blog is read and respected all  over the world.
Rifle is a Brazilian company, they make pellets in two different "categories" the sport line (which we would call "plinking" here and the Premium line, that we would call "shooting" in the US.
Their Sport line produced "minute of can" groups, not bad, but not what we are looking for.
Their Premium line, however produced some interesting groups.
COAL is a Central European company that makes pellets the old way: rolled. And for the technology, they make interesting designs, however, none of their offerings produced acceptable results from THIS gun. We will be testing them in other guns and we will be offering some advice to the "Rifle Company" because they do have the potential, they only need to polish up some points in their production.

Having said that, we will concentrate then on four different pellets for the 430L:

First, the Baracuda FT, a pellet that is not easy to make shoot well. It has a very rear-wards CoG (Center of Gravity), and therefore requires a somewhat "tight" rifling, but it seems the 430L likes them.
Because the group in the test target above was "tainted" by another group made by pellets that I will not even name, I shot another test group, but this time 10 shots:

On purpose, I didn't shoot anything else in this target.
Just to show how clean the group is.
Now, 11.3 ft-lbs is nothing to sneeze at, specially if part of the interests of the shooter is an occasional FT Match here and there. But because the BFT (Baracuda Field Target) is a heavy pellet (9.57 grs.) the MV  is rather slow: 731 fps.
Those of you that went to Pyramyd Air Cup, received two samplers of this pellet, classified by lots.
PLEASE, if you have not tested them, do so. H&N went the whole 11 yards to get market feedback, and they deserve our attention.
You do not need to make public your findings (I will not), but a short Email telling them what lot you found best, or if no pellets shot good from your gun, and what gun / lube / MV you are using, is good information for them.
They are NOT doing this as a marketing gimmick, they are really and truly interested in YOUR results. So, please, take the time to shoot some groups, measure them and send the data to H&N. As airgunners WE WILL ALL be better for it.
The BFT is an interesting pellet when it shoots well out of the specific airgun you are interested in because it has very little susceptibility to wind.
Part is due to the weight, and part is the slow MV, but also part is the design of the head...
Will your gun like them?
You need to test, after all, it is part of the fun!

Curiously enough, I found that this particular gun likes the 4.53's JSB's (only offered in 8.44 grs.). It shoots acceptably well  the FT Premium, but the EXACTS are truly amazing.

Do remember that the black "dots" are a little under ½" and do compare the hole made by the S-100 pellets  (A Match WC) that is truly 4.5 mm's across.
It was notable that the JSB's 8.44's / 4.53's went into two distinct, but very close holes. There are three pellets in the top right section and two in the lower left. But they are so close together!
This points out to the need of controlling the barrel's harmonics, OR, preventing outright the generation of those. In here is where the ABP would probably help.
The S-100's shot better than the RWS SuperMag (a pellet I have found to be very accurate at or above 12 ft-lbs, where the normal Match pellets start destabilizing). But still the Exacts did prove to be the overall best pellet.

As to the Brazilian offerings, the Domed proved to be better than the WC, not surprising at this distance:

Although I have noted the ME's for the pellets of interest, just to provide you with the data and not make you reverse calculate the MV's, they were:

BFT.- 731 +/- 3  fps
JSB.- 784 +/- 6 fps
S-100.- 815 +/- 5 fps
Rifle Premium "Round" .- 794 +/- 4 fps

Now, in case you are wondering why these groups were shot a 25 yards instead of the usual 35 yds/ 32 meters, the reason is the weather:

There is a song in Spanish that says:

"Thank you, Life, for giving me laughs and tears
Through them I distinguish joys from heartbreaks
Specially through the eyes of my beloved"

And so, we need to learn to live through the winters and the summers; without both of them, life would be somewhat boring.

Now, indoor shooting also offers some rewards:

This doesn't happen as often as I would like, but when it happens, it makes you feel Oh, SOoooo Goooooood! LOL!

The 430L is definitely an improvement over the 430 and the 440.
It shows clearly how the persons on the assembly floor can contribute to the products, if only management is willing to listen.
The added barrel and lever length make the gun an enjoyable experience.

Accuracy and Precision potential are there, and that is as far as a manufacturer can go, the actual achievement of that potential is up to the users.

Yes, there is still room for improvement but that will take a bit more than getting different parts together. It will take a re-design of the cocking linkages. We'll see where we get on that end.
On the piston end, the gun does exhibit a definite re-bound. A gas spring with its more constant-force curve would be one solution, but then we're back to the large cocking force needed, and straight from the start. Plus the challenges of making the piston a non-rotating piston are not easily solved.
Another solution would be an anti-bounce piston (ABP), we'll look into that later, but we need to re-define (and refine) the design.
The current Muzzle piece almost precludes the use of a Harmonics Tuner, or Harmonics Reducer, we will continue thinking about that, but it would be a funny looking contraption.

Hope you all are enjoying the seasons, the changes, and the challenges that life brings; after all, life is a trip and the final destination is not that enjoyable, ROFL!

Keep well and shoot straight!





​HM