Springers less effected by wind???

[DEL67]

Sounds a bit stupid i know and a pellet is a pellet but in the strong wind we've been experiencing, which seems to be the norm over the past few years, i've found that my Prosport doesn't seem to be effected anywhere near as much as my PCP's. I know that the pellet skirt expands differently in a springer, the air blast is more instantaneous, where a PCP is slower in comparison. That's what i'm lead to believe anyway. Could this have something to do with it. The pellets used are A.A.Field and are .177, the PCP is running at 11ftlbs and the springer 10.5ftlbs. I've also noticed you get less flyer's from the springer as well. Any views and experiences on this very welcome.

Hope i haven't made myself look stupid,

Derek.

[Hsing-ee]

Hope i haven't made myself look stupid,

Derek.

I think it is stupid NOT to ask questions!

Two things that might be generating this difference (other than our old friend Chance):

1. The Prosport is heavier and has a sleeker profile than most PCPs, so the actual RIFLE rather than the pellet is less affected by gusting.

2. The springer technique - whichever you use - generally involves a longer follow-through than with a PCP, so the rifle is held 'on aim' a fraction longer which might negate the effects of gusting on the RIFLE.

Sorry but I cannot imagine how a pellet fired from a PCP would differ from a springer once it had left the barrel, unless the 'jetting' effect at the muzzle of the PCP was being affected by the wind.

Other than that, haven't a clue!

[air-tech]

Seems to be the only plausible explanation although another one could be "things are not always the way they seem" :D

[Davey K]

There was a very good thread on this a couple of years ago - it was started by The Pieman and many other very good springer shooters came out in support of his suggestion that pellets shot from springers 'take' less wind.

There was much rumination until Harry's Lad popped up to confirm that wind drift was directly and purely correllated to pellet ballistic co-efficient and that the type of air pulse delivered, be it by a PCP or springer, made no difference if identical pellets were used by both guns in identical wind conditions.

What he could not discount though, was that a springer might actually improve the BC of a pellet either by reshaping the pellet itself or imparting grooves into the pellet from the rifling as part of the firing process.

Not sure if there has been any new info since then but would love to hear any theories that are out there:)

[scratch]

I am having a hard time believing this, and I guess the only way to test this would be to do it in laboratory environment where you can have a constant sidewind. But if the same barrel is used on both the PCP and the springer and the pellet is exiting the barrel in the same velocity I dont think that there will be any difference in how much drift there will be. However if the test is done without the same barrel I guess you could get different results even though the exit speed is the same on both rifles. If one barrel has a higher twistrate that pellet may exit the barrel in the same veolicty as the other rifle but it might be spinning faster which makes it harder for the wind to catch it, which results in less drift compared to the other pellet fired by the other rifle.
Just some thoughts:)
Regards
/scratch

[DEL67]

I think it is stupid NOT to ask questions!



2. The springer technique - whichever you use - generally involves a longer follow-through than with a PCP, so the rifle is held 'on aim' a fraction longer which might negate the effects of gusting on the RIFLE.

Sorry but I cannot imagine how a pellet fired from a PCP would differ from a springer once it had left the barrel, unless the 'jetting' effect at the muzzle of the PCP was being affected by the wind.

Other than that, haven't a clue!


I honestly don't think that i'm shooting it any different to my PCP but this "jetting effect at the muzzle" you mention sounds interesting, my Rapid has a HW silencer on it but my Prosport has a custom U.K.Neil silencer on it as well as the built in shroud. Could that have an effect?
I know this may sound far fetched but it's happening and i'm curious to know why.

Derek.

[springboy]

That is basically what i've experienced,i've got the same set up and i do notice that it don't suffer as much from wind as my Pro Target.Thats why i find it such a joy to shoot my Pro sport:)

[shipwreck]

If the sudden burst of air from a spring is correct and it forces the skirt into the rifling more than this might explain.

I was watching a discovery programme recently that dealt with the growing size of oil rigs and the associated complications. Oneof the issues of using really large steel tube legs was that as the water went past it would cause a swirl around the leg causing it to weave in the waves. As it moved it would cause negative and positive currents and this increased the weave of the leg. The solution was to weld strips of steel around the legs but spiralling downwards at about 20-30 degree angle. The immediate effect of the was to disturb the current as it past and thus reduce the negative and positive swirls.

If you think of the welded strips as being the grooves on the skirt this may also change the effect of side wind on the pellet by not creating these vacuming areas. I have probably not explained this quite as clearly as the programme did and it may not apply. Might be 2+2=56 but in my non engineering brain it seems possible.

Anyone got a spare ballistic firing range lab?

Shippers

[Phil Russell]

Without any evidence to the contrary, I would have to agre with Scratch that the efect is something to do with different barrels ... twist rate, rifling depth etc combined with the effects of the 'air blast' differences between pcp and springer acting on pellet shape as it leaves the barrel.
Cheers, Phil:)

[Andy 01]

I've always said this !
If I'm shooting with someone with a PCP, they say "I gave that just outside of kill", and I send one down the middle with the Prosport, and we both get the hit !
From my own findings, springers never seem to take as much wind.
Don't know why though :confused::confused: :D

[Baxterbasics]

Harvey was correct: I have owned a few very high end spring rifles (Airmaster 88 HW77 / Venom tuned atc, etc) and can confirm that they did indeed "Take Less Wind" at 40 plus yards:) This conclusion was drawn from extensive shooting at various club ranges in all weather conditions.

The only "Downside" ?? It requires a more idiosynchratic approach to your shooting technique/method to get the best from a springer.
The "Up-side"?? It will put a big smile on your face:)

[BOBBIE]

reading this if its the deeper rifling in the barrel, hows the twisty barrel going to get on with wind. only three inches to send it on its way.

[Baxterbasics]

reading this if its the deeper rifling in the barrel, hows the twisty barrel going to get on with wind. only three inches to send it on its way.

Three inches is plenty to send it on its way: Just look at the Population of China;)












:D

[RobF]

Out of the two times i've tested windage on different types of guns it's come down to zero. Being a few mm out at 20yds can see you a lot further out at 55.

As suggested, I think follow through, lower profile, and probably weight has more to do with it than a reshaped pellet, although I suspect that micropoly bores such as the P70 has or poly barrels could improve windage... dunno... needs an indoor 50m range to really find out.

[Gwylan]

Interesting..... Cardew compared pellets fired form PCPs and springers, and found that pellets from the latter had skirts that were squeezed up into the waist, making the pellet shorter. This would mean a smaller cross-sectional area, so they may take less wind?

Gus

[Photosbykev]

Interesting..... Cardew compared pellets fired form PCPs and springers, and found that pellets from the latter had skirts that were squeezed up into the waist, making the pellet shorter. This would mean a smaller cross-sectional area, so they may take less wind?

Gus
This might explain why the Falcons seem less affect by crosswinds, as well as being lighter they are significantly shorter than AA Fields and JSBs and they get where they are going 5% faster

[Parabuteo]

I think it is stupid NOT to ask questions!

Two things that might be generating this difference (other than our old friend Chance):

1. The Prosport is heavier and has a sleeker profile than most PCPs, so the actual RIFLE rather than the pellet is less affected by gusting.

2. The springer technique - whichever you use - generally involves a longer follow-through than with a PCP, so the rifle is held 'on aim' a fraction longer which might negate the effects of gusting on the RIFLE.

Sorry but I cannot imagine how a pellet fired from a PCP would differ from a springer once it had left the barrel, unless the 'jetting' effect at the muzzle of the PCP was being affected by the wind.

Other than that, haven't a clue!

Makes sense mr hissing:D

I find the springers more stable with a gust on, could also be something to do with the weight too I guess.

Ditto re the pellet having left the barrel, unless it has been down a smooth twist a pellet's a pellet by and large....or would the accelleration be different??:confused:

[Big-Rog]

Got to admitt,my AA 400classic is more affected by wind than my 97. both .177

[DEL67]

Makes sense mr hissing:D

I find the springers more stable with a gust on, could also be something to do with the weight too I guess.

Ditto re the pellet having left the barrel, unless it has been down a smooth twist a pellet's a pellet by and large....or would the accelleration be different??:confused:

Just to add to my first post, i was shooting from a rested and sheltered position. :).

[air-tech]

Interesting..... Cardew compared pellets fired form PCPs and springers, and found that pellets from the latter had skirts that were squeezed up into the waist, making the pellet shorter. This would mean a smaller cross-sectional area, so they may take less wind?

Gus

Yes, but they were experimenting often "at the limits" - you really would not want to have any pellet leaving your barrel in that shape :eek:

As for "more affected/less affected" without putting this theory to a carefully controlled test, it's all just perception.

Wind at ground level is exceptionally gusty, shooters themselves are the weakest link, so anything other than a proper test is meaningless.

As previous, at best, based on the current "evidence" :rolleyes: I could accept that the shooter and his gun are more easily blown off aim by the wind with a PCP, while a forward heavy springer without a PCP's slab sides (in most cases) would be more stable.

[Herx77]

Harvey was correct: I have owned a few very high end spring rifles (Airmaster 88 HW77 / Venom tuned atc, etc) and can confirm that they did indeed "Take Less Wind" at 40 plus yards:) This conclusion was drawn from extensive shooting at various club ranges in all weather conditions.

The only "Downside" ?? It requires a more idiosynchratic approach to your shooting technique/method to get the best from a springer.
The "Up-side"?? It will put a big smile on your face:)

Right on,right on,correct, and damn right,:D:D:rolleyes:
Also you get less drop with a springer from 35yards onwards,and especially out beyond 50yards ;):rolleyes:. (more so with a Weihrauch) Vor Sprung Durch Technique.:D.
HERX77

[DEL67]

[QUOTE=Davey K;3750884]There was a very good thread on this a couple of years ago - it was started by The Pieman and many other very good springer shooters came out in support of his suggestion that pellets shot from springers 'take' less wind.

At Least i'm not the only one who thinks so, what ever the reason, it's happening whether people disagree or not.
Thanks for all your replies, anymore input from experienced shooters would be nice.

Derek.

[Parabuteo]

Just to add to my first post, i was shooting from a rested and sheltered position. :).

Ah...sorry...missed that:o

Witchcraft???:D:D:D

[Sam Vimes]

Interesting..... Cardew compared pellets fired form PCPs and springers, and found that pellets from the latter had skirts that were squeezed up into the waist, making the pellet shorter. This would mean a smaller cross-sectional area, so they may take less wind?

Gus

Bingo, we have a winner. In every springer I've ever retrieved fired pellets from the pellets are always significantly shorter than the same type of pellet fired from a PCP. I'd suggest that, to fit in with the science bit from Harry's lad, BC is bound to be affected. I've also observed that pellets of a particular type usually seem to fly flatter than when fired from a PCP at a similar MV.

[mikeygasbag]

I have been expounding this theory with some of my closest shooting buddies for some time now. They look at me as if I have four horns growing out of my head.

I am totally convinced that pellets shot from a top quality springer are less affected by sidewind than those that have been shot from a PCP. Having shot a TX200, a HW97k, an AA S400 and a Daystate Mk4 in HFT and SFT in some very windy conditions, I can only base my theory on what I have witnessed.

Mike.

[Dud Fivers]

I have been expounding this theory with some of my closest shooting buddies for some time now. They look at me as if I have four horns growing out of my head.

I am totally convinced that pellets shot from a top quality springer are less affected by sidewind than those that have been shot from a PCP. Having shot a TX200, a HW97k, an AA S400 and a Daystate Mk4 in HFT and SFT in some very windy conditions, I can only base my theory on what I have witnessed.

Mike.

I'm not sure that Paul would agree with you on this one Mike ;)

Rick :D

[RobF]

Bingo, we have a winner. In every springer I've ever retrieved fired pellets from the pellets are always significantly shorter than the same type of pellet fired from a PCP. I'd suggest that, to fit in with the science bit from Harry's lad, BC is bound to be affected. I've also observed that pellets of a particular type usually seem to fly flatter than when fired from a PCP at a similar MV.

This sounds like a job for photosbykev... not that he can freeze frame a 12ft-lb pellet (yet), just that he has a mate to walk down a 200yd range and pick them out of a duvet :D

[Photosbykev]

This sounds like a job for photosbykev... not that he can freeze frame a 12ft-lb pellet (yet), just that he has a mate to walk down a 200yd range and pick them out of a duvet :D

only if I turn my Mk4 into a mortar tube. The holdover is a bitch :)

[Harry's Lad]

At the risk of reiterating all this again …

Given: A 0.177 airgun pellet (say JSB Exact) is shot with a MV of 780 Ft/s at a target 50 Yards away. The flight time is around 0.224 seconds in which time the drop from the line of departure is around 8.809 Inches.

A little experiment:
1) Retrieve the pellet complete with rifling imprint and sundry deformation.
2) On a still day, drop this pellet and another new shiny pellet out of the same tin as the shot one, from a distance of 8.8 Inches. Observe that the new and damaged pellets drop vertically.
3) Repeat (2) above in various wind conditions. Note the lateral deflection of both pellets over the 8.8 Inch drop. More particularly, note the difference in deflection between them.

You may be able to measure a small lateral drift (hundredths of an Inch) if the wind is severe enough and your experimental technique is impeccable but you’ll be hard-pushed to observe any differences between the two pellets regardless of the extent of damage or depth of the rifling imprint, etc.

(This is a simplified version of Dr F W Mann’s experiment of the late 19th Century. Mann built a very elaborate test rig especially for this purpose.)

Going back to the 50 Yard/780 Ft/s shot above …
In a homogeneous 10 Mile/Hr cross wind said JSB Exact would suffer about 5.58 Inches of lateral drift,
(i.e., from D = W * sin(A) * (T – (R/MV)) = 10 * 1.4667 * sin(90) * (0.224 – (3 * 50/780)) * 12 = 5.58 Inches)
whereas the dropped pellet would experience perhaps 0.2 Inches of lateral drift – despite being exposed to the influence of the same 10 Mile/hour crosswind for the same time.
Both pellets (shot/dropped) have gravity acting upon them in the vertical direction and the same disturbing lateral ‘wind’ vector but the shot pellet had an additional aerodynamic (drag) force acting simply because of its motion through the air. Clearly, some function of the drag force must be responsible for the increased deflection since that’s the only difference between the flight of the shot/dropped pellets.
On closer inspection of Mann’s expression above – which I can derive from first principles if you really want – it is clear that the ‘dwell time’ term ‘(T – (3*R/MV))’ is responsible since (a) it is the only dynamic term in there and (b) the other terms are constant per scenario. To put it a different way, given a constant wind vector, the lateral drift is proportional to the ‘dwell time’ - the difference between the actual transit time (T) and the ‘vacuum transit time’ (R/MV). The smaller the ‘dwell time’, the smaller the drift and vice versa. Since the ‘vacuum transit time’ is fixed by range and the muzzle-velocity, the only way to reduce the dwell time is to reduce the transit time (T) and this can only be accomplished by increasing the Ballistic Coefficient (thus reducing the velocity-loss over the range).

So, what can be reasonably be concluded from all this?
You may disagree but …

1) The effect of any amount of lateral wind force on rifling imprint, etc., while undoubtedly existent, has negligible magnitude,
2) The physics of lateral wind drift is simple and easily described.
3) The magnitude of any wind vector is extremely difficult (impossible) to assess accurately. Experience and observation may help in the absence suitable measuring equipment and computing power.
4) The pellet’s BC correlates inversely with lateral drift under any given wind vector and muzzle velocity.

With regard to the OP’s question (at last!): certain springers and gas-rams can distort/inflate the skirts of some pellets – reducing their overall length. Reducing the length can lead to benefits in primary stability (although usually at the expense of secondary stability) but, more importantly, the increase of the mean cross-section (via the inflation effect) has been observed to increase the BC. The increase may be small – but any gain is worthwhile when the starting value is so low – and could just mean that the observed lateral wind drift is reduced under any given conditions.

The answer then is … maybe. :D

Gosh, I’m glad to get that off my chest. :)

ATB
Dave

[Photosbykev]

At the risk of reiterating all this again …

Given: A 0.177 airgun pellet (say JSB Exact) is shot with a MV of 780 Ft/s at a target 50 Yards away. The flight time is around 0.224 seconds in which time the drop from the line of departure is around 8.809 Inches.

A little experiment:
1) Retrieve the pellet complete with rifling imprint and sundry deformation.
2) On a still day, drop this pellet and another new shiny pellet out of the same tin as the shot one, from a distance of 8.8 Inches. Observe that the new and damaged pellets drop vertically.
3) Repeat (2) above in various wind conditions. Note the lateral deflection of both pellets over the 8.8 Inch drop. More particularly, note the difference in deflection between them.

You may be able to measure a small lateral drift (hundredths of an Inch) if the wind is severe enough and your experimental technique is impeccable but you’ll be hard-pushed to observe any differences between the two pellets regardless of the extent of damage or depth of the rifling imprint, etc.

(This is a simplified version of Dr F W Mann’s experiment of the late 19th Century. Mann built a very elaborate test rig especially for this purpose.)

Going back to the 50 Yard/780 Ft/s shot above …
In a homogeneous 10 Mile/Hr cross wind said JSB Exact would suffer about 5.58 Inches of lateral drift,
(i.e., from D = W * sin(A) * (T – (R/MV)) = 10 * 1.4667 * sin(90) * (0.224 – (3 * 50/780)) * 12 = 5.58 Inches)
whereas the dropped pellet would experience perhaps 0.2 Inches of lateral drift – despite being exposed to the influence of the same 10 Mile/hour crosswind for the same time.
Both pellets (shot/dropped) have gravity acting upon them in the vertical direction and the same disturbing lateral ‘wind’ vector but the shot pellet had an additional aerodynamic (drag) force acting simply because of its motion through the air. Clearly, some function of the drag force must be responsible for the increased deflection since that’s the only difference between the flight of the shot/dropped pellets.
On closer inspection of Mann’s expression above – which I can derive from first principles if you really want – it is clear that the ‘dwell time’ term ‘(T – (3*R/MV))’ is responsible since (a) it is the only dynamic term in there and (b) the other terms are constant per scenario. To put it a different way, given a constant wind vector, the lateral drift is proportional to the ‘dwell time’ - the difference between the actual transit time (T) and the ‘vacuum transit time’ (R/MV). The smaller the ‘dwell time’, the smaller the drift and vice versa. Since the ‘vacuum transit time’ is fixed by range and the muzzle-velocity, the only way to reduce the dwell time is to reduce the transit time (T) and this can only be accomplished by increasing the Ballistic Coefficient (thus reducing the velocity-loss over the range).

So, what can be reasonably be concluded from all this?
You may disagree but …

1) The effect of any amount of lateral wind force on rifling imprint, etc., while undoubtedly existent, has negligible magnitude,
2) The physics of lateral wind drift is simple and easily described.
3) The magnitude of any wind vector is extremely difficult (impossible) to assess accurately. Experience and observation may help in the absence suitable measuring equipment and computing power.
4) The pellet’s BC correlates inversely with lateral drift under any given wind vector and muzzle velocity.

With regard to the OP’s question (at last!): certain springers and gas-rams can distort/inflate the skirts of some pellets – reducing their overall length. Reducing the length can lead to benefits in primary stability (although usually at the expense of secondary stability) but, more importantly, the increase of the mean cross-section (via the inflation effect) has been observed to increase the BC. The increase may be small – but any gain is worthwhile when the starting value is so low – and could just mean that the observed lateral wind drift is reduced under any given conditions.

The answer then is … maybe. :D

Gosh, I’m glad to get that off my chest. :)

ATB
Dave

damn I was just about to type that but my typing is too slow :)

Wonder if the rotation of the pellet is affected more by left to right winds than right to left winds?

[air-tech]

At the risk of reiterating all this again …

Given: A 0.177 airgun pellet (say JSB Exact) is shot with a MV of 780 Ft/s at a target 50 Yards away. The flight time is around 0.224 seconds in which time the drop from the line of departure is around 8.809 Inches.

A little experiment:
1) Retrieve the pellet complete with rifling imprint and sundry deformation.
2) On a still day, drop this pellet and another new shiny pellet out of the same tin as the shot one, from a distance of 8.8 Inches. Observe that the new and damaged pellets drop vertically.
3) Repeat (2) above in various wind conditions. Note the lateral deflection of both pellets over the 8.8 Inch drop. More particularly, note the difference in deflection between them.

You may be able to measure a small lateral drift (hundredths of an Inch) if the wind is severe enough and your experimental technique is impeccable but you’ll be hard-pushed to observe any differences between the two pellets regardless of the extent of damage or depth of the rifling imprint, etc.

(This is a simplified version of Dr F W Mann’s experiment of the late 19th Century. Mann built a very elaborate test rig especially for this purpose.)

Going back to the 50 Yard/780 Ft/s shot above …
In a homogeneous 10 Mile/Hr cross wind said JSB Exact would suffer about 5.58 Inches of lateral drift,
(i.e., from D = W * sin(A) * (T – (R/MV)) = 10 * 1.4667 * sin(90) * (0.224 – (3 * 50/780)) * 12 = 5.58 Inches)
whereas the dropped pellet would experience perhaps 0.2 Inches of lateral drift – despite being exposed to the influence of the same 10 Mile/hour crosswind for the same time.
Both pellets (shot/dropped) have gravity acting upon them in the vertical direction and the same disturbing lateral ‘wind’ vector but the shot pellet had an additional aerodynamic (drag) force acting simply because of its motion through the air. Clearly, some function of the drag force must be responsible for the increased deflection since that’s the only difference between the flight of the shot/dropped pellets.
On closer inspection of Mann’s expression above – which I can derive from first principles if you really want – it is clear that the ‘dwell time’ term ‘(T – (3*R/MV))’ is responsible since (a) it is the only dynamic term in there and (b) the other terms are constant per scenario. To put it a different way, given a constant wind vector, the lateral drift is proportional to the ‘dwell time’ - the difference between the actual transit time (T) and the ‘vacuum transit time’ (R/MV). The smaller the ‘dwell time’, the smaller the drift and vice versa. Since the ‘vacuum transit time’ is fixed by range and the muzzle-velocity, the only way to reduce the dwell time is to reduce the transit time (T) and this can only be accomplished by increasing the Ballistic Coefficient (thus reducing the velocity-loss over the range).

So, what can be reasonably be concluded from all this?
You may disagree but …

1) The effect of any amount of lateral wind force on rifling imprint, etc., while undoubtedly existent, has negligible magnitude,
2) The physics of lateral wind drift is simple and easily described.
3) The magnitude of any wind vector is extremely difficult (impossible) to assess accurately. Experience and observation may help in the absence suitable measuring equipment and computing power.
4) The pellet’s BC correlates inversely with lateral drift under any given wind vector and muzzle velocity.

With regard to the OP’s question (at last!): certain springers and gas-rams can distort/inflate the skirts of some pellets – reducing their overall length. Reducing the length can lead to benefits in primary stability (although usually at the expense of secondary stability) but, more importantly, the increase of the mean cross-section (via the inflation effect) has been observed to increase the BC. The increase may be small – but any gain is worthwhile when the starting value is so low – and could just mean that the observed lateral wind drift is reduced under any given conditions.

The answer then is … maybe. :D

Gosh, I’m glad to get that off my chest. :)

ATB
Dave

Yeah, like, maybe, if, perhaps...

:D :D :D




Seriousl, well done and "dix points" for the effort!