let's talk about accuracy

[bobby822]

Nowadays on the forums or in those 'expert' gun reviews, when people brag the accuracy of their rifles, they often say something like '5p group at 30 yeards, 50p group at 50 yards' or 'half inch @35 yard' or something along that line.

For my eyes, those claims make me laugh and I seriously not recommend to buy any of those things as those rifles should be sent back to the factory because they are, effectively, defective at best or show the person behind the trigger incompetent.

During the past 12 years as air gun hobbist, all of my past and current 4 rilfes, an AA410, a logun S16 Evo, an HW100 and an FX Verminater all did much better when paired with a Leapers 4-16*56 scope.
It's a norm to have one pellet hole at 35 yeards. Before someone jumped in to say that's not possible, let me emphasis that whenever I get a new gun I alway take time to fine the best pellet for that particular gun. It's like marriage, there are million of million women on this planet but not every one suits you. Same goes to air rifles and pellets.

The most accurate rifle, to everybody's surprise, to mine as well, is the humble Logun S16Evo. This gun was branded by Tony @ Sand Well Field Sport as totally rubbish and donkey's rilfe despite he sold the gun to me only a few weeks earlier.

I used to shoot it at the Birmingham indoor range at Hockley (are they stll in business?). Most club memeber there have bigger louder real guns. When the little toy gun came out of the bag, noboday paid attention.
But when it started to hit constantly the tiny metal wire of the cloth hanger someone put out at the end of the 50 yard range to hang their paper target, curiosty started to rise and everyone started to admire how far the air guns had envolved from the springers.

the HW100 is another remarkably precision tool, which loves Logun Penetrator. When I acquired this gun I left Birmingham already and had no chance to shoot at metal cloth hander any more. I took it with a few friends on a hunting trip at luckyard farm at Somerset. Friends put out a group of different size spinner at 30, 50 and 70 yards. This gun had no trouble what's so ever hit the tiniest farest spinner.

Later I got a FX Verminator, in the begining it was like shit with AA Field and most of the pellet I could get hold of. I had some much trouble to have a tight group I almost gave up until one day I found some pellets someone left on the bench @ peter's farm.
I tried it and the gun instantly started to amaze me. Later I found out the pellets were Webly AccuPell. Once again I could achive same group as my Logon did. I used it for a good months for both targeting and hunting. Although they were excellent for paper punching but there were far many rabbits running away after being shot in the brain than I would tolerate. After talking to someone in the farm I learned it might due to the pellet light weight and he recommended Bislay Magnum. I bought one box and before the first mag was consumped, I know I found another pellet this Verminator loves. having heavy weight pellets the gun had to have a little bit more hold over but once the scope was re-zeored, amzing things happened. I no longer had any runner any more, not for rabbit at least. Occuasonly piegons could fly away but not a single rabbit ran away.

Now share your story about accuracy and let me know if you think 5p grouping at 30 yards is laugh stock or not?

[stillair1]

In the field or off a bench in still air, 5 , 10 o 20 shot groups. I would expect better of my rifles off a bench in ideal conditions, but for an average shot in the field , bit of breeze, without cherry picking groups, yep not to far off the mark.

[lensman57]

It is not just the accuracy figures that are lets say rather ' subjectively ' thrown about. A lot of other aspects of airgun reviewing also leaves a lot to be desired. On the other hand any info is better than no info. All I know is that all the major brands will prove accurate enough over the normal sub 12 gun distances.

A.G

[Murphy]

I got lost in your tales of shooting.

Are you saying a 5p group is good or bad?!

[ballisticboy]

To start with you are not actually talking about accuracy here. Group size is a measure of dispersion, not accuracy, and the two are not the same. By definition (not my definition but the internationally agreed definition) accuracy is the distance of the group centre from the aim point, not the group size. The two are defined differently to distinguish between the effects of deterministic errors ( range errors, average wind speed errors, aiming errors etc.) and non deterministic errors (pellet yaw, muzzle velocity error, wind variability etc.), the latter largly determining group size and the former determining accuracy.
For hunting you need a combination of accuracy and small dispersion to produce precision and a high degree of first round effectiveness. A 5p group of 10 pellets around the aimpoint, fired under all conditions at 30 yards, or any other unknown range, is perfectly acceptable if it can be repeated on three different occasions under different atmospheric conditions.

[cooper_dan]

bobby822, don't beat around the bush, feel free to share some pictures of your trophy cabinet. It must be bursting if you are that good a shot.
I've seen world champion HFT and FT shooters missing 15mm mini kills. By your standards this makes them incompetent....

If I can group within a 5p (18mm) at 35 yards I'm fairly happy with that. And most people should be. I think there's very little room in our sport for telling people they are incompetent if they don't meet some ridiculously high standard of shooting

[Tone]

if it can be repeated on three different occasions under different atmospheric conditions.

nice Ballistic's Boy, very nice

[scimitar]

To start with you are not actually talking about accuracy here. Group size is a measure of dispersion, not accuracy, and the two are not the same. By definition (not my definition but the internationally agreed definition) accuracy is the distance of the group centre from the aim point, not the group size. The two are defined differently to distinguish between the effects of deterministic errors ( range errors, average wind speed errors, aiming errors etc.) and non deterministic errors (pellet yaw, muzzle velocity error, wind variability etc.), the latter largly determining group size and the former determining accuracy.
For hunting you need a combination of accuracy and small dispersion to produce precision and a high degree of first round effectiveness. A 5p group of 10 pellets around the aimpoint, fired under all conditions at 30 yards, or any other unknown range, is perfectly acceptable if it can be repeated on three different occasions under different atmospheric conditions.

Would you mind filling in my tax returns please . as if you cannot baffle em , nobody can . well done that man ??? HOLLY

PS what we need in air gun articles , is what nick jenkinson used to do . show us real world groups at various ranges , out doors . benched . say 25 , 35 . 45 and 55 yards . with the best pellets the reviewer can find in that rifle . not acceptable accuracy . or very good . seeing is believing .

[cooper_dan]

Would you mind filling in my tax returns please . as if you cannot baffle em , nobody can . well done that man ??? HOLLY

PS what we need in air gun articles , is what nick jenkinson used to do . show us real world groups at various ranges , out doors . benched . say 25 , 35 . 45 and 55 yards . with the best pellets the reviewer can find in that rifle . not acceptable accuracy . or very good . seeing is believing .

You might like the HW57 review I'm working on at the moment
8 to 55 yards, outdoors, mix of HFT prone and bench rested

[Terry D]

PS what we need in air gun articles , is what nick jenkinson used to do . show us real world groups at various ranges , out doors . benched . say 25 , 35 . 45 and 55 yards . with the best pellets the reviewer can find in that rifle . not acceptable accuracy . or very good . seeing is believing .

There are two main problems with this, as I found out over 30 years of testing. First, timing my work schedule to coincide with acceptable wind conditions out to 55 yards is impossible. Nick's range was accessible in seconds and his committments were a lot more flexible than mine, so as soon as it looked 'right' for a grouping session, he was there. For much of the last couple of years, I've considered myself lucky to have dry conditions, let alone still ones. There's a covered range at my club, but only out to 25 yards, so since my hi-tech chicken ched was condemned, I'm struggling for fully-sheltered range facilities out to 55. Thus, the good groups I put together in the wind rely too much on my ability to apply correct windage to be purely a record of what the rifle can do.

Second, even if I had perfect conditions every time, those groups are going to look boringly similar and the reviews would have four photos in them that would be identical, save for a couple of mm either way. As it stands, I'll usually shoot in the lulls between breezes at 30, 35 and 45 yards, maybe 50 on a perfect day, and if a sub-12 hunting rifle can group well at the longer ranges, I know it will do the job required of it. My system isn't perfect, but in the real world, no system can be. Still, as someone once said, 'it's better than nothing.'

[Terry D]

It is not just the accuracy figures that are lets say rather ' subjectively ' thrown about. A lot of other aspects of airgun reviewing also leaves a lot to be desired.

As ever, all constructive suggestions gratefully received.

[lensman57]

As ever, all constructive suggestions gratefully received.

Regreattably unless the gun was tied to a robotic rig under lab conditions any other suggestion would be futile. The present regime of testing/reviewing is not exactly ' scientific ' but it does provide a reasonable measure of a gun's capability. What concerns me though, is that on many occasions a gun given a good review was shown to be full of ' teething ' problems in the hands of the public, the FX impact sub 12, Kral Puncher Breaker, HW 110 amongst many others. I am by no means suggesting that the review was intentionally favourable but the practice of assigning a few select guns for reviews by the manufacturer does raise questions. Again I say that any information is gratefully recieved and is better than no information.

A.G

[bobby822]

Regreattably unless the gun was tied to a robotic rig under lab conditions any other suggestion would be futile. The present regime of testing/reviewing is not exactly ' scientific ' but it does provide a reasonable measure of a gun's capability. What concerns me though, is that on many occasions a gun given a good review was shown to be full of ' teething ' problems in the hands of the public, the FX impact sub 12, Kral Puncher Breaker, HW 110 amongst many others. I am by no means suggesting that the review was intentionally favourable but the practice of assigning a few select guns for reviews by the manufacturer does raise questions. Again I say that any information is gratefully recieved and is better than no information.

A.G

can't agree more

[Terry D]

... the practice of assigning a few select guns for reviews by the manufacturer does raise questions.

You can choose to accept this or not, AG, but I have never known this to be the case. I test most of the new guns and I've toured many factories many times, but I've never known there to be a batch of guns specifically assigned for testing. It sounds like it should happen, but in my experience, it doesn't. Just saying.

[Terry D]

Again I say that any information is gratefully recieved and is better than no information.

A.G

Let's see what 'information' is provided, then.

First, the basics, weight, length, shots per charge, charging pressure, price, options, contacts, stock type, energy, variation, plus a few other bits.

Then I go through the rifle's notable features, detailing my thoughts on each and usually its contribution to overall performance. I also do my best to provide as much background detail as possible about the rifle's development.

Then I shoot it as much as I can, usually under varying conditions, to see how it handles the sort of things that will be thrown at it during long-term use. I then select the best conditions under which to carry out my accuracy and pellet selection tests, and give the results of these.

Then I give my overall thoughts, and usually those of other shooters I consult, either at my club or during arranged meetings with those whose abilities I respect and trust. I also endure chrono sessions, and do my best to reproduce the type of shooting the user will do in the hunting field, by shooting a couple of pellets, then leaving the rifle to settle for a while before shooting it again.

That's the initial test, which is backed by a follow-up test, after I've had the rifle for another month, during which I shoot it as much as I can to see if it, or my thoughts, change. I usually finish with a few tips intended to help the user get as much as possible from the rifle. Remember, too, my tests are constructed to provide the information our readers ask for. It's their magazine and I do my best to give them what they want.

There's more, but my point is, a tremendous amount of time, effort and experience goes into these tests, much of it conducted outside work hours, and I have to say I think it's unfair to dismiss it all with your 'better than nothing' verdict. No, I don't have a robot or an atmospherically-sealed range, but I know enough to pick my conditions and I'm still good enough to get a representative performance out of a sporting airgun, and write up my findings in a useful way. Yes, AG, I'm satisfied that I offer a whole lot more than 'better than nothing'.

Regards.