let's talk about accuracy

[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.

[lensman57]

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.

I have never douted your statements sir but I have seen ' review ' guns in the hands of others that have been full of scratch to the stock meaning that the guns had been going around. For what its worth and I am not just saying this, I do take your reviews very seriously as it is obvious that a process of evaluation is being carried out and it shows in the text of the magazine but this is by no means a universal practice.

A.G

[Terry D]

I have never douted your statements sir but I have seen ' review ' guns in the hands of others that have been full of scratch to the stock meaning that the guns had been going around.

Or that they'd been used as demo guns at shows. Yes, really. Several major companies have sent me rifles to test that made their debuts at shows. The first HW100 I tested was an ex-demo rifle. Yes, some rifles may go from tester to tester, but they're not specially prepared; the company simply doesn't want to have another rifle it can't sell.

[Simonsays]

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, I don't doubt that you get a standard production gun to test - but I doubt it'll be the worst example. It'll have been selected tried and tested before you see it. This only makes sense.

To give a real example I recall your article on the Compatto and its assessment and development. Glowing reports after months of use and development, no problems, perfect cycling etc etc. It took less than an hour for me to find my particular example at least could not group, jammed regularly, refused air was pellet fussy in the extreme and the cocked bolt could easily open in the field. You would never have received this example to test as somebody at the factory would have the sense to check what they gave out for test showed the product in its best light. Or if you did it would be hastily replaced.

You may even recall that I wrote to you about this very issue. To which I didn't receive a reply incidentally but I do appreciate that you have other concerns demands on your time to answer miffed customers.

I'm not saying that all are like this but it is rare to find a test that finds anything seriously negative ever.

[Terry D]

I'm not saying that all are like this but it is rare to find a test that finds anything seriously negative ever.

Simon, all I can say is, please study any of my tests and point out where I should have criticised something but failed to do so. As for your Compatto, I don't think it was representative of the production guns, and the one I had was deliberately, at the request of the company, abused to an often absurd degree. I was actually asked to abuse it until it malfunctioned, but apart from grit getting in it when I threw it in a muggy puddle, it carried on working. I reported what I found, as I always do.

[Simonsays]

Simon, all I can say is, please study any of my tests and point out where I should have criticised something but failed to do so. As for your Compatto, I don't think it was representative of the production guns, and the one I had was deliberately, at the request of the company, abused to an often absurd degree. I was actually asked to abuse it until it malfunctioned, but apart from grit getting in it when I threw it in a muggy puddle, it carried on working. I reported what I found, as I always do.

Lucky you Terry. i'm on my second one (replaced under warranty) and the replacement is below par too. Shame as I like the package but its useless if it cannot confidently hit the target.

[32:1]

OK Ive been practicing a lot, can someone tell me how small a barn door is and how far away I should be as I fancy a go at it now, if its open and all go through is that a single hole'r

Chris

[GoodWILLHunting]

Was lucky enough to buy an ex demo gun from the sales section here, in great original nick, long after that model had been discontinued, so three cheers for the demo gun.

As to accuracy, I'm out classed in this thread, perhaps I should ask for a refund

[bozzer]

My shooting buddy once stalked a rabbit for over 20 minutes , just as he took aim , a dog appeared out of nowhere and began sniffing his backside !

All that work getting to within 30 yards despite having a couple of chances from further out ...

I spend hours crawling around the countryside hoping something will sniff my backside. So 20 minutes ... result.

I think maybe you've all got the OP wrong here.

I think Doe's on to it.

I think there's a language issue here and the lad's come across as a bigger villain than he intended.

I think he's basically saying that a good quality, modern PCP with the right batch of the right pellet ... off a bagged rest off a bench ... 5p at 30 yards isn't a great thing. We'd all agree with that. We'd want 5p in those conditions ( no wind ... indoors ) at much greater ranges.

I'd give the lad the benefit at this point to be honest.

We've jumped all over him and mentioned he may put others off ... We may be acting a little hostile to a guy who just wants to get involved in the BBS community and hit slightly off the mark he was aiming at.

[Alakar]

What are you saying Bozzer ?
Trial by Internet forum is unfair ?

[Simonsays]

I think there's a language issue here and the lad's come across as a bigger villain than he intended.

I think he's basically saying that a good quality, modern PCP with the right batch of the right pellet ... off a bagged rest off a bench ... 5p at 30 yards isn't a great thing. We'd all agree with that. We'd want 5p in those conditions ( no wind ... indoors ) at much greater ranges.

I'd give the lad the benefit at this point to be honest.

We've jumped all over him and mentioned he may put others off ... We may be acting a little hostile to a guy who just wants to get involved in the BBS community and hit slightly off the mark he was aiming at.

I came to a similar conclusion and would tend to agree.

[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.

[Jesim1]

I never expected my post would upset so many people. Please don't get upset when someone says they are better.

All my good shots were made either on a sandbag or a bidpod off a bench.

My point in the original post was, modern PCPs are far more precise and accurate than the shooters.
With a good rest and in good condition (calm weather or indoor range, without any competition strss), they should be able to go through the same hole @35 yards.
Of course the correct pellet has to be found to achieve that.

As to why I'm not doing competition is becuse 1. They dont' allow me to shoot off a sandbag on a bench. 2. I don't think shooting is a proper career (don't get me wrong, shooting is perfect hobby). How many years can you shoot in competitions? You probably will retire in the mid-thirties. What do you do after that? Getting upset like some other do here when someone says they can do better groups?

I love shooting as much as most of your guys out there but I still will laugh when someone says it's a good gun cos they can do 5p group at 30 yards.

What an arrogant and condescending poster you are to take such a stance that you are sooooo good, and the majority of us are just rubbish? If you are such a great shot with great guns then good for you, but to come on here and openly slate everyone else in such a manner is contemptuous. We have to have a "rough guide" as to what is acceptable, and a 5p hit consistently at 30m is a decent gauge of a rifles and shooters capabilities for the most part. I could post dozens of one hole groups just larger than a .22 pellet made by a .177 when I've been pellet testing - and I have - but not on one single occasion did I have the gall to spout the holier than thou BS you have retched. Humble, compassionate or thoughtful you most definitely are not, your more to be pitied than scolded.

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.

I think you do a great job Terry, and the vast majority of people who read your articles think the same, the issues arise with individual guns giving individual results, with no two being the same, so anyone who got one which was not up to par then condemns every one of those guns to the "junk" category, which we all know is unfair, but have probably all thought it at one time or another, even if we don't actively do it A tester can only write about their experience with that gun, and hopefully be diplomatic, but acknowledge all attributes of the gun, good and bad. I would say it's far less representative of a gun to have a bad review than a good review, because there are far more trouble free guns than ones with issues.

James