W. H. B. Smith & his argument for the superiority of CO2 rifles

[45flint]

W. H. B. Smith Book “Gas, Air, & Spring Guns written in the 1950’s was a awesome window into the golden age of vintage airguns. Well written and very detailed analysis of the guns of the day. As a vintage collector I seem to be stuck in the 1950’s especially with rifles. My favorite spring gun is my mid 1950’s Webley Mark 3 (Smith rated the highest) which I acquired last year. I have since acquired the American CO2 rifles contemporary with it. Crosman 160 and 400. Smith argues for the superiority of CO2? Very interesting argument and one I can test for myself. Interested in the thoughts across the water, Smith I believe was a American author but very well thought out.
Here are my test guns and Smith’s thoughts:

[Vic Thompson]

Maybe a lone thought in this respect, but I respect his opinion (as long as readily available supplies of CO2 are avalable).

Otherwise, a Springer is streets ahead in the field.

JMHO,

Vic T

[45flint]

Maybe a lone thought in this respect, but I respect his opinion (as long as readily available supplies of CO2 are avalable).

Otherwise, a Springer is streets ahead in the field.

JMHO,

Vic T

I not sure even Smith could have imagined the success and universal acceptance of the 12 gram CO2 cartridge.

[DT Fletcher]

I'm sure that Smith wrote this after reading the Crosman promotion materials on CO2. It contains all of the points that Crosman was then making for their new CO2 guns. Smith makes the right emphasis about this applying to the situation then current in the USA. He is directing this advice to an audience consisting of those interested in teaching firearms safety with airguns.

He is not making the case that CO2 guns are inherently superior to spring guns in general, and is very specific about that. One of his biggest concerns is cost. A good English spring pistol like the Webley was 3 or 4 times the cost of an American CO2 pistol.

Personally: I think CO2 guns are far superior to any spring gun; especially when the purpose is to put a single shot into the head of the target. When it comes to pest control, nothing beats a good CO2 rifle.

[cinedux]

the sports store catalogues have the Crosman models 150 and SA6 at just over eleven pounds(NZ pound was equal to the stg one then)and the Webley 'Senior' at just over ten pounds! I recall my interest in the likes of Webley and Acvoke diminished significantly when the six-shooter graced the counter of my favourite sports store! it was only a novelty I guess but I still have my 1959 one and it 'holds'. The Model 150/157 were a different kettle of fish.Good solid shooters that would last for ever.

[45flint]

I'm sure that Smith wrote this after reading the Crosman promotion materials on CO2. It contains all of the points that Crosman was then making for their new CO2 guns. Smith makes the right emphasis about this applying to the situation then current in the USA. He is directing this advice to an audience consisting of those interested in teaching firearms safety with airguns.

He is not making the case that CO2 guns are inherently superior to spring guns in general, and is very specific about that. One of his biggest concerns is cost. A good English spring pistol like the Webley was 3 or 4 times the cost of an American CO2 pistol.

Personally: I think CO2 guns are far superior to any spring gun; especially when the purpose is to put a single shot into the head of the target. When it comes to pest control, nothing beats a good CO2 rifle.

Certainly Smith is writing from a point of view, and cost and the American marketplace factor in. But it is fun to have two guns manufactured at the same time go head to head and relive the past. The cost factor is still there my Webley cost about 3 times my 160. At the time of Smith CO2 was new technology not totally proven. It certainly is now and the 160 became one of the longest running Crosman designs, still made even today.

[cinedux]

https://imgur.com/lBT9axq

The one pictured cost me $600NZ about ten years ago. It was offered as a prize in a sporting magazine.I got,the letter of congrats to the winner-from the Webley agent.Plus all the paperwork with a hardly used rifle.Looks a bit worn now!

[harry mac]

I've never read any of Smith's works, but how does he argue the superiority of CO2 over air?
Surely with the limitations of how CO2 works as a propellant, it can never offer the same levels of performance as compressed air? Hence there are no FAC rated CO2 rifles, but there's a profusion of air powered ones.

[45flint]

I've never read any of Smith's works, but how does he argue the superiority of CO2 over air?
Surely with the limitations of how CO2 works as a propellant, it can never offer the same levels of performance as compressed air? Hence there are no FAC rated CO2 rifles, but there's a profusion of air powered ones.

Sorry your missing the point, we are going back to the mid 1950’s when the book was written and comparing the vintage guns at that point in time. Or we could say rifles below the current UK 12 fpe limit? The Mark 3 is at 10 fpe and the 160 is at 11.4 fpe. This was before the power races. I could argue that for most purposes the power races have not given us a more pleasant rifle than the Mark 3?

[eyebull]

I've never read any of Smith's works, but how does he argue the superiority of CO2 over air?
Surely with the limitations of how CO2 works as a propellant, it can never offer the same levels of performance as compressed air? Hence there are no FAC rated CO2 rifles, but there's a profusion of air powered ones.

Though the invention of PCP predates CO2 by some margin, I don't think PCPs were commonly available at the time. Even if they were, the need for an expensive scuba tank as opposed to relatively commonplace CO2 tanks, and the relative expense of the powerplants (CO2 operates at a much lower pressure and is somewhat self-regulating, thus cheaper than PCP) would have bolstered his argument, not negated it.

[cringe]

Though the invention of PCP predates CO2 by some margin, I don't think PCPs were commonly available at the time. Even if they were, the need for an expensive scuba tank as opposed to relatively commonplace CO2 tanks, and the relative expense of the powerplants (CO2 operates at a much lower pressure and is somewhat self-regulating, thus cheaper than PCP) would have bolstered his argument, not negated it.

Hi, several years ago I experimented with building a 'sparklets' bulb powered gun. Not a rifle but a double barrelled .410 bore pistol, I was amazed at the power! and during my experiments I found that co2 works better in larger bores. I guess it's to do with expansion rates. I did not progress any further, as I don't like porridge! but it could have been even better if I had fitted some sort of heater device.
best regards Al

[Benelli B76]

Hi, several years ago I experimented with building a 'sparklets' bulb powered gun. Not a rifle but a double barrelled .410 bore pistol, I was amazed at the power! and during my experiments I found that co2 works better in larger bores. I guess it's to do with expansion rates. I did not progress any further, as I don't like porridge! but it could have been even better if I had fitted some sort of heater device.
best regards Al

Hence the latest .68 bore Umarex T4E HDS 68.


Baz

[cringe]

Hence the latest .68 bore Umarex T4E HDS 68.


Baz

To 45flint I apologise if I am interfering with your thread, and I am looking forward to your reviews [re spring verses co2].
this for attention of Baz, I googled that Umarex blar blar ! pistol and I am gob smacked! is that legal? it looks like a sawn of shotgun! they are promoting this as a weapon for self/home defence! I thought pistols were limited to 6ft/pounds in UK?
perhaps I spent too much of my time in the 1970's
kind regards Al

[Jerry Cornelius]

Hi, several years ago I experimented with building a 'sparklets' bulb powered gun. Not a rifle but a double barrelled .410 bore pistol, I was amazed at the power! and during my experiments I found that co2 works better in larger bores. I guess it's to do with expansion rates. I did not progress any further, as I don't like porridge! but it could have been even better if I had fitted some sort of heater device.
best regards Al

It’s probably nothing special about CO2, but simply F=PxA

A larger bore gives you a greater area, pressure is constant (particularly with CO2), so force increases. If I’ve done my sums correctly a 410 bore is 85mm2, and a .22 is 23.75, so you’ll be pushing the projectile with nearly four times the force

Velocity will probably be down (you may have more force but you’ve also got more mass), but as the limits are set on energy as you say it’s not really a project that can be safely conducted in the uk.

As for the springer vs co2 argument, a springer is in a sense more efficient as the transfer of energy to the pellet is adiabatic. However as the waste heat in a CO2 gun is created in the sparklet factory not the gun, it’s a theoretical point as far as the shooter is concerned. As for manners, I have a nicely set up FWB 127, and have just got an SFS Snipe, and tbh for both those guns (and also any good CO2 gun) the limiting factor on accuracy is me. So any slight benefit CO2 would have is moot

I would agree that for an average gun on an average day CO2 is likely to be more accurate though.

[45flint]

To 45flint I apologise if I am interfering with your thread, and I am looking forward to your reviews [re spring verses co2].
this for attention of Baz, I googled that Umarex blar blar ! pistol and I am gob smacked! is that legal? it looks like a sawn of shotgun! they are promoting this as a weapon for self/home defence! I thought pistols were limited to 6ft/pounds in UK?
perhaps I spent too much of my time in the 1970's
kind regards Al

I am fascinated by that sawn off shotgun. All good. Not sure my review will be much of one, lol. The biggest difference so far is the Mark 3 is almost silent and the 160 has such a crack that I really can’t risk shooting it much in the back yard. You can drum down the power on the 400 to back yard friendly but your plinking not hunting. But a 10 round mag makes it a lot of fun.

All three are more accurate than I am. Put the three on the table and have to choose which one to take home? I’m grabbing the Mark 3.