Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 48

Thread: Hard and Soft Pellets

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    St. Albans
    Posts
    536
    For the most part, the only pellets I use these days are FTT/ Accupell FT and I find them very good in all my guns. I did have something odd happen though when I purchased my HW100. From research it seemed like AADF was a very good pellet for them and when I purchased the gun I got a tin to try. Zeroed in and it was ringing the bell at the indoor range with every shot. Plinked with friends a few days later and used FTT as I had bought a dented tin cheap and assumed being cheaper than AADF they wouldn't be as great a pellet (Yes I know now ). Obviously the zero was off but they did ok for that session with some compensation. When I went back to AADF I noticed it was no longer making a single tight group, rather 3-4 small ones. No amount of barrel cleaning helped and now it's diet is almost exclusively Accupell FT (FTT seemed to be fouling the barrel up after some shots but not so much with the lubed FT's ).

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Bristol
    Posts
    6,259
    Lee do a hardness tester for testing lead hardness. Used by bullet casters.

    The starting pressure is really important for springers (particularly with light pellets and small cylinder)

    This is really easy to find. Just use a spring balance/scales to measure the force needed to start the pellet moving in the bore. Then divide by the area of the hole in the barrel.

    BB

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Cambridge UK
    Posts
    7,068

    Some data ...

    Today has been interesting as I set about testing the hardness of a few pellet brands. It reminded me that around 1965 I spent a happy summer holiday job with Imperial Metal Industries, Kynoch, Birmingham and spent some time testing the hardness of titanium billets I was told were for Concord. I think the machine was Brinnel or Rockwell? It forced a ball bearing into the metal at a set pressure and then you had to measure the indentation using a microscope.
    But back to the job in hand. I have no such machine so had to devise one. I toyed with setting up a 'penetrating' machine to force a pointed whatever into the pellet and measure how far it penetrated for a given force. I dismissed that idea as a bit too complex. I toyed with a sort of 'swinging' hammer system to thwack the pellet, but gave up on that as well because it would be difficult to regulate. What I ended up doing was taking a 3/8" metal drift and dropping it down a tube onto the pellet head and measuring the new height of the pellet. Bear with me ... I have not forgotten the point raised by Jim regarding using pellets for this type of test.
    But I did test pellets, just for fun. I dropped the drift from a scientifically determined height of 40cm onto the pellet head with the pellet standing on a heavy steel sheet (part of a vice). The 40cm was carefully selected because: a. it worked on a test sample and b. it was the length of pipe I had in my box. Using this method I tested 5 pellets of each of a range of pellets in both .22 and .177 although I did not have all pellets to form a complete set.
    After this, and considering Jim's comments about the unreliability of pellet testing like this because the results could be / would be compromised by skirt thickness, I used the tested pellets to make some 5mm diameter lead rods. For each pellet brand I pooled the lead from .177 and .22, melted it down and poured it into moulds; making 2 x 8.5mm long rods for each pellet brand. I then used the rods as before except that the drift was now placed 83cm above the rod (again scientifically determined by what I had available).
    Results in all cases were pretty consistent within a pellet type/brand and I give here a summary of the summary data.
    Lets look at pellet data first, even though it is an unreliable indicator:
    For .22 pellets, the height reduction varied from 29% (Superdome, classed hard) to 29.7 (Marksman), 35.9 (later Wasps), 36.8 (FX), 38.9 (AA Field) to 40 (Accupel, soft). I had no .22 JSB.
    Looking at the .177 versions showed: Ely Wasp (41.4, hard), 46 (Superdome), 46.4 (Marksman), 48.9 (AA Field), 49.2 (FX) and 49.5 (JSB Exact). I had no .177 Accupel
    So ... reasonable agreement when you consider that I think the data ranking could be variable by +/- 1 position.

    But onto the rods. This trial showedagain % height reduction of the rod)
    Accupel 20 classed as hard followed by Eley Wasp 25.2, FX 27.06, Superdomes 28.35, JSB Exact 29.82, AA Field 33.35 classed soft. Again, a truer picture using proper equipment may well change the positions of adjacent pellet makes but I tend to think the data are not too bad.

    What is interesting is the differences between the pellet tests and the rod tests.In the pellet test, for instance, Accupel was deemed the softest in .22 (I had no .177) yet in the more definitive rod test it came out the hardest. AA Field, on the other hand came out as soft in the rod test and quite soft in the pellet test.
    A casual observation that could well be wrong/coincidence was that the Marksman pellets took longer to melt than other types.
    So there we have it, not a truly comprehensive array of pellet types but interesting data all the same.

    Overall, a fun morning.
    Cheers, Phil

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    Watford
    Posts
    1,472
    Quote Originally Posted by TonyL View Post
    As per Jim's comment, sir.

    Like you, a few of my rifles seemingly prefer H&Ns, so I'll more than likely stick with them. At least for the time being.

    I have FAR too many, really. A few of my "plinkers" get fed RWS Hobby. Including a very tatty looking Supersport. It may get used as a ratter one day and, as it will one-hole all day long at up to around 20 yards or so, I'll probably never look beyond the Hobby for that rifle.
    Quote Originally Posted by Phil Russell View Post
    To me I guess very little. But it stimulated curiosity as to which pellet was in which class. Musing on topics like this just keeps the little grey cells working.
    Cheers, Phil
    Thanks for the reply Lads,

    Ade
    Shooting Air Rifles is like being a pubic hair on a toilet seat.
    Eventually someone comes a long and P's you off.
    They usually have a PCP

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Retford, Notts
    Posts
    34,739
    Quote Originally Posted by Phil Russell View Post
    Today has been interesting as I set about testing the hardness of a few pellet brands. It reminded me that around 1965 I spent a happy summer holiday job with Imperial Metal Industries, Kynoch, Birmingham and spent some time testing the hardness of titanium billets I was told were for Concord. I think the machine was Brinnel or Rockwell? It forced a ball bearing into the metal at a set pressure and then you had to measure the indentation using a microscope.
    But back to the job in hand. I have no such machine so had to devise one. I toyed with setting up a 'penetrating' machine to force a pointed whatever into the pellet and measure how far it penetrated for a given force. I dismissed that idea as a bit too complex. I toyed with a sort of 'swinging' hammer system to thwack the pellet, but gave up on that as well because it would be difficult to regulate. What I ended up doing was taking a 3/8" metal drift and dropping it down a tube onto the pellet head and measuring the new height of the pellet. Bear with me ... I have not forgotten the point raised by Jim regarding using pellets for this type of test.
    But I did test pellets, just for fun. I dropped the drift from a scientifically determined height of 40cm onto the pellet head with the pellet standing on a heavy steel sheet (part of a vice). The 40cm was carefully selected because: a. it worked on a test sample and b. it was the length of pipe I had in my box. Using this method I tested 5 pellets of each of a range of pellets in both .22 and .177 although I did not have all pellets to form a complete set.
    After this, and considering Jim's comments about the unreliability of pellet testing like this because the results could be / would be compromised by skirt thickness, I used the tested pellets to make some 5mm diameter lead rods. For each pellet brand I pooled the lead from .177 and .22, melted it down and poured it into moulds; making 2 x 8.5mm long rods for each pellet brand. I then used the rods as before except that the drift was now placed 83cm above the rod (again scientifically determined by what I had available).
    Results in all cases were pretty consistent within a pellet type/brand and I give here a summary of the summary data.
    Lets look at pellet data first, even though it is an unreliable indicator:
    For .22 pellets, the height reduction varied from 29% (Superdome, classed hard) to 29.7 (Marksman), 35.9 (later Wasps), 36.8 (FX), 38.9 (AA Field) to 40 (Accupel, soft). I had no .22 JSB.
    Looking at the .177 versions showed: Ely Wasp (41.4, hard), 46 (Superdome), 46.4 (Marksman), 48.9 (AA Field), 49.2 (FX) and 49.5 (JSB Exact). I had no .177 Accupel
    So ... reasonable agreement when you consider that I think the data ranking could be variable by +/- 1 position.

    But onto the rods. This trial showedagain % height reduction of the rod)
    Accupel 20 classed as hard followed by Eley Wasp 25.2, FX 27.06, Superdomes 28.35, JSB Exact 29.82, AA Field 33.35 classed soft. Again, a truer picture using proper equipment may well change the positions of adjacent pellet makes but I tend to think the data are not too bad.

    What is interesting is the differences between the pellet tests and the rod tests.In the pellet test, for instance, Accupel was deemed the softest in .22 (I had no .177) yet in the more definitive rod test it came out the hardest. AA Field, on the other hand came out as soft in the rod test and quite soft in the pellet test.
    A casual observation that could well be wrong/coincidence was that the Marksman pellets took longer to melt than other types.
    So there we have it, not a truly comprehensive array of pellet types but interesting data all the same.

    Overall, a fun morning.
    Cheers, Phil
    Wow! What a busy little chappy you've been. Thank you so much for jumping to the task and devising this experiment. I wish I had a more understanding partner......

    The Accupel observation stood out to me, proving Jim's caveat. And I would have guessed it would go into the "harder" category. Maybe the skirt design "crumples" more when doing the drop test on the pellets?

    Brilliant work, very interesting, keep it up.
    THE BOINGER BASH AT QUIGLEY HOLLOW. MAKING GREAT MEMORIES SINCE 15th JUNE, 2013.
    NEXT EVENT :- May 4/5, 2024.........BOING!!

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Worcester
    Posts
    22,208
    Quote Originally Posted by Black Beard View Post
    Lee do a hardness tester for testing lead hardness. Used by bullet casters.

    The starting pressure is really important for springers (particularly with light pellets and small cylinder)

    This is really easy to find. Just use a spring balance/scales to measure the force needed to start the pellet moving in the bore. Then divide by the area of the hole in the barrel.

    BB
    I did that test many years (approaching 40 ) ago, Andy, and it certainly gives results in the right ball park but, mindful that it did not replicate the effect of high pressure air acting against the inside of the pellet skirt, I found a method of fixing cylinder peak pressure wherever I wanted it, and got more precise start pressures.

    The results were for the lead-in of my HW77. I should replicate the test with a TX200 - they may be a tad higher.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Bruton
    Posts
    6,591
    This is all really interesting. But what are the practical implications, for, for example:

    - power (softer = lower start pressure = more energy for less spring? How about in CO2 or PCP?);

    - accuracy (barrel leading);

    - pellet deformation through feed systems/handling and consequent inaccuracy?

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Bristol
    Posts
    6,259
    Thanks Jim. Were your more accurate results higher?

    I figured that in a springer, where you have a slow build up in pressure as the cylinder moves forward a simple push rod in the back of a pellet would be okay. The skirt won't deform under the pressure but it will be forced into the bore with the larger skirt getting swaged down at its bottom edge.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Worcester
    Posts
    22,208
    Quote Originally Posted by Black Beard View Post
    Thanks Jim. Were your more accurate results higher?

    I figured that in a springer, where you have a slow build up in pressure as the cylinder moves forward a simple push rod in the back of a pellet would be okay. The skirt won't deform under the pressure but it will be forced into the bore with the larger skirt getting swaged down at its bottom edge.
    I suspect they were higher, Andy but, hand on heart, I can't say for certain. The air pressure tests were with my old HW77, which has shallow and rounded rifling and a rounded lead-in, the push tests with an Anschutz 335, which has deeper and angular rifling, and a very different lead-in, so a comparison would not be reliable.

    One point I think you will find interesting is that I tested .177", a friend independently tested .22", both using our HW77s, and with Falcon Accuracy Plus, the .177" start pressure was 120psi, the .22" was 80psi, almost exactly in inverse proportion to the CSA of the two pellets. I know that's how it should be, but it's gratifying when test results match the physics.

    The thin skirts of soft JSB pellets definitely deform under start pressure or less. I have recently seen evidence of this (long story), and I think that the deformation and consequent reduction of blow-by, plus the soft lead, accounts for the low start pressures. I doubt thick and hard skirts deform, though.

    Something else of considerable interest is the test results obtained by Mike Wright for the coefficient of (kinetic, or sliding) friction of hard and soft lead against steel at velocities between 30fps and 70fps (the limit of the equipment he used). The hard lead was Premier, the soft JSB, and the figures were under 0.4 for soft lead, 0.9 for hard, which roughly translated into a loss of a foot pound in the region of 10-11 ft. lb. We each independently tested the pellets and, sure enough, both lost around a foot pound with the hard pellets.
    Last edited by BTDT; 25-11-2020 at 09:40 AM.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Retford, Notts
    Posts
    34,739
    Brilliant. Most interesting. Thanks Jim.
    THE BOINGER BASH AT QUIGLEY HOLLOW. MAKING GREAT MEMORIES SINCE 15th JUNE, 2013.
    NEXT EVENT :- May 4/5, 2024.........BOING!!

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Worcester
    Posts
    22,208
    Quote Originally Posted by TonyL View Post
    Brilliant. Most interesting. Thanks Jim.
    Thanks, Tony.

    I'm hoping Phil will expand his pellet (rod) test to include H&N FTT and RWS Hobby.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Cambridge UK
    Posts
    7,068
    Some data for Hobby and H&N FTT
    Note: I only have Hobby in .177 and H&N FTT in .20

    But out of interest: Hobby lost 53% height in the crude pellet test, FTT lost 34.6%

    In the rod test: Hobby lost 28% and FTT lost 23.8%
    Re-reading my earlier post I note I did not give data for Marksman. They actually turned out to be the softest rod, losing 34.9% height, just pipping AA Field at 33.35%

    So in rank order I have:
    Accupel (Hard), H&N FTT, Eley Wasp, FX, Hobby, Superdome, JSB, AA Field, Marksman (Soft)

    Excuses: There is a little 'bunching' of data at times so I expect errors in procedure such that: FX, Hobby and Superdomes could all form a pretty common group. Marksman, AA Field could be another common group.

    Cheers, Phil

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Worcester
    Posts
    22,208
    Thanks for that, Phil. Suggests the Superdome and Hobby are probably the same alloy, which makes sense from the manufacturer's viewpoint.

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Oslo, Norway
    Posts
    2,768
    Quote Originally Posted by Phil Russell View Post
    ....
    So in rank order I have:
    Accupel (Hard), H&N FTT, Eley Wasp, FX, Hobby, Superdome, JSB, AA Field, Marksman (Soft)
    ....
    Interesting, because FX pellets are always assumed to be rebranded JSBs.
    Could this mean that JSB do not always use the same alloy?

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Cambridge UK
    Posts
    7,068
    Quote Originally Posted by evert View Post
    Interesting, because FX pellets are always assumed to be rebranded JSBs.
    Could this mean that JSB do not always use the same alloy?
    My data may well not be absolutely accurate even though I think it is indicative when used to compare pellets. If you look at the .177 pellet data you will see that JSB and FX are extremely close on mean height ... vary by 0.05mm but when I look at individual pellet data this 0.05mm could well be due to sampling error (I have not analysed the data to that degree). Mean pellet compression was also very close. Its only when you go to the 'rod' data that you see a difference with JSB being marginally softer. Why the discrepancy? If we assume that the rod data are the more accurate and JSB are truly softer than FX then the only explanation I can think of for the similarity in pellet data is that the pellets vary slightly in design i.e. they are not identical moulds but even so, I suspect differences would be very small. and possibly to do with skirt thickness. Maybe JSB skirts are very slightly thicker than FX which makes the JSB appear to be the same as FX in the pellet test.
    Cheers, Phil

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •