let's talk about accuracy

[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