Mk3 accuracy - seems to vary wildly

[Lakey]

Andrew, according to John Knibbs in his book "The Golden Century" , BSA made the switch from hand cut rifling to mechanically swaged rifling in mid 1959. It reduced the cost of manufacture considerably, and meant that barrels were harder due to the hammers forming the rifled barrel around a central mandrel. This is different from button rifling, where the "button" is pushed or pulled through the drilled bore.

Lakey

[rancidtom]

Andrew, according to John Knibbs in his book "The Golden Century" , BSA made the switch from hand cut rifling to mechanically swaged rifling in mid 1959. It reduced the cost of manufacture considerably, and meant that barrels were harder due to the hammers forming the rifled barrel around a central mandrel. This is different from button rifling, where the "button" is pushed or pulled through the drilled bore.

Lakey

BSA have been hammer forging ever since. The quality went down when they sped the process up due to high demand for the R10 when it was first introduced but then they saw the light and reduced speed on the hammer forging process anouncing that they had made a breakthrough in " Enhanced Cold Hammer Forged" barrels in September 2014. What the marketing dept didn' say was they had actually just slowed the machine back to the rate at which the steel could form correctly to the mandrel. They didn't actually publicly admit that they had sped the machinery up and suffered a huge decrease in quality as a result, barrels were extremely pellet fussy if they would group at all it was maybe only one type of pellet, warranty claims/return must have rocketed and the accounts dept must have realised they were in a money (and reputation) losing situation.
This is why I am always cynical of "new developments" being improvements, often they are only money saving profit boosting exercises. BSA are by no means the only company guilty of such, I think you will find Webley were along with many if not all other gun manufacturers at some stage.

[WebleyWombler]

Andrew, according to John Knibbs in his book "The Golden Century" , BSA made the switch from hand cut rifling to mechanically swaged rifling in mid 1959. It reduced the cost of manufacture considerably, and meant that barrels were harder due to the hammers forming the rifled barrel around a central mandrel. This is different from button rifling, where the "button" is pushed or pulled through the drilled bore.

Lakey

Adverts for the BSA Scorpion pistol at it's launch in 1973 made much of the fact that the rifling process had been carried out using the latest button rifling process. I have seen an earlier reference but it's slipped out of my sight atm

The process of hammering around a central mandrel is known as hammer forging in the UK. Swaging is a process of extrusion or compression rather than cutting. Button rifling is a USA term as an alternative to the swaging term we used in Britain . It just refers to a short mandrel, rather than the longer mandril previously used. A shorter mandrel is cheaper to make and easier to push through the bore and is therefore cheaper to achieve the end.

[rancidtom]

Adverts for the BSA Scorpion pistol at it's launch in 1973 made much of the fact that the rifling process had been carried out using the latest button rifling process. I have seen an earlier reference but it's slipped out of my sight atm

The process of hammering around a central mandrel is known as hammer forging in the UK. Swaging is a process of extrusion or compression rather than cutting. Button rifling is a USA term as an alternative to the swaging term we used in Britain . It just refers to a short mandrel, rather than the longer mandril previously used. A shorter mandrel is cheaper to make and easier to push through the bore and is therefore cheaper to achieve the end.

Yes, to swage means to cut rifling with a tool forced through a hole already drilled in a workpiece. A button is a short swage tool. As to actually when BSA started to use the hammer forging around a mandrel I'm not certain, but it was in use when the PCP's were launched. The springers may well have all be button or swage rifled as there was deemed to be no need for a choke in the barrel.

[Geezer]

Geezer, can you do the same test but at 25yds? Otherwise, we do not have like for like. I fear that 8yds is too short to gauge accuracy as the pellet has hardly travelled from the barrel.

Not any time soon, given work and other commitments, sadly.

Of course there is absolutely no substitute for shooting at 25 or 35 yards/metres. But my experience is that even 6 and certainly 10 will still give you a pretty good initial idea of the gun’s potential.

So if I’d used my FWB300S, albeit that it’s seen better days, the groups would still have been tiny. The B2 stored in my mother’s attic would have scattered pellets everywhere. It does that.

What struck me was just how much more accurate the aperture-sighted rifle was. Despite having a harsher cycle and poorer trigger. Of course, bad light was an issue and I have lots of experience using apertures.

As I’ve said before, I’d really welcome other MKIII owners sharing their results, including at longer ranges. I’ve shown what a mediocre shot I am these days. So don’t feel shy.

[andrewM]

Now that BSA has been included, the discussion is becoming increasingly complex.

To discover if there was a marked change in accuracy, it would be necessary for collectors to test their BSA rifles, both pre and post the alterations to the rifling method. In addition, the best pellet would have to be discovered in that pellet optimisation would probably alter, with the rifling. This is something I did with the Mk3s, to establish the best groups. It is a time consuming exercise, not least because arms and eyes tire.

From Rancidtom's remarks, it seems that BSAs up to Sept 2014 should be avoided, at a time when the hammer forging was rushed. Can you provide a commencement date for those who might consider purchasing such rifles (R10s?)?

Slug-gun, I did the same: I bought a Mk3 in Spring 73, from memory, and a year later changed it for an HW35. However, when I started collecting - after discovering this wicked site - it was a Mk3 that I chose to start. They are more of a challenge to shoot, not least with open sights, are light, magnificently made, mine are accurate and, if you can master one of these, you can just about shoot anything. The HW35 never did it for me.

I cannot write too highly of the BSA Standard: it was Edbear who interested me in these, which I added to the collection.

All of this is somewhat off-thread but, reverting again, I would be curious to see any other contributions relating to Mk3 accuracy (including year of production) - and I would also be curious to know what size of groups owners achieve with their Standards.

Rgds
A

[WebleyWombler]

Yes, to swage means to cut rifling with a tool forced through a hole already drilled in a workpiece.

Sorry, that's incorrect. A tool forced through using a cutting action is a broach. Buttons form by compressing the metal, which is swaging, they have no cutting edges, just a slight lead to the lands. This also polishes the bore as the metal is compressed and removes another process from the production line.

There is such a thing as a Button broach, The barrel broaches I have seen were about 4" lung with multiple stepped cutting edges. Button broaches are shorter, but still have multiple cutting edges , I believe in the 4 diameter region, but thats not the tool being discussed here. I think some early Webley literature refers to broaching but that is from when they changed from cutting a single groove at a time to multiple grooves in the same pass. The barrels still had to be lapped (polished) after that.

Andrew. In my experience, a good BSA standard will group to 1" at 20 yards from a rest. This is with the pre war cut rifled barrels. My 1909 Standard and my 1909 light pattern will both do that if I do my bit. They are both more accurate than my 3 Webley MkIIs

[trajectory]

An interesting thread. I've got no answer but it raised a question in my mind.........what do you think accuracy between 'earlier' & 'later' Webley air pistols is like? Is there a possibility that it was influenced by similar changes, or is it a case that if they were influenced by such changes the difference was less noticeable because of a combination of shorter ranges & the inherent difficulty of shooting tight groups with a pistol compared to a rifle? I think Webley stated their pistols would group within 1" at 30ft, but im not sure when this statement was first made in their literature. I think I saw in something from the early/mid 1970s but don't recall any statements in earlier adverts regarding potential accuracy. Would this 1" at 30ft be from a fixed rest with an assembled pistol or could it have been a blast of compressed air from an air line down a barrel in a jig? The latter would take out the vagaries of recoil characteristics of a clamped springer.
Any thoughts?

[rancidtom]

Sorry, that's incorrect. A tool forced through using a cutting action is a broach. Buttons form by compressing the metal, which is swaging, they have no cutting edges, just a slight lead to the lands. This also polishes the bore as the metal is compressed and removes another process from the production line.

There is such a thing as a Button broach, The barrel broaches I have seen were about 4" lung with multiple stepped cutting edges. Button broaches are shorter, but still have multiple cutting edges , I believe in the 4 diameter region, but thats not the tool being discussed here. I think some early Webley literature refers to broaching but that is from when they changed from cutting a single groove at a time to multiple grooves in the same pass. The barrels still had to be lapped (polished) after that.

Andrew. In my experience, a good BSA standard will group to 1" at 20 yards from a rest. This is with the pre war cut rifled barrels. My 1909 Standard and my 1909 light pattern will both do that if I do my bit. They are both more accurate than my 3 Webley MkIIs

I beg your pardon I should have said "form" rather than "cut" with a swaging tool, my fault for being late at night and not checking what I'd typed before posting! I just glanced through to check for spelling and grammar rather than properly read what I'd typed! As you pointed out swaging is forming done either hot or cold, broaching is cutting, usually done cold to preserve the cutting edges of the broaching tool.

In answer to the question as to what dates apply to potentially poor barrel quality with BSA PCP's, I have no actual date information from the factory but barrel production rates were sped up during the production of the Mk1 R10's. When BSA announced the "new improved ECHF" barrels in Sept 2014 they had obviously sorted out the problem. It wasn't just the R10 that was subject to poor quality barrels as BSA fitted the same barrels to all the PCP's they were making at the time. As for the spring guns I have no information regards them. Many R10's were returned to the factory or repaired by tuners, these guns may have had replacement barrels or the barrel may well have been a good one, the only way to know for sure is to shoot some groups before parting with cash if you're buying a secondhand R10 made before Sept 2014 (or any other BSA PCP made between the launch of the R10 and Sept 2014) but that applies to any gun of any age unless you only want it as a a wall hanger, back garden fun plinker or you're buying it as a donor for spares (not the barrel). Don't get me wrong, ther are plenty of amazingly accurate R10's out there but there may be a lemon still lurking. Try before you buy.

[andrewM]

W.Wombler, you say that your old BSAs are are both more accurate than your 3 'Webley MkIIs'. Did you meant to say IIIs? If so, when were your MkIIIs produced? Or did you mean the pre-war Mk2?

I need to do more testing with my BSA Standards but, so far, I have established that 1in groups are easily attainable at 30yds and I think I could probably improve on this. However, I will be pushed, I think, to improve on the accuracy of my Mk3s. Indeed, I am very happy with their accuracy but I suspect that this is because they have the more accurate barrels/rifling that began production in 1969.

Trajectory: very good question! I suppose it depends upon whether the rifling method within the air pistol barrels was changed and, secondly, whether this had an impact on accuracy. It would be quite simple to check by looking down the barrels for the pre-1969 and, say, post 1970 versions. Is there any change in appearance and rifling?

Personally, much as I admire the various designs, I do not shoot air pistols which I find are inaccurate (compared with rifles) and too difficult to master. However, there are many here who have perhaps mastered this discipline.

Geezer, I fitted aperture sights to my Webley Omega with excellent results. I would probably do so to the Mk3 if I could find a way of doing it.

Given the popularity of this general thread, I am going to start another about the accuracy of pre-war air rifles - to widen the discussion. Meanwhile, if anyone has tested their own Mk3 for accuracy, please post here, with details of approx. date of production.

[45flint]

W.Wombler, you say that your old BSAs are are both more accurate than your 3 'Webley MkIIs'. Did you meant to say IIIs? If so, when were your MkIIIs produced? Or did you mean the pre-war Mk2?

I need to do more testing with my BSA Standards but, so far, I have established that 1in groups are easily attainable at 30yds and I think I could probably improve on this. However, I will be pushed, I think, to improve on the accuracy of my Mk3s. Indeed, I am very happy with their accuracy but I suspect that this is because they have the more accurate barrels/rifling that began production in 1969.

Trajectory: very good question! I suppose it depends upon whether the rifling method within the air pistol barrels was changed and, secondly, whether this had an impact on accuracy. It would be quite simple to check by looking down the barrels for the pre-1969 and, say, post 1970 versions. Is there any change in appearance and rifling?

Personally, much as I admire the various designs, I do not shoot air pistols which I find are inaccurate (compared with rifles) and too difficult to master. However, there are many here who have perhaps mastered this discipline.

Geezer, I fitted aperture sights to my Webley Omega with excellent results. I would probably do so to the Mk3 if I could find a way of doing it.

Given the popularity of this general thread, I am going to start another about the accuracy of pre-war air rifles - to widen the discussion. Meanwhile, if anyone has tested their own Mk3 for accuracy, please post here, with details of approx. date of production.

Have a 1957? Webley MK3 with open sights. How would you test this for accuracy? I assume you are scoping on a bench for 1” at 30 yards?

[andrewM]

Have a 1957? Webley MK3 with open sights. How would you test this for accuracy? I assume you are scoping on a bench for 1” at 30 yards?

Personally, I use a table and chair. Supporting my arm, I place a number of cushions in front. I do not lean on the cushions as this seems to produce a slightly different point of impact. For the Mk3, I have sighted it in at 25yds but intend to increase this distance and take detailed notes when I find time and the weather permits. That might now be next year. I do not use a scope for the Mk3 because of recoil creep and the poor scope rail. I merely use the existing open sights.

If a scope could be used, and has been securely fixed, this would produce a better indication of accuracy.

Rgds
A

[rancidtom]

Personally, I use a table and chair. Supporting my arm, I place a number of cushions in front. I do not lean on the cushions as this seems to produce a slightly different point of impact. For the Mk3, I have sighted it in at 25yds but intend to increase this distance and take detailed notes when I find time and the weather permits. That might now be next year. I do not use a scope for the Mk3 because of recoil creep and the poor scope rail. I merely use the existing open sights.

If a scope could be used, and has been securely fixed, this would produce a better indication of accuracy.

Rgds
A

Where are you supporting your arm? (I assume this is the left arm if you are right handed) Are you gripping the rifle with your left hand? Are you pulling it into your shoulder with either hand?
All of the above points can make a huge difference to group size. I'm not saying you are doing something wrong but to compare like with like you will also have to compare position, support etc.
My advice would be to wear a glove on your left hand, do not grip the rifle as such, just cradle it with your left hand, do not support your left arm any further forward than your elbow, do not pull the rifle into the shoulder just lightly touching so you can allow the rife to have an unrestricted shooting cycle. Even if you are supported the follow through after the shot is as important as the moment you squeeze the trigger. A very common and often unconscious fault many people acquire is to look up as soon as the shot is gone, in doing so they are destroying the chance of a good group. Breath control is another area many people pick up bad habits, whatever pattern you follow make certain it is consistent.
Stance, well you say you are seated, but make sure you are in a comfortable and repeatable position.
I know this sounds like I'm saying you don't know what you're doing but we all pick up errors and keep repeating them.
If I pick up a new (to me) gun and it all seems to be a bit slack on the grouping I consciously try to take a step back, analyse and go back to the basic book values just to see if it has any effect, positive or negative, it may reveal that I am the problem or it may point to a problem with the gun or pellets, either way it might help me get along to becoming more consistent with this gun until I go to shoot another gun!
I know it sounds tedious but so does pellet testing and tuning a gun, you have to suck it and see, make notes, change an aspect test again and make more notes. Don't rush to conclusions, if something works then try changing away and make notes. Is the grouping worse? Now go back to where you were with good grouping, shoot a few groups, draw up a new average and compare, it should be the same average size group as you were getting before, if not then you haven't found the real cause of the inconsistency.
I know it can be frustrating but if it gives you a grin when you get it right then that's what it's about, enjoy the shooting!

[andrewM]

Where are you supporting your arm? (I assume this is the left arm if you are right handed) Are you gripping the rifle with your left hand? Are you pulling it into your shoulder with either hand?
All of the above points can make a huge difference to group size. I'm not saying you are doing something wrong but to compare like with like you will also have to compare position, support etc.
My advice would be to wear a glove on your left hand, do not grip the rifle as such, just cradle it with your left hand, do not support your left arm any further forward than your elbow, do not pull the rifle into the shoulder just lightly touching so you can allow the rife to have an unrestricted shooting cycle. Even if you are supported the follow through after the shot is as important as the moment you squeeze the trigger. A very common and often unconscious fault many people acquire is to look up as soon as the shot is gone, in doing so they are destroying the chance of a good group. Breath control is another area many people pick up bad habits, whatever pattern you follow make certain it is consistent.
Stance, well you say you are seated, but make sure you are in a comfortable and repeatable position.
I know this sounds like I'm saying you don't know what you're doing but we all pick up errors and keep repeating them.
If I pick up a new (to me) gun and it all seems to be a bit slack on the grouping I consciously try to take a step back, analyse and go back to the basic book values just to see if it has any effect, positive or negative, it may reveal that I am the problem or it may point to a problem with the gun or pellets, either way it might help me get along to becoming more consistent with this gun until I go to shoot another gun!
I know it sounds tedious but so does pellet testing and tuning a gun, you have to suck it and see, make notes, change an aspect test again and make more notes. Don't rush to conclusions, if something works then try changing away and make notes. Is the grouping worse? Now go back to where you were with good grouping, shoot a few groups, draw up a new average and compare, it should be the same average size group as you were getting before, if not then you haven't found the real cause of the inconsistency.
I know it can be frustrating but if it gives you a grin when you get it right then that's what it's about, enjoy the shooting!

I am left handed. I simply place my right elbow on the table (I wear elbow supports - I forget their technical name) and lean it against the cushions in front, but my right hand does not lean on the cushions for it supports the rifle freely. I have a light to medium grip with my right hand and I bring the butt into my shoulder but not too tightly. I try to replicate this hold each time, which is not too difficult. If I rest my right hand rifle on the cushions, I find the rifle fires to the left or right slightly (I forget which it is).

I also keep a stock of about 10 different pellet varieties and test each with each model of rifle. All of this is time-consuming but it means the best combination can be discovered and noted.

[Geezer]

I always try to shoot springers with the support elbow as near as possible directly under the rifle, and off an open support hand palm with the fingers spread to avoid any pressure on the fore end beyond supporting it in the vertical plane.

Springers are “fun” like that. You can get slightly different points of impact with some of them simply from the position of the strong hand thumb. Or the placement of the support hand.

Basically, the more you try to hold them on target, the more likely they are to miss the target. Very counter-instinctual beasts.

It is possible to use a firmer grip and have good results, BTDT has written about that. But it’s really hard to do. It has to be the same firmness every time and I suspect only works well if you only shoot one rifle, and shoot it a lot. I also think it can work OK to well with gas-rams, though I’m not sure why that may be the case, assuming it is.