Long range airgun shooting

[Born Again]

Harrys 4000 ft of elevation will not make more than a few % difference to anything I wouldnt think, hence my disbalief on all fronts.

Ben

The air density at 4000ft is 0.886 of that at sea level, humidity makes a difference too. I can't remember what Harrys BC was, I think he said 0.037..

0.032 (JSB Exact) / 0.037 (Harrys result) = 0.865

[baz]

One thing Richard, nobody has seen Harry shoot the groups he claims, but quite a few have seen me shoot in past years, and thousands have seen TD shoot over the years, Ben, as far as I know hasnt made any claims

And theres quite a few that see Gary shooting in HFT in the present time

As for the 150yd groups, I would just take the correct type of gun, easy peasy

[Gary C]

sorry you've started again gary!

a guy in oz came to this board and asked if there were any questions regarding this article made in the magazines about long range shooting!

You first instict was to then reply 'its impossible'

sorry gary, go and stop banging on about what you made harry appear to have said!

as for the rest of the bully brigade in here, get a life and stop discussing something which has been deleted.

it's a bit like sticking a dinner ticket in the backpocket of a double amputee and asking 30 minutes later why ne's not eaten!

secondly, where have all the posts gone which had links to photo's of longe range targets

sometimes wonder if this is a forum of free speech or if its a new version of an online airgunner/airgun world, where everyone is forced to read what's been vetted and edited!

kenny

Kenny
You seem to have a thing about misquoting me? I'm not actually sure why you don't feel inclined to read my posts and respond to WHAT I'm saying. Or perhaps I do.
I have NO problem with Harry's original post re. grouping at whatever power. I think I've stressed that enough for you to have understood that by now?
Just in case I'll say it again. NO PROBLEM

My problem was his second wave of boastful comments about never missing a rabbit past 100 yards. Being able to gauge the wind so the 1" groups were repeatable on demand. Sorry Kenny, if you believe either of those claims you are not as smart as I thought.

Just between us, your amputee analogy, well, a bit crass mate and lets you down


Bigtime
Same as Kenny - please read what I am posting not what you think I'm posting. NOBODY on here has been able to produce anywhere near what Harry is boasting of. I've offered a grand bet, no takers surprisingly.


I would not have challenged Harry at all regarding the groups. I have said already (you obviously missed it) that I can't do a group at that range. I have said that just because I can't do it doesn't mean it can't be done - so no boasting on my part. No bigging myself up.

let me re-iterate my stance one more time.

I believe it is impossible to successfully shoot any "normal" sub 40ft/lb airgun over 100 yards with enough certainty to hunt humanely. Anybody who says he can do this, and has never missed, is a barefaced liar. Anybody who says thay can hit a 1" disk at 150 yards with any certainty with the same gun on the FIRST shot is a barefaced liar.

I applaud the guys on here, Scotland and Portugal etc, producing excellent groups. It takes patience and good shooting, but that is not what my issue is about!

[Gary C]

You are aware both Gary and Terry write for the same airgun magazine publishing company that published Harry's article

I don't really know where that puts opinion, on the one hand the magazines are truthful and honest and on the other Harry's article was a work of fiction?

Hell now even I'm puzzled

Richard

Don't be too puzzled Richard. I'll help you.

The editor published what he thought was the truth. It may well be, I haven't read it. TD and I have issue with what was posted on here, not published in the mags.

Glad to help

[conor1]

When the article first appeared I read it with interest.

The guy came across as reasonably pleasant and polite in both the article and in his subsequent posts on here.

But most amazingly of all, how did the editor of one of the worlds's leading airgun circulars get suckered into writing such an article. Where was the due diligence, who corroborated the story and if the story does prove to be untrue, are heads going to roll?

We need answers; now!

[RichardH]

Don't be too puzzled Richard. I'll help you.

The editor published what he thought was the truth. It may well be, I haven't read it. TD and I have issue with what was posted on here, not published in the mags.

Glad to help

Fair point

Let me ask a different question though.

Can you shoot a 1/2" group at 50 yards with a 12ft/ib rifle?
Can you shoot a 1" group at 100 yards with a rimfire or centrefire?

I suspect the answer to both is yes?

What I'm really interested in is what condition would stop a 24 ft/ib rifle shooting an inch at 100 indoors?

With a projectile of the correct BC, suitable rifling twist and consistent launch it has to be possible.

Richard

[Harry's Lad]

I'll confess to not understanding this "time difference" theory at all. If there was a formula relating side-on BC, wind speed and flight time I could understand it, but what on earth does the flight time in a vacuum have to do with it

WRT the side-on BC thing … it’s irrelevant. The whole wind-drift calculation is not a rule of thumb but the simple application of dynamics. I can do no better than to refer you to the excellent article here. It’s not even called the ‘Rifleman’s Formula’ (oops) – the Rifleman’s Formula refers to the POI correction when shooting up/down hill. Now that is a rule-of-thumb – and, for various reasons, not particularly accurate for airgun application. Thankfully, ChairGun2 does not use the Rifleman’s Formula for inclined shooting but instead derives the trajectory from first principles.

Sorry for the confusion.
Dave

[Born Again]

Who's interested in trying long range air rifle and who's interested in scoring points over other BBS members ?

I suggest anyone interested in the shooting bit go away and try it for a while, then we can all meet up here, in this new section, in a weeks time and compare notes.

Those interested in scoring points and insulting each other can stay on this thread and watch it get deleted as did all the others.

See you here in a week

[Gary C]

I've said what I think of his exaggeration but what a shot in the arm he's given a lot of folks shooting. If this long range shooting takes off it will certainly be good for rifle development and pellet quality.

Hats off the the old chap for this!

[stillair1]

Perhaps a sticky at the top regarding live shooting at beyond extreme ranges would encourage a good debate without sanctioning people in this section.

[RichardH]

I've said what I think of his exaggeration but what a shot in the arm he's given a lot of folks shooting. If this long range shooting takes off it will certainly be good for rifle development and pellet quality.

Hats off the the old chap for this!

Here we agree mate

I can see 100 Yard (or 150 if anyone feels brave) benchrest shooting resulting in many significant moves forward in both barrel and pellet technology.

It also shouldnt be forgotten that if a competetive structure exists then such competitions or practicing for them would be good reason for the grant of an FAC airgun, after all a .308 for benchrest is easy to get.

Everyone wins

Richard

[Terry D]

How * exactly * did you measure the energy at 100 yards?

With a chronoscope. Starting with 30 shots at the muzzle, followed by 30 at 100 yards. We put in a lot of hours on that one, followed by more from me indoors.

No theory really, just plenty of practical tests.

[Terry D]

But most amazingly of all, how did the editor of one of the worlds's leading airgun circulars get suckered into writing such an article. Where was the due diligence, who corroborated the story and if the story does prove to be untrue, are heads going to roll?

We need answers; now!

Nigel considered the article to be within the magazine's publishing remit. Some articles are presented as discussion subjects, and this is one of them. A sort of 'what do you think of this, then?' type piece. As such, it's certainly worked for some on here.

[JohnBam]

What was the shot count and group size on that target, Jon? Looks about 5-inches if that's an A4 sheet, but larger if it's A3.

Just being nosy, really.

Spot on tel, paper was A3, so was big. But hey I was only having a about at the top dot. Was aiming off, with the crosshair post and trying to hit the dot. The shot to the right, the faaaarrr away one, I reckon I pulled. The rest were not that bad. Hits at the bottom are during Zico'c second attempt.

Got some good results yesterday a couple of times..... some shots unbelievblly close, but the group got pulled apart a bit in its entirety from the wind. Best group of the day, was a 5 shotter one about 3 3/4 inch wide and a 1.4 inch high... not tell ya how close the first three shots were, as I couldn't believe it myself, and doubt you lot would but by shots 4 and 5 the lull in the wind I caught had finished and these pulled the grouip wide...was going dmaned well though.

And Terry to go back to an earlier question, is there any defined pattern in your grouping, is it the vertical or horizontal measurement screwing up the sizes, or are they random. Tis the horizontal that always bigger when I'm giving this a go.

[Harry's Lad]

With a chronoscope. Starting with 30 shots at the muzzle, followed by 30 at 100 yards. We put in a lot of hours on that one, followed by more from me indoors.

… and what was the velocity, air temperature/pressure/elevation, pellet weight and the resulting BC value? Just a thought: it was 0.22 JSB (not 0.177) was it? If you were using a 0.177 JSB then that could explain the difference in downrange velocity/energy suggested by bengarzy above … otherwise, it seems like the rifle didn’t like JSB Exacts very much!

Dave