Tim Conrad wrote: For ordinary shooters like me, it isn't that critical, although I did lose the iron aggregate at the State Prone Championship by a plugger. Had more X's, one point behind the winner. Would better ammo have helped ? Depending on where I broke the shot, might have made matters worse.
Tim,
On average, better ammo gives better scores. The shooter gives a certain ammount of dispersion to the shot group, and the imperfection of the ammo adds dispersion, yielding a lower score. On average, that is... A 10.0 can turn out as a 9.9 due to 'bad' ammo, and vice versa, if you shoot a 9.9, the imperfect ammo can also help you to a 10.0. Still, a 10 can become a 9, but a 10 can never become an 11. So in the long run, better ammo will improve your score.
That also holds for ordinary shooters, although, like you said, for them (us?) it's not that critical. The math to prove that can be read over here... http://home.wanadoo.nl/jhogema/skeetn/b ... allist.htm
The question is how much is it worth ? For conventional (American) prone, the ten ring measures about an inch at 50 yards. ISSF about 0.4 inch. If you shoot international, and want to have a chance at being competitive, you need something that will group well. If you shoot ARA Benchrest, you need all of that and some luck as well. One mean target.
Obviously, shooting floor sweepings won't work, but how far do you need to go ? Black box or equivalent works for most folks outdoors, many can use Club at 50 ft (or similar from other folks) For beginners, better to buy more of the less expensive stuff and work a lot more on fundamentals of shot execution. Always a tradeoff. In air rifle, do you really need 0.5 mm center to center ? At the Olympic level, where one point can mean the difference between a medal and not making the final (Women's Air rifle, Athens) then for sure. If you can't break 570, it doesn't make that much difference. Put your money where it will do the most good.
I agree that the quest for ideal should remain reasonable with respect to what the person on the trigger can do with it.
Still, for guys like me mostly not breaking 570 in AR, it IS something to consider.
If I settle for ammo with an avg shot group diameter of 6.5 mm (outer-outer, in 10-shot groups during ammo tests), I will be losing 2 points on average due to your poor ammo quality. You might say that's just 2 points out of the 30 that are keeping me from the 600. Still, I prefer 571 on my scoring card instead of 569.
Perhaps more important than these 2 points is the peace of mind involved. If see a bad shot on my target, I don't want to be thinking 'ah well - might be the ammo that caused this one'. The rifle is great, the ammo must be great too, and then there will be just me having to finish the business.
JeroenH wrote:I agree that the quest for ideal should remain reasonable with respect to what the person on the trigger can do with it.
Still, for guys like me mostly not breaking 570 in AR, it IS something to consider.
If I settle for ammo with an avg shot group diameter of 6.5 mm (outer-outer, in 10-shot groups during ammo tests), I will be losing 2 points on average due to your poor ammo quality. You might say that's just 2 points out of the 30 that are keeping me from the 600. Still, I prefer 571 on my scoring card instead of 569.
Perhaps more important than these 2 points is the peace of mind involved. If see a bad shot on my target, I don't want to be thinking 'ah well - might be the ammo that caused this one'. The rifle is great, the ammo must be great too, and then there will be just me having to finish the business.
Or it could be giving you 2 points, so your 569 might actually be a 567 with better ammo.
Richard H wrote:Or it could be giving you 2 points, so your 569 might actually be a 567 with better ammo.
On a bad day, yes. On some days it won't make a difference. But on most days, better ammo will give you a better score. See my post from yesterday, 4 posts up in this topic (posted Aug 22, 2007 12:38 pm).
The contributors to this thread are handing out valuable info on high level competition target shooting and this is always good. BUT things have strayed off the original query which was “Does velocity matter in air pistol shooting?”.
Well I am not the expert in ballistics but as an ex- aircraft fitter I can contribute something about stability. The design of the pellet will contribute more to the accuracy than the velocity. Most high speed aircraft have enormous difficulty in travelling in anything but a straight line. Unlike a pellet an aircraft must be unstable or it becomes a missile.
All the ballistic equations go back to the sling or thrown stone where experience and empirical testing proved that a smooth, regularly shaped projectile was more controllable and predictable than a rough irregular one. Eventually we progressed to bow and arrows and wind and drag became problems with the higher speeds involved and things started to be smoothed out to reduce drag. Whether by accident or design it was found that arrows which rotated along their long axis flew straighter than those that did not. These were the straightest, smoothest arrows with 1 to 3 degrees offset of the flights from the centreline on the longitudinal axis.
Bullets came next and since attempts to put flights on bullets were doomed to failure until fairly recently (OOOOH YES you can, but only on smoothbore and they cost a fortune each and are mainly for open cylinder shotgun use) rifling was found to be the answer. All this does is spin the projectile on its longitudinal axis t provide stability and the faster the spin the more stable. Yes there are plenty of things which can go wrong, uneven weight distribution, gas leaks along the bullet, too much weight in the nose and even melting of the base with too large a propellant charge. Nowadays these things are known and allowed for but still occasionally turn up.
Finally we get to air weapon pellets which fall between two stools. They must be aerodynamic and light. The current fashion for the hourglass shape is sensible in that it provides a relatively heavy head, regardless of shape, and a lighter tail to stabilise the pellet. The lighter tail also, is thin enough to engage in the rifling of the barrel and impart spin and provide an airtight seal.
So now we get to the answer to the original question “Is more power, which equals velocity, better”? Up to the point where the weapon provides enough power to either bypass the gas seal provided by the skirt, produce excessive muzzle blast to tumble the pellet, or enough expansion to tear the skirt on exiting the barrel the answer is yes.
However the true answer is that guns have adjustable sights and if both the guns used are producing satisfactory results then darticus is to be congratulated for correctly matching both guns to the pellets he is using.
Sorry it was so long winded but the logical steps need to be followed.
Regards
Target Bunny
