Has anyone found modern APs (LP10)? to be more accurate than their tired old FWB65s etc.?
Don't tell me about World Records and such (1 or 2 point increase). They're not showing me anything!
More accurate...REALLY?
Moderators: pilkguns, m1963, David Levene, Spencer, Richard H
Forum rules
If you wish to make a donation to this forum's operation , it would be greatly appreciated.
https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/targettalk?yours=true
If you wish to make a donation to this forum's operation , it would be greatly appreciated.
https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/targettalk?yours=true
The barrels are no more accurate. The delivery of either compressed air of CO2 in more constant, thus resulting in better results over a longer period of time in a wider variety of atmospheric conditions. You will find the barrels are made by the same maker using the same machines that were in use 30- 40 years ago in some cases.
-
David Levene
- Posts: 5617
- Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 12:49 pm
- Location: Ruislip, UK
I would doubt whether modern pistols are intrinsically more accurate than older pistols like the FWB65.
Most people will however find them far easier to shoot well or consistently.
That's why the very top scores have only increased slightly, but world class scores (for example top 8 placing in major international championships) have increased so much.
Most people will however find them far easier to shoot well or consistently.
That's why the very top scores have only increased slightly, but world class scores (for example top 8 placing in major international championships) have increased so much.
My LP10 has a better group than my old LP1 from a ransom rest, using the optimal pellets for each pistol (Vogel 4.51 in the LP10 and R10 4.5 in the LP1)
The difference is not much, just about 1.5mm extreme to extreme. In reality of the 2 pistol neither one is more accurate than the other, however I find I am able to shoot better scores with the LP10.
However when chronographed the LP10 has a much more consistent pellet velocity than the LP1. Over 20 shots the average difference in velocity is only 4 fps from the LP10 as opposed to 19.5 fps for the LP1. I haven't tested it when the cylinders are getting low on gas, but I think it would be a more pronounced difference.
It all may only be a psychological aspect, but given shooting is a psychological sport anything that gives you a psychological boost is worth looking into.
Good luck
The difference is not much, just about 1.5mm extreme to extreme. In reality of the 2 pistol neither one is more accurate than the other, however I find I am able to shoot better scores with the LP10.
However when chronographed the LP10 has a much more consistent pellet velocity than the LP1. Over 20 shots the average difference in velocity is only 4 fps from the LP10 as opposed to 19.5 fps for the LP1. I haven't tested it when the cylinders are getting low on gas, but I think it would be a more pronounced difference.
It all may only be a psychological aspect, but given shooting is a psychological sport anything that gives you a psychological boost is worth looking into.
Good luck
More accurate?
I wonder how the higher velocity effects accuracy. This may make pellet stabilization easier to accomplish because it is spinning faster. Perhaps they are using different twist barrels, maybe not. At any rate, I have to believe that the new guns are inherently more accurate.
Re: More accurate?
What makes you think that?BEA wrote:At any rate, I have to believe that the new guns are inherently more accurate.
-
Isabel1130
- Posts: 1364
- Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2008 7:19 pm
- Location: Wyoming
Re: More accurate?
Optimum twist rate is not effected by velocity. The twist rate is based on the projectiles length vs diameter. As pellets have not changed their length since I can remember so the optimum twist rates will not have changed. For .177, it's something like 1 in 18" (or 1 in 450mm).BEA wrote:I wonder how the higher velocity effects accuracy. This may make pellet stabilization easier to accomplish because it is spinning faster. Perhaps they are using different twist barrels, maybe not. At any rate, I have to believe that the new guns are inherently more accurate.
If you were to fire them twice as fast, yes they would be doing twice the RPM, but they would also cover twice the distance while doing it so the stabilisation effect is the same. Also, worth noting, is that the best accuracy is found when you spin a projectile just enough to stabilise. Over spinning degrades accuracy.
This makes me think, has the design and shape of the wadcutter pellet reached it's limit? Or is there some new shape out there that could make an improvement?
More accurate?
I believe the new guns are inherently more accurate because they are the result of the latest technology. Machinery/measuring instruments/barrel making equipment must have improved over the last 30 years. Plus the velocity is adjustable so it is sometimes possible to adjust the velocity to the best speed for the pellet being used. The higher velocity increase does effect the spin. The pellet does spin the same number of turns from point A to point B, but it is getting there quicker, so actually it is spinning faster in terms of time. That can effect stability. Factor in the muzzle brakes, ports, stabilizers ect....so I believe the newer guns are inherently better/more accurate.
Bullet rpm=velocity x (either 270 or 720....can't remember which) all divided by the twist rate.
The faster the velocity, the faster the bullet spins which effects stabilization, so I wonder if they have changed the twist rate to reach an optimum rate. The old Greenhill formula for bullet length/diameter/twist rate does take into consideration the projectile velocity, so speed does matter. The benchrest shooters are super freaks on this stuff. Interesting discussion.
Bullet rpm=velocity x (either 270 or 720....can't remember which) all divided by the twist rate.
The faster the velocity, the faster the bullet spins which effects stabilization, so I wonder if they have changed the twist rate to reach an optimum rate. The old Greenhill formula for bullet length/diameter/twist rate does take into consideration the projectile velocity, so speed does matter. The benchrest shooters are super freaks on this stuff. Interesting discussion.
You make good points, BEA. Quality-wise the only thing I can think of that would affect accuracy would be variations in the rate of twist within an individual barrel. Pellet diameter variations would take care of bore size and many barrels are "choked"
It doesn't matter HOW fast your pellet is moving, it still only spins at one revolution every 18 inches of travel. I would think that changes in accuracy would be dependent on barrel harmonics.
When I did some pellet testing (you can look it up) I found that light weight pellets gave better accuracy across the board with my LP1.
What that signifies, I don't know.
It is my opinion that accuracy has not improved with newer model guns, though some claim that they are "easier" to shoot, also counter to my opinion and experience.
BTW Early in my shooting career I used to shoot Benchrest.
It doesn't matter HOW fast your pellet is moving, it still only spins at one revolution every 18 inches of travel. I would think that changes in accuracy would be dependent on barrel harmonics.
When I did some pellet testing (you can look it up) I found that light weight pellets gave better accuracy across the board with my LP1.
What that signifies, I don't know.
It is my opinion that accuracy has not improved with newer model guns, though some claim that they are "easier" to shoot, also counter to my opinion and experience.
BTW Early in my shooting career I used to shoot Benchrest.
Greenhill's formula - not really suitable for subsonics.
The other factor to be considered is the aerodynamic stablising effect of the diabolo shape of the pellets we use. This stabilises much easier that a say .224 VLD bullet which has it's centre of mass towards the rear and would "overturn" if not spinning fast enough.
The bottomline is, for a long time 10m air pistols have been more accurate than the humans that drive them!
The other factor to be considered is the aerodynamic stablising effect of the diabolo shape of the pellets we use. This stabilises much easier that a say .224 VLD bullet which has it's centre of mass towards the rear and would "overturn" if not spinning fast enough.
The bottomline is, for a long time 10m air pistols have been more accurate than the humans that drive them!
more accurate?
I agree that the Greenhill formula certainly wasn't developed with AP pistols in mind, but the same principals have to apply to some miniscule degree. Due do the short distance involved, aerodynamics play a smaller part, sort of like a 148 gr HBWC...hollow bottom (sealing qualities) and about as aerodynamic as a brick (flat front to cut nice holes). Having started out in the 70's with a model 65, my opinion is that the old AP's were very fine pistols, but harder to shoot due to the cocking factor and even more critical follow through. I sold my 65 years ago and sure wish I still had it. I purchased it from Daisy for $275 NIB. What a deal that was. I am not saying anything negative about them but for serious competition now, you might be handicaped by using one. At any rate, they would certainly provide you with some good practice time. Anyone who looks down on someone for shooting one of the old FWB's just hasn't been around long enough to know better.
I also started with a FWB 65. I was loaned one before I got my first pistol. This one had the factory barrel weight on it, the one that was sleeved over the barrel - you couldn't remove it. To be honest I hated the overall weight if the thing more than the cocking effort. The first pistol of my own was a FAS 604, bought new for 135 GB pounds (no one sold them here in New Zealand, so I imported it). I also wish I still had that, not that I would shoot it competitively, but it would be good for my kids to shoot. After that I had an Air Match 600 before going CO2 in I think about 1986 with a FWB model 2. These days, I couldn't imagine using anything for competition that had to be manually cocked (ie spring or SSP) Prefer the modern pistols just for the ease of use if nothing else, it suits my laziness!
I still shoot my 604 and 600. Your comment about laziness is easy to relate to these days ;-). The Airmatch does require some effort to charge, but the FAS is so easy that it's perfectly suited to "lazy". Accuracy with these older pneumatics is very competitive. It was superb back then and remains so today. Fortunately, the 604 is still being manufactured.j-team wrote:... first pistol of my own was a FAS 604...After that I had an Air Match 600... Prefer the modern pistols just for the ease of use if nothing else, it suits my laziness!
My LP1 and LP10 shot the same when tested in a vice and dialed in matching the pellet size it liked and the velocity the pellet then liked to travel. You also need to clean them. Scott has instructions to care for your air gun. A dirty AP will shot a big hole. I was surprised when I put it in a vice and shot it then ran some cleaning pellets and the group got really small again.
I am not sure if the clamped in a vice accuracy is better in the most current AP vs the FWB Mod65 but for most people holding it in your hand I think you will see better scores.
We would need someone to bench a Mod65 and see if you can get it to shoot the same one hole group an LP10 or other late model AP is capable. Can you adjust the velocity of a Mod65 to find a sweet spot.
I am not sure if the clamped in a vice accuracy is better in the most current AP vs the FWB Mod65 but for most people holding it in your hand I think you will see better scores.
We would need someone to bench a Mod65 and see if you can get it to shoot the same one hole group an LP10 or other late model AP is capable. Can you adjust the velocity of a Mod65 to find a sweet spot.