Tuning Because SOME of us really would like to know

Having discussed this many times with different people, Franklink and I came up with a tentative plan and this is the first attempt to try to learn if the BARREL really can make a difference in the wind and if so... why and can it be measured. Now understand, this is going to be a somewhat extended learning experience and things will likely change as it progresses.
I chose this title because some have indicated in other threads that they would rather just shoot and are not interested in WHY things are like they are. If it doesn't interest you... PLEASE feel free to go on to other threads. I welcome input as it's a complicated subject but posting to show your indifference isn't productive.
So...
I chose 177 to start as I have many accurate and proven rifles and chose the 10.3 JSB to be shot in all except one even though it may not be the preferred pellet for some. The exception is a 13 ft lb AA RN10 from the mid nineties because it has proven to hang with the 20 ft lb rifles even though it's shooting an 8.4 @ 850. Now this rifle really is the biggest reason that this whole thing has been on my mind for years but Franklink's USFT and my USFT are big parts of the discussion as well. As I get through this, please keep in mind that the targets were shot carefully, but ultimate accuracy was not the goal because the pellet may not be the best for a particular barrel. I have 13 rifle/barrel combos that are proven capable of winning in FT and several would be competitive in Benchrest.
In no particular order, they are: DS Safari with choked and unchoke polygonal barrels, DS Delta Wolf with 17" standard rifled and 23" choked poly, DS Tsar w unchoked poly, DS CRX ST standard rifled, Air Arms RN10 with 19" standard rifled shooting 8.4s, USFT with 23" choked poly, BSA Goldstar with standard rifled, Air Arms ProTarget with 23" standard rifled, DS Wolverine R with 17" standard rifled, Steyr LG100 with original Steyr standard rifled, and Theoben Rapid 17 with 23" standard rifled.
The first attept was to shoot 25 shots at 50 yards with the same poa through all 25. The hope was to see if some would spread more than others as the wind changed. As you can see in the photos, real difference may be difficult to discern but some, like the USFT had much less vertical and the horizontal was somewhat less as well. Peak wind was likely around 8 mph and the 2 outliers on the USFT were during a couple of these gusts. The wind varied pretty much 360 degrees on both cards and is responsible for much of the vertical as all of these are quite consistent.
20220913_080308.jpg

20220903_111639.jpg

Now I had a TOUGH time editing the LabRadar data as it is SLOOOOWWWW with many glitches but the process was to delete the faulty data so as not to skew the results . The faulty data results when the tracking process goes awry and there is bad or no data in some of the yardage captures. This was why I chose to do 25 shots... to have plenty remaining after the editing. Please note that this was not an attempt to manipulate data, just get rid of faults.
So @Franklink took the spreadsheet data and processed it for me to give this list of rifles based on best to worst bc. There are some things to note but at this point, I need to sign off and will post more as I can. If you see me at EBR, definitely say hello and give me your thoughts.

In Franklink's spreadsheet, there are 2 entries for the USFT. Note above that 1 is at 923 ft/sec average and the other is at 890 ft/sec average. It's pretty interesting that this corroborates the general wisdom that is disseminated on this site about 890 ft/sec being about the best place for tradeoff between velocity and bc. Also, I intended as much as possible for the rifles to be in the 880 to 900 ft/sec range but some, like the Tsar, were not able to get there and I did not try to tune any extensively. Mostly, this was just where they were from last competition use. Also, the Goldstar data is missing from the current spreadsheet but suffice to say, it was quite good and maybe upper middle of the pack. This was one of my LabRadar fights. With regard to that, there are 2 target sheets because somewhere along the way, all my first files were lost. I tried to center up the shots on the second one better but the wind was blowing quite a bit so not perfect. So I shot 325 shots for record plus sighters on the cards and the LabRadar gives the results in a .csv form that I will have to convert to be able to post. I will try to do this soon as it is interesting.

Another interesting thing is that mostly, the polygonal bores were at the top. Two very strange results were that BlueBaby (ProTarget - wife's previous comp rifle) was so high with an HW standard rifled barrel and that the CRX was so low with a LW standard rifled barrel... both 12 groove. Also, the ProTarget, RN10, Steyr, and USFT had direct loaded pellets with air coming directly from behind rather than below. The remainder are all bolt inserted. Note that the Theoben is an HW standard rifled and the Steyr is the original factory hammer forged standard rifled barrel (absolutely like a mirror inside).

I also wanted to add that some of these really stand out in firing behavior. Overall, I'd give most pleasant to the Wolverine with the Safari at this power very close behind. The Steyr seems to have the fastest "snap" of a shot cycle with RN10 and ProTarget close. The USFT and Theoben seemed slowest by my perception. It was pretty nice sitting down and revisiting these gems since I mostly have been focused on the Delta Wolf for a while.

Bob

View attachment ORDERED BY HIGHEST BC (RIGHT COLUMN).docx
 
Last edited:
I read somewhere that how deep the lands/grooves cut into a projectile will have an effect on the aerodynamics in the winds. The less smooth the surface the more drag from wind and possibly from the twist itself thus the belief that polygonal and smooth twist barrels might be better.

I look forward to your findings!

-Marty
 
I’m no scientist.. but the most accurate guns I own have deeper grooves and are snug barrels.
These are break barrels
But springers have a lot of vibration during the shot cycle and typically folks shoot them at 35 yards or less. In which case a tighter barrel prevents the pellet from rattling down the barrel and the distances usually don’t afford enough time for the pellet to be heavily effected by wind. Your mileage and usage may vary of course…

-Marty
 
But springers have a lot of vibration during the shot cycle and typically folks shoot them at 35 yards or less. In which case a tighter barrel prevents the pellet from rattling down the barrel and the distances usually don’t afford enough time for the pellet to be heavily effected by wind. Your mileage and usage may vary of course…

-Marty
This is TRUE.. 👆🏻
 
I’m no scientist.. but the most accurate guns I own have deeper grooves and are snug barrels.
These are break barrels
It would be interesting to shoot a test pellet into a medium that would not cause damage so the depth of the grooves could be measured. Would pushing a pellet through the barrel give the same land/groove cut as being shot?
Problem with pushing them down with a rod is that you are not getting the full cut in of the rifling as the pressure flares the skirt a bit more during the shot cycle.
 
Having discussed this many times with different people, Franklink and I came up with a tentative plan and this is the first attempt to try to learn if the BARREL really can make a difference in the wind and if so... why and can it be measured. Now understand, this is going to be a somewhat extended learning experience and things will likely change as it progresses.
I chose this title because some have indicated in other threads that they would rather just shoot and are not interested in WHY things are like they are. If it doesn't interest you... PLEASE feel free to go on to other threads. I welcome input as it's a complicated subject but posting to show your indifference isn't productive.
So...
I chose 177 to start as I have many accurate and proven rifles and chose the 10.3 JSB to be shot in all except one even though it may not be the preferred pellet for some. The exception is a 13 ft lb AA RN10 from the mid nineties because it has proven to hang with the 20 ft lb rifles even though it's shooting an 8.4 @ 850. Now this rifle really is the biggest reason that this whole thing has been on my mind for years. As I get through this, please keep in mind that the targets were shot carefully, but ultimate accuracy was not the goal because the pellet may not be the best for a particular barrel. I have 13 rifle/barrel combos that are proven capable of winning in FT and several would be competitive in Benchrest.
In no particular order, they are: DS Safari with choked and unchoke polygonal barrels, DS Delta Wolf with 17" standard rifled and 23" choked poly, DS Tsar w unchoked poly, DS CRX ST standard rifled, Air Arms RN10 with 19" standard rifled shooting 8.4s, USFT with 23" choked poly, BSA Goldstar with standard rifled, Air Arms ProTarget with 23" standard rifled, DS Wolverine R with 17" standard rifled, Steyr LG100 with original Steyr standard rifled, and Theoben Rapid 17 with 23" standard rifled.
The first attept was to shoot 25 shots at 50 yards with the same poa through all 25. The hope was to see if some would spread more than others as the wind changed. As you can see in the photos, real difference may be difficult to discern but some, like the USFT had much less vertical and the horizontal was somewhat less as well. Peak wind was likely around 8 mph and the 2 outliers on the USFT were during a couple of these gusts. The wind varied pretty much 360 degrees on both cards and is responsible for much of the vertical as all of these are quite consistent.

Now I had a TOUGH time editing the LabRadar data as it is SLOOOOWWWW with many glitches but the process was to delete the faulty data so as not to skew the results . The faulty data results when the tracking process goes awry and there is bad or no data in some of the yardage captures. This was why I chose to do 25 shots... to have plenty remaining after the editing. Please note that this was not an attempt to manipulate data, just get rid of faults.
So @Franklink took the spreadsheet data and processed it for me to give this list of rifles based on best to worst bc. There are some things to note but at this point, I need to sign off and will post more as I can. If you see me at EBR, definitely say hello and give me your opinion.

Well... I'm unable to upload the pics right now but will try again in the morning.

Bob

View attachment 294758
You need standard deviations with that data. That will help you be more "certain" of your conclusions. Perhaps just upload the spread sheet? No intent to nit-pick here. I am also interested in your results. Thank you for capturing the data. Certainly saves everyone a lot of work.
 
I read somewhere that how deep the lands/grooves cut into a projectile will have an effect on the aerodynamics in the winds. The less smooth the surface the more drag from wind and possibly from the twist itself thus the belief that polygonal and smooth twist barrels might be better.

I look forward to your findings!

-Marty
I speculate that it may not be drag so much as spin drift which is affected by deeper groves.
 
Thanks for the comments, guys. We DO have spreadsheets as well for each rifle and the standard deviations are included. There is much still to post of what we had so far but I couldn't upload any of the pics or sheets last night so I'll try again today.
We hope to find a way to capture shot pellets without damaging them, too. Efforts so far have been poor.
Break barrels and springers in general are different than pcp's in that they NEED some breech resistance for pressure to build reasonably before starting to move. For this reason, seated into the bore pellets are always slower than ones that are not.
Bob
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: beerthief
Very interesting comparison that validates Cole’s thoughts about his USFT and wind performance.
When you do the LabRadar are you using 0 and 50 yards? Doesn’t matter since you’re doing it the same for all pellet/gun combos, but for true BC that plugs well into ballistic calculators using 10 yards vice 0 seems to give a truer more consistent calculation. The 0 data in the LabRadar is an extrapolated data point…
Would like to do how the JSB KO 13.43 do since my observation is/was that they move less in the wind than the Monster RD pellets at the same speed. (800 fps approx).
Looking forward to more, great thread!
Mike
 
Here’s an example of some I shot into a bucket of water to compare the engraving of the original JSB Monsters to the Redesigns. Definitely deforms the heads but you can still make out the engraving at the perimeter, and lets us see the effect of the skirt expanding to fill the grooves.


A different approach that reportedly minimizes damage is a long tube stuffed with poly grocery bags.
 
  • Like
Reactions: beerthief
I thought I would include a short personal history related to this subject for those that don't know me.
I've been shooting airguns since the mid 70s and began FT with my wife in 91. In 2001 I acquired one of "the five" original CRX ST match rifles then when the DS Mk3 came out around 2 years later, I acquired one. The Mk3 ended up blowing exactly double what the CRX did but was very accurate. For this and other reasons, I sold it. Then, when Mac1 started making the USFT, I acquired one of the first group and LD was tuning and testing them in his tunnel. Mine had 25 shots covered by a nickel at 51 yards on the test group. It was VERY bad in the wind, though. After a couple of years and a few wins with that rifle, I decided to go early to one of LD's Temecula Challenge matches and get LD to help me with it. I took 3 barrels and my RN10 for comparison. We worked extensively on the original but ended up using a barrel I had bought (thanks Wayne) that supposedly wasn't good enough for 25 meter benchrest. It's been GREAT for me but I don't do 25m benchrest. Then much later when Franklink joined us and picked up his USFT, it was also extremely good in the wind and started this whole thought train. Throughout all this, I've picked up a number of great shooting rifles so that's what led me to this thread.
Thanks for following along.
Bob
 
I did use 0 but 10 yards doesn't give a picture of the highest velocity decay and I kept an eye on 0 vs 1 yard... my first check point and seemed to be consistent. We haven't done it yet but the bc can be calculated between any of the check points.
Thanks Nervoustrig... I tried capturing some in a 15" tube packed with cotton balls in 22 cal a while back and it blew through that and splattered on the floor. I'll definitely be trying some other methods sometime soon. The main thing I'm interested in is the obturation, so your method might be adequate.
Bob
 
Here’s an example of some I shot into a bucket of water to compare the engraving of the original JSB Monsters to the Redesigns. Definitely deforms the heads but you can still make out the engraving at the perimeter, and lets us see the effect of the skirt expanding to fill the grooves.


A different approach that reportedly minimizes damage is a long tube stuffed with poly grocery bags.
I read this and immediately pictured myself on the living room floor searching through 800 poly bags looking for a single pellet , HAHAHA thanks
 
My part of this was extremely small, but I wanted to explain how I arrived at the BCs.

Arzrover sent me the files and I simply got the average for the columns that represented V0 (0 yards) and V50 (50 yards). I then took those average speeds and plugged them into the Android app "Easy BC." to get a BC. Then I ordered those BCs.

As I worked through the files I had no idea how the numbers would shake out. So, yes, it supports my stance (albeit previously only based on anecdotal evidence) but I did not manipulate the data to argue my case.

A file like this was sent to me for each gun.. (I added average fps for the two distances and also the BC from)
Screenshot_20221004-125103.png


And here is a the corresponding screen grab from the app....
Screenshot_20221004-125847.png



Some takeaways that I had from the data crunching:
  • This is likely one of the better tests we've seen or will see, for a couple reasons.
    • Control of the variables; location/conditions/elevation/shooter/batch of pellets, etc. That eliminates a lot of variables that are introduced when I do testing at my house with my gun and my batch of pellets, and try to compare that to testing done by someone else where lots of those variables are different.
    • Sample size. The fps averages were taken from, in most cases, 25 shots.
    • Consistency. The variability within those 25 shots was rather small, (SD of only 4fps in the example shared above).