What speed are you shooting at?

Jump to latest Follow Reply
As most all have stated Accuracy is KEY..........However, Trade-off's must be considered, i.e. at approx 75 yards (most my hunting shots + or - )......and I notice only an 1/8" inch group size loss from 890 fps to 970 fps (with Hollow Point slugs emphasis on speed to expand @ POI) you can be sure I will opt for 970 fps n' .25 34 grn Slug speed to further increase impact down range and to achieve less rainbow. Hunting Trumps paper punching!
 
Upvote 0
A way of testing the teory, may be possible if two guns with same type of barrel are shot on a bench simultanious next to each other. One are tuned low 800, and another 900+

If one shoot both directins downrange and up range, wihout adjusting sight, wind spread could be compared. As long as both guns are shot at the same time, they should have close to identical wind.
 
Upvote 0
After retrieving some pellets from some gel I have noticed one thing that everyone on this this thread hasn't mentioned... some have very pronounced rifling marks (hatsan) and others with LW barrels or smooth twist have less... I'm guessing wind drift is affecting the more jagged looking pellets differently than the smoother pellets...just a thought 
 
Upvote 0
A way of testing the teory, may be possible if two guns with same type of barrel are shot on a bench simultanious next to each other. One are tuned low 800, and another 900+

If one shoot both directins downrange and up range, wihout adjusting sight, wind spread could be compared. As long as both guns are shot at the same time, they should have close to identical wind.
Click to expand...

Not a bad idea at all. But it seems ANYONE shooting an IMPACT might be able to do a "same rifle" and "same pellet" comparison by just dialing power up and down for each pellet type as needed to reach 800 (or whatever "slow" number desired) and then to 950+ (or again whatever "fast" number desired) and then shoot as you note. Wonder why such hasn't been done for an ACTUAL SHOOTING comparison? To further negate wind variation differences, it seems such a shooter could ALTERNATE one slow shot then one fast shot then one slow shot then one fast shot, etc. to get an ACTUAL comparison with little actual wind VARIATION differences showing up. Just a thought.
 
Upvote 0
A way of testing the teory, may be possible if two guns with same type of barrel are shot on a bench simultanious next to each other. One are tuned low 800, and another 900+

If one shoot both directins downrange and up range, wihout adjusting sight, wind spread could be compared. As long as both guns are shot at the same time, they should have close to identical wind.
Click to expand...

Not a bad idea at all. But it seems ANYONE shooting an IMPACT might be able to do a "same rifle" and "same pellet" comparison by just dialing power up and down for each pellet type as needed to reach 800 (or whatever "slow" number desired) and then to 950+ (or again whatever "fast" number desired) and then shoot as you note. Wonder why such hasn't been done for an ACTUAL SHOOTING comparison? To further negate wind variation differences, it seems such a shooter could ALTERNATE one slow shot then one fast shot then one slow shot then one fast shot, etc. to get an ACTUAL comparison with little actual wind VARIATION differences showing up. Just a thought.
Click to expand...

One person shooting same gun might be enough evidence for some, but probably not all. One guy will never be able to shoot at the exact same wind, as he can not shoot simultanious.

For the test to be believable, both guns need to me reasonable accurate at theire tune, in a none wind condition. None believers might say, "well you bumped the speed up to 950 and it is obviously shooting bad, hence the wider spread". They would need to be accurate enough to be taken out as an variable, maybe shot indoors first? Also, two repeatable test with two shooters, where they switch guns, would be preferable as some might othervise say "You sit 2m apart and there probably is a not the same wind at both lanes, hence the bad grouping on one of the gun". Also some might also say "One of the shooters is obviously a bad shot, how do we know how the test would turn out if they swaped guns?" The reason it would be preferable to shoot both downrange, and up range, is to take out the variable that one gun might not be properly zeroed. By having both right and left wind, we only need to measure general spread at the same target, shot both directions. And none of the shooters much compensate for wind, but aim dead on.

Where I live, most are shooting powder burners, but if anyone which have an option to do such a test it would be intersting to see what results might come out of it:)
 
Upvote 0

●To further negate wind variation differences, it seems such a shooter could ALTERNATE one slow shot then one fast shot then one slow shot then one fast shot, etc. to get an ACTUAL comparison with little actual wind VARIATION differences showing up. Just a thought.

●One person shooting same gun might be enough evidence for some, but probably not all. One guy will never be able to shoot at the exact same wind, as he can not shoot simultanious.

●For the test to be believable, both guns need to me reasonable accurate at theire tune, in a none wind condition.

●None believers might say, "well you bumped the speed up to 950 and it is obviously shooting bad, hence the wider spread". They would need to be accurate enough to be taken out as an variable, maybe shot indoors first?

●Also, two repeatable test with two shooters, where they switch guns, would be preferable as some might othervise say "You sit 2m apart and there probably is a not the same wind at both lanes, hence the bad grouping on one of the gun".

●Also some might also say "One of the shooters is obviously a bad shot, how do we know how the test would turn out if they swaped guns?" The reason it would be preferable to shoot both downrange, and up range, is to take out the variable that one gun might not be properly zeroed. By having both right and left wind, we only need to measure general spread at the same target, shot both directions.

●And none of the shooters much compensate for wind, but aim dead on.

Click to expand...



Aslak / tor47 😊

You sure sound like you have research training — that's a whole lot of conditions to make sure the test is not biased. Cool! 👍🏼

I'd be in full support of such a test.



If we did enough shots (like: "a lot"!) we could get away with just one shooter, but he'd have to alternate between guns. The large number of shots would even out "bad" or "good luck" of one gun or another and even the playing field.

Matthias


 
Upvote 0

●To further negate wind variation differences, it seems such a shooter could ALTERNATE one slow shot then one fast shot then one slow shot then one fast shot, etc. to get an ACTUAL comparison with little actual wind VARIATION differences showing up. Just a thought.

●One person shooting same gun might be enough evidence for some, but probably not all. One guy will never be able to shoot at the exact same wind, as he can not shoot simultanious.

●For the test to be believable, both guns need to me reasonable accurate at theire tune, in a none wind condition.

●None believers might say, "well you bumped the speed up to 950 and it is obviously shooting bad, hence the wider spread". They would need to be accurate enough to be taken out as an variable, maybe shot indoors first?

●Also, two repeatable test with two shooters, where they switch guns, would be preferable as some might othervise say "You sit 2m apart and there probably is a not the same wind at both lanes, hence the bad grouping on one of the gun".

●Also some might also say "One of the shooters is obviously a bad shot, how do we know how the test would turn out if they swaped guns?" The reason it would be preferable to shoot both downrange, and up range, is to take out the variable that one gun might not be properly zeroed. By having both right and left wind, we only need to measure general spread at the same target, shot both directions.

●And none of the shooters much compensate for wind, but aim dead on.

Click to expand...



Aslak / tor47 😊

You sure sound like you have research training — that's a whole lot of conditions to make sure the test is not biased. Cool! 👍🏼

I'd be in full support of such a test.



If we did enough shots (like: "a lot"!) we could get away with just one shooter, but he'd have to alternate between guns. The large number of shots would even out "bad" or "good luck" of one gun or another and even the playing field.

Matthias

Click to expand...

Well I am just an amateur, and might over complicate things:) But I do know from reading forums, and seing coments on videos belivers/disbelivers will always try to find a fault with a given test, so might be best to cover most scenarious which probably will pop up. I do not know how before hand how a test like this would end up, and if there would be a noticable difference. If there was just a calm wind there might be less measurable differrence, but hopefully on windy day there would be, if the ballistic aps are right, which I have no reason to doubt. If one gun grouped 1 inch at 50 yards at a calm day, and another 2, I do not know if it would matter, if the spread on a windy day would be noticable bigger, than the accuracy of both guns.
 
Upvote 0


If we did enough shots (like: "a lot"!) we could get away with just one shooter, but he'd have to alternate between guns. The large number of shots would even out "bad" or "good luck" of one gun or another and even the playing field.

Matthias

Click to expand...

It would probably work, if doing several shots like you say, alternating between two guns, I guess that would make up for the variation in wind. Would still shoot both guns downrange and uprange if possible, especially if the wind only comes in from one side. Would be easier to measure also, as you will have two groups from same gun spread apart on each side of the bullseye.
 
Upvote 0
*~*~ STRANGE about : " ballistic app and it shows there is more wind drift at 980 and 800 fps than there is at 855 " ..... I would have thought with the higher velocity.... the Faster spin, would make the Slug more stable against wind............A pellet would have a diff. cross section and catch more wind deflection IMO & also generally less mass on the pellet resulting in higher wind deflection..... Slugs at 100 and less yards have for me shown Much less spiraling....& I would think the wind would play havoc on said spiraling projectile!
 
Upvote 0
I would say both if you can. I have a Red Wolf in .177 that averages 938 and holds multiple 5 shots groups in the .3-.4 MOA at 50 yards. I also have a .25 and .30 cal Impact that shoot sub MOA in the 880 to 890 fps range. Accuracy is king!!!! Accuracy and speed are best as you can defeat the wind easier with the speed, you also get a flatter shot which helps with NRL type shooting.
 
Upvote 0
I want to put one other experience in the equation. According to my experience pellets and slugs allike do have several speeds at which they group very well through a given rifle. . For exmple a specific projectile could be shot at a fine harmonic tune at 800 fps then be worse grouping at higher speeds to find a “sweet spot again at 910 fps again , for example.
I guess this gives tuning your airgun an even more interesting, more frustrating and at the same time if you find your “holy grail tune” satisfying aspect. I have seen slugs coming down a 700mm FX pellet liner with high precision at 835 fps. But also at 940 fps down a 500mm standard superior liner. This tells me that slugs can be very precise at low speeds and high speeds depending on the right harmonic tune. Hard to find or get from others YOUR optimum speed for your gun is obviously not the speed only but several optional speeds in combination with all the other aspects like reg setting, hammerspring setting, valvespring setting, barrel length, barrel type, airflow, rifle platform e.o. That all together create a harmonic tune or not at a given speed. Trial and error 🤯😬. The fx Impact M3 is a leap forward here by having such fine measurable/ notable tuning features aboard that it becomes much easier to copy paste tunes from others ith the same ammunition and be in the ballpark from the copied results. I believe that the barreltuner that will show up soon fo the impact M3 could make our libes a lot easier too but could take away a lot of fun tuning more consciously with all the variables mentioned earlier in my post.

Long story short about if the information about speed that others are shooting is usefullI ..... it all depends...😂🤯
 
Upvote 0
I want to put one other experience in the equation. According to my experience pellets and slugs allike do have several speeds at which they group very well through a given rifle. . For exmple a specific projectile could be shot at a fine harmonic tune at 800 fps then be worse grouping at higher speeds to find a “sweet spot again at 910 fps again , for example.
I guess this gives tuning your airgun an even more interesting, more frustrating and at the same time if you find your “holy grail tune” satisfying aspect. I have seen slugs coming down a 700mm FX pellet liner with high precision at 835 fps. But also at 940 fps down a 500mm standard superior liner. This tells me that slugs can be very precise at low speeds and high speeds depending on the right harmonic tune. Hard to find or get from others YOUR optimum speed for your gun is obviously not the speed only but several optional speeds in combination with all the other aspects like reg setting, hammerspring setting, valvespring setting, barrel length, barrel type, airflow, rifle platform e.o. That all together create a harmonic tune or not at a given speed. Trial and error 🤯😬. The fx Impact M3 is a leap forward here by having such fine measurable/ notable tuning features aboard that it becomes much easier to copy paste tunes from others ith the same ammunition and be in the ballpark from the copied results. I believe that the barreltuner that will show up soon fo the impact M3 could make our libes a lot easier too but could take away a lot of fun tuning more consciously with all the variables mentioned earlier in my post.

Long story short about if the information about speed that others are shooting is usefullI ..... it all depends...😂🤯
Click to expand...

"it all depends"

Is that anything like ALL RELATIVE?😁
 
Upvote 0
You guys crack me up, 4 pages of posts back and forth can all be answered by looking ballistic data/calculation which has been around before any of us were born. If people doesn’t believe in ballistic data/calculator then let them be, their guns so they can shoot at whatever speed they wants. Even definition of accuracy is highly relative.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Resources
Menu