Have PCPs gotten more accurate in the last 10 years?

I couldn't open it Norman? I've only been in it for 5 years, but I think the power and the larger calibers have helped the long distance game?

Fuss

I am getting the infamous '404' error message, I think the link has a typo or is bad. 

re. Are PCPs more accurate than 10 years ago? I can't answer as I am less than 2 years into PCPs, but I am going to follow the thread to see what others say.

My guess - I would think the high end PCP air guns are more accurate, or at least I would hope the technology in 10 years has advanced to make them more accurate.

I don't think so. Here's an illustration of what supports my view. This gun was about 5 years old at the time of the video and the video is almost 8 years old. Notice this is in windy conditions.

https://youtu.be/-w_XPOnpfVk 

Click to expand...

BD - remove the [&nbsp] at the end of your link to get the video to work

Aha...can watch the video now. I dunno about the guns but Cedric is a better shooter than this ol' nut behind the trigger ;-)

Did you see the latest video his babe of a wife did? Hubba hubba! Looking forward to more of Mr & Mrs Tofaz! LOL

Fuss

More like in the last 2 years accuracy has improved. Remember 2018? the "Year of the Regulator" ... when all the companies added regs to their guns. (Diana, Air Arms, Crosman, etc....) Big jump for accuracy....plus the Red Wolf and Crown changed everything. Mainly the Crown. Just got to target shoot with mine for the first time yesterday. I was literally sinking perfect bull's eyes at 50 yards. Hole on hole, every time. (3 clicks down from full power with JSB .25's) . I may sell my other 30 rifles if this keeps up with the Crown!

I wish I could mod a rifle like Ced does. 

I saw a video of his .177 HMaiR. That gun is awesome at long range accuracy. Cedric did explain in the video how some of the work on the rifle was outsourced.

I wouldn't expect any out-of-the-box, stock .177 cal to match that guns performance.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrZK5RQYFyM

There have been very accurate guns for a long time! There a certainly more of them now and the power and tune ability have gotten way better which is a big plus. Seems that there are just a lot more very accurate guns to choose from these days. I can’t wait to see what the future holds!

Stoti

I agree with stoti, 

I think the ammo, shot count, and consistency in velocity do to advancements in regulated guns have improved greatly but as far as accuracy some of the oldies can hang just fine. My little FX Thor with its 16" barrel is hard to beat at moderate airgun ranges...never would have thought in a million years that our sport would be where it is today. Almost to many advancements in to short of time! 

James from Michigan 

I don't think the past years have increased accuracy related to the view of good guns, more options that are capable though... Absolutely. Expectations across the board have increased as available guns/options have become available. Ease of use, maint, and modification, yes. But then again only some of that has been from the factories, the rest is the community's increasing knowledge. 

The acceptance of regulators and 'resealing our own guns' has made the a huge difference in the growth of the market of well performing pcp's. 

I'll never forget a post I made maybe 11-12 years ago on a different but (a then) popular forum, about a regulated gun I had inbound, I think there were something like 10 responses about why I would never want to own a regulated gun, including responses from the forum moderator. 

So 'accuracy' is more common and the things that extend that over larger shot strings lead to that are more common more recently.

Seems like a general misconception that "regulated" equals "more accurate". I seriously do not agree. My wifes 1991 Daystate LR90 in .22 and my later Theoben Mk1 in 177 would both shoot .1" groups or less at 32 yards.... we competed constantly to see who could do better early in our FT life. It was rare to go up to .200" for either of us. Nothing I have now is any better despite the regulators or other "advancements ". Well, ok, mayber her RW HP 177. It truly is amazing. It's unregulated though.

The REAL changes have come with cf tanks for very high pressure which translates to more power available which translates to more energy downrange .... meaning a higher accuracy available for longer range. Because of the high pressures , regulators are now pretty much a necessity. Very difficult to tune a good number of shots at high power without one. Another important point is that a LOT of research has/is being done on efficiency. John Bowkett did amazing things with valve and efficiency tuning a good number of years ago but most of the other pcp's were fairly big air hogs in that era. A good example of his work was given in the "Falcon vs Vulcan" shootout. Facons were unregulated and used his valve. Also, on GTA, there are extensive, interesting threads on valves and tuning for efficiency. There was a time in FT when "regulated " was NOT a plus. Every Nationals I went to in the early 2000s had NUMEROUS people complaining of reg failures as a reason they did poorly. THAT is what led to the development of the "Simple Simon" or USFT.

All that being said, I do seriously enjoy the convenient longer range shooting with larger calibers and new pellets in the last 5 years. Well, ok... the last 4 shots out of my early 90s Career 707 on Wednesday went inside of a 1" square at 100 yds. It shot well all day for several people so I guess that just supports what I've been saying. 

Anyway... just my $.02.

Bob

Very interesting question. In my opinion, except for the advancement in slugs, and barrels for long range shooting, I do not think they are. A 10m gun would probably shoot one hole twenty year ago, as now.

What probably has improved, is the selection, and quality of pellets, and the ease of tuning of some guns. And the most important thing: On internet early days, there was limited information on how to properly tune a gun. The information available was probably for professionals, and manufacturers. Now allot of information is available and shared by everyone, like this forum. Meaning most average Joe`s can be a decent tuner with some patience, getting the best performance of their guns.

Seems like a general misconception that "regulated" equals "more accurate". I seriously do not agree. My wifes 1991 Daystate LR90 in .22 and my later Theoben Mk1 in 177 would both shoot .1" groups or less at 32 yards.... we competed constantly to see who could do better early in our FT life. It was rare to go up to .200" for either of us. Nothing I have now is any better despite the regulators or other "advancements ". Well, ok, mayber her RW HP 177. It truly is amazing. It's unregulated though.

Click to expand...

To exaggerate a litle, if we wanted to shoot the most precise 5 shots in the world, with the least difference in pressure, a regulator would probably not beat the air coming from a unregulated reservoir 

"Have PCPs gotten more accurate in the last 10 years?"

Absolutely NOT! Though PCP newbies might want to think so; especially those HEAVILY invested.

As documented in and excerpted from my 2013 book documenting velocity and accuracy testing of 349 airguns, Airgun Chronicles- Thirty Years of Airgun Testing and Competition-

.22 FX Tarantula #1 bolt-action PCP repeater

15.9gr JSB Exact, 8 shot string- Low= 890, Hi= 895, ES= 5, SD= 1, Average= 893 FPS/28.0 FP

My first Tarantula, it proved the most accurate air rifle in all this testing. 28 five-shot groups at 50 yards with Exacts averaged .50” c-t-c. The best 3 test sessions of 5 consecutive five-shot groups each produced .43”, .44" & .44” center-to-center averages.

I consider the FX Tarantula one of the most beautiful and accurate sporting air rifles ever produced.

Oh; your latest, regulated Wunder-PCP shot a five-shot group tighter than .43" c-t-c at 50 yards? Ummm... that's great; but not nearly as good as averaging .43" c-t-c groups over the course of 5 consecutive five-shot groups. Don't believe me? TRY IT! By the way, NO fliers can be disregarded in this exercise.