Red Wolf Standard with G2 board

[Franklink]

@Red25R, no apologies necessary! Very fascinating read, to hear from an individual with multiple decades of quality control specific to die made parts, and directly related to the process used to make our pellets. Thank you. 

While there's a dud tin or batch here and there, I'm grateful that JSB puts out such quality projectiles. Without consistency in our pellets, the Red Wolf line (and any airgun for that matter) wouldn't be able to shoot the incredibly accurate groups they're capable of. 

The old timers in airgunning talk about pellets like the Crosman Premiers and how good they were. I'm guessing it was through so many changes in ownership, but Crosman quit putting out such good pellets. I really hope we don't ever get to that point with JSB. And if we do, that somebody else would step up and keep producing high quality pellets. 

I agree with you about letting JSB handle as many of the variables as possible that come into play with pellets. (I hate weighing and sorting.) 

Thanks again. 

 

[steve123]

I know it's not feasible but I wish these pellet manufacturers would dump each individual pellet "from it's own specific mold slot" into it's own container, and sell them this way, instead of having the "how ever many pellets the whole mold gives being dumped into one container", that way we'd get close to the same exact pellet each a tin.

 

[Franklink]

Cast pellets from an NOE mold in the RW?

Somewhere around 2 years ago I came across the NOE company out of Utah. They're a mold manufacturer that seems to have gotten into offering a couple options for airguns in the last couple of years. They make molds for pellets and slugs, in various airgun-barrel appropriate diameters, as well as sizers to get them to different-than-cast sizes, if desired. I believe that Bob Sterne had a lot to do with NOE starting to offer airgun projectile molds, as some of the slug designs are "Bob's Boattails." Bob will also sometimes comment about working with the owner of NOE. 

The options in .217-.224 can be seen here: https://noebulletmolds.com/site/product-category/224 There's even a forum about using his cast projectiles in various guns, including airguns, somewhere there on his website. Anyway, I bought the NOE 217-20 mold almost two years ago. 

My backyard shooting is done into some of the 5 gallon rubber mulch pellet traps that many of us use. Every couple of months I'll empty them out when they get too heavy. This was the most recent haul about 2 months ago. I'm due again as they're getting heavy.

I've ended up with a pretty good supply of lead, MOST of it high quality JSB lead. 

I was already melting them down to be reused as muzzleloader miniball type projectiles, but I simply don't shoot that old muzzleloader enough to nearly make a dent in the lead supply. So, I was intrigued by the idea of being able to return some of that captured lead into pellets for the cycle to be repeated. 



With a little care and attention, the NOE mold will make excellent appearing pellets. Here are some of the pellets produced by the mold. These were made a while ago and have a little bit of oxidation. They dimensions are quite similar to a JSB 18.1 with the main difference being a small meplat. The mold comes with pins that can be swapped for different depths of skirt and therefore weight and center of gravity. Reports suggest that the deepest pin usually produces the best accuracy. With melted JSBs and the deepest pin, the pellets produced by my mold weigh about 19.8 grains. 

 

In principle the concept was sound, but in practice, not so much. Accuracy results were pretty bad in all of my .22 guns. Usually a couple of inches at 55 yards. The pellets wouldn't even hit an 8x11 sheet of paper at 55 yards from one gun. I gave a couple samples to friends and they never came back with glowing reports of accuracy, so I assumed they were seeing the same type of results that I was. I kind of gave up on the cast pellets, but occasionally I'll get them out and try them in a new gun, or a new barrel. The idea to eventually test them in the Red Wolf was hatched early in this review.

Here it is.

15 shots taken at 53 yards. Benched. I wasn't optimistic so used a big huge orange sticker target. RW set on LOW so probably about 29-30fpe with this weight of pellet. 

I was pretty surprised to see the first couple only hit a little low, but to nearly the same point of impact as the JSB 18.1. I was further surprised (SHOCKED, actually) to see a decent group take shape. Ultimately I ended up with a 15 shot group that measures just a couple thousandths less than an inch. 

They don't shoot quite as accurately as a JSB 18.1, but that's plenty of quality critter knocking accuracy right there. Pdog and ground squirrel head sized accuracy, easily.

I guess a couple different conclusions can be arrived at here, both about the NOE pellets, and the Red Wolf. First, it just goes to show that you can't ever give up on a pellet/batch/lot/etc, cuz sooner or later, a gun might come along that will shoot it well. Second, the Red Wolf came through as the one gun (thus far tested) that can shoot this pellet well. This particular specimen of RW has shown excellent (sometimes unbelievable) accuracy with just about everything that it's been fed. The only pellets it has really disliked were the JSB RS 13.43grainers. It also didn't shoot a specific batch of JSB 18.1 as well as other batches. In both of those cases, I could barely feel the pellet passing into the barrel as the lever was closed. It also doesn't love slugs in the 23 and up weight range, but that's not the barrels fault, they're just not going fast enough from this 17inch barreled Standard. That all makes me conclude (just further reinforcement really) that this particular Red Wolf can be counted on to give better-than-good accuracy with most pellets, even cast/home-made pellets. As long as they're not undersized, in the head department, the Red Wolf will probably shoot them very well. 

Pretty cool to get really surprised by something like this. I just KNEW that this experiment was going to be a joke and the cast pellets were going to be junk out of the Red Wolf like they have with my personal guns. WHOA was I wrong. It's always fun to get a big surprise in testing. Brings a smile to the face, and this Red Wolf has sure done plenty of that in my time with it.

 

[Red25R]

Really not bad at all the group is as you said plenty of quality critter knocking accuracy right there. And if you don't count your time a pretty cost effective option . When we used to cast .357 / 45 semi wadcutters for revolver target shooting . They cut a nice clean hole in the paper compared to round nose . The only thing I remember was trying to keep the mold about the right temp. Like you said then run them thur a die for size , lube, and a gas check . Been a long time sense I had even thought about molding bullets with my dad back in the 60's early 70's , Thanks ! 

 

[Franklink]

"There are no facts, only interpretations." Nietzsche

(With that cryptic prelude, this is going to be a rather philosophical post, but will be airgun-related)

How accurate is the (insert x here)? 

Sooo very many of the threads we see on the forums all boil down to whether or not a specific rifle/barrel/pellet/slug/brand/etc/etc/etc/combo of the above is accurate. Do airgunners even have a clear definition of what "accuracy" means to us? There was a recent discussion about the phrase, "hole in hole." The premise of that conversation was chasing at the heels of the matter of defining accuracy. For some of us, it means being able to hit a soup can at x yards. For some, it means being able to hit a grey or fox squirrel in the head out to x yards. Some will define it as x # of shots under a (insert dime, quarter, penny, nickel here) at x yards. For others, it means MOA accuracy out to x yards. There's the benchrest crowd, who want a gun that is capable of 250s. And the field target guys who want to shoot a match without a miss. There are so many possible qualifiers: how many shots make a group? was the wind blowing? benchrested? bipod? cherrypicked, or average? were there any witnesses? were the pellets/slugs sorted and weighed, or straight outa the tin? and on and on. 

Accuracy is almost like the terms "expensive" and "cheap." It's all relative to the individual, subject to that individual's experiences and opinions. We've also got the fisherman among us, whose cherry-picked group sizes likely decrease with each recounting of the event, the way a fish gets bigger every time the story of how it was caught gets retold. 

The funny thing about all this ambiguity, is that most of us know accuracy when we see it, and all of the above descriptors are simply our way of trying to convey to others, what we ourselves perceive as "accurate."

I'd like to suggest that an actual discipline exists that very effectively summarizes the concepts behind all of the above questions regarding "accuracy." That discipline is statistics. Terms like standard deviation are pretty familiar to us, but there's many more from the world of statistics that could be applied: cluster sample (cherry-picked), continuous variable (wind or variation in pellets), confidence interval (how often we do or don't get flyers), distribution (extreme spreads, both in fps or group size), probability, controls, mean, mode, Poisson distribution (the bad tin of JSB 25.39 that has a couple low striking pellets out of every 5 or 6 shots), then there's alphas and p values and power, and on and on and on. And that isn't even touching on the role the trigger-puller plays. We could analyze the concept of randomness that the human factor imparts into the equation. An increase in the application of statistical principles to our hobby could really be quite exhausting, but much more precisely describe accuracy. A simple google search for something like, "confidence intervals for shooting group sizes," can lead you on a pretty deep (and interesting!) dive into statistics and how they apply to our shooting hobby. 

Being as this is a review of the Red Wolf, let's get back to that. Is the Red Wolf that I have been reviewing "accurate"? With this idea of some of the concepts of statistics in mind, I decided to analyze a recent shooting session with the gun. I took a bunch of statistics classes, but that was a decade ago and I’m pretty rusty, especially because the focus wasn't analysis of shooting results at the time. So, due to my lack of statistical analysis practice, I'll be stretching some of the concepts a bit here.

“Accuracy” in this little experiment is viewed as the ability to place the pellet on a dime-sized target. A dime measures 0.705 inches. A .22 pellet is usually somewhere around 0.217inches in diameter and makes a slightly smaller than that hole. For this analysis, I’m going to define accuracy as the ability to place a pellet within 0.461inches of where I want it to go. This visual might help illustrate my thoughts:

0.705 (diameter of dime) + 0.217 (diameter of pellet) = 0.922 / 2 = 0.461inches from center of dime, 360 degrees from the theoretical desired perfect shot/aim point). 

I initially was hoping to keep them all WITHIN the confines of the edge of the dime, but I'm just not that good of a shot so had to settle for basically anything within or touching the dime. I believe the big long range benchrest comps like EBR are scored this way, cut the line and get the higher score. 

The shots were taken on LOW with JSB 18.13, straight from the tin, about 29fpe. At 53 yards. Benched. The starting pressure was 244 bar and ending was 134. 160 consecutive shots, no sighters were taken at any time during the 160 shots. The shots were divided into 16, ten shot groups. Minimal winds: 5-7mph, right to left.

Aim points were the photocopied dimes target I made a few weeks back.

Here it is. 

So much to potentially look at here.

Back to that subjective aspect of how we perceive accuracy, for me, there is a strong theme of consistency in an accurate gun. And by that, I mean that a gun needs to be able to consistently place pellets where I want them. So, the primary endpoint here was whether or not the RW could shoot 160 shots at this power setting, with these pellets, with me at the helm, without having any outliers (flyers). Basically, what is the confidence interval (CI) of the guns accuracy? First off, the CI in statistics is based on the sample size. The larger the sample size, the stronger the likelihood that the observed results were not due to chance. In other words, the robustness of the data grows with sample size. 160 consecutive shots seemed like a large enough number for flyers to rear their ugly heads.

To be able to properly calculate a confidence interval, I would need a measurement of all the impact points, starting at 0 inches (dead center of dime) all the way up to 0.461 inches (outer edge of the point the pellet could hit and still cut the outer edge of the dime). That would allow me to calculate the confidence interval, which is really a measure of the dispersion within a data set. Think of it as a bell curve and envision sorted pellets. This was shared here on AGN (not by me) about 5 years ago and gives a good visual:

What we see there is essentially a bell curve. Whoever weighed those likely chose a window of what they considered "good" or rather, consistent pellets, which is the purpose of weighing, to exclude the outliers. The outliers residing in the outer edges of the curve, like this:

 

That diagram starts to get into using the confidence intervals to determine a confidence level, but that's another rabbit hole.......

Back to the 160 shots on that target above. I'm seeing somewhere between 15 and 25 shots that did not at least cut the outer edge of the dime. That bottom dime in the 3rd column messed up my data. I had been holding for wind and it got late enough in the evening the wind quit on me, so hold-off was no longer needed. It just took my stubborn self a full 10 shots to realize the wind had let up. Let's assume that group was centered on the dime and I've got 15/160 shots not touching the outer edge of the dime, ie within 0.461 inches from dead center of the dime. Let's call it 16 to make the math easier. 10% of the shots did not fit into my defined parameters of "accuracy." (If I throw that bottom dime in third column out completely, same result, 15 of 150 shots = 10% were outliers). Back to the pellet comparison. 10% of a 500 count tin of pellets would be 50 pellets. So, comparing this data to a sorted tin of pellets, only 50 of the pellets did not make the cut for "consis

tent", 450 did. Considering there was a human pulling that trigger for all of the 160 shots, really incredible show of accuracy from the Red Wolf. The outliers were shooter-induced.

This is not a cluster sample (cherry-picked). I didn't repeat this 160 shot experiment a bunch of times and pick the best one. I took these 160 shots ONE time and this is the result. No cluster sample, best the gun can do, out of 10 tries here. I simply shot 160 shots, one time, and these are the results. 

Although I would like to take a closer look at a cluster sample within the data set. This is a close up of the third dime down, second column. Ten shots into that little group. Best 10 shot group of the 16, 10 shot groups right there.

My Nietzsche-like interpretation of all that...............pretty good evidence that the Red Wolf platform is capable of consistent "accuracy," however you like to define it. 

(I mentioned it once already in the review, but this is a gun that I would really like to strap/clamp into some sort of vice and do a bunch of high-volume, long-range shooting. I think the results of what it can do with the shooter taken out of the equation would be unbelievable, unless you happened to be right there watching it happen. )

 

[Arzrover]

To me it looks like an INCREDIBLE display of consistency ... both from the gun AND the shooter.

I made a bell for John that we tested yesterday afternoon . It has 2.5, 2, 1.5, and 1 inch holes and placed at 100 yds. Wasn't difficult to hit the 2 " hole consistently as long as we watched the wind switches but was able to do 10/10 on the 1" during 1 lull. Sure looks small when you're trying to shoot inside that.

Very enjoyable read, especially considering the subject. 

Bob

 

[Red25R]

The subject matter is indeed very enjoyable reading . The straight from the tin pellets makes a real world test. I don't like sorting and weighing myself . Everything considered it does make a very robust statement as to the capablltes of the Red Wolf platform . It is capable of consistent "accuracy," And unless your definition of accuracy changes with every outing. Shooting the platform should bring up confidence levels for alot of shooters . Ounce again very good job lots of useable imput. Thanks for the time and effort .

 

[Franklink]

To me it looks like an INCREDIBLE display of consistency ... both from the gun AND the shooter.

I made a bell for John that we tested yesterday afternoon . It has 2.5, 2, 1.5, and 1 inch holes and placed at 100 yds. Wasn't difficult to hit the 2 " hole consistently as long as we watched the wind switches but was able to do 10/10 on the 1" during 1 lull. Sure looks small when you're trying to shoot inside that.

Very enjoyable read, especially considering the subject. 

Bob

@arzrover, thank you, results are 95% the gun in this case. 

Your bell targets are awesome, always one of my favorites when we get together for plinking. And the bell squirrel waaayyy up in the tree that one time was for-sure good fun. Both times I've been at Johns the switching winds have been a challenge. Seems like they're always doing different things up the slope than they are down at the bench. Fun stuff though. 

 

[Franklink]

100 yard attempt, part 2

I had the chance to wake up early and go out on the ranch for some long-range fun a few days ago. Decided things worked out pretty well last time so went to the exact same place.

Sunrise

Setup

All shots from exactly 100 yards, lasered from shooting chair. Different than last time, I scrounged up an extra box to attach targets to. 

LOW power

I was really curious to see how it would do at 100 yards on LOW power with pellets. Around 29FPE. I also decided to stick to 10 shot groups this time. 

Walking up on all the LOW power shots. If you zoom in you can make out the holes and general shapes of the groups.

Starting on the left: Hades, non-Hades 15.89, CP, 18.13 lot 2/18.13 lot 2, orange dots are sighters, and then 18.13 lot1/18.13 lot1 on the far right

Hades

These really wanted to open up at 100 yards. They just seemed like they were floating away from the point of aim. 

Non-Hades 15.89

One of the high points of the morning. This group really shocked me. There's one outlier, high and left that increased the group size, but I think I've got 1 eight, 4 nines, and 5 tens. I'll take some more of that ANY TIME. Group size = 1.528.

Crosman Premier classics from 1999

Had a couple hit low

18.13 Lot 2

Two ten shot groups here, not as good as the 18.13 lot 1 groups

18.13 Lot 1

The better performing lot at this distance, Group = 1.302 inches and 1.271 inches.

HIGH power

I already feel like I have a pretty good expectation of what it can do at 100 with the JSB 25.39 RDs, so stuck with slugs this morning. Also 10 shot groups. 

JSB knock outs

Same problem as before, loose and tight fit = large vertical spread 

NSA 23grain

NSA 17.5gr

Two, ten shot groups here. (Just gave it a couple clicks different for each group -seeing how it would group rather than trying to place them in the center of the bull).

NSA 20.2, 0.216 size

These don't do quite as well as the 0.217 size.

NSA 20.2, 0.217 size

These are the best slug I've tested out of this RW. Same thing as before, shooting for grouping, not placement. Groups measured 1.358 and 1.782 here. 

Conclusion

More of the same with the Red Wolf. Ten shot groups so the measure bigger than a 5 shot group would. High water mark for that morning goes to the 15.89grain JSB and the 20.2/0.217 NSA. 

This gun just shoots so well, so often, that I sort of feel like I'm becoming desensitized to how exceptionally well it shoots. 

It was a very fun morning. 

(I went home and did a bunch of BC collection, I think I got one for each of the above projectiles at the respective power level at which they were shot. I saw a very fascinating trend during the BC collection and what shot well at 100 yards. I'll get that typed up in the next day or two.) 

 

[Franklink]

Ballistic coefficient of various projectiles

For a long time in my airgunning journey, I incorrectly thought that a BC was a concrete, set in stone value for each flavor of pellet. I was blissfully unaware of the fact that BC's change with speed, air density, projectile, elevation, and from one brand to the next of the same design and weight of pellets. Even barrel features like chokes and twist rates and rifling profiles can effect the BC. Since that realization, I have been keenly fascinated with the concept of a ballistic coefficient. The overly simplified view of the concept that makes the most sense for my thought process, is that the BC is simply a measure of the slipperiness of the pellet. In other words, a numeric value that specifies how much or how little the pellet is slowed down by the air molecules it passes through on its flight path. For anybody interested in accuracy, even a minimal understanding (like mine) of the concept of BC opens up a whole can of worms. The most obvious is that the rainbow of trajectory is going to be affected, making the projectiles impact higher or lower. The less subtle is that a good BC projectile will get pushed left or right less in a crosswind than one with a poor BC. For myself, who finds the physics of launching projectiles with compressed air one of the coolest aspects of airgunning, the idea represented by the BC is utterly fascinating. 

In an earlier post I noted that the JSB 14.35 at 20fpe from the Red Wolf was producing a BC of 0.044. That was at my home elevation of 5600 feet above sea level. This was taken using an average of near fps and far fps and plugged into one of the various BC calculators available online. It was surprisingly (and kinda unbelievably) high, but it also matched up to the 10-55 yard dope I figured the hard way (shooting at actual targets at all those distances). I was hoping to be able to confirm it with Arzrover's LabRadar at some point. Well, he brought it along to the field target match we had north of Phoenix a few weeks ago and we had a chance to shoot those same pellets past the LabRadar's sensor. The location is at about 1700 feet above sea level, so I expected a lower BC just from the thicker air. The fps was about 20fps slower than I measured at home, which made sense for needing to give it a couple extra clicks for the far FT targets during the match. Near fps was 773 and far was 648 (50yards). That makes the BC at 1700ft, as captured by the LabRadar, 0.0347, so 0.035. Again, pretty high compared to values that can be found online for the JSB 14.35.

Switching gears a little, the Red Wolf experience has sparked an interest in 100 yard paper shooting that I previously did not have. I'd wanted to do some additional BC gathering with it all along, but after the 2nd shooting session at 100yds (previous post) I was very curious to see what kind of BCs the RW was getting on HIGH and LOW powers.

As a disclaimer, I'm using a less than ideal method. The general approach was 5 shots at the muzzle, and then 5 shots at 53 yards. the average near and average far fps is what went into the BC calculator. I tried to use a similar starting pressure in the tank for the near and far shots taken with each projectile, to minimize any variation from a drastically different tank pressure. Also, the high elevation will make my BCs slightly better up here in the thin air than lots of the literature values found online, either posted by individuals, or in places like the HAM BC database.

A further limitation to my method was that some of the projectiles had a very large fps variation in the 5 shots taken at far distance. And that's where it gets interesting. Those large fps variations weren't seen for the 5 shots with the near fps. Most of the ESs over the 5 near shots were under 12fps, I didn't record it because I shot all the near shots first, and then all of the far shots. A trend appeared when I started collecting the far fps averages, in that the pellets/slugs with the largest 5 shot spreads were also the pellets/slugs with the largest 100 yard groups. Had I not started with the JSB KO's I may not have picked up on this (they had the worst spread). My hypothesis is that something is happening to those pellets somewhere between the muzzle and 53 yards that makes them lose speed much quicker than their tin-mates. Of course, that is going to lead to low impact points, and it's only going to get worse as distance increases. Since these are all non-weighed and non-sorted pellets and slugs, it would be interesting to see if some of that downrange fps variation could be reduced through pellet sorting. So, I don't know the why, but the result is surely evident on paper. Whether it's a defect, or an off-balance projectile, I just dunno. But whatever it is, completely fascinating. And if someone can figure out how to minimize it (assuming it's not caused by something as simple as being unsorted), they're going to be at an advantage in long range paper comps like EBR, RMAC, and PA Cup.

So, here it is:

(I'm fully aware that a lot of the BCs here are quite high. FPS loss is the primary factor taken into account by these BC calculators. If the values are as small as 5 or 10fps off, the calculated BC can be inflated. So, take these with a grain of salt. This is the actual data collected, but keep in mind the limitations listed earlier.) 

It seems like common sense, that projectiles with a larger extreme spread will have more pellets moving slowly, and therefore impacting low. But it was much more reinforcing to visually see what it can do to group sizes. For example, the two projectiles with the larges far fps spreads were the JSB KOS, and the CP14.3 boxed from 1999, back when they were good pellets. So, go back in my last post to see what I saw. With the KOs there are four low impacting pellets out of 10 shots. If those had been moving at a consistent fps to the other six, the group would not have been too bad. Similar results with the CP, 3 low impacting pellets out of 10. If those three hadn't hit low, would have a VERY good 100 yard ten shot group. 

The opposite trend can be seen too. One of the very best 100 yard, 10 shot groups of the morning was with the JSB 15.89 on low. It had an fps spread of 4 over 5 shots at 53 yards. This was the pellet that made a group with one 1 eight, 4 nines, and 5 tens. And that was with 30 fpe at 100 yards!!!

So, there definitely seems to be something there with the low impacting pellets being caused by variations in fps. 

Final thoughts on BC

Yep, I'm going to talk up the Red Wolf again here. To be able to learn stuff like I learned this morning, the gun has to be a rock-solid performer. A barrel or air delivery system that can't be trusted to do its job would have never allowed me to make these observations. There are lots of things that need to go right for extreme accuracy, knowing that deficiencies in a gun or its design can be ruled out as a possible source of poor accuracy...........priceless (well $2399 actually). 

EDIT: I got to thinking about it and realized that a few weeks ago I had collected a BC for the CP 14.3s at just a hair under 20fpe. The BC from that was 0.039 compared to 0.034 in this experiment with them on HIGH. Is that difference simply due to statistical variance or because that particular pellet design likes the speeds of 20fpe more than the speeds of 30fpe? Interesting.

 

[Franklink]

Conclusion to the Red Wolf review, aka, One Gun Magic

(Before I get into my concluding thoughts on the RW, I feel like I need to publicly recognize ArzRover. He’s not the kind of guy that needs the recognition, but is the kind of guy who deserves it. Many of the technical aspects of this review are based on his experiences and knowledge of the RW. He has been available throughout the process, sharing and assisting in many ways. His lessons on programming really helped with the learning curve. Thank you sir.

Also need to thank Robert Buchanan and the Airguns of Arizona team for being on board with the idea of extensive testing and transparent reporting, and for letting me spend some serious time with one of their fine Airguns)

Real-world examples of how a few guys are using their RWs.....

Ben

Ben is a member of my local FT club and has become a good friend. He has had his .177 HP for a couple years now. It has been extensively tuned to fit his needs. He uses it for just about everything. At sub 20fpe, it is his main field target gun. At 24fpe, he whacks hundreds of pest birds at the dairy in each outing, a couple times a week. And at 32-34FPE he pests and shoots paper long range. I personally witnessed him make a kill shot on a prairie dog at a lasered 125 yards, and kill many others at shorter distances. He placed 3rd in the American Field Target portion of EBR at one point in the past couple years, with a .177 RW!!! (He was the only competitor using a .177). He calls that gun, "Vern the versatile." I've shot it, and it's incredibly accurate. 

Rick

Rick contacted me through PM here on AGN a few weeks ago. Hopefully he wont mind me sharing his tale of how he arrived at the RW. "......last airgun purchase until 2 weeks ago was in 1966 a Sheridan Blue streak .177 . I decided that I would start the new air gun era with a gun that would do most of what I wanted to do . I didn't figure one gun would cover all the bases but I hoped for close . Also a rifle that would be something I wouldn't out grow right away . I'm a hunter first then a plinker/ target shooter . So I figured a 25 cal would be a good trade off……. I'm not a tinkerer at all ." Rick has been shooting it on LOW at home (and getting 10 shot groups measuring 0.371inch!) and on High at a range near him on the weekends. 

Rob

Rob also PM'd me on here. He has had a Gen 1 RW in .22 for not quite two years. While I haven't met him personally, a mutual friend tells me that Rob's gun is capable of sub 20fpe, and will go all the way up to 960-980 with the JSB 25.4 Monster RDs. Rob is interested in getting involved in FT and EBR-type competitions so wanted to be able to be FT legal, but also be competitive in EBR.

The Standard that I've been reviewing:

Low-29FPE with JSB 15.89 or 18.13 (general use)

Medium-19.5fpe with JSB 14.35 (field target)

High-42fpe with JSB Monster RDs or 37-38fpe with NSA 20.2/17.5 slugs (long range paper/pesting)

In those 3 examples of ownership and the one example of the review gun, there is a common trend. UTILITY. There are various definitions and uses of the word, most are something like, "the quality or state of being useful," or "fitness for some purpose or worth to some end." But all of them apply to the Red Wolf and its ability to morph into a completely different gun by simply changing the power level.

To take the idea of utility a step further, I've come to feel that the Red Wolf offers an incredible amount of economic utility as well. I found this brief primer on economic utility online, and it is quite relevant here:

• "Economic utility is a concept developed to understand how much a given good or service can serve to fulfill the needs of a consumer. The concept has become particularly important ever since classical economics stated that consumers made their purchase decisions rationally, based on obtaining maximum utility. According to this hypothesis, all economic transactions are performed after analyzing the degree of utility gained from each option, and then selecting the one with the highest one."

After about 5000 shots and spending the last 7 or 8 weeks with one, I'd like to state that the Red Wolf makes a strong case for the airgun with the highest economic utility in the high quality, high performance class. 

Readers might be guffawing at how a $2400-3000 airgun can have a high economic utility. I'm going to expound on that statement a bit, using my personal journey in airguns. Like most of us, I've spent more on airguns than I'm proud to admit. I started on the very low end and worked my way up. While I have enjoyed them all, the three that I've spent the most on total out to just a bit more than $5150. They are: 1-high end, custom made FT gun in .177 shooting at just under 20fpe (a USFT for those curious), 2-a 20-30fpe general purpose plinker/pester/paper shooter in .22 (Veteran Short), and 3-long range bench/bottle gun currently set up for just under 50fpe in .22 (JSAR Raptor). 

The Red Wolf could replace all three.

Had I stumbled upon the RW 3 or 4 years ago, I’d have one high end gun, instead of 3. With power level changes, the RW can easily and repeatedly be changed to comparable fpe outputs of those top 3 airguns in my safe. And there would be only minor compromises by doing so. The .22 vs .177 argument for field target…well, I shot the .22 RW in a match and was right there with the top shooters. The overall length of the Veteran……well, the RW is easier to shoot accurately. And for the third I think the RW beats it in every way, except possibly peak fpe output.

There’s always the argument of enjoying the journey, but that journey can get expensive. I would have saved myself about $2750 by purchasing the RW instead of those other three, and I don’t feel like I’d be making any huge compromises by doing so. And that $2750 just accounts for the last three airguns that I've purchased, put the previous 7 years in there and it just gets ridiculous. 

Yes, other guns have the option of changing the power level, but that entails hammer spring adjustments, and changing regulator pressure. Both of which are difficult to do in such a repeatable manner as the electronics that control the RW. 

Furthermore, this particular specimen and scope set-up nearly had a 25 yard zero at 19.5fpe, a 40 yard zero at 29fpe, and a 55 yard zero at 42fpe. So, going back and forth from power levels didn't even require rezeroing the scope!!! (it was only off 3, 1/8moa clicks to the left at 42fpe, dead-on with the other two power levels at those two distances). 

Random observations/opinions

• The review gun does 330, 20fpe shots, or 160+ 29fpe shots, or 60, 42fpe shots
• 42 inches WITH moderator made a fairly short package, for its power output, the wonderful stock ergonomics and balance made it feel like less length
• It can shoot slugs or pellets on High power, extremely well (NSA slugs better in the 17.5 or 20.5 weights/JSB Monster RDs 25.4gr for pellets)
• This RW somehow forgot the memo that choked barrels don't shoot slugs well
• Extremely quiet (got the Veteran out the other day for the first time in 2 or so months and was surprised at how much louder it is than the RW)
• Amazing trigger
• Barrel is very forgiving, both in projectile selection and dirtiness (never saw degradation of accuracy due to barrel fouling)
• Power levels are 100% independent of each other
• Newer Standard RWs are marked with MWP of 250 bar (I understand the older ones were supposed to only be filled to 230 bar)
• Undersized and/or inconsistent projectiles are the only thing this RW didn’t like (Good pellets or good slugs shot very well)

There was 2 or 3 week period where I was going to buy this gun, it’s that impressive. AOA actually had to politely ask for it back. There’s a conversation going on on the forum right now about “the one that got away.” I kinda think I’m going to look back on my time with this gun in that light.

 

[Red25R]

Franklink,

This review/report has been most informative . I have followed it from the start . And now that it is done . I'm going to get me a big coffee mug and sit down and reread it as a finished report, (most likely more than one time ) . 

Using my story on coming to the RW was fine with me. I've been busy with some family stuff so I'm running behind on the longer range ,group targets that you were wanting to see . I got a 12 tin shipment of pellets in yesterday . It had a pellet I wanted to put into the mix , so I can now get around and finish the early testing . I'll share pictures and the results . Measurements and all . Thanks again for the time and effort you put into this report . You really let the Red Wolf go ? Think of the space in the safe if it was just the RW doing it all . On second thought all that room would most likely end up costing you money . 

 

[Maineiac]

Does the GCU 2.0 Red Wolf standard cost the same $2,399 as the gen 1? Or is there an up charge?

 

[Franklink]

Does the GCU 2.0 Red Wolf standard cost the same $2,399 as the gen 1? Or is there an up charge?

I reached out to my AOA contact for clarification. 

I asked them, "Does the GCU 2.0 Red Wolf Standard cost the same $2399 as the gen1?" and the response "In the standard power yes."

Furthermore, they told me that all High Power Red Wolfs now come with the GCU2. (They didn't tell me a price on the HP but I think they're around $2999, last time I looked).

So, the Standard with GCU2 is $2399. 

 

[qball]

That kind of reminds me of my many golfing friends who buy a $500-$600 driver that can be adjusted every which way and set it to the neutral setting. I can't say for sure, but I would like to know how many FX'ers get the adjustable ones and keep it to the factory settings and rarely if ever change them.


Another thing is that they are not super duper adjustable like many of the FX's are.

I happen to adjust my impact all the time. I tune my impact down to ~650FPS with .25 hades currently for backyard duty and then when I go target practice I’ll tune the 33.4 JSB to 830-850 FPS. Ask with some minor change I can get 26.8g NSA slugs to go 960FPS. Once you get the hang of it the FX guns are pretty easy to tune. Am I tuning for bench rest competition? Nope, but the impact will shoot better than I can manage to shoot most of the time. I can get standard deviation done bellow 5 most of the tunes most of the time on first try....mostly it’s the gun and I stick to certain settings. 


if I didn’t change settings like I do then I would have 2-3 rifles by now, in some ways it’s cheaper.....at least that’s what I keep telling myself. LOL 

 

[Maineiac]

Does the GCU 2.0 Red Wolf standard cost the same $2,399 as the gen 1? Or is there an up charge?

I reached out to my AOA contact for clarification. 

I asked them, "Does the GCU 2.0 Red Wolf Standard cost the same $2399 as the gen1?" and the response "In the standard power yes."

Furthermore, they told me that all High Power Red Wolfs now come with the GCU2. (They didn't tell me a price on the HP but I think they're around $2999, last time I looked).

So, the Standard with GCU2 is $2399. 

Thanks Frank!

 

[Maineiac]

Does the GCU 2.0 Red Wolf standard cost the same $2,399 as the gen 1? Or is there an up charge?

I reached out to my AOA contact for clarification. 

I asked them, "Does the GCU 2.0 Red Wolf Standard cost the same $2399 as the gen1?" and the response "In the standard power yes."

Furthermore, they told me that all High Power Red Wolfs now come with the GCU2. (They didn't tell me a price on the HP but I think they're around $2999, last time I looked).

So, the Standard with GCU2 is $2399. 

Frank,

I sent you a PM. I called AoA today and they said this gun doesn’t exist?

 

[Franklink]

I just called them. The guy you had on the phone was getting mixed messages from other AOA staff. He got clarification and was shown where the Standard GCU2 in.22 was . He told me he'd call you back. (Chris and Lauren are who I was just talking to.)

 

[Maineiac]

I just called them. The guy you had on the phone was getting mixed messages from other AOA staff. He got clarification and was shown where the Standard GCU2 in.22 was . He told me he'd call you back. (Chris and Lauren are who I was just talking to.)

Thanks again Frank! I’m very impressed by the prompt reply and service I received from Chris. 20 minutes after I posted here I got a call from AoA and everything got sorted.

@RB-AOA

 

[Robransom]

Frank, 

First thank you for confirming my finding over the past almost 2 years. You were spot on and eloquent in taking us down this road! Most of the tips and tricks I've used, came from the people that were mentioned in your articles or from folks that have written answers to my questions here on the forum.

One of these days soon we will get together - Thanks again Rob