Become an AGN forum member to be included in our multi-thousand dollar Monthly Airgun Giveaways! Winning is as easy as picking a number, no strings attached! This is our way of thanking you for being a part of the worlds biggest airgun forum. Yours truly, Michael Wendt - Owner.
Join HERE

Standard range for testing rifles?

Forums General Discussion Standard range for testing rifles?

  • Views : 753
  • Link

    Cookie
    Participant
    Member

    A recent topic raised a very good idea (thank you keyserzoze) that came to mind when looking at various online reviews.

    Many reviewers adjust the distances at which they test rifles according to the quality of the weapon, which is pretty useless for most people. If we are to have meaningful comparisons of air weapons then surely there should be meaningful comparisons at distances which are testing but realistic. We can’t all have the exact set-up because there are so many differing variables, but I suggest the following basic bench-rested distances. As it appears to me that the airgun World has been taken over by Americans, I will use imperial distances.

    Pistol 15 yards.
    Rifle, sub 12ftIb, 30 yards.
    Rifle, over 12ftIb, 50 yards.
    Any rifle claiming to excel or be superior in some way, even if just by price, 100 yards.

    What do you think?

    Should we have standard target sizes? What is acceptable accuracy?

    Link

    jimreed1948
    Participant
    Member

    This is a good point but as you pointed out; “We can’t all have the exact set-up because there are so many differing variables,…”
    I have mine zeroed at 34 yards.  This is because that is the longest distance I can shoot in my back yard.  I do shoot at greater distances when I go to my gun club, however most of my airgun shooting is in my backyard because of conveinance.  I think a lot of people may be shooting similar to me.  Airguns are much easier to shoot at distances that are immediately available to the shooter, their backyard.  When I see what others have posted, know what their shooting, distances, etc., I can kinda of judge what it might be like at a longer distance.  You have good points, but I think those type of reviews are hard to control because of what’s available to the shooters.

    Link

    loafr98
    Participant
    Member

    I have mine zeroed at only 25 yards because of space constraints also. By using the mill dots on scope I have no problems popping barn pigeons all the way out to 90/100 yds. Gotta love those PCP’s .

    Link

    EddieB
    Participant
    Member

    Was wondering about that last week.  But reality set in and 35 yards is the longest shot that can be taken in the backyard.  I zeroed the rifle in at 25 yards then used the mill dots for holdover/under.  Since the trees are about ten yards apart, doing math to figure out the mill dot/distance isn’t necessary.

    Link

    Cookie
    Participant
    Member

    The differing variables I referred to were of the rifle set-up, ie stability of bench and rifle rest used.

    I should have emphasised that I was referring to reviewers of weapons using standard distances to permit objective comparison.

    Some reviewers switch between 20/30/50 yards, my inference of their reasoning being to flatter manufacturers of rifles at the lower side of the quality scale. One or two reviewers even stand for some reviews, which doesn’t permit any fair analysis of the weapon itself.

    Link

    Rubicon_Joey
    Participant
    Member

    I’m with you and when I first started looking at air rifles I found it really frustrating to try to compare rifle x to rifle y when all the reviews had different distances or didn’t even list a distance at all! I want to be able to look at a group size at a standard distance ( I like the ones you posted above) and compare it to others. I know there are a ton of variables that go into group size (weather, pellet selection, shooter ability, air pressure, etc) but, there is one variable that can be eliminated and it’s distance. Even better would be listing a rifles MOA capability. MOA is an angular measurement that doesn’t rely on distance. However, MOA still needs to be tested and to be as consistent as possible it should be tested at an accepted standard distance.

    Link

    Mentolio
    Participant
    Member

    Cookie: you make good points, and I think I agree with the “standard distances” to test accuracy. I’m not sure target size will really matter all that much, as long as reviewers are measuring CTC groups? Might there also be different ranges for PCP vs. springers of similar power levels? 

    Link

    keysersoze
    Blocked
    Blocked

    I have always posted my reviews at 50 and 100 yards.  I think measuring MOA, placing a quarter, nickel or dime on the target will all provide the reader with point of reference.  I am kinda over reading or seeing one hole performance at 25 -30 yards.  The longer the distance the more the gun’s flaws are shown to the reader.  Judging at 100 yards will show if the pellet is spiraling.  So I think at least 100 yards with a 25-30 foot pound gun and 150 yards for a 50 foot pound 25 cal.    Thanks for bring this topic up Cookie, I think it is very important even if the potential buyer plans to use the gun in his backyard the reader should be given all the information so he/she can make an informed decision.    I was fooled into buying a gun that shot incredible at 50 yards in the review but performed very poorly past 100 yards.  I was fooled and it’s cost me a lot of money.  I swore at that moment I would review my guns for the members in an honest light.  

    Link

    wolfie
    Participant
    Member

     Many good points mentioned. Cookie you have started something. We all want reliable info on our guns performance not just Manufacturers figures or perfectly set up guns with inspired shooters performing winning results, surprised that a maker with X in the title only advertises wins , maybe they are all the same , however. Establishing a standard should remove as many variables ie distance based on a laser range finder , bench rested , etc etc. The need for a standard is there but should take into account non Americans, others do not know dime, quarter measurements. This forum is international. Personally I feel every new gun sold should carry a test statement, I know some dealers do this most do not. What use is a fifteen yard target handed to a new owner with a few holes in it? Nor a shot string of 10 shots taken at the sweet spot?. Most makers tend to state their best figures and when queried fall back on engineering tolerances. So independent reviewers data is priceless and interesting. Ted and others take the lead.

    Link

    Cookie
    Participant
    Member

    Thanks for all the replies.

    I think a MOA test will work with experienced shooters and powerful weapons, but with generally shorter distances than centrefire rifles are used at and some air rifles capable of shooting sub MOA, many beginners to airgunning ignorant of MOA or MRAD which themselves are obviously variable according to distance, and even coins requiring guesswork and further sizing, I think the simpler objective measurement via inches or cm on commonly available rulers is best.  

    Is it better for airgunners that manufacturers prove each rifles accuracy by providing a video of the furthest distance a rifle model can shoot say 1 inch ctc group?
    Or, should distances be limited, to say 100, 50 or 30 yards and the manufacturer stating their minimum group size at those distances. 

    Who is going too set any standard?
    Well it may be FX, Daystate, Impact, Air Arms, Crosman etc proving via a video their rifles accuracy at say 100 yards and challenge all-comers. It would take a brave/confident organisation to start such a challenge, but for the customer and manufacturer there could be great benefits  …. we could end up with a competition or “arms race”, not of ICBMs but of better barrels, regulators, triggers, stocks, poppets, valves, design of pellets, lubricants etc….some lines of rifles being dropped and others redesigned.

    I suggest proof by way of video, because some of the not so technologically advanced manufacturers already make some exaggerated claims.

    If no manufacturer takes up such a challenge then it is up to airgunners to demand to know say the smallest group size at 100 yards, or say 30 yards in counties with lower power levels…….being intolerant of manufacturers vague statements of “about this grouping”, or “about that”, but demand “what is the best exact group size” for this model of rifle at X yards. I initially thought it impractical to test every rifle at say 100 yards, but since Edgun tests all rifles to his standard perhaps such is not unrealistic for high quality rifles.

    Personally, I don’t think most manufacturers would want take such a lead; hardly surprising since most know they would loose. I think many manufacturers love the vagueness in their descriptions of the “quality” products they offer in order that they can hide their faults and allow their marketing people room for “creativity”; of just plain lies…..which doesn’t help anyone….especially beginners, who invariably fall victim to marketing.

    Link

    Cookie
    Participant
    Member

    I certainly didn’t set this up, but I have been directed to an apparently new post on the Daystate website.

    They post an “officially judged 18 mm group at a 100m on an open air range” (0.708 inches @ 109.36 yards) by Giuseppe Scaglione using a Wolverine 303.

    http://www.daystate.com/

    Can FX beat that with their .30 Boss? What about Rapid? Or, is Daystate going to stay King of air rifle manufacturers?

    Are any manufacturers going to chip in with a best .25, .22 or .177 group?

    Link

    Dan25
    Participant
    Member

    Yes there should be a standard for range testing.  For full power US market guns I think five shot groups at 50 yards should be the standard.  For lower powered guns a few 25 yard groups should be included to indicate what you should expect in the range the gun is most likely to be used.  For high power large caliber guns a few 100 yard groups should be included to indicate long range potential as these guns will be used at ranges in excess of 50 yards.

    Link

    PlanB
    Participant
    Member

    I think i would rather see testing done indoors to remove the wind varible. 
     I think that the gun (not the caliber) that shoots the best indoors would also shoot best in the wind.
    if im wrong about this, i hope someone will let me know.

    Link

    led_lobber86
    Participant
    Member

    i think this is not a bad idea , but i also belive it will be very misleading .
    by that i mean that 4 daystate wolverine 303 or 4 fx boss may be very different ,,, same with testing different pellets ,,, and even some pellets can give huge differences in just the batches of pellets in the same one and only gun …

    a good predictable trigger , a good stock , a good shot string in fps , a barrel with good tests behind it … soooooo very mutch is in the variable of accuracy .

    in these days with how good manufactioning tec has gotten we generaly get what we pay for ,, generaly .

    best thing we can do noobs or not is trust oure judgement ,,, read what the gun consists of ,,, know what it will be used for ,,, get to know the brand

     

Viewing 14 posts - 1 through 14 (of 14 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.