TargetTalk

From a Champion and Olympian, S Sjung:

"I have used K2, K10 and now I am shooting K12.
Trigger is the best I have seen, it feels like electronic. Absorber is good but cant say what it is compared to LP10 as I have not used LP10 for a long time.
But then in my opinion you don't need an absorber in an Air Pistol."
But then in my opinion you don't need an absorber in an Air Pistol."
But then in my opinion you don't need an absorber in an Air Pistol."

But then, what do I know.

Firstly Rover, there's already a thread dedicated to this question. Your desperate need for attention is showing. Oh well, we all have our weaknesses.

Secondly; did you read the part where the "Champion and Olympian" said this?

SJung wrote: Trigger is the best I have seen, it feels like electronic.

My K10's trigger isn't bad, but it isn't great. I spent about 6 months adjusting it in different ways trying to find a 'sweet spot' where I could forget about how it feels, but I began to doubt sometime during the late winter that such a spot exists for the K10. So I started thinking about a better trigger. Unfortunately that doesn't exist for the K10, it's not something one can just pull out and replace with a nicer after-market thing. So a few months ago I started thinking about the K12's reportedly better trigger. And since then I've come across at least a dozen shooters here and there online saying the same thing. The K12 has an incredibly nice trigger.

The absorber may or may not be another nice feature. If you'll cast your memory WAAAAAAY back to SJung's other comments, you'll note this besides just the opinion that an absorber is not necessary in an airgun:

SJung wrote: Absorber is good but cant say what it is compared to LP10 as I have not used LP10 for a long time.

Not exactly unequivocal rejection of the absorber, is it? Gosh Rover, you're kinda reaching today. Now get busy coming up with something genuinely controversial, or at least inflammatory, so you can post another unnecessary new thread.

Well, Gerard, it looks like you closely inspected the entire quote and managed to ignore only what I accentuated, which was the point of my comment.

Rover wrote:From a Champion and Olympian, S Sjung:

Never heard of him, who is he?

Gerard wrote:Your desperate need for attention is showing.

Oh, the irony.

Oh dear, FredB hatin' on Gerard again. Sigh. When will this crew grow up? Rover's cheap shot plainly missed the mark regarding the K12's functionality. His launching of a new thread rather than commenting in the relevant thread serves no apparent function outside of calling extra attention to himself in the thread list. Irony? Explain, please, oh wise Fred.

Great post Rover;

You have captured the attention of the big two(no, not confused with the big three African safari).

Gerard and Conradin.

All three of your post counts are getting larger by the minute, but nothing is ever really said...

Just saying..

Wink

Clarence

C. Perkins wrote:All three of your post counts are getting larger by the minute

They're all amateurs Clarence ;-)

Gerard wrote: My K10's trigger isn't bad, but it isn't great. I spent about 6 months adjusting it in different ways trying to find a 'sweet spot' where I could forget about how it feels, but I began to doubt sometime during the late winter that such a spot exists for the K10.

Perfect. Same experience here. But there is something more to say. I've tried many K10 and they all had different triggers. I'm not saying different adjustments of the same trigger, I'm saying different triggers. Huge aftertravel or no aftertravel at all, extremely crisp or not crisp at all, etc. Even the location/position of the second stage spring was sometimes different. So I'm inclined to think there was something wrong "ab origine".

There seems to be some confusion here. The author of the quote plainly stated, "...you don't need an (recoil) absorber in an Air Pistol."

I agree with the statement. Do you?

Why is simple so hard on some people?

Rover wrote:There seems to be some confusion here. The author of the quote plainly stated, "...you don't need an (recoil) absorber in an Air Pistol."

I agree with the statement. Do you?

Why is simple so hard on some people?

My experience with recoil absorber (FWB P34) was not favorable.
In fact it was impassible to call shots precisely- one of the reason why I treaded it.

...you don't need an (recoil) absorber in an Air Pistol

Which literally means that it doesn't matter if you've got one or not, so it therefore can't be an issue. Most new pistols seen to have one, some people like it, some don't, most don't seem to care either way. Are you trying to make a thread out of a non-issue, or are you actually trying to state that in your opinion, air pistols should not have absorbers? IMO, the shooter quoted by you was not offering an opinion about the absorber, he just stated (after talking about the important aspects, for him) that it was not an important feature for him. Seems kind of ridiculous to pick that one sentence out and try to build a thread around it. As it is pretty difficult to change that technical aspect once you've got some kind of AP, it seems pretty theoretical anyway, and if you don't like absorbers, don't buy it.

You could of course try to do a poll about this non-issue and mail it to the manufacturers, who will of course be hugely interested in your findings.

At least it would be transparent then who is trying to achieve what, even while it's still totally unclear what good could come from the discussion.

Tycho wrote: You could of course try to do a poll about this non-issue .....

Brilliant. Another idea would be to ... remove completely the absorber and shoot without it. The LP10, in example, is a good pistol without the absorber, my (fallacious?) impression is that it moves even less during the shot.

The 'issue' Rover is most likely presenting (though he hasn't overtly stated it in this thread, so I'm just guessing based on dozens upon dozens of hit comments in other threads) is that anything more 'modern' or 'technologically advanced' than a Single Stroke Pneumatic air pistol is unnecessary. Or even vaguely anti-American, or something. Perhaps anti-masculine? Rover is a huge, vocal fan of the SSP. I think anyone who's been around here a little while recognises that, and many respect it. I for one certainly agree that the best SSPs seem to be first rate pistols. I'll probably keep looking for a Pardini K58 for years to come...

But that's the most significant problem with these endless posts bashing tech, bashing the PCP (though he's currently shooting with one, by his own admission, thanks to an 'incredible deal' he couldn't pass up), bashing anything purportedly better than an SSP. Availability. Where are the vast majority of AP shooters supposed to find this cache of like-new SSP pistols to use in training and competition? The choices and numbers available are severely limited.

As to the recoil absorber in the K12; what's wrong with it? It's hardly the only advancement in this model, and the pricing isn't as high as the latest Steyr (the K12 averages some $300 to $400 less than the LP-10E) so it can't be that pricing is bothering Rover, can it? The Steyr has an absorber, and I've yet to encounter any significant number of complaints about that model regarding said absorber. Any, in fact, except where adjustment is concerned; it seems some users fuss with the absorber adjustment and mess it up and need coaching to get it sorted mechanically.

So again it seems there is no concrete reason for this thread. Pointing out that one sentence exists in some other shooter's comment in another thread does not erase the fact that that shooter contributed other sentences within that same comment, no matter how much Rover likes the one cherry-picked sentence. The fact stands that said shooter mentioned that the absorber in the K12 is good, before saying that he had little experience with the Steyr and so comparison, before saying that in his opinion an absorber was not necessary in an AP.

So Rover's thread here serves what purpose, exactly? An 'I told you so'? If that's it, I refer readers back to my original comment in this thread.

I have to say this for Gerard, he has followed my posts and gets the drift of my thinking.

He is right in saying that I'm bashing the newer equipment, but I'm sure I would enjoy owning some of it. The reason for my attitude is to get newer (and poorer) shooters to look carefully at the older equipment out there for less money and not blindly follow the latest trend in equipment thinking they NEED it to enable them to be MORE competitive. He's also right in saying I've promoted the use of SSPs (I do love 'em). They are also the cheapest to operate and rebuild.

In the immortal words of Don Nygord (referring to older guns), "They didn't turn to doo doo overnight."

I'm not at all knocking Gerard's new toy. I'm sure it's a wonderful piece of equipment. I'm just not sure of the value of a recoil (?) reducer. (Maybe Gerard missed that among my previous posts.)

If you scan this whole thread, you will see that Rover's initial brief comments are dwarfed by Gerard's complaints about them. He disapproves of Rover starting an "unnecessary" thread. Has Gerard been anointed moderator? If not, then his remedy is simply to ignore the thread, rather than add 3 (and counting) more postings to it. Since his complaints serve "no apparent function outside of calling extra attention to himself," perhaps his "desperate need for attention is showing."

Now Gerard will complain about this post's ad hominem criticisms, thus compounding the irony.

conradin wrote:

Rover wrote:From a Champion and Olympian, S Sjung:

Never heard of him, who is he?

Here he is...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samaresh_Jung

regards
tirpassion

And precisely what have FredB's comments in this thread contributed to the better understanding of either Rover's thread topic or to the use of air pistol absorbers generally? Note that I ask about your comments, and not about you, personally. This is the second time you have accused me of ad hominem arguments Fred. I don't recall the particulars of the last time and can't be bothered to look it up, but this time you're plainly mis-applying the term. My previous post (previous to this one) contains no ad hominem references. It addresses several points made by Rover, in this thread and in many others, regarding his blatant prejudice in favour of SSP pistols and against PCP pistols. His comments, not his personality, his profession, anything to do with Rover, the person, who I know only through his comments in this forum. While I'm sure your background with the English language is most impressive, might I suggest looking up your Latin?

And Rover; thank you for clarifying your position in this topic, at last! I find this more thorough elucidation on your perspective to be quite satisfying. Nothing at all to object to there regarding your take on the latest PCP models, absorbers, the remaining relevance of SSPs, etc... except for the problem of availability. There is, so far as I am aware, no vast cache of SSPs of match grade waiting to be purchased. I happen to be quite fond of some Webley air pistols, and now have 3 - a Junior is the latest acquisition and I had a bit of fun at the club one day last week taking pot shots at a normal 10m Kruger target with the thing. Found I had to aim at the top edge of the paper to hit the black at all. Got some work to do there before it's time to take it to a match! I also have a Tempest, which is fun and much more powerful but a lot ugly. My favourite is an early 1950's Senior. Beautiful pistol. The finish is of a very high standard. It's a beast for accuracy; on a good day I can consistently hit a quarter... from about 5 metres. Kicks like a mule. But I love the thing. Problem was in finding one. Even though several hundred thousand were made in each of the 'great' models of Webley (Senior, Premier, MKI and MKII, Junior), finding one in good condition can take years of vigilant searching. I've been lucky, though my Junior is a bit beaten up. Finding a match grade SSP is all the more challenging considering the relatively low numbers manufactured, and the reluctance of many owners to let them go. A worthy SSP pops up in the for sale forum every month or so, maybe, unless one counts the Baikal 46m with its extra-heavy front end. Not really a contender compared to the old FWB1xx, Pardini K58, or Walther LPM-1.

I could dismiss any objections to your continual chastisements of PCP purchasers were you to offer for sale a large collection of SSPs. Or at least to point out where this collection might be accessed. But you haven't, because you can't. And all the wishful thinking, all your dedication to these older models isn't likely to bring any of the manufacturers back to the idea of making newer models or re-launching older ones. Just isn't happening. So again, I wonder what's the point of the bashing?

As you say you have reservations regarding the absorber. So do I. The trigger improvements seem to be the most important reason for my 'upgrading' from the K10, which I will likely be putting up for sale within a week or two of receiving the K12. I'll probably suffer a net loss of about $400 on the upgrade. Big deal? No. Am I seeking to 'buy points' as Russ used to be so fond of repeating? Sure, if the trigger makes it easier for me to hit the 10, because I won't be wasting effort trying to manage a somewhat cranky trigger (though nothing nearly as difficult as a Webley!) and can devote more attention to the sights. If the new trigger works out for the better, if the ease of use grants me a few more points per round, I'll have bought those points and will be happy with their value at $400, my cost.

FredB; do consider offering some actual shooting-related insights now and then. Isn't that why we're members here?

If SSP means the type of pistol such as FWB 65/85/90/10x, then there are plenty of them floating around the market. I actually have TWO FWB65. One is broken and serves as spare parts pistol, the other is all dolled up with all the accessories for regular ISSF 10M air pistol type shooting. I also once had an opportunity to try a FWB85. It is an improvement over the 65, but not by much.

FWB65 is a great trainer. The only thing I see it as irrelevant is the trigger mechanism, but if you have a 85/90/10x, then it is not even an issue. All have modern trigger shoes just like the PCP and CO2, and in fact 90 is electronic. The only thing left is the weight distribution since FWB65/85/90 resembles a pistol, as opposed to be like a modern air pistol.

I continue to use the FWB65 as a trainer, I find it very helpful. I disagree with the idea of just using a pistol like FWB65, but I strongly recommend anyone who is serious about shooting to have a second pistol that is like a FWB65. Your primary pistol can be CO2 (you need to find a welder) and PCP (you need to find a dive shop), but a pistol like the FWB65 all you need are just your biceps.

No Conradin, the term 'SSP' refers to 'Single Stroke Pneumatic' type air weapons. The whole FWB series of pistols prior to the FWB100 were either CO2 or spring-piston. The 100, 102, and 103 (was there a 101?) are SSP types, and these do show up for sale now and then, but very infrequently. And for myself they have a couple of problems making them undesirable at this point. The rest of the field of SSP designs/brands is very limited. 3 or 4 pistols which merit serious consideration for competition use - the FAS 604 being an example of an over-lever SSP (the barrel is the pumping arm) which while nicely made, isn't quite to competitive standards in velocity or accuracy. And these others, the K58, LPM-1, and... what else? - they show up for sale even less often.

I've put notices up in several forums, in Canada, the US, Europe, and have a couple of gun dealers keeping an eye open for a K58 as well, but so far no luck. Not that it matters hugely for me personally; I'm quite happy shooting a PCP now and while my severely customized, lightened Baikal 46m shoots well, it's still slightly too nose-heavy for comfort. That's distracting. A FWB 65, 80, or 90 is likewise quite a heavy pistol. I'm far from weak, but would prefer to focus on sights and smoother trigger operation than on getting the shot off in a couple of seconds because of extra fatigue over the course of a match with a heavy pistol. A K58 at this point is more a consideration as a backup pistol and a 'luxury plinker' for casual use, something I'd like but don't really need.