TargetTalk

Yes I know, pellet testing for pistol is a waste of time...
But since I've given in and done it, here's my results for you to comment.
These are all ten shots groups, from my Steyr LP10 clamped in a vice.

First to establish a base line, I shot the RWS R10 Pistol, 7gr 4.49 Needless to say these gave me the smallest result of the four I´ve tested, although they cost about 10-11€ a tin around here!
The group is pretty similar to the H&N Finale Match Pistol 7.56gr 4.49 I´ve tested two years ago.

Second came the H&N Excite. These are entry level pellets, in 4.5 and didn't specify the weight (my guess is around 8gr) I was not excited about these ones ;)
I had pretty good experiences with top level H&N pellets in the past, so I had high hopes for these...
At least it gave me an excuse for all the shots I couldn't call properly (yeah, right, it's the pellets fault!)

Third in line was the RWS Club (orange tin) Better than the H&N Excite, but nothing to be proud of...

Finally came the RWS Diabolo Basic (green tin), in 4.5 and 7gr I've tested these a few times, just to be sure. I was getting afraid my gun had developed a taste for the finer pellets in live...
Huge relieve!
I know the group size is larger than the R10, but they cost about 1/3 so I can´t complain!

So, is this worth doing?
In my book, yes. But once every couple of years.
It gives you trust in your equipment and get's it out of your mind.
Also gives you a mental boost every time you use the pellets that performed better.

What is your opinion?

Somehow I concur, but it doesn´t really matter: Rover will chastise you anyway...........................

I agree. Cost has to be figured into the accuracy of .22 or .177 ammo. I shot .22 with some lower cost stuff that did just as well in my opinion at least for me. No sense spending a lot of $$ for little gain. Just my opinion. Don in Oregon

Hell, RWS Basic is my first choice in competition pellets for my LP1 and Walther LPM1. I have to admit that some lots are larger than others, but three times the price for others doesn't thrill me.

But then, guys, I TOLD YOU SO!!!

See??

He can´t help it...............................

Yes Renzo, I knew Rover would jump in at the mention of RWS Basics... but in fact it was partly because he did that I started paying more attention to them a couple of years ago.
Because they are cheap, and perform better in my gun than others in the same price range, I can use them with confidence.

Vou te comprar uma Sagres, meu amigo.

Now we're talking!!!

Have you tried Geco's? I find that they're very good for their amazingly low price. It would be interesting to see a group from your pistol. There's a post on here (I think) somewhere where somebody tested them and they grouped better than R10 Match shot from a LP10.

EDIT: It was on Pilkguns website.

http://www.pilkguns.com/mako.htm

In that test the guy did 5 shots strings.
The ones above are all 10 shots. The more shots you do the better, as it impacts the size of the group.
Some rifle shooters around here do full 40 or 60 shots strings to simulate a full match when they test.

For pistol I think 10 shots is enough, especially since it's easier to induce human error on the test.
You have a 500+ gram trigger pull and to cock the gun some pressure has to be exerted on the lever.
We are talking about very small changes at the muzzle that can impact the shot pattern on the target.

I will try to source some Geco pellets to test. I will post them here when I find and test them.

FWIW, in 1992 the four members of our club's pistol team were included in the national top 15, and so we were invited to all qualifications.

At that point, the Steyr LP-1C being the Holy Grail of AP, we decided to buy one for each thru our then-president, who was and is an air shooting irons and gadgets importer.

When the pistols came (being consecutively numbered) I thought it was the ever desired opportunity to accomplish a strict test, matching not only pellets to pistols but individual pistols between them with the same pellets.

I shot 20-shot series for more solid results, with the pistols clamped on the cylinder (not the barrels) via a lathe -turned adaptor so as to replicate some of the mechanical errors and vibration dispersion, but solidly bolted to a 400 lb. bench.

To make a long story short: every single group went into the ten ring, most of them went into the X-ring. MY personal pistol (we drew lots when they arrived before the tests to avoid team splitting and undesirable quarrels and bittering) liked the Hobby pellets most of all (included selected Eley, H&N, RWS and Lapua top of the line brands), keeping all 20 with the OUTER edge of the holes into the 10 ring.

Surprisingly, one of my mates´ barely kept the 20 Hobby´s into the ten ring.

I concur with "rmca" when talking about the peace of mind a test personally conducted gives a shooter (which is in itself a wonderful source of points during a match) but also that if you're usually shooting below 550 you can use any decent practice brand and be unable to blame the pellet, except for an excepcionally skirt deformed one which you´d logically have had sorted visually before loading.

I beg for your patience here, as I´m not lambasting anybody: but I often read questions posted by forum members asking for advice on ammo, and when they give their average scores I think that somebody (I do not have the nerve for it) really qualified and beyond personal whims should tell them that if you´re shooting less than 530 in AP, the least of your worries is the pellet: somethig is very wrong with your technique (or your training, or your pistol, or all of them) if you´re not achieving that score without having a serious physical impairement

The same could be said taking as an example 480 in FP or 520 in SP: you have so much to profit from the technical point of view that you could use anything your pistols chambers without any score improvement or worsening due to that factor.

I may be stringing the matter too much, but (believe me or not) I bet 30 years ago that I could keep the 9 ring in the then-legal AP target shooting a FWB Modell 2 vised with SPHERICAL (those round, debased, fit-for-kids) pellets, and I won a full dinner afterwards. A pistol-pellet combination that keeps the 9-ring can shoot 540 with no worries at all, if the shooter does his part.

I also remember that in a two-day test we made with the national munitions factory, using 30 different barnds and types of ammo, checking my vised MTS-55-1 with the factory´s production control barrel (a MANN), I found that there was not a SINGLE type of ammo that grouped worst than 37 mm at 50 meters for 10-shot groups, which was far smaller than the outer line of the International Pistols 10-ring. And I mean Hollow points, practice rounds, bulk ammo, you name it.

I recall that some Australian member of this forum mentioning that in a clinic given down under by the revered Mr Skanaker, when asked about the relevance of ammo on the scores in FP, he walked around the shooters forming the audience and took a round or two from every one, and proceeded to shoot a 92 or 93 target with that hodgepodge of cartridges. He was obviously a very gifted man, but I think he made his point...................

Good post, Renzo, but many will not believe it. You will know because they'll be asking the same questions.
BTW GECO pellets, in my testing, performed very well. Then they became RWS Basic (in the US anyway), where they STILL performed well. I used to pay $19 a SLEEVE for them. But, for the reasons you gave, I don't test anymore.

rmca wrote:clamped in a vice

That's only about half the story.

JamesH wrote:

rmca wrote:clamped in a vice

That's only about half the story.

We have a vice with horizontal and vertical adjustments bolted to a metal table (shooting bench), that is then bolted to the floor.
Not the strongest of supports, but with some care, it can yield some pretty decent tests.
The vice has some different inserts for the jaws, the ones we use for pistol have a V in them. These are made of some sort of smooth but hard plastic.
The pistol is them clamped by the cylinder and some of the regulator, with care!
This gives a better hold than the recommended trigger guard spot.

I will post a picture next time I have it setup.
Need more info? ;)

Has anyone tried testing the basic crosman wadcutters that come in the milk carton style container? The uniformity and quality look to be very good on casual inspection. Very similar to miesterkugeln and other more expensive pellets..

I used the Crosman to shoot my first 100 (ten 10's). I still have the target. I tested a batch of them which had been rebranded and they didn't do as well as many others. I'd be willing to try them again if I found them cheap.

rmca wrote:First to establish a base line, I shot the RWS R10 Pistol, 7gr 4.49. Needless to say these gave me the smallest result of the four I´ve tested, although they cost about 10-11€ a tin around here!

That price seems quite reasonable, in the U.S., they cost around $15!. Here in Costa Rica, the most accurate pellets available for my match pistols (including my LP10) are the Frankonia Jagd wadcutter pellets. I thought they were manufactured by the RUAG group, but I found out they are made by H&N. They look very similar to the Finale Match pellets. If you can find them, give them a try.

Wynne G Oldman,
I tested some Geco pellets today.
Same setup, same pistol, same number of shots (10) Good enough. But the RWS basics still performed better (cue Rover...) ;)

JamesH
Here's a picture of the test setup.

BTW I clamp my LP1 by the trigger guard, as recommended by Steyr. I was always afraid of crushing the cylinder.

I put the pistol in the vice finger tight, and then only about 1/6 of a turn with the wrench.
The vice jaws have a V in the middle, so I have four contact lines with the cylinder, which spreads the pressure.
I also try to get a bit of the pressure regulator on the vice jaws.

I have tried clamping it by the trigger guard, but it need to be clamped harder than I wished. Didn't like that feeling one bit...
Also, the pistol didn't feel as solid as it does clamped by the cylinder.