Seneca Dragonfly .177.
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
Part 7
Part 8
This report covers:
- The test
- 11 pumps
- 12 pumps
- 13 pumps
- End of first day’s test
- 14 pumps
- 15 pumps
- Where are we?
- What now?
- Ten shots on 14 pumps
- Do I stop?
- Front sight
- Summary
Today we look at the accuracy of the .177-caliber Seneca Dragonfly Mark 2 on 11 through 15 pumps per shot. I will also summarize what has been learned across the entire pump stroke/accuracy test as well as reveal a welcome surprise.
This is the .177 Dragonfly Mark 2 that has a UTG 3-12X32 Bug Buster mounted. That scope was zeroed when it was mounted in Part 6, so I shot a single JSB Exact Heavy pellet on 11 pumps of air, just to “wake up” the rifle before starting the test. Actually you will see that there are a LOT of pumps in this test, and it was conducted over two days. The second day I woke up the valve with a dry-fire shot on three pumps. The object of waking the valve up is just to get the internal parts moving again
The test
Today’s test was shot from a bag-rested rifle at 25 yards. Most of the groups are 5 shots, but at the end of this report there are a couple 10-shot groups. Only the one JSB Exact Heavy pellet was used in both today’s report as well as all previous tests of pump strokes versus accuracy. That pellet was discovered earlier to be the most accurate in this rifle. Let’s begin.
11 pumps
On 11 pumps per shot the Dragonfly Mark 2 put five pellets into a group that measures 0.812-inches between centers. The group is a bit to the right, so after shooting it I adjusted the scope 2 clicks to the left. That was the last time I adjusted the scope in this test.
On 11 pumps the Dragonfly put 5 JSB Exact Heavy pellets into a 0.812-inch group at 25 yards.
12 pumps
Next it was 12 pumps per shot. The Dragonfly put 5 JSBs into a group that measures 0.907-inches between centers. And what we see are two groups — one with three pellet holes and the other with two.
Twelve pumps gave two groups that measure 0.907-inches between centers overall.
13 pumps
The next test was to shoot a group with 13 pump strokes per shot. This time the Dragonfly put five pellets into 0.856-inches at 25 yards.
On 13 pumps per shot the Dragonfly Mark 2 put five JSB Exact Heavy pellets into 0.856-inches at 25 yards.
End of first day’s test
I set the rifle aside at this point. These groups were all vertical and skewed from the top right to the bottom left. I was about to pontificate on why this was, but I waited until the test was finished the next day to say something. Good thing that I waited, as you will soon see.
14 pumps
On 14 pumps the first shot hit the bull at 7:30 inside the 7-ring. The following four shots went to a tight cluster at 6 o’clock. The overall group size is 0.462-inches between centers with the last four in 0.211-inches. Wow!
On 14 pumps per shot the Dragonfly put five JSBs into a 0.462-inch group at 25 yards.
It would have to happen on 14 pumps! You’ll find out why I’m so frustrated about that in a little bit.
15 pumps
The last test was five shots on 15 pump strokes per shot. This is the maximum recommended number of pumps for the Dragonfly. It’s a good thing this rifle is easy to pump!
Five shots went into 0.771-inches at 25 yards. It’s better than most of the other groups, but not as good as the one shot with 14 pumps.
On 15 pumps the Dragonfly Mark 2 put five JSB Heavys into a 0.771-inch group at 25 yards.
Where are we?
Now we will look at all the tests of accuracy versus pump strokes. Here’s a list of the group sizes for all groups shot in this test
Pumps…………..Group size
3…………………..0.69-inches
4…………………..1.195-inches
5…………………..0.977-inches
6…………………..0.69-inches
7…………………..0.882-inches
8…………………..1.221-inches
9…………………..1.096-inches
10…………………1.112-inches
11…………………0.812-inches
12…………………0.907-inches
13…………………0.856-inches
14…………………0.462-inches
15…………………0.771-inches
What now?
That five-shot group shot with 14 pumps was the smallest in the test. Theoretically that should be the most accurate number of pumps for this particular rifle. To prove (or disprove) that I decided to shoot a ten-shot group. That should tell you why I was so perturbed that 14 pumps was the most accurate.
Ten shots on 14 pumps
The Dragonfly Mark 2 put 10 JSB Exact Heavy pellets into a 1.179-inch group at 25 yards. Phooey! That test took 140 pump strokes, just to find out that 14 strokes is not the magic number for this rifle.
Well — there’s a fine conjecture ruined. Ten shots on 14 pumps went into a group that measures 1.158-inches at 25 yards. I expected to see a group around 0.65-inches.
Do I stop?
No stopping. I have one more thing to check. Looking at the list of group sizes with the pumps they took I settled on 6 pumps. It was the next-smallest group after the one shot with 14 pumps. True the three-pump group was the same size, but I’ll go with the more powerful of the two if there is a choice. Can six pump strokes still give a decent group?
Well I shot five pellets on six pumps each and it looked through the scope like the group might measure 0.40-inches between centers. Wow again! What the heck? I kept shooting and five more shots later the Dragonfly Mark 2 had put ten JSB Exact Heavys into a 0.618-inch group at 25 yards. Yes, this rifle likes JSB Heavys and 6 pump strokes. And this was the welcome surprise of the test.
On six pumps the Dragonfly put ten pellets into 0.618-inches at 25 yards.
Front sight
I said at the end of Part 8 that I planned to attach the front sight to stiffen the barrel, but given these results I decided to forego that test.
Summary
That’s it for this air rifle. I find the .177 Dragonfly to be somewhat picky about the pellets it prefers, but once the right one(s) is/are found the rifle does well. I do still prefer the .22 caliber over this one for the Dragonfly, but that’s more of a personal preference.
I hope the number of pumps versus accuracy test was interesting. I think it’s a test all owners need to conduct for themselves.
The Seneca Dragonfly Mark 2 is a huge value in today’s market. If you are a multi-pump fan don’t let this one get away!
BB,
This was a very interesting test; thank you for all the work you put into it.
“The Seneca Dragonfly Mark 2 is a huge value in today’s market.”
Yes, I wholeheartedly concur with that, and I’m glad you talked me into getting one. 😉
Blessings to you,
dave
B.B.
You got your cardio in today!
What is easier, 140 pumps of this rifle or 100 jumping jacks?
-Yogi
BB,
Not bad for a pumper. I can see why many would like to have one about.
Oops!
Ten shots on 14 pumps
“1.179-inch group at 25 yards” in the paragraph.
“1.158-inches at 25 yards” in the picture caption.
Off topic just a bit.
PA now has the pricing up for the new Avenge-X models. They are due in August.
In truth, the syn stocked, tube one in .22 is very tempting to me, except I have a bunch of airguns to shoot now as it is. I have a couple here at RRHFWA I have not even tried out yet. I guess I really need to find new homes for a couple of these gals.
RR,
To address the unused airgun problem I have a “bingo setup”…
Two jars and one token for each airgun. A token is drawn from the “to be shot” jar, that airgun is in the rack for the day and its token put in the “had a turn” jar. All get a turn.
Only THE PESTER (my Crown) which is on duty 24/7 and “project” guns (currently a Panthera) get more attention. Every airgun gets to be a project gun so that’s understood by the rest of them… they’ve all been fussed over and pampered.
No closet queens at VARACC (Vanna’s Airgun Resort And Country Club) and no whining about favoritism from the residents 😉
Have a great weekend eh!
Hank
Hank,
LOL! Oh they whine anyway!
That bingo thing does sound like a pretty good system. I usually do something similar in my head. The HW30S just had a turn. The Beeman 800/Diana 6G is up next. She has just come back from being freshly resealed. I am really anxious to see what she will do.
I have been putting the project airguns off for a while. I really need to get focused on them some. After I get that bunch going I just may have to do that bing thing, at least until several of these gals find new homes.
“bingo setup”
Hank, I really like that idea (Gramma was a big bingo fan); I think I’ll give it a go, thank you. 😉
Good morning all, I understand that a multipumper would perform better with certain pellets ar a certain number of pumps. I think that barrel twist and harmonics has something to do with it. I find similar results with (1) my Crosman 362 multipump and (2) the adjustable hammer spring tension on my Crosman Mark I and II pistols. However, in my mind the benefit of a multipumper is the variable power, either for compensating for pellets losing power at distance or for target practice or plinking at low power and hunting or pesting at high power. For those reasons, I would be compelled to keep going with these tests until I could achieve those results, like B.B. originally though he had at 3, 6, and 14 pumps.
Roamin,
I see a multi pump as a PCP that has to be manually charged and barrel twist and harmonics (etc) has everything to do with finding the best “tune” for that particular airgun.
The thing is that there’s no hammer spring adjustment on a multi pump (that I’ve seen) so fine tuning is not an option, you’re stuck with the rather coarse search of “how many pumps for this pellet” works best. That’s better than the fixed power of a springer but shy of an adjustable PCP. It’s all about compromise and the best you can do with what is available.
IMHO and based on what I’ve seen, .177 is a springer caliber and .22 (or larger) is for multi pumps and PCPs. Seems that the small volume of a typical .177 barrel needs the sharp spike of high pressure air that a springer develops to preform well where .177 PCP rifles are usually tuned to too low a reg pressure. Think it’s a volume/pellet weight/pressure thing.
Just my thoughts.
Hank
Vana2,
Interesting hypothesis:
“IMHO and based on what I’ve seen, .177 is a springer caliber and .22 (or larger) is for multi pumps and PCPs. Seems that the small volume of a typical .177 barrel needs the sharp spike of high pressure air that a springer develops to preform well where .177 PCP rifles are usually tuned to too low a reg pressure. Think it’s a volume/pellet weight/pressure thing.”
I’ll add a few things i have witnessed for the readers and your consideration.:
I think my .22 SSG ASP20 shoots more precisely (also the shot cycle just feels better) than my .177; could that be because a gas spring has a different pressure profile? This is one i believe in due to experience and general historically proven nature of 10 meter target rifles. The .177 PCP beats the knickers of any of the previous powerplants used for precision and more.
I think much of the variability is sloppy design engineering as well as poor manufacturing process for most airguns.
You get what you demand when your open your wallet.
Hopefully other readers will take me to task or at least share their experiences.
shootski
shootski,
My hypothesis is based on the somewhat unscientific experience that it requires a sudden sharp blow to clear an obstruction from a small pipe where you can blow a lot of volume of air into a larger one. Figure that it’s the same for airguns.
In 10 meter airguns .177 is supreme, at sub-12 fpe it has a lot of advantages but, again in my experience things start to get flakey at higher power levels. I have two Weihrauch HW100 PCPs, a .177 and a .22, both shoot exceptionally well but the .22 seems happier – if that makes any sense.
I like the .177 for a lot of things but as range and power increases bigger calibers are better. For my interests (sub 50 fpe, sub 100 yards) .22 is perfect for my applications.
The heavier .177 slugs seem to be better at higher power but that might just be a mass thing. I’m watching these with intrest as my HW100 and Dominator 1250 both shoot hot and slugs might do well in them. Future projects 🙂
Hank
Vana2,
I think your pipe/tube Analogy is a good one on the face of it. When i did the Pyramid Air MOA challenge in used the .177 SSG ASP20, and shot all the targets with the KnockOut Slugs and found the heaviest 13 something grains were too heavy but the 10.3 were able to group better at the required 10 and 25 yards.
See my response to RidgeRunner below for more.
You have some fun projects lined up.
shootski
shootski,
You are correct in the fact that better engineering usually costs. Every once in a great while you get lucky, but…
How much were those ASP20s when Sig Sauer was producing them? They were not Wally World specials, that’s for sure.
The greater mass of the .22 works better as power increases. The gas sproing is usually quite powerful due to its speed versus the metal sproing. There is also no vibration associated with it. Very likely the ASP20 was designed for .22. Most gas sproings are too powerful for .177. What many newbies just do not grasp is high velocity does not equate to high accuracy. “What good is 500+ FPE if you cannot hit what you are shooting at?”
RidgeRunner,
You have far more experience with and numbers of Sproingers than i will ever have. I doubt i will ever own more than the two SIGs gas spring piston.
I should have been clear in that currently i am shooting mostly diabolo pellets with them. I did shoot the 10.3gr. KnockOut Slugs in the .177 for the PA MOA Challenge; mostly just because of my orneriness since so many folks said you couldn’t shoot bullets well from airguns especially spring piston. They worked great and got all three levels for my entry into the drawing, a lame contest, but it let any number of people know that you could make slugs (Bullets) shoot well from airguns!
As far as what caliber SigAir designed as the grain weight/caliber; they called it a “20” foot/pound and that seems to be the .177 performance level as opposed to the 23+FPS of the .22 caliber.
Springers have a place in everybody’s airgun arsenal but PCPs are both the Uhr (Original) powerplant and the current and future best choice…
especially if you want to hit some small POI with 500FPS at 100+ yds/meters!
Enjoy the cleaner air and go shoot some ;^)
shootski
shootski,
Having no real, hands on experience with the ASP20, you could very likely be right.
Yes, every airgunner should own at least one sproinger. I am glad to see you come on board finally. I deeply regret not owning a Quakenbush, but I do own several PCPs. I am at this moment attempting to convince a PCP from the 1800’s to move into RRHFWA.
Slug? Who decided that should be the official name of bullets for airguns? They in no way resemble those slithery, slimy garden pests. Previously, the only time I have heard this term used in the shooting sports was as a solid projectile for a powder burner shotgun. These things do not resemble either in any way, shape or form. In fact, I have seen shotgun slugs that were made to resemble and act as diabolo pellets.
I use bullets in my .457 Texan LSS. Slugs indeed.
Hank and RG,
IMMHO, you are both correct. Twist rate and harmonics does have an effect.
.177 is best for sproingers, most especially because of the short, accuracy range of a spoinger. Yes, you can lob the .22 or larger pellets out there with the uber magnum sproingers, but what are the chances of hitting anything at long range? .177 wadcutters work well for 10-meter shooting, but those are really low powered poppers.
Technically speaking, single stroke, multi-pump and CO2 are PCPs. SSPs (single stroke) are usually low powered. It takes a good bit of leverage or herculean strength to charge one of those things to over 12FPE. Multi-pumps CAN get you up there if they have a properly designed pumping mechanism. That is still a lot of effort for one shot. CO2 limits you to a certain attainable level because of the nature of the beast (CO2 gas pressure).
HPA (high pressure air) PCPs are really the way to go with .22 or larger caliber. There is still a lot of work involved. Have any of you folks hand pumped a large caliber air rifle up to 3000PSI? I have. Phew! Most of those who go to the “Dark Side” buy an air compressor or at least a tank they can have filled at the local dive shop. Most PCP shooters end up letting the air compressor do most of the work.
I have rambled enough now. On to the next topic.
*** Have any of you folks hand pumped a large caliber air rifle up to 3000PSI? ***
RR,
Yeah, been there done that – twice… then went out and bought a SCUBA tank. LOL!
As I’m fond of PCPs and shoot a lot, a compressor quickly became a priority purchase. Best accessory I ever bought, nice not to have to worry about how many fills are left in the HPA tank.
People often comment on the price of the dark side support equipment. It’s expensive but it’s a one time purchase and can easily (IMHO) be costed off – as recently pointed out by a PB friend, the cost per (PCP) shot is cheap relative to .22 rimfire ammunition. (He did it to himself – and still can’t get over how he out-shot his high-end target .22 rimfire with match ammunition with 3 of my PCPs… By all his questions, I think we will have another airgunner soon)
Springer, SSP, MPP, PCP – love them all!
Cheers!
Hank
RidgeRunner,
Vana2,
Bravo on the recruiting effort!
I pumped for a time in the early 1990s for the EASY 10 Meter Olympic target guns and even the Quackenbush Big Bores for way more work for those few full power shots. I also went through a number of pumps for generation upgrades and lots of repairs. I still have three of them in the Arms Library; renamed the Gun Room for the snootiness of it! Lol…
I did the cost numbers and found the Cascaded Cylinders kept me in air for way less than a compressor(s) since i have cheap dive air fills close by; i could even get it for free from the airfield fire station but don’t want to push it for now.
My two 100 carbon fiber (4,500PSI), Aluminum 80 (3,000PSI) and original pair of 110 Steel Dive cylinders (3,600PSI) used in a cascade keep my backpack pony cylinder as well as my Big Bores filled for less even with the dramatic drop in compressor prices and lower required maintenance levels.
Even if the CF cylinders didn’t get the 15 year life extension it would remain cheaper to not buy a compressor.
New Dark Siders need to be certain of their fill source as the first step into PCPs! When i decided not to buy a Bauer Dive Compressor (BIG COST) i knew i had three reliable low cost and long-term sources for 4,500PSI fills.
shootski
Vana2,
Hmm. . . I like your theory, and I will be experimenting with something related to it. I just received an Avenger in .177 – I haven’t had time to scope it yet – and I am planning to see what I can make it do.
My theory, still unproven, is that with PCPs there is a tendency to tune for a balance of high power and a sufficient number of shots. Where this balance is found depends on the intended purpose of the rifle, and the tuner preference. The problem is that due to the small mass of the .177 and low air volume required to move it, most tuning efforts result in excessive speed for the little pills.
I don’t want a booming .177, there are better things when power is needed. I will try to turn the Avenger in a sweet, precise and quiet defender of the backyard and terror of feral cans and black circles on paper. Did I say quiet? It will take me a while, but it will be fun.
Henry
*** Where this balance is found depends on the intended purpose of the rifle, and the tuner preference. ***
Agreed Henry!
I’ve found that there’s a sweet spot for every pellet where the hammer, pellet and pressure are in balance as seen by good ES & SD numbers. Starting there, best accuracy (finding the harmonic node) and best efficiency are usually found at a SLIGHTLY lower setting.
Have fun!
Hank
I know this was all about pump performance and accuracy, but wouldn’t it be nice if you had the option to hook up an air storage bottle for sit-down shooting sessions with airguns like this and avoid lots of pumping. I figure there would have to be a regulated or max pressure determined to avoid any damage.
Not really necessary if you have lots of airguns to choose from to shoot. Just a thought.
Kind of like a device used to replace CO2 cartridges in some mags like the M14.
Thanks for the workout BB.
Bob M,
You are not the first who has thought of that. Check out Deck’s comment below. Even before that thing, there was the FX Independence.
Bob M,
I have seen any number of modified Multipumps with diy fill ports for the compression chamber/plenum/valve; some of them might actually not have been hazardous!
shootski
Bob M
Check out Seneca Aspen
Deck
Long time fan here of BB. I have all of the issues of Airgun Letter and a couple of the books. My following here has been a little sporadic. Anyway, great review series of what sounds like a very nice rifle.
I have some constructive criticism re future reviews.
It would be interesting to have a comment on noise level on every gun reviewed. I’m not talking about an in depth expert analysis done by a sound engineer like the one posted a decade or so ago — I’m just talking about a comment such as “pretty quiet” or “pretty loud” relative to other guns, based on BB’s experience. Similarly, I’d like to see a comment on cocking effort (remembering the bathroom scale analyses done in the AG Letter). And lastly, a measurement of trigger pull weight with a comment re stages, creep, etc. I’ve recently combed through blog posts doing some research and while I’ve seen the above here and there I’ve come away from some reviews wishing that there had been a cocking effort comment, or noise level comment, or detail on the trigger.
Thanks and keep up the good work!
tmburner,
Well, I did that in Part 2 of the .22-caliber Dragonfly Mark 2 report.
/blog/2022/02/seneca-dragonfly-mark-2-multi-pump-rifle-part-two/
I figured that a multi-pump is a multi pump and this one would sound essentially the same.
BB
PANIC ALERT! PANIC ALERT! PANIC ALERT!
If you have not done so previously, all airgunners need to check this out! The government is at it again!
https://www.airgun101.com/pyramyd-air/video/regulations-are-changing-and-we-need-your-help
Also.
/cspc
RR,
Thanks for the post! I replied something to Shootski below that you might find of value.
Mike
>Well, I did that in Part 2 of the .22-caliber Dragonfly Mark 2 report.<
Yes, sorry if I was unclear as I was not referring to the DM Mk2. My digging through the archives turned up several reviews that didn't have all the points that I mentioned.
“BB…he knows lots of stuff.”
Anyone who’s read this blog for a while knows what I mean by that. 🙂
BB, quite correctly, steered my toward owning one of these Seneca Dragonfly Mark 2 rifles.
Mine is the .22 version; it’s powerful, accurate, and a sweet shooter.
Yet there a couple of other pieces of airgun gear on which BB steered me straight: chronographs and Ballistol.
Without a chronograph, “You don’t know what you don’t know.”
Yes, this piece of gear has been a huge help to me, and I use it often.
But a real game-changer for me has been the lubricant, Ballistol.
I use this stuff on practically everything!
It gets used on air rifles, air pistols, and firearms of every type.
I even used it on the massive spring that opens my garage door.
About the only thing I haven’t used it in is my coffee…
…I may try that, too; it may help lubricate my joints, and perhaps even loosen up the old dave-brain!
(Yeah, that thing could use a jump-start, for sure. =>)
Seriously though, this stuff is awesome, and I never would have known about it if not for BB’s blog.
I wipe down all my guns as they come in from the outside, and prior to returning to their storage spots.
While I was using the 6-ounce spray cans, I recently switched to a 4-ounce non-aerosol can.
It came with a small applicator bottle with a needle on it.
For fumble-fingers old me, this makes it easier to use in hard-to-get-to places.
Anyway, if you haven’t tried this stuff yet, you may be in for a pleasant surprise. 🙂
(Thanks, BB!)
Blessings and happy shooting to all,
dave
thedavemyster
Me too on all the ways you point out that BB has influenced you and especially Ballistol. I find the smell to be contagious and not at all offensive. Reminds me of just fired shotgun hulls. What shooter hasn’t sniffed a spent shotgun shell?
But the biggest influence BB has had on me is acquiring the habit of buying more and more airguns which are my number one hobby enjoyment. There are some good enablers who comment on this blog too.
Deck
Deck, yeah man, I’m with you; I grew up on Hoppes #9 (all I ever used on my first shotgun); but the scent of Ballistol grew on my quickly; now the smell of it reminds me of airguns being carefully preserved…nice! 🙂
And I’m with you on airguns as the number one hobby for enjoyment.
I shoot some firearms now and again, but airguns much more so…their lack of noise and lower power makes them more “yard friendly,” even if you’ve got a fair-sized yard as we have.
As for BB being an influencer…yes, he’s that for sure…and that’s a good thing. 😉
There are plenty of bogus influencers out there today getting people to do stupid things (think Tik Tok #_#).
In contrast to that, BB is influencing us “for the good” and for our own good.
Airguns make for an awesome and most enjoyable hobby.
*looks around*
Well, I see half a dozen airguns I acquired due to their “BB stamp of approval.”
And in each case, he was “on the money;” they’ve all lived up to his recommendations…
…especially the Seneca Dragonfly Mark 2.
I wish more of these so-called “influencers” would copy his style…that’d be an improvement! LOL! 🙂
thedavemyster
+1 on the Ballistol. I believe that I learned about it from BB, also, and another big plus is that Hickok45 on YouTube is an enthusiastic fan of the stuff.
What chrony did you end up with?
tmburner, thanks for the info; I’ll have to check out Hickok45. 😉
As for the chrony, I got a pretty basic one, “Competition Electronics ProChrono Digital Chronograph.”
I bought it from PA, several years ago for $119…well worth it!
Today, they sell the Deluxe model (for not much more) that can connect to your smart phone.
Mine is old school; you put in one 9V battery, you turn it on, and it records the velocity for you…all I need!
I used to “guess” at airgun velocity by shooting into wood (pine density varies…quite a bit!).
It was nice to actually know how my airguns were shooting.
And if one seems “off,” I can run a quick velocity test as a health check.
It was especially helpful with the Seneca Dragonfly Mark 2.
I learned that 10 pumps gave me 13.5 fpe, and 15 pumps only upped that to 14.5 fpe.
That decided me: 10 pumps it is!
And the rifle will shoot into less than an inch at 25 yards (no matter how it’s held)…perfect for a pesting rifle.
Overall, this little chrono was a great buy; if it ever dies, I’ll just get the Deluxe model. 🙂
All,
Another little tidbit I have been wanting to mention to BB in particular.
Senator Tim Kaine (Democrat)(Virginia) has introduced a bill in the Senate to OUTLAW all legal silencers. His suppossed justification is that a couple of “mass murderers” used illegal silencers. I know it is just a political stunt, but you never know with that bunch.
B.B. and USA Readership (others interested in current and historical gun ban ideological machinations in the land of Liberty)
RidgeRunner and PA as well as others are up in Arms about the CPSC (Consumer Product Safety Commission) getting involved in airgun regulation and repeat attempts to murder the shooting culture in the USA.
Dennis Quackenbush and others have been fighting this Coldarm battle for decades: http://quackenbushairguns.com/Airgun_articles.html
You can understand it better after reading the Linked Articles.
These people will never stop this nefarious rearguard Culture War action until they are permanently run out of town on a RAIL!
shootski
Shootski and RR,
Thanks for the interesting read; I hadn’t realized this DoC to CPSC oversight switch has been a thing for a while. The trail dives down a rabbit hole. Anyone want to join me?
Here is the August 2022 law that transfers oversight of toy guns to CPSC:
https://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ167/PLAW-117publ167.pdf
SEC. 10246. STANDARD TECHNICA
In part _e_ it says:
Section 4 of the Federal Energy Management Improve-
ment Act of 1988 (15 U.S.C. 5001) is amended…
… blah, blah, to have the DoC to CPSC governance.
So, who proposed this bill rider, the amendment to section 10246?
(Search for “10246” to find the amendment, and then “5001” to confirm the change from DoC to CPSC.) I get SA 5135, a senate amendment:
https://www.congress.gov/amendment/117th-congress/senate-amendment/5135/text
It says it was an amendment to HR4346, which has no mention of section 10246 or amending the FEMIA, but I found this earlier house bill does have the “offending language”, put forth by the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology on 21 July 2021:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/4609/text/ih
(Dang, that sounds like my dork committee.)
I’ll note it had bipartisan support in Committee:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/4609/cosponsors
and bipartisan votes in August 2022 when it was passed (well, as bipartisan as practical at that time).
Hmm, OK, so what we need to do as airgunners is activate a diaboloic plan to infiltrate all levels of government, and be vigilant that no anti-airgun legislation ever leaves committee. Only through parasitic drag and stabilizing rotation will government fly straight!
Or sign a petition, maybe support airgun industry groups that write helpful language for an overworked CPSC.
Cheers,
Mike
So I hope you read at least some of DAQ’s articles.
Because this next excellent bit of advice is from the Third President of the USA:
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
-Thomas Jefferson
We haven’t had a great or even reasonably good US President in some time; Thomas Jefferson was an imperfect man but nevertheless a great President.
shootski
>Thomas Jefferson was an imperfect man but nevertheless a great President.<
Excellent point. "Imperfect" describes every president, and every man, for that matter.
Well, I’m going to throw another firecracker into the fire, I think. BB, this is not meant to be a criticism of you but here is another factor to consider in the accuracy of the Dragonfly. Yogi hinted at it initially but no one else picked up on it, preferring to discuss twist rate versus pellet speed and harmonics effects on accuracy.
If you’re pumping this rifle 10, 12 and 15 times, how fast is your heart beating when you take the shot? I understand that competition biathlon shooters practice shooting between their heart beats or pulse but how good are we at doing that? Our heartbeat affects our entire body, even our eyesight. So were those wide groups at 12 or 15 pumps affected by BB’s pulse?
Fred formerly of the Demokratik Peeples Republik of NJ now happily in GA
Fred DPRoNJ,
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1521956/#:~:text=Heart%20rates%20decreased%2010%2D12,approach%20to%20the%20firing%20line.
Everything you always wanted to know about BIATHLON from some of the most reliable testing.
From personal first and second hand knowledge you can’t afford to devote all too much attention to anything beside the front sight and getting all five shots off in a rhythm that works for you.
Time management is what BIATHLON is all about. You must prepare with training and conditioning to have the fastest heart rate drop possible and then know when to optimally ease the foot(s) off the gas pedal and by how much approaching the shooting range. If you ever see a shooter at a shooting range doing Burpees before shooting it is in all likelihood a BIATHLETE.
Shooting Gloves work to avoid/reduce the largest pulse driven contact point on the rifle.
But Tom shoots off a bag and hopefully has his Breath Control skill set down cold.
shootski
shootski,
You got it. And we all need to remember, the Dragonfly Mark 2 is extremely easy to pump!
BB
B.B. and Readership,
And one more thing!
Want to know why front sight concentration needs to be utmost on your mind: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32146083/
Even when fatigued accuracy in well trained shooters doesn’t diminish…’cause they are fixated on that front sight.
Yup! Works for the crosshairs in a optical scope too!
shootski
Shootski,
Thanks for that link!
If anyone wants the actual .pdf paper, let me know.
I found the time data very interesting: shooters took 30-40 seconds per shot (time from cheek weld to shot), and eye-fixated on sight/target for around 3 seconds at the last bit before firing. I’ve seen this on TV but never appreciated just how long they take. I need to work on patience…
It was also interesting that the accuracy difference between the “elite” and “sub-elite” athletes was not deemed statistically significant by their method of analysis (“lies, damn lies and statistics.”)
Cheers,
Mike