Shooting springers off tall bipods - Part 1

[Manco 16]

A few days ago a member of the forum started a thread with a question: “Is it possible to shoot a Weihrauch HW 77 accurately off a bi-pod?â€. It got me thinking. Until recently I had always assumed that shooting a springer off a bipod wouldn’t be successful – that its recoil characteristics would make the shots go all over the place. Not wishing to hijack that thread, I decided to open a new one to explore the topic further. During the last few days the weather has been calm, I had some spare time and my thoughts turned to shooting. I decided to carry out an experiment – to see whether I could shoot a springer accurately off a tall bipod.

 

For several years I have been a fan of tall bi-pods or shooting sticks. I have found them to be aid stability in various shooting situations, from deer and fox hunting with a centre-fire, to lamping with a rimfire or air gun, to shooting avian pests at steep angles of incline. In addition, when zeroing a pcp or rimfire at ranges up to 50 yards or so, I generally shoot off sticks.

My sticks are a lightweight, three-section, height-adjustable bi-pod, made from hollow fibreglass rods. By rotating one section against another, the legs can be locked in place to suit your shooting position. Their height can be adjusted to provide a support for sitting, kneeling or standing shots. Where the sticks cross near the top, to form a ‘V’ shape, which cradles the fore end of the gun, there is a layer of high density foam rubber bonded to them to help cushion the effect of recoil and so improve accuracy.

 

The experiment:

 

(1) I decided to shoot off sticks, first at a target at a measured 25 yards and then at one 35 yards. It wasn’t meant to be an exercise in bench resting; the aim was to simulate typical shooting conditions in the field: gun to shoulder and, fore end resting on sticks, shooter making use of any additional means of support naturally available.

 

(2) To evaluate the experiment I decided to judge that a springer can be shot accurately off a tall bipod if I can put my pellets comfortably inside a 1 inch circle at 35 yards.

 

(3) Two springers were used: A Gamo Whisper X set up with a 4 x 30 scope and a Weihrauch HW50S with a Nikko Sterling 3-7 x 32 AO scope. Both guns are .177s and both do approx 13.5 fpe (legal in SA).

 

(4) Pellets used were Gamo Pro Magnums, weighing in at 7.9 grains (according to the description on the tin). I used them straight out of the tin without any lube.

 

(5) Targets were improvised (I rarely shoot formal target cards). At 25yards I aimed at a small motif on a cardboard box; at 35 yards a circular patch measuring ¾ inch (19mm) was placed on a cardboard box.

 

Time for a few photos:

 

#1 gun and sticks

#2 close-up of sticks

#3 sticks in place for shooting

[Manco 16]

So, to continue the write-up, here is Part 2...

 

Results at 25 yards:

 

(1) Unfortunately, it’s adios El Gamo… shooting off the sticks didn’t suit the Gamo Whisper X and I struggled to keep the pellets inside 1 inch. I regard the ‘X’ as an excellent air gun when shot off-hand, or with the fore-end supported on your hand or a sand bag, but I found it was too frisky off the sticks.

 

(2) The HW50S, on the other hand shot impeccably off sticks and I could hardly have been more satisfied with its performance. Photo #4shows the result.

 

Results at 35 yards:

 

El Gamo having ‘retired’ from the testing, I used just the HW50S on the 35 yard target. Photo #5 shows the resulting 5-shot group, which was just over ¾ inch, thus meeting the standard that was set: keeping the pellets within a 1 inch ‘kill zone’ at 35 yards. It reflects well on the small but chunky HW50S. (I have no doubt that smaller groups could be obtained under bench rest conditions.)

 

Conclusions:

 

(1) Some springers - e.g. the HW50S - can be shot accurately from tall bipods (shooting sticks) at least out to the generally accepted hunting range of a springer – 35 yards (possibly further).

 

(2) Others – in this case the Whisper X – do not shoot well off tall bipods.

 

A commonsense interpretation of the findings is that lightweight, “break-neck†springers are difficult to control when shooting off tall bipods. Heavier guns, on the other hand, dampen out the recoil more effectively and shoot better off tall bipods.

 

I hope this has been of interest and thanks for sticking with it (if you have).

 

Chris

[matt_hooks 188]

Generally, the issue with bipods and springers relates to fixed bipods, a la Harris. A spring rifle relies on a consistent hold and support to shoot repeatably accurately. When rested off hand, no matter what method is used to support the hand, you can make the rest consistent. However as soon as you rest the rifle on a hard surface, it will change the point of impact.

 

A fixed bipod can give very accurate shooting, but links directly to the ground and so is very sensitive to the surface you rest it on. A springer zeroed with a bipod rested on grass may shoot very well on grass surfaces, but will change POI when the bipod rests on a harder surface.

 

I shoot my springer (ok, Theoben Scirocco, gas ram not springer but the principle's the same) off a tripod regularly, and have no problem hitting the kz at reasonable ranges (out to 40 yards) but I never rest the rifle directly on the sticks, I always rest my hand on the sticks and then the rifle on my hand.

 

I'm surprised you couldn't get the x to shoot a good group. It should be possible to get a group but the mean point of impact will change. I would suggest there's something else going on that's affecting the grouping.

[Manco 16]

Hi Matt, I agree with what you say about shooting springers of Harris-type bi-pods:

 

("Generally, the issue with bipods and springers relates to fixed bipods, a la Harris. A spring rifle relies on a consistent hold and support to shoot repeatably accurately. When rested off hand, no matter what method is used to support the hand, you can make the rest consistent. However as soon as you rest the rifle on a hard surface, it will change the point of impact...A fixed bipod can give very accurate shooting, but links directly to the ground and so is very sensitive to the surface you rest it on. A springer zeroed with a bipod rested on grass may shoot very well on grass surfaces, but will change POI when the bipod rests on a harder surface.")

 

The purpose of my 'experiment' was to see if my springers would shoot accurately resting directly on my 'sticks'

rather than resting on my hand. After reading your comment ("I'm surprised you couldn't get the x to shoot a good group. It should be possible to get a group but the mean point of impact will change. I would suggest there's something else going on that's affecting the grouping.") I checked the stock screws for tightness, cleaned the barrel with dry patches, kept to the same pellets and repeated the experiment. Same result, I couldn't get a decent group with the 'X' resting directly on the sticks! Now I like my 'X' and I have shot a few thousand pellets through it. It's a great air rifle for off-hand shooting, and for 'supported' shooting with the rifle resting on a hand it also performs well as the photos below demonstrate. But I can't get it to shoot for toffee off my sticks...

 

BTW if you can put up a pic of your shooting technique with a springer using the tripod you mention that would be of interest.

 

ATB Chris

[Manco 16]

So to continue with the write-up, here is Part 3:

 

I note that for many air gun shooters (including some on this forum) the misconception persists that it's not possible to shoot a springer accurately directly off any kind of bi-pod. I certainly thought so too until I started the 'experiment' described in this thread.

In part 2 I wrote that I had achieved my accuracy goal of getting my shots within a 1" circle at 35 yards shooting my HW50S off 'sticks' i.e. my tall bi-pod. But I had a feeling that as long as I did my part the equipment was capable of doing better. I had recently bought a tin of Crosman Premier Ultra Magnums for use with my Career Carbine and I decided to see how the HW50S liked the 10.5 grain heavyweights. Long story short, it loved them. Group sizes shrank by about 50 per cent compared to the GAMO Pro Magnums, with fewer flyers. So I decided to increase the range to 40 yards, measured again by LRF.

I put up one of my wine-box targets (well it gives me an excuse to keep drinking the stuff!) and did some informal paper punching.

I fired 3 shots at a tiny wine bottle motif: see photo #1 and 1 shot at a letter about the size of a large pea: see photo #2

A pigeon (OK, rock dove) was unlucky enough to land on a telephone pole just beyond my target and that was despatched forthwith. It fell stone dead the other side of my boundary so I was unable to get a photographic record.

Conclusion so far: 4 legs good, 2 legs bad!

 

ATB Chris

Edited May 13, 2011 by Manco

[pianoman 3,586]

Interesting stuff Manco.

 

The misconception I have been labouring under, was as a direct result of trying to shoot a recoiling spring rifle off solid rests and, even padded rests and, try as I might, I could not get any degree of accuracy I would be remotely happy with.

 

I don't wish to sound rude but, I still remain unconvinced by the way you have presented this to be honest Manco. Your choice of target is bits of labels with no discernable aiming point. These test groups are focused on nothing I can possibly accept as a reliable datum.

 

Would you be so kind as to set up a series of correct zeroing targets (not bits of labels!) with a finite bullseye aim-point at different ranges, up to 50 metres say, and in different positions to left and right, to considerable diversities, so the harmonics of your rifle are changed and post your true and honest findings?

 

I will forever remain firmly sceptical of the success of shooting a spring rifle off a bipod, as equal to that off the hand but, I'd be interested to see what a more extensive test by you would yield.

 

All the best to you.

 

Simon

[matt_hooks 188]

Manco, the point with a springer is not what it's rested on per se, as long as that rest is consistent shot to shot. A springer rested on a bipod will group ok, but if you place the bipod on a different surface the response will be different, and so your group will be in a different place. That's why it's recommended to use your hand as the actual rest, whatever supports the hand, you can make it a consistent base for shooting from.

[pianoman 3,586]

EXACTLY!

 

Well said Matt And the most consistent, aim-supportive device they've yet come up with for a spring rifle is.... your forehand palm!

 

I just wanted our friend here to run with it and see what he comes up with.

 

Simon

Edited May 13, 2011 by pianoman

[Manco 16]

OK Simon (and by the way I sign myself off as Chris) you asked for a response so here it is. I wonder if I catch a whiff of NIH syndrome (NIH = not invented here). I have read several of your posts and you appear to set yourself up as a forum guru concerning springers in general and the shooting of spring air rifles in particular. You appear to have a lot of ego invested in this. I don’t doubt you are a good all-round guy and an excellent shot to boot, but I doubt you are the fountainhead of all wisdom. Those who stick their necks out and make unsupportable pronouncements should be prepared to have their opinions challenged.

A short while ago you made a pronouncement about the impossibility of shooting springers accurately off bi-pods (which you indicated was the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth). Pardon me for disagreeing, but in my experience this is not the case.

I started this thread because I am interested in the springer/bi-pod issue and I thought others might be too. I resent the implication that the info I have presented is misleading. (It may not be comprehensive, but there is no intention to mislead.) I have no interest in making exaggerated claims to ‘big’ myself up. I don’t buy into your criticism that ‘informal’ targets lack a precise aim point. The aim point is where the shooter chooses to aim. Is the centre of an object the size of a pea at a range of 40 yards not a precise aim point?

I intend to continue experimenting with shooting my HW50S off my tall bi-pod and making more posts . Judging by the numbers reading them it is a topic of interest to others as well as myself. I will plough my own furrow and not be dictated to as to how I should go about it. If you don’t like it, there is a simple answer - don’t read the posts.

Chris

[pianoman 3,586]

Chris your posts are there to be read. This is a forum and by that definition a place of debate and discussion. It's nothing to do with ego, or NIH or anything else.

 

If you don't wish me to read them and debate with you what I have come to know by my own practical experience, with what you have set out to prove, then don't post them up and invite comment.

 

I am not the fount of all shooting knowledge my friend but, there is a finite level of know-how and a few sound marksmanship principles to apply to shooting a spring rifle with all the accuracy of a recoiless PCP. A fact some still foolishly believe is not possible.

 

But believe me, what I do know gets me all the results I need for my own shooting, and I have been willing to share and help anyone in any practical way I can. If that is not in the spirit of this forum then, it's a poor show, but you have not exactly been pro-active as an alternative voice of experience in offering a level of practical help and advice to the less-experienced fella, other than this current proposal, which, even the bloody airgun mags have long stated is not possible to achieve.

 

You use the word Guru, not me but, as you yourself say, if those who make unsupportable pronouncements should be prepared to have them challenged, then so my friend Chris, should you.

 

Unless of course you wish to be challenged by someone else, other than myself?

 

Now. I really don't wish to be rude Chris, but so far, your pronouncement on shooting a recoiling spring rifle directly off a bipod remains unsupported by truthful evidence that this is indeed, not only possible, but can be accomplished by shooting in all and any given direction as accurately as one can with the off-hand.

 

And the response I was asking you respectfully for, was to shoot a sequence of targets at different ranges and tangents with your method and report your findings and suggestions. Not to make you look a bloody fool before anyone else.

 

Please. Prove your solid rest theory is good and sound by shooting as you would in the field. I assure you Chris, I would be delighted if you can.

 

That's all I'm asking you to do.

 

But don't start getting all defensive just because I've been the one to challenge it Chris. That is not my intent.

 

Best wishes and kindest regards.

 

Simon

[Manco 16]

Simon, I am merely doing some groundwork on a topic that interests me and writing up my findings in case they are of interest to others on the forum. What I have found so far has surprised me; that the springer I’m using (HW50S) can shoot accurately directly off my tall bi-pod at least out to 40 yards – the maximum range I have tried this so far. I am familiar with the accepted practice of resting the fore-end of a springer on one's hand rather than an inanimate object. This is what I normally do. But I chose to experiment with shooting one off my tall bi-pod. I have written up what I have been doing and put up a few pics. What is shown and described is what was achieved, nothing more or less than that. Matt’s point (sorry – you didn't give your first name) that the surface which the bi-pod rests on can affect accuracy is an interesting one and I intend to see how well the bi-pod/springer combo copes with various surfaces local to me. Unlike you, it seems, I approach this with an open mind. So far the ground has been pretty hard and dry where I live. In due course I intend to shoot the springer/bi-pod combo in varying conditions and put up the occasional post describing results, if this continues to be of interest to others on this forum as well as myself.

Chris

[pianoman 3,586]

Chris. Two facts about me that should be understood. I NEVER approach anything with a closed mind. 2. Neither am I labouring under anything of the misconception you began this thread by accusing those who shoot a springer with.

 

Please, by all means carry on with your investigations and if it proves successful for you that's fantastic. If it doesn't or, is only of limited success, that's how it is. At the very worst, we might agree to differ but please, you'll gain far more respect and credence for your investigations if you stop insulting your readers with accusations of closed-mindedness and labouring under misconceptions, as you gradually reveal a partly-formed, frankly naive theory. And accept their observations as helpful in establishing a conclusive outcome.

 

You are inviting me to read your findings and accept them without question. No field of proffered study can demand that. I need to see more evidence of your findings by demonstrable example. Not a point of impact that is anywhere you say it is, a few inconclusive pics of pellet groups on indeterminate targets of winebox labels, the sticks you apparently shot them off and a stated claim that you hit a pea at 40 yards among other unsubstansiated claims of accuracy in your text.

 

We have a long established view that it is very difficult to shoot a recoiling spring rifle with a degree of acceptable accuracy from a solid rest. That's been a given, proven fact for as many years as spring rifles have been around. I've tried it myself years and years ago and the bloody thing just bounces, scattering shot.

 

Now you come along and challenge all that, by saying you have shot a recoiling spring rifle with a bipod rest with great success. A hit on a pea at 40 yards is a pretty bloody good shot by any means in my book, let alone from a solid supported rest on a couple of sticks. And thus you have my interest Sounds great!

 

And yet, when I show you the respect of reading what you have written about it thus far and found your initial narrative at fault and ask for further evidence by a more conclusive accuracy test, that would establish your findings creditably, you go all precious and defensive and accuse me of ego and closed mind bollocks!

 

Still, carry on. I'm sure we'll arrive at a happy conclusion somehow

Edited May 14, 2011 by pianoman

[andyfr1968 772]

Hmmm...

 

I think I can see the method of what you're doing, Chris. You've a much longer than normal rest and also one which does not appear to be solid so this should allow a springer to recoil in a far more natural fashion than a conventional bi-pod would.

 

I tend to shoot from a single stick when seated but the gun's always rested on my hand and never the stick itself as it's quite rigid, however I can see how your method may well work as that problem seems to have been mostly removed with your method of using such a long, flexible rest and also what looks like foam insulators.

 

Simon's dead right about conventional bi-pods and springer's not mixing. They are fine when constantly fired from the same rest and the same ground but as soon as something changes, position, ground etc, the POI will more often than not be miles out.

 

Good luck with your testing and keep posting your results

 

Cheers.

[Manco 16]

You know Simon, newcomers to the forum could be forgiven for thinking they had entered the wrong portal and stepped into a ballet school to watch two old queens doing their best to scratch each other’s eyes out. :blink:LOL So shall we agree to call it quits – or is it to be tutus at 40 paces?

 

You don’t know me at all but what I have written about my experience of shooting a springer off my tall bi-pod is factual. Whatever else I'm guilty of, I draw the line at falsifying the data.

 

However, I do take it on trust that you are a top shot with a springer. So why not give this a try: Buy, beg borrow, make or steal a pair of shooting sticks and see what you can do with one of your superb Weihrauchs out to 40 yards? To keep things comparable, I suggest a hard surface e.g. two paving slabs as a base for your sticks. (Just for comparability, my sticks are padded with high density foam where the ‘V’ cradles the fore-end of the rifle.) May I also suggest, for comparability, you shoot with your back resting against a wall, tree or other support, as I do. If you do not equal or surpass my results at 40 yards (in other words kick my ass ) I will agree to send you a fiver. I think I still have one. What do you say Simon?

 

ATB Chris

[pianoman 3,586]

Save your money fella and TuTus away, I'm not accusing you of falsifying anything Chris. I just asked for more conclusive results than you've shown so far. At no point have I cast aspersions on your shooting skill level. If you read what I've actually stated, I want you to succeed and disprove what has been an absolute rule against spring rifles for decades. You need better data than you've used so far, and I merely made a suggestion that would help you get it. I'm trying to get you to use varying changes of range and direction to see how much you zero will be affected. If at all or, by how drastically.

 

That's all. Nothing more.

 

Complete your experiment and we'll see what you finally arrive at as a conclusion mate .

 

I won't take up the sticks bit just yet. I have nothing to prove to anyone as a rifle shot, as neither have you and, I know I will shoot far better without them, regardless of your own findings.

 

Putting my thinking cap on though, as Andy has already motioned towards, the length of the sticks will perhaps have a less pronounced effect on the recoil of the rifle than short, prone level ones. Something to do with greater oscillation travel length being better absorbed and dampened over the length of the stick you are using. Also the weight of the Weihrauch rifle you are using will go some way to dampening the shock further.

 

I can see why your Gamo bit the dust early on. Too light a rifle to act against the level of recoil oscillation. Does it have a plastic stock by any chance? That would definately work against it too. I doubt that rifle would ever work unless you padded the sticks in cotton wool!

 

Best wishes.

Simon