Posts Tagged ‘Eley Wasp pellets’
Air Venturi Tech Force M12 combo: Part 5
by Tom Gaylord, a.k.a. B.B. Pelletier
The new Tech Force M12 breakbarrel is a new midrange springer from Air Venturi.
Today’s report is an important one, but it may be confusing until you hear the whole story. The last time I reported on this Tech Force M12 combo was back on November 19 of last year. A lot has happened with this rifle since then, and I’ve kept daily readers informed of what’s been going on, but it would have been easy to overlook and even easier to forget. So I’ll summarize.
The M12 I’m testing is a drooper, and I first had to solve that problem. Once I did, I noticed it threw fliers. I cleaned the barrel — but it got no better. I tightened all the screws — again, no change. I cleaned the barrel with JB Non-Embedding Bore Cleaning Compound — and still there was no improvement. Then, I shot the gun just to break it in — again, no change.
All of this work took a lot of time, as I was testing and reporting on other guns. I also set the rifle aside for weeks at a time out of sheer frustration. In late January of this year, I decided to have another go at discovering what the problem was. I had to locate a drooper scope because, by this time, I’d used the scope that was on this rifle for other tests. I reread the early reports and discovered that this rifle had shot very well at 10 meters with JSB Exact RS pellets. So, that was the pellet I tested, but at 25 yards.
Pay attention!
At 25 yards, I got several groups that had a bunch of shots close together and then some fliers. But one group stood apart as extraordinary. Seven of the 10 shots were in an extremely small group, and 3 others were huge fliers. This was what I had been looking for. When you see something like this, it tells you the rifle wants to shoot, but something is interfering intermittently.
The group at the top left with the one shot that isn’t quite touching is 7 shots from 25 yards. That’s a 0.439-inch group. The other 3 holes are fliers shot at the same time. This is a clear indication of a problem.
I looked down through the muzzlebrake with a powerful flashlight and saw the real barrel muzzle deep inside. It appeared very rough, plus I could see bright bits of lead clinging to the inside rear edge of the muzzlebrake. I showed this to Edith, and she confirmed what I was seeing.
Apparently, the crown of the muzzle of my rifle was uneven and was causing pellets to wobble just a tiny bit when they left the barrel. A few of them were hitting the inside rear edge of the muzzlebrake, causing them to destabilize in a big way. Those were the random fliers I was seeing.
I communicated this to Pyramyd Air. Gene, the tech manager, took apart an M12 to look at the crown. He said it looked rough to him, as well. He crowned it and sent me the barrel to exchange with the barrel in my rifle.
The barrel Gene sent is .22 caliber, while my rifle is .177, but that makes no difference. One barrel works as well as another, as they’re the same size on the outside. I followed Gene’s instructions and switched barrels in 15 minutes. I didn’t have to disassemble the rifle because of how it’s made.
Once I got the original barrel out of the gun, I could see that the muzzle wasn’t as rough as I’d thought. I had seen grease on the end of the muzzle when I looked down inside, and it looked like rough metal to me. The muzzle is finished rather well, but the actual crown, which is a chamfer cut into the bore, is cut on an angle rather than perpendicular with the bore. It allows compressed air to escape the muzzle on one side of the pellet before the other.
The muzzle of the .177-caliber barrel that came in the rifle was crowned lopsided. The chamfer appears narrow at the bottom of the muzzle. That’s not an optical illusion — it really does grow narrow there!
It may be hard to see in this photo, but this crown is even all around the bore. This is the .22-caliber barrel sent to me by Pyramyd Air.
Following the assembly of the barrel to the rifle, I remounted the scope and proceeded to start my sight-in. I decided to test the .22 barrel with JSB Exact RS pellets, as well. One shot at 10 feet was all it took…and I was on target. Two more shots at 10 meters and I was sighted-in. Next, I shot a 10-shot group. The rifle behaved very stable and did not appear to throw any wild shots.
The 10-meter group I shot was consistent, if not terribly small. But the lack of fliers, even at 10 meters, gives me hope that the crowning of the barrel has solved the problem.
Ten shots at 10 meters gave me this group with the recrowned .22-caliber barrel. This gives me hope that the problem has been fixed.
Test is not finished.
By no means is this report finished. I still need to shoot several groups at 25 yards to see what the M12 can really do. I have no idea what the best .22-caliber pellet might be. After rereading the first two parts of this report, I see that I very much liked the way the gun handles. That’s still true. It lacks the two-bladed Mendoza trigger — and that’s a shame, but the trigger it has isn’t that bad. Obviously, I’m able to use it.
I now have both a .22-caliber barrel and a .177-caliber barrel that fit on the same powerplant. If I can hold onto them both, I may be able to get a little more milage from this gun. First, I could do a redneck crowning job on the .177 barrel and report how well that works.
Next, I could test the .22 barrel for velocity and then swap barrels and retest the .177 barrel to get a comparison between calibers from the same gun. I’ve always been able to do that with my Whiscombe, of course, but this is more of a real-world air rifle to which many can relate.
I know there are several shooters who wanted the M12 to be a great buy, and my early tests didn’t bear that out. If they’ve continued to follow this blog, they’ll get the chance to see how the story ends!
Cometa Fusion Premier Star .22-caliber breakbarrel air rifle: Part 4
by Tom Gaylord, a.k.a. B.B. Pelletier
The Cometa Fusion Premier Star is stunning! This is the actual test rifle.
Well, today is do or die for the Cometa Fusion Premier Star air rifle. The last report was back in early November of last year, but that doesn’t mean I haven’t been working on the gun. Several times, I’ve started a test, thinking that I finally got the scope movement problem resolved — and each time a problem has cropped up. If I didn’t believe this rifle had potential, I would have given up long ago; but the .177 version of the rifle — the regular Cometa Fusion air rifle, was so accurate that I felt this one had to be, as well. Today, we’ll find out if it was worth the effort.
Thanks to Kevin
I want to publicly thank blog reader Kevin for all his help with this troublesome test. He sent me an adjustable mount that unfortunately did not hold on the test rifle, but he made a special scope stop pin that will be used today. If you read the past reports, you’ll discover that this rifle has a severe drooping problem. It needs as much scope alignment correction as you can possibly get. I used a special UTG drooping scope base that’s a prototype you cannot buy for today’s test, but I only did so to accommodate Kevin’s stop pin. You should be good with any droop-compensating mount as long as you have the right scope stop pin to fit the gun. I’ll say more on that in a moment, but first let me admit this is the very first air rifle I’ve seen that could defeat the BKL mounts. The one I tried slipped off the gun in five shots. In fairness to BKL, though, this rifle also broke other scope stop pins — and in one case dragged one through the top of the spring tube until it popped free. So, this is a special case.
Kevin made this scope stop pin for the Cometa. It saved the day!
Those are NOT scope stop pin holes!
Well, excuse me! Those four holes on top of the spring tube that I thought all along were scope stop holes must not be there for that purpose; because if you insert a stop pin too far through any one of them, you’ll bind the action. The gun will not cock! So, not only are they too small in diameter, they’re also very critical of the depth to which the stop pin is inserted! I took some pictures to show you what I mean.
Looking down through the rear “scope stop pin” holes, you can see parts that move when the rifle is cocked. You can also see where, in an earlier attempt to anchor a scope, a pin ripped out of the rear hole.
Looking down through the front “scope stop pin” holes reveals the mainspring coils. The gun will lock up and fail to cock if you insert a scope stop pin too deep in these holes.
Nevertheless, I was able to engage one of the front holes enough to finally anchor the scope base, thanks to Kevin’s pin. Now, it was possible to do some shooting.
Is the bore too large?
I did several things to prepare the Fusion Premier Star for this test. I cleaned the barrel with J-B bore paste. I also tightened the barrel in the fork, so it’ll stay wherever it is put after the rifle’s cocked. That’s the test of a properly tight pivot point — one that will keep the breech sealed upon firing. But since none of the scope mounts have worked until today, none of my shooting before today has been successful.
I also began to wonder if Cometa had used a .22 rimfire barrel for this rifle. That would explain the failure to group because the bore of a .22 rimfire is about 5 thousandths too large for normal pellets. A .22-caliber pellet rifle bore is supposed to be no larger than 0.218 inches in diameter, where a .22 rimfire barrel is 0.223 inches across. It makes such a huge difference that there is no chance of shooting well with the rimfire barrel and standard pellets.
H&N Field Target Trophy
Because of that, I decided to test the rifle with overly large pellets, as well as normal-sized pellets, to see if there was any obvious difference. The first pellet I tried at 25 yards was the H&N Field Target Trophy with a large 5.55mm head. Pyramyd Air has these pellets with head sizes of 5.52, 5.53, 5.54 and 5.55mm.
I was using the pellets with the 5.55mm head. They loaded very tight in the breech, as you might imagine. The first group of 10 I shot was large, but inside the main group were 5 rounds in a smaller hole. That prompted me to shoot a second 10-shot group, which showed me what this pellet is capable of.
The main group is a little large, at 1.432 inches between centers, but the five in one hole are just 0.456 inches apart.
Here are 10 H&N Field Target Trophies in a 0.883-inch group. I think this is what the rifle is capable of at 25 yards.
JSB Exact 15.9-grain
Next, I tried the 15.9-grain JSB Exact dome that often does so well in .22-caliber spring-piston rifles. I stopped after just three shots, and I’m showing you those shots so you know why I stopped. I know many of you feel that the barrel needs to be “seasoned” with each new pellet — meaning that a number of pellets must be shot before any official recording can be done — but this spread is already larger than 2 inches, and I’m saying that seasoning isn’t going to help things that much.
Yes, I really do shoot those other groups that aren’t always shown. I doubt “seasoning” the bore will save this pellet. JSB Exact 15.9-grain dome.
5.56mm Eley Wasp
Was this a .22 rimfire barrel? It was starting to look like it, because the larger H&Ns did well and the JSBs did so poorly. But the proof of the pudding is to shoot the largest pellet of all and see what happens. That would be the obsolete 5.56mm Eley Wasp. If it also shoots well, then I’m thinking the barrel is a rimfire barrel.
Well, Wasps were not good. They made the same 2-inch spread the JSBs did with only three shots, so I stopped shooting them. I won’t show the shots because you know what a 2-inch group looks like. But at least I believe this barrel is not from a rimfire.
Beeman Kodiaks
Next, I wanted to try a heavy pellet that’s not necessarily a large one — the Beeman Kodiak. They fit the breech well — neither too large nor too small. And the first three shots were looking good, but shot 4 went to the right. In the end, I had a horizontal group that was a little large, but stayed at the same height for all 10 shots. I don’t think the Kodiak is the right pellet for this rifle.
Beeman Kodiaks weren’t terrible — they just weren’t as good as the H&N Field Target Trophies. This one measures 1.202 inches between centers.
Overall evaluation
I was disappointed by the .22-caliber Fusion after the .177 had done so well. In the end, I did get the rifle to shoot, but it took every trick in the book to get there. I can recommend the .177 version of this rifle, because I really like the adjustable cheekpiece and the adjustable trigger. But the .22 took too much to get it to shoot.
Falke 90 test: Part 4
by Tom Gaylord, a.k.a. B.B. Pelletier
Falke 90 underlever rifle is a German spring-piston gun from the early 1950s.
Cometa Fusion .22 update
Before I begin, I want to update you on the Cometa Fusion Premier Star report that I’m doing. The fifth accuracy test failed because the scope moved — again! Kevin sent me a special base that people on the internet were having success with, but alas, it did not stay put on the rifle I’m testing.
The vertical scope stop pin on this base is 0.137 inches in diameter, and the stop pin hole on the rifle is 0.111 inches; so, the stop pin cannot enter the hole. As I’ve said many times in the past — no amount of clamping pressure, alone, is enough to hold a scope base from moving, except when BKL mounts of the correct size are used. Unfortunately, I don’t have any of them with enough droop to compensate for this rifle.
I do, however, think this mount base will work because it does have the amount of droop that I need for the rifle. When I come home from the SHOT Show, my plan is to grind the base pin thinner so it will fit into the hole. If that doesn’t work, I don’t know what I can do that I haven’t already tried. Remember, I’m doing this because I believe the rifle is accurate and would be a wonderful value if I can just get the scope to stay put.
On to the Falke
I started this report on the Falke 90 because I hadn’t really shot it that much since getting it in 2010. Vince fixed it for me, and Mac did the accuracy test. I got the rifle back from Mac, but there wasn’t anything to do that hadn’t been done. So, this year I had the stock restored, and that was a huge project for Doug Phillips at DAMAGEDWOODSTOCKS. Then, I thought I would test the rifle as though I’d just bought it because, essentially, that’s what happened!
I learned in Part 2 that the velocity and stability of the rifle were affected by the depth the pellet was seated into the loading tap. And the Falke’s tap is a small one, compared to other taps I’ve used, so the seating depth is more variable in this rifle with most pellets. Most pellets fall into the tap and stop at different depths, and often they aren’t in far enough to close the tap without damaging the pellet. That will become important in this test.
RWS Superpoint
The first pellet I tried is the one that I always shoot in Hakim rifles, which are very similar to this one. It’s the 14.5-grain RWS Superpoint. I expected to get the same performance from this rifle as I got from more than a dozen Hakims over the years. Alas, that didn’t happen. The tighter loading tap on the Falke meant I had to seat the pellets manually to clear the tap, and the results at 10 meters, rested, were not that good. Ten shots made a group that measures 1.124 inches between centers. As you can see, it’s an open group with scattered hits that tend toward the vertical.
RWS Superpoints did not prove accurate in the Falke 90.
JSB Exact 15.9-grain
I won’t even show a target for the JSB Exact 15.9-grain domes because the pellets went all over the place. I didn’t even finish the group.
RWS Superdome
Next, I tried RWS Superdomes, but they weren’t much better than Superpoints. They did give a smaller group, at 0.861 inches between centers, but that’s only good by comparison. I’m looking for better accuracy from this Falke because I think it’s there. Oh, yeah, also because Mac got much better accuracy in his test!
This is better but still not as good as I’m expecting. RWS Superdome pellets.
The iron sights are fighting me
At this point in the test, I had to admit the iron sights on the rifle were working against me. I simply could not adjust them high enough to get the pellets centered in the bull at 10 meters. I remember that Mac used a red dot sight he mounted to the rifle, and I may need to do the same to get the groups I’m looking for. That will have to be another test because this one was already taking a lot of time and I wasn’t finished.
What did Mac do?
When Mac tested the rifle he found that the obsolete 5.6mm Eley Wasp pellet shot best. In fact, it wasn’t close. He got a group with Superdomes like I did, though he shot from 15 yards rather than 11 (which is 10 meters). So, the next pellet I tried was the Eley Wasp.
Eley Wasps
Eley Wasps are much larger than other .22-caliber pellets, so imagine my surprise when the first one fell deep enough into the tap to not require seating. After that, though, I seated every pellet to the bottom of the tap. Perhaps this is why Mac was telling me to do this! I didn’t appreciate it during the velocity test, when deep seating made the velocities more variable; but in the accuracy test, look what happened! Nine of the 10 pellets went into an almost single hole that measures 0.695 inches between centers. And the 10th shot is way low. It opens the group to 1.029 inches. Want to guess that this is the first shot that wasn’t seated deeply? I don’t know if it is, because I didn’t look at the target before I completed it. I only saw this when I went downrange to retrieve the target for photography and measuring…but I think it is.
Nine in 0.695 inches, and one below opens it to 1.029 inches. I don’t know, but I’m guessing the one I didn’t seat deeply was the stray shot.
What have I learned so far?
The Falke is certainly a different air rifle, and it doesn’t turn out to be what I thought it would be. I like the feel of Hakim rifles better than this one. They seem to shoot smoother, and their triggers are easier to adjust. Still, I don’t think I’ve completely mastered the Falke 90 yet.
This reminds me very much of a .22-caliber BSF Bavaria S54 taploader I used to own. It had a huge diopter rear sight, yet couldn’t hold a candle to a plain old Diana 27 for accuracy. Just because a rifle is a rare and vintage gun is no guarantee that it will also be a smooth and accurate shooter.
I do think that I need to try the Falke again, and this time with a dot sight mounted. And I’ll deep-seat Eley Wasps from the start and not worry about whether or not there are other good pellets.
This is a learning experience — that’s for sure!
Falke 90 test: Part 3
by Tom Gaylord, a.k.a. B.B. Pelletier
Falke 90 underlever rifle is a German spring-piston gun from the early 1950s.
This report is my test of the .22-caliber Falke 90 underlever air rifle I acquired a few years ago. When I got it, the rifle wasn’t working, so blog reader Vince offered to fix it for me. After he finished, he took it to my friend Mac, who tested it. I’ve owned this rifle for several years and never really tested it myself, and I thought it was about time to do so.
I recently had the stock restored by Doug Phillips, who did a wonderful job. Now, I have a nice-looking underlever spring rifle as well as one that works well, so today we’re going to look at its velocity. And we’re going to do more than that because Mac told me some things about the gun that have shaped today’s test. Why don’t I share them with you now?
The Falke 90 is an underlever, which means there is a separate lever to cock the mainspring. In the Falke 90, it’s hidden by the stock — very much like the BSA Airsporter and the Hakim, which are both related to the Falke. All three rifles are loaded through a tap that rotates open automatically when the lever is cocked. That provides a place to drop the pellet, nose-first. Then the tap is manually rotated closed, the pellet aligns with the breech (in front) and the air transfer port (behind the pellet). Let’s talk about that tap for a bit.
Tap alignment
The tap opens by a mechanical projection on the cocking linkage that pushes the tap as it passes it during cocking. I think the remarkable thing is that it stays in adjustment over hundreds of thousands of shots and scores of years of use. My tap is still aligned perfectly, so I don’t have to do anything except drop a pellet nose-first into it and then rotate it closed to align with the barrel.
There can be a problem with a tap, however. The pellet chamber in it can be so exact that pellets don’t fall all the way in when they’re just dropped in. This is what Mac pointed out to me about this rifle. My taploader experience has been with the Hakim rifle, which has a generous pellet chamber and seldom has a problem — unless the pellet skirt is bent. Then, the pellet won’t fall into the tap’s pellet chamber as far as it should; and when you rotate the tap closed, you’ll catch and bend the pellet’s skirt. But the pellet chamber on the Falke 90 tap is very small and may or may not accept the pellet as far as it needs to — to clear the receiver when the tap is rotated closed.
Mac told me to watch for that problem and to make sure each pellet made it into the pellet chamber as far as it needed for clearance. He advised me to use an instrument to push each pellet as far into the tap chamber as it would go — thus clearing the skirt when the tap rotated closed.
This pellet was dropped into the tap and failed to enter the pellet chamber far enough to clear the end of the pellet skirt when the tap is closed.
Here the pellet has been pushed into the tap as far as it will go. This pellet will easily clear the gun when the tap is closed.
This tap business got me wondering about the affect on velocity. Would a deep-seated pellet be better (faster and more consistent), or would a pellet that has just been dropped into the tap do better? I’m sure you can come to your conclusions quickly enough, so let’s test a couple pellets and see what really happens.
RWS Superpoints
I began shooting RWS Superpoints when I got my first Hakim. They seemed like the perfect pellet for that rifle because they have thin skirts that will flare out from a smaller blast of air and also because they just dropped deeply into the Hakim tap. Other pellets were too small for the Hakim tap and failed to produce adequate velocity because much of the air compressed by the piston slipped past them in the barrel.
In the Falke 90, however, it’s a different story. The pellet chamber in the loading tap is very small, and Superpoints do not usually drop in far enough to close the tap. Many of them need to be seated mechanically. So, I tested them two ways. First, as just dropped in but not pushed deep and second as pushed into the tap as deep as they would go.
Very few of the pellets fell into the tap deep enough by themselves to close the tap, so even in the first test there was some pushing that had to take place. Perhaps 6 pellets had to be pushed into the tap a little while 4 fell in deep enough on their own. This string of what I’m calling unseated pellets averaged 476 f.p.s. and ranged from 465 to 484 f.p.s. That is a spread of 19 f.p.s. At the average velocity, this pellet and loading method generated 7.3 foot-pounds of muzzle energy.
Next, I tried pushing the pellets into the tap as deep as they would go. Now, I bet you think they’re going to go faster than the unseated pellets. Right? Well, they did one foot-per-second faster! Yes, the average for seated pellets was 477 f.p.s., and the spread went from 461 to 493 f.p.s. So the range was 32 f.p.s. And the average muzzle energy was 7.33 foot-pounds. Not much difference, is there?
JSB Exact RS pellets
The other pellet I tried was the lighter JSB Exact RS pellet, which in .22 caliber weighs 13.4 grains. This is a pure lead pellet, like the Superpoint, and it also has a thin skirt. But the Exact pellet is smaller than the Superpoint. These pellets fell into the tap far enough to close without any damage every time.
On the first test, where the pellet was just dropped in, the Exact RS averaged 453 f.p.s. The range went from 445 to 463, so a spread of 18 f.p.s. At the average velocity, this pellet generated 6.11 foot-pounds. And no mechanical seating was necessary.
On the second test, where the pellet was pushed into the tap as far as it would go, this pellet averaged 457 f.p.s., but the spread was much larger — ranging from a low of 448 to a high of 484 f.p.s. So, the velocity varied by 36 f.p.s. At the average velocity, this pellet produced 6.22 foot-pounds of energy at the muzzle.
What do these numbers tell us about the rifle?
For starters, I hope you realize that this was not a normal velocity test that produced standard numbers. The way the pellet fits the loading tap has a tremendous effect on the outcome. I believe that will probably carry over into the accuracy test, as well, so I wanted to try one more test. What would happen if I flared the skirts of every pellet before loading it into the tap, and then I pushed each pellet to the bottom of the tap? Wouldn’t that give me the best sealing of the pellet to the bore? Mac thought it would. But only one way to know for sure. I had to test it. And I decided to test both pellets, as I could see no compelling reason to choose one over the other.
RWS Superpoints flared and deep-seated
Superpoints averaged 474 f.p.s. when their skirts were flared, and they were then seated as deep as they would go into the tap. That puts them in about the same place as the pellets that were just dropped into the tap and those that were intentionally seated deep. But here’s where it gets interesting. The range went from a low of 464 f.p.s. to a high of 504 f.p.s. I’m not looking at the 40 foot per second velocity spread as much as I am the four pellets that topped 490 f.p.s. Clearly, flaring the skirts has an effect, but I must not have done it uniformly enough to make a difference.
JSB Exact RS pellets flared and deep-seated
The JSB Exact RS pellets are more flared to begin with. Even though their skirts are not quite as wide as those on the Superpoints, they lend themselves to flaring much better. These pellets averaged 487 f.p.s., which is a 20 f.p.s. increase over just seating the unflared pellets deeply. The range went from a low of 465 f.p.s. to a high of 501 f.p.s. Four pellets were at or above 500 f.p.s. Again, there must have been some inconsistency in the flaring, but the RS pellets did seem to respond better to the process.
Trigger-pull
Normally, I report on the trigger-pull in the velocity report, but I’m not going to do that today. The Falke 90 has an adjustable trigger that works on the sear contact area; and during the test, the trigger-pull went from being very light to not staying cocked. So I adjusted it heavy for safety’s sake. A taploader is safe because, until the loading tap is aligned with the bore, the pellet will not move; so when the gun fired on its own several times, there was no problem. But if I were to adjust it to a light pull, I might then close the tap before the gun is on target — and that’s dangerous if the gun then fires on its own! So, I’ll adopt a procedure with this rifle of not closing the tap until the sights are on target.
I’m also having difficulty with the trigger because the trigger return spring isn’t sufficient to push the trigger blade into lockup with the sear. When I cock the rifle, I also have to push the trigger blade forward to engage the safety. That may be because the new wood is a little tight in the trigger region. It’s something I need to look at.
The rifle is shooting well thus far, with the exceptions noted. The next report will be accuracy, and for that Mac has set the bar very high.
Falke 90 test: Part 2
by Tom Gaylord, a.k.a. B.B. Pelletier
Announcement: Wesley Santiago is this week’s winner of Pyramyd Air’s Big Shot of the Week on their airgun facebook page. He’ll receive a $50 Pyramyd Air gift card. Congratulations!
Wesley Santiago is this week’s Big Shot of the Week on Pyramyd Air’s facebook page. He’s holding an AirForce Airguns Talon SS air rifle.
Falke 90 before restoration.
A funny thing happened as I was writing this report. I mentioned at the end of the last part that I was thinking of restoring the stock that was so beat up, and many readers raised their voices in unison to say “NO!” Okay, I admit that I’m not the finest woodworker in the world, but you don’t all need to agree so emphatically. And so quickly!
Kevin wrote me a message, pleading and trying to reason with me that this poor old rifle had suffered enough and deserved the touch of a master’s hand rather than the collateral damage I would no doubt inflict. And he even provided me with a name — Doug Phillips.
Doug lives in Houston, as it turns out, (I live in the same state), and he works at a business he calls DamagedWoodstocks, which sounded exactly like what I had. How did he know? I contacted him after looking over the photos on his website. Turns out that he works with a lot of damaged airgun stocks, and he can work near-miracles.
I emailed him and sent along some photos to give him an idea of the scope of the job. But by my own ignorance, I omitted the really bad news and poor Doug had to discover that for himself after quoting the job. I did tell him he could revise his estimate after he saw the stock because I don’t think either of us appreciated just how much work was going to be involved. So, this report is my penance for telling such a big fib — even if it was by omission and because I don’t know enough about woodworking to start a good campfire.
The stock
The Falke 90 stock was covered with scars, gouges and cracks; it also had missing wood and the initials of some former owner. It was so ugly that it detracted from the fact that the airgun it held is rarer than a One of One-Thousand Winchester rifle! If this were a firearm, it would be worth thousands of dollars. It would be one of those you see on TV where they say, “Even in this condition, this rifle is so rare that it still commands a high price.” But it isn’t a firearm. It’s an airgun, and I was unable to get any bites on it when I offered it for $250 at the 2012 Roanoke Airgun Show a couple months ago. Several major collectors looked at it sitting on my table as though it was a carrier of the Black Plague. That why I resolved to do something.
These initials were stamped into the left checkered panel of the rifle. I considered this the major damage, but I was wrong.
The right side of the butt shows a pleasing grain, but the dark stain and heavy varnish obscure it.
That crack in front of the triggerguard is the real problem with this stock. Under the triggerguard plate, about 90 percent of the original wood is missing!
This view of the left side of the butt shows the general poor condition of the wood. See the deep gouges that had to be dealt with? They’re all over the stock.
These are a few selected views of the gun that went to Doug. I have more, but to keep this report manageable, I’m not showing them.
After Doug received the stock, we chatted via email and I learned that the trigger plate inlettting that I shrugged off was his biggest concern. I shrugged it off because I reckoned that nobody could ever do anything about it anyway, so why whine over something that can’t be fixed? That was when I found out what kind of guy Doug is. He said he would study the stock for several days and then formulate a repair plan.
This is what Doug was faced with. Ninety percent of the trigger plate in the stock is missing.
Good to his word, he did contact me a couple days later and said that he had a plan for the stock. We talked a bit about how I would like it to look when it was finished, and I opted for a warmer, lighter color for the wood and not so much shiny finish over everything. That stuff can make a masterpiece look like cheap plastic!
A week later, Doug sent me a report with a couple photos. In three of them, I saw the great lengths he was going to in order to fix the rifle’s inletting at the trigger. As it turned out, he fashioned a metal plate and set it in place for the inletting of the trigger group. Then he epoxied it in place. It is also held in place by metal pins.
The trigger plate was completely rebuilt, with steel pins to reinforce it.
Once the plate was in position, it was epoxied in place.
To strengthen the area where the crack was, he put in a cross pin.
I screwed up!
I was having the work done by someone else, so how could I screw up the job? Well, funny you should ask. Doug told me that he needed the rifle’s action to measure and check the new inletting, so I quickly wrapped it up and sent it off. And quickly is the clue, because I didn’t pack the 6 lb., 10 oz. action well enough. By the time it travelled 400 miles to him, it had punched a hole in the end of the box and dented the end of the steel end cap. Sure it was insured, but try finding replacement parts for a Falke 90!
Due to my poor packing, the Falke action punched through the side of the box and dented the end cap.
Doug repaired the dent so it’s not visible when the rifle is assembled. It wasn’t part of what he signed up to do — just a dirty little job he inherited from me.
You can’t tell the end cap was ever dented.
The initials
The things I worried about the most were probably some of the easier fixes for Doug — at least in retrospect. He used sawdust from the stock mixed with epoxy to fill in the depressions, then he smoothed down the top of the repair and recut the checkering just like the original. He even left flattened diamonds, so the work looks vintage and not new.
The staining of the repaired panel was a very touchy part of this repair, because epoxy doesn’t accept stain like the wood around it. But he managed to do it perfectly. I cannot tell where the initials ever were.
This is the panel that had the initials. They’re gone, and it doesn’t look like a new repair. The man is brilliant!
The gun is back
Doug worked diligently on this project, and it wasn’t too long before I had the rifle back in my possession. I expected the work to take much longer than it did, and I’m not promising that Doug will be able to complete every job this fast. But he communicated with me often, and I appreciated that as much as the work, itself.
The restored stock shows clear grain on the right butt.
On the left butt, the dents and scratches are gone.
The trigger inletting is the most spectacular thing that was done. Doug Phillips built it up from nothing!
This blog is supposed to be a report about the Falke 90 air rifle — a rifle that, because of circumstances, I’ve never actually tested myself. And when I started to look at it and shoot it for this report, it was very much like discovering that the mousy girl who lives next door is actually a raving beauty. I know I’m hooked, and I have Marv Freund (who initially sold me the rifle), Mac (who originally tested it for me), Kevin Lentz (who told me about Doug Phillips) and of course Doug, himself, to thank for this story.
The report will continue where I left off when this restoration project began. And if any of you have rifle stocks in need of repair, I wholeheartedly recommend Doug Phillips for the work. I purposely have not told you how much he charged for this job because every restoration will be different. If you have an airgun stock or a firearm stock in need of the master’s touch, contact Doug and find out what he can do for you.
I would say the Falke 90 looks a lot better after the stock was restored!
Air Venturi Tech Force M12 combo: Part 4
by Tom Gaylord, a.k.a. B.B. Pelletier
The new Tech Force M12 breakbarrel is a new midrange springer from Air Venturi.
I usually have a handle on the gun by the time Part 4 rolls around. But, today, I’m still stymied by the Tech Force M12 breakbarrel. I’ll tell you all I’ve done to make sure this rifle is on the beam; but when I tell you my results, I think you’ll see I’m not there yet.
Big droop!
I discovered in Part 3 that the M12 I’m testing is a big drooper. That means it shoots very low relative to where the scope is looking. For today’s test, I installed a B-Square adjustable scope mount that has a huge downward angle to bring the point of impact back up to the aim point. It worked well enough for the test, so I proceeded to shoot several different types of pellets — trying all kinds of hand holds and even resting the rifle directly on the sandbag.
Here’s a list of the pellets I tried: (10-shot groups with each)
Beeman Kodiaks
Beeman Kodiak Hollowpoints
RWS Superdomes
Crosman Premier 10.5-grain
Crosman Premier 7.9-grain
JSB Exact RS
JSB Exact 8.4-grain
JSB Exact 10.3-grain
RWS Hobby
Beeman Trophy (an obsolete domed pellet)
Eley Wasp (an obsolete domed pellet)
Best pellet
With most of these pellets, the rifle teased me with several pellets in the same hole — but a 10-shot group that was 1.5 inches and larger. A couple were all over the place and simply would not group at all. The Hobbys were probably the worst.
Only one pellet put 10 shots into 1.038 inches at 25 yards. Those were RWS Superdomes, and the hold was with my off hand back by the triggerguard, leaving the rifle very muzzle-heavy. The rifle was somewhat twitchy but not overly so.
This is the best group I shot in the test from 25 yards. It’s 10 RWS Superdomes, and the rifle is rested with my off hand touching the triggerguard.
Encouraging
The encouraging thing about this group is that I didn’t have to use a lot of technique to shoot it. I know it isn’t as tight as others I’ve shot at the same distance, and you’ll compare it to them, but I compared it to the other groups I was getting with this rifle. In that comparison, this was the best one and it was also relatively easy to shoot.
What all did I do?
For the record, here’s a list of all the things I tried to get the M12 to shoot.
Cleaned the barrel
Tightened the stock screws (they were tight)
Installed a drooper mount with a lot of down angle
Tightened the scope mount screws (and they were loose on the B-Square adjustable mount!)
Tried resting the forearm of the rifle:
On my open palm in front of the triggerguard
On my open palm under the cocking slot
Directly on the sandbag
Tried shaking the barrel to test the breech lockup (it is tight)
Tried extra relaxation with the artillery hold — which worked for a few shots, but never more than four
Tried attaching an extra weight to the barrel during each shot (with a large magnet)
So, where are we in this test?
I still think the M12 can shoot because there’s evidence of it wanting to stack its pellets. It might be that this is a rifle that needs more than a thousand shots to break in. I’ve owned a few of those. The Beeman C1 from Webley that I used to own was such a rifle. At first it was a royal beast; but as the shot count passed 2,000, the rifle began smoothing out and transforming into something very delightful to shoot. By 4,000 shots, the trigger was very nice and the gun had no vibration to speak of. It was this very rifle that caused me to give the artillery hold its name, and I wrote the first article I ever wrote about airguns for Dr. Beeman. He didn’t respond to my submission, so I saved it and eventually wrote it up in The Airgun Letter.
I wonder if this M12 needs that kind of break-in? That’s something I haven’t done in a good many years because it takes so much of my time. But it might be interesting to see if the rifle responds to a long-term break-in. I think I’ve certainly shoot 250-300 shots at this point, because I also tested the gun at 10 meters and one time at 25 yards (it wasn’t reported). Maybe I’ll rack up some more shots to see how that affects a longer-term break-in.
Falke 90 test: Part 1
by Tom Gaylord, a.k.a. B.B. Pelletier
Announcement: Connor Moynihan is this week’s winner of Pyramyd Air’s Big Shot of the Week on their airgun facebook page. He’ll receive a $50 Pyramyd Air gift card. Congratulations!
Connor Moynihan won the BSOTW.
My Falke 90 is a well-built vintage air rifle.
If you’ve been a reader for long time, or have read the older reports, the chances are you’e read about my .22-caliber Falke 90. I ran a report titled Shooting the Falke 90 back in early 2011. The problem is that I didn’t shoot the rifle for that test. That was back at the end of my illness, and my good friend Mac graciously stepped in and shot the rifle. Plus, he wrote up the data so I could write the test report because I couldn’t cock a spring rifle at that time. Blog reader Vince had just tuned the rifle for me back then and reported on that in a three-part report titled It’s not my Falke in very early 2011.
So, a lot has been said about my Falke 90. The thing is that I didn’t have much to do with what was said! I never really tested the gun, because as I’ve stated, I was unable to cock it. This came to my attention at the Roanoke airgun show a couple weeks ago, where Mac and I discussed the rifle at length.
Mac says the rifle feels like a .22 rimfire when it shoots. Now, if I knew he wasn’t experienced with vintage springers, I would pass off a statement like that, but Mac knows as much as I do about vintage airguns. There must be something to it.
Then, I re-read Vince’s three-part report on fixing the gun. All along, I had in my mind that the Falke was almost exactly the same as a Hakim, and there were many similarities between the two air rifles. But the Falke also has some standalone features that bear examination. I’ll point these out as I go.
So, I’m starting a look at the Falke 90 from my own perspective. I bet I haven’t shot the gun 100 times since it came back from Vince, so this will be a learning experience for me, as well as for those who follow along. Let’s begin with a brief look at the company that made this air rifle.
History
The history will have to be brief, because not a lot is known about the Falke company. We know they had a catalog in 1951, and the models 80 and 90 (both underlevers, with the 90 being the top model) were not listed. But in a 1952 catalog, both are listed as new offerings. The Falke company operated in Bennsigen, Germany, during the 1950s. If the 1952 date is correct (and it can’t be later than that, can it?), the Falke 90 pre-dates by several years the Hakim made by Anschütz.
We also know that the BSA Airsporter that also resembles the Falke 90 was first made in the late 1940s — so it was the first airgun to use this type of underlever design. Therefore, the chronology goes –> BSA Airsporter, Falke 80/90 and the Hakim last.
Writer W.H.B. Smith said in Gas, Air and Spring Guns of the World, regarding the Falke 80/90, that no finer or more powerful airgun existed at the time (1957). He did see the BSA Airsporter, but I can’t tell if he ever looked inside one. Vince, though, has seen the inside of all three guns — the first variation Airsporter, my Falke 90 and several Hakims. It’s his opinion that the BSA is superior to both other rifles in the quality of the build. I must refrain from this discussion, since the earliest Airsporter of which I’ve seen the insides was a 5th variation. It was not up to the standards of the Falke 90 but was about the equal of the Hakim, in my opinion.
The one interesting thing about both the model 80 and model 90 is their rarity. There are suspected to be only 400 model 80s ever made and fewer than 200 model 90s. A lack of information about the company prevents us from knowing for certain how many were made, plus there are duplicate serial numbers in both model ranges. A worldwide serial number registration exists on the Falke Talk forum. My rifle is number 39…and as of this date, there’s no duplicate.
The serial number is on the lever of the loading tap, among other places.
What makes the 90?
I keep referring to the 80 and 90 together, but what differentiates them? Their actions are similar, but they do have differences. The 80 has a sporting type open adjustable rear sight, while the 90 has a precision diopter. My rifle has the sight that belongs on an 80, and I see that many Falke owners share my situation. There are more 90s than there are diopter sights for them, so either Falke sold them with the sporter sights at some time, or they have been lost over the years and replaced with the lesser sporter sight.
The sporter sight is a beautiful thing by itself, and it is one point of departure from the Hakim that has a far simpler rear sight. The Falke sight is mostly machined, while the Hakim is mostly made from stamped parts. Both are fine by today’s standards; but in a side-by-side comparison, the win goes to Falke. I wish I had a diopter sight for my rifle, but they are so scarce that people have actually machined them from steel just to have one!
Heavy and machined — the rear sight is exactly what an airgunner wants to see.
The stock is another point of departure for the Falke 90 — not just from the Hakim, but also from its own sibling, the Falke 80. We all know the Hakim has a military-looking stock, because it was built as a military trainer for the Egyptian army that was armed with the 8mm Hakim semiautomatic battle rifle at the time. The Hakim also has an upper handguard, even though it is completly unnecessary on an airgun.
The Falke 80 has a nice sporter stock made from elm. It resembles the BSA Airsporter stock a little. But the Falke 90 has an in-your-face walnut stock with thick cross-section and high cheekpiece. The wood is well-executed and hand checkered and wears the Falke logo proudly. On my rifle, unfortunately, some budding folk artist decided to give the Mona Lisa a second coat of paint, by carving his initials into the checkered panel on the left side of the forearm. Or at least he started to! Then I suppose he found a freeway overpass to deface and lost his focus. That vandalism makes my rifle look like a beater, despite the fiddleback grain in the walnut.
So, I am resolving to fix this problem, by refinishing the stock. I’ll take pictures as I go; and if you never hear about the rifle again, you’ll know I turned the stock into kindling.
This rifle is large and heavy — 9 lbs. on the nose and with a longer pull than the Hakim at 13.5 inches. The barrel measures 19 inches and the length overall is 44 inches. It has sling swivels built in, with the forward swivel attached to the fixed barrel. They’re the thin 3/4-inch European type that were in vogue in the 1950s.
Mac has already reported some velocity numbers for RWS Superdomes. They averaged 490 f.p.s. with a spread from 481 to 494 f.p.s. And the Eley Wasps he tested averaged 474 f.p.s., though their spread went from 451 to 500 f.p.s. The Wasps are fatter pellets, and Mac had better luck with them in the accuracy test — but I want to say something about that. I’ve discovered that the loading tap on this rifle is not overly large. I’m used to pellets falling into the tap of a Hakim, but those same pellets have to be pushed into this rifle’s tap. So, it may prefer different pellets than have been tried so far. I’ll have some fun finding that out for you.
Impressions so far
Like I said, I haven’t shot this rifle enough yet to know it very well, but I can already tell you that it isn’t a Hakim. It’s similar, but finish and fit is better in every critical place. I can’t say that I agree with Mac that it feels like a .22 rimfire, but I haven’t shot it for accuracy yet. That’s when I’ll know for sure — one way or the other. What I can say at this time is that the Falke 90 is a very robust and well-made air rifle that feels good to hold and shoot. I’m going to enjoy this test.
It’s a shame that my rifle was beat up so much. Not only were the initials cut into the stock, there are numerous scratches and dents put there by a lot of careless handling. Hopefully, I can restore it to some state of respectability while enjoying it at the same time.
