Posts Tagged ‘Gamo PBA Platinum pellets’
Testing non-lead pellets: Part 2
by B.B. Pelletier
This is a long-term test of non-lead pellets that began nearly a year ago. There’s a lot of pressure these days to abandon lead for projectiles and move to some other substance that’s not as toxic. The problem is that there isn’t any material as good as lead. Ammunition companies have been working on this project for decades, and they’ve yet to come up with a substance that can take the place of lead.
I don’t want to get into the discussion of the evils of lead in this report, but suffice to say that a lot of what’s being said about it is untrue. However, that’s not my concern here. I just want to discuss the feasibility of using non-lead projectiles in airguns and hold it to that.
So, I did a little test that I want to talk about today. I tested both lead pellets and lead-free pellets in the same gun at the same distances.
For this test, I used the .22-caliber Hatsan 95 combo breakbarrel that we recently found to be reasonably accurate. I shot the rifle at 10 meters and again at 25 yards; and doing that proved quite revealing. The open sights of the rifle were used for this test.
The best of the best
For this test, I wanted to use the best pellets. For the lead-free pellet, I chose the .22-caliber Beeman ECO FTS. For the lead pellet, I actually tested four different pellets, but settled on just one; and strangely enough, it was the same best pellet that was best in the last test I did with the Hatsan 95.
Before you yell, “Bias!” I know I should test other lead-free pellets in this rifle; but there aren’t that many to test. I do have some others, but in .177 caliber. So, I’ll have to test them next.
Start at 10 meters
I began this test at 10 meters and tried two lead pellets that I knew to be good in the Hatsan 95. The first of those was the heavyweight Beeman Kodiak. When I last v\tested the Hatsan with these pellets in Part 3 of the Hatsan test, 10 shots at 10 meters gave a group measuring 1.073 inches, thought 8 of those shots made a much smaller group that measured 0.529 inches between centers. This time, 10 Kodiaks went into a group measuring 0.834 inches. That’s in between the 8- and 10-shot groups made the last time.

Ten Beeman Kodiak pellets made this 0.834-inch group at 10 meters. Shot with a Hatsan 95.
Next, I tried the best pellet from the last test with the Hatsan, which was the JSB Exact Jumbo that weighs 15.9 grains. Ten of those went into a group that measures 0.514 inches between centers. That compares favorably to a 0.648-inch group last time.

Ten 15.9-grain JSB Exact Jumbo domes made this 0.514-inch group at 10 meters. It’s smaller, but in the same range as the last 10-meter group fired by the Hatsan 95, which was 0.648 inches.
The lead-free pellet
Next up was the Beeman ECO Field Target Special pellet, a 9.57-grain domed pellet that has no lead in it. Weighing less than 10 grains, this is extremely light for .22 caliber. So, the question is — Can it be accurate?
At 10 meters, this pellet turned in a 10-shot group that measures 0.704 inches between centers. That’s smaller than the Kodiak group but larger than the JSB group. And it’s a decent 10-meter group for an open-sighted air rifle of the power of the Hatsan 95.

This is a great group of 10 Beeman ECO FTS pellets. But 10 meters doesn’t tell much. We need to shoot farther to know if this pellet is accurate.
The real accuracy question
Here’s the real question. Ten meters tells us very little about the real accuracy of any pellet. Almost anything can be accurate at 10 meters, but not for very much farther. Real accuracy is the ability to hold a group together at twice the distance and more. To see that, we needed to back up. That’s what I did — backed up to 25 yards and shot again.
At this new distance, the lead-free pellet was again shot 10 times. The group it made this time measures 2.237 inches between centers. That’s a huge group — even when using open sights.

This is the group made by the Beeman ECO FTS pellets at 25 yards. Here we see the true nature of this lead-free pellet. It doesn’t stay together by flies apart as the distance increases.
As a control, a group is shot with the JSB Exact Jumbos. We know from the last test of the Hatsan 95 that this pellet grouped ten shots in 1.882 inches. This time, 10 went into a group that measured 1.728 inches between centers. Not only is that very consistent with that last test, it’s also significantly tighter than the group made by the lead-free pellets.

A 10-shot group measuring 1.728 inches was made by the JSB Exact domes at 25 yards.
Where does that leave us?
This test has many more cycles to run, but what it looks like at this point is lead-free pellets are not yet as accurate as lead pellets in the Hatsan 95. The first test done a year ago showed some surprising results, and there are many more tests yet to be conducted.
Here’s my take on the lead-free pellet issue at this juncture. They’re accurate enough for plinking, and in some guns they’re even more accurate than that; but to-date, I’ve not seen a lead-free pellet that could do as well as a good lead pellet. Since they cost about the same as premium lead pellets, my advice for now is to continue to use lead if you can.
I believe the pellet makers are working hard to perfect lead-free pellets, because they seem to be in our future. This is a topic I will watch and continue to test as new pellets become available.
Testing non-lead pellets: Part 1
by B.B. Pelletier
Writing this blog is a humbling experience. Sometimes, when I think I know the answer and it’s obvious, there’s a surprise. Today I wasn’t just surprised — I was bowled over!
I started this test way back in June when I tested the velocity of all the pellets in my Slavia 631. While testing, I felt the powerplant was running a bit off, so I opened the gun and in so doing I lost one or two very important springs. That moved the Slavia from being a testbed to the repair category. I had other plans for that rifle besides testing non-lead pellets, and I’ve since acquired the parts to fix it (I think). Now all I need is the time.
But I did want to get on with this test so I went to my gun closet and guess what I found? Nothing I have with a scope on it is sighted-in. Remember the cobbler’s children walk around barefoot? That’s the same way for me, as I’m always mounting a scope on something new for another test.
But, fortunately, I own a class of accurate air arms that do not need scopes. My 10-meter target rifles do fine with their aperture sights; and for a 25-yard indoor test, they’re all that’s needed.
The most accurate of all the rifles I have tested to date is the FWB 150 I just tested for you, so that was the gun that got the nod. It was sighted-in for 10 meters (11 yards) so it should have been close enough for 25 yards if a large enough target was used. I used the 10-meter pistol target, whose larger bull at 25 yards looks very similar to the 10-meter bull.
NOTE: This is not a continuation of my earlier test of non-lead target pellets. That’s a series I started but have not yet finished.
To verify sight-in, I shot a 10-shot group of RWS Hobby pellets that went into an embarrassingly large group. However, on the tenth shot one of the stock screws fell out, reminding me to do as I say and not as I do.
After tightening all screws I decided to shoot just five shots since this isn’t a test of ultimate accuracy. I reckoned we could see what we needed from five shots, and I could go through more different pellets that way.
After tightening the stock screws, I shot another five-shot group of Hobbys. While this group was much smaller, it pointed out that I needed to tighten up my shooting technique. I think you will understand why I say that when you examine the group.

Two tight groups of Hobbys (one with three pellets and the other with two) at 25 yards. What can I say? I believe this is due to canting, for as you can plainly see, the pellets tried to group very tight, otherwise.
I figured I was canting the rifle to produce those two groups. With all other pellets, I used downrange cues to slant the rifle the same with every shot.
Surprise, surprise!
The first non-lead pellet I tested was the RWS HyperMAX. I hoped all would hit the target paper at 25 yards, but instead they produced a group that was not much larger than that of the Hobbys. This was not what I had expected. I’ve never seen HyperMAX pellets do so well before, and I must attribute their accuracy to the FWB 150 barrel. I also have to revise my thinking about non-lead pellets, because this is very acceptable performance!

What a surprise! Five RWS HyperMAX pellets did very well at 25 yards from the FWB 150.
Following the HyperMAX, I shot five Skenco Type 2 Hyper-Velocity Field pellets that Pyramyd Air no longer carries. Only four of them connected with the target downrange and the group measured about 12 inches, but that’s just a guess from the new mark I have in the drywall behind the target trap. This was the level of performance I had expected from all non-lead pellets, but in fairness to Skenco, these pellets fit the breech of the rifle very loosely and one even fell back out after loading. I wouldn’t expect accuracy from a lead pellet with a fit like that.
I’m not showing a target for this pellet because it only has four holes, and they’re so far apart that it would be meaningless. The 12-inch spread is no exaggeration.
Next, I loaded the golden Gamo Raptor PBA pellets that have never done well in any of my tests. These are the pellets Gamo touts for killing wild pigs on their TV ads. I’ve read the reports of others who have had good success with them, but I never have. Until now.

Five golden Gamo Raptor PBA pellets made this tight group at 25 yards.
That target was a real shocker for me because I’ve never seen Raptor pellets do well, and I’ve tested them a lot over the years. But the results are very hard to refute, and why would I want to? This is a test on non-lead pellets, after all. Raptors can shoot very well in the right airgun.
That result gave me a lot of confidence that the final pellet, also from Gamo, would group well too. This was the Gamo Platinum PBA pellet that resembles the golden PBA pellet but is actually even lighter.

Five Gamo Platinum PBA pellets made the best group of the test.
I have much less experience with the Platinum PBA pellet, though after seeing these results I will try to include them in some future testing of other airguns. They really are an accurate pellet in my FWB 150.
Results
I wouldn’t put too much faith in the individual group sizes in this test, because they’re only five-shot groups. But the relationships of how accurate they can be should stand out clearly. It was just a chance accident that caused me to test with a target rifle, though I’m sure there are some readers who feel justified by these results. Clearly, lead-free pellets can be accurate in the right situations, and I have to revise my opinions of them.
I will continue to test them in other airguns, plus I’ll look for other lead-free pellets to test in the FWB 150. That’s why this is a Part 1 report. I’m sure there’s more to follow.
It’s also nice to have a reliable testbed rifle that I know I can leave alone for just such a purpose. I thought the 150 was just another pretty face, but now I know she can cook, as well! Life just keeps on getting better all the time.
Gamo Whisper CFR: Part 2
by B.B. Pelletier
Tested by Earl “Mac” McDonald

Gamo CFR underlever air rifle.
Well, we tested the BSA Polaris and found it to be a likable underlever air rifle. Now, we’re testing the Gamo Whisper CFR combo, which I said is a close cousin to the Polaris. But it’s not the same rifle, as today’s report will demonstrate.
The first point Mac makes is that the CFR cocks with 40 lbs. of effort, compared to the Polaris’ 26 lbs. He also said there’s no distinct feeling of an end to the cocking stroke. He felt it was iffy at first, before he learned to trust that the gun had cocked itself. Mac also found the cocking effort to be difficult, while I found the Polaris to be easy. So, these are different rifles, for sure.
Mac also says he found the rotary breech to be a challenge, while I found it fairly easy to use. It’s not as easy as a breakbarrel, of course, but this is a fixed-barrel rifle.
The velocitites
The first pellet Mac tested was the JSB Exact heavy that weighs 10.2 grains. It averaged 744 f.p.s., with a spread from 715 to 763 f.p.s. — 48 f.p.s. spread. That’s fairly broad. At the average spread, the energy is 12.55 foot-pounds. A spring-piston airgun will usually produce lower energy figures with heavier pellets.
The next pellet tested was the JSB Exact dome that weighs 8.4 grains. The spread was a huge 53 f.p.s. — from 836 f.p.s. to 891. At the average velocity, the energy was 11.9 foot-pounds, or a little less than the heavier Exact gave. That is an excerption to the rule of lighter pellets being more efficient in spring-piston guns.
Next, Mac tried RWS Superdomes. In .177 caliber, they weigh 8.3 grains, and in this rifle they averaged 868 f.p.s. The spread was even larger at 55 f.p.s. and went from 836 to 891 f.p.s. At the average speed, they produced 13.87 foot-pounds, which is more than the heavy JSBs and right on target, where they ought to be.
The next pellet Mac tried was a 4.7-grain Gamo PBA Platinum pellet. The 4.7-grain Platinum pellet averaged 1063 f.p.s., with an enormous 178 f.p.s. spread that went from 931 to 1119 f.p.s. At the average velocity, the rifle was generating 11.8 foot-pounds at the muzzle. Normally, lightweight pellets do much better in springers, but these non-lead trick pellets are very hard and have a lot of friction.
Mac was really wringing this rifle out for you, so he also tested the 7.9-grain Crosman Premier. It averaged 902 f.p.s. with a tight 17 foot-second spread that ran from 894 to 911 f.p.s.
Since he tested the Premier lite pellet, he decided to also test the heavy 10.5-grain Crosman Premier pellet. They averaged 766 f.p.s., with a 21 f.p.s. spread from 756 to 777 f.p.s. At the average velocity they produced 13.67 foot-pounds at the muzzle, which is surprisingly efficient for such a heavy pellet.
The results
So, the Whisper CFR is quite a bit more powerful than the Polaris. That’s going to make it more difficult to shoot, so the accuracy test should prove interesting.













