Posts Tagged ‘RWS Diana 27’
by Tom Gaylord, a.k.a. B.B. Pelletier
“Have a wonderful summer.”
Great words, but not when they’re in my high school graduation yearbook. We were all going our separate ways. Some of us were going to southeast Asia and might never come back. Others were going on to colleges to become doctors, lawyers, nuclear physicists and accountants. A couple went to Hollywood and were never heard from again and at least one went on to win several Super Bowls and become a household name — actually two names. I went to high school with Larry Csonka in Stow, Ohio, and Craig Morton in Campbell, California.
So, why didn’t they write, “Since I’m never going to see you again, have a nice life.”? I’ll tell you why — because people don’t know how to say goodbye. So now, 48 years later, I have someone wishing me a perpetual good summer of 1965. I was never quite sure about what that meant, either. Was it just the one summer, or were all of them implied?
Know what else people aren’t good at? Visualization. Like what to pack for a vacation. Oh, the old swimsuit is easy enough, but what about taking an airgun?
Well, gee, I did just get a .50-caliber Dragon Claw. Wouldn’t that be neat to have along at Yellowstone?
Not unless your fantasy is to be the focus of a SWAT team attack! Unless you’re vacationing at a rifle range or somewhere very remote, a big bore airgun is not ideal. Nor is anything that requires a large support base such as scuba tanks, hand pumps, CO2 cartridges and ancillary stuff like that.
While you’re at it, leave your 4-foot gun bags and hard cases at home with the aquarium and the garden tractor. The last thing you want or need on a vacation is a lot of baggage.
My pick for you is the Beeman P17 single-stroke pistol and as many tins of pellets as you think you’ll need. Or, if you don’t like Chinese airguns, spend the money and buy the German-made Beeman P3 that it was modeled after. Both guns are quiet, accurate, have adjustable sights, great triggers and are very portable. Sure, they’re single-shots, but that’s part of their attraction — they slow you down and make you pay attention to what you’re doing.
Oh, you don’t absolutely have to stick with a single-stroke pistol if you don’t want to. A nice pneumatic like the Crosman 1377C or the .22-caliber 1322 would be fine. They’re larger pistols, but still self-contained, requiring only pellets for fun.
If you want a springer, might I suggest the Browning Buck Mark? It’s reasonably accurate, easy to cock and the price shouldn’t break the bank. If it does, you aren’t going on a vacation; you’re just staying home from work.
What about a rifle?
For an air rifle, I recommend the Diana 27; but since none of you were far-sighted enough to get one back when I was touting them, now you have to live with what’s available. Well, that was why the Air Venturi Bronco was created — for all those who should have bought Diana 27s but never got around to it. For a lot less money than a Diana 27 costs, you can get a brand-new Bronco and have the same fun with it. It’s a little larger and heavier, but just as accurate, just as easy to cock and quite the little all-day plinker.
I could go on and on with this — recommending multi-pumps and other springers, but that’s not the point of today’s blog. The point is that when you’re on vacation, take along something simple and fun to shoot. It doesn’t need to be your most powerful or most accurate airgun — just one that you like to shoot.
And travel light. Vacations are not the time to stress about air supplies or where to buy more CO2. They’re times when you want to be free and unencumbered by stuff, so you can have some fun.
And, one more thing. You guys all say that I’m an enabler who spends your discretionary money faster than your wives and girlfriends can account for it. But did you notice that the guns I chose for today were mostly inexpensive? You don’t have to spend a lot of money on an airgun to have fun with it. A $40 P17 or a $45 Buck Mark should certainly be affordable. And that was my criterion for selection — good airguns at good prices.
Keep things simple when you’re away from home and your support base. If you have to buy pellets from a discount store, even the cheapest ones should shoot okay in the guns I’ve recommended. In fact — that gives me a great idea for another report. I will test inexpensive pellets like you’d find in a discount store (and Pyramyd Air sells these, too) against the best pellets I can buy.
Yeah! I like that!
Oh, and have a wonderful summer….
by B.B. Pelletier
Today, I’ll venture into an area where style and function can clash violently. Also, because every person is built differently, the things I say will not apply equally to all people. That is not to say they are untrue or vague enough to just be opinions; but because of differences in our bodies, each of us will have slightly different needs, and sometimes they won’t even be that slight!
As most countries do, the United States has a rich tradition of fielding infantry rifles with “one size fits none” stocks. I could criticize all of the Mosin Nagants or the K31 Schmidt-Rubin rifle of Switzerland, but I don’t need to look any farther than the dear old M1903A3 that was the last gasp of the famous Springfield rifle used at the start of World War II. The pull of this rifle is a ridiculous 12-3/4 inches in length that guaranteed to sock anyone in the kisser when the big round goes off. As if that weren’t enough, the stock also drops away from your face steeply to get a running start at your cheek when the recoil begins!
Even men of very small stature find the Springfield stock uncomfortably short. The spin doctors at the arsenal dreamed up an excuse: “The stock is designed for men wearing field jackets and winter uniforms.” Ha, ha!
[Parenthetically, I will say that two vintage U.S. battle rifles have had stocks of decent proportions -- the 1917 Enfield (the American Enfield) and the Garand. Both have acceptable pull lengths and good pistol grips. The Enfield's comb is a little low, but overall, it's a rifleman's stock. The Garand is as close to stock perfection as the United States ever came in the 20th century -- in my opinion. That's in spite of having a short pull of 13 inches.]
The Soviets said their Mosin stock had its short pull because “The Soviet Union is comprised of many different countries with soldiers of widely varying stature. The rifle was designed to fit as many different men as possible.” Again — ha, ha!
Why the Swiss skimped on the length of their buttstocks and dropped their combs so low is a mystery to me, because they do not have nearly the problem the Sovs did with ethnic differences. In sharp contrast to the too-short K31, their model 1911 rifle had a stock of more correct proportions.
What these nations really mean is that they build their battle rifles on a budget, and the bean counters thought the savings of an inch or two of wood, spread over millions of stocks, was worth it. Besides, making soldiers miserable is a time-honored right of passage.
Good stock equals reduced recoil
When I bought a German-made Mark V .270 Weatherby Magnum rifle for hunting, I was prepared to be laid low by the recoil. I had recently suffered with a Remington 788 in .308 Winchester caliber that about knocked me flat every time it went off. So, imagine my shock to discover that the Weatherby, with its more powerful belted magnum cartridge, did not kick as hard as the Remington! It actually kicked a lot harder, but the straight lines of the Weatherby stock coupled with the very shallow slant toward the butt kept the comb firmly in contact with my cheek the entire time. The rifle didn’t have the opportunity to get a running start at my face when it went off. I wound up loving the gentle Weatherby that others, who don’t know it, regard as a monster!
I was about 24 years old when this discovery took place, and that was when I started paying attention to the shape and size of rifle stocks. I found that I liked a pull (the distance from the center of the butt to the center of the trigger blade) of 14-3/4 inches, which is a tad longer than most other men my size (5′11″ at the time). I guess my arms and neck were a little longer than the norm for my height.
What I’m trying to tell you is that you may not have the same body dimensions as me, but we will both do better with a stock that is straight versus one that drops low at the toe. And we will also do better with a stock that has the right length of pull for our frames — whatever that may be.
Correct length of pull is hard to measure
There’s an old method of measuring the correct length of pull on a rifle. The butt is rested on the crook of your arm and the trigger is supposed to come about halfway up your index finger when the finger points straight up.
This is the traditional way people measure the correct length of pull on a rifle. It works after a fashion, but only by holding the rifle offhand will you know for sure.
Hooey! This old method is ingrained into most shooters at a tender age, but I find it often doesn’t work. A better way to find the right length of pull is to shoulder the rifle and see how easily your trigger finger finds the trigger blade and your hand finds the pistol grip.
What fits feels good
Blog reader Kevin Lentz once asked me if I’d ever had a rifle whose stock fit me well. He knows that because I test so many different air rifles all the time that chances are that most of them don’t quite fit me. I answered him that my Weatherby was the best-fitting rifle I ever owned, and he understood — because he also owns a Mark V Weatherby in .300 Weatherby Magnum.
As far as airguns go, the TX200 fits about as well as a Weatherby. It has a very vertical pistol grip that invites a good hold, and the flat forearm helps stabilize the heavy rifle. The butt drops a bit far, but the TX recoils so soft that it doesn’t matter.
So, where does this leave us? Well, if we know that length of pull and the drop of the stock are important, it seems that we should be able to design stocks that fit us well. Enter the Air Venturi Bronco!
Air Venturi Bronco
Several years ago, I became exasperated by all the air rifles that were near-misses for stock fit, as far as I was concerned. I knew from conversations with other airgunners that what the world really wanted was another Diana 27. But Diana only wanted to make powerful spring rifles that were hard to cock.
The other airgun many shooters wanted was the Beeman R7, but for one-third the current price — the old five-cent cigar thing. There were long debates on this blog about whether this or that HW30 was equivalent to the R7. Remember that?
One day, I was sharing my feelings with the president of Pyramyd Air. I lamented that a company like Mendoza that made accurate barrels and good triggers didn’t have a nice youth airgun we could sell. That was when he told me that they did, indeed, have a youth airgun, but that it was too ugly to sell. I asked him to send me his sample, and a few days later I had it in my hands. It was called the Bronco. [Note from Edith: I always thought Tom made up that name. Now, I find out he didn't. What other things is he taking credit for that are not deserved?] It was exactly what I was looking for, only it had a stock so ugly that you needed a tetanus shot just to hold it!
The Bronco was an RM10-barreled action in a stock that had a huge kidney-shaped cutout in the butt. It was a stock by Salvador Dali that could only exist in an acid-trip fantasy, yet Mendoza had somehow managed to turn it out for real. The pull was just over 10 inches, as I recall.
Remembering the success of the Beeman C1 carbine, I suggested to Pyramyd Air that we have a stockmaker build a Western-style stock and that we make other changes to the powerplant at the same time. I was tasked with getting the stock made, and I found a custom stockmaker to do the work. We produced a stock in American maple that had a strawberry blonde finish and a 14-3/4 inch pull. I fell in love with it; but when we discussed the project at Pyramyd Air, we decided the stock had to be shorter to accommodate older kids and adults, alike. We settled on a 12-3/4-inch pull. The blonde finish was kept, though many people disliked it.
Mendoza took the sample we sent them and produced a gun for us to examine. A couple small changes were made to that prototype, and we were done! The result is the Air Venturi Bronco that you see today.
What’s good about the Bronco is that the comb is high without needing a Monte Carlo profile or a raised cheekpiece. It comes up to the shoulder fast and naturally for most shooters, and the sights are right in line with your eyes when your head is erect. Also, you don’t have to hold your head in a different place to use a scope. That’s the advantage of a straight-line stock that has very little drop at the toe.
The classic stock
Many times, I’ve mentioned the classic stock in the past. What is it? What makes it classic?
A classic stock is one that has a straight comb with no Monte Carlo profile. The stock line is very straight, so the toe doesn’t dip very low. That allows the recoil to be transmitted in a straight line instead of in a downward angle when it first comes back, then it rotates off the shoulder to rise upward and hit your cheek.
A classic stock has a pistol grip in a place where you can grasp it when holding the rifle to your shoulder. Many larger air rifle stocks, such as the one on the Hatsan Torpedo 155, have pistol grips — but their proportions are too large for 95 percent of the population, with the result that the shooter cannot grasp the grip when holding the gun normally. The grip is set too far to the rear and out of reach for most people. A TX200, in contrast, has a pistol grip in exactly the place where most shooters’ hands expect it to be. The result is that the rifle seems to fit better and is easier to hold, even if the shooter isn’t aware of the reasons why.
Perhaps the best example of a classic air rifle stock I can give you is the wood stock that comes on the RWS Diana 34 breakbarrel. There’s no Monte Carlo comb and the pistol grip is in pretty much the right place.
For an even better example of a classic stock done right, you need look no farther than the Ruger M77 rifle. While their pistol grips come back a bit too far, these stocks are about the best ones on today’s market. Sako of Finland is another maker that had a remarkable line of good stocks in decades past; and in recent times, they’ve taken the classic proportions and put them into synthetic stocks. And I must include the iconic Winchester model 70 in the small list of classics.
A classic stock does not have a thumbhole. Instead, the pistol grip is proportioned so well that it feels good in the hand. I personally don’t like thumbhole stocks because they usually prevent my thumb from being placed where I like it. On the whole, I do find that most thumbhole stocks fit better than most non-thumbhole stocks. That’s because most of those stocks without thumbholes are cut with the wrong angles and proportions.
A Western-style stock like the one found on the Bronco and the Walther Lever Action rifle is not a classic rifle stock. The straight wrist isn’t as easy to hold as a well-formed pistol grip. But the Western-style stock does fit more people better, because there are so many classic-cut stocks that miss the mark.
The bottom line
I wrote this article for those new airgunners who are researching airguns to buy right now. The size and shape of the stock plays an important part in how well your gun will fit; and that, in turn, affects how much you enjoy shooting it. Don’t just buy an airgun based on the velocity, because that will lead you astray. Unless the gun also fits you and feels good, it will not do well in your hands.
If you don’t know how different guns feel, you might try visiting a gun store or pawn shop and try a few different rifles for their fit. Your friends may have different guns than you do…so try on some of those to see which ones fit you better. Yes, you can even try firearms and transfer their fit over to air rifles. If you have no other frame of reference, this will at least give you a starting point. And don’t forget to read everything you can about the fit of a good rifle, because this is an area that will never stand out but will make a big difference in how much you like or dislike a particular rifle.
by B.B. Pelletier
This is the third part of Vince’s test of old and new Gamo Match pellets. In parts 1 and 2, he tested .177 caliber. This test is for .22 caliber.
After part 1 was published, we discovered that today’s report was supposed to be the first part! So, you’ll read a lot of introductory info that Vince intended for you to see when he started this series. Sit back and enjoy the rest of Vince’s pellet tests.
If you’d like to write a guest post for this blog, please email us.
Bloggers must be proficient in the simple html that Blogger software uses, know how to take clear photos and size them for the internet (if their post requires them), and they must use proper English. We’ll edit each submission, but we won’t work on any submission that contains gross misspellings and/or grammatical errors.
Gamo. A name well known in the airgunning field and inextricably intertwined with its history. Just run it by any knowledgable, passionate airgunner and you’ll quite likely elicit the emotionally charged response, “Gamo? Ehhh….”
Gamo was never known for making junk. Well, their PT-800 came close (plastic compression tube? Oh, please!), but that was more a case of poor design than poor manufacturing. There’s a world of difference between the two. They also didn’t let advanced engineering get in the way of a good profit margin. And, maybe that’s what always defined Gamo — engineering compromises coupled with reasonable manufacturing quality control yielding a product that, well, could be worse.
Their old standby springers of a few years back certainly showed this dual side of Gamo. Remember the steel-barreled Shadow, 220, 440, 880 and 890? Say what you want about their 5000-shot triggers (that’s often how long it took before they smoothed out), spotty spring reliability and zesty twanginess. They looked good, with nice bluing and decent plastic or wood stocks. They generally shot pretty well with solid lockups and good barrels. My first decent air rifle (and I still have it!) was a $125 Shadow from Walmart. Before buying that Gamo, I thought the Industry Brand QB25 was a good airgun. Seriously.
But times change and while there are still a few holdouts in the Gamo lineup (the CFX comes to mind) many or most of their products are being modified or substantially altered to adapt to changing market conditions. A lot of these changes have traditionalists scratching their heads. Although guns like the Big Cat and its cousins still seem to shoot well, the proliferation of structural plastics and marketting gimicks just detracts from their appeal.
Their pellets, however, have followed a different course. Seems that the marketing and advertising departments at Gamo got deeply involved in the ammo end of the business. The result? Killing a hog with a PBA pellet. Bragging about breaking the sound barrier with a pellet that isn’t shaped for it. Armour piecing. Red Fire. Glow Fire. Clearly, these pellets don’t follow the traditional path.
These gimicks might lure in the novice, like my Dad and, well, probably most of their customers. But, with products like that, they’re not going to capture the heart of the purist! They kept their old standby pellets — Gamo Match, Hunter, Master Point and Magnum — for that one-tenth of one percent of their customer base…the traditional airgunner.
Note from B.B.: Gamo’s business goals may not be what we assume they are. From my discussions in the past, I’ve learned that they’re most interested in converting firearm shooters to also use airguns. It seems to me that they see their products not as airguns but as firearms, and in that light they seem to be pursuing the hunting crowd most actively. In that pursuit, they seem less concerned with traditional airgunning. And, given that the hunting demographic that uses firearms is so many times larger than all airgun disciplines combined (in the U.S.), this may be a good business model for Gamo.
No one is going to march into a field target match armed with Gamo pellets. After all, quality control hasn’t always been the best. I occasionally come across one of these in a tin of Match pellets in .22:
Inverse wadcutter, SUPER hollow point, or the Escher pellet? I call it the “Gamo Cadwutter.”
The occasional cadwutter aside, they were still reasonably priced and shot well enough in enough guns that they were pretty popular for everyday use. B.B. even alluded to some competitors using them in local pistol matches, although I imagine this is after sorting them. Generally, they seemed to work pretty well in low-powered guns. Since I’m doing all of my shooting indoors these days, I’m spending a lot more time with guns like that.
That’s why I ordered a bunch of Gamo Match pellets from Pyramyd Air — a total of 23 tins in both .22 and .177. I figure I’m set for a while. Then, I opened one of the .22 tins…
New Gamo Match on the top, old on the bottom.
…and something’s wrong. These pellets are impostors! They’re trying to LOOK like Gamo Match, but I’m not fooled! Something fishy is going on. I examined the tins side-by-side.
New Gamo Match on the left, old on the right.
While the packaging looks the same, the weight is different. I flipped the tins upside down.
New Gamo Match on the left, old on the right.
They looked identical from this side. In fact, even the UPC is the same. Are they really the same? We’ll see about that.
I picked out a selection of .22 rifles so I can put these to the test. I’ve included my low-power guns and a few stronger ones as well. I didn’t bother most of my heavy hitters since I usually shoot just Crosman Premier hollowpoints in those.
Rules of the game
For each gun, I shot 5-7 of the new Gamo Match pellets just to get the bore used to the pellets (this seems to make a difference). I put 5 shots onto the target sheet from 10 meters, switch to the old version of the pellet and fire five more. I’m not sorting pellets. If I get a flyer that’s way off the main group, I’ll give the pellet the benefit of the doubt. Maybe I just got a bad one, and I make a 6th shot and discount the flier.
How did the impostors fair? Let’s take a look and see (in no particular order).
The Mendoza RM2000 is a repeater that likes only repeating with certain pellets. It has an inline mag with an elevator shuttle, an arrangement that can be prone to deforming long or short pellets or squirting undersized ones right through the shuttle and onto the floor. I never used the repeater, and these were all loaded single-shot.
The Mendoza didn’t seem to differentiate much between the two in terms of consistency although the point of impact did shift a bit. Verdict: Comparable performance.
This gun is BAM’s pseudo-clone of the RWS 34 action with the TO5 trigger. I say pseudo because it isn’t an exact copy. There are differences. It’s the same family as the Ruger Air Hawk rifles (of which I’ve had two), but the B25 is probably the best of the lot that I’ve sampled. Still, it’s taking me a bit of time to warm up to it.
In this gun, there’s absolutely no comparison. Quite passable with the old pellets, useless with the new. Verdict: The new ones just don’t cut it.
This is a fairly new addition to my collection. It’s also a gun I’ve owned before and always sold to make room for others. Since I’ve got tons of room now, it’s a non-issue! It’s a massive sidelever that outweighs the RWS Diana 48 by a pound or so. It’s also longer and a much cruder gun. It’s frequently described as being a clone of the 48, but I won’t even call it a psuedo-clone. There are just too many significant differences. Let’s call it an imitation.
And what did the B21 think of the new Gamo pellets?
Point of impact seems pretty consistent, and the groups are comparable (although not outstanding for either pellet). Verdict: Pretty much interchangeable.
The BAM B3 is a novelty gun that’s proven quite popular over the last several years, although for some reason it seems to have been discontinued. It’s made to resemble an AK47 and is equipped with a folding stock. Mechanically, it’s a simple rifle but made fairly well.
As you can see, it didn’t like the new Gamo Match pellets very much, and frankly it’s so-so on the old ones. Verdict: The new ones are inferior.
RWS Diana 27
The Diana 27 is an old favorite of B.B.’s and for good reason. It’s a nicely made rifle that looks good, shoots well, and is easy to cock and hold. Diana barrels are generally pretty good, and this one is no exception, although the Gamo Match isn’t it’s favorite ammo.
Oddly enough, this rifle — so far, the only rifle — seems to show a preference for the new pellet. It wasn’t a blowout, but the group is definitely tighter. There’s a very significant POI shift. Verdict: New pellets are at least as good as the old.
Known as the Diana 25 in its native brand, the Winchester 425 is the smaller cousin to the Diana 27. It’s a very similar gun overall with the same trigger and sights, but shortened to make it more of a youth gun. Like the 27, it’s very well made. It didn’t agree with the 27 on pellet preference, though.
It didn’t scatter the new pellets to the four winds the way a few guns did, but the preference for the old ones is pretty clear. Again, we have a POI shift. Verdict: Old pellets are superior.
Industry Brand QB57
The QB57 is another novelty gun made by Shanghai Airguns and sold under the Industry Brand name. It’s a 2-piece takedown sidelever bullpup that comes in its own suitcase with a cheap scope and a tin of even cheaper pellets. Oddly enough, it copies the Gamo trigger. Generally speaking, Shanghai’s knockoff of this trigger isn’t that bad. The scope rail is way forward on this gun, so it’s a bit awkward to shoot with a standard scope. At least it’s mounted directly to the barrel, which is the most accurate place for it to be. It’s also relatively new and, I’m sure, not quite broken in yet.
It seems to agree with its countryman, the XS-B3, only more so, with a wider gap between the two. With the old pellets, it really didn’t do too badly for a lower-grade rifle. Verdict: No contest. Old ones are much better.
TF97 (aka Industry Brand QB-36)
The TF97/QB36 used to be one of the flagship springers of the Shanghai Airgun Factory. Along with the QB36-2 (TF97), it represented one of the better efforts of that company, which, of course, is relative to the other offerings of that company (B1, B2, B3 underlever, etc.) which were pretty poor. Judged on it’s own, the’97 is a so-so gun — low-powered for the weight, fair trigger, and accuracy that’s somewhere in the middle. But certainly not an oinker by any stretch.
As you can see, this gun really wasn’t crazy about either pellet. Although the spread with the new ones looks a bit larger, it’s really about the same. Verdict: They’re comparable.
The British Sterling HR81 (and it’s nicer-stocked sibling, the HR83) is a bit of an oddball. The compression tube on this underlever is located beneath the barrel, almost like the reservoir on a CO2 or PCP rifle. The air is ducted up to the barrel via a short, vertical transfer port and into the hollow pellet feed rod behind the pellet. Powerplant efficiency, needless to say, is not its strong point. The loading port is opened with a bolt located several inches behind the loading port, and closing the bolt pushes the pellet into the firing position. I’ve sampled 2 of them and found both to be stable, consistent shooting platforms. The much-used .22 I have doesn’t seem to shoot quite as well as the .177 HR-83 I serviced for a fellow last year, but it still does pretty well with the right pellet.
Well, the right pellet certainly is NOT the new Gamo Match, which performed horribly in this gun. Much better results were obtained with the old ones. Verdict: New pellets are inferior.
The 440 was part of the old Shadow/220/440/890 family that immediately preceded the current crop of plastic-shrouded, higher-powered breakbarrels (Big Cat, Whisper, etc). Like its old stablemates, it’s light, accurate, well-balanced, and easy to cock and shoulder. Once the trigger is modded and the spring properly tarred, it’s a very pleasant plinking rifle. Originally, I wasn’t even going to try this one. This is one of the guns that does so well with Crosman Premier hollowpoint pellets that I typically don’t shoot anything else in it. But, it’s the only .22 cal. Gamo I have, so I decided to see how well a Gamo rifle did with Gamo pellets.
So, there you have it. A nice group with the old pellets, and a lousy one with the new. It didn’t choke on them as badly as the HR-81, QB57 or XS-B3; but this is certainly a poor showing for a decent rifle. Verdict: No comparison. Old pellets are superior.
So what’s the final tally? I’ve shot these pellets back-to-back in 10 different rifles. Of those 10 rifles, 4 shot the new pellets as well as or slightly better than the old; 3 of those 4 showed a significant POI shift. The remaining 6 preferred the old, most by a very considerable margin. From all this, I think we can safely draw three conclusions:
1. The new pellets are not the same as the old, and they’re not interchangeable. They do carry the same part number and description, and the Gamo website gives no indication that there’s anything different about them at all. I would suggest that it’s misleading for Gamo to alter the pellet and change its characteristics while pretending that its the same. It’s common knowledge that airguns can be real picky about their ammo; Gamo should know better.
Note from B.B.: We’ve been seeing the same thing from various high-quality European pellet manufacturers. Things can suddenly change without notice. However, the comments on this blog serve to inform the manufacturers that veteran airgunners are very concerned.
2. In my tests, the new pellets were generally not as good as the old ones. In the cases where they fared well against the old pellets, it was a relatively close call. In those cases where it didn’t, they generally shot pretty poorly.
3. The new pellets are not absolute crap. They might be OK for plinking in some guns, but make sure you try them out first. If your gun liked the old Gamo Match in .22, there’s no guarantee they’ll like the new ones.