This is wordy... so unless you're a fine accuracy pellet geek, you might want to go read something else. :wave:

I've always shot round nose pellets in my HW97ks... JSB and AA 8.4 round nose FT pellets have a grand average of .095" for 5 shot groups at 10 yds from either of my 97Ks. All time best 5 shot groups are around .030".
Sometimes H&N Barracuda heavies, CPHs, JSB heavies and H&N FTTs shoot well... but I've yet to find the consistency of those 8.4s.

I recently purchased the following pellets, just to see if there might be something better than my "standards".


JSB Match Exact RS .177 Cal, 7.33 Grains, Domed.
RWS-R-10 Match Heavy .177 Cal, 8.2 Grains, Wadcutter.
H&N Finale Match Rifle .177 Cal, 8.18 Grains, Wadcutter.


This is the very first time I've ever tried wadcutters so I thought I'd share my results, to date. Love the nice neat holes. :p
I've not measured the pellets at this time for weight or diameter, nor have I done any chrony testing. I'll get back to the thread when I have more information.


JSB Match Exact 'RS' .177 Cal, 7.33. These pellets show promise, but currently are not as accurate as my standards. They are the loosest fit in the chamber. Best group at 10M was .130". I suspect they are going well over 900 fps... I'll get back to you on that.

RWS-R-10 Match Heavy .177 Cal, 8.2. These pellets are the tightest fit in the chamber, but not as tight as CPH. Accuracy is terrible. Best 5 shot group at 10M was .195"... and I think that was more random luck than any sign of consistency. I've never had good success with any RWS pellets... but I thought I'd take a chance.
Willie... you may end up with these if I can't find "the magic" of them. :nod:

H&N Finale Match Rifle .177 Cal, 8.18. These pellets are interesting. With a loose hold, they are only marginally better than the RWS pellets, but with a firm, hard into the shoulder hold, they show promise with a minimum 5 shot group size of .110". Of course, we all know that pellets that group well don't neccessarily do well on a postal target. :D


Using the H&N pellets, I shot a practice, 20 spot postal match target with a score of 200-4X... typically, I shoot a 200-11-14X using AA or JSB 8.4. I held dead on center, with no attempt to "chase" errant shots back into the center. I shot this target from left to right, drop down, right to left and so on.
When I shot the first row, I thought "Hey! we got a possible here!" Then I shot the second row. :mad:
The first two targets of the 3rd row made me smile again... then back to the random 10s and near 9s.

As can be seen, pellets not impacting in or very near the center were seemingly randomly and relatively evenly dispersed around the bullseye, with no apparent signs of a directional trend. This is good in that it indicates a level of consistency on my part... bad because it may indicate that I will not be able to improve accuracy beyond what I have.

http://creeper.smugmug.com/Sports/Postal-match-air-rifle-groups/HN-Final-Match-Rifle-818-test/889051565_Z46AX-XL.jpg

As I really like the ease that a wadcutter pellet allows in seeing impacts and scoring, I'll try, in the next few days, to do the following... in an effort to improve consistency/accuracy.


Sort pellets by weight, and possibly diameter. I swore I'd never do this... but I'm on a quest. :lol:
Chronograph velocities.
Alter my hold and rest positions for effect.
Fix my lighting... I shoot in my shop basement, and today I had a light out near the target.


That's it for now... Cheers,
C

I have generally avoided wadcutters., as I mostly hunt with some occasional plinking with my 7yo daughter.
Having said that, I just might have to try some watcutters to participate in the postal matches. I have taken a liking to clean holes. The cleanest holes I've shot have been when testing predators...very nice!

Great...that's all I need another tangent to get off on, finding a good wadcutter and postal matches! When my wife asks, and she will, I'm blaming you.:nod:

I have generally avoided wadcutters., as I mostly hunt with some occasional plinking with my 7yo daughter.
Having said that, I just might have to try some watcutters to participate in the postal matches. I have taken a liking to clean holes. The cleanest holes I've shot have been when testing predators...very nice!

Great...that's all I need another tangent to get off on, finding a good wadcutter and postal matches! When my wife asks, and she will, I'm blaming you.:nod:

Ha ha ha! The clean neat holes are so damn addicting aren't they? If I can ever find a wadcutter that shoots to the level of my favorites, I'll be in heaven!

I used to shoot centerfire benchrest competition... groups of .060" at 100 yards were not uncommon and if you could consistently shoot a .100" average all day, you could win a 100/200 yard grand aggregate, and the match.
Pellet rifles, at least to me, "should" be able to put a .177 pellet into a .250" circle every single stinking time at 10 yards. Alas, the inherent inconsistencies of a springer have driven me near crazy sometimes... 10-15 near perfect shots, and 5-10 shots that have no rational explanation for their errant behavior. A 200-12X is relatively easy... a 200-20X has proven to be a highly elusive and frustrating goal. :nod:

You're welcome to blame any and all addictions on me... unless there's a chance that your wife will come to my house with the intent of killing me... then you need to find a scapegoat that lives in Uzbekistan or something. :lol:

Cheers,
C

I won't say there is 0% chance, being a pretty straight shot up I5, but I wouldn't worry too much! lol

I got a sample box of crosman wad cutters, they are crap in distances over 20 feet. Consistency and accuracy, I've found that the crosman pointed pellets are better. The same goes for the hollow tip premium pellets. Wildly inacurate over distances greater than 30 feet. I have yet to try the CPHP, but I hear good things about them.

But, every air rifle is not equal, and storm xt is not tuned.

Correction, CPHP is what I use and have. I was under the impression that those were the destroyer pellets. Those are most accurate from what I've used.