Posted by Bob on July 29, 2001 at 10:13:18:
With all the posting about
handpumps and scuba tanks, do we need to revisit the single stroke guns like the
Pardini K58? Besides the easily seen benefits such as nothing else to buy (tank,
handpump and trips to the scuba shop for refills) let's consider the real
important issue, Accuracy. The air is not regulated therefore the potential for
a plus / minus may not exist. The lowest varience in pellet speed across a
chronograph should exist. Why aren't these guns used more?
Posted by pilkguns on July 29, 2001 at 11:11:52:
Why aren't they used?
Because people are lazy.
Actually accuracy wise and velocity variation wise,
there is very little difference between the two.
The biggest concern for CA
for me is safety. That alone.
BUT, I do believe that an airgun should be a
self sufficient arm, or why not just reduced load powder shells. If you want to
use a Pre-Charged gun, then the Pre-Charging must take place within the match
time alloted. Take that pump and pump up the cylinder during the match.
Posted by JLK on July 29, 2001 at 14:39:33:
If we are to take the leap in
logic should then the free pistol shooter be required to cast the bullet and
load the round before he fires it during the competition?
Posted by JLK on July 29, 2001 at 14:50:04: You can't stop the advance of technology... if we did we would all still be shooting muzzle loaders. There are some "purists" that propose this. I find it refreshing that International shooting allows pregress... Unlike Bullseye where the only real change has been the dot sight in the last 70 years... after all, the standard in that discipline is still the 1911. I don't fault those that want to maintain this standard, but please let International be the hybrid of the sport that it has always been.
Posted by Bob on July 29, 2001 at 15:12:34:
I understand advancing
technology, but I would have hoped this advancing was in the accuracy not just
to make it easier. Shooting the K58 does a few extra things for me. Such as what
to do with some of the time between shots while I wait for my lungs, eyes and
whatever else gets ready for the next shot. It exercises my wrist, arms and
shoulders cocking the AP 100 or so times each night. All that and accurate too.
Why use the advanced technology? It certainly isn't that we are buying
accuracy.
: You can't stop the advance of technology... if we did we would
all still be shooting muzzle loaders. There are some "purists" that propose
this. I find it refreshing that International shooting allows pregress... Unlike
Bullseye where the only real change has been the dot sight in the last 70
years... after all, the standard in that discipline is still the 1911. I don't
fault those that want to maintain this standard, but please let International be
the hybrid of the sport that it has always been.
Posted by GSAUVE on July 29, 2001 at 19:09:25:
To follow that line
wouldn't a CO2 gun shooter then have to produce his/her own CO2 on the spot? It
seems to me that a PCP gun is self-sufficient and whether you pump it up right
before, an hour before, or the night before really doesn't matter that much.
(And if you use the hand pump you can't be lazy! I do 30-40 pumps a day and I
can notice a difference in upper body strength!
Posted by Hank on July 29, 2001 at 12:03:14:
Do the single stroke pistols
like the Pardini K58 and the FWB 103 require routine replacement of seals and
gaskets? Can this kind of maintenance be done by the shooter? If so, then how
much do these parts usually cost? If it can't be done by the shooter, then how
much is the usual cost to have it done?
Posted by Joe G. on July 29, 2001 at 12:24:16:
Hank,
Here's some input
on your question. I have an IZH-46 that I shot probably at least 30,000 pellets
through without having to do a stitch of maintenance other than replacing the
spring in the breech cover. (easily done with a cut-down ballpoint pen spring) I
also have a 30 year old Walther LP3 single stroke that to my knowledge only had
to be resealed once by the fellow that sold it to me. Although I do not have a
lot of use on it my FWB 103 it has also been working faultlessly. As to degree
of difficulty it will definitely vary with the design of the gun. I did replace
seals on my Crosman Skanaker CO2 pistol without too much difficulty. My two
current main shooters are both pcp but I do like the self-contained simplicity
of single strokes. Anyway I hope that helps you. Best regards, Joe.
Posted by David M on July 29, 2001 at 19:35:59:
The FWB model 100 (later
model is the 103) was one of the best and most accurate of the pump air pistols
I ever owned, and it still holds my personal best score.
The main reason for
changing to a tank pistol for me was when they shortened the time for the match,
recovery time between shots for the pumper (me!!) was reduced. It is a lot
easier on the old arms with a tank pistol. There is still nothing wrong with the
pump guns for club level use, but you very rarely see them in the world cup
circuits.
Sponsored by Pilkington Competition Equipment