GTA
All Springer/NP/PCP Air Gun Discussion General => PCP/CO2/HPA Air Gun Gates "The Darkside" => Topic started by: Cableaddict on June 05, 2021, 02:28:42 AM
-
Going to the deepest darkest corner of "The Darkside" tonight...... :D
---------------------------------------------
When considering the best candidates for my next pcp rifle, I'm only looking at bullpups since I need the longest barrel in the shortest package
And of course the "overall length to barrel length" ratio is important.
But one thing bugs me constantly: The problem of high scope mounting due to a high cheek area. This is always a problem if you need to do pesting at very short distances, then switch to longer range hunting. Even the "best" bullpups still have cheekrests that are at the level of the top of the breech block, and of course you can't go any lower than that.
Except you probably CAN:
----------------------------------
It seems to me that the back-half of the breech could be significantly lower, if the hammer spring wasn't located back there. OK, you have to have the pellet probe there, but that only takes up a few inches. The hammer and valve simple open a passage for air, so why do they have to be at the back of the gun? Couldn't the mechanism be turned "backwards," and then located somewhere just behind the trigger area?
If that were done, bullpups could be even shorter for a given barrel length, and / or the cheekweld area could be significantly lower.
I think. ???
Does this make sense?
-
Very interesting observation, Cableaddict! 👍🏼
Here's another thought as I skipped down that same road of "longest barrel in the shortest package":
Some manufacturers seem to reduce the gun's size by placing the action behind the trigger — the foundational bullpup idea.
BUT then they turn around and increase that size again by adding buttstock behind the action.... 🤦🏻♂️
For me bullpups are bloated if they have a lot of buttstock behind the action — they have a bloat stock!!
🔶 A couple of years ago I made a photo comparision chart of the current bullpups — sorted according to the efficiency of the stock.
➔ I was in for several surprises...! 😄
Some very bloated stocks, and some very efficient stocks!
So, if size matters to you, this chart is for you. 👍🏼
Matthias
❌ Attachment: Bullpup Bloat Stocks
-
The Airmax Caiman and Caiman X rotated the action "down". The sear is at a 90° angle or vertical rather than horizontal, (parallel to the barrel). That makes things about as short as they can get.
Short, nice to shoot, accurate as most of todays guns.
Mike
P.s. - I should be receiving a Cricket II tomorrow. I got the curvier stock. And yeah, it also has a long "butt" on it vs. the older stock or the "ladder" design. I'll be cutting / shortening it as far as possible.
I like short guns..!
-
I just bought the kral puncher knight. It listed on pa as a rifle but to me it screams bullpup. I only had it for 2 days. Max volsity 972 , over 93 shoots sd was 31. You get best shots 62 shots. The cheek piece is bebind the receiver, low mounts would easily fit this bullpup. On max power with 18.13 JSB = 37.1 FPE at muzzle.
-
The Airmax Caiman and Caiman X rotated the action "down". The sear is at a 90° angle or vertical rather than horizontal, (parallel to the barrel). That makes things about as short as they can get.
Wow. There you go!
Sadly, those are IMO about the ugliest rifles ever made. Lol.... But the design is solid.
I think my idea of reversing the spring would allow for a slimmer & thus better looking gun, assuming it can work technically.
Also, with either system, it would probably be a good idea to add some kind of safety shield, to protect the shooter's face from any accidental problems at the breech. Does the Airmax have something like that?
--------------
I just bought the kral puncher knight. It listed on pa as a rifle but to me it screams bullpup. I only had it for 2 days. Max volsity 972 , over 93 shoots sd was 31. You get best shots 62 shots. The cheek piece is bebind the receiver, low mounts would easily fit this bullpup. On max power with 18.13 JSB = 37.1 FPE at muzzle.
Very interesting. Sort of a compromise design. Not quite what I fantasize about, but I like that Kral is exploring such designs.
-
Some manufacturers seem to reduce the gun's size by placing the action behind the trigger — the foundational bullpup idea.
BUT then they turn around and increase that size again by adding buttstock behind the action.... 🤦🏻♂️
Yeah I've noticed that as well. I think the reason is that they haven't placed the trigger far enough forward, so the buttstock has to be artificially extended in order to obtain a decent feel when holding the gun. You'll notice on some of the best "ratio" guns that their triggers are indeed further towards the front.
Well, at least with a "bloatstock" rifle, you could theoretically cut off the back and then make a quick-attach connector for it. That would make the gun more portable, at least.
I think this whole discussion also points to the fact that HOW TO HOLD a bullpup, and corresponding design changes based on alternate holds, is still not fully developed. - This includes where to put your head.
--------------------
Nice work on that list, BTW !
You need to add two more:
1: The upcoming Reximex Throne II. (It will look just like the current throne, but with a few major technical improvements.
Barrel: 22.8" / Overall length: 34.4"
2: The Airgun Tech Uragan. Barrel: 22.4" / Overall length 32.6" (including a very slight bloat stock. lol... )
Of course, one factor that's really hard to figure, when making these comparisons, is factory shroud size. That of course affects the total length. So what happens if the gun is too loud, and you want to remove the original shroud (they are rarely very efficient) and add an aftermarket moderator? The numbers change, and comparisons no longer hold.
-
The design issues of a bullpup that lead to the high scope mounting generally has nothing to do with where the hammer is or most anything else in the breech block. It has to do with sight picture. They don't have the long upward angled butt stock to bring the action/barrel higher and closer to eye level. The high rails and rings are needed to get the scope up to eye level, so you don't strain your neck trying to get a sight picture.
In other words, you'd have to have a rather wonky looking stock to get the breech block/barrel high enough to use a scope that is closer to the bore, and still be comfortable to shoot. It just boils down to ergonomics and function more than the ability to trim down the action etc... As far as length goes, there some guns that are designed to get the magazine/probe as far back as possible to trim the length even more. That's fine, but you're still only going to be able to decrease the length an inch or two at best. Is that design compromise worth the 2" shorter length? It isn't to me, but it may be to others. I try not to get to bogged down on specs like length and scope height. I just look at is as: Is the gun pretty short and accurate? If so, I'll work around the rest :)
I used to get concerned about the high off bore scope mounting of the pups, but now, I couldn't care less about it. It used to drive me nuts that I couldn't get the scope closer to the barrel. You will get used to it though, and know where your holds are for various distances. Of course, a good reticle makes a world of difference in that regard too. There's also a benefit to the high off bore scopes, which is long distance shooting. You can effectively hold/dial for longer distances with the high mounts, because the angle between where the scope sight in and the line of fire from the barrel meet is a greater angle. It just takes practice, and then you're good to go. 15 yards or 150 yards doesn't matter to me, because I know the gun can make the shot, I just have to practice enough to know how to make that shot.
I think the bullpup design is very developed, but the shooters haven't adapted to them as well, because it is a different way of shooting compared to a traditional rifle. The fact is, there isn't a whole lot more that can be done with a pup to make it shoot like a rifle. It's just a side effect of the design. We can adapt, or shoot rifles. Sure, some are better than others, and that is a lot of the reason we have "semi-bullpup" designs like the Brococks and Vulcans to name a few. I'm not trying to discourage innovation or anything like that, but I'm afraid it just is what it is.
-
The main issue I see with reversing the hammer set up is cocking the rifle. If I'm following correctly you mean kind of like an airforce style hammer that fires towards the back of the gun. Airforce limits their guns to single shot and the cocking lever goes forward instead of back which would be hard to replicate on a multishot rifle. Also the geometry of the air path with such a set up may be less than ideal.
-
The design issues of a bullpup that lead to the high scope mounting generally has nothing to do with where the hammer is or most anything else in the breech block. It has to do with sight picture. They don't have the long upward angled butt stock to bring the action/barrel higher and closer to eye level. The high rails and rings are needed to get the scope up to eye level, so you don't strain your neck trying to get a sight picture.
To change what you wrote, " They don't have the long upward angled butt stock to lower the cheek weld position."
A regular rifle has the exact same height limitation, if you remove the long butt stock and move the trigger forward.
I just don't see your point.
-
The main issue I see with reversing the hammer set up is cocking the rifle. If I'm following correctly you mean kind of like an airforce style hammer that fires towards the back of the gun. Airforce limits their guns to single shot and the cocking lever goes forward instead of back which would be hard to replicate on a multishot rifle.
Yes, you'd have to cock the hammer forward, but why would that prevent using a mag? As long as the probe pushes a pellet out, then pulls back, the mag's spring will still do its thing. So, you'd push the arm forward, tensioning the hammer spring and pushing a pellet into the breech, then you'd pull the arm back & lock it, so the magazine advances & the next pellet is ready to be loaded by the probe.
The only possible problem is that it might be possible to fire the gun without pulling the lever back, so the next round wouldn't load. It wouldn't hjurt anything, and eventually you'd get used to it. I think ...... :P
Also the geometry of the air path with such a set up may be less than ideal.
That's a good point. Experiments would have to be done. However, I think ~ 2600 psi wants to go where it wants to go. I doubt s 180º turn would matter much. Still, it is a good point & something to consider.
-
The main issue I see with reversing the hammer set up is cocking the rifle. If I'm following correctly you mean kind of like an airforce style hammer that fires towards the back of the gun. Airforce limits their guns to single shot and the cocking lever goes forward instead of back which would be hard to replicate on a multishot rifle.
Yes, you'd have to cock the hammer forward, but why would that prevent using a mag? As long as the probe pushes a pellet out, then pulls back, the mag's spring will still do its thing. So, you'd push the arm forward, tensioning the hammer spring and pushing a pellet into the breech, then you'd pull the arm back & lock it, so the magazine advances & the next pellet is ready to be loaded by the probe.
The only possible problem is that it might be possible to fire the gun without pulling the lever back, so the next round wouldn't load. It wouldn't hjurt anything, and eventually you'd get used to it. I think ...... :P
How would it seal if the probe retracted again?
-
I used to get concerned about the high off bore scope mounting of the pups, but now, I couldn't care less about it. It used to drive me nuts that I couldn't get the scope closer to the barrel. You will get used to it though, and know where your holds are for various distances.
You must not do a lot of pesting, (or you have a second gun for that) in which case I agree with you.
But fo me, trying to go from a 6 yard target to a 50 yard target is practically a nightmare, using a bullpup. I ran the numbers for if I get the MTC 12X SAWT scope that I'm lusting after. Unless I'm calculating wrong (I'm not sure, and no one here has been able to help with this) wiith a 21 yard zero, the holdover at 6 yards is 10.5 mil dots ! That's simply not workable. Even if I used the turrets, it would be ridiculous.
What I might do is mount a cheap red dot on offset mounts, just for sub-20y shooting. But I'm having a very hard time figuring what red dot would be best for that, short of a super expensive prismatic / holograpphic type. It's bloody confusing......
-
How would it seal if the probe retracted again?
Good point.
But then that makes it easier. You just push forward to both lock & load.
Prepping the next pellet would mean pulling all the way back, then pushing forward to the locked position again.
Simples, no?
-
...I'm only looking at bullpups since I need the longest barrel in the shortest package...
...But one thing bugs me constantly: The problem of high scope mounting due to a high cheek area. ...
On a conventional rifle layout, the barrel and breech is in front of the users face, so the cheek rest can be below the bore line if that's what the designer wants.
In a bullpup layout, the barrel/breech extends all the way to the butt end (ideally). At the lowest, the cheek will need to rest on the barrel. No way around it.
-
You can place the hammer and valve underneath the barrel (like in a conventional PCP, but turned around), and have the breech right at the back.... However, your cheek line is still limited by the top of the barrel, plus the thickness of the top of the receiver above that, as Scott says....
Bob....
-
You can place the hammer and valve underneath the barrel (like in a conventional PCP, but turned around), and have the breech right at the back.... However, your cheek line is still limited by the top of the barrel, plus the thickness of the top of the receiver above that....
Yes, but the area behind the breech doesn't have to be as high. That's my entire point.
Assuming internal air volume is maintained, you only need enough "back breech" to enclose the pellet probe.
-
I thought you wanted the shortest possible LOA?.... That would mean the breech must be touching your shoulder (so there is no "area behind the breech").... You can't have it both ways.... ::)
The shortest possible bullpup, with the lowest sightline, would have the bolt sliding inside the barrel itself, with a loading port machined on the top and a barrel port machined on the bottom....
(https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/oo221/rsterne/Crosman_140.jpg?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds) (https://app.photobucket.com/u/rsterne/a/c8e898b4-eec7-4d3c-9b8c-fdb22fa4c16f/p/6300254a-fff7-4884-8d31-188f95e3496f)
Like the old Crosman 1400, above....
Bob
-
I thought you wanted the shortest possible LOA?.... That would mean the breech must be touching your shoulder (so there is no "area behind the breech").... You can't have it both ways.... ::)
Ah, I see your point.
I wasn't thinking quite that radically. Just take a good existing design and lower the CURRENT cheekweld area.
My goal is to have a lower scope, not the absolute shortest rifle. I didn't make that clear.
-
But fo me, trying to go from a 6 yard target to a 50 yard target is practically a nightmare, using a bullpup.
I ran the numbers for if I get the MTC 12X SAWT scope that I'm lusting after.
Unless I'm calculating wrong (I'm not sure, and no one here has been able to help with this) with a 21 yard zero, the holdover at 6 yards is 10.5 mil dots!
That's simply not workable. Even if I used the turrets, it would be ridiculous.
Allan, 😊
you might be right with your calculations — but that elevation adjustment at 6y just seem way high....
If you send me your numbers, I'll give them a spin in Strelok Pro:
▪Muzzle energy
▪Pellet caliber, brand, and model
▪Scope mounting height (measured from the centerline of the barrel to the centerline of the scope tube — you'll have to estimate that somewhat, and take into account the mounts you plan on using).
For kicks, what gun are you mounting this on?
👍🏼 Matthias
-
you might be right with your calculations — but that elevation adjustment at 6y just seem way high....
If you send me your numbers, I'll give them a spin in Strelok Pro:
Thanks, Mathias. That would be fantastic.
- And maybe post the results in that other thread, since it's s;lightly off topic here.
36 gr .25 caliber slug. BC 0.1
Muzzle velocity 900 fps (I don't have that yet, but it's my goal.)
21 yard zero, for now.
6 yard minimum target distance.
60 yard maximum target distance
Current scope: Lowly Bugbuster. 2.75" above bore-center (to the center of the front element.)
Click Value: 1/4 MOA. Total clicks for 1 rotation: 74.
------------------------
New option #1: MTC SWAT 10x30. 3" above bore center.
Click values: (This is where it gets confusing, and where I might have screwed up the calculations) MTC says
"1 click = 1 cm @ 100 yards Total clicks per rotation: 42. Mils per rotation: 6. (I guess 1 click = 1/7th of a mil. So what is that in MOA?)
-----------------------
New option #2: MTC SWAT 12x50. 3.25" above bore center.
Click specs identical to the other.
-
The main issue I see with reversing the hammer set up is cocking the rifle. If I'm following correctly you mean kind of like an airforce style hammer that fires towards the back of the gun. Airforce limits their guns to single shot and the cocking lever goes forward instead of back which would be hard to replicate on a multishot rifle.
Yes, you'd have to cock the hammer forward, but why would that prevent using a mag? As long as the probe pushes a pellet out, then pulls back, the mag's spring will still do its thing. So, you'd push the arm forward, tensioning the hammer spring and pushing a pellet into the breech, then you'd pull the arm back & lock it, so the magazine advances & the next pellet is ready to be loaded by the probe.
The only possible problem is that it might be possible to fire the gun without pulling the lever back, so the next round wouldn't load. It wouldn't hjurt anything, and eventually you'd get used to it. I think ...... :P
How would it seal if the probe retracted again?
Insert video of the guy from India who made an full auto Airforce it used maybe a marauder style mag.
- I always wondered about running a remote bottle like I did it paintball. But with an Airforce rifle. You’d think it’d be pretty simple but maybe only enough flow for .22 .25. Esspecially with a plenum. Maybe one day I’ll get a round to it. Imagine a talon with a say 38 cubic inch 4500 bottle that you wear on your side or reverse Fanny pack style. Running a remote line you can get a pretty solid sight picture as I remember.
-
The design issues of a bullpup that lead to the high scope mounting generally has nothing to do with where the hammer is or most anything else in the breech block. It has to do with sight picture. They don't have the long upward angled butt stock to bring the action/barrel higher and closer to eye level. The high rails and rings are needed to get the scope up to eye level, so you don't strain your neck trying to get a sight picture.
To change what you wrote, " They don't have the long upward angled butt stock to lower the cheek weld position."
A regular rifle has the exact same height limitation, if you remove the long butt stock and move the trigger forward.
I just don't see your point.
You are correct, you don't see my point, LOL! The cheek weld needs to raised to make shooting comfortable, unless you don't have a neck. On a rifle raising that cheek weld(and action) puts your sight picture in line with the bore easier, since the butt stock can accommodate it. On a pup, there's no butt stock to bring the action/bore/cheek weld up, but the cheek weld still needs to be higher, so you end up having to use a very high off bore sight picture. I guess if you want to be technical, a rifle has that limitation, but it has 10-12 inches of material prior to the action to bring things up. If you remove the long butt stock and move the trigger forward, you no longer have a rifle.
The point is still the same though. You cannot have a bullpup with a scope mounted close to the bore and shoot comfortably, without having a pretty weird lowered butt padd/stock configuration.
I used to get concerned about the high off bore scope mounting of the pups, but now, I couldn't care less about it. It used to drive me nuts that I couldn't get the scope closer to the barrel. You will get used to it though, and know where your holds are for various distances.
You must not do a lot of pesting, (or you have a second gun for that) in which case I agree with you.
But fo me, trying to go from a 6 yard target to a 50 yard target is practically a nightmare, using a bullpup. I ran the numbers for if I get the MTC 12X SAWT scope that I'm lusting after. Unless I'm calculating wrong (I'm not sure, and no one here has been able to help with this) wiith a 21 yard zero, the holdover at 6 yards is 10.5 mil dots ! That's simply not workable. Even if I used the turrets, it would be ridiculous.
What I might do is mount a cheap red dot on offset mounts, just for sub-20y shooting. But I'm having a very hard time figuring what red dot would be best for that, short of a super expensive prismatic / holograpphic type. It's bloody confusing......
I do, and have done quite a bit of pesting/hunting. I will say, a 6 yard shot isn't something I've ever encountered often. At that point, who even needs sights? I have done some shooting at 10-15 yards though. I think your calculations may be off a bit on that holdover. Either way, I wouldn't recommend sacrificing my entire setup, so I could make a 6 yard shot.
I think the problem here is way too much reading, and not enough shooting and doing. I don't mean that to sound derogatory in any way. I know it is very easy to research things, until you're blue in the face! I've done it too, only to find out what I thought I wanted wasn't actually what I really wanted. Trust me, your life will be easier when you spend less time trying to re-invent the wheel, and just learn to use the wheel that's already there :) If you're likely to find yourself with a lot of shots under 10 yards, maybe a second small sight would be useful, but I wouldn't compromise my entire setup for it. Close shots are easy, so spend your time getting good with the longer ones.
I think you're selling yourself short on your own abilities here. Don't waste your time worrying too much about the close stuff, you'll be just fine making those shots. It is as simple as setup the close target, and take a shot, then you know your hold at this distance. Easy as it gets. You'll also find that 1 mil, or MOA difference in holdover at that distance is miniscule, and not nearly as important as it seems(unless you're hunting bugs). You're making things much harder than they are ;)
-
Allan,
🔶 I'm getting similar numbers for the needed POI correction at 6 yards: 😟
With the specs you gave me, and a zero at 21y:
▪Bugbuster: hits low by 8.2mil = 28moa = 1.8"
▪MTC 10x30: hits low by 9.0mil = 31moa = 1.9"
▪MTC 12x50: hits low by 9.8mil = 34moa = 2.1"
🔶 The scope heights of 2.75", 3", and 3.25" seem awfully high.... 🤔
That's why I asked what gun this was.
I assume we're talking about a bullpup that has a very high scope rail.
➔ You could lower the scope by using extremely low rings, and just making sure that the objective bell (front part of the scope) will not be over the scope rail but the barrel — where it will have space to be mounted lower. 👍🏼 There are some very low mounts out there.
However, the MTC prismatic scopes have an extremely thick scope tube, with special scope mounts, so that won't work. 😟
For my bullpup, a Diana Skyhawk (Artemis P15) I used very low scope rings and got as low as 2.4" — and that is with a dovetail-to-picatinny adaptor. I could get as low as 2.15" if I bought yet another set of rings that are even lower. And go further down if I used dovetail rings ➔ 1.85".
🔶 I have seriously considered have a shop make me a new rail, lower, and picatinny style.
But the benefit would be too small to justify the expense.
🔶 The way I set up the gun now is as follows:
▪I try to set my scope to obtain a large point blank range (PBR). Depending of how large you allow the kill zone to be that could be quite a long PBR.
▪Then I write myself a dope card to memorize — for the closer ranges (closer than the PBR).
I write that elevation dope not in mil (or moa) to click on the scope. Instead, I write the dope in inches (or centimeters) to hold over on the kill zone.
At such close ranges that is fairly easy, but requires some practice. 😊
Note that the amount of clicks at extremely close ranges is extreme, but the actual holdover in inches is not!
🔶 I have been looking at a cheap little laser to mount on the gun for those extremely short range shots, with a simple squeeze switch.
Matthias
-
...
Current scope: Lowly Bugbuster. 2.75" above bore-center ...
...
New option #1: MTC SWAT 10x30. 3" above bore center.
...
New option #2: MTC SWAT 12x50. 3.25" above bore center.
...
Why so high? My FT rifle is a Diana Skyhawk (P15 bullpup). The scope (Athlon Helos 6-24x50) center-line is 1.93" above the bore-line. How low do you want to go?
-
Why so high? My FT rifle is a Diana Skyhawk (P15 bullpup). The scope (Athlon Helos 6-24x50) center-line is 1.93" above the bore-line. How low do you want to go?
That's just how it is on my rifle, which is a Flashpup. Even after I ground-away the rear picatinny rail and the left-side corner of the breech, I need to use high mounts in order to not get pain in my neck from cranking it sideways, if shooting for long periods.
The MTC SWAT scopes make the problem worse by including an angle-adjustable mount, which adds another 1/4" or so.
Why so high? My FT rifle is a Diana Skyhawk (P15 bullpup). The scope (Athlon Helos 6-24x50) center-line is 1.93" above the bore-line. How low do you want to go?
-------------
That Diana is an excellent design. the breech is short, and then the butt falls away immediately. They thus were able to mount the picatinny rail very low, and you are able to use lower mounts than on most bullpups. It's actually a pretty unique design. A 22" barrel in a 29" gun, and with a low cheek-weld, no less! Geez, I might have to buy one.
Where the heck is the hammer spring located in that thing?
-
Why so high? My FT rifle is a Diana Skyhawk (P15 bullpup). The scope (Athlon Helos 6-24x50) center-line is 1.93" above the bore-line. How low do you want to go?
That's just how it is on my rifle, which is a Flashpup. Even after I ground-away the rear picatinny rail and the left-side corner of the breech, I need to use high mounts in order to not get pain in my neck from cranking it sideways, if shooting for long periods.
...
That Diana is an excellent design. the breech is short, and then the butt falls away immediately. They thus were able to mount the picatinny rail very low, and you are able to use lower mounts than on most bullpups. It's actually a pretty unique design. A 22" barrel in a 29" gun, and with a low cheek-weld, no less! Geez, I might have to buy one.
Where the heck is the hammer spring located in that thing?
The hammer spring is in the normal location (below the breech/barrel).
The Skyhawk stock was longer than it needed to be, but I did not want to cut the nice Minelli laminated wood. I made a stock (3D printed) with a shorter back end. I could have gotten a P15 with a simpler stock and saved some money. I also swapped the barrel for a 24" Lothar Walther.
1.93" high is a tight squeeze. I tried lower but I could not squeeze my face into position.
-
Well I'll come at this from a different angle. Have you ever shot anything at 6yds with a scope at 10x or 12x? I can't imagine that being easy in the slightest. I guess what are you shooting at that distance? I got my bullpup fairly close to the barrel. Taipan Veteran.
-
I just lowered the shoulder pad instead of having neck vertebrae removed, close call.
Simple solution and the ergonomics are fantastic. I do A LOT OF PESTING and rarely do I need to take close shots. I am hitting startling at 50 yards and only holdover two mil dots for a 10 yard shot. That's not so difficult, geeze.
-
Do dislike the forced high scope mount of most bull pups….for that matter, non-bull pups like the standard AirForce rifles and kin. A 3 way between bore center, scope center, and face-fit. Can only win 2 out of the 3, take face fit and scope alignment to your eye….the height will just be-what-it-be.
Mil dot scopes normally have up and down dots. Gets hyper-critical when some dumb critter pops up at like 5 to 10 yards...and it’s embarrassing to miss the shot, likely because you didn’t pre-test or a long range mind really not worthy at telling 5 yards from 8.
Have to admit...no matter what the air rifle…can easily miss those shots.
-
...and it’s embarrassing to miss the shot, likely because you didn’t pre-test or a long range mind really not worthy at telling 5 yards from 8.
Have to admit...no matter what the air rifle…can easily miss those shots.
I can miss those shots with ANY rifle!
-
The AF guns work better with Talon Tunes angled tank adapter to lower the tank and thus the scope.
But with the bullpups, it might be easier to get a surgeon to remove your cheekbone. Sure that sounds drastic, but your either dedicated to the Darkside or not. ;D
Regards,
Roachcreek
-
The AF guns work better with Talon Tunes angled tank adapter to lower the tank and thus the scope.
But with the bullpups, it might be easier to get a surgeon to remove your cheekbone. Sure that sounds drastic, but your either dedicated to the Darkside or not. ;D
Regards,
Roachcreek
I am dedicated to The Darkside but also permanently attached to my cheek bones and vertebrae.
-
But with the bullpups, it might be easier to get a surgeon to remove your cheekbone.
Sure that sounds drastic, but you're either dedicated to the Darkside or not. ;D
Regards,
Roachcreek
Now here is a word of truth from one of the heroes of our sport!
Thanks for clarifying this once and for all:
Airgunning is far more than a hobby — it's a style of life — that necessarily has an impact on life, like:
▪the allocation of unheard portions of your salary (unheard by your better half)
▪the allocation of large chunks of your time
▪use of real estate (gun cabinets, shooting ranges, pellet shelves, etc.)
▪the size and location of one of your cheek bones
Matthias
-
Why not just go with a picatinny offset mount and a red dot . Much cheaper route than trying to reinvent the reinvented wheel.
-
The Skyhawk stock was longer than it needed to be, but I did not want to cut the nice Minelli laminated wood. I made a stock (3D printed) with a shorter back end. I could have gotten a P15 with a simpler stock and saved some money. I also swapped the barrel for a 24" Lothar Walther.
1.93" high is a tight squeeze. I tried lower but I could not squeeze my face into position.
That's bloody impressive!
But IMO you now have a trigger that's too close to your body, for a really comfortable hold.
Well, maybe. that's where we get back into the discussion of what constitutes an optimal bullpup hold, and how that might change with and/or effect bullpup design.
--------------------------------------------
Here's what I did with my Flashpup: It's not perfect, but it works WAY better than stock:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/j804e8wirqpuxx0/MODIFIED%20PUP%2C%20LEFT%20SIDE%20%20.jpg?dl=0 (https://www.dropbox.com/s/j804e8wirqpuxx0/MODIFIED%20PUP%2C%20LEFT%20SIDE%20%20.jpg?dl=0)
Note that I initially ground-away as much as I could at the top & side of my breech block, then added foam. - But even with high scope mounts, I still found it somewhat uncomfortable.
So now I've moved my scope way back, (as in this picture) and am putting my cheek at the very back, where it's marked. I should be able to put medium rings back on, maybe even low one. This is not a perfect ergonomic solution, but works fine if using a sandbag or other support. The trigger is a bit far away now, but that's better than too close.
For off-hand shooting, this head position works best with a special "bullpup hold" that I read about once online.
I highly recommend this hold, BTW:
Basically, you hold the rifle to the left, “At 90 degrees to your chest.” You keep your left elbow down & tucked tight. (as close to your body’s centerline as possible-comfortable.) And you keep your right elbow down & tucked, If possible.
With this hold, and because of a bullpup's typical weight distribution, it works great. You also get a lot of steady support from your arms.
And to the point, it has the added benefit of letting you keep your head (and hence your scope) way back.
Of course, I'd still prefer to just lower the back-half of my breech block, but that's not exactly a DIY project. LOL....
-
Why not just go with a picatinny offset mount and a red dot . Much cheaper route than trying to reinvent the reinvented wheel.
Yes, that's probably what I'll end up doing.
But that doesn't change the fact that bullpup air rifle design can still be improved. Having you scope closer to the bore is an advantage, no matter what your target range.
-
The Eastern Europeans got it right, with the loading done from the top of the magazine you can shave a good inch of distance from the center of the bore to the scope.
-
One thing to keep in mind is that the valve/transfer port needs to be as close as possible to the barrel/pellet. If you move the valve to another position, and have a long "transfer port/tube", you will loose a LOT of efficiency.
-
As others have posted, lowering the buttpad location of a bullpup can help with cheek weld/scope height. Typically this isn't pretty, but it does help with ergo.
For example, this little BP shoulders and cheek-welds perfectly for me.
(https://i.imgur.com/OgaE9n9.jpg)
Regarding the P15/Skyhawk stock comparison.... I recently borrowed a Skyhawk for a few weeks, it is amazing at how much better the ergonomics of the Minelli stock are vs. the OEM P15. However, it makes the gun so much larger....really takes away from IMO the P15's best trait---being short and lightweight.
-
We need little periscopes for our scopes. Adjustable for eye to cheek height. Head tilt, etc.
Just dreaming...... ;D
Dave
-
We need little periscopes for our scopes. Adjustable for eye to cheek height. Head tilt, etc.
Just dreaming...... ;D
Dave
I've actually asked several scope manufacturers why they don't do that. - Especially with prismatic scopes.
In the near future, I expect we'll see a ton of scope that mount right on the barrel, and have a mini camera with a raised LCD at the objective end. We're practically there now if you mount a smart phone. The next step will be heads-up display shooting glasses.