Daystate Wolverine B Chrony Testing and Comparison - The Data Speaks!

Jump to latest Follow Reply
M

Matt_Dubber

Member
May 5, 2015
160
60
Eastern Cape
I thought I'd post results from some chrony testing I did with the Daystate Wolverine B-Type (.22 Cal, 30 FPE). Remember, this is an unregulated rifle - For a comparison, I've added a shot string from my Air Arms S510 Ultimate Sporter .22 (also unregulated) to the same graph. I used the pellets that gave me the best accuracy in each rifle (JSB 15.9 in the Wolverine, JSB 18.1 in the Ultimate Sporter). I also limited the curves on the graph to an extreme spread of 20 FPS for each rifle.
IMG_0089_zpsnb9busls.jpg

I'll be honest, I wasn't too surprised with the Wolverine's shot count - 80+ shots should be expected from a 500cc bottle. What I was surprised with, however, was the curve. Usually you expect unregged rifles to give you a very distinct bell curve. The Wolverine, between 225 and 190 Bar, had no curve at all.

What this tells us is that Daystate's excuse for excluding a regulator has been justified. They must have done something right with their Harper Slingshot Hammer system to achieve consistency like this. The Ultimate Sporter, on the other hand, is in desperate need of a regulator. Yes, the air cylinder is smaller...But you'd expect to see some kind of plateau on that curve from a company that claims that their rifles don't need regulators.

Another interesting fact to note is that the Wolverine achieves its 20fps extreme spread over a 60 Bar pressure range. The Ultimate Sporter does the same over a 40 Bar range. I think this is probably due to two factors: 1) The Wolverine operates at a higher pressure, therefore less air is needed per shot, and 2) The Ultimate Sporter is shooting with more energy, therefore uses more air per shot.

I will definitely be adding an aftermarket regulator to my Ultimate Sporter when I can get hold of one. This gun is WAY too accurate to be pushed aside - It actually shoots better than the Wolverine when in its "sweet spot".

If anyone has chrony results from an FX Royale 500 (or any other PCP for that matter), please post...Let's start comparing!
 
  • Like
Reactions: cubo and travels4fun
"DylanSanders"How does the TDR compare?
Click to expand...
Dylan, it is very difficult to compare the TDR since both the caliber and muzzle energy are completely different (11.8 FPE, .177). The air cylinder on the TDR is also very tiny. The TDR could also do with a regulator, but not as desperately as its high power brothers the S510 and Ultimate Sporter.

Matt
 
Upvote 0
Btw I don't know if it is even possible to add a regulator to a bottle gun like the daystate. Just saying that in theory it could get a lot more shots per fill by using more of the available air in the cylinder. Thats why I'm really curious about the fx impact specs. In .22 cal you could set that thing up for a huge shotcount. It being totally user adjustable and having a large 480cc bottle.
 
Upvote 0
Great data, Matt! Those number speak loudly to valving design. And, you are right re: the reasons why Daystate has opted not to regulate their guns. When valving works that well, they feel that the shot-count is high enough for most shooters. They (Tony Belas) have told me that Daystate feels that the additional shots (created by the addition of a regulator) would not be worth the additional price as well as adding one more piece of equipment that could fail. This applies even moreso to the UK market, where shot-count is a non-issue given the energy restrictions.

On a side note - WOW, you Wolverine looks so different from mine. It's pretty amazing how a longer shroud and shorter bottle can have such a drastic impact on the overall look of the rifle.

As for the AAS510, I agree that an added regulator will do wonders for the shot-count. So long as the gun could safely be filled to around 230 bar, you could double the shot count and limit the extreme spread to 15 fps. Like Daystate, I think Air Arms is primarily focused on designing guns for their UK market. Still, the International market is nothing to sneeze at. I'm pretty sure it is growing faster than their domestic market. So, constructive feedback from affiliates such as yourself would certainly not fall on deaf ears. I have met with the AA folks at IWA and SHOT show. They struck me as very willing to listen to the ideas of their customers.
 
Upvote 0
...as for further data re: the potential benefits of regulated guns, here are the before and after chronograph readings for an FX Royale .22.

The first graph shows a stock FX Royale 400. It has a 400cc aluminum bottle and no regulator.


And, here's a Royale 400, after swapping out the 400cc bottle for a 500cc bottle, and adding a regulator.


Obviously the increase in bottle size would have jumped the shot-count by 25% even without the regulator. But, had I not increased the bottle size, I still would have been able to achieve 100 shots using the 400cc bottle - a 60% increase - simply by adding a regulator. Yes, it's worth noting that the power was a bit lower on the regulated gun vs. the non-regulated gun. But, that was simply the end-result of me tuning the gun to 900fps. The important point is the increase in shot-count and power consistency.

This is why I put up such a stink about FX installing regs into their guns (as standard) in this video - because their addition causes such a dramatic increase in shot-count:


FX and AoA felt that the increased shot-count was not necessary and not worth the increased price. I disagreed - stating that when you buy a top-end air rifle you don't want to skimp on any features. The consequence of this video caused no end of grief for FX and AoA, since the bulk of all .22 and .25 Bobcats shipped up until that time were not regulated. They were flooded with orders to install regulators on existing guns.
 
Upvote 0
RC-NLHi Matt

Even the Daystate could benefit from a regulator. With a regulator installed and propably the transfer port enlarged you could get 160+ shots from a 230-110 bar fill.
I just installed a regulator on my .25 cal custom spa p12 and now get 55 shots @ 45 fpe from a 250-115 bar fill (6 fps spread)

cheers

Agreed. Terrible examples of inefficient use/non-use of stored energy.
These guys sell regulators for an Air Ranger. Can't imagine it will be too long before the Wolverine bottle version comes along.

http://www.altaros.cz/en/22-daystate

I know someone who'd just bought one, but I haven't seen him for a while to check up on long term performance. Others that I know have bought regulators from same company, for various rifles, and are happy so I assume they know what they are doing.

People shooting in competitions, sub 12ftIb or over, are competitive and look for any extra advantage-even if slim. A regulator in a Air Arms S510 or S410, Daystate Wolverine or Air Ranger etc, may not seem much to the manufacturers but the shooters have been buying a lot of them.....which surely means that the manufacturers should get their gear into order or face more sales going to FX.
 
Upvote 0
Ted,

​I like the comparison of the regulated vs unregulated Royale. I think that perhaps manufacturers underestimate the influence that shot count & consistency has in a customer's decision to buy an (already expensive) airgun. Heck, I would pay through my nose for a few extra shots, and I'm certainly not swimming in money!

I have voiced my opinions to Claire West (managing director & owner of AA) and they do seem very open to ideas and input. Whether that means we will see any changes, I don't know. I think their focus is very much on the UK market (and FT in particular), but I am hoping that in the near future they will design a rifle from the ground up for the international market. It seems Daystate and FX have both shifted their focus to the US in recent years and I'm sure other manufacturers will get their butts into gear soon. I will be fitting an aftermarket regulator to the Ultimate Sporter soon and I'll write a post or film a video with my results. 

Haha yes my Wolverine does look very different. As much as I like the look of the shortened shroud, it does NOTHING to suppress the muzzle report. The shroud on my rifle literally sticks about an inch past the barrel and has no baffling system whatsoever. A reflex silencer is being made for me as I type this:)
 
Upvote 0
"travels4fun"Matt,

I noticed the stock on your Wolverine B is the same that comes with the Hi-Lite yet yours is a standard B. How did you get the Hi-Lite stock?

Scott
Click to expand...
I have no idea, Scott - I am in South Africa so its very possible that the rifles that are imported here may be different to those in the US for whatever reason. I was also expecting the "standard" stock when I ordered mine, but I'm not complaining because I really like the stippling on this one!

Matt
 
Upvote 0
Another interesting aspect I see is the price of building a regulated gun as Ted mentioned. Daystate doesn't seem to think it's cost effective to ADD a regulator to a gun with an awesome valving system. On the other hand, how much money could be saved/would it cost by using a cheaper valve design and adding a regulator. The end result is essentially the same (consistency and shot count) and possibly even better. Some of the numbers from regulated Marauders are pretty impressive for any price point.

Regulating also would allow to fill a gun to a much higher pressure (assuming the components can handle the pressure) and get even more shots per fill of the tube volume. How nice would it be to be able to fill a Daystate Regal/AA S510 (small tube PCPS) to 4500PSI straight from your compressor/6k nitrogen tank and get 100+ shots from the much smaller light weight air tubes.
 
Upvote 0
Ben10, Matt Dubber’s figures show that Daystate rifle can’t offer near regulated EFFICIENCY as a regulated rifle. The Daystate figures are fairly flat but they are only flat (between hammer/hammer spring/valve & poppet dimensions/pressure on poppet etc) because that balance of parts are only EFFECTIVE/CONSISTENT within a limited range of pressures. If the rifle were filled to a higher pressure and shot down to a lower pressure, you'd see the curve.

It would be efficient to have a controlled/consistent pressure at the valve when each shot cycle is made, which is what a regulator does, so that there is no peak/waste of air.... but it would also allow full use of the tank’s stored energy down to the regulator setting.

A .22 30ftIb rifle (no specific brand), depending upon various valve dimensions and barrel length etc, could normally work anywhere between 90 and 130 bar. If any rifle shooting at that power range can’t shoot down to that range of pressure setting, then I would have to question its design. If it were mine I’d strip it ( I always strip them regardless of anything anyway), take a lot of measurements, rebuild and do a fair bit of testing/stripping/rebuilding/manufacturing of new parts (poppet/valve/hammer/springs), until I got it down to shooting/utilising air efficiently at 130bar.

Regulators are actually simple devices and don’t cost much money; unless someone chooses to make then complex and expensive.
 
Upvote 0
One thing that annoys the heck out of me is having to refill the Wolverine at 180 Bar. Most PCPs shooting at the same power would operate at a much lower pressure. From what I understand, having the rifle operate at a higher pressure means that less air is used per shot and consequently you can get more shots per fill. But a regulator would hugely increase the range of pressures at which the rifle is able to shoot consistently - Meaning that it would use more air per shot, but would more than likely be able to shoot down to 100-120 Bar before velocities start dropping.
 
Upvote 0
While it is correct that regulators are normally adjustable to a range of pressure settings, the most common use of their adjustment is to identify the pressure setting which has the best balance between air usage/pellet speed/velocity; normally (as it is the easiest/most simply effective) by changing hammer weight/design or hammer spring design/pressure upon.

To hugely increase the range of pressure settings on a regulator, you must alter the dimensions of the valve and poppet; which is what (I haven’t stripped a Wolverine) I am guessing Daystate have concentrated upon in order to obtain a style of air pressure is more like a kick rather than a push (sorry, perhaps an over simplistic simile). However, Daystate’s normal 17 inch barrel is specifically designed for such a short blast, and couldn’t handle any more of a long blast (between 80-130 bar) for 30ftIb without inefficient use of air/massive muzzle noise and other problems.

A longer barrel, say 20 inch, in the Daystate could handle 130bar and keep everything in reasonable balance. But, once you change the valve/poppet/hammer/hammer spring/barrel you no longer have a Daystate; you have “something else”. Expensive, but only satisfying if you’re really happy with the result. A regulator in the AA510 (doesn't say on their website, but likely 20 inch barrel) will I suspect cause a dramatic change in your view of the weapon.

To start really experimenting with PCP’s, I suggest the “Chinese 78” as a relatively cheap starting point using a rifle with simple mechanics.
 
Upvote 0
Those are all really good points Cookie. I hadn't actually thought of that, to be honest. The Wolverine definitely sounds "sharper" if you know what I mean. It sounds like the valve opens and shuts very very quickly. I am in contact with a company that is currently developing regulators specifically for the S510 Xtra - They are currently in the final testing phase. All reports I've heard from guys around the world who have regulated their Air Arms rifles have been good. I've seen footage of 20 shot groups being shot at 100 yards and the regged rifle is definitely outshooting the unregged rifle (albeit at a lower power).
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Resources
Menu