Is there a Standard Testing Format for PCP Rifle Evaluations?

Jump to latest Follow Reply
BDX

BDX

Member
Sep 4, 2018
227
6
CA
I'm slowly progressing to having my new PCP air rifle put together (rings, scope, bipod etc). I'd like to do a performance evaluation and post the results. I've seen any number of reports which included shot strings, chronometer values and pressure drops for each shot but I've never seen a complete battery of tests or data to be collected for what one might consider to be a "complete" evaluation.

If anyone has such a list or could point me in a direction where I could find one I'd appreciate it. If there isn't such a beast then suggestions as to what should be included would be much appreciated.

George
 
I'd probably say watching and then emulating one of Steve's reviews on AEAC is a good, reasonably complete way to evaluate a gun. Lot of work though when you consider the info he gives.

For the scope look at some of the snipers central reviews or Tiborasaurus Rex's videos. Joe Rhea does a good job on his without using a gun of any sort (see below). Some of the other 'best guys' in scope testing like Richard Utting and Ilya Koshkin are harder to emulate as they assume a level of knowledge well beyond a beginner. That said once you're there they're absolute gurus. 

Do one at a time as each bit of kit should be tested in isolation at first, knowing that the rest of the set up is functioning perfectly or there will be too many variables. Scope issues are not super common but will have you going crazy if they pop up while testing a gun. So maybe test it Joe's way to start, followed by Steve's way on the gun. Should hopefully give you a very good overview of the performance of your setup once you're done, as well as of how much of a variable you are 😋

Other stuff like bipods are simpler, thankfully and boil down to whether they fit your needs and do what they're supposed to.
 
Upvote 0
AEAC is good because his methods are consistent. 

In my limited experience and opinion there are few factors, power and accuracy being the main considerations, shot count, ease of use and others follow. Some only want the best of the best but that performance is attainable without spending endless amounts of cash. Unless we are talking about big bore, higher velocity and specialized guns I think there are easy comparisons to be made. Watching a few of Steve's videos will give you an idea of the limitations, and benchmarks of the platform.
 
Upvote 0
Done...Thanks guys...I'll check out Steve's videos and the testing format he follows ...The rifle I'll be testing will be my new AA S510 Ultimate Sporter XS in .22 cal with a walnut stock. I'll be using an SWFA SS 3-15x42mm FFP for the scope. Initially I considered it outside my budget but now I'm glad spent the extra money after comparing it to several other FFP scopes. 

I've decided to use Sportsmatch 30mm ATP-61 (Ex High) adjustable rings for dovetail cut receivers. The FX No Limits were in the running but I think they require a dove tail to picatinny adapter to mount on the XS. If possible I prefer to minimize anything between scope mounts and the rifle's receiver. Regardless height adjustable rings will allow me to play with longer zero ranges without maxing out erector tube travel. I do intend to adjust turrets as opposed to holdover.

The bipod choice is between either an HBRM-S (Notched legs, Swivel, 6-9") or the HBML-S (notched legs, Swivel, 9-13"). Personally I dislike the look and weight of the Harris Engineering sling stud mounting system. By using a UIT/Anschutz rail to picantinny adapter on the rifle and a picatinny adapter piece on the bipod itself I can get a very solid connection and the look I feel the rifle deserves. 

Thanks again guys for the tip about Steve's videos. I expect It will be a while before I can pull this all together but its going to be one sweet looking tack driver.

George
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Resources
Menu