Spearfishing accuracy 2007 speargun test

I think the test is no good. Too many random variables and not enough samples.

Who is paying for the test? THAT is the question!

Just saw this video and I dont like this test. Like seaweed said too many variables and not enough consistency. To really test the accuracy of these guns they need to be clamped down to some kind of rest so that there is no influence of the shooter itself. Just like with a rifle you can adjust your point of aim but if the gun can group well its useless. while hitting the bullseye is great its not the real measure of a guns precision. It would be fun to get some local guys together maybe at Judahs "spearing range" and do our own test

I disagree that a gun should be clamped for testing. It is how the gun lends itself to be held and shot that influences accuracy. Otherwise there's not much to it.

I remember an older article where Hammerhead spearguns won it, but with soft bands. I'm with Davie and Dan on this one.

*edit - I just realized this is the test. The problem with 6.5 mm shaft is the tendency to be overpowered and not have penetration. I mainly use 7mm shafts, but am pro 7.5mm for 5-40lb fish

Im not saying that how the gun moves or can be aimed isnt important, but for a test with shooters that are not familiar with the gun that is the most unbiased way of testing. In order to get the best performance out of any gun the shooter needs to be familiar and to have lots of practice with it. Unless they are all familiar with all of the guns then the individual shooter will affect the accuracy of the gun more than the guns inherent accuracy.

By clamping the gun you will find the pure precision of the gun but not necessarily how well it can be used. You can see with the video of the guy walking along the bottom that he is so familiar with his weapon that he can probably hit anything he wanted, but that doesn't necessarily mean he has built the most accurate gun on the planet. Each shooter has his/her own methods but in order to remove the shooters influence clamping the gun will will produce the clearest results. It removes the human error from the equation.

with the right band stretch and a new spear any brand new like-sized railgun should shoot the same id think.. after that, like dan said, it comes down to factors like handle angle and other user-dependent stuff

Has anyone here had any real world experience with the Hammerhead piece? I was interested in it some time ago but my eyes have since been swayed towards the custom guns and the Riffe's.

Well if the all shoot about the same then there isnt much reason to do an accuracy test. If its all preference then there is no way to come up with any sort of results. The gun that will be most accurate is the one that was closest to the guns used by whoever was testing it.

A speargun is supposed to shoot where you point it. Guys that have gotten used to shooting guns that require compensating should have no problem quickly unlearning a bad habit.

What about testing some of the claims like Riffe's tend to shoot low or another brand shoots high? Anyone who regularly shoots a Riffe may compensate for the gun and anyone who doesn't may skew the results. A new user wouldn't be able to consistently aim and would probably adjust his shots after missing a little low with out even thinking about it. If you were to clamp it down you would be able to get consistent shots and could find a general point of aim.

I would also think that repeating the test at different ranges would be a good idea.

There are many little things that make a gun different. You cannot clamp down a gun and fire it. That test would not show how good a gun aims. That test would actually show nothing.

When a gun is fired, there is recoil and muzzle lift. How a gun handles those 2 main things will determine how accurate it is. That is why one banded guns with a thin shaft are accurate.

There are many other small things that help with accuracy also.

My Abellan has a lot of mass and it fires a 7.5mm shaft. If I were to shoot at a target and my main objective would be to hit the center of target, i would switch the shaft to 7mm and use one 16mm tight band. The gun would not recoil or muzzle lift at all. It would be like i was clamping it down. I would bet the shot would be as accurate as possible. But it wouldn't have the power or range, i would want.

I'm just wanted to say I'm not ignoring this post, and will throw in my 2 cents after the weekend workout torture.:@ .

I find clamped gun pool tests very useful for testing shaft energy, hydrodynamics of the projectile, values of recoil force and speed of the projectile...etc.

Then are are tests with the end user.... are they novice or pro ? Big and strong or slight of build with twigs for arms and delicate hands. Even if one could put put a formula one car in his drive way, very few could ever be skilled enough to use it's performance if they merely dream of being pro F1 drivers.

Cheers, Don

I had not thought about the muzzle jump from the recoil. A clamp that allowed the gun to pivot about the handle would fix that.

It would seem that its necessary to have two tests. There are certainly there are things that can be learned from tests similar to the one in the video (IMO this test is skewed and shows more of a relationship of a shooters skill and familiarity than it does of the guns inherent accuracy) and there are things that can't be learned from clamping a gun ( like Dan and Greekdiver have mentioned) If both tests were conducted then compared and recalculated there might be pretty accurate (no pun intended) depiction of the results.

Even if you are the hulk, the gun will still kick backwards a little bit. On a clamp, it will not. And when you test shaft speed on a clamp, all the energy is transfered to the shaft.

Remember, recoil is lost energy.

I was thinking along the same lines, but a pole standing from the bottom that the speargun muzzle can rest on the point of it. It would take away a lot of the human error as the gun would already be aimed well provided the back end will be positioned correctly, half the job is already done.

Thats a good idea Jeff. I hadnt thought of that and was trying to transfer what I know about a regular rifle. I like Dans Idea because it seems a little sturdier. You could use two poles because the gun is long enough and you would effectively connect the dots to the target. They also wouldnt inhibit the recoil sounds like we have a test we can agree on. Now we only need a date

We need a pool..