I was reading the literature to see what to expect with the Crossman Legacy 1000. I didn’t actually realize that it is a twelve pump maximum, not a ten pump. Let me tell you, that is a heck of a lot of pumping. In this experiment, I am measuring the velocity of each number of pumps to determine if it at what point is the work of pumping diminishing.

123456
1219399497565618657
2223400504562615659
3226392498568617662
4231400502561616666
5226398493564622664
6220402494568618664
7220396500566611663
8225389499563618669
9232397502559623665
10218398497567613668
224 +/-15397 +/- 12499 +/- 11564 +/- 10617 +/- 11664 +/- 11
values in fps
789101112
1701726752775798812
2700732755781796808
3698727751779799803
4688730760781793802
5695729758771790810
6695729758772797803
7699725763774798811
8696728758773798807
9695724757777795809
10693723757777789811
696 +/- 11727 +/- 8757 +/- 11776 +/- 11795 +/- 11808 +/- 11
values in fps

One thing from the data that is very pleasing is that repeatability is extremely consistent. It is interesting that the standard deviation is very constant throughout the experiment. That means that the rifle is operating the same as well as the ammunition. This data was obtained using the Crossman Wadcutter pellet (7.4 grains) at muzzle velocity.

There is math to actually determine the optimum pump versus velocity return. It involves calculus, so not so simple and therefore I won’t put it in here. Without actually showing the math, I am going to give the answer: two pumps. I have graphed the data to make it much easier to see. The math says that the inflection point of the curve

Despite the fact that two pumps is the optimum efficiency, we probably want to take advantage of the more available velocity. So, this becomes a subjective decision. In my view, the optimum maximum is eight pumps. 727 fps is 90% of the maximum 808 fps which would save 4 additional pumps.

Going back to my point of aim, point of impact discussion a couple of weeks ago the shooter really needs to settle on goals because simply pumping less or changing ammunition can relate this whole conversation moot. What I am implying is missing the target. When shooting at something the size of a squirrel head, an inch makes a difference between hit or miss.

To boil this all down, what I am suggesting is knowing the performance curve allows the shooter to select the desired outcome and subsequently sight in accordingly. Once that is done, then the shooter needs to stick with (or at least check the outcome) of variable changes.

End Your Programming Routine: I promise, this is the last concurrent week of this testing. Next week will be something new. This experiment actually took some work because of all the pumping and there was a lot of math. I am very surprised at how well this curve fit into a logarithmic function. I suppose that means that physics and math really does describe the world. I have always said that math is only interesting if you care about the results and what it says. In this case, I do care about the results, but it is nice to see that math validates how everything works.