Install the app
How to install the app on iOS

Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.

Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.

Adding Slugs To Airgun Safety Standards Moves Another Step Forward

Adding Slugs To Airgun Safety Standards

By adding slugs to airgun safety standards, airgun slug shooters have an official industry standard for the first time. It’s an example of the kind of international standards work the Airgun Sporting Association engages in to help grow the sport. HAM first mentioned this back in February, now this is major progress!

It’s deeply-procedural, grinding, behind-the-scenes work that’s also often technical. As ASA President and CEO Ed Schultz explains, there’s always a TON of discussion involved in bringing standards like this into the market.


Adding Slugs To Airgun Safety Standards – Why It Matters​


A caliber name alone doesn’t tell you the actual diameter – .50 cal, for example, could mean the barrel rifling of a .50 BMG or the round ball of a .50 cal muzzleloader. A standardized table gives shooters and manufacturers a shared reference point for what each size actually means. That’s important for safety!

The HAM Guide To JSB KnockOut Slugs


The Airgun Sporting Association (ASA) worked with its members as well as ammunition manufacturers to help reach agreement on this revision It’s part of the ASA’s broader work engaging with the standards process to support the growth and legitimacy of the airgun industry.

Slugs have become one of the fastest-growing segments of the sport, especially in big-bore and PCP shooting, and until now there was no consistent industry definition of what a slug is or how it should be sized.

This revision to ASTM F590 – the Consumer Safety Specification for Non-Powder Gun Projectiles and Propellants – has cleared both rounds of ASTM balloting and is expected to be published within the next couple of months. For the first time, F590 will formally define airgun slugs and set dimensional, material, and marking requirements for them across two dozen calibers.


Adding Slugs To Airgun Safety Standards – What’s New​


The revision adds definitions for airgun slug, hard cast slugs, Match Grade Sizing, and standardized test sizing dies.

It also sets material and hardness rules. Lead slugs must use pure lead (with recycled-content alloy capped at 2%) and a maximum hardness of 10 BHN (Brinell Hardness Number, a standard measure of how resistant a material is to permanent indentation). Unless they are marketed as hard cast, that is.

In the standard, Match Grade Sizing is defined as “a precision airgun slug refinement of a projectile’s outer diameter to within a restricted tolerance of +/- 0.001 Inch (0.0254mm)”. If the slug is claiming Match Grade Sizing (MGS), the target size is to be called out on packaging. Interesting!

All slugs, regardless of material, must meet a maximum push force of 45 Ft/Lbs through that standardized test sizing die, measured against the new standard’s minimum allowable diameters. (This is similar to the way pellets are tested). The sizing die is a precision-machined tool used to compress a lead projectile to a specific, uniform diameter to ensure it matches a rifle’s bore.

The purpose, of course, is to ensure that when you buy an airgun and slugs, they actually work together. You don’t want to have a mis-match that leads to a slug becoming stock in the barrel. Like this…

Muzzle Energy And Consistency For Slugs



Adding Slugs To Airgun Safety Standards – Min And Max Diameter Table​


The centerpiece is a new caliber table setting minimum and maximum diameters, in both inches and millimeters, for 21 sizes – from .177 cal (4.5mm) up through .72 cal (18.5mm), spanning both traditional airgun calibers and larger big-bore sizes.

Here it is. You’re seeing it for the first time in Hard Air Magazine…

CaliberMin Dia (in)Min Dia (mm)Max Dia (in)Max Dia (mm)
.177 cal (4.5mm)0.1774.500.1794.55
5 mm (.20 cal)0.1985.030.2005.08
.22 cal (5.5mm)0.2165.490.2195.56
.223 cal (5.6mm)0.2225.630.2255.70
6mm (.243 cal)0.2416.120.2446.20
.25 cal (6.3mm)0.2496.320.2526.40
.257 cal (6.5mm)0.2556.480.2586.55
7mm (.284 cal)0.2827.160.2857.24
.30 cal (7.6mm)0.3007.620.3037.70
.308 cal (7.8mm)0.3057.750.3087.82
9mm (.35 cal)0.3538.950.3569.03
.357 cal (9.1mm)0.3559.020.3589.09
.375 cal (9.5mm)0.3739.470.3769.55
.40 cal (10.1mm)0.39810.110.40110.19
.408 cal (10.3mm)0.40510.290.40810.36
.45 cal (11.4mm)0.44911.400.45211.48
.457 cal (11.6mm)0.45511.560.45811.63
.50 cal DAQ - Quackenbush - (12.6mm)0.49512.570.49812.65
.50 cal (12.9mm)0.50812.900.51112.98
.58 cal (14.7mm)0.57714.660.58014.73
.62 cal (15.8mm)0.62215.800.62515.88
.72 cal (18.5mm)0.72718.470.73018.54

Keep in mind that ASTM standards are voluntary, so it will take time for the new specs to show up across the market as companies work through existing inventory.

Readers of Hard Air Magazine pellet and slug tests will be familiar with diameter variations in airgun ammo production. Here they are being standardized for slugs through an international safety standard. That’s a great step forward, thanks to efforts from the Airgun Sporting Association.


The post Adding Slugs To Airgun Safety Standards Moves Another Step Forward appeared first on Hard Air Magazine.
 
So long as the new standards are voluntary..., seems like a good thing. Custom manufacturers can still offer odd sizing that has proven to work well in some various rifles.
 
Interesting. Standardization is good for everyone.

What about BBs?

Also, I have seen some match wadcutter pellets advertised as 4.49 mm (some of H&N and RWS offerings come to mind). I never knew Meisterkugeln come in 4.49mm until I saw them at Champions' Choice.

Now, if we can get PCP fittings all on the same standard....
 
Can someone explain to me why a standard needs to be a range and not one number? You can set an acceptable error range +/- but shouldn't you be trying to be exact?

I just think that there should be one ideal number for each caliber. With ranges you are just making sub-calibers in calibers and not solving anything, just codifying what they have been doing already. Everyone's .22 slug gun is already a .216 - .219 gun and these standards aren't going to change that, so I'm thinking that this is a nothing burger. Sounds good, solves nothing. That's just how it looks to me.
 
Can someone explain to me why a standard needs to be a range and not one number? You can set an acceptable error range +/- but shouldn't you be trying to be exact?
Maybe its a standards/metrology thing or even a language thing.
To me 4.50 - 5 is exactly the same as 4.75 +- 0.25
I guess "minimum 4.5 maximum 5" is clearer & removes a little maths to help reduce errors & makes things a little more readable.

Dictating projectile alloys IMO is a waste of time - that's going to be proprietary & will most likely change as countries look to ban lead. So why make a standard that may be invalid & no one will most likely follow.


Not sure why we're not looking at the big ticket items such as SAFETY...
Alloys & composition of pressure vessels, minimum thickness, service life, FILL PROBE DIMENSIONS / materials / lifespans... other standards would be much more useful
 
To me a real standard (that would be safe) would be everyone making the same size, NOT, about the same size.

This is not impossible, and actually already being done to my satisfaction, here's my example:
FX makes a 700mm Superior heavy .22 barrel liner that is consistent enough, that another company, H&N, uses it as a model for their .22 Heavy Slug line. They say their testing shows that the .218 shoot best. According to my testing, they are absolutely correct. So, in this example you have one company already pumping out barrels that are consistent enough to stay within +/- .0005" on slug preference size, and an ammo company that can do the same and supply that slug, yet a "SAFETY" standard is going to allow for a spread from .216 to .219? Why? And that spread size won't work for slugs in an airgun, you pretty much have to stay within .001" of where your barrels at. If FX and H&N can stay consistent enough to get it done, so can everyone else. And they didn't need anyone to tell them to do it, they just want a good result so that people will buy it.

The safety standard needs to tighten its range to what's already being done. They could cut in half, what they are going for, and should. Maybe then we would could finally buy a slug shooter, across all brands, and be fairly certain about what is going to work for ammo.
 
To me a real standard (that would be safe) would be everyone making the same size, NOT, about the same size.

About 100m?
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

With metrology there is no such thing as "the same size" - every instrument has an error, there's a confidence of the measurement, and a level of uncertainty. All of this is worked out when you perform a measurement of something.

When I send my master chronogpraphs off to get measured - they do one test on a Micro Vu Vertex 420 which costs $15-20k USD, it has 2 micron accuracy, with 1 micron resolution. When they perform the measurements they state the levels of uncertainty which are valid for when the measurement is taken - given the process and methodology used.
Here's 100pages on the stuff.... https://ncc.nesdis.noaa.gov/documents/documentation/JCGM_100_2008_E.pdf well beyond me!
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create FREE account

Create a FREE account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Trending in this forum

Back
Top