Purchase vs FPS..

[Fizzy]

Re: Purchase vs FPS..

Aye - I agree mate. was just saying.

Yeah, wasn't having a go. I mean, I 'presumed' it didn't say estimate yet it may well have done.

[snuff]

Re: Purchase vs FPS..

The scenario with the 2 guns is that they are identical apart from 30 fps,both in the same condition etc,etc...not important anyway.
The adds I bought from mostly stated the fps without the word estimate.
I agree that I'd rather see a lower fps and then be delighted to discover it bettered...
But I think the "manufacturers spec","standard","out of the box" or "uknown" are all better than an inflated fps statement.
I personally bought a chrono so if I mess with them I can see if I add or lower the fps,or I can see if something is wrong.
And surely sellers can test them at their local site prior to selling?
Then again it might not be so important to others...

[seansamurai1]

Re: Purchase vs FPS..

I find if someone posts up whats in it that normally gives the experianced ones a good idea of what its chronoing at anyway, or at least a rough idea, you do get the odd curve ball from that, take my pain in the bum G&G R5 (old model), that has a guarder 100 in it and yet chronos at 368fps(dont use it as its too warm for my site), my element 105 which in theory should have been no higher than 350 chronod at 390 after I fitted a madbull ultimate hop and a modify cylinder kit, so I have to downgrade again to a 90 and put the 100 in the LR300 and hope that doesnt go hot.
If its sold as stock TM with no issues you are looking at around the 265-280 mark (gun dependant). How many times have people bought brand new guns that have a claimed 340fps on websites, only to find on your chrono or first skirmish its 295fps? I have had that with nearly all my new guns, the only one I got that was accurate was my second hand SCAR, the guy said 328fps+-5 I chronod it at 328, 328, 328,327,328 on a five shot consecutive. Happy with that.

[jfox61]

Re: Purchase vs FPS..

Thing is, we don't know it was an estimate. Did the thread say 'Estimated 330fps' or simply 'FPS: 330' ?
If you're going to guestimate, you should at least say so. Simply putting a figure, to me, suggests that's what the FPS is, give or take

I have to agree with this statement. Unless you have chrono'd it accurately, then say it is an estimate based on manufacturers advertised fps.

[jfox61]

Re: Purchase vs FPS..

I find if someone posts up whats in it that normally gives the experianced ones a good idea of what its chronoing at anyway, or at least a rough idea, you do get the odd curve ball from that, take my pain in the bum G&G R5 (old model), that has a guarder 100 in it and yet chronos at 368fps(dont use it as its too warm for my site), my element 105 which in theory should have been no higher than 350 chronod at 390 after I fitted a madbull ultimate hop and a modify cylinder kit, so I have to downgrade again to a 90 and put the 100 in the LR300 and hope that doesnt go hot.
If its sold as stock TM with no issues you are looking at around the 265-280 mark (gun dependant). How many times have people bought brand new guns that have a claimed 340fps on websites, only to find on your chrono or first skirmish its 295fps? I have had that with nearly all my new guns, the only one I got that was accurate was my second hand SCAR, the guy said 328fps+-5 I chronod it at 328, 328, 328,327,328 on a five shot consecutive. Happy with that.

I think most new guys will look at that and just say "ooh 340fps that's a good gun". My SLR by KA only fires at 245fps and people tell me that is wrong it should be higher. It probably should as the manufacturer states high end of 350. But, it is highly accurate with an excellent rof and a very good range. So it isn't an issue for me.

But if I was to sell it no one would buy it thinking 245 fps means crap. Probably down to a compressed spring. But again someone wanting to sell a gun my exaggerate the fps to make the sale.