Very powerful ones were much more common when they were still considered viable weapons before the cartridge firearm. In fact they were often better, allowing multiple shots of similar power in a fraction of the time.
I mentioned all those details and more prior to you telling me they were not on par with muzzle loaders of the day, and proceed to compare your DAQ to.
That is what you responded about, because that was what I had mentioned in reference to them being on par with muzzle loaders in the time period.
The stats for the pictured gun are not mine. Idealy a powerful airgun stays below 1000 FPS, and bullet weight is added for any given power to bring the velocities down around that.
The pictured airgun fires 1,005 projectiles and with the speeds it records on chronographs generates over 1,000 foot pounds of energy.
Most powerful airguns throughout history were made on a custom basis. Many royalty and nobles hunted with them. They were charged or had reservoirs charged with hand pumps (pumped by someone else of course.)
I find that very important in regards to the RKBA argument because the founding fathers, especialy someone like Benjamin Franklin would have been well aware of them, as would others familiar with the past times of the nobility.
They were considered arms at the time, and that to me shows they would have thought no differently of modern arms. They already had repeating arms.
They date back to the 1500's and by the 1600's were often better than small arms of the day, and that remained the case until the cartridge firearm in the late 1800's.
However they were quite complex in a day when the most complex thing a person had was a watch, and even those were taken to special individuals to repair. They also have to be made to airtight specifications and it required a lot more precision work to make powerful airguns than a musket.
A muzzle loader by contrast could be made to loose standard, and only has to generate pressure by igniting powder, not continuously contain it.
A poorly educated militia armed with complex airguns would have been a nightmare when they stripped them down and couldn't put them back together or lost a tiny part, nevermind the expense
Longarms in contrast were little more than a metal tube in a stock with a simple ignition system.
The Austrian army however still overcame that and managed to use them as thier primary small arm for a time.
The springer comments were exactly as I meant. Sure a very nice springer can be made, but in general I think they are crap, and that will remain my opinion. The recoil is not just in reverse, they slam a piston around and the vibrations are not just tough on the optics but those vibrations over time are tough on the airgun. Why? Why even deal with that when you can get the same performance out of something without any of that?
The "recoil" is also annoying because there is absolutely no reason something that weak should have anything at all to throw your sight picture off by even a hair, period!
I think springers are crap, that doesn't mean there isn't high quality expensive ones, I still think that type of action is crap.
That is my opinion and you should focus on giving your own opinion rather than insulting me over mine. Your entire post is directed at arguing with me without providing much useful or interesting information.
