by B.B. Pelletier
When I left off last time, I promised to show you a Daystate that not many airgunners have heard of. I had two of them, which qualifies me to tell the tale of the airgun many of you have probably daydreamed about and wondered why nobody ever made. I’m talking about the Daystate Sportsman Mark II.
“What they oughta do…”
How many times have I heard airgunners talk about their reservations with precharged guns? They like the way the guns shoot, if only there was some way around the scuba tank and hose. Other airgunners look at their Blue Streaks and wonder why someone has never thought to put a premium barrel on one and perhaps give it some more power. If they know of the Sharp Ace, they wonder all the more. [The Sharp Ace is a more refined multi-pump with greater power and accuracy than the Benjamin Sheridan rifles.]
“Yeah,” they muse, “If only Daystate or Falcon would build a PCP and build a pump into it so you don’t need a scuba tank!”
Daystate Sportsman Mark II is a multi-pump pneumatic that’s built like a PCP. Shooters said they wanted it, but sales didn’t agree.
Wonder no longer, my friends – the gun was built. Like I said, I had two of them. The Daystate Sportsman Mark II is a multi-pump pneumatic that’s built along the same lines as a PCP, only with a pump built in. The UK version reached 12 foot-pounds and required only two pumps. If it is pumped further, a relief valve will open to exhaust the excess air. The U.S. version hit 25 foot-pounds and required five pump strokes. Of course, as with any multi-pump, you could always stop at fewer pumps and shoot with less power. On one pump, my .22 caliber rifle got about 6.5 foot-pounds with Crosman Premiers. Two pumps gave me 11.8 foot-pounds. Three took me up to 15.5 foot-pounds and four got 17.5 foot-pounds. Five pumps got 19.5 foot-pounds with Crosman Premiers. With a 29.6-grain Dae Sung (similar to today’s Eun Jin pellet) the rifle got 24.5 foot-pounds. The rifle was made in .22 caliber and there were plans to make it in .25 also, but I don’t know that any were made.
Wow, you say! I’d really like that! Sure you would, if only the pumps took the same effort as your Blue Streak, but they didn’t. Pump number three required about 67 pounds of effort. Pumps four and five took about 77 pounds of effort. Even pump number two took between 55 and 64 pounds of effort, so the 12 foot-pound gun was no delight, either. The eigth and final pump of a Blue Streak takes about 33 pounds of effort. I have watched several grown men fail to pump the Sportsman five times. A great many more simply refused to do that much work. That was the problem with the rifle. If the invention Tom Gaylord showed you for the Benjamin 392/397 were incorporated into the Sportsman, then, yes, it could be successful. But as it was produced, even in a 12 foot-pound gun, it was simply too difficult to pump. The pump handle swung 105 degrees away from the side of the rifle and the pump effort didn’t start to build until the handle was about halfway back.
Pump lever swung 105 degrees open. It pivoted on a massive bearing.
How did it shoot?
It shot just like you imagine it would. It shot exactly like a PCP. The pump lever was on the right side, so it tried to rotate the rifle in that direction when you held it, but other than that there was little difference between the Sportsman and any .22 caliber PCP of the time (1997). There was no noticeable recoil; the trigger was light and delightfully crisp and accuracy was minute of thumbnail at 40 yards – everything you would expect.
The photos show the same clean lines that Daystate was putting on their PCPs at that time. Fortunately, this rifle was made when they were lightening all their PCPs, because that pump mechanism added several pounds of weight. The unscoped rifle weighed 9.5 lbs.!
Before there was a Mark II there was a Mark I. Before that, the rifle existed under another name altogether. Daystate didn’t actually design it. They acquired the design from another source, and I just recently learned from Daystate of America that they didn’t actually build it in-house, either. They acquired it from an outside source and put their name on it.
I liked the rifle after getting used to it. After time passed, comparison with my PCPs that were so easy to just shoot caused me to part company.
For those who find themselves intrigued, these guns still show up at airgun shows. Asking prices are about $550, which is close to the new price in ’97. Every one of them you find will probably be in excellent condition – both because the gun is so beautiful that their owners will care for it, and because it is so hard to pump that nobody will ever wear one out!
47 thoughts on “The Daystate Saga – Part 3 A different Daystate”
Thanks for the nice blog today B.B. it was informative.
What are some nice multi-pump rifles one can find today? I know about the Benjamins… Are there other ones I must look at?
Thanks a lot
and for once again I must note that you offer priceless information to airgunners worldwide and we thank you for that!
The only other multi pumps that I know of that MIGHT be good are the Sharps. But they have a problem. When they were actually made in Japan, they were stunning. 25 foot-pounds and accuracy of a PCP. Cost was similar to the Daystate.
Then Japan contracted them out to Indonesia. The quality dropped fast, until they were in the same ballpark as the Cannon – another Indonesian gin you don’t want.
Them two years ago, they moved production to China to save money and bring quality back.
I haven’t seen those products yet, so no comment on the quality.
If you have a spare $700, shop for a used Japanese Sharp Ace in excellent condition.
Thanks for the info.
Do you know of any good online used airgun shops?
From the short research I have just made, it seems that there is a UK Sharp ACE version as well…?
Yes there is a UK version of the Ace. Everything I said applies, plus it is limited to 12 foot-pounds. I used to own one.
For used guns try the American Airguns website.
Is the sharp as hard to cock as the daystate?
Maybe an article on the Sharp Ace sometime in the future might be a good idea…
Personally I like the idea of PCP behavior and accuracy but without the scuba tank or pump. That’s why I am going to check out the Diana 54 in the local shop/dealer as well.
The Sharp Ace isn’t nearly as difficult to pump as the Daystate. It takes 10 pumps to get up to the max.
Maybe I will report on it in the future.
I have to ask this – what are your reservations about using either a pump or a scuba tank? Your opinion on this is important to me, to understand more about the motivation of airgunners.
I guess it’s an attitide that is partly due to being lazy but mostly it’s because I am a “plug and play” person.
I don’t like it when my setup takes a lot of time. I am a practical person by nature and I am like this not only with airguns but at school, at work, when mountain hiking and at my other hobbies too.
Also, I like to produce the most work with the least amount of effort. This doesn’t mean that I will compromise the quality of work by rushing and leaving parts out…
It’s just my character I guess. Since PCP accuracy is possible without a pump or scuba tank, I will use that. Even 10 pumps for me is something to consider…
Since you got the Diana 54 to shoot 0.27 at 35 yards on a windy day (and I remember that you noted that you can push that group out another 10 yards) that rifle is even higher on the list than the Shrp ace.
I hope I made some sence and helped you understand…
hi sorry this is off topic i was just wondering what changes they would make to a rifle for us in canada who buy guns in the 500fps range when a given gun might only shoot 550 or 575 like some crosmans in full power. is it just a turn of a coil sring removed or different valves in co2 or something more complicated. thxs
up here canada eh!
hey, BB I don’t quite understand if this daystate is a multi pump (pump 5 times then load and shoot 1 pellet) or a PCP which has a pump for the resevior built in (pump 5 times load magazine and fire in bolt action until resevior is empty). thanks for clarification.
BB, like you said, “Wow!” However, the pump effort would make me think twice. The Sharp ACE sounds interesting, but it is nice to have fewer pumps (except when you want more control over the power).
What I would be interested in would be something like the Daystate Mark II with a pump like the one mentioned for the Benjamin! Something in the $300-$500 range (BAM B-50 with pump?).
Why don’t I want a SCUBA tank or hand pump?
1) I live at least 45 minutes from the nearest SCUBA shop.
2) I’m concerned about hand pump maintenance and life. I emailed Mac1 about hand pumps and Tim said nobody services them and he doesn’t carry parts for them. He said “Pumps are a very bad idea in my mind.”
3) Cost. You have the initial cost of a tank or pump. Then you have refills and inspections for the tank. If your hand pump malfunctions after the first year, it sounds like it could be difficult to get fixed.
4) Fewer accessories.
5) In the case of the SCUBA tank, not having to depend on a store to fill the tank.
I am currently saving to buy a SCUBA tank or pump because my 850 AirMagnum is converted to PCP now (I got myself into this). I can’t decide which to buy because of the problems mentioned above (I have the local paintball store fill it currently). I am leaning toward the SCUBA tank since I would like to do some shooting at a range. It seems like a tank will maximize shooting time.
That is why I would like a pump PCP.
I understand. I just wondered if it was fear or concern about all the extra baggage or what.
The Daystate Sportsman Mark II is a multi-pump pneumatic. Five pumps – one shot. No air left in the gun.
Yes, the multi-pump segment of the market does have room for growth.
Each powerplant uses a different technology to reduce power and sometimes they use several.
PCPs can use reduced air capacity in a firing chamber, if they have one, or a reduced air passage size. And yes, they can clip hammer springs, but everyone knows that is easy to defeat, so they usually don’t do it that way.
CO2 does the same as a pneumatic, but the formulas are all different because the CO2 molecule is so large, compared to air. So look for different valves on Canadian guns.
Spring guns usually destroke the piston, and that’s hard to get around unless you have access to all the right parts.
Both pump-pneumatics and springers are ultimately human-powered – all the work that goes into propelling the pellet originally came from the shooter.
What always amazes me, in this light, is the inefficiency of the pneumatics. Look at the effort you need to put into a Shadow, Quest, or CFX for about 15 ft-lbs of energy (or an RWS48/52/54 for 20)… and compare it to what you have to put into a pump gun to get something similar.
I suspect that it largely has to do with the heat of compression – some of your energy goes into heating the air as it’s compressed – but the air cools down rather quickly, loosing that energy.
There is a great discussion of this topic in Cardew’s book. You might find it interesting.
The Airgun from Trigger to Target
On two unregulated guns (pcps) with the same barrel and both are on the same amount of air. Like a condor and a talon ss with the 24 inch barrel. Would they get the same total amount of power after both guns is shot dry? thanks BB!
I have a question about pumping a multi-pump rifle:
Is it possible for the pumps to vary from pumping to pumping? I mean, is it possible that fewer or more air will get in the reservoir after a fixed amount of pumps is made (let’s say 8 pumps for each shot)?
I think that this happens, but what is the range of variation one can expect? Is it so big that it affects the accuracy of such a rifle by affecting its speed?
Interesting posit. I don’t know the answer. I would guess they would be similar.
I take it you don’t own a chronograph yet. This is a classic question and the answer might surprise you. Multi-pumps are very stable, regarless of how they are pumped. Maybe I’ll do a report in the future.
No, I don’t own one yet, but I bet I will soon.
This blog has me searching all over the internet for a used Japanese Sharp Ace.
I can’t find anything, and the truth is that I am begining to feel like the people you described in the blog: “They MUST build an easy cocking 20 foot pound multi-pump rifle with a nice .177 barrel so that I can go and buy it!”
I don’t know how much inside information you get BB, but is it possible that a company actually hits the market with such a rifle?
Not that I know of yet, but I wouldn’t be surprised to see one in the future.
could you ask tom how to get the new invention for a benji? if theres anyplace to send it out or anything like that, i’d love to know about it.
hey…its been a while since i posted on here…my internet has been down for almost a month.
i’d like to share with everyone something amazing that i found out about my g1 extreme. it shoots 10.5 grain cp’s VERY well. at 25 yrds, i get under 1/4″. kodiaks dont do so well…they gave a little more than an inch. also, i was trying out some pellets in my multipumps(daisy880, 901, crosman 766, 760)i was using cp lights(and in the daisy’s i was getting very good accuracy), and then tried gamo pro magnums, and they turned out to shoot just as well…i didnt have time to try them in all of my guns, but i think there might be something to them…bb, you should try them in some of your guns. but, back to the point of this post, the g1 extreme is an amazing buy…for only $125, i dont think you can get a btter gun
The inventor has decided to make his invention by himself, but there will still be a relationship with Pyramyd Air. He will have several modified guns at the Roanoke airgun show on the last Friday and Saturday in October.
I will ask him if he will take advance orders on those guns. If he will, I’ll give you a contact.
Since you’ve been gone we’ve picked up several other Daves, so next post give me more of a handle to go on.
Gamo Pro Magnums. I’ll try ’em.
well, my full name is too long…how about my initials? ded.
Since everyone else seems to be joining the “why don’t they” game, I’ll have a go.
why don’t they (or have they?) made a PCP gun that has a hand pump built in. Like my question earlier suggested: have a gun that you pump like a multi-pump pnumatic, but have that pumping fill the resevior of a PCP. Yes there would be more pumping involved, it wouldn’t be very ergenomic, but it would save a lot of this hassle of multi pumps for 1 shot, and of PCP’s running out of air and needing a seperate pump, or a SCUBA tank.
The USFT prototype (Simple Simon) has also been made as a multi-pump PCP. At 20 foot-pounds I believe it gets either 7 or 14 powerful shots, and you can top it off as you go. It’s in .22 caliber for the greatest efficiency. The pump strokes go up to about 20-25 pounds as I recall. I pumped one at the Little Rock Airgun Expo in April.
If you dial back to 12 foot pounds, the number of shots increases to 40, I believe. My numbers may be a little off, but the relationships are still valid.
ded it is.
OT from the excellent Daystate Saga, I was wondering if you could answer this: I purchased the B-Square 11mm adjustable riser base from Pryamidair, and hot damn..it works like a charm on my droopy Diana 34! Seems like it was custom made for these rifles, complete with the pin for the front of the rail.
My question is, would it be prudent to use two-piece rings with that riser base for an RWS, or should I stick with a one piece?
Good sense tells me that the riser is basically “fixing” the Diana mounting problems, however would I have problems with a two-piece ring set up on a powerful springer like the 350?
Thanks for your time!
p.s. I have new pics soon of the completed “ArtiliPod” that you have inspired me to build. I will field test it in the coming weeks 🙂
The base will stay put, but the rings will try to move on it. So you need something to stop the rear ring.
What happened to the Tau 7 report you talked about in January?.
I was looking at an old side by side shotgun that i own and was wondering whether there were any side by side or under and over airguns made,
would this be feasible
thanks for your advice
I’ll try to get to it soon.
Using the broad term airguns, there are several side by sides. Daisy made a couple as BB guns and cork guns. The 104 was first, followed by the 21.
A Phillipine gun was made as a side by side several years ago. It keeps appearing at the Roanoke airgun show.
I have seen a couple of homemade pieces, too. I cannot remember an over-under, however.
Can I just ask , who dud make the sportsman for Daystate in 1982 ? I can't find any info on this
What are you asking? Daystate made the Sportsman — not someone else.
And it was made in 1980 — not 1982.
No it says in the blog it was design and made by others Daystate just put there name on it Daystate USA confermed this , it's all in the blog at the top of the page
The sportsman was not made in house some one else made it who were they ??
In the Daystate history page 3 under history it says the following ….
Before there was a Mark II there was a Mark I. Before that, the rifle existed under another name altogether. Daystate didn't actually design it. They acquired the design from another source, and I just recently learned from Daystate of America that they didn't actually build it in-house, either. They acquired it from an outside source and put their name on it.
Am wanting to know the outside source that made it please thanks
I beleave you posted this under the name " the Daystate sagar a differnt Daystate the blog I was reading was dated 2007
Here is what I said:
As Daystate's reputation quickly grew, they were approached by Rentokil (Rent-to-Kill, a large British pest elimination company with offices here in the U.S.) to make a smallbore air rifle for extermination. The first modern smallbore precharged air rifle was created for Rentokil by Daystate in 1980. They called it the Huntsman, and it developed 40 foot-pounds in .22 caliber.
I can't be any clearer than that.
Okay, I see now that you are talking about the Sportsman.
Daystate made it.
The gun that preceded it wads the Titan Manitou, by Titan.
Daystate got another company to make the sportsman for them and rebranded it as the Daystate sportsman this fact was confermed by Daystate USA as mentioned in the bog I posted a link to
I want to know what company made the gun "the sportsman " that Daystate then rebranded as there own
I asume you not the original author of the wording in the blog I posted the link to , could you tell me who wrote the original ?
My name is Tom Gaylord. I have been writing this blog under the pen name B.B. Pelletier since 2005. I wrote the report you are referencing.
As far as I know, Daystate did make the Sportsman Mark II and Mark III. I owned a Mark III and I tested a Mark II and was in personal conversation with the Director of Daystate at the time the gun was being made. I spoke to him face to face at several SHOT Shows, and kept up an email conversation for over a year.