by B.B. Pelletier
So many of you commented on how attractive my 2200 is that I thought I would show you this larger photo. Isn’t she a beauty?
Today, we’ll learn what Rick Willnecker has been able to do to my Crosman 2200 Magnum. You’ll remember that he rebuilt the powerplant after I had a problem with a hardened pump seal.
I’ll also draw upon the numbers reported by Joe G. from Jersey. He has a brand new 2200 Magnum that he bought in 2004, so his velocities are right for the gun when new.
First, I pumped my rebuilt rifle 8 times and fired several .22-caliber Crosman Premiers to see how it was shooting. The results of that exercise were very enlightening.
Yes, those are the velocities as I recorded them from the newly rebuilt rifle. All were from 8 pump strokes. Make what you want of the data, but never think for a moment that an airgun is straightforward!
Now for velocities on 10 pump strokes.
I also tested the rifle with RWS Meisterkugeln before rebuilding. They’re a little lighter than Premiers, so they go a trifle faster.
By comparison, Joe’s new 2200 gets 590 f.p.s. with .22 Premiers on 10 pumps. So, our two rifles preform remarkably alike. Or at least I thought they did at this point in my test.
I must also comment that the first few shots on 10 pumps were not that fast. Shot one with Premiers was only 581 f.p.s. Shot two went 584. After that, no shot was below 587 f.p.s. This multi-pump needs a little warm-up. The string I used for the average went from 587 to 597.
I did a test of the velocity with increasing pump strokes. I started at two strokes to avoid sticking a pellet in the barrel. This test was done with Crosman Premiers.
Strange numbers, in light of the average velocity with 10 pumps posted above. I obtained the average of a second string with 10 pump strokes. I’m showing you all the numbers in the string so you can marvel with me.
The average of that string is 607.1 f.p.s. Something is happening to the gun. Either it’s warming up with all the shooting (very possible) or it’s breaking in (also possible). Here’s what I’ll do. After the accuracy test, I’ll test another string of 10 on 10 pumps. The gun will be more broken-in by that time, so the average velocity shouldn’t be as prone to vary as it is now. We’ll see.
The two-stage, non-adjustable trigger on this rifle is very stiff–breaking at between 8.25 and 8.5 lbs. Loading is also difficult, as the loading port isn’t directly accessible. The pellet has to roll down a ramp and invariably gets turned around backward unless you load it that way. Then it remains backwards. It requires a learned technique to get it right. Finally, the stock is plastic and hollow. If it were foam-filled, it wouldn’t be so objectionable, but as is, it seems cheap and toy-like.
The pellet loading port is deep and inaccessible to the fingers. You must learn to squirt a pellet into the trough and half the time it ends up backwards.
The first version of the 2200 Magnum was supposed to be hotter than those that followed. That’s what the seller told me when I bought the gun. Back then (2006), the gun wasn’t working right so there was no way to tell if that was correct, but perhaps it is. We’ll see!
60 thoughts on “Testing the Crosman 2200 – Part 2”
Seem to remember reading something about the hammer strike not being strong enough to open valve fully. On 10 pumps, did you cock hammer and fire to see if there was any air left in the gun after the first firing?
I did, indeed. In fact I checked for that numerous times, because some of these velocities were surprising. But never was any air left in the gun.
Herb beat me to the punch. I have a 2200 & wanted to ask:
If you don't have a chronograph, can you tell when extra pumps don't give you extra velocity by dry firing & listening for remaining air? Do you find velocity levels off BEFORE that point, maybe due to the valve opening more slowly?
That is a valid way of seeing if extra pumps are wasted.
With most multi-pumps (but not this one) the velocity gain tapers off as the pump count increases. Because this one doesn’t I feel it can use extra pumps. But 10 is a lot and the power I’m getting is satisfactory, so I will stop at 10 no matter what.
Oops, it looks like we cross-posted.
I use a blunt end (or rubber tipped ones will work as well) pair of tweezers to load pellets into the loading trough. The blunt end (or rubber tip) and a gentle grip on the pellet prevents damaging the pellets. I’ve never had any trouble loading pellets since.
You were right. A rebuild was required and made a significant difference. In essence, a new gun based on your initial velocities vs. Joe G’s as the baseline.
That’s a lot of pumping for our benefit. Sorry but I can’t help compare the relative lack of effort in the diana 27 and my smooth tuned R7 that have similar velocities to 10 pumps in the Crosman 2200. Older Age = desire for less effort.
Your velocities are interesting. A warm up period for a pumper? Never realized. A break in period for a pumper? Interesting. The velocity increase from your first ten shot string with 10 pumps vs. the second string sure seem to indicate this. Looking forward to your promised velocity test in the part 3 after the gun “is more broken in”.
Seems I learn something new every day from you about airguns.
Yes, and the more I think about the second velocity test, the more I want to do it with a cold gun. In other words, ensure that gun heating is (or isn’t) the direct cause of higher velocity.
RE: velocity decrease after 10 pumps
Seems like there has to be something weird happening with the valve when firing after 10 pumps. Maybe hammer rebounds and dumps last bit of air, maybe not enough air left to notice when dry firing. But the only reason for the velocity to decrease is some sort of incomplete release of the pressurized air – a valve lock of some sort.
RE: velocity decrease after 10 pumps ??
I guess I’d be curious about 5 times at 9 pumps and 5 times at 10 again. In looking at data again, I see that there is only one shot at 9 pumps. The sole 9 pump shot could be weird, but I sort of doubt it.
I do remember some discussion somewhere that the trigger was harder to pull as the number of pumps increased. Think this is related to the weird valve problem.
OT Gun-Tests.com has just published their first ever airgun test. A Walther Falcon, Gamo Whisper and two Norica’s. They went into the test trying to determine if, with the high price of ‘real’ ammo, airguns were a worthwhile way to practice.
The tests are fairly inpdepth and they seem quite impressed and a bit surprised by the results.
Good Morning All,
The 2200 I got on the yellow is in good shape.. I had put some oil on the seal and let it sit a few days..
Just ran ten shots over the crony with 14.3 crosman.. first shot 605fps.. last shot 609fps.. lo 598, hi 615, avg. 607fps..
Ten pumps is work!! and noisy!! can’t imagine trying to hunt with a pumper… especially one that slaps so loud on the close..
Loading is for sure a challenge, but I did get the rolling to work 8 out of 10 times the first time..
I don’t know if I would want to go through all the pumping necessary to test it for accuracy.. your a better man than I, Tom Gaylord!!! in many, many ways!!
Ashland Air Rifle Range
Your unquenched thirst for knowledge combined with an insatiable curiousity is what make you such a great airgun writer.
I think you’re constantly replenished by all your pet cats curiousity through osmosis.
here is another off-topic question that will surely make you wonder if I should have an air rifle at all, or even drive a car for that matter…
I understand the issue of parallax through the scope perfectly well, I believe. My question is whether the “shadow” of the front iron sight would in fact help with parallax. By making sure the shadow of the iron sight is always in the same place with respect to the reticle, would that not help with parallax? Mainly with side-to-side parallax…
I find it really hard to avoid parallax by “feeling” only…
My understanding is that a scope with an adjustable objective can reduce or eliminate parallax. Why not just switch to a scope with an AO.
With the Crosman 1077, I’m very well-disposed to their products, but with a ton of pumping, a stiff trigger, and loading problems, this one seems to have a ways to go.
tunnelengineer, I give you credit for having a grasp of parallax. It’s on my list of things to figure out although my scopes seem to be shooting okay.
“But the only reason for the velocity to decrease is some sort of incomplete release of the pressurized air – a valve lock of some sort.”
No, it could also be a slower release due to slow or incomplete valve opening.
Not hard to figure out what $2 word means. See:
Basically just a fancy word for saying that the aim point denoted by crosshairs in scope depends on the eye position.
Simple example – hold finger up at arms length and align it with something with your right eye. Now close right eye and look at finger with left eye. Your finger "sight" "moved."
A properly chosen scope can minimize the error. The smaller the exit pupil measurement, the fussier the scope is to eye position. But as the scope gets fussy about where your eye has to be (left-right & up-down), then it is harder to find that position.
The adjustable objective (and a larger objective) also helps since it passes more light and has a more defined range of focus (closer-further from scope). But dialing distance to achieve "best" focus is linked to eye position. So unless you know the distance to the target, selecting "best" focus point isn't an absolute fix. But if you're shooting at paper targets and zero scope for the target, then if your eye shifts, then target will be out of focus. You also obviously need high magnification to determine when target is in and out of focus.
High magnification can also work against you since your muscles involuntarily twitch to center the scope crosshairs on target. With a 5,000X you'd go crazy trying to (1) find target and (2) keep croshairs centered on target. So you can have too much of a good thing.
A fixed magnification scope lets little light through. Think of it as a "pin hole" camera. Everything is in focus. Hence it is also relatively insensitive to your eye position behind the scope.
The trigger did not get harder with the number of pumps. It remained hard regardless.
You can only see the front sight through some low-power scopes. I can’t see it in 75 percent of the scope that I own.
The sight doesn’t seem to help with parallax–perhaps because it has so much of its own.
Thanks, Herb. That clears up the concept of parallax. But how do you adjust a scope for parallax since it sounds like it depends entirely on putting your eye at the same location relative to the scope. I suppose you can adjust near and far distance by examining the focus of the image and moving your eye appropriately. But what happens when you move laterally relative to the ideal eye position; that is where parallax kicks in, right? Does the image get out of focus as well?
I’ve never understood how any of this related to the method for putting a scope on a mirror and adjusting things or other complicated methods that involve adjustments to the scope itself. I just adjust my AO until everything is in focus, and it seems to work.
In regards to tunnel engineer’s question, couldn’t the position of the front sight in the scope help your position (cheek weld)? I’ve never tried it (or thought about it), but it does seems like you would get consistent positioning if the sight is in the same place (and is the same size) whenever you aim.
RE: how do you adjust a scope for parallax since it sounds like it depends entirely on putting your eye at the same location relative to the scope.
You don’t really, you focus the scope for distance. Having to focus decreases the three dimensional position of the eye to see the target in focus. So some enterprising marketeer noted that focusing for distance thus also effected parallax. So an Adjustable Objective (focus for distance) scope became know as a parallax adjustment. 🙁 The whole point is that the AO design allows a lot more light to get through scope. So you have to focus for distance.
If the scope was fixed (like a pin hole camera) then less light gets through and scope is focused from infinity down to something like 20 yards. Exactly how close would depend on size of scope objective lens, power, and percent of light that passes through the scope (like f-stop on a 35mm camera).
To understand the point about focusing, let’s assume that your eye is slightly in the wrong position. Then there is still some “distance” adjustment that will give you the best focus for that eye position. Not as good a focus as if your eye was in the “best” position. Essentially you chose the wrong distance to get a better focused image.
RE: .. how any of this related to the method for putting a scope on a mirror and adjusting things or other complicated methods that involve adjustments to the scope itself.
BB has referred to “optically centering” the scope. The click adjustments move cross hairs off the perfect centerline of scope. The “best” optical performance would be looking down center line of scope through the centers of the lenses. That is what “optically centering” the scope is about.
I does work that way, but there is a HUGE amount of parallax between the reticle and the front sight, and I don’t think you can always return to the exact same point when you sight. Even a small amount of angle will show up in the front sight.
BB (or others) – the 2200 Magnum looks very similar to the Remington Airmaster 77 (also manufactured by Crosman). Are they basically the same gun (except the caliber)?
Here is what I think, and this is based on my years of experience behind a telescope.
Looking through the scope is similar to looking through only one of two iron sights. One difference being the magnification. If there was a “bi-focal” scope that allows viewing the front sight as well as the target, then we would eliminate parallax… to the extent parallax can be eliminated by the iron sights!
I guess I have answered my own question. The front sight ghost in the scope image (which I do get with the Gamo Whisper’s scope especially at 7x or less) helps in reducing parallax. It does not matter whether that sight is centered on the barrell or whacked out of place, as long as I keep it in the same place in my scope when I shoot. However, it will serve only to reduce parallax error, not to eliminate it, and will not help in reducing groups to less than 1 or 1.5 inch in 50 yards.
The best way to eliminate parallax is to practice, and using a better scope, which I do not want to afford right now…
They are basically the same gun.
BB didn’t point out that Crosman still makes the 0.177 caliper version of the rile,
the model 2100B.
So the 2100b and the Remington 77 are very close to being the same gun.
No doubt many if not all the parts are interchangeable.
Matt,Herb, Tunnel Engineer
I have a bit different take on parallax, perhaps useful.
First, you don’t choose to focus at the wrong distance to eliminate parallax…that would really complicate things. You focus precisely at the right distance (not necessarily what the marks on the dial say) and all eye positions will see exactly the same image of the crosshairs with relation to the target. Focusing at the correct distance has the added benefit of giving you a range (assuming you’ve calibrated). There are still advantages to optically centering the eye at that point, mostly related to the exit pupil, but parallax is not one of them. High magnification, incidentally, reduces the exit pupil size and so helps with eye positioning.
By the way, optically centering the scope means moving the crosshairs so they are at the optical center of the objective and in the middle of their adjustment range, which certainly simplifies the optical analysis, but is really more of a mechanical issue related to the construction of the scope.
FT shooters take full advantage of all this, whether they know it or not: by choosing fast f/ratios (big objective, short focal length) and high magnification they reduce the depth of field as much as possible, making the range of “best focus” as short as possible. This does two things: 1) gives them a method to find the distance to the target; 2) Eliminates parallax (and cheek-weld) as a major concern.
RE: “First, you don’t choose to focus at the wrong distance to eliminate parallax…”
Absolutely agree. I made remark to point out that the distance adjustment could be changed to somewhat correct for improper eye position.
RE: “… Focusing at the correct distance has the added benefit of giving you a range (assuming you’ve calibrated). There are still advantages to optically centering the eye at that point, mostly related to the exit pupil, but parallax is not one of them.”
Disagree. Parallax certainly is not the main factor of focusing for distance. But by having a scope which needs to have the distance focused, it has a greater sensitivity to eye position. Imagine a scope which has such a large “f-stop” that it is essentially a pin hole camera. The distance between the eye and scope now controls magnification. As the distance is increased the image gets bigger. So if the scope needs a distance adjustment, then it more sensitive to eye position than if it did not need a distance adjustment. I’ve argued before that the AO was not a “parallax adjustment,” but making the distance adjustment the parallax sensitivity is changed. Higher magnification also increases parallax sensitivity.
RE: “By the way, optically centering the scope means moving the crosshairs so they are at the optical center of the objective …”
Absolutely. Making “normal” click adjustments move the crosshairs off the optical center line of the scope. The “best” way to adjust a scope would be to optically center crosshairs and use adjustable rings or mount to adjust the point of aim. That would be very cumbersome, but it would work.
Never shot field target, but I agree with you comments. They are exactly what I would expect from the the science.
One more thing (after supper, my mind works better). Parallax error in rifle scopes is due to the fact that the ocular (eyepiece) needs to focus on both the reticle (crosshairs) and the projected image of the objective. That, and not the Wikipedia definition of parallax, may perhaps make it clearer why it is important to focus the objective as precisely as possible on the target.
Just a few more reasons I hate riflescopes:).
Just saw your comments. I think you are not completely considering the function of the ocular.
Please note that I agree with much (and perhaps all) of what you said, as far as it relates to the eye’s interaction with the image from the ocular.
Regarding focus of the image from the objective, that could be achieved completey by by the ocular adjustment as in telescopes, but the ocular adjustment is generally reserved for corrective focus of the reticle. If the focal plane of the objective is not coincident with the reticle, then only one (reticle or image) can be focused perfectly at a time. So, I would argue that the primary function of “AO” is correction of parallax.
A cheap and relatively easy way to greatly reduce parallax was explained to me at Roanoke by Mac MacDonald. Cut out a paper disk the size of the eyeball side of your scope. Punch a hole exactly in the center of it and tape it to your scope.
This forces you look through the scope from basically the same point (determined by the size of the hole), turning the scope into a pin-hole camera.
I haven’t tried it yet, but my G-1 has been jumping all over the place. I need to eliminate the loose nut behind the trigger as the source of the error before I condemn it to “plinking gun”.
[Word verification = “props”]
Nice Job on bringing the 2200 back to life. It made me want to run some velocity test again.
Testing back in September 08, at about 80 degrees my velocities where up a bit. I was thinking the gun was braking in nicely, but after testing today they are back to where they were last February. The diffrence being my garage was 44 degrees today. My elevation is about 1100 feet above sea level.
All testing was done at 10 pumps, 5 shot strings with my PACT Pro chronograph.
September 2008 Data:
15.8 gr. JSB Exact = 600 FPS
14.5 gr. RWS Super Dome = 629 FPS
14.3 gr. Crosman Premier = 635 FPS
11.9 gr. RWS Hobby = 691 FPS
February 2009 Data
JSB Exact = 543 FPS
RWS SuperDome = 565 FPS
Crosman Premier = 565 FPS
RWS Hobby = 613
The velocities from today are on the mark to what I was getting last year in the cold.
Does the cold weather make that much of a diffrence?
Now I cant wait for the warmer weather to prove this out.
JoeG From Jersey
RE: ocular adjustment is generally reserved for corrective focus of the reticle
RE: So, I would argue that the primary function of “AO” is correction of parallax.
The image projected to the eye requires the eye to be positioned correctly in three dimensions. Let’s stipulate that X-Y are in the plane perpendicular to the optical axis of the scope, and the Z-axis is the same as the optical center line of the scope. To me “parallax” is an error in the X-Y position of the eye. If you position the eye incorrectly along the Z-axis, then the image will be out of focus, but the reticule will properly position the POA on the target. Obviously if the Z-position is wrong, then it is hard to properly position X and Y. But to me the primary purpose of the AO is to properly focus the Z-axis. As a “side effect” of having a low “F-stop” and high magnification, the X-Y position of the eye is very sensitive also. Optically you can’t make the Z-Axis sensitive to position without also making the X and Y axises sensitive also. So to me the parallax sensitivity seems to be a side effect of AO, not the primary purpose.
Don’t have my 2200 working yet. Could you shoot 5 shots of one pellet at 8, 9, and 10 pumps? Just wondering if the velocity will drop off for you too.
Yes I find my airguns even PCP fire slower in cold weather. OK it is not an exact science… but they do seem slower.
RE: Hole in disc
Absolutely it should work. It seems like a really great idea to give you another way to adjust your scope to your shooting conditions. Scopes don’t come with f-stops like a 35mm camera.
Assuming bright light, the pupil will be at a minimum of about 3mm. If you make the hole in the disc small so that the Exit pupil size is near 3mm, then the eye has to be positioned properly to see the image. If the exit pupil size is 30mm, then obviously the eye could be positioned in a variety of places and still see an image.
The downside of the technique is that it lowers the light output of the scope, and it is harder to position the eye. So it becomes slower to acquire and lock in on a target. If you’re shooting stationary targets, the technique would be good. If you’re trying to shoot critters, fast acquisition might be more useful even though the parallax error is greater.
RE: Tonight’s discussion
I’d be remiss not to thank all who have been participating in the discussion tonight. I’ve had fun yakking about this.
Learned a few things too!
RE: Franklin Weston Mann – “The Bullet’s Flight from Powder to Target”
You can download the PDF file of the book for free from Google.
Figured this out after spending $20 to get it on a CD. Oh well, more education.
I’ve had fun, too. I won’t try to convince you, but here’s the best online explanation I know of:
Wow, thanks Herb!
Be careful of what you wish for, the Mann book is quite a trip.
Well, I see why I haven’t figured out parallax yet, although, I’ll say with Herb that this has been illuminating. I think I understand the mirror technique. But if the goal is to center the reticle along the optical axis of the scope, I don’t see the point since the configuration will be useful for only one distance and probably not the optimum 20 yard zero.
Herb, that X,Y,Z formalism is useful. The X-Y movement is what I had associated with parallax. But it occurs to me that if the scope is not optically centered which it generally is not during use, then movement along the z axis will have a lateral component relative to the line connecting the reticle to the target, so it will be responsible for some parallax.
I may have some grasp of the hole in the disk method and some other procedures. But if the goal is to bring the eye into the exact same three-dimensional relationship to the scope, wouldn’t you be better off putting some tape on the stock so that you can position your face exactly the same each time? If you have the exact same position relative to the scope through different adjustments wouldn’t parallax automatically be taken into account so that it’s not a factor?
This is a bit offtopic, but sort of related. I don’t suppose you (or anyone) have actual chronograph numbers for the Crosman 2100. I’m just curious to know if Crosman’s claims of 725 fps with pellets are accurate (and if so with what weight pellets).
In item 2 – “There is no parallax, at any distance, as long as the eye is lined up exactly with the optical axis of the scope”
Corresponds to my Z axis
Last paragraph states:”You can check the parallax of any scope by sighting an object at normal shooting distance (not indoors), by moving your eye side to side (then up and down), as far as you can, keeping the sighted object within the field of view. The apparent movement of the reticule in relation the target is parallax.”
Corresponds exactly to my X-Y planes…
Aren’t we just having a violent agreement?!?
RE: “But if the goal is to center the reticle along the optical axis of the scope, I don’t see the point since the configuration will be useful for only one distance and probably not the optimum 20 yard zero.”
Think you answered your own question…”But it occurs to me that if the scope is not optically centered which it generally is not during use, then movement along the z axis will have a lateral component relative to the line connecting the reticle to the target, so it will be responsible for some parallax.”
By getting POA near the scope centerline, then its optical performance is as good as possible. a “fine” adjustment using a few clicks one way or the other wouldn’t cause much of a perturbation, but obviously cranking clicks also to the end would cause a larger perturbation.
Your observation indicates that temperature is the important thing driving velocity.
I test indoors where the temperature is always about 70 degrees F, so my results should be a little different than yours. Perhaps between the two of us we can figure this thing out.
Can someone post some chronograph numbers for the Crosman 2100? I don’t have a 2100 on hand to test.
Later on today I could post some numbers for the Remington Air Master 77,which is the same as the 2100.
JoeG From Jersey
BB: Last summer I purchased a mod 2200(late production), at a flea market which latter suffered from a broken bolt. I had fired it about a 100 times before the gun failed and had similar results, as to the crony readings you show above. I obtained a replacement bolt from Crosman and I repaired it. While I had it apart I lock-tited the barrel to the breech block to eliminate air leaking at that point. I also think that these guns leak to various degrees at the breech because the bolt doesn’t have an O-ring on it. I have not modified that yet. Did polish and stone the burrs out of the trigger though, while I had it apart. Mine displayed more consistant velocities after the mod. It is also VERY pellet sensitive! Only will shoot RWS superdomes well. Robert
hey bb is it possible to convert a2100 classic cross man into a 2200 by swapping out the barrel the loading port and a few other things?
Yes, a 2100 can be converted to a 2200. Check with the Crosman Forum on this.
BB, is cheaper and less troublesome to just buy a 2200 then converting? I converted a crosman sometime ago, and receive nothing but trouble.
Don’t mean to hijack this thread but…. any words on when you’ll be reviewing/receiving the Benjamin Marauder?
BB mentioned the following the other day about the Marauder.
“I have promised Crosman that I won’t report on this rifle until we know for sure the initial roll-out date, but it is on-track at this time and should be here in May. If that date holds, I will start blogging it next month [April].”
baby prams strollers,
If you can find a 2200 to buy that would probably be the best thing to do. I have known of conversions from the 2100 that worked fine, but the 2200 shouldn’t be that hard to find.
I have the Marauder right now. The one I have is the first production gun made. I am testing it and will start my report probably next month.
B.B. (or anyone who knows):
Apropos of all the mysteries of changing velocity with multiple pumps: What is the “correct” technique for pumping a multipump pneumatic? I once read somewhere that you should pause significantly at the top of the stroke before starting the compression, but I tend to want to get the pumping out of the way and get on to the shot. Does the speed of the pump make a difference in the subsequent velocity? Should I be slowing down my technique?
I have a Crossman 2200 Magnum in good condition that I would love to sell at a reasonable price.
Please feel free to contact me.
No one but a few of us will ever see your message back here.
Instead, post it on these two free airgun classified websites:
And it's best to give the price in the ad. Also, pictures will help to sell it.