by B.B. Pelletier
This is the third part of Vince’s test of old and new Gamo Match pellets. In parts 1 and 2, he tested .177 caliber. This test is for .22 caliber.
After part 1 was published, we discovered that today’s report was supposed to be the first part! So, you’ll read a lot of introductory info that Vince intended for you to see when he started this series. Sit back and enjoy the rest of Vince’s pellet tests.
If you’d like to write a guest post for this blog, please email us.
Bloggers must be proficient in the simple html that Blogger software uses, know how to take clear photos and size them for the internet (if their post requires them), and they must use proper English. We’ll edit each submission, but we won’t work on any submission that contains gross misspellings and/or grammatical errors.
Gamo. A name well known in the airgunning field and inextricably intertwined with its history. Just run it by any knowledgable, passionate airgunner and you’ll quite likely elicit the emotionally charged response, “Gamo? Ehhh….”
Gamo was never known for making junk. Well, their PT-800 came close (plastic compression tube? Oh, please!), but that was more a case of poor design than poor manufacturing. There’s a world of difference between the two. They also didn’t let advanced engineering get in the way of a good profit margin. And, maybe that’s what always defined Gamo — engineering compromises coupled with reasonable manufacturing quality control yielding a product that, well, could be worse.
Their old standby springers of a few years back certainly showed this dual side of Gamo. Remember the steel-barreled Shadow, 220, 440, 880 and 890? Say what you want about their 5000-shot triggers (that’s often how long it took before they smoothed out), spotty spring reliability and zesty twanginess. They looked good, with nice bluing and decent plastic or wood stocks. They generally shot pretty well with solid lockups and good barrels. My first decent air rifle (and I still have it!) was a $125 Shadow from Walmart. Before buying that Gamo, I thought the Industry Brand QB25 was a good airgun. Seriously.
But times change and while there are still a few holdouts in the Gamo lineup (the CFX comes to mind) many or most of their products are being modified or substantially altered to adapt to changing market conditions. A lot of these changes have traditionalists scratching their heads. Although guns like the Big Cat and its cousins still seem to shoot well, the proliferation of structural plastics and marketting gimicks just detracts from their appeal.
Their pellets, however, have followed a different course. Seems that the marketing and advertising departments at Gamo got deeply involved in the ammo end of the business. The result? Killing a hog with a PBA pellet. Bragging about breaking the sound barrier with a pellet that isn’t shaped for it. Armour piecing. Red Fire. Glow Fire. Clearly, these pellets don’t follow the traditional path.
These gimicks might lure in the novice, like my Dad and, well, probably most of their customers. But, with products like that, they’re not going to capture the heart of the purist! They kept their old standby pellets — Gamo Match, Hunter, Master Point and Magnum — for that one-tenth of one percent of their customer base…the traditional airgunner.
Note from B.B.: Gamo’s business goals may not be what we assume they are. From my discussions in the past, I’ve learned that they’re most interested in converting firearm shooters to also use airguns. It seems to me that they see their products not as airguns but as firearms, and in that light they seem to be pursuing the hunting crowd most actively. In that pursuit, they seem less concerned with traditional airgunning. And, given that the hunting demographic that uses firearms is so many times larger than all airgun disciplines combined (in the U.S.), this may be a good business model for Gamo.
No one is going to march into a field target match armed with Gamo pellets. After all, quality control hasn’t always been the best. I occasionally come across one of these in a tin of Match pellets in .22:
Inverse wadcutter, SUPER hollow point, or the Escher pellet? I call it the “Gamo Cadwutter.”
The occasional cadwutter aside, they were still reasonably priced and shot well enough in enough guns that they were pretty popular for everyday use. B.B. even alluded to some competitors using them in local pistol matches, although I imagine this is after sorting them. Generally, they seemed to work pretty well in low-powered guns. Since I’m doing all of my shooting indoors these days, I’m spending a lot more time with guns like that.
That’s why I ordered a bunch of Gamo Match pellets from Pyramyd Air — a total of 23 tins in both .22 and .177. I figure I’m set for a while. Then, I opened one of the .22 tins…
New Gamo Match on the top, old on the bottom.
…and something’s wrong. These pellets are impostors! They’re trying to LOOK like Gamo Match, but I’m not fooled! Something fishy is going on. I examined the tins side-by-side.
New Gamo Match on the left, old on the right.
While the packaging looks the same, the weight is different. I flipped the tins upside down.
New Gamo Match on the left, old on the right.
They looked identical from this side. In fact, even the UPC is the same. Are they really the same? We’ll see about that.
I picked out a selection of .22 rifles so I can put these to the test. I’ve included my low-power guns and a few stronger ones as well. I didn’t bother most of my heavy hitters since I usually shoot just Crosman Premier hollowpoints in those.
Rules of the game
For each gun, I shot 5-7 of the new Gamo Match pellets just to get the bore used to the pellets (this seems to make a difference). I put 5 shots onto the target sheet from 10 meters, switch to the old version of the pellet and fire five more. I’m not sorting pellets. If I get a flyer that’s way off the main group, I’ll give the pellet the benefit of the doubt. Maybe I just got a bad one, and I make a 6th shot and discount the flier.
How did the impostors fair? Let’s take a look and see (in no particular order).
The Mendoza RM2000 is a repeater that likes only repeating with certain pellets. It has an inline mag with an elevator shuttle, an arrangement that can be prone to deforming long or short pellets or squirting undersized ones right through the shuttle and onto the floor. I never used the repeater, and these were all loaded single-shot.
The Mendoza didn’t seem to differentiate much between the two in terms of consistency although the point of impact did shift a bit. Verdict: Comparable performance.
This gun is BAM’s pseudo-clone of the RWS 34 action with the TO5 trigger. I say pseudo because it isn’t an exact copy. There are differences. It’s the same family as the Ruger Air Hawk rifles (of which I’ve had two), but the B25 is probably the best of the lot that I’ve sampled. Still, it’s taking me a bit of time to warm up to it.
In this gun, there’s absolutely no comparison. Quite passable with the old pellets, useless with the new. Verdict: The new ones just don’t cut it.
This is a fairly new addition to my collection. It’s also a gun I’ve owned before and always sold to make room for others. Since I’ve got tons of room now, it’s a non-issue! It’s a massive sidelever that outweighs the RWS Diana 48 by a pound or so. It’s also longer and a much cruder gun. It’s frequently described as being a clone of the 48, but I won’t even call it a psuedo-clone. There are just too many significant differences. Let’s call it an imitation.
And what did the B21 think of the new Gamo pellets?
Point of impact seems pretty consistent, and the groups are comparable (although not outstanding for either pellet). Verdict: Pretty much interchangeable.
The BAM B3 is a novelty gun that’s proven quite popular over the last several years, although for some reason it seems to have been discontinued. It’s made to resemble an AK47 and is equipped with a folding stock. Mechanically, it’s a simple rifle but made fairly well.
As you can see, it didn’t like the new Gamo Match pellets very much, and frankly it’s so-so on the old ones. Verdict: The new ones are inferior.
RWS Diana 27
The Diana 27 is an old favorite of B.B.’s and for good reason. It’s a nicely made rifle that looks good, shoots well, and is easy to cock and hold. Diana barrels are generally pretty good, and this one is no exception, although the Gamo Match isn’t it’s favorite ammo.
Oddly enough, this rifle — so far, the only rifle — seems to show a preference for the new pellet. It wasn’t a blowout, but the group is definitely tighter. There’s a very significant POI shift. Verdict: New pellets are at least as good as the old.
Known as the Diana 25 in its native brand, the Winchester 425 is the smaller cousin to the Diana 27. It’s a very similar gun overall with the same trigger and sights, but shortened to make it more of a youth gun. Like the 27, it’s very well made. It didn’t agree with the 27 on pellet preference, though.
It didn’t scatter the new pellets to the four winds the way a few guns did, but the preference for the old ones is pretty clear. Again, we have a POI shift. Verdict: Old pellets are superior.
Industry Brand QB57
The QB57 is another novelty gun made by Shanghai Airguns and sold under the Industry Brand name. It’s a 2-piece takedown sidelever bullpup that comes in its own suitcase with a cheap scope and a tin of even cheaper pellets. Oddly enough, it copies the Gamo trigger. Generally speaking, Shanghai’s knockoff of this trigger isn’t that bad. The scope rail is way forward on this gun, so it’s a bit awkward to shoot with a standard scope. At least it’s mounted directly to the barrel, which is the most accurate place for it to be. It’s also relatively new and, I’m sure, not quite broken in yet.
It seems to agree with its countryman, the XS-B3, only more so, with a wider gap between the two. With the old pellets, it really didn’t do too badly for a lower-grade rifle. Verdict: No contest. Old ones are much better.
TF97 (aka Industry Brand QB-36)
The TF97/QB36 used to be one of the flagship springers of the Shanghai Airgun Factory. Along with the QB36-2 (TF97), it represented one of the better efforts of that company, which, of course, is relative to the other offerings of that company (B1, B2, B3 underlever, etc.) which were pretty poor. Judged on it’s own, the’97 is a so-so gun — low-powered for the weight, fair trigger, and accuracy that’s somewhere in the middle. But certainly not an oinker by any stretch.
As you can see, this gun really wasn’t crazy about either pellet. Although the spread with the new ones looks a bit larger, it’s really about the same. Verdict: They’re comparable.
The British Sterling HR81 (and it’s nicer-stocked sibling, the HR83) is a bit of an oddball. The compression tube on this underlever is located beneath the barrel, almost like the reservoir on a CO2 or PCP rifle. The air is ducted up to the barrel via a short, vertical transfer port and into the hollow pellet feed rod behind the pellet. Powerplant efficiency, needless to say, is not its strong point. The loading port is opened with a bolt located several inches behind the loading port, and closing the bolt pushes the pellet into the firing position. I’ve sampled 2 of them and found both to be stable, consistent shooting platforms. The much-used .22 I have doesn’t seem to shoot quite as well as the .177 HR-83 I serviced for a fellow last year, but it still does pretty well with the right pellet.
Well, the right pellet certainly is NOT the new Gamo Match, which performed horribly in this gun. Much better results were obtained with the old ones. Verdict: New pellets are inferior.
The 440 was part of the old Shadow/220/440/890 family that immediately preceded the current crop of plastic-shrouded, higher-powered breakbarrels (Big Cat, Whisper, etc). Like its old stablemates, it’s light, accurate, well-balanced, and easy to cock and shoulder. Once the trigger is modded and the spring properly tarred, it’s a very pleasant plinking rifle. Originally, I wasn’t even going to try this one. This is one of the guns that does so well with Crosman Premier hollowpoint pellets that I typically don’t shoot anything else in it. But, it’s the only .22 cal. Gamo I have, so I decided to see how well a Gamo rifle did with Gamo pellets.
So, there you have it. A nice group with the old pellets, and a lousy one with the new. It didn’t choke on them as badly as the HR-81, QB57 or XS-B3; but this is certainly a poor showing for a decent rifle. Verdict: No comparison. Old pellets are superior.
So what’s the final tally? I’ve shot these pellets back-to-back in 10 different rifles. Of those 10 rifles, 4 shot the new pellets as well as or slightly better than the old; 3 of those 4 showed a significant POI shift. The remaining 6 preferred the old, most by a very considerable margin. From all this, I think we can safely draw three conclusions:
1. The new pellets are not the same as the old, and they’re not interchangeable. They do carry the same part number and description, and the Gamo website gives no indication that there’s anything different about them at all. I would suggest that it’s misleading for Gamo to alter the pellet and change its characteristics while pretending that its the same. It’s common knowledge that airguns can be real picky about their ammo; Gamo should know better.
Note from B.B.: We’ve been seeing the same thing from various high-quality European pellet manufacturers. Things can suddenly change without notice. However, the comments on this blog serve to inform the manufacturers that veteran airgunners are very concerned.
2. In my tests, the new pellets were generally not as good as the old ones. In the cases where they fared well against the old pellets, it was a relatively close call. In those cases where it didn’t, they generally shot pretty poorly.
3. The new pellets are not absolute crap. They might be OK for plinking in some guns, but make sure you try them out first. If your gun liked the old Gamo Match in .22, there’s no guarantee they’ll like the new ones.
41 thoughts on “More about Gamo Match pellets: Part 3”
I’d say they’re absolute crap… I shot some from Walmart a few months back and gave up with all the damage and flakes coming off them.
At the moment I’m a huge fan of H&N pellets and their re-badged version under the name Beeman. Specifically Kodiak and Barracuda pellets and especially the new Kodiak Hunter / Barracuda Hunter version.
For plinking I use RWS R10 pellet in light weight pistol and slightly heavier rifle versions. They are perfect for pump and muli-pump pistols and low power rifles. Every pellet is perfect, if I miss it’s my fault.
I enjoyed your three part series.Good Job as usual.I got a tin of Crosman Premiers recently and eagerly started to shoot them. The first hundred pellets were very tight in the bore and turned out to be the most accurate in my TF87-22. Now most of them are just dropping in without any effort on my part; it is as though they put in 400 of the lesser quality pellets first and then covered them with a hundred of the sorted ones.
Also my new tins of H & N Hollow points are not as accurate as the old ones.
This is the first part I’ve read of your 3 part series. Nice job.
One question though. Did you always start out shooting the new Gamo pellets first before the old versions when you switched form gun to gun.
The reason why I’m asking, is I noticed the old gamo pellets seem to more often do better than the new. Maybe by the time you got to shooting the old pellets you were more proficient/accustomed to the shooting characteristics of the rifle (differing artillery hold requirements, etc.).
When I break in a springer, or try to find the magic pellet for it, I usually revisit pellets that may not have shown initial promise after I have gotten “in the groove” with the rifle.
Just curious. Thanks.
I followed the procedure I outlined in the beginning – new pellet first, about 5 warm up shots, 5 on paper, then 5 old ones on paper. There’s always a chance that my technique might have altered somewhat during the course of the shooting, but the 10 target shots were all done sequentially at one sitting. In fact, I usually did 3 rifles in a single sitting – after which I had to change the paper (6 targets per page). I didn’t concentrate on optimizing my hold, I concentrated on being consistent with my hold.
With one exception these guns were pretty well broken in. The QB57 was the only new rifle in the bunch.
Vince: Interesting blog as usual ! About the Sterling? You say your HR-81 is a British made gun ,was the .177 HR-83 you worked on one of the Benjamin models? I’ve always wanted one and wish they had been more popular here even though they weren’t real powerful. I like the quirky , unusual air guns. It was a springer with the Benjamin name way before the present Super Streak orTrail and it was even available in .20 cal. Maybe you or BB could blog that one sometime…Robert
As it turns out, I obtained an HR 91 at Roanoke last year. Benjamin bought the rights to the Stirling spring rifle and started making them in the U.S. But they were bought by Crosman who cancelled production right away.
Dennis Quackenbush bought the 1000+ Lothar Walther barrels what were left over after production was halted. That’s where he gets his smallbore (.177 and .22) barrels for the guns he makes.
I will start testing the rifle for you very soon.
BB; Will look foward to that! I throughly enjoy the vintage and history that comes out of this blog. I first learned of the British made model back in the mid 80’s through ads in the British sporting magazine “Shootin Times and Country Magazine”, that my old man used to subscribe to. Wonder if their still around and if there are any ocassional airgun articles in it today? Maybe UK Dave knows? Anyhow,the next time I heard of it was in the second edition of ” Air gun Digest” and a Benjamin , but by then it was discontinued and unavailable to me even if I had enough money (which I didn’t)to buy one.I probably could have easily gotten one as I lived only 20 minutes away from Great Lakes Airgun,at that time, and drove by there twice a day ,six times a week going to and from work. Thanks,Robert.
Great series of blogs! Well done!
I have a few tins of Gamo pellets, but almost never use or test them. For some strange reason unknown to even me, I just don’t like the looks of their pellets or their packaging. Nor have they performed extremely well in most of my guns.
However last week I did test some wad cutters in a Sharp Innova Puma, and they shot VERY well. And Vince and all of our other readers, I have nothing but praises for the Puma. Admittedly, it is a very cheesy looking gun with everything being “plastic” except the barrel and other working parts. Even the breech is plastic as is the pump arm. However, it is very accurate and very powerful. Just 3 pumps gets you 600 fps with a linear progression for 4, 5, and 6 of 650, 700 and 750 fps. Ten pumps gets you 900+ fps and these figures are with chp’s, not the lighter pellets.
Easily the most powerful pumper on the market pump for pump except maybe the FX Indy. However I paid $60 for this gun and an Indy is more than 20X that. The guy sold me the gun as “blemished” because it had a very shallow 2″ long scratch on the pump arm! Normally they are $120 if brand new and in perfect condition.
Vince, thanks for the follow up report. The photos of the pellets really tell the tale. Also, there are some slight differences on the lids of the tins on the old and new pellets. I can’t make out all the detail but, it looks as if the labeled weights are different and I can see a clear sticker over the pellet picture on the old tin, but can’t make out the wording or numbers if any?
Great report on the gamo pellets. Also a lot of interesting insight into a few of your guns. Thanks.
Wonderful series–thank you. I would like to think that since air guns are so pellet sensitive that their manufacturers would not change them and sell them as being the same pellet. They should, need, to change their model number to alert us, the consumer, to said change.
Before your series I took it for granted that a Gamo wad cutter or any other pellet stayed the same from tin to tin. You have solved the mystery of the gun that stopped shooting well with a new tin of pellets.
Thanks for the report Vince…
Not that I am going to go out and buy any Gamooski pellets in the near future.
Might try some PBA stuff this spring sometime just to see what kind of BC that it has (nerf pellets).
Nerf pellets. I like that! Checked that a long time ago and i think they lost about 200 fps in 25 feet. Will they hit a target at 50 yards?
I tried .177 Raptors once..
Did better than expected at 25 yds. Out around 30-40 yds some of them went about where they were supposed to while a few really took off. Very unpredictable at distance.
I think that I would need to stay around 20yds for chrono #2 . I would need to shoot a group first to see if there was much probability of getting over the second chrono about right.
Reports on some of the PBA indicates that the probability of getting over the chrono would be pretty low. Of course, the second chrono will be armored . The ones that are too bad to attempt will be trashed without attempting a BC measurement. The others will be trashed after the test.
I think that many of the manufacturers only look at the bottom line. They tend to get away with it since most people never test pellets to see what shoots best. They just buy what is inexpensive.
I also have found that most people don’t know very much about air guns. That is why speed sells.
Vince, that is one thorough test with results that are quite persuasive. Ironically, it was the Gamo CFX that seemed to cause the single greatest reaction ever on the blog–perhaps because it diverged from our expectations of Gamo. B.B., that is an interesting theory about a market plan to capture the hunting crowd. However, there seems to be a built in problem. Since airguns are intrinsically different from firearms, billing airguns in a way that would attract hunters with the qualities they look for–like high velocity–is misleading and will not keep the customer base they attract. I spoke to a guy at my shooting range who said that he bought a super-powered Gamo air rifle but couldn’t hit anything with it. So such a marketing plan by Gamo would attract customers in the short term at the price of alienating them in the long-term. Maybe we should compile a list of marketing practices as well as engineering practices. (Don’t change your pellets!)
Vince, I wonder how BAM meets the standards for reputable companies like Crosman that it manufactures for. Do the Crosman personnel tighten all the screws and remove the rust?….
Regarding boxers, they are entertainers like other professional athletes and show business is so disorienting that maybe they don’t even know who they are at any one moment. (I understand that Sean Connery had to take a break from his James Bond roles because he started to think he was James Bond.) And even if they did, there is the added complexity of any individual personality which can show all different faces and express itself all different ways. One of my favorite boxers to watch is Pernell “Sweet Pea” Whitaker, a defensive genius. If it’s true that the highest art in boxing is to make the other guy miss, Pernell has got it. Ali used footwork to stay out of range (wise) and head movements to slip punches (highly skilled but too subtle to appreciate onscreen). Pernell does all this and also bobs and weaves around blows in the punching range. It is quite electrifying to watch and poetry in motion. However, I knew a kickboxer who trained with him and she said that every word out of his mouth was a curse word; he woke up at noon; and ate with his hands. There wasn’t a lot going on outside of the ring. I had the same reaction to Sugar Ray Robinson, the greatest fighter of all time by some accounts. He’s the complete fighter and I eagerly read his autobiography for some technique pointers. But most of it was about his giant ego and all the women he seduced. He referred to his boxing as his “thing” which he either had or he didn’t. He didn’t even know what he was doing. It was purely natural with very little overlap to the rest of his life.
Victor, there may be something better than cast-like shooting clothes coming down the pike. The word is that the army is extending the concept of body armor into a full-fledged exoskeleton which will give soldiers new abilities to jump over walls or smash through them. I guess you design a function to lock yourself in place for sharpshooting.
BG_Farmer, haven’t heard of that Wordsworth poem, but it reminds me of an episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. She is coming off a difficult relationship and talking to a nun about some arcana connected with the hunting of vampires, and then she asks, “How is that celibacy thing working for you?” 🙂
Similar experience here. A co-worker bought a Gamo and says that between the trigger pull weight and the “vibration” (I think he means movement under recoil) “he can’t hit sh#@! ”
I printed out BB’s artillery hold article for him and Chralie Da Tuna GRT trigger details but… I think you have to have airgun “DNA” to appreciate all this stuff and the complexity of effective airgun use. To your point, the average buyer is a Wally-world customer looking to shoot pellets at 1200 fps through his mom’s garbage cans.
Matt 61: I think that Crosman is doing much the same thing : trying to lure firearms hunters to airguns for some uses. The thing is , in my opinion, Crosman has the better platforms in their MSP, springers and their inovative PCP’s. As for Gamo, time will tell , as you can fleece a sheep many times ,but only skin it once ,as my account likes to say, Robert.
On the subject of emotional outbursts in sports, I have to vote in favor of a clip on YouTube called “Manager throws a fit.” The best part is him low-crawling towards the pitcher’s mound and pretending to throw a grenade (in the form of a chalk bag) at the umpire.
Lanny Basham and Dave Kimes are two of the coolest heads I’ve ever seen, and they could really perform in a clutch situation. Dave Kimes calls it “performance on demand”, and has set world records and won World Championships demonstrating it. They are both fierce competitors.
Dave is very “goal oriented”, and is willing to make whatever sacrifice is necessary to achieve what he wants. Dave is also one of the nicest guys that I’ve ever had the pleasure to know. He was a fellow southern CA shooter. He volunteers much of his time helping promote the sport of shooting, and in particular, with young shooters.
Another great report. Your comment about a Gamo Shadow from Walmart being your first accurate airgun is the same experience as mine. Small (Walmart) world. Happened several years ago. I got a round tin of Crosman priemeirs to go with it and was pleased with the results. Then a few days later, I found a 4-tin assortment of Gamo pellets and was POSITIVE that they would shoot even better. Wow, was I wrong, and it was a real lesson to me. Honestly, I have never tried those gamo pellets again. And now you are saying they are worse, at least on the guns you are using.
I am wondering about the differences between firearm bullets and air rifle pellets. Aerodynamically and balancewise, pellets are much more complex than bullets. Does it seem that a bullet that is accurate in one rifle (of reasonable quality) is likely to be accurate in most other rifles, but that with pellets, such a correlation cannot be expected?
I am very curious.
A compliment from the master. I am honored!!!
Overall I never found a Gamo pellet equal to the Premier HP’s in the stronger airguns, although I’ll occassionally find a gun that does better with the Gamo. But it’s unusual.
On thing I thought was rather odd – Gamo publishes group sizes for at least some of their pellets at, I think, 10 and 30 yards. The results they show are mediocre – and I’ve been able to beat their published groups on occassion with the same pellets using the same basic gun. Never quite figured that out.
Thank YOU very much. I have my niche, but I appreciate being able to count on the experience base of all you experts to know which direction to head. The knowledge flows freely.
Lloyd, I hope you get a free Rogue from Crosman for your efforts.
To that note,I’ll gladly buy you a new Rogue in exchange for a .25 caliber functioning prototype!
I really am excited for other calibers…..so many possibilities.Feel free to hold me to my offer Lloyd.
I have always had the greed for speed. If a Gamo could shoot a REAL lead pellet at 1,400 fps, I’d have the darn thing apart in a second to see how they did it. And no matter what cal I was shooting in my protos, my first goal was to get velocity and power levels high enough to make me gasp. That meant instantaneous (ok, darn fast) valve opening and good fluid flow. Then I would have to force myself to work on the low power, long shot strings. I guess I should have found that very exciting, but I didn’t. Rewarding, yes, but not exciting. Still, I was always amazed just how low the air pressure could go before the velocities became useless. In .25 cal, even at what I’d call medium power settings, the strings could be boringly long.
“the strings could be boringly long”
We’ll now have Lloydism.
Boringly long shot strings Is exactly what I want and need, I hope Crosman doesn’t take too long to bring this to market.
Lloyd,I have the good fortune of having Quackenbush offerings in .25 that range from full length rifle
to carbine to pistol pair.I am in love with the platform and performance.It offers me awesome power AND accuracy,even with 70+grain projectiles.The performance in windy real world hunting conditions
makes it ideal for longer range shooting.All that leaves me starving for shot to shot consistency!!!!
So your valve arangement represents the “promised land”.The squirrels in the tree line feel differently,
but “we”can agree to disagree 🙂 So thank you for what you have brought to the party.My current favorite performer is medium powered with a DAQ breech and barrel on a custom Glover PCP lower
utilizing the traditional Crosman single bolt 22xx arraingement and trigger group(improed upon,of course) set up as a carbine.The whole thing weighs around 4 lbs.What a dreamboat!But I would throw it in the river to get my hands on the electronic smart valve,I know what you’ve made possible.
Not sure where I am on the distribution list for the Rogue. A lot of testers and writers are ahead of me, I think, but I hope to be able to try a production model in the not too distant future.
gamo is a four letter word. The redfire is an unlicensed copy of the Predator PolyMag. They even blatantly copied Predator ads, word for word! Now there is a lawsuit, and brand “g” is using their deep corporate pockets to draw it out. Because of these business practices, I will NOT buy/support brand “g” in any way.
Thanks for your time and effort. I know you spent a lot of it doing these three parts. Your time is well appreciated and very useful. I have some .177 GAMO Match that I bought a couple years ago for my grand kids to burn up. I tried them in a couple rifles but didn’t do very well. I didn’t have much respect for them then and they were cheap but just for kicks I think I’ll try them again to see if I have a rifle that will shoot them. Should be fun, however, I’ll probably use them all up testing and the results will be for naught.
My rifle time has been slipping since I got interested in the IZH-46M pistol and lefty-hand grip making (working on four sets of grips now). I needed some incentive to play more with my rifles. Even my eMatch rifle sessions are suffering.
Again, thanks for the thorough review of the Gamo Match pellets (old versus new). I think that we all should be aware that over time, manufacturers do in fact change their product, but also that they don’t make the change obvious with announcements. It seems that they rely on product reputation, or name brand familiarity and loyalty, to maintain their market share.
The trouble is that what they are really doing is resting on their laurels and taking their customers for granted. Not a wise practice, since we really do have options.
Received the e-mail that PA is having a pellet sale. Any suggestions for a good all around pellet for my 2240 w/ 14″ barrel. While the sale is on thought I might pick-up some more, or try something different.
Can’t help you on the pellets, but It’s been a while since I’ve gotten a sale notice or such from PA. I think I’ll go in and check my profile about email notifications.
If you don’t get an email every week from PA, then you may want to check your spam folder 🙂
I use hotmail and check my junk folder ever day and it usually is full of junk, but never anything from PA. Could it have bounced enough times from hotmail where the PA mailing program scratched me as a bad address?
I can still log into the PA site and look at my account and wish list and such.
Not sure what to do, but I definitely want the weekly mailings.
Lloyd,could it be as simple as just re-submitting your Email adress on Pyramid’s homepage?
There is a spot on the left margin,I think.I just signed up to be notified when the first Rogues
are in stock…..and there was a box to check for weekly updates there.
I see! I was looking for something more complicated like changing my preferences or account profile.
Thanks for fixing that for me. I received an email notice from PA about the Red Ryder this AM, so I’m back on their mailing list. I marked it as “not junk” so it should go right to my hotmail in-box from now on.
Frank also mentioned that there is a place on the PA home page where I could have done it myself with the “subscribe” button. I get a little annoyed at people who don’t look for the obvious themselves first, and now I am one of them. Darn! I turned 60 last week, so I hope it’s not sign!
Rikib,Have you tried the Crosman Premiers in the cardboard box?? If not,I seriously reccomend them,or JSB exacts for your 2240 with that sweet new barrel.The accuracy will really impress you,and you will be able to move your targets back substantially.Let us know what you end up getting!
My 2240 with a 9.5″ barrel really likes Crosman Premires in the box.