by B.B. Pelletier
BSA’s Polaris underlever air rifle is an attractive new design. Featuring BSA’s rotary breech, this rifle comes in a hardwood stock.
Let’s look at the power of the BSA Polaris underlever air rifle. I’ll also describe the shooting behavior.
Changes have been made
Considering that the Polaris is a close cousin to the Gamo CF-X-series of underlever rifles, and that it might also be made by Gamo, rather than BSA, there’ve been some changes in the rifle (the CF-X) over the years. The Polaris has a hardwood stock, for starters. You had to buy the CF-X Royal to get wood on the Spanish-branded rifle, and it’s no longer offered.
The rotary breech is now finished rougher than before. Where there was once a semi-shiny ramp leading to the breech, the entire rotary breech is now finished rough. It still flips domed pellets on their noses, but for some reason I found the new rotary breech easier to load than before.
The groove in the rotary breech tends to flip domed pellets up on their noses like this. However, this latest breech finish is more conducive to easier loading.
Believe it or not, my last review of a straight Gamo CF-X was February 21, 2006. I also looked at the same rifle in .22 caliber with Air Venturi’s gas spring installed as late as January 22, 2008, but that was the last time I looked at this airgun. While the gas spring is a different gun that’s no longer offered, the steel spring CF-X was always a lightweight underlever that was very easy to cock. The Polaris doesn’t change that at all. It’s surprisingly easy to cock, because the underlever has such great mechanical advantage. It comes back well past 90 degrees, so you’ll have to adjust your hold while cocking, or you’ll lose the ability to pull on the underlever toward the end of the stroke. I like cocking it while sitting, placing the buttpad on my right leg and pulling the lever with my left arm. This is definitely a one-hand rifle to cock, as the peak effort spiked to only 27 lbs. but remained below 25 lbs. most of the time.
The underlever comes back on an extreme angle, multiplying the mechanical advantage. Just be sure to hold the rifle so you can manage the lever at the end of the stroke.
Trigger
The trigger is technically a two-stage because it has a short, light first stage, but most of the pull is through stage two. It feels like a single-stage trigger to me. I could feel the trigger blade move smoothly through the stage, but there was no hesitation at the let-off point. The rifle just fires while the trigger is moving. It’s not precise, but it’s so smooth and free from creep (the jerky start-stop movement) that I think you’ll like it. It released at 52 oz. as it came from the box.
There is one trigger adjustment screw which I turned as far out (counter-clockwise) as it wanted to go. However, no change in the trigger pull was noted. Then I read the manual and discovered that this screw has to go in (clockwise) to reduce the sear engagement. I did that, too, however I never did get it below 52 oz., which seemed a very consistent pull weight.
Looking down through the trigger adjustment hole in the triggerguard, you’ll see the single adjustment screw deep inside the mechanism. It didn’t seem to do much to the trigger-pull except make it heavier when unscrewed (counter-clockwise).
Power
My test rifle has nowhere near the power that’s claimed. They say 1,000 f.p.s. for the .177 caliber I’m testing, but as you will shortly see, I got far less. Of course, I didn’t use any of the trick (super lightweight) pellets, because no one will probably shoot them for real. I only used lead pellets that have the potential for accuracy.
Velocity and power
The first pellets tested were the 7.9-grain Crosman Premiers from the cardboard box. They averaged 782 f.p.s. and went from 760 to 794 f.p.s. That’s a spread of 34 f.p.s. At the average velocity, they produced 10.73 foot-pounds of energy.
Next, I tested RWS Hobby pellets. At 7 grains even, Hobbys are one of the lightest pure lead pellets on the market. They’re also relatively accurate — well beyond any of the non-lead lightweights. In the test rifle, Hobbys averaged 845 f.p.s., with a spread from 838 to 856 f.p.s. That range is only 18 f.p.s., which is very good for a brand-new springer. At the average velocity, Hobbys produced 11.10 foot-pounds of energy at the muzzle.
Lastly, I tested some Air Arms Diabolo Field domes, weighing 8.4 grains. These are good, accurate pellets made by JSB on dies that Air Arms owns. Some say these dies are even better than the other JSB Exact 8.4-grain dome dies, but I think you have to test your gun to establish that. In the test rifle, these pellets averaged 767 f.p.s. with a spread from 741 to 780. That’s a huge 41 f.p.s. spread that will show up as vertical dispersion at longer ranges. At the average velocity, these pellets produced 10.98 foot-pounds of muzzle energy.
The Polaris does not live up to its thousand f.p.s. claim — at least not the rifle I tested. Perhaps when it breaks in, it’ll gain more velocity, but it’ll never make up such a huge difference.
However, that isn’t a bad thing because this lightweight underlever rifle is a nice shooter. There’s very little vibration with the shot, and you could almost say that it feels tuned. I like the behavior, especially when coupled with the smooth trigger action.
I went back and read my old tests of the Gamo CF-X and learned that, in .177 caliber, it was a full 100 f.p.s. faster than the Polaris I’m testing here. However, in .22 caliber, which was the three-part gas spring test I conducted in 2008, the power was well below the stated spec. I think it’s safe to say these rifles are best-suited to .177 caliber.
We all know very well that I may have a rifle that’s on the lower end of the power range. The rifle you buy may exceed what you see here. But there are limits to how far that goes, and I doubt that any Polaris rifles will be capable of 1,000 f.p.s. Of course that’s fine, because airgunners know to avoid that much velocity anyway, but the newer buyers may complain.
Next we’ll look at accuracy, and I hope the Polaris is a stunner.
I could tell it was a Gamo right off, from that *thing* on the too-shallow ‘scope grooves, that has ‘scope grooves on IT, in an effort to keep a scope on the thing.
B.B.
The picture of the trigger adjustment screw that does nothing….the end of the trigger spring looks very familiar. Gamo or Chopstick clone?
Of course with Gamo involved, without PBA and a couple drops of gas I would not expect it to get the advertised velocity.
It may turn out to be a good shooter, but buyers need not have too high of an expectation in the power department.
twotalon
twotalon
It was your and Paul’s reviews that encouraged me to buy the Gamo CF-X. I bought an older one with the metal trigger. I replaced the trigger and my groups really tightened up. I even tried a gas spring, but that was a disaster. The gun was literally tearing itself apart. I went back to the spring and have been very happy with it’s performance. I am getting 10 shot groups you can cover with a dime at 20 yards. I guess I should try experimenting with the artillery hold and see if I can tighten that up even more.
Ridgerunner,
You have a .22, right? Do you shoot it much anymore?
ka
Actually, I don’t own one. I have not had one for many years now.
Morning B.B.,
A 6.6 pound under lever sounds good to me. I enjoy walking through the woods and plinking, but I don’t like having to lug eight or nine pounds of gun with me. This BSA Polaris is scratching my itch to own an under lever. I’ll be keeping a close eye on this one.
Bruce
B.B.
After this article of yours I know the shape of my next project 🙂 CFX turned into fullstock, with my kind of tuning of course. Shortened barrel and some more inches to the butt.
duskwight
BB,
Wow! ’06 huh? I remember that first CFX review. (I also remember the CFX Guy). It was reading that review that brought the artillery hold to my attention. Though I still can’t get any good groups with my CFX. I tried forever to get a scope to not move on it. Finally gave up and went back to open sites. I haven’t shot it for quite a while, maybe this weekend. I like the look of that Polaris with the wood stock.
ka
KidAgain
Maybe you should use one-piece mounts with arrestor pins? I’ve mounted many scopes of CFX and never heard of properly installed scope moving.
duskwight
duskwight,
You’re right. It was the rings that gave me trouble. Now that you mention it… I took scope off for another rifle. I may have just never gotten around to getting another scope for it.
ka
Off topic. It’s amazing what $50 worth of lighting fixtures can do.
The 30′ range I have in my basement up till now has been lit by the existing lighting…flourescent pot lights about every 8′. The room is 30’x15′ and there are 6 fixtures…pretty good lighting, though I always new it was less than the ISSF standard ranges I shot at years ago.
So this past weekend I rented a lux meter and put some additional lighting into the target end. Up to standard it is about twice as bright as it was previously.
I truly cannot believe how much sharper and crisp the target picture is.
I felt an immediate improvement in how quickly I could achieve a good sight picture.
CBSD
I have about the same space in the garage as you do and have a tripod mounted spotlight with a .50″ thick Lexan cover over it that I can put in various positions/heights based on what I’m shooting at. The Lexan has taken a few hits (ricochets) but with no damage other than tell-tale lead dust marks that polish right off.
Like a new pair of glasses, brighter targets are better targets.
Brian
There is another story about bright lightning.
I’ve made a small range on my land in the country ~30 m. Strange, but my accuracy is less in bright sunny days, and much better when it’s partly cloudy or the light is softer after 3-4 p.m. My 125 m “forest range” along the fire break is almost always a little bit shady – and accuracy is quite consistent.
Of course, lamp vs Sun – you know, who the winner is. It seems that too much light has bad effect on accuracy as well as not enough light.
duskwight
Yes, I can imagine too much, intense light begins to wash out some definition or certain colors depending on each persons eyesight and color perception, etc.
I do similar as Kit Carson does, low light at my shooting bench with brighter light at the target, in that way, the brighter light is not really that strong (just a 75 watt floodlight) but it is huge in contrast to the lower light around it. More like a spotlight in a dimly lit theater? Outside, I like the shady spot to shoot from into the brighter light at the target or the squirrel or groundhog etc!
In case you guys haven’t experienced it, give night shooting a try. I have shot my absolute best groups (3/8″ CTC at 75 yards, 5 shots) in pitch black with a halogen worklight luminating the target. In most areas, around 12 or 1 am, the temperature stabilizes and there is zero wind… ideal long range shooting conditions. The dark, quiet environment is highly conducive to getting in the zone.
– Orin
I have noticed many of the same things. On bright days outside, the light hitting the eyepiece and objective lenses give me problems, even though the target is well lit. Maybe like stray light fooling the sensors on a camera. I don’t have any eye cups and only one of my scopes has a long sleeve out well past the front of the objective. Anybody use that sort of thing with good results?
Thanks,
Lloyd
Lloyd,
When I competed in field target at Damascus I had to use a long sunshade on my scope. The orientation of the range allowed sunlight to strike the objective lens if there wasn’t a long sunscreen. Then the image went dark and murky.
B.B.
BB,
My favorite places for shooting are generally not outside in the bright sun, so when I encounter it, I am baffled. Sounds like a long sunshade and a ball cap are minimums.
Thanks,
Lloyd
Lloyd,
Funny you should mention the ball cap, because it is just as important as the sunshade. At Damascus, I used to stand to the right of the shooter, to shadow him so he could sight. Even a ball cap wasn’t enough at certain hours of the day.
B.B.
Had the same experience myself, following B.B.’s advice. If it’s common wisdom that optics are the way for increased shooting performance, it stands to reason that lighting conditions are important too.
Matt61
In my basement I have a 10m range as well. I light the target up pretty bright and I have a low light where I shoot from but other than that it’s dark. Maybe I’m weird but I prefer the low light except on the target.
I don’t compete against anyone other than myself though.
Happy Irish Day everyone.
How well I remember the mania surrounding the Gamo CFX. But then it petered out for reasons that are not entirely clear to me. Part of it seemed to have to do with the fact that the .22 version lost power rapidly at the longer ranges ~ 50 yards. I never figured out why that would be, especially if muzzle velocity was in the normal range. And am I correct that our incomparable Duskwight has customized a CFX which he used to shoot those unbelievable groups posted awhile ago?
Duskwight, you have me intrigued by the metal version of the IZH 61. Why oh why did IZH lower quality controls on a gun that was already cheap anyway? That doesn’t seem like it would even be profitable. The rifle is still good I believe, but this was a very unfortunate move. On another note, you mentioned taking girls to the range. Are you one of these who post YouTube videos with titles like “see this hottie in a bikini shoot a high caliber weapon”….:-)
Regarding the finances of shooting, yes indeed I recognize that picture of people with their incredibly nice trucks and expensive shooting equipment. And yes, I have noticed that the people with the ultra-high powered weapons tend not to shoot them that much (How could they do otherwise!). They might stay put for awhile but only fire once every 10 minutes while fiddling around the rest of the time. My impulse is to start getting money back out in addition to putting a lot in. Investing still looks like a good bet to me. Slinging Lead has a good point though that I don’t know how the shooting companies are involved in mutual funds which I favor. Straight speculation is not my impulse.
I have taken quite an interest in the Japan nuclear crisis and the underlying science. As an aside, I have followed Eliot Spitzer’s attempt at reinstating himself but would say that he is surpassed by his prostitute who has gotten some job as an advice columnist about relationships! Now that does take some audacity. Anyway, the comments from the American naval personnel that the nuclear crisis is not a serious situation are a new one to me as it sounds like it is getting worse all the time. And I’m suspecting that the Japanese government has underplayed this all along, sort of like BP with its crisis. After all, Japan is the nation whose emperor, after the atomic bombs were dropped, told his people that the war had not necessarily gone in their favor…. I don’t think that communication in our Western sense is a strong point with them for all sorts of cultural reasons. My brother had an experience working for a Japanese company similar to what somebody mentioned, and it was frightful.
I have wondered, like someone else, why it is so hard to cool down the darn reactor when power has been shut off to the reactor and they have been dumping in seawater in near-freezing temperatures. The answer seems to lie with the dynamics of nuclear radiation which require months of cooling. And it now appears that the concrete containment structures have been breached; one of the plants had a 26 foot wide hole blown in the side of a building. Anyway, the very high and dangerous radiation levels that have been recorded is a matter of fact which seems to make speculations about containment vessels secondary. As far as the prospects for the future, the worse case scenario seems to be an explosion like Chernobyl that will blow radioactive debris into the atmosphere where it can spread. I don’t understand the opposite scenario from the movie China Syndrome which I never saw in which the reactor core melts its way downward into the earth. My reaction would be “so what” since that seems like a good place for it to be. I could see problems if it melted its way to a shallow depth where it could contaminate things. But in the disaster scenario of the movie, the reactor melted its way down to the middle of the earth which seems like a good place with the huge volume of molten material already down there. Anyway, I would be interested if anyone could enlighten me on this. I also have answers coming from the retired physics professor cousin that I will be glad to share.
Matt61
Matt61, to your question about “You Tube and Duskwight”… have you ever seen those Ukranian girls?
Hotter than a pistol would be one axiom that comes to mind, among others.
Matt,
The problem with cooling the reactor “when the power has been shut off” is that the reactor itself is still running. Normally the heat generated by the reactor is carried off by water converted to steam to power generators, which maintains a stable temperature in the core. When the power was cut off (and the diesel backup generators couldn’t come on line due to fuel tank ruptures), thus stopping the pumps, the reactor continued to produce enough heat to power a good chunk of Tokyo, but that heat was not being carried off at the same rate by circulation. This means the core temperature rises quickly, boiling off any remaining cooling water and eventually melting and/or damaging the fuel rods and support structures. At that point the core reactor is not controllable by normal means, all they can do is try reduce the temperature or at least to stabilize or slow the rise in heat by bringing in water. It is not something that can be done effectively with bucket brigades or a couple of thousand gallons from a helicopter. There will not be a nuclear explosion (there is no critical density in the fuel rod material), but there may be explosion-like effects as water is flashed into steam — these can spew radiation over a wider area; the longer the reaction remains uncontrolled, the higher the temperature and the worse that type of side effect. I believe there is also the possibility of hydrogen gas being generated during this time, and that may burn or explode.
I should clarify this. The reactors in Japan were shut down (primary reaction stopped) immediately, but they continue to generate (not just dissipate) heat for some time.
From Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_water_reactor_safety_systems
“Like the pressurized water reactor, the BWR reactor core continues to produce heat from radioactive decay after the fission reactions have stopped, making a core damage incident possible in the event that all safety systems have failed and the core does not receive coolant. Also like the pressurized water reactor, a boiling water reactor has a negative void coefficient, that is, the neutron (and the thermal) output of the reactor decreases as the proportion of steam to liquid water increases inside the reactor.”
The reactor is still somewhat pressurized — the boiling point for the water is around 500degF rather than 212. If a leak in a steam line develops, the remaining superheated cooling water will likely flash to steam all at once.
Main feature is that the water is part of the moderator, and loss of moderator will shutdown the reaction — it still leaves inherent heat from natural radioactive decay. This is the difference between this reactor and the Chernobyl reactor. Chernobyl’s main moderator was graphite, the water was just a coolant and steam source for turbines. Loss of water won’t stop the reaction phase, only the control rods could do that. And when steam pressure blew the pressure/containment vessel, the heat ignited the graphite (imagine trying to dowse a multi-ton charcoal grill); it’s the ashes and updraft from the fire that spread so much contamination.
Matt,
On 61 – well, it happens when guns business is run by marketologists, let me specify – BAD marketologists. Stop me, if you know this one: Dracula says to his son – “Don’t bleed this poor fellow dry, we are vampires, not lawyers!”. That’s their methods – to make a biggest margin possible, as fast as possible, make themselves a hefty bonus and… airgunners? what airgunners?
On girls in bikinis at the range – I’m afraid that’s the way to receive a good beating from two sides. One side is those who uphold an iron rule – the range is the range, place for shooting targets, not pictures and shooter has no sex. And I heartily agree with beating from this side.
Another side is my girl, who came to the range to punch some holes and have some fun, not to pose as a Youtube attraction for some sweaty handed teenager. And I heartily agree with beating from this side (well, even more heartily, as she’s got a light punch).
However, the main reason for me is the style, as I find bikini too low. I prefer girls wearing Victoria’s Secret or Agent Provocateur – but that’s, of course, for a very close and personal range.
duskwight
Of all of my air rifles, except for my FWB, the CFX is the easiest to shoot well. It’s the easiest to cock, the most quiet, and the least hold sensitive. The only mod that I’ve made is adding the GRT III trigger.
Victor
How Pyramyd AIR employees celebrated St. Patty’s Day:
http://www.facebook.com/album.php?fbid=1935524871957&id=1357401265&aid=112921
Edith
Am I the only one who Does Not have an acount of FaceBook?
Kit,
I don’t have one. Tom has one, I think, but I don’t think he’s done much with it.
Edith
I sure don’t! They want me to sign in every time I go there!
What a waste of time.
B.B.
As I am not an adolescent girl, I also do not have a facebook account. Or Twitter for that matter. Also I am not some pervert trolling for the above mentioned adolescent girls so what is the point? Who the heck wants to know what I’m doing or thinking every waking moment? Not even me!
And “ooooo, look how many facebook friends I have!” It reeks of desperation.
Maybe I SHOULD get an account and brag about how I never leave home, and have claymore mines planted around my perimeter!
Nope, I don’t have one either. No need.
Mike
No, neither do I. Mostly because the security (ha ha) is nill to none.
There are toxic websites all over Europe and the Far East that collect facebook data, addresses, shopping habits, you name it and sell it to their Phishing/scam friends on the web.
One report from Phillipines recently, 22 year old gal sending facebook updates to “friends” about her new Big Screen TV at home, brand new and big $$$. She added to her text that she would be home by 7:30 that evening and all the friends should come over to see the new TV.
Problem was, it was 2:30pm when she hit facebook with her post, by 3:30pm a local crew had broken in to her place and took the new Big Screen with them!
Imagine posting photos and comments about your massive airgun collection on facebook…oops!
Don’t do Facebook and don’t plan to.
No, neither do I. Mostly because the security (ha ha) is nill to none.
There are toxic websites all over Europe and the Far East that collect facebook data, addresses, shopping habits, you name it and sell it to their Phishing/scam friends on the web.
One report from the Phillipines recently, a 22 year old gal sending facebook updates to “friends” about her new Big Screen TV at home, brand new and big $$$. She added to her text that she would be home by 7:30 that evening and all the friends should come over to see the new TV.
Problem was, it was 2:30pm when she hit facebook with her post, by 3:30pm a local crew had broken in to her place and took the new Big Screen with them!
Imagine posting photos and comments about your massive airgun collection on facebook…oops!
I don’t do Facebook and don’t plan to.
Me neither for all the reasons you cited. Also, Google stores every bit of activity that you do through them, including all searches, and they do it for our FBI, CIA, NSA, etc.. Trouble is, even innocent activity can raise red flags. Clearing up a mess can be MUCH harder than creating it (as THEY might).
I think you’ve misunderstood. I’ve created a facebook account…not a facebook page. I did it because Pyramyd AIR has a facebook page, and that’s where I get to see the pictures I linked before. Like many of you, I have zero interest in maintaining a presence there. I barely have the time to keep up with what I’ve got going right now.
Edith
I don’t, and never plan to, have a Facebook account. Phone calls, e-mails, and IM (instant messenger) work fine for me, thanks.
Victor
Kit,
You’re not alone, comrade! 🙂
duskwight
I seem to be the minority here (nothing new there) as I do have a Facebook account and use it daily.
I have around 100 “friends” the only “friends” I have on there that I’ve never met face to face are Tom Gaylord (which I hope to remedy one day) and things like Crosman and PyramydAir. I don’t have much personal info apart from my date of birth without the year and no one but my friends can see my info or what I post.
It’s a great way to stay in contact with relatives who live far from you, you connect there and you see they’re connected and you have a little chat with them, you know what’s going on (my cousin who lives in another province just moved into a new apartment, it was nice to see what it looked like and that everything went well).
It’s also a great and FAST way to know the knew products or specials coming out from companies or stores you like. For example today PA announced that 2 of it’s techs were going to Germany for some training on the newer lines of European guns they’ve got coming in. I think it’s nice to know that they are proactive and the guys get some good training.
I don’t ask people I don’t know to be friends with me and I don’t accept request from people I don’t know. You do have to be careful on what you click but it’s true for EVERYTHING on the net, it’s like a gigantic city, nice people, crooks and crooks that look like nice people. Just be careful and everything will be fine.
J-F
J-F
I didn’t mean to disparage you or anyone else who has a fb account (although after rereading my post it sounds like I did.)
For anyone who needs to get in touch with people that they would not otherwise be able to, I suppose it is invaluable. I personally don’t need anything like that.
No offense intended, you are still aces in my book J-F. Sorry for my flippant remarks.
No offense taken.
I know it’s not for everyone and I don’t do the farmville crap and things like that.
I see facebook like the rest of internet, as a tool, you need it, you use it.
I don’t spend 4 hours there everyday but I like seeing how my relatives who are far from me and how they’re doing and sometimes we get a scoop on new stuff coming out (like the Rogue at the shot show).
That’s facebook to me. I’m not trying to convince anyone to come join facebook but it’s not always as bad as it seems.
There was also a comment about Monster energy drink a while back but I wasn’t able to comment on it right away so I never did. I LOVE THE STUFF. I don’t drive an import with coffee can size exhaust or wear a baseball cap backward or listen to crappy music (I mostly listen to music made before I was born) but I love that stuff, I don’t drink coffee so a can of monster once in a while is my caffeine and sugar fix in the morning when I’m gonna have a long day or I have to make a long drive.
Things (people) aren’t always what they seem.
J-F
p.s. I also found my dog on facebook, he was in a shelter I was “friends” with because I was looking for a dog and they put a pic of him, I went over to meet them and the dog and it was love at first sight, he’s my dog and he goes everywhere I go…
J-F,
Just be aware that EVERYTHING you say on FB is in someone else’s data base… forever… to be use at their discretion (or lack of).
ka
j-f,
Thanks for the tip on Monster. I have a 1,500 mile trip coming up next week and I usually drink Mountain Dew to crack me back to consciousness. I think I’ll give your Monster a try this time.
-Chuck
@KidAgain
I am well aware that everything I put on facebook can be retrieved by anyone which is why I don’t have other personal info than my date of birth and name. That’s pretty much it.
It’s the same thing all over the internet. I don’t have anything to hide and I’m careful of what I say and do over the net. But like everybody else coming here you know it’s an endless source of information. I would have a hard time not having internet.
@Chuck
Monster is like drinking candy to me. if it wasn’t for all the caffeine, sugar and other things in there I’d drink can after can after can. It’s just like coffee, if I drink some for a long period of time when I stop I have small headaches and feel tired.
Anyone heard of the guy who died in the UK after taking powdered synthetic caffeine? It was the equivalent of 70 cups of coffee or energy drinks, the thing was labeled with a warning to not take more than 1/16 of a spoon… he took 2 full spoons 15min later he was dead.
J-F
I had one and disabled it. Giving an information storing device more info of personal nature just doesn’t make sense to me. I ditched it and use the cell or email, that’s as public as I chose to be.
ka
BB,
The velocity variations may not bode well for accuracy. Too bad, as it is a nice looking rifle, and the power level is in the sweet spot as far as I’m concerned. I believe that going much past 850 fps is not good for accuracy, anyway, and I wouldn’t want much more power out of such a light springer.
Yeah, I should create one so at least I can look at pictures and be “friends” with people. I can even access Pyramyd Air’s profile because I don’t have one.
can’t. I’m celebrating St. Patrick’s Day early. lol.
Kit,
You don’t have to create a profile. I created an account for myself just yesterday! They would like you to create a profile, but that’s optional. I simply did the minimum and then did a search for Pyramyd AIR and I was at the party!
Edith
Okay, I didn’t realize that’s all it took. I’ll check it out now.
Thanks Edith.
B.B.,
When you tested the Gamo CFX, you made a lot of comparisons against the TX 200. I wonder how you would compare this Polaris against the TX 200? This Polaris, based on price, does seem to be closer to the TX 200.
Victor
Victor,
I won’t know until I shoot it for accuracy.
B.B.
BB “compared to the TX200” them’s fightin words right?
Not the venerable and holier than most TX200, only the humble HW97 comes close…right?
HUMBLE HW97? I almost choked on my beer.
twotalon
Comparing a TX200 to anything?! I just sprayed beer all over my keyboard.
Incomparable beauty, and dead-nuts accurate. Did I mention smooth as butter?
It seems expensive, until you realize what you are getting for the money.
Just my 2 cents worth, having both a CFX Royal .22 gas piston and a .177 TX 200HC, comparing these 2 guns is like comparing a VW Beetle and a Porshe 911; they’re both fun but one is CLEARLY better that the other.
David H
David,
That depends on how much is left from CFX in your CFX…
duskwight
I think it helps to read B.B.’s report on the CFX to see how they were compared. They weren’t compared in the sense that one was actually being equated with the other, but rather on how the CFX had qualities that raised the bar for a rifle of it’s kind at it’s price point. For one thing, in terms of accuracy and shootability (is that a real word?), it was the only rifle at this price point that was worthy of being considered a real field target rifle.
My question is, would B.B. consider the Polaris worthy of being considered a real field target rifle as well?
Victor
Also, I like the shape of the wood stock on the BSA Polaris much more than my CFX Royal.
David H
Please, everyone , be advised. If you have been on line for a length of time for any reason using any browser, the “databases” and your Internet provider already know more about you than do your relatives. The data they contain can be subpoenaed by any court to be used against or for you. Just being on this blog alone will cause a dozen temporary Internet files to be placed into the “system”.
I’m not trying to scare you. I’m just trying to inform you. You don’t have to be on Facebook or any other social app for your personal information to be collected. Also, every phone call you have ever gotten or made has been saved on your phone provider’s database. This can be subpoenaed also. This is the way life is in the information age. We must learn to deal with it and be prudent so that we don’t have to fear it.
-Chuck
Gas springs are manufactured in different forms including mechanical and compressed. Compression springs are an ideal solution for movement of large and awkward sized objects. They work by lifting the object and then you are able to lower it and position it correctly. This is all done safely and this is a proven and tested method of lifting large objects.The springs are versatile as they can be used to control aspects of movement in other objects including lids, hoods, flaps and safety guards. The gas springs are attached and then it is able to control the lifting and lowering motions, just like with the large objects.