by B.B. Pelletier
Crosman’s 2100B is a full-sized multi-pump that delivers power and accuracy with a few economic concessions.
Yesterday, I told you that today’s test was coming; but because I needed to mount a scope for this test, I was prompted to also test the UTG 3/8″ dovetail-to-Weaver/Picatinny rail adapter. There was some interest in this adapter; so I’ll continue to test it with other airguns so we get a good look at the performance. Today, I want to do Part 4 on the Crosman 2100B multi-pump that I promised back in March.
I reread Part 3 of this report to see which pellet(s) did well at 10 meters. From what I see, only 7.9-grain Crosman Premiers did well in that test, so I added a couple pellets I had not tried before to today’s test.
The scope I used is an Osprey 2.5-10×42 that has its parallax fixed at 100 yards. It’s a firearm scope, pure and simple. At full magnification, the target was fuzzy, so I set it to about 5.5x for this test. It has a duplex reticle with mil-dots on the vertical reticle, which is about medium thickness. The optics are very clear, and I think the gun got all the help it needed from this scope.
For the 10-meter test, I pumped the rifle 5 times for every shot. Today, I’ll be shooting 25 yards. Now that it has a scope mounted, pumping is more difficult because I cannot hold the gun at the optimum place, which is on top of the receiver. The scope is in the way, and don’t you dare try to pump the rifle while holding onto the scope! Your hand has to hold the gun farther back, which winds up being the pistol grip of the stock. That isn’t the best leverage to pump the rifle, but fortunately the 2100B has a short, easy pump stroke.
For today’s 25-yard test, I pumped the rifle 6 times for every shot. My thought was to shoot the rifle 5 shots with each pellet and see if it was accurate enough with that pellet to warrant the work of shooting the second 5 shots. This would also tell me whether the shots were walking because the bore needed to be seasoned with each new pellet. As it turned out, though, all three pellets were worth the effort to shoot a full 10-shot group, so that’s what you’ll see.
Crosman Premier lites
The first pellet I tried was the 7.9-grain Crosman Premier dome. The first 5 shots seemed to group okay — about what I expected from the earlier results at 10 meters — so I just kept on shooting and finished the 10-shot group. Ten shots landed in a group measuring 0.809 inches between centers. The group is a little wider than it is tall, but you’ll notice that 9 of the 10 shots are actually in a group that is fairly round.
Ten Crosman Premier lites didn’t do bad at 25 yards. Nine of them made a nice, round group. Total group measures 0.809 inches between centers.
This was better accuracy than I expected, based on the results of the 10-meter test. The group size there was 10 Premiers in a 0.539-inch group; and, at over twice the distance, the group only opened another three-tenths of an inch. I think that demonstrates how much greater accuracy is provided by a good optical sight.
The pace of shooting is slower
One thing about shooting a multi-pump is that everything slows down. It takes a while to make each shot ready, which is similar in concept to shooting a muzzleloading rifle that has to be loaded separately with powder and ball. That slower pace forces the shooter to concentrate more on what he’s doing — or at least that’s how it affects me. That’s why I like single-shot rifles so much — for what they bring out in me.
The second pellet I tried was the RWS Superdome. This 8.3-grain domed pellet is one I don’t try too often — for no particular reason. It’s made from pure lead and has a relatively thin skirt that takes the rifling very well. I really didn’t know what to expect from it, but it’s different enough than a Premier lite that I wanted to see how it might do.
Ten Superdomes made a rather open group that measures exactly the same as the group of Premiers — 0.809 inches between centers. It looks like a larger group, and there’s undoubtedly some error in the measurement of both groups, but I cannot discern any difference between them with the dial calipers.
Ten RWS Superdomes made this open group at 25 yards. It seems to measure the same 0.809 inches between centers as the Premier group, above, but there is always measurement error.
H&N Baracuda Greens
The last pellet I tried was an afterthought, based on the success of the other day. H&N Baracuda Greens made such a great initial showing that I thought I would include them in this test, just for fun. Boy, am I glad I did!
I was unable to see the pellets that landed inside the black bulls because of the parallax setting of the scope, so it wasn’t until I walked downrange to retrieve the target that I saw what the Baracuda Greens had done. Ten went into a group that measures 0.48 inches between centers! Not only is this the best group of this test, it actually outshot the M4-177 I tested at the end of 2011. That’s Crosman’s other hot, low-cost multi-pump, so don’t get it confused with the MAR177 PCP. That kind of performance says a lot about this air rifle and the accuracy that it offers for very little money.
In light of the first two groups, this 0.48-inch group of 10 H&N Baracuda Greens seems amazing. These non-lead pellets are making a name for themselves!
This will be the last time I look at the 2100B, but it’s been an interesting test. After Part 3, I didn’t think the gun had much more to show us — but this final accuracy test changes everything.
We’ve looked at a fine multi-pump air rifle in addition to the UTG scope ring adapters that let you use Weaver rings on an 11mm airgun dovetail. They proved very easy to install and worked exactly as advertised in this test.
And the Baracuda Green gets another pat on the back. This is a pellet worth considering when you search for the best ammo.
All things considered, I would say this was a fine end to the test of a really great and also inexpensive air rifle!
40 thoughts on “Crosman 2100B multi-pump air rifle: Part 4”
I am not surprised by the accuracy of this rifle. This is very consistent with what I saw from my father-in-laws. Those Green pellets are really something.
I can’t wait to see these H&N Baracuda Greens tested with the MAV 77! That will be a very special treat!
Since the MAV77 may not be here for a while, I thought I would give the Baracuda Greens a try in my TX200. Same, same, only we know the accuracy is there.
You sound confident that the TX 200 is representative of the MAV 77, or visa-versa? This is a very interesting question to me and others.
I have tested the MAV77 several times, when it was the BAM B40. So I know what it can do. Yes, it is very equivalent to the TX200.
Excuse my ignorance but like most things about guns I know very little, and nothing about the BAM B40. in any case, that’s a pretty strong comparison!
Velocities! Were you not in the least bit curious about the velocity at which the Barracuda Green was performing so well?
Not during an accuracy test! Just as I don’t get dressed while driving a car.
Each thing has its place and time.
I wonder about this pellet’s terminal ballistics, compared to lead pellet. Those who hunt rodents may be interested how this alloy behaves when it hits the target. Does it deform more or just like lead pellets when it hits the pellet stop at equal speed?
And there’s also another question about it – we all know that it’s almost impossible to wear out an airgun barrel with lead pellets and proper cleaning. But how will this alloy behave in long use? Is it harder compared to lead or softer? Do pellet makers give any info on its composition and ability to react producing oxides and salts that can be harder than soft steel/brass barrel or provoke corrosion?
Yesterday evening I tested my “engine” with a bit reworked safety (greater safety margin and more powerful return spring at safety pushbutton). Works fine, howerver it made me a bit nervous first time – its sound changed to a rather loud metallic “click!” when engaged so I thought I cracked somethin in process.
I expect the terminal ballistics are not very good, because the pellet is so light. But I do have a plan to test that for you in the future.
And no — nobody is talking about what they make their green pellets of.
I hope your gun is okay!
So why wouldn’t they make these pellets heavier? Making a pellet “green” is one thing, but that’s only part of the overall equation.
I suppose “they” would if they knew how. Lead is pretty dense, so anything that weighs as much has got to be as dense. Most that is, is exotic and expensive.
Right. I haven’t examined one of these pellets myself, but my thinking is that they would need to be made a bit longer, and possibly a bit more filled for added mass.
BB said, “As for the size of the chamber, itself, I thought it was the same, except for the leade. Are you saying there is another difference?”
There is no difference execpt that the leade is longer on the 5.56, the rest is the same. We had Remington 700 rifles at work in the past with .223 chambers. Shooting 5.56 ammo in them would give indications of excess pressure.
Okay! Then I am on the right track, as I plan on reloading, only, though I do have several hundred 1970s 5.56 rounds to burn. The upper I’m getting has the Wylde chamber.
Since military brass is a bit thicker, case volume is also a bit less. So, when I use military brass I cut my powder charges by .5 of a grain. As with most military brass, you need to remove the crimp from the primer pocket to seat the new primer.
This caliber is a fun one, accurate and very little recoil. I know several folks the use it for Whitetail Deer with very good results. The Nosler Partition bullet is a good selection for this.
Ah, the secret source of ammo reveals itself… I was going to mention the Wylde chambering to cover your bases since that is explicitly designed to handle both the 5.56 and the .223, so you should be fine.
Interesting results. Completely different from what I have seen so far with my Crosman 2100 at 10 pumps and 50 feet, but still interesting. I may have to drag my Crosman 2100 out and do some experimenting if I can find the time and the weather permits.
Thanks for doing the final part of the review.
Hey I have a crossman phantom 1000 and the bear trap lever in mine is warped. Where can I buy a new one or is the bear trap lever even necessary for the gun?
Contact Crosman directly for parts like this:
Looks like this 2100B is yet another great bargain/value from Crosman! Those Baracuda Green pellets are pretty surprising to me. If they aren’t too hard on the barrel they might be a paper puncher’s dream!
I agree that focus on your shot will increase with the effort taken to get it ready–by multi-pump or whatever. But the extra energy expenditure will cause you to run out of gas sooner. 30 shots with my B30 is like 90 from my IZH 61. So I guess that gets into the issues of quality vs. quantity shooting that Victor and Kevin were talking about.
Kevin, yes I was kidding around with my comment about tuning although also affirming Clint Eastwood’s line, “A man’s got to know his limitations.” (That would be mine for gun maintenance.) Thanks for your post about shooting technique. The Jaws of the Subconscious confirmed! I guess it’s just a matter of how to get them out there, and one reliable way is mindful and consistent practice. There is some question of just how far you should go with nuances of technique, like rolling your trigger finger into the second stage of the shot. It has been my brief experience that the more you chase the Jaws and apply your conscious mind with details like this, the more they will flee away. But this is an individual matter and I’m always learning myself.
Wulfraed, wow, that is very informative about the striker-fired pistols, but my overall impression is that it sounds complicated, especially the decocking lever which I experienced when I rented a Beretta 92. It’s a nice idea, but there is a completely separate movement involved. It doesn’t flow naturally into the operation of the gun the way the 1911 thumb safety does. My brother was fairly freaked out the first time firing pistols recently in trying to keep track of the decocking lever and other controls. I understand that even experienced gunfighters can get mixed up between different controls if they are using a backup pistol of a different design than their primary one.
Glock pistols are used by 65% of the Law Enforcement agency’s in the US. Automatic safeties, accurate, very, very reliable, and easy to use (no decocker needed). It is also a very easy pistol to train people to use. If it didn’t work, and work well, it wouldn’t be this successful! I own two of them. A Glock 19 and a Glock 26. Both are 9mm’s.
The old S&W decocker/safety is slide-mounted; rotate (from perspective of left thumb, since the third generation had ambdextrous design) counter-clockwise down to block firing pin and drop the hammer. Clockwise up/forward to fire. While it may take a few thoughts to remember how to put ON the safety, taking it off isn’t that difficult — basically slide your thumb forward against the side of the slide-frame join… A 1911 frame-mounted safety would brush the “bottom” of your thumb, and with a fat enough thumb, be pushed down/off — the S&W/Beretta safety would brush the “top” of the thumb, and be pushed up/off…
It’s a pity the Umarex Walther CP99 didn’t incorporate a working “real” safety — instead it has a sliding bar on the right-side frame that pinches the trigger/sear transfer bar. Yet it has a “real” decocker on top to release the striker if you’d cocked the action by pulling the rear half of the “slide” back.
I’ll concede the Sig-Sauer decocker would be rather of a change of pace… It’s a long-stroke lever that starts at the front of the left grip panel, and sweeps down to the bottom of the trigger guard.
Thanks for posting the part 4. This gun, along with its “Remington” clone, the AM77 are a great value. Those are nice groups considering the trigger is longer and worse than the plastic 760s. I get similar results with mine.
This is great performance for such an inexpensive air rifle. If I hadn’t shot that group of Baracuda Greens myself, I don’t know that I would have believed it.
That was a great end to a great review! Wish now I’d never used bb’s in mine…
It’s too bad Crosman didn’t choose this platform for the M4-177. I know they’d have to re-tool to give the 2100B that 760-like ‘repeater’ action, but man would they ever have a winner. My M4 squeaks like a cheap toy and is physically smaller and less sturdy than the 2100B.
Maybe their foray into AR’s with the pcp upper will lead to new things down the road.
The Crosman 2100B is the kind of air rifle that is perfect to introduce the beginner to the sport/hobby. The performance at this affordable price point with excellent quality is an ambassador to air gunning. That said, the Crosman M4-177 I consider a joke. An M4 you pump up ? Bazaar.. Ridiculous. Like the M14, it should be based on CO2.
How does the 2100B compare with the Daisy 880?
My impression is, that this is a slightly larger, more powerful gun. Am I correct?
They are about the same size and weight. The 2100B is slightly longer and heavier, but both are so light that I doubt you would notice.
Daisy rates the 880 at 800 f.p.s. and Crosman rates the 2100B at 755. I think both are probably less powerful than that.
OK thanks so …. effectively I already have one!
I really do like my 880. Power’s not bad, accuracy is good, and pumping is EASY.
That 25 yard 10 shot group is very nice. I think the Crosman 2100 is a great and solid air rifle made with much less plastic (not talking about the stock and pump arm) than most other modern inexpensive air guns. I went with the Remington Airmaster 77 as I like the looks a little bit more. But the scope it came with was not nearly up to the capabilities of the rifle. I have a 4×32 Leapers on mine and it’s much better. The price of the 2100 without scope is a major bargain in air guns I think.I’ve had my Remington for about 4 years and it is 100% reliable. Mine gets nice groups with Crosman Premier hollow points, RWS Hobby’s, Gamo Match wadcutters, and some others, but I use mostly these three pellets.
I am a 59 year old long time smokeless powder gun shooter and have a hard time getting the hang of spring piston rifles. But I do just fine with this multi-pump, and my two CO2 air rifles. I have a Crosman 1077 that can group well despite the trigger, and a great shooting little Crosman Custom Shop 2400 carbine.
Thanks for all your testing and articles over the years and all your hard work!!
At 59 you are about bthe average age of a serious airgunner. I’m 65 and I know a lot of guys who are in their 70s.
Spring guns are very difficult to shoot accurately, unless you get the right ones. Some that I know to be very easy to shoot are the vintage Diana 27, the Air Venturi Bronco and just about all 10-meter spring rifles. While a multi-pump is great fun, you are missing out on a lot by not discovering the fun of a good spring gun.
Having said that, I must also tell you that the precharged pneumatic (PCP) is also extremely accurate and very easy to shoot.
Well I finally took the time to read this article through, and from what your review shows I am a little disappointed. I had been considering buying a 2100, now I am not so sure.
I notice that it does not seem to be as accurate as either my Crosman 2289 or my Crosman 66 (the 664GT). Both the 2289 and the 66 will give nearly one holers at 10 (less than .21 inch groups) meters with cheapo pellets (Winchester pointed, and Daisy pointed [after checking for deformed skirts]). As such I ask how many warm up shots did you take with this gun before doing the accuracy testing? I could understand the results if you only took zero warm up shots, and had not shot this gun for a few weeks before this post. I will note that there has been nothing done to improve the accuracy on my two guns.
As I do not have a Chrony at this time, I can not comment on the MV of either of my guns, though the 66 goes most of the way through a very thick phone book on 10 pumps at 8 meters, and the 2289 (yea it is a .22 cal) goes about 1/3rd of the way through the same. Though I have stuffed the piston on both, and stretched the hammer spring, so any speed comparison would be meaningless as compared with stock guns (will be doing more tuning with them as time provides).
I just did a 11 shot test at aprox 10 meters with my 66 to verify what I said above and it gave a group of 0.15 inches center to center (almost a single pellet hole) with the cheap Winchester 9.63 grain pointed .177 pellets, this is on 3 pumps per shot.
I have just received a refurbished Crosman 2100B, direct from Crosman. It’s a beautiful gun. I guess the finish is supposed to resemble polished wood, but I’d like to remove the gloss to make it look older. Can I apply a clear, flat finish to remove the gloss? Have you or any readers tried this? Are there any things to avoid. Also, I might buy a Crosman 66 from a friend. I’d like to paint the forearm and stock to resemble wood. Do you have any suggestions?
Thanks, in advance.
I would advise against any applications to the plastic stock on a 2100B. Plastic doesn’t respond the way natural materials do.
As for the 66, I would advise you asking that question of the Crosman forum.
Very nice review, B.B.
I have a newer Crosman Legacy 1000, that shoots extremely well, does best with heavier pellets weighing more than 12 grain for the most part. The Crosman Legacy 1000 seems to beat the power of the Crosman 2100B by about an extra 2.8 to 3.5FPE depending on pellet at ten pumps. Crosman Legacy 10 pumps gives about 9.6FPE with 10.5 grain pellets, Crosman 2100B you give up to 6.8FPE at 10 pumps.
The Crosman Legacy 1000 is recommended to take a maximum of 12 pumps, so the maximum power is even greater, right on 10.5FPE with 10.5 grain pellets and 10.8FPE on 12 pumps with 15 Grain pellets, with with it turns the smallest groups.
I feel that the only reason for the limited reviews of the Crosman Legacy 1000 is that many think it is just a cheapened Crosman 2100, do to the plastic reciever. I believe that a good complete review by you would help to show people the potential hidden in the Crosman Legacy 1000 pumper.
To the point, Would you please do a review of the Crosman Legacy 1000 pumper at some point before Christmas 2017?
Boy, you sure like the Legacy. Why don’t you do the review? 😉
I do thank you for the offer. And I would very much like that.
There are two things stopping me from accepting:
1 : I do not own a chronograph, instead I use a balistic pendulum for power testing.
2 : I do not have any 7.9 grain Crosman Premier Pellets, that is your standard for power.
If these two issues are not a problem I would be very happy to write a three part review on the Crosman Legacy, using the format that is standard for you.
I’m okay with that. You write it your way. Don’t worry about my way.
Contact me at
for the rest of the specifics.