Crosman’s 160: Part 1

by B.B. Pelletier

Announcement: Jacque Ryder is this week’s winner of Pyramyd Air’s Big Shot of the Week on their airgun facebook page. He’ll receive a $50 Pyramyd Air gift card. Congratulations!

Jacque Ryder is this week’s BSOTW.


Fresh from the closet, another fine Crosman 160 emerges into daylight. We will watch this one blossom.

I was at the rifle range yesterday, and a friend delivered an air rifle that another friend had asked him to give me. It’s a Crosman 160, and that’s a classic air rifle that I’ve never reported in this blog, so here we go.

History
The Crosman 160 and 167 (.22 caliber and .177 caliber, respectively) was first produced in 1955 and lasted until 1972. There were several variations of the basic model over the years, but most airgunners rank them by their triggers. There was a very simple trigger in the first variation from 1955 through 1959, then Crosman put out a very special variation with a super-adjustable trigger in the guns made after 1959. The gun I’m testing has this wonderful trigger.

At some time in the 1960s, the Air Force bought a large number of 160s that were fitted with a Crosman S331 peep sight (made by Mossberg) and sling swivels that held a one-inch leather sling. As chance would have it, several hundred of these rifles were discovered unused in a government warehouse in Maryland or Virginia in the 1990s, and Edith and I bought one. It was brand new and still contained the original Crosman CO2 cartridges that had been used to test it at the factory. I knew they were original cartridges because they were sealed with the patent-dodging “bottlecap” tops Crosman had to use for several years. The end flap of the box had the Air Force Federal Stock Number for the gun, and everything inside the box was new and untouched.


Still rusty and dusty from long years of storage, the Crosman S331 peep sight is a great addition to this accurate target rifle.

I reported on that 160 in The Airgun Letter several times, but eventually I got rid of the rifle. And until yesterday, that was all I had to do with a Crosman 160.

A shooting friend of mine told me a couple months ago about an airgun he had, and from his description I guessed that it was a 160. Yesterday, he sent it to me so I could examine it and tell him what he has. Jose — I have your rifle, and it’s a Crosman 160!

Yours is the last variation they made, which in all ways is the best 160 model to have. It isn’t a former military model, because they all have sling swivels and your rifle has no evidence of ever having them. But you do have the adjustable trigger and the S331 peep sight.

Your rifle has a lot of surface rust that I’ll remove with Barrel lottery
Back when these air rifles were new, people thought they were only capable of putting 5 shots into a quarter at 25 feet. What we didn’t appreciate back then were the poor pellets we used held us to that level. Once world-class pellets became available in the 1980s, everything changed and these rifles suddenly became capable of putting 10 shots inside a dime at 10 meters. That is — if they had a good barrel.

Crosman made the barrels for the 160s. When they were good, they were very good. But when they were bad, they were horrible! I’ve heard tales of barrels with only half their rifling and even some that had no rifling at all! It isn’t common, but it happened often enough that old Crosman collectors know about it.

Pellgunoil works, again!
I installed two fresh powerlets and a LOT of
Crosman Pellegunoil, and the gun held gas. I then fired 5 shots at a 50-yard target, just to see what kind of barrel it had. I got a group of about 5 inches, but it was a windy day and all I was trying to do was see if the barrel was rifled or not. It is. When I shoot it for accuracy, this rifle should do very well.

The safety switch is broken, which means I’ll have to use pliers on it, because it’s key to disassembling the rifle. The good news is that some plastic aftermarket safety switches exist and I may be able to locate one.

Gas-guzzler
The big problem with a 160 is that it uses gas like a Hummer towing a house trailer! Typically, the two CO2 cartridges give about 30-35 good shots before they give out. Since they cost at least 50 cents apiece, a 160 can cost more than a .22 rimfire shooting good ammunition.

The solution is to convert the rifle to bulk-fill operations. That reduces the gas cost per fill to around 5-7 cents per fill. You still get the same number of shots and the same velocity, but the operating cost is much lower. Of course, you have to have all the equipment that’s needed for bulk-fill to do this, and that does cost some money.

Power
Most 160s I’ve tested pushed 14.3-grain pellets out the spout at between 600 and 630 f.p.s. on an 80-deg. F day. It was about 90 when I shot through the chronograph at the range and the 14.2-grain Daisy pointed pellet (very similar to the current Precision Max) went through the Oehler skyscreens at 656 f.p.s. — right on the money! The rifle can be souped up a just a bit, but at the cost of increased gas usage. There’s really no convenient way around that.

By contrast, the Crosman 180 was a single-cartridge rifle that shot a .22-caliber pellet at around 575 f.p.s. and got about 40 good shots per cartridge. It was the favorite of many shooters. But the Air Force obviously didn’t care about how much CO2 they used, and the slightly more powerful 160 also had a better stock, a longer barrel and better sights. It was the obvious choice for a target rifle. I feel the procuring agency must have bought the gun, not so much for its accuracy but more for its much safer operation when compared to a standard .22 rimfire that was the normal target rifle of the time. A pellet rifle range could be set up safely in a gym, where a rimfire range required more safety measures.

General description
The Crosman 160 is a .22-caliber single-shot CO2 rifle. It cocks on closing the bolt. It needs two CO2 cartridges to operate, though it will work with just one at lower velocity and with fewer shots.

The rifle weighs 6 lbs. and is 39-1/2 inches long. The barrel is 21 inches. The pull is 14-1/4 inches.

The rifle is mostly blued steel in a solid wood stock. The metal was not highly polished and I’ve always thought that the wood stock was some very clever kind of laminate, since it shows more grain than I think it should. I will show you the detail and let you be the judge.


The stock sure looks like a laminate to me.

What’s next?
I plan to clean the metal of this rifle and preserve it with Ballistol. I’ll open the sideplate of the trigger and show you the inner workings, then I’ll adjust the trigger to get it working as fine as I can.

Next, I’ll test the rifle for velocity with several pellets. I’ll also get a shot count for you.

Finally, I’ll shoot the rifle for accuracy at 10 meters with several pellets. I’ve examined the barrel, and the bore appears sparkling clean. The rifling is deep and everything looks okay. We should have some fun with this one.

Jose, you have a very nice air rifle, here. I hope you enjoy this report!

72 thoughts on “Crosman’s 160: Part 1

  1. Hello B.B. and Fellow Airgunners. I said yesterday, I would not do a late night comment, however, when I saw the Crosman 160, I was amazed at how it resembled the QB78 I gave to a friend a couple of years ago.With a .22 cal. and the use of two co2 capsules adding to the resemblance as well. I got my QB through a Chinese company known as Industry Brand here in Canada. They only sell the .22 cal model as it is advertised at 495 fps. Of coarse, 500 fps. being our legal limit without a PAL ( Possession and Acquisition Licence ). The .177 would be classed as a fire arm. And so would this Crosman 160 .22 cal. Back in the 60’s when a 16 year old could purchase this gun, or a Cooey .22 rim fire, I was jonesing for one of these. I was tall for my age, so the 14.25 in. pull stock fit me well. The only thing I could not afford was a continuing supply of the not too reliable co2 capsules. My best friend got a Crosman 180 for Christmas and he had to trade it in for a break barrel after going through a box of 5 capsules in less then a week. Two of the five proved to be duds, containing zero gas. Must of been how the top was applied in the manufacturing process. On our meager allowance, we just couldn’t afford not to have a gun that shot “free” air. I never did get a co2 Crosman rifle. Not when I could buy a Cooey .22 single shot for half the price. Not great accuracy, but it was a .22. Something for a 16 year old to brag about. Where times really simpler then? Or has the passage of time just make it seem that way? As usual, you have piqued my interest and nostalgia with this fine old Crosman. I’m looking forward to all the secrets that make this gun a must have with airgunners around the globe.
    Caio Titus


    • Titus,

      This air rifle was completely out of my reach, as a kid. But a quick lesson in CO2 costs with a Crosman SA-6 taught me to want a .22 rimfire, instead, anyway, so I never paid any attention to the 160. I supposed I knew it existed, but that was all.

      However, as an adult, it was one of the first airguns I noticed, after returning to the hobby seriously in 1993. And by then the pellets were good, the CO2 cartridges were good — everything was good. Only a 160 that cost $39.95 was now selling for over a hundred dollars! Isn’t that always the way?

      B.B.


    • Titus,

      I wanted one of these too! But it was always the fact that I had to work so hard mowing lawns, collecting bottles, etc that kept me away from the CO2 guns and into the”free air” guns. That way I only had to scrounge enough for ammo. Easier on Dad’s wallet too, when he decided to help out with occasional ammo money (he bought the airguns and my first .22 for me for birthdays and Christmas).

      /Dave


  2. Great timing as I just got a Crosman 160 last week. Wife found it at a yard sale and just bought it as “It was old” and she said: I knew you would want it. And the $30.00 price tag didn’t hurt either.

    It’s the 2nd varient and had an old Lyman 55R peep sight installed. Put a couple of powerlets in and it shoots but want to change it over to bulk fill. Hope you will show use how to do bulk filling and what parts are required . Also some info on the extension tubes for bulk filling.

    Will be looking forward to learning more.


    • Bob,

      As this isn’t my rifle (yet) I don’t know if I will be converting it to bulk-fill. But you don’t have to wait for me. Contact Bryan & Associates and they should be able to sell you the parts you need for the conversion. It’s noting more than a tube that replaces the end cap on your rifle.

      http://www.bryanandac.com

      The bigger deal is buying the setup to bulk-fill. Back in my day, we bought 20-pound CO2 canisters with siphon tubes and then fitted adapters to fill the guns. Today everyone is using paintball tanks that are cheaper to buy but do not give the deep discounts I spoke of in this report. You’ll still save money over cartridges, but not as much, because you can’t buy gas from a source. You have to buy it from a paintball store.

      Here is a link to some reports I did on bulk-fill operations:

      /blog/2006/3/bulk-fill-part-3/

      /blog/2006/03/bulk-fill-part-2-2/

      /blog/2006/3/working-with-bulk-fill-co2-guns/

      B.B.


      • Any industrial gas supplier can provide bulk CO2 in a standard tank (just invert to fill) or a siphon tank for ‘way less than paintball gas. Usually you put down a deposit on the bottle and swap an empty tank for a full,, much like propane for a gas grill.

        Pete



  3. For those of you who read today’s blog early, you may have noticed that there was no announcement for Big Shot of the Week. I forgot to add it to the blog when I proofed it Thursday afternoon. I’ve edited the blog and reposted it with the winner.

    Edith


  4. If you’re not a person who likes or uses facebook, you may be missing out on some fun airgun entertainment.

    There have been bunches of fun guns and vintage images posted throughout the day on Pyramyd Air’s facebook page starting August 1. If you want to take a look at what’s there, here’s the address:

    http://www.facebook.com/PyramydAirCom

    If you’ve never been on facebook, here’s a tip on how to see all these recent postings: Below the banner at the top, there’s a drop-down menu. Pick HIGHLIGHTS, and you’ll get to see all the image and survey postings. There are lots of comments on some, and you can read those, too. To see an image in its full glory, click on it.

    Edith


    • I love the pictures you and PyramydAir posted on Facebook. Some of these are really nice and it seems like some of them should still be produced.

      Facebook is great BUT you have to read and sometimes dig a little to click or unclick certain options.

      Hey I even won a super Crosmaniac pack thru Facebook, it included a gorgeous leather shoulder holster from Crosman, a patch, some stickers and a catalog. You also get to see some products pre-launch pictures and announcements you wouldn’t get elsewere from some manufacturers.

      J-F



  5. Thank you, Edith. Tried FB a couple of times and found my postings arriving at unwanted sites. I need to find a “How to..” since I hear it is very handy. Now to B.B. Tom, you mentioned recently, I believe in the Hatsan 95 Blog, that springers prefer light to medium weight pellets. What is your advise regarding the Eunjin .177 16.1 gr. in a powerful springer such as the Beeman R1 ? Even a Gamo Big Cat 1200 ? The BC looks very good (cool looking) .
    Thank you,
    Pete


    • Pete,

      I know what you mean. I’ve made my account private so no one can find out any details about me. Plus, I haven’t posted anything on my FB page that isn’t already public knowledge.

      To see all the postings & comments on Pyramyd Air’s Facebook page, I think you’ll have to like & friend them. If you don’t, you’ll see some of the stuff but not all of it. Personally, I’m pretty much in the dark about social networks. I have accounts on Facebook & Twitter because Pyramyd Air has pages there and I sometimes have to provide content.

      Edith


    • Pete,

      I have never had any luck with accuracy using Eun Jins in springers of any kind. Beeman Kodiaks, on the other hand, usually do very well.

      In PCPs, though, Eun Jins can sometimes shine. Mac’s son uses a 17-grain .177 Eun Jin in his Condor that I built for him, and Mac says he does very well. The difference in his Condor is a 26-inch Weihrauch barrel that really pumps up the velocity.

      B.B.


    • Not one of the current “super” Gamo models, but from my NRA 1000 Special (Gamo Shadow 1000? clone) a Eun Jin domed pellet (my log says it came in at 15.6gr) produced a mere 528fps an 9.7ft-lbs. A Predator 9.2gr managed 723fps/10.7ft-lbs, and a Benjamin Discovery 10.5gr round-nose hollowpoint made 709.5fps/11.74ft-lbs. Everything else produced closer to 13ft-lbs (RWS Hobby 6.9gr => 926.7fps/13.2ft-lbs, RWS Meisterkugeln Rifle 8.3gr => 850.6fps/13.3ft-lbs).

      NOTE: this are single samples, not averages… considering I was sitting in the open doorway of my apartment shooting at a trap 15 feet away (hall way closet) I had to hold down the noise and avoid drawing attention… So one shot per pellet type through the chronograph. And since it was one shot each, no comments on accuracy (at 15 feet? If they weren’t in one hole it was my fault).


  6. BB: The S331 sight on your 160 was made by Mossberg not Williams. They are now worth( just the sight), about $75-$125 . Elevation and windage are 1/8″ minute clicks.


    • Robery,

      I think Williams made the S331 for both Mossberg and Crosman. I believe I discovered that some years back in an old Shooter’s Bible.

      I could be wrong. I, too, have a Mossberg S331 that just waiting for the right rifle to come along. In the 1990s I was buying Crosman S331s for $25, when the Mossbewg-labeled ones were selling for $50

      B.B.


      • BB: The S331 was indeed made by Mossberg . In the book ” Old Gunsights& Rifle Scopes ” by Nick Stroebel ,1995 ,ISBN #-100-89689, on page 137 ,the sight is described and listed in the Mossberg section. In addition my autographed copy of “Mossberg More Gun for the Money” which is the history of the Mossberg company, by Victor and Cheryle Havilin, has the sight described on page 124. It was a replacement made by Mossberg that replaced the Lyman 17A receiver sight on the model144LSA bolt action .22 RF rifle. It was used from about 1959 to the late 1970’s on their model 144 rifles which were finally dis continued in the 1985. I also know that the S331 will fit the Mossberg models 46B and the monkey wards western field brand 47 C( I have an example of both,the 47C is leaning by my desk as I type this). What fools most folks is that the S331 is made of steel but most of it is aluminum . When many shooters see aluminum construction on a receiver sight they think Williams, in this case they would be wrong. I collect Mossbergs , they are the “sleepers” of the rimfire world at the moment, by that won’t last long…Regards ,Robert


        • BTW, here’s a little more personal experience … The Lyman 57A ,the MossbergS331 , and the cheaply made stamped Mossberg fold away (was originally sold on the Mossberg 46B ,which had THREE types of sights sold with it standard, open ,receiver, AND! scope)receiver sights all have the same hole spacing, but the screws Lent and tread size (tap size) may not be the same, depending on the gun. I have all these sights and I have mounted the fold away Mossberg on a Crosman 1400. Watch those parts tables at shows and swap meets for them. They are excellent sights for some airguns ,such as the 160,140, and 1400 Crosmans. If you really spend time around guns and accumulate a gun library you will be able to find the bargains. The key is the library, accumulating one is easy now with the computer. I got most of mine the hard way ,one book at a time. I wasn’t able to afford to go out much in the beginning.


        • Robert,

          Thank you for that history of the S331 sight. I will correct today’s post later today, and I’ll include a note about the sight in the next installment of this report.

          This is why the blog is so valuable!

          Thank you,

          B.B.




  7. So, let’s go off topic.
    The tragedy in Aurora has, as expected spurned the anti-gun crowd.
    If people didn’t own guns these things wouldn’t happen.
    Well, check the news on China. Yesterday a teen in China went on a rampage and killed 9 people…with a knife.
    I know I’m preaching to the converted here…but why don’t the antigun crowd realize that the insane will find a way to kill whether they have a knife or not. And they’ll do it in comparable numbers.


  8. This is a great topic for me. I have a 160, an early one. The stock looks like walnut on the one I have. The rifle looks like a quality from-the-day .22 LR, not a pellet rifle. This one does shoot well but it’s been several years since I zeroed it so I don’t remember how well. But it’s good or I would have changed pellets, I’m using JSB Jumbos. I had the rifle resealed and at the same time a “Lite Mod” was done to boost the power a bit. I get about 40 good shots with it. I have an old Redfield 1 3/4 X to 5 X scope mounted on it. Pyramyd had B272 Intermounts that fit but were still a little loose when fully tight. The addition of some plastic shims (Made from a milk jug) fixed that. The Intermounts made mounting a scope easy. I used it last year to clean out a friend’s barn that had pigeon “issues”.

    BTW, I also have two 180s that I ran across and couldn’t pass up.

    Mike

    Mike



  9. Hey guys, I’m new to the site, and new to airguns. I’m not sure where to post this, so I’m sorry for this being in the wrong spot, but I was wondering if someone could help me with a little info. I recently came across 6 air rifles, and don’t know enough about them. 5 are vintage Daisy 25’s, im assuming they are pretty old, and the other one doesn’t have a name. But since I’m new to airguns, I don’t know what BB’s to use or what they take, or where to even put them in. Anyone who has any helpful info like the age, or price range they would fall in, or maybe a website link, it would be really appreciated! Hopefully once I’m used to the site, I’ll be able to post more, thanks for helpin a new guy. Here are some pics:

    http://tinypic.com/r/2vvnqdx/6
    http://tinypic.com/r/xe21j8/6
    http://tinypic.com/r/xoi7on/6
    http://tinypic.com/r/dsgo0/6

    btw LOVE the site


    • {Ouch} Rust on a mod 25…

      Nice stampings (mine was a late 60s plastic stock model with plain sides).

      BBs are BBs (except for “B.B.” whose really a “T.G.”). Take your pick: Crosman “Copperhead” copper-coated steel, or Daisy zinc-plated steel…

      Unless they changed over the years, loading a mod 25 requires unscrewing the end of the barrel, and pulling out the insert (the real barrel and magazine); pulling back on the magazine spring and pouring BBs into the magazine tube. Then screw the unit back into the “barrel”.

      Blue Book Mod 25 variant 7 (stamped, gold painted “engraving”) 1936-42 & 1945-51 prices from $350 [100% condition] to $70 [20% condition]

      Plastic stock, stenciled “engraving” are about half that price range — unless the 2010+ model (wood stock, lower power, rear sight at the very rear — $65 for 100%, $30 for 60% condition)

      The other unit needs more more images of /any/ markings, details of the loading mechanism, etc. (I can’t even tell if it’s a side-lever pellet design — lack of a cut-out under the stock means it is not a break-barrel; the button behind the rear sight could be a loading gate or a release to close a side-lever). The end of the receiver looks like some sort of straight-pull cocking mechanism — though as far as I can tell it could be some archaic .22 rimfire from a carnival side-show.


    • Tipton444,

      The other rifle looks like a Crosman 700. It’s a .22 caliber taploading single-shot pellet rifle that uses lead .22 pellets. Of course I can’t tell the caliber from the photo, so it’s up to you to verify that.

      B.B.



        • Amazing information guys, thank you very much. Definitely came to the right place. Okay so, I have more pictures and a few more questions. I got 4 of the 6 working great!
          So the ones with the gold paint on them, those are from 1936-42 & 1945-51 right? And the one that looks the oldest with all the rust and the plastic stock, is actually newer…like the 60s or earlier?



          • I’m having to quote extracts from the BlueBook. (The book shows15 numbered variations, not counting the Sears/Wards, a 1986 wood stock replica of the earliest models, and the current production — but states there may be ~58 variations between 1914 and 1979

            Plastic stock, electrostatic painted receiver, stamped engraving first appears 1952. An oil hole appears 1955. Stenciled engraving, Plymouth (MI), 1956. Rogers (AR) 1958-76. “Sears” 1970-72. “Montgomery Wards/Hawthorne” 1970-72. Monte Carlo stock 77-79. (apparently mine had fallen into the 58-76 period with stenciled markings — no wonder my mind thinks it was plain)


        • Amazing information guys, thank you very much. Definitely came to the right place. Okay so, I have more pictures and a few more questions. I got 4 of the 6 working great!

          So the ones with the gold paint on them are from 1936-42 & 1945-51 right? And the one that looks the oldest with all the rust and the plastic stock (along with the other gun with a plastic end and gold paint), is actually newer…like the 60s or earlier? Just making sure.

          The last two pictures is one of the guns I couldn’t figure out. It had a different insert after unscrewing the barrel and taking it out. I couldn’t figure out how or where to load the bb’s, maybe on the outside through the small hole? Hmm…a little stumped, but then again I’m a newbie. It may have actually come out of one of the other gold painted daisys, but I switched the barrel since it worked.

          Now the unknown gun….I took more pictures, hoping someone has seen it before. There is no name or makers mark anywhere, and I can’t figure out how to use it, or if its usable. Maybe it is a prop or carnival gun like you said..

          My last question would be what condition do these guns appear to be in? Just from what you see in the pics, and the 4 I got working are all really smooth except the rusty one which needs a lil oil heh. The gold paint on 2 or 3 of them is in great shape it seems, and there doesn’t seem to be any major concerns. Any advice would be so incredibly helpful! I’m planning on keeping at least 3, and possibly trying to sell the others. I saw the air rifle auction site I think BB posted somewhere else, is that worth trying out?

          Take a look at the pics, and thank you guys very much for your help, I really love this community you have built! -Eric

          http://tinypic.com/r/2yzmzbb/6
          http://tinypic.com/r/jtscie/6
          http://tinypic.com/r/r7ri1i/6
          http://tinypic.com/r/2iihab7/6
          http://tinypic.com/r/xbzhc/6
          http://tinypic.com/r/10ia0j5/6
          http://tinypic.com/r/ixt8b8/6
          http://tinypic.com/r/33f6cy1/6
          http://tinypic.com/r/20ffhpz/6
          http://tinypic.com/r/30sv6yo/6
          http://tinypic.com/r/be963b/6

          Are daisy’s just the basic, classic, airgun?


          • Tipton444,

            None of your painted guns was made earlier than the 1950s, and most likely the 1960s. Daisy did not use thermosetting plastic for stocks before 1952, which is also when they began to electrostatically paint their guns. But the ones with gold paint came later than that.

            B.B.


          • Based on the last image, with the rear sight OVER the trigger, that looks to be a modern production version (2010 or newer). The contrast isn’t helpful (black on black, with shiny flash burst?). It looks like the magazine tube is missing from alongside the barrel tube, making this one unusable as-is… OTOH, being a relatively modern production version, Daisy may be able to sell a new barrel/magazine assembly to you (probably not worth the effort — the shipping/insurance is likely going to add enough to the cost to buy a new model 25 in a store).

            Image 6 appears to confirm a Crosman 700 (or 707) (or a Chinese clone of one). I can’t see enough of the rear sight but comparing to the photo in the BlueBook you are missing the step wedge used to adjust the elevation of the sight.

            This is a pellet, not BB, rifle. The 700 uses .22 pellets, the 707 uses .177 pellets. The gun uses CO2 to power it — most likely loaded via that end-cap at the back of the receiver. Pellets (one only) by rotating the “tap” near the rear sight, pushing the pellet into the hole, then rotating the tap back to align the hole with the barrel. I’m guessing the spring-bolt has to be cocked too, but I’m not certain… Maybe reading
            http://www.crosman.com/pdf/manuals/crosman/700/C700-OM.pdf
            will help.

            Third image appears to be a stenciled finish which puts it into the late 50s to 70s series (the 40s model is engraved with gold paint filling the engraving).


            • Wow, thank you guys so much for your help BB and Wulf, I’m blown away by the time you’ve taken to point me in the right direction. Glad to know that the crossman could possibly be used, and that manuel is absolutely perfect. 🙂 The stenciled one seems to shoot with much more velocity, I love it. If I have any more questions, I know where to come for sure.


            • You should check into pricing for what you need from Daisy. There parts are very low-priced, and shipping is reasonable. They also have quick service.

              I have no experience with a Model 25, but parts for my 880’s are cheap enough that I could buy a new one by purchasing individual parts, and the total cost would be no more than buying an assembled gun.

              I think the current production shot tubes for the 25 will fit any of the older ones without modification.

              Les


  10. Off topic here, but I believe you had suggested them for the latest post rather than an archive, so here goes.

    The IZH-46M with the new Innova VIP modifications. This changes the Izzy from a single-pump, to eight pumps with twice the power. It comes as a kit, a new gun, or they will install it for you.

    The kit arrived and it took about an hour to install. The hardest part is getting the cylinder loose, then tightened properly. They mention mild heat, but the biggest item is finding a steel rod the right size to fit into the front holes for leverage, with a good enough fit that you don’t mess up the holes.

    There were two mild surprises, which I later confirmed with Innova. In order to support multiple pumps a bar must be removed from the IZH-46M, but doing so means it will no longer automatically cock when you pump it, and each time it must be manually cocked first.

    Second, I sorta assumed a single pump would be the same as before, but that’s not the case, which does make sense from the change in capacity. Looking at the numbers the Innova chart shows a single pump to have a lower velocity than a standard gun. But, at that level some pistols will not even expel the pellet at all (mine didn’t). Two pumps, however, seem to give just about the same velocity as one pump with the original. I don’t have a chrono, but the point of aim remained the same.

    At four pumps you can hear a real difference, and see much less drop. Eight pumps is getting much louder and a little higher.

    The quality looks good, it arrived quickly and the instructions were very clear and easy to follow. The changes mean a bit more work when shooting in 10m competition, but should make it more usable at 30 yards and beyond. And, the changes are reversible if needed.


  11. Hm, this week’s BSOTW looks oriented more towards people than guns, but I can hardly imagine a better gun for teaching than the Crosman 1077. I’ve heard of the Crosman 160 as creating an almost mythical following especially in the form of the Chinese copy, the QB78. I’ll be interested to hear why that attracted such a following.

    Victor, thanks for your observations about the Olympics. I have a mathematical quibble with the size of the target. You mention that the airgun x-ring is .02 inches which sounds almost impossible to hit consistently. But (as you pointed out), you’re trying to hit it with an object that is much larger: .177 in diameter. So the real challenge involves restricting the movement of your bore to .02 plus .177 or about .2 inches, about a factor of 10 greater than what it at first seems. In terms of group size, which is designed to account for projectile size, .2 at 10 meters is not difficult (2MOA). Standing is significantly tougher, but still in the realm of the possible. That doesn’t undercut my huge admiration for these people. B.B., I thought my difficulties with my Daisy 747 had more to do with the one-handed hold. 🙂 But I will admit that I have never reached the foot of the mountain that begins at a score of 525. Beyond that, it’s probably not unlike the rowers going blind and deaf in the middle of their race which is a realm I never expect to reach.

    Incidentally, on the subject of the Olympics, I watched the finals of the women’s 25m pistol. They all raised, sighted and fired their pistols without delay AND they did it almost in unison! What’s up with that? I don’t think I was watching a rapid fire event since there was plenty of time between shots. I was encouraged to see that except for the medal winners, some would throw a few shots way out there.

    Matt61


    • Matt61,
      It all comes down to what the eye can resolve using “iron sights” (i.e., aperture sights). As I’ve said before, iron sights give you just the right amount of information to accurately align concentric circles (rear-sight, front-sight, and bull). In my experience, iron sights are every bit as good as using a scope, provide you have good eye-sight.

      Regarding air-pistol. What you describe is consistent with what someone here wrote about when sharing a lesson from a great pistol shooter. In particular, shooting within a small window of time. I don’t think you’ll see that with three-position small-bore shooters in any position, and especially not offhand. NRA shooting allows you one minute. ISSF allows you a minute and a half. ISSF shooters tend to use that extra half minute. Regardless of the case, you can minimized the amount of time needed by perfecting your “natural point of aim”, so that when you bring the gun up, it’s as close to alignment as possible. But pistol shooters have less to bring into alignment, (compared to shooting a rifle offhand) and the guns are much lighter. Rifle shooters have to consistently place their elbow on their hip, AND align their sights. Rifle shooters don’t always take a shot on their first attempt. If they don’t like what they see, the bring the rifle back down, rest, and then try again. BUT YES, you want to get the shot off as soon as possible. I think it’s just harder with a rifle.
      Victor
      PS: Need more pain meds. Failed path test here. Ha-ha!


      • Yikes, sorry to hear about the pain meds. I’ve had some of that experience myself.

        Chuck, the feat I described with the triangle and square is difficult but not impossible. Just go one vertex at a time for each figure that you are drawing. The challenging part, which you noted, is that you will cycle through the triangle faster than the square because it has three corners instead of four, but the thing can be done.

        Derrick and Mike, I’m not surprised to hear about the good range performance of the AR-15. Properly cleaned, with the right ammo and magazines, and a bottle of Breakfree to keep the action wet, the gun is very reliable and accurate.

        Regarding the reasons for discarding drum magazines for the Tommy gun and the Russian PPSH submachine gun, I’ve also heard objections to the weight of the drum. Other reasons were rattling of ammunition to create unwanted noise and reliability problems. But I have not had direct experience. 🙂

        Matt61



  12. This question was sent to the wrong address, so I’m posting it here for the sender:

    I know you are extremely busy, but I’d really appreciate it if you could answer my inquiry! I have been reading many of your reviews, and I recently came upon your review of the Norica Massimo. I immediately fell in love with the Massimo’s looks, but the accuracy of the rifle equipped with a scope concerns me. I will be buying my fourth air rifle soon, and I am trying to decide between the Diana RWS 34 Meisterschutze Pro Compact and the Norica Massimo , and I was wondering which rifle you would buy in terms of durability, longevity, accuracy and overall handling. My primary concern is which rifle is of higher quality, but I am leaning towards the Massimo only because of its looks. Your opinion makes a world of difference to me!

    Yours truly,

    Eric.


    • Eric,

      I tested the Norica Massimo for the blog. Here is the link to the last section and all the earlier sections are linked at the beginning of that report:

      /blog/2009/10/norica-massimo-part-2/

      I didn’t publish Part 3, the accuracy test, but the Massimo was horrible!

      I recommend getting the RWS Diana 34 over the Massimo.

      B.B.





  13. I have a type 1 160 from when I was a kid, Its missing the tube cap assembly and seal, Im having trouble finding a good source to order parts for it. Any suggestions?


Leave a Reply