Crosman’s 2400KT Carbine: Part 4

by Tom Gaylord
Writing as B.B. Pelletier

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 5
Part 6
Part 7
Part 8

Today’s report is the continuation of a guest blog from reader HiveSeeker about his Crosman 2400KT rifles.

If you’d like to write a guest post for this blog, please email me.

Over to you, HiveSeeker.

Crosman 2400 KT
The 2400KT CO2 Carbine is available exclusively from the Crosman Custom Shop.

This report covers:

• Velocity: .177 caliber
• .177 pellets I tested
• What’s going on with the .177?
• Can you help?

Velocity:  .177 caliber
Finally — let’s settle down to a serious velocity discussion! I tested a wide range of different-weight pellets to get a good cross-section of the Crosman 2400KT’s performance. The 2400KT .177 generated an average of 569 f.p.s. with the .177 boxed Crosman Premier Lights, B.B.’s favorite all-around, typical .177 pellet. [Note: I obtained these pellets after completing the shots-per-fill testing with the Crosman Premier Hollowpoint hunting pellets, which was the closest match I had at that time.]

Pistol velocities ranged from a high of 655 fps with the 4.0-grain alloy Crosman SSP, down to 509 fps with the 10.5-grain Crosman Premier Ultra Magnum heavy. I chronoed a lot of pellets; so instead of discussing the velocities in text, let’s look at the complete velocity table:

Crosman 2400 KT velocity

.177 pellets I tested
Below are some comments on the individual pellets. I won’t repeat all the specific velocity data since that’s already available in the table above.

Crosman 2400 KT 177 pellets
A wide range of pellets were tested to obtain a good cross-section of data for the .177 Sassy Sandy 2400KT.

Crosman SSP: This lightest alloy pellet gave the highest velocity (655 fps), as would be expected. It was loud — but not as loud as the same pellet in .22.

Gamo PBA Blue Flame: The Gamo PBA Blue Flame alloy pellet was by far the tightest of any I tested in either caliber! I’m sure part of the reason is that when chambered, the hard alloy is not engraved by the rifling as easily as lead. I shot 10 pellets, got my velocity average, and will probably not be feeding these to my 2400KT ever again. Blue Flame pellets also gave the widest spread of any other .177 pellet, at 28 fps — high for a CO2 gun, and a possible predictor of poor accuracy.

RWS Hobby: Another preferred pellet of B.B.’s, the RWS Hobby was a little tight and was also louder than any other .177 pellet in the 2400KT.

Gamo Magnum: The Gamo Magnum pointed pellet averaged slightly faster than the lighter RWS Hobby.

Crosman Premier Light: The fit of this favorite of B.B.’s was a little tight. My first experience with these cardboard-box pellets is that they do not travel well in large numbers. There were a lot of damaged skirts, and I had to choose carefully to make sure I was getting valid velocity and accuracy data.

Crosman Premier Hollow Point: The Premier Hollow Point fit tighter than the Crosman Premier Light. It had the narrowest spread of any .177 pellet, at only 10 f.p.s.; and, hopefully, we’ll see this translate to repeatable ballistic performance and good accuracy.

RWS Superdome: Despite weighing slightly more, the RWS Superdome had the same velocity as the Crosman Premier Hollow Point. We’ll see similar above-par performance from its .22 big brother. This pellet fit a little tightly and had the second-widest spread of the .177 pellets — at 24 fps.

Crosman Premier Ultra Magnum: Crosman Premier Ultra Magnum .177 heavyweights gave the slowest velocity, as expected, with an average just above the line at 509 fps. The fit was tight.

The Crosman 2400KT generates .177 velocities in a very stable range reminiscent of its near relatives, the Crosman 2300T and the 2300S target pistols. My only other general comment on the .177 velocities is that I expected the velocity spreads to be generally smaller based on the very smooth velocity line we saw in the shots-per-fill graph in Part 3. Consistent CO2 regulation and pellet velocity are prerequisites for dependable accuracy, so it’ll be interesting to see if the pellets with the smallest velocity spreads also tend to be the most accurate.

What’s going on with the .177?
You’ve already seen from the shots-per-fill graphs and a couple preliminary velocity numbers that the HiveSeeker .22 is getting the same velocity as the Sassy Sandy .177. I know of no other pellet gun that has the same velocity with .177 pellets as .22 pellets!

Crosman 2400 KT 177 and 22 same velocity
The Crosman 2400KT gets almost exactly the same velocity in .177 as it does in .22! How can this be?

Compare the spring-piston Browning 800 Express. B.B. got 651 fps from this pistol using an average-weight .177 lead pellet, the 7.56-grain Gamo Match. His good friend Earl “Mac” McDonald tested the .22 version of the Express and got 441 fps with typical 14.3-grain Crosman Premiers. That is exactly what I expect from .177 and .22 pellets shot from the same powerplant — a very wide velocity spread (in this case, more than 200 fps) in favor of the much lighter .177.

This makes something seem wrong with the .177 2400KT — at first. But I don’t think I’m giving Crosman too much credit when I say that’s exactly what they intended. I repeatedly contacted Crosman with questions about this velocity disparity. Though their customer service was excellent in every other regard, they’re universally mum on Custom Shop gun velocities. So, hang on while we detour slightly, and then we’ll get back on track with a possible answer.

When B.B. tested the adjustable-velocity 2300S pistol, he got the best accuracy when he dialed the power setting all the way up to full power. Crosman specs state that this will provide a velocity of 520 fps. That is exactly the same velocity B.B. got from the 2300T target pistol with 7.9-grain Crosman Premier Lights.

The 2400KT carbine shoots somewhat higher than that, at 569 fps with the same Premier Lights — and the high 500s just so happens to be where a lot of Olympic rifles shoot. Where am I going with all this? I think that when the Crosman Custom Shop builds a .177 pistol, it builds a .177 target pistol. A pistol with deliberately stepped-down — and more ballistically stable and accurate — velocity that approaches that of their high-end target and silhouette pistols.

And that’s what I think might be going on with the .177-caliber 2400KT. I don’t know if selecting the 10.1-inch Lothar Walther match barrel was a factor in the assembly line velocity reduction, but the bottom line is still the same. If you’re punching paper, go with the .177 — and I do recommend the Lothar Walther barrel if you can swing it. If you’re after fur and feathers, the .22 is the obvious choice — but it certainly won’t disappoint on paper either, as we will see.

Can you help?
As we wrap up Part 4, I remain curious about the lower .177 velocities in the 2400KT. Information from a range of online sources was inconsistent. Stock velocity data was rare compared to modded velocity figures — a lot of shooters seem to be interested in how fast they can go without worrying about where they started. A longer barrel clearly produces more velocity — and that’s an admitted advantage of the HiveSeeker .22 that we’ll address later — but few of the stock .177 velocities I tracked down suggest that this caliber takes full advantage of the 2400KT’s potential.

If you have a stock (yes, stock!) 2400 in .177, I’m inviting you to post your maximum velocities for comparison and discussion. Please be sure to mention barrel length and pellet weight. If I prompt you to actually run outside and chrono your gun, then I’ll also request that you please use a 7.9-grain or similar-weight pellet if possible, for a more consistent comparison. Please do the same with your stock .22 2400s and 14.3-grain pellets for comparison, as well. Thanks in advance, and see you in Part 5!

61 thoughts on “Crosman’s 2400KT Carbine: Part 4

  1. So much data! Holy Mackerel, Hiveseeker!

    I wish I could help, but my only CO2 pistols are only partially functional, but more FUN than FUNction. 😀

    I’ve really been looking forward to this, so be prepared for me to keep studying. And commenting. And being really jealous.

    Thanks for taking the time to write these, it is really good to see so much dedication, I’m certain it must be a huge trial to spend so much time shooting these airguns and tabulating the data. 😉

    Keep up that “hard work”!


    • It has been a lot of work, but it’s also been fun. I have to say I’ve developed an even deeper respect for the quantity–and quality–of B.B.’s very regular contributions here.


  2. HiveSeeker,

    If you were to put the same length barrel on the .177, you would find that it’s velocity would increase dramatically. It has to do with time. With the longer barrel, the expanding gas has more time to apply force to the projectile. That is why the truly high powered PCPs have long barrels. That is also why the old air rifles had such long barrels. They did not have the high pressures to work with, so they used the long barrels to allow the lower pressures to work as long as possible.

    With CO2 there is more of an expansion rate issue that translates into a limitation to the effective length of a barrel. I think that length is around 16 – 18 inches.

    With HPA on the other hand, the length is more limited by cumbersomeness. Some guys like 36 inch barrels on their big bores so as to turn them into truly long range powerhouses. A longer barrel also translates to higher efficiency. For a while I had a 24 inch .177 barrel on my Talon SS. It would hurl 16 grain Eunjin pellets out of the muzzle at over 1100 FPS! I had a very difficult time tuning it down to around 800 FPS, but once I accomplished that, with a fill pressure of 1800 PSI and shooting down to 1200 PSI I would get about thirty shots.

    Sproingers on the other hand are limited by both swept volume and pressure. Studies have shown that the optimum barrel length for a sproinger is somewhere around 8 inches. After that, the pellet is just coasting, or if the friction is high enough, slowing down. Most have longer barrels for leverage when cocking.



    • RR
      I got your email you sent me on these sights.

      It amazes me how they designed and made them sights.

      But I think I will stay with that bug buster scope that you have on the 300s I’m getting from you. They say it will be here Friday so I’m excited about that.

      And if I remember right you said you were or was going to use it as a mini-sniping gun. Well that is exactly what I’m going to use it for. I will probably shoot it from a rest and a bi-pod.

      I can’t wait for it to get here. 🙂


      • I was shooting it from a bag rest.

        The trigger on that thing proves that it is possible to have a real nice trigger on a sproinger, no matter whether it is a plinker or a super magnum. The big issue is cost. Personally, I am willing to pay for it.

        Speaking of triggers, have you ordered a new one for the LGU?


        • RR
          For the LGU?

          No not at all. Never even gave it a thought. It has the plastic trigger (which my 54 Air King has also and no problems I will add at all with it).

          I know they say there was a metal trigger option but I had have no intentions on changing out the plastic one from the factory. I didn’t have to touch a screw on the adjustment from the way it came from the factory. It has the longer first stage pull and a distinct stop at the second stage. Just a slight amount more pressure and the shot breaks and it stops pretty positive after the shot goes off. Plus the trigger is a very light pull pressure that I like also.

          I think I said somewhere else that I had to adjust my trigger on my TX and the 2 triggers are comparable. So the factory trigger stays in the LGU.


  3. HiveSeeker,

    I hope that I understand correctly what you have in ea. gun. If I’m right, the .177 cal. carbine has a 10.10″ barrel on it while the .22 cal. carbine has a 18″ barrel on it. Your question is why do the .177 cal. and .22 cal. guns shoot at app. the same velocity. Well, given the nature of how CO2 works ( it expands as it travels down the barrel) the simple answer seems to be that since the .22 cal. gun has a 18″ barrel it has more time to accelerate the pellet and that is why the .22 cal. travels roughly as fast as the .177 cal. gun.

    If I’ve misunderstood anything here please tell me.

    G&G


  4. It’s early and I’m pretty foggy this morning, but I recall that some of the Crosman guns (2300T?) have a spacer inside the valve to reduce the volume. The practical effect is higher shot count coupled with reduced velocity. So, there’s another possibility.


  5. Ok, some things to report.

    Blueprints for “powerplant”, trigger and cocking system are almost complete. Receiver and sight rail are on the way. I like what I see and what I see is a very slim and lightweight system.

    duskwight


  6. Thanks, all, for the input! We’ll be taking a close look at the barrel length difference soon, but that alone is not enough to account for the velocity differences I’m finding. Any stock velocity and barrel length information my fellow readers can provide for both .177 and .22 will be very helpful.


    • I have two .22 caliber 2400kts with 18″ and 24″ barrels and one in .177 with the lothar 10.1″ barrel. My “out of the box” chrony data is very similar to hive seekers, but now they’re all modified with virtually the same parts. With the long barrel .22s, more air always translates into higher velocities/lower shot count. However, with my short barrel .177, more air (stiffer hammer spring/ported valve) only seems to yield more noise with a lower shot count. I even tried a stock 2240 valve, and it didn’t change velocity in any significant eay. To me, this suggests an efficiency issue, where the lighter pellet hits terminal velocity in the barrel quicker (due to lower inertia) and any left over air is simply dumped out of the muzzle. A longer barrel would not waste as much air, as it would have more time to impart energy on the pellet. This notion should apply to CO2 as well…


      • Diaboloslinger (if I read that right),
        I’d love to see your stock velocity data, especially for that 24 inch barrel, if you’ve still go it! And I promise to also let you (and a lot of our avid fellow bloggers) talk up those modded velocities too, soon.




  7. Hiveseeker
    I think I have had (5 or more) 2240’s over time. A 2300s and probably at least (4) 1377’s and (4) 1322’s and maybe even more than that. Heck I’m loosing track of all the guns I have or had.

    But I can say this that I have shot all of the above in their stock from the factory condition and have chronyed all that I listed once at some point and time.

    As far as the valves go I don’t know what they use. But I do know on the guns I listed above that Crosman has put different transfer ports in the guns. And what I mean by different is the hole diameter that the air flows through is different. And they did go to the bigger inside diameter like the Benjamin Discovery uses.

    So that could be a factor of why the velocities are what they are. Heck when you get the 1720T .177 cal. pistol it comes with to different transfer port orifices. They say its to increase or decrease shot count. But also that changes velocity. I had a Marauder .22 cal. pistol also and I do know that it had a different inside diameter hole in it than the 1720T but they both shot the same 700 fps that they are advertised at. And that was with the bigger diameter transfer port in the 1720T.

    I have all those transfer port inside diameters documented somewhere if I can find them. And I do have velocities for different length barrels on the 2240,1322 and 1377.

    So talking stock factory guns.( I don’t know about the custom shop guns you have because I have never had one apart) but I’m betting that’s what is making the difference on your guns.

    The inside diameter of the transfer port hole along with barrel legnth,different drag factors of the different caliber pellets and so on. Maybe one of your guns ain’t piercince the Co2 cartridge the same. You gonna take them apart so we will know?

    Now your going to make me buy two like you got so we can find out.



      • Hiveseeker
        Now you made me remember something else.

        The holes that they have in the main tube that holds the valve in place are slightly bigger than the screw heads.

        There is a mis alignment problem because of tolerance stacking that on some guns the transfer port hole that is in the valve doesn’t line up true to the transfer port orifice that I was talking about above. That will totally kill the performance of the gun.

        There’s a few other things that could play a problem also. The barrel is designed to slip in the breech. Again there us stacking tolerances that may not let the bolt probe bush the pellet far enough past the transfer port hole. Also the o-ring on the bolt could not be making a complete seal. Those two things will give a variation in velocity and accuracy.


        • Gunfun1,
          Shoot–now I’m going to have to buy a couple more Crosman Custom Shop guns to compare and play around with, too! The transfer ports could certainly make a difference, and in this case I think it’s deliberate–I was thinking in terms of optimal velocity for accuracy, but higher shot count could be a reason as well.


  8. Hiveseeker,

    I think the velocity numbers being roughly the same given ea. caliber is nothing more than the luck of the draw. You just happened to pick pellets whose relative weights compared to the power ea. gun is capable of generating (basically the same) plus the barrel lengths just coincidentally generated the same velocity. I don’t think there is anything unusual here, just coincidence. ( I’m sure a good mathematician, not me, could generate a formula describing the phenomena).

    G&G


    • G&G
      That’s the whole thing. Here is another variable. I’m not a barrel maker but think about all the tolerances inside the barrel. You have land width, depth of the groove, minor diameter of the bore that is the land that the pellet head diameter contacts on and the skirt of the pellet seals on.

      And here’s another factor to consider talking barrels on Hive seekers two guns. Both outside diameters of the barrels are the same .436″. ( should be unless they make specific barrels for those guns) Now think about how thick the barrel is between the 2 calibers.

      The .22 cal. would be .110” thick. And the .177 is .130” thick from the outside diameter to the bore diameter measuring 2 barrels I have here. I would think that the thickness difference plays a part also with the cold Co2 making the pellet cold and the barrel cold also. That’s another variable also.

      The thing is I don’t know where Hiveseeker is trying to go with wanting additional information of the stock barrels and velocities.

      Come to think of it why don’t we have little nitrogen cartridges instead of Co2 cartridges. Maybe that would show different velocity readings with the “factory” barrels.


      • Gunfun1,
        If I’m being elusive about why I’m requesting more velocity data, it’s not intentional–with no listed factory specs on these guns, and Crosman keeping things close to the vest on velocities, I’d like to get some better baseline data on velocities and barrel lengths for the 2400KT than I can with my own two guns. With additional research and testing that I’ve done, I think I’ve been able to come to some reasonable conclusions comparing my two guns, different as they are. However, although there was limited stock velocity data in various places online, it was very inconsistent–this is where a knowledgeable crew like you (and company) come in.


        • Hiveseeker
          This is just a thought not a fact because I don’t know how many custom guns Crosman has sold.

          The thing is there are so many variations of the guns you can biuld because of the different available barrels in the custom shop.

          Really the only way to know is take yours apart to see if you see tolerances that are different between the two. And then if you find somebody with two guns that have the same barrels and such from the custom shop you have to compare to their results then see if they are willing to take their guns apart. Then you will know a little more info then.

          And I think with one of the things is you mention is most of the 2240’s people jump right into modding them is because they been around for a long time and people know what can be done to them.

          Kind of like buying a buying a 69 Camero with a small block Chef in it. I know I can find whatever I want for that car and build it with whatever parts I choose be it factory parts or aftermarket. That way I can make it what I want. I don’t want somebody telling me these are the choices I have.

          Now on the same account if I relate that same 69 Camero to a Crosman custom shop gun. Well that’s good that they offer me this part and that part and deliver me a Camero with pretty much what I want without having to turn a wrench.

          Now the other part. Maybe I don’t want to and Crosman doesn’t want to tell the world how we put the guns together. Maybe they don’t have the same parts available all the time. Or maybe Crosman says this what we have and there is tolerances that can change so we can’t make a claim of what the outcome could be.

          To many things to think about. All things have variation when they are made. I say dig into the gun or scratch it off that the gun is what it is and shoot it.

          I know it sounds like I’m being a little bit of you know what but it is what it is. Sorry.


          • No, its s great point, a little work on the delivery.. 😉 … lol … but totally makes sense. The little transfer tube could come from one place this year and another next, etc.. not to mention when valves and co2 are involved the variations are guaranteed, every gun sold over a certain altitude would be returned if a solid number was given. JM2c


  9. Hiveseeker,

    To clarify a little better what I just wrote: shoot a 7.0 grain .177 pellet and a 16 grain .22 pellet and you will be much closer to the velocity spreads you would expect to see.

    G&G


  10. I think this calibre speed disparity is down to a couple of factors, firstly, all things being equal…a 22 is more efficient than a 177 in terms of shot count both with precharged air and with co2 and in terms of muzzle energy, normally by approx 10%, maybe a little more.
    Secondly I would expect the barrel to make some 10% difference in velocity
    Given this, 20% wouldn’t surprise me even slightly, and in fact would be expected.
    If after that we assume all things aren’t equal, that differences between tolerances and hammer spring weights will exist at, maybe 5% between one pistol and another and still be well within tolerance….then the differences you are seeing, as an accumulative isn’t that massive
    Even a Diana 52 in 22 produces, at 21ft/lb a whole 4ft/lb more than the 177 without the barrel disparity….that’s nearly 20%…..add in the difference on power the length of barrel issue with C02…and a little difference from gun to gun….and what you are seeing may not be as remarkable as you may think.


    • Good points, G & G and Dom.
      The velocity discussion here is a prelude to some upcoming barrel length and muzzle energy evaluation that’s still coming, which already address most of the issues mentioned in the discussion here so far. I think we’ve still got the horse in front of the cart (the way it should be), but everyone’s doing a pretty good job of asking the same questions I eventually came up with–most of which I think we’ll be able to answer soon. It’s good to be surrounded by like-minded individuals!

      Let me try to un-muddy the waters here a little, as well. There definitely appears to be more than just barrel length at play in the velocity differences between .177 and .22 here–we just haven’t gotten to Part 6 to better explain why this is the case, yet. Stock comparison data I would like most to see would be the 2400KT .177 with the longer barrels (14 inches or more), and the .22 with the 24 inch barrel. However, all stock data would be welcome–and please remember to mention pellet weight, and if you tested a variety of pellets please provide data for those coming closest to the 7.9-grain and 14.3-grain Crosman Premiers.

      So gents (and ladies–I’m sure my Sassy Sandy is not alone out there!), please step up! I hope you’ve had a chance to learn something new from today’s blog, and I look forward to learning something from you in return!


      • Hiver Seeker
        I am going to second everything that Gunfun has said as the tolerance stack ups between one gun to another has far to many variables to give any consistent comparisons that you arte looking for as in the world of cars as he described you can take two identical brand new cars of any make or model and drag race them, road race them, perform mileage test, emissions test, handling test you name it and you will not get a consistent and comparable set of data point to use unless each car has been “Blueprinted” as it is known in the racing world which to a laymen means that every single piece, part and component has been very meticulously and stringently measured and assembled to the very exact same clearances and tolerances on every single part and component of those two cars to get any data that could be used to comparable to each other.

        It is impossible to build any two items to the exact same set of tolerances in a manufacturing style setting and assembly process. so even if you had two of the same 2400KTs built they would not perform exactly the same as there would be way to many variables in the assembly of the two guns to be compared to each other unless they are “Blueprinted” and that will never take place in a manufacturing world.

        Even the highest of quality cars that you would get from Ferrari , Maserati, Lamborghini, Bugatti or the countless other top shelf cars do not perform exactly the same, they may be much closer than your average car but still never would be exactly the same.

        I cannot help with providing you ant stock data of crosman 2240, 2300, 2400 guns but can give you data on three conversions that I have done on my three 2240s. I did not bother with stock performance numbers because they would not be left stock. I will say that the difference in barrel length between your 177 and 22 is most likely the major factor in them having close to the same velocities because the 177 with the shorter barrel is loosing some push by having a shorter barrel and it being a LW barrel means it is choked which will slow the pellet some before it leaves the barrel also. the 22 cal with the longer barrel has more time to push on the pellet and therefore can accelerate the heavier pellet up to the same speed as the 177 pellet. Here is some data I have from my 177 20 inch LW barreled Hipac conversion and my 22 cal 18 inch barreled Hipac conversion and there is a significant difference in the velocities between the two at the same pressure in the hipac cylinders as follows.

        177 20 inch barreled 2240 with a fill of 2900 psi down to a 2000 psi fill with CP 10.5s and 25 shot count.
        low = 816.5 fps
        high = 984.0 fps
        Avg = 915.1 fps
        ES = 167.5 fps
        SD = 50.62 fps

        22 cal 18 inch barreled 2240 with 2900 psi fill down to 2000 psi fill with CP14.3s with 22 shot count.
        low = 694.7 fps
        high = 749.0 fps
        Avg = 730,2 fps
        ES = 54.29 fps
        SD = 17.52 fps

        Both guns were highly modified with adjustable hammer springs, transfer ports drilled out to 11/64 inches in both the barrel and valve and ice maker tubing used as a transfer port with a ID of 3/16 inches, the piercing tip of the valve stem cut off, extended hollow bolt probes. the front valve seal changed from the orange rubber seal to a delrin plastic seal for the hipac to seal against, the inlet end of the valve and outlet end of the hipac both drilled out to 3/16 inches.

        So as you can see only two inches difference in barrel length can make can make a difference of 235 fps in velocity with the 177 being the faster of the two.

        BD


        • Buldawg76,
          Quite true about no two assembly line guns being exactly alike. They’ll be similar, though, and information from a given model gun will probably be helpful to someone else looking to purchase the same model–that’s what B.B. does here every day.

          Those are some fantastic modded velocities–for .177 some of the highest I’ve seen, with a decent shot count to accompany them too. I’m taking the approach (so far) of just reporting out-of-the-box numbers, which a majority of shooters (who don’t mod their guns) should find helpful, since what comes out of the box is their final product. Your numbers sure do make some modding sound enticing, though.


  11. Anyone know what it means when your pyramyd e-receipt says “changes have been made to items or quanities per your request or PAs discretion to more quickly ship the order”? I didn’t request so just wondering what that typically indicates, everything said in stock..



      • Except maybe for the NYC camera dealers — which appear to be run by devout followers of Judaism.

        Even their web sites stop accepting orders at sunset (or 6pm) on Friday, and only resume accepting orders at sunset on Saturday. You can browse, but nothing else.


  12. I think hiveseeker is just trying to find the baseline of velocities for the guns, stock, with the different barrel lengths. Every model has differences, but they all give you an average (well, highest possible.. usually) and these don’t have that. Like how the airforce guns, a lot are the same model with different barrels or tanks but they give the expected velocity. These could say 12″..xxx fps,,, 14″ xxx,,, 18″, 24…stock standard .. inflated,, hggh h mmm… velocity.


    • RDNA
      I understand all that but he is comparing first off two different calibers as well as two different barrel lengths so the comparing of data between these two guns is like comparing apples to oranges it has no useful information to be gained from it . If it was the same calibers with different barrel lengths or different calibers with the same barrel lengths it could be of good use.

      BD



        • Thanks, RifledDNA–that’s exactly what I’m trying to do. And if someone is ordering a Custom Shop gun, I do think they might find that information “useful”.

          Buldawg76 and Gunfun1, with previous barrel length data and one piece of information Crosman did dole out (coming up), I think some basic conclusions can be drawn. You’re seeing one of those conclusions before that full discussion, so please bear with me for the moment.

          I’m reminded of the philosophers’ argument over how many teeth are in a horse’s mouth. Let’s not throw the youth out of the building–let’s look at some velocities instead and see what we can learn together. If you can help with some comparative data, please do.


          • Hiveseeker
            Ok I got a idea. This would be a good visual display of info for the custom shop guns. It’d good to have a outline.

            Here is the suggestion. On your next report make a check list of all the available custom shop barrels.

            Then what you can do is fill in the blank so to speak as fps info becomes available. And have multiple columns so info can be posted from more than one gun.

            That way the table is there and you can see multiple peoples results and most importantly the name of the pellet used so a person can get that info also.

            That will be a heck of a chart when you get it complete.

            I really wish I was one of those people with a 2400 kit to be able to plug some info into your chart and watch the data grow.

            How long will it be before your next part so we can see some of that data on the chart?

            I think the next part may just be interesting. Good luck.


            • Gunfun1,
              Thank you, sir. That’s exactly where my thoughts ended up as the commenting got underway. Personally, I’m particularly curious if the 24″ barrel in .22 is any faster (rather than slowing the pellet down) because there just might be another 2400KT or two in the cards for me. Anyone else looking at these guns would, I think, be similarly interested in what to expect from the various barrel lengths. There actually aren’t that many–10.1″, 18″, and 24″ in .177; and 14.6″, 18″, and 24″ in .22. Shorter barrels, with the longest at only 14.6″, are available for the 2300KT which goes along with that pistol not being quite as powerful as the 2400KT.

              B.B.’s already got Part 5 on the .22 velocities–which I think will be especially interesting–so timing on that post will be up to him. It won’t include any data I receive since Part 5 is already wrapped up, but Part 6 will include it–if those that have the equipment will be kind enough to post their velocities here. One reason I’m tapping this group for information is that we have a community of pretty experienced shooters here. Velocity figures I found online from a variety of other sources were inconsistent and in some cases contradictory, and I believe that a better informed like this one will have better and more consistent data. Part 6 also gets deeper into barrel lengths, and should do a better job of explaining some of my conclusions than we’ve had space for here.


              • Hiveseeker
                We will have to see as we go.

                And its a shame they won’t sale the custom shop parts outright so a person could biuld their own gun.

                Oh well let’s see if anybody has some fps numbers to post. Then things can move on after that.


  13. HiveSeeker
    First I thank you for you compliment on my guns and the tunes on my guns. You are doing a good job in this report so don’t think I am beating you up on the data you would like other readers to provide.
    I understand the data you are wanting to try to collect but it is only useful if the guns are built with the same components so if you can get enough people to provide the requested data to compile a table as Gunfun suggested it will be very useful and interesting indeed. I have my reservation as to whether or not you can get sufficient data to be capable of doing so as I tend to disagree with your comment that most people buy the guns to shoot as they are right out of the box.

    I believe when it come to the 22xx model of crosman guns they are bought with the full intentions of modifying them as soon as possible because there are so many aftermarket mods and suppliers out there it is just like Gunfun stated with a chevy in that you can get anything you want to build one to your liking from a multitude of vendors. It is the same for the 13xx and 22xx guns that crosman makes as they are the small block chevy of the air gun world and I will be surprised if more than 20% of the guns bought stay in stock form for more than a week, or two. I know mine have not even made it a week before they are coming apart and being improved, but then I have always been that way with my cars, bikes or anything else as stock is never an option as it can always be made better and I can never be totally satisfied until it is the very best it can be within the budget I have to work with and by doing all my work my self I can accomplish a lot more for a lot less.

    Hope you do get enough data to make a chart like Gunfun suggested to publish in the next report as it will be interesting to see.

    BD


    • Buldawg76,
      Thanks for the additional thoughts. While I still think the “average” airgunner isn’t modding their guns, you bring up a good point about the Custom Shop guns–they are in a category all their own, and I’m sure a much higher percentage of these are being modded than regular out-of-the-box products. I do hope I get enough data to get some ballpark figures for a barrel length / velocity table, partly because I’m thinking of making at least one more Custom Shop purchase. While I’m not contemplating a conversion to air, some of the simpler mods–and maybe a barrel swap or two–sure sound tempting to possible play around with . . .

      This discussion has also brought out a couple points that hadn’t occurred to me before, which will fit in nicely for Part 6 a little down the road. So jump on in, the water’s just fine–if you’ve got some baseline 2400 data, please send it our way!


      • HiveSeeker
        Regretfully I have no 2400 data as I have only purchased the cheaper 2240 because I was planning on hot rodding it from the start and it makes no sense to spend the extra money for a 2400 only to remove more than half the part right from the start. So I buy the cheaper 2240 and make it into what I want as crosman does not offer what I want from the 22xx series of guns and I am not willing to spend 400 dollars for something I can build myself for one half to two thirds the cost and have it my way. I did not even cjhrony my 2240 from the start as it made no sense to waste the time or pellets doing so because I already know that I can improve greatly on the performance with a few no cost simple mods to the stock gun and make huge gains.

        I hope their are enough shooters out there with stock guns to provide you some good data but my bet is their are not as many as you are thinking there are and I believe you will come up short on data.

        Best of luck and hope you do get some decent numbers.

        BD


        • Buldawg76,
          Hope we get a few velocity figures thrown in the mix. I spent a fair amount of time online, and the ratio of modded to stock velocities that I dug up was 10 to 1. What I did actually find was inconsisten at best. Though what you said about not worrying about the base velocity on a gun you’ll be modding makes sense–you’re keeping your eye on your destination!


          • Hiveseeker
            After the first of the year I can give you some more data on my two modded 2240/ disco tubed HPA carbines. I am having some work done for me right now that will improve the power and efficiency of the two guns hopefully by quite a bit. They will be using 2000 to 2400 psi air pressure and will have all the mods done on them that I mentioned before just with more air volume and reliability.

            So once I get my parts back and start some more tuning as I do have a starting point I can give you up date as I get them to the level I want them at so stay tuned and there will be more to come.

            BD


  14. I know these guns intimately. I recommend that you spend some time on the CAPOF or GTA forums before you take a new (to you) purchase and start guessing about it.

    With co2 guns and this stock valve (and they are the same) the barrel length is good for up to 10 fps PER INCH and therein lies the majority of your difference.

    The port and valve parts and tolerances are the same other than normal variation.

    The CCS guns are a great value, but the only difference is the options. Do not equate CCS as being any better build or specs, but as more parts choices.

    I can tell you that the stock guns are modified by the owners much much more frequently than the CCS guns.

    This series has been highly entertaining. All the cross-platform comparisons and/or examples (pump,PCP, springer) are especially useless if true answers are your goal.


    • David,
      Genuinely appreciate the input. I actually spent a fair amount of time researching the 2400KT on both forums you mention while writing the blog, and posted stock velocities were too few and too inconsistent to draw any conclusions from. The next blog installment will provide some background for what I did uncover prior to starting this blog that seemed reasonably reliable as a basis for some conclusions.
      I believe part of what we’re both dealing with here is the distinction between what difference barrel length will make in a stock gun with a limited CO2 supply, and what difference barrel length will make in a modded gun converted from CO2 to air, with a different valve, that is then charged to 3,000 psi. I do agree that on this point what you see with one might not be especially useful in comparison to the other.
      I look forward to any stock velocity data you can provide from your experiences. Wherever the preponderance of data leads, is where I’ll go.



  15. My 2400KT arrived today. It is a .177 with an 18″ barrel. I have mounted a Weaver peep on it and will chrono it asap. I have several different pellets but no light ones. I’ll do the same ones if I have them.


    • Hello Tom,

      I’m still very interested in your stock data on the .177 in 18-inch barrel when you get to it. Please don’t fail to post when you get the chance!

      Thank you.


      • Hiveseeker,
        These are average of 5 shots. Temp about 70f.
        CP light dome – 602
        CP heavy – 544
        CPHP. – 615
        Crosman Destroyer 7.4 gr. 630
        RWS Superdome. – 591
        Daisy alloy WC, 5.1gr. 648.



        • Tom,

          Thanks for remembering! Your numbers are interesting…B.B. thought that 14 inches would be the optimal barrel length for a .177 CO2 gun, and your numbers are higher than what I got with the 10 inch Lothar Walther barrel. Now I need someone with a 14 inch barrel to compare!



            • Tom,

              I’m pretty sure I had seen a 14 inch .177 barrel in the custom shop previously–but it’s gone now! You are correct, it’s not currently available. That’s too bad, because this may have been the optimal length for best velocity in .177.



    • Excellent question, and I think it may–a little. My .177 seems to be “stepped down” in power compared to the .22 (even taking into consideration the longer 18-inch .22 barrel), and the choked barrel may be a contributing factor.


Leave a Reply