by Tom Gaylord
Writing as B.B. Pelletier
Beeman Double Barrel air rifle.
This report covers:
- Gamo acquires Daisy
- Beeman Double Barrel air rifle
- Double barrel?
- Description
- Initial impressions
- The rifle
- Barrels
- Stock
- Metal finish and plastic
- Sights
- The manual
- The trigger
- Upcoming tests and challenges
- Impression so far
Gamo acquires Daisy
First the news. Yesterday, July 5th, Gamo Outdoor SL announced the acquisition of Daisy Outdoor Products. “This is the beginning of a new chapter in Daisy’s history”, said Joe Murfin, Vice President of Public Relations. Indeed, it is. It will be interesting to watch this new association as it grows into a new entity.
Now, let’s look at an air rifle that’s unusual.
Beeman Double Barrel air rifle
Today I begin my review of the Beeman Double Barrel air rifle. Let me start by mentioning that’s not its real name. The Chinese owners of the Beeman company actually named this unique air rifle the Dual by Beeman. However, in light of the fact that there have been several rifles called the Beeman Dual Caliber air rifle over the past several years, the stage was set for mass confusion.
Double barrel?
Those other rifles all feature interchangeable barrels that the owners can swap at their pleasure. But they all hold just one barrel at a time. In that respect they are very conventional. The Double Barrel rifle has two barrels that are permanently mounted to the rifle. When this breakbarrel spring-piston rifle is cocked, both barrels pivot downward, being held rigid at their breech by the base block and at the front by a dual barrel band. Pyramyd AIR wisely calls this a double barrel rifle, which it is. That avoids the confusion with the dual caliber air rifles that are now known so well. I will therefore continue to use Pyramyd Air’s title for this airgun.
My advice to the manufacturers is to pay attention to what Pyramyd AIR has done. They have to sell your rifles and they know they will have problems if customers are confused.
Description
The Double Barrel is a spring-piston breakbarrel. It has a single piston. Both barrels fire every time the trigger is pulled. There is no switching between the barrels — both fire every time! And the gun I am testing is in .177 caliber — meaning both barrels are that caliber. I have seen a version of this airgun at the SHOT Show that had a .22 barrel and a .177 barrel, but that version is not listed at Pyramyd AIR. Given the different velocities of those two calibers that would result in different trajectories, I think that would be very unusual. Not that the one we are looking at today isn’t a bit outside the box! And speaking of the box, let’s begin there.
Initial impressions
My first impression was the box. It’s very well done and explains the gun inside to some extent. For starters it gives the name of the airgun. But following close afterward is the velocity. The box tells you right up front that this rifle achieves up to 700 f.p.s. with alloy pellets. Where other airguns just give a number at best, this box tells you the pellets to use! That is impressive.
The box says it all.
Then the box is opened and I see an air rifle presented in the best possible way! A styrofoam insert holds everything in tight suspension, waiting for the new owner’s first grasp. This box is a study in how to present an airgun.
Your first impression is that someone cares!
Lift the styrofoam and it gets better.
The rifle
I pulled the rifle from its tight resting place and learned that is is heavy and stout. Mine weighs 9 pounds, even. The stock dimensions are wide and fill the hand. This is a large air rifle. Overall length is 44-3/4-inches, with a long 14-15/16-inch length of pull (length from the trigger to the end of the butt pad).
Barrels
The barrels are 18-3/16-inches long. And no — they most definitely are not “soda straw” barrels! They are thinner than their outside diameter suggests, with the outside being what I think are aluminum sheaths (because they don’t attract a magnet — though the steel barrels inside do). The view of the breech is a sight to behold!
With the barrel broken open, you see a sight that is most perplexing!
Stock
The stock is made from what the box says is European hardwood. I looked at every square millimeter of it with a tactical flashlight and found no wood filler. What a difference from Chinese stocks that were made a few years ago! The wood is smooth and reasonably well-finished, though the profiles look melted or softly rounded on most edges.
The wood finish is a muddy brown finish that is coming off on the few sharp edges around the top, where the barreled action is inlet. It appear that it may wear off, though nothing has happened in the brief tome I have handled it so far. On the whole I have to say it is a good stock — just not heirloom quality. For the price of the rifle, it is among the best stocks I’ve seen.
Metal finish and plastic
The metal is finished matte black all over. The lettering is laser engraved, which turns the black to silver, making a nice contrast.
There are a couple plastic parts on the rifle, like the triggerguard and the barrel bands. They are unobtrusive and I don’t think most shooters will take offense.
Sights
Well — if the rifle can be considered curious, the rear sight is a downright oddity! The best description I can give is to call it a crossbow sight. It isn’t, of course. In fact it’s like no other rear sight I have ever seen. It’s a conventional notch sight with green (I am guessing) fiberoptic dots on either side of the notch. The front sight is a red fiberoptic bead that shooters with normal color vision may find easy to see.
I’m calling it a crossbow sight, but it’s like nothing I have ever seen. It does fold flat, but why would you want to?
I have mounted the sight on the rifle and I see a problem — not just for me but for everybody. The rear notch is far too large for the front bead, because it is too close to the sighting eye. I have tried it with both eyes, but there is no precision. I will have more to say about it after I shoot the rifle for accuracy, but right now the front bead gets lost in the huge space afforded by the rear sight. I have positioned it as far forward as possible on the dovetails and it’s still too large.
A pair of 11mm dovetails is cut directly into the spring tube. So a scope can be mounted. And there is a scope stop already attached at the rear of the tube, though it can be removed if you like. For some reason I am thinking that a good dot sight might be the best for this rifle.
The manual
The owner’s manual has zero information about this air rifle. It comes with a single addendum sheet that is the only place I see the rifle mentioned specifically. That sheet exists to explain the rear sight , plus the fact that 2 pellets must be fired every time. The manual is a loose collection of safety items, advertising literature and watered-down shooting guidelines. I bet it made it through the corporate legal approval process just fine, but an owner’s manual it isn’t.
The trigger
The trigger is 2-stage and adjustable — though how I will have to discover. The safety is automatic and the lever inside the triggerguard comes back toward the trigger when the rifle is cocked. It is light and easy to take off with the trigger finger.
Upcoming tests and challenges
Think accuracy is my problem? It will be, but what about chronographing? What will the chronograph think when it sees not one but two pellets zooming past the skyscreens. I won’t worry about that until I get there, but it’s coming.
Oh, and all you half-mad readers will undoubtedly dream up weird experiments for me to try — like putting a heavy pellet in the top barrel and a lightweight in the bottom and seeing at what distance they converge — if ever. This rifle could become a spark inside a flour mill!
Impression so far
I see something in this strange rifle that I don’t see in most Chinese airguns. I see innovation. Is it good? Who knows? That’s why I’m evaluating it for you. But at least they didn’t copy anybody. This one is totally theirs.
In a million years this is not a product I would ever have thought of, but now I get to experience someone else’s creativity. For the past 2 years I have made jokes about this rifle. The joking time is over and the testing time has begun.
BB,
An over and under double rifle. They should market it as an African Express rifle.
Weird experiments: Try it “gangsta” style. Let’s see Jack teach Jill to shoot it.
Jim
Jim,
Yup,… straight up for flight prone quarry,… and “gangsta” style for earth bound, running quarry.
You are a genius! 😉
Chris USA:
Maybe this air rifle does have a purpose other than separating rubes from their money.
Jim
Build a stock with the rifle mounted gangsta style.
Put the sights 90degrees from their current position.
2 pellets side by side.
Gangsta is not as new as you think.
In the early 80’s, I had a chance to handle (but not shoot) a browning hipower that was full auto.
The sights were mounted on the right side of the slide, and was meant to be fired gangsta style.
There was a frame mounted second offhand grip that extended above where the sights were normally mounted, you used the second grip to push forward to control the lateral tendency of the pistol.
There was also a spring loaded steel flap inside the trigger guard that had to be pushed out of the way to access the trigger.
Practical?
No, but interesting none the less.
Could you experiment with different pellet weights in each barrel so they hit close together at a given range?
Edarling,
Welcome to the blog.
I don’t know that I want to spend that kind of time with this rifle. Maybe I will do a little of it and yoiu can see. Or you could get one and experiment on it as much as you like? 😉
B.B.
BB
I think the heavy pellet should be on the bottom and the lighter one on top. Remember the heavy one will have more of a arch trajectory and the lighter one will shoot flatter.
Oh no what happens if the heavy pellet rises and intersects with the lighter one in flight. Darn BB your right again. The heavy pellet goes on top. 😉
And 700fps with alloy pellets. That means lead pellets might be around 550-600 fps possibly. I bet the gun is going to have a harsh shot cycle sin e it only has one piston and spring to generate enough air pressure. Wonder what the cocking pressure will be when you test it.
And I’m thinking you could probably load one pellet in only one barrel and shoot the gun with out it acting as a dry fire. And maybe that will be a trick with the gun. Use the lower barrel for close shooting and the upper barrel for farther distance shooting. And that brings me to the sight. It reminds me of the flip up open sights that you can move the rear notch higher or lower for different distance shooting.
This gun could actually have a purpose. I’m interested in seeing what it can do. And I like the idea of a dot sight on it. This gun could be something after all. Going to watch this gun tests go for sure.
Oh and I’m not even going to say what I think about Daisy and Gamo. Just praying right now that Crosman don’t sell out to Gamo! Please don’t let that happen!
I was wondering if you could block or seal the lower barrel and thus get higher velocity shooting a single pellet. The sight looks interesting . If you could get a good match for pellets, guess 2 pellets striking a rodent would dispatch them better, but I really do not see the reason for this gun .
I know nothing about Gamo except for one tin of their .177 pellets. Most of them were too large to be useful. Sad another American company going under .
Harvey
Harvey
You know now that you say that about plugging one barrel that may need to be done if a person would want use only one barrel. The air will try to escape with the least resistance path.
So if one barrel wasn’t plugged the barrel that has the pellet might only move half way down the barrel.
Now that’s a dangerous situation waiting to happen. Someone would think that pellet left the barrel but it really didn’t. I don’t want to even think what could go on there.
Maybe some warnings should be noted somewhere about certain safety issues that come about if the gun is loaded or not loaded certain ways.
I know it’s common sense. But still a warning is better than no warning.
GF1,
I am glad you came to your senses about shooting this thing with only one pellet. It would indeed be a dry fire. I can see that happening quite frequently with this.
RR
I just hate to see a inexperienced air gunner do that and get a pellet sitting in the barrel halfway down it. Then they try to dry fire it with no pellets in it or so they think and the pellet does end up comming out of the barrel. Then hits something or worse somebody.
And yes we all know your not suppose to dry fire a spring gun. But beginners do sometimes. Could be a dangerous situation.
GF1,
I had posted a much longer response to your query concerning my Edge, but it apparently became lost in the EtherWorld.
About the Edge. The 18 inch barrel will make it more efficient. It will likely gain close to 50 FPS with the longer barrel. Right now it is doing about 800 FPS with 8 grain pellets. This rifle is an experimentation in just how far I can take it, but still be able to return it to original.
This past weekend I was shooting slightly larger than 1 inch groups at 50 yards with it. I think the longer barrel may help me tighten that up some. We shall see.
RR
The extra velocity could help. Especially if you have windy conditions
The right amount of velocity is your friend. 🙂
GF1,
Oh, no! You think the pellet RISES? Do I need to cover trajectories again?
All pellets DRIOP the moment they leave the barrel. Slower (heavier) pellets drop faster than lighter ones.
B.B.
Assuming you are shooting totally level, sure.
I would bet that due to the low velocities of pellet rifles, and tree living quarry, most shots occur with the bore angling up to some degree.
But if the bore is level (I know, level to what, exactly?) the pellet comes out of it and immediately begins its fall, as B.B. said. Arching trajectories are the result of tilting the bore upward to counter the drop in order to hit a target that is far away.
Is this not true?
Michael
BB
Try a piece of paper at 15, 25, 35 and 50 yards. Draw a 1/2″ circle on it.
Take a light pellet. Say a 8 grain .177 pellet and aim at the 1/2″ circle you drew on each target with the center of your reticle. Then use the same gun and shoot a 13 grain pellet aiming at the 1/2″ circle.
In most cases the heavier pellet will hit higher at some of the distances than the flatter shooting lighter pellet.
Tell me why a heavier pellet needs more hold under (barrel pointing down) at certain closer distances. And more hold over (barrel pointed up) at longer distances than a lighter pellet.
So now you think a pellet fly’s straight to a target like a laser beam. Sorry all pellets fly with some kind of arched trajectory. Take a look at Chairgun. It will distinctly show the pellet rise and fall as it leaves the barrel.
Might the higher hit at the shorter distance be the result of a sight that has been adjusted for ranges other than point-blank? Try having no sight, put the gun in a vise, aim the rifle with a level only, and shoot it at a target a few feet away. Will it hit higher than the level of the muzzle then?
Michael
GF1,
Of course the trajectory is arched. But it is all DOWN. There is no up. A pellet never rises above the bore line after leaving the muzzle. Gravity won’t allow it.
You can angle the scope down so the pellet appears to rise above the line of sight, bit all you are doing is pointing the scope down to intersect the pellet as it drops.
B.B.
BB
Ah the sight in distance is was gives the effect of pellet rise. What was I thinking. 😉
The pellet only “rises” in comparison to the scopes point of aim. Scopes are mounted above the receiver and usually pointing down slightly. Gravity always wins…
-Y
All projectiles drop at exactly the same rate. The heavier pellet will be traveling at a slower velocity, and will travel a shorter distance over the same time period.
if a rifle is held level and fired with two different weight pellets, the lighter pellet will hit the target above the heavier pellet, but this is because the heavier pellet took longer to reach the target and therefore had more time to drop.
Exbrown,
Welcome to the blog.
I hope to hear more from you in the future.
B.B.
GF1
I doubt gamo could handle crosman right now. Even though I’m not a die hard crosman fan, I am definitely not a gamo fan. Crosman has enough junk springers to match gamos. Even though the gamo springers seem more innovative and they do offer some higher end rifles. But the coyote has a long way to catch up to the marauder. And with the disco and the new maximus cheaper than a coyote, I wouldn’t hold my breath.
Sorry for the rant. Its just hard to see an American legacy go down for the count. I was always fairly impressed by the cheaper 880. One of my childhood friends always had a pest bird free yard. 🙂 Hopefully the product stays of the same quality…. maybe even develop a competitor for the maximus or disco?
PH
That’s the thing. With me being in the machining world for over 30 years you wouldn’t believe how much products I have seen go over sea’s to be made.
And I don’t mean to Germany where quality things are made. I mean the other over sea places.
It would break my heart to see Crosman bought by another country. And I’m not so much a Daisy fan. But still it’s a shame that it’s not owned by a American company anymore.
That’s like Anheuser Bush being sold to Inbev or whatever the name of the company that bought them is. I drink Bush sometimes but not anymore. Bush was like the hometown all American made brewing company.
I just hate seeing long life American company’s being bought out by overseas company’s. And I’m not a Gamo fan at all. Had them in the past. Just not for me. But now I guess we get to hang on and see what happens to Daisy. I just think it’s a shame they sold out.
But on the other hand now maybe the non Gamo Daisy’s will be more of a collector item. I don’t know. I’m not a collector. We’ll see.
GF1
I can totally relate. Living 15min from Peoria it has been hard watching my previous generations lifeblood dry up and go south of the border. I used to operate a hydraulic brake press. I watched all the work dry up and watched a lot of Fabricators lose their jobs. I got locked into a just above entry level position doing less sophisticated work than I was capable. I watched what it did to the employers and how the employees had to suffer in a changing climate. I hated it. Thats why I switched to a different profession. I am thankful I was able. I went to school with a lot of older Fabricators that struggled severely learning the new material of HVAC.
All that aside I understand the sorrow of others watching companies selling out to a cheaper bid.
I can tell you that I want to snag a 753/853 right now. 😉 in all seriousness I hope gamo will keep the Daisy way of life going and young shooters can continue to compete on an entry level. It would be sad to see the Daisy 10m guns go by the wayside for one reason or another.
PH
It’s going to be interesting to see what happens with Daisy.
And this double barrel Beeman.
GF, I thought the same thing with the heavy vs light pellet. But then I got to thinking, it wouldn’t matter either way as the lighter pellet should “out run” the heavier pellet. But who knows, right. And I don’t think the heavier pellet would rise as both pellets would be fired using the same sight….interesting to wonder how the barrels are sorted….at where would the pellets impact together? Makes a guy think.
Doc
And even if they angled the barrels to impact the pellet in about the same place. That would only be good for one distance.
I still don’t know what to think about the Beeman double barrel.
This is an interesting, but not something I would be interested in for my shooting. For a hunter, assuming the two barrels will hit in a tight pattern, it might be a good idea.
Can someone please explain the origin of this style of “safety” lever, which seems to be featured on so many airguns, in which the lever is located inside the trigger guard, and is “rear for safe” and “forward for fire”? Perhaps I am just being dense, but I simply cannot understand how such a design could possibly have been accepted by shooters, or for that matter, the liability department.
Again, maybe I’m misunderstanding something, but is this not the operational description in a nutshell?: With this design, in order to on-safe your loaded piece, you are supposed to stick your finger in the trigger guard and pull the lever to the rear. Is that not it?
Seriously, who started this? How did it make it out of Legal? Why do so many others copy it? And why don’t safety-minded shooters demand something different? Because that right there seems like an unqualified disaster.
Even the Glock pistol, which has over the years received much ridicule for its “safety” being located in the trigger, is operationally, mechanically, “made safe” by an ergonomic motion that is opposite of the motion that makes it fire. Even the Garand’s safety switch–which itself contravenes standard safety practices by requiring you to have your trigger finger inside the trigger guard in order to ride the safety–can at least say that its “on-safe” stroke is outside the bloody trigger guard.
I suppose in one sense, none of it matters anyway, because safety is between the ears, not in the hands; anyone who truly follows The Four Rules will be no less a safety risk with a Condition Zero piece in the hands, than with a Condition Four piece in a lockbox. But still, I wonder: why even bother incorporating a manual or automatic safety lever, if its operation actually forces you to do something no competent instructor would ever teach you to do? Call me nuts, but I just don’t get that.
(Please forgive me for what is probably an incredulous and frustrated tone here. I don’t mean to pick on the Beeman here specifically. Truly the one that frustrates me most, about this safety design, is the Benjamin Marauder, which otherwise seems such an outstanding choice for a serious training rifle. After all, if the purpose of training is to instill good autonomic habits to lean on under stress (e.g., competition, hunting, fighting, etc.), then such a design must be considered an absolute deal-breaker.)
Kevin,
You bring up many good points,… none of which I can counter.
That said, I recently got a Marauder and is also the first time that I have used that type of safety. I did not know if I would like it, but I do. It stays off while unloading an 8 round clip, and back on when done. If you want to talk safety, even the Red Ryder and the 499 do not have safeties that automatically re-set. For me, I am glad that they do not. Then you have the TX and LGU, in which the safeties do re-set with every shot. Go figure.
Chris,
I love the manual safety on my HW100 – when there the rifle is cocked the safety can be put on – uncocked you can’t.
Think this is great as I tend to automatically reload and put the safety on out of habit. Sometimes I will leave the rifle unloaded, being busy noting Chrony numbers or checking the target through the spotting scope and can easily tell if the rifle needs to be charged or not.
Kevin,
Most of the air rifles that have the safety lever inside the trigger guard come on automatically when you cock them. The Gamo sproingers and the Marauder are the exceptions and are fully manual. My experience with them is they do just fine and I have never had an issue that I can recall, possibly because of my experience with military rifles. Usually ample room for the easy operation of the safety is provided within the trigger guards, however it is true that some people should not walk and chew gum at the same time.
I myself find the automatic safeties to be quite bothersome at best. I have to train my mind to take the extra step when shooting one of these, most especially when two of my air rifles and my air pistol do not even have safeties.
Now there is one of the primary reasons why some of us train to deactivate any physical safety switch present, as part of every presentation. The rub is that you just never know when that thing is going to be ON when you expect it to be OFF, so you always wipe it off when you are bringing the gun to bear. Jeff Cooper used to write all the time about students who did not keep the 1911 safety under their thumbs at all times; it was not at all uncommon for people to snap the safety ON, inadvertently, while firing.
Really? I personally find that a bit difficult to comprehend, though I trained myself to use the 1911. I never thought of it’s primary safety as being particularly easy to flip on so as to be unconscious.
When I owned a Gamo CFX I did train myself to apply the manual safety after each shot. It was located inside the trigger guard in front of the trigger. At first I did not think I would like it there, but I soon came to like it very much. It did not cause me any issues with shooting it, I had no confusion about which was which and it was much easier to operate than if it was located at the back of the compression chamber like the Dianas and Weihrauchs or on the side like BSAs.
Sooner or later it comes down to personal preference. You will end up shooting the ones that suit you best and the others will collect dust or move on.
Yeah, Cooper actually agitated at one point for the idea of a spring-loaded 1911 safety that would stay ON if the user was not actively pushing it down at all times. I’ve only seen the inadvertent-ON happen once myself, but I can understand the desire to train it out of oneself as a matter of reliability.
Really? And people listen to him? The 1911 already has a spring loaded safety that you need to depress before it will fire. The 1911 is probably one of the safest pistols to handle there is.
Just my opinion and I am likely speaking out of ignorance, but it sounds like the issue is the over emphasis on the safety. He is probably pounding into their heads to engage the safety, engage the safety, engage the safety, that they are subconsciously doing such.
I am guessing that you know very little about Jeff Cooper. The man had his quirks and (according to me, at least) even his faults, but he was no joke. It is not much of an exaggeration to say that if you use the sights and two hands on your heavy-duty defensive pistol, and to a large extent if you use the 1911 pistol itself, then you owe a nod to his work.
So: yes, really. The 1911’s thumb safety snaps positively into either position, ON or OFF, and stays there, but it is entirely manual, and as subject to inadvertent ON as it is to inadvertent OFF. As an instructor and developer of technique, Cooper wasn’t interested in “it never happened to me”; he wanted a system that was as close to foolproof for any student as he could get it. That wound up being the “high thumb” technique of riding the safety at all times; no matter the stress level, that did a better job of making sure the lever was in the right position at the right time.
There are lots of other minor matters of technique that are like that. By way of an analogy, Cooper was as into the precision of gunhandling technique, as B.B. is into the precision of marksmanship. And as a result, he really helped to bring effective defensive shooting out of the darkness, and elevate it to an efficient, dependable technique that nearly anyone can perform. Again, don’t get me wrong, I had my material disagreements with him, but there’s a reason his impact has been as wide as it has.
And just so I’m clear on this: we agree that the 1911 is, mechanically, one of the safest pistols to handle that there is. The contrary directions of the trigger and gripsafety, plus the sear- and slide-blocking thumb safety, and in modern examples either the low-inertia firing pin or the mechanical firing pin safety–all add up to a lot of safety net, and yet all of it still works within the “close hand bang, open hand safe” ergonomic.
And of course all that, still, is far less important than The Four Rules, because ultimately safety is between the ears, not in the hands. 🙂
Kevin
Earliest use of safety in the trigger guard i know of was on Browning Automatic Shotgun in 1903. It was copied on M1 Garand and M14 military rifles. seems to work ok.
Fidi3030
You mean the Auto-5? That safety is a crossbolt at the rear of the trigger guard. Not my favorite, but at least both the “on-safe” and “off-safe” strokes are orthogonal to the firing stroke.
Kevin
Yes, the gun is now called the Auto-5 was originally called the Browning Automatic Shotgun. The similar Remington, made under Browning patents, was called the Remington Automatic Shotgun and later the Model 11.
Both had the safety in the trigger guard until the early fifties when it was changed to a crossbolt type. Probably a cost cutting move as the Browning design used several small machined parts.
By the way the Glock trigger safety is a direct swipe from a pre 1900 design by Iver Johnson. I believe it’s a very secondary safety; the main safety being the internal safe-action trigger.
Fido3030
Well, that I did not know. Thank you for the tidbit. 🙂
Kevin,
Like you I don’t like that design with the safety lever inside the trigger guard forward of the trigger. I can imagine a situation where someone accidently shoots the rifle when they really intend to activate the safety, or something like that. A cross-bolt safety located at the top of the trigger blade would be better.
I like the design of the Hammerli 850 safety much better. The 850 safety is located behind the barrel above the grip, well away from the trigger. The safety automatically comes on when the bolt is cycled to load a pellet. Your thumb, not your trigger finger, is used to deactivate the safety before pulling the trigger.
Ergonomically, I’m not sure you could do much better than the Air Venturi Bronco’s safety switch, except to make it fully manual (to properly train both mind and hands). That falls beautifully under the thumb, is positive, and ambidextrous.
I have trouble not gushing about how much I love my Bronco (thank you for all time, B.B., as it’s your doing), and one of the big reasons for that is its marvelous ergonomics, absolutely including the safety. Within the limitations of training with a single-shot, I feel no need to go anywhere else.
Kevin
I enjoyed your rant. It was respectful and full of genuine inquiry. I say in a fully light hearted tone that I can’t see anyone accidently setting off one of those gamo/crosman triggers. (The one on my brothers nitro venom is the only example I have used extensively but I assume that that unit is very much the same in all of the rifles that use it.) I didn’t mind the operation but that was because I knew I wasn’t summoning my full strength to pull that trigger back an inch. Jp 🙂 now a marauder trigger set around 2lbs would have me more cautious at least at first
Kevin
Haven’t seen you post in a while.
Did you every get you one of those gas air soft guns you was talking about along time ago?
Hi Gunfun1. Yeah, I’ve been on the lurking end for a while–pretty much read the posts every day still, and sometimes the comment streams too. Maybe it’s the three young kids (7, 4, and 1) but life’s been a bit crazy. 🙂
Depending on exactly how long ago you’re referring to, yes, I wound up with a WE 1911 replica (gas) and a few magazines. I’m still learning, but in general, I really like it; the manual of arms is almost the same as a 1911 firearm, and–perhaps because of how I train–I seem to produce the problem the difference makes only rarely. (And, truly, when I do, it is a useful troubleshooting distraction to add to the practice session.)
In all, it has only strengthened my hunch that well-chosen Airsoft guns can indeed help someone train realistically, at low cost and in places that are not available to firearms.
Kevin
Yep kids will keep you busy that’s for sure.
And agree with you that air guns/air soft guns can be good trainers for their firearms version.
I just got a Brodax co2 pistol that was designed to shoot steel bb’s. Got some clips from a Python that are designed for pellets. It actually shoots pellets pretty good out to 15 yards. Well I can push it to 20 yards but it gets a little tuffer to hit the cans then.
But it resembles a revolver and has a single and double action trigger. I been having a blast shooting it. And it’s only a $39 pistol.
But good to hear from you. Post more if you can get a chance. 🙂
Interesting, I wasn’t really paying attention to the safety on this rifle, but I’m intrigued by your comments on firearms. While I agree with anything that will improve the safe operation of guns, I have quibbles with your comments on the Glock and the M1 Garand. For the reasons you mentioned, I have never figured out the value of the Glock safety which can be released by a pull on the trigger. If it doesn’t disable the operation of the trigger, then it seems to be failing at its defined task. I suppose the Glock safety is supposed to prevent discharge when the gun is dropped. But since the majority of gun accidents happen by inadvertently operating the trigger, that doesn’t seem to be worth much. I’m not clear what is the opposite ergonomic motion that operates the Glock safety. Is that moving the finger away from the trigger? That isn’t really possible in the confines of the trigger guard, and I don’t believe you operate the safety anyway. It is on by default until you pull the trigger.
Conversely, I don’t think the Garand safety is that bad. To release the safety, your finger has to move in the opposite direction than pulling the trigger. Also, the darned thing is so stiff, that I need to use my thumb and not my trigger finger. I’ve never even come close to failing to operate the safety correctly. And if the safety worked well through a World War, it can’t be that bad.
What really frightens me is the recent story about the guy who accidentally shot his son at a shooting range because a hot case went down his shirt, and he flailed instinctively to get it out. How do you guard against someone doing that at a range and endangering everyone?
Matt61
Matt61, I wasn’t trying to comment favorably on the Glock’s passive in-trigger lever–only to say that at least the effective stroke to “on-safe” the piece, with that system, is absolutely opposite of the stroke to “off-safe” and thus fire the piece. Ergonomically, it’s simply “close hand, gun go boom; open hand, gun stay quiet”. The Glock’s trigger safety is functionally passive, and while I’m not a fan of it myself, I can certainly recognize that it’s been around long enough to say that it works.
Incidentally, that trigger tab will have nothing to do with drop safety. Most modern striker-fired pistols use a system wherein the striker is only partially cocked at loaded rest, and unable to contact the primer; some systems further mechanically limit the striker travel until the trigger is pulled. Drop-safe tests, traditionally, involve dropping the piece on its muzzle–contrary motion to trigger travel.
I will admit that I am harsh on the M1 safety (while otherwise loving the system); the “on-safe” stroke being both to-the-rear and right-at-the-triggerguard does not strike me as a good idea. Under serious stress (as in, someone may be shooting at you), it is entirely plausible that someone could reach, eyes-off, under the piece to on-safe it, and find the trigger instead of the safety switch; precisely because of how stiff that tab often is, many feel for the front of the trigger guard and pinch it back–an ergonomic motion. How small a mistake would it be, to find the trigger instead of the front of the guard, and pinch off a live round instead of successfully going on-safe?
In any sort of defensive or fighting piece, it’s at least arguable that any manual safeties should be at least as ergonomic as the trigger, if not moreso–because in normal field handling, and certainly in practice, you will be on the safety far more than you will be on the trigger. Much as I love that M1 system, that safety is a real drag with lots of reps in practice. Even the AR, which is gloriously ergonomic for the “off-safe” stroke, requires (for most of us) a hand shift to go back “on-safe”; it’s a significantly more minor gripe, but compared to the ergonomics of, say, a shotgun tang safety, M700-style button (or that ambi lever on the AV Bronco), or the 1911 pistol…well, you notice that quite a bit even over a couple days of good training.
Apropos of my original question, please understand I’m not trying to make all sporting arms into fighting weapons; I am saying that there are people who do not want to confuse their own training by introducing contrary systems that we might revert to at the worst possible moment. And my original inquiry was neither about the Glock nor the Garand anyway–I just used those as examples to say “even these I can at least understand; but the inside-guard, rear-for-safe, forward-for-fire thing…I don’t get that–is it me?”
Oh, and as to your last point: I suspect you know this already, but of course you can’t. We can only teach the Four Rules to the point of, as Clint Smith so aptly puts it, “a lifestyle change”. Beyond that, we can choose our company, keep eyes and ears on, and carry on.
B.B.,
Two bombshells in one article! Wow,…. I hope for the best. Yes, innovation is good, but not properly done,… can go awry pretty quickly. On the manual, from what I have seen of Daisy’s manuals, they are very good. Let’s hope that does not change. Not to mention the great customer service. For a rifle as unique as this, the manual should be very detailed.
The sights, while cool at first look, after some thought, I do not see why they are so tall, both front and rear. The trajectory should be the same as any other rifle. Wouldn’t just the standard blade and ramp work just as well? Maybe just an attempt to be “tact-cool”? As for the sight picture, maybe a case of the designer not being a shooter?
You did mention that the Manual,… or lack there-of, did stress that 2 pellets must be fired every time. At least someone figured out what firing only one might do. The idea of plugging one barrel, with something such as a large headed roofing nail, might work. It would be interesting to see the fps, which I believe would rise significantly, as long as the seal on the other barrel was not compromised. I had not even pondered the chrony dilemma.
Some collectors like “oddities”,… I think that this one fits that bill pretty well. Not to mention the low price. If I were one, I would buy it for that reason alone.
Good luck and have fun. You have my attention.
Chris
Chris,
Why are the rear sights so high. One thing is the front sight is pretty high. Another thing is the stated velocity is only 700 FPS with alloy pellets. This thing is going to have a double rainbow arc. You will probably have to point the muzzle pretty high in the sky to reach out to 25 yards, assuming you could hit anything at that range with it.
Probably the designer was looking at the M79 grenade launcher sights for inspiration when he made them. Especially with the rainbow trajectory.
I always liked the blooker. We learned to use it without the sights. Put the butt of the stock in the crook of your elbow and adjust the angle of your arm. With a little practice you could drop it where you wanted it. Have the armorer beef up the ejection spring to where it pitched the empty out when you popped it open. Have three rounds ready in your other hand. You could put three rounds down range in just a little bit.
Siraniko,
Good one. I fired an M79 exactly twice during basic training. I have wanted one ever sense. But Mom is sure I’ll put my eye out.
I’ll leave the pun, although I am aware of the 15 year old boy who lit his sparkler bomb a few days ago and will never be the same.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/texas-teen-loses-leg-lose-eyesight-sparkler-bomb-article-1.2698782
~ken
RR,
I think they went for a tactical look, while keeping a traditional (ha-ha) rifle look.
The trajectory would be no different than any 700 fps rifle with alloys. I see no need for the elevated sights. None at all.
If one were to shoot a low powered air rifle, and try to take it out to say,…. 50 yards,… then the only thing that would be required is a rear sight that can elevate more.
They were “after something” by doing that. What? As for the 2 barrels shooting at once,…. who knows what they were thinking,….. other than,.. COOL!!!,…. I got’s to have me one of those. And at that price,… there will more than a few of “those”.
Being a springer, and not a PCP, I am surprised that I have not seen them at Wally’s yet. Maybe they are? I do not pay much attention to Wally’s offerings,… sorry folks.
Oh, they have a tactiCOOL version. It has a black synthetic stock that makes it look like an assault rifle complete with extended capacity magazine. Marketeering run amok. That is the one that will probably be showing up at Wally World. There is probably a ship filled with them heading our way as we speak.
I guess I can propose a reason for the tall sights: To simplify things, consider standard, low, sights almost at zero distance from the upper barrel and, for the same reason, let us assume a near target and a very high velocity (though this is not exactly the case, this point is not essential), so that we can neglect the vertical distance of the point of impact. In other words, if the sights line is parallel to the upper barrel, under the approximations above that line would also point to the point of impact of that barrel, but would define an angle, say alpha, with the point of impact of the lower barrel. From a slightly different point of view, this angle alpha would be the one between the lines pointing from the rear sight to each point of impact. Now, and this would be easier to see drawing a figure, if the sights line is separated from the upper barrel, then there would be an angle, say beta, to the point of impact of the upper barrel, and another angle, say gamma, to the point of impact of the lower barrel, but the difference between these two angles would be smaller than alpha. In other words, the difference between the two points of impact would correspond to a smaller angular difference than in the case of a very low sight line. May be I am wrong, however, of course.
P.S. for B.B.: Though I have not been commenting (best for everybody if I can only right quite obscure comments like the one above…), I have been reading the blog, I have been worried for your problems with your eye, and I am now very happy with your extremely satisfactory recovery. Best wishes!
“right” should read “write”. I apologize for the additional confusion…
Vassili,
Over my head,…. but I like it! 😉 I am thinking that the 2 pellets will hit in the same approximate distance from each other, yet still “rotate” in relation to one another, just as pellets do when fired from a single barrel. As they tend to “group”.
Not sure how to put that into a mathematical equation,….. but’s that’s my thinking at any rate.
Comment more,… Chris 🙂
Vassili Z,
Thank you for your kind wishes. I am now able to do most of what I could before, so if things never improve, I can live with my eye the way it is.
B.B.
BB,
I can see a possible issue with this little oddity. What happens if one pellet is tighter than the other or the difference in weight is significant. Would it not be possible for one pellet to exit down range while one does not clear the barrel? It does not take much imagination to visualize a traffic jam taking place.
Those rear sights really are something, huh? I wonder if the version with the selector has a double tier sight? Probably not. I cannot wait to see the groups.
I have a feeling we will be seeing quite a few of these things in the classified ads pretty soon.
RR
Yes I think that could turn into a safety issue to. Tight pellet verses a loose fit pellet.
Somebody that shoots this double barrel air gun needs to know air guns and have common sense.
I bet accidents will happen with this gun.
GF1,
I really cannot help but think this thing is going to be nothing but a train wreck. BB’s testing of this thing is going to be one of those disasters that you just cannot help but watch unfold.
RR
I have been surprised before. But I think your right. This will be a interesting test for sure.
GF1,
Really? No faith at all? Come on guys. 😉
Chris USA
You been reading my comments today.
I think once someone learns the pellet impacts at different distances in might just be a cool gun.
GF1,
I do not think it will be interesting. Only accurate air rifles are interesting. This is merely a curiosity at best. It is marketeering run amok. You should see the tactiCOOL version.
RR
I hear there is other versions where the barrels can be fired separately.
Wonder if Pyramyd AIr will carry those. Those might be a little easier to get worked out.
But no I haven’t looked at the tactical version.
GF1,
Yes they have them with either .177, .22 or both calibers with a selector.
Here is their site.
http://www.airrifle-china.com/products/&pmcId=c47ffde7-43c0-45d0-8c5a-5ce40464829f.html
RR
Thanks for the link.
It would be kind of nice if this thing would surprise me, but I am not going to hold my breath.
Buldawg76,
Good news I found 3mm screws that match your specifications. However, after testing the Hatsan 60S trigger which we have fired thousands of rounds through I have deemed it unnecessary to tinker with the trigger. It has probably polished itself to break cleanly after all these years we have been using it. I will keep them in reserve though if/when I happen to come across another trigger that can use them.
Gunfun1,
Your Youtube video perfectly illustrates that sound travels slower than light. We see the target react before we hear the strike of the pellet on the target.
Siraniko
Yep that’s another thing that’s cool about the video’s. You can replay the shot and watch and see and hear different things.
Did you notice on that video I posted on yesterday’s blog with the 125 yard cornstalk shot that were talking about. Did you see how violently the reticle shook when the shot goes off. And what’s funny is my Mrod is smooth when it shoots. It does have a noticeable bump though. It’s that the camera picks up unfelt vibration.
The camera phone mounted on the scope definitely picks up things you don’t normally notice.
It’s hard to imagine this gun as a hunting tool. It seems unlikely to hit with the power and accuracy needed for humane kills, but testing should illuminate this well enough to make a determination. But it is an interesting piece and I’m glad to see it tested.
Yes, there are many types of safety buttons and levers, and it is intuitive to observe that placing them inside the trigger guard seems inherently unsafe. However, experience has shown that familiarity with the individual weapon obviates the peculiarities of individual safety systems. The hardest thing for me is simply remembering to safe a manual system after firing. The location of the selector appears secondary to its diligent use.
I hope this Daisy news means they will start adding new products not just canceling them.
I am still mad I missed the boat on the 953.
StevenG
I wholeheartedly agree with what you said. Especially on the 953.
This design can truly be described as eccentric. Looking forward to the target shoot
My first thought is that this rifle isn’t very useful. Even for pests, one pellet has done the job for me. Now, if it had two pistons, and two separate shots, that would be different.
Mike
Big Iron, I thought the same thing…but would add even more weight. Doc.
The Shanghai Air Gun Factory web page shows this model with both tactical and sporting (wood) stocks. They also have variants with .177 and .22 barrels (together), able to be fired singly or simultaneously. B.B., I’m looking forward to what you come up with. This is an odd one.
While browsing the internet I found this resource:
http://www.gunmanualsonline.com/uploads/6/6/8/4/6684420/the_construction_and_operation_of_the_air_gun_1-the_austrian_army_repeating_air_rifle.pdf
It is available for download if anybody is interested.
Seeing this thing is kind of interesting. I’m very curious to see what this thing can do. For the price if this thing can perform at 15yds I think it’s a winner. Jmo. 🙂
GF1
Have another suet block visitor that gets a free pass . We decided to call him “Rocky” .
Yes, a flying skweerul !! Cute little guy, about shirt pocket size . Got him on night vision video .
Also have a red that has been coming around in the daytime . I don’t foresee any hopes for a long life expectancy in his case .
twotalon
TT
Haven’t seen a flying squirrel in some years now. They are cool little creatures. And night vision video. That’s cool. You should up load it on YouTube and post the link. I would like to see it.
And yes we have red squirrels out here everywhere. Feel the same about them.
GF1
Let’s see if this works .
http://vid189.photobucket.com/albums/z244/twotalon/squirrel/038%201_zpse3d8rkyl_1.mp4
twotalon
TT
Yep it worked. Pretty cool.
What did you use to get the video?
GF1
Cheap security camera system .
twotalon
TT
I like.
GF1
Also good for watching for varmints too .
I also use trail cameras and driveway alert .
twotalon
TT
Yep good ideas.
TT,
Very good. An outdoorsman at work said that the best way to see them is to get close to a wood line that is back lit by the moon, when the leaves are off the trees. Heck, even the normal squirrels look like they are “flying” when hopping from tree to tree. But, since they are nocturnal, if you see something flying from tree to tree at night, it is most likely them.
Chris
Saw one a long time ago in the daytime . Had not seen one since .
Cute little guy, but only comes out when it gets VERY dark .
twotalon
TT
Maybe that’s why I haven’t seen any in a while.
Twotalon:
We had one as a pet when I was growing up. It lived 5 or 6 years, which I understand is a long life for a flying squirrel. The cat brought it up one day (unharmed) and dropped it on my mother’s foot. She bottle raised it. It had its own cage we built but mamma often let it have the run of the house.
Jim
Jim
Did it sleep all day and run at night ?
twotalon
Twotalon,
Mostly. She would be active in evenings starting about dark. As I remember, she kind of adopted our hours over a period of years. In the middle of the day she would mostly sleep in my mother’s apron pocket.
Jim
B.B.,
“Chinese owners of the Beeman company actually named this unique air rifle the Dual by Beeman.”
I wonder if that means that Gamo, the new owners of Daisy, might market a .25 caliber break-barrel and christen it the Daisy Model 25? (Sorry, I couldn’t resist)
Michael
So, at the risk of sounding kinda’ stupid… what’s it for? Why two pellets at once? I mean, if it was like a double rifle that would give you two shots with each cocking cycle I could sort of understand it, but I really am struggling to come up with a reason this would even be a good idea?
Maybe I’m missing something obvious? Seems like a cool “hey, look what we made!” but about as far from a practical air arm as you can possibly get…
Komitadjie,
I suspect this air rifle is designed to make even more pleasurable the American pastime of shaking up cans of diet soda (much more carbonation than sugar-sweetened soda), putting them on a concrete block in the backyard, and making them explode with a single shot from an air file. TWO simultaneous shots from an air rifle would be, well, it would surpass twice the fun. Maybe fun squared?
Check out air rifle soda can on youtube. You will see what I mean.
Michael
Komitadjie,
Well, that’s what we are testing.
B.B.
Fair ’nuff! I mean, I guess if one pellet is good, two is better? Or something?
Gotta say, the soda-can blasting IS absurd amounts of fun. As are those caps that let you pump up an old water or soda bottle to 90-100psi with a tire pump. Makes a really decent bang when you hit it!
B.B.,
Does this rifle have two transfer ports, one for each breech? If so, is there an enlargement of the compression cylinder’s diameter to accommodate two ports?
Michael
Michael,
I don’t know. What I do know is the larger the port volume the lower the pressure that is developed.
B.B.
B.B.,
Just like the nozzle on a garden hose!
It seems to me that in order to propel two 7.0 grain pellets at 640 fps. this double barrel has respectable power for a low price plinker, something around 12 or 13 foot-pounds.
Michael
B.B., First off, WOW…on both accounts (Daisy and the double barrel rifle). On one hand I’m saddened by my old Daisy brand not being a USA owned product anymore. Yes even though I know most all their products are now made in China or Japan. Still, me be close to Rogers AR. and with Daisy being my first ever “bb” gun, I have a soft spot for them. That said, even though Gamo isn’t always my thought of a elite brand, them buying Daisy will probably be good for Daisy. They haven’t made any real traction in several years now.
Now, the double barrel Beeman. I don’t know what to think about it. When I first started hearing about it and what little there was to read about it, I just thought it’s a toy that will soon be gone. But now after what I’ve read so far, this is really interesting to say the least. I had to laugh when you said we’d ask for a heavy pellet and light pellet be fired at the same time, cause that was what I was thinking! You hit a bulls eye on that one! It made me think, what about designing a single barrel with two small pistons (as opposed to one big one) that would travel in opposite directions when fired to cancel out recoil? Maybe one would “cock” when opening the barrel and the other while closing the barrel? I know we have the RWS 54, but this would be different. I know it would probably be a bust, just thinking out loud. Something the blog has me doing often….
Thanks for the article,
Doc
Double rifles that shoot two shots in succession are very efficient tools for safari hunting. A double rifle that fires both barrels simultaneously is kind of a mystery. I can’t wait to see how accuracy will be measured with this rifle, and I can’t figure out how the powerplant uses energy. A conventional sized spring will transfer its energy into pellet velocity. What happens with two pellets? Does the energy get divided in two with an accompanying loss in velocity?
Fido3030, the droop of the blade angle on the Randall does raise the deep question of WHY the clip point design has been so successful for thousands of years. The best explanation I’ve heard is that it lowers the point from the top edge of the blade to the middle for greater efficiency. That rationale would also explain the drooping angle of the Randall. Otherwise, I think it is worth noting that an exaggerated clip point tends to assist the back cut. Dedicated fighting bowies like the Cold Steel Natchez have huge clip points whereas others have relatively little. That might explain the very minimal clip point on the Ka Bar. The Marines didn’t have time or reason to train their troops in advance knife fighting techniques, and I suspect the knife was used in combat with a straight thrust which worked well back to Roman times.
Anyway, I had a chance to experiment the other day on an $8 melon. I compared the piercing potential of the Ka bar to a tanto blade which is supposed to be the heir apparent in combat designs. It’s main advantage is supposed to be the strength of the tip. Both worked fine, but there is no doubt that the Ka bar penetrated further and more easily. The stoutness of the tanto design that strengthens the tip also creates more resistance. This makes sense since the design was really created to pierce armor, and there are not that many people wearing armor. I have my questions about the precise use of the tanto, but, as a miniature samurai sword, it is a proven design.
ChrisUSA, that is a good one to close your lockback folder on your leg, and I believe you have successfully solved the problem of closing a lockback folder with one hand. I think the original challenge was to close the knife literally with one hand and nothing else. That is something that can only be done by a liner lock folder. But there will always be some object to close your folder on (like one’s leg hopefully) so your method will work fine in the real world.
Matt61
I have found this blog and these comments to mind boggling. What a bunch of interesting and thoughtful comments and questions?
Where to start? Can we assume that both barrels are close to identical? And are the barrels aligned parallel to each other? If either of these is a “no”, I don’t know how much difference will make a difference. Certainly, this would not fly for the 10mm folks, but I doubt this rifle receive more than a derisive laugh.
This rifle does beg for questions by me, for sure. The subject came up at least a couple of times about blocking one barrel and pellet velocity. I somewhat understand how this works in a single barrel spring piston rifle. My best understanding in those is that a stronger spring may allow you to move heavier projectiles, but that the difference in fps between lighter and heavier projectiles will not be much. Here is a blog by B.B. that addresses this in a single barrel environment.
/blog/2013/07/why-powerful-mainsprings-dont-always-increase-velocity/
I know there are more, but I didn’t find any of them in the time I have available just now. I know there was a blog or discussion that spoke to adding power bands (rubber bands) to some kind of shooter with the effect that you could shoot heavier but not faster.
However, this double barrel rifle with it two air vents … I don’t know. I expect is similar in respect to spring power and swept volume. But, oh, spring air guns are (hopefully) designed and built to have interacting parts, such that the piston is not held back unduly or slams to a stop. Blocking one barrel may disturb the balance.
Before I would test using different weight pellets simultaneously, I am curious what happens when shooting various pellets of specific runs simultaneously. If all is perfect, I would expect both pellets to hit the down range target one slightly below the other.
The questions about shooting different weight pellets simultaneously leave me wondering. This seems to violate some rule I don’t know. All things being equal (and I doubt they are), I expect the lighter pellet to exit the muzzle sooner than the heavier pellet. I suppose it depends on how much sooner. In .177 I think shooting a 5.5 grain allow and one of the heavy weight pellets is absurd for anything but a, “I wonder what happens if …”.
Of course, pellets of less extreme weight differences may have some real world application as long as I remember to adjust elevation for the right pellet.
I agree that this one may be a fun plinker. Other than that, I think is a novelty. Whether it proves to be a useful novelty is something I can’t prognosticate. As a mere mortal, I will have to wait and see. Just finding out may be it’s own reward.
Thanks to all for thought provoking comments. And thank you, B.B., for the blog.
~ken
Ken,
Never assume that double rifle barrels point in the same direction. Only on 5-figure British double rifles will they do that (after being hand-regulated, which amounts to being taken apart and resoldered several times) — and only with one load at one specific distance. Elmer Keith wrote a lot about regulating loads for double rifles.
I can see that you guys are as perplexed with this rifle as I am.
B.B.
B.B.,
I am really trying hard to take a “no knowing” approach to this rifle. However, I do assume the barrels are not perfectly aligned and that even matched pellets will vary both vertically and horizontally when they land down range. I just don’t assume to know by how much.
I expect variation inside the barrel as well as outside. As it is, my favorite thing about this rifle is it’s novel appearance.
You know, I wasn’t even aware of double rifles aside from the .410/.22 over/under guns and over/under shotguns, of course.
~ken
Ken
Like I mentioned above to Doc Holiday.
Even if they angled the barrels to allow the pellet to hit in about the same place at one distance. They would not at other distances.
Sometime back I mentioned there was a firearm pistol that shot bot barrels at the same time. I believe that it was said to be set so both bullets intersect at 35 yards.
That just might be the trick to the Beeman double barrel. Put targets out at different distances and find out what distance the pellet comes hits at the same location. Then make notes of pellet spread at other distances. Then you would know the guns effective range to be shot in.
Gunfun1,
You present an interesting concept. I only thought about attempting to align the barrels in parallel both horizontally and vertically (as B.B. pointed out such an attempt is more likely to fail than not). I don’t know that the manufacturer would do much better to create that one impact point at any particular distance.
If the rifle does impact at that one distance I thing longer distances will be measurable as long as the two pellets don’t collide at that distance where they converge. Of course this assume a degree of consistency on the part of the rifle and the pellets.
I look forward to the tests.
~ken
Ken
The only way to know is to shoot the gun at some paper at different distances.
Then to see if the gun will repeat those results is another story.
Gunfun1,
I totally agree, on both counts.
~ken
Ken
Yep.
GF1,
I do not think that they will EVER hit at the same location. They will hit at about the same distance apart, at what ever range. The thing that will change is the orientation of the pellets to each other,… as in 12 and 6 O’clock, 3 and 9 O’clock, etc.,.. just as 10 pellets fired from the same, single barreled rifle.
The only way they would ever hit at the same location is with 2 highly tuned and oriented barrels to achieve an intersection at 1 given point. At 139$,… I doubt that they went to all that trouble and expense,…. Luck,….. maybe.
Chris USA
That’s what I said. About the same place.
“Even if they angled the barrels to allow the pellet to hit (in about the same place) at one distance. They would not at other distances.”
But I think the trick to making the gun work would be plot out the pellets poi at multiple distances. That way you could get a idea at what distance the pellets poi the closest together.
Then see how far apart the pellets land apart at other distances. Just like how a cheat sheet is made for hold overs or hold under.
Then you could have a idea about what distance both pellets would impact a beverage can. Maybe one distance one pellet would hit the top of the can then the other pellet the bottom of the can. Then another distance both pellets would hit closer together and so on.
I think plotting the pellet path will be how to successfully shoot the gun.
GF1,
It sounds,…. as if you are assuming that that the barrels will allow an intersection. If they were pointed apart, they never would intersect,…. same for parallel.
Chris USA
Right. In most cases the barrels would be set to point towards each other. Not parallel or away from each other.
That’s what they did with that side by side double barrel firearm pistol. They pointed both barrels toward each other so the bullets would have about the same point of impact at 35 yards.
In this particular case of the Beeman double barrel we don’t know. But it could be checked on a Bridgeport.
Get the bottom barrel aligned level in the vise by running the indicator tip across the top of the bottom barrel. Then put the indicator tip on the top barrel and run the indicator along the top of it with the tool spindle holding the indicator. That way if the needle on the dail showed plus readings at one end or the other you could tell if the barrels were angled together or apart.
GF1,
Got it. That would be a good way to check.
Chris USA
Yep.
I now understand better your replay to my comment. I agree. Besides, I see that you refer to a situation quite more real than the one I tried to describe; I was speaking about two perfectly parallel barrels which, moreover, are exactly one above the other, but in a real situation this is almost impossible. While one could be tempted to be optimistic, one can recall that mostly shotguns benefit from a double barrel (apart from the very interesting examples cited here of firearms with convergent barrels tuned for a specific distance), because the dispersion can allow to neglect the difference between the centres of each pattern. Besides, I don’t know how the manufacturing details of good quality shotguns compare with those of this air rifle. Well, I will try to be patient and stop with theory. In the end, B.B.’s thorough examination will tell us the truth, as usual.
P. S. I now think about those triple cannons in old battleships which sent their projectiles more than twenty miles far away, like in the Missouri class ships or the Yamato class ships. What about those trajectories? How much spread did they have? Could that be adjusted?
BB
On a top double shotgun or rifle the barrels are thicker at the breech than at the muzzle to contain the pressure while keeping the weight down. The barrels are actually curved slightly to get them shooting in the same direction. As you said that really drives up the cost! In cowboy action some shooters cut the barrels to 18 inches and they will crossfire. But at the close range they use it’s not enough to matter.
If the barrels on the Beeman are of the same diameter their entire length it might be possible that they shoot reasonably close together. Maybe.
The real question is why a low power double air gun??
I wonder if Daisy even tried for an American buyer. What was their last new product? Did they have any engineers left?
Fido3030
Fido3030
Fido3030,
Daisy has been up for sale for many years. Yes, an American airgun company did try to buy them, but like Coke feels about Pepsi, they just could not sell out to “the competition.”
B.B.
BB
It’s a shame about Daisy. They had good products and service. Any idea of why they were up for sale? Was it that owners/investors were making money but thought they could do better with something else?
Fido3030
Fido3030,
I don’t know. They stopped going to the SHOT Show years ago — after they stopped making new models of airguns. I guess making just money wasn’t that much fun.
B.B.
BB
A shame when the customers seem to care more about a company than the owners.
Fido3030
Interesting idea. Not sure there will ever be a purpose. I have a question I know someone here will answer. I have a Diana LP8. Love it. Have maybe 400 rounds through it. I am told it is is two stage trigger. What I feel 1st is movement with no pressure but a spring that returns the trigger when I let up. Then pressure with gritty creep till it breaks. Sometimes it breaks without that creep but not usually. Is this a true two stage and will this likely break in better?
Not a deal breaker, too much fun. Just want to know what to look forward to. Thanks
A357man,
Yes, you described a poor 2-stage trigger.
B.B.
Sorry to hear about Daisy.
On the Safety subject, I don’t like ANY automatic safety. I think it’s dangerous and teaches bad habits.
Many first time shooters got into the airguns because it’s cheap to shoot. They put thousands and thousands of rounds through their air guns. All the while it’s teaching them the safety comes on automatically. They like hunting small game with their air guns and decide they want to hunt big game, So they move to powder burners and load their gun not giving the safety a second thought.
I was raised around firearms and been around them all my life. I was taught safety is no.1.
I shoot my air guns so much now when I shoot my Firearms I have to constantly remind myself to put on the safety, Which was Something that used to come natural. I ALWAYS did it and I didn’t even think about it before I started shooting air guns.
Hmm, I could see the point in this if it was dual calibre and you could fire either barrel separately, otherwise its certainly a curio
As for Gamo grabbing Daisy……and by extension a part of your shooting history. Its how I felt when they took BSA and a part of my heritage
The BSA springers have never been quite the same since manufacture left England
BB,
Okay, I don’t know if it was reading this blog just before going to bed last night and reading “half-mad readers will undoubtedly dream up weird experiments for me to try” but I dreamed about this rifle all night. Here are two more half-mad weird experiments for you to try:
(1) Set up sheets of paper at 5 year increments in line with each other, to see what the trajectories of the pellets look like of distance.
(2) Send the rifle to GF1 when you are through with it to see if he can get slow-mo video of the two pellets in flight.
I expected more weird experiments from the readers after BB’s challenge.
Jim
Jim
My phone don’t film that good to capture the pellets in flight. I don’t think yet anyway. Maybe with some correct light and back ground I might be able to.
And yep that’s what I have mentioned above in a few comments. Plotting the trajectory will be the success of this gun. But then the trick will be if it can repeat those results.
Jim,
I am thinking that if you keep rotating the gun over a 180 degree arc, you could theoretically cut out the center of a bullseye……
Man,… now you got ME afraid to go to sleep! 😉
You opened a BIG ol’ can of worms B.B.! 😉
Out’a here,… Chris
Chris USA,
You could try cutting a circle with your mrod. Just get close and rotate through a 360 degree circle while aiming at the same point. Please make sure to share the pictures and vid, especially when you are shooting up side down.
Jim
We know that air turbulence at the muzzle can cause inaccuracy. That’s why consistent muzzle crowns are important. I’m wondering if the air turbulence from one pellet at the muzzle will affect the other? Especially if they are different weights. Maybe the barrels are far enough apart that this won’t matter. I don’t know how you would test for this effect, BB.
Also so sorry to see Daisy lose its independence after so long. I hope the new owners won’t muck up Daisy’s excellent reputation for service or move it from Rogers, AR. Maybe I need to buy a couple of reseal kits for my 747 now, while I still can?
Flintlocker
Your right about air turbulence when the pellet leaves the barrel.
But the crown not chamfered equally or if it is damaged will throw the pellet out of the barrel in a abnormal way. It can kick the pellet in a sense so it’s not flying true.
But yep if the barrels were close enough to each other I think the air pressure or blast could cause a problem.
Flintrocker
That is a good point on turbulence. May be another reason this rifle shoots relatively slow velocity wise?
I was making my reservations for the Texas Airgun Show coming up on August 27 and it made me think about Reb and his barrel of guns. I have not seen him comment here in a long time.
Has anyone heard from him? Is he doing okay?
Thanks,
Jim
I’ve missed his posts too. Hope everything all right!
Fido3030
Me too.
Haven’t heard from him in some time now.
Jim,
Do not know, a little searching thru the blog shows his last comment over here from May 30; /blog/2016/05/webley-mark-ii-service-part-1/#comment-381273
Hope he is doing well, miss his posts as well.
I am really sorry that this review is not of the model that shoots the 177 and 22. What would be really nice would be a double barrel that shoots a pellet from the over barrel and a shot shell (like the Gamo hunter shotgun) from the under barrel! It should be selectable between simultaneous and select fire. Can you could adjust the point of impact of the pellet to coincide with the effective range of the shot. I am a collector of sorts so this rifle is desirable. Maybe Gamo should buy Beeman as well.
I think customer service will slide with Gamo as new owners of Daisy. They would probably apply their spare parts policy to Daisy too. It seems to be a winning policy for them.
B.B., there seems to be a technical problem with the blog software. The article that you so obviously scheduled to post on April 1 went live on July 6. Hopefully Pyramyd’s IT folks will find the problem. Let me know if I can help.
Wow. Wow.
-Jan
I gotta have one for indoor gallery shooting. I wonder how long before its barred from the gallery?
Just discovered this “Dual Barrel” air rifle yesterday on a “Backyard Plinking” video… looks really interesting.
I seem to recall Jim Maccari posting a photo of a breech block with dual pellets many years ago… I assumed he was experimenting or just teasing us… don’t know if anything actually came to fruition with it.
I look forward to reading the follow ups… it would be nice if your “Part n” videos had follow-up links to the next video in the series, or maybe I’m missing something… I usually have to do a search to find the last video and then work my way backwards… ?
AirMojo,
To find the other parts of this report, copy the title into the search box at the upper right of this page and then click on the Go button.
/blog/2016/09/beeman-double-barrel-air-rifle-part-4/
B.B.