Benjamin Maximus: Part 2

by Tom Gaylord
Writing as B.B. Pelletier

Part 1

Benjamin Maximus
The Benjamin Maximus.

This report covers:

  • 2000 psi fill
  • First test — Premier 7.9
  • Test 2 — Premier 10.6 Copper Magnum
  • Test 3 — H&N Sniper Magnum
  • Test 4 — RWS Hobby
  • Cocking
  • Trigger pull
  • Overall evaluation

Today we look at the velocity of the new Benjamin Maximus PCP. I know I’m excited!

2000 psi fill

Like the Benjamin Discovery, the Maximus is filled to only 2000 psi, which means is it easier on air in all ways. It’s easier to fill with a hand pump, it takes less air from a scuba tank or other high-pressure air vessel and it allows you to continue to get full fills when your tank is below 3000 psi. Yet it gets the same velocity as other precharged airguns that are filled to 3000 psi and higher. It just makes everything easier for the shooter.

First test — Premier 7.9

First I filled the rifle and tested it for both velocity and shot count. I tested the Benjamin Discovery in January of 2008, and the .177 prototype peaked at 953 f.p.s. with 7.9-grain Crosman Premiers. That was the same pellet I used to start this test.

The first 10 shots averaged 950 f.p.s. They ranged from a low of 935 f.p.s. to a high of 972 f.p.s. So this Maximus is testing out the same as the Discovery, all those years ago. The spread for this first string of 10 shots is 37 f.p.s. That’s a little high, but right in line with all the Discoverys I’ve tested. At the average velocity this pellet generated 15.84 foot-pounds at the muzzle. Here is a look at the shot string.

Shot……………….Velocity (f.p.s.)
1………………………..952
2………………………..972
3………………………..956
4………………………..957
5………………………..954
6………………………..948
7………………………..948
8………………………..942
9………………………..939
10………………………935

As you can see, the velocity starts dropping after the fifth shot. That tells me the next string will be slower, on average

The second 10 pellets on the same fill averaged 904 f.p.s. The spread went from a high of 935 f.p.s. and dropped straight down to a low of 872 f.p.s. This spread is 63 f.p.s. — almost double the first string. Clearly the rifle is running out of breath at the end of 20 shots. But we have learned not to judge anything until we see some results on paper. Here is string number 2.

Shot……………….Velocity (f.p.s.)
11………………………..935
12………………………..926
13………………………..919
14………………………..911
15………………………..909
16………………………..898
17………………………..897
18………………………..891
19………………………..878
20………………………..872

After 20 shots the reservoir pressure had dropped to almost exactly 1000 psi.

I’m going to say the shot count is about 20, unless I learn different in the accuracy test. And I will do more than one of those. The first one will be at 10 meters with open sights to help pick the best pellets. Then I’ll mount a scope and back up to 25 yards. And finally I’ll move out to 50 yards.

All the time I am testing this rifle, we must bear in mind that it was built to a price. We are looking for accuracy that’s okay — not world class!

From this point on, all results will be on a fresh fill to 2000 psi.

Test 2 Premier 10.6 Copper Magnum

This test is with the new 10.6-grain Crosman Premier Copper Magnum pellet. Crosman says on the card that comes with the pellet that these are 20 percent more accurate ay 50 yards than the standard 7.9-grain Crosman pellet. I will be testing that for you, also.

This pellet averaged 882 f.p.s. for 10 shots. The low was 868 f.p.s. and the high was 890 f.p.s., so 22 f.p.s. for the string. At the average velocity this pellet generated 18.31 foot-pounds at the muzzle. Let’s look at that string.

Shot……………….Velocity (f.p.s.)
1………………………..885
2………………………..868
3………………………..885
4………………………..883
5………………………..890
6………………………..887
7………………………..880
8………………………..883
9………………………..881
10………………………879

Test 3 — H&N Sniper Magnum

This test will demonstrate the power of this rifle. Pneumatics and CO2 guns generate the most power with the heaviest pellets — just the reverse of what spring guns do. H&N Sniper Magnums average 757 f.p.s. for 19.09 foot-pounds of energy. The spread went from a low of 743 f.p.s. to a high of 766 f.p.s., a 23 f.p.s spread. The curve was much different, though. Looking at it, I would have to say this rifle likes this pellet.

Shot……………….Velocity (f.p.s.)
1………………………..743
2………………………..748
3………………………..752
4………………………..753
5………………………..758
6………………………..760
7………………………..761
8………………………..766
9………………………..766
10………………………759

Test 4 — RWS Hobby

The final pellet I tested was the RWS Hobby. It is a lead pellet and pretty accurate at distances of 25 yards and less. Of course I could have tested some ultra-light alloy pellets, too, but Hobbys are far more likely to be used in the Maximus.

Hobbys averaged 1023 f.p.s., which is above Crosman’s claim of 1,000 f.p.s. for the Maximus. They ranged from a low of 1016 f.p.s. to a high of 1038 f.p.s, so a spread of 22 f.p.s. At the average velocity, Hobbys generated 16.27 foot-pounds of energy at the muzzle. They were also pretty consistent.

Shot……………….Velocity (f.p.s.)
1………………………..1017
2………………………..1016
3………………………..1021
4………………………..1038
5………………………..1026
6………………………..1027
7………………………..1021
8………………………..1028
9………………………..1016
10………………………1017

Cocking

I must remark on the cocking. The Maximus action resembles a 2260 action, because that was what the Discovery sprang from. But cocking these PCPs is much different than cocking a CO2 rifle. The striker spring is much heavier, and you have to get used to it. I had forgotten that in the years since I shot a stock Discovery, but the Maximus broiught it all back.

Trigger pull

The Maximus trigger is not adjustable. It is 2-stage and breaks right at 6 pounds with a fair amount of creep. I know there are things that can be done to reduce this, and if I owned the rifle I would do some of them.

Overall evaluation

Remembering what the Maximus is, I feel the test is progressing well and the rifle is showing its stuff. I can’t wait to see how it does in the accuracy tests!

56 thoughts on “Benjamin Maximus: Part 2

  1. I think that because of the big box store availability and price point,
    the Crosman 7.9 gr hollow points will be shot more in the rifle than the others combined.

    Even with the high extreme spread of the 7.9 gr. boxed premiers.

    But that’s just my opinion.


  2. Pretty consistent on the fps spread on all the pellets you tested.

    And thats pretty good velocity with those 15 grain sniper magnums. And I like how the curve was also.

    It will be interesting to see how it goes when you get it on paper.


  3. Looking forward to the accuracy testes too! That thing is really consistent with the RWS Hobby’s. I’d be fine with a 20 shot with every fill shot count, depending on how the accuracy at shot #20 is. I like to keep things simple, and pumping with a hand pump is okay with me.


  4. B.B.,

    Did you use the G6 hand pump to fill and top off, as mentioned in part 1? For those hand pumping, the # of pumps may be of interest. If not, then fine. I would not either. An auto-pump and tank would definitely expedite testing and free up your jammed schedule a bit. You got that double barrel thingy to get back to! 😉

    Nice so far. They nailed the looks. I do not have a .177 yet, other than the 880 and 760. I do have the PCP support equipment…… Mmmmmm?

    Also, glad to see you are going to take it to 50 yards.

    Chris


  5. Yes, the trigger does beg for an aftermarket sear, but I think this is going to be a real hot item. I can see one of these hanging around here.

    Now if Crosman will just learn how to build a world class sproinger and big bore PCP.


  6. B.B.,

    On test 3 and 4, the pellet weight is not shown as in test 1 and 2. While not required, it is a nice quick reference without looking the linked pellet up.

    Chris


  7. Hi BB and everybody

    To my mind, this Maximus seems like a great idea, regardless of the trigger. I know that I am probably generalising, but the majority of people will buy this rifle as the first PCP and probably will not know better and therefore really will not mind the trigger that much. Generalising again, but most first-time buyers probably buy their first air rifle based on muzzle velocity and 1000 ft./s will satisfy many buyers. If, in addition, it is accurate enough to hit a Coke can or a pigeon at 20 m they will feel that they have bought great gun. I am pretty sure that these are exactly the buyers which Crosman intends selling the rifle to.

    This post also started me thinking about pellet choice. As you have mentioned, there is generally an inverse relationship between pellet weight and muzzle energy with springers and the opposite is true for PCPs. That probably means that there is not much sense in shooting pellets weighing more than 10 grain from a .177 spring-powered air rifle. With .177 PCPs you should probably find a compromise between the heavier pellets with more muzzle energy and lighter pellets with a flatter trajectory. If your PCP produces less than 20 ft-lb energy (like the Maximus) you should probably stick to pellets of no more than 12 grain; with more powerful guns you should probably try to go up to around 14-16 grain. I would be perfectly happy to be convinced otherwise.

    However, my real question is about all the different shaped pellets available on the market these days. The way I understand it, diabolos and wadcutters are generally the most accurate pellets, but the pellet manufacturers try to convince us to buy hollow points, pellets with plastic inserts and other exotic designs to increase the “hitting power”, especially for hunting purposes. These pellets are also generally more expensive. My question is: does any small-bore air rifle really propel the pellet fast enough to cause expansion of the pellet when it goes through small game like pigeons or rabbits? It does not seem like that when I shoot a .22 H&N Crow Magnum through my Sumatra 2500, unless I shoot it through 1 inch piece of wood. Does anybody have any ideas about this?



      • I most HEARTILY support this question! I’ve seen an absolute ton of ballistics testing on conventional firearm projectiles with regard to performance, but nothing at all on air rifle pellets as far as terminal effect goes.

        As a suggestion (given .22cal) I’d love to see personally:

        A generic wadcutter as a baseline (JSB chosen for weight, but any would do https://www.pyramydair.com/s/p/JSB_Match_Jumbo_Diabolo_Pellets_22_Cal_13_73_Grains_Wadcutter_300ct/957 )

        JSB Exact Jumbo Heavies (https://www.pyramydair.com/s/p/JSB_Match_Diabolo_Exact_Jumbo_Heavy_22_Cal_18_13_Grains_Domed_500ct/690)

        Predator Polymags (https://www.pyramydair.com/s/p/Predator_Polymag_22_Cal_16_0_Grains_Pointed_200ct/343)

        A generic hollowpoint (Crossman here for example, but any simple HP design would do https://www.pyramydair.com/s/p/Crosman_Premier_22_Cal_14_3_Grains_Hollowpoint_500ct/415)
        and

        A generic pointed (again Crosman for example, but any will do https://www.pyramydair.com/s/p/Crosman_Field_Hunting_22_Cal_14_3_Grains_Pointed_175ct/111 )

        And the Beeman Crow Magnum (https://www.pyramydair.com/s/p/Beeman_Crow_Magnum_22_Cal_18_21_Grains_Hollowpoint_200ct/302)

        There are a lot more “extreme” designs, but those seem to represent a fairly decent cross-section of common choices. There’s quite a few there, but once I started listing, I kept going “hey, but I wonder how THIS one would perform!”


        • Kind of a follow-up thought: How much *effective* penetrating distance is there in a bird, anyway? Obviously, with a small game animal like a rabbit or squirrel, the right pellet will probably deposit most or all of its energy in the critter, causing maximum terminal performance and opening to maximum diameter if it is an expanding design. But on common bird targets, say a starling or sparrow, is there enough mass that the pellet passes through to even begin expansion in a useful way? As I look at it, going through a starling probably involves passing through maybe a half-inch of tissue and bone, discounting the air voids. Is that enough for *any* design to begin expansion, much less actually fully open?

          To be honest, I can’t say I’ve ever run into any problem with a center-mass shot and a normal dome taking a starling down immediately, but it just makes me curious…



            • I guess I’m just rather curious. In pure energy-transfer terms, any PCP is going to be able to impart a pellet with sufficient energy to cleanly and humanely dispatch a small to medium bird, squirrel, etc if that energy is placed correctly into the target. (CNS / Heart / Lungs)

              Theoretically, an expanding projectile increases the damage zone, and gives a better chance to deal damage to one of those critical sub-targets for a quick, humane kill. However, it seems like your traditional airgun targets and a .22cal pellet are the functional equivalent of shooting a human with a 12pdr Napoleon. Does it really matter if the roundshot expands or not, given that you’ve punched a through-and-through hole in the range of 5% or better the target’s entire cross-sectional area?


              • Komitadjie
                Actually .177 caliber pellets do nice if your guns making fair power.

                The smaller diameter pellet pierce’s as it enters. Kind of like taking a ice pick and poking it in a price of wood. Then see what happens if you take a handle of a screw driver and hit the piece of wood. The area driver might make a dent in the wood. But it won’t penetrate like the sharp ice pick.

                Air gun pesting usually has to do with creating a wound channel so the pest bleeds out. Even with vital organ hit. And pass through is not good in some instances depending if your pesting in a barn where you could hit equipment.

                Power control and pellet makes the difference. Believe me. I know. I pest for the two local towns by me for some time now. Plus use to do it as a kid growing up on a farm. My favorite pesting gun is a multi pump gun. That way power can be controlled for distance that the shot is taken at.

                Now if you talk bigger pests like raccoons or ground hogs or even a coyote. It’s still about power at a given distance. You better have enough to get the job done.


                • I have no concern at all about power levels, I’m using an AirForce TalonSS, which will easily generate all the power I need for any pest I’m targeting! For lower power shooting (indoor target in the shop) I switch over to the CO2 adapter, which drops the power nicely along with giving a huge number of shots.

                  If you are pesting indoors, I can definitely see where overpenetration would be a problem! I am using way, way too much power for my targets, technically, because my gun seems to give best accuracy around 9.75 on the power scale. I still need to chrony my projectiles to see where my velocity actually is, but at 25 yards it passes cleanly through quarter-inch plywood and a half-inch into duct seal putty. So I KNOW it’s absurd overkill for a starling, but it increases my chance of *hitting* the target square. Definitely requires watching my backstop, though, because I know that pellet is blowing right through and exiting with a lot of its energy left. If I was in a more confined area, I’d be using a micrometer tank, I think, to get the velocity down to ~500fps or so, and the power level to something more reasonable for the target.

                  Taking that back around to the original topic, are you getting any expansion at all with a .177 pellet at low velocity? It seems unlikely, but I have no data at all to back that up with. With close power control like that, it definitely makes sense that pellet choice is going to make a bigger difference.


                  • Komitadjie
                    The 4 air gun rifles that I call my favorites are my .22 Talon SS, well modded .25 Marauder a Tx 200 in .177 with a red dot sight and a Crosman 1377 that now wears a Benjamin Discovery stock a modded Discovery trigger and steel breech and .177 barrel.

                    Each gun has its purpose pesting wise. But I do enjoy target shoot, plinking and long distance shooting with the Talon can and the Marauder.

                    Here’s what I will say first. All the guns I mentioned will flatten a pellet at 50 yards shooting at a steel spinner that is not fixed. In other words the spinner being able to move takes away some of the shock of the pellet hitting.

                    But yes my 1377/Discovery at 5 pumps with .177 JSB exact 10.34 pellets will flatten out. And thats around 690 fps it’s making with those pellets.

                    Now on the other end of the power and size spectrum. The .25 Marauder is making 950 fps with JSB 33.95 pellets. When that pellet hits that same spinner at 50 yards it is flattened out as thin as a piece of aluminum foil. If prices don’t break of I have found whole pellets that were flattened to over one inch.

                    Here’s a real quick video of my .25 Mrod shooting the steel spinner out at 50 yards. You’ll get a idea of how much power the gun is making by how many times the spinner goes around. And when the Talon SS hits it may only spin around 3 times. The Tx will spin it it one time. And at 5 pumps the 1377/Disco conversion will almost spin the spinner over the top.

                    But here’s the video.
                    https://youtu.be/1lxW46z7pV4

                    And I do have a picture of some randomly picked up flattened out pellets if I can get the pellet picture to post. I will post it in a minute.



                    • Good lord, man, that .25 is packing a punch! I would have guessed that as a .22 subsonic instead of air rifle shot. Definitely more than enough power there for darn near anything you’d go after with a smallbore air rifle.

                      I just know, though, that everything from my .22s to my .308 will flatten out their projectiles against the steel gong at the range, too. FMJs, soft points, everything mushrooms when it slams into steel like that. Into a non-metallic target, though, the performance is vastly different. FMJ mushrooms out and comes apart against the steel, but looks good enough to shoot a second time out of ballistic gel.

                      No question at all the power is there in raw terms, but can the pellet transfer that to the animal in the actual distance of transit? I’d assume if you’ve pested a lot, you’ve recovered at least a few from animals. Do the pellets you use show expansion in real-world use? I’ve never been able to recover one from a starling, all of my shots have invariably exited the backside of the bird and kept right on sailing. For fur, I use a .22LR, so I really don’t have anything to compare to there either.


                    • Komitadjie
                      It’s making 68 fpe. I have recovered a pellet from a raccoon shot at around 55 yards. It was lodged in the rib on the opposite side of the entrance hole. It would of been a pass through for sure if it didn’t hit the rib. The rib was cracked and some of the pellet was trying to poke out. The pellet was all deformed but looked like a smashed wedge shaped ball.

                      And I have recovered .177 round nose and flat nose wadcutters from starlings out at around 35-45 yards from the 1377/Discovery multi-pump gun. The round nose will for the most part pass through. The flat nose wadcutters don’t. They pretty much always stay inside the bird. But both pellet types that I have recovered both look pretty much the same as they do out of the tin. Maybe a little bigger and flatter head. In other words the pellet looks a little shorter with a fatter diameter head.

                      So I myself from what I seen is it takes power and the pellet to hit something hard for it to change shape drastically.


                    • Very interesting, more or less what I’d expect from effectively a LRN projectile. I guess I’ve just seen enough .22s after hitting targets to be really curious if a pellet will open effectively at all inside your average airgun target, regardless of shape. On a raccoon or something like that with significant body mass, it seems likely if it’s going to happen at all. On a bird? Seems rather unlikely, there’s just not much critter to act on the pellet!


                    • And I should of mentioned this earlier.

                      If you hit the screen expand button in the bottom right corner of the video with the flattened out pellets it will stop at the end and look like a full view picture. Thought I should say just incase someone is trying to keep replaying the video to see the pellets.


          • Komitadjie,

            I am the one who comments here who does not hunt with airguns, so everything I write on the subject should be considered suspect. But everything I read about birds is that they are “tough old birds.” Apparently like James Bond and Jason Bourne; they are hard to kill.

            Might birds have especially dense muscle tissue? We know their bones are lighter than mammals, but it has to be something.

            Michael



              • Yes, it is said that the colorful cloaks worn by the Hawaiian chiefs when they were discovered by Captain Cook were made of thousands of bird feathers stitched together and could stop a musket ball.

                Matt61


                • Matt61
                  Crows have the armored type layered feathers. They can be hard to dispatch.

                  It all comes down to the same old same old.

                  Adequate power and accuracy for the distance your shooting at and type of pest or game your after. That is very important to keep in mind.



            • Michael
              Blackbirds, starlings and sparrows are easy to kill. Rabbits are pretty easy to kill also. A little tuffer than birds.

              Now sqerrials are another story. They have a tuff skin and are pretty much solid muscle. You need a well placed head shot for them if you don’t have a air gun with some power. A heart or lung shot on a sqerrial takes a little more power to dispatch be them properly.



          • Shooting sparrows and starlings with a 20 ftlb gun is over kill. There will not be enough mass to produce expansion of the pellet. Even at 20 yds the pellet will be producing 15 ftlb of energy.
            I have shot starling sized birds at 10 yds with my 760,using bbs, where the BB pushed a wing feather right through the chest cavity; so even a low powered 760 is too much gun for starlings at close range.

            Pete

            ;


      • Thanks BB

        It would be quite informative if you could test these pellets at say 25 & 50 metre to see whether any of them cause significantly more damage than the rest. To be fair, you should use a powerful air rifle(>40 ft-lb muzzle energy) to allow the expanding pellets to do just that. And of course, accuracy should also be taken into consideration. We need to hit the things we hunt.

        JSB Match Diabolo Exact Jumbo Heavy .22 Cal, 18.13 Grains ($17/500
        Gamo Red Fire .22 Cal, 14.5 Grains, Polymer Tip ($36/500)
        H&N Crow Magnum .22 Cal, 18.21 Grains, Hollowpoint ($17.50/500)
        Gamo Match .22 Cal, 15.43 Grains, Wadcutter ($8.00/500)


        • That’s almost the exact list I picked myself. For some reason, mine is “waiting for moderation” for a couple hours… I think probably because I included the links to the sales pages for them, so it tripped some kind of filter. My thoughts were

          A generic wadcutter of almost any design, preferably a heavier one.
          JSB Exact Jumbo Heavies
          Predator Polymags (if the Red Fire isn’t a direct repackage they’re darn close!)
          A generic hollowpoint (the Premier, the Discovery, most of them look near identical)
          A generic pointed (just to see if it does anything significantly different than a dome)
          And the Beeman Crow Magnum


  8. Thanks B.B. I am looking forward to the accuracy tests too. I think the primary fill for this rifle would be the pump, so I am a little concerned that it did not fit out of the box. Hopefully it will only need an adapter to get it to fit on. I really want one in .22.
    Jim


    • Jim,

      I encounter this fit problem with Foster connections from time to time. The length of the fat portion on the male connector prevents the balls from slipping over and collapsing back down to make the connection.

      Often it’s just a newness issue and not really a fit problem at all. I will work on it.

      B.B.



    • For a $200 PCP, and it’s intended market, the trigger s fine.,

      Since it seems to have a Discovery based trigger, there are many things that can be done to improve it at a later date.

      This just gets you into the game.

      Just like the accuracy that B.B. Is expecting, not match grade accuracy, but good enough to do the job.


    • Big Iron
      Look back at part 1 of the Maximus. I already stated very clearly what I think about the Maximus trigger if it’s the same as the one used in the Discovery. Which I do believe it is.

      But yes I agree with you.


      • You are correct of course. The Discovery needs a better trigger too. Better to spend more money and get something good than start low and work up. My Diana 52 in .22 cal has a great trigger that is adjustable. While it’s not a PCP it was purchased used for $75.00. You can get quality if you keep you eyes open for what comes along.

        Mike


  9. B.B.,

    This might sound nuts, but I might get a Maximus to be a kind of PCP Diana Model 27.

    A .177 Maximus detuned through a pro’s work on the hammer spring to produce less energy and more shots plus a pro trigger tune would make this a very easy-to-fill PCP suitable for plinking. Already there is a well-known and respected air gun modder / tuner who does such work on the “Max,” although I’m sure most of his work involves boosting, not reducing the power.

    Diana 27: Easy to cock, pleasure to shoot spinners with. Detuned Maximus: Easy to pump from 1000 to 2000 psi, pleasure to shoot spinners with.

    Michael


  10. BB,

    Do you know if the Crosman MAR177 is permanently out of production? If so, do you know why? My state just banned AR-15s with centerfire uppers, and I’d really like to convert mine to a PCP so that I can keep it.

    Bob





      • BB, thanks for the reply. I’ll see if I can get others interested before sending off a letter. I was about pull the trigger on one a couple years ago, but spent my money on something else instead. Now I regret it.

        Matt61, the law requires that assault weapons be registered with the government, which limits one’s ability to use it, bars the sale or transfer of it, and requires its destruction upon my death. It also has other effects, such as the fire department won’t enter a burning house if an AW is present until an LEO clears it. In short, registration is undesirable.

        Big Iron, possession of an unregistered AW is a felony. Since CA also passed a law to register all ammo purchases, and forbid the sale or transfer of ammo by anyone without a permit, I suspect our DOJ would investigate anyone purchasing .223 who doesn’t have a registered .223 rifle. A MAR 177 is an ideal solution: no registration required, I can shoot it at a public range, and I’d have another PCP to play with. Besides, I can always swap in my old upper if laws change, I go out of state, or there’s alien zombie sharknado apocalypse.



        • All true. But, I stand by my original statement. The law is unconstitutional and best ignored. A few years ago, Canada passed a law the required ALL firearms to be registered with the Govt. Well, 80% of the population didn’t do it. After a few years, the law was repealed. Hitler had people regsister their guns, then they came and got them. Criminals don’t register anything. Ever.

          BTW, I don’t buy .223/5.56 ammo. I can make all I want.

          Hope you can live in a better state someday! 🙂

          Mike


  11. As far as I see they got the velocity up to high but there are so many speed freaks buying air rifles I see why they do it . many guys kill every animal flying crawling or walking that comes within range and I guess that is the purpose of many airguns today



  12. Some interesting questions are raised by the Maximus and the general attempt to make pcps more affordable. If your rifle contains less air, that has to show up as a limitation somewhere. It looks like this rifle has fewer powerful shots than a standard pcp which the velocity tests seem to bear out. More generally, the question was raised some time ago of why pcps are so fabulously accurate compared to powerplant designs. The answer was that it had nothing to do with the powerplant per se but that pcps were built to a higher standard of quality. Well, if you lower the quality as you would have to do in lowering the price, where does that leave your accuracy? This would seem to be a design issue of robbing Peter to pay Paul, but the accuracy tests will show us.

    Okay, I’m going to stop making separate posts to correct my feathers comment. 🙁 I’ve done enough damage as it is.

    Kevin, thanks for your thoughtful reply on ergonomics. I wasn’t trying to generalize your comments about the two firearms since I never really did keep track of the airgun safety that was in question. I was just curious about the firearms for their own sakes and for the general subject of ergonomics which is so important in gun design. It would seem, at least for firearms if not airguns, that there really have been no new ideas for actions since at least WWII. The advances have all been in optics and ergonomics, or so it would seem.

    My own impression is that ergonomics is a slippery term that is highly dependent on context. The Glock is kind of confusing, since as you pointed out, the safety is passive and there is no positive motion to activate the safety that has any relationship to the motion to deactivate the safety. That may be unintuitive rather than unergonomic. As for the Garand, I see the problem with trying to turn the safety on with the same backwards motion that could fire the weapon. Fumbling around inside and outside the trigger guard under stress could be a problem. But who tries to turn their safety on when under attack? Maybe for this or some other reason, I haven’t heard of any objections to the Garand safety except in theory.

    If the 1911 safety is supposed to be a good example, that is an interesting case. The arc of the safety level moves at right angles to the trigger motion. I suppose that is good in that one will not mistakenly go forward and backwards and fire the weapon. On the other hand, the original military safety was quite small, and I don’t believe it could be operated with the firing hand like the larger thumb safety. So, the advantage of the thumb safety is not part of the original design. And the new thumb safety does raise problems of its own. If part of the purpose is to allow someone to rest their thumb on top to stabilize the gun, I’ve never figured out how one avoids injury from the moving slide only millimeters away. That slide is moving at hundreds of miles an hour. I would think that the slightest touch would tear skin and burn like crazy. But I’ve fired over 2000 shots with my 1911 and never experienced any problems nor heard about any. So, here is great ergonomic success where reason would seem to point to disaster.

    And then there is the AR which is the poster child of ergonomics. No argument that the rifle is supremely pointable. But for every other position than the firing position, it seems profoundly unergonomic with its asymmetric design that has magazines, sights and accessories hanging off at different angles. Moving it anywhere other than the firing position is much harder than older cleaner designs even including the reviled Mosin-Nagant design which actually excelled at bayonet fighting. The solution for the AR when not firing is simply to let it hang with various sling designs. That is workable although it’s not exactly a testament to ergonomics. Otherwise, the AR makes up for its shape with its exceptional lightness. Whether that counts as ergonomic or some other quality is a tangled question that may ultimately be a matter of semantics. Maybe the question is not whether something is ergonomic but ergonomic for what.

    Matt61


Leave a Reply