by Tom Gaylord
Writing as B.B. Pelletier
This report covers:
- My gun
- Today’s test
- BB gun powerplant
- Secrets of the BB gun powerplant
- Daisy BBs
- Hornady Black Diamond BBs
- H&N Smart Shot BBs
- So far
As I told you in Part 1, I’m reviewing the Daisy Red Ryder because it’s a classic BB gun, and also because I have a scope mount to test when this basic review is over. Today we look at the velocity.
My gun is either a variant 5 or 6, but I can find nothing in the Blue Book that distinguishes between those two variants. My gun has a wood buttstock with the Red Ryder brand on the left side, and a plastic forearm. The rear sight is fixed. The cocking lever is curved aluminum and painted black. The rest of the gun is blued steel. Variant 5 has all those features and was made in 1947 to 1952. Variant 6 has the same features and was made in 1952. In 1953 Daisy started painting the metal and sometime around then they also started to make the buttstocks of plastic — which is variant 7.
I will test my Red Ryder’s velocity today in the standard fashion. I will oil the plunger and test the gun with several different BBs. Since my gun is not new, this will be a test of a gun that is older than 60 years! I think that’s fitting, since this is an historical blog.
BB gun powerplant
I described a BB gun powerplant in the report titled, How the BB gun powerplant works. Basically, the hollow air tube on the end of the plunger pushes the BB off its seat at the breech of the shot tube. That gets it moving down the barrel about 50-80 f.p.s. When the plunger reaches the end of its travel, the air compressed in front of it is forced through small holes in the base of the air tube. When that compressed air hits the now-moving BB, it boosts the velocity up to its maximum.
Secrets of the BB gun powerplant
There are very few secrets of a BB gun powerplant. Polishing the inside of the compression chamber and polishing the inside of the air tube have little or no effect, because the air pressure and the air flow volume are so low. Lubrication is also of little effect — beyond the essential lubrication of the plunger seal (the piston seal). If you have a modern gun, it has a synthetic plunger seal. If it’s an oldie like mine, the seal is leather. No worries, though, because they all take household oil. I use Crosman Pellgunoil, simply because it is handy, but it is formulated from 20-weight non-detergent motor oil, so that works too. The type of oil isn’t as important (as long as it is petroleum-based) as having the plunger (piston) seal lubricated. That is how the gun seals and compresses the air.
I removed the shot tube and oiled the gun with 10 drops of oil down the muzzle. My gun doesn’t have an oil hole on the outside like the more modern ones do. After installing the shot tube once again I dry-fired the gun twice to spread the oil on the plunger and then I was ready to shoot.
First to be tested were Daisy Premium Grade BBs. They had to be, for the continuity of the report. Ten Daisy Premium Grade BBs average 280 f.p.s. from my old Red Ryder. The low was 271 f.p.s. and the high was 287 f.p.s., so the spread was 16 f.p.s. That’s not bad for a 60+year old BB gun!
As I cocked the gun for each shot I was reminded of what it was like to cock an older BB gun. The lever only comes down halfway and the cocking effort is pretty stiff. I remember that as a kid these guns seemed very hard to cock. Well, they still are. Daisy changed the mechanism sometime later and used the whole lever stroke to cock the gun, which reduced the effort by about half. I have been shooting modern BB guns for so long that I forgot there was ever another way.
Hornady Black Diamond BBs
Next up were Hornady Black Diamond BBs. These new BBs have performed well in many BB guns this year and I was excited to see how they would do in a vintage BB gun. Well — they did phenomenal! Ten BBs averaged 284 f.p.s. with a spread of just 5 f.p.s. — from 280 to 285 f.p.s. I can’t wait to see how they do on paper!
I want to remark about feeding now. My Red Ryder fed every BB perfectly. I never had a blank shot. I was loading just 10 BB into the gun at a time and they all fired perfectly. I remember as a kid getting blank shots all the time, but of course the BBs weren’t as uniform back then and I didn’t keep my guns lubricated, either!
I mention feeding because that was the basis of the lawsuit between Daisy and the Consumer Products Safety Council. The CPSC claimed gravity feeding isn’t rteliable, until I showed their lawyer how many military guns use it. After that the lawsuit went away. What was behind all that was a kid who shot another kid with a BB gun, causing grave injury, because he, “…didn’t think the gun was loaded.” That means he claims that he shook it and didn’t hear a sound.
With both these and the Daisy BBs going nearly the same speed, I figured they represented premium steel BBs pretty well. It was time to test lead! The Red Ryder of the past used no magnets, so feeding lead BBs is no problem.
H&N Smart Shot BBs
I loaded 10 H&N Smart Shot lead BBs into the gun and went back to the chronograph. These BBs are significantly heavier, so we expect a velocity drop and we got it. They averaged 227 f.p.s. for the 10. But here is the deal. They varied only 3 f.p.s. from the low of 226 to the high of 228 f.p.s. That is incredible! I can’t wait to see how these BBs do on the target in the next test.
So far we have learned about a Red Ryder from the 1940s that still works well today. The velocity is probably off what a new gun will do by 20-30 f.p.s., and maybe even a little more. But it’s stable and enough to get the job done.
We have learned that this old BB gun is hard to cock, as all old BBs guns were. The change in the cocking mechanism was a major improvement.
I hope that we have also learned that older BB guns like this one are not candidates for power modifications. You can get them back to spec with new seals and mainsprings, but that’s about as far as you can go. No doubt it is somehow possible to go farther than that, but you will be inventing the solution all the way. BB guns just are not good candidates for power upgrades.
152 thoughts on “Daisy’s Red Ryder: Part 2”
I have only 1 Red Ryder, the 75th Anniversary. I have not been “in”, nor will I. Compared to the 499, it is horrid to cock.
I have been inside the 499 and can say that it is a traditional spring piston design. I did try some things, including a stronger spring and some lube here and there. The latch rod sear/trigger mech. is not strong enough to hold the pressure of a stronger spring. I also put some moly on the trigger. Oh yeah, modified a TX piston seal to fit in conjunction with the stock seal. All worked and the trigger was smooth and very light.
As time went on, the trigger became unsafe light. Why? I do not know. I ordered another trigger and piston rod assy. complete with seal. So, it is back to stock and working just fine. They did add a foam wiper disc behind the piston seal. That was not on the original piston seal, so I think that was a bit of design change. There is no way to oil it either. Some silicone oil on the wiper, some Lithium on the spring, a dab of moly on the latch rod sear and that is it.
Are you sure that the (new) Red Ryders and related products still use the air tube that initially pushes the bb? With the 499 not having it, I had to ask.
So yea, just leave them alone. There is not much, if anything,.. to be gained.
When I explained how gravity feed mechanisms work to the CPSC lawyer, Daisy sent me the spring and plunger assembly of a modern Red Ryder, so yes, I am sure they still have the air tube.
Why must it be a petroleum based oil? Why not a silicone oil?
Silicone is too thin as an oil to seal the plunger. And how do you get a gel through the oil hole and spread reliably? Petroleum is Daisy’s recommendation.
The Silicone oil that I use is about the same density as Pellgunoil. It is also safe to use on PCPs, which petroleum products are not. Now, if Daisy is recommending the use of such in their BB guns, that’s fine.
Speaking of Daisy BB guns, I have not as of yet opened up my 1959 Daisy 99. Would it very likely has a leather seal?
Boy, that’s a tough call. Your gun was made in Rogers, just after the move. I will bet they were using synthetic seals by then.
One way to know. If your gun loses power suddenly a few weeks after oiling — the seal is leather. If it lasts for many months, it’s synthetic.
And about the cars the other day.
I ain’t got no time to play around with a older car breaking down. I got to have reliability these days. Can’t afford to miss work because I’m repairing a older vehicle.
Plus I hate spending money doing something to a car and it’s not improving performance. Repairing them no. Making them better then ok.
That’s what happens when you grow up racing muscle cars all your life. Modding Guess that’s why I like the air gun modding. 🙂
The way I see it is to buy another pickemup it is going to cost me upwards of $40,000.00. I can take my present truck, which is paid for, and totally rebuild it from one end to the other for a whole lot less than that. To do otherwise to me is poor stewardship. Besides, I never bought in to that bluebook value hokie stuff anyway. If it is going to cost me $40,000.00 to replace my truck, then my truck is worth $40,000.00. And like a buddy of mine used to say, “at that price it had better have a toilet.”
If you got the time then why not.
I just don’t feel like working on a car anymore. Especially after working on things that break all week long at work.
Plus the old body just don’t move as fast as it use to. And seems like something is always trying to hurt.
To each his own. But not for me no more. My buddy keeps trying to get me to get another race car. I keep telling him I just don’t want to get involved in that world anymore.
Just a note on silicone oils. When talking with Shoebox, I noted that my RWS chamber oil is quite thin and that the Shoebox silicone is quite thick by comparison. I asked if the RWS would be ok to use. They said yes, but that it would “sling” itself and make a bit of a mess. So there is different viscosities of silicone oils. I suspected such, but have not messed with them enough to have known for sure.
Thanks for the Red Ryder air tube reply above.
Yes, I know that silicone oil comes in different viscosities. I used to use a special silicone grease to seal the o-rings on all the thousands of air tanks I built for AirForce.
Here is the thing. If I say it’s okay to use silicone, someone reads that and goes to the hardware store to buy a can of silicone spray that they then use to oil their airguns. Why not, they think. If it works for door hinges, it should work for airgun seals, too — no?
That’s the kind of silicone that gets us in trouble. If you source the oil from a supply house with an eye toward the proper viscosity, then yes, silicone oils can be found that will work. But I can’t just recommend them out of hand on this blog, because no everybody takes the time to do that.
I have some 20wt silicone oil and 30wt, are they not the same thickness as similar weight petroleum oils?
I would think that it would come down to a viscosity test, regardless of oil type. You will have to find someone a bit more scientific than me to explain what all that might consist of though.
Please read my comment above about silicone oils.
because you dry fired your red rider twice can I assume that dry firing bb guns does not have the same effect as dry firing springers
Only because the BB gun is so low powered, no, it doesn’t. One problem with dry-firing some guns though. The air tube will break off at the base. So it’s a good idea to not dry fire that often.
I think the use of an air tube makes these BB guns less susceptible to damage due to a dry fire; the small hole at the base of the tube limits how fast the air can exit the compression tube and insures a cusion of air even with no projectile. The Haenel 310 uses the same basic design; I have accidentally dry fired my 310 and it is a little bit louder than a normal shot but nothing like a conventional springer would be. My guess is the designers realized these BB guns would be dry fired and designed a power plant that could handle that without major damage.
Paul in Liberty County
Lever action guns are one action that I have bypassed but have become newly interested in. I had heard of the Henry rifle, but I didn’t realize it was available as early as 1860. I could maybe see why the Union army didn’t convert to lever-action repeaters during the Civil War because of all the complications. (As a related point, I believe the plan was to replace the Army’s ARs with a rifle called the M8 around 2005, but the Iraq War intervened and the plan was complete dropped. The M8 rifle was based on the German G36 rifle which is like an AR with a piston.) But to refuse repeaters for the next 30 years is inexcusable. What did they have against lever actions, especially when the U.S. equipped the Turks with Winchester rifles which they used to devastating effect against the Russians? The only reason I’ve heard is that the lever throw prevented people from adopting a good prone position, sort of the way the Daisy 853 makes shooters contort on the ground in the prone position. But that doesn’t seem like much of a reason.
The Sharps is a fine rifle, but I need a different image for it than as a buffalo hunting gun. Argh. Bison are fascinating animals to me. However, I understand that the Sharps was a superior target rifle. Perhaps it was used in the 1000 yard Creedmoor shooting matches. If so, I wonder which caliber was used. Would the 45-70 reach out that far?
I neglected to say that the Neat’s foot oil was a fabulous success on my leather slings and holsters. Thanks for the advice. And here’s to you Grandpa. This time there was no mess or confusion. The leather popped back impressively after just a light treatment. It made me think that oil-rubbed leather belongs with fine wood and blued steel as part of gun culture. My success has made we wonder about the care of various wood items that I have. These include gun stocks and martial arts stick weapons. The gun stocks I just spray with Ballistol. I don’t, for the most part, have quality wood stocks that need anything else. But I’m wondering if the martial arts staffs could use something better. I once heard of an elaborate procedure of using a very fine sandpaper on a quality wooden cane, and then rubbing it with some kind of oil. Was it mink oil? Any ideas about this?
If not mistaken, there are lever actions that you can cock while still shouldered. As in,…. flip the 3 fingers down and since it has a short throw,…. job done. Firearm’s experts feel free to correct me. I would imagine that is not the case with all lever actions though.
I seem to recall that a Savage lever action had a very short throw, but it was a modern rifle. That reminds me another gun that piqued my interest. There is apparently a very expensive safari bolt-action called a DuBiel with a bolt throw of only 36 degrees. That allowed fast follow up shots of dangerous game. That rifle chambered in .375 H&H would really be something.
I think all lever actions can be operated from the shoulder. BTW the large loop on some lever actions is not just for John Wayne or the Rifleman to twirl; it makes it possible to work the action by just shoving the trigger hand forward and back. Even without the loop they can be operated very fast. Lots of fun. Check out some Cowboy Action videos on You Tube.
If you mean all firearm lever actions maybe so. But there are several air rifles with levers that cannot be operated from the shoulder. The Erma ELG10 is one.
Whoops! Thanks for the correction! I didn’t think about airguns. I was never able to work my Red Ryder from the shoulder either!
Thank you for that insight. I was not sure,… and besides that,….. I already have 1 expensive hobby as it is! 😉 Well, not that bad, but you know what I mean.
Thanks again, Chris
If I’m not mistaken one large reason the army refused the lever action was because cost of ammo. They had the mentality that a soldier would place a more accurate shot if they knew they only had one round to fire before reloading. Just what I remember reading from something.
The .38-55 was a target round if I’m not mistaken but I know the sharps shot some chamberings unique to their firearms (typical of the time period). I can’t quite recall but maybe even a .40-90sharps? I would imagine that would be a good candidate but I think sharps offered cartridges that would accept 110 grains of black powder. I do recall reading something saying some of these different cartridges (sometimes labeled express by different companies) were 3-4 inches long!
No doubt you’re right. And that mentality even persisted into the 20th century with the magazine cutoff feature. It seems kind of crazy to train soldiers to shoot and then keep them from shooting. You’re right about the .40-90 Sharps. That was Billy Dixon’s rifle at the battle where he made his famous 1 mile shot. But for that shot, he borrowed another Sharps rifle in .50-90 for the extra reach. Interesting that the buffalo guns were not like safari guns that generally release power at short range. I understand that the .458 Winchester Magnum is only good for about 150 yards. The buffalo guns seemed able to maintain their power out to great distances that are comparable to modern long range rounds like the .300 Win Mag or the .338 Lapua. Maybe it is because they didn’t want to be anywhere near the buffalo herd when they made their kills.
A couple of reasons why the US Government didn’t adopt a lever action repeater after the Civil War: The Army was broke and the Government wasn’t about to give it enough money to equip everyone with a lever gun If a way to use a lot of muzzle loader parts in the Springfield Trapdoor they probably couldn’t have afforded a cartridge rifle.
Then also the .44 Henry Rimfire cartridge used in the Henry and 1866 Winchester was very weak even compared to the Centerfire .44-40 used in the Model 73 and less reliable. The 73 had an iron (later steel) and could handle the pressure. The 73 was used by Turkey and seemed to work ok, but on the open prairies of our West it probably seemed inadequate.
Then the matter of supply for army units using repeaters in a time when Western railroads were few might have been to difficult.
Also the natural conservatism of men sending other men into combat. They want to make sure they have something that they know works and is effective.
(Big exception to this was the early M16 in Vietnam. Thanks bobby mcnamara).
Finally, the army leaders didn’t understand fighting in the West Many Henrys and Winchesters were used as privately owned weapons and were sought after.
The Sharps was used for targets at 1000+ yards. It used some of the most powerful black powder cartridges ever
I’m not sure about the wealth of the Union at the end of the Civil War. I have never quite figured out how countries can fight a war and destroy unimaginable amounts of equipment and end up richer if they win. But it happened to the United States after WWII, and it may have happened to the Union in the Civil War. Their armies were overflowing with equipment. On the other hand, true to American tradition, they reduced the standing armies as soon as they could. I’ve seen original documents about the astonishing measures they took to cut costs. So, I suspect this worked against a vast outlay of new equipment.
But I can certainly see how the power of full rifle cartridges worked against weaker lever actions. The big tactical lesson of the Civil War was to get the other person at long range before they could get you, and that lasted all the way to the development of the assault rifle paradigm at the end of WWII. So, you can’t blame the Union Army. Besides, they probably figured that changing from muzzle-loaders to breech-loaders was enough of an upgrade. And the army was uniquely suited to compensate for the rate of fire with large formations of men. I think the characterization of the lever action as the submachine gun of the 19th century is very apt.
I’ve looked at Western rifles and have learned a ton. The Henry was a surprisingly modern gun, but it didn’t play much of a role in the Civil War for various reasons. But one that did was the Spencer carbine which was issued in large numbers throughout the war. It might even have altered the course of the war. Apparently, the Confederates were held off at Gettysburg by a small cavalry detachment armed with carbines long enough for the Union to occupy the high ground. And given that the Union cavalry was well-equipped with Spencer carbines, I’m surprised that the Confederate cavalry was generally considered superior. I suppose they had a culture of horse-riding that had to be made up for with the Spencer carbines of the North. Apparently, the Spencer was also extremely accurate. I wouldn’t be surprised if this was because it shared a lot of parts with the Sharps. They look so similar that I always confused the two. Anyway, the Spencer carbine seems like one class act. Too bad that historical firearms are such a specialty niche that they cost a fortune. A Spencer carbine is comparable to my Anschutz target rifle.
First time posting, completely off topic. Just got what I think is a first period Crosman 101. My neighbor from across the street gave it to me for rescuing her dog, from her attic (long story). It belonged to her husband who recently passed. The rear peep is missing but I found one on eBay. But, it is missing the mounting screw. Also, it appears he or someone replaced the barrel screw with a longer one (maybe to use as a rear sight?). I was wondering if anyone knows the dimensions for both items. Diameter, length, threads. Just shot it through a Chrony with Crosman Premiers, highest was 392 at ten pumps. Haven’t pulled the pump yet so don’t know what is in it. Like I said I think it is a period one. It has the circular logo with “PAT. OCT. 28 1924, CROSMAN ARMS CO. ROCHESTER N.Y.” The knurled part of the cocking knob is only about 1/8″ long, bronze barrel and tube. Flared trigger. Wood is in great condition. One small dent, few light scratches, no wear or staining. Beautiful grain.
Sorry if this was long.
Welcome to the blog.
I edited your comment, so you didn’t need to post the correction. In the future I won’t due that, but everyone understands when we make a typo. I make more than anyone.
Yes, you do have a first period model 101. I advise you to stay out of it! The valve in that gun is very different than the valve in later 101s.
The one man in the country I would trust to fix that rifle is:
Let us know how it turns out!
Some of us are very long winded. Me included. Keep us updated on what you find with your new 101. 🙂
Spreading “the word”,……
Like many of us, we try to spread the word on air gunning to one and all willing to listen. I have done this and passed out spare P.A. catalogs to anyone that showed an interest.
Well, last weekend, I decided to replace my 50, 70 and 100 yard steel cans that are painted fluorescent orange. They were (very) shot up. I took 2 of the 100 yard cans into work and hung them on the back of my roll around tool box.
Let’s just say, them holding those cans and marveling at the utter destruction,…. well,…. not much else needed said. As a “kicker”,….. I picked out a pillar within the factory,.. that are spaced 20 feet apart. I said,… “see that pillar?,…. see that roll up door?,…… That is 100 yards.
The looks were priceless! 😉
“Planting the seeds!!!!” 🙂
Yes! Results speak for themselves!
Yeah, the coolest one was a small mushroom can the had a “rolled crimp” bottom. A 25.39 hit in just the right spot on the rim and “peeled” the bottom half way back. The pellet, deformed a bit, was still stuck on the rim.
The other thing that is impressive to those not “in the know” is to hand them a .177 pellet, no big deal right? Then, hand them a .22 pellet. Things are getting more “interesting” huh? Then, hand them a .25 pellet. Suddenly, the .177 pellet takes on a whole new look. Something like,… what am I supposed to with “that”?
Of course, they think PCP is a bad thing. So ensues the (P)re (C)harged (P)neumatic “discussion”.
I have not got anyone “hooked” yet,…… but I am still tryin’. 😉
Haha! On the pcp! I have also done similar by handing a . 177 and then handing a . 22 jsb monster to the same person. To them it almost looks like a 22lr projectile. Still don’t have a gun really powerful enough to utilize those tho.
I have hit a soda can in the same manner. If the pellet would have lodged I would have kept it Lol. it really sends the cans end over end when those hit.
I’m always trying to convert “non believers”. I shot my stepdads 9mm carbine and my group was half as big as his. Him and his brother kinda looked at me in disbelief and I simply replied, “I practice a lot” and they know I mean AGs.
I’m out shooting at soda bottle lids off hand right now. Only 15yds but it’s fun. 🙂
Way to go on the 9mm. group. Yes, practice does help. I do not do enough of it. Mostly weekends.
As for turning others’ onto airguns, the people that show the most interest is those that have shot all their lives, but do not shoot that often in a given year.
Getting ready to try the Grizzly’s today. The flat portion that will engage the rifling is 4 mm. long, whereas a normal pellet (might) have 1mm at the head and 1mm at the skirt. I want to get a chrony on them too. I took 8 and filled the tip with silicone and cut it flat, to eliminate the front cavity. Got some running to do in the AM and then out to shoot. Should a fun filled day.
Did you check the Grizzlys for out of round on the outside diameter. Egg shaped in other words. And is the diameter closest to the head of the bullet bigger or smaller than the back of the bullet.
And you know that since there is no skirt to expand to seal the air behind the Grizzly that it will need to engage the rifling tighter.
The fit to the barrel and outside diameter of the bullet constancy and trueness wise will be part of what makes them work or not.
Not yet, still shooting. Topping off the tank. Accuracy report to follow soon. Nothing earth shattering. Going to do some reg. 33.95’s now for comparison for the day,….. and then get started on “annihilating” a few steel cans. Back later.
Yep out shooting too. No Grizzlys yet though. 🙂
Will post some stuff in the AM. Got some chores to do and still whooped from a hard and hot week. I did manage to send 150+ shots downrange. I will try to do some measurements as well.
They did “feed” in with about (twice) the effort as the JSB’s, but from what I can tell,…. there is twice the lead contact on the rifling. The one I chronied came in at 799.5 fps.
Keep an eye out on the bottom in the AM. I will start a new comment. Later,… Chris
Ok gotcha will be watching for it.
That is good that they are engaging good though. Well too tight is not good though either.
And they are shooting slower than the JSB 33.95’s right?
What I would like to know too is how hard they are compared to the JSB’s or the Barracudas.
P.H. and Chris,
Recently I have become hooked on this guy’s spinners and targets for plinking.
They are very reasonably priced, very rugged and you can get his spinner targets down to 3/4″! If you can hit that little bugger at any range, you are doing good.
Thanks for that link. I usually make stuff myself, but those might work. I have none at this time. Good ideas and a wide range of products.
Chris USA and PH
Here’s two video’s of the .25 Mrod hitting a can at 50 yards.
The first video is in regular speed. The next video is in slow motion.
And if anybody’s interested I’ll post it later. But I got 3 short videos on my phone not the iscope of a mature doe that was out about a 100 yards. And I walked up to it and got about 10 yards away from it while it was eating. But it’s got two fawns that I bet ain’t 24″ tall yet. You can’t see in the videos but their standing right in the edge of the woods behind her. They have walked right across the yard when I been shooting and I have to stop to let them go past the 50 yard target.
Looking at the video I think the excessive motion is because the phone is not attached solidly attached to the scope (If I recall correctly you attached the phone’s case to the scope securely and the phone is friction fit to the case) it magnifies the movement which you do not normally see when the phone is not attached. Maybe a little more weight at the muzzle might help reduce the movement.
When I just got this new Droid Maxx Turbo it is bigger than the regular Droid Maxx I had. Iscope doesn’t make a phone back plate for the new Droid Turbo I got.
So I went to the Verizon store by the house and got a hard back case protector that is a specific fit to my phone. In other words my phone snaps in very tight. And the case is very rigid. Then I drilled the holes in it to mount it to the iscope adapter. I even added a extra screw to hold it more firm to the adapter. So it has 4 equally spaced screws holding the hard case to the adapter.
Everything you see when the gun shoots is true to what the gun does. And I already have all but one baffle removed from the shroud on the .25 Mrod. I have a 4-1/2″ long piece of brass in there with only the one baffle. So the barrel is weighted. Plus I have the bi-pod legs mounted in front of the front scope ring on the gun. So almost 2/3rds of the guns weight is forward of the bi-pod legs.
The gun is very stable and solid. It’s just that my .25 Mrod has some serious mods done to it and it’s making more power than normal . 25 Mrods. My gun actually has more of a kick than a .22 long rifle rimfire rifle.
What you see is what the gun does. When your holding a gun to your shoulder and shooting. Alot of the vibration and kick or shot cycle is absorbed before your eye’s see it plus your eyes ain’t that sensitive to pick up the movement as the camera. It would probably show a steady picture if the camera was suspended in a sense. Like a floating mount. I have shot spring guns before that were so terrible that they vibrated the scope picture so bad that I couldn’t even see the target for a split second. I bet if I tryed the iscope on a spring gun that I probably wouldn’t even see the pellet hit when the shot goes off.
So in reality again my .25 Mrod is very smooth shooting compared to the spring gun I just described. It’s that the camera is directly mounted to the gun and shows truly what the gun does.
I have been waiting for BB to do the phone camera mounted on the spotting scope he’s reviewing. He has mentioned if I remember right that he has the spotting scope mounted on the tri-pod with something that absorbs movement very and vibration. All I can say is camera lenses will pick up movement that we can’t see.
That is some serious power being sent downrange. I had overlooked the history of your rifle’s mods. More recoil than a .22LR? Gentle as it may be to the shoulder the recorded evidence shows a sudden jump up before it returns to the target.
The shot cycle is a abrupt push is the best way I can explain it I think with the .25 Mrod.
My Tx 200 that I tuned is very smooth for a spring gun but still not as smooth as the .25 Mrod.
I still have my TechForce M8. That gun has a fairly harsh shot cycle compared to the .25 Mrod and Tx. What I should do if I can find a extra old scope I have put away. Is put it on and mount the the Iscope phone adapter to it. Then do a video of it shooting a spinner out at 50 yards. Then I can post the video of the Mrod and the M8 and we could compare what’s different in the video. I bet it would be a surprise.
Here is my Mrod and Talon SS.
You can see on both guns how the bi-pod legs are mounted to the scope in front of the the front scope ring. So barrel weight is all mostly forward. Plus the weight of the gun is below the scope. That makes the guns very stable and easy to shoulder.
And you see the green laser mounted on top of the barrel and in front of the scope on the Talon SS. Most people CV would think that the laser would be seen when looking through the scope. But nope I don’t even know it’s there. And I got the pressure switch mounted on the left side grip. I activate it with my thumb.
Just figured I would post so you could see the bi-pod setup.
Here’s the other gun. Hit the post button while I was trying to paste the link. Visit it always ends up right by it.
So the scopes are securely mounted on the rifle and then the bipod is mounted along the scope in front of the scope base. The center of gravity being lowered thus makes this set-up more stable than the traditionally mounted bipod set-up which is relatively top heavy. Brilliant!
Yes way more stable. I mentioned it in the past.
Probably most suitable for a pneumatic gun.
But a well tuned springer would probably be ok.
Here is 3 short video’s of me getting close to the deer.
I’m always looking to expand my target selection. Thanks for the link. 🙂
He was at the GTA Fun Shoot this Spring and I was able to play with most of his selection including the dueling tree and the quadrant target. His stuff is very well made and can take some pretty hefty stuff. I picked up a 3/4″ single spinner. It is very challenging at 25 yards with open sights.
I am planning on picking up at least one of the quadrants and several more of the 3/4″ single spinners. I can personally attest to the fact that for the money his targets are top shelf.
Lucky guy. I have a collection of empty aluminum cans that I would love to be able to shoot.
Recycle them and buy some pellets? 😉 As for the lever actions, a short, light finger throw would be the ticket. I did see your other reply on that. I love the Henry’s, but having to un-shoulder would be a pain. The M-rod has got me spoiled as it is cock, aim and shoot. The time coming off of sight is pretty short. And, like your “jaws of consciousness”, being able to repeat in short order does get one “focused” in pretty quick after a few shots. Rhythm,.. so to speak. I have yet to do it, but I bet I could fire all three 8 round mags. in under 2 minutes, if not less. It would be interesting to see what the last group would look like, even the second group.
You mentioned that polishing the air tube would not help but if you remember the discussion we had about overhauling the Daisy 1894 I discovered that the diameter of the air passage hole through the tube had become narrower (2 times at least ) over the years and resulted in decreased power. The last wood stock/plastic receiver edition that never really lasted on the market long sounded like an old hand pumped bug sprayer. I think it was so restricted, air continued to exit the barrel long after the BB left, resulting in a hissing noise. I installed a 1960s diameter tube and returned the operation to the original style hammer strike operation with the half cock safety and turned it into an outstanding BB rifle, for what it is, with a lot more power and much, lighter trigger.
Only problem is finding a long shank drill bit to open it up as one end of the tube ends in a ‘T’ shape. Worth the trouble? not sure, but it was a fun project that eliminated my disgust with the last 1894 version I received.
You brought the rifle back to spec after it became damaged. That’s not the same as tuning.
What I said was you can’t increase the power by tuning, and I stand by that statement.
I have a red Ryder I got from a garage sale a while back and it is a deeper brown than most. I thought at first the previous owner had refinished it but I saw another one the same color at someones house whilst servicing his AC. Anything to say about those? As far as I can tell the only differences to my modern one are the color and lack of “ratchet” style cocking?
Daisy never cared about configuration management that much. You should hear the discussions pump gun collectors have about buttstock wood!
What I mean is that I would not be surprised to find anything on a Daisy gun. I have see No. 25 pump guns painted blue with white plastic stocks and pump handles.
BB– I was shooting Winchester .177 round nose pellets when I found a dwarf pellet ! It is about 2/3 the size of a .177 pellet, perfectly formed head and skirt and its head fits into the skirt of a normal pellet. Are there air guns that have a smaller bore diameter than .177? Ed
There are no commercial calibers smaller than .177, though .14 caliber was tried for a while. I expect that dwarf was caused during the pellet forming process. Strange things can and do happen when you make things by the millions.
I have found them also in different brand pellets. I found them in .177 also and .22 caliber. But never in .25 caliber yet.
Solid 2nd impression
Out shooting my new 46yr old Winchester 353. It locks up super tight. Like brand new tight. The trigger is fantastic for what this pistol is. Long light first stage and crisp 2nd stage. Pulls through a little far but doesnt bother me. It definitely out shoots me. Although I must say I’m holding my own shooting right handed. I get tired too easily and my wrist isn’t used to it, but fresh I’m nailing 8oz cans, 12 oz cans and bottles and 20oz bottles from around 10-15yds. Even hitting the smallest cans at the Max distance. Its hard for me to tell how good this thing is because I’m not that good. 😉
I also got a new pretty beat up Webley junior. Super cool little pistol. It definitely struggles at 10yds. Its fun to lob pellets in but I’m missing the rear notch. Also the breech pin has been replaced with a nail! I have only shot it like 10 times and fear I will wear something if I continue to shoot it. Very fun little gun with through the roof cool factor. 🙂
Thats a nice little Winchester, and I always liked those Stevens shotguns. Looks like the Winchester has held up well. 😉
I had an ithica feather weight 12 guage. I can’t remember the model. I keep wanting to say 37? But my uncle gifted it to me and then asked for it back. That is typical behavior for him… I wasn’t a big fan of him before that incident. Lol I still have my savage 410 pump. Its a super fun little gun. Ammo is through the roof making shooting it not that fun.
I have a 93 .22lr bolt action. It cocks on open and it’s a fun little gun. I want to get a Boyd’s laminate stock for it sometime. I got the new Henry catalog the other day and I have been drooling over the .22lr and .22wmr offerings. Really like the model that is standard with the Skinner peep.
I keep looking at that 1077, it’ll come home with me one day. I’m low on .22 pellets thanks to my new pistol. So maybe…
Yep that old Winchester has seen some action throughout time that’s for sure.
And bummer about your uncle.
Yep just checked my 93r. I couldn’t remember with out looking very at it but that’s what I thought too. I think the new .17 hmr semi-auto Savage cocks on closing the bolt. I don’t have one yet. But been thinking about one for sometime now.
And gaurentee you that you won’t regret getting a 1077. They are fun. And accuracy is way better than you would expect for the price of the gun. But be prepared to stock up on .177 caliber pellets if you get one. It will eat them up. A very hungry gun. Mine is anyway. 🙂
BB– If you would like my “dwarf” pellet , I will be glad to send it to you. I would like it to be in the pellet hall of fame. Send me an address, and I will mail it to you. Ed
I left you a reply above about the small pellets.
The ones I found were like half the size of what the normal size pellet was.
Could you imagine a .08 caliber pellet. In other words a .080″ outside diameter. That would be a pellet that was 5/64″ in diameter. That’s small.
Thanks for the offer. The Airgun Hall of Fame has has to close for a few months for remodeling and the collection is now in a heavily guarded minivan parked in a police impoundment lot. 😉
Ok got to say this while it’s on my mind.
I think most everybody knows about the FX Monsoon and Revolution that uses the excess air pressure that is left after the shot along with a spring loaded rotary magazine that is pretty identical to a Marauder magazine to fire the gun repeatedly or I will say one shot after the other as fast as you can pull the trigger.A and I will add that is pretty expensive.
Here’s what I would like to see and would like to know if this air gun is out there already.
I would like to see a pcp rifle that shoots a pellet pretty well as fast as you can pull the trigger. But designed like a double action revolver or the well known Crosman 1077. The mechanics advance and fire the pellet rifle from the trigger instead of air pressure to cock the gun for the next shot.
If a 800 fps pcp with a mechanical advance and firing mechanism is out there I want one.
And no. Not no battery operated actions like the semi-auto Evanix Speed which is expensive too.
Yes, what you want is out there. The Koreans built them in the 1990s. The first one imported to the US was the AR6. It was a 6-shot revolver that got about 50 foot-pounds in .22 caliber. The double action trigger -[pull was between 18 and 25+ pounds, so nobody did it. The linkage parts actually bent from firing that way.
They all died a quiet death because no one bought them. After the first several hundred sold, they died. You can still find them used.
I guess the heavy trigger pressure happened so the striker could be pulled back to cock the gun so it would have enough power to open the valve. Otherwise the gun would get valve lock.
Wonder if that gun would of survived if they would of lowered the fill pressure and changed the size of the transfer port hole. That way not as much spring pressure would of been needed to cock the striker. Kind of like a Discovery.
Or maybe a different mechanism with more leverage points to ease the cocking pressure and trigger feel.
If somebody would give that a second look nowdays maybe it could be possible.
BB, –GF1— What surprises me, is that this mini pellet appears to be perfect, in every way except size. if it resulted from a malfunction during manufacture, I would expect it to be misshapen or deformed. BB– Let me know when the hall of fame reopens. If I have not lost ,sold, or shot the dwarf pellet out of one of my mini canon,s, I will repeat my offer. Ed
The pellets I found were perfectly shaped.
I have had some exsperiance with punch presses. To be more specific hydraulic presses not mechanical.
They were designed to draw down to size by pressure. Not really by a solid stop of the die like a mechanical press. There is still over travel stops with hydraulic presses. But there is variation that happens.
When the die collapses to form the part it is made so the shape that is desired for that much compression of the die. If you go farther than that it will squish the excess material out of the die. In the case of a pellet it would show the very thin wings on each side of the pellet. The cleaning process usually will remove that excess flash as we call it at work.
So yes you can have a perfect shaped pellet but way small in size. We have it happen all the time at work. Not pellets of course but the principal is the same.
And punch presses verses swedging presses are different. A punch press will cut material from a flat piece of material. A swedging press will compress a shape.
Should of said this and forgot. When that extra squish happens it’s at the end of a blank of material. In other words the material is short for that pellet being made. So the die pushes farther at the set pressure because the whole length of material is not in the die
So what should happen is the operator running the machine should be checking to see if the pellets are coming out right in a catch pan before being placed in a good pan that can go farther down the process line. A inexperienced operator is usually the cause of that problem.
There is multiple safety’s I will call them that are placed in the process of making the pellet. But as we all know human and mechanical condition error happens.
It’s really amazing that the pellets we do get are as uniform as they are.
Like the saying goes $/!h+ happens. Lucky that someone pays attention to things as much as they do.
How many millions of pellets do they make?
BB–Gf1– When reloading centerfire cartridges, I constantly check the bullets diameter. I have found an occasional 7.92 bullet in boxes of .308 (7.62) bullets, and a 6.5mm in a box of .243 (6mm) bullets. My first thought was that the pellet company was experimenting with a smaller caliber, and one of them accidentally fell into my box of .177 pellets. Ed
I guess that is possible.
I will say no. Read my other reply just made to you.
Hi BB and the group. I have a question about the Pyramyd Air Website. I wanted to post a comment in the Airgun Experience site and it will not accept my log in information. Is that site running correctly. Thank you.
I forwarded your message to the IT department.
Just to let you know — Pyramyd Air’s IT department is looking into it.
FWIW, Here are the results of some recent experiments with the popular Crosman 2240 platform:
Gun stock except for barrel: Premier pell
7 1/2″ original 436 fps @ 118 dB
14″ 515 fps @ 116 dB
24″ 571 fps @ 111 dB
With 14″ barrel, shortened hammer spring
Original cut to 1 3/4″ 491 fps @ 111 dB
Original cut to 1 9/16 381 fps @ 106 dB
For comparison: 2260, 552 fps @ 111dB
.22 standard vel short in rifle 113 dB
..22 LR standard vel in rifle 119 dB
Sound measurements are peak SPL with top of line equipment 5 meters to the side
(Sound measurements without distance or equipment info are meaningless).
Hope this is of interest
Your measurements are the first I have seen that are trustworthy. You obviously used a good sound meter and you knew what you were doing.
Wow. No PA tests done of the 2240 with sound tests in a review.
I can say I have honestly not looked.
What about this. This is Pyramyd Air related
The sound level meter used in the video was intended for matching hi-fi loudspeakers and taking sound surveys to determine if contiuous sounds were loud enough to damage hearing etc. it doesn’t catch the peak of an impulse sound like a shot. It’s useful in comparing one gun to another to give PA customers a more complete review, like the Radio Shack unit i mentioned below in a post to Chris USA
Thank you! So many times I see people and even companies doing this. They don’t understand how sound should be measured for gunshots. It’s a waste of time to use a meter like that, yet I have seen a company do it and then publish the results (their best guess at where the moving needle peaked) in technical reports. It’s like measuring time with an hourglass.
More tests today: Crosman 1377 with Premier Lights @ 5 meters to side, in “far field” (i forgot to mention tests need to be outdoors away from buildings, etc. and
meter needs calibration
checked each session)
2 pumps 104
4 pumps 110
6 pumps 112
10 pumps 115 dB
Thank you. Incidentally, your numbers coincide with the ones I got back in the 1990s, when a technician came to Damascus and tested airgun reports with a calibrated sound meter like yours.
Thanks for the confirmation! BTW good sound level readings can be used to calculate peak pressure at the muzzle (not peak pressures in the gun). I’m not sure if knowing muzzle pressure would be useful for anything but if someone has a use for it i’ll post the math. Thanks again for your corroboration.
Yep understand that.
The point was that BB said no sound tests have been done on a 2240.
The link I posted did have a sound test done on a 2240. I didn’t say anything about the quality of the test equipment. Just that a test had been done.
Oh never mind I said no sound test.
BB said yours was the first that was trust worthy.
Anyway. You should get more guns to test. I would like to hear what other guns would read on your equipment.
That was a “sound test” in the same sense that driving a video game is driving.
That was an exercise in futility, which was the point I was making.
Fido3030 reported how a re4al sound test should be conducted, and Paul didn’t have the equipment for it.
Very good test on the 2240. Longer barrel more quiet. Less velocity on short barrel more quiet.
Then you say 2260 at 552 fps. Then right after say .22 short and .22 long rifle. Which is not that much louder on your numbers.
So the crack of the long rifle .22 is not detected with your sound measuring device? That’s what I want to know. The crack of the .22 long rifle round going super sonic is not detected at that closer distance yet? Or was they not super sonic long rifle rounds. Seriously want to know. Not mess’n with ya.
I used ammunition that was below the speed of sound so it didn’t have a ballistic crack.
Ok that’s what I wanted to know.
I shoot the 40 grain 710 fps CCI long rifles and they are pretty quiet. And also the Aguilla sniper 60 grain 950 fps long rifles. Which is actually a short case and the long 60 grain bullet. They end up matched together to be the same length as a normal velocity long rifle round so they will feed nice in a semi-auto rifle. Same for the 710 fps 40 grain bullets. Nice feed in a semi-auto rifle.
The 60 grain 950 fps rounds still make the same foot pounds of energy a 40 grain 1200 fps long rifle round. But no crack. A bit loud but no crack.
That’s what my whole question was. I thought maybe your equipment wasn’t picking up the crack. And at what distance the crack actually happens from the barrel when a projectile goes super sonic. Have you ever tryed that test?
And you should get a air gun that will shoot a alloy light weight pellet above 1100 fps and see what the decibel meter says. I think some people would be surprised that they are just as loud as the normal velocity long rifle .22 rounds.
The ballistic shockwave expands sideways from the bullet. When the shockwave passes a solid object like a tree some of it is reflected back to the shooter and the shooter hears the crack. An observer to the side would hear it when it passes him/her also. Firing down a row of telephone poles with a quiet gun and supersonic pellet sounds like a machine gun! On the orher hand if you fire the same gun straight up you won’t hear the ballistic crack at all because there’s nothing to reflect it to the shooter! The sound can be very loud but i haven’t figured out how to measure it in a way that would help anyone else because there are so many variables that would be different.
By the way the I should have mentioned the numbers i gave will vary a little from gun to gun and even shot to shot and pellet to pellet. With limited testing, Premiers tend to be about 1 dB quieter than JSB’s and 2 dB quieter than RWS Superpoints.
Hope this helps. If you want to go deeper into the ballistic crack thing i can suggest some books. Cordially,
That’s what I wanted to know about the super sonic shots.
And I have mentioned in the past that the surroundings will control the sound of even a pellet gun.
Grass and trees will be quieter than buildings when shooting air guns.
And pellet weight. Have you tested that yet for loudness? That gets interesting too.
Just the three pellets i mentioned.
Very nice! That is the first time that anyone has posted dB data that I can recall. Gunfun1 suggested a noise mod. on the M-rod and it did quiet down (a lot). I was wishing for just such a device,.. to put some numbers on the difference. Nice job.
Thanks. If you don’t need absolute numbers i have two sufgestions:A Radio Shack Digital Sound Level meter won’t give the right numbers but you can fire a shot and not the reading on Max. Then do a mod on the gun and fire again under the same conditions and the meter will read higher or lower. The results are reproducable if conditions are kept constant.
Another way is to use a Crosman 1377 or 1322 and see how many pumps it takes to sound the same as the gun/mod under test. I’ve tried several 1377/22’s and the sound is fairly consistent from gun to gun so you could communicate your results to someone with a different 1377/22. Hope this helps
That’s pretty much like I was trying to say about the wood penetration test.
As long as you have a base line from something then you have something to compare results to.
And as you say. There will always be variables.
Years ago in England they sold pads of paper to test shotgun velocities. So many pages = so many fps. I think it worked as long as pellet hardness was the same.
I grew up on farm and we didn’t have all these electronic gizmos that we have today.
Shooting into wood is how my dad taught me to pattern a shot gun load when I was learning to load shot gun shells.
How do you think the old salt and pepper shot came about. If you lived in the country you knew all about that. In other words don’t go on somebody’s property where you ain’t suppose to be.
I learned about a guns shot energy in those days as a kid before we could put a digital number to a energy meaning. You knew if you loaded a shot right.
My dad was a civil engineer in the army. Part of the job was being a sniper. Got taught a thing or two by him that just don’t make sense in the everyday world now days.
And this conversation got started by talking about sound. I have mentioned this on the blog long ago also. You know those flash suppressor’s that use to be put on certain sniper guns. Well one of the tricks my dad used was a sound director. In other words they made a flash suppressor that would direct the guns blast and sound in a direction other than where he was. It could be rotated 360° around the muzzle of the barrel where ever they wanted. They could fire a shot and make it sound like it was to the left and shield the flash then move to a location completely opposite of where they made the shot go off. Deception is what it was about.
But yep it was a different way of learning back then.
That is pretty cool on the deceptive flash suppressor. I always enjoy you sharing little bits and pieces of things that your Dad taught you with regards to the finer points of shooting.
Thanks and little pieces of something he taught me pop up here and there when something refreshes my memory.
Where I live, noise is not an issue. The reason I mentioned it was that it in my nature to equate some sort of data to a change or modification. That is why I have a chrony and a Lyman trigger gauge. Shooting and noting POI change or group size is another method. Calipers and a grain scale too.
I admire your approach to testing.
Oh, the low pressure compressor I have was stated as having a 58 dB rating. It sits 5′ from my TV and I do not even have to turn the TV up when it runs. For some compressors, that rating was into the 90+ range. The Shoebox is quiet too,… just a different type of quite.
Gotta admit your right, modifying and replacing parts with alternate ones is not really tuning an existing rifle.
I believe I may have been careless in describing the work I did. I modified a ‘Daisy Winchester 1894’ that came out around 2009 so it worked like an original ‘Daisy Western Carbine 1894’ from the 60’s.
The ‘Winchester’ model was a new design for the most part. The receiver was longer, the loading gate was non functional, BB’s were loaded near the feed spring. They eliminated the magazine tube between the loading gate and feed spring reducing BB capacity. They installed a left / right sliding button safety inside the trigger housing. The hammer was reduced to the status of a decoration and non functional. Instead of actually striking the back of the piston rod to release it, and fire the rifle, they simply hooked the piston to the trigger …. Took about 30 lbs. or so it felt, to pull the trigger out from under it.
The stock and forearm are some sort of composite wood painted to look real. It rubbed off just leaning against a never moved, soft rifle bag over time. The cocking lever is plastic. They actually added a saddle ring though !
This is the one that hissed from having an extremely restricted air tube at the end of the piston that really reduced the power. I refer to it as the Lawyer designed 1894.
I removed most of the receiver innards that no longer worked like the original, including the cut back hammer and installed all the 60’s parts. I had to file open the rear hammer area of the receiver so the hammer could pass through it to strike the piston rod, it was closed off. They had removed the old ‘hammer spring’ frame mounting area between the stock mount tangs, so I drilled a hole in the ‘Wood’ stock made a tube for the hammer spring to fit into, and attach to, and slid it into the new hole in the stock for a functioning hammer with the safety restored on a half cock. Lastly I replaced the air tube with one having a larger air passage diameter.
So now everything worked as an original 1960’s 1894 but everything was new. Guess we could call it “Retroation” …. Returning something new to work like something old !
It’s all modding one way or the other however you look at it.
If the product was changed in any form from how it was shipped from the factory then it was modded.
I guess if I actually drilled out the air tube to increase power it may be considered tuning, but I actually only noticed the big difference in the air passage diameters after I received the NOS parts and it was easier to just replace it.
Some confusion resulted from the fact that I was originally trying to restore my 1960’s 1894 by purchasing the new ‘Winchester’ version for parts. It looked somewhat the same but was not. Many, if not all, the parts I needed were missing or modified.
I used all the NOS parts I purchased to restore the 60’s 1894 at the same time I was returning the new ’09 Winchester version to operate like a 60’s model. Two rifles in work.
I have 5 of these, gold hex, silver, a 60’s, 70’s and the Winchester version. All have slight differences, if only the color of the plastic stocks, and I was going to open up the air tube in them by drilling but came up a tad short with the drill and gave up for now.
Also have an airsoft lever action and three models of the early Walther lever actions with 2 CO2 cartridges but they are a horse of a different color !!
I guess I should of got into the bb guns more.
It’s good you got into them kind of deep.
All them little tricks are important. As well as exsperiance.
You know we kind of have the same wants in airguns. I basically want something to replace my ( Legally Registered ) AR15 -A2 that won’t cause swat members to drop out of the sky onto my property here in CA.
Now I have an Evanix Speed and AR6 but you know the drawbacks. What we need is some design engineer to play with the Force = Area x Pressure formula and come up with a mag fed semi / full auto.
I have an old Daisy 45 CO2 semi auto pellet pistol that uses a spring loaded horizontal pellet mag on top of the slide. It is restricted to wad cutters to be able to stack. It has a trigger activated sliding block that pops up, captures the pellet and drops back down into barrel alignment and fires with a single trigger pull.
Not exactly smooth as silk but you can cock the hammer first and it acts like a two stage trigger. Point is it was easy because it only had to open a CO2 valve, and pellets can be mag fed.
What if a one way check valve could capture some PCP pressure in a cylinder or actually utilize reservoir air to operate the PCP valve hammer ? Along with leverage and some F=AxP advantage engineered in. Sort of like creating a pneumatic version of an automobile using a solenoid to operate a starter from a light weight ignition switch. Very little power required to operate bigger things.
Like using a controller to operate a power valve. Throw in some blowback force and who knows what is possible ?
Might be a bit too much to expect .. for now !
That 45 was made in Japan. I would love to have a 25 cal. mag fed DMR, DSR or M200 PCP for long range target practice too.
I had a Evanix Speed and two FX Monsoon’s. The Speed was reliable but I just didn’t like the battery operated part about the gun.
And the Monsoon’s well one was good and the other one would misfire at times. But the hammer was cocked by the guns air blast in the shroud that pushed a plunger or piston kind of I guess it is. So that’s how the gun would fire. The FX Revolution used a air tube out side the gun from the barrel. Do a search and check out the Revolution. They are kind of cool looking guns if you like the tactical type look.
Thank you for that detailed explanation of the retro fit. That is pretty darn cool. The 1894 is my favorite and was my first bb gun. Spittin Image I believe. Late 60’s. I would love to see them come out with a replica again,…. only please,… make it worth having this time.
Off topic note … leather piston seals could possibly be restored with penetrating oil. Works on my Harley Bendix carburetor accelerator pump all the time…swells them right up !
HN .25 Grizzly testing,.. (in .25 M-rod),
50 yards, 8 shot groups:
1) 2, 2 5/8, 2 3/8″
2) 2 1/4, 1 7/8, 2 1/8″
(No real sub groups to speak of, pretty round groups, 1) had the tip plugged with silicone, 2) were straight from can, no sorting)
24 shot test, 1 bull:
24/24 = 3 1/8″
21/24 = 2 9/16″
(shots 22-24 were dropping slightly, these were straight from the can)
Length, 4@ .305, 3@ .306, 2@ .3065, 1@ .307 (10)
Diameter, 1@ .249, 13@ .2495, 6@ .250 (10)
Weight, 3@ 31.2, 11@ 31.3, 6@ 31.4 (20)
(those are some of the tightest weight spreads I have ever seen. They push in about twice as hard, but that is because there is 4mm of lead contacting the rifling as opposed to 1mm for head and 1mm for skirt of a conventional Diabolo. Chrony was 799.5, which is right in line with the 33.95’s, which ran around 805.)
For comparison, I shot six 8 shot groups of the reg. 33.95’s,….. 15/16, 1 3/8, 15/16, 1, 1 9/16, 15/16.
Out of round seemed non existent. No taper could be noted.
That is it folks,…. 😉 I will be shooting more today.
Some other notes;
I played with 1/8 mil dot hold over (movements). I was using a 1/2 dot, which is a line. The line fit inside the bull perfect. I just moved the line to the top of the bull. This would be good for when you know the POI will be dropping off a bit due to lower pressure in the gun, thus keeping a tighter group. For me, that is around shot 22 of 24.
Wind was 0. RAI kit outfitted. Rear pistol grip rested. Bi-pod. Steady was good enough that I could hold the sight picture perfect 100% of the time (during the shot cycle),.. yet could still watch the pellet veer off course.
Well I guess that answers that question. JSB 33.95’s are still hard to beat.
One thing you didn’t mention though that I asked about the Grizzlys. How hard are they compare to the JSB’s and the Barracudas. Stick your thumb nail into them and check. I would like to know.
You know you really need to get you at least two steel spinners. One at 50 yards and one at a 100 yards. Then you can pick the flattened pellets up off the ground and check different pellets for how much they flatten out. You’ll might be surprised at what the pellets from the LGU and Tx look like compared to the .25 Mrods pellets.
Just back in. 96 shots down range. Basically a repeat of yesterday. The best Grizzly group was 5/8 in 9/16″ with an 8/8 overall of 1 5/16″,… at 50 yards.
As for hardness, I do not have a good way to test that,… not one that I would rely on. One thing that would be good is one of those (spring loaded) starter center punches. The pressure or hit,… would be the same and then you could measure the diameter and or depth of the dent. I have one, but it’s at work.
Various test with a pocket knife would indicate that HN’s are harder than the JSB’s.
It seems that the Grizzlys can shoot consistent anyway. Just not as small of groups as the JSB’s.
Hmm I wonder how big the group would be out at a 100 yards.
And you don’t have to get all scientific on checking the hardness of the pellet. The thumb nail or knife blade is fine. 😉
And I can tell pretty easily how hard one pellet brand is compared to others by pushing my thumb nail in it. Although we have a digital hardness tester at work. We have to take samples from material we receive to see if it’s at spec. I wasn’t thinking about getting that technical with it. But I guess I could take some pellets to work and get some numbers. It is a Rockwell hardness number. So it wouldn’t be a estimate. It is a calibrated piece of equipment.
Maybe so,……?,….. maybe not? Maybe,.. just maybe,…. the might need an extra 100-150 fps push?
You will be getting a can to try won’t you? I did the ground work, now you can finish it up and put the question to rest. At least for a 25 M-rod.
Let me try again.
My only concern is how hard they are. The Barracudas are about as hard as I want to go. There are pellets in other calibers that are harder than even the Barracudas. I just don’t like the hard pellets in my barrels.
But if they aren’t no harder than a Barracuda then yes I will try them. That’s why I have been asking about how hard the Grizzlys are.
I just “shaved” 1 of each with a razor knife. They seem the same to me. I would be surprised if HN used different alloy mixes.
I will very much be looking forward to you testing them. Despite the more powerful M-rod, you are for sure a more experienced shooter. They are about the closest thing to a bullet that you will get in a pellet, short of the big bores.
You are shooting good. There is something that we are missing that should make your gun shoot better though I believe anyway. Just think though the Grizzlys would take out that ground hog at 50 yards right now with no problem.
And ok on the Grizzlys. I will go ahead and get a couple tins of the Grizzlys on my next order. I do want to try them. Maybe the extra horsepower mines making will make the difference. I don’t know. Well have to see.
But I’m changing my Iscope adapter over to my Talon SS right now. Hope to have a video today of how the laser changes poa at different distances in relation to the scope reticle. I think it may be a surprise to some. But the laser actually shows the opposite on the target compared to what the reticle shows.
I’m going to wait a bit to get the video when it gets more towards evening when the yard is more shaded. You can see the laser on the targets in the sun. But when a cloud passes over then the laser shows up nice. So right now the sun and shade is giving But also think of this results on the video.
So hope to post that later.
Oh heck I’ll post this one right now. It’s at 30 yards and 50 yards and 50 yards is my gun and laser zero distance.
Yes, that does show up nice. But you did say that you have not been able to find one as bright in daylight as that one.
Someone posted an English bloke with a dot site awhile back. Multiple settings, like 1,2 and 3 MOA. It was real close to 1,2 and 3″ at 100 yards. Pretty cool.
Not sure what to say about mine. Practice. Get to know it in every sense. It is not bad, maybe better than most. Maybe that extra fps that your tune is getting is making all the difference. Plus, your experience over the years.
I am really focusing on hold, grip, trigger, shoulder pressure, scope, etc., etc., really hard. Plus, messing with the trigger a bit too. I think I am liking the stock setting the best, but I have yet to return it to that. It is now, except for the first stage.
And as crazy as this may sound. I wonder if shooting the harder Barracudas through mine for close to 2 years on this one I have now did something to my barrel. In a good way. Maybe they honed it out a little. Maybe that’s helping to get the JSB’s moving a bit faster. Maybe the barrel is just a bit bigger and the JSB’s like the looser fit. Don’t know just throwing things out there.
And did you see how the laser dot was under the reticle on that first target. Well that’s how much hold under I need at that distance. So my reticle needs to be where the dot is. If I don’t have the laser on.
Out at say 60 yards the laser dot will be above the reticle. So I would need to place the reticle above the target that the laser shows.
That happens because I have a real flat trajectory at 20 to 60 yards.
You should see how high above the target the reticle center is at 150 yards. If I need 4 mildots hold over at 150 yards. Then looking through the scope. The green dot is above the reticle pretty much that same mildot distance.
I will try to get a video when the shade comes from the sun going down. Then I can show it at the long distances too.
And on this part of the reply I meant above the target not the reticle.
“If I need 4 mildots hold over at 150 yards. Then looking through the scope. The green dot is (above the reticle) pretty much that same mildot distance.”
GF1–Thank you for your explanation re my dwarf pellet. I would never have figured out how a machine that is making X size widgets could produce an exact but smaller copy. Ed
No problem. And back when I was a kid and started working at the machine shop I encountered alot of things that seemed odd. But after working with the things found out how much material composition and tooling made big differences in the end result. Even temperature change. I could go on and on. But alot learned is the best I can say.
That’s why I say we should be thankful that we see pellets made as well as they are. If you think about the tolerances that are held from one pellet to the next it’s really unbelievable they make them as good as they do and how much they make of them at that. People sort pellets for .001″ variation in head size from one pellet to the next. Just .001″
Earlier I posted a couple comments in Part 1 of this blog regarding modding a new production (read non removable shot tube type) Daisy lever-type BB gun to make a little more power. I should have posted here but didn’t realize there was a Part 2.
Anyway, the idea was simply to do a little work to the air tube and to shim the plunger spring. I picked up the cheapest Daisy BB gun available- the Model 105 Buck. You know, the short little number w/the little wooden stock. The power plant in the 105 is the same as the current production Red Ryder. This was more successful than expected.
The air tube ID was opened up to 3/32″- you’ll need a drill bit that can reach the bottom of the air tube. The shim is 7/16″, made from a piece of copper tubing. The shimmed spring caused no trouble compressing it during reassembly. Cocking effort is only slightly increased. Trigger function and feel is basically unchanged. Cost was zero, had everything on hand. I made a spring compressor.
I might try removing the shim to see how much of the velocity increase came from the air tube alone.
The links below are to photos of cans that were shot by my unmodded 1 month old Red Ryder and by the modded 105. The first photo is an aluminum dog food can, it says “Model 104” but it was a 105. The second is an honest tin can (DelMonte fruit cocktail):
Just a point here, the stock air tube air passage hole was .098, a #40 drill bit size on my 60’s 1894. So your 3/32″ – .093750 is pretty close to a stock item back then. Not sure if all the air tubes are the same from Daisy but it’s obvious they downsized the air passage diameter. Could be to reduce wear and tare on the piston or just wanting to tone down the rifles power.
Did you open the side port any ?
I never considered opening it up beyond the stock .098, not a lot of tube left there so the slight gain from a bigger air passage may compromise its strength.
@Bob Somehow I missed your post earlier… But Thanks for that info. I don’t have any Daisy BB guns older than the Model 104 made in the ’70s to compare to so knowing that helps- and it may be as you said, to cut down wear as they went to more plastic parts like the trigger housing. Not to mention legal liability.
On the new model Red Ryder and Model 105 Buck the air tube port is WAY bigger than the old model 104 I have, so I left it as-is. I will open the old model air tube port up to match the new air tube when I get around to putting the 104 back together. I have already opened up the ID. BTW, there’s room to go bigger on the air tube ID but I wanted to take it a step at a time until I got a handle on things. Now that I know I can go to a #40 bit, I might have to give it a try!
There are a number of differences between the old and new Daisys, below are some links to photos comparing them.
[B]Plunger assemblies minus plunger heads[/B]
[B]Air tube details[/B]
[B]New vs. old trigger[/B]
[B]Model 104 with Red Ryder furniture top, Red Ryder with full size buttstock bottom[/B]
Sorry- links were formatted wrong. This should be better:
Plunger assemblies minus plunger heads
Air tube details
New vs. old trigger
Model 104 with Red Ryder furniture top, Red Ryder with full size buttstock bottom
Like I said, not sure if Daisy air tube dimensions remained the same over time. I would imagine they eventually had to come to some sort of compromise on the size of the air passage when they weakened the piston springs, and I figure they eventually did.
A weaker spring for easier cocking might require a larger air passage just to function ?
I totally overlooked spring shims on my rebuilds. Interesting to see how much power it produces. I just wanted both rifles to work like the original did.
Unfortunately your links were in-op. I’ll look into them.
I’d like to have access to a gun like your 1894 or a Model 141 (it was supposedly one of the most powerful lever guns) to measure the springs and air tubes. I’m with you- I believe there has been a gradual drop in performance over the years. No idea what drove that trend but it was probably several things like litigation, wear/tear, easier cocking like you said.
What is a little surprising is that there’s not more of a loss from the weaker new spring than there is. Besides the bigger air tube port, I think the shot tube has something to do w/this because it’s more efficient- it has virtually no place for compressed air to escape from, while the old shot tube has 2 holes (one pretty big) for the spring wire that indexes the BB, and the loose threads of the shot tube and abutment it screws into. The air tube blocks the spring wire holes for the most part, but still might be some loss there.
Ran across this excellent article on what makes the Red Ryder tick. VERY informative! If you’ve not read this and have an interest in the simpler Daisy BB guns, it’s a must!
A look inside the BB gun powerplant https://www.pyramydair.com/article/A_look_inside_the_BB_gun_powerplant_August_2009/64
Thanks for posting the link about the bb gun powerplant. I bookmarked it.
And I like your two pictures you posted.
Thank you for that. Very nice. Did you happen to see who wrote it? 😉
Yes, I did! He had mentioned at the end of the comments for Part 1 that he was thinking about doing a piece on the Daisy powerplant but I believe the linked-to article covers it very well. That said, I’d be ‘all ears’ if he had anything else to add…
I wanted post this here so if people are reading the comments it will be here in one place. And I will repost a link that I posted above so it can be seen to show the difference.
Here is the 30 and 50 yard video with the laser zeroed at 50 yards. The second spinner is 50 yards. The first is 30 yards. Pay attention to where the laser is on the target and reticle.
Now here is a long distance shot with 3 mildot holdover on a corn stalk target. Now pay attention to the laser dot in relation to the reticle. The laser is still centered on the reticle. But look how high above the target the laser dot and reticle are at that longer distance. And the laser dot is still lined up with the reticle center.
So the laser dot will change location in relation to the target as distance is increased. But the laser dot will stay pretty much aligned with the scope reticle center.
So a laser will stay aligned to a scope reticle. The hold on a target is what changes. The last video with holdover at the longer distance shows the laser dot well above the target. When I look out in the field with my naked eye I seen the laser dot way above the actual corn stalk target.
Hope people can see what I mean.
Have now gotten the performance increase I had hoped for- holing a ‘real’ tin can. It took a 5/8″ spacer, enlarging the air tube ID to 3/32″ and for safety’s sake, used a short length of 3/8″ dowel inside the plunger tube to help keep the ‘legs’ from bowing under the added pressure from the shimmed spring. I used the gun both with and w/o the dowel and it works both ways but wanted to prevent any possibility of fatigue taking a toll on the tube, so I used the dowel. Older, removable shot tube models will not need this- the plunger tubes on them is more robust. The whole story is here: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=807316
And thanks for the previous comments, much appreciated.
I did check out your link. Very nice job with good descriptions and pictures. This is (well) worth a look for anyone wanting to know what the insides of a Daisy lever action looks like. I tore into a 499, so a lot of what you showed looked familiar.
Again, fine job! Chris
Thanks, Chris- that means a lot. Who knows- maybe this will inspire others to ‘fine tune’ their Daisys!
By the way, I have added more info to that thread, and I’ll continue to use it to document things as I continue working on my Red Ryder.
Is there a reason you did not choose to test the Daisy “Avanti” bb’s?
Thanks for this series and the older article about bb-gun “works”.
At6 the accuracy level of this Red Ryder, Avanti BBs are a waste of money. Like putting 100 octane avaition gas into a Geo Metro.