by Tom Gaylord
Writing as B.B. Pelletier
Air Venturi Seneca Dragonfly multi-pump air rifle.
This report covers:
- First impressions
- Shot it immediately
- Reader’s comment
- How hard to pump?
There are always things at the SHOT Show that I am excited about testing, and today’s rifle is one of them. The Seneca Dragonfly is a new entrant into the multi-pump world. That’s a world that doesn’t get many new guns. It’s certainly not like the spring gun world! And yet the multi-pump camp has a host of dedicated followers who love it above all other airgun powerplants. I am excited to get a chance to test something new.
The internet is both a blessing and a curse for every new product. On the positive side it gives broad exposure to each new offering. On the negative side it allows for uncontrolled gossip and innuendo. People can slander something they have never seen or will never see, and many who are gullible will believe them.
In an ironic twist of fate, that is exactly what got me started as an airgun writer in 1994. The internet wasn’t a big deal in those days, but print publications allowed the same things to happen, and in the then-tiny world of airguns there weren’t very many of those. The in crowd decided what could be said and what was withheld, which is why I started The Airgun Letter. That newsletter never grew very large, but it positioned me well to write this blog that has become large and influential. So, sit back and allow me to describe my impressions of the Seneca Dragonfly.
When I opened the box I was surprised to see a beautiful presentation of the rifle in a fitted styrofoam container. I am testing the .177 version and included were a 9-shot rotary magazine, a single-shot tray that was installed in the gun and a set of seals and o-rings that even includes a replacement firing valve seal. Impressive!
The rifle is exactly what I saw at SHOT. It’s all wood and metal. The hardwood is well-shaped, free from blemishes and finished flawlessly. The pistol grip is checkered with flat diamonds that do nothing to roughen the grip. The stock is slim with a square-section forearm. The pull is a manly 14-1/2-inches.
There is a low cheekpiece on the left side and the butt has a Monte Carlo profile, but I think lefties will have no difficulty with the rifle. The buttpad is soft grippy rubber.
The sights are perfect! They are a black square post in front and a fully adjustable black rear notch. No fiberoptics in sight! Somebody has finally listened to what shooters want in airgun sights. As you can tell, I am excited about these sights.
The front sight is a squared-off black post! Hallelujah!
The rear sight is also plain black. It adjusts in both directions. I plan to test how well it works.
There is a short scope base on the flat top receiver. I wouldn’t want to scope one but a lot of shooters do these days, so it’s there. I think some short scope like a Bug Buster is probably right for the scale of the rifle.
The rifle is 38.5 inches long, which makes it compact. But the barrel is 21.7 inches long, which means they have a lot of length to work with. Length in a pneumatic barrel means time to accelerate the pellet. Longer barrels equal higher velocity for a given amount of push. All within reason, of course.
The rifle weighs 5.65 lbs. I would have guessed 7 pounds, which I think is a function of the compact size. It feels substantial.
The first thing I did after taking the rifle from the box was open the pump handle as far as it goes to examine the pump head. It was in good order but appeared drier than I want a pneumatic pump head to be. So I oiled it liberally with Crosman Pellgunoil and worked the pump handle back and forth to distribute the oil.
The Dragonfly pump head is a neat assembly of o-rings and an open-foam wiper to hold and distribute the oil. This is how it looked as it came from the box. I oiled it with 20-30 drops of Crosman Pellgunoil.
Keep an eye on this pump head, because on a multi-pump it is the primary source of power. It needs to be well-oiled to keep the gun running at its peak.
Shot it immediately
The first shot on 3 pumps gave a satisfying crack. The test rifle sounds powerful. There is no silencer on this gun, so expect some old-school noise when you shoot it.
I will report on the trigger in detail in Part 2, but I can tell you right now that it’s a good one. It’s single-stage and doesn’t have any adjustment, but I don’t think many people will miss it. Crosman — better get one of these and look at the sights and the trigger.
The safety is a cross bolt type that runs through the front of the triggerguard. It is manual and under the complete control of the shooter, which is how it should be.
Reader Benji-Don bought a Dragonfly and had this to say on the day he ordered it.
“B.B., I just put in my order for a .177 Dragonfly. I will be looking forward to your review. I was trying to wait for your review I figured it was coming but could not wait. It has too many characteristics I have been looking for. I was hoping Crosman would come out with one. If the Dragonfly shows enough quality it will give the Crosman [Benjamin] 392 some serious competition. The Crosman 312 is still my favorite multi-pump. It is just made better and pumps easier than the 392. Thanks, Don”
Don also sent me two reports of his initial assessment of his rifle. I have avoided reading that material because I want to test this potentially important new air rifle without any bias. But his observations are important and I do plan to include them as this report advances.
I had already put in my order for a test gun when Don posted that comment, and I swore that I would not allow his experiences to influence my first impressions — good or bad. But Don is a guy who likes multi-pumps, so his impressions are valid.
How hard to pump?
We had a question on the Benjamin 392 report that asked how hard are these airguns to pump. That’s a very good question. Obviously the answer is subjective. I can give you a number, just like I do with the cocking of spring guns, but there is no way anyone but you can decide whether it’s hard or easy.
I will give you a number on the Dragonfly’s pumping effort — just like I did for the 392. And I will also tell you that my initial impression is the Dragonfly does pump on the hard side. Until I get the numbers that will have to suffice.
My first impression is that the Seneca Dragonfly turns back the clock to 1960. It appears to be well made from good materials and it has the features most of us want in an air rifle:
• Well made
• Adjustable open sights without fiberoptics
• Good trigger
• Manual safety
• Single shot and repeater
• Scope base
That’s my first impression. I sure hope the test rifle lives up to the promises and expectations!
99 thoughts on “The Seneca Dragonfly multi-pump pneumatic rifle: Part 1”
Sounds promising. Who is Seneca? Is this a rebadged SPA? Made where? How do you pump it? It looks like a PCP.
In this pic it does look like a PCP. If you look real close, just in front of the rear sight, you can see the separation that forms the pump handle. It looks to be held on with two bolts or screws.
Speaking of pump handles, when I got my 392 out for the first time this weekend I thought it was defective. Those 2 holes in the pump handle look like accidents. I eventually figured out that they must be for roll pins to hold the handle on, but I’m curious about whether that attachment was accomplished more, eh, elegantly, in vintage examples of this gun. And how do you remove the pins if it’s required?
Doesn’t it look a lot like the Diana Stormrider PCP?
Oops. Sorry. Now I see below that Siraniko beat me to this observation. Should have read all the wat through before commenting.
It’s a rebranded Aremis LR400. I have one and it’s good, very accurate. It’s hard to pump. That’s what I want to see in this review over anything. I had to modify mine to get 8 pumps, and had to do quite a bit of adjustment to get the advertised position. Here’s mine post modifications.
I really like what you did! It looks a bit odd and quite surprising at first look,… but it makes perfect sense.
That is really thinking “outside the box”,… (translation,… you are willing to think on your own and come up with new ideas and solutions) 🙂
I had to live with 4-5 pumps or do something! If I had some fancy wood I wouldn’t have painted it, but that handle is 3/4 ply epoxied to the rifle. So golden gun.
I drew a sketch of the pump ratios comparing a 1322 and this and the geometry was way different. I think that’s the root of the issue.
However you did it,…. nice job. That is what I was saying about the 880 and how it’s pump handle is quite long and comes to rest near the trigger guard. More leverage is better and you did just that.
Yes, Taemyks; nice cool practical mods. =D
Actually your Artemis is a Snowpeak as is the Dragonfly, Diana Stormrider and Diana Chaser.
Looks like a nice nice modification you made to ease the pumping.
I found more information about Snowpeak over here; https://hardairmagazine.com/news/snowpeak-airguns-biggest-airgun-manufacturer-youve-never-heard/
Exactly. It’s complicated. Artemis is a brand owned by SPA. It like air Venturi selling these under the Seneca brand. Though SPA still makes them.
I love Chinese airguns, they have come along in the past decade. I suppose I can’t name US importers, but they’re are some and the deals are great and the guns are largely good.
Very complicated, but to come from stuff like the B3 to this level is a good thing.
Brilliant minds think alike. I have been thinking of doing a similar mod to my 392. I was thinking more of something that could be removed before firing, though.
It doesn’t interfere with shooting it. Fwtw. I was going to make a flat extension that screwed in under the handle and extended the lever. But I was out of steel that’s hard and wanted to get on with it. I still plan on doing something to make it less ugly at some point. But it’s very accurate and quiet with the TKO. This is the pump geometry vs a 13xx.
I had to look twice and pull up the picture of the Diana Stormrider to make sure my mind wasn’t playing tricks on me. Sure enough the lineage is there. If you took a picture with the magazine installed you can barely tell the difference until you open up the pump arm. I think you can add on the plus side the mainly metal and wood construction with minimal plastic. Hopefully this will work better in the long run.
Yes, that is the lineage of the Dragonfly.
Please give a good accounting of the sights and their ease of use on this gun.
I recently started shooting a 392 and am really tickled by its accuracy, but the gun shoots so high that I have to adjust the rear sight down to an uncomfortable position to hit at POA at 25 meters on 4 pumps. I shoot with drugstore “cheaters” with open sights and I find that not having a fairly head up cheek weld causes me to have to look through the top edge of the lenses at a very oblique angle that sort of blurs the sights. I have asked for other 392 owners to post if they find the sights difficult to use but none have responded up to this time. Before I started actually shooting it, someone, one of the Gurus here ( sorry, I’m terrible at remembering names) recommended a Williams peep sight and I have one ordered, but if my problem stems from a barrel that “anti-droops” I’m not confident that anything short of a taller front sight it will be any better.
In your close up of the front sight on this gun I can see a seam down the middle of the blade and a shine on the rounded-over rear facing surface. Please tell us if those things ” fuzz ” up the sight picture any.
Really looking forward to the rest of this report and, as you did in the Strike Force report, I’m rooting for this gun, in spite of its similarity to the Diana stormrider.
You could lay the rear sight back. In other words bend it back at a angle instead of pointing straight up.
And if it was a floating barrel design I’m sure someone would of suggested bending the barrel. But that’s unlikely to happen with the 392 barrel.
But how high is your Benji shooting at and at what distance?
Forgot. And what hold do you use with open sights. The six o’clock hold?
I’ve been shooting the gun at a measured 25 meters on 4 pumps. I’m using a 6 o’clock hold on a 1 1/4″ square target center and the shots are going about 4″ high if I adjust the rear sight up to where my head is in a comfortable, upright, face forward position. When I adjust it down to hit at the POA I’m all scrunched up and I have to be all the way back at the end of the raised cheek piece to get low enough to see the front and rear sights form a flat line across the top. If I pump it up to a higher power it gets even worse.
The rear sight seems to have an awful lot of screw in it to require having it adjusted out so far at this distance. I know these guns are supposed to be accurate but I don’t think that they are expected to be 40 or 50 yard guns so why so much adjustment. I feel like the barrel may be bored up hill toward the muzzle or something.
Here’s a pic of how I have to set my rear sight at 25 meters and just 4 pumps.
Have you put a yardstick across the top of the barrel yet. That will tell you if the barrel does rise at the muzzle end.
And it seems to me that the stock doesn’t fit your size for open sights.
You know you could add more hight to the front and rear sight to get your cheek weld better. Or just add to the front sight and Jack up the rear sight with the screw to get sighted in.
The sights keep me from putting a straight edge right down on the barrel, but I was able to get it set up well enough that I can see that the barrel isn’t bowed or soldered on unevenly. I was thinking that the bore is not true to the OD of the barrel.
Can you tell from the picture what I was talking about regarding the long screw? Why would it need to be so long if this is as high as the ramp needs to be to shoot at about the lowest practical power of 4 pumps and pretty close to the maximum practical range for a gun like this.
The stock definitely doesn’t fit me if this is where I’m gonna have to set the rear sight to use the gun, but the fit of the stock isn’t what’s requiring the sight to be this low. The top of both sights have to be aligned across the top and this is the only position where the rear sight does that. I just can’t get down there easily to view it. I think I’m going to have to raise the front blade somehow ( I’m open to suggestions on that ,too, all you modders out there) if the peep sight doesn’t solve the problem. After seeing how hard a 392 is to pump I can see why you wouldn’t want a scope preventing you from getting the optimal grip on the barrel/receiver area.
I raised the front sight on mine by taking a scrap of heavy copper wire. The wire diameter was the same as the width of the front sight. I bent the wire 90 degrees and trimmed it so that one leg of the “ell” was the same height as the front of the sight, and the other leg of the “ell” was as long as the straight part of the top of the sight. The I glued it on to the front sight. I think I used cyanocrlae (spelling) model glue. JB weld might work as well.
It lasted for years until I sold the rifle. In sunlight, the copper wire looked like a gold bead front sight when you aimed.
In the diagram below, the existing front sight is formed with dashes, and the added copper wire is the dots. connect the dots into a solid piece of wire.
: | \
: | ____ \_____________________
Flintrocker, that’s a nice well-thought-out mod. =>
Half, my old 1970s Sheridan had the exact same sights; and yes, the rear sight could be screwed up to much higher than practical height. I bought the Sheridan ‘intermount,’ that goes in the place of the plastic hand guard (see pic below) so you can mount a scope. But with a scope on the gun, I couldn’t put my hand where I needed to for efficient pumping; and if I held my hand behind the trigger guard that put too much stress on the bolt that holds the rear stock to the receiver, causing it to loosen. I tried machining metal off the back of the intermount and moved it back to he edge of the loading port, but I still couldn’t grip the gun properly to cock it (note: if I could have bought a Beeman SS1 short scope, that might have worked). I even tried doing the Scout Rifle thing, and mounted a 2X pistol scope far forward on the barrel; it provided good accuracy, and allowed me to pump the gun properly, but I didn’t like the way the gun balanced. In the end, I wound up paying the whopping sum of $12.50 (hey, it was a loooong time ago!) to the Sheridan Company for this Williams receiver sight. It was the best money I ever spent! You can wrap your hand around the rifle as you carry it through the woods, it pumps easily (I always use 6 pumps instead of the maximum of 8), and it shoots great. I think between the mod suggested by Flintrocker and the Williams receiver sight, you will be in good shape. Please let us know how it works out.
P.S. Sorry not to respond yesterday, but I wanted to go home and take this pic for you; thank you. =D
” I still couldn’t grip the gun properly to cock it”
Heh, sorry, I meant “pump it”!
Thanks for your help. I have seen several different scope mounting schemes and may ultimately have to use one, but I am thinking of keeping this gun in my truck for impromptu shooting opportunities when I’m out and about and I think that peep sight will hold up the best bouncing around in the cab.
I had to go look at my gun to confirm it, but I don’t have a “plastic hand guard” to remove on my gun. Is that it positioned above the gun in your pic? All I have is the bare barrel going all the way back to the receiver. Was it to keep the barrel from cutting into the web of your hand when pumping, ’cause mine does after awhile?
“….I think that peep sight will hold up the best bouncing around in the cab.”
Half, I concur on that.
As for the plastic guard, it is on the gun, just forward of the receiver (the intermount for mounting a scope is the piece pictured above the rifle).
And yes, it is very helpful for keeping the barrel from cutting into the web of your hand while you are pumping the gun.
I see a link here where someone had bought some:
You could likely find one on eBay or etsy if you search for Benjamin/Sheridan hand guard under airgun parts. I hope that helps! =)
P.S. If you do decide you would like to try a scope, let me know and I will send you the intermount; it’s been in one drawer or another for like 30 years; someone should be getting some use out of it! =>
That’s a very kind offer. If I end up going that way I will take you up on that.
Sure thing. =D
That sounds like a good solution. Great sketch, by the way. Made it very clear what you were suggesting.
Did you raise the sight because of an issue like I’m having, Or were you just trying to shoot at really long distances?
How about this.
What weight pellet are you using at that 25m distance?
And I would for sure be pumping the maximum number of pumps with your gun. And going with a lighter pellet.
That should drop your POI to POA.
And yes I do think they might of had out to 50 yards in mind with the 392 and 397. I don’t think the pellets were as heavy back when this gun started life.
Let me know what you think.
I shot many different weights including Hobby and JSB Jumbo RS. They all shot high. I did try shooting at 5 and 6 pumps to see if the shots would go lower but they went higher. If I have to pump to 8 pumps to shoot the gun with iron sights I’ll end up tossing it in a fire.Too hard to pump to plink at that power level.
Well it sounds like what that gun does.
And maybe you ain’t a pumper person. Sounds that way to me if you don’t want to pump it to shoot it.
And Halfstep. Any gun that don’t meet your criteria you can send it my way.
I might even give you a couple bucks for it. 😉
Don’t worry, I’m gonna make it shoot to my liking, on way or another, but it ain’t gonna be as no 8 pumper! 😉
As they say. Sometimes you just got to do what you got to do. 🙂
hi just a thought , i have a the same rifle , ;to let u know the williams site does work , but u said u wear glasses to see , my solution was to get the scope adapter from benjiman and put a louopold pistol scope that my son gave me , works real well from 15 ft. out to 50 yrds , just have to learn the drop an use a heavy pellet. just my thought .
Thanks for the suggestion. I’ve heard of mounting a pistol scope out on the barrel in a Scout configuration, I think they call it. I’m trying to get iron sights to work mainly because I want to just keep the gun in my truck cab and it may get some rough treatment. Now if your son has another Leopold scope he wants to give away I would be willing to give that a shot. 😉
As GF1 mentioned, maybe your stock doesn’t fit you right. The 392 has a wood stock so that is easily fixed. 🙂
I don’t hesitate to adjust the stock to get a proper fit – I recently took the rasp and sandpaper to my FX stock to get a better cheek-weld. In the picture you can see that I removed about 1/4″ from the left side of the cheek-piece.
Just go slow and check the fit frequently as you work. The rifle should come to shoulder and provide the correct sight picture without having to wiggle around searching for it.
But your like a Jedi master when it comes to wood working skills.
The rest of us might get scared to start sanding on a $1500 gun. 🙂
I sanded and oil finished a FWB 300 once and it did come out nice and satin smooth.
You know that would be a nice reader blog for you to do. How to finish sand a wood stock. Well and stain or coat it. I would be interested in hearing some of your secrets. 😉
Thanks for the compliment 🙂
A stock is just a piece of wood and I think that anyone with a few basic tools can easily do modifications or even make a stock from scratch.
A couple of people have asked me to write a blog on stocks. Thinking about it. I am about to refinish the rosewood stock on my TX200 so I will take some pictures and make notes.
That would be good.
I use drugstore cheaters to see the sights, too. There are crisp and sharp.
I will know more when I shoot for accuracy.
Just did some back checking and it was Coduece that recommended the peep sight. I’m not sure If he is using it for the same reason that I will be though, so If anyone thinks their 392 shoots too high for the sights to compensate for I’d still like to get the feedback.
My thought on raising the front site would be to put a glob of epoxy like jb weld on it and file it down to size.
That sounds like it would work well as a prototype for testing ,at least.
First off I will say I like the gun. And we are way over due for some modern pumpers.
But something comes to mind with this gun. I’ll start by saying remember all the talk about should we pick up the Gauntlet by it’s free floating barrel/shroud. About how it could hurt the poi when shooting.
Well here is what I’m wondering about. The free floating barrel on this gun BB is testing.
But the reason why is this gun has the big pumping arm and as BB says is hard to pump. What does that do to the barrel everytime the gun pumps closed? Does that shock the barrel?
I know I have had long barrels and 1399 stocks on 1377’s and they have been very repeatable on poi.
But I do have to wonder if Benjamin thought about that shock and is why their barrels are like they are. I know the old Benjamin I had was a very solid gun when pumping it.
Does this new pumper your testing today feel solid?
This rifle feels very solid. I thought I said that in the report. It feels heavier than it is and the stock has a long pull which I like. But we bwill see as the test progresses.
Looking good so far. The long air tube is odd. Being a multi pump, it is not an air tube but rather a compression chamber for the piston,.. as any air is stored within the valve. I wonder if that tube is split on the under side to accommodate the pump arm linkage. Even so, why so much tube out front?
I would like to see it at full swing. The pump arm looks short. The only multi pump that I have ever had was the 880 in which the pump arm is very long and rest all the way back at the trigger guard. It just makes sense that longer is better when it comes to pump effort.
I for one would be apt to scope it, minimally. Some more 11mm rail is always a plus there. This seems quite limiting. Perhaps a rear peep would be the ticket as a sight option. I do very well with my 499 peepers. No ambi cheek 🙁 ,… I like ambi as a shoot rifle left.
It looks good with everything behind the pump arm looking quite refined and everything forward looking a bit budget. An odd mix.
At any rate, that is my first impression and am looking forwards to upcoming reports.
If you look close in the picture the pivot point of the pump arm is all the way out at the end of the tube.
If you look at a 392 the wood of the pump arm goes out to almost the pivot point.
With this pumper they just used less wood and made the pump handle smaller.
Ok. Makes sense. I would still like to see it opened up full stroke. Less weight is good while still keeping the max. leverage possible. Thanks.
Yep I want to see it with the arm open too.
Hoping your first shot after 20+ drops Pellgunoil was a mini diesel. Noise is a concern for me keeping peace with neighbors.
Gunfun1, I went overboard awhile back worrying about barrel strain until I thought about cocking springers and pumping multi pump guns. Maybe PCP’s and CO2 are a concern. Am I reaching the wrong conclusions?
Pneumatics don’t diesel — or at least I have never experienced one that did. They release pressure so slowly that a diesel is impossible.
I will test the rifle in many ways. Hopefully the barrel will remain steady.
Benji-Don may have something to say about that in the comments he shared with me. If so, I will include them.
I believe that the barrels don’t move. What I mean is they return to their natural position if bumped.
Got thinking more. To a limit depending on what kind of barrel.
A shrouded free floating barrel would need to be secured tightly to the breech. If it got bumped hard enough that could be a problem.
But if you have a unshrouded free floating barrel. Those I believe are more forgiving if bumped or in their normal shot cycle.
Ah, a multi-pump pneumatic REPEATER. How long has it been since those were common? I am drawn to the basic wood and metal look of the Dragonfly. It has a simple, serious appearance. It reminds me of the Crosman 140 and 1400 in its lack of fanciness. Old-school.
Could you include a photo of the Dragonfly with its pumping arm fully extended?
It would be very nice indeed it the Dragonfly is a tack-driver.
After all the comments today I had planned to show that exact picture next time, plus one that is a real profile. When you see them you’ll see that it’s easy to tell this is a multi-pump. Of course all people have to do is click on the first picture to go to the description page, where most of those pictures are already shown.
There are a few multi pump repeaters out there. My Crosman 760 smooth bore. The Crosman that looks like an AR-15 . The Crosman Model 66 (now dropped from the lineup). There is one other Crosman I know of that uses the same magazine as the models I mention. It’s a straight line 5 shot magazine that you advance by pushing it through one “indent” each time you shoot. I imagine this Seneca Dragonfly advances the magazine mechanically. The Crosman magazine works well and is simple. You just have to make sure the pellets fit snugly. I tilt my multi pumps muzzle up when pumping, and some pellets that fit the Crosman magazine too loose can back out a little, and then the mag won’t advance.
But, it’s a good system and you can buy extra magazines from Crosman. I wish my Remington Airmaster, Daisy Model 880, and Umarex APX-NPG used the system. Yes, I am another that really appreciates a multi pump. Here’s mine: Crosman/Remington Airmaster 77, Crosman 1397, 1322, Umarex APX-NPG, Daisy 880,. My Crosman Model 66 died, and so did a DaisynModel 35.
BB tested the Umarex a few years ago. Mine really came alive when I went to the fine RWS Meisterkugeln rifle pellets. It is 100% a one pellet air rifle, in that nothing else shoots well from it.
Very much looking forward to Tom’s accuracy tests coming up.
If I remember right the A.I.R.177 is a single pump and I think it uses a 4 shot mag originally. I just saw it described in a YouTube video of a man unboxing his newly acquired air gun collection. I have one but it has been in it’s box for most of its life, so I could be wrong.
WHOA! You have followed things a lot more / better than have I. I was thinking of the golden age of multi-shot round-ball repeaters by Benjamin of St. Louis , MO.
Your knowledge puts me to shame. Shame, where I shall sit, well-corrected, for as time as I consider appropriate.
Keep at it , man! We need more of you.
I’m really excited about a new multi-pumper coming to market. And I have high expectations for the Dragonfly. Let’s hope that, unlike yesterday’s Umarex offering, this example performs well.
My Bluestreaks are the go to gun for pest management around our little hobby farm. They aren’t safe queens by any stretch of the imagination. If I were to get this Dragonfly, however, it wouldn’t be allowed any of the nicks, dents, or scratches the ‘streaks see from farm service. Strictly a target gun.
I’ve been eyeing this gun for a few weeks now. It’s been the Pyramid air ad I see on the right… I’ve not owned a multipump other than the super cheap crosman ones you can pick up from walmart. I might just have to buy this one if your testing proves favorable.
I’m hoping everything turns out well, but that’s why I test these guns. Some work as planned, others don’t and never will. And, once in awhile, I get a lemon that anyone might get.
I’m rooting for the Dragonfly!
Ok update on the em-ge my first 5 shots through the crony were all over the place 480 to 610 the gun was cool from sitting in the barn all night. But the last 5 were 550 560. So the next ten shot string had a high of 567 and a low of 532 with an sd of of 35. This is getting close to 200 pellets through it.I shot a few groups this morning around an 1 1/2 at 10 yds. Not great but the only .177 pellets I have are crosman hp and some hobby pellets. I think I’m going to order the HNftt sample pack and some JSB pellets today I am open to suggestions.
Latest group at 10 yds. The more I shoot it one of us is getting better this is the roundest group for ten pellets yet. Still just under 1 1/2 this was just using a front rest. Even if it’s only minute of feral can I really like shooting this gun.
Here is the group
Just curious about whether or not you are experimenting with your hold. Don’t know how important it even is on a lower powered gun, but it could be. Did you mean to say your ES was 35? To me that wouldn’t seem to be much impact on accuracy at 10 yards.
Glad it’s getting tighter for you.
I have a question about why you use the peep sight on your 392. Were you capable of using the factory sights comfortably? I am having to hold mine very awkwardly to get the sights lined up. I ordered a Williams peep, but I don’t know if it’s gonna help with my problem.
I’ve only been shooting casually resting the gun on a chair back while sitting in a chair behind. Today I’m going to get out the shooting bench and shoot with a front and rear rest.
Why did I get the Williams sight, well I think I just got it because it looked cool. That and I just wanted to experience a good peep.
The JSB’s should do well for you if anything well. At least they should be (are) more consistent on head and weight. It does sound like it is getting better.
B.B. (or anyone that knows)
Can you leave a multi pump charged (pumped up) for very long before shooting it without any damage? I’ve had a Benjamin 392 and still currently have a Crosman 2100 & Daisy 990. I’ve never left one pumped very long. The Benjamin was very accurate (for me). I only got rid of it because it was a bear to pump. Most my shots were done with 6 to 8 pumps. My Crosman is just ok to pump. For whatever reason I don’t like the 2100 (or the 2200 I had). The Daisy 990 is good. One thing I will say for the Daisy 880s and 22X I used to shoot, they pumped so darn easy and were all accurate. These would have been the metal receiver Daisy that were not made in China. I long for those Arkansas Can Openers back.
It’s okay to leave one or two pumps in the gun at all times, but I wouldn’t leave it pumped all the way very long. The seals in these guns are not as hard as the seals in a PCP reservoir and they will deform over time when left under high pressure. In fact, in tomorrow’s special report I will show you a little of that.
B.B., sweet, a little teaser about tomorrow’s blog. I do leave 1 pump in them when I put them away. I was really meaning if say a guy were hunting, could he pump the gun to the max and leave it that way till the hunting day was over? Seeing how multi pumps clack when pumped and slow to do so if a person were needing a shot.
I would do it for a couple hours, but not for a 12-hour day.
I’m so sorry. I meant Friday’s blog. I always think one day in advance. Tomorrow’s blog has nothing to do with what you asked.
Even more suspense 😉
I remember reading many years ago- in the 80s – that a disadvantage of multi-pump guns was the fact that they would cool off and the pressure would be significantly lower than a freshly pumped gun. I seem to recall that it was mentioned in a discussion of their unsuitability for formal target competition more so than hunting. As long as you did some testing beforehand you could probably work with it, though.
That is a small problem, yet here is a 10 meter target multi-pump:
Very good read. I like it that 3 pumps puts out good velocity. Heck 2 pumps is good for killing cans.
That’s a cool looking gun. I’ll give that a read later.
Just read the 3 part report. That was very interesting. I search for a Part 4 with no luck. Did you ever resolve the issue with the odd pops and such that you thought were being caused by the trigger and have you shot at 25 yards as you proposed?
Seems that the side lever pump could still allow good hand placement while pumping even with a scope mounted.
No, I haven’t done any of that. And I’ve tried to sell the rifle a couple times!
Keep me on track! Tomorrow will reveal something similar.
As far as hunting goes or even pesting.
I do leave my pump guns in my hand pumped and ready for the next shot.
Now as far as all day. I don’t know. I probably wouldn’t.
And you know on certain pumpers you can learn a technique to quiet the pump at the closing of the stroke. Or even something like rubber attached inside the pump arm like a peice of old innertube works to quiet the clack.
I was going to ask BB if the dragonfly has the clack going on. It’s not a honest to goodness pumper if it don’t clack. 🙂
My 880 is simply a lemon. My Remington Airmaster/Crosman 2100 shoots just fine. Even at 7 yards my 880 just doesn’t do it for me. And, yes, I’ve tried taping the muzzle end of the barrel too. My smooth bore Crosman 760 will out shoot it. A disappointment.
Sorry to hear that. Is it an old metal receive 880 or the newer plastic china 880s? From what I read about the newer China plastic 880s, QC is all over the place. Some shoot well and some don’t with no way of knowing if you are buying a good one or bad one until you shoot it. Sad really.
Mine is a newer plastic model. I wanted it to be accurate. I like the looks, the easy pumping etc. But, it’s about my most inaccurate air rifle.
That is what I had. I will say though that I only bought it and promptly cut off the outer barrel shell and experimented with firing actual arrows and darts. As a kid though,… I had the metal receiver model. I can not really speak to what the accuracy really was though on the new model. It never made it that far. 😉
I wanted the Webley Alecto to make it, but for whatever reason it did not. Shame as it seem to do well for B.B. And it was like a single stroke or a multi pump (one to three pumps if I remember right). What happened with that gun?
Then I wanted the Webley Rebel to make it, but it did not. I remember it didn’t review well by B.B.
I’ve worked on this rifle pretty extensively. I’m really excited to see if your results line up with mine. I won’t poison the well too much….but if you want to see mine there is a comment with a picture of it on this thread.
This Dragonfly has one major competitor. In ‘177, the Benjy 397. In .22, the Benjy 392. How about a shoot off between them?
A fellow I teach with who has read this blog some has asked me if I think you will review the new, “high-powered” multi-shot Gamo. i figured out he means the Swarm Magnum. He has practiced (and I can verify this by shooting with him in his very large back yard — he’s gotten pretty good) the artillery hold, and he wishes to eradicate large rabbits at a distance and have an opportunity to have a follow-up shot. He wants to save the vegetable garden, but he seems not to have the stomach for a long suffering varmint. Fair enough, I say. I haven’t asked him, but i would not be surprised if he is already a happy lower-powered Swarm owner. He described the magazine to me at work, and that is what it sounded like to me.
Any testing plans? He intends to purchase one in .22, I think.
Personally, I would like to persuade him to set up a 60-70 yard air rifle range for the two of us (and his daughter, if she insists).
No plans to test at this time.
I’ll let him know the next time I see him.
Could you please double check the front “bloop tube” for any baffles or “felt wrap?” Reliable reports (Hard Air) on the Storm Rider indicate it has a moderator and at least in photos looks like it is very close to the Dragonfly’s front sight base.
On the rear sight base/Barrel band they report that when the rear sight is removed it exposes a dovetail that matches up to the receiver’s dovetail. My question is can that rear barrel band be moved fore and aft?
Thank you for this first Dragonfly report. If this multi pump test series shows a promising new addition to multi pump airguns I may just need to get one and see if it could benefit from some STEROIDS!!!
I’m a hardcore DAQ Big Bore airgunner but I have three 39X; one of which is. MAC 1 392 STEROID that I truly cherish! Which brings up questions: Is the pump rod linkage adjustable for Headspace? And my last and final question, is the pump linkage folded metal or cut from billet or thick sheet steel?
There are no baffles or any silencing technology in the Dragonfly I am testing. The rifling come to less than a quarter-inch of the muzzle. That swell is decorative and non-functional.
As an owner of an early production stormrider, I can tell you that, in spite of many “reliable reports” to the contrary when I bought it, there is absolutely no baffles or sound dampening materials inside the tube at the end of the barrel. It is a round aluminum bar that is bored out just slightly larger than the barrel OD. The gun doesn’t shoot as well without it, so I guess it does impact harmonics, but it is just as loud with or without it.
It is not the same gadget as the one on the Dragonfly. The front sight is shaped differently and bolts into a groove milled into the muzzle weight on the stormrider. It appears to be all one piece on the Dragonfly. Tyler, at Pyramyd Air refers to the gadget on the Dragonfly as a Muzzle Brake in the Q and A section on the gun.
Surprised you didn’t have something to say on the things BB now has reported on.
And can you really keep it a secret on the things he hasn’t reported on. 😉
But seriously do you like your dragonfly so far?
I really like that it accepts a scope. I think if the 392 and 397 had a dovetail they would sell more of them without going through all that other trouble of mounting a scope.
Benji-Don is holding his comments until I reveal them. He has plenty to say, but he is being a gentleman.
Well you have revealed some things in this report about the dragonfly.
So no that means it’s fair game with his opinion on them things now. 😉