by Tom Gaylord
Writing as B.B. Pelletier
This report covers:
- Why did “they” drop it?
- They built it before
- What about the Crosman 600?
- Would a new Crosman 600 sell today?
Today started out as one thing and quickly transitioned into another. I wanted to write a Part 5 to the Daisy 35 report. It was time for a test with BBs. But last week I shipped all the airguns I’ve tested for the past several years back to Pyramyd Air and unfortunately the Daisy 35 was among them. I’m sorry, but it was a busy week and that one slipped past me.
So then I wanted to run the test of bedding the IZH MP532. I shot a “before” group using my old glasses, but then I discovered that the bedding that needs to be corrected is not as straightforward as it seemed. I want to do that work under the watchful eye of my neighbor, Denny. We conferred this morning but the work will have to be done later.
While searching for the Daisy 35 my eyes fell on a Crosman NightStalker that is standing in the corner of my closet.
The NightStalker is a 12-shot semiautomatic carbine-sized pellet rifle that uses an 88-gram AirSource CO2 cartridge. It was launched in November of 2005 and lasted through 2007, so not that long. The cartridge fits in the butt and gives the all-synthetic gun some weight.
I don’t have velocity numbers for you but I think it would be in the same range as the Crosman 1077, which is to say somewhere in the mid 500s with 7.9-grain Premier domes.
An 88-gram CO2 cartridge fits inside the butt and gives over 300 shots at maybe something in the mid 500 f.p.s. range.
The gun has real blowback that does cock the hammer on every shot, but Crosman elected not to allow the clip to advance to the next chamber. So, unlike the Crosman 600 that has an incredibly light trigger pull, the pull on the NightStalker is heavier and the blade moves through some distance as the clip rotates. The trigger breaks at about 7 pounds on my gun.
But this is a 12-shot semiautomatic! And surely something could be done to lighten the trigger by half. At least that would be my vote.
The NighStalker used this 12-shot circular clip.
The NightStalker clip slips into the receiver and then the trigger advances it one chamber at a time.
Immediately I thought of contacting Ed Schultz to tell him that Crosman ought to bring back the NightStalker. Well, they may (and I am not saying that I know they will) but, and this is a really big but, if they were to bring it back it would be like creating an all new airgun.
Why did “they” drop it?
Why does any company stop production of anything? Well, the answer isn’t always as simple and straightforward as you might think. You might think that the sales were not high enough, and that might be the case, but not high enough for what? What if Crosman placed the NightStalker under the management of someone responsible for sales of guns to large discount stores — maybe the same person who was also responsible for the 760? Well, the 760 probably sold for $29 at that time and the NightStalker was priced at $200. You can’t sell as many airguns for $200 as you can for $29, and the manager would have noticed that right away.
Also the NightStalker is a semiautomatic, where the 760 is a multi-pump, so the level of complexity for the semiauto is much higher than for the single shot. It’s so much higher that, regardless of the price, it may be too complex for a typical discount store buyer.
I am not saying this is what happened and that it was the reason Crosman dropped the NightStalker. Maybe someone who was the NightStalker’s champion left the company and his replacement didn’t care for it. Or perhaps some of the folks who were old-timers in the company wanted it gone.
It could have been any of those reasons or others we don’t know about. Whatever the reason, the NightStalker was dropped from the line just two years after it was launched. But Crosman built the gun. Surely they could do it again if they wanted to?
They built it before
Why wouldn’t it be easy for Crosman to build the NightStalker today? They were still making it as recently as 2007. Why couldn’t they just build it again? Well, let’s see — why can’t Ford build the Model A again? Not that they would want to, but Ford is in no position to build the Model A in 2021. They don’t have the tooling, the metal or any of the parts they need. Maybe if they wanted to they could fabricate a good copy, but it would just be a one-off. They couldn’t produce Model As, even if they wanted to.
I chose the Model A to illustrate the difficulty of the problem. It’s so old and obsolete that it’s easy to see why it couldn’t be manufactured today. If I chose a car that was closer to a model of today people might think it would be easier for Ford, and in some respects it would be. Materials for a near-term obsolete car would be easier to come by than the metal for a Model A. But the tooling and machine settings would have to be redone from scratch, just like they were back in the day.
What about the Crosman 600?
Why am I going on about the NightStalker? I am because it was a real semiautomatic pellet gun — just like the older Crosman 600 that many airgunners love.
The Crosman 600 is a .22-caliber 10-shot semiautomatic air pistol that feeds from a linear magazine located on the left side of the receiver. Because of how it fed it was a little pellet picky, but it still functioned with a lot of domed pellets and even some wadcutters. The trigger was superb, releasing at less than one pound with reasonable crispness.
The 600 is such a good pellet pistol that they sell for high prices today. Anyone who has shot one wants to own one. But could Crosman make a 600 today? They could if they were willing to reverse engineer it and start from scratch, but it is not a matter of dusting off the blueprints. It would be a ground-up design. And the generations of machines used to make airguns have changed twice in the time since the 600 left the range.
Would a new Crosman 600 sell today?
Forget the 1965 price tag. How about somewhere around $250 today? The same guys who complained about them when they were $19.95 (and I was one who did) would complain about them today.
And what about that light trigger? It certainly isn’t going to pass legal muster today. So, as much as I would like to see the Crosman 600 come back, I don’t expect to ever see one new again. The model name might be recycled, but the design — never.
Even the NightStalker would challenge Crosman today, though it would be less of a problem than the 600. Some of the machines that made a NightStalker have gone away, too, and remaking it would present a new set of challenges. So I won’t be calling Ed Schultz with a, “What you outta do.” message anytime soon.
But a true semiautomatic airgun that is accurate and has a good trigger would sell, if the price was reasonable. Crosman calls the 1077 a semiauto, but shooters know different. My advice to the company would be to do it right if you plan to do it at all. Give us true semiauto feeding, a good trigger and accuracy. Don’t let the lawyers talk you into compromising in any of those three areas. The price can be a place to fudge if you have to, but give us the rest of it or forget the whole deal.
One last note. It appears that Sig is about to end production of the ASP20 rifle, if they haven’t already. Six months after that they wouldn’t be able to restart the line without a significant investment of time and money. So love ’em while they last. And with some companies like Weihrauch and AirForce, that can be a very long time.
We sometimes think that if a company manufactures airguns they can make anything. But AirForce can’t make a 1077 without breaking their manufacturing model, and Crosman would turn themselves inside-out to produce a TalonSS. The iconic airguns of the past are just as hard for the companies to make as they are for other companies who don’t compete in the same market.
Why do I tell you all of this? Well, I’m really telling myself, because when I saw that NightStalker in my closet I was about to call Ed.
113 thoughts on “Why “they” can’t do what “they” ought to”
Your last sentence is a Cliffhanger! Or is it just a Catch-22?
Gee! I don’t know.
You thought about it more than I did. 😉
Siraniko and B.B.,
B.B. employed a common and effective rhetorical technique taught by both writing and speech professors: the concluding tie-in with an element in the introduction.
B.B. begins with a short narrative about seeing his Nightstalker in the closet. He then writes, “Immediately I thought of contacting Ed Schultz to tell him that Crosman ought to bring back the NightStalker.” At the very end of his conclusion B.B. makes a reference to the beginning to provide the reader with a sense of closure by writing, “Why do I tell you all of this? Well, I’m really telling myself, because when I saw that NightStalker in my closet I was about to call Ed.”
Most famously, at least in the United States, is Abraham Lincoln’s “Gettysburg Address,” the most famous speech in American history. Lincoln begins with, “Four score and seven  years ago our fathers brought forth . . . a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.” At the end of his speech he comes back to that opening by stating, “. . . We here highly resolve . . . that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”
As a professional writer this technique comes to B.B. naturally and unconsciously, which is why he cannot readily explain why he wrote it.
I think this was a compliment. If so, thank you!
Absolutely a compliment.
A long time ago you learned the technique. It could have been in a class, or you might have picked it up unconsciously from your reading of experienced writers who did it, and you unconsciously emulated it.
And the difficulty of explaining what or how you did it is like a veteran MLB pitcher trying to explain to a high-schooler how to throw his signature forkball: “Well, uh, I just throw it. I dunno.” :^)
Yep. That’s about it (he spits into the ground to his left). 😉
Did you check the wind before deciding on that Lunger to the Left Side? Did the Catcher take note of the signal….
Thanks for explaining! It surely expands my understanding of the English language.
BB is natural at it. Plus he’s done did the 10,000 hours. So a double whammy of knowledge and of course all the airgunshe experienced over time.
As you know I get into the technical reports and modding. That’s what always gets my blood stirring. But today BB’s report made me want Crosman to do something despite what day and age we live in.
Just me but I was glad Ford, Chevy and Mopar brought back the retro Mustang, Camaro and Challenger. Modernized of course. And especially love the top end modern muscle they recreated. And I’m very glad to see the modern muscle cars to continue on to make a new place and time in history. And you know they are already there. 🙂
Mustang, Camaro, and Challenger have been my favorite cars in the market, but I think it’s time to create a new legend. The old ones were all awesome, other than a short period with Mustangs in the late 70s. About the new ones, Mustang has to fix the manual transmission, the sitting position is way too low in Camaro that it’s impossible to see the corners of the car, and Challenger should… Well, Challenger RT with manual tranny is just perfect.
I want to see a new car instead of the recreations of the old ones – a brilliant new design, like Toyota 86 but from ‘Detroit,’ not another SUV! My opinions about SUVs are very similar with my fiberoptic views.
“…the sitting position is way too low in Camaro that it’s impossible to see the corners of the car,…” You gotta FEEL where they are! Just like in so many aircraft where you can’t see the tail or wingtips.
That car needs a sonar. 🙂
Or a periscope. 🙂
Both of those are easily detected ; ^)
Never really heard the word FEEL used but I guess it’s close enough to getting a feel for it.
I think “Become one with the aircraft” may work too.
I had to weave a DC-8 through the blue runway lights without hitting them and make a U turn at the end of the runway for part of my run-up / taxi qualification. I accidently pushed a little too hard on the top of the rudder pedals using them to assist the steering wheel and came to a stop in the middle of the U turn. “OH NO ! You never stop an aircraft in the middle of a U turn” We’re talking heavy (big) aircraft here that usually requires some distance to get into motion to maneuver.
I took full advantage of the jet blast deflector at the end of the runway to avoid flipping cars on the street and advanced all four engine throttles with #4 and #3 well ahead of #1 and #2 and off we went rolling out of that U turn. I got a feel for it right then and there and passed.
I don’t think someone can grasp what it’s like to make a hard left turn to a loading dock with an extended Boeing 767 without being in the cockpit. You taxi past it till you FEEL the main landing gear comes real close to it behind you then steer / swing left / sideways, from the cockpit point of view, pivoting on the main landing gear to line up the aircraft with the nose gear parking spot. That is an ‘Awkward Feeling’, not at all like driving a vehicle. But it probably could be if the runway / taxiway was as wide as it is long 😉
I can FEEL that!
The RA-5C had a similar (actually behind the RAN’s cockpit) nose wheel location. Talk about a high pucker factor taxi from the arresting gear started while being hungout over the ocean below on the smaller carrier angle decks! That “Runway” almost is as wide as long…felt that way when the stop left harness bruises.
Backing up an Orion caused similar FEEL issues…and pushing on the brakes could cause a sudden tail down nose up incident!
Visuo-spatial, or spatial, ability – a must have skill sailing a big yacht.
Big Yacht! Hmm…would be nice a long as it came with a full crew!
Letting my sailboat to be sailed by a crew? No way!
It’d be like buying a sailplane and then hiring a pilot. 🙂
We actually considered strapping the mechanics legs to the seat when he backed C118’s up to the sea wall in Alameda. Now you non aircraft people need to keep in mind that the propellers are in reverse pushing the plane backward when you hit the brakes.
And amplifying on my comment above about doing a u turn. It’s hard to start moving a plane when the front nose wheels are sideways into the turn.
I have a new Camaro and I can see all the fenders and hood no problem.
I like them as V6 convertible with manual shifter. Lots of power on 87 octane.
They didn’t make the roof shorter. They made the doors and fenders higher.
The Challenger and Charger and 300’s are the same.
And it sounds to me like you never drove a new Camaro yet to know how the seats adjust have you?
And yep go get you a Tesla right now. Then in 15 years it will be old and the new electric cars will be blowing your old dinasour Tesla away. 😉
Nope, I haven’t driven a new Camaro yet. I’ll go ahead and give a +^) to myself real quick!? 🙂
Until the battery technology is up and ready for the task, I don’t think the electric cars will make me excited; I think I’ll wait another decade before I even consider one.
I don’t fancy hybrids either; they would only make sense in metropolitan areas like Chicago or Seattle, and only if they were to be driven a lot and didn’t breakdown. Otherwise, you’ll lose a massive amount of money owning them.
If I ever wanted be economical and environmental car-wise, I’d pick something with a three cylinder Ecoboost or 3A92.
I have always said if the would turbo charge a hybrid engine and have the electric motors assist you would have bunches of torque from the electric motor and then hp from the turbo engine.
I bet it would be a quick car.
Both turbo hybrids…
If someone was nice enough to give me either car I would have no problem owning them for a long time.
Today, I stopped by at a Chevy dealer and sat in a Camaro. I didn’t test drive, but I sat in it at least. Yes, it’s managable; no corners fell into any sort of blind spot. I envy you; it’s a beauty on wheels…
The one I looked at was a 4 cylinder turbo. What I noticed was the space that 2.0 turbo 4 cylinder takes. There were huge empty areas in the engine department. The sales person tried to sell it by telling me that it was to make space to work easily on the engine. I nodded her kindly and remembered your idea – turbo hybrids…
Do you recall the Honda CR-Z hybrid? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_CR-Z CR-Z was different than the other hybrids in the market. Normally, a Prius will run only on its electric motor until the speed reaches 30 – 40 miles per hour, and then the gasoline engine will kick in and join the effort. Pretty much, the high torque of the eletric motor replaces the traditional transmission. In CR-Z, there was a different approach. It accelerated from 0 MPH like a traditional gasoline car on a traditional transmission. The electric motor only kicked in to help with the acceleration. It was storing the braking energy and putting into work while accelerating, a very simple hybrid design that turned CR-Z into a fast sports car. Thanks to that approach, there was a 6 speed manual version of it as well. One of my biggest regrets is not buying one while it was still sold. They were axed to make space for SUVs in the Honda factories…
I think both Mustang 2.3 turbo and Camaro 2.0 turbo has a lot of room to add an electric motor. They could be turned into turbo plug in hybrid sports cars easily. Just like in the CR-Z, the electric engine will kick in while accelerating. Instead of axing these legends, Ford and GM should consider that turbo hybrid sports car approach. Mustang deserves better than being turned into a suburbanite electric SUV!
Do you remember when the road race guys started running V6’s with the V8 cars. The V6 cars were more balanced and lighter cars than the same cars with V8’s. Guess what. The tires lasted longer and a bunch of other things.
And I did not know that Chevy offered a turbo 4 Camaro now days. Shows you how I’m behind on the times.
And yes I do not like the Mustang E (SUV) at all. Ford needs to wake up on that one. I mean heck go ahead and bring it out. But don’t call it a Mustang. Kind of reminds me of what GM did with the modern GTO. It was a cool car but dont call it a GTO. It was based off the Australian Mondello I believe it was called which was Australia’s Camaro and Firebird.
Anyway I really think this electric and hybreds can go somewhere. Search electric powered railers and funny cars and see how quick and fast full electric is going in a 1/4 mile now days.
Rolling blind spot.
Can’t see anything close. Always have to guess where you are.
I think they lowered the roof way too much in the design of the new Camaro. Driving the new Challenger, you have excellent view of every corner.
Anyhow, it wouldn’t matter; they all are waiting to become extinct. It’ll be all about electric soon.
The old Camaro’s of the day was the same as well as other muscle cars I had.
Remember the Brady Bunch when I think it was Marsha was learning to drive and park without hitting the egg on the front bumper when she was parking the car.
Like Shootski said. It’s about knowing and feeling the car. In multiple ways.
Despite its creepy, serial killer name, I love my Nightstalkers. The trigger isn’t very smooth, but it is much lighter than the 1077. It is also quite accurate, surprising given the 12 round plastic clips. When a certain big box store put them on clearance, I bought all three that they had on the shelf. If they don’t last very long, at least it will be not very long times three. :^)
You got one you want to get rid of?
Those I think I’ll hold onto for a while.
Kind of figured that.
Kind of goes with the theme of the blog today. Well sort of. How would I know if I didn’t ask. 🙂
“Despite its creepy, serial killer name…”
You don’t need to be creeped out by the name!
Just think of this bunch and avoid the current one you think of.
At your Service!
Serial killer Richard Ramirez, AKA The Night Stalker, murdered at least 15 victims during 1984 and 1985.
Night Stalker or Nightstalker?
“You can lead a horse to water….”
“You say, TOE-mate-oh and I say, Toe-MAH-toe!”
I strongly considered it, being a semiauto but it was just weird looking. Trying to be stylish or what? A softer look for a black rifle ? Anyway I thought it had BB gun power, not enough for pellets at that price, unless it was meant for 10 meters? They might have tried to accomplish too much in one airgun. Too expensive for most kids, all around. The price the ammo and the CO2 to operate. Too much like a toy for serious airgunners to pay for plinking. A one size that didn’t fit all in a new approach to airgun looks. Nice try … I noticed a trend by airgun companies to try to soften up the looks of airguns, getting away from the evil black gun look. Contrary to the desires of airgunners, in my opinion. I have not seen too may surveys on what we want out there. But, the Seneca Aspen certainly seemed to be going in the right direction.
I think it’s a knock-off of the Beretta CX4 Storm, just like the 1077 has many similarities to a 10/22.
Incidentally, Umarex made a CO2-powered CX4 until recently. Same CO2 cartridge placement and everything, but different magazine implentation.
Makes me wonder if Crosman received a C&D from Umarex/Beretta
And right you are! Thanks for that info. It makes more sense now. I lost track of relatively newer AR type firearms somewhat now that I have absolutely no chance on ever getting one.
There was a public outcry when NASA announced they would be unable to build a Saturn 5 rocket nowadays, and there was finger pointing about them losing such valuable capacity,. In reality it’s just what BB described with airguns, you cannot build a Saturn 5 in 2020.
In more recent news they have also forgotten how to make parts for the B2 bomber and have resorted to reverse engineering the parts.
Now if the Pentagon/Congress would order 400 new A-10s! The ol’ Warthog was the most effective military weapon of all time. They have a 40 year old design, are ugly and slow, but they are the greatest air to ground fighter ever made, much better than anything that came before or after.
I MUST respectfully disagree!
First and foremost the A-10 is not a Fighter not even a fighter/bomber!
There was NO before…
The AD1 Skyraider aka, the Spad will forever hold the best ever ground Attack aircraft title.
…there will be NO after!
We can’t build them like the Spad anymore!
I don’t disagree that we should probably build some more A-10 while we still have the capability. One major defficiency of the A-10 is the inability to fly on and off of a ship. The other is that most of the U.S. Air Force hates them and from day one!
PS: that applies to any Attack Aircraft metric you choose to compare; to include number of air-to-air kills!
I thought that the ‘spad’ was an incredible aircraft, but as my friend who worked on F4j’s (in Viet Nam) said “They weren’t a jet, so the brass didn’t like them.” Pilots loved flying them and anyone who had them flying close ground support for them thought that they were great.
A10’s were designed to react (especially in Europe) if Ivan decided to boil through the Fulda Gap. They were the tank killer extraordinaire. They were a flying platform for a 30mm rotary cannon that made armor ineffective (when firing depleted uranium rounds).
The Skyraider is one of my favorites but the A10 was an incredibly effective platform, as well. Unfortunately, neither plane was capable of supersonic flight, so the Pentagon had no use for them.
You obviously are not one of the hundreds (thousands?) of U.S. soldiers whose lives were saved by A-10 air support. The proof is in combat, where the A-10 shined.
In 1990 I taught Airmen of the Myrtle Beach Air Force Base, home to the 354th Tactical Fighter Wing (the first unit deployed to Saudi Arabia in The Gulf War). The Myrtle Beach A.F. Base was a home to the A-10, and the pilots and mechanics LOVED them. The base was shuttered due to budget cuts shortly after I moved back to Chicago in 1992 or 1993, but that’s another story.
Myrtle Beach is a great beach place to visit let alone work and PLAY!
I have no issues with A-10…i never needed one to cover my Escape, Evasion, and Rescue! I do personally know a number of A-10 drivers and have heard the horror stories of wing spar cracking and the rumors about the INTENTIONAL lack of authorization of a permanent FIX from the U.S. Air Force higher-ups.
I still will maintain my vote for the AD-1 Spad as best ever Attack Aircraft.
You’re right, Myrtle Beach is a great place to visit, but it’s not such a great place in which to live. Spring Break there lasts six weeks and meant traafic 24/7 and drunk teenagers lying passed out beside your driveway, in their own (I hope) bodily fluids at 6:00 AM when you need to get to work. There were at that time over 900 restaurants in M.B. and N.M.B., but only 2 of them were any good.
The AD-1 Spad is no doubt truly awesome, but the issue with intentionally not fixing a structural issue in the A-10 seems to me a failure of the suits in Washington rather than the plane itself.
The pilots I knew all said things like the below:
“[The A-10] is built to withstand more damage than any other frame that I know of. It’s known for its ruggedness. . . . [It] is not agile, nimble, fast or quick [but] deliberate, measured, hefty, impactful, calculated and sound. There’s nothing flimsy or fragile about the way it is constructed or about the way that it flies. . . I’ve seen this airplane land on a desert strip with the main gear buried in a foot of sand. On most planes, this would have ripped the gear up, but the A-10 turned right around and took off. There have been many instances where A-10 engines were shot up and the pilots did not know until the returned from a mission. . . .
“The firing barrel goes right down the center line. You can point the aircraft and shoot at the ground. If the aircraft loses all of its electronics including its digital displays and targeting systems, the pilot of an A-10 can still fly, drop general purpose bombs and shoot the 30mm cannon.” –A-10 pilot Lt. Col. Ryan Haden, 23rd Fighter Group Deputy, Moody AFB
When I taught A-10 pilots, the planes were only 8-11 years old, but the above quote is from 2017, when some of them were quite old and battle-scarred.
I remember more than one pilot using the slogan, “Low and slow is the way to go!” The A-10 was designed to be able to fly safely (titanium armor and all) at 300 over the enemy at an altitude of just 100 feet, close enough to see the fear in their eyes.
I often saw them flying so low overhead that I could make out fine details of the plane’s belly.
Michael and Shootski,
I enjoy your reading your exchange of views.
My vote goes for the Spad for being able to fly over the battlefield for longer times, for being slower, and for being cheaper to operate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_A2D_Skyshark was about to replace it – ‘once up on a time.’
I think both A-10 and A-1 served well, and now, they belong to the history books. A-10 will be around for a while but should’ve retired a long time ago.
I think the future of CAS is UCAV.
Now THIS is a superior (to anything else) aircraft — “Metallic Blimp.”
Hmmm. The photo didn’t appear. Accident, or Military Intelligence? ;^)
Did you mean Metallica Blimp?
I guess that could compete with that “other” groups Yellow Submarine….
As far as I know, A-10 is a close air support attack aircraft, not a fighter. F-35 is going to replace them.
Back in time, there were dive bombers. Now, there is no need for them. Maybe, F-35 is going to create a similar kind of trend. After the introduction of her high technology, there might not really be a need for A-10s. I might be wrong with that opinion though. Shootski will enlighten us all; he is the authority on the subject.
My wish for future CAS is a depleated Uranium fuel rod with an on ground user (the folks needing the Close Air Support) controlled guidance system deorbited from a Space platform.
Think of the Kinetic Energy!
Dropping crowbars from space! Guidance system will need work especially if your target is Danger Close! No way will orange smoke work.
IR or LASER with the right seeker head on the front of the crowbar. Some steering system fins or gas nozzles and I would call it in 30 meters out!
Probably dead anyway if it doesn’t take out the wave. Bet folks would dig their holes deeper.
I doubt if anybody can dig a deep enough hole in time that would guarantee safety from a falling crowbar.
Almost hate to say it. But you should of made the call.
We can think what we want but there is only truly one way to find out. How do you really know if you never ask.
In truth I have talked to Ed about bringing the NightStalker back several times. He agrees that it could make a nice pistol if Crosman would let him advance the clip with the blowback. Probably be a gas-guzzler, too.
If they make the Night Stalker again it better be ready for ole Gunfun1 to use a adapter and fit a regulated 13 cubic inch hpa bottle in it.
So even if its a air hog with the blow back no big deal with the regulated hpa bottle. I’ll take that no problem.
See thats how it can go now days. Time to think outside the box. Alleluia! Now lets see who can make it happen. 🙂
Batteries are getting smaller and more powerful every day…okay maybe every 18 days! 18 is an interesting unit of time for power.
Don’t know if Crosman still has the equipment or means but even if they have to import it I would get two new Mk I or MkII pistols in a heart beat. Those oversized black BB’s might work out well in a .177 too. No plastic !
One with realistic bluing like the electroplate finish on the S&W M29 or Colt SAA’s seems to have, along with real wood grips would be an instant collectable heirloom. Enough time has past to renew interest.
Glad I picked up on a Hatsan semiauto BB copy of the Ruger Mk IV Hunter pistol when I did too.
Better yet a semiauto MkII for lead BBs along the lines of the Hatsan Ruger copy, but better.
Heck, a quality copy High Standard would be nice too.
Just noticed Crosman has come out with a ‘semiauto only’ version of the R1 select fire … with semiauto ?
Be interesting to get behind the reason for that. Other than the color change.
I think it must be laws.
I don’t know, B.B. If Ford brought out an all electric Model A and a marketing campaign claiming it would save the planet, it just might outsell the Mustang.
(OK, curmudgeon time is over, I’m going back to bed).
You might just be right.
Them old model A and such would sure go through some rough terrain back then.
Search and see. No paved roads back then. Wheels buried to the axles and still motoring on. And snow. So what.
Here at RidgeRunner’s Home For Wayward Airguns, we often contemplate about “woulda, coulda, shoulda”. It is indeed quite difficult for a company to pick up production of something long gone. Most especially today. You are doing good if a production run lasts for one year. Even here in the airgun world the latest bright and shiny catches our attention and off we go. I include myself in this as I am guilty of this myself.
Fortunately, I sometimes come to my senses in time. Recently was one of those times. I remember the first Discovery I saw. It was when they were still producing them with walnut stocks. Unfortunately at the time my eyes were already set on something like a BSA Super Ten or even a Gary Barnes creation. That walnut stocked Discovery disappeared in the mists of time. Now the Discovery itself has wandered off into the mists. Is the CO2 rifle it is based on still available How many remember the Katana? How many wished they had picked up one?
They finally broke down and put a synthetic stock on the Discovery, made a few little modifications and called it the Maximus. It appears to be slipping into the mists itself. Fortunately, I grabbed up one before all the old stock was gone. Now it is a special order thing. The only reason you can still do that is most all of the parts go to the building of the Fortitude and the 22XX and 23XX pistols.
The Crosman 2260 on which the Discovery is based is still being made. They call it a Sheridan, which I think is a mistake, but it’s still being made.
Thanks! I knew I had seen it the other day, but I did not remember they had changed the name over to Sheridan. When I went to look for it this morning, I could not find it. I figured they had just used up what parts were left and it was gone.
I think they are messing up, but they have been convinced by the marketeers that everybody wants multi-shot silenced airguns. I guess there are just not enough of us old geezers to keep the lines going.
I am with you. Calling the 2260 a Sheridan is almost as inappropriate as calling a magnum springer a “streak.” Then again, I’m a purist when it comes to Sheridans. Genuine Sheridans were made in Racine, Wisconsin, possibly during the time when my great uncle worked there in the cleaning crew. :^)
BB, RR, Michael
What about if they called it a Benjamin 2260?
Or what if it didn’t have a brand name at all and was just a 2260.
Or a (use the name) “Crosman” 2260 would it sell better than if it was named otherwise?
Glad you finally got one when you did. 😉
Good report. Yea,.. you have to wonder how many great ideas/designs have been lost to time. Even from a purely simple engineering/design standpoint,… I could easily see some newbie engineer re-designing the wheel so to speak. When in fact, that design already existed 50 years ago.
It may be a novel concept,.. but companies would do well to have someone know and understand what has come before so that they could maybe glean something good from it.
Ford wouldn’t be able to build the Model T today thanks to all the Granny Gov’t and ambulance chasers out there who want to “protect” us from everything and/or set up a way to extract money from taxpayers and working stiffs thru our out-of-control tort system. One of these days bureaurats (FM’s spelling) will insist newborns be stamped with the following on their buttocks: “Government Warning: Being alive will eventually result in death.”
Gunfun1 thinks that Ford should ignore the government. 😉
I agree, would love a true semi auto pellet gun. Closest I have are bb guns (Crosman DPMS “rifle” and a couple Daisy 200 pistols). Also when you say True semi, I agree, on the TRUE. Not a revolver with the words semi on it or I have even seen people call the new multi shot break barrel pellet rifles semi auto. Geez, reaching there.
There have been precious few truly semi-auto pellet-shooting air pistols over the years. Crosman produced the 600, but the only other one that comes to mind at the moment is the Umarex Desert Eagle. Eight pellets in a circular clip and true semi-auto. CO2 advances the clip and cocks the striker. The trigger pull is excellent as is the accuracy. It also gets only about 24 shots per Powerlet.
It apparently did not sell very well as Umarex discontinued it not long after its introduction.
I totally forgot about that one. It was accurate in most reviews that I can remember. Seems like lots of buyers did complain about it “breaking” though. I know it was a gas hog and it did seem high priced at that time. Now I wish it was back lol.
I just thought of another, the Daisy 2003. That one had a shot capacity of 35 pellets and could be converted to full auto! Imagine 35 pellets spit out in roughly 4 seconds.
Oh, a few words of warning to anyone hot to get one now. 1) They break easily (all flimsy plastic) so be careful. 2) Only lightweitght wadcutters can be used and even then they are somewhat jam-prone. 3) I have no idea how difficult the full-auto mod is or is not.
They are fun, however.
I forgot about that one too. Never owned one but did handle them years ago at a big box store. I was put off by the cheesy construction. I was worried I would break it just holding it. They seemed very weak built.
The trigger advances the clip of the Desert Eagle. As far as I can remember B.B. didn’t realized that at the beginning but one reader mentioned it and he confirmed that.
I did not know that. Thanks for the correction. The trigger is so nice, it’s easy to be fooled into believing it is true semi-auto.
Since CCI SV [and most any target/pistol .22LR] is outrageous to buy even if you can find it, I dusted -off my 600 to shoot Bullseye. I’ll stick to 25YD slow fire, but 30 shots [barely] per CO2 cartridge and .22 was cutters are vastly cheaper and I’m happy.
BTW, at $200 for a brick, $250 for the pistol would be cheap!
And that’s exactly why shooting air guns take priority over firearms for me.
And believe me I have shot my fair share of firearms (semi auto) throughout time.
Air guns are accurate and cheaper to shoot if you find the right balance of combination with air guns.
I just thought of a potential “litmus test” to determine if an air gun is ripe for reissue. Despite not being rarities, each year they go up in price in the auctions and classifieds, not as collector pieces but as desirable shooters. Some have gone up in price far beyond their original MSRPs. Consider the Izzy target air pistol and early sidelever target air rifles. The pistols now have asking prices of $700 and up. That they are no longer imported is part of it, but GOBS of them were sold in the U.S. for a long time. It’s mostly because they are great shooters.
BB, when do plastic toys that shoot become collectible? My experience is, they get thrown away when
they stop working, if they even worked to begin with. Weirauch doesn’t change the formula because they know
who their market is, it is not kids, and Crosman doesn’t want to be sued, so we get from them a watered down version of a real gun, mostly. That Nightstalker looks like the Berretta carbine to me, but the 600 is on my must have list, the closest thing to a Ruger .22lr pistol you can shoot in your back yard. I’ve heard, that’s allot of fun for some lucky folks!
The Nightstalker was a replica of a real gun (Beretta CX4) that turned out to not be very popular. Which was a problem. Which also affects the (better but more expensive) Umarex replica of the same thing.
Also it gained a reputation for poor reliability.
Is the NightStalker a true semi automatic if the trigger advances the rotary magazine?
Well, Crosman intentionally limited that. Yes it is a true semi auto that was hamstrung at birth.
I read this on ASP20 page, “We have discontinued the ASP20 line of air rifles.” It was posted on 02/25/21 as a reply to a customer question.
Well that settles that. It’s not just a rumor.
If SIG was just an airgun company the termination would have to rank as the most monumental sales department mistake of the Century.
Instead it will likely be chalked up as the biggest error committed by the airgun community for not buying it in quantity and for listening to a few airgun Influencers with ulterior motive(s)…just plain dumb.
This is truly a dangerous situation, but I have been thinking. I have been giving serious consideration to a steel breech Crosman CO2 pistol like the 2240XL.
Something I wish to know about is the CO2 cartridge sealed tightly at the neck when pierced or if the whole tube fills with CO2. My reasoning is I would want to find an add on adapter to install two CO2 cartridges at a time.
Yes the co2 seals at the neck, the 2240 valve is not sealed in the tube so if the tube was filled it would quickly escape past the valve. I have heard that a disco valve will fit and seal the air tube but do not know if that is true.
You would need something like this https://www.gmaccustomparts.com/epages/BT3197.sf/en_GB/?ObjectPath=/Shops/BT3197/Products/001-0110 and use an external bulk fill co2 source or regulated hpa system.
The 2240, 2250, and 2260 tubes do not fill with gas by design. In the 2240 the tube end cap pushes the capsule into the seal, in the 2250 the end cap has an attached rod that does the same, and finally in the 2260 it is just an even longer rod attached to the end cap. Folks did however do mods that pressurized the tube and some launched parts (the valve) out the wrong end of the tube. The “fix” was to drill the tube and thee valve for extra holding screws. I personally liked Quackenbush’s bulk fill system much better.
If you need more info just shout.
Seems like the safest way is to either change the entire tube and end cap for bulk fill or you install a drop block for a regulated HPA system.
Has everything you need: http://www.mac1airgunshop.com/mobile/Category.aspx?id=1824
I think the world of this fellow airgunner.
B.B. and Readership,
The U.S. House of Representatives has a Bill, as of today, before it to limit magazine (clip) to No More than 10 rounds. I have not found a full copy thus far but all media reporting has nothing about the magazines being firearm specific; which is as I feared. Let your Representative know about this omission.
If you haven’t studied the Gifford Web site and their take on airguns you owe it to yourselves to Get Smart quickly.
Remember the objective isn’t Common Sense Gun Control.
The TRUE Objective is TERMINATION of the shooting Culture. What better starting point then Airguns! They want our Kids to do their dirty work by never having opportunity or the desire to learn the joys of shooting!
Air powered guns have NO Bill of Rights protection.
They most certainly do. The issue is that no one with the financial backing required has challenged them on these laws restricting airguns. If you recall, at the time the 2nd Amendment was written armies were being equipped with airguns. The 2nd Amendment says “arms”. It does not specifically state what those arms are. Technically, according to the 2nd Amendment we can possess a nuclear weapon.
Pervo Joe and his gang of commies are claiming our Bill of Rights are not absolute. He is correct in stating that the 1st Amendment does not protect us from entering a crowded theater and yelling “fire!” This in reality is a very poor example as this action would likely cause harm to other people and the Bill of Rights does not shield us when we do such. If you were to take a firearm into that crowded theater and started to kill people, the 2nd Amendment would not protect you either.
Whether “Liberal” or “Conservative” in their personal beliefs, all of the Justices of the Supreme Court are knowledgeable in the definition of words and the interpretation and exact meaning of the Bill of Rights, which was meant to protect the individual from the will of the masses and power of the Government. It is a sad testimony of our society that they refuse to do such.
You are of course correct in your understanding of -Bear Arms – as opposed to the current accepted incorrect usage.
I am also in complete agreement with the rest of your post.
As long as, We the People, allow the vocal few to drive the debate, We the People, will continue to see our disenfranchisement grow! Allowing them to blame an inanimate object for VIOLENCE is the first and foremost issue that needs to be STOPPED. Without DERANGED and VIOLENT PEOPLE Arms of all Kind are simply functional tools.
He said without emotion.
Wouldn’t the advent of 3-D printing make making/remaking all of the gun mentioned so much easier?
Also, machines can be reprogrammed, humans not so easy……….