| Which one? |
| 2250 B |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| 2250 XT |
|
100% |
[ 2 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 2 |
|
| Author |
Message
|
| jon_89 |
 Posted: 06/09/2008 21:12 PM Post subject: |
 |
|
Lieutenant Colonel
Joined: 11 Apr 2007
Posts: 476
641.87 Spud Bux
|
| Yeah I cant wait to get it. I think the first mod I will do is a silencer. I have read several reviews that it is loud, but oh well my break barrel is pretty loud and no one really cares. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
|
| Ragnarok |
| Posted: 06/10/2008 6:49 AM Post subject: |
|
|
Lord of Karma
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Posts: 2616
7128.69 Spud Bux
|
...Why spend huge amounts upgrading it?
Mods aren't really cost effective, because you're paying for the original part and then the new one (usually at an inflated price), only to discard the original pieces. Really, if you're planning on spending more than about 20-25% of the original cost on doing it up, then you could probably be spending more effectively.
Still, I do hope you enjoy your purchase - if you're happy with it, then that's the most important thing, ain't it? 
Myself, I'm waiting for a new scope for my Air Arms - it should arrive tomorrow - to replace the one that I borrowed from HEAL (which was bought as a cheapish experiment, not as a top quality scope)
Bit more fancy than the current one, still a 3-9x40 but with full parallax adjustment from 5 yards to infinity and the option of an illuminated reticule of varying brightnesses in either red or green.
| THUNDERLORD wrote: | | EDIT: It's not that funny when I think about it. I should e-mail Crosman and tell them to leave pigeons, crows, rabbits and squirrels alone. |
I quite agree - people shouldn't take to hunting until they've properly mastered their rifles, else you'll get over eager kiddies taking potshots at things and just winging them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jon_89 |
| Posted: 06/10/2008 18:28 PM Post subject: |
|
|
Lieutenant Colonel
Joined: 11 Apr 2007
Posts: 476
641.87 Spud Bux
|
| the upgrade idea was just a thought but there are alot of things i could do. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| magnum9987 |
| Posted: 06/10/2008 19:19 PM Post subject: |
|
|
1st Lieutenant
Joined: 07 May 2008
Posts: 276
4.03 Spud Bux
|
| It depends on what you are looking for in the gun. 550 fps in weak, you won't get distance, and with metal pellets, you won't get any good range (My pumpmaster 760 is 625 fps and is only accurate to up to 100yards). So i suggest you g with the higher fps. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Ragnarok |
| Posted: 06/11/2008 2:27 AM Post subject: |
|
|
Lord of Karma
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Posts: 2616
7128.69 Spud Bux
|
| magnum9987 wrote: | | It depends on what you are looking for in the gun. 550 fps in weak, you won't get distance, and with metal pellets, you won't get any good range |
Equally, at shorter ranges, lower powered airguns can be just as accurate, if not more so.
550 fps in .22 is still over 10 ft-lbs with a respectable pellet weight, not a disrespectable figure, especially for a CO2 rifle.
| Quote: | | My pumpmaster 760 is 625 fps and is only accurate to up to 100yards. |
I suspect you're being overgenerous in your range estimates, or defining accurate as "can usually hit a flaming pink elephant"*.
To be properly accurate much beyond 50 yards is very difficult and needs a good rifle, especially if wind is any more than a breath.
100 yard "accuracy" with a smoothbore like the 760? Sounds overgenerous to me.
*Curses, the FPE strikes again. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| hi |
| Posted: 06/11/2008 19:18 PM Post subject: |
|
|
Major General
Joined: 01 Feb 2007
Posts: 1471
1053.27 Spud Bux
|
| Quote: |
To be properly accurate much beyond 50 yards is very difficult and needs a good rifle, especially if wind is any more than a breath.
100 yard "accuracy" with a smoothbore like the 760? Sounds overgenerous to me.
|
i could pop soda cans with my crossman 764 at 50 yard and it was a smooth bore, so i beleave it.
it may not be a MOA weapon, but its good enough to get on paper. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Ragnarok |
| Posted: 06/12/2008 4:54 AM Post subject: |
|
|
Lord of Karma
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Posts: 2616
7128.69 Spud Bux
|
I think the difference here arises from a variable definition of accuracy.
Putting a hole in a sheet of A4 at 100 yards is not a particular challenge. I've done similar feats with some of my launchers.
That in my opinion, although not bad for a smoothbore, isn't really accuracy.
When do I consider something accurate? Hard to say, but I don't think you're ever going to find many smoothbores winning competitions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jon_89 |
| Posted: 06/18/2008 20:54 PM Post subject: |
|
|
Lieutenant Colonel
Joined: 11 Apr 2007
Posts: 476
641.87 Spud Bux
|
| Well I got it today. I instantly took off the scope and put a red dot on it. This gun is awesome. Sorry no damage pictures. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Maniac |
| Posted: 06/18/2008 21:20 PM Post subject: |
|
|
Lieutenant Colonel
Joined: 23 Oct 2007
Posts: 488
559.27 Spud Bux
|
| Whats the longest distance you've tested it up too, so far. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jon_89 |
| Posted: 06/18/2008 21:29 PM Post subject: |
|
|
Lieutenant Colonel
Joined: 11 Apr 2007
Posts: 476
641.87 Spud Bux
|
I would say about 50 feet. It went in a piece of wood about a 1/4 inch. It is pretty accurate also and I dont have it fully zeroed in yet.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Ragnarok |
| Posted: 06/19/2008 5:58 AM Post subject: |
|
|
Lord of Karma
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Posts: 2616
7128.69 Spud Bux
|
| jon_89 wrote: | | Sorry no damage pictures. |
Although they're neat for target shooting, and perhaps hunting, seldom will an air rifle shame a decent spuddy for damage, unless you're talking about as serious big bore one, like a Quackenbush.
Hope you enjoy your new "toy". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jackssmirkingrevenge |
| Posted: 06/19/2008 6:03 AM Post subject: |
|
|
space monkey
Joined: 15 Mar 2007
Posts: 7042
11289.54 Spud Bux
|
| Ragnarok wrote: | | ...unless you're talking about as serious big bore one, like a Quackenbush |
Or this monster 
| Quote: | | That is 1005 grain "pellet" fired at 715 fps | |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Ragnarok |
| Posted: 06/19/2008 6:18 AM Post subject: |
|
|
Lord of Karma
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Posts: 2616
7128.69 Spud Bux
|
Yeah, that one did come to mind.
~1150 ft-lb is very impressive for an airgun, although I have to say, as far as practicality goes, I'm gonna be sticking with my Air Arms, even if it only has 1% of the power. 
Should I ever need to bring down a buffalo, I do have other methods. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jackssmirkingrevenge |
| Posted: 06/19/2008 6:23 AM Post subject: |
|
|
space monkey
Joined: 15 Mar 2007
Posts: 7042
11289.54 Spud Bux
|
| Ragnarok wrote: | | ~1150 ft-lb is very impressive for an airgun |
Being of a calibre greater than 0.75", I think this really blurs the line between "airguns" and "spudguns", though it does set an impressive standard of what can be done with higher pressures, something which many more experienced spudders seem to be moving towards. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Ragnarok |
| Posted: 06/19/2008 6:57 AM Post subject: |
|
|
Lord of Karma
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Posts: 2616
7128.69 Spud Bux
|
Well, I'll be able to make around half that muzzle energy with my next project, which will be done in my standard 0.80" calibre copper barrel.
Well, strictly, it's slightly under that diameter, but "Eighty cal" sounds cool enough that I'm calling artistic licence.
However, that really is starting to get worryingly close to the safety limit of the materials available to me, and I will be using nearly 4 feet of barrel, which must be twice the length of that rifle's barrel.
It's also hard to conjure up those pressures in any real volume - the new popularity of fridge compressors certainly helps, but beyond 500 psi, you then need to start dabbling in HPA bottles if you want any real volume.
I don't pretend I'm a world leader at these things - although I'm no slouch - but judging by the limits on my own advancement, it's going to be a long time before spudders can conjure up quite the same pneumatically, although perhaps with sufficently zany hybrid mixes... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
