I own 3 P35s and bought them before I knew of the Stoeger Bullshark. The 25 caliber was purchased before the Bullshark was out. But I started looking at the posts and other information on the bullshark and got pretty convinced it was (is) the P35 with a few changes. I was offered a chance to set up a new Bullshark for another forum member. He paid for shipping both ways and provided the pellets. Seemed like a deal to me. So I now have hands on experience and can confirm my suspicion (shared by many of you) that these are nearly the same airgun. But there are differences which I will get into in this post. Overall I think the bullshark is a little better, I will explain why later.
First difference is the weight. I used my old electronic fish scale to obtain these weights so I am sure they are off by an ounce or two on some measurements but they give us a pretty decent idea. My P35-22 in the cherry stock I normally have it in weighed 5 lbs 4 ounces without a scope. That bare action (no stock or scope) weighed 3 lbs 13 ounces. The Bullshark action weighed 3 lbs 15 ounces. That extra 2 ounces is probably the 40 mm longer barrel primarily. My original plastic P35 stock weighed 1 lb 2 ounces. The Bullshark stock weighed 2 lbs 2 ounces. It's a bigger stock as will be illustrated with a picture but an extra pound for the stock seems like a lot. I made wood stocks for all my P35s mainly to get them to fit me better but I would do it for sure if I had a bullshark. I think this difference favors the P35.
While we are on stocks, both rifles have about a 13 inch length of pull in their plastic stock. I consider this grossly small. I want about 15 inches. I also want a larger distance from the back of the handgrip to the trigger. I put those differences in my wood stocks. The softwood one is thus larger than the plastic original but still weighs about the same. The hardwood ones are bigger and weigh about 1/4 lb more. I liked the bigger handgrip the owner had put on the bullshark better and I think the fact that include options on the handgrip and cheek rest is an advantage for the bullshark. Their length of pull added pieces are so small they don't seem to do much, however.
A difference favoring the Bullshark is velocity. It has a 490mm barrel versus the 450mm barrel of the P35. This bullshark is also tuned to a higher regulator pressure of about 145 bar whereas my P35 came tuned to about 135 bar. But I got velocities as high as 882 fps from the bullshark with H&N Baracuda Match 21 grain pellets. My P35 is more like 835 and even less in cooler weiather. I turned down the hammer spring on the bullshark about 5% from this max to 850-860 fps. My P35 is not 5% under because it's regulator did not like that setting - it would send the first shot of the day noticably slower tuned that way. So it is only about 2% under max. It's hard to say how much is regulator and how much is the longer barrel but I'm going to assume the barrel is a significant part of the added velocity.
Noise control is more subjective. I was surprised to measure the Bullshark at only 80 db or less. I had my phone with an app running beside me on the shooting bench. That is not the best way to measure sound but it was conveinent. My P35s are equivalently quiet but they have 120mm long printed modeators in their shrouds. That makes the gun longer. I like the way the bullshark manages sound well without the added length and the fact that it has a 1/2 UNF fitting on the shroud if you want to add a moderator. But baffles like the bullshark uses can be damaged by pellet clipping if the back nut of the shroud slides down the barrel. It is secured by a grub screw and it tends to move after a bunch of shots. I think the larger space in the shroud for a moderator is an advantage of the P35 but I also like the good management of the bullshark without the same length increase and the stock adapter for a add on moderator. So I would say sound management is an advantage of the bullshark but it is close.
A subtle but significant advantage of the bullshark is the female threads for the rear stock attachment screw. On my P35s, the female threads are in what appears to be a zinc alloy casting. I've had to repair them with threaded inserts. That isn't expensive, the kit only cost about $10 from Amazon, but the bullshark has steel female threads. That is more solid even versus the zinc piece with the 304 insert. This is the only "cheaply made" area I've noticed on my P35s and it's nice it's upgraded in the newer bullshark.
Last there is the fact that the bullshark is available in the U. S. and carries a 5 year warranty. The owner of the bullshark I set up got it for free when he had a baffle problem with his previous bullshark. So at least his dealer is honoring the warranty in a first class fashion. I see this as another area that favors the bullshark.
A silly little difference that does not favor the bullshark is the additional warning label on the barrel that I'll include a picture of. Not a big deal but not an advantage to me, either.
While I think the bullshark is the better buy these days I don't see the differences as significant enough I want to convert over. They are mostly the same gun. I do think this bullshark shoots as well as my P35-22, however. The last 5 shots I took with it were all 10s on a 30 yard challenge target and several were Xs. I was using it's 12X scope.
First difference is the weight. I used my old electronic fish scale to obtain these weights so I am sure they are off by an ounce or two on some measurements but they give us a pretty decent idea. My P35-22 in the cherry stock I normally have it in weighed 5 lbs 4 ounces without a scope. That bare action (no stock or scope) weighed 3 lbs 13 ounces. The Bullshark action weighed 3 lbs 15 ounces. That extra 2 ounces is probably the 40 mm longer barrel primarily. My original plastic P35 stock weighed 1 lb 2 ounces. The Bullshark stock weighed 2 lbs 2 ounces. It's a bigger stock as will be illustrated with a picture but an extra pound for the stock seems like a lot. I made wood stocks for all my P35s mainly to get them to fit me better but I would do it for sure if I had a bullshark. I think this difference favors the P35.
While we are on stocks, both rifles have about a 13 inch length of pull in their plastic stock. I consider this grossly small. I want about 15 inches. I also want a larger distance from the back of the handgrip to the trigger. I put those differences in my wood stocks. The softwood one is thus larger than the plastic original but still weighs about the same. The hardwood ones are bigger and weigh about 1/4 lb more. I liked the bigger handgrip the owner had put on the bullshark better and I think the fact that include options on the handgrip and cheek rest is an advantage for the bullshark. Their length of pull added pieces are so small they don't seem to do much, however.
A difference favoring the Bullshark is velocity. It has a 490mm barrel versus the 450mm barrel of the P35. This bullshark is also tuned to a higher regulator pressure of about 145 bar whereas my P35 came tuned to about 135 bar. But I got velocities as high as 882 fps from the bullshark with H&N Baracuda Match 21 grain pellets. My P35 is more like 835 and even less in cooler weiather. I turned down the hammer spring on the bullshark about 5% from this max to 850-860 fps. My P35 is not 5% under because it's regulator did not like that setting - it would send the first shot of the day noticably slower tuned that way. So it is only about 2% under max. It's hard to say how much is regulator and how much is the longer barrel but I'm going to assume the barrel is a significant part of the added velocity.
Noise control is more subjective. I was surprised to measure the Bullshark at only 80 db or less. I had my phone with an app running beside me on the shooting bench. That is not the best way to measure sound but it was conveinent. My P35s are equivalently quiet but they have 120mm long printed modeators in their shrouds. That makes the gun longer. I like the way the bullshark manages sound well without the added length and the fact that it has a 1/2 UNF fitting on the shroud if you want to add a moderator. But baffles like the bullshark uses can be damaged by pellet clipping if the back nut of the shroud slides down the barrel. It is secured by a grub screw and it tends to move after a bunch of shots. I think the larger space in the shroud for a moderator is an advantage of the P35 but I also like the good management of the bullshark without the same length increase and the stock adapter for a add on moderator. So I would say sound management is an advantage of the bullshark but it is close.
A subtle but significant advantage of the bullshark is the female threads for the rear stock attachment screw. On my P35s, the female threads are in what appears to be a zinc alloy casting. I've had to repair them with threaded inserts. That isn't expensive, the kit only cost about $10 from Amazon, but the bullshark has steel female threads. That is more solid even versus the zinc piece with the 304 insert. This is the only "cheaply made" area I've noticed on my P35s and it's nice it's upgraded in the newer bullshark.
Last there is the fact that the bullshark is available in the U. S. and carries a 5 year warranty. The owner of the bullshark I set up got it for free when he had a baffle problem with his previous bullshark. So at least his dealer is honoring the warranty in a first class fashion. I see this as another area that favors the bullshark.
A silly little difference that does not favor the bullshark is the additional warning label on the barrel that I'll include a picture of. Not a big deal but not an advantage to me, either.
While I think the bullshark is the better buy these days I don't see the differences as significant enough I want to convert over. They are mostly the same gun. I do think this bullshark shoots as well as my P35-22, however. The last 5 shots I took with it were all 10s on a 30 yard challenge target and several were Xs. I was using it's 12X scope.
Love it