spinj

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 20 posts - 1 through 20 (of 232 total)
  • Views :
  • Link

    spinj
    Participant
    Member

    Is the trigger on that Vulcan still made of plastic?

    Link

    spinj
    Participant
    Member

    I have a Cricket .22 that is powered down to shoot at only 8.5 FPE with 16-grain JSBs; the pellets are shooting at 495 FPS (I can achieve 450 shots from 220 – 40 BAR with an extreme spread of 12 FPS over the entire range with unsorted pellets).  I live in a suburb and I practice-shoot in my backyard and, on occasion, eliminate  pest pigeons, and it is important that I don't shoot at high power.  Even at this power level, however, I can hit the tips of palm tree leaves (my practice targets) at 43 yards. 

    If money is no object and you want a high-end, versatile airgun, those that allow you to adjust their hammer spring rates and regulator pressures–even better, the hole on their transfer ports (though with most guns with holes in their barrels to permit air let-in you can just rotate them to increase/decrease their hole size)–can easily have their power decreased/increased to your own liking.

    • This reply was modified 1 week ago by spinj.
    Link

    spinj
    Participant
    Member

    orion

    I really don't understand why more manufactures are not copying the Taipan magazine system. The anti double feeding is a must have, once you get used to that it's really hard to look back. I can decock my rifle but if when I'm ready to cock it again I have to remove the magazine to avoid double feeding …. 😵  I used to own a Taipan, and the magazine system is genius, simple magazines, no spring no moving parts. No problems with any pellet (tall, short) and I can truly load single handled. I tried with a Cricket and … :) good luck!

     

    I agree with you on this.

     

    Link

    spinj
    Participant
    Member

    I would recommed the Diana Bullseye Zero-Recoil mount if you want to terminate completely and forever the problem of springer-induced scope breakage.  With this mount you can use any scope you wish on your springer.

    Below is an excerpt of my response to a post about springer-rated scopes about the Bullseye mount:

     

    I’ve read about some people complaining about the mount not working as advertised, but I tell you this: It does work.  It really does.  You see, when I set it up on my TX200 I wondered why there was slight play (just only a tiny bit) on it when I twisted the scope just to see if all was tight.  But then I noticed that on the rear of the front ring is a steel centering cone against which a corresponding hole on the base rests itself partially following a shot cycle or when just stationary.  I tried moving the scope to the left and right to see if POI continued to be true and it did.  I even recorded in slowmotion a shot taken with the ZR mount and it showed  that only the rifle kicked back—the scope stayed put.

     

     

     

    • This reply was modified 1 week ago by spinj.
    Link

    spinj
    Participant
    Member

    KalibrGun

    spinj

    Here are two questions I wish to be answered: (1) Will the very cumbersome and complicated magazine retaining system be improved to make it easier to insert the magazine on the Cricket II?  I don't like that the mechanism on the current Cricket requires that I put the gun down and use two hands just to insert the magazine.  (2) Why have the option to get a plastic and metal trigger?  Shouldn't you just make one model with a metal trigger?  Sorry, but I think having an option for a "plastic" trigger over a metal one is a bit silly and un-classy.  To me it's like going to a fine-dining restaurant and that upon completing your order for their finest steak you get asked by the waiter, "Would you like your steak with a ketchup packet or freshly made house sauce?"  In my opinion, when you sell a gun costing about the same as, say, an Apple iMac (not the best example, I know, but oh well), premium, having high-quality materials on it is a given–not an option.

    Hello, thank you for your questions:
    1. On Cricket II retaining system remains the same, practice can ease the process. Also it is possible to do with one hand.
    2. Plastic trigger works the same but looks and feels different. It's up to you which one suites best for you.

    Thank you for the the quick response and the development of a new Cricket; it is greatly appreciated.  Unfortunately, implementing the same magazine retaining system on the upcoming Cricket II is something that will be a big disadvantage and letdown to me. 

    It seems the Veteran will be my next airgun. 

    • This reply was modified 1 week ago by spinj.
    Link

    spinj
    Participant
    Member

    For those asking for a copy, I’ll just send it via PM instead from now on as the forum now allows file attachments, so there is no need to provide me with an email address.  

    To those who have recently requested a copy, please check your PM inbox.

    Link

    spinj
    Participant
    Member

    Here are two questions I wish to be answered: (1) Will the very cumbersome and complicated magazine retaining system be improved to make it easier to insert the magazine on the Cricket II?  I don't like that the mechanism on the current Cricket requires that I put the gun down and use two hands just to insert the magazine.  (2) Why have the option to get a plastic and metal trigger?  Shouldn't you just make one model with a metal trigger?  Sorry, but I think having an option for a "plastic" trigger over a metal one is a bit silly and un-classy.  To me it's like going to a fine-dining restaurant and that upon completing your order for their finest steak you get asked by the waiter, "Would you like your steak with a ketchup packet or freshly made house sauce?"  In my opinion, when you sell a gun costing about the same as, say, an Apple iMac (not the best example, I know, but oh well), having premium, high-quality materials on it is a given–not an option.

    • This reply was modified 1 week ago by spinj.
    Link

    spinj
    Participant
    Member

    I also use a Diana Bullseye Zero-Recoil mount and am so glad that there is finally a mount that allows me to use any scope on my springer.  I have the new version, as stated on the box.

    I’ve read about some people complaining about the mount not working as advertised, but I tell you this: It does work.  It really does.  You see, when I set it up on my TX200 I wondered why there was slight play (just only a tiny bit) on it when I twisted the scope just to see if all was tight.  But then I noticed that on the rear of the front ring is a steel centering cone against which a corresponding hole on the base rests itself partially following a shot cycle or when just stationary.  I tried moving the scope to the left and right to see if POI continued to be true and it did.  I even recorded in slowmotion a shot taken with the ZR mount and it showed  that only the rifle kicked back—the scope stayed put.

    • This reply was modified 1 week ago by spinj.
    Link

    spinj
    Participant
    Member

    For those asking for a copy, the spreadsheet has been sent via PM.

    • This reply was modified 1 week ago by spinj.
    Link

    spinj
    Participant
    Member

    octavius

    Hi spinj :) I know you had also old cricket we talk about that on tgag forum. oh yes, the further I feel like going to Veteran by reading.

    Vetran doesn't have any cheek piece. Is it disadvantage little bit?  I have read something the Taipan Veteran has LW barrel now not CZ. Is there any practice or any difference with accuracy. I know all cal.25 are from LW company because CZ UB doesn't provide barrel for cal.25 but I don't know which quality are LW cal.22 barrel?

     

     

    Hi Octavius.  Yes, I remember. 

    I can't say anything about the lack of a cheekpiece on the Veteran, but I hope in the near future Taipan releases their next bullpup with one.  As far as the Veterans using LW barrels now, it is not a deal-breaker for me.  I shoot both LW and CZ barrels and neither one is more accurate than the other.  I think the perpetuated idea that CZ is better is just a placebo, so I don't think you should worry about it.  Let me tell you the one-word secret as to why it is said that LW or CZ is better: MARKETING.

    • This reply was modified 1 week ago by spinj.
    Link

    spinj
    Participant
    Member

    I own a first-generation Cricket that is not going anywhere; however, I had been contemplating between a Vulcan and a Veteran.  Initially, I thought the Vulcan would be a better fit for me because of the forward, switchable sidelever cocking mechanism and because it had a better looking stock than the Veteran.  What unimpresses me about the Vulcan though is its plastic trigger blade and cheekpiece.  For an expensive air rifle these things really "cheapen" the Vulcan's overall aesthetics.  I sent an email to Airgun Technology–TWICE–about this and asked if they plan on releasing Vulcans with alloy triggers, but they never replied.  I believe they are hesitant to answer my question. 

    What hugely impresses me about the Veteran is its trigger unit, especially its wide range of adjustability.  And when I saw that Taipan now sells the Veteran with Minelli laminated stocks I completely forgot about the Vulcan.  The forest green (or whatever its called) laminate stock would be the one I would opt for.  What is holding me back from putting an order in is that I am under the suspicion that Taipan may be releasing a sidelever action in the near future from reading one post recently on this forum in which a Taipan representative hinted that there is going to be "something" new.  Anyway, since I am a lefthand shooter, having the option to have which side the cocking lever is set is very welcoming.  Having it placed close to the trigger is even better.  If the next Veteran (or whatever "new" model Taipan releases) has a switchable, forward-cocking sidelever, I believe I will have found a companion for my Cricket.   

    Good luck in your decision-making.

    • This reply was modified 1 week ago by spinj.
    Link

    spinj
    Participant
    Member

    Hey folks!  Just wanted to add my experience with both brands if it will help in making the OP come to a decision.  I have neither of the scopes the OP is interested in, but I have two Hawke 4-16X50 Sidewinders and a Vortex Diamondback Tactical 6-24X50 FFP.  Both are great scopes for the price they are sold.  Personally, it is not my intention to shoot my airguns even up to 200 yards, so I felt there was no reason for me to pay over twelve hundred dollars for a scope with mid- to top-tier glass (even with having the available funds), which I believe is designed mainly to keep tracking performance accurate and resolution as crisp as possible at non-airgun distances.  This is why I cannot believe why some people will spend such amount of money on a scope intended primarily for powder-burners that can really reach out there for their airguns.  But hey, it's their money and desires, so all is good. 

    HAWKE SIDEWINDER 4-16X50 (PERFORMANCE)

    Besides the Vortex, there is no other scope I can think of in the same class–because I haven't tried any else–that can beat it.  Tracking is precise for the distances I shoot and image clarity is very good.  Of course, at maximum magnification the brightness drops and the resolution becomes a bit fuzzy, and that's because the glass imperfections are only being amplified.  However, I shoot at 10X, and this is enough for me.  Plus, it keeps the image quality bright and clear, enough to allow me to discern between the target and surroundings and everything else in between.  Turret repeatability and return-to-zero are excellent.           

    VORTEX DIAMONDBACK TACTICAL 6-24X50 FFP (PERFORMANCE)

    This is the only front focal plane (FFP) scope I own.  I think an FFP scope has its advantages, but not any more than a secondary focal plane one.  I think each type has its own specific purpose.  The glass on this scope seems to be marginally better than that on the Hawke in that image clarity is a level above and resolution is slightly crisper.  But like the Hawke, at maximum magnification, the image degrades just slightly but still brighter than the Hawke.  That said, this does not necessarily mean that the Hawke is inferior.  To me what matters is if you can see it you can hit it, and that's what you get with both the Hawke and Vortex, just cutting to the short and sweet of it.  The biggest disadvantage of the Vortex, or its FFP design, specifically, is that the reticle is almost invisible at the lower end of the magnification range.  If shooting at dark targets it is almost impossible to see the reticle.  Of course, the solution is to increase magnification, but doing so will accordingly magnify, and coincidentally exaggerate, the tiny movements your body produces. 

    FUNCTIONALITY (BOTH)

    The Sidewinder and the Diamondback (it's funny how both are named after snakes) do what they are built for.  But to be fair, what I like about the Sidewinder is that it has a turret-locking feature while the Diamondback doesn't.  It also has an illuminated reticle, which in my opinion, can come in very handy when shooting at black or dark targets.  I wish the Diamondback also has this feature because I often like to shoot at low magnification powers, and since the Diamondback is an FFP, illuminating the reticle would help in this regard given it's almost invisibile at those mag levels (or it's just my aging eyes).  The Sidewinder also comes with a large sidewheel rotor to make focusing easier.  The Diamondback does not come with one; I don't think there even is one available for it.  Both scopes provide an adjustable ocular lens to allow you to focus the reticle to your vision; however, the Hawke goes one step further by enabling you to lock its position once you've found the correct setting.  Finally, both scopes have a minimum focus distance of 10 yards, which is suitable for airguns.  

    PERSONAL RECOMMENDATION

    As is evident from the above, I would say that you can't go wrong with either.  Both brands have their own solid reputation.  And although Vortex's warranty is superior to Hawke's, I'd say it shouldn't even be a deal-breaker.  Hawke's warranty is quite respectable.  Lastly, I think both companies manufacture solid scopes that can perform much more than your abilities as a (airgun) shooter.  

    Good luck in your decision.  Cheers!

    • This reply was modified 9 months ago by spinj.
    Link

    spinj
    Participant
    Member

    I’ve been to Penchetta once only after having found about it when I was looking at the dealer site page from a particular scope manufacturer.  Before then I thought that AOA was the only high-end AG (and certain scopes) dealer here in the valley.  Anyway, the store is very nice with LOTS of pens, mainly of the fountain style, and some other specialty items.  The airgun selection, though not as varied as some and modest, consists of models from the upper-tier brands as stated in the OP’s post.   I think it’s a nice novelty store.

    • This reply was modified 9 months ago by spinj.
    Link

    spinj
    Participant
    Member

    I also kill cards like these for talking smack:

    Link

    spinj
    Participant
    Member

    Dbez1

    Accuracy wise, we shoot at flys and hornets at distances I’m not going to tell you because you won’t believe me.

    Oh I believe you.👍  For practice, with my powered-down (9 FPE) Cricket, I shoot the tips of palm leaves at 40 yards.

    • This reply was modified 9 months ago by spinj.
    Link

    spinj
    Participant
    Member

    I am interested in both but I a have an “aww man” feeling for each when deciding on either one as a second bullpup:  For the Vulcan, I feel that way because of its plastic trigger, cheekpiece, and side plate material (I think the plates are plastic as well, last time I held one). And I feel the same for the Veteran’s cocking lever location, and, yes, its stock.  Though perhaps AGT uses a high-quality polymer, for the price the Vulcan sells, it’s not acceptable to me.   I have no doubt both are precision tools, though.  Anyway, my interest has now been directed to the newly released Kalibrgun Capybara. 

    • This reply was modified 9 months ago by spinj.
    Link

    spinj
    Participant
    Member

    You're welcome, folks. 

    Now, if you happen to use Chairgun Pro like me and want to dial things in for precision shooting, here's a cut-and-paste of my response to one post in the past (original post link: https://www.airgunnation.com/topic/strelok-pro-vs-chairgun/#post-362548):

     

    I've never used Strelok Pro, just Chairgun; and I find it spot-on, provided that accurate data is inputted (and I'm a turret clicker).  Aside from the usual information like ballistic coefficient, zero distance, pellet weight, projectile type, muzzle velocity and zero-distance velocity, the most important is scope height.  I cannot speak for Strelok Pro, but Chairgun requires a certain way to measure scope height, which is perhaps different to that which Strelok permits.  This link takes you to the method to correctly obtain the true scope height between your scope and rifle's barrel: https://airgunaccuracy.wordpress.com/chairgun-and-scope-height/.

     

    Once the correct scope height value is obtained, another crucial measurement is needed to be entered, and that is the correct magnification setting on your scope so that the mildot spacing is true (if you are the type of shooter who will be using holdover and holdunder).  Don't be content on the magnification level your scope's manual states as being the true mildot setting as in almost all cases it isn't.  Note that even a couple of millimeters off from the true setting is enough to yield a big difference in POI from what Chairgun states relative to the actual POI of your pellet, even at a distance of just 25 yards.  To get the true mildot setting of your scope if you use an adjustable one, follow the directions that this link provides: https://www.anstonftc.co.uk/targets/.

    • This reply was modified 9 months ago by spinj.
    Link

    spinj
    Participant
    Member

    Make sure that the length of the line on the bottom of the target matches what is stated in order to get the exact Mil dimensions.

    Link

    spinj
    Participant
    Member

    You should be able to.

    Link

    spinj
    Participant
    Member

    Here is how to find out where the true Mil setting is on your scope. Be warned, even if it is stated on the scope manual of the reticle’s true Mil or MOA setting (for multi-mag scopes), sometimes the true setting is some millimeters off—even a millimeter from the number on the scope is  enough to cause significant POI variances at great distances.

    https://www.anstonftc.co.uk/targets/

     

    • This reply was modified 9 months ago by spinj.
Viewing 20 posts - 1 through 20 (of 232 total)