Ok my fellow member, You have responded with your usual level of diplomacy. I will thereby expand on my position in the effort to hash out some points and would like hear your response to my specific points here. Note, this is NOT an attempt at setting you up to be bashed, and I ask other members to chill out with the wise ass comments as I want a serious back and forth with this member. Let's get started.
-The OP inquiry was for a reliable, smooth working upgrade from an Avenger, a roughly $300 gun. OP wanted durability, minimal maintanance requirements. Basically, a set and forget platform. Now I recommended the Taipan vet, - a gun you particularly can not stand as your frequent down thumbs whenever any posts about them are written. Your position being a "crap" design, Which seems to be your opinion on all bullpups. Here's why I say this. Your previous response with the Rich Rheam- if spelled right, video displaying his cocking difficulty. OK, fair enough, but that design is fairly old, 8-9 years I believe, well airguns were quite different back then. FX was the prominent company with the sidelever by the trigger at that time, maybe one or two others, brocock used a slide bolt type design for example. Anyways, at that time, it was similar to others, and YES, taipan is not one to be on the cutting edge of new developments, they always take their time doing changes, granted. I only mentioned that gun because it is a stable platform and can be had for $1000-1100 on the classifieds. I'm was giving the OP an option that would yield bang for the buck, and if they ended up hating it, could sell for minimal loss. There are others of course, but I know THAT brand well. Now, given your obvious exposure of the antiquated set up of the vet 1, the vet 2 has moved the cocking lever to the trigger position, you stipulated that was an "ammitace" to a flawed design on a crap gun I believe. Now here is where the discussion will be of interest.
The taipan 2 has a conventional set up same as many leading bullpups, a design you obviously despise, as per you mentioning the magazine bace by one's cheek. You stated I believe "Any gun that does not follow a firearm design is a faulty or crap design" - that was the main gist I got from your response. Well, many airgun folks do NOT care for a 4 foot airgun, hence the bullpup's popularity. Now if the taipan vet 2 design is inferior, as you allude to, so are others, such as the AGT Vulcan, Uragan, Edgun R5M, FX wildcat, Impact, Dreamline/dreamtac, Maverick, and on and on. You have the right to not approve bullpups, but most of us who opt for them want 500-700mm barrels and a gun LESS that 36" long, helps with manuevering big time with bumping the barrel. I'm in my 50's, nowhere near as young as I used to be.
Lastly, let's take your recommendations, 2 of them were the FX Crown- fine piece of machinery, and a Styer, another serious gun. I only critique them as such. Both are on the high end of the price scale, Crown is about $1900 base and Steyr as far as I know are north of $2000, Now feel free to correct if I'm incorrect. They are undoubtedly good guns, but may be in excess of the OP's budget. Secondly, I'm not certain of either guns ability to handle a barrel bump without having a POI shift, FX is highly susceptable to this, now maybe the crown barrel is more secured than most other FX, but I'm doubtful of this, I know nothing of Steyr, so you and others can elaborate.
So Goldwing, my fellow airgunner, I think I have explained why I feel that your comments on Taipan/Taipan 2 were inaccurate, In the future, you could consider responding to posts you disagree with by instead of "thumbs downing it" by posting "I'm not a fan of the bullpup design" and supply respective response, as is relevant in this post. With posts regarding obvious bullpups, I'm not sure the purpose , since you do not care for them. I await your response, 1 - because I'm interested, 2 - if bullpups are "crap" design in general, are all the FX I listed crap as well?
