Archive for March 2012

But before I get to my take on the actual air rifles, some words about my selection. I decided to go with American pump-up .22 caliber air rifles for several reasons. The first, quite frankly, is that I have a weak spot for pump-up air guns. I own several, and I enjoy shooting them frequently. In addition, pump-up guns are generally easy to shoot; they don’t jump and buck the way many spring-piston air rifles do. Pump-up rifles are also typically less expensive than their spring-piston counterparts, and they are usually a fraction the cost of pre-charged air rifles which are filled from a SCUBA tank or high pressure pump.

Lastly, I was inspired. Recently I received a copy of an excellent book American Air Rifles by James E. House (Krause Publications). In it, he evaluates more than a dozen American-made air rifles. His words reminded me that you don’t need an expensive European or Asian model to enjoy a great deal of shooting satisfaction – and utility — with an air rifle. Thanks, Mr. House.

One of the first challenges that I faced was generating some sort of performance standard. What kind of performance would be necessary to send Jabba the Chuck to that Big Salad Bar in the Sky? Since I didn’t have three equal National Institute of Standards-certified pest animals lining up to be shot for evaluation purposes, and at that time I did not have a chronograph, I chose the next best thing . . . soup cans. Yup, good oldCampbell’s to the rescue.

My reasoning was thus: a steel soup can is small enough and tough enough that, if you can hit it and cleanly pierce at least one side, you can probably hit and punch through the skull of a varmint. I have killed animals with air guns that wouldn’t pass this test, but I wouldn’t recommend it. If possible, I prefer to drop ‘em where they stand. (I chose .22 caliber for all three guns for the same reason.)

So let’s have a look at our three candidates.

Daisy 22X.

The Daisy 22X is 37.75 inches long and weights 4.5 lbs. It is the lightest of the three guns. It has 20.8 in rifled steel barrel. The manual says it can be pumped up to 10 times and claims 530 fps with 8.6 fp energy but doesn’t specify what weight pellets are involved. The 22X is a handsome gun with a wooden buttstock (with plastic buttplate) and wooden forearm. The receiver is metal.

The 22X is loaded by dropping pellets into the breech on top of the receiver. The bolt is opened by pulling a plastic lever on the right side of the receiver. Opening the bolt also cocks the action. With a scope attached to the rail on top of the receiver, loading requires placing the pellet in the slot on the top of the receiver just to the right of the breech and rolling the pellet into the breech. The 22X is the easiest to pump of the three rifles, but, as we’ll see in a bit, it comes at a price.

In 2002, the suggested retail price of the 22X was $73.95. The Daisy 2-7x scope that I used for testing carried an SRP of $29.95.

Crosman 2200B

The Crosman 2200B measures 39 inches long and weighs 4 lbs. 12 oz., just a few ounces more than the Daisy. The 2200B has a 20.79 inch rifled steel barrel, and the factory manual claims 525-595 fps at 10 pumps with 14.3 gr. pellets. The buttstock and forearm are plastic, and the receiver is metal and is equipped with a scope rail. Overall, the appearance is clean and appealing, and it looks like a “real” rifle. The entire plastic forearm moves to pump up the gun, and the 2200B requires only slightly more pumping effort than the Daisy.

The 2200B loads by dropping pellets into the breech on the right side of the receiver. A plastic lever opens the breech and cocks the action. Loading requires tipping the gun on its side. The slot leading to the breech is somewhat deep, and there is no elegant way to control the descent of a pellet to the breech itself. As a result, sometimes nose-heavy domed pellets arrive at the breech sideways or backwards. Sometimes jiggling the gun or dumping the pellet out and starting over is necessary to set things right.

The suggested retail price of the 2200B was $69.95, and the 4x Crosman scope that was used during testing was $9.95.

Benjamin 392

Benjamin 392, manufactured by Crosman Corporation, is 36.25 inches long and weighs 5.5 lbs, making it both the shortest and the heaviest of our three candidates. The 392 manual states this gun will produce velocities of 685 fps at 8 pumps but does not reveal the weight of the pellets used in making that determination.

It doesn’t take Holmesian powers of observation to figure out the 392 is solidly built. The only plastic used on this air rifle is the buttplate. The buttstock is solid wood, and so is the forearm which also serves as the pumping lever. (The 392 is also the hardest of the three guns to pump.) The breech and bolt are made of metal, but unlike the Daisy and the Crosman, there is no scope rail on top of the receiver. Holes for attaching a Williams peep sight are tapped into the side of the receiver, and that’s what I used for a sighting system.

The 392 can be scoped using intermounts from Crosman for around $15.00 and attach a scope (or a red dot sighting device) forward of the receiver. In the case of a scope, this requires either a long eye relief scope (a la Colonel Jeff Cooper’s scout rifle concept) or putting both scope rings forward of the turrets and letting the body of the scope hang over the receive.

The suggested retail price of the Benjamin 392 was $149.95, and the Williams peep was $27.95, making this combo by far and away the most expensive of the three guns tested.

Next time, we’ll see how these three rifles perform.

Til then, aim true and shoot straight.

-          Jock Elliott

Back in 2002, my wife and I decided that we would like to grow some fresh veggies. The next couple of blogs recall what happened then and make some recommendations in case you need to defend your garden.

There is no way to confirm this with rock-solid certainty, but according to my back-of-the-ammo-box calculations, it was the most expensive salad bar ever. And I had not tasted so much as a single bite of it – not a morsel of wax bean, not a sliver of tomato.

My wife and I had labored hard through sun and rain over the darn thing. We hired the roto-tiller guy (who showed up with a commercial-grade Troy-Bilt tiller and a business card that read “I dig my work.”) to pulverize a section of our lawn. Then we raked, picked rocks (lots of ‘em), ran strings and pegs, and planted: tomatoes, corn, squash, a couple of kinds of beans, peppers. It was a work of art. We were regular Arlo Guthries out there: “inch by inch, row by row, gonna make this garden grow . . .”

Then, by the sweat of our brow, we surrounded it with steel fence posts and sturdy critter-proof wire fencing. And we watched it grow and tended it. Then, just as the tender new plants were seriously establishing themselves, we went away for a weekend.

When we came back . . . someone . . . something . . . had given our garden a crew cut. Where once there had been vibrant plants bursting with the promise nature’s bounty, there was stubble. I was in utter shock: for the amount of money, sweat and effort we had put into this thing, we could have had veggies FEDEXed to us fromChile. Who was the culprit?

Then I saw him. Not one of the deer that wander through the yard. No, this was smaller, more insidious – good old Marmota monax, a woodchuck. And what a woodchuck this was! Round, firm, fully packed, he was so swollen and porcine he could barely wriggle through the hole he had dug under the fence. He was so fat he had a roll behind his neck. I had worked my butt off all spring so this groundhog could enjoy some mitey fine gourmet meals at my expense.

I wanted to shoot him so baaaaad! “Honey, call the supermarket and see if they got any Woodchuck Shake ‘N’ Bake, will ya?” (I never did terminate this particular woodchuck with extreme prejudice. Instead I took my revenge in laughter – he was so obscenely corpulent, likeGarfieldthe cat, his legs barely reached the ground. I referred to him as Jabba the Chuck.)

If you’ve got a problem with a woodchuck, a rabbit, a squirrel or other varmint munching on your garden or prize azaleas, and you live in or near a populated area, there is a problem. The law generally takes a very dim view of popping off any kind of firearm near dwellings, and many jurisdictions have specific prohibitions about shooting guns. Besides, any reader of this blog worth his or her salt will naturally be conscious of the safety of neighbors and their property.

In my case, I live within one-half mile of a major technical university. Shooting any kind of powder is strictly verboten. There is hope, though. Many places have absolutely nothing to say about shooting airguns. Recently, I’ve had my hands on three vintage American .22 caliber pump-up airguns that will dispatch vermin quite well at short ranges.

Next time, we’ll talk about them.

Til then, aim true and shoot straight.

-          Jock Elliott

Recently I had the opportunity to speak at length by telephone with Fredrik Axelsson, owner of FX Airguns. This is the second part of that conversation.

JE: So what happened next?

FA: In 2001, I called Ingvar Alm and asked him who should I deal with in America? He said try Airguns of Arizona. Robert Buchanan agreed to have one or two samples of the FX2000 and the Excalibur, and he was over the moon about them. The accuracy is fantastic, he said.

JE: How do you achieve that accuracy?

FA: When I set out to design an airgun or something for an airgun, I don’t look at other people’s stuff at all. When I made my PCP rifle, all the ideas came from myself, and what I came up with was a very small valve and very small striker. That makes a difference. When you pull the trigger, you have very little mass moving inside the gun, compared to other designs. Some of the others have very heavy hammers and valves, and they are almost as bad as a springer when you pull the trigger. As a result, you need to build a heavy gun to compensate for all the mass moving inside it. An FX gun can be relatively lighter because you don’t need to compensate for a heavy valve and striker.

JE: What are some of the other things that have happened during the evolution of FX as a company?

FA: One key event was that I got fed up with the Italian company that was supplying us with stocks, so we started making our own synthetic stocks. That was very hard; we had to select a material that would do the job and build the machines that would make the stocks. At the beginning, that was a big negative, because nobody wanted synthetic stocks, but I didn’t care because at last I had a reliable supply of stocks.

JE: What else?

FA: Later we came up with the power adjuster and interchangeable air tubes. I made the power adjuster for hunting. I wanted to do the ultimate hunting rifle, one that would be quick for reloading and that you didn’t have to shoot at the same power all the time. Here’s the basic idea: at 50-60 meters, you shoot high power; at 30 meters or so, medium power; and if you are shooting pigeons inside a barn at 15 meters and don’t want the pellet to go all the way through, you use low power. Because you’re simply changing the orifice that the air flows through with the rotation of a wheel, you don’t have to fiddle with all the adjustments that you do with some other guns.

JE: How important is the US market to you?

FA: The US market is getting more and more important for us. We look to that more than anything else right now. I think the attitude toward airguns in the US is changing, and the market is growing quite dramatically. I love America because you don’t have restrictions on airguns at all. That’s not the case in Sweden where we are based.

JE: What is your philosophy when it comes to designing airguns?

FA: I do things that appeal to myself, and they seem to appeal to Americans as well. I love to build guns that a harmonious. They are light, quick, and everything works together well. The guns you love are the guns that deliver great accuracy and handle well. If you turn up the power too much, it’s a completely different feeling when you fire it. If you aren’t happy with the power of a .22, you should go to a .25. If you’re not happy with the energy of a .25, you need to go to an even bigger caliber. If you go too fast, you ruin accuracy. I refuse to do bad rifles.

Til next time, aim true and shoot straight.

-          Jock Elliott

Recently I had the opportunity to speak at length by telephone with Fredrik Axelsson, owner of FX Airguns.

JE: How did you get involved with airguns?

FA: I had my first airgun when I was five years old. I have been told that I had problems operating that rifle because I was a little too weak, but about a year later, I was an expert and a good shot.

JE: So how was it that you got into the airgun business?

FA: I started making things for the airguns at the end of 1989. I had purchased a .22 caliber English air rifle that was supposed to be a very good one, and I was very disappointed. I wanted to use it for shooting pigeons in a tree (I use a shotgun for flying pigeons but didn’t want to use it for sitting birds). After a couple of months of hunting, the spring broke, and I had done very little actually shooting – a lot of the time you spend sitting and waiting.

So I had the idea of making my own gas ram. I made it, and it was working quite well, but I didn’t like the recoil. So I started thinking about other kinds of air rifles. I did a lot of experiments with CO2 rifles that I made myself, including a 9mm rifle and a 20 gauge air shotgun with replaceable chokes. I also started doing pump-up rifles, then I moved to PCP rifles. I was very interested in air rifles, and it was a natural progression. I’m not Einstein, but I am very interested.  Now I work with airguns every day, and I don’t get bored with it; every day that I get to work with airguns is a good day!

JE: So then what happened?

FA: In 1994, I made the original design for the Independence rifle. I made five of them, I think, and Ingvar Alm had one of them. One of the first problems that I addressed was that with PCP air rifles, you need a diving bottle. Here in Sweden, there isn’t a lot of SCUBA diving. I came up with a three-stage hand pump that opened the door for everyone here to enjoy PCP airguns.

In 1995, I took my ideas to a company in the area where I live, and we started production of the hand pump. Then I took the pump off the Independence, and it became the Axsor rifle, and we sold it to Webley & Scott, and we also made the Timberwolf.

In 1999, I was so fed up with that company that one morning in May, I told the owner “I quit!” and I just walked away, leaving all my patents and everything . . . but I was convinced that air rifles were what I wanted to work on.

JE: Was starting FX Airguns the next chapter in the story?

FA: Yes. In 1999, I started FX Airguns, and I’m very happy about that, because I am in total control. I contacted Webley & Scott, and they said “We have 3,000 Axsor stocks, so whatever you make must fit into that stock. I made the FX2000, and it fit into that stock. In a sense, it wasn’t the rifle I wanted to make then, but it was the rifle I was forced to make by the opportunity that was at hand.

In 2000, I came up with a patent on a new pump and an electrical compressor that year as well. In 2001, we developed the Cyclone.

Next time: FX Airguns coming to America.

Til then, aim true and shoot straight.

-          Jock Elliott