The horror! A bullpup without a side cocking lever!!

Redtick12 said:

Off topic, but electric vehicles don’t have the power or torque of a gas vehicle?

Click to expand...

Yes off topic. You made the comparison.

CTairgunner1288 said:

I'm just going to say this.

It was mentioned that it seems that Veteran owners have to defend their purchase , I'd also say that non Veteran lovers or people who dislike the rear cocking have to defend their distaste for it.

Think about that statement for a second.....they are one in the same just different side of the coin. So I do think it's crazy to get upset at someone for pointing out that most who gripe about it being rear cocking have never shot it (or at least take some sort of offense to that) I also think it's crazy for people who do defend their beloved veterans to tell someone they MUST own one, however I do think it's fair for someone who does own one to say "don't knock it till you try it" ... without getting into other topics I think that's pretty fair.

So to say the least im a little shocked , just a little, at the abrasiveness within the whole thread .

Then I'll also say, I've yet to shoot a compact rifle similar in size to the taipan that can break 4 inch clays consistently shot after shot (didn't mention grouping, I dont know if it would , I don't think it would) at 115 yards with 18.13s but hey , that's me tooting my taipans horn now.

Click to expand...

I don’t think anyone Veteran owner has to defend there choice or what they like, if it came across like that from me it was not intentional. I tried to be clear that from all I have heard the Taipans are fabulous guns that are clearly well liked by their owners and I have no problem with someone liking something that is not for me. My two points weren’t about the owners, but 1. Why Taipan hasn’t chosen to develop a front cocker for those that do prefer that and 2. That the idea that you need to try something in order to have a valid opinion about its is not correct.

Sure my opinion may only be valid for me and my personal tastes but no less valid. We, everybody, forms options without having tried the other options as with the electric vehicle example. If it doesn’t suit your needs or desires then you don’t need to try it out to know that. That is a personal thing though and does not in any way mean that those who do like are being required to defend it. Also I think that those who don’t want a rear cocker have defended that opinion, its just that defending it is a very simple statement, I don’t want a rear cocker.

Franklink said:

Ford's EV F-150 Lightning Pickup Truck Sucks At Trucking, Critic Says

The F150 Lightning pickup truck from Ford has received glowing praise. But when it comes to towing with the EV pickup, its range becomes a big problem.

futurism.com

Yes off topic. You made the comparison.

Click to expand...

I was not inferring that you took it off topic. I am aware it was me who made the EV comparison and stated I don’t want one. EV however are not lower power and lower torque than gas

Redtick12 said:

I was not inferring that you took it off topic. I am aware it was me who made the EV comparison and stated I don’t want one. EV however are not lower power and lower torque than gas

Click to expand...

There's no argument here about the crappiness of electric vehicles. You're the one who used that as an example of something less desirable, sub par, beneath. On that, we agree. And I'm basing that on every rechargeable tool I've personally used being a frustration.

And now we're fully in the weeds. Lets get back to your disparaging remarks about the rear-cocking Veteran, despite never shooting one. Or, you can come up with another ridiculous comparison about something you feel is equally undesirable, and then argue with me about how that example actually isn't undesirable.

Feels like you're just arguing for the sake of arguing at this point.

Franklink said:

There's no argument here about the crappiness of electric vehicles. You're the one who used that as an example of something less desirable, sub par, beneath. On that, we agree. And I'm basing that on every rechargeable tool I've personally used being a frustration.

And now we're fully in the weeds. Lets get back to your disparaging remarks about the rear-cocking Veteran, despite never shooting one. Or, you can come up with another ridiculous comparison about something you feel is equally undesirable, and then argue with me about how that example actually isn't undesirable.

Feels like you're just arguing for the sake of arguing at this point.

Click to expand...

The EV comparison was not an example of subpar it was an example of some either meeting the needs or desires of an individual or not. EV are great if that is what you want, but I know it is not what I want and don’t have to drive one to know that, and I am guessing you didn’t have to drive one to also know it was not what you wanted. Same with the Veteran, I am in no way disparaging it, and have in fact acknowledged several times that they, by all reports are great guns. I however do not need to shoot one to know I don’t want it. Now without owning and shooting it I can’t and wouldn’t speak on its power, accuracy, durability, smooth cocking, trigger feel, but I can have a valid opinion about the location of the cocking lever and not wanting a gun with the lever in that position. I can also decide I don’t want to spend over $3000 on a Daystate Alphawolf, because I don’t want to spend that much on a gun. I don’t have to shoot the Daystate to know that. It doesn’t mean other people shouldn’t get an Alphawolf, and that they can’t love it, but I certainly can know, without shooting it that I don’t want it at least for that price. And my opinion that I don’t want to spend that much for a gun is not less valid because I haven’t shot it.

Ok I know this is a Tiapan Veteran thread. I have both a Cricket original, and a Cricket 2 Tactical 60. Love them both. Great triggers. Fantastic accuracy. Very stable no poi shift. If it was just hunting, backyard vermin removal, I wouldn't need anything more than the Original. For bench work I think the C2T60 is superior. And that's my opinion. It's just that an opinion. I bought my Cricket from the classifieds here. Had there been a Tiapan Veteran when I was ready to buy I might have picked one up and I would probably love it. Both of mine are keepers. For different reasons.

Considering the rear cocking bull pups are close to being a relic of the past, it is quite impressive that the TV has a cult following. Goes to show you how good of a gun it is and that cocking mechanism placement is lower on the priority list of a lot of shooters.
I’ll bet a benji that the engineer(s) at Taipan have experimented with forward cocking levers. Perhaps they couldn’t replicate the phenomenal trigger on the rear cocker so they scrapped it.

Haven't seen it pointed out but I like the easy access to the breech that the Vet's rear-cocking design provides. Lots of my shooting is target shooting, but even when I'm sniping pdogs or starlings or euros, I shoot far more single-fed pellets than I do using magazines. It's just convenient to not need to fish around under the scope to try to get a pellet where it's going, especially when single-fed but that also applies to the magazines.

Someone mentioned the Ghost earlier, and being a bullpup, of course the pellet enters the barrel at the rear of the gun. For as much as I like the Ghost, the Veteran is easier to single feed because the Vet design doesnt have a cross member blocking the top of the breech like the Ghost does.

Franklink said:

These rear-cocking Vet discussions always go the same way. And it's usually the same core group of guys involved.

We get a handful piling on the rear-cocking as a negative and a handful counterarguing that it's not nearly as bad as the naysayers make it out to be. Interesting thing is that, with very few exceptions (mostly Goldwing) the naysayers havent ever shot or even been in the same zip code as a Veteran. While the other side of the isle (that say the rear-cocking is a non-issue) are the guys that own at least one and sometimes more Veterans.

I tend to give more weight to the opinion of people with direct experience to a product.

Here's my take:

• In the most extreme of speed events, a mid-cocking airgun will kick the trash out of a Veteran. I went against an Impact at the informal speed portion (dueling paddles) of the Wasatch Extreme Field Target Grand Prix/100yd benchrest/etc etc last summer and got destroyed. Just takes so much longer to reach back and cycle, even with the technique where the offhand reaches over the top to cycle.
• The rear-cocking is still plenty fast in all other situations.
  • In about 5 years and over 20,000 pellets (I keep all my empties and just added them up), I've yet to be able to blame the rear-cocking for not getting a pest.
  • I also finished each of the lanes at the EBR Extreme Field Target in less than half of the time allotted (I think it was 5 minutes allowed for 8 shots). And was able to come up with a 3rd place finish. (From the list I saw, there were about 80 competitors, roughly 40 in each of the two classes. Only 5 or 6 people scored higher than I did, and I was using the lowly rear-cocking Veteran.)

Click to expand...

Are you contending that unless you have actually shot a Veteran you are not qualified to have an opinion on the rear cocking design? What if I used to shoot a Pulsar? Or is the Veteran’s rear cocking device superior to the Pulsars? So much so that I could overlook the location of the lever and the movement required to operate it?
It seems obvious that anyone could watch a video comparing a shooter operating ANY rear cocking air gun, compare that to a video of the same shooter cycling a bolt or mid gun mounted side lever and have a well based opinion one way or another without ever having heard of a Veteran let alone shooting one.
Are Veteran advocates claiming that all other aspects of the Veteran are so superior to any other air gun that we can dismiss ergonomics out of hand? If this is the basis for justifying a rear cocker you have just twisted the lid off a very large can of worms and I wish you luck.

Chukar60 said:

Are you contending that unless you have actually shot a Veteran you are not qualified to have an opinion on the rear cocking design? What if I used to shoot a Pulsar? Or is the Veteran’s rear cocking device superior to the Pulsars? So much so that I could overlook the location of the lever and the movement required to operate it?
It seems obvious that anyone could watch a video comparing a shooter operating ANY rear cocking air gun, compare that to a video of the same shooter cycling a bolt or mid gun mounted side lever and have a well based opinion one way or another without ever having heard of a Veteran let alone shooting one.
Are Veteran advocates claiming that all other aspects of the Veteran are so superior to any other air gun that we can dismiss ergonomics out of hand? If this is the basis for justifying a rear cocker you have just twisted the lid off a very large can of worms and I wish you luck.

Click to expand...

Always such animosity in these rear-cocking Veteran discussions. Everytime it comes up we've got guys saying it's an inferior design and making all kinds of unsupported claims.

Oh you're welcome to have an opinion about the ergonomics of a gun, it just doesn't mean much unless you've held that gun. Ergonomics can't be described or fully conveyed from one individual to the next, it's a subjective concept. The ergonomics of a gun need to be experienced to fully appreciate, or to fully dislike.

Most of the anti rear-cocking crowd don't like the IDEA of the location, but with few exceptions that's the basis of their stance, "it doesn't seem like I would like it."

Member Goldwing is one of few that I've heard still denigrate the Veteran, even after trying one. There's another member that mentions the same on occasion. But the vast majority of the poo pooers have simply never shot one. Regardless of the topic, I give more weight to those with firsthand experience than folks just thinking they know what they're talking about cuz they watched a video, ESPECIALLY for something like the ergonomics of a gun. Ie having held and used one helps one to form an informed opinion.

Veteran advocates are making no such claims as the one you plucked from the sky, but we are/I am saying you havent the foggiest idea of what you're talking about when you're trying to tell the internet you know about the ergonomics of a gun you've never held or shot.

The common phrase "don't knock it til you try it" is fully at play here.

In the post you quoted, I thought I clearly laid it out there. In 5 years and 20,000+ pellets, only at a speed event at a big competition have I felt like the Veterans rear cocking was a negative. So, sure if you're one of the very small minority of air gunners that's going to find yourself in a speed competition at EBR/RMAC then probably stay away from the Vet, at least in it's current iteration. See, I'm not so Veteran gung-ho that I can't be reasonable.

As previously mentioned, if it's a deal breaker for you then don't buy one. You'll never know what you're missing out on. BUT until you've tried one, don't try to tell those of us who've been using them for years that it's an inferior design and that they take a contortionist to operate and any other such fact-barren nonsense when you haven't ever even used one. I'm glad you watched a video though, that sure helps to know how a gun feels during operation.

Gimmicks sell, always did always will.

Who exactly is displaying “animosity“. Can other shooters not “simply” like a thing? This thread got taken way out of context. No one is “attacking, griping, hating on, etc.” against the Veteran. Many of us are “old enough” to know when we don’t “like” something… For instance I personally don’t like any of the rear cockers. Just don’t like it period, don’t care how good the gun is otherwise. My choice right? Those who love their Veterans? Keep enjoying them, the rest of us aren’t “haters” because we might like another model of gun.

Nobody is calling anyone haters right? Maybe through interpretation but it is being seen on both sides. @L.Leon i respect you here greatly for your approach to many topics and open-mindedness honestly and truly mean that so I was not going to comment on some comments you made , I didn't find them to have a level of animosity toward the veteran bit more toward the fact that people who enjoy them are simply stating why they do that's all. It was like you took the term gripe personally for some reason as if we aren't allowed to say people are griping.

Like I said and @Franklink said, "don't knock it till you try it"

I kno people who have tried many things they simply don't like based on past experience but a new thing comes around , they give it a go and it becomes an exception to the rule.

Either way I'm done participating in these veteran discussions now, for some reason they turn into a war. Nobody is forcing anyone to view this thread, nobody is forcing anyone to like it, OP simply shared his solution to the OMG DREADED REAR COCKING, that works for.... HIM

There was a car introduced in 1964, a sports car. It received harsh criticism from the start. It would have the engine in the rear, so the handling would be terrible, with uncontrollable snap oversteer. In short, a drive train that would not survive, either on the road or in the market. That car was the Porsche 911, and it remains today as the longest surviving sports car design in history. Yes, it has gone through many generations of changes, but the basic rear engine layout has survived, and remains as the Porsche icon. Many people still don't believe in the design, in spite of over a half century of success, on the road, track, and show room. Those folks buy something else. They're happy, and the Porsche faithful are happy, I don't see a loser in that scenario. Sometimes, things just work, so you leave them alone. The market offers many choices, everyone finds their personal favorite, and that leaves us something to argue about over a cold beer or a shot of bourbon. It's all good folks, buy your choice and be happy, and leave arrogance at the door.

Let’s all just agree to take the vet for what it is. A super rugged, well engineered, super accurate gun in the right hands. For me it wasn’t. Nothing to do with rear cocking. Just the weight and ergonomics. Does that mean I’m going to bad mouth the platform, and force other people to dislike it? Of course not. There are haters and lovers of every brand out there. That’s the beauty of the airgun hobby right now. There are so many top notch choices, you don’t all need to like one thing. There’s options!!!

Intenseaty,
Didn't expect to see this thread with so many posts, no time to read them now, but wanted to say I tried your suggestion for cocking the Taipan yesterday and liked it. Now it's just repetition until muscle memory takes over. Thanks, WM

@intenseaty22, I try to look pass negative comments. I believe that most agree that the Taipan is a great PCP. Many just wish it had forward cocking. And just as many love it as is. Maybe the person you’re describing really loves the Taipan and wishes it would evolve to forward cocking.