Upvote 0
Bottle Taipan
- Thread starter zx10wall
- Start date
I have always thought that the Taipan was the definition of Eastern Bloc styling. Function dictates the form, just round off the edges a bit...
Crickets, Vulcans and Taipans are all built like tractors, you darn near have to use a hammer to tear one up, are as accurate as the operators abilities allow, but still have an agricultural feel to them.
Long may they live, and they probably will out live quite a few of the more 'fancy' platforms.
Upvote 0
I think your on to what they did . They brag about no POI shift. Well if that barrel does not screw into the block, forget rock solid stability. Screw in with 4 grub screws? Ok. I’ll check it out.
Upvote 0
I'm definetly in the air cylinder camp. At one point, I was close to making an adapter to run the Maverick / Wildcat bottle regulator housing, but it would have ended up being super funky with the giant gap between the barrel and top of the bottle 
Upvote 0
Like they say, if she ain’t 280 she ain’t a lady.Hey! Some of us are into that sort of thing!
Upvote 0
The VET's Anti Double feed mechanism is a drop in cassette affair. Square aluminum housing containing smaller parts/ pieces.
I AM NOT seeing any similarities in the IPL shown above
Upvote 0
Yeah I wasn't ever certain ("as near as I can tell") but I was referring to this component.The VET's Anti Double feed mechanism is a drop in cassette affair. Square aluminum housing containing smaller parts/ pieces.
I AM NOT seeing any similarities in the IPL shown above
Seems to be what advances the magazine, assumption was that it played a role in NOT advancing the mechanism when a pellet was already fed into barrel.
I stand corrected. As always, thanks Scott.
Upvote 0
Yes, that is the Shuttle that rotates Mag ... Mutants also used a similar type back-N-forth shuttle design.
No need to stand corrected, we're all just taking stabs at what we're loosely viewing
No need to stand corrected, we're all just taking stabs at what we're loosely viewing
Upvote 0
Not so sure about the Fully floated barrel design also having the optics ( Weight ) attached to it ?
I see what there doing barrel inside the machined sleeve that's clamped into receiver as being similar to previous clamped scope towers to barrel rigidity,
its just many scopes in use these days are near 2 pounds +/- and that's a LOT of weight hanging out from the receiver along with barrel & moderators weight too
Just observation and thoughts .... time will tell.
Otherwise a VERY slick set up !!!
I see what there doing barrel inside the machined sleeve that's clamped into receiver as being similar to previous clamped scope towers to barrel rigidity,
its just many scopes in use these days are near 2 pounds +/- and that's a LOT of weight hanging out from the receiver along with barrel & moderators weight too
Just observation and thoughts .... time will tell.
Otherwise a VERY slick set up !!!
Upvote 0
To those questioning whether a free-floating, clamped, or screwed-on barrel is superior over the other(s), here’s an excerpt of a review I posted on my BRK Ghost Carbine not too long ago in which I cited the Cricket’s barrel mounting system, which is similar to that of the original Veteran:
Two sections of the barrel on the Cricket are securely clamped onto its uni-rail. This ensures an extremely rigid junction between the barrel and scope and most importantly a true relationship between them. “True relationship” is the key term here because if accuracy is the goal it’s absolutely critical that the scope and barrel have a unified vision, so to say. So, if the barrel were to move, the scope would move along with it and in the same direction, and they both would maintain the same point of aim regardless of the direction of movement or at wherever they end up settling—a key to maintaining accuracy.
The takeaway of the above is that the means by which a barrel is secured onto the receiver is not a contributing factor to POI shifts if the barrel is mounted as closely as possible to the scope so that any movement of either would move both the barrel and scope in the SAME direction, thus maintaining the projectile’s POI. And if I were to be asked about barrel harmonics being introduced to either barrel mounting method, I’d simply say I don’t believe in that, in my experience. Shooting technique counteracts that.
Two sections of the barrel on the Cricket are securely clamped onto its uni-rail. This ensures an extremely rigid junction between the barrel and scope and most importantly a true relationship between them. “True relationship” is the key term here because if accuracy is the goal it’s absolutely critical that the scope and barrel have a unified vision, so to say. So, if the barrel were to move, the scope would move along with it and in the same direction, and they both would maintain the same point of aim regardless of the direction of movement or at wherever they end up settling—a key to maintaining accuracy.
The takeaway of the above is that the means by which a barrel is secured onto the receiver is not a contributing factor to POI shifts if the barrel is mounted as closely as possible to the scope so that any movement of either would move both the barrel and scope in the SAME direction, thus maintaining the projectile’s POI. And if I were to be asked about barrel harmonics being introduced to either barrel mounting method, I’d simply say I don’t believe in that, in my experience. Shooting technique counteracts that.
Upvote 0
barrel harmonics are real, and are NOT counteracted by shooting technique. they May be less noticeable at lower power levels, but they make a difference. This is why many high end manufacturers tension their barrel systems. It allows for a lighter barrel, but makes harmonics much more consistent to allow the same trajectory every time. Whether you believe in it or not is a moot point. It’s physics!
Upvote 0
I respect your opinion, but no, it’s not a moot point to me. I’ve shot too many with various mounting methods and stuff put on barrels and shot pellets at 430, 500, 600, and all the way to 1000 FPS and I will still make the contention that technique trumps such.
Cheers.
Last edited:
Upvote 0
It wasn’t an opinion. I stated facts. You’re stating an opinion. Testing or not, harmonics is a real thing.
Upvote 0
Not so sure about the Fully floated barrel design also having the optics ( Weight ) attached to it ?
I see what there doing barrel inside the machined sleeve that's clamped into receiver as being similar to previous clamped scope towers to barrel rigidity,
its just many scopes in use these days are near 2 pounds +/- and that's a LOT of weight hanging out from the receiver along with barrel & moderators weight too
Just observation and thoughts .... time will tell.
Otherwise a VERY slick set up !!!
My first thought exactly. Not so sure about it...
But curious to see!
Upvote 0
From what I see in the picture. I am not impressed. The Taipan like it is, just works. The Taipan is heavy but the balance makes it feel ok. The rifle in the picture looks awkward.
Upvote 0
I agree. The new version has big shoes to fill.
Hopefully the designers of the new Vet took the same simple, solid, and straight-forward approach as they did on the OG Veteran.
Upvote 0
In red above -
The free floating barrel has little to do with the quantity of fasteners.
It's the shoulder length and "fit" of of the barrel into the breach block. Not...short, and not...loose.
As long as the "fit" is tight (nothing sloppy), one set screw would work just fine. Two would be good...four...overkill.
Similar to the American Air Arms...free floating barrel. It's just screwed into its breach block.
Mike
P.s. - The gun does look interesting . Though the cocking lever (both designs) slammed tight against the shooters trigger finger doesn't look too comfortable !
Upvote 0