Seneca Dragon Fly 22

Jump to latest Follow Reply
OldSpook

OldSpook

Member
Apr 25, 2021
2,104
1,866
Virginia, United States
www.ebay.com
Hi Everyone;

I read the "Godfather's" 16 posts about the Seneca Dragon Fly over at PA a couple of days ago and decided to see if it was all he claimed it to be. You can find the last post in that thread here: Tom Gaylord's Review of The Seneca Dragon Fly Just keep that one open in your browser and peruse as all links to other posts in the thread are only in that last post. It is well worth your time if you have not read it and you are at all interested in the rifle.

His work there was spot on as far as I have been able to determine. My gun came in this afternoon and (Having read Tom's work) decided to test the velocity at various stroke counts and graph that before actually doing anything else with the rifle. To that end I put some 320 or so strokes into the gun shooting Meister Kugeln 14 grain WC pellets. I chronographed velocities at 1,3,5,7,9,10,11,13,and 15 pumps. I computed Standard Deviations for muzzle velocity at each data point. I extrapolated averages for 2,4,6,8,12 and 14 pumps. I then graphed the average velocities in this chart.
Seneca-FPS-per-Pump-Initial.jpg

Rather than repeat what Mr. Gaylord said I'll point you to his reviews to read as he addressed all points well. I am going to use this thread to document my adventures with the rifle. I must say I am highly impressed with the rifle, particularly at it's price point. Standard deviations for the velocities were exceptional and averaged out to 6 fps for all data points. I believe that will improve when the rifle is "shot in" which Tom addresses in his evaluations.

I am looking forward to mounting an optic and wringing this rifle out on the bench and in the field.

More to follow.

Mike
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: TXRMike, .20calguy, sekiar and 1 other person
OldSpook said:
Hi Everyone;

I read the "Godfather's" 16 posts about the Seneca Dragon Fly over at PA a couple of days ago and decided to see if it was all he said claimed it to be. You can find the last post in that thread here: Tom Gaylord's Review of The Seneca Dragon Fly Just keep that one open in your browser and peruse the links to all the other posts in the thread are only in that last post. It is well worth your time if you have not read it and you are at all interested in the rifle.

His work there was spot on as far as I have been able to determine. My gun came in this afternoon and (Having read Tom's work) decided to test the velocity at various stroke counts and graph that before actually doing anything else with the rifle. To that end I put some 320 or so strokes into the gun shooting Meister Kugeln 14 grain WC pellets. I chronographed velocities at 1,3,5,7,9,10,11,13,and 15 pumps. I computed Standard Deviations for muzzle velocity at each data point. I extrapolated averages for 2,4,6,8,12 and 14 pumps. I then graphed the average velocities in this chart.
View attachment 355494

Rather than repeat what Mr. Gaylord said I'll point you to his reviews to read as he addressed all points well. I am going to use this thread to document my adventures with the rifle. I must say I am highly impressed with the rifle, particularly at it's price point. Standard deviations for the velocities were exceptional and averaged out to 6 fps for all data points. I believe that will improve when the rifle is "shot in" which Tom addresses in his evaluations.

I am looking forward to mounting an optic and wringing this rifle out on the bench and in the field.

More to follow.

Mike
Click to expand...
Mine also came in today and with free metal animal targets to boot. Did try it out with about 5 or shots to roughly sight in. Looking good so far. Charles
 
  • Like
Reactions: OldSpook
Upvote 0
Pumping the thing is so completely different from what I am used to. Every pump takes the same amount of force. Fifteen is as easy as #1. At first you wonder what is wrong with the gun. There is nothing wrong with it. Mine was doing 16+ FPE out of the box with 14.0 pellets.

I've pulled the rear sight and am making parts for the gun on the printer this evening. I'm going to build a moderator specifically for this rifle. Since the gun is already long and not really hard to tone down I am going to keep the moderator very short. It will have to mount up on the rifle in front of the sight without blocking it. A nice replacement barrel band will be coming off the printer tonight or tomorrow. It will not have a front sight post but will otherwise be identical to the stock one.

There may be issues with mounting an optic. I think the rail under the rear sight is actually higher above the bore than the rail on the breech block. That is what my eyes are telling me with the optic mounted. To late and too dark to prove that by shooting so that will wait till tomorrow.

Out of the box mine was shooting about an inch low and center at 40 yards.

The wood is plain and the checkering is simple but at the price point the fit and finish is quite good for a field rifle.

More later.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: Farmplinker2, .20calguy, Treefrog and 2 others
Upvote 0
Having owned and tested probably more, and a wider variety, of pump-guns that maybe anyone, I do like my .22 Dragonfly 2 a lot; especially given it's $199 price-tag. However, it is not the do-all to end-all pumper. Sharp made those; several models. Unfortunately they were too good to survive.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: iAMzehTOASTY1, Treefrog and rcarlisle
Upvote 0
AirNGasman said:
Having owned and tested probably more, and a wider variety, of pump-guns that maybe anyone, I do like my .22 Dragonfly 2 a lot; especially given it's $199 price-tag. However, it is not the do-all to end-all pumper. Sharp made those; several models. Unfortunately they were too good to survive.
Click to expand...
Kind of like Sheridan's.
Let's try to stay on topic, please. This thread is about our experiences with this rifle. Debating it's merits relative to some other rifle is going to take us off topic.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: .20calguy and Treefrog
Upvote 0
First hitch I have hit.

The rail on the barrel band (where the rear sight is mounted) at the breech end of the rifle stands about 1/16 higher above the center of the bore than the rail on the breech block. The run out over a 12" span is about 0.25". That means placing the rear ring IN FRONT of the chamber and front ring on the barrel band under the rear sight will necessitate a 1/16" shim to center your optic on the bore. To that end I am printing a couple of 3/32" shims for my 30mm UTG rings. One ring will go under the optic at the rear ring. The other will go over the optic on the front ring. If all goes well I will then be very close to center on the mounted optic. These are "soft" rings and will compress a bit.
Welp this is me eating crow. Every bit of that was wrong. Remind me to go to bed when I am tired. That front rail was not higher then the rear rail. I shimmed the scope up and put it on the bench. It was two feet high at 25 yards. I took the front shim out. It was a foot high at 25 yards (with the optic mechanically centered). I had plenty of adjustment so I opted to leave the rear shim in place but no shimming would have been necessary. The scope would have been on paper at 25 yards if I had mounted it without shims in the first place.

I don't recall Mr. Gaylord mentioning this problem on his rifle? Perhaps I simply did not read in enough detail. Anyone see it in his articles?
And now we know why...

The draft of the front barrel band came off the printer this morning and it fits with a little sanding. I'll refine that drawing sometime today. I have to go check some groundhog traps at an orchard for a friend.

Later 😁
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Treefrog and iAMzehTOASTY1
Upvote 0
OldSpook said:
Kind of like Sheridan's.
Let's try to stay on topic, please. This thread is about our experiences with this rifle. Debating it's merits relative to some other rifle is going to take us off topic.
Click to expand...

Good point, OS.

I haven't had my .22 D-Fly long, nor put several hundred rounds through it. However, you motivated me to make a few observations nevertheless.

Make no mistake, it's a Chinese airgun. That said, several Chinese airguns including my D-Fly not only are impressive enough as-is, but have capabilities beyond what most airgunners imagine or will ever achieve. I've been exploring, documenting, and reporting those surprising capabilities since the first QB77 and QB22 invaded the U.S. some thirty-odd years ago.

As expected, my D-Fly was more than "a little rough around the edges" as it came out of the excellent shipping box. Pumping action was not only quite stiff, but also quite awkward. Also as expected, the pumping action began smoothing out within some dozens of pump strokes; as also did my pumping technique as I acclimated to the considerably different pumping action than more traditional (American and Japanese) pumpers.

Per my usual extremes and experiences, I was/am anxious to see just how much better the D-Fly will become the more well broken-in she gets. To that end, much of my early testing has been with more (average) strokes than most reviews I've read or seen; thereby (purposely) hastening the break-in process. As Fly smoothed and showed good performance potentials I attacked the hideous trigger action, hoping it would be similar to the Co2 and PCP rifles and pistols from the same manufacturer that I've monkeyed into trigger-breaks that most airgunners (again) wouldn't believe possible of Chinese airguns. Thankfully I found Fly's trigger not only similar to it's siblings, but identical.

Like the others, replacing the factory sear-engagement adjusting screw with a longer one returned a crisp, creep-free, single-stage trigger action averaging 12 to 13 ounces on my digital trigger-pull scale. More specifically, five breaks five minutes ago went 11.7 to 14.0 ounces. Overcoming the trigger handicap being absolutely necessary to accuracy testing the light carbine at 50 yards, even though Fly will only get better with further break-in (like any pumper), she has already approached the 50 yard accuracy goal I set in order to be overjoyed with the $199 Chinese pump-gun.

Of course seeking such accuracy requires enough scope magnification to actually find it. So in order to not bastardize the light carbine with a celestial-sized telescope, I chose the lightest 3-9X scope in my closet. The vintage Bushnell Sportview Rimfire/Airgun 3-9X32mm rifle scope was, to my knowledge, the first scope model not only marked on the box "airgun", but marketed as springer-capable. It not only looks good on the Dragonfly, but doesn't defeat the purpose of the light carbine.

Considering 50 yards the realistic outer-limits of a 16 foot-pound pumper, my accuracy goal of 1" center-to-center AVERAGE accuracy was almost achieved on my first and, so far, only attempt. Five consecutive five-shot groups at fifty yards with the (also) realistic maximum number of 12 strokes AVERAGED 1.11" center-to-center with 15.9 grain FX-branded JSBs at 664 FPS/15.6 foot pounds. I'm confident Fly will average 1.0" c-t-c groups or better at 50 yards once she's more well broken in.

Those are my experiences with this rifle so far; after a couple hundred rounds through it.

Dragonfly.jpg
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: moodyblues, Farmplinker2, JP806TX and 3 others
Upvote 0
Treefrog said:
Sheesh...

That sounds like the chinese QC standard. I was hoping that with the quantity of praise BB had heaped on the model, it would at least be better than the recent models of the Beeman QB78. If nothing else, documenting the journey (made both longer and necessary in Shanghai) to accuracy will be entertaining.

J~
Click to expand...
Yeah, I was wrong about that. Sorry.
 
Upvote 0
More optic than needed but the gun can deliver the accuracy this glass wants.
IMG_20230511_144059361~2.jpg
In this configuration it puts me in mind of an XM21 but at about 4 pounds less weight.
Shot at 30 yards in a light breeze. The rifle can out shoot me.
IMG_20230511_141338147.jpgIMG_20230511_141313968.jpg
Roughed out these parts for this specific rifle. Should have them coming off the printer perfect in the next couple of days.
The moderator has three baffles and a stripper section. At five pumps, which you will remember is almost 600 fps you can hear the hammer bounce.
Seneca-FPS-per-Pump-Initial.jpg
IMG_20230511_162839198.jpg
IMG_20230511_163303385_HDR.jpg
IMG_20230511_163309244_HDR.jpg
IMG_20230511_163255927_HDR.jpg


IMG_20230511_162914272.jpg
IMG_20230511_162902586.jpg
IMG_20230511_162848035.jpg
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: AirGunShooter, moodyblues, SilentSquirrel and 4 others
Upvote 0
I shot my DFM2 some more today and did find the trigger very good for a modest cost air gun and the open sight also worked very good for my 83 year old eyes. It just takes a long arm to make the pumping work. Once I got use to that pumping which was very easy and not tiring for a good number of shots. As of now I very happy with the rifle. Charles
 
  • Love
  • Like
Reactions: jetpopt, OldSpook and iAMzehTOASTY1
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Resources
Menu