The Incredible Shrinking Airgun! (Is smaller better?)

Jump to latest Follow Reply
mcoulter

mcoulter

Member
Dec 16, 2015
1,190
125
Syracuse, NY, USA
I did a purge of my airgun collection last year and these are the rifles in my safe now... (oh, I also have a used Beeman P1 that I recently picked up that's not in the pic) 

It's just remarkable how small the new Cricket .22 is when you look at them together!



PXL_20201201_143018128.1606833684.jpg




RWS 34 .177 = 45 inches
Brocock Sniper HP Magnum .22 = 40 inches
Cricket .25 = 33 inches
Cricket II .22 = 27 inches


 
OK, fess up guys... Who has used the line with their spouse or significant other...

"Honey, I'm only trying to make my air gun collection smaller!"

Honesty is always the best policy. And you can thank me for that line later ;-)

Seriously though, I really thought when I did a trade for it, that my .25 cricket (synthetic) would be a temporary addition to my collection. I figured I'd shoot it for a few months, play with it and flip it for something else. Well that ain't happening any time soon. I do most of my shooting from a bench and the bullpup design isn't know for being the best platform for that... Maybe it's because I'm not a big guy (5' 6") but both the .25 cricket and smaller .22 cricket II work extremely well for that type of shooting.

I have been making a concerted effort to get better at off hand shooting with my 34 hoping to try field target in the future. And in the little practicing that I have done off hand with the cricket II, the extra couple of inches of stock it has UNDER the barrel (when compared to my 34) makes it incredibly more comfortable to shoot from a seated position with the forend of the stock rested on your knee. I know that I'm in the honeymoon phase with this gun, but I'll echo what @Matt247365 said above! 

(But I am not selling my 34 - it was my first "real" airgun and I sold it once and ended up buying it back!)

And I had to double check this @Blackpaw but no, the Cricket II .22 (and .177) is not offered in longer configurations. The new Cricket .25s are still longer and you can an Argus 60 .22 (as in 600mm barrel) and that is like 32 inches long. As I looked this up, I was really, really surprised that the Argus 45 is even shorter than the cricket at only 25 inches long.

I suppose for true benchrest competitors the idea of a BP rifle is silly, but for me (backyard plinker and wannabe benchrest shooter), I may never buy another full-sized PCP again.


 
Upvote 0
Well, the first was the Brocock, then the Impact Compact, then the Taipan Compact and so far, and for sure until next summer, the Leshiy 2.

Thursday though the Brocock heads to the US, I sold the gun to an old friend who is interested in getting into PCPs.



D516B86F-62E2-4633-B34B-09B5960A436B.1606840771.jpeg
Click to expand...



SOOOOO....

If you could only pick one. Which ONE would it be? Or is it too early to say?
 
Upvote 0
i love the bullpup design giving more barrel length, but have never owned one for more than a few months, can't get used to the bulkiness. i would prefer slim / longer over a bull pup

if airforce/evanix updated to something like this i would be all over it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vK17QErx45U



hiding the air source in the stock seems to be a great idea (leshiy, leshiy 2, airforce, rex), but you lose barrel length which makes such a big difference in fps
 
Upvote 0
While the term..."bullpup" isn't mentioned in the original posters post...

The "original" reason to build a bullpup (back in the mid 60's) was for..."close"...combat shooting.

Guns much over 27" or 28" lg overall, are pretty difficult to maneuver around in small rooms, halls, small areas. That is...close combat..!

One of the first was the Steyr, AUG (earlier than the A1). I had one of the early, civilian copies back about 1978 or 79. Don't recall it's exact length, but it was about half as long as my HK 91..!

So yea, that's why my 30" max. (bullpup) rifle length. Plus my safe has no more room for any "long" guns.

Mike
 
Upvote 0
I LOVE compact carbines and bull pups. As much as I drool over the redwolf I would never buy one just because of the length. Plus I really got no space to store full size rifles. To continue the compact and bull pup theme Maverick compact is in bound! Even with the 700mm barrel and moderator the impact really isn’t that bad. I put a 500mm barrel on the dreamline it felt like a broomstick, it came off after just one shooting session.



I’ll take a picture of the fleet once the maverick gets here, dreamtac compact is going to a friend. 
 
Upvote 0
While the term..."bullpup" isn't mentioned in the original posters post...

The "original" reason to build a bullpup (back in the mid 60's) was for..."close"...combat shooting.

Guns much over 27" or 28" lg overall, are pretty difficult to maneuver around in small rooms, halls, small areas. That is...close combat..!

One of the first was the Steyr, AUG (earlier than the A1). I had one of the early, civilian copies back about 1978 or 79. Don't recall it's exact length, but it was about half as long as my HK 91..!

So yea, that's why my 30" max. (bullpup) rifle length. Plus my safe has no more room for any "long" guns.

Mike
Click to expand...

cool bit of info! i had a tavor (the old one) for a while, and really liked the length. abominable trigger tho.

i think for the original question - smaller is almost always better for me. better for field use and off hand shooting, and easier for storage and transport. i like the trend. it seems technology is innovating that allows shorter barrels to provide more FPE, along with new bullpup designs that are starting to slim down
 
Upvote 0
Sorry boys, data sheet says its still a 7.9lb gun. That'll be 10- 12 lb by the time you air, load ,scope, bipod it



Hunting, plinking=; short, light

Bench. Howitzer.

Much prefer short , light

Favorite hunter p15 25 cal. Judt added compact maverick.

Impact is too long w/700 barrel. Cricket is too heavy so I bench them.
Click to expand...

I can confirm that the Cricket II .22 cal scoped with a Sightmark Citadel 3-18x50 (no bipod) weighs in at 10 lbs according to my bathroom scale.
 
Upvote 0
While the term..."bullpup" isn't mentioned in the original posters post...

The "original" reason to build a bullpup (back in the mid 60's) was for..."close"...combat shooting.

Guns much over 27" or 28" lg overall, are pretty difficult to maneuver around in small rooms, halls, small areas. That is...close combat..!

One of the first was the Steyr, AUG (earlier than the A1). I had one of the early, civilian copies back about 1978 or 79. Don't recall it's exact length, but it was about half as long as my HK 91..!

So yea, that's why my 30" max. (bullpup) rifle length. Plus my safe has no more room for any "long" guns.

Mike
Click to expand...

The Steyr AUG - one of my favorite firearms. Got to shoot a replica once chambered in .223 and it was awesome. My only complaint is the bullpups I like have rear cocking which drives me cuckoo.


 
Upvote 0
Personally, I prefer guns that aren’t weight forward.

Weight wise, when Impact Compact was “FULLY” equipped which included the Accu-Tac bipod came in over 9 pounds. The Taipan with scope comes in around 7 3/4 pounds and the Leshiy 2 scope / Accu-Tac bipod 8 pounds.

P.s. full disclosure, I don’t have a picatinny rail on the Taipan so no bipod.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Resources
Menu