Sheridan What is a Sheridan? Really

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Bear-of-Grayling said:
I saw that the mount looked as though it didn’t push against the receiver. Does that mount hold true? Exactly how? I have thought of a “super squeeze” mount to the barrel only. May work on a 177 caliber. The 22 caliber barrel has thin walls.
Click to expand...
I am trying to form a mount that doesn't touch the barrel at all , just the sides of the pump tube .
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bear-of-Grayling, Bandito, Sawney Bean and 1 other person
Upvote 0
Bear-of-Grayling said:
Sheridan started making air rifles in 1947. .20 caliber or also known as 5mm. Started with the “A” model. Then “B” model. Both rare. But the later “C” model is what most recall when talking about a Sheridan. Benjamin bought Sheridan in 1977. They stayed in Racine Wisconsin, and made very minor changes to the original “C” model. In around 1991 Benjamin Sheridan changed the “C” model to a “CW9”. Then a couple years later Crosman bought Benjamin Sheridan and moved to Bloomfield, New York. Crosman made a trigger change and to ”CW9”. So my question is this.

What is a real Sheridan?

Some stick to the original C model before the purchase from Benjamin. Others up to the CW9 remake. Many call any of the .20 caliber (5mm) pumpers a Sheridan. I am in the last camp because I like to give credit to the caliber more than the features. Crosman discontinued the 5mm caliber around 2008. It is an American caliber that is incredibly accurate. Underrated. To me, any 5mm American made pumper regardless of company ownership, is a Sheridan. Top picture is the original “C”, middle “CW9”, bottom ”CW9” (new trigger) borrowed picture

Side note: I have owned them all in one variation or another. My personal favorite is the Crosman CW9. I think the more adult sized Walnut stock and gorgeous nickel plating is spectacular. The added butt pad and white line spicer are a nice touch also. The Crosman version was improved by robotic soldiering of the barrel the receiver. The trigger unit is a bit more difficult to get really nice but once known how is achievable. And it has a hammer “guide rod“ C added to the receiver cap making the cocking cycle much smoother. This was before Crosman did their notorious thing of ruining a classic action e went on. Now they are all discontinued. FWIW.View attachment 522067
Click to expand...
I think the older Sheridans are my favorite

IMG_6516.jpeg


IMG_6517.jpeg
 
  • Like
Reactions: .20calguy, Steve Milbocker, Bear-of-Grayling and 4 others
Upvote 0
beerthief said:
not sure why anybody would do this ? or even think of it !
EDIT reply to post #80
Click to expand...
Didn’t they make a bulk CO2 Sheridan? That’s nearly the same thing, only better IMO. I wouldn’t really want a converted Sheridan PCP, but a bulk fed one with similar power to the pumper and 100+ shots per fill would be pretty cool in warmer climates.
 
  • Like
Reactions: .20calguy, Bear-of-Grayling and Luv2hunt
Upvote 0
Sawney Bean said:
Didn’t they make a bulk CO2 Sheridan? That’s nearly the same thing, only better IMO. I wouldn’t really want a converted Sheridan PCP, but a bulk fed one with similar power to the pumper and 100+ shots per fill would be pretty cool in warmer climates.
Click to expand...
AHHH different gun
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bear-of-Grayling and Bandito
Upvote 0
I can see that indeed your rifle has come apart at one time cause you have thru holes on your pumper wood foreend . From the factory they were pined from the right side only through the first lobe of wood catching the linkage, you have holes on both sides. I have one of the newer ones like yours, Crosman years with the new enclosed trigger housing that came out in 97' with the plastic butt plate on mine also, same kind of wood and stain.
I put a Williams peeps on mine and what a difference.

How do you like the trigger? I didn't....... and broke into it and stoned and polished things up, replaced the trigger spring with a lighter one that i had in my parts and pieces, and glued a shim of plastic tie wrap on the trigger in between the trigger and housing...made for a way better feel when pulling.

Nice rifle(y)

Thanks for the show-
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bear-of-Grayling and Sean_Eason
Upvote 0
pipestone said:
I can see that indeed your rifle has come apart at one time cause you have thru holes on your pumper wood foreend . From the factory they were pined from the right side only through the first lobe of wood catching the linkage, you have holes on both sides. I have one of the newer ones like yours, Crosman years with the new enclosed trigger housing that came out in 97' with the plastic butt plate on mine also, same kind of wood and stain.
I put a Williams peeps on mine and what a difference.

How do you like the trigger? I didn't....... and broke into it and stoned and polished things up, replaced the trigger spring with a lighter one that i had in my parts and pieces, and glued a shim of plastic tie wrap on the trigger in between the trigger and housing...made for a way better feel when pulling.

Nice rifle(y)

Thanks for the show-
Click to expand...
Yes, the wood pump handle was re-installed on a billet lever as part of the steroid treatment. Tim worked on the trigger too. It has a much lighter pull than the other guns with that same trigger pack. Still a little creep, but hardly noticeable.
Here's another Steroided 392PA with the extended billet lever and Williams sight. Trigger feel is identical.
1467.JPG
1468.JPG
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bear-of-Grayling, Steve Milbocker and Treefrog
Upvote 0
Wadcutter said:
Yes, the wood pump handle was re-installed on a billet lever as part of the steroid treatment. Tim worked on the trigger too. It has a much lighter pull than the other guns with that same trigger pack. Still a little creep, but hardly noticeable.
Here's another Steroided 392PA with the extended billet lever and Williams sight. Trigger feel is identical.View attachment 543224View attachment 543225
Click to expand...
I now have both a Steroid 392PA and a 392PA ACP as well as more than half a dozen other pumpers and the Steroid 392 with the extended lever is easily the best of the bunch. The 392 ACP does make about 13 fpe off of 4-5 pumps and has a second shot on tap, but those 4-5 pumps all require significant effort, while the Steroid 392 can do the same thing with 6 much easier pumps, but if you keep pumping it, it just keeps getting more powerful. I did two test shots with it at 20 pumps and got just under 30 fpe. The only other multipump that I have shot that comes close to it in performance is the Seneca Aspen and thar actually manages to blow everything else out of the water while simultaneously being a frustrating and awkward gun to shoot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bear-of-Grayling
Upvote 0
Bear-of-Grayling said:
This .22 caliber steroid at 15 pumps, (does exhaust completely) shoots a CPHP 14.3 at 820 fps/21.36 fpe.View attachment 543261
Click to expand...
Never get tired of looking at this one. Appears the energy generated is comparable to both of mine.
JSB Exact Jumbo 15.89 grn.
#PUMPS
3 – 457fps – 7.4fpe
4 – 515fps – 9.4fpe
5 – 563fps – 11.2fpe
6 – 597fps – 12.6fpe
7 – 628fps – 13.9fpe
8 – 653fps – 15fpe
9 – 687fps – 16.6fpe
10 – 706fps – 17.6fpe
11 – 743fps – 19.5fpe
12 – 756fps – 20.2fpe
13 – 783fps – 21.6fpe
14 – 784fps – 21.7fpe
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bear-of-Grayling, Steve Milbocker and Luv2hunt
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Resources
Menu