The (new) Crosman Forum, your first and last stop for all things Crosman

 photo americlps_zpsavfgvdau.jpg

Dag Evert's "American Classic"

As mentioned on the forum, heres a picture I took some time back, with natural winter daylight. A 2100, and a 1377, both guns have been recrowned, and had their trigger parts shimmed for play, contact surfaces stoned, and trigger springs somewhat reduced within safe limits. The 2100 has had its barrel shimmed with tape to remove play.
Both guns give great accuracy for the money if they are given good pellets!
The combination of pellets and guns in the picture represents something close to my boyhood dreams:-)


-- Dag Evert

 Return to Index  

Dang right

May 26 2012 at 8:07 AM
Ron  (Login oo7fuzz)
Crosman Forum Member
from IP address 65.29.187.27


Response to "....that's why it hasn't really changed over a hundred years or whatever "...this is not

I have tried to get my head around the ACMSP concept.

I do understand fully the concept. But for the life of me I cannot understand why this innovation, I call it a gift, has apparently not been as widly accepted in the airgun community as I might expect if would/should be.

I know that Steve in NC pioneered, paved the way and did bring debouncing to light in a very practical manner. Also I know that yourself and James are strong advocates of the air conserving concept. Keep it up!

But lets talk a bit about efficiency.

For openers, I believe that the springer must be eliminated from efficiency discussion. To me, the springer is nothing but a love-hate affair. Love it for its efficiency and its profile of what I think a long gun should look like, but hate it for its violent firing cycle.
I do believe that some day the springer, once tamed and and engineered to a reasonable retail price, will outdistance the ACMSP, the PCP and the SSP in popularity.

But back to efficiency regarding the ACMSP versus the PCP.

Should an efficiency rating can be assigned the PCP by simply precharging the gun, firing a string and do math calculations to determine AIR consumption versus ejecta fpe?

In the real world we cannot view an electric automobile efficient only because we spend less per mile. We have to consider the subsidies doled out to the manufacturer and the end user to calculate just how inefficient the whole project really is in a practical arena. Same goes for wind turbines.

Therefore when a fellow touts the efficiency of a PCP, he never considers the entire behind the scene costs. Such as air compressors, air tank and accesories, traveling and filling service costs to fill a tank and so on.

All I am saying that when we calculate efficiency, leave the free air out of the equation and do real world bean counting which is COST consumption versus ejecta fpe.

If then we can agree on such criteria, and consider the ACMSP, a self contained package which is powered up by a renewable energy resource,(Mia Copa for eluding to pumping) then the ACMSP is truely the halmark of efficiency.

Anyway, thats what I think.


 
 Respond to this message   
Responses

Crosman Corporation 1-800-724-7486
This forum is not affiliated with the Crosman Corporation in any way// Information presented in this forum is intended for informational purposes only; use at your own risk//Posts made to this forum are soley the opinion of the individual member