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


The New Year means its time for new gun pics.
Got something cool?
Something Classic?
Something werid?
Send it and we’ll use it up top
  << Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Index  

1377 vs 760 vs 2100 pump tubes, valves and barrels

October 25 2011 at 11:04 AM

dan house  (Login dan_house)
Crosman Forum Member
from IP address

I now know from direct experience that the 1377 and the 760 are close cousins. Valves are mostly interchangleable, pump tube work is mostly exchangable as well.

Having never been in the guts of a 2100 and it being the gun the M417 is being compared to internally, I wnet ot crosman and grabbed a 2100 parts diagram. Interesting, verrrrry interesting....

Looks like a longer pump sweep for the 2100 (is there a technical term for that?), and the valve is different.

can I get a compare and contrast on the 13xx series valve and the 2100 valve?

2100 has a rifled soda straw barrel (drawing looks that way...)?

And again, I'm working from the drawing, the 2100 seems to be a better gun than the 760. But at twice the cost.


So it appears that thanx to my viridian hued compadres, I'm gonna have to go get a 2100......

Gonna need a HDD and an AC valve setup......... happy.gif


edit: finish my thoughts.....

dr_subsonic's pneumatic research lab
[linked image]
the Lunatic Fringe of American Airgunning
Southwest Montana's headquarters for Airgunning Supremacy
Proud Sponsor of team_subsonic

This message has been edited by dan_house from IP address on Oct 25, 2011 11:10 AM

 Respond to this message   

(Login airgunandy)
Crosman Forum Member

Re: 1377 vs 760 vs 2100 pump tubes, valves and barrels

October 25 2011, 11:30 AM 

I have a 2200, the 2100's former .22 caliber cousin. I used to really like that rifle until I got my Crosman 102 and Benji 392. Yes, the 2200 and 2100 are better made than the 760 (die cast receiver), but I've gotten to where I hate that loading port on the 2100/2200.
The 2200 uses a 1377/760 piston with a metal extension that snaps in where the pump cup goes and the cup snaps into the other end of the extension. The 2100 probably uses the same set up. I've had trouble with the two piece piston coming apart while pumping.

Personally I like my old metal receiver Powermaster 66 better than the 2200/2100. Same kind of soda straw barrel, but with a conventional open loading port on top of the receiver.

I plink, therefore I am.

 Respond to this message   

(Login mav72)
Crosman Forum Member

# 1377 vs 760 vs 2100 pump tubes, valves and barrels

October 25 2011, 12:00 PM 

Hey Dan... The main thing about taking a 2100 apart is that you have to be careful... Things DO pop out because of the small dent spring on top, the sear spring, and the hammer spring... You mostly have to worry about the small dent spring on top... That little thing will try to get lost...

You call it a pump sweep... I call it a pump stroke.. Either way works since I don't know the technical term...

On the outside the 760/13xx valve looks larger than the 2100 BUT I don't know if it's just outward appearance... I've never had them apart side by side to compare the inside volume... It's possible the 2100 operates at higher pressures with a smaller valve and longer pump strokes but I can't be too sure about it...

I've heard of people mix and match valve ends but I don't remember for what application...

Yep the 2100 has a soda straw barrel... It's pretty accurate for one also... LOL I've seen people adapt a 7/16 barrel to work with it. It's a similar turning down process when putting a rifled barrel onto a 760...

Mechanically I think the 2100 is a better gun than the 760... They both have their good points though..

There's a guy, I think in Puerto Rico, that converted his 2100 into a PCP and he hunts iguanas... I may be getting my facts mixed up about the iguanas but it was a PCP though....

 Respond to this message   
(Login Duane30)
Crosman Forum Member

1377 and 760 are the same - the 2100/2200...

October 25 2011, 12:28 PM 

...valve is much shorter than the 1377/760 valve, thus lower in volume.

The 760 and 1377 share the same stroke, or swept volume. The 2100/2200 is nearly twice the stroke, or volume, pump-for-pump.

What the 2100/2200 pumps in ten strokes is about the equiv. to 20 strokes on a 1377/760 platform, as far as swept volume goes.

The 2200 can accept mods well. The first thing to address is the bolt probe. Remove the sill slide cover, it isn't needed, as it is there to prevent blow-by and for looks since the probe has no o-ring. Putting an o-ring on it is easy, as well as adding brass tube to stiffen things up. The finished product looks really sharp and seals of the breech 100%.

I kept the soda straw barrel in mine, just used several supports down the length of the barrel to keep things centered.

Later, I'll post pics...

"Well, I thought it was a rabbit but it turned out to be Bear Grylls in a rabbit hide."

[linked image]

 Respond to this message   

dan house
(Login dan_house)
Crosman Forum Member

Thanx Guys!

October 25 2011, 1:05 PM 

Definitely gonna have to get one now.


dr_subsonic's pneumatic research lab
[linked image]
the Lunatic Fringe of American Airgunning
Southwest Montana's headquarters for Airgunning Supremacy
Proud Sponsor of team_subsonic

 Respond to this message   

(Login CO222)
Crosman Forum Member

An alternative to the 2100 is the 766

October 26 2011, 2:01 AM 

If you're scavenging parts. I've taken apart all three, the only difference
between 760 / 1377 valves is a screw hole on the one's half.

The phase III 766 has a 1-piece solid steel piston. I cut the cup end off, turned part of
it down, threaded and screwed on an adjustable flat top.

The 766 / 2100 check valve end is much shorter and can't be flat-topped as it leaves
the check valve unsupported.

I wouldn't call the 766 / 2100 better built, some of its features are cosmetic and a nuisance.
e.g. the load port was jammed, the bolt bent rather than sliding back so it couldn't be cocked,
the plastic assembly around the pivot just complicates things & mine was cracked. The soda-straw
barrel is only loosely supported in the shroud.

All in all the 760 is more beautifully simple and reliable, easier to work on and has a solid
barrel. If only it had the long stroke and came back with metal receiver & rifled barrel.

 Respond to this message   
  << Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Index  

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 solely the opinion of the individual member