Hello everyone,

I brought a gamo delta when i was 15. ever since then i always liked gammos. that delta has 10 k shots on it

now and its still good. im 18 now and i brought a shadow combo 1000fps for 149.00. i think it is that cheap

because the new modeles are out. personally i think the older models are build stronger. what do you think. I

can see a lot of people here own a shadow. I was wondering if riches product adds fps?

and feedback will be appericated.

(not just Gamo) were better built than the "latest" models. In fact, doesn't that seem to be all too common with mass produced goods of all kinds?

I have the S1000, but not the successor. I have handled one, though. The improvements, if you can call them that, which I have seen are apparently of a cosmetic nature, only. Thin tubed, full-barrel shrouds that imitate bull barrels are not mechanically superior to the slimmer yet perfectly adequate barrel on the S1000. The stocks are about even, depending upon your preferences. If anything, I would say that the new guns have a few more parts that are apt to wear more than the older models, especially that barrel shroud which looks like it would dent/scratch fairly easily. Sometimes manufacturers should adhere to the KISS principle - Keep It Simple, Stupid!

This for Ken: Are all modern, mass-produced things inferior to their predecessors? Think back to the cars of the 60's and 70's. While Mustangs and GTO's were a hoot, they required a lot more work to keep them running than today's cars. There's not one vehicle from that time period that you could run for ten years with nothing more than tune-ups and oil changes, if the body didn't rot off first. Ditto computers. Same for contact lenses. Tomorrow I'm gong to pick up a couple of ultra-light rod/reel fishing combos for the kids to use this spring. My local Sports Authority has some inexpensive sets on sale for all of $7 after discounts. They are, in almost every respect, better than the much more expensive set I use which is twenty years old. It all depends on the merchandise.

What, me worry???

the visual perception is that the quality was better. My 1992 AstroVan had 379,000 original miles on it when we finally sold it last year. Other than cosmetics, it still performed as new. 19-22 mpg. Used no oil. No leaks, or smoke. And had no problems with the annual, State adminstered emissions test. Engine and Transmission never worked on other than oil/ filter changes and alternator/ waterpump replacement. I hope my new van (2006 Grand Caravan) which has 40,000 miles on it so far, will reach that milestone someday. But my perception at this point is that though it is more "comfy" it lacks some of the "solidness" of the older van.

Compare it to a 1970 VW hippie bus. If you can still find one, that is! My point is, your statement was true for some things, but not all.

What, me worry???

a '65' VW Micro-Bus that my dad used as a delivery truck in the TV/ Radio repair shop we owned. He got a newer one in '70' and I just kinda took over that old VW. Lo and behold- painted peace signs on the hubcaps, threw a mattress in the back, and down the road us "Hippies" went a truckin!