So I returned a Quest 800x I bought last week. Couldnt hit the broad side of a barn...I was even second guessing my marksmanship abilities. I couldnt shoot consistant 3" groups at 15 yards!!! Not a chance. 750 pellets, 2 scopes, 3 sets of rings...no luck


So I got this CFX .22 and here's how it went:

4 shots to ZERO the scope dead on at 10 yards.

Shots 5,6,7,8 all thru the same hole at about 21 yds, probably .5" center to center

9,10,11,12 were shot from about 30 yards...they were low and left, but still a 1" CTC group

Then 13,14,15, 16 from 45 yards.... 3 stacked and the other was 2" wide.

This was all with Gamo match (wadcutter) pellets! Not excactly the best for 45 yards.... but they were still stacking. I was shooting from a rested, awkward position at all distances other than 10yds...usually leaning on something, a tree, the BBQ, etc....not bench rest. I used the Gamo 4x32 scope that came with the gun



I LOVE THIS GUN! WOW!


What I dont mind so much is this HUUUUUUUGE muzzle brake, and the trigger is kinda yukky. I plan on a trigger mod some time...and maybe a tune of some sort once I break it in. What mods do you reccommend for this thing? Iwish Rich From Mich made his little brass lever in silver!

Also, what FPS is this thing shooting bone stock? someone must have used a chrony. they claim 900....I am guessing 700 or so?

Rich's "muzzle brake" is in much better scale, though I think it could be even smaller. A trigger mod is good too; take your pick. And Rich's loading block lever looks and works finetoo, though my loading block over-rotated with it and required building up with JB Weld to align at the stop. That was not true of the .177; Rich's lever works perfectly with it.

Matter of fact, after using Rich's pieces on the .177, I ordered them at the same time as the .22. Also, a BSA 2x7 A.O. scope, which works fine, and is light and small in keeping with the scale of the rifle. The .22 is so good, it probably deserves a better scope.

Joe C

That power plant does between 650 on the low side to 700 on the high side stock IIRC.

When I first got mine, after about 50 shots, ran a 10 shot string of Wolverines measured out at 15.8 grains. 658.2 for the high and 625.4 for the low. Average for the string was 640.2. Then another 10 shot string using measured 16.2 Predators. 652.5 for a high and 575.7 for the low with 608.8 as the average. Think the CFX like the fit of the Wolverines or the fit was more consistent with this tin than the Predators. The results could turn around with a different set of tins.

The scope is getting changed out. The target at 25 yards is okay, but at 45 yards it's fuzzy. Thought it might be my eyes so I took my VH, same GAMO scope, out and shot it at 45 yards. The target was clear and sharp with it.

Hey guys just have a ? I see everybody is liking there cfx .22! Well just was wondering would you guys pick the cfx over the rws 34 .22 as a main hunting gun? I am really struggling with my decision and I just am not sure yet which one to get! Is the cfx .22 any better performance wise. Cuz I am kind of leaning twords the rws for the german quality everybody swears by. Well I am really torn between the two so pleas help me out guys. THanks prievciate it!!




"If Butterflies had machine guns, Blackbirds wouldn't mess with them"

Got dat from my pops!

will find the 34 will be easier to carry and load. The CFX is the more accurate if you plan on doing any target work.

Ture. The Diana is easier to carry and load. The CFX requires a five step process to load (cock, bring lever back, open breach, place pellet, close breach). The breakbarrel requires three, (break open, place pellet, close). With the .177 on the CFX you flip pellets like crazy so you are always fumbling, I imagine that a .22 is easier to load, but still the Diana would be more simple when you need to take a second shot quick.