I need more shooting time...

I haven't had time to shoot in months- so I decided I should spend a bit of time checking a couple of the guns I haven't had the chance to fiddle with up to now.

First is the "Legacy/Genesis" with an NPSS powerplant, it still needs to be broken in, was shooting all over the place at 830fps to 890fps (.177, 8.4gr)- going lower the more it was shot- I am wondering if cold temperatures affect the pressure in a gas strut (?).

Attachment 362 Attachment 363

Then came the CH-2009, which is somewhat interesting. The Challenger 2009 is Crosman's Match rifle (I got this one as a former "demo" with no sights). It has a hammerspring tensioner ("power adjuster") which, when it is at the maximum adjustment, starts to coil up the hammerspring, and the hammerspring unwinds it when the knob is released. Maximum output appears to be 520fps using 8.4gr pellets (all shots were between 511 and 519fps, most of the tested shots were 514-515fps). It doesn't use alot of air- 25 shots and the pressure went down about 200psi (2000psi complete fill pressure- like the Discovery).

Attachment 364 Attachment 365

Picture of the gauge orientation- which is typical- is posted as someone (here?) seemed to have this idea that there should be a "proper" alignment of the gauge (there isn't) on the Crosman/Benjamin PCPs.

Attachment 366


And this is all me, not the rifle- shot it at about 18 yards- the first few to the bottom left were sighting in, the rest is me standing with no support or rest with cold fingers- obviouosly I need some more trigger time...

Attachment 368 Attachment 367

The target stand is some plywood, 2x4 scraps and is filled with carpet piled tightly from top to bottom (works well for the most part). The targets are a Crosman product and made out of a thin styrofoam- easy to see the hole when removed from the stand as they pellet knocks a section right out. I guess they weren't very popular as Crosman seems to have discontinued them this year (they worked out to about $1.50 per target- so not very cheap).

this stock look nice but i prefere the clasic 22 stock wood is always nice :P

Gas Rams change pressure relative to the absolute temperature (ie Kelvin), which is Celcius plus 273*.... 0*C is 273*K and 20*C is 293*K.... If the pressure in the strut is 130 Bar (typical) at 20*C then it would be 130x273/293 = 121 Bar at 0*C.... that only a loss of about 7%.... On most springers, I doubt you would see much velocity change.... The closer the gun is to "oversprung" (ie maxed out) the less change in velocity you would see....

Bob

I'd sure like to try out a CH-2009 and compare it with my CH-2000. With the CO2 version, I average 440/450 fps w/7g RWS Hobbies.
Unfortunately, mine didn't come equipped with a spring tensioner...

Bloody H$!! , that's awesome news. I'm glad you got to get out and blam away with with a few testers.

What was your overall thoughts and impressions with the Challenger?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rsterne

Gas Rams change pressure relative to the absolute temperature (ie Kelvin), which is Celcius plus 273*.... 0*C is 273*K and 20*C is 293*K.... If the pressure in the strut is 130 Bar (typical) at 20*C then it would be 130x273/293 = 121 Bar at 0*C.... that only a loss of about 7%.... On most springers, I doubt you would see much velocity change.... The closer the gun is to "oversprung" (ie maxed out) the less change in velocity you would see....

Bob

---

Makes sense- the gun is definitely not "over sprung" it's the "Made in the USA" Legacy tube with a stock legacy piston and a strut from a Trail NP- so I think more could be had out of it. I will go with the idea that it needs to be broken in, I think there are maybe 100 shots through it right now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scottster

I'd sure like to try out a CH-2009 and compare it with my CH-2000. With the CO2 version, I average 440/450 fps w/7g RWS Hobbies.
Unfortunately, mine didn't come equipped with a spring tensioner...

---

Except being a PCP and having a power adjuster- it is essentially very much the same rifle (barrel, stock, sights, bolt). If Crosman had left off the power adjuster and restricted the transfer port a bit- it could have been "set" below 500fps and thus not a firearm, just like the Co2 CH-2000.

I think someone needs to set up some kind of shooting-day for people to be able to get together and try different guns. Not a "show" or an FT Match- but just a "try out some new stuff" day where everyone brings a gun or two that might not be so common, or that they have customized so people can see some stuff. I have a couple I would bring (i.e. the CH-2009 and the Marauder) and I know other people have some interesting creations...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SeanMP

Bloody H$!! , that's awesome news. I'm glad you got to get out and blam away with with a few testers.

What was your overall thoughts and impressions with the Challenger?

---

Tough to say- I was a bit too chilled to really concentrate (as you can see by my wonderful shooting)- but I found it far too quiet- I'm obviously used to shooting higher-powered stuff these days, or testing after a repair indoors (i.e. enclosed space) so I really couldn't hear much noise from the pellet leaving the barrel, it was like 90% mechanical noise. 10% air movement noise. That being said, as an FT shooter- it's only outputting around 5ft-lbs so it's a bit under-powered- but that could be rectified easily enough I imagine- I bet you it has a sleeve in the valve to reduce air consumption- and based on it's tube (same as a 22xx and Disco) the valve is likely the same as a Disco unit, probably with the sleeve and perhaps a reduced port size- so it would be easy enough to modify/replace.



And- this "muti-quote" feature on the software sure makes things easier!

According to the parts diagram, the only part of the valve that is different is the front half.... the rear half, spring, and poppet share the same part numbers as the Disco.... There is no volume reducing sleeve shown inside the valve.... The transfer port is a different part number, which means it's probably smaller, maybe a LOT smaller.... The part number is CH2009-026, and we should get some as they may have lots of meat for drilling to experiment with various sizes.... The hammer spring is different, and of course the hammer is a flat-sided cylinder with a travel adjuster.... but you knew that already....

Bob

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rsterne

but you knew that already....

---

I would if I looked at the parts diagram... :apple: