Not to hijack but what's ACP?
My first air rifle was a Daisy 856. I bought both my sons Daisy Grizzlies as their first airguns. Kid next door, friend of my boys a little later, had an 880. Another friend had an 880. Nice rifles. I got the boys Grizzlies because they were easier to pump (one pump too) than a Crosman 760. Both 880s broke right where the receiver and but stock meet. Both Grizzlies failed to hold air after a couple of years. Still have the 856. Cut down the barrel and stock sort of Mares Leg style.Later as I got into Crosman 760s, 66s and a 2200, I realized how much sturdier the Crosman rifles were. The valves had more metal, and cast or machined metal too, not just sheet metal. The pump tube ran almost to the rear of the receiver forming a backbone for the rifle that kept it from flexing so much when pumped. The Crosman plastic rifles, even the cheap little 760 looks like a better internal build quality to me than any plastic Daisies I've seen. Been a Crosman fan ever since.
I may still have to get a Daisy .22 if I can find one. Gotta be easier to shoot than that dang 2200 with that tiny sliding door loading gate!
Quote from: Powder burner on July 24, 2014, 02:36:55 PM Not to hijack but what's ACP?ACP = Air Conserving Pumper. It doesn't dump all the air after a shot. Requires less pumps for the next shot.I have two similar MSP's, a Daisy 880 and a Crosman 2100. The Crosman is my favorite for a few reasons but mostly because it is more accurate and not as pellet picky as the Daisy. When I first heard it claimed that the 880 is more powerful in stock form than the 2100 I was skeptical. No way a flimsy mostly plastic airgun that is so easy to pump could produce more power. The Chrony doesn't lie. The 880 beat the 2100 with every pellet I tried by about 30 fps at 10 pumps.
I currently prefer my Daisy 22X as my main Hunting rifle, My Daisy 880's for plinking and close range hunting (under 40 yards), My Crosman 2289g-ACP for follow up shots, and my Crosman 66 for good old fashioned fun.What do you (everyone) think about these AirRifles? What kinds of usage do you get out of them? What are your views of the pros and cons of them?
I feel that the Daisy 880 is a great multipurpose rifle (especially at the price point). Demerits of the stock gun is the plastic pumping arm and breech. It works but does not impart a feeling of quality. I also have a Crosman 2100 and feel that it is better quality stock but begs for a legitimate wood stock (recently done by another forum member). Demerits are harder pumping effort that the Daisy.
Quote from: DavidS on July 24, 2014, 12:15:22 PMI currently prefer my Daisy 22X as my main Hunting rifle, My Daisy 880's for plinking and close range hunting (under 40 yards), My Crosman 2289g-ACP for follow up shots, and my Crosman 66 for good old fashioned fun.What do you (everyone) think about these AirRifles? What kinds of usage do you get out of them? What are your views of the pros and cons of them?David - smiling every time I see your posts like this. Not sure why, but I just didn't like the .22 pumper. I love the feel of my 881 with metal receiver and metal pumping arm though.Anyway - I saw you mention in a post one time something about the Winchester 77XS. Have you had it apart? Is the material Nylon like the 901? or plastic like the 880? I am looking to get another and deciding between the 901 and the Win 77XS. Haven't seen a 77 in person and no stores local have any. I like that the 77XS has the longer pump handle like the 880 as I want an "easy pumper". Thinking the power plants are the same? I have a C9 (.20) and the pumping effort is quite high, but it does thump the target when shot - 8 pumps gets me about 14FPE, 9 will break 15FPE. I can get a like new 77XS for $50. Your thoughts?
Quote from: longdx on July 25, 2014, 06:08:01 PMI feel that the Daisy 880 is a great multipurpose rifle (especially at the price point). Demerits of the stock gun is the plastic pumping arm and breech. It works but does not impart a feeling of quality. I also have a Crosman 2100 and feel that it is better quality stock but begs for a legitimate wood stock (recently done by another forum member). Demerits are harder pumping effort that the Daisy.I want to check out the Daisy 901. I've read that the stock and receiver are a sturdier polymer, not the cheaper feeling plastic of some of their other models. I briefly had a Daisy 35 and the plastic did seem more sturdy than the plastic of my 856.I also have a 2100 . It's a great rifle, but a pain to load.
The Winchester is plastic like the 880. It is an 880 with a different but stock.
Quote from: airgunandy on July 24, 2014, 02:53:34 PMMy first air rifle was a Daisy 856. I bought both my sons Daisy Grizzlies as their first airguns. Kid next door, friend of my boys a little later, had an 880. Another friend had an 880. Nice rifles. I got the boys Grizzlies because they were easier to pump (one pump too) than a Crosman 760. Both 880s broke right where the receiver and but stock meet. Both Grizzlies failed to hold air after a couple of years. Still have the 856. Cut down the barrel and stock sort of Mares Leg style.Later as I got into Crosman 760s, 66s and a 2200, I realized how much sturdier the Crosman rifles were. The valves had more metal, and cast or machined metal too, not just sheet metal. The pump tube ran almost to the rear of the receiver forming a backbone for the rifle that kept it from flexing so much when pumped. The Crosman plastic rifles, even the cheap little 760 looks like a better internal build quality to me than any plastic Daisies I've seen. Been a Crosman fan ever since. Interesting view, you made me compare the two and the Daisy 880 Valve/Chamber has thicker walls than the Crosman 13XX/66/760/2289 valve assembly, and the Daisy Powerline pump tubes are thicker than the Crosman Pump tubes. I personaly feel that the Daisy's are sturdier as everything is held togather metal to metal (except for the stock that is metal to plastic) where the Crosman Plastic Rifles have plastic housing on the barrel to hold the barrel and shroud steady. Just my view.As to breaking the stocks at the receiver. I have heard people complain about this with both the plastic Daisy's and the plastic Crosman's. I do not see how it is possible unless you hold the stock when pumping. And that is bad form as it is easier to pump by holding it correctly by holding the top of the reciever (about half of the Daisy manuals even instruct to do such), so it should not be possible to put enough pressure on the stock to break it unless you enjoy harder pumping effort.QuoteI may still have to get a Daisy .22 if I can find one. Gotta be easier to shoot than that dang 2200 with that tiny sliding door loading gate!The Daisy 22X/22SG is very easy to load (as easy as the 880) and easy to pump. It has a metal receiver housing and wood foregrips, and stock. There are places to find them if you are willing to spend a couple hundred $.
Have to agree to disagree. Guess I like the Crosman designs better because they are built more like old school pumpers, hammer and valve in pump tube and such. Just not all that familiar with the designs of the Daisy innards. They look plain weird inside to me!
Couple hundred for a Daisy .22??? Forget that! For that kind of money I'll stick to the real pumpers, vintage Crosman, Benjamin, and Sheridan rifles. A rocker safety Sheridan, Benji 342 or Crosman 140/1400 will blow away any of the plastic rifles from either Daisy or Crosman.
I keep toying with the idea of an 880 build though. Maybe do something like I did with one of my 760's....