GTA
All Springer/NP/PCP Air Gun Discussion General => Vintage Air Gun Gate => Topic started by: Yng@hrt on February 23, 2019, 07:05:54 PM
-
The purpose of this study is to show changes that occurred from prewar (early 1940’s), which was the beginning of Benjamin's "Under Lever Pump" model, & the end of their "Front Pump" model, through 1997 which was the end of Benjamin's “P” style trigger group. My focus will be transitional models from this time period & will include; stocks, forearms, sights, triggers, safeties, & bolts. There are many changes I find interesting although one in particular stands out; many experts assumed the bolt "O Ring" was not implemented until Benjamin's 39X series. As you will see it began with the late model 34X.
All I had time for today was photographing the collection which took more time than expected. Tomorrow I will begin disassembling guns & taking more photos so there is a better understanding of the changes that occurred & when.
-
Looking forward to your report Marty. You've really set yourself up for some work, methinks. :D
-
May as well have them start earning their keep in more ways than one. ;)
-
Marty, appreciate your love for the Benjis. Admittedly, Sheridan’s are great guns... but their DNA owes to the Benjamin’s.
Nice family photo you have there.
-
Thank you Bill. I love my Sheridan's but vintage Benjamin's are amazing guns in their own right. Hopefully this thread will show some insight as to how these great guns evolved.
-
That's a great pic BTW.
-
That could very well be my new desktop background wallpaper at work!
Nice job Marty!
-
Great picture, and great collection.
Does your '82-'86 342 have checkering ?
I don't see any, but assume it should if my '81 does.
-
I will REALLY look forward to seeing more of this thread! Sounds really great.
A Benjy was my first airgun love (a very early “corn cob” 347 that still works perfectly), and I consider them rather underrated both as performers and collectibles. Exciting stuff!
-
Thank you Gentlemen!
David- You are correct with regards to the checkering on the 342. I was disappointed it did not show up in the photo which doesn't surprise me given how cheap my camera is & how far I had to pull away for the shot. Here's a better photo...
-
how far I had to pull away for the shot
Funny, I was going to ask about that. Given that the guns appear to unsupported on their "butts" (no pun), it looks like an overhead shot from about twenty feet up.(?)
Marty, email me your original pic and let me see what I can do with it. Since it's an attachment, I assume you had to resize it.
Dennis
-
Dennis- great idea & thanks for the offer. I will send it now. With & w/o the print.
-
Very nice collection of Benjamin's you've got going there Marty, they're all beauties !!!
-
Let's see if this is any better. (Click on pic)
(https://i.postimg.cc/GLyN1LjZ/Benjamin-Vintage-a-Copy.jpg)
EDIT - After clicking on this pic, it may be larger than your screen. Most of us (I think) have a mouse with a scroll wheel. Use the wheel to scroll up and down. Hold down the SHIFT key while using the mouse wheel and it will scroll sideways.
:D
-
Very nice photo Dennis. Thank you.
...& Thank's for the complement Wayne.
-
Very nice photo Dennis. Thank you.
No problem. Hope it helps. :D
-
Here is a photo of the various bolt designs. As mentioned before it was assumed the “O-Ring” design wasn’t implemented until 1991. The photograph below shows it appeared in the late 34X model as shown with the 1990 (part #; NX 400-2), & included both the 340 & 342. This was not the case with the 347. Its bolt was similar to the 1969 model’s bolt design. The 347’s bolt part # is; NX 400-7.
Another interesting observation is Benjamin’s on again off again use of an “Air Flow Thru” design until 1990. Also included (photo) is Benjamin’s No. 300 front pump AG; models 300, 317, & 322, manufactured from 1934-1940. You can see the air flow thru bolt design on it as well.
Other observations are the use of the Bolt Friction Spring & Ball Bearing which was done away with sometime around 1995. Note; some ball bearing were missing & are meant to be with each friction spring.
The Bolt Guide Screw remained the same up until 1990 & 1991. In 1990 the screw had both a posterior hex & flat head slot. IMO a very poor design which is evident by Benjamin's quick change to the 1991’s Allen wrench design.
The cam plate design changed in 1991 to a two piece design & now conseils both the cam & screw guide.
-
Question; do the photos expand with clarity when you click on jpg at the bottom of each photo?
-
Yes they do... and so does clicking on the actual photo attached.
-
Thanks Scott. I was wondering because it didn't appear to be working for some folks.
Clicking on the jpg below the photos causes another jpg to pop up on the lower left hand corner of the screen. Clicking again on it expands the image. Is this how you do it Scott?
-
When I open it in my AOL browser it goes straight to save file.
I just opened it in Firefox and it gives me the option to open in PhotoViewer or save. In PV it works great.
-
Glad to hear Dennis. For a moment there I thought I was going to have to figure out another method for posting pix. Not good...this method took me about a year to figure out. ;)
-
Glad to hear Dennis. For a moment there I thought I was going to have to figure out another method for posting pix. Not good...this method took me about a year to figure out. ;)
Sorry for the scare. Blame it on AOL. ;)
-
First terminology... a .jpg is a type of photo format.
You, the poster, can attach a .doc, .gif, .jpg, .mpg, .pdf, .png, .txt, .zip, .jpeg .bmp... all different types of files.
A ".doc" is a MS word document, a ".pdf" is a document saved as an adobe type file,
For photo attachments I choose .jpg for still photos and .gif for my animated ones. They usually have less data usage (KB) and still give good clarity (Pixels).
Either way... If I click on you attachment "photo" it opens up in a separate pane. Then it has a "+" symbol and I need to click on it again to see it full sized.
If I click on the text below, it takes a bit longer but goes directly to the full sized pic.
This is the same for all, not just you.
As far as location, it opens where ever I (or anyone) had the last one on my screen. "click-drag-drop" and it will open there every time...
Hope that makes sense.
-
Next series of photos are to illustrate changes with respect to stocks, forearms, sights, triggers, & safeties. The first is the '42 312. The front sight is placed quite a ways back from the muzzle. The rear sight is very well designed although only allows for windage adjustment. The forearm is secured in place by flat head screws instead of pins, the trigger guard is relatively narrow compared to others that follow, & the safety is mounted on the right side of the receiver which must be pivoted up for fire & lowered for safe.
-
Man, that is a beautiful gun. Pristine. Beautiful wood and finish.
-
Marty, Please make sure your ducks are in a row here.
Not only because this is the WWW but also it may be around for a long time and referenced often.
People may take this as gospel... So if their is a "grey area" and you are not 100% sure, probably best not to post it.
Just sayin'.
-
Thank you Gentlemen!
David- You are correct with regards to the checkering on the 342. I was disappointed it did not show up in the photo which doesn't surprise me given how cheap my camera is & how far I had to pull away for the shot. Here's a better photo...
What a beauty, I love the deep rich color of the walnut on this one.
Don't get me wrong I like my 342 as a shooter, but I'd sure love it a lot more if it was this nice looking.
Like that 317 you sent me which is why it probably gets shot 90% more than the 342.
-
Marty, Please make sure your ducks are in a row here.
Not only because this is the WWW but also it may be around for a long time and referenced often.
People may take this as gospel... So if their is a "grey area" and you are not 100% sure, probably best not to post it.
Just sayin'.
Your entire post is extremely vague/grey. The least you can do is be specific!
-
Thank you Randy.
Next is the 1968 312. You'll notice that the front sight has been positioned closer towards the muzzle, & the rear sight is the optional "Bar-V" fully adjustable sight. I also added a factory option "Bar-O" fully adjustable factory original peep sight. The safety remains on the right side of the receiver although the change here is a 90 degree tab for leverage to set & disengage the safety, & no longer has the false rearward screw. The use of a spring washer underneath the safety screw is also added. The trigger guard has increased in thickness, & the flat head screws that secure the forearm are no longer in use. Although I am not certain when Benjamin switch to using pins. You will also notice a difference in the trigger mount between this one & the 1942 model.
-
Question; do the photos expand with clarity when you click on jpg at the bottom of each photo?
Yep they expand just fine for me.
Interesting about the flow through bolt, that '67 312 you sent me and my '81 342 both have flow through bolts and I just assumed it was standard throughout this period of time.
It never even crossed my mind that it could've been a periodic thing.
-
Before I go any farther, & since it was brought to my attention…again… although this bridge has already been crossed…let me dispel any naysayer’s thoughts that my 312, 1942 date isn’t accurate, which I assume was the reason for reply 26.
There are two documents crucial to dating a prewar Benjamin. First is the “Be Prepared!” green Minuteman flyer, & second is the “Valuable Information” flyer. The “Be Prepared” doc was only included with Benjamin guns from 1940-1942, & The “Valuable Information” doc is dated January 1, 1942. Both of these documents along with several others accompanied this gun.
Trev’s Airgun Scrapbook also has a doc with a man cycling the all new Benjamin underlever pump (pic included) with the caption that reads; “MODERN MECHANIX December 1939. New Benjamin Air Rifles have a lever hand pump”.
And last, the box that came with this gun & the other one I own was never seen before by anyone on GTA or AVA. As far as I can tell, the graphics on this box are unique and is found only on prewar Benjamins.
As stated before, this information was already presented in another thread. I think I'll pick up where I left off sometime tomorrow. ;)
-
Hair triggers must have been the rage back then LOL!
Hey Marty, this is a really nice presentation.
Very much appreciate the time you're taking to do this.
D.
-
Thanks again Dennis. There are about 3 more models I would like to have to cover all the changes that have taken place through the dates indicated in the first post. However, I think we can figure out most of them based on the collection as it stands now. It is a lot of work but work I enjoy. ;)
-
BTW; the intent here is to be as accurate with the information as possible. If anyone notices inaccuracies with any of the models please let me know.
Thanks.
-
The following photos are the parts lists & diagrams that came with these guns. You might find them useful in becoming familiar with your guns or ordering parts, as well learning about all the changes that occurred through the time period mentioned in my first post.
First is the parts list & diagram that came with the 1942 312.
-
Next parts list & diagram came with the 1968 312.
-
Next are two separate parts lists & diagrams came with the 1969 347.
-
Next is the parts list & diagram that came with the '82-'86 342.
Note; same parts list & diagram for the 1990 342.
-
To think that they supplied diagrams like that in those years when most likely no one but a service tech would need them.
Go to today when a LOT of us are inside our guns with nothing at all to reference to.
-
Those four docs are the most difficult to find. I am fortunate they accompanied these guns. Hopefully members can find them useful. I do not see a need to post docs for the latter years of this collection, those are readily available online.
I will continue photographing the rest of the collection & briefly go over the obvious changes as I have with the others. Any additional changes can be found in the parts list’s & diagrams.
-
Outstanding Marty!
Yes, those docs are hard to find, even on the internet.
It would be nice to send thos to Crosamn so they could but them in their Data base of Owners Manuals and EVP's.
Great job!
-
Next is the 1969 347. Changes between the 1968 & 1969 models are extensive. First is a larger more refined front sight, & a 3 piece rear sight, which includes a separate mount, leaf spring sight, & elevation bracket.
The side receiver pivot safety has been replaced by a thumb safety located directly behind the breech cap.
Another notable option are model specific Telescopic Sight Bases. None of my other docs show this option. An enhanced view of these mounts is included. You can view the entire parts list & diagram on reply 37.
Last, I find it interesting that the 1968 model has a Monte Carlo stock & this ’69 does not. There is no reference in my documents as to why this occurred. One can only assume Benjamin used up available inventory as they have in many other cases making pinpointing exact dates nearly impossible. If anyone has information explaining this change please let me know.
-
Next is the '82-'86 342. No notable changes other than the obvious checkered forearm & stock. There is one other model 342 that preceded this one with a plain forearm & stock, although my guess is that one remained relatively unchanged as well.
The Monte Carlo Stock remains through 1997 & beyond.
Note; I keep referring to this gun as; '82-'86, if anyone knows how to pinpoint the dates of these guns please let me know. Crosman has them listed on they're dates of manufacture as 1982 T426305 T430000 & UP . This gun is #T435043. My guess would be 1983?
-
Next is the 1990 342, many significant changes here which include a new front & rear sight, IMO the best of the entire collection, simple & effective. This change however is short lived because the 1991 model’s sights change yet again, & remains the same through the 1997 model.
Another notable change is that this model offers the owner a choice of two optional peep sights; the 273 & the Williams. The slot for mounting the 273 behind the cam plate remains as it has since the first lever pump was offered (prewar), & this is the first year model tapped on the right side of the receiver for the Williams.
This is the only model I have seen with “Pellets & Darts” stamped on the tube below the cam plate & caliber designation. One would assume this would be the case for smooth bore barrels, not rifled.
The bolt is polished or chromed, & the stock retaining nut is now a hex design, both of which remain through the 1997 model.
-
The obvious change with respect to the 392P is its overall size. It absolutely dwarfs the previous models, especially when compared to the early model “Tootsie Roll” versions. Those of you who own both know what I mean. All of the previous models measure 34 7/8” & this model measures 36 3/8”. These measurements give some sense of the difference in size although other factors contribute to the shear mass of this gun like a much larger stock & forearm grip.
Other changes include an optional Nickel finish (as is the case with this gun), a new front sight, & a much larger overall trigger assembly, & larger hammer & sear. The cam plate is now a two piece instead of the previous one piece & conceals both the cam & bolt guide screw.
Some have referred to this model as the pinnacle of the early Benjamin models. What I can say is that it is an absolute hammer built like a tank with the performance to satisfy even the most skeptical of owners. Absolutely brutal on small game with the accuracy to match any high priced AG's at moderate distances.
-
The latter models of this collection that follow the S392P are the 397P’s. All three (2-‘93’s & a ’95) remain pretty much the same for the exception of the 1995 S397P. Its lever arm is blued which can be seen in the group photograph of my first post.
The 392PA & the S397PA (2nd variant) were offered from 1993-1997. The S392PA (2nd variant) was offered from 1993-1996.
This 392PA has remained the same with the only obvious change being a “PA” designation, & the serial number is now located on the right side of the tube below the receiver. The only other obvious change is the use of a “Stock Spring”, although I am not sure why it is called this because it rests directly in line with the sear which must serve as some sort of assist to slam the sear against the hammer. The spring sits into a hole cut out directly below the sear inside the stock. There is nothing holding it in place & simply falls out when the stock screw is removed. Last is the change from a flat head slotted stock screw to a Phillips head.
Finally, the 1997 model year marked the end of the “P” style trigger group. I am currently trying to locate the first model series with the “PA” trigger group so I can use it to illustrate the change from the “P” trigger group. In addition, I am also trying to locate a late 1930’s (preferably a 1938-’39) front pump Benjamin so I can illustrate the change to a lever pump.
-
Marty,
As a big Benjamin pumper fan I have been really enjoying this thread and especially like seeing those "minty fresh" specimens you have.
This latest post is very timely for me as I have a 397PA arriving tomorrow or the next day, and it's the early variety with the "P" group trigger. I don't know if it will have the soldered or the removable valve but either way, I'm more than good with it. What was most important to me was that it had the "P" style trigger.
This stock spring that you mention (which I'm now thinking I might have on this new gun) - it seems like the only thing this would do for the gun is make the trigger harder to pull, am I right? If that's the case, it will be coming out, unless you tell me it has to be there for some other reason. Thanks.
-
You are exactly right Randy. The stock spring's only purpose is to stiffen the trigger pull. I am not exactly sure why Crosman (acquired Benjamin & Sheridan in 1991) decided to add it other than they figured the gun was safer to use. Removing the spring reduces the trigger travel considerably, & is much lighter & precise, especially at higher cycles.
...& thanks! ;)
-
Here is some reading I found both interesting & in some ways entertaining in the 1942 312's docs. It is the same pamphlet I posted earlier with the parts list & schematic.
Front page...
-
Back page...
-
Just about overlooked this one Dennis. :D
-
Just about overlooked this one Dennis. :D
If they call that a hair trigger, what do I call mine at 4 ounces on my match guns?
Dangerous, most likely. :D
-
I can't even fathom 4 oz. I will definitely have to cross that bridge someday.
-
That could be my bad. It might be 1lb. 4oz.. I'll have to check that again.
-
That could be my bad. It might be 1lb. 4oz.. I'll have to check that again.
There is something called an accutrigger that some gun owners set at 4-6 oz for the first stage & 8 oz for the second stage. It would be cool to try that out on a AG.
I also recall reading somewhere that some guy at a shooting range had his trigger set at 2 oz, if you can believe that. A friend recalls his friend saying not to place his finger anywhere close to the trigger until the crosshairs were on POI. He mentioned something about the gun aligning for the shot mechanically. The friend went on to say his finger barely made contact with the trigger before the gun fired. The same guy also said he remembered the gun hitting exactly where the crosshairs were pointed... ???
This was a powder burner. The owner of that gun needs to be evaluated.
-
I love how in the old days the gun companies expected you to work on your gun and gave you instructions how to do it. I have my Dad's old Remington 11-48 shotgun, (his was built in 1952) and I looked up the owners manual for it and it said that if it needs repair you should take it to a certified gunsmith, but if you are the kind of guy that wants to do it yourself, here's how to do it (paraphrased).
-
I can't even fathom 4 oz. I will definitely have to cross that bridge someday.
That could be my bad. It might be 1lb. 4oz.. I'll have to check that again.
I just checked it again. It's 0lb. 3.9oz.. It's my IZH 46M. My MP532 is the same platform and it measures 4.2oz.
-
Coming from a guy like me who has spent the majority of his time these last few years learning the finer details of a trigger pull on guns not designed for pinpoint accuracy can really appreciate numbers like those. That is amazing!
-
I just looked up the ISSF 10m match air pistol rules. 17.6oz. is their minimum, so if I were ever to shoot in a match I'd have to get used to a heavier trigger. I only just got my Lyman trigger pull scale so I never knew until the last couple weeks what I was actually shooting with as far as trigger weight.
Mind you though, I always did the bump test on these guns (you can dry fire them) to make sure it was not going to go off on it's own. The lack of safeties on them also encourages safe handling, but I thought I should mention that lest someone think I need "evaluation", haha. :o ;) :D
-
I love how in the old days the gun companies expected you to work on your gun and gave you instructions how to do it. I have my Dad's old Remington 11-48 shotgun, (his was built in 1952) and I looked up the owners manual for it and it said that if it needs repair you should take it to a certified gunsmith, but if you are the kind of guy that wants to do it yourself, here's how to do it (paraphrased).
I find that interesting as well Randy. You can bet some greedy lawyer put an end to that idea.
-
I just looked up the ISSF 10m match air pistol rules. 17.6oz. is their minimum, so if I were ever to shoot in a match I'd have to get used to a heavier trigger. I only just got my Lyman trigger pull scale so I never knew until the last couple weeks what I was actually shooting with as far as trigger weight.
Mind you though, I always did the bump test on these guns (you can dry fire them) to make sure it was not going to go off on it's own. The lack of safeties on them also encourages safe handling, but I thought I should mention that lest someone think I need "evaluation", haha. :o ;) :D
I need to be mindful not to touch the trigger on my 880 when the safety is set. Releasing the safety causes it to fire. It's that light a pull.
-
I just looked up the ISSF 10m match air pistol rules. 17.6oz. is their minimum, so if I were ever to shoot in a match I'd have to get used to a heavier trigger. I only just got my Lyman trigger pull scale so I never knew until the last couple weeks what I was actually shooting with as far as trigger weight.
Mind you though, I always did the bump test on these guns (you can dry fire them) to make sure it was not going to go off on it's own. The lack of safeties on them also encourages safe handling, but I thought I should mention that lest someone think I need "evaluation", haha. :o ;) :D
I need to be mindful not to touch the trigger on my 880 when the safety is set. Releasing the safety causes it to fire. It's that light a pull.
I was just out sighting in one of my 880's (one of the metal ones) with a new compact scope (see this thread) (https://www.gatewaytoairguns.org/GTA/index.php?topic=154306) and realized that I removed the safety on it. It actually has a two-stage feel to it.....click, and then click. I did the ramp mod, but apparently it could use some lightening.
What mod do you use? The ramp or the shortening of the hook?
-
Edit
-
I can't really see the difference where you shortened the hook.
EDIT - Picture removed by Stinger177 due to misleading information.
Sorry folks.
-
Dennis- here is a link to my 880 trigger mod.
https://www.gatewaytoairguns.org/GTA/index.php?topic=118906.msg1146943#msg1146943 (https://www.gatewaytoairguns.org/GTA/index.php?topic=118906.msg1146943#msg1146943)
-
Edit
-
Got it Marty, thanks.
PS - Check your PM's
-
I am looking for anyone who has the 39X Benjamin that followed the 1997 39XPA, & the front pumper Benjamin that preceded the first lever pump 31X. A photo of both guns are seen below. If you have either of these guns can you post a photo of it exactly like my last photo (including a full length photo of your gun).
Thank you.
-
Fantastic thread.
Great info, great photos, really interesting.
The '42 gun is my favourite; there's something about its slenderness and light stock.
Great collection.
-
Thank you Louis...much appreciated. ;)
-
Marty.......I applaud you sir ! You have amassed an exceptional vintage air gun collection !
Absolutely Fantastic !
WOW !
My Best Wishes - Tom
-
Thank you Tom. It's been quite a journey & the collection is almost complete. I’ve been asked several times which one is my favorite & to be honest it seems to change daily. What I will say is the light toned ’42 312 is right up there, not only because of its significance to this collection, but because it was so well designed Benjamin carried those same design elements through to the end of the ’97 year model. It is a compact tank, extremely accurate, & a hammer in its own right. Hard to believe he’s almost 80 years old.
-
Benjamin Model 300 was made from 1934-1940 & was Benjamin’s last front pump design & was advertised as Benjamin’s Super Single Shot (No. 317 & No. 322 caliber). This gun set the stage for Benjamin’s first under lever pump design which was introduced in 1939. You can see the similarities between this gun & the 1942 312 (stock, trigger, 2 piece bolt, cam plate, cam guide screw, front sight, & adjustable rear sight).
-
That cocking method is crazy!!
And it appears that shooting back then was a dress-up affair.
-
Can you imagine being out in public somewhere & someone seeing you with that contraption & getup?::) Water cooler talk must have been pretty entertaining.
I guess it made sense back then to appeal to the upper class since Federal wages at the time were around $0.25/hr & the national average for other “common workers” was around $0.45/hr. $7.50 must have sounded like a LOT of money.
As a side note; $7.50 in 1935 is equivalent to $141.00 (2019).
-
There were major changes to the 39x in Crosman’s line after the last 39XPA. The most significant; the "P" Style Trigger, which remained since its inception in the early 1940’s. This new "PA" style trigger first appeared sometime in the late 90's. It is comprised of an all in one (trigger, sear, & safety) trigger housing that remains to this day.
The first of these models like the 397PA below remained pretty much the same with regards to the outside appearance for the exception of the new trigger assembly. Even though the housing appears to be made of plastic it my understanding it was made of something called “Zamak”, a zink/aluminum alloy & I believe the early models like the one below came with aluminum valves until enough complaints flooded Crosman & they reverted back to brass.
Some folks swear by the new trigger assembly & like it better than the old. Evidently there are some simple trigger mods that make the trigger pull quite nice. I have never owned one so obviously have never tried it. What I can say is that I prefer the simplicity of the old “P” style trigger, & thumb safety, not to mention no interference within the trigger guard.
There you have it…old to new as best I can tell.
Here’s that trigger mod in case anyone is interested.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcHrwZb8gyQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcHrwZb8gyQ)
-
Closer look at the 397PA's trigger assembly housing.
-
Hi Marty, that 300 is beautiful too. In such a nice condition. I like the unusual proportions, if I may say so: short stock, long action. A thing of beauty.
How does it shoot? Does it have a rifled barrel and is it as powerful as the underlevers? I guess the main reason for changing to underlever was to make pumping easier and less awkward/dangerous (looking straight into the barrel is never a nice idea?).
May I also ask how the early Benjamin underlever pumpers compare to the early Sheridans? I must admit that I don't know anything about Benjamins; Sheridans are a lot easier to find over here in the Netherlands. When I look at the photos of those early Benji's, I see real quality and nice blueing (if it is indeed blueing, don't know how it's called on brass > but is it brass? One question leads to another ;D)
Many thanks
-
Hi Marty, that 300 is beautiful too. In such a nice condition. I like the unusual proportions, if I may say so: short stock, long action. A thing of beauty.
How does it shoot? Does it have a rifled barrel and is it as powerful as the underlevers? I guess the main reason for changing to underlever was to make pumping easier and less awkward/dangerous (looking straight into the barrel is never a nice idea?).
May I also ask how the early Benjamin underlever pumpers compare to the early Sheridans? I must admit that I don't know anything about Benjamins; Sheridans are a lot easier to find over here in the Netherlands. When I look at the photos of those early Benji's, I see real quality and nice blueing (if it is indeed blueing, don't know how it's called on brass > but is it brass? One question leads to another ;D)
Many thanks
Louis,
I agree that 300 is a beautiful example, unfortunately it isn’t mine. I look forward to adding one to my collection eventually, hopefully the 317/322.
You ask a couple of great questions & I will try to answer them in a couple of posts.
First with regards to the “Rifled barrel”; Short answer is yes. The earliest article I can find where Benjamin mentions rifled barrel is from their catalogue dated 1938 which shows this same No. 300 (above) called their “Super Single Shot Air Rifle”. This model was offered in 300, 317, & 322 cal. The 300 is smooth bore & the 317 & 322 barrels are rifled. This was obviously the beginning of Benjamin's new nomenclature for the rest of their lines. Also mentioned in the ad is Benjamin's model 700 “Benjamin 25 Shot Air Rifle” which is smooth bore.
Also included is another ad by Popular Science dated 1935 where Benjamin mentions rifled barrel.
What I also find interesting is how early the Benjamin's peep sight #273 made its appearance. Even more interesting is how Benjamin modified the model 700 to accommodate the sight.
-
Louis,
With regards to Bluing; the early Benjamin’s came with two finishes on top of brass, a VERY thin, & by the looks of many of these guns from that time period, a very fragile layer of “Black Nickel”, on top of a much more durable layer of “Silver Nickel”. Many of the gun finishes from this era found at auction sites are either worn down to the brass or have a silver hue, this is why. One would imagine this bluing method was cost prohibitive as Benjamin soon did away with this technique.
-
Louis,
Your last question is probably the most difficult for me to answer. I love all my Benjamin’s although there’s no denying a nice Sheridan Model C. I might get into a lot of trouble for saying this but…I will say without hesitation that a Dan is second to none when it comes to design features & performance with respect to American made AG’s. IMHO a Dan’s feel & trigger are far superior to any other. There is a reason most folks refer to their Dan's as "She". ALTHOUGH where a Vintage Benjamin out shines a Dan is in its line of .22 cals. Just that small increase in size makes a tremendous difference in energy delivered. I have witnessed it several times hunting small game. So having said all that, it would have been incredible if Sheridan had come out with a .22 cal. during its heyday. One can only imagine what that model would have been like.
-
Marty, with your guns being so close to "mint" condition you might be able clear up a thought I have had on the finishes used on the brass.
On your 312s, is it glossy like a black nickle?
Mine is so worn that there was none left to tell, that is why I polished the brass, there was silver nickle left on portions.
But my 342 is a dark brown with a texture similar to Parkerizing.
That is just as I remember my first one having when I bought it brand new in the mid seventies.
I think Benjiman changed their process at some point...
Your photo above seems to confirm this, the 312 on top has a gloss by the flash while the 342 is dull.
-
Marty, with your guns being so close to "mint" condition you might be able clear up a thought I have had on the finishes used on the brass.
On your 312s, is it glossy like a black nickle?
Mine is so worn that there was none left to tell, that is why I polished the brass, there was silver nickle left on portions.
But my 342 is a dark brown with a texture similar to Parkerizing.
That is just as I remember my first one having when I bought it brand new in the mid seventies.
I think Benjiman changed their process at some point...
Your photo above seems to confirm this, the 312 on top has a gloss by the flash while the 342 is dull.
Yes...a well cared for 312 will still have its thin layer of black nickel which has a mirror-like finish. That's what silver nickel/black nickel bluing looks like.
Yes...your 342 should have a dark brown to lighter brown bronze-like finish that was applied directly to the brass. My '68-'86 have that same finish although the '86 is just a tad lighter, which changed again in '90 to a black/dark finish.
Yes they did change their process at several points. Key is to find out when & how. Care to take on the challenge?
-
hook... line... and sinker. ;)
;D
Seriously, I thought you may be able to clarify when the difference took place.
My 312 is between pre'52 and... I am not at home to check my 342, but we already discussed it was a first "post tootsie'' . My original from my youth would have been about 1976
-
hook... line... and sinker. ;)
;D
Seriously, I thought you may be able to clarify when the difference took place.
Hook, line, & sinker...not sure what that's about...?
My '53 mint 137 has the silver nickel/black nickel finish as well. Maybe that can help you close the gap?
-
Thank you very much Marty for your most interesting answers to my questions.
Really nice paperwork there too. Do you collect Benjamin paperwork as well as the guns? 99% sure the answer is yes.
At least for me, airgun collecting also means collecting associated things; paperwork and boxes to start with.
You probably know this website, but it contains nice Benjamin info/photos/paperwork:
http://cinedux.com/benjamin-air-pistols-and-rifles.php (http://cinedux.com/benjamin-air-pistols-and-rifles.php)
The mirror-like finish of the black nickel on that 312 is stunning. Too bad that this finish is sensitive to wear.
It might be something that can be redone, in order to restore to original finish. Although I do find that some wear to blued steel adds character, I must admit that I'm not a big fan of the all-brass look. It might grow on me. And if I'm going to find an old Benjamin, it probably won't have mirror-finish black nickel.
Aha, that's interesting. "Dan"/"She" vs. Benjamin. .22 caliber - yes, it delivers the message rather well.
I read that Sheridan only did .20 because that meant that people could only buy their pellets? Not sure if this is true.
But there's obviously a lot of marketing behind airguns. Can't blame them, as I guess it was already a competitive business.
Don't think that anyone ever got rich of selling airguns.
Would the Sheridan/Benjamin/Crosman bosses back in the days have been driven around in a Chrysler?
Who knows! They did make fantastic guns that sold worldwide and still have a huge following, as far as I can see.
That's a huge reward in itself.
Ok, I'm straying off topic.
But nice to learn more about Benjamins. I must admit that I have had a look on Ebay... ;D
-
Marty,
As a big Benjamin pumper fan I have been really enjoying this thread and especially like seeing those "minty fresh" specimens you have.
This latest post is very timely for me as I have a 397PA arriving tomorrow or the next day, and it's the early variety with the "P" group trigger. I don't know if it will have the soldered or the removable valve but either way, I'm more than good with it. What was most important to me was that it had the "P" style trigger.
This stock spring that you mention (which I'm now thinking I might have on this new gun) - it seems like the only thing this would do for the gun is make the trigger harder to pull, am I right? If that's the case, it will be coming out, unless you tell me it has to be there for some other reason. Thanks.
Randy- just curious if you received your gun & what your impression is of the "stock spring". Did you find that your trigger pull improved w/o it?
-
Thank you very much Marty for your most interesting answers to my questions.
Really nice paperwork there too. Do you collect Benjamin paperwork as well as the guns? 99% sure the answer is yes.
At least for me, airgun collecting also means collecting associated things; paperwork and boxes to start with.
You probably know this website, but it contains nice Benjamin info/photos/paperwork:
http://cinedux.com/benjamin-air-pistols-and-rifles.php (http://cinedux.com/benjamin-air-pistols-and-rifles.php)
The mirror-like finish of the black nickel on that 312 is stunning. Too bad that this finish is sensitive to wear.
It might be something that can be redone, in order to restore to original finish. Although I do find that some wear to blued steel adds character, I must admit that I'm not a big fan of the all-brass look. It might grow on me. And if I'm going to find an old Benjamin, it probably won't have mirror-finish black nickel.
Aha, that's interesting. "Dan"/"She" vs. Benjamin. .22 caliber - yes, it delivers the message rather well.
I read that Sheridan only did .20 because that meant that people could only buy their pellets? Not sure if this is true.
But there's obviously a lot of marketing behind airguns. Can't blame them, as I guess it was already a competitive business.
Don't think that anyone ever got rich of selling airguns.
Would the Sheridan/Benjamin/Crosman bosses back in the days have been driven around in a Chrysler?
Who knows! They did make fantastic guns that sold worldwide and still have a huge following, as far as I can see.
That's a huge reward in itself.
Ok, I'm straying off topic.
But nice to learn more about Benjamins. I must admit that I have had a look on Ebay... ;D
Yes, the first 8 guns, from both 1942 312’s thru both 1991 S392P’s all have a their original boxes & docs. As mentioned before it's been quite the journey made even more difficult when a search is limited to this criteria.
Trev's Airgun Scrapebook is a GREAT resource & I use it often. AVA is another good source as well as eBay. Sellers often post docs useful for tying up loose ends. I noticed that DT Fletcher frequents eBay often for the same info. ;)
-
Louis,
Your last question is probably the most difficult for me to answer. I love all my Benjamin’s although there’s no denying a nice Sheridan Model C. I might get into a lot of trouble for saying this but…I will say without hesitation that a Dan is second to none when it comes to design features & performance with respect to American made AG’s. IMHO a Dan’s feel & trigger are far superior to any other. There is a reason most folks refer to their Dan's as "She". ALTHOUGH where a Vintage Benjamin out shines a Dan is in its line of .22 cals. Just that small increase in size makes a tremendous difference in energy delivered. I have witnessed it several times hunting small game. So having said all that, it would have been incredible if Sheridan had come out with a .22 cal. during its heyday. One can only imagine what that model would have been like.
I think nearly every collector of vintage pumpers will agree, the Sheridans are the best ever made. It's worth noting however, the Sheridan C model relied heavily on the design of Benjamin guns already in production at the time. After the financial failure of the renowned A and B models, Sheridan basically made a copy of the Benjamin 3xx, with a few of their own design details and attention to fit and finish.
Crosman made the first underlever pumpers starting in the 20s. Benjamin didn't make any till a dozen or more years later, likely because of patent law.
-
I think nearly every collector of vintage pumpers will agree, the Sheridans are the best ever made. It's worth noting however, the Sheridan C model relied heavily on the design of Benjamin guns already in production at the time. After the financial failure of the renowned A and B models, Sheridan basically made a copy of the Benjamin 3xx, with a few of their own design details and attention to fit and finish.
Crosman made the first underlever pumpers starting in the 20s. Benjamin didn't make any till a dozen or more years later, likely because of patent law.
Points well taken Terry & thanks.
It would be interesting to view both schematics of Benjamin's 3XX vs Sheridan's to see what those similarities are.
-
The valve internals are practically identical, the parts will interchange. A new piston and/or pump cup for the current 392/397, bought from Crosman today, will fit in a mid 60s Benjamin or Sheridan.
-
Here's what I have with regards to schematics; Benjamin 34X-39X, & Sheridan Model C.
I have no relevant Crosman schematics. Maybe someone who does can post them.
Very curious to know about all the design elements used by Sheridan from these other models.
-
Marty,
As a big Benjamin pumper fan I have been really enjoying this thread and especially like seeing those "minty fresh" specimens you have.
This latest post is very timely for me as I have a 397PA arriving tomorrow or the next day, and it's the early variety with the "P" group trigger. I don't know if it will have the soldered or the removable valve but either way, I'm more than good with it. What was most important to me was that it had the "P" style trigger.
This stock spring that you mention (which I'm now thinking I might have on this new gun) - it seems like the only thing this would do for the gun is make the trigger harder to pull, am I right? If that's the case, it will be coming out, unless you tell me it has to be there for some other reason. Thanks.
Randy- just curious if you received your gun & what your impression is of the "stock spring". Did you find that your trigger pull improved w/o it?
Yes, I received the gun, and it did have that spring that sits inside the stock and presses up underneath the trigger sear. I removed it, but the trigger was still very hard to pull compared to my '93 392P because the spring behind the trigger is way too stiff. I replaced that spring with a lighter one I had on hand, and I used the stock spring inside the valve against the check (inlet) valve. I put two brass washers on top of that spring, and then replaced the single original spring with a slightly shorter, slightly weaker spring. It now pumps up very easily for the first 3 or 4 pumps until the pressure really builds, and it exhausts all it's air on 8 pumps. That spring replacement for the exhaust valve is probably a wee bit too weak because I have to half-cock the gun for it to hold air on the first pump. That doesn't bother me personally, but I might re-do it with a shortened stock spring so the half-cocking won't be needed. I'm hesitating to make the change because I would be taking the risk of it not dumping all of 8 pumps then, and I don't feel like taking it apart and putting it back together again too many times.
-
Randy- don't blame you for not wanting to get back in there. A lot of work but good info on lightning the trigger...thanks.
-
The Benjamin 312 is such a fun little gun to shoot.
Sure the C series Sheridan's are superior in a number of ways, but as a backyard plinker most of those ways don't matter too much and the '68 Benjamin 312 is just as much fun to plinker with as my '79 Sheridan blue streak.
The sights leave much to be desired but I can certainly manage and the little guy definitely hits with authority.
-
Hey David- I think I should have given your 312 a bit more time with the flush. Did his valve ever open up completely?
-
I'm confused on the 392PA model I don't have one, but I've seen pictures of the 392PA with the short forearm and with the longer tapered forearm.
Was there both Benjamin/Sheridan and Crosman versions? With the Crosman one having the longer tapered forearm? And when did the longer tapered forearm first appear?
-
^^^Good question & it's one I hope someone here can answer.
Here’s what I do know; Crosman bought out Benjamin & Sheridan in 1991. The company kept what most folks refer to as the “P” style trigger group until at least 1997. Crosman redesigned the Benjamin trigger sometime after 1997 (although yet to be determined in this study). The photo below shows what I believe this gun looks like, based simply on its new style trigger & the same blocky gun style of most preceding models.
As for the other model with the tapered forearm grip…no idea when it made its first appearance. Hopefully someone can chime in to clarify.
-
My recently acquired 397PA was built in April 1997 and has the P-style trigger, removable valve, and the blocky fore-grip. Looks just like my '93 392P. I'm starting to think I like this version better than the one's with the soldered in valve. No loss of power, and much easier to work on if you have to. If you did happen to mess up the valve working on it you can easily replace the whole thing, or just parts of it.
-
Thanks Randy...we have the '96-'97 covered. Now we need someone with '98-'99. Something tells me the "PA" Style Trigger change occurred during this time period, with that gun I just posted up top.
-
Here we go; went back to my files remembering that I asked the owner of that gun for a closeup serial pic; Nov. 1999.
So, the "PA" style trigger first appeared sometime during the '97-'99 model year. More data needed.
-
Hey David- I think I should have given your 312 a bit more time with the flush. Did his valve ever open up completely?
I'm not sure because I don't have a chrony.
All I know is that doesn't hold air 100% overnight, I know that it probably has a bit more to give but it's perfect adequate for a plinker on 3-4 pumps.
I've just been enjoying shooting it so much any issues it has have not been noticed much at all.
-
The latest series of questions are; when was Benjamin’s “P” style trigger phased out, when was the “PA” style trigger (trigger pack) phased in, & when did the stock & forearm design change (butt plate & tapered forearm)?
According to Crosman; the “P” style trigger was phased out in 1997, the “PA” style trigger or “Trigger Pack” was phased in, in 1997, & the stock & forearm styling change took place in 10/04/07. Edit...According to Flint...the thick to thin profile forearm actually took place around 2000. More data needed to confirm exact time period.
Below are documents from Crosman (unfortunately the pdf links will have to be copy/pasted onto your browser) showing the above changes. I would still like confirmation on the stock/forearm styling change of '07... might have occurred earlier.
“P” Style Trigger
Model 397 Pneumatic, .177 cal. pellet, single shot w/ under lever pump, w/ modified sear & stock spring (2nd var.) Rifle 1993-1997
Model 392 Pneumatic, .22 cal. pellet, single shot w/ under lever pump, w/ modified sear & stock spring (2nd var.) Rifle 1993-1997
397/392 (1995-1997)
Owner’s Manual (MODEL 397 342 PHASE I)
file:///C:/Users/Owner/Downloads/B397-OM1%20(1).pdf
Parts List
file:///C:/Users/Owner/Downloads/B397-EVP%20&%20PL1%20(2).pdf
“PA” Style Trigger
Model 397 Pneumatic, .177 cal. pellet, single shot w/ under lever pump, w/ trigger pack (3rd var.) Rifle 1997-present
Model S397 Pneumatic, .177 cal. pellet, single shot w/ under lever pump, w/ trigger pack (3rd var.) Rifle 1997-present
Model 392 Pneumatic, .22 cal. pellet, single shot w/ under lever pump, w/ trigger pack (3rd var.) Rifle 1997-present
397/392 (1997-2005)
Owner’s Manual (MODEL 397 342 PHASE II)
file:///C:/Users/Owner/Downloads/B397-OM2%20(1).pdf
Parts List
file:///C:/Users/Owner/Downloads/B397-EVP%20&%20PL2.pdf
Stock & Forearm style change {butt plate/tapered forearm}
397/392 (10/04/07) first change occured around 2000.
file:///C:/Users/Owner/Downloads/B397-EVP%20&%20PL4%20%20MFD%2010-07%20(3).pdf
-
One very basic question that springs (...) to mind:
did Benjamin produce spring piston airguns in the time of the 312?
I don't think so. But perhaps the question should be: why not?
Whilst the English were making the Lincoln Jeffries designed springers, and the Webley Service Rifle, to name two,
it seems that the Americans were focussing on pumpers (and CO2's).
I prefer the American style by the way. Love a bit of springer tinkering and plinking, but pumpers and CO2 feel more refined/techincally advanced, and simply shoot better, at least in my opinion.
I hope this question is not too much off-topic or ignorant. But I think it's interesting to find out why Benjamin made these choices in which systems/technology to use?
-
If the 39X series guns did, indeed, switch to the tapered forestock in late '97 I find it interesting, because the Sheridan's still had the blocky forestock into the early 2000's. I personally saw and held one that I think was 2001, and I just saw one online the other day (can't remember where I saw it) that was a 2002.
-
One very basic question that springs (...) to mind:
did Benjamin produce spring piston airguns in the time of the 312?
I don't think so. But perhaps the question should be: why not?
Whilst the English were making the Lincoln Jeffries designed springers, and the Webley Service Rifle, to name two,
it seems that the Americans were focussing on pumpers (and CO2's).
I prefer the American style by the way. Love a bit of springer tinkering and plinking, but pumpers and CO2 feel more refined/techincally advanced, and simply shoot better, at least in my opinion.
I hope this question is not too much off-topic or ignorant. But I think it's interesting to find out why Benjamin made these choices in which systems/technology to use?
Short answer Louis...when it comes to springer/jumpers you’ve come to the wrong guy. The manner by which these guns must be shot scares me something awful. ;) That’s not to say someday I’ll give them a go. As far as when Benjamin first began experimenting with spring powered or gas pistons is unknown to me. I’m certain someone here can answer that. You'll find if you visit the Shooting Gate there are members that can do some amazing things with those guns.
Now, with regards to “why not”; I’m sure it has to do with how well received pneumatic pumper’s were to the big 3 American companies (Sheridan, Benjamin, Crosman) & how user friendly they were/are. I think it also has to do, as hard as it is for me to say, European gun owners were much more demanding of all their guns then we folks on this side of the pond. Speaking for myself, if I want to up the game I simply turn to powder burners.
Now as far a accuracy...these vintage pumpers are extremely accurate at moderate ranges.
-
If the 39X series guns did, indeed, switch to the tapered forestock in late '97 I find it interesting, because the Sheridan's still had the blocky forestock into the early 2000's. I personally saw and held one that I think was 2001, and I just saw one online the other day (can't remember where I saw it) that was a 2002.
I think we're making some headway here Randy. ;)
-
One very basic question that springs (...) to mind:
did Benjamin produce spring piston airguns in the time of the 312?
I don't think so. But perhaps the question should be: why not?
Whilst the English were making the Lincoln Jeffries designed springers, and the Webley Service Rifle, to name two,
it seems that the Americans were focussing on pumpers (and CO2's).
I prefer the American style by the way. Love a bit of springer tinkering and plinking, but pumpers and CO2 feel more refined/techincally advanced, and simply shoot better, at least in my opinion.
I hope this question is not too much off-topic or ignorant. But I think it's interesting to find out why Benjamin made these choices in which systems/technology to use?
Short answer Louis...went it comes to springer/jumpers you’ve come to the wrong guy. The manner by which these guns must be shot scares me something awful. ;) That’s not to say someday I’ll give them a go. As far as when Benjamin first began experimenting with spring powered or gas pistons is unknown to me. I’m certain someone here can answer that. You'll find if you visit the Shooting Gate there are members that can do some amazing things with those guns.
Now, with regards to “why not”; I’m sure it has to do with how well received pneumatic pumper’s were to the big 3 American companies (Sheridan, Benjamin, Crosman) & how user friendly they were/are. I think it also has to do, as hard as it is for me to say, European gun owners were much more demanding of all their guns then we folks on this side of the pond. Speaking for myself, if I want to up the game I simply turn to powder burners.
I think your last sentence actually says it all really. In the US powder burners are where this country went for the upper level of shooting. Our airgun makers made only airguns. In Europe airguns makers were the same companies that made their firearms. ( Webley, Haenel, Walther) Huge difference. Their airguns were often made to the same quality as their firearms, that was the manufacturing processes they knew and were set up for. Also since the BSA Standard set the standard for high quality so early (before WW1) the other companies had to compete with similar firearm quality. In this country we simply would not pay this much for a air rifle. We would buy firearms. SuperGrade perfect example
I apologize if this sounds like a putdown for American airguns, it really is not meant to be: I love American Airguns and collect them, they are just different animals from European guns, totally different traditions.
-
Pardon me for chiming in, but to answer the question...
One very basic question that springs (...) to mind:
did Benjamin produce spring piston airguns in the time of the 312?
I don't think so. But perhaps the question should be: why not?
Whilst the English were making the Lincoln Jeffries designed springers, and the Webley Service Rifle, to name two,
it seems that the Americans were focussing on pumpers (and CO2's).
I prefer the American style by the way. Love a bit of springer tinkering and plinking, but pumpers and CO2 feel more refined/techincally advanced, and simply shoot better, at least in my opinion.
I hope this question is not too much off-topic or ignorant. But I think it's interesting to find out why Benjamin made these choices in which systems/technology to use?
They dipped their toes in the water...
Not during the time of the 312...but later in the 34X era when Benjamin was still in Racine, WI. , still separate from Crosman, they paired up with Sterling UK to try and bring a quality Springer under lever to the USA... but it was not well received.
(http://cinedux.com/resources/s-l1600%2850%29.jpg)
A Benjamin Sterling HR83 is on my bucket list...
https://youtu.be/tjpxbVxF6FM (https://youtu.be/tjpxbVxF6FM)
-
If the 39X series guns did, indeed, switch to the tapered forestock in late '97 I find it interesting, because the Sheridan's still had the blocky forestock into the early 2000's. I personally saw and held one that I think was 2001, and I just saw one online the other day (can't remember where I saw it) that was a 2002.
The B392-EVP shows two parts for the forearm. CB9-003 and CB9A003. Is the CB9-003 the block style and the CB9A003 the longer tapered style?
Notes say the CB9-003 started 01/2000 and the CB9A003 started 09/2001.
-
Pardon me for chiming in, but to answer the question...
One very basic question that springs (...) to mind:
did Benjamin produce spring piston airguns in the time of the 312?
I don't think so. But perhaps the question should be: why not?
Whilst the English were making the Lincoln Jeffries designed springers, and the Webley Service Rifle, to name two,
it seems that the Americans were focussing on pumpers (and CO2's).
I prefer the American style by the way. Love a bit of springer tinkering and plinking, but pumpers and CO2 feel more refined/techincally advanced, and simply shoot better, at least in my opinion.
I hope this question is not too much off-topic or ignorant. But I think it's interesting to find out why Benjamin made these choices in which systems/technology to use?
They dipped their toes in the water...
Not during the time of the 312...but later in the 34X era when Benjamin was still in Racine, WI. , still separate from Crosman, they paired up with Sterling UK to try and bring a quality Springer under lever to the USA... but it was not well received.
(http://cinedux.com/resources/s-l1600%2850%29.jpg)
A Benjamin Sterling HR83 is on my bucket list...
https://youtu.be/tjpxbVxF6FM (https://youtu.be/tjpxbVxF6FM)
These were not well liked in UK either, when they struck out in the UK, Benjamin bought the tooling. They are very interesting guns but the English guys say they were not great performers given their peers at the time. But they were very well made.
-
Yeah... "jumping the shark" comes to mind.
-
If the 39X series guns did, indeed, switch to the tapered forestock in late '97 I find it interesting, because the Sheridan's still had the blocky forestock into the early 2000's. I personally saw and held one that I think was 2001, and I just saw one online the other day (can't remember where I saw it) that was a 2002.
The B392-EVP shows two parts for the forearm. CB9-003 and CB9A003. Is the CB9-003 the block style and the CB9A003 the longer tapered style?
Notes say the CB9-003 started 01/2000 and the CB9A003 started 09/2001.
-
If the 39X series guns did, indeed, switch to the tapered forestock in late '97 I find it interesting, because the Sheridan's still had the blocky forestock into the early 2000's. I personally saw and held one that I think was 2001, and I just saw one online the other day (can't remember where I saw it) that was a 2002.
The B392-EVP shows two parts for the forearm. CB9-003 and CB9A003. Is the CB9-003 the block style and the CB9A003 the longer tapered style?
Notes say the CB9-003 started 01/2000 and the CB9A003 started 09/2001.
Look carefully at the photo you posted...those are Streak forearms, not Benjamin's. Benjamin parts/parts list for the 397 forearm is above those...Forearm Assembly-$35.05. As stated above, the only doc found with regards to Benjamin's tapered forearm had a start date of 2007 although more data needed to confirm exact date (copy paste link below onto your browser). Best guess is the CB9B002 forearm was introduced on this date. This part number is different than any of the others you mentioned.
file:///C:/Users/Owner/Downloads/B397-EVP%20&%20PL4%20%20MFD%2010-07%20(3).pdf
-
If the 39X series guns did, indeed, switch to the tapered forestock in late '97 I find it interesting, because the Sheridan's still had the blocky forestock into the early 2000's. I personally saw and held one that I think was 2001, and I just saw one online the other day (can't remember where I saw it) that was a 2002.
The B392-EVP shows two parts for the forearm. CB9-003 and CB9A003. Is the CB9-003 the block style and the CB9A003 the longer tapered style?
Notes say the CB9-003 started 01/2000 and the CB9A003 started 09/2001.
Look carefully at the photo you posted...those are Streak forearms, not Benjamin's. Benjamin parts/parts list for the 397 forearm is above those...Forearm Assembly-$35.05. As stated above, the only doc found with regards to Benjamin's tapered forearm had a start date of 2007 (copy paste link below onto your browser). Best guess is the CB9B002 forearm was introduced on this date. This part number is different than any of the others you mentioned.
file:///C:/Users/Owner/Downloads/B397-EVP%20&%20PL4%20%20MFD%2010-07%20(3).pdf
OK Thanks. Just confused as the top of the page references 397,392. Where all "Streak" variations .20cal?
-
Yes, all Sheridan air rifles were .20 cal.
-
Yes, all Sheridan air rifles were .20 cal.
Cool to have developed a relationship with a collector that has your same interests.
-
Yes, all Sheridan air rifles were .20 cal.
Cool to have developed a relationship with a collector that has your same interests.
Well we'll see what happens Steve. He's hinting at selling each as a unit. Can't say I blame him.
-
Yes, all Sheridan air rifles were .20 cal.
Cool to have developed a relationship with a collector that has your same interests.
Well we'll see what happens Steve. He's hinting at selling each as a unit. Can't say I blame him.
He needs to realize that large lots should demand a discount, saw that at the auction I attended last week. Probably a tuff sell to a serious collector? The auction was an estate, no one to convince. But then you have to sell what you don’t want.
-
Yes, all Sheridan air rifles were .20 cal.
Cool to have developed a relationship with a collector that has your same interests.
Well we'll see what happens Steve. He's hinting at selling each as a unit. Can't say I blame him.
He needs to realize that large lots should demand a discount, saw that at the auction I attended last week. Probably a tuff sell to a serious collector? The auction was an estate, no one to convince. But then you have to sell what you don’t want.
Even if I had the money I wouldn't buy. The front pump Benji has never appealed to me. Only one I'm interested in with any significance...the No. 300. The one I posted with the blue backdrop looks pretty nice & is on the bay right now. $350...I don't think so.
-
I located an earlier 3XXPA, photo below. It’s Serial is #995702284 (Sept. '95) per gun owner. Gun is currently for sale on Gunbroker (https://www.gunbroker.com/Item/801328551 (https://www.gunbroker.com/Item/801328551)). This would indicate the change from “P” to “PA” designation occurred during the 1995 model year.
So we now have “PA” w/”P” style trigger from 1995 thru 1997.
-
Numbers 4,5,6, & 7. Left to right, bottom shelf, first pic.
Top to bottom, second pic.
4- first variant
5- second variant
6- third variant
7- fourth variant
Fourth variant is the model that transitioned into my '42 312's. This is the one I'll be searching for.
-
I located an earlier 3XXPA, photo below. It’s Serial is #995702284 (Sept. '95) per gun owner. Gun is currently for sale on Gunbroker (https://www.gunbroker.com/Item/801328551 (https://www.gunbroker.com/Item/801328551)). This would indicate the change from “P” to “PA” designation occurred during the 1995 model year.
So we now have “PA” w/”P” style trigger from 1995 thru 1997.
Here we go; went back to my files remembering that I asked the owner of that gun for a closeup serial pic; Nov. 1999.
So, the "PA" style trigger first appeared sometime during the '97-'99 model year. More data needed.
This gun confirms the "PA Trigger Pack" was introduced in 1997. The same year the "P" style trigger was phased out.
Went through some old threads & found this quote from "Flint" which pretty much seals the deal;
The trigger change didn't happen until mid 1997, so there are 3 years (mid 94-mid 97) where rifles had the PA stamp but the old style trigger.
so its like this:
91-93 = racine made P
first half of '94 trickling into '95 = NY made P
mid '94, PA stamp starts
mid '95, cartridge valve change
mid '97 trigger changes w/ crossbolt safety
around 2000 the stocks change to look exactly like the sheridan C9A stocks but are still walnut (full length forearm with white spacer butt plate)
a couple years later all the stocks change again so they are super squared off looking and they drop the white spacer, maybe no longer walnut
2005, all stocks change again to current style and definitely no longer walnut
oh, and Rob, the very earliest Racine made guns had very very nice light triggers from the factory (lighter than my rocker sheridans). My '91 and '92 have sweet triggers. However, sometime after Crosman took ownership in ;92, they replaced that trigger spring with a much stiffer one. My '93 had a gnarly trigger pull until I changed that trigger spring that you are talking about.
-
I'm confused on the 392PA model I don't have one, but I've seen pictures of the 392PA with the short forearm and with the longer tapered forearm.
Was there both Benjamin/Sheridan and Crosman versions? With the Crosman one having the longer tapered forearm? And when did the longer tapered forearm first appear?
Here is a quote from "Flint", GTA's authority when it comes to earlier Benjamin's.
...around 2000 the stocks change to look exactly like the sheridan C9A stocks but are still walnut (full length forearm with white spacer butt plate)
a couple years later all the stocks change again so they are super squared off looking and they drop the white spacer, maybe no longer walnut
2005, all stocks change again to current style and definitely no longer walnut
-
I'm confused on the 392PA model I don't have one, but I've seen pictures of the 392PA with the short forearm and with the longer tapered forearm.
Was there both Benjamin/Sheridan and Crosman versions? With the Crosman one having the longer tapered forearm? And when did the longer tapered forearm first appear?
Here is a quote from "Flint", GTA's authority when it comes to earlier Benjamin's.
...around 2000 the stocks change to look exactly like the sheridan C9A stocks but are still walnut (full length forearm with white spacer butt plate)
a couple years later all the stocks change again so they are super squared off looking and they drop the white spacer, maybe no longer walnut
2005, all stocks change again to current style and definitely no longer walnut
Marty -
Thanks for the update. When the white spacer was dropped was the butt plate retained? And was it on all subsequent models?
Sorry if this is getting into the minutia of it all but I find what your doing fascinating. Too bad the serial numbers can't be decoded like Mark does with Mopar's on Graveyard Carz lol
-
I would like to help Quasar but my focus at the moment is from the front pump model No. 300 (’35-’40 or thereabouts) which morphed into the first under lever pump, thru the last “P” style trigger & the first “PA Trigger Pack” model. I think aside from a few minor details we've pretty much succeeded there. However, there are just a few more models in-between all these that will help tie up any remaining loose ends. No telling how long it will take as one model in particular has been tough to nail down.
Having mumbled all that if anyone can answer your question with regards to when the white spacer was dropped was the butt plate retained that would be a great addition to this thread.
BTW; I enjoyed decoding First Gen Camaros. A tremendous amount of info could be had. Too bad AG's didn't come with the same type hidden secrets...or did they? ;)
Thanks.
-
I'm pretty excited to have found both these factory peep sight 273's. Both are in exceptional condition. Latest one on the right.
Doc's with regards to size only specifies small, medium, & large. If I were to guess I would say these are small & medium. I think they work exceptionally well on my '42 Benji's. They're rear sights do not adjust for elevation.
If you ever run across one of these & are not interested please let me know.
-
You definitely have a knack for finding stuff, Marty! I think you're probably right about the sizes, that one on the left definitely looks like it would qualify as the small sized one.
-
Just need to find the large Randy. ;)
IIRC someone asked (on another thread) about dimensions with regards to the 273. These are about the best I've seen. Maybe they can help someone out.
-
At the start of this thread I mentioned early '40's thru '97 would be the focus of this study, however, I think it is equally important to familiarize ourselves with Benjamin's early beginnings so we have a better understanding of not only how Benjamin pneumatics AG's came about, but all AG pneumatics that followed. This would be next to impossible if it wasn't for the incredible painstakingly wealth of information found in Trev's Airgun Scrapbook. The information below is but a small sampling of why this site is such a valuable resource.
I will then show an article from Trev's Airgun Scrapbook in my next post which shows the first under-lever pump design began with Benjamin's air pistol.
Here is a brief look into how the Benjamin Model 300 was developed which ultimately spawned the all new under-lever pump air rifle. The first paragraph is a summary from Trev’s Benjamin doc files. The second paragraph is a direct quote.
The first Benjamin air rifle (Model B) designed by Benjamin had major design flaws, so much so that today’s collectors are warned the breech cap can explode under pressure. Another designer by the name of Wissler corrected the problem with a newly design Model C. It was this model that began the all new Model E that convinced young shooters to purchase the new Benjamin line in essence saving the company. A very similar Model F was made until Wissler’s death in 1926. Around this same time Aloys Spack who worked for Benjamin since 1908 purchased the firm from Wissler. It was also around this time that a new designer by the name of Frank Mihalya joined Spack at Benjamin & designed the Model 600 “Automatic” bb rifle with an inbuilt multi-stroke pump & air reservoir capable of firing multiple shots. This new rifle catapulted Benjamin to the forefront of the competition but faltered because 1931 was a bad year to launch such a product. This forced Spack with the aid of Mihalya to design another single-shot rifle, the Model 300.
“An interesting thing about the old Benjamin rifles is that up until Mihalya came on the scene the muzzle velocity of Wissler designed air rifles depended somewhat on how hard the trigger was pulled. This was because part of the trigger mechanism pushed directly on the gun’s exhaust valve. Mihalya designed the Model 300 valve so it was knocked open by a flying hammer. His ideas have been incorporated in all of Benjamin’s subsequent pneumatic air rifle valve mechanisms, so the Model 300 could be considered “the grandfather” of modern day pneumatic airguns made by Benjamin & its competitors”.
-
Here is the article from Trev's Airgun Scrapbook showing the evolution from a front pump airgun design to the underlever airgun. The first underlever design is quite the contraption...
-
Here's a late model 'checkered' 347 currently on eBay, serial #173667. What's interesting about this one is it has the '82-'86 bolt & the '90 models front sight.
The '90 is a Very late production model with a smooth stock & forearm. It's serial number is 250193. The one above is the latest example to date of a checkered stock & forearm.
-
So it seems the search to complete this collection is going in the wrong direction...increasing instead of decreasing. I’m afraid to keep checking auction sites for fear there are even more out there needed to fill in the gaps.
The first one is the Model 300, followed by what appears to be a late 40's or early 50's model with that unique rear sight (still trying to figure where this one fits in), then the first of the smooth stock & forearm 34X, followed by the late model checkered 34X, & finally the first year (’97) ‘PA Trigger Pack’ model.
-
Fascinating information for us relatively "new" airgunners. Even though I had an airgun as a kid in the 50-60's, I pooh-pooh'ed it when my dad gave me a "real" gun, a .22 single shot rifle and we went squirrel hunting with that. I wish I could remember what type and what happened to that airgun. My newly rediscovered love of airguns had lead me to find some beautiful Sheridan's that will be with me until I can pass them down to my grandson.
Keep up the excellent work and I'll be on the lookout for my next treasure. I'm really liking the tootsie roll versions......
-
Thank you Gary. A lot of research but a great way to pass the time.
Easy to see why a Benji tootsie is on your radar. ;)
-
You don't know how tough it is for me to let this one go. If it was one year younger I'd be all over it!!!
On the bay right now...
-
You don't know how tough it is for me to let this one go. If it was one year younger I'd be all over it!!!
On the bay right now...
Marty...I just checked it out on e-bay. What year was that one ...do you know ?
It must be somewhat newer, it has the safety in the trigger guard.
Best Wishes - Tom
-
You don't know how tough it is for me to let this one go. If it was one year younger I'd be all over it!!!
On the bay right now...
Marty...I just checked it out on e-bay. What year was that one ...do you know ?
It must be somewhat newer, it has the safety in the trigger guard.
Best Wishes - Tom
Hey Tom...the serial number is hard to make out but the first few numbers are; 79870XXXX which makes it July '98. If you recall the "P" trigger group was phased out in '97 & the "PA" trigger pack phased in that same year, so this one doesn't make the cut.
I posted pix of the two. Can you tell me what the differences are? ;)
-
I'm pretty excited to have found both these factory peep sight 273's. Both are in exceptional condition. Latest one on the right.
Doc's with regards to size only specifies small, medium, & large. If I were to guess I would say these are small & medium. I think they work exceptionally well on my '42 Benji's. They're rear sights do not adjust for elevation.
If you ever run across one of these & are not interested please let me know.
Totally pumped...just located two more originals.
-
This took some time... finally all 4 'Tootsie's' sporting original peep sight 273's. :)
-
Yet another mystery; a 1968 with both a checkered stock & tootsie forearm. Last recorded 'Checkered' stock (& forearm) showed up in the early 80's. Seems like a never ending search...
-
In classic motorcycles it is common for over the years for mis-matched parts to be had into an assembly. Sometimes out of necessity of what was available decades ago just to keep it up and running.
I am sure you will find that with vintage airguns. 20-30 years ago it had no collector value, but the owner still wanted to USE it so a "Hodge-Podge" of bits could be assembled.
I have a '67 BSA A65 that started life as a 650 Spitfire MkIII... VERY desirable! Worth nearly $10K today.
Mine was a barn find from a widow and it hasn't seen daylight in decades...
BUT, with a fair bit of research, I found it has a 650 Lightning engine, fitted with a Thunderbolt single carb head.
THAT is known in the BSA world as a "Bitsa"... Bits a this and bits a that.
I paid $300 for it.
Moral of all this?
Back then if you wanted to use something you didn't care if it was original... as long as it WORKED!
I don't think anyone was trying to do something shady... it is what it is.
Now think about a broken air gun...apply that in 1950-1960.
-
All excellent points Scott. A lot of variables, changes could have occurred at the factory, by the vendor, or by the owner. Crosman has checkered appearing as early as 1968 so the checkered & tootsie combo makes sense. I’m inclined to say it was ordered this way. It certainly is unique as you don’t see this combo every day. BTW it’s a 3100.
-
This 1975 347 currently on eBay is the earliest 'checkered' I've come across to date; T212780
-
Posted this on the Crosman Forum Thought I would add it here.
I recently acquired a 392PA made in Nov 1995. Tang safety short forearm Factory Williams. The stock has the white spacer and butt plate like the B models. Included in the box was an accessory brochure. Thought it was interesting
It shows four categories A,B,C, & D.
A - Benjamin versions 392/397 Black/Silver Short Forearm.
B - Sheridan Blue/Silver Streaks (.20 Cal) Long Forearm.
C - Benjamin/Sheridan Carbine .177 Cal. Had no idea this was even made.
D - Benjamin/Sheridan Co2 versions
Seems the long forearm may have first appeared on the .20 Cal Sheridan's?
-
Very cool Quasar!
So you got a Tang safety short pump arm 392PA? WITH a factory Williams peep!... That is exceptional!
I have been watching for a Carbine... they are hard to find... only seen 2 so far.
The odd thing about those is they have the Sheridan "Rocker" style end cap / safety.
Too stinkin cool!
-
Thanks for posting this Quasar. Brochures such as these are exceptional in that they shed light on an entire series for a particular year. The "C" is certainly a new to me model & is very cool. Is it safe to assume that brochure is from 1991 or thereabouts?
-
Very cool Quasar!
So you got a Tang safety short pump arm 392PA? WITH a factory Williams peep!... That is exceptional!
I have been watching for a Carbine... they are hard to find... only seen 2 so far.
The odd thing about those is they have the Sheridan "Rocker" style end cap / safety.
Too stinkin cool!
Never had a 392 before. Was always partial to more vintage pumpers. Must say I'm impressed. 392 is built like a tank and seems to hit harder than my streaks and 312.
On the Carbine I had no idea it was even made. I did notice the Sheridan Streak influences on it.
Thanks for posting this Quasar. Brochures such as these are exceptional in that they shed light on an entire series for a particular year. The "C" is certainly a new to me model & is very cool. Is it safe to assume that brochure is from 1991 or thereabouts?
There's no date on the brochure but there is a part number it reads 10651 Second Edition. Reverse side is an order form. Full picture shows other accessories.
-
Never had a 392 before. Was always partial to more vintage pumpers. Must say I'm impressed. 392 is built like a tank and seems to hit harder than my streaks and 312.
There's no date on the brochure but there is a part number it reads 10651 Second Edition. Reverse side is an order form. Full picture shows other accessories.
[/quote]
Yes the vintage 392 with the "P" style trigger are hammers & extremely accurate. I have two S392's & are my go to guns for small game. I also have a blued 392 "PA" which also has the "P" style trigger & is also a strong shooter but falls just shy of the "P's" numbers.
These guns were made from '91-'93 so I assume the brochure falls somewhere within this timeline.
-
Here's a picture of my 392PA. It's stamped Benjamin-Sheridan up near the muzzle. And 392PA near the breach. Serial number starts with N95 which I assume is November 1995.
One note. It appears the original roll pins on the forearm were removed and the holes filled. You can see the two light dots in the picture.
The forearm now has three roll pins securing it to the lever. Also the stock has the butt plate and white spacer similar to the stocks on the blue streaks in the brochure.
Maybe original owner swapped out the stock or just added the butt plate and spacer? And I'm wondering if it had the long forearm and that was swapped out also.
Any thoughts on if there were were different levers on short vs long forearm?
-
Quasar, can you post close up pix of all the stamps on your 392PA, including where the 3 roll pins are located on the forearm?
-
Marty -
Here's the pictures of the stamps/forearm on my 392PA. When I first saw that the roll pins were changed I thought maybe it had a MAC1 lever.
Another thought is that the forearm is a replacement. What I believe to be the original holes are really mistakes. They did not line up correctly and were subsequently filled. But the third pin is a still a mystery.
1. Warning
2. Model Designation
3. Forearm with old/new roll pin locations.
-
Here’s my ’96 392PA. I asked for photos of your gun because the only difference between the two is the serial numbering sequence, & I assume your serial number is on the left side of the tube somewhere near the receiver. Your gun appears to be a transitional model of sorts in that 1995 was the last year a letter prefix with regards to the serial number was used & was perhaps the same year the SN transitioned into an all numerical 9 digit number located on the right side of the tube below & forward of the receiver. Pretty cool!
The overall measurement of the stock is; 21 5/8”
Overall measurement of the forearm is; 10 ¼”
The overall length of the lever; 12 1/8”
Note; if you compare the stamp on the left side of the tube near the muzzle of both guns you can see whoever remounted the grip on yours was off just a hair. What I also find interesting is that the roll pins on mine are only visible on the right side. The left side is w/o pilot holes for the pins.
Here is a good read from our resident Benji expert AKA Flint (Billy);
"all benjamin and sheridan guns from 1991 until mid 1995 had the soldered valve. This 'pretty much' kind of coincides with the P / PA designation. So almost all "P"s will have the soldered valve. The transition from P to PA happened in 1994-1995, so some early PAs could have the soldered valve.
as far as the V prefix.
Benjamin guns traditionally had a letter prefix. That is until 1982 when they restarted their serial numbers and without a letter prefix. This went through the end of the 342/247 production in 1990. When production started back up in 1991, the revived the letter prefix for the benjamin line. The 39X guns initially got either an N or an I prefix interchangeably ( I haven't yet been able to figure out why they would alternate between the two). Then around serial number 50,000, they switched to the V which they kept until the end of production at the end of 1993.
When production resumed in NY in january 1994, all guns now received the crosman 9 digit serial number. for those guns, the first three digits is a date code. So Terry's gun was made in March 1994 at the NY facility.
and yes, I've been researching the benjamin/sheridan guns for the last two years pretty thoroughly. Specifically the period for which there is no recorded information about serial number dates which is the 1986 - 1993 period which coincides with the period from which they built their new facility in racine until the time that production was moved to NY. I have accumulated about 180 serial numbers from the 1991-1993 period along with other information about those guns. I'm hoping to publish/share this all in one way or another sometime soon. There is still something strange with the first year production sheridan serial numbers I'm trying to work out, but am making progress slowly all the time."
-
Marty -
My serial number is on the same side (right) as yours. It starts with N95 and is 9 digits. I thought that the first digit was the month code with 1-9 for Jan-Sept and O,N,D for Oct, Nov Dec. Digits two and three for the year. If correct that scheme would make my build Nov 95
Forearm,stock and lever measurements are the same as yours with the exception of the spacer and butt plate on mine. You may be right on the positioning of the forearm. Seems the gap between the stock and forearm is a little wide.
-
If I interpret what Flint stated with respect to dating these, the letter prefix of N & I were purely random & he hadn't reached a consensus as to why they were used. However, your interpretation make sense as well. Seems more research is needed.
-
Here's the old post where I first read about the 392PA serial number decode info.
https://www.gatewaytoairguns.org/GTA/index.php?topic=31030.0 (https://www.gatewaytoairguns.org/GTA/index.php?topic=31030.0)
-
The first quote is from the link you posted & the second is Flint’s.
“Crosman built” is the key phrase on the first quote although I have never seen a letter prefix other than “N”. See replies 101 & 123. Manufacture dates are ’97 & ’99 w/PA designation.
The second quote has flaws as well; not all guns were given the 9 digit serial number. Case in point, replies 101 & 123 (same as above).
Seems a lot of data will need to be gathered to support either claim.
Look at the serial number. The 392 is a Crosman built rifle so it has a Crosman serial number. The first character is the month code 1 through 9 for January through September, O, N, or D for October, November or December. Second two characters will be the year. For example a gun with a serial that starts with 978 would have been built in September of '78.
When production resumed in NY in january 1994, all guns now received the crosman 9 digit serial number. for those guns, the first three digits is a date code. So Terry's gun was made in March 1994 at the NY facility.
-
Here's post #7 form my link. Craymar says his 392PA was made in Oct 95. Not sure how he determined that using the first 3 digits. Too bad he did not list the actual serial number.
Also found this reference on the old yellow. Seems Mac1 added a third pin to even the stock 392's he sold. Maybe mine originally came from him or the original owner mimicked his idea.
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/yellow/what-ever-happened-to-the-pump-assist-modification-t150531.html (https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/yellow/what-ever-happened-to-the-pump-assist-modification-t150531.html)
-
Found that needle in a haystack 397C. Should arrive sometime tomorrow. I'm hoping redemption on my last Benji debacle.
-
I bet that took some diggin!
I have only seen two for sale in the last several years.
Congrats once again Marty!
-
Thank you Scott. It was indeed a tough find & research here on GTA shows it has been a difficult find dating back to at least 2011. I think that rocker safety on a Benji is some kinda cool.
-
Found that needle in a haystack 397C. Should arrive sometime tomorrow. I'm hoping redemption on my last Benji debacle.
The one that was on Ebay? I've wanted one ever since I first read about them.
-
Found that needle in a haystack 397C. Should arrive sometime tomorrow. I'm hoping redemption on my last Benji debacle.
The one that was on Ebay? I've wanted one ever since I first read about them.
Yep...that be it. Never knew they existed until a few days ago. Punched in every Benji name I could think of & there it was, a day into the auction. Had 42 viewers the entire time, it was tuff pulling it up each day to see where the bidding was. I have no idea why these buyers start bidding early. Has to be decoys. I can see no other reason.
It held steady til the final hours. I decided on a cap & if it went passed that so be it. That didn't happen & I sniped it with 10 sec left...my only bid. More than I anticipated paying but I can only imagine where it would have ended up had I started bidding early. There was obviously another bidder (maybe more) doing everything they could to get their bids in in those final secs because my monitor went nuts. Ended up with 40 bids total.
Anyway...tickled pink! Seems like a great one-off Carbine & it being a Benji is icing on the cake, & again, that rocker safety on a Benji just blows my mind when the other models of the same time period were still being produced with the tang safety.
Here's a couple of good write ups by Pyramyd...
https://www.pyramydair.com/blog/2011/06/benjamin-397c-part-1/ (https://www.pyramydair.com/blog/2011/06/benjamin-397c-part-1/)
https://www.pyramydair.com/blog/?s=benjamin+397C%3A+Part+2&btnGo= (https://www.pyramydair.com/blog/?s=benjamin+397C%3A+Part+2&btnGo=)
https://www.pyramydair.com/blog/?s=benjamin+397C%3A+Part+3&btnGo= (https://www.pyramydair.com/blog/?s=benjamin+397C%3A+Part+3&btnGo=)
-
Very nice Marty,
From the looks of the pics on ebay it is another minty fresh original you got there.
I am happy for you!
-
Thank you Scott. Anxious to run her through her paces & compare chrony numbers with her larger counterparts. I am also curious about the hold sensitive comment made in the Pyramyd article.
-
I thought this was cool...
http://ujays.net/sheridan-carbine.html (http://ujays.net/sheridan-carbine.html)
-
First series of pix;
The 1st is the 397C on top followed by the S397P & the S392P on the bottom.
The 2nd pic is there because I read somewhere that the 397C was comparable in size to the 312. The gun here is a 347, approx the same size as my 342's, & slightly shorter than my 312's. You can see this isn't the case at all. The 397C is much shorter.
The last pix are to show a comparison between the trigger assy & safeties. The gun on the bottom is a '93 S397P. Same trigger assy as my '95 S397P.
-
Final pix are to show the stamps on the 397C. This one built Oct. '94.
-
Marty,
If you ever decide to thin the heard I am calling "DIBBS" on that one!!!
8) ;D ;)
-
I always try to find out whatever history I can behind each gun. The story goes; the original owner purchased the gun new for his son who never showed much interest in it. The gun was stored in a closet until the second owner purchased it in 2000 for his son. He also bought a brand new Mendoza break barrel for his son that same year. Same thing happened with his son. Back into the closet it went. He then mentioned he stumbled on an article that claimed the 397C should get at least 20% more than the standard 397. From there it went into a sleeve & into the safe until just a few days ago.
For a Benji fanatic like me this would have been a father’s or grandfather’s dream gun for a son, daughter, or grandchild. Who knows maybe I can use it to finally coax my wife into the hobby? Tiny, almost toy like, & the first few cycles can be compared to that of the 880. This is the first Intermount I have seen up close & it seems like a pretty good mount. Too bad my rings won’t work so I’ll be using the IA mount instead with one of the Swift’s to try her out on the range & record numbers. Funny, I guess I assumed these were pre-tapped at the factory for the Williams. Perhaps later models but certainly not the case with this one.
-
I read on the Pyramyd write up the 397C was temperamental with regards to hold. I didn't find that the case at all. Although the trigger pull was totally unpredictable. Long pull with two distinct hang ups. I was forced to set the trigger off point then back to poi when ready. What a battle, but one I am sure can be remedied by a simple sear contact point buff & maybe switching out the spring. The groups should tighten up even more once this is done. Not so sure I want to mess with it though.
Below are the results for 3 shot groups at 10M. The Gamo Red-Fire & Piranhas grouped the best with a 3/16" spread. Overall performance has to go the CPHP 7.9gr. In Fact both the CPMG & CPHP's performed much better than advertised. I was pleasantly surprised. By far the worst was the Winchester Round Nose. You could literally hear the air escaping around the pellet as it left the barrel with 8 pumps when chronied. All chronied with 8 pumps.
The sights are my usual IA mount, Leupold rings, & Swift 2X20 Premier. Shooting method-bench/bag, standard hold as always.
-
Very interesting gun you have there Marty. Novel, something just not often seen. I would love to handle and shoot one.
-
Thank you Terry. Here's a photo that may help visualize how small it is. It hits home when you first shoulder it.