GTA
Airguns by Make and Model => Crosman Airguns => Topic started by: HOSPassassin on May 08, 2023, 10:50:11 PM
-
The subject kind of says it. If I understand correctly the 362 shoots a little harder but that's not that important to me. Which of these rifles is
1. typically more accurate,
2. better made/more durable/more repairable?
So, new and improved or old and well-made?
It will be used primarily for small game hunting and pesting.
I'm not into modding, before anyone brings that up. The only mod I _might_ do would be a steel or aluminum breech for a 362. No new barrels, pistons, valves, triggers, etc.
I'm looking for something to slot in to the 9-11 fpe range in between my lovely Daisies (which I never pump up all the way) and my Dragonfly, which is awesome but kind of unwieldy. Short, light, handy, and shootable offhand are important.
TIA
-
362 metal breach, and maybe a extended probe.
-
Well I happen to be right in the middle of evaluating a C362 versus a model 1400.
The standard C362 straight out of the box is a perfectly adequate hunting and pesting platform with no mods necessary. If you've got decent eyesight the peep sight will work just fine out to 25 yards or so. Mine is second hand and came with a metal breech which I would have added anyway because I need a scope.
All three of my 1400's have been resealed within the last three years and all produce 13.5 fpe at eight pumps with 16-17gr pellets.
I chronographed the C362 at 13.5 fpe with 15.9gr Norma GTFT at eight pumps.
The pump effort for the C362 is noticeably easier than the 1400's.
Because of the restricted intake port on the model 1400 the C362 can be pumped much faster than the 1400 can.
The pump arm on the C362 feels much flimsier than the rock sold arm on the 1400.
It also clacks loudly unless you stuff the forearm with closed cell foam.
While the model 1400 is shorter than the C362 it is heavier and does not feel as handy.
The C362 has the potential to be upgraded to a metal breech for a reasonable cost. This makes scoping the gun much easier than scoping a model 1400. Unless you can find a Sears Roebuck model 126.19300 (which came with a scope dovetail on the breech) you'll have to do a bodge job like I did to scope a 1400. There doesn't seem to be any difference in power between the two models and my C362 is just as accurate as my best 1400. And it's a tack driver.
The C362 is a cheaper initial investment but if you want to upgrade it you will soon surpass the cost of a decent used 1400. The 1400 is a solid, durable gun that will run for years with no problems but the iron sights on it are truly awful. It's not hard to work on and most parts are available. I don't know how durable the C362 will be. The flimsy pump arm bothers me and it one of the next things I will address on mine. On the plus side the C362 is pure LEGO gun. If there is something you don't like about it. Change it.
For purely practical reasons I recommend the C362. The sights are worlds better than the 1400's irons. Parts are going to be available a lot longer than the 1400's are. Maintenance and upgrades are a cinch. The barrel is replaceable and upgradeable. Some 1400's came with bad barrels. Try and get a new 1400 barrel today.
It's lighter, handier, and easier and quicker to pump.
I thought about this the other day. I got my first 1400 when I was 14 years old. But what I really wanted was a Sears model with the scope dovetail. If I had a choice between the 1400 and the C362 in 1978 I would have left the 1400 in the closet. ;D
-
For an out-of- box inexpensive plinker ,I dont see how u can beat the 362….course I had to bling mine out…@ 30 yards my benched 362 and 367 ,while not hole in hole or even dime size …can do 50 cent all day with a UTG 4x32…..not familar with 1400….good luck
-
The 140 / 1400 hands down, because the 362 has a plastic barrel band / plug.
If it wasnt't plastic or there was a readily available aftermarket replacement things would be different, but as is I'd say the 362 isn't even in the same league.
I like my 140 just fine and maybe the sliding breech cover is more ambidextrous , but I think a regular bolt handle is better and would say go for a 1400.
-
Try this....
Lay a 140 and a 362 side by side..
Now, consider the 140, it's age and how many times it's been pumped, shot and dragged around.
Now have a look at the 362... and imagine what it will be when it's been where that 140 has been.
-
Try this....
Lay a 140 and a 362 side by side..
Now, consider the 140, it's age and how many times it's been pumped, shot and dragged around.
Now have a look at the 362... and imagine what it will be when it's been where that 140 has been.
Sorry, maybe I'm dense, but what exactly are you saying here? I think you are suggesting that the 140/1400 is much better made and will last longer. Did I get it?
-
Try this....
Lay a 140 and a 362 side by side..
Now, consider the 140, it's age and how many times it's been pumped, shot and dragged around.
Now have a look at the 362... and imagine what it will be when it's been where that 140 has been.
Sorry, maybe I'm dense, but what exactly are you saying here? I think you are suggesting that the 140/1400 is much better made and will last longer. Did I get it?
Regardless of which might be better..availability of parts going forward would/should be a concern…good luck
-
The 1400 is built better and can be hot-rodded with modern bits to be an amazing thing. Basically a Benjamin 342 without the insane collector's markup.
Personally I'm not a fan of plastic anywhere on an airgun or firearm. It never lasts.
-
Try this....
Lay a 140 and a 362 side by side..
Now, consider the 140, it's age and how many times it's been pumped, shot and dragged around.
Now have a look at the 362... and imagine what it will be when it's been where that 140 has been.
Sorry, maybe I'm dense, but what exactly are you saying here? I think you are suggesting that the 140/1400 is much better made and will last longer. Did I get it?
That's exactly what I'm saying. That's not to say that the 362 is junk by no means. It has that 'lego' quality and can be made into a fine tool. I have 2 of them and enjoy tinkering and shooting with them. However, the 140/1400 requires no tinkering. It came from the factory as the 362 could be, if not for all the plastic.
-
Try this....
Lay a 140 and a 362 side by side..
Now, consider the 140, it's age and how many times it's been pumped, shot and dragged around.
Now have a look at the 362... and imagine what it will be when it's been where that 140 has been.
Sorry, maybe I'm dense, but what exactly are you saying here? I think you are suggesting that the 140/1400 is much better made and will last longer. Did I get it?
Regardless of which might be better..availability of parts going forward would/should be a concern…good luck
The only parts a 140 should need are reseal parts.. and those are available... even after all this time. Hopefully the 362 will enjoy that same longevity.... which it should because it's just a reconfigured gun of the same parts as many like it.
-
Trigger pull is the main problem with the 140-1400.. ;)
-
Trigger pull is the main problem with the 140-1400.. ;)
One of the nice things about the 140/1400 is that the triggers mellow with age. Both of my 50+ year old models have excellent triggers that break at about 2
lbs. with eight pumps in the gun. Travel is about 3/16" with the travel stop. A very crisp break and no creep. So despite the commonly held belief these triggers can be made very good. Beware! Even brand new the safety was notoriously ineffective and the trigger has a bad reputation for balk firing.
I can recite all the reasons you don't want a 1400. And all the reasons you don't want a 362.
Big deal! They are both great guns and right now neither one is particularly expensive. Get em both.
I did. ;D
-
Try this....
Lay a 140 and a 362 side by side..
Now, consider the 140, it's age and how many times it's been pumped, shot and dragged around.
Now have a look at the 362... and imagine what it will be when it's been where that 140 has been.
Sorry, maybe I'm dense, but what exactly are you saying here? I think you are suggesting that the 140/1400 is much better made and will last longer. Did I get it?
That's exactly what I'm saying. That's not to say that the 362 is junk by no means. It has that 'lego' quality and can be made into a fine tool. I have 2 of them and enjoy tinkering and shooting with them. However, the 140/1400 requires no tinkering. It came from the factory as the 362 could be, if not for all the plastic.
Exactly.
I'd imagine the polymer stock of the 362 lasting fine enough , but then there's the ABS plastic barrel band, and the breech that nobody would want to keep long enough.
Then there's the valve and stock mounting system, I don't know exactly how they're doing it with the 362 but I know crosmans valves these days are aluminum and I know they're definately not doing it like the 140, 180, and 400.
The trigger guard screws thread into steel, and the stock is bolted to a stout threaded steel stud that screws into the thick brass valve that is well supported by the tube.
-
As I mentioned dont own/know anything about 1400…but @ 75 YO…all my guns and anything I buy moving forward….most likely will out last me…..so no worries…..lol…good luck
-
LOL..... somedays I worry about a loaf of bread outlasting me.
-
Dunno if it’s a good price, but the AG has been thru the hands of a repair and tuning expert:
https://www.airgunrevisions.com/product/rare-montgomery-ward-140/ (https://www.airgunrevisions.com/product/rare-montgomery-ward-140/)
-
...but @ 75 YO…all my guns and anything I buy moving forward….most likely will out last me…..so no worries…..lol…good luck
55 - feel the same
I need to find good homes for some of my favorites and move the rest
-
They are both dangerous machines of death to many vermin. I've had both and enjoyed both for different reasons. It al depends on your shooting preference for which one fits your needs.
-
Dunno if it’s a good price, but the AG has been thru the hands of a repair and tuning expert:
https://www.airgunrevisions.com/product/rare-montgomery-ward-140/ (https://www.airgunrevisions.com/product/rare-montgomery-ward-140/)
Yes a good price, also looked over their site, and they seem very reasonable on prices and quality seems good too.
-
Dunno if it’s a good price, but the AG has been thru the hands of a repair and tuning expert:
https://www.airgunrevisions.com/product/rare-montgomery-ward-140/ (https://www.airgunrevisions.com/product/rare-montgomery-ward-140/)
Yes a good price, also looked over their site, and they seem very reasonable on prices and quality seems good too.
i looked too, will have to keep them in mind when looking now lol
-
This may be a great deal as well.
https://www.airgunrevisions.com/product/crosman-2100-classic/ (https://www.airgunrevisions.com/product/crosman-2100-classic/)
-
This may be a great deal as well.
https://www.airgunrevisions.com/product/crosman-2100-classic/ (https://www.airgunrevisions.com/product/crosman-2100-classic/)
My elder brother brought 1 from the US and gave it to me back in '04 in the PI.
He put it in a forex box and it went through.
Killed hundreds of rats with it.
Crosman barrels love a local pellet called Eaglehead.
-
Dunno if it’s a good price, but the AG has been thru the hands of a repair and tuning expert:
https://www.airgunrevisions.com/product/rare-montgomery-ward-140/ (https://www.airgunrevisions.com/product/rare-montgomery-ward-140/)
Yes a good price, also looked over their site, and they seem very reasonable on prices and quality seems good too.
That GEN 1 MROD .25 pistol looks great too 👍
OOS though.
-
This may be a great deal as well.
https://www.airgunrevisions.com/product/crosman-2100-classic/ (https://www.airgunrevisions.com/product/crosman-2100-classic/)
My elder brother brought 1 from the US and gave it to me back in '04 in the PI.
He put it in a forex box and it went through.
Killed hundreds of rats with it.
Crosman barrels love a local pellet called Eaglehead.
I have several guns in this platform. I went though a phase... ::)
-
This may be a great deal as well.
https://www.airgunrevisions.com/product/crosman-2100-classic/ (https://www.airgunrevisions.com/product/crosman-2100-classic/)
My elder brother brought 1 from the US and gave it to me back in '04 in the PI.
He put it in a forex box and it went through.
Killed hundreds of rats with it.
Crosman barrels love a local pellet called Eaglehead.
I have several guns in this platform. I went though a phase... ::)
IIRIC, the 2100 was around P7,000 in the PI at that time, or about $125 19 years ago ???
-
This may be a great deal as well.
https://www.airgunrevisions.com/product/crosman-2100-classic/ (https://www.airgunrevisions.com/product/crosman-2100-classic/)
My elder brother brought 1 from the US and gave it to me back in '04 in the PI.
He put it in a forex box and it went through.
Killed hundreds of rats with it.
Crosman barrels love a local pellet called Eaglehead.
I have several guns in this platform. I went though a phase... ::)
That could be said with most platforms for you Bill ;D ;D ;)
-
Sad but true... :o
Betty Lou calls me a hot mess.
-
if you want a 147...well the .22 was the dominant caliber back then... 10 to 1 is estimated... so yeh a 147 .177 is a bit harder to get...The 367 is supposed to be coming out this year... soon..?
I put a 26' .177 barrel on one of my 367s... for a stock 22' barrel subtract about 30-40 fps or so...because of barrel length did have to add a harmonic tuning device (Daisy 753 barrel weight (lighter would do just as well but was at hand))
https://www.gatewaytoairguns.org/GTA/index.php?topic=195272.0 (https://www.gatewaytoairguns.org/GTA/index.php?topic=195272.0)
-
I really like my home made 367(TKO)…likes most pellets out to 30 yards…good luck
-
For me, this is no comparison. But it depends on the shooter. Based on what you've said:
The 362 does shoot harder but since you don't care about that...
"1. typically more accurate" I can't say one is more accurate than the other. I've had two 1400s and two 140s, none had any accuracy issues. The one 362 I shot seemed to be accurate.
"2. better made/more durable" All hardwood/steel vs. mostly plastic? America's manufacturing quality in the 70's vs. Chinese quality today? Do I need to elaborate?
"/more repairable" The 362 is new and will be supported for several years forward. The 1400 piston seal is a challenge to replace. I understand you're not into modding, but if you're willing to put a MAC1 piston head on it, all of the seals in it will then be commonly available o-rings. More importantly, unless a 1400 is neglected/abused, they'll be nothing else to repair. How long will a 362 last? How long before you see play in the forearm lever, the pins/screws wallow out, the plastic breech separates, etc? We'll have to wait and see...
"It will be used primarily for small game hunting and pesting." Both are suitable for this, but the 1400 is scope-able if you want to shoot longer range or(like me) your eyes are getting older.
"Short, light, handy, and shootable offhand are important." The 1400 is all of those things. If you love the Dragonfly(as I do) but find it a bit unwieldy, I think the 1400 is a perfect fit for what you're looking for.
-
"It will be used primarily for small game hunting and pesting." Both are suitable for this, but the 1400 is scope-able if you want to shoot longer range or(like me) your eyes are getting older.
I have to agree with 95% of your statement. But I have to question your opinion that the 1400 is scope-able. I have scoped all three of my 1400's but I wouldn't call all the solutions entirely satisfactory or terribly practical.
My first model is a actually a Sears model 126.19300 so it came with a dovetail on the breech. Not ideally positioned for modern scopes and mounts. It still needs a cantilever mount to get the eye relief correct.
My second and third models have the back sight replaced by a Weaver rail. Done properly it requires both an extra screw hole be drilled and tapped and supplemental epoxy to keep everything steady. The rail is still a little too far forward and requires a cantilever scope mount.
Not many would want to bodge a fine antique air rifle like that. I ain't sentimental.
Compared to just slapping a steel breech on the C362 that's a lot of work.
The C362 will never compare for quality or durability with the 1400 but it will be in production for a while yet. Aftermarket parts to beef it up will appear soon. Waiting for a steroid kit from Mac1! It may not be as good as a 1400 straight out of the box but it is infinitely modifiable and can be made better than the 1400 can ever be.
And I'm a 1400 fan! :o
-
"It will be used primarily for small game hunting and pesting." Both are suitable for this, but the 1400 is scope-able if you want to shoot longer range or(like me) your eyes are getting older.
I have to agree with 95% of your statement. But I have to question your opinion that the 1400 is scope-able. I have scoped all three of my 1400's but I wouldn't call all the solutions entirely satisfactory or terribly practical.
My first model is a actually a Sears model 126.19300 so it came with a dovetail on the breech. Not ideally positioned for modern scopes and mounts. It still needs a cantilever mount to get the eye relief correct.
My second and third models have the back sight replaced by a Weaver rail. Done properly it requires both an extra screw hole be drilled and tapped and supplemental epoxy to keep everything steady. The rail is still a little too far forward and requires a cantilever scope mount.
Not many would want to bodge a fine antique air rifle like that. I ain't sentimental.
Compared to just slapping a steel breech on the C362 that's a lot of work.
The C362 will never compare for quality or durability with the 1400 but it will be in production for a while yet. Aftermarket parts to beef it up will appear soon. Waiting for a steroid kit from Mac1! It may not be as good as a 1400 straight out of the box but it is infinitely modifiable and can be made better than the 1400 can ever be.
And I'm a 1400 fan! :o
The Mac 1 scope mount for the 140 is sweet, I mounted mine scout style and like it so far
-
"It will be used primarily for small game hunting and pesting." Both are suitable for this, but the 1400 is scope-able if you want to shoot longer range or(like me) your eyes are getting older.
I have to agree with 95% of your statement. But I have to question your opinion that the 1400 is scope-able. I have scoped all three of my 1400's but I wouldn't call all the solutions entirely satisfactory or terribly practical.
My first model is a actually a Sears model 126.19300 so it came with a dovetail on the breech. Not ideally positioned for modern scopes and mounts. It still needs a cantilever mount to get the eye relief correct.
My second and third models have the back sight replaced by a Weaver rail. Done properly it requires both an extra screw hole be drilled and tapped and supplemental epoxy to keep everything steady. The rail is still a little too far forward and requires a cantilever scope mount.
Not many would want to bodge a fine antique air rifle like that. I ain't sentimental.
Compared to just slapping a steel breech on the C362 that's a lot of work.
The C362 will never compare for quality or durability with the 1400 but it will be in production for a while yet. Aftermarket parts to beef it up will appear soon. Waiting for a steroid kit from Mac1! It may not be as good as a 1400 straight out of the box but it is infinitely modifiable and can be made better than the 1400 can ever be.
And I'm a 1400 fan! :o
The Mac 1 scope mount for the 140 is sweet, I mounted mine scout style and like it so far
We are going to have to get together and do some hunting! ;D
-
"It will be used primarily for small game hunting and pesting." Both are suitable for this, but the 1400 is scope-able if you want to shoot longer range or(like me) your eyes are getting older.
I have to agree with 95% of your statement. But I have to question your opinion that the 1400 is scope-able. I have scoped all three of my 1400's but I wouldn't call all the solutions entirely satisfactory or terribly practical.
My first model is a actually a Sears model 126.19300 so it came with a dovetail on the breech. Not ideally positioned for modern scopes and mounts. It still needs a cantilever mount to get the eye relief correct.
My second and third models have the back sight replaced by a Weaver rail. Done properly it requires both an extra screw hole be drilled and tapped and supplemental epoxy to keep everything steady. The rail is still a little too far forward and requires a cantilever scope mount.
Not many would want to bodge a fine antique air rifle like that. I ain't sentimental.
Compared to just slapping a steel breech on the C362 that's a lot of work.
The C362 will never compare for quality or durability with the 1400 but it will be in production for a while yet. Aftermarket parts to beef it up will appear soon. Waiting for a steroid kit from Mac1! It may not be as good as a 1400 straight out of the box but it is infinitely modifiable and can be made better than the 1400 can ever be.
And I'm a 1400 fan! :o
The Mac 1 scope mount for the 140 is sweet, I mounted mine scout style and like it so far
We are going to have to get together and do some hunting! ;D
Sounds good, maybe this fall we can when the squirrels are ripe lol
-
I'm not sure the 362 can be made better than the 1400, not until there's an affordable wood stock available and metal replacements available for every plastic part.
The 362 cant compare unless the barrel band can be replaced with metal.
-
I'm not sure the 362 can be made better than the 1400, not until there's an affordable wood stock available and metal replacements available for every plastic part.
The 362 cant compare unless the barrel band can be replaced with metal.
For quality and durability? No. For power and accuracy, absolutely! My C362 is shooting neck and neck with my two best 1400's.
Recent chrono results: At sea level.
1967 Sears model 126.19300, 17.6gr Norma GTFT, eight pumps. Average velocity 590 fps and 13.61 fpe. Standard deviation 2.1
1972 C1400 17.6gr Norma GTFT, eight pumps. Average velocity 589 fps and 13.56 fpe. Standard deviation 2.1
2021 C362 17.6gr Norma GTFT, eight pumps. Average velocity 588 fps and 13.51 fpe. Standard deviation 2.4
Accuracy is comparable with the C362 actually having the advantage with certain pellets.
It ain't never gonna be no heirloom but it is a perfectly serviceable hunting gun with lots of options for improvement. :D
-
"It will be used primarily for small game hunting and pesting." Both are suitable for this, but the 1400 is scope-able if you want to shoot longer range or(like me) your eyes are getting older.
I have to agree with 95% of your statement. But I have to question your opinion that the 1400 is scope-able. I have scoped all three of my 1400's but I wouldn't call all the solutions entirely satisfactory or terribly practical.
My first model is a actually a Sears model 126.19300 so it came with a dovetail on the breech. Not ideally positioned for modern scopes and mounts. It still needs a cantilever mount to get the eye relief correct.
My second and third models have the back sight replaced by a Weaver rail. Done properly it requires both an extra screw hole be drilled and tapped and supplemental epoxy to keep everything steady. The rail is still a little too far forward and requires a cantilever scope mount.
Not many would want to bodge a fine antique air rifle like that. I ain't sentimental.
Compared to just slapping a steel breech on the C362 that's a lot of work.
The C362 will never compare for quality or durability with the 1400 but it will be in production for a while yet. Aftermarket parts to beef it up will appear soon. Waiting for a steroid kit from Mac1! It may not be as good as a 1400 straight out of the box but it is infinitely modifiable and can be made better than the 1400 can ever be.
And I'm a 1400 fan! :o
Air Venturi Intermount. https://www.amazon.com/Air-Venturi-Intermount-Benjamin-Multi-Pump/dp/B0018L9Y7U/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=air+venturi+392+intermount&sr=8-1 (https://www.amazon.com/Air-Venturi-Intermount-Benjamin-Multi-Pump/dp/B0018L9Y7U/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=air+venturi+392+intermount&sr=8-1)
Designed for the C9/392(7) but fits perfectly on a 1400. No modifications necessary, fully adjustable for eye relief. Combined with a compact scope, it leaves plenty of room to grip for pumping as well. Easier and cheaper than "slapping a steel breech on", which could be an intimidating project for the casual shooter.
A 1400 doesn't need aftermarket parts to beef it up. It was built with quality, and after 50 years, is still performing exactly as it was intended.
-
Everyone's results will vary. I tried the AV mount on my 1400's but even with low rings it put the scope too high for me. Mine was not a perfect fit and IMO it will move if smacked around too much. It will not work on an early gun with the 140 style breech cover either.
-
I'm not sure the 362 can be made better than the 1400, not until there's an affordable wood stock available and metal replacements available for every plastic part.
The 362 cant compare unless the barrel band can be replaced with metal.
Totally agree with you. I struggle to understand the thinking, honestly. 'Oh, I bought a new 362 for $109, I can put $150 worth of parts into it and it'll be as good as a 1400!' One of which you could've bought off ebay for $130...
A 362 is never going to be MORE accurate than a 1400. As far as power, IDK, maybe some aftermarket upgrade will come along soon and let you squeeze another 40 fps out of it. Add that to your total.
The 362 seems like a relatively good value at its price point. It's probably a fun gun to have in the cabinet and tinker with, but comparing it to a 1400 is a bit ridiculous.
-
I don't own a 1400 but the platform looks solid and well made, more so than the 362. They made air guns much better back then. I do own a 362 and I knew from the start that it was going to be a typical Lego gun. Trigger work, deburring, a few upgrades here and there. I ended getting one with a dud barrel and replaced it with a .22 Disco barrel. There is no getting around that plastic barrel band and it is the main short fall of the gun in my opinion. The metal set screw in it kept working loose and I had to use plastic safe Loctite to keep it secure and have to check it periodically. Still, for all I did to mine I am very happy with the outcome, but I only use it for pest control and plinking at 25 yards. I ended up with 683 FPS at 14.8 FPE at eight pumps using Crosman 14.3 Super Points, very decent for no more than I did for power mods. I personally like the synthetic stock, it is very well made and durable, but if the wood one ever comes available as a replacement part, I may go for one.
I would not be afraid to use it for hunting and pesting of small game, it has already proven to me that it can very easily do that, and probably just as easily in stock form with just changing the breach to steel. Many here got theirs and had very accurate barrels, but a few did not. Since you are not into mods, sounds like "old and well made" seems to be the better direction for what you say your purpose is?