880 stock flex

[longhunter]

one thing that has always bothered me about the 880 is the flex where the buttstock attaches to the receiver. i had the gun apart yesterday, to see what all i could do, in the way of mods. ( ended up only doing the tape mod and lubing the internals. the piston, oddly enough, is a flat top. no notch in the face ). anyway, during reassembly, i got to looking at the stock-receiver fit. there's a pretty good gap at the back of the receiver, on either side of the stock. i thought, if i could fill that in somehow, it might be an improvement. i rummaged around and found a black nylon washer ( no idea what it's for. might be a faucet washer of some sort ). i cut that in half, then trimmed a little at a time until it fit between the "lip" of the butt and the hole in the butt where the stock bolt goes through. made a pretty significant difference in how much the stock flexes when you 're pumping the gun. there's still some flex, but, it doesn't feel like the stock is going to snap off in your hands, while you're pumping.

just thought i'd share  .

[stonykill]

 interesting. How are you holding the 880 to pump it? I hold mine right at the pistol grip and feel no flex at all while pumping. Hand on top of the necked down grip area right next to the receiver and behind the scope

[DavidS]

I learned long ago that when pumping any AirGun it is better to hold on to the receiver just behind the barrel while pumping.    That explains the stock flex that some complain about.   I would imagine that if you hold the stock while pumping it would begin to flex more and more with time.    It also makes pumping even easier if you hold the receiver just behind the barrel while pumping (though the Daisy 880 pumps easy as anyway).

You do want a scope that you can get your fingers past to hold the receiver with out putting pressure on the receiver.

[tweedking]

does your daisy have the extra 4 screws into the stock, as the current ones have? i do think this was a problem as the 880 progressed through it's various phases.

if i understand it right (corrections welcome): the metal receiver models only have the stock clamped in between the receiver halves to attach the stock. they continued this design thru with the plastic receiver until sometime in the last few years, when they added 4 extra stock support screws. the longest running type was without the extra screws, therefor the no-longer-true, reputation for stock flex, is also true.

i would be interested in finding out what the variations or differences between 880's of different vintages. it would be cool to see how it has evolved as it's production have moved around and improvement were taken/added.

 i have a newer production gun, >6 months, and i have no flex, anywhere that i can tell, and i keep looking for it.

rob

[stonykill]

yes mine has those 4 screws

[longhunter]

Mine has the four screws, also. The flex was more side to side than anything. I have a very low scope mount, so, I have to grip the wrist of the stock. Nowhere else to grab ahold of .

[DavidS]

If you hold around the scope with out touching the scope it works well.  Having a low scope mount helps for this (and I have small hands).   See attached image.

Sorry about not showing during pumping, my other hand was holding the camera, though that should show the hold.

[longhunter]

If you hold around the scope with out touching the scope it works well.  Having a low scope mount helps for this (and I have small hands).   See attached image.

Sorry about not showing during pumping, my other hand was holding the camera, though that should show the hold.

Have to give that hold a try, when I get home, next time.

[longhunter]

If you hold around the scope with out touching the scope it works well.  Having a low scope mount helps for this (and I have small hands).   See attached image.

Sorry about not showing during pumping, my other hand was holding the camera, though that should show the hold.

Have to try that, when I get home, next time.

[Benwaller]

The stock-to-receiver design is actually terrible.  This I know because I had mine come apart in these very hands and I looked into the innards, the holes where the screws live.  Yeah, the plastic really is junk.  A couple of the screws fell to the floor, another I could see the entire length of its thread.  It was like looking into an ant farm, actually.  Junk.  Yep, terrible design, nothing to brag about in that part of the gun.

But for less money than it costs me to fill my truck, the 880 proved to be worth the money I spent.

Huh?  Because you can't buy the parts for a 901, a much better rifle for, to me, very obvious reasons (though you have to pay attention to flex at the stock-receiver joint on that one too) for the cost of an 880. 

I pooled the parts of both the 880 and the 901, picked the best of the lot, cleaned 'em up a little (very little) and frankensteined a real shooter. 

The barrel of the 880 was better than the 901, which was ever-so-slightly out of true.  Straight arrows are better.  How can you tell?  Well, just like you test an arrow for straightness by spinning it on your fingernails, in the "V" formed when you touch the tip of your thumb and the tip of the middle finger of your left hand, you can also test these little barrels.  Left hand.  Lay the barrel, parallel to the ground, in  the "V" described above, fingernails in contact with the center (balance point) of the barrel.  With your right hand grasp the end of the barrel between the pad of your middle finger and your thumb.  Snap your fingers.  The barrel will spin on your fingernails.  Practice.  You will not get it to spin the first time.  Eventually you will.  If the barrel is not straight it will rattle on your fingernails.  If it is straight all you will hear is the whiz of a spinning shaft.

The trigger/powerplant was better in the 901.  Together they made a rifle capable of plinking 1/2" groups at 20 yards.

I did reinforce the stock/receiver joint with a few wraps of tape and I never grasp the wrist of the stock when I pump.

So yeah, the 901 is a great gun for what it is.  The 880, not so much, and all because of the abysmal quality(?) of its stock.  Either can be made to shoot really well, but from my experience only the 901 has much of a chance of staying together over time and only if you are careful when you pump it because the plastic its stock is cast of is not all that good either.

But I sure do like to shoot it and that is a fact.  Feel like a kid again!

Ben

[DavidS]

Huh?  Because you can't buy the parts for a 901, a much better rifle for, to me, very obvious reasons (though you have to pay attention to flex at the stock-receiver joint on that one too) for the cost of an 880.

The Daisy 880 and Daisy 901 are internally that same gun.   And yes you can order the parts from Daisy for the 901, and they do not cost much.

I did reinforce the stock/receiver joint with a few wraps of tape and I never grasp the wrist of the stock when I pump.

You should only grasp the receiver when pumping.  Do not grasp any where near the stock.

Just make sure you have low scope mounts so you can get your fingers around the scope to grab the receiver with out touching the scope.

See my earlier post in this thread.

So yeah, the 901 is a great gun for what it is.  The 880, not so much, and all because of the abysmal quality(?) of its stock.  Either can be made to shoot really well, but from my experience only the 901 has much of a chance of staying together over time and only if you are careful when you pump it because the plastic its stock is cast of is not all that good either.

I am thinking about purchasing the Winchester 77x stock for my Daisy 880.   Though that is only because I like the thumb hole stock design.    The Winchester 77x, Daisy 880, and Daisy 901 are interchangeable for parts because they are the same gun.   And you can order the patrts from Daisy for any of them.

But I sure do like to shoot it and that is a fact.  Feel like a kid again!

Ben

I realy like my Daisy 880.   Some people fill there stock.

[Benwaller]

I think it pretty ridiculous that any pump gun has to be handled so delicately.  Don't grasp the stock when pumping?  Really?  Yep, don't grasp the stock when pumping.  That's just the way it is.

Strength of materials is a required course in college.  Ignoring it is not engineering, it is marketing/cost-bean-counting and does not produce a product that will delight the customer.  But the deficiencies can't be fixed now because, probably, there is not enough margin in these guns to retool them.  So, don't grasp the stock.  Fail, in my opinion, and I am a fan of the guns.  Truth is if they didn't shoot so well for so cheap they'd be gone out of production in a couple of months.

Yes indeed, a junk stock with a power-plant/barrel design so elegant in its simplicity, actually a real marvel that produces repeatable accuracy, and all for less money than a tank of gas. 

Gotta' love it.

Ben

[DavidS]

I think it pretty ridiculous that any pump gun has to be handled so delicately.  Don't grasp the stock when pumping?  Really?  Yep, don't grasp the stock when pumping.  That's just the way it is.

They are trying to save money to keep the gun low cost.  It is a great gun though.

The Crosman 2100, 66, and 760 are the same way.   Also the Crosman 2289 has this issue unless you add grip screws to the stock.

It is easier to pump the Daisy 880 as well as the mentioned Crosman guns holding the receiver any way so this does not effect anything.

Strength of materials is a required course in college.  Ignoring it is not engineering, it is marketing/cost-bean-counting and does not produce a product that will delight the customer.  But the deficiencies can't be fixed now because, probably, there is not enough margin in these guns to retool them.  So, don't grasp the stock.  Fail, in my opinion, and I am a fan of the guns.  Truth is if they didn't shoot so well for so cheap they'd be gone out of production in a couple of months.

I understand that the Winchester 77x stock is a bit better about this.  As it is the same gun I am attempting to get the part number and price for the stock.

Yes indeed, a junk stock with a power-plant/barrel design so elegant in its simplicity, actually a real marvel that produces repeatable accuracy, and all for less money than a tank of gas.

I would like to find one for less than the cost of a tank of gas .   For me a tank of gas costs approximately $3.40 with the current gas prices. (just a touch over one gallon per tank).

And yes it is a great gun for the price.  It is more accurate than the Benjamin 397, or any of the Crosman MSP rifles, or even the M-Rod in stock form.   It is powerful enough for its use.   And it is extremely reliable, if something does go wrong it is extremely easy to repair for nearly nothing.

Gotta' love it.

Ben

[boomer92266]

the new 901 has the separate stock and left-right receiver, but you can call daisy and get a 901 stock with molded into left receiver which is the older model and they have plenty of these. be sure to order the right receiver and the screws. i did that, and even tho my 901 is still doing great i have the more durable no flex stock in case i need them.

[ericnel]

My 880 has zero, zip, nada flex out of the box, and I'm a pretty big guy and hold stock while pumping. I did fill stock with silicon, but there was no flex prior to the filling. Is this a QC issue with this much variation between individual guns. If 880 had a better trigger, it would it would outclass guns costing three times as much. Maybe sometime Daisy will make a custom version that addresses trigger issue.

[del]

Two part epoxy is a good filler.  It doesn't shrink and can be filed or sanded.  Apply epoxy to the gap you want to fill, lay food wrap over the epoxy and reassemble (don't tear the food wrap).  For a slightly looser fit use layers of food wrap.  When it dries, disassemble and peel off the food wrap.

[BigTinBoat]

When I re-did my old 880 the stock had some "play" up and down. Before assembling I put a 016 o-ring on the stock and now it's tight again.
Not sure if this is the "flex" you are speaking of, but just throwing it out there.