Old guns vs new

[solder]

Any thoughts on buying old, well used over at least 10 years, high end pcp guns vs current new guns. Have pcp's improved that much over the years or do well used and cared for guns match up in terms of function and accuracy?

[anti-squirrel]

I doubt PCPs are any more accurate now than they were a decade ago.  And as far as function- they store air, then allow some air to propel a pellet when the trigger is pulled.

The big advances are in efficiency and cost to manufacture.  About the only revolutionary item would b the FX smooth-twist barrel, but even so, there are many shooters that do just fine with non-FX airguns.  My first though with an "antique" airgun is to check the seals.

And- from a slightly different perspective: PCP and CO2 guns have a lot of similarities.  Look at how some of the so-called antique CO2 guns are still highly sought after.

[fusion]

I have a 14 year old FX2000. It's just as accurate as the day I got it. It gets the same number of shots per fill too, about 32.
Outside of carbon fiber tanks and added regulators, the technology hasn't changed.  It's still a knock open valve releasing air into a rifled barrel, all contained in a stock assembly. The FX smooth twist barrels may be good too, but a Lothar Walther barrel is still very accurate.

[KnifeMaker]

I still to this day, with all the modern innovations, the older FX, under several names (Typhoon, Tarantula, 2000) were some of the most beautiful AG's ever made as a production gun. Such smooth and elegant lines.

Gun stocks have been around for a few centuries now, and have gone thru a lot of phases. Ergonomics getting better and better, along with asthetics.

Always wondered just why when it comes to AG's, the lessons of the past have mostly been ignored. A lot of the stocks on AG's are odd, complicated, ill fitting, and lack aesthetic appeal. The old FX offerings were simple and of classic, and elegant design. The new Streamline for my eyes follows this tradition better than most. As do the AA offerings.

The Daystate Regal is an excellent example of form following function in it's stock design, and has made it a timeless favorite with many.

Loved my AirWolf. But heavy, and very unhandy in the field. the Regal is exactly the opposite, as are the  old FX Ag's.

We've lost something in modern stock designs in AG's.

Knife

Knife

[Acapulco]

The newer guns tend to give a higher shot count over the older guns. But..like others have said, the older guns are no slouch.

[elh0102]

The Daystate Regal is an excellent example of form following function in it's stock design, and has made it a timeless favorite with many.

Loved my AirWolf. But heavy, and very unhandy in the field. the Regal is exactly the opposite, as are the  old FX Ag's.

We've lost something in modern stock designs in AG's.

Knife

Knife

Totally agree. I have a couple of RAW rifles, and a Regal XL. The RAW rifles are tremendously accurate, truly precision rifles in every respect. The Daystate may be a dated design, but it is a joy to carry, handles effortlessly, and is plenty accurate for my hunting needs.  As good as they are, taking the RAW rifles into the field is kind of like parallel parking a bus, not much fun. Although marketed as a hunting rifle, I use my RAW HM1000 rifles almost exclusively for target shooting, and they are magnificently accurate, never shot better. But, I won't be toting one in the squirrel woods.

 

[vanTeunenbroek]

I like my old theoben Rapid's very much and would put them up against any modern PCP no prob..
Bought one recently for €500,-  has LW barrel, 12shot mag,up to 500cc air capacity,all calibers up to .25 60ft/lbs  some come regulated but easy to retrofit if wanted.
Very stable platform and easy to work on and more parts available then ever before made by RAW and others.
Has it's own forum and following, won't be disappointed

[Dairyboy]

Old guns can be very good. Personally if I were to buy an old gun it would be a Theoben Rapid. Solid dependable guns built right. RAWs are very nice but I think the Rapids look better.

[Geoff]

I like new

when I read things like classic, all I hear is old ... LoL

[KnifeMaker]

Always liked the Rapids!

Knife

[Nomadic Pirate]

I really, really like the old wooden stocked super sleek FX PCPs

[mobilemail]

I have a Daystate Harrier SE .22 that is a keeper. I'm sure there must be more out there, but Ihaven't seen one like this.  The Harrier was made from 1997-2003, and it was the budget version of the Huntsman. The rifle was the same, but the stock and finish of the basic model were less expensive.  This one is a special edition version so it's a ....fancy...budget model?!!    And it's full lefty!!

I had to send it back to AoA a while back to get the valve fixed, but it's still going strong.  It's currently unregulated, providing about 40 shots @22fpe within 3% ES with JSB 15.9gr pellets, filling to 2800psi.

[sactargetshooter]

I think some design elements definitely improve over time. For example, new bullpups mostly have a magazine system that allows relatively low scope height. Air consumption of newer PCPs is much more efficient than older ones due to various hammer debounce methods.

[Nomadic Pirate]

I think some design elements definitely improve over time. For example, new bullpups mostly have a magazine system that allows relatively low scope height.

Hmmm ?

Explain that please ?

Magazines in BullPups are nowhere near the scopes, furthermore the scope hight is dictated by the fact that you need to use the breech as cheek weld and that don't aloud you to get your eye as close to the barrel as you can with a standard rifle.

[vanTeunenbroek]

And a theoben uses an inertia weight inside the hammer for reduced hammer bounce..
Had this system over 20yrs now so nothing new under the sun same with daystate and their slingshot hammer nothing new here..
Might not be true ssg but all are ways of reducing hammer bounce and non are 'new'..
As for bullpups I believe that ed made them first and even the older edguns I won't consider an 'old' AG nor an outdated design..
Both are very efficient with air and more accurate than most 'new' AG's and accuracy and efficiency is what counts most to me..
Ergonomics are not exclusive to new guns either, I have shouldered many new and old and find that there are good and bad ones both with the new and the old..
 I think fit &finish on most pre China airguns is better than they're nowadays..
Just my 2ct's though..

[KnifeMaker]

I have a Daystate Harrier SE .22 that is a keeper. I'm sure there must be more out there, but Ihaven't seen one like this.  The Harrier was made from 1997-2003, and it was the budget version of the Huntsman. The rifle was the same, but the stock and finish of the basic model were less expensive.  This one is a special edition version so it's a ....fancy...budget model?!!    And it's full lefty!!

I had to send it back to AoA a while back to get the valve fixed, but it's still going strong.  It's currently unregulated, providing about 40 shots @22fpe within 3% ES with JSB 15.9gr pellets, filling to 2800psi.

She is a LOOKER!!!  Also glad to see a few makers offering left hand stocks. Can't understand just why several very well made guns, (R10 etc. ), are made in left, but not available in the USA. Appreciate the Ambi stocks offered by companies such as Day State and FX AirGuns.

Knife

[KnifeMaker]

I like new

when I read things like classic, all I hear is old ... LoL

I'm a Classic!

Knife

[sactargetshooter]

I think some design elements definitely improve over time. For example, new bullpups mostly have a magazine system that allows relatively low scope height.

Hmmm ?

Explain that please ?

Magazines in BullPups are nowhere near the scopes, furthermore the scope hight is dictated by the fact that you need to use the breech as cheek weld and that don't aloud you to get your eye as close to the barrel as you can with a standard rifle.

A good example is the magazine placement of the Hatsan bullpups vs. that of the Taipan Mutants. The Mutants load the top pellet of the magazine, while the Hatsans loads the bottom pellet. The means the minimum scope height of the Hatsan is the diameter of the magazine, while the scope height of the Mutant is really just the radius of the shroud. I have also used conversion kits on a Mrod, and that, too, had to clear the diameter of the magazine.

It is not so much the magazine is interfering with the scope rail, but rather how low you can make a cheek weld. The back of a Mutant is flat as opposed to that of a Hatsan bullpup.

[Nomadic Pirate]

I think some design elements definitely improve over time. For example, new bullpups mostly have a magazine system that allows relatively low scope height.

Hmmm ?

Explain that please ?

Magazines in BullPups are nowhere near the scopes, furthermore the scope hight is dictated by the fact that you need to use the breech as cheek weld and that don't aloud you to get your eye as close to the barrel as you can with a standard rifle.

A good example is the magazine placement of the Hatsan bullpups vs. that of the Taipan Mutants. The Mutants load the top pellet of the magazine, while the Hatsans loads the bottom pellet. The means the minimum scope height of the Hatsan is the diameter of the magazine, while the scope height of the Mutant is really just the radius of the shroud. I have also used conversion kits on a Mrod, and that, too, had to clear the diameter of the magazine.

It is not so much the magazine is interfering with the scope rail, but rather how low you can make a cheek weld. The back of a Mutant is flat as opposed to that of a Hatsan bullpup.

Cricket loads at the top and it's one of the oldest bullpups, so right there your reasoning goes out the window, FX loads at the bottom like the majority of Pups,

Even then, using the Action as check weld you'll never get the scope as low as a standard rifle no matter what.