Crosman 362 and 3622 comparison

[Gramps-Too]

That is surprising about the breech.  Pyramyd Air has the same breech listed for the 3622 and the 2240. James, any thoights?

https://www.pyramydair.com/product/crosman-22-cal-steel-breech-kit-fits-2240-2250-2260-2289-1322-air-guns?a=4387&srsltid=AfmBOop2FSnz3_GsbQx--YGhVZp_q9lt-IHJBbmyn7x1LE7QpexfMjP3

I took the steel breach off my 1322 & installed it on my 3622 without any issues. As I recall someone makes an aluminum breach for it too.

[splitbeing]

Yep. Here it is.

https://www.bakerairguns.com/product/aluminum-anodized-black-receivers/

[Blowpipe Sam]

Yep. Here it is.

https://www.bakerairguns.com/product/aluminum-anodized-black-receivers/

I have a Baker breech installed on my C362 right now.  I was hoping the Crosman 2240 breech would work because I really don't want to spend any more money on this gun right now.  I've spent the day pondering a route forward with the 3622.  Here's the plan.  I'm soaking the hammer spring adjuster screw in penetrating oil.  I've been studying posts here and on other forums and my gun seems to be running right about the factory setting at 2000 PSI.  All indications are that I shall find happiness at 1800 PSI after backing the adjuster out approximately 1/2 turn from the factory setting.  Tomorrow I will run some more chronograph tests to determine the optimal setting.

Since I don't want to invest in another breech at this time I'm going to apply a smidge of adhesive to the contact surfaces of the Crosman 13XX scope mounts where they clamp the barrel.  I'll install lower profile rings and a lighter scope.  Hopefully that will stabilize things well enough for me to do a realistic accuracy comparison.

[Blowpipe Sam]

I left the 3622 propped breech uppermost and soaked with penetrating oil overnight.  This morning it took a modest effort to overcome the thread locker but it was easy to back the adjuster screw out 1/2 turn from the factory setting.  Comparison of my initial chronograph numbers with other member's posts (and some on other forums) convinced me that my gun is running right where it should be with the factory settings.  Comparing other people's chronograph numbers lead me to the conclusion that about 1/2 turn out from the factory setting was going to be just about perfect for me.

Kawabunga!  Nailed it the first time.  With the gun filled to 1800 PSI,  the hammer spring adjuster backed out 1/2 turn, and shooting 14.3gr CPHP, I sacrificed the first five shots and started the chrono at number 6.

6.   656/13.67
7.   656/13.67
8.   662/13.92
9.   665/14.04
10. 666/14.09
11. 670/14.26
12. 672/14.34
13. 673/14.38
14. 674/14.43
15. 681/14.73
16. 678/14.60
17. 677/14.56
18. 676/14.51
19. 679/14.64
20. 678/14.60
21. 675/14.47
22. 675/14.47
23. 667/14.13
24. 664/14.00
25. 659/13.79
This 20 shot string averaged 670 FPS with a mean of 675 fps and an average muzzle energy of 14.26 FPE.  Standard deviation was 7.8.  POI changed imperceptibly at 20 yards throughout the string.  I actually zeroed the scope during this test and the last dozen CPHP were in one ragged hole at 20 yards.

Maybe PCPs ain't as boring as I thought.

I may pump it up again this afternoon and start looking for the most accurate pellet.

[Blowpipe Sam]

I have learned that a 14.3gr CPHP moving at 630 fps is plenty big medicine for squirrels, rabbits, and raccoons.  It's overkill for quail and pigeon.  These are the animals I hunt with air rifles.  IMO the 3622 develops plenty of power for small game hunting.  The C362 is capable of this type of performance without modifications as well.  So far both rifles exhibit excellent accuracy with the C362 showing definite preferences and the 3622 being much more catholic in its tastes.  The triggers appear to be identical.  My C362 has a year of use and wear.  Its trigger feels lighter and smoother than the 3622 but I expect the 3622 will break in with time.  Both triggers are entirely acceptable as they are and I have no intention of messing with them.

I didn't expect to find an acceptable tune for the gun this quickly but since I have I intend to spend this evening trying to further stabilize the wretched Crosman intermounts.  I'm going to trim a piece of Crosman 13XX barrel spacer to fit between the plastic breech and the first plastic barrel band.  A dab of CA adhesive will hold it tight to the barrel.  When the CA has cured I'll re-install the intermounts with a wee bit of epoxy.  The open time of the epoxy should allow me to get the intermounts aligned and leveled before it cures.

[splitbeing]

I left the 3622 propped breech uppermost and soaked with penetrating oil overnight.  This morning it took a modest effort to overcome the thread locker but it was easy to back the adjuster screw out 1/2 turn from the factory setting.  Comparison of my initial chronograph numbers with other member's posts (and some on other forums) convinced me that my gun is running right where it should be with the factory settings.  Comparing other people's chronograph numbers lead me to the conclusion that about 1/2 turn out from the factory setting was going to be just about perfect for me.

Kawabunga!  Nailed it the first time.  With the gun filled to 1800 PSI,  the hammer spring adjuster backed out 1/2 turn, and shooting 14.3gr CPHP, I sacrificed the first five shots and started the chrono at number 6.

6.   656/13.67
7.   656/13.67
8.   662/13.92
9.   665/14.04
10. 666/14.09
11. 670/14.26
12. 672/14.34
13. 673/14.38
14. 674/14.43
15. 681/14.73
16. 678/14.60
17. 677/14.56
18. 676/14.51
19. 679/14.64
20. 678/14.60
21. 675/14.47
22. 675/14.47
23. 667/14.13
24. 664/14.00
25. 659/13.79
This 20 shot string averaged 670 FPS with a mean of 675 fps and an average muzzle energy of 14.26 FPE.  Standard deviation was 7.8.  POI changed imperceptibly at 20 yards throughout the string.  I actually zeroed the scope during this test and the last dozen CPHP were in one ragged hole at 20 yards.

Maybe PCPs ain't as boring as I thought.

I may pump it up again this afternoon and start looking for the most accurate pellet.

Hole in one!

[Blowpipe Sam]

After I cut the barrel spacer I dry fitted all the pieces together.  The barrel spacer is really the trick here.  Everything is nice and tight even without adhesive so I’m foregoing that step for now.  I mounted a lighter scope with lower profile rings and everything still feels good and solid.  Fingers crossed.

[Back_Roads]

 I plan to forgo the metal breach on mine, I have done as you planed and used a rubber reinforced CA glue to take up any slack on the 3D printed mounts, another option is glue thin rubber to the mounts to grip the barrel better.

[Gramps-Too]

After I cut the barrel spacer I dry fitted all the pieces together.  The barrel spacer is really the trick here.  Everything is nice and tight even without adhesive so I’m foregoing that step for now.  I mounted a lighter scope with lower profile rings and everything still feels good and solid.  Fingers crossed.

Wonder how wrapping the barrel with a couple of layers of camo tape would work? Not the duct tape kind but the cloth type.

[Blowpipe Sam]

After I cut the barrel spacer I dry fitted all the pieces together.  The barrel spacer is really the trick here.  Everything is nice and tight even without adhesive so I’m foregoing that step for now.  I mounted a lighter scope with lower profile rings and everything still feels good and solid.  Fingers crossed.

Wonder how wrapping the barrel with a couple of layers of camo tape would work? Not the duct tape kind but the cloth type.

Something with some friction to it would help.  The Crosman intermounts are clearly designed to work with a Crosman barrel spacer.  That’s why I installed a piece just big enough to stabilize the intermounts.  It seems to be working well enough without any adhesive.  If the scope moves around I’ll try some glue.  In a few minutes I’ll be starting a round of pellet accuracy tests.  Don’t know if I’ll get far enough to do a write up tonight.

[Blowpipe Sam]

Whew!  It's been a busy week!  I have diligently tested the 3622 against the 362 with a variety of pellets for accuracy.  I could post a bunch of pictures of groups but it would be boring and pointless.  Both guns are more than accurate enough to ethically hunt small game at ranges out to forty yards.  Both guns can meet this accuracy standard with several different pellets.  Both guns seemed to like Ruger Superpoints and Crosman Piranhas about equally well and these were two of the most accurate pellets from both guns.  I tested several premium pellets including H&N FTT, Norma GTFT, H&N Baracuda Hunters, Crow Magnums, Sniper Magnums, and some antique Benjamin round balls.  While several of the premium pellets shot better than the Rugers and Piranhas the cheaper pellets were definitely competitive.  Basically everything but the round balls shot well enough to hunt with out to thirty yards or so.

So I've apparently got a couple of really good barrels.

The modification to the scope mount seems to be successful.  I've pumped the 3622 up over a dozen times this week, shot it from the bench and carried it in the field.  I need a few more weeks of durability testing before I will pass final judgement on the Crosman intermounts.  After completing the tests of various pellets I re-zeroed the gun with 14.3gr Piranhas at thirty yards.  This only took a few clicks of the windage dial.  After being knocked around all week I consider that pretty good. 

[2A Georgia]

I have diligently tested the 3622 against the 362 with a variety of pellets for accuracy.  I could post a bunch of pictures of groups but it would be boring and pointless.  Both guns are more than accurate enough to ethically hunt small game at ranges out to forty yards.

I was following this thread to see if the 3622 pcp was viable for hunting small game.  If the parents get on board with grandson hunting I'm thinking 3622 or Stormrider for teaching.  Since I would go steel breech I think that's the same price point.  Thanks for the detailed report/review!

[Blowpipe Sam]

I have diligently tested the 3622 against the 362 with a variety of pellets for accuracy.  I could post a bunch of pictures of groups but it would be boring and pointless.  Both guns are more than accurate enough to ethically hunt small game at ranges out to forty yards.

I was following this thread to see if the 3622 pcp was viable for hunting small game.  If the parents get on board with grandson hunting I'm thinking 3622 or Stormrider for teaching.  Since I would go steel breech I think that's the same price point.  Thanks for the detailed report/review!

I think my experience is pretty typical.  I have heard some stories of inaccurate barrels with the 362 and 3622 but they are rare.  Good luck!

[Blowpipe Sam]

I have been testing and comparing the triggers of each gun for the last week.  I have examined both triggers and I cannot see any difference.  It looks like the whole trigger group would swap back and forth.  Functionally they are identical.  The 3622 has over 300 pellets through it as well as considerable dry firing.  I don't have any way to measure the trigger pull effort but  the seat of my pants says it's approximately 3 lbs. for the 3622 and about 2 1/2 lbs. for the 362.  On both guns the trigger has an initial light faux first stage where you are just taking up the spring loaded slack in the trigger.  After 1/4" the trigger meets the sear and the effort increases but breaks very cleanly after another 1/8" of travel.  Follow through is short.  About another 1/4" and not objectionable ie. I don't think it needs an over travel stop.
Admittedly I don't own a gun with a great trigger but these Crosman triggers are as light and smooth as the best triggers on my other guns.  Take that for what it's worth.

Good enough to hunt with?  Absolutely.

[Blowpipe Sam]

Conclusion.
Summing it all up I compared two near identical air rifles and discovered that they are near identical.  For hunting purposes the C362 can be pumped ten times and it will produce better than 13 FPE using acceptably accurate, inexpensive, and readily available pellets.  The 3622 can be easily tuned by a novice to this same power level to get a 20-25 shot sweet zone using the same pellets with comparable accuracy.

Both guns share a 13XX ancestry and pretty much any accessory for a 13XX is adaptable.  I consider this to be an important point.  It bears upon the versatility, maintainability, and durability of this platform. Both guns are perfectly usable hunting tools as they come in the box with perfectly adequate sights, power, and accuracy.  IMO the steel breech makes for a more secure scope mount than the barrel clamping Crosman intermounts but it does add weight to what I consider an amazingly light gun.  The 3622 wins the weight contest.  The 362's pump assembly dooms it to perpetually weigh more than the PCP.

After handling these two guns for a while that light weight is one of my favorite things about them.  The PCP's lighter weight and higher rate of fire look like real advantages to me for squirrel season.  The synthetic stock shared by both guns contributes to that light weight and it is well suited to smaller shooters but still comfortable for giants like me.  The height of the stock comb works well with the iron sights and it's acceptable for a scope too.

Finally.  I surprised myself.  I expected to rapidly get bored with the 3622.  But it won me over.  IMO the Crosman 3622 will make a superior hunting tool to the C362 in most circumstances.  I determined years ago that I didn't need more than 25 shots on most hunting trips.  So the 3622 has sufficient puissance.  It is lighter, quieter, and has a higher rate of fire than the 362 in essentially the same package.  I will continue to update this thread from time to time as I continue to test both guns for durability.

[NorCal David]

Thank you for the detailed and very useful information. Much appreciated

[splitbeing]

Thank you for the detailed and very useful information. Much appreciated

X2

[2A Georgia]

For hunting purposes the C362 can be pumped ten times and it will produce better than 13 FPE using acceptably accurate, inexpensive, and readily available pellets.

I have my pp800r tuned to about 13-15fpe...curious are you taking head or heart shots?  And out to what distance?
Really been enjoying your thread. 

[Blowpipe Sam]

Thank you for the detailed and very useful information. Much appreciated

X2

You are welcome.  I intend to take both guns hunting this winter and I will post the results on the hunting gate (hopefully).

[Blowpipe Sam]

For hunting purposes the C362 can be pumped ten times and it will produce better than 13 FPE using acceptably accurate, inexpensive, and readily available pellets.

I have my pp800r tuned to about 13-15fpe...curious are you taking head or heart shots?  And out to what distance?
Really been enjoying your thread. 

The hunting pellet for my C362 is the 17.6gr Norma GTFT Heavy.  Ten pumps gets you 593 fps. That equals 13 .74 FPE and it shoots flat enough out to 35 yards.  Most of my shots are under 30 yards so this is plenty of medicine.  For longer shots the 14.3gr Crosman Piranhas will hit 646 fps and 13.25 FPE for the same number of pumps.  The 362 killed a squirrel at forty three yards with Piranhas last year.  The ideal is a head shot.  The 43 yard squirrel POA was the head but POI was the spine.  It still amounted to DRT.  I have elected for a boiler room shot but that was on a treed squirrel that would not present a head shot.  Range was less than 20 yards and I decided to use the heavy Normas.  The shot was a clean pass through of the vitals and the squirrel came down pretty quick after that.