Daisy

[ericnel]

I realize the thankless task that the people who keep this forum have. Been there and done that with a hunting dog news letter. Perhaps this thread has become kind of a defacto gate since it seems to stay active. The Daisy museum forum seems to be more for collectors than users. If we can keep this thread going, it seems to provide a spot for us Daisy users to connect. And I want to thank all the people that keep GTA going. Its my first stop when I fire up my computer. Thanks Guys!

[Alanheal]

I was looking for a lead free pellet that I could use indoors with the Daisy 880. After trying various ones, I found that the Daisy Lead-Free Wadcutter worked best.  Was using it at 10 yards and getting pinpoint accuracy.  Yesterday was finally warm enough to shoot outside and I tried the lead free at 25 yards.  Absolutely accurate!  So I give them my high recommendation for anyone desiring lead free for the Daisy 880.

[stonykill]

I was looking for a lead free pellet that I could use indoors with the Daisy 880. After trying various ones, I found that the Daisy Lead-Free Wadcutter worked best.  Was using it at 10 yards and getting pinpoint accuracy.  Yesterday was finally warm enough to shoot outside and I tried the lead free at 25 yards.  Absolutely accurate!  So I give them my high recommendation for anyone desiring lead free for the Daisy 880.

 thanks for sharing that!

[MikeSSS]

Shot  Daisy 856 pumper and a Daisy 888 CO2 rifles tonight.  Distance was 5 yards, CPHP pellets, targets were 3 small circles, two shots per circle.

Shot 3 circles with the 856, two shots per circle, using 6 pumps.  Both shots were in close to the same hole, on all three circles.....but the point of impact was different on all three circles.

Shooting the same targets with the 888 was different.  Both shots on each circle were in close to being in the same hole but the POI remained the same for all shots.

Daisy's 888 is made for ten meter competition and it shoots like a target rifle.  Hitting where you want is better than the alternative.

[Alanheal]

Yes, Daisy makes some very accurate rifles, yet it is not the first brand people think about when looking for an accurate rifle. My 880 will consistently hit 1/4 targets at 10 yards (using open sights).  When aiming from a free standing position, I find I can't hold the rifle absolutely steady. The slight motion of my body lets the barrel drift past the target.  I found that I can wait for the moment the barrel drifts in alignment with the target and then squeeze the trigger. This will produce a bulls eye. This is something that doesn't seem to work with my Stoeger break barrel, since the spring is creating other motions before the pellet leaves the barrel.  Just another advantage of the Daisy 880.
   

[tweedking]

daisy 880 part 2: pyramid air's blog. Thursday>>>>>>

[birdmove]

  Read Tom Gaylord's part two test of the 880. The velocities look a might low, but also very inconsistent. Accuracy tests to follow. With such inconsistent velocities, I don't think this test gun is going to be super accurate.

[Alanheal]

  Read Tom Gaylord's part two test of the 880. The velocities look a might low, but also very inconsistent.

                   
Production models vary and it would be a shame if he was testing one that was not representative of the group as a whole.

[stonykill]

 it is a shame he is testing a 14 year old 880 that probably 364 days a year on average sits in a closet. There is no way the review will in any way at all reflect what is being sold now. Shame really as his review will influence MANY....

[stonykill]

 OK I am 2 sentences into that review and am disgusted. He lubed it with Pengun oil. DAISY CLEARLY STATES TO USE 30 WEIGHT ND ON THEIR AG'S!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

   This review in no way shape or form is going to show what an 880 can do that is sold today. The gun is 14 years old and has the WRONG oil in it.


   I'll finish reading despite the fact that it is NOT going to be a fair review

[stonykill]

 Ok, read the review. Made some comments. Gone forever are the days I hold his reviews at a high standard. 14 year old AG, WRONG oil, he HAS to know , just HAS TO KNOW his 880 is NOT representative of a new AG. Or even an old one that gets used regularly.

   My personal opinion. Poorly , very poorly done review. From now on I will look at his reviews with a grain of salt. Poorly conducted review. Just shamefully done. AND it will influence so many. And the results in no way shape or form will represent a new 880 OILED CORRECTLY!

  wow...just wow

[DavidS]

I read BBs review and am suprised at the numbers.  I am wondering what is wrong with his Daisy 880 to cause such low numbers.

[stonykill]

I read BBs review and am suprised at the numbers.  I am wondering what is wrong with his Daisy 880 to cause such low numbers.

 Well for starters it is a 14...yes 14 year old 880. My disappointment with his review lies in the fact that he is not testing a new 880 but testing one that is over a decade old, with original seals.

   I'm done reading it...not a fair review. You don't take a 14 year old AG when you write for a webpage that holds such high regard and review it when you still sell new ones on that same webpage.

[DavidS]

I read BBs review and am suprised at the numbers.  I am wondering what is wrong with his Daisy 880 to cause such low numbers.

 Well for starters it is a 14...yes 14 year old 880. My disappointment with his review lies in the fact that he is not testing a new 880 but testing one that is over a decade old, with original seals.

   I'm done reading it...not a fair review. You don't take a 14 year old AG when you write for a webpage that holds such high regard and review it when you still sell new ones on that same webpage.

++Agreed %100.

[coyotejoe]

This is funny, people praising Daisy. Maybe 6 months ago I entered a couple of posts in which I said Daisy deserves a lot more respect in both their guns and their pellets but never got a second to my motion. I was repeatedly and bluntly informed that Crosman was so superior that Daisy was not even it the same league, that Daisy guns were junk toys and Daisy pellets were good only for meting down to cast fishing sinkers. Now I find 13 pages of praise. What changed? Did something or someone give Daisy fans permission to come out of the closet?
 Anyhow, I have owned a Daisy 880 for over 30 years and with a cheap scope it still stacks pellets atop pellets at 10 meters and my 717 would probably do as well if I could shoot open sights that well.
 My only shooting competition is at mountain man rendezvous over the summer and when I first joined this site I was looking for an air rifle to serve as offseason practice for my muzzle loading target rifle. After much discussion and contemplation I found I already owned the rifle I needed in my Daisy 953. I had an old .45 caliber barrel removed from a muzzleloader and after much work with hacksaw and files I fitted that as a sleeve over the 7/16" diameter barrel of the 953. I cut the barrel to match the weight and balance of my muzzle loading rifle, installed open sights similar to those of my ML rifle, added a spacer to lengthen the stock and have the perfect practice rifle. I'm told I could fit the Lothar Walther barrel to the 953 but the original Daisy barrel gives 10 meter groups smaller than I can hold with open sights from the offhand position. I really like the 5 shot clip of the 953 since the awkwardness of single loading was my only complaint with my old 880.

[stonykill]

This is funny, people praising Daisy. Maybe 6 months ago I entered a couple of posts in which I said Daisy deserves a lot more respect in both their guns and their pellets but never got a second to my motion. I was repeatedly and bluntly informed that Crosman was so superior that Daisy was not even it the same league, that Daisy guns were junk toys and Daisy pellets were good only for meting down to cast fishing sinkers. Now I find 13 pages of praise. What changed? Did something or someone give Daisy fans permission to come out of the closet?
 Anyhow, I have owned a Daisy 880 for over 30 years and with a cheap scope it still stacks pellets atop pellets at 10 meters and my 717 would probably do as well if I could shoot open sights that well.
 My only shooting competition is at mountain man rendezvous over the summer and when I first joined this site I was looking for an air rifle to serve as offseason practice for my muzzle loading target rifle. After much discussion and contemplation I found I already owned the rifle I needed in my Daisy 953. I had an old .45 caliber barrel removed from a muzzleloader and after much work with hacksaw and files I fitted that as a sleeve over the 7/16" diameter barrel of the 953. I cut the barrel to match the weight and balance of my muzzle loading rifle, installed open sights similar to those of my ML rifle, added a spacer to lengthen the stock and have the perfect practice rifle. I'm told I could fit the Lothar Walther barrel to the 953 but the original Daisy barrel gives 10 meter groups smaller than I can hold with open sights from the offhand position. I really like the 5 shot clip of the 953 since the awkwardness of single loading was my only complaint with my old 880.

  If I were on this forum 6 months ago I would have agreed with you. But I was not.


    Anyone who knows me knows I am not P.C., don't mince words and speak my mind how I see things from my own personal experiences. Daisy makes some darn good air guns at their price point. I own more Crosmans but prefer the Daisy's over them and shoot the Daisy's more often. The 880 gets shot every day since I got it in December.

  Nice work on your Daisy!

[birdmove]

    I don't know why Tom decided to test his older 880. But, he has agreed to reseal this gun, and then retest it with a link to each article. I think maybe you're being a bit hard on him. 

    If you read my review here of my first Daisy Model 35, you'd find a story about Tom Gaylord too. He reviewed a Model 35, and it was &^^&. No other way to put it. His gun was shooting maybe 6-8 inch groups benched at 10 yards. MIne was a comparative tack driver at that distance, and I posted photos of groups here in my review. I emailed Daisy to make them aware of tom's review, and told them that they had sent Tom a lemon. They got ahold of Tom, asked him to send the lemon back, and asked him if he could retest it. He agreed to retest the gun, and they sent him another. His second gun shot a lot better, but it still was not nearly as accurate as my first Model 35. After 11 months, my Model 35 would no longer pump up any pressure. I contacted Daisy and they took great care of me. They paid for the return of my old gun and sent me another. All shipping to and from Hawaii paid for by Daisy. But, you guessed it, my second Model 35 doesn't hold a candle to my first one. Not anywhere near as accurate, and it throws WAY to many fliers. Despite this, I did manage to get one great 3 shot group at 10 yards off a rest of 3/16". If I could figure out how to get the shroud off this thing without splitting the receiver, I would try shimming the end of the barrel inside the shroud. I am not going to bother Daisy about the second gun, because this is a $35 smooth bore airgun, and my gun is probably meeting Daisy's accuracy standards for a smooth bore at 10 yards. I had chose the Model 35 because I wanted one gun I could shoot BB's with and not have to worry about damaging the rifling.

    Tom normally does not like to retest a gun. I totally see his point. But, his first Model 35 was just garbage. Read that review. You would have sent that gun back, and so would I have. But he did retest it. And he acknowledged that us airgunners get pretty passionate about our guns, and that's why I made an issue of it and contacted Daisy.

    It's certainly fine that you question him on testing an older 880, and I applaud that you brought this up. But, you are coming on pretty strong, and you are going to lose your argument by your tone.

    How about this....email or call Daisy. Let them know what is going on, and maybe they would send him a brand new Model 880 to test and compare to his old one. They would be very diplomatic about it, and maybe they could work something out.

    If I remember correctly, Tom has done an old review on the Crosman 1077. I think, when he reviewed it, that his was also an older one. But, his 1077 is a tack driver, and more accurate than mine is. So, I think he has tested an older example of an airgun in the past.

     I have no horses in this race, as I have never even picked up an 880.

[coyotejoe]

Well I can attest that not all 880's are equal. My first, back in '83 or '84 was a tack driver and remained so for many years. When finally it would not pump up I did not know I could get parts to rebuild it so I went to WallyWorld and got a new plastic receiver version. It shot terrible, so thinking I had nothing to lose I tore it down and saw that the barrel was actually bent very noticeably. How that was not noticed by the factory assembler I do not know because it was really conspicuous. So I removed the barrel from my old 880 and fitted it to the new gun. It did require a bit of fitting, as best I recall I had to shorten it maybe 1/16" at the breech end. The result is that now some pellets are too long for the chamber and I can't close the bolt on some but it does shoot Daisy flat nose very well. I wish I had know I could have just resealed my old 880 but while education may be expensive there is a price to be paid for ignorance as well.   

[stonykill]

    I don't know why Tom decided to test his older 880. But, he has agreed to reseal this gun, and then retest it with a link to each article. I think maybe you're being a bit hard on him. 

 I don't think so. He writes a blog for a site that sells NEW 880's. He is testing not only a 14 year old 880 but one that obviously has issues. Even IF he reseals and links it will not matter. What he writes in his blog many, many, many, take as gospel. Very quickly it will be forgotten that he is testing a 14 year old 880 and the numbers and info he provides WILL steer new buyers AWAY from the 880.

   A webpage that sells a new product should not be reviewing a 14 year old product.

  Now if he were either doing a review on the now discontinued 856 a before and after rebuild, OR had written the blog in such a way that he stated from the beginning that he would do a before and after it would be fair.

[stonykill]

Well I can attest that not all 880's are equal. My first, back in '83 or '84 was a tack driver and remained so for many years. When finally it would not pump up I did not know I could get parts to rebuild it so I went to WallyWorld and got a new plastic receiver version. It shot terrible, so thinking I had nothing to lose I tore it down and saw that the barrel was actually bent very noticeably. How that was not noticed by the factory assembler I do not know because it was really conspicuous. So I removed the barrel from my old 880 and fitted it to the new gun. It did require a bit of fitting, as best I recall I had to shorten it maybe 1/16" at the breech end. The result is that now some pellets are too long for the chamber and I can't close the bolt on some but it does shoot Daisy flat nose very well. I wish I had know I could have just resealed my old 880 but while education may be expensive there is a price to be paid for ignorance as well.   

well yes of course. We are playing the Chinese QC lottery. But let me put it this way.

   I bought a new 856 powerline in 1999 or 2000. My then young son and I shot that for years along with a pumpmaster 760. The 856 was a tack driver. Was. I still own it. Over the last 2 months the 14 or 15 year old seals are just shot. For the last 5 years it just sat in a gun cabinet. Until I took it back out last fall. I oiled it up and it seemed ok and was very accurate. But not now. Wildly inconsistent. As SHOULD be expected for 14 or 15 year old seals that were left untouched for 5 years. It needs to be rebuilt and it is miles from what it was when new.

   This is why I was so hard on the review.

  And I was NOT happy with my 880 at 1st and darn near returned it...posted so on this forum. But by spending just a little bit of time with it, and using 30wt nd it shoots great. If it did not I would not shoot it daily.