Author Topic: Vulcan (Read 20447 times))

deucelee · « **Reply #20 on:** December 20, 2015, 12:11:43 AM »

Quote from: Nomadic Pirate on December 19, 2015, 07:29:32 PM

http://www.airgunnation.com/topic/new-vulcan-rifle/

hmm...nice...for folks who have had experience with carbines AND pups, is the carbine much more ergonomically pleasing? or is it just a matter of preference?

Quote from that site: "For me, the platform makes sense. It creates the most compact, “full sized” carbine. Some folks just do not like bullpups. They don’t want their cheek on the block. They don’t want their eye near the breech. Brocock and BSA both made some darn fine “mini rifles”, but the power and shot-count were both noticeably lower than their full-sized counterparts. By implementing a hybrid design, you get all the benefits of the larger air reservoir and long barrel in a gun 4-6 inches shorter. "

oldpro · « **Reply #21 on:** December 20, 2015, 01:55:05 AM »

Sad thing is I was working on and almost identical design for the FLEX but being a Vulcan owner I really Like it alot and hope to change my pup over to this style.

scottyhazzard · « **Reply #22 on:** December 20, 2015, 02:16:50 AM »

What do you mean, "I was working on"?
Get back to work! (Sarcasm disclaimer: that statement was meant in jest)
All kidding aside a compact Flex would be perfect!

oldpro · « **Reply #23 on:** December 20, 2015, 02:56:05 AM »

I am but have to change it a bit so its not just like the vulcan. Ill show some pics tomorrow

oldpro · « **Reply #24 on:** December 20, 2015, 03:06:06 AM »

http://i.imgur.com/8VuTMRYh.jpg I was going to cut 4 inches off back of stock In front of shoulder pad then add cheek riser behind scope above stock.

scottyhazzard · « **Reply #25 on:** December 20, 2015, 04:59:41 AM »

I don't think it looks like the Vulcan. Yours is bottled and theirs is, what- traditional? Their stock is pretty slick looking though. But I bet they can't do 115 fpe. Sending you a pm with another concept.

oldpro · « **Reply #26 on:** December 20, 2015, 12:39:15 PM »

Now when is a bullpup no longer a bullpup? I would almost still call their carbine a bullpup.

scottyhazzard · « **Reply #27 on:** December 20, 2015, 02:21:36 PM »

An interesting question, Oldpro. Is it the proximity of the receiver to the trigger and shorter overall length that places the compact carbine in a third category between rifle and bullpup? For me, a bullpup is a compact 'rifle' with the receiver in the butt of the rifle. So the hybrid or compact carbine distinction make sense to me. The drawback of the usual bullpup design is having a bolt or lever action at the end of the butt stock. That is very unappealing to me. The important thing for me however is getting full rifle performance in a compact package that is ergonomic and comfortable to use.

Nomadic Pirate · « **Reply #28 on:** December 20, 2015, 02:36:15 PM »

With super low rings and with that adjustable cheek riser you can comfortably get a scope real close to the barrel and still have a compact rifle,

I like this design type a lot, manufactures should really start looking seriously into this Hybrid style,
IMO it just has advantages over the trendy Pups.

scottyhazzard · « **Reply #29 on:** December 20, 2015, 02:44:03 PM »

Quote from: Nomadic Pirate on December 20, 2015, 02:36:15 PM

With super low rings and with that adjustable cheek riser you can comfortably get a scope real close to the barrel and still have a compact rifle,

I like this design type a lot, manufactures should really start looking seriously into this Hybrid style,
IMO it just has advantages over the trendy Pups.

+1
Mr. Pirate said it better.

oldpro · « **Reply #30 on:** December 20, 2015, 05:35:32 PM »

+2 and I'm working on it.

scottyhazzard · « **Reply #31 on:** December 20, 2015, 06:45:31 PM »

Zebra · « **Reply #32 on:** December 23, 2015, 12:38:06 AM »

Quote from: oldpro on December 20, 2015, 12:39:15 PM

Now when is a bullpup no longer a bullpup? I would almost still call their carbine a bullpup.

It is a bullpup because the action is behind the trigger. It is also a carbine because it has a shorterned barrel. You could argue that it has the disadvantages of both designs.

For people that think they don't like bullpups, I see no reason why this design is better for them. It looks like it would still need a trigger linkage and your face is still close to the breach (although I can't see why that is an issue on airguns where you don't have to worry about spent shells hitting your face).

I happen to like bullpups a lot for their center balance and efficient use of space while retaining the power and accuracy of a full length barrel in a short package. I don't see why I would want to sacrifice barrel length and to increase the overall length just to move the cheek rest a few inches back. You sacrifice far more than you gain with this design imo. Shorter barrels are louder too.

Now, if they made one with dual triggers and a design that can be either a bullpup or extend into a full length rifle depending on the situation and my mood, I would be slightly impressed. I would call that a true hybrid. This is more like a cross-breed and not a good one. That being said, it looks quite cool but bullpups with full length barrels are clearly better.

I would like to know if the carbine retains the center balance of the bullpup. That is what makes bullpups feel lighter to shoot off-hand. Full length PCP rifles of identical weight feel heavy because the weight is at the front which is just silly.

oldpro · « **Reply #33 on:** December 23, 2015, 12:56:17 AM »

Zebra I couldnt disagree more. This "mid pup" design could be far better for many reasons if executed a little better. First all bullpups force you too put your face on the breech this is both very uncomfortable and noisy for one, second it forces the scope rail to be well above the barrel this causes many problems with compensating for close range shots with zeros out past 40 yards, third if you have a breech oring failure or anything that may cause premature firing with your face over the breech youll have a nice scar or loss of and eye. Yes you can put a guard over the breech for safety or a pad over the breech to make it comfortable but this again causes you to once again raise the scope rail. I would keep the scope rail low move the cheek riser back like Vulcan did but lower and use a bullpup style stock. Best of all worlds in my opinion. Ow ya Im working on it lol

rkr · « **Reply #34 on:** December 23, 2015, 03:54:19 AM »

I must say I agree with Zebra. If we look at that Vulcan carbine design: the scope is as high as in bullpup, there is a wooden cheekrest but it looks too short to be used for all shooting positions so you need to put your face partially over breech in some cases and while the magazine well is 4" more forward it will still blow stuff to your face in case of o-ring failure. The only advantage of that design seems to be longer shroud.

One disadvantage of metal breech bullpups is that your cheek will freeze to the metal when shooting in cold weather, been there done that and it hurt like *(&^ - well not the freezing part but the removal from breech.

I hope oldpro can come up with something that combines the best from both worlds, to me it seems that Vulcan failed in their attempt.

oldpro · « **Reply #35 on:** December 23, 2015, 12:42:38 PM »

rkr that's exactly what I'm saying they had a good idea but dident execute it well. They needed to move trigger forward to give it better control and move scope rail down as close to breech as possible then lower rear cheek riser below breech etc etc. Good idea with the Mid Pup but not well thought out. I do like the look though.

scottyhazzard · « **Reply #36 on:** December 23, 2015, 03:09:56 PM »

Frustrating. You guys bring up some real good points. I too, really like how it looks. This morning as I am on a waiting list, I received an e-mail that the gun is in stock to order.

I'm a little bummed out as I have been waiting quite a while for this to come to market.
Another downside of the Vulcan designs that has not been mentioned is that they are not readily adjusted without some disassembly. Not a big thing if you stick to one pellet. But changing the regulator settings requires disassembly, adjusting, reassembly and firing through chrony, rinse and repeat until desired speed achieved. Verses external adjustments.

I know your busy, Oldpro, when you get your version together please keep me in mind or on your list so I can buy it.

oldpro · « **Reply #37 on:** December 23, 2015, 04:14:43 PM »

Yea not being able to adjust it for heavier pellets is a real bummer and thats why im going to put mine up for sale in the classifieds. I dont want to have to disassemble it just to shoot 31 grain barracudas. Anyone looking for a Vulcan hit me up or check the classifieds.

scottyhazzard · « **Reply #38 on:** December 23, 2015, 04:49:32 PM »

LOL! Of course!

If I could make rifles like the Flex, I would be looking at rifles like the Impact, Vulcan and Cricket, eyeing what they did right, what they did wrong then put everything 'right' into my own better design and dumping everything else.

scottyhazzard · « **Reply #39 on:** December 23, 2015, 06:39:33 PM »

Quote from: oldpro on December 23, 2015, 12:56:17 AM

First all bullpups force you too put your face on the breech this is both very uncomfortable and noisy for one, Ow ya Im working on it lol

I was wondering about the noise. With your ear on the breech, just what could be done to deaden the noise. It seems to me an efficient use of space to have the breech back there... What about sound deadening materials over the breech and perhaps under a floated cheekweld?
http://www.crutchfield.com/p_658HM11264/HushMat-11264-Kit.html

Thank you to our advertisers!

Vulcan

Author Topic: Vulcan (Read 20447 times))

Nomadic Pirate