Kalibrgun Cricket .25 on it’s way
I just Ordered a Kalibrgun Cricket .25 from Steve at Topgun Airguns. It was a pleasure talking to Steve over the phone. He took the time to answer all my questions. I also ordered one of the aeon scopes since he was kind enough to give me $75 off. He even throed in a set of scope rings once I wrote back to him and told him I had forgotten to order them, now that’s sweet.
I can hardly wait until I get a chance to go out and shoot it.
I also ordered the Pelican 1700 case, since I needed a good way to carry it around.
I may have to sell some of my other airguns to make room for this one in my gun safe.
I’m Pumped. 😀
Stan
All Replies
Yes, both rifles certainly kick butt! I would agree that you can’t go wrong with either one.
He is completely speculating on how well one design works over the other (with regards to the Cricket and EdGun).
There could be really good arguments either way in terms of which works better than the other. I could argue the benefits of each one and feel justified on either side of the argument.
But in practice they both shoot identically (very, very well) at distance in various conditions, so it’s impossible to say which design is better.
He is VERY right about how these particular bullpup setups are SUPERIOR to traditional rifle setups. His evaluation and discussion about aligning and fixing the scope with the barrel compared to the traditional band or cantilevered barrel is spot on.
Fact of the matter is both of these rifles KICK ASS!!! 😀
You certainly can’t go wrong with either one!
I’ll be lining up for a Cricket here soon. I am ALWAYS interested in owning an excellent shooter and since it is a super accurate multishot it will be something different then my other excellent single shot shooters.
No problem, Steeldreams. Look at photos on Google of the two R2 and R3 and compare them, especially the barrel-scope area.
@Spinj, what does this configuration look like? It seems to me that there are three planes involved here, reservoir, barrel, and that of the rails. I am interested to understand their “true relationship”. A diagram or photo will surely help a lot. Thanks and regards.
Examining the photo above, particularly the region of the barrel, notice how the rail locks it tightly throughout its entire circumference. With this, the scope, which is also secured onto the rail, sort of welds itself (and yes, the air tube as well) onto the rail into “one unit.” More importantly, due to this design, since the barrel is clamped very near to the front end of the barrel (if you discount the moderator), if it happens to move (very unlikely due to it being clamped tightly), the scope will also follow.
Think of this as a perspective: If you bend a long pipe at one end (think of it as the muzzle of the barrel), there probably won’t be any discernible movement of the pipe at or near the other end (think of this as the breech end of the barrel), but there would be at the other end. The barrel end is like a lever in that it is the area which will have more movement when pressure is applied. Steel is not as tough and immune to bending or movement like how some people may think, especially when it is in the form of a long pipe (like a rifle barrel). Now, apply this understanding and go back to a traditional rifle design. Because the scope is mounted close to the breech end of the barrel, if there is movement on the muzzle end, the scope cannot follow along with this movement — it will stay in its position. Plus, these barrels are held with a flimsy, small screw which presses on one side of the barrel (mainly on the top of it) instead of allowing the breech to clamp around it. The Cricket’s rail does this, and because the barrel is clamped near the muzzle end as well, the scope will follow if there happens to be an “unlikely” movement with the barrel of the Cricket.
Regarding the air tube, yes it is also held by the scope rail. However, what you must understand is that it is part of the “one unit” mentioned above. So, in the event air pressure in it expands or contracts the reservoir, it still will not affect the position of the barrel or scope. The reason for this is that it does not come into contact with the barrel or even the moderator. If it contracts or expands, it will do so independently. Taking into account the “one unit” explained above, at the extreme end, if it does happen to move the rail, the scope and barrel will follow along with it (but even this is unlikely because the tube is encased by the two holes of the rail).
This is what I mean by “true relationship,” and to me, this type of design is superior over traditional rifle designs. The Edgun R3 no longer retains this same design like it had in the R2 versions. This is one reason why I chose the Cricket over the Edgun R3. Additionally, the Cricket is a multishot, has a magazine holder, very efficient regulator, hammer-forged barrel, and is very quiet. 😉
thanks Spinj… now.. why would the R3 no longer have this configuration?
You are taking this too far. I just posted to state the design advantages of the Cricket and how I like it over traditional rifle designs. I’m sure the Edgun is a great gun.
I wasn’t talking about the trigger, the Cricket simply due to the multishot capability has FAR more moving parts than the Matador and like you said, likely more prone to problems. 😉
You rushed to one up a brand by applying a overused phrase but your undoing was not thinking all the way through the brand you were trying one up.
I wonder how often you have done that in your other comparisons…
The simple fact is that these two bullpups are amazing products. They each have their own positives and negatives. It’s not a competition and exaggerating unproven aspects of the respective designs only makes the person doing the exaggerating look uninformed and/or severely biased.
From the images I have seen of the Cricket linkage it looks very similar to the EdGun but the Cricket linkage looks a little less refined.
And we know how many moving parts are inside that indexing magazine system in the Cricket… So by your own admission the Cricket would be prone to more problems. I think you nailed it this time!!!
So how much is Kalibir paying you? 😆
Doesn’t the Edgun have many moving parts on its trigger unit too? Anyway, I like less moving parts involving the positioning of the barrel especially as it more closely affects pellet flight.
KalibrGun is paying me nothing. I think they should start doing so, yes? 😆
If you happen to drop your rifle and bend the rail it can be replaced relatively easily.
And we know how many moving parts are inside that indexing magazine system in the Cricket… So by your own admission the Cricket would be prone to more problems. I think you nailed it this time!!!
So how much is Kalibir paying you? 😆
You’re smart, what might be the benefit for having a removable scope rail? 😉
😀
Hi synopsis! I was just using logic. 😀 A removable scope rail? Hmm, I think more moving or removable parts just negates the idea of “one unit.” You know what they say, “more moving parts just means more possibilities for problems.” 😉
Why doesn’t the R3 have this “true relationship”, because the rail is mounted to the parts that securely hold the barrel?
It still retains the relationship but the rear point of contact has been moved back to the breech area.
One COULD argue that by moving the clamping points further apart it would allow the scope and barrel to move better as a single unit. 😉
The Cricket also has value engineered parts, little to no technical support and retail/factory representative that avoid forums like the plague. 😀
@Spinj, what does this configuration look like? It seems to me that there are three planes involved here, reservoir, barrel, and that of the rails. I am interested to understand their “true relationship”. A diagram or photo will surely help a lot. Thanks and regards.
Examining the photo above, particularly the region of the barrel, notice how the rail locks it tightly throughout its entire circumference. With this, the scope, which is also secured onto the rail, sort of welds itself (and yes, the air tube as well) onto the rail into “one unit.” More importantly, due to this design, since the barrel is clamped very near to the front end of the barrel (if you discount the moderator), if it happens to move (very unlikely due to it being clamped tightly), the scope will also follow.
Think of this as a perspective: If you bend a long pipe at one end (think of it as the muzzle of the barrel), there probably won’t be any discernible movement of the pipe at or near the other end (think of this as the breech end of the barrel), but there would be at the other end. The barrel end is like a lever in that it is the area which will have more movement when pressure is applied. Steel is not as tough and immune to bending or movement like how some people may think, especially when it is in the form of a long pipe (like a rifle barrel). Now, apply this understanding and go back to a traditional rifle design. Because the scope is mounted close to the breech end of the barrel, if there is movement on the muzzle end, the scope cannot follow along with this movement — it will stay in its position. Plus, these barrels are held with a flimsy, small screw which presses on one side of the barrel (mainly on the top of it) instead of allowing the breech to clamp around it. The Cricket’s rail does this, and because the barrel is clamped near the muzzle end as well, the scope will follow if there happens to be an “unlikely” movement with the barrel of the Cricket.
Regarding the air tube, yes it is also held by the scope rail. However, what you must understand is that it is part of the “one unit” mentioned above. So, in the event air pressure in it expands or contracts the reservoir, it still will not affect the position of the barrel or scope. The reason for this is that it does not come into contact with the barrel or even the moderator. If it contracts or expands, it will do so independently. Taking into account the “one unit” explained above, at the extreme end, if it does happen to move the rail, the scope and barrel will follow along with it (but even this is unlikely because the tube is encased by the two holes of the rail).
This is what I mean by “true relationship,” and to me, this type of design is superior over traditional rifle designs. The Edgun R3 no longer retains this same design like it had in the R2 versions. This is one reason why I chose the Cricket over the Edgun R3. Additionally, the Cricket is a multishot, has a magazine holder, very efficient regulator, hammer-forged barrel, and is very quiet. 😉
@Spinj, what does this configuration look like? It seems to me that there are three planes involved here, reservoir, barrel, and that of the rails. I am interested to understand their “true relationship”. A diagram or photo will surely help a lot. Thanks and regards.
from what I have seen on the forums I am sure I will have a glowing report 🙂
Stan
Congratulation Stan to purchasing the cricket. We will waiting for your positive reports 😉
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Holy shit we agree!!! 😆