EDgun Matador R3 versus Kalibr Cricket, my comparison….
Hi guys,
Warning for those who don’t like images:
This is going to be a thread with lots of graphics….. 😉
As promised, I’ll try to share with you my personal opinion and findings while comparing these beauties:
As some of you may know, I have two Matador Std R3s and I have one Cricket (with access to another one). All are cal.22……
My wait for my Matadors should be well documented on this very forum…..
The Crickets were a part of a group buy masterminded from Europe somewhere. The Crickets were shipped in parts to Norway and reassembled by my good blueprinting friend Egon Olsen. In the process he had to remove a “restrictor” screw that had been put into the guns before shipment. Most probably because of Power limitation rules at origin….
The Crickets arrived with no documents whatsoever. No instructions, – no nothing. I don’t think this is standard procedure though…..
The Cricket weighs less than the R3, – and is approx 5 cm shorter. Not a lot, – but overall it makes the Cricket even easier to handle than the already tiny R3….
The side by side comparison was done from my modest little shooting table at my summerhouse:
– and the shooting range is here, – with my target set up at 46mts:
Why 46 mts ? Simply because I could not pull my shooting stand further back right now. A huge tree has fallen during winter, and all the branches have taken up my space… 👿
First problem: How to fill the f…. Cricket ?
The fillprobe nut is so tiny that a standard foster coupling gasket will not seal. The entire probe is small, – and you fear you may break it while trying to tighten it:
The above (sorry for the image quality) is a comparison between ED’s, Cricket’s and Falcon’s fill probes. You can probably see what I mean….
As I could not make a standard Fostergasket fit, Egon had to make special gaskets that we fitted into the Foster coupling itself. Not an ideal solution, – and I have no clue how long it will last…….. 🙄
On the fill probe: Matador 1, Cricket 0 points.
Air filling:
I honestly dont like any of the solutions that these two manufacturers have chosen………..
The Cricket people have come up with the worst. To expose the hole for the fillprobe, – you have to slide forward the tip of the reservoir. But that stupid tip is retained by a spring, – and slides back with a smack once you let go:
If you’re not careful when taking the fillprobe back out, the tip will spring back and ruin the fill probe O-rings faster than I can say my name….
While filling, the “tip” rests on the previously mentioned small nut. And there’s not a lot clearance. So a bigger nut (for those with lathe skills), – is not going to help you much. A thicker nut might…….
In short: A very stupid filling system, – BUT once you know how to operate it and care is taken, – at least it covers the hole when filling is over.
The Matador does not come with anything to cover the filling hole at all:
I use tape right now, – but a plug of some sort would be good….. 😉
My preferred system would be that of Falcon:
The tip of the reservoir has been turned into a curled “collar” that you rotate to expose the hole. Simple, easy and effective. And few moving parts that may break or go astray……….
Now, I have no idea how much air I can fill into the Cricket, – and the gun gauge certainly does not help much:
I trust the gauge on my fillkit, – and 3000 psi is roughly on the border between green and yellow…….
Points for airfill procedure: Matador 1, Cricket 0. In my opinion….. 😉
Cheers from Trygve 😀
To be continued……….. 😀
(if you so desire…… 😳 )
All Replies
A few more observations:
My R3s are much heavier to cock than “her Ladyship”. Actually much heavier than most of my other guns (I have a few.. 😳 ) I think this is a result of a heavier hammerspring and also design/construction/finish. I am not talking about the rough and rugged bolt handling which in itself may be a pain in the ass for those unlucky ones who receive sub standard breeches or rather breech bores. For those who may have missed that particular discussion, – here it is:
http://talonairgun.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=24945
My idea has been to look for other sources of friction that may add to the cocking weight. Any friction that can be reduced is for the better….
Now the following is going to be some serious “EDgun for dummies” like myself ( 😳 ) and not meant for those in the know (skip reading please ! 😉 )
I went back to this piece, – the bolt house assembly with the parts involved in the cocking process:
While a very simple and solid mechanism, – I’ve found it to have problems when it comes to friction. Basically as a result of bad machining/finish…. 😥
The metal lump that hangs underneath the bolt house assembly travels with the bolt back and forth. Pulling backwards it catches the hammerhead and pushes it back until rifle is cocked. In that process it’s being subjected to some heavy duty forces. This lower part of the “lump” is sliding on an alu rail above it:
The upper part of the lump is wider and houses on top a slot for a screwhead sticking out from the bolt. This screwhead ensures the movement of the “lump”. Underneath the top part there is a spring supported ball that helps locking the bolt in the forwardmost position. Seen from above (from the bolt side of things) it looks like this:
You see the aforementioned slot in the lump and also the hole on the alu rail that the spring supprted ball jumps into when locking the bolt. You may notice that I have filed down the edge just in front of the hole. This in order for the ball to have a smoother climb (and a smoother bolt feel as a result) just before the spring supported ball enters the hole. Initially OldGoat’s idea (thanks a lot ! 😀 ).
You may also see some serious horisontal scratchmarks (lines) on the top front of the lump.
The top of the lump travels back and forth while pushing against it’s “ceiling” (the lower outside rim of the bolt bore just above it):
You see in the above the top part of the lump and the surface that it is sliding against just underneath the bolt.
Basically when this lump travels back and forth, – it pushes against 4 different surfaces. The “floor” being the top of the alu rail, the “walls” on either side of the slot below the bolt and the “ceiling” being the surface just underneath the bolt bore. In addition the lower part of the lump may scratch the inner surface of the slot in the alu rail.
This is not a very tight fit. You may not notice a lot of friction while playing with this assembly while the “lump” is free from pressure…..
BUT when the rear end of the lump catches the hammerhead and pushes it backwards towards cocked position, – things change dramatically. The poor lump comes under some serious pressure. The top forward part of it is being squeezed towards the “ceiling” with counterforces from the bottom part close to the hammer pushing against the top part of the alu rail (floor). The lump is actually trying to “rotate” anticlockwise inside its housing and is allowed to do so at a fraction of an angle because of the design.
Now this is an “eldorado” for friction and friends……
In my guns there are scratchmarks and lines carved out in the lump itself and on the corresponding surfaces…..
Not difficult to understand when you start to examine the finish of the surfaces in question…….. 😥
First thing to do is to polish away any visible grades that should not have been there in the first place. And later to make sure that all surfaces have an ample coating of white lithium grease or similar…..
If you do that properly, – you MAY find cocking the R3 becomes just a tiny bit easier….. 😉
And every bit counts………..
Cheers 😀
Cheers 😀
Hey guys, sorry for the late respons but I just got back from 3 days Bratislava 🙂 With 10 friends for a bachelor party!
I idd have access to good shooting facilities and I’m not the worst shooter so 🙂
But problem is how you want to do it, how you would get it here etc.. Because it is for me already a pain in the ass to get my Eddy 2.5 out 🙁
😀
Unfortunately no .25 Ultras 😥
Anybody tried a BSA Ultra barrel ??? 😉
😀
You would then the best of both worlds, Matador shot efficiently and the BSA barrel’ s accuracy.
Hey OLD ❗ goat, I ordered a .25 R3 Standard because it’s the shortest (accurate???) bullpup in that caliber. I needed a really SHORT&ACCURATE airgun to ‘opperate’ instantly and comfortably out of my 4×4 side window. That, I believe, is the purpose of the bullpups, and to me the Long version of the Matador doesn’t fall into that category 😉
🙂
Hey Nik, if Ed can’t your R3 sorted out, just put the Lonestar barrel on it. 😆
You would then the best of both worlds, Matador shot efficiently and the BSA barrel’ s accuracy.
Cheers 😀
For an air hungry calibre like the quarter bore, my R3 Standard is AMAZINGLY air efficient. Much more so than my current pride and joy – my .25 JB BSA Lonestar. If with the help of Ed the R3 gets to be as accurate as my Lonestar, the BSA will be relegated to a safe queen 😉
🙂
Also, how about accuracy at 75y and 100y comparision will be nice…. Thank you.
We’re not at the end of the road……….. 😉
The basics I hope have been covered, -but what is left to see is how the two guns perform over time………
Also I have on my agenda a few more complete shotstrings for both guns…… 😀
Longrange shooting and comparison may not be what I am best at…. 😳 😳 😳
I’m afraid that shall have to be left for others. I neither have access to the facilities needed (tunnel, indoor range) nor do I have the experience…..
Kazzz in Belgium certainly has both and may be we should provide him with a Cricket for a few weeks ???? 😉
That said, – feel free to ask questions or comment. Hopefully there will be more Cricket people onboard when these guns start to arrive in the west. More experience is good. And as long as the Cricket manufacturer does not participate as promised ( 😥 😥 😥 ), – we shall have to rely on our common experience as owners…….. 😉
Cheers 😀
Will there be anymore comparison between the two or we are at the end of the road?
Also, how about accuracy at 75y and 100y comparision will be nice…. Thank you.
is the regulator betwwen the R3 & Cricket interchangable? Can we assume if it is, will we get more shots out of the Cricket? or a few more thing involves beside just the regulator for shots count on the R3…
While certainly an interesting question, – I’m afraid they are not interchangable. Not that I have measured the inner diameter of the tubes, – but judging form the outer diameter, – the Cricket is a few mm wider.
That said, it is not only about the regulators (which I think are very different) but also the valvesystems, hammersprings etc. These components work closely together, and I would not recommend trying to change between rifles.
Air efficiency on the R3 has also to do with volume of air for each shot, where the air channel of the R3 seems to be much more efficient than that of the Cricket…… 😉
Cheers 😀
Zocoloco-
is the regulator betwwen the R3 & Cricket interchangable? Can we assume if it is, will we get more shots out of the Cricket? or a few more thing involves beside just the regulator for shots count on the R3…
I use a straw to guide the piece of weed eater line through the break on the ends of my barrels.
No vacuum or electricity needed. 😉
This has been posted before….
If you just wanna do a quick clean, this does seem to work very well !!
But, I would still want to be able to get that shroud off, for a real good job..
Put a hose clamp around it, and tighten it as tight as possible.
Using either a hex end nut driver, or a pair of vice grips, grasp the nut on the hose clamp.
Turn counter-clock-wise as hard as you can, or until it breaks loose, or the hose clamp begins to slip.
H 😯 😯 T
Kazzz, I already gave you that very same idea a few days days ago in my BSA Lonestar Bullpup thread. The method worked for me like dream, and I imagined you had tried it by now.
🙂
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
I harken back to the days of spring air rifles in the 1970’s.
One of the early techniques of increasing life, speed, and performance was a black liquid substance called Molybdenum Disulfide.
A lubricant with “mass”, or “bulk”, such as greases, oils and such, provide a microscopic bed of lubricant between the metal surfaces for the moving part to push against, instead of metal to metal contact. Normally this works great. Unless you have very tight tolerances to deal with.
Enter Moly lube, a dry lube in a very light spirit carrier liquid which quickly evaporates after application. It usually is purchased in a small plastic squeeze tube. Shake well before application. The molecules of molybdenum adhere to the metal surface at a microscopic level, and are so small they actually enter the millions of invisible spaces in the microscopic surface of the metal, and become part of the metal. They are extremely slick and essentially have no mass, or bulk, to deal with.
Wikipedia:
Structure and physical properties
In MoS2, each Mo(IV) center occupies a trigonal prismatic coordination sphere, being bound to six sulfide ligands. Each sulfur centre is pyramidal, being connected to three Mo centres. In this way, the trigonal prisms are interconnected to give a layered structure, wherein molybdenum atoms are sandwiched between layers of sulfur atoms.[2] Because of the weak van der Waals interactions between the sheets of sulfide atoms, MoS2 has a low coefficient of friction, resulting in its lubricating properties. Other layered inorganic materials exhibit lubricating properties (collectively known as solid lubricants (or dry lubricants)) including graphite, which requires volatile additives, and hexagonal boron nitride.[3]
It’s just a suggestion, and may not work any better than a greasy lube. However, it is inexpensive enough, and easily available, so perhaps a bit of difference may be had that cannot be produced with a heavier lube.
Note that this stuff will NOT come off of clothing or any kind of fabric. Once dry, you cannot see it on the metal. That’s because it’s “in” the metal, and bonds to it better each time friction is applied. All moving surfaces meeting each other need to be coated. Apply it, let it dry, and then work the moving parts together many times. Apply again and do it several times. You will not be able to see it after it dries.
That’s it. It’s what I did back then, and with a metal to metal friction problem, short of having the surfaces professionally coated ($$$$) it offers one possible avenue to less friction.
Regards,
H 😯 😯 T