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…… 😳 )

zocoloco

Participant

May 19, 2012 at 10:27 am

A note on a slightly different subject…….

You may probably guess which one from the below image:

As it happens air cylinders of all sorts have been classified under the term “pressure vessels” in the European Union. Although the EU is trying to unify their regulations, – a lot is still country spesific.

The EU regulations for “pressure vessels” have been set forth in a huge document called PED.

http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/pressure-and-gas/documents/ped/

which has a lot of spin-offs.

Spin-off includes the TPED which covers transportation of the same “pressure vessels”.

Pressure vessels” in Europe has to be “CE”-marked to be legal.

In the US, – I am led to believe that regulations have set forth by the DOT (department of transport).

In both set of regulations, the marking of the “pressure vessel” has been decribed in detail.

The CE and the DOT ruling is not exactly the same. Nor is the marking of “pressure vessels”. A DOT marked “pressure vessel” cannot automatically be legally refilled in EU and vice versa………

These are complicated issues, and I took it up with one of the biggest US manufacturers of “buddy bottles”, – LUXFER, in 2010.

This is what they replied:

“Dear Sir,

With regards to your recent query posted via our website concerning the use of US/DOT cylinders in Europe.

The position is that DOT specification cylinders are not suitable for use within Europe because they do not comply with the appropriate legislation/regulations. Within the countries of the EC, new cylinders supplied for use with air guns etc. must comply with the Transportable Pressure Equipment Directive (1999/36/EC) and carry the mark of conformity which is the Greek letter “pi”. In practice, this means that composite cylinders must be made according to either the European standards EN12257 for hoop wrapped cylinders or EN12245 for fully wrapped parts, or ISO 11119. Cylinders made to DOT FRP standards are not acceptable.

You are quite correct in that in some instances it is possible to re-asses cylinders to show conformity with the current requirements, typically this would be used in cases where there are old “all metal” cylinders which were manufactured and approved against older “National” standards or older EC directives, but this have never been applied to US cylinders.

I understand that since you are in Norway and as such not part of the EU, then EU Laws/Regulations do not apply and as such the National Regulations of Norway would be applicable. Here it may be the case that DOT spec. cylinders are allowed and are acceptable for use. I seem to recall that in the past due to the large involvement of the oil industry in which DOT spec. cylinders are widely used, Norway did accept such parts, but I do not know if this is still the case and I suspect that moves have been made to bring the National requirements in line with those of the rest of Europe. Certainly the cylinders which we supply to the major gas companies for use in Norway are made to the same requirements as for the rest of the EU.”

The German Company Anschützt which is famous for their competition rifles and pistols has this website with information about the same issue:

http://jga.anschuetz-sport.com/index.php5?menu=25&sprache=1&frageID=%85%F0%F6%DE%9D%B3%9B%D3&FAQID=8Q%2511%2526%25151%250C%2593

– and going back to my image of the HW- reservoir, – you can see how Weirauch label theirs…….. 😉

Without going further into detail:

I have not seen any marking at all on the Russian reservoirs. Be it for EDgun or Cricket.

If my suspicion is true, – none of these reservoirs would be legal within the EU or the US for that matter…….

Same thing applies to a lot of other manufacturers’ air cylinders, – but the objective of this thread is Edgun and Cricket.

I have no doubts in my mind that both EDGun and Cricket have reservoirs that would be accepted by all parties if brought to a test. The point is they have not, – that is if I am not mistaken……. 😳

Why is this important ?

In an everyday situation may be nothing to worry about. In a longer perspective, – it would be nice to know about recommended testing intervals and procedures.

So far I haven’t heard about any accident coming from an exploding airgun (PCP). But I have had the somewhat doubtful experience of inspecting a few Chinese steel reservoirs, – and believe me they were not pretty…… 😯

Some day, an accident is bound to happen……..

And here’s the reason for my concern:

What will my/your insurance company say if an unmarked reservoir explodes for instance in a car accident or a fire and causes substantial damage to
myself/yourself and the suroundings..??? 🙄

Where would we be in terms of responsability ??? 😥

I fear the outlook may be fairly grim………. 😳 😳 😳

As I understand it, – there’s no difference between EDguns and Crickets in this respect…………

Kindly correct me if I am wrong………. 😉

Cheers 😀

oldgoat

May 19, 2012 at 9:00 am

Hey Trygve, thanks for the offer but, I am an “outie” instead of an “inny” kind of guy! 😯

I almost thought twice about the obvious financial benefits but, you sissies over there don’t get to shoot anything but paper! I like to shoot vermin too much!

I could always use a good cook/house keeper though! 😆

I guess that you FINALLY got around to trying the trigger mod. I first posted it to you in your “mega topic” around the first week of December.

Glad that it is working out for you!

May 19, 2012 at 8:41 am

quote Ed:

I called a friend of mine, who has a Cricket, he said the reservoir volume at Cricket is 280 cm3.

So I take it that 280 cc is now confirmd then !!!

Very goood, – thanks a lot… 😉

Cheers…… 😀

May 19, 2012 at 8:11 am

quote zocoloco:

Adjusting to the same speed may be more difficult, – but I’ll try….

That is what I meant 🙂 but you can always down tune R3 to meet Cricket’s standard speed.

May 19, 2012 at 7:54 am

If you want to compare shot numbers you should, at least tune the guns to the same speed with the same pellets. Usually Crickets are a little low speed in comparison to EDgun but even 5 m/sec difference after 250-260 m/sec level dramatically change the air consumption. For example the air consumption with 280 m/sec and 285 m/sec will be noticeable.

Hi Ed,

That’s exactly what I want to do………

This is also why I have been trying to find the Cricket reservoir size/volume. Without knowing, a comparison would be useless………

I want to fill both guns to the same pressure, use the same tin of pellets, same chrono etc. etc. etc.

Anyway, I am looking forward to that exercise which should confirm what you say yourself…….. 😉

May 19, 2012 at 7:45 am

May 19, 2012 at 7:44 am

quote oldgoat:

Trygve, here is how I adjust the trigger pull…………

OldGoat: It is now official !

I love you !!!

Will you marry me ???? 😉

Cheers and thanks a million, – that post of yours (as well as a few others) should be made into “stickies”……!!!

Trygve 😀

May 19, 2012 at 7:03 am

quote Hoot:

Kaliber Cricket for sale in Belgium.

Here’s the site: http://www.airgunforum.co.uk/forums/private-sales-airguns-related-items/127139-kalibr-cricket-22-sale.html

Kazzz probably knows the guy or ????

Belgium is so small you can probably shoot across it with an Edgun during favorable windconditions… 😉

That said, the price is roughly that of a new gun I think. In the ad the scope and bag are included……

😀

May 19, 2012 at 6:55 am

quote Naser404:

if its true, its very bad…

Hi Naser,

– and welcome onboard this thread too. The more “brain” the better !!! 😉
(Not that I have one, – but I pretend to………. 😳 )

I agree with you, – but I don’t think it is true. 280 cc sounds more likely…

Keep your valuable input coming my friend !!!

Cheers
Trygve 😀

May 19, 2012 at 6:50 am

Kazzz posted a link to a Dutch forum earlier up in this thread where the Cricket is being discussed. Here are a few screenshots from this thread of a presented shotstring, – apparently from 300 bar and down, – pellet JSB 15.89 grs. Measured in m/s by a Crombo. Said to have an x-treme spread of 1.3 m or 4 fps….:

277 m/s translates into some 908.8 fps which with a 15.89 grs pellet would give some 29+ ft/lbs of energy.

A couple of shots through a chrony here indicates roughly the same speed with the said pellet, – meaning it would be a lower speed with the JSB 18. Which again corresponds with my own findings….

My guess is that Lady Cricket is less powerful than the R3 but not a lot…. 😉

In that same Dutch forum link, the Cricket is being discussed. I used to live in Holland maaaaany years back (1968 for a few months) but I am still able to read some of it.

Here’s a quote from the owner of that particular Cricket (in Dutch):

“Inhoud drukbuis is als mn Russisch goed is 280 cm3 (Boekje is in geheel Russisch, zie wel 280 cm3 staan??). En de power is heel gemakkelijk in te stellen aan de achterzijde 1 schroef in of uitdraaien”

I am sure Kazzz can translate this for us, – but I think it says volume of reservoir 280 cc (he is referring to the manual or “Boekje”” in Dutch). He also says how easy it is to adjust power via the screw at the back of the breechblock….. 😉

I agree with those who are sceptical to the 400cc “statement”…….. 😀

@ Hoot: I don’t think these are delivered as part of a standard delivery. Or if it is, It may have gone astray during shipment……… 😉

naser404

May 19, 2012 at 5:47 am

300 BAR & 400cc plus .22 = 70 shots !!?

I get 64 shots with the .25 matador long from 200 BAR.

May 19, 2012 at 5:21 am

400 cc? Hmmmmm

The air tube on a Matador long version is only 383 cc.

hoot

May 19, 2012 at 5:03 am

Identical to Zocoloco’s, but has a one piece wooden cheek rest on top of the breech and magazine that extends from rear of breech up to first scope mount. Air reservoir is 400 cc, claimed to get 70 shots at 300 bar and power is said to be adjustable.