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
Is it me or did the Cricket group walk to the left between target #2 and #4? 😕
Six very tight groups right there! 😯
Good point again Kazzz….!!! 😀
I did shoot a few 5-shot groups back at my summerhouse. Ideally groups should be shot off sandbags in my opinion, – and also if you compare guns, – the shooting stand and other conditions should be equal. Not easy to achieve outdoors where wind comes and goes……
So take the below groups for what they are worth. First out was the R3 shot with a bipod up front. Bipods are not as stable as sandbags, – but the R3 still delivers:
That said, conditions were fairly good and the groups are pretty even in shape. Kindly note that I have on purpose zeroed the scope away and down from the target center. This in order not to ruin my aiming point which is dead in the center of the target. Scope was Bushnell Elite Tactical 4200 6-24×50.
Next up was of course the Cricket. My first target was “ruined” by trying to zero the gun correctly and that took me a few shots. The three following targets/groups were not very different from that of the R3:
I shot the Cricket off the Caldwell stand shown in one of the first pictures in this thread. Scope Bushnell Elite 4200 6-24×40.
46 mts is approx 50 yds, and most good PCPs would be able to deliver 5-shot groups equal to or better than the above given a pellet speed of ca 900 fps and shot from a “bench”. If you imagine these targets moved out to 100 yds, – the above groups would open up a lot and not look anywhere near as nice as shown………
I did not even think in terms of guns being hold sensitive, – but I’ll try to remember next time out…… 😉
Unfortunately the weather was not on my side, – and therefore no more “serious” shooting but lots of “plinking” and fun…….. 😀
Which brings me to the subject of shooting comfort and how these two bullpups deliver off hand……..
I’ll talk more about that later………
But now, – back to my tax declaration………. 😥 👿 😳
Cheers…… 😀
What can maybe be interesting in a later stadium when you start the shooting groups etc.. is: how hold sensitive the rifle is.
I know my edgun IS hold sensitive. It means that I really have to gard how I grab the stock, pull the trigger, shoulder, … or I have POI shift.
I think because of the bullpup desing, it’s much more hold sensitive. Nice to know if the cricket has this too..
Thanks Mike ! 😀
Feedback is always nice !
I expect this thread to keep going for a while, – and all inputs are highly apppreciated. There will always be “angles” that I forget or miss, – so pls do not hesitate to ask/comment……..
Judging from the number of hits, – there seems to be a certain interest for the subject…..
If my findings can be of help in choosing the right gun for the purpose, I shall be very pleased……
Cheers
Trygve 😀
(working on my tax papers right now, – not fun but has to be done…. 😥 )
Zoco, not exactly fond of the Edgun’s trigger either, but haven’t tried Oldgoat’s mod yet so I may be a little premature as to the trigger and my likens. I prefer a single stage, with that being said I often wonder how a solenoid trigger would be on these bullpups.
You are doing a great job comparing, (what I think to be the best looking bullpups out there) the Cricket and Edgun along with providing photos. Very much appreciated by us side liners. After seeing your reviews I think I made the best choice in deciding with the Edgun and the fact that Crickets are next to impossible to acquire. You are indeed fortunate to own both. Looking forward to your posts.
I agree totally …. 😀
May be a better comparison would be that of a toy (Cricket) to that of a serious tool (R3)…….. 😉
If only ED could improve on his trigger feel, – it would be fantastic !
That said, – I hate plastics in guns. And albeit there is not much of friction in the Cricket trigger assembly, – one of these days these plastic spacers will break:
There seems to be all together 6 of them………
What kind of plastic they’re made of I don’t know, – but I don’t like it……. 🙄
Regarding that “lump of stuff” on the rail: This is something that truly demonstrates the difference in thinking between ED and Maverick. The Cricket barrel is seated into the breech but not fastened there. They just slide it through the two “seats” of the railholder and into the breech and tighten up the screws on the side of the railholder, – much like you do for a scope mount.
The breech end of the barrel looks like this (screenshot from YouTube movie):
You can clearly see the O-rings and the hole for the transfer port. When sliding the barrel back into the breech, – they need to make sure that the hole lines up with the transfer port, – and thats where the “lump” seems to come in. From the top of the lump, a screw is inserted that is supposed to match a special grove on the barrel. When the barrel is alligned correctly, – the screws on the side are tightened and the barrel is fixed.
I would not like to speculate about what would happen if for some reason the barrel came loose and rotated out of position and you fired a shot…….. 🙄
There are several Youtube videos by ED on the R3 barrel assembly/disassembly available. The R3 barrel is threaded in both ends and is seriously stretched in place by tightening the moderator nut against the shroud:
There’s no way this barrel can come loose by itself……
Given these two totally different approaches, – it is amazing that both rifles shoot so well………… 😀
I see ‘friction’ and lots of slop in the Cricket trigger assembly and that POS sheet metal thingy (clevis) is just asking to get messed up after a while. 😯 😕
From the last set of pictures the analogy of the Ferrari is better suited to the EdGun than the Cricket… The linkage in the Cricket looks cheap and poorly designed while the EdGun looks well thought out, designed with care and well made.
While the Cricket may look nice from the outside, it’s the inside that really counts, so far i’m not impressed. Like that lump of “stuff” in the middle of the scope rail, chances are i’d want my scope mount right where that lump of stuff sits…
Great review!!!
Keep going!!!
You may have a point there…….. 😉
That’s why I mentioned the comparison between an Italian Sportscar and the American “Hummer” a little higher up. The overall impression is that the Cricket is “finer” or “lighter” in every aspect of engineering than the R3, while the latter appears more “solid”/heavy duty” and also easier to dismantle/put back together…. 😉
Couple of examples:
Hammerspring adjustment on the Cricket is done by rotating this little “knob” on the back of the action:
This is easily done without separating stock from action. I have so far just moved it a little to test it. It seems to work, but I have done nothing in terms of chronoing etc. quite yet.
This picture also reveals something about “sharp edges” on the stock and also shooting comfort (cheek rest, – where is it ???). I’ll get back to that later……. 😉
The Cricket trigger assembly is a neat little piece of equipment housed just below the hammerspring (you can actually see parts of the hammerspring to the left below the trigger assembly):
The assembly has lots of small parts that can go astray if you try to dismantle. And with hands like mine, – you should probably not at all try it…..
But it functions veeery well indeed, – and I have also figured out how to adjust length of first stage…….:
You just disconnect the rod and rotate the thing on the end of the rod backwards a little before you reconnect……. 😀
I have also spotted a few screws to the right in the assembly that I think may help me adjusting the weight of the pull. The latter seems to be controlled by the “rusty” spring blade to the right. I haven’t tried yet though…..
But as Kazzz says, – this is probably not as “solid”/”sturdy” as in the R3.
On the R3, – you’ll have to separate stock and action to adjust hammerspring tension. And for those who don’t know: You’ll have to remove a little black stop screw and then rotate this “silver cylinder” (picture shows gun uncocked and you can clearly see the hammerspring):
– and below gun cocked and a compressed hammerspring:
Trigger adjustements are done via screws under the trigger guard (see earlier picture), – but the R3 trigger pull is MUCH heavier than that of the Cricket. This may have to do with a thicker hammerspring, – bigger and rougher parts in the trigger assembly and/or the R3 trigger assembly construction…..
Now, whether you like the Cricket solution/trigger feel or the R3-one, – that’s up to you. For me it’s still to early to say that I prefer one over the other…….. 😉
Finally just another note on stocks and finish. There have been rumors that the “inside” of some Russian stocks have been quite shabby. As you can see below, – not so in the case of EDgun and Cricket which have just the same clean finish inside as outside….:
More to come, – in the meantime comments/questions appreciated….. 😀
Cheers
Trygve 😀
For me it seems that the trigger “unit” and its parts are more rock solid from the R3 (and R2.5) then the Cricket.
You are certainly more of an expert than I am, – and you also know a lot more about airguns in general than I do, so your valuable input in this thread is highly appreciated………. 😀
And of course I could not resist………. 😳
Here they are side by side, the R3 and the Cricket, – with stocks removed:
The Cricket appears “smaller” with a smoother trigger blade in my opinion…..
But how to adjust trigger pull on the Crikcet, – well so far it remains a mystery to me…….. 😉
😀
PS: Can anybody explain why the R3 breach appears “brownish” in color compared to the rest of the action ???? It does not look nice….. 🙁
Side by side comparison of the rails:
Any visible difference in spacing is due to image perspective…… 😉
I have also spent some time with my “side levers” to compare. The ones I have are, – apart from the Cricket, – a few HW100s and the AA 410SL.
I have tried to figure out why there is such a difference in “feel” between them, – and I think one of the reasons is the length of the sidelever itself.
The HW100 one is about two cm longer, which gives it a longer “arm” to work with and as a result may give it a “smoother” feel. The AA-one is about the same length as the Cricket, – and the “feel” is not very different either:
Sorry for the image quality. HW on top, Cricket in the middle and AA at the bottom……..
😀
I’ll be back…….. 😀
Good for them, it was quite an issue with first Crickets, when people were complaining about not being able just to take a scope from one gun and put it on a Cricket, due to it has different step between grooves at the frond and back side of the rail. They, probably changed it, good guys 🙂 I am not a spec in Cricket at all and I appreciate your intention to make you own conclusion rather then base it on somebody’s oppinion 🙂
Ed
As for tech. details, it would be easier to find them on the net. Just as I did from your own site regarding length of barrel etc. Don’t expect me to take the guns apart to measure the exact volume of the reservoirs (as an example)… 😉
How I reach my conclusions will be based on a number of different inputs. My own “hands on” testing will be the most important…… 😀
That said, in all fairness, – some conclusions will be difficult to draw with any sort of credibility until I have had the time to work with both guns over some time. I prefer to do my own testing and research. There is enough people out there who jump to conclusions based on outdated information, rumors and other people’s opinions….. 😉
I’m having trouble with Photobucket right now, – probably too many people on the site…… 😥
But I’ll upload one image that should kill the rumor that the R3 and the Cricket have “different” spacing between the slots in their Weaver-rails. I heard this rumor, – and I had to measure and also test by swapping scopes between my R3s and my Cricket. I had no problem with it………
I’ll be back…….. 😀
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Most interesting things, regarding barrel fixing can be observed when a gun is exposed to the temperature drift. We need the constancy of the the POI from the guns or, at least, understanding what will happen if it will be warmed up or cooled down. The idea to change the barrel fix system was to avoid the temp. deviation as much as possible. We put a gun to the freezer with the temp about minus 20 degrees Centigrade and after few hours made a number of shots, then warmed it up at the heater and shot again. POI was driven exactly up from down, due to the air temp. inside the reservoir. I wonder what would happen with two guns to compare at such a test 🙂