My message to Crosman

I posted the below in a reply on the Yellow. While I’m sure it will be on page 2 or 3 or 56 in short order and ignored by most readers there (what an archaic format designed for tiny little attention spans…), I’m sure that Crosman will get the message as no corporation runs without a web search tool these days. I gave everybody that I thought was jumping to conclusions here and anywhere, shit for doing so. I don’t back away from that approach or anything I said, the first report is almost always wrong…things are better or worse but never as first reported! Anyhow, as far as I’m concerned, if you jumped down Crosman’s throat with the first report, you were wrong in method but right ultimately. (RC, I fully appreciate your reliance on prior info regarding M-Rods and P-Rods…. I may not buy all your opinions but I accept that they are based on real data as gleaned from user reports)

What made my mind up was the pictures of the magazine posted by the most recent customer reviewer. OMG, what a POS! Seriously, it’s supposed to be the wrong freaking size? A gun is going to shoot soft lead bullets shoved in sideways accurately? Yeah, and Ive got a big ten inch……record of your favorite blues….!

I don’t give damn about those “professional” reviewer’s comments and I don’t give a damn that a bunch of guys got to shoot a “not sighted in” gun at shows… sight the freaking thing in, it takes like 10 shots if you suck at it! Hey Jim, this is the best you’ve ever seen, really? You’re a blind MF’er…

Hey pro reviewer and trusted airgun expert… I bet it really sucks that you can’t delete my posts and stop comments here, doesn’t it? What’s the matter, WOK and TAG didn’t offer you administrator rights to kiss their ass? Damn! I guess you’ll just have to read about how full of feces you are! Maybe you can get a deal somewhere blowing DAQ and collecting trips to wherever from Crosman while pretending all those missed shots were due to coffee…

So, here’s the post…just in case my last measured reply dies somewhere…

And it’s not accurate enough for small game…

…at least not by any user “casual” or not so far.

I think I’ve given the Rogue the benefit of the doubt and credit for advancing technology in enough posts here and on other forums to not be counted as a reactionary nay-sayer. I’ve refused to draw conclusions from poorly written and incomplete posts and I’ve refused to bash the gun until I knew the poster had followed directions and was competent (injuring the feelings of some, I’m sure (sorry)).

In fact, my refusal to dump on the gun or draw a conclusion led some on another post to mildly insinuate I might be a Crosman defender against prevailing evidence (noone actually said that but that’s the take away I took from ambiguous posts).

I’m not a Crosman defender and I’m not a curmudgeon tied to immutable conditions. I am in fact a professional tester of weapons systems and that leads to my discounting poorly documented results and also my refusal to discount new technology as I’m exposed to new and better ways of doing things all the time….they just don’t always work the first time out…

Anyhow, the photographs of the magazine show a device that is optimized for commonality not effectiveness. I don’t have the inside scoop but it looks like that mag is designed to hold .50s when the Rogue phase 2 rolls out (or maybe Dave is right about the semi…). In any case, that’s a big mistake as it yields a magazine that hinders accuracy and makes the gun useless for any purpose a cheaper gun can serve.

Does anyone go hunt P-Dogs with a gun that groups 2-3″ at 50 yards and jams a lot to boot? If so, do they pay $1300-1500 for the joy of a short range gun that shoots premium price ammo that shows up looking like discount seconds?

Does anyone think that $1300 for a gun that is inaccurate is offset by the fact that you might get a chance to buy another barrel for the gun or save the mag for the semi-auto version? Really? Maybe I get a chance to miss with a bigger caliber of over-priced ammo or maybe I get a chance to miss faster and more often?

What leads me to these negative (and angry sounding) views? Simple observation! The few reports are from guys that don’t review guns profesionally or even as a hobby. In fact, they are reluctant posters that just happen to have bought the new technology early and apparently we’re hoping it would work as advertised. In fact, these fellows remain fairly cheerful and optimistic in the hopes that Crosman will make it right. I hope they are not just in denial that they wasted a bucket full of cash being guinea pigs.

Here’s my take right now (subject to change): Crosman got too clever by half, the magazine is a disaster based on two committees designing a puppy. The barrel may or may not be good, how can you tell if you feed it poor ammo sideways? The directions and/or warnings that this gun needs initial fills from zero different from other PCPs are not good enough (the video is clear and I bet the instructions are to) the customers are not uniformally aware. Crosman has inadequate big bore experience on hand and inadequate test protocols to deal with new products that fall in new markets (getting a couple pro writers to yap about handbuilt guns is not a test program!). It’s obvious that the design criteria and evaluation measures for this gun went wrong in a systemic way and the company had no internal mechanism to correct the stupid decision and it’s follow-ups (every dumb call being harder to corect than the last, due to sunk costs). A company with no big bore experience might have been better advised to earn the respect of big bore shooters before trying to expand the big bore market! (Unless fancy market research revealed a profitable niche of customers looking for an under-powered, battery operated, unique to operate, inaccurate, heavy, long, unattractive gun designed to shoot expensive yet ineffective ammo!)

I expect the desired reaction will be to minimize the results posted thus far while quietly starting programs to fix the clear flaws. If Crosman wants real credibility, they fire the guy that suggests that path (or let him park cars) and admit a mistake. Eliminate the compromises in design criteria and introduce as many magazines as required to make the freaking gun shoot at least as good as my old 761XL! Put a freaking banner in the box, wrapped around the gun, if that’s what it takes to avoid mis-filling or damage. Get with Nosler about bent up ammo that costs a ton! Either that stuff shows up perfect and is accurate, or drop it like…(pick a metaphor)…

Assuming you can get the feed and ammo resolved, you better look at those barrels. If you compromised engineering requirements for lede, twist and/or choke dimensions during production engineering…you might want to re-visit those decisions.

Anyhow, I was all about a new tech gun from my favorite manufacturer but I’m disappointed in the execution.