Benjamin 422 Semi-Auto Co2 Pistol

[Josie & John]

Hi John,

Both my Crosman 150 & Benjamin 260 are obviously in the more common .22 calibre and although accurate enough using RWS Hobby pellets at 10 metres, I would expect the .177 variants to be a bit more accurate. Have you ever had a chance to test comparative accuracy between calibres on these American Co2 pistols ?


Brian

Hi Brian,

Afraid not. A 157 is on my wants list though. I suspect the larger bore may be more efficient but until I shoot both together, that is just a preconception. I guess there must be a reason why Crosman made way more .22 than .177 variants.

John

[gingernut]

That has prompted me to find my 150 and 157.
They are now gassed and ready for comparison.

I must have done it before but I can't remember the result!

I will take them to the range soon.

[DT Fletcher]

Hi Brian,

Afraid not. A 157 is on my wants list though. I suspect the larger bore may be more efficient but until I shoot both together, that is just a preconception. I guess there must be a reason why Crosman made way more .22 than .177 variants.

John

Not aware of any accuracy variations between the two calibers with the Crosman guns. I've always gone with the .22 versions, if for no other reason that the bigger pellets are easier to load. Regarding efficiency, the .22 will carry a lot more energy for the same velocity, so, in that respect it will be a more efficient gun. Regarding shots per charge, that just depends on how the gun is setup with hammer strength. Note that there are at least 3 versions of the model 150 cocking knob: 1st version is rotate knob for adj power, 2nd was non-adjustable power, 3rd was setscrew adjust power (small hole in knob for allen wrench) Then, on top of that, there are 1, 2, and 3 step setting versions for the cocking knob. Note that it is usually best to only use the lowest possible power setting. The barrel is so short that more CO2 usually means just more CO2 blown out the barrel long after the pellet has left.

There was a Crosman test report on the model 160 vs the 167 charting number of shots and the 167 produced a significant number of more shots per Powerlet and, as much as anything, I suspect that this is the reason that Crosman produced many more (about 10 to 1) .22 caliber CO2 guns, since the larger caliber models used up the Powerlets so much faster.

Note: In most cases, the early Crosman CO2 models are factory set for a lot more CO2 release than needed. With the 150, I found that the lowest power setting often produced the same velocity as the high power setting. Of course, the high power setting produced louder report and certainly "sounds" faster. So, in effect, the power setting are "max" power and "waste a lot of CO2" power. I suspect that the CO2 efficiency of the model 150 could be greatly increased with a little tinkering. I had a custom-made 167 setup for max efficiency by MAC-1 and with a CO2 extension bulk fill got more than 300 shots at about 500 fps. Pretty sure that the model 157 could be improved the same way by backing off the power.

The two calibers (.177 and .22) have an interesting history in the US. The first US-made airgun to use a .177 pellet was the 1935 Benjamin model 177 pistol. From that point on, Benjamin produced both .177 and .22 cal models and also usually a BB caliber (smooth bore) version. Crosman didn't produce a .177 caliber model until right before WWII. These prewar models are distinctive in that they have the "clickless" hard rubber forearms and are extremely rare. After the war, Crosman produced a .177 caliber version along with the .22 model versions, with only a few exceptions; however, the .22 cal dominated the US market up until Coleman took over in the early 1970s. At some points in time, under Coleman, Crosman produced almost only .177 caliber guns. Today, of course, they produce a wide range of calibers.


Back to the subject of accuracy in a Model 150; it just depends, there are great examples with pristine rifling and pure junk. The best that I've ever come across are the rare "Ted Williams" model 150 (.22 only) sold exclusively by Sears. In most cases, the best examples of any particular Crosman model are the secondary label models. There is a good reason for this; if Sears received defective guns they would return the entire lot and the people on the Crosman factory floor knew that heads would roll (almost literally) if Sears rejected a lot for poor workmanship.

[Josie & John]

Not aware of any accuracy variations between the two calibers with the Crosman guns. I've always gone with the .22 versions, if for no other reason that the bigger pellets are easier to load. Regarding efficiency, the .22 will carry a lot more energy for the same velocity, so, in that respect it will be a more efficient gun. Regarding shots per charge, that just depends on how the gun is setup with hammer strength. Note that there are at least 3 versions of the model 150 cocking knob: 1st version is rotate knob for adj power, 2nd was non-adjustable power, 3rd was setscrew adjust power (small hole in knob for allen wrench) Then, on top of that, there are 1, 2, and 3 step setting versions for the cocking knob. Note that it is usually best to only use the lowest possible power setting. The barrel is so short that more CO2 usually means just more CO2 blown out the barrel long after the pellet has left.

There was a Crosman test report on the model 160 vs the 167 charting number of shots and the 167 produced a significant number of more shots per Powerlet and, as much as anything, I suspect that this is the reason that Crosman produced many more (about 10 to 1) .22 caliber CO2 guns, since the larger caliber models used up the Powerlets so much faster.

Note: In most cases, the early Crosman CO2 models are factory set for a lot more CO2 release than needed. With the 150, I found that the lowest power setting often produced the same velocity as the high power setting. Of course, the high power setting produced louder report and certainly "sounds" faster. So, in effect, the power setting are "max" power and "waste a lot of CO2" power. I suspect that the CO2 efficiency of the model 150 could be greatly increased with a little tinkering. I had a custom-made 167 setup for max efficiency by MAC-1 and with a CO2 extension bulk fill got more than 300 shots at about 500 fps. Pretty sure that the model 157 could be improved the same way by backing off the power.

The two calibers (.177 and .22) have an interesting history in the US. The first US-made airgun to use a .177 pellet was the 1935 Benjamin model 177 pistol. From that point on, Benjamin produced both .177 and .22 cal models and also usually a BB caliber (smooth bore) version. Crosman didn't produce a .177 caliber model until right before WWII. These prewar models are distinctive in that they have the "clickless" hard rubber forearms and are extremely rare. After the war, Crosman produced a .177 caliber version along with the .22 model versions, with only a few exceptions; however, the .22 cal dominated the US market up until Coleman took over in the early 1970s. At some points in time, under Coleman, Crosman produced almost only .177 caliber guns. Today, of course, they produce a wide range of calibers.


Back to the subject of accuracy in a Model 150; it just depends, there are great examples with pristine rifling and pure junk. The best that I've ever come across are the rare "Ted Williams" model 150 (.22 only) sold exclusively by Sears. In most cases, the best examples of any particular Crosman model are the secondary label models. There is a good reason for this; if Sears received defective guns they would return the entire lot and the people on the Crosman factory floor knew that heads would roll (almost literally) if Sears rejected a lot for poor workmanship.

Thanks for your detailed post Dean.

I find the Crosman 150 series fascinating and am constantly adding snippets to my database. Do you have any pictures of the non adjustable and set screw adjustable power versions you mention? I would also be interested in learning more on the 1 and 3 step cocking knobs. Were these short lived features (along with the rotary adjustment) that were more or less experimental before the 2 step version was standardised?

John

[Abasmajor]

That has prompted me to find my 150 and 157.
They are now gassed and ready for comparison.

I must have done it before but I can't remember the result!

I will take them to the range soon.

I would be very interested in the results from your calibre/accuracy comparison with these Co2 pistols. My question arose from my experience of shooting many same model, spring powered pistols in both calibres, with the .177 invariably being the more accurate. I do have a Benjamin 250 in .177, but as this has a much shorter barrel, it would not be a fair or direct comparison.


Regards

Brian

[gingernut]

I will let you know Brian.

Similar to my S&W 78 & 79 test which showed up no real accuracy difference.
The story there was that S&W had not made a .177 barrel before so their .22 would be better!

I prefer my gas pistols in .22 but will try and be objective!

Regards
Patrick

[DT Fletcher]

Thanks for your detailed post Dean.

I find the Crosman 150 series fascinating and am constantly adding snippets to my database. Do you have any pictures of the non adjustable and set screw adjustable power versions you mention? I would also be interested in learning more on the 1 and 3 step cocking knobs. Were these short lived features (along with the rotary adjustment) that were more or less experimental before the 2 step version was standardised?

John

The rotate to adjust power was the first version but didn't last very long. It frequently broke and was often replaced. The non-adjustable version replaced the rotate to adjust, usually with 2 steps. The last version was with the hole to adjust via allen screw. The 2 step cocking was pretty standard but I have seen the 3 step (the first step is almost no power) and the occasional 1-step. Why the step variations, I don't know, why, or when; they just seem to show up but there could be some more to it that I never caught up on.

Note that the hammer assembly is somewhat prone to breakage so a proportion of them have been replaced over time.

What brought the 150 to my attention as a collector was the multitude of variations. At one point I counted all the variations in my collection and it was somewhere in the mid twenties. The rarest is the Hecho en Mexico version (had to have one sneaked over the border, years ago.) Then there are the cool Sears versions, Ted Williams, chromed Medalist, Wards, JC Higgins, several Canadian versions, so on and so forth.

Hope to finally get around to a model 150 book in the next year or so. Talked Crosman into providing a complete set of 150 Engineering Parts Drawings to do the book and sort need to follow that nice gesture with the promised book.

[DT Fletcher]

I would be very interested in the results from your calibre/accuracy comparison with these Co2 pistols. My question arose from my experience of shooting many same model, spring powered pistols in both calibres, with the .177 invariably being the more accurate. I do have a Benjamin 250 in .177, but as this has a much shorter barrel, it would not be a fair or direct comparison.


Regards

Brian

Note: the Benjamin 250 is BB caliber not .177. The model 257 has a proper rifled .177 barrel; it is also much rarer than the model 250 BB version.

[Josie & John]

The rotate to adjust power was the first version but didn't last very long. It frequently broke and was often replaced. The non-adjustable version replaced the rotate to adjust, usually with 2 steps. The last version was with the hole to adjust via allen screw. The 2 step cocking was pretty standard but I have seen the 3 step (the first step is almost no power) and the occasional 1-step. Why the step variations, I don't know, why, or when; they just seem to show up but there could be some more to it that I never caught up on.

Note that the hammer assembly is somewhat prone to breakage so a proportion of them have been replaced over time.

What brought the 150 to my attention as a collector was the multitude of variations. At one point I counted all the variations in my collection and it was somewhere in the mid twenties. The rarest is the Hecho en Mexico version (had to have one sneaked over the border, years ago.) Then there are the cool Sears versions, Ted Williams, chromed Medalist, Wards, JC Higgins, several Canadian versions, so on and so forth.

Hope to finally get around to a model 150 book in the next year or so. Talked Crosman into providing a complete set of 150 Engineering Parts Drawings to do the book and sort need to follow that nice gesture with the promised book.

Thank you Dean. I have seen pictures of one of the locally made Mexican variants (I think the markings are on the barrel rather than gas cylinder) and would welcome a book on the subject. I'm presently researching variations in packaging as well as the presentation sets and kits and am happy to share research, although I suspect yours is way more detailed than mine!

Kind regards,

John

[DT Fletcher]

Thank you Dean. I have seen pictures of one of the locally made Mexican variants (I think the markings are on the barrel rather than gas cylinder) and would welcome a book on the subject. I'm presently researching variations in packaging as well as the presentation sets and kits and am happy to share research, although I suspect yours is way more detailed than mine!

Kind regards,

John

I believe that my 150 collection is near complete; however, always open to surprises. I know that in the '50s that the 150 and 160 models were sold by a distributor in Zurich. No idea if this produced a "European" variant or not, but, it would be something for a UK Crosman collector to keep an eye out for. Of course being the fanatical paper collector, I do have the paper associated with this European variant.

Crosman541 (full) by Dean Fletcher - Photographer - Portland, on Flickr

Crosman546 by Dean Fletcher - Photographer - Portland, on Flickr

Crosman547 by Dean Fletcher - Photographer - Portland, on Flickr

Crosman548 by Dean Fletcher - Photographer - Portland, on Flickr

[Josie & John]

Thank you Dean - that's new to me and one to keep an eye out for, as you say.

Kind regards,

John

[Abasmajor]

Note: the Benjamin 250 is BB caliber not .177. The model 257 has a proper rifled .177 barrel; it is also much rarer than the model 250 BB version.

Hi Dean,

I was aware that the Benjamin 250 was primarily meant to shoot BBs, but would also chamber .177 pellets. Although it is smoothbore, I have not found too much difference in accuracy between smooth and rifled barrels at the recommended ranges of between 6 & 10 yds.

Regards

Brian

[gingernut]

Mine works better with pellets!