Beeman C1

[Geezer]

I recently picked up a nice C1 after being on the lookout for quite some time.

The Vulcan never had any appeal to me but something about the C1 did, I imagine it was the straight grip stock which is novel on an air rifle. It does feel slightly odd bringing it to shoulder but I might try removing the scope and just use the open sights.

Mine must be the early variant with no safety.

Does anyone know what years they were produced?

Cheers
Greg

'81-'96 according to the Blue Book of Airgun. Nifty looking guns

https://www.pyramydair.com/blog/2009...rtillery-hold/

More like 1983-91, I think. If the Blue Book guys saw them on sale in 96, those were probably old stock.

Definitely good with iron sights.

Mine wears a Beeman marked period Williams peep. Nice.

If you want to scope it, stay period, small and low.

Webley Teleskan (not a great sight, though), Beeman SS1, SS2, SS3 (good glass, can be pricey these days, like as much if not more than a decent C1), Optima Gamekeeper (ditto), maybe a 1990s Simmons 1.5-5x20.

Personally, I find the stock too straight, the wrist angle too acute for proper trigger engagement, and the overall feel not quite as good as I thought it would be before I owned it. Quirky, interesting, nice bit of Webley history, but if I needed a fast-handling short Vulcan/Victor variant for ratting or similar, my carbined Xocet beats it hands down.

[Drew451]

Slight tangent: did the Victor/ Vulcan successors (Excell?) share the Vulcan action? The C1 could have ran on into the 90s if so, and evolved/ been refined slightly ?

[VALE BOY]

I bought one new in 1983 .... cost about 50 odd pounds iirc. Can't remember for definite as I got a 4x32 Rhino scope fitted to it at the shop in the West end of Glasgow, now sadly gone like so many elsewhere. I think it was about 70 quid all in.
It's a pokey wee rifle right enuff, and very 'pointable', but could do with a tweak to the trigger to make it smoother and more pleasant to shoot.

[Geezer]

Slight tangent: did the Victor/ Vulcan successors (Excell?) share the Vulcan action? The C1 could have ran on into the 90s if so, and evolved/ been refined slightly ?

The Excel (1988-2000), Stingray and Xocet ( 2000-05) definitely do. All at 12 ft-lbs in the U.K. The youth model (Victor replacement - Excel, Xocet, though the Xocet moved more into being a value adult gun than a youth one) moving up to full power. A lesson from the Victor being that even youth guns then needed to be “full power”.

The Omega (1984-94), Eclipse (88-2000), Tomahawk (2000-2005) and Longbow (2002-2005, then briefly continued by the Turks) have Vulcan/Hawk/Osprey/Tracker/Viscount DNA, same cylinder diameter for one, but different stocks, triggers, etc. The more Webley varied them, the less DNA there was. A bit like the relationship between an old 1950s HW35 and the current HW95K. Definitely from the same stable, but not the same horse.

[45flint]

Bought this C-1 at a gunshow this year always interested me and it was a great price; perfect condition. No Saftey.

https://imgur.com/a/XCBuuE5

[Thegreg]

Does anyone know the approximate ratio between .177 & .22 models produced?

Cheers
Greg

[bcham]

Bought this C-1 at a gunshow this year always interested me and it was a great price; perfect condition. No Saftey.

https://imgur.com/a/XCBuuE5

i had the exact same c1 in the 80s mine was shooting very close to the legal limit had it fitted with a red dot sight,and shot lots of grey squirrels with it, great stock without the pistol grip, very quick and easy to aim and fire,

[Geezer]

Does anyone know the approximate ratio between .177 & .22 models produced?

Cheers
Greg

I think every C1 I have seen in the U.K. was a .22”. Which makes sense in what’s basically a barn gun, and is also consistent with the 80s conviction that .22” was “more powerful”, “the hunting calibre”, “a man’s gun” etc, with .177”s only really suitable for target shooting or for pathetic weakling oddballs.

Whereas, by the 1970s, and certainly the 80s, the American market had got obsessed with muzzle velocity, and hence focussed on .177”.

So I strongly suspect that, in the round, the calibre split for the C1 was less unbalanced than, say, the Vulcan, which was mostly a U.K. market gun and made 90% (educated guess) in .22”.

So most of the .177”s are in the States. Most of the .22”s are in the U.K. Tightened (silly) import and export rules in both countries mean they are now mostly staying where they are.

By the way, I think the US market C1s were made to “export standard”, making somewhere between 11.99 and 14 ft-lbs.

[Thegreg]

I think every C1 I have seen in the U.K. was a .22”. Which makes sense in what’s basically a barn gun, and is also consistent with the 80s conviction that .22” was “more powerful”, “the hunting calibre”, “a man’s gun” etc, with .177”s only really suitable for target shooting or for pathetic weakling oddballs.

Whereas, by the 1970s, and certainly the 80s, the American market had got obsessed with muzzle velocity, and hence focussed on .177”.

So I strongly suspect that, in the round, the calibre split for the C1 was less unbalanced than, say, the Vulcan, which was mostly a U.K. market gun and made 90% (educated guess) in .22”.

So most of the .177”s are in the States. Most of the .22”s are in the U.K. Tightened (silly) import and export rules in both countries mean they are now mostly staying where they are.

By the way, I think the US market C1s were made to “export standard”, making somewhere between 11.99 and 14 ft-lbs.

Interesting. It was as I suspected really, when I think about it very few Vulcan's turn up in .177.

My C1 is actually in .177, but I do recall seeing other C1's in this calibre too.

Oddly mine came with a 7" slim Venom silencer fitted (as well as the original sights in a bag) which I'm desperate to remove and put back to standard. Only thing is the silencer is stuck on good and solid and I'm working on getting it off without damage to either item.

Cheers
Greg

[jirushi]

Bought this C-1 at a gunshow this year always interested me and it was a great price; perfect condition. No Saftey.

https://imgur.com/a/XCBuuE5

Very nice. How does it shoot? And what velocities do you get? Is it a .22?

[45flint]

Very nice. How does it shoot? And what velocities do you get? Is it a .22?

Its a .177 and shoots Hobbys at 875, so about 12 foot pound. No safety early model. It’s a very interesting gun in that it’s so unusual with the English straight stock and carbine length. It shoots very accurately but certainly has a springer jolt to it. I haven’t shot it very much and need to get back at it. It was a impulse buy at one of my first gun shows, it’s seemed way too cheap for a perfect example, knew I could sell it later for more if I didn’t like it. It’s one of Tom Gaylord’s favorite guns, he says this gun taught him the artillary hold.

I agree it’s probably best with open sights, the scope rail has no stops. The scope rail dead ends into the end cap which “supplies” shape edges to tear into your scope mounts as they want to move back. Probably could have worked something out but just went back to open sights which I think make sense with a carbine anyway.

Here it is with a Diana 50 and Crosman 108 for comparison: interesting the 108 is shorter but feels more massive, they weight about the same.

[jirushi]

Its a .177 and shoots Hobbys at 875, so about 12 foot pound. No safety early model. It’s a very interesting gun in that it’s so unusual with the English straight stock and carbine length. It shoots very accurately but certainly has a springer jolt to it. I haven’t shot it very much and need to get back at it. It was a impulse buy at one of my first gun shows, it’s seemed way too cheap for a perfect example, knew I could sell it later for more if I didn’t like it. It’s one of Tom Gaylord’s favorite guns, he says this gun taught him the artillary hold.

I agree it’s probably best with open sights, the scope rail has no stops. The scope rail dead ends into the end cap which “supplies” shape edges to tear into your scope mounts as they want to move back. Probably could have worked something out but just went back to open sights which I think make sense with a carbine anyway.

Here it is with a Diana 50 and Crosman 108 for comparison: interesting the 108 is shorter but feels more massive, they weight about the same.

Very nice! That's a lovely trio!

[Binners]

Very nice! That's a lovely trio!

Not my thing, but I know Troubledshooter has a boxed minter of the rifle in the picture, all far too modern for me though....

[Drew451]

I must admit I've scanned the usual sales sites for a C1 more than once recently. Then onto carbine barreled Webleys...
Good thread.

[Troubledshooter]

Here are photographs of my boxed .177 C1, as good as the day it left the shop;