Beeman C1

[45flint]

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

Yours is one of the earliest, identical to mine, the first series started with 8? Some had a letter in front? Anyone have a serial number higher? Be interesting to speculate on how many were made. These aren’t a real common find over here? Interesting that all were Beeman rifles, but I guess he had the stock designed.

[45flint]

Thanks for starting this thread, I had bought my C1 a year or two ago and kind of forgot about it as I quickly added to my collection. This thread gave me a change to explore it a bit more. It really is a very cool rifle. Made with Webley quality and love the compactness and the stock. It is very consistent in shooting if you seat the pellet, varing in FPS by only 1 or 2 FPS. As someone mentioned it is good to seat the pellet as I found as well the pellet can back out as you force close the barrel.

[45flint]

More probably useless thoughts on the C1. In the Bluebook of Airguns it subtracts 10% of value for later safety edition. Wonder the thought here? I read the later trigger is better aligned given the straight stock but also read the original trigger is milled the later was sinter? Does kind of go with what usually happened with airguns changes, they always seem to be cost effective?

[Joncaddy]

Hi,
I'm looking for a Beeman C1 with safety (so a 2nd or 3rd variant).
Many thanks Louis

I was in Protek Supplies at Bognor Regis today. They have a very nice Beeman C1 for sale.

[45flint]

I was in Protek Supplies at Bognor Regis today. They have a very nice Beeman C1 for sale.

Do you remember the price?

[Thegreg]

More probably useless thoughts on the C1. In the Bluebook of Airguns it subtracts 10% of value for later safety edition. Wonder the thought here? I read the later trigger is better aligned given the straight stock but also read the original trigger is milled the later was sinter? Does kind of go with what usually happened with airguns changes, they always seem to be cost effective?

The later trigger was a much nicer item. Ok, the original triggers were machined parts but were a horrible design. I guess it will have been cheaper but it was a step in the right direction IMO. Nothing wrong with the quality of the later ones.

The real gems if you can get hold of one is the “2 stage” trigger used on the Xocet and Stingray, possibly one or two others. They retrofit into all the Vulcan & Tracker variants. It’s not a true 2 stage but is a much improved feel over the standard unit.

Cheers
Greg

[Joncaddy]

Do you remember the price?

No sorry it didn't have a price on it, give them a ring.

[Geezer]

More probably useless thoughts on the C1. In the Bluebook of Airguns it subtracts 10% of value for later safety edition. Wonder the thought here? I read the later trigger is better aligned given the straight stock but also read the original trigger is milled the later was sinter? Does kind of go with what usually happened with airguns changes, they always seem to be cost effective?

Quite often collectors will pay more for the first model, even if later versions are better to shoot.

It’s not always downhill. I think the heavier barrel of the Vulcan Series 2 makes for a nicer gun than the original, even more so in Series 3 guise with the better trigger. FWB 124/127 went from plastic trigger to metal, and a better front sight.

Anyway, the Blue Book isn’t gospel, more of a guide. It has some errors and omissions in it.

[45flint]

Quite often collectors will pay more for the first model, even if later versions are better to shoot.

It’s not always downhill. I think the heavier barrel of the Vulcan Series 2 makes for a nicer gun than the original, even more so in Series 3 guise with the better trigger. FWB 124/127 went from plastic trigger to metal, and a better front sight.

Anyway, the Blue Book isn’t gospel, more of a guide. It has some errors and omissions in it.

I think your right though, collectors tend to go for the initial model. I do think the first ones had a cleaner look without the safety. Safety on a barrel cocker is kind of stupid really. Are you going to leave a spring gun cocked for a while? It’s more of a thing you forget to take off as you squeeze the first time? And then crap, I’ll try again.

[MDriskill]

Baz, “Shed”,

You are both wrong and both right.

The C1 is a C1.

Vulcan: Vulcan stock, full power spring. Safety.

Victor: as above, but Victor stock, lower power spring. No safety.

C1 (early): C1 stock, full power spring. No safety. 14” barrel.

C1 (late): as above, but safety.

My gut feeling is that most C1s were the early type, and that most of the later type went to the States.

FWIW, I would describe the original C1 as a Victor action (skinny barrel, no safety, flat-faced rear receiver plug) with shortened barrel, full-strength Vulcan spring, and a new stock.

The second-generation C1 was, IIRC, identical save for the addition of the safety.

The third-generation C1 picked up other changes from the “Mk 3” Vulcan family: a heavier barrel, and as mentioned above a wider, ribbed, curved trigger blade whose center is a bit further aft - and beautifully illustrated below by louisvanhovell’s photos.

As Geezer mentioned, the stock wrist angle of the C1 is very flat and quite uncomfortable for many, me included. The lack of drop at the butt heel does a great job of controlling muzzle lift in this light and powerful little rifle, and I found it very easy to shoot well in spite of the pain! . The late trigger gives a more comfortable hand position, and I like the balance of the meatier barrel, too.

Beeman’s catalogs claimed the design inspiration was the old “western” lever-action carbines, like the classic Winchester 94. Where they went off with the C1, is that those guns had a lot more drop at the butt, making the wrist angle more comfortable.

I always admired the gorgeous metal finish and crisp woodwork on Webley rifles of that era, though. To my mind the trigger isn’t even all that bad once you break it in, lube it a bit, and explain to yourself this is a dedicated outdoor sporter, not a target rifle, LOL...

[45flint]

Read the C-1 stock was designed by the famous custom stockmaker Gary Goudy for Beeman. I think the difference in this stock is it’s obvious straightness, but also it’s grip thickness. I compared it to my early Webley Mark 3 in pics below. The Mark 3 is much thinner and can be more easily gripped like a pistol with arm lower. What the C1 stock makes you do is hold the rifle with your right arm straight out? Puts your hand more over the stock and does keep this pretty powerful carbine more stable? This may actually give me better form, but the rifle seems to be more accurate than it should be. I also find the single stage triggers of these two Webleys to be pretty similar.

https://imgur.com/a/NshlMXx

[Geezer]

Read the C-1 stock was designed by the famous custom stockmaker Gary Goudy for Beeman. I think the difference in this stock is it’s obvious straightness, but also it’s grip thickness. I compared it to my early Webley Mark 3 in pics below. The Mark 3 is much thinner and can be more easily gripped like a pistol with arm lower. What the C1 stock makes you do is hold the rifle with your right arm straight out? Puts your hand more over the stock and does keep this pretty powerful carbine more stable? This may actually give me better form, but the rifle seems to be more accurate than it should be. I also find the single stage triggers of these two Webleys to be pretty similar.

https://imgur.com/a/NshlMXx

C-1 works best with right elbow high, like an M1903 Springfield shot off-hand. As you say, the grip is quite thick (it needs to be to avoid breakageand the drop to heel is slight. Whatever it handles like, it does not handle like a good shotgun, or a Winchester 1894. It is different.

On the safeties issue, just skimmed back through Chris Thrale’s book. He has the C1 first reviewed in the April 83 edition of AGW (so, review written 2-3 months earlier?). By the December 84 issue of Airgunner, the C1 is advertised by Webley as “now fitted with a safety catch”.

Working from the adverts, Chris also suggests that the C1 largely dropped off the market (U.K. at least) from 1985-88, before reappearing, and then finally leaving the market in 1990-91.

Which is all kind of interesting, if you are me.

[45flint]

Serial numbers are interesting, the Bluebook says they start with 800000 which I think is true. Later examples have # in the 700000 but I think there is a letter prefix?

[jirushi]

I have found a Beeman C1.
It's a .22 with safety. Serial no. H777695
Tonight I disassembled the gun.

It was difficult to get the mainspring retaining pin out. I think Loctite was the reason. After quite some heating, I was able to get it out with a pin punch.
Also the end block is a tight fit; I needed a pin and a hammer to get it out of the cylinder. It was a bit scary, with the mainspring pushing on the end block.
The gun was low on power, about 7 ft/lbs. Soft to shoot, with quite a light and nice trigger, but the C1 is capable of much higher power.
Apart from rejuvenating the internals, I also need to fit a new barrel, as unfortunately the rifling of this one has 2 deep scratches - it groups like a shotgun.

I had previously ordered a spring, spring guide and top hot from Maccari.
Might also try a spring, spring guide and top hat from a UK seller on , to experience the difference.
The Maccari spring is about the same length as the old one, but stiffer. (The top hat isn't square onto the spring; the spring end isn't totally flat. Not sure if this is an issue. I think that a flat spring end would be better).
I had also sourced new breech seals, a piston seal and a different trigger from Knibbs.
The red piston seal replaces the original ptfe washer. That one has a few scratches on the sides. I've read that some people have fitted an o-ring as a piston seal, but I think this red Knibbs one will work well.

I am used to working on Meteors (I love Meteors!). This C1 is finished to a much higher standard. All edges are smooth. The inside of the cylinder is very smooth. The piston looks nice. No burrs anywhere. I don't think I'll need to do any work with my diamond files, wet&dry and autosol, except for the trigger mech. What a relief!
As a comparison: a photo of the C1 next to my now best performing Meteor, a Mk5 that is very nice to shoot and accurate (2 cm groups at 35 meters and easy plinking at 50 meters).

Cheers

[jirushi]

Short update:

Maccari spring, spring guide and top hat are installed. With a gentle smear of Maccari "black tar" (not sure if this is better than the moly grease that I usually use, but it was included). New breech seal. New red Knibbs piston seal.
10 ft/lbs with 15.89 JSB's. Nice to shoot. Have to wait for new barrel to test accuracy.
It matches Maccari's product description: "nice docile factory power without harshness".
I've read that some C1's produce near-legal-limit-power, but 10 ft/lbs is plenty for me and I think that more would only cause the recoil to be harsher and the trigger to be heavier. For my intentions (plinking and target practice), it's fine.

The replacement trigger has much more creep than the straighter one that was on the gun. I think it doesn't work well with the rest of the trigger mechanism. The sears have way too much engagement and the only way to adjust that would be to remove metal from the trigger sear. So I re installed the "old" trigger, which works great. A very crisp breaking point. I might polish it with Autosol for maximum performance. I swapped the original trigger spring for a ballpoint spring. Now the trigger is lighter (perhaps a bit too light).

The C1 is really easy to re-assemble. Not so much preload, and the trigger mechanism is simple. A great design.