Beeman C1

[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.

[45flint]

I have a 1956 Webley Mark 3 in great condition that is 10 FP same with a 1960 Airsporter, typical in that era. I actually think this power is ideal for springers? Less harsh and I took my first squirrel with the Webley this fall.

I read about complains on the original trigger? I find it to be very good, one stage with great break? I find this trigger to be very similar to the Mark 3.

[jirushi]

I have a 1956 Webley Mark 3 in great condition that is 10 FP same with a 1960 Airsporter, typical in that era. I actually think this power is ideal for springers? Less harsh and I took my first squirrel with the Webley this fall.

I read about complains on the original trigger? I find it to be very good, one stage with great break? I find this trigger to be very similar to the Mark 3.

I agree. Also about the trigger: the original one is great on my C1. Very crisp.
The other trigger I bought from Knibbs, which is an original Vulcan/C1 trigger, but for a later model, does not work as well in my C1.

[mrto]

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

Amazingly short barrel on the Meteor,may I ask how that has affected the gun power-wise?

[AllanM]

Amazingly short barrel on the Meteor,may I ask how that has affected the gun power-wise?

I was wondering exactly the same thing!

[jirushi]

Amazingly short barrel on the Meteor,may I ask how that has affected the gun power-wise?

Hi mrto and AllanM, it's a carbine Lightning barrel. I installed it because the original Meteor barrel had scratches on the inside, and the crown was bad - I couldn't hit a proverbial barn door with it. The short barrel turns out to be better for me: it might be just in my head, but I think that the shorter lock time makes it easier to be accurate. Also I just like compact guns. Don't understand why for instance the HW35 was sold with extremely long barrels (is this the "Luxus" variant?). With pcp's I understand that a long barrel is more efficient. John Bowkett demonstrated that pellet speed increases in the barrel of a springer past the previously holy 12 inches (iirc), but power is not my main objective with this Meteor.

Anyway, I had a look at my notes.
I couldn't find two Meteor tests where the only variable was the barrel length. Will have to install my standard length Spitfire barrel to give you the answer. That one is choked, don't know if that will have an effect. I think tbh that there won't be much of a difference speed wise.

[mrto]

I mrto and AllanM, it's a carbine Lightning barrel. I installed it because the original Meteor barrel had scratches on the inside, and the crown was bad - I couldn't hit a proverbial barn door with it. The short barrel turns out to be better for me: it might be just in my head, but I think that the shorter lock time makes it easier to be accurate. Also I just like compact guns. Don't understand why for instance the HW35 was sold with extremely long barrels (is this the "Luxus" variant?). With pcp's I understand that a long barrel is more efficient. John Bowkett demonstrated that pellet speed increases in the barrel of a springer past the previously holy 12 inches (iirc), but power is not my main objective with this Meteor.

Anyway, I had a look at my notes.
I couldn't find two Meteor tests where the only variable was the barrel length. Will have to install my standard length Spitfire barrel to give you the answer. That one is choked, don't know if that will have an effect. I think tbh that there won't be much of a difference speed wise.

Thank you,I like the 'ultra' carbine look of your Meteor and as a bit of a Meteor fan myself I would be interested to try such a set up.As for HW35's it was the "Export" model that had the 22" barrel,but I think at a time when far less was known about air gun ballistics,power and contributing factors.

I would imagine in the shorter barrel the pellet would not yet be up to its full potential speed wise in the Meteor,but as you say the full length barrel will at least give you another point of reference.

ATB.