The Crosman 3622 PCP.
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
This report covers:
- The test
- Filled the rifle
- First group
- Trigger
- Second group
- Discussion
- Third group
- Summary
Today I conduct a different kind of test with the new Crosman 3622 PCP air rifle. In the last report I got several tantalizingly good groups with fliers that opened them. But I see that I was jumping around from pellet to pellet and never settling on a single pellet. One of my difficulties when testing is I’m always trying to test many pellets in a new airgun.
The test
Today will be different. I will select a single pellet and see what it can do over multiple groups. The AEA 18.3-grain Center Punch dome did well in Part 5, so I chose it. It was also the last pellet to be fired in this rifle, so if bore conditioning is a real thing we should see some good results today.
I fired from a sandbag rest at 25 yards with the rifle rested directly on the sandbag. I did not sight in because the scope had not been touched since the last test. Every group was ten shots.
Filled the rifle
I filled the rifle with the Air Venturi G9 hand pump. Since the 3622 only fills to 2000 psi the fill was fast and easy. Any adult with a modicum of strength should be able to fill this airgun with a hand pump. It took 20 strokes of the pump once the gun started accepting a charge.
First group
The first group is ten shots in 2.035-inches between centers at 25 yards. I know — it’s horrible! But my plan is to shoot a second group with the same pellets and see what happens. Will the bore be conditioned? Remember, in Part 5 the last ten pellets shot were these also, so there have been at least 20 through the bore.
Group one is ten AEA Center Punch 18.3-grain domes in 2.035-inches between centers at 25 yards. The hole in the box is also part of this group.
Trigger
I had forgotten how nice and crisp the 3622 trigger is. It’s well ahead of what you find on budget airguns. It takes an accuracy test to bring this out because the numbers gotten from a trigger pull gauge mean very little if the trigger doesn’t break cleanly, which this one does.
Second group
The second 25-yard group I shot with AEA pellets measures 1.295-inches between centers at 25 yards. It’s much better than the first group but still nothing to get excited about.
The 3622 put the second 10 AEA pellets into a 1.295-inch group at 25 yards.
Discussion
Why didn’t I adjust the scope after seeing the first group? Well, I saw the final pellets going into the bullseye of that group and I figured the rifle was settling down. But the first shots on the second target went high, as well.
I don’t think the 3622 prefers the AEA pellet that much. In Part 5 I got good results with the 18.1-grain JTS Dead Center domes so I thought I would try a group with them. Once again I didn’t adjust the scope because this pellet may go to a different place.
I did refill the rifle with the G9 hand pump before shooting this one. That hand pump is operating so smoothly that I’m going to do a second report on it that will be Part 6 to the high-pressure hand pump series.
Third group
Well, the point of impact did change. JTS Dead Center domes also landed high but they also went to the right. Ten pellets are in a 1.773-inch group at 25 yards.
The 3622 put 10 JTS Dead Center 18.1-grain pellets into a 1.773-inch group at 25 yards.
You will note that I didn’t put a dime or pellet on each target in the photographs. That’s because I photographed the targets in situ as they were taped to the box of rubber mulch. I did that because in the first and second groups the pellets wandered off the target paper and onto the box.
This is not the final test of the 3622. I still want to try it with Benjamin Bullseyes and perhaps with Crosman Premiers again.
Summary
The Crosman 3622 is still an interesting air rifle in my opinion. Today’s test looks bad, I’ll admit, but I don’t think I’ve gotten the best it has to offer yet.
This problem with air gun inaccuracy is getting old. We need to come up with some sort of documented troubleshooting procedure to determine the exact cause. This drives me crazy.
I understand there are a lot of variables involved in getting a pellet from the tin to the target but perhaps we can come up with a way to narrow it down through the process of elimination.
I’m sure there may be more than one cause but hopefully we can identify each, one way or another.
Take the pellet used. If a given pellet can be put into a single hole at 25 yards in any given air rifle chances are the pellet is not the problem. But all the information about that rifle must be documented. Power source, barrel maker, bore diameter, feeding type, twist rate, length, FPS. It would all need to be known in a huge data base to compare bad results in another rifle as a possible cause.
But now that I think about it, we probably will never be privy to that information and without it, I guess this is a waste of time.
If a good pellet, and the rest, performs bad, off the top of my head I’d say it’s the interaction between the rifling and pellet design specifications that cause the pellet to wander in flight, in optimal shooting conditions.
Only conclusion, find a pellet that wanders less and ‘Hope’ for better results. Kinda what we do now, and that’s the name of the game with your average airgun and there is not much else we can do.
You could also shoot the pellet through a smooth twist barrel for comparison and verification. Under about the same conditions. Bet it turns out to be a problem with the barrel 9 out of 10 times. Why else would FX invest in a smooth twist barrel? And why Lothar Walther barrels always perform better.
It would be nice if all airgun manufacturers had their barrels made at one precision barrel maker and the increase in business might be able to reduce the price? I know, not realistic.
Have a variable power FX in the gun locker?
Bob M,
I hate to tell you this, but FX abandoned the smooth twist barrel some years ago.
RR,
I’ll bet it was not due to performance. Probably cost, production problems or did they come up with a better way?
Bob M,
Probably a combination of all of the above. FX learned a long time ago that there are folks out there who will pay whatever they charge to own one of their airguns, mostly just for bragging rights.
I used to own an HM1000X. It shot one MOA at 100 yards straight out of the box. Boring. I no longer own it. I also rarely watch most of those YouTube shooters with their overly expensive airguns. Boring.
Do not get me wrong. If I was willing to spend a few thousand dollars to build an airgun and travel halfway around the world to compete against other very rich folks and punch a few holes in paper at various ranges, I might be enthralled by what some of those folks are saying. As I am not a gazillionaire, I have to draw the line somewhere.
When I first started into the world of airguns, Gary Barnes asked me “What are you going to do with this airgun?” All of us should answer that question honestly before we buy it. The answer will likely change over time, but just perhaps if we ask ourselves that question when we go to buy it, we might not.
Bob M,
It is not what you think.
Most of us shoot outside if what we are shooting at is more than 10 yards/meters distant.
For a time i had a 100 Indoor Range available to me that i could get the Range Officer to shut off the ventilation system when no one else was shooting. My results convinced me all over again that any wind however small is typically repeatability overwhelming compared to anything other than bent, defective, or just plain TRASH airgun.
https://www.shootingtimes.com/editorial/dont-blow-a-shot-in-the-wind/99286#replay
Shoot outside?
shootski
Bob M,
I think you described it all – without all important information… it is hard to estimate something at all.
What is very interesting for me – “to find the right pellet for the barrel”. Some airguns have barrel which accept almost all pellets I have and the groups are similar tight. One example is HW30s, Stormrider .177cal in full power also. There are some airguns which are able to shoot accurately only using one or two pellet species. It makes me crazy. It is even worse – it happens, same airgun type, two examples and two different pellets to prefer.
Second thing is – if you would like to check which pellet is the best you should actually shoot like 50 shots before the test to “precondition” the barrel. I have seen a big difference many times – just switch to another pellet and shoot 10 shot group directly. It was not so good… Than shoot like 100 shots with it and repeat the grouping test – wow! One hole grouping inside.
tomek,
After 100 or more shots I would hope that the shooter would learn the particular quirks of that particular airgun.
Each pellet will cause a little different shot cycle, especially on springers. Yes, it is clear. What I mean is shooting bench to check the pellet preferences – and here you go, without (almost without) influence of the trigger routine you will observe the difference between switch to another pellet, shoot directly for grouping, than shot 50 – 100 times with the new pellet and repeat the grouping test. Usually it will be better after “preconditioning”. I know, that the small things in the barrel needs to be set up to the new pellet which will leave a different lead trace…etc. But anyway it is a very strange feeling to observe sometimes even big difference there.
What I never tried is to clean the barrel to the virgin state each time and than try different pellets. I’m pretty sure doing that we will observe similar pattern – after like 50 shots the groups will be better.
Tomek,
Good information. Beginning to look like barrel rifling is too crude and not finished well enough in production.
Any ideas out there how we can sort of speed up the break in process with some sort of barrel honing or treatment? Like running some mild valve ‘Lapping’ as opposed to Grinding compound through it somehow. Or lots of wire brush pass throughs?
I’m sure some trial and error would be involved here. Would not get too aggressive at first.
Probably would need to retrieve the pellets undamaged for inspection results and keep track of the accuracy changes. Do we really know how much the airguns rifling distorts a given pellet and how it changes over time to improve accuracy?
Does high power actually rip away more material on the pellet than the thickness of the rifling as it is forcibly rotated through the barrel destroying the pellets aerodynamics? Sounds reasonable if the rifling is sharp cut and grinding all along the way.
JB Non-embedding Bore Compound, slathered onto a bronze brush, 20 strokes.
B.B. can’t always do this on guns he is given to test. Also, check the crown for paint or other imperfections.
This is not an expensive airgun. The barrels may simply be not Crosman’s best. Another barrel or another 3622 may give vastly different results. I have a 362 multipump, which I assume has the same barrel. I never was able to get super-tight groups even at 10 yards.
However, Crosman could offer a “3622 Elite” version (under the Benjamin name perhaps, like Chevy, GMC, Caddilac), with a Lothar Walther Barrel and an adjustable comb buttstock. That may be a better accuracy vs. value proposition.
RG,
With the restructuring of Crosman, that is not likely going to happen.
You could always put a LW or Sub MOA barrel on it yourself. You could also contact Boyd or some other custom stock maker and have one made. Now, after all of that, how much does that 362 cost?
Bob M,
How about you take one of those sow’s ears and show us how to make it into a silk purse? We’re waiting.
The truth of the matter is with cheap airguns you will likely have poor performance. The manufacturer is not about to invest much in making something they are likely to have a low return on. Tomek comments on how well his Weihrauch shoots. Well, duh. You also do not see them in the big box stores. They cost.
What you read here is that BB shows us the truth behind the curtain. He shows us how a particular airgun performs, whether it is doing well or not. I have no problem with that. I want to know whether it is a sow’s ear before I invest my money in one.
If you desire to see wonderful performance, you can always tune in to YouTube and watch the reviewers take extremely expensive airguns and perform superbly with them after they have spent a considerable time learning that particular airgun’s quirks. Do keep in mind that manufacturers send them their expensive airguns to show off so that the unwashed will give them more money.
BB usually picks airguns that we ask to have tested. He will then run them through what he has decided is his version of a standardized test to honestly show us how well or bad a particular airgun performs. The problem is not with BB, but with our expectations. No, that sow’s ear is not going to magically turn into a silk purse. Sometimes we do get real lucky and that sow’s ear will do what we want.
Dude, this is reality. Believe it or not, once upon a time shooters would have been tickled with this performance.
“Believe it or not, once upon a time shooters would have been tickled with this performance.”
I echo that sentiment and either 45Bravo or Vana2, who said that every airgun has its own effective range. We just may be seeing this particular gun’s. Another 3622 made on a different day may be better (or worse), with the same (or different) pellets.
I recall an interesting report BB once made about how Coaches of Youth Shooting Teams would buy 10 or 20 of the same airgun (or replacement barrels, I can’t remember) and figure out which shot the best and either returned or discarded the rest. So some airguns are not manufactured with identically consistent accuracy. That means some will be better and others will be worse.
B.B. can only report on his limited experience with each individual new airgun he tests. Unless he buys each gun, he can’t go to extreme measures to wring the best accuracy from each one.
I typically shoot at ten meters. But my 3622 seemed to shoot best when I had the scout scope mounted. I used a clamp-on (the barrel) picatinny rail to mount the scope. Location was for about 10” eye relief. The 3622 has two barrel rings that have set screws to tighten down on to the barrel. So it isn’t a free-floating barrel. Anyway, what I am suggesting is that the accuracy of the 3622 might be being affected by barrel harmonics. I don’t know much about that subject only what little I have read. It seems to me that the scout scope mount and the weight of the mount and the scope would affect barrel harmonics more than just a little. Perhaps some experimentation along those lines might be interesting?
I rate airguns (and myself) by how far we are capable of shooting a 5 shot, one inch groups. One inch is relevant to me because that’s the minimum level of accuracy I need for pesting and small game hunting.
The 3622 seems to be a 15 yard pester and a 25 yard tin can plinker. And that’s perfectly fine… just keep those ranges in mind when shooting.
Per the discussion of airgun quality/performance, I see a product as a sum of its parts and the weakest part dictates/limits of the products performance/capabilities.
Most of the time it’s the human part that needs improving but, being human, we prefer to find fault with the mechanical parts that can’t defend themselves. 😉
I’ve seen that a product comprised of poorly made (cheap) parts will not perform as well or reliability as one made of quality (expensive) parts.
If quality components are used in critical areas of the assembly then an inexpensive product can be made to preform better. To believe that installing a couple of good bits changes a sow’s ear into a silk purse is wishful thinking. I think that being reasonable in one’s expectations is important.
My personal rule of thumb is to buy the products I think I need at the best value for the money. I just hope to do that most of the time.
Hank
I knew it was either you or 45Bravo.
I wonder what GunFun1 would make of all this banter today. I’m sure he would also have something pithy and practical to add to the discussion.
The 3622 is looking to FM like a decent beginner’s PCP for the money and its performance expectations should perhaps be centered around that concept. As Hank stated, “The 3622 seems to be a 15 yard pester and a 25 yard tin can plinker. And that’s perfectly fine…”
Tom,
Although it might be premature this is how this gun is presenting itself. An inexpensive introduction free of any bells and whistles into the world of PCPs. How much accuracy has it shown? Right now it seems to be adequate for popping cans up to 30 yards for sure maybe 50 with the right pellets assuming that the new owner will bother looking for better pellets and instead simply buy what is available from Wally World. It’s light enough to be carried around. Cheap enough as a knockabout gun (a few years ago nobody would believe that a PCP less than $200 would exist). Not accurate enough for paper punching but very few would use this for paper punching only. They would probably be shooting feral soda cans and other random targets of opportunity. This fits the bill for me as an all day informal backyard plinker.
Siraniko
Give the man a Cubie Doll!
BB
The AEA pellet groups are dismal but the second group is 3/4 inch smaller than the first group! Why not shoot some more groups with that pellet. I predict the groups will be “everwhichaway” but I may be wrong. The objective is to see if bore seasoning shows measurable improvement. Personally I have never found any long term improvement but hope I am wrong.
Short term seasoning when switching pellet types or warming up a cold barrel is another subject. Have said it before but I have experienced it as often as not.
Deck
I am of the opinion that all of us are looking for the next ‘great deal’ for an airgun. The Discovery was the original great deal, followed by a bunch of others (the Avenger and AvengeX come to mind). They punched way above their weight and sold bunches of them.
This rifle is a great value and a great intro to PCP’s. I could see it used as a great plinker and also as an effective pesting/small game rifle, as long as you moved in close enough.
I think that Hank has the right idea about classifying these guns, with respect to effectiveness at given ranges.
Enjoy your day.
Bill
B.B. and Readership,
I shared this link: https://www.shootingtimes.com/editorial/dont-blow-a-shot-in-the-wind/99286#replay
at the top of the comments section but it works just as well for the following rant of mine.
Unless you are accuracy testing a given gun and projectile combination in absolutely STILL air you are Just A Woofin!
If you are shooting outside or with a ventilation system operating by blowing air around the effect of the moving air and resulting TURBULENCE will overwhelm any repeatability you might have gotten in STILL air.
My opinion is that the TURBULENCE generated by any motion of the air is what causes the majority of the dispersion of a group in a functional airgun.
shootski
45Bravo? I think you should take this one.
BB
B.B.,
I do too!
Along with any other readers that have shot in still and moving air venue for comparison to my results.
shootski
I believe B.B. squeaks out 25 yards inside his home. We’ve seen some outstandingly 25 yard groups from B.B.’s tests in the past. Perhaps his recent medical procedure had an effect on his aim? ;o) Nah! I highly doubt that!
So where does this leave us?
If we are going to test “seasoning” a bore between pellets, we need to start with a gun with consistent, known precision, then feed it something new and see what happens over time. I respectfully submit this was not the gun for that type of test.
If we wanted to see if a few additional strings of the same pellets would show any significant improvement in this gun, now we know, unless the A/C kept kicking on and off at B.B.’s house during this test. Ah well, still generated a good discussion!
Roamin,
It’s really hard to do a definitive test for something as subtle at the state of the lead fouling in the barrel. …It’s a moving target as every shot changes the state by potentially adding more lead, maybe.
Variables like lead alloys, the roughness of the bore, (quality of the rifling?) and the (changing) velocity of the projectile come into consideration with seasoning.
And then each projectile will play differently with the tune and the harmonics as well, affecting grouping and point of impact.
When testing, I’ll top every 25 shots, give the barrel a quick clean (a couple of dry patches), shoot half a dozen pellets to stabilize the plenum and valve and get back to testing.
Don’t worry much about seasoning too much, think there are lots of bigger things to address.
Hank
I think it is really interesting to discuss. I have a 362. When I first got it, I ran every .22 pellet I had through it and published the results on a Google spreadsheet somewhere that another reader set up.
I noticed that when I switched pellets, the first shot would be in one spot, the second shot would land in a significantly different spot, and then successive shots would land closer and closer to the original spot. It didn’t happen every time for every new pellet, but often enough that I would begin to look at the targets after the first few shots of each group to see what was happening. If it happened, I would record two measurements. One for the overall group and one for the subgroup that formed later in that string. Of course that was a marathon that B.B. would never have time to do for his daily blog.
Well BB,
It seems I once again just about hijacked a Blog topic.
I can see everyone’s point. Ultimate accuracy requires a lot of stars to be in alignment, but then there is always the one-hole wonder that is being shot outside.
I agree this particular 3622 shoots well enough for its expected use, considering the price but falls short of others and was looking for a shortcut to break in a barrel to improve it, or at least get the most out of it that’s possible.
Lead seasoning probably smooths out slight imperfections in the rifling some and eventually shooting enough pellets will smooth the rifling’s edges as well. Accuracy does seem to improve over time. From new anyway.
Woke up this morning and thought, why not a break-in pellet or shooting something down the barrel like a fine sandpaper wad.
Roamin Greco’s suggestion of using bore compound sounds like a good start.
Then there is always the effect wind turbulence may have on pellets of different weight, and speed and design and on and on.
I’m still working on the cause of Tinnitus. It’s not just old age, though it appears to show up more often then. Perhaps an accumulation of damage. Beginning to believe it’s a complicated condition involving many and various things, like some dehydration and extremely dry air from a heating system.
I have found that I can reduce the volume significantly, as in a background ringing that the brain can easily ignore throughout a daily routine, unless you actually try to listen to it, by avoiding Alcohol and caffeinated drinks like Regular Coffee and Soda. Takes three days after ending consumption and taking B Complex vitamins, but it is always there. Take your mind off it and stop thinking about it … It’s loud again now 🙁
Wow,
Just submitted the above entry, Bam, no entry showed up. “22 Thoughts” at the top. Hit the recycle circle on my laptop … Bam “28 Thoughts” on this subject. Recovered from the Lost Blog Twilight Zone.