Winchester 1977XS Out of the Box Review

It took me a little while to get one of these in. Old rifle, old news? While forms of this rifle have been around for awhile, what is new is the internals, which allow the rifle to shoot an advertised 1000 fps at 10 pumps. In this post, I’m going to take the rifle out of the box, mount the included scope, chronograph some pellets, and shoot some groups. In the future, I’m going to open it up, we’ll explore the changes made, and see if we can make it better.

This rifle is nice, you can tell it shares a common heritage with the Daisy 880. The thumbhole stock is a little odd looking, but feels good when shouldered. If you don’t like plastic, this one isn’t for you. I don’t have any high end scopes, but the included 4×32 scope is a little worse than the $20 to $50 scopes I’m used to.

The first pellet I chronographed was the super light Winchester alloys that weigh 4.32 grains. I couldn’t get 1000 fps with these, they topped out at 975 fps. A drop or two of oil on the pump o-rings would likely push them over the 1000 fps mark. Next, I went to the pellet of choice for these rifles, the RWS Superdomes. At 8.3 grains, they will allow us to gain some energy. They didn’t disappoint, averaging 772 fps, or 10.99 FPE at 10 pumps. This is considerably higher than a 880. What was even better was their performance at 5 pumps – 660 fps, or 8.03 FPE. That is about 20 fps faster than my first 880 could do out of the box! Since they did so well at 5 pumps, I shot a 20 shot group at 25 yards. Here’s the result:

With all but 3 pellets landing in a half inch square, I’ve got to say this is a good shooting airgun! Keep in mind, I took the gun out of the box, scoped it with the 4×32 it came with, and shot this. No barrel cleaning, no tuning, just out of the box. At the price point, the power level, and the features, this is a hard to beat multipump!

To see the maximum power potential, I loaded up some H&N Sniper Magnums. These massive 14.97 grain pellets just barely fit in the loading tray, but come cruising out of the barrel at an average of 628 fps – a tad over 13 foot pounds! This tells me that the platform is just begging for a .22 conversion, might be able to hit close to 15 foot pounds without even doing power mods.

The biggest pros are the price, power, accuracy, and coming with a usable scope (compared to the 4×15 most multipumps come with). What about the cons? The pump effort is high compared to the 880, but still better than the Crosman 2100. This is to be expected when you are pushing higher power levels, there’s no free lunch out there. The same can be said for the trigger pull. Since the valve is operating at higher pressures, more force is required to open the valve. You definitely feel that in the 1977 trigger. Finally, the noise coming out the barrel is considerably louder than the 880. Again, this is to be expected when you are pushing higher power.

In all, I think this is one of the best multipumps for the money. It has the power and accuracy right out of the box for small game hunting. As time permits, I’ll crack this one open, we’ll look at how it differs from the 880, and see if we can do anything to improve the trigger. We might even squeeze a few more fps out of it too!

Without opening the rifle, there are a couple differences that are easy to spot. The bolt has 2 o-rings, as does the piston. The elastomer spring has been replaced with a steel spring. The wheels that guide the piston have been replaced with a squared off set of guides. The receiver has a cutout to allow the exhaust valve to open a little more. I’m looking forward to opening it up and finding more…

Tired of YouTube’s PC BS

Giving YouTube and Google the boot.

I’m going to do my best not to get political here, but YouTube’s behavior over the last several months doesn’t give me much confidence in it being a viable host for my airgun related videos. I’ve researched many alternatives and decided to use BitChute as my new host for airgun and hunting content.

Many video streaming services have failed trying to compete with YouTube. Most of them fail because video streaming requires large amounts of bandwidth, which is very costly. BitChute has a unique solution to the bandwidth problem – it uses the peer to peer technology of webtorrents. It is this technology that makes me think this service will succeed where others have failed.

This morning, I took a walk with my B3-3 that I’m constantly improving. It has rained almost non-stop for the last couple weeks and my wet weather creek is starting to flow. Here’s a short video clip from my walk, testing my ability to embed videos from this new platform:

It isn’t as easy to embed videos and they don’t have a go to fullscreen option yet, but that’s a small price to pay for free speech. Here’s my channel, if you’d like to subscribe to stay on top of my latest airgun shenanigans: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/BcbbNhrQhJwO/.

Thanks for coming along for the ride, I expect things will be bumpy transitioning from a Google-centric universe, but we will all be better off in the long run.