Author Topic: Thompson G2 Contender Review  (Read 4671 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline RandyWakeman

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1246
    • RandyWakeman
Thompson G2 Contender Review
« on: January 15, 2004, 04:57:52 PM »
Thompson Contender G2 Review

The tested gun is a 2004 Thompson/ Center Contender G2 .45 caliber muzzleloader, blued with a walnut stock. Though T/C lists the gun at 5-1/2 pounds, this example tips the scales at 6 pounds seven ounces. Apparently, Thompson’s weighing methods are different than my electric scale procedure. Though billed as a “24” barrel, the effective length sans QLA is right at 22”. It features the traditional Thompson painful ramrod, always too short to be of much us in swabbing, and no palm saving end unless your hands prefer sharp edges. Warne Maxima steel bases and quick release rings were added along with a Sightron SII 2.5 x 10 x 32mm scope, completing the package at 7 lbs., 11 oz. For comparison’s sake, the walnut and stainless steel Encore in similar configuration is approximately a 10 pound gun. While not quite as catalogued, the Contender is still more than a 20 % lighter gun, of no small significance if walking all day across the tundra. My scoped, stainless .50 caliber, tapered “knightlite” barreled, Knight Elite weighs 9-3/4 pounds, and my unscoped nickel / synthetic Austin & Halleck 320 weighs 8 lbs, 14 ounces for comparison. My scoped and race-ready Savage 10ML-II SS, laminated stock Accu-trigger muzzleloader tips the electronic scales at 10-1/4 pounds with its 3 x 12 x 42mm scope.  In general, the better inlines I’ve tested are all pushing 10 pounds or so before you hit the woods—with little discernible difference between them. Those wishing to save weight can go the blued barrel, hollow composite stock route, but that still seems less than ideal, as the hollow stocks often make muzzleloaders too muzzle heavy for my tastes.

I’ve long had an opinion of 1:28 twist barreled .45 caliber inlines as being, generally, a poor choice. A .45 can never been a .50 caliber rifle, yet a .50 caliber inline can shoot .45, .429, .40, and even .357 caliber saboted projectiles in addition to bore-sized offerings such as Powerbelts and other conicals. The muzzleloading enthusiast has more choices to suit his needs, and I like choices. Additionally, the smaller bores have less barrel volume in which to consume powder, and have revealed themselves to be more finicky shooters. Rather than deliver on the potential of lighter weight and compact size to compliment the caliber—more often than not, the .45 caliber guns are just .50 caliber inlines with a smaller hole in the barrel, and actually more weight as a result. I don’t care to hunt pheasants with a 20 gauge in a 12 gauge frame, and I see little need to slug around a .45 caliber muzzleloader that offers nothing over the same model in .50 caliber except more weight, and less capabilities. The Thompson Contender G2 is the first .45 caliber muzzleloader that truly delivers on the promise of a lighter, better handling muzzleloader that compliments the caliber. Though no toothpick, the 2 pounds or so that you actually do save make it a svelte, stylish, functional option compared to the rest of the pack.

The initial gun had, of all things, scope mount plugs that were very hard to remove—as though they were applied by air hammer. This was a first for me. After confirming that “righty tighty, lefty loosey” had not changed, I twisted away with 18 of my 11 favorite screwdrivers on the filler plugs. Three came out with strong encouragement, the fourth came out in pieces. The barrel was sent to Thompson, and they replaced it in short order. A postcard arrived to inform me they had received it, the new barrel arrived the next day. Excellent customer service, as usual, from Thompson. The filler screws on the new barrel came out with my thumbnail, as many do.

Thompson usually has the best manuals in the industry, and the G2 manuals supplied were no exception. The top of the hammer has a “rimfire-neutral-centerfire” selector. With a rebounding hammer on the G2 similar to the Encore, the selector was set to center-fire then forgotten about. It is no issue on the G2 that I can see; apparently it is on the old style Contender that does not have the newer action style. Be sure to consult your manual for more info.

The trigger initially broke stiffly, at about 4-1/4 pounds. After a few shots, it lightened up to a ten pull average of 3 pounds 5 ounces, and stayed there. Like my Encore, the trigger had no creep, grit, or initial take-up at all—and feels much lighter than it really is. At the range, it in no way hindered my shooting. The first range session, with freezing rain and a gusting, 22 to 34 mph crosswind, resulted in little more than my remarkably authentic impression of an idiotic in a cornfield, surrounded by a swirl of spit patches, and assorted flying targets not originally designed to fly. Though the Warne medium height bases allowed retention of the G2’s rear ramp sight, the hammer clearance that seemed adequate with bare bands was less so with frozen, gloved hands. High Warne QR bases are the better choice for this gun in the field. The wind was delightful enough to launch chronographs off the bench with a bit of encouragement from Triple Seven muzzle blast, though, and I did learn that 100 grains of Triple 7 FFg launched a 220 grain 40 / 45 Dead Center at about 1902 fps average. Speed of the flying chronometers was not recorded. Nothing else of substance was accomplished that I will freely admit to.

Returning home, I reconfirmed my belief that the Leupold “Scopesmith” Magnetic Boresighter was perhaps the most pathetic product I’ve ever wasted money on. The only correct about this plastic monstrosity is that yes, it is “safe,” and “no batteries are required”. Though the instructions state that it should never be placed on a loaded firearm, I personally cannot think of a finer place for it.

I did break out the “SightLite 100” laser boresighter which I had previously picked up from Brownells, and after getting past the imbecilic instructions that suggest you stick a supplied precision target (made from precision cardboard, no doubt) on the wall 15 feet away, I properly O-ringed the arbor, and spun the Sightron to crosshair zero on a building at 75 yards. Perhaps the neighbors felt it was outtakes from a Terminator movie, but no authorities were directly involved. The SL-100 is exceeding bright, with the laser clearly visible on brightly light buildings past 200 yards.

Next day at the range was a better day, 28 degrees F with a 6-12 mph 9 o’clock crosswind. The very first shot was at a laser-verified 102 yards, just to the left of the bull. Due to my renowned lack of ability (or, perhaps I was just shivering incorrectly), the second shot was directly beneath it about an inch, the third shot of the group touching the first, completing a 1-1/4 inch center-to-center group, the worst of the afternoon. The G2 with 100 grains of T 7 FFg, pushing a 220 grain 40 / 45 Dead Center, grouped around 1 inch average, with a best of day group at .710 inches. Imagine what it might do if I feed it something it really likes?

The gun was given a spit patch between shots, and the Triple 7 crud cylinder (that I have never had before) was evident with each swab; as the clean patch crunched through the fouling near the breech plug, with a delightful crunch after each shot. Quickly using my razor sharp mind, I concluded that the massive, orange fireball from the muzzle after each shot showed that the 100 grains of loose Triple 7 powder was not completely combusting inside the barrel. I’d like to see a bit more velocity than the 1900 fps load, but apparently the barrel volume of the G2 limits that to a degree. Over the next few weeks, T 7 FFFg is indicated, to see if we can get things up near the 2100 fps area. As tested, the 220 DC is about a 190 yard Maximum Point Blank Range, 6” kill zone load—retaining well over 1000 ft. lbs of kinetic energy well past 200 yards.

The SL-100 Mag Laser Boresighter worked better than described, as long as it is not used as described. It is readily available from Brownells, and fits any bore firearm from .22 to 50 caliber. The Sightron SII 2.5 x 10 x 32 scope is amazingly good. I was shooting an hour after sunset at 10X with no problems, when the targets looked like orange blobs to the naked eye. Exit pupil alone does not dictate the brightness of a scope, as scopes with better glass and coatings appear brighter even with similar exit pupils—the Sightron SII is testimony to that. It weighs just 10.9 ounces, and has an astonishing 100 inches of combined vertical and horizontal adjustment, something few scopes can boast. It would be hard to imagine a scenario where you could run out of adjustment with this beauty.

The Thompson / Center G2 Contender is a wonderful muzzleloader. It is by far the most accurate .45 caliber muzzleloader I’ve ever tested, and handles like a dream. This example is every bit as accurate as my Encore, and it may well be the only .45 caliber inline sabot shooter worth owning, delivering on the promise of lighter weight with little performance penalty, if any. Thompson may have little clue on how to weigh their guns, but they certainly know how to build them. The G2 may well be the best-kept secret Thompson has. One day, they may be actually forced to mention it themselves! It is the finest .45 caliber muzzleloader I’ve tested, and as time goes on—who, knows—it may prove to be my favorite muzzleloader of them all? Congratulations to Thompson Arms.

Offline Underclocked

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 629
Thompson G2 Contender Review
« Reply #1 on: January 15, 2004, 05:53:23 PM »
Great review Randy.  Hope mine proves to be as good.  Is the breech plug the same as the Encore's?
WHUT?

Offline RandyWakeman

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1246
    • RandyWakeman
Thompson G2 Contender Review
« Reply #2 on: January 15, 2004, 06:13:14 PM »
Quote from: Underclocked
Is the breech plug the same as the Encore's?


No, it is smaller-- and not dished out. The extractor is also smaller, meaning the E-Z Tip extractor from the Encore won't fit.

Non-coned breech plug / / / crud ring = coincidence? :wink:

Offline grouse

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 400
Thompson G2 Contender Review
« Reply #3 on: January 15, 2004, 06:52:18 PM »
Sounds like a great gun randy. Good job.
Grammar isn"t bad either. LOL :-D

Offline jeff223

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1284
Thompson G2 Contender Review
« Reply #4 on: January 16, 2004, 02:46:21 AM »
good report randy,i liked the g2 when i checked one.to bad tc dosnt weigh their guns!they must just guess what thet weigh.ownership of a g2 may be in my future

Offline Bullseye

  • Trade Count: (9)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1879
Thompson G2 Contender Review
« Reply #5 on: January 17, 2004, 07:38:08 AM »
Randy

You got a crud ring?  Did you not use Breakfree CLP?  From your other posts about the crud ring you have made reference to the fact that you have never had a crud ring and use Breakfree CLP.  Maybe the Breakfree CLP is not the difference.

Offline RandyWakeman

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1246
    • RandyWakeman
Thompson G2 Contender Review
« Reply #6 on: January 17, 2004, 08:50:43 AM »
Yes, I got a crud ring. :oops:

Why, I don't know-- too early in the game. The G2 is a solid breech plug, like the Encore style that was replaced by a dished out version due to fouling issues with T 7.

Offline Bullseye

  • Trade Count: (9)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1879
Thompson G2 Contender Review
« Reply #7 on: January 17, 2004, 01:55:27 PM »
Well I have the first style breech plug and I get the infamous crud ring in my Encore even with it.

Offline Underclocked

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 629
Thompson G2 Contender Review
« Reply #8 on: January 20, 2004, 08:13:47 PM »


Mine came in today.  Feels like it weighs about 4 lbs.   :shock:   This thing is going to kick the tar out of me, but I betcha I keep right on shootin'!   :-)
WHUT?

Offline ptpalpha

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 66
Thompson G2 Contender Review
« Reply #9 on: January 21, 2004, 12:01:34 AM »
Another excellent review, and UC, yours appears to have some nice grain running through the stock.  Pretty.
-Paul

Offline pete50

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 82
Thompson G2 Contender Review
« Reply #10 on: January 21, 2004, 06:46:26 AM »
The G2 looks great, how much and where are the best prices?? I have a friend that is an FFL and will get one for cost, so about what should I be paying??

Offline Underclocked

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 629
Thompson G2 Contender Review
« Reply #11 on: January 21, 2004, 09:39:53 AM »
Pete, I did a trade for mine - via my friend that is an FFL and a fellow in Utah.  From what I've seen, they look to be in the $500 ballpark.
WHUT?

Offline Underclocked

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 629
Thompson G2 Contender Review
« Reply #12 on: January 21, 2004, 04:08:43 PM »
Just in case any of you decide to take this route....

Thus far I have discovered the screws that come with the Leupold QR base are too long.  Had to shorten all four screws on the grinder.  Got the base mounted, set the medium QR rings on with a Bushnell 1.5X4.5.  Broke out the new Virgin Valley hammer extension and read the included instructions.  In those instructions was a warning about the new walnut stocked G2 Contender - the hammer extension may not allow cocking.  Well, sure enough, it doesn't.

SO, it's back to the drawing board on scope mounts.  I need a base that will allow further forward positioning of the scope and rings that will provide more hammer clearance.  
WHUT?

Offline jeff223

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1284
Thompson G2 Contender Review
« Reply #13 on: January 21, 2004, 04:19:18 PM »
THAT IS ONE GOOD LOOKING PIECE OF WALNUT ON YOUR g2 UNDERCLOCKED.NICE LOOKING GUN.HOPE YOU COME AND TELL HOW IT SHOOTS AT THE RANGE.How does the trigger feel on that G2?
sorry i had the cap loc on

Offline Underclocked

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 629
Thompson G2 Contender Review
« Reply #14 on: January 21, 2004, 04:36:27 PM »
Thanks, I got to pick wood from three stocks via pics posted on the internet.  The trade was sort of a stress-test as the other fellow doesn't communicate well but he came through for me.  

Trigger is nice and crisp, maybe a tad heavy but I'm hoping mine will lighten a bit with wear-in. (Randy's did.)
WHUT?

Offline jeff223

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1284
Thompson G2 Contender Review
« Reply #15 on: January 21, 2004, 05:08:28 PM »
please give a range report when you can.
what bullets do you have in mind for this gun?

Offline RandyWakeman

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1246
    • RandyWakeman
Thompson G2 Contender Review
« Reply #16 on: January 21, 2004, 11:13:08 PM »
Some might be interested in how the G2 compares to a full-size muzzleloader like the Savage 10ML-II:



and, how it stacks up (or racks up?) against a couple of .22's:


Offline Underclocked

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 629
Thompson G2 Contender Review
« Reply #17 on: January 22, 2004, 03:17:11 AM »
Randy, is that the Warne base on yours?

I put my 4X Leupold Compact on the G2.  I don't think it will beat my skull and it allows cocking with the current mounts.  Shown with a Huntsman.

WHUT?

Offline RandyWakeman

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1246
    • RandyWakeman
Thompson G2 Contender Review
« Reply #18 on: January 22, 2004, 04:44:51 AM »
Warne Maxima steel base / Warne medium QR rings. High rings would be better, it is okay as is for bare hands or thin gloves, but I'd like a little more hammer room for thick gloves or frozen hands-- or both. Had enough room to retain the rear ramp, but just barely with the polar cap on the objective.

Offline Dragon31

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Avid Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 172
G-2
« Reply #19 on: January 22, 2004, 08:11:57 AM »
Is it my imagination or is the eyepiece assembly around the ocular lens of the scopes getting longer and bigger.  I'm thinking in terms of the Sightrons/Bushnell's/Ziests as compared to the Leupold and old weavers?
I've noticed that I've went to extension rings on most of my rifles especially the Encore and Contenders and they still seem to be to close to my eye.

Offline RandyWakeman

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1246
    • RandyWakeman
Thompson G2 Contender Review
« Reply #20 on: January 22, 2004, 10:34:35 AM »
Perhaps just an "optical illusion"?

Offline Underclocked

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 629
Thompson G2 Contender Review
« Reply #21 on: January 23, 2004, 02:39:07 AM »
The Bushnell does have a BIG eyepiece.  

Randy, the distance from the rear of a G2 barrel to the forward most slot on Weaver bases is 4.2"  per contendernut.  The same distance to center of the forward ring hole on the QR base is ~2.7".  Would you measure the same 'rear of barrel to forward slot' on the Warne base and tell me what you get, please?
WHUT?

Offline Underclocked

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 629
Thompson G2 Contender Review
« Reply #22 on: January 23, 2004, 10:51:26 AM »
Randy?

By the way, mine configured exactly as shown in the pic with the Huntsman weighs 6 pounds 14.7 ounces.   YIKES!!   :shock:
WHUT?

Offline RandyWakeman

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1246
    • RandyWakeman
Thompson G2 Contender Review
« Reply #23 on: January 23, 2004, 12:05:41 PM »
Quote from: Underclocked
Randy, the distance from the rear of a G2 barrel to the forward most slot on Weaver bases is 4.2"  per contendernut.  The same distance to center of the forward ring hole on the QR base is ~2.7".  Would you measure the same 'rear of barrel to forward slot' on the Warne base and tell me what you get, please?


About 4".

Offline Underclocked

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 629
Thompson G2 Contender Review
« Reply #24 on: January 23, 2004, 04:50:49 PM »
Had an extra Leupold QR Encore base in the guncase so had to be the curious cat.  Took the scope and base off the G2 and compared hole alignment - identical.  There is a slight difference in the radius of the two bases, enough so that the lower sides of the Encore base do not contact the G2 barrel.  Dern shame because that would have given me a full 4.5" from breech end to forward mount hole.  I think it would be a simple thing to make the Encore base work, but I'm heading in a different direction.  Ordered those Lynx rings and a Weaver base.
WHUT?

Offline jeff223

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1284
Thompson G2 Contender Review
« Reply #25 on: January 23, 2004, 05:45:34 PM »
when you going to give us a range report on that new G2?
whut?

Offline Underclocked

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 629
Thompson G2 Contender Review
« Reply #26 on: January 23, 2004, 07:47:56 PM »
You talkin' to me?   :-)

After I shoot it.
WHUT?

Offline jeff223

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1284
Thompson G2 Contender Review
« Reply #27 on: January 24, 2004, 10:58:33 AM »
yes i am underclocked

Offline Underclocked

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 629
Thompson G2 Contender Review
« Reply #28 on: January 24, 2004, 11:28:39 AM »
Jeff, I'm waiting for a different mount set to come and then some good weather.  Probably Thursday at the earliest.
WHUT?

Offline jeff223

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1284
Thompson G2 Contender Review
« Reply #29 on: January 24, 2004, 03:52:10 PM »
i am real interested in knowing how the G2 shoots for you