100 years of progress?

[edbear2]

I have been laid up for a few days with the flu from hell, but yesterday spent an hour or so in the garden, as we had a bit of sun, and I was going mad not being able to concentrate on anything

Anyway....did a bit of plinking, and thought I would test my best shooting old gun against the only "modern" springer I own

Nothing really scientific, just put a stop box out at 18 yards (my max. length I can shoot due to space), and sitting down with my elbows on a bench, but with no other support, did a few 5 shot groups....The TX is zero'd at 18 feet for bell target, so I left the sights alone......I thought it would be interesting, as scoped, the TX will make a single hole at that range, so the idea was...if you shoot with open sights, will a 100 years of progress and technology make a huge difference.

O.K., so I am still suffering with flu, so I don't know if I can improve on the group sizes,but it was equally bad for both guns

Not as much difference as you would think (I think the BSA edged this set)

O.K.,.....confession time...I was using the flip up aperture on the BSA!, so to be totally fair, I used just the standard BSA front / rear sight and got this

Test guns

So......for general tin bashing, and fairly close range at least...the old girl can still cut the mustard!

(will try some long range stuff when I am back at work, and can get into the warehouse "range"

[watchsapart]

Love the Model D, I would dearly like one, esp with the aperture rear sight.

[keith66]

If i have the time, i have a very cosmetically challenged Imp model D, its worth next to nothing as it has cold chisel cut scope rails, but it has a perfect loading tap & first class barrel.
Now suppose that old wreck got solid scope mounts with decent glass & something like a record trigger unit, bronze bearings on the piston, (i would keep the leather washer for consistency) decent full stock. the full works. How good would such a rifle be?

[Garvin]

Interesting test Eddie but no real surprise the BSA holds its own against the TX at that range!

I think there are sometimes quantum leaps in the design of things and that the Lincoln Jeffries underlever was one of them. Think of the wheel, invented thousands (millions?) of years ago. How far has it come since then? OK, it's got rubber tyres on it and is attached to some pretty fancy combustion-type devices, but it's basically a wheel. Same with the LJ/BSA underlevers. Since that 1905 breakthrough there's been some small refinements here and there. But the TX is basically a tarted up LJ/BSA underlever.

[edbear2]

But the TX is basically a tarted up LJ/BSA underlever.

......Dare you to post that in "General Airgun" ...

We both know that given a consistent squirt of air, and a well aligned tap and good bore.....Nothing else (well, perhaps the trigger let off) will have a huge effect on accuracy, and you could actually argue that the old BSA manufacturing method for rifling the barrels on these, (carefully single machine cut in the same way as the service rifle, lewis gun etc. ).... is more advanced and accurate than squeezing or hammering metal around a former as most do these days....But I think you will have a hard time convincing anyone who has not shot a good example of one of these old guns.

The real test will be at 40+ yards I suspect.....