Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 17

Thread: BSA 240 Magnum modifications?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Prague, Czech Republic
    Posts
    1,497

    BSA 240 Magnum modifications?

    I bought a .22 BSA 240 Magnum back in 1996, with either my first or second pay packet. I think it was the second variant, with a slightly redesigned grip.

    It looked far better than the HW45 lump, and was generally very well engineered, I thought. I never had the problems with the breech seal I've since read about.

    It was powerful enough, but for the life of me I couldn't shoot it consistently. It seems I was not alone in this; posters on here have mentioned it being too light for its power and a barrel too short to be efficient.

    So... has anyone modified one and tamed it? I am thinking maybe a longer barrel (taking up the inch or so void in the frame) and maybe some added weight?

    Matt

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    TELFORD
    Posts
    2,101
    Quote Originally Posted by Nikkormat View Post
    I bought a .22 BSA 240 Magnum back in 1996, with either my first or second pay packet. I think it was the second variant, with a slightly redesigned grip.

    It looked far better than the HW45 lump, and was generally very well engineered, I thought. I never had the problems with the breech seal I've since read about.

    It was powerful enough, but for the life of me I couldn't shoot it consistently. It seems I was not alone in this; posters on here have mentioned it being too light for its power and a barrel too short to be efficient.

    So... has anyone modified one and tamed it? I am thinking maybe a longer barrel (taking up the inch or so void in the frame) and maybe some added weight?

    Matt
    Matt,
    I had the same problem. I re-profiled the grips at the top using a dremel drill ,where the knuckles of your thumb and index finger of your shooting hand tend to rub into the grip.
    I added weight to the inside of the grip by drilling two holes and filling them with melted down lead pellets.
    then just a smoothing out of the trigger/sear interface and an internal lube of mainspring and piston.
    Shoots like a dream now.

    Pete.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Bromsgrove
    Posts
    870
    Quote Originally Posted by flatrajectory View Post
    Matt,
    I had the same problem. I re-profiled the grips at the top using a dremel drill ,where the knuckles of your thumb and index finger of your shooting hand tend to rub into the grip.
    I added weight to the inside of the grip by drilling two holes and filling them with melted down lead pellets.
    then just a smoothing out of the trigger/sear interface and an internal lube of mainspring and piston.
    Shoots like a dream now.

    Pete.
    I ran all the tests and performed major tunes across a 12 month period after it first came out. I also purchased it due to its its less bulky appearance compared to the 45 i had but my conclusions realised it was not as good by some margin.
    The main problem is the novel guide rod. The idea was to use a cross corners guide in the shape of an X in section, instead of round. Made from Black Nylon. It has a very tight fight, the idea being to grip the unwound mainspring, removing any twang at the end of the cyle.
    While it did seem to work as a spring damper, it is tragic at returning top performance. There is not enough slip for the spring at these lower power levels. Also the nylon is not perfect, with high spots and the moulding is not perfectly straight ...as i found out when i ran it in a lathe.
    I produced a replacement Blach Delrin guide but of round section. Front section was exactly similar to fit as forend plug of course.
    I got a good improvement with no noticeable increase in twang.
    However there are other problems. The breech washer never worked efficiently and even came out. There didnt appear much that i could do about it. Many reported similar problems but also struggled to come up with a fix.
    Finally the barrel is too short. I wish BSA had not gone with the so called Plenum chamber in attempt to act as a small integral silencer. It may have had some slight effect but robbed a potential 2 inches of barrel length. Cardew did some tests many years ago where he concluded that a minimum of 7 inches would be required for the sub 6ftlb gun to perform to any reasonable accuracy. Suppose the Webley pistols just about made it at 6.75 inches but the Hw45 7.75 is a notable.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Derby
    Posts
    6,499
    I really like these pistols and prefer them to HW45s, one of my favourite pistols in fact, along with Tempests and Hy-Scores. I own two 240 Magnums and I've never had trouble with the breech seal popping out. I've messed around a little with one of them, I fitted a shortened Record Jumbo spring lubricated with some Moly gun grease and GN paste into mine, in an effort to see if reducing the power made it sweeter and easier to shoot, and was really pleased with the result. It's much easier to cock, sweeter and easier to shoot accurately, I'm really happy with it. I was expecting the power to drop to around 2.5 ft/lbs or maybe even less, but on the chrono it turned out to be shooting at over 3.5 ft/lbs. I was surprised, it felt like less. Like I say though, much sweeter and easier to shoot, and cock, much better for short and medium range plinking which is what I tend to use my pistols for.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Bromsgrove
    Posts
    870
    Quote Originally Posted by Rob M View Post
    I really like these pistols and prefer them to HW45s, one of my favourite pistols in fact, along with Tempests and Hy-Scores. I own two 240 Magnums and I've never had trouble with the breech seal popping out. I've messed around a little with one of them, I fitted a shortened Record Jumbo spring lubricated with some Moly gun grease and GN paste into mine, in an effort to see if reducing the power made it sweeter and easier to shoot, and was really pleased with the result. It's much easier to cock, sweeter and easier to shoot accurately, I'm really happy with it. I was expecting the power to drop to around 2.5 ft/lbs or maybe even less, but on the chrono it turned out to be shooting at over 3.5 ft/lbs. I was surprised, it felt like less. Like I say though, much sweeter and easier to shoot, and cock, much better for short and medium range plinking which is what I tend to use my pistols for.

    Its quite possible that by coincidence you negated the effects of the very tight fit of the mainspring when swapping out the spring for one of lower power.
    Thus, the low power you were expecting from the weaker spring was at least returning all its energy and quite probably why you didnt see the big predicted loss of velocity.
    Lots did have probs with the breech washer, with even the Tester on Test encountering a problem. Think this is a bit hit and mess, where you either get a good one or a bad one
    However, with a 45 hitting the sweet spot (cleaned out of all grease and a Nylon guide) i have happily trounced the Magnum on all levels apart from its bulk.

    I recently tested the new Tempest though after reading the recent review. Its doing a full 1ftlb more power due to a different seal arrangement. Amazing consistancy too.
    I also kinda liked the new matt finish above the gloss finish of the English version but some might not. Powerful gun though.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Prague, Czech Republic
    Posts
    1,497
    Thanks for the replies gentlemen. Some interesting findings there, Clarky. I desperately wanted to like the 240 Magnum but just couldn't because I couldn't get any accuracy out of it; I know others can (with perseverance) but I sold mine after a couple of years. I suppose the answer is a HW45, but I can't get on with its looks.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Bromsgrove
    Posts
    870
    Quote Originally Posted by Nikkormat View Post
    Thanks for the replies gentlemen. Some interesting findings there, Clarky. I desperately wanted to like the 240 Magnum but just couldn't because I couldn't get any accuracy out of it; I know others can (with perseverance) but I sold mine after a couple of years. I suppose the answer is a HW45, but I can't get on with its looks.
    You could try the new Tempest. Its every bit as powerful. The consistancy is there but you would need to learn how to tame it.
    The one other altermnative is the old Gamo Center. It will trounce the lot in Accuracy ad will tue quite happily into the 4ftlbs area. Its the Sporting springer of choice in FT at the moment if you can find one.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Prague, Czech Republic
    Posts
    1,497
    Quote Originally Posted by clarky View Post
    You could try the new Tempest. Its every bit as powerful. The consistancy is there but you would need to learn how to tame it.
    The one other altermnative is the old Gamo Center. It will trounce the lot in Accuracy ad will tue quite happily into the 4ftlbs area. Its the Sporting springer of choice in FT at the moment if you can find one.
    It was the looks of the BSA that really did if for me.

    It's interesting what you say about the Gamo Center. I had a Gamo Falcon as a kid, but I could never shoot well enough to appreciate it fully. From time to time I get a nostalgic hankering for another, so maybe I'll look out for a good one (or a Center).

    Matt

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Derby
    Posts
    6,499
    Quote Originally Posted by Nikkormat View Post
    I suppose the answer is a HW45, but I can't get on with its looks.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nikkormat View Post
    It was the looks of the BSA that really did if for me.
    If we're honest, looks are important.I've got an HW45 and it is technically a great pistol, but I find it so ugly that I've never taken to it. I know it's a very subjective thing but I really can't understand anyone loving an HW45. Its looks and proportions are wrong. The BSA 240 Magnum onthe other hand has great proportions and although it could be a little tidier maybe, it is a great little pistol. It's a challenge to shoot one accurately but when you learn it, it is very satisfying.

    Quote Originally Posted by clarky View Post
    The one other altermnative is the old Gamo Center. It will trounce the lot in Accuracy ad will tue quite happily into the 4ftlbs area. Its the Sporting springer of choice in FT at the moment if you can find one.
    I find this really surprising. It's a long time since I've handled a Center but I was unimpressed by it. I seem to remember that the loading gate limits the choice of pellets and is prone to leaking, and can also affect accuracy as the gate sometimes doesn't align with the bore perfectly, but then it was a long time ago and the one I tried out was well used, verging on worn out in fact, even then.

  10. #10
    harvey_s's Avatar
    harvey_s is offline Lost love child of David Niven and Victoria Beckham
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Norwich
    Posts
    9,319
    I had one for many years until redundancy forced me to sell it.
    I loved mine, it was light, compact, pokey and well made.
    I never had any issues with my grip as I think mine may have been a mk.II model (I was asked to sell one for a friend some time ago and his grip was noticeably more uncomfortable than mine ever was...)
    Likewise I had no issues with the breech seal either.
    Accuracy-wise, I could shoot mine as accurately as my HW45 with no-trouble, granted the gun sits somewhat higher in the hand, but this didn't seem to affect my UBC scores at the time.
    The only thing that bothered me slightly (because I was inexperienced back then and didn't know any better) was the fact that the sight rail is quite high above the bore and most optical sights run out of elevation adjustment.
    Personally I think they're far better than they're credited for - the airgun press weren't particulary complementry at the time or since which is ironic when I think about about the money I've wasted over the years on some of the tat which was well recieved....

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Bromsgrove
    Posts
    870
    Quote Originally Posted by harvey_s View Post
    I had one for many years until redundancy forced me to sell it.
    I loved mine, it was light, compact, pokey and well made.
    I never had any issues with my grip as I think mine may have been a mk.II model (I was asked to sell one for a friend some time ago and his grip was noticeably more uncomfortable than mine ever was...)
    Likewise I had no issues with the breech seal either.
    Accuracy-wise, I could shoot mine as accurately as my HW45 with no-trouble, granted the gun sits somewhat higher in the hand, but this didn't seem to affect my UBC scores at the time.
    The only thing that bothered me slightly (because I was inexperienced back then and didn't know any better) was the fact that the sight rail is quite high above the bore and most optical sights run out of elevation adjustment.
    Personally I think they're far better than they're credited for - the airgun press weren't particulary complementry at the time or since which is ironic when I think about about the money I've wasted over the years on some of the tat which was well recieved....
    I would flip your comments over on their head in my experience. I found the reviews for the pistol quite positive, particularly the AirgunWorld article and 2 other subsiquent articles which followed, incl one guy who had made a stock for his.. The later 2 articles agreed the breech seal was a touch suspect due to the angle of the breech. Often problematic design issue ...sealing on angles but there was big support for the novel arrangements of both the spring damper technology and the on board silencer. I have all the articles here and would be pleased if you could direct me to the negative comments you suggest. Thus my experience was suspect of the articles accuracy. It just is not as accurate as the 45. We had several through the club and all shooters would agree. The shorter sight base, inconsistant sealing, average trigger and difficulty in fitting a sighting system all lead to less performance when compared to the 45.

    As regard the excellent Center, i and a whole raft load of FT guys over on the FT post would disagree with it being nothing less than superb. The sliding breech does not leak but cannot take pointed pellets. However, very few choose pointed for FT or any other form of shooting these days....so not a problem. The sight base at 14 inches pretty much cuts it as being about the optimum before the gun starts to wander about. The underlever seems to kill muzzle flip and consistancy for the leather seal is excellent. The leather also seems unaffected by cold first shots and acts as a very nice damper. The swept volume characteristic against the port length is almot ideally set up too. Dont forget your allowed a 2 handed hold for Sillouette, where i found a gentle hold at the grip with both hands allowed me to trounce even the perfectly set up 45. Some managing to out shoot Original 5 and 6 owners.. It likes RWS Hobby and H&N Hi speed but some will have problems with those barrel in front of cylinder looks......dated is probably a good word!
    Last edited by clarky; 11-04-2013 at 03:40 PM.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    smallfield near gatwick
    Posts
    829
    Any of you lot willing to sell one of your 240's. Not fussed on cal. Ian
    beretta dt10 ,kofs 20b, ESCORT 12g semi-CAMO, 1022 ruger Volquartsen. Cz512 tactical Barton custom. 223 howa 1500 GRS stock

  13. #13
    Tony.T's Avatar
    Tony.T is offline For vicious attack Pasties, 177, 22 or 12bore?
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Bodmin
    Posts
    5,858
    Quote Originally Posted by g60bv View Post
    Any of you lot willing to sell one of your 240's. Not fussed on cal. Ian
    And I'd be happy with a Gamo Centre!

    (sorry for the hi-jack)
    video transferred to DVD, USB etc. Old negs and photos scanned to digital media
    www.digitalconversions.co.uk

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    sheffield
    Posts
    6,693

    Thumbs up

    I have a couple of 240's, One was customised to fit the original owners grip, He put car body filler on the grip and I think, Covered it with cling film, He the gripped it then let it set, He then rubbed it down smooth and painted it black..

    It must have been a really comfy ergonomic hold but alas he was a left hooker and had much less fat digits than me so I had to remove it all and refinish the bit of bland walnut..

    I have a few pieces of much nicer walnut and keep intending to make a new grip but it slips out of my mind like much other stuff these days!!

    Before

    After (On the right).


    John
    for my gunz guitarz and bonzai, see here
    www.flickr.com/photos/8163995@N07/

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Near Wimbledon, SW London, or Lusaka, Zambia
    Posts
    26,320
    Thread resurrection

    Just got one of these pistols and am going to have a looksee / play. Not too worried about power, just want it to be easier to cock and accurate. A new spring guide seems a basic starting point, but as it's hard to cock (well, it's not that tough in absolute physical terms, but it's just wrong that it should take that much effort) I'm going to find a more suitable spring first.

    First stage is to play with it as standard and see how it shoots...
    Always looking for any cheap, interesting, knackered "project" guns. Thanks, JB.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •