TX200HC vs HW97k Head-to-Head

[Dunk1302]

In a freakish twist of fate, these two guns, ordered 10 weeks apart, both arrived this week (see LINKY). That being the case, I thought this might be an ideal opportunity to do a side-by-side comparison of the often-debated TX200 vs HW97.

The contenders:

TX200HC in .177 with walnut stock

HW97k in .20 in std beech sporter stock

I realise the calibres being different means it'll never be a true like-for-like comparison, but AA don't do a .20 TX200, and the HW97k was ordered WAAAAY before so I could find out what all the .20 fuss was about!

Here's my findings (with some surprising results) - all scores are out of 10:


Bluing TX:10 HW:9
Both had good, even bluing, but the AA was deeper and darker - comparable to the bluing on my brummie Longbow

Stock TX:9 HW:7
The TX stock is a beautiful piece of walnut, but I'm not sure about the fish-scale chequering (yet). Unfortunately, HW don't have a walnut option, so I had to order the beech - it's a perfectly good, well proportioned stock, just a bit plain..... I might look at a custom stock CS500 when funds allow

Weight TX:9 HW:9
Both guns are full-size, and scoped-up there's nothing in it, with them both tipping the scales at 10.5lbs, with the centre of gravity ~ 4" in front of the trigger

Lever Release TX:9 HW:10
The TX uses a just spring-loaded detent ball to hold the under-lever in place. To release, you simply pull the lever downwards until the ball over comes the spring pressure. The HW also uses a spring-loaded ball, but in conjunction with a button-plunger on the end of the catch assembly - simply pressing the button in allows the under-lever to fall free. Personally I prefer the HW system as there's little or no force involved, but I might be biased as I already have an HW77 with the same catch, that I've gotten used to.

Cocking TX:9 HW:10
The TX has the slightly shorter lever, so requires a bit more effort - something that's become important to me since recently dislocating my shoulder!. We all know that the TX runs on synthetic bearings, so the cocking cycle is typically smooth, although with a tiny hint of roughness, which I suspect is just the bearings bedding in. The HW was a huge surprise in this dept - the cocking cycle was even smoother than the TX! I can only compare it to running a well-oiled finger across a sheet of glass. I've heard rumours that HW have done some work in this area, and I can only say I'm impressed!

Anti Bear-Trap TX:5 HW:8
I've never been a big fan of ABT's, and prefer to rely on safe handling, but the TX unit drives me NUTS. I'm not sure if I just haven't got the knack of it yet, and maybe the dud shoulder doesn't help, but I find that I'm swapping hands, and where I'm gripping numerous times during the cocking/loading process, so I feel like I'm juggling the guns at times, which can't be a good thing. Also, the TX ABT makes a god-awfull ratchet-clacking noise when you cock the gun - I know you can overcome this by holding the ABT in, but that's more gun-juggling! In contrast the HW ABT is far simpler, and much less intrusive, albeit of a slightly weaker design, which just blocks the trigger from releasing until the under-lever is returned to it's original position.

Trigger TX:8 HW:9
Both guns have excellent trigger mechanisms: the rekord is legendary, and the TX one is very close behind. I didn't like the contouring on the front of the TX trigger blade - it's convex, which I feel encourages the finger-tip to pull across the trigger somewhat, and not straight backwards. The HW trigger is nice and flat across it's face, but the length of pull is a bit long for my short, fat fingers. If I could have the HW blade, with the TX length of pull it'd be perfect (Rowan Engineering will be getting a call before long!)

Firing TX:8.5 HW:6
Both guns had issues, which is a bit disappointing given their heritage (and cost!). The TX firing cycle is very nice: a slight thump of recoil, no twist, no dieselling, but quite loud (it's a .177 carbine, after all) - the big issues with the TX is that over the chrono it's running consistently over the limit (~12.5 ftlbs) with AA Fields, and is likely to increase as it beds in. Consequently, I'm going to have to open it up and remove some, or all of the 4 power washers to cool it down. Unfortunately, the HW fared worse: the firing cycle is comparable in terms of recoil, and report (and again, no dieselling), but there's an ALMIGHTY twang! It seems that the improvements in the cocking process didn't extend to a decent-fitting spring guide! Welsh Willy will be getting a call! In addition to the twang, the HW was also running at only ~10.2 Ftlbs with H&N FTT's. Again, this will rise a bit as the gun beds in, but I'd hope for better than that out of the box.

Accuracy - It's too soon to tell, and to be honest, I expect there to be nothing between the two guns with the right ammo.

TOTAL (/80) TX: 67.5 HW: 68

I swear I didn't fudge those scores to get them so close! As you can see, in total there's not much between the two, but both guns have different strengths & weaknesses, and both will need some attention before I'm completely happy with them.

Dunk