Old vs. New

[cptman]

Hi all
Am I being unrealistic to expect a forty year old Airsporter to perform as accurately as a modern day spring Supersport SE or other modern day springer.

[thevoid]

Its got to be worth a try at the very least, at worst you could end up with a far sweeter gun. My 30 year old HW has had the bigtoe treatment and its not just competing with current crop but is still outshooting me by some margin

[dingle]

dunno but when you consider people still use vintage guns for bell target allbeit 6-10 yards with a 9-10mm target it must say something for the accuracy of older airguns

[Hsing-ee]

Tap-loading rifles, with a very few exceptions (Hammerli sidelevers, some Original 50s), are less accurate than their break-barrel equivalents. This is because of the jump from the tap to the breech and also the depth of the tap.

You might be able to tweak up a BSA Mercury to give modern accuracy if you really went mental on the project, but not an Airsporter (unless it was a Roller Breech). If you get less than an inch at 25 yards you should be pleased. Perhaps if you work on the tap alignment, reduce the recoil by long-stroking and fitting a weaker mainspring, keep the power down to 10 ft/lbs and do alot of pellet trials you might get somewhere, but you will never have a tack-driver like a HW77 or TX200.

[fat man]

have to agree 100% with the last poster. I own both Airsporters an the Hammerli and Original 50, whilst not powerful the Hammerli is very, very accurate, but hey there old designs and if you think about ancestors of the HW77 and the TX.

[Airsporter1st]

I really don't see why a modern gun should be any more accurate than a well looked after older gun.

I was regularly hitting a half inch spinner at 30 yds (at measured range at the club so I was not overestimating the distance) with my 0.177 Mk 2 Airsporter, which is not bad with open sights and a lot better than some people have reported with e.g the Prosport.

At least the barrels seem to have been better made than the modern day BSA's from the various issues reported on here.

[edbear2]

An interesting comparison at closer ranges;

http://www.flickr.com/photos/3122848...7625297485090/

This is obviously without "glass"....with a scope the TX is as good as we all know....open sights are a great leveler, not allowing the full accuracy potential to be used.

The problem is as well finding an older gun that has not been fired millions of times and that is still as it was built and not misused, I have a couple of older BSA's that are very little used and they are outstandingly accurate.

The biggest advance (IMHO) is the triggers on "modern" guns, ie the Rekord and similar multi link type, compared to the simple trigger direct to piston on older guns, if you consider the trigger pull on an Improved Model D is 40% the weight of the gun (even though crisp and repeatable), it must have some effect on accuracy.

I also do not think that a well aligned (so earlier tapered hand fitted type) tap is hugely at a disadvantage to a direct loading system (HW / TX etc.)...after all, revolvers work with the bullet "jumping" into the bore, and you can't tell me Model 14 S+W in .38 is not as accurate as most self loaders!

Again, age and use take a toll, but even a well used Airsporter MK1 can turn in quite respectable groups with open sights;

http://www.flickr.com/photos/3122848...7630731812070/

The barrel quality and rifling on these early BSA's is as good as anything available now, but the thing is finding an unmolested one....I suppose a fair test would be to see how a TX shoots in 100 years time

Plenty of guys at Bisley were hitting smallish targets with open sights at near 70 yards, standing unsupported at the Quigley event I went to, and rested with open sights a pre WW1 .22 BSA (in good condition) is capable of remarkable groups at 60 yards...especially when you factor in the iron sights and 4lb trigger pull!

I supposed I am biased...

ATB, ED

[hookerball]

Tap-loading rifles, with a very few exceptions (Hammerli sidelevers, some Original 50s), are less accurate than their break-barrel equivalents. This is because of the jump from the tap to the breech and also the depth of the tap.

You might be able to tweak up a BSA Mercury to give modern accuracy if you really went mental on the project, but not an Airsporter (unless it was a Roller Breech). If you get less than an inch at 25 yards you should be pleased. Perhaps if you work on the tap alignment, reduce the recoil by long-stroking and fitting a weaker mainspring, keep the power down to 10 ft/lbs and do alot of pellet trials you might get somewhere, but you will never have a tack-driver like a HW77 or TX200.

With respect the rifles you named below are designed to chuck a scope on (yes hw77 has open sights but from the 80`s trend,see many with scopes)
To me you got to learn your trade through open sites and this is where a lot of debate arises.
Pre war beezas and post war rifles like Airsportes mk1/club and cadets will compete with anything today like for like without scopes.

[Hsing-ee]

With respect the rifles you named below are designed to chuck a scope on (yes hw77 has open sights but from the 80`s trend,see many with scopes)
To me you got to learn your trade through open sites and this is where a lot of debate arises.
Pre war beezas and post war rifles like Airsportes mk1/club and cadets will compete with anything today like for like without scopes.

The OP was asking if an Airsporter can match the accuracy of a modern rifle and the answer is 'no'. With respect to open sights, if you put diopters on both classes the modern ones will still beat the oldies most of the time.

[hookerball]

The OP was asking if an Airsporter can match the accuracy of a modern rifle and the answer is 'no'. With respect to open sights, if you put diopters on both classes the modern ones will still beat the oldies most of the time.

Put a diopter on a modern one then,if you can get one to fit and shoot at Melbourne against a vintage old boy.

[isobar]

as ed said there is no doubt that triggers certainly come into play when it comes to accuracy.recoil is heavier also on some rifles.another point is pellet availability,with older guns you have less choice of the correct size pellet so more difficult to find a match.pellet choice seems just a critical with modern guns going by the posts i have read. atb, jon

[edbear2]

Out of interest earlier I tried some finale match (rifle) in a rusty on the outside, but near unused inside BSA mod D I bought at the Birmingham international last year. Anyway, at 10 yards sitting and resting gently, It did three groups of 5 shots, all basically one hole none bigger than .270" in dia, so tiny cloverleafs.

The limiting factor was certainly the trigger, although it has been set to 3lb, and has been carefully stoned and the pivot polished etc.

I use this gun a lot for bell target practice, and it is probably the best shooting Model D I have owned for a long time....BUT....if I put it down and pick up my worked over TX 200 MK3 bell league gun, which has open sights, stock extension, sorted set back trigger and V-Mach internals, my average score leaps up easily, with consecutive bulls being the norm (in practice conditions) instead of maybe 2 out of 5 with the BSA.

The sad truth is that the extra weight and stability, and improved sight picture plus light trigger let off mean it is a more efficient machine for the job.

I still prefer to shoot the BSA though

ATB, Ed

[claude]

as you must all know on here now i do not use scopes anymore and i would say yes old guns can compete i have owned and shot most airguns and yes i still own a prosport and my old competituion winning protarget and daysyate mk 3 but i also own 33 older springers which are my thing and i can hit the knock down targets at 30-35 metres with most of them and yes they fall i am now 53 and have shot airguns since 7 years old and i cut my teeth on old springers with iron sights so if you can shoot yes they are as accurate and most of mine are bog standard no tuning no fancy polished triggers just good old fashioned shooting learned over many years to shoot a pcp a child can do to shoot a springer accurately takes knowhow!

[thisisdonald]

I remember seeing an article in airsporter with terry doe or john darling or the like, hunting with open sighted meteor? (someone please correct me here) - it was entitlerd something like 'tools of the trade' or 'right tool for the job' - it must have been 15 years ago at least!

anyway - Ive hunted rabbits with open sighted vulcan and I agree that open sights can be just as accurate, and you sort of 'get to know' your gun through open sights. I spent countless hours in an old limestone quarry shooting .410 cartridges at 35 yards with a .22 vulcan and a .177 cadet - rarely missing... the cadet I did have to aim off a bit, but I had never adjusted the sights and I dont think the gun has ever been opened up so is original - just looked after - I just 'knew' where the pellet was going to land.

my point being I would definitely say that for accuracy, the oldies can compete easily as long as the time is put in and you know your gun.

[walnutfarmmick]

The sad truth is that the extra weight and stability, and improved sight picture plus light trigger let off mean it is a more efficient machine for the job.
ATB, Ed[/QUOTE]

Just doesn't seem fair, does it , Ed?

But I suppose it's just an analogy for life itself - survival of the fittest, onwards and upwards, etc, etc, etc.

ATVB, Mick