HW95 Range

[Arthur John Smithsplease]

I advise you to try a 95 before you buy, if it's in 177.

Most people love them, but I couldn't get on with them.

I experienced the same problem as Rapidnick.

If you're going to put a sleeve on the barrel, may as well get a HW98.

The 98 I had was much more accurate, but unpleasantly front heavy for me.

I really wanted to like the 95, because I think they're a very nice looking, relatively light weight rifle. But I was bitten twice, and would not buy another, unless it were fettled and in 22.

The TX is also heavy at the front, but it's also pretty heavy at the back, and for me balances better.

The problem for me with the 98 is that it's a fairly light weight rifle with a big hunk of steel on the front. I just don't like the balance.

My 77k is actually heavier, but easier to hold and shoot.

[bigtoe01]

Arthur

regards sleeving the barrel...you can fit a sleeve that does not weigh the same as a 98 one, and the gun is way nicer for it. I find the 98 sleeve way to heavy, and yet the sleeves i make for my rifles are way nicer.

The trick is 20mm OD 16mm ID tube, forget silencing the 16inch barrel just finish the sleeve flush and only go 50 to 70mm past the end of the barrel on the 12inch version.

[Rapidnick]

Arthur I agree with Tony on this. The 98 shrouded barrel is a really big heavy lump and for me destroys the point of having a light handy rifle. The muzzle weight I use is the one made by jonny neate on here. It adds a little bit of weight but in the right place-on the END of the barrel- thus giving the best anti flip remedy I have ever experienced.

[Arthur John Smithsplease]

Thanks for the advice from you both.

I toyed with the idea of another 95 with some sort of barrel weight, but then I read lots of good reviews of the 99s.

If, as they say, it is much more efficient in 12ftlbs than the 95 (Americans run 95s at about 14/15ftlbs if I'm not mistaken), what does this mean in layman's terms?

Does it mean that, though half a pound lighter, the gun is actually more pleasant to shoot than a 95 and less hold sensitive?

I've read posts by people who've said they much prefer the 99s over the 95, and one who got rid of the latter and kept the former.

Now that the galling issue has been sorted, I'm tempted to wait until the newer models arrive on the market and try one. Then I'd strip it, relube, etc.

Given the substantial difference in price between a 99 and a 95 I think it might be worth a punt.

[bozzer]

Arthur

Someone like Bigtoe will answer this better ...

... but I read many years ago that the 99 was the most efficient HW springer. In the article I read it was saying that there is a formula for working out the size of the cylinder ( or basically the swept volume ) and the muzzle energy that that swept volume produces. The 99 was the most efficient regarding ratio between size of cylinder and muzzle energy ( the article gave figures in % ).

Also, in terms of our 12fp rule ... the 95 is giving it's maximum power at about 15or so fp in 0.22 and probably 14fp in 0.177. So when we run them at 11.5fp they are somewhat crippled and not running at full efficiency. The 99 is pretty much flat out at about 12.5fp in 0.22 and about 11.5fp in 0.177. So we are running the gun at it's full efficiency.

I do agree with some of the comments that with break barrel springers they do normally shoot noticably better in 0.22 than 0.177. The 0.22 system is more efficient, and the same rifle shooting a 0.22 at the same power needs less spring ( so supposedly less recoil ) than when shooting a 0.177.

My Diana 38 break barrel ( I have both 0.22 and 0.177 barrels ) does about 1 to 1 1/2 fp more with the 0.22 barrel fitted. I actually prefer the 0.177 break barrels doing about 10fp for accuracy ( even though I've had this doing 960fps with a light 0.177 pellet ).

[Arthur John Smithsplease]

Thanks Bozzer.

[theclowncrusty]

There are knowledgeable people on this forum. Learn something new every day when on here.