views on the tx 200 mk 3 177

[napia]

ive got 97k in 177 and love it all so got tx200 mk 2 in 22 both good at there job at sensible ranges but i do like 177 but i like the feel of the tx so just after your views on the mk 3 in girley cal thanks

[Doobin]

Can't get any better out of the box. Just get one, you won't regret it.

[Paul Hudson]

I had one for 12 months in the better calibre (NOT girly at all ).

I got rid of it to get another 97K...

Perfectly capable, very accurate. They just don't fit me like the 97 does. I found it too "nose-heavy". I even tried it in a superb FT stock but I just couldn't get comfortable with it.

However, I have the use of a TX 200 HC in .22 and it balances much better. Still prefer the 97K though .

Paul.

[napia]

thanks lads is the moderater any good on them

[NearoZero]

TX mk3 Rifle length, .1777777cal.

1. Insanely accurate with the right ammo, single holers at 40y no probs.

2. Well built and high level of overall build quality

3. Small amount of recoil, feel reduced by "heavy" weight, smooth to shoot

4. Impractically too heavy, which doesn't help you as a shooter as its always a struggle to hold the thing up. Only bad point is the weight, but you could argue thats the reason its so smooth to shoot and the recoil is reduced, and a weight:quality ratio in there somewhere.

Conc. Worth getting one for the high level of build quality, accuracy and consistency/reliability.

[Paul Hudson]

They always surprise me at how quiet they are when you're stood a few feet away from someone shooting them. But that's true of most sub-FAC springers. Most of the noise is from the action anyway rather than the muzzle.

Paul.

[napia]

thanks for that run down my mk 2 dont feel that heavy is there any diffence wight wise in the mk 2. 3

[napia]

cheers paul ones deffo on the cards thanks

[roblade]

Have owned tx200 MK3 .22 TX200 MK2 .22 and curently own a TX200 MK1 .22 and also have shot a TX200HC in .177.

personaly i think the early TX200s are slightly better than the MK3 not sure why just seem to be, but accuracy wise the .177 HC i tried was spot on accurate, not having shot a .177 in about a year was suprised to be hitting ping pong balls at 70 yards! (least i was once i realised not to give it the hold over of the .22 LOL) the recoil seems to be a little more refined on the HC i tried, compared to the short sharp recoil of the MK1/2 also has a few less rathcets on the anit bear trap so a little less noise there as well.

I dont think i have ever heard anything bad about the TX range at all

have to say it would be a close call over the

but should say have just bought a second hand pro sport in .177 and this beats any of the tx200s i have ever owned or shot. In fact it has very quickyl (in less than 24hours) become the best rifle i have ever owned.

hope this helps you out a little

ROB

PS weight wise i swear blind that my mates TX200 HC was lighter than my TX200 MK2 and he swears blind that his TX200HC was lighter than my TX200 MK2, so i think fropm that you could safly say they weigh around the same just slightly different ballance.

[Mike H]

I'm no expert on springers at all, not having shot one since I was 14
However, I shot my newly acquired TX200HC this Sunday and was blown away ! I almost got the same scores as I do with my DS MK3 !
Then again, maybe it just means that I'm a cr*p shot anyways
Mike.