if only

[Geezer]

or a lot better

I don't disagree with you, but Brum was always late and overpriced.

The Superstar was a better sporting gun than a stock HW77, but by the time it came out, pretty much everyone who might buy one had a 77. To some extent the same goes for the Eclipse. (But it looked odd, and had its issues.)

The Omega was about as good as an FWB Sport, maybe better, but came out when almost no-one really wanted a high-end break barrel. I liked it, but never thought for a second of trading my FWB 127 for one.

The Gold Star was very nice, but if you liked underlevers you already had a 77. And it was pricey, and it came out when PCPs were taking off.
And Theobens were popular in that price range. It could not compete.

The Webley/Venom Tomahawk/Longbow/etc were absolutely brilliant. But the buyers wanted PCPs, or underlevers. Or already had a Venom 80. So they did not sell. And were not well marketed in the US, where it should have mattered.

If any of those had come out 3-4 years earlier, Brum might have hit HW badly in the UK and US and still be around as we knew it then. But they were always playing catch-up, and failing. Who the hell would try to sell the Osprey as a target gun ten years after the Original 60 and FWB150? That mentality doomed them.

Btw, my ancestors were Brum gunsmiths and founder members of BSA. So this whole saga pains me.

[fatttmannn]

I don't disagree with you, but Brum was always late and overpriced.

The Superstar was a better sporting gun than a stock HW77, but by the time it came out, pretty much everyone who might buy one had a 77. To some extent the same goes for the Eclipse. (But it looked odd, and had its issues.)

The Omega was about as good as an FWB Sport, maybe better, but came out when almost no-one really wanted a high-end break barrel. I liked it, but never thought for a second of trading my FWB 127 for one.

The Gold Star was very nice, but if you liked underlevers you already had a 77. And it was pricey, and it came out when PCPs were taking off.
And Theobens were popular in that price range. It could not compete.

The Webley/Venom Tomahawk/Longbow/etc were absolutely brilliant. But the buyers wanted PCPs, or underlevers. Or already had a Venom 80. So they did not sell. And were not well marketed in the US, where it should have mattered.

If any of those had come out 3-4 years earlier, Brum might have hit HW badly in the UK and US and still be around as we knew it then. But they were always playing catch-up, and failing. Who the hell would try to sell the Osprey as a target gun ten years after the Original 60 and FWB150? That mentality doomed them.

Btw, my ancestors were Brum gunsmiths and founder members of BSA. So this whole saga pains me.

yes agree the Tomahwk I have is a stunning gun, but has you say to, little, to late, say s it all really , BSA/Webley RIP sadly

[Geezer]

So in theory BSA could beat AA into producing a top end break barrel springer, if they got their act together and listened to a few shed tuners off of this very forum.

Could it also be that Weihrauch have survived better because they still make every single rifle they have made from day one and offer such a vast array of different types (even if they are a bit bland)

Pete

That is my point. The old UK gun trade kept assuming it had a captive nationalist market (not true) and producing guns that people liked, but did not want to buy.

Now, it's history, I'm afraid. Webley-Hatsan and BSA-Gamo have their positions in the market, and 90+% of buyers have no detailed knowledge of the heritage that might motivate them to buy. Both were able in around 1982 to make a world-beating rifle. Neither did, and fell away. They both did, too late, a few years later.

HW I am sure are benefitting from their history, and, above all, from a reputation built here and in the US from the 80s as a premium manufacturer. With a very good flagship PCP.

If BSA produced an equivalent of the Webley/Venoms, with great finish, high performance, and the marketing hype in the US of the LGV, they might do well - make it powerful, very accurate and with a very nice trigger. Job done. But, if you are Gamo, and your BSAs are selling well (as 5% I guess compared to your cheaper volume guns), why bother trying to take on AA or HW?

[look no hands]

That is my point. The old UK gun trade kept assuming it had a captive nationalist market (not true) and producing guns that people liked, but did not want to buy.

Now, it's history, I'm afraid. Webley-Hatsan and BSA-Gamo have their positions in the market, and 90+% of buyers have no detailed knowledge of the heritage that might motivate them to buy. Both were able in around 1982 to make a world-beating rifle. Neither did, and fell away. They both did, too late, a few years later.

HW I am sure are benefitting from their history, and, above all, from a reputation built here and in the US from the 80s as a premium manufacturer. With a very good flagship PCP.

If BSA produced an equivalent of the Webley/Venoms, with great finish, high performance, and the marketing hype in the US of the LGV, they might do well - make it powerful, very accurate and with a very nice trigger. Job done. But, if you are Gamo, and your BSAs are selling well (as 5% I guess compared to your cheaper volume guns), why bother trying to take on AA or HW?

I've been reading some old Airgun world mags from the 80's and they are mainly about the BSA Challenger, it pains me to say this, as I think the Challenger is the best break barrel they ever made but they made it sound like it was this new wonder gun that was going to drive all HW's from our shores, sadly all it was was a restocked mk4 Mercury with the godawful maxigrip rail (it would have been alright if it was 11mm like normal sized rails) but they couldn't even get that right, they could have done so much better with the Challenger, mainly the trigger and better internal tolerances and fit of things like the spring guide (instead of a piece of rolled steel and a washer) all these tiny little things that don't cost a fortune to a manufacturer can make the difference between life and death in the selling arena.
I think AA where destined for good things from the beginning and that was mainly because of good management decisions, they improved the "Jackel" tap loader quality and offered them in a multitude of different stocks and barrel lengths but even they realised that the tap loader design had it's limitations and quickly converted over to the sliding breech design, they didn't stop there though and basically got the design of the TX right from the start and it's been up at the top ever since.

Pete

[fatttmannn]

That is my point. The old UK gun trade kept assuming it had a captive nationalist market (not true) and producing guns that people liked, but did not want to buy.

Now, it's history, I'm afraid. Webley-Hatsan and BSA-Gamo have their positions in the market, and 90+% of buyers have no detailed knowledge of the heritage that might motivate them to buy. Both were able in around 1982 to make a world-beating rifle. Neither did, and fell away. They both did, too late, a few years later.

HW I am sure are benefitting from their history, and, above all, from a reputation built here and in the US from the 80s as a premium manufacturer. With a very good flagship PCP.

If BSA produced an equivalent of the Webley/Venoms, with great finish, high performance, and the marketing hype in the US of the LGV, they might do well - make it powerful, very accurate and with a very nice trigger. Job done. But, if you are Gamo, and your BSAs are selling well (as 5% I guess compared to your cheaper volume guns), why bother trying to take on AA or HW?

yes agree.

[fatttmannn]

I've been reading some old Airgun world mags from the 80's and they are mainly about the BSA Challenger, it pains me to say this, as I think the Challenger is the best break barrel they ever made but they made it sound like it was this new wonder gun that was going to drive all HW's from our shores, sadly all it was was a restocked mk4 Mercury with the godawful maxigrip rail (it would have been alright if it was 11mm like normal sized rails) but they couldn't even get that right, they could have done so much better with the Challenger, mainly the trigger and better internal tolerances and fit of things like the spring guide (instead of a piece of rolled steel and a washer) all these tiny little things that don't cost a fortune to a manufacturer can make the difference between life and death in the selling arena.
I think AA where destined for good things from the beginning and that was mainly because of good management decisions, they improved the "Jackel" tap loader quality and offered them in a multitude of different stocks and barrel lengths but even they realised that the tap loader design had it's limitations and quickly converted over to the sliding breech design, they didn't stop there though and basically got the design of the TX right from the start and it's been up at the top ever since.

Pete

again yes Pete agree, still have my Woodsman and love it to bits, and had most of the Jackals at one time or another with exception of the 20 cal. I have to admit I dont like the stock on the newer TX,s ( fish scale) and would wellcome an allternative say stippling or even a tactical stock but it is a good design.

[Hsing-ee]

I did some sums and air-rifles are cheaper than they used to be in the late 70s, taking the HW35 as an example - it costs £203 from the Sportsman Gun Center now, while in the late 70s it cost the equivalent of £267. I think they have to keep costs down because there are so many more different types and brands of rifles to compete with (PCPs for example!) and also there are lots of other things to spend 'non essential' money on - just think of all the electronics that werent available in 1979.

[fatttmannn]

I did some sums and air-rifles are cheaper than they used to be in the late 70s, taking the HW35 as an example - it costs £203 from the Sportsman Gun Center now, while in the late 70s it cost the equivalent of £267. I think they have to keep costs down because there are so many more different types and brands of rifles to compete with (PCPs for example!) and also there are lots of other things to spend 'non essential' money on - just think of all the electronics that werent available in 1979.

Yes thats true, but remember the pound has steadily been devalued since the 80,s so the real buying power of the pound is a great deal less And has to Air Arms I would dearley love to see an tottaly new springer from them, yes TX is a good gun and its selling well but it is a preatey old design now, and faceing some competition from the likes of Walther( have both the LGV Master and the Terrus wood stocked both in .22 myself and cant see much if anything wrong with either. If like BSA/ Webley , Air Arms continue on one ( al be it very good) springer will we see the end of UK springer production, I hope not I like Air Arms springers , lets hope the launch anew springer in the not to distant future, a nice break barell would do it for me, and no bloody fish scale please!!

[Hsing-ee]

Yes thats true, but remember the pound has steadily been devalued since the 80,s so the real buying power of the pound is a great deal less And has to Air Arms I would dearley love to see an tottaly new springer from them, yes TX is a good gun and its selling well but it is a preatey old design now, and faceing some competition from the likes of Walther( have both the LGV Master and the Terrus wood stocked both in .22 myself and cant see much if anything wrong with either. If like BSA/ Webley , Air Arms continue on one ( al be it very good) springer will we see the end of UK springer production, I hope not I like Air Arms springers , lets hope the launch anew springer in the not to distant future, a nice break barell would do it for me, and no bloody fish scale please!!

No, the calculation is based on relative buying power, the rifles are still cheaper now. The TX is a refinement of the HW77 and as such is pretty much the perfect spring air-rifle design - just because something is 'an old design' does not mean it cannot the best design. The Mauser 98 action is still pretty much the best bolt-action design and is used by hundreds of gun makers for their precision rifles, and that design is well over 100 years old. The Walther is just a cheaper version of the TX, and is in no way a 'new' design. Air Arms have the top end of the springer market and make a good range of reliable PCPs, a break-barrel like the ProElite would probably not bring them in much extra sales. You are right about the fish-scale though!

[fatttmannn]

No, the calculation is based on relative buying power, the rifles are still cheaper now. The TX is a refinement of the HW77 and as such is pretty much the perfect spring air-rifle design - just because something is 'an old design' does not mean it cannot the best design. The Mauser 98 action is still pretty much the best bolt-action design and is used by hundreds of gun makers for their precision rifles, and that design is well over 100 years old. The Walther is just a cheaper version of the TX, and is in no way a 'new' design. Air Arms have the top end of the springer market and make a good range of reliable PCPs, a break-barrel like the ProElite would probably not bring them in much extra sales. You are right about the fish-scale though!

well at least we can agree on 1%, can I thank you again for that March 1979 Airgun World , it was most appreciated.

[look no hands]

No, the calculation is based on relative buying power, the rifles are still cheaper now. The TX is a refinement of the HW77 and as such is pretty much the perfect spring air-rifle design - just because something is 'an old design' does not mean it cannot the best design. The Mauser 98 action is still pretty much the best bolt-action design and is used by hundreds of gun makers for their precision rifles, and that design is well over 100 years old. The Walther is just a cheaper version of the TX, and is in no way a 'new' design. Air Arms have the top end of the springer market and make a good range of reliable PCPs, a break-barrel like the ProElite would probably not bring them in much extra sales. You are right about the fish-scale though!

I think that's what's been said on other "Where's the new AA break barrel" threads, just because a lot of us on here would say we'd have one doesn't mean it would be a viable venture for AA, I'd love to see one in the mid weight and size category and have it spank the Germans but I can't see it happening, may be we need to hassle the new AA management and see what they say, I did own a Pro Elite once but it was so heavy and long it was no good for hunting (for me anyway) but boy was it accurate.

Pete

[fatttmannn]

I think that's what's been said on other "Where's the new AA break barrel" threads, just because a lot of us on here would say we'd have one doesn't mean it would be a viable venture for AA, I'd love to see one in the mid weight and size category and have it spank the Germans but I can't see it happening, may be we need to hassle the new AA management and see what they say, I did own a Pro Elite once but it was so heavy and long it was no good for hunting (for me anyway) but boy was it accurate.

Pete

Have shot a pro-elite a few times, it is a big.old beast but very accurate. Only problem was apart from its great size and weight was the very high price wanted for it it wasnt that good, has to a new rifle being on the cards from Air Arms I wont hold my breath and who knows 10 years time, will Air Arms be a UK ownded companey even

[look no hands]

Have shot a pro-elite a few times, it is a big.old beast but very accurate. Only problem was apart from its great size and weight was the very high price wanted for it it wasnt that good, has to a new rifle being on the cards from Air Arms I wont hold my breath and who knows 10 years time, will Air Arms be a UK ownded companey even

We'd all like to think they would be under the same ownership but you can never tell in this day and age, there was an advert once in one of the mags and I can't remember what company it was in the late 90's (may be even the early 00's) but the Pro Elite was being sold for about £215ish towards the end of their production life, I honestly thought about getting one but as I'm a carbine lover I didn't at the time, the one I got was secondhand in a gun shop in Bournemouth and I traded in my BSA Challenger for it (never should have done that), I then went and met my mate at a gun range and thought I'd bought a turkey as I couldn't work out where the second shot had gone, until we realised it went straight through the same hole, that was with a shitty Chinese scope fitted, I'd never had that before with any on my rifles and that's what through me as everything else either would group like a shotgun or if I was lucky would cloverleaf and it was a .22.

Pete

[Two200's]

We are in the know.

However the gun makers will produce guns that sell in higher numbers, primarily.

Quality will always be second to speed in manufacture / assembly.

Appearance and marketing will be next.

It makes me livid that this is an accepted fact.

I have avoided new BSA guns, as they seem to be held in low esteem and they seem to be problematic.

I believe investment is there, but the widespread market has a different paradigm now. Choice is greater, more brands than ever and budgets are tighter.

It will always be volume first.

Real time quality comes from Artisan gun makers who survive, because, people who want a specific thing and will not compromise, go to them.

Most guns can be made better, but the raw materials have to be there first, to make it viable.

I had a BSA Mercury for a while. It was a freebie and it was in a sorry state.
Eventually the axis pin fell out in 3 pieces. etc.

That said, no twang, fast shot cycle. It was a good gun, however it was beyond my capability and interest to restore it. So I too gave it to someone who fancied a go.

If I wasn't in a club, it would have probably have gone in the bin.

As i said, we are in the know, however a new shooter will walk into a gunshop, see a stealth, or a tactical rifle, buy it, shoot it and be satisfied that their new gun is oooorsum.

That new shooter doesnt know about adjustable axis bolts, shims, guides, top hats, finished spring ends, correct lubes and has probably never heard of a Chrono.

Still, they buy the gun.
The chain takes their money and the world keeps turning.

Meanwhile the manufacturers are busy working on compromises to make more margin all the time.

[fatttmannn]

We are in the know.

However the gun makers will produce guns that sell in higher numbers, primarily.

Quality will always be second to speed in manufacture / assembly.

Appearance and marketing will be next.

It makes me livid that this is an accepted fact.

I have avoided new BSA guns, as they seem to be held in low esteem and they seem to be problematic.

I believe investment is there, but the widespread market has a different paradigm now. Choice is greater, more brands than ever and budgets are tighter.

It will always be volume first.

Real time quality comes from Artisan gun makers who survive, because, people who want a specific thing and will not compromise, go to them.

Most guns can be made better, but the raw materials have to be there first, to make it viable.

I had a BSA Mercury for a while. It was a freebie and it was in a sorry state.
Eventually the axis pin fell out in 3 pieces. etc.

That said, no twang, fast shot cycle. It was a good gun, however it was beyond my capability and interest to restore it. So I too gave it to someone who fancied a go.

If I wasn't in a club, it would have probably have gone in the bin.

As i said, we are in the know, however a new shooter will walk into a gunshop, see a stealth, or a tactical rifle, buy it, shoot it and be satisfied that their new gun is oooorsum.

That new shooter doesnt know about adjustable axis bolts, shims, guides, top hats, finished spring ends, correct lubes and has probably never heard of a Chrono.

Still, they buy the gun.
The chain takes their money and the world keeps turning.

Meanwhile the manufacturers are busy working on compromises to make more margin all the time.

sadly all very true,