New arrival a FWB 65 pistol

[45flint]

Just arrived my first experience with a FWB 65. It was a 1978. One of the earlier long tangs. Came in Beeman shipping box with all the accessories and papers. Like a little time capsule. The gun is about mint, and shoots very well. Was shooting RWS Diabolo Basics at +450 fps. Instructions say it doesn't need lubrication? Any thoughts about that with a 35 year old gun? Love the look of the barrel sleeve and the sport grips, but it's not a light gun! The recoilless feature is quite amazing. I thought it wasn't coming back till I looked from the side. Just slides a little, amazing piece of engineering.
http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u...scrqeg212.jpeg

[trick cyclist]

That's an interesting barrel shroud - is it specific to a Beeman model?

[45flint]

That's an interesting barrel shroud - is it specific to a Beeman model?

I don't think so, but I don't think Beeman had them put in many of their packages. This gun's serial number is just over 100,000 it would be a 1978? The postmark on the Beeman box is January of 1979. I don't think many were with the long tang guns. I love the look of it cause the long thin barrel gives it a pencil look without it. They did make a heavier barrel as well. I have been looking for a while and I have never seen a Beeman with a shroud weight for sale or even in a picture. Whether this gun needs more weight is another question. Only had it for a day will be fun experimenting. One downside already. The shroud would have to be removed to attach the clip to stop the recoil less action, but doubt I would want the recoil?

[Peter Dunkley]

I think when they say no lube it refers to the internals. I would lightly lube the external linkages.
Did you know that if the recoil less plate is fitted the recoil matches a .22 rimfire target pistol for cheaper practice.

[I. J.]

I am a fan of the FWB spring pistols. http://smg.photobucket.com/user/Airs...l?sort=6&o=125

From the classic 65 to the odd ball 90.

[Jerry Cornelius]

good catch, I have never seen that shroud before.

These are Rolls Royce pistols. Or I suppose that should be Maybach. You have to admire the engineering and quality

[Inspector 71]

Does the shroud preclude the fitting of weights?

Did the 65 accept weights? I don't actually know having owned only a Mod. 80.

[45flint]

Does the shroud preclude the fitting of weights?

Did the 65 accept weights? I don't actually know having owned only a Mod. 80.

The shroud was the weight for the 65. There was a after market weight system that screwed in the hole for the recoil shield. FWB came out with the better weight system on the 80.

Here are closer pics.
http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u...smrknwlez.jpeg

http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u...sd8gs9geb.jpeg

[45flint]

Cleaned the barrel and a coat of Beeman oil and I got 480 fps. I remember someone saying these pistols are sensitive to pellet fit. The RWS pellets I am using fit very tight. Need to experiment there as well.

[I. J.]

Cleaned the barrel and a coat of Beeman oil and I got 480 fps. I remember someone saying these pistols are sensitive to pellet fit. The RWS pellets I am using fit very tight. Need to experiment there as well.

I use RWS R10s in all mine because I find they dont like the RWS Basic which I use in all my other 10m pistols.

[45flint]

interesting to me that there is probably no question that the FWB 65 is the best spring pistol made, great quality. But in the first few days I don't find it as pleasing to me as my Walther LP53. Remember I am a two handed back yard shooter, not a 10 meter shooter.

1. The 65 is a massive gun. LP53, more like a typical 22.

2. Sights of the LP53 are finer, right now I find it easier to be accurate with a two hand grip.

3. It is actually easier to cock the LP53 by far

4. Power wise they are not as different as you would expect. LP53 420. FWB 65 480

5. Even with the spring in the grip, I find the LP53 not as bulky as the sport grip on the 65

6. But it early in the learning curve with the 65, or maybe the ghost of James Bond?

[Garvin]

interesting to me that there is probably no question that the FWB 65 is the best spring pistol made, great quality. But in the first few days I don't find it as pleasing to me as my Walther LP53. Remember I am a two handed back yard shooter, not a 10 meter shooter.

1. The 65 is a massive gun. LP53, more like a typical 22.

2. Sights of the LP53 are finer, right now I find it easier to be accurate with a two hand grip.

3. It is actually easier to cock the LP53 by far

4. Power wise they are not as different as you would expect. LP53 420. FWB 65 480

5. Even with the spring in the grip, I find the LP53 not as bulky as the sport grip on the 65

6. But it early in the learning curve with the 65, or maybe the ghost of Janes Bond?

It's funny you find this because I find the exact opposite!

I find the LP53 relatively much harder to cock, difficult to shoot accurately, comparatively low-powered, and not nearly so much fun to shoot. The LP53 was designed as a firearm trainer IIRC and the FWB also has this facility, but I never use it.

On the semi-recoilless default setting, when plinking I can hit almost whatever I aim at with the FWB at sensible ranges, and being able to see the pellet in flight is a bit advantage, I find.

Maybe the fact that you got the Walther first makes a difference? Having got used to its idiosyncracies, the FWB feels unwieldy, perhaps?

[45flint]

No doubt you are correct, I got the LP53 first and am used to it. The downward cocking with the wood cocking aid is more natural. The side cocking just is not for me right now. Also I need to get used to the FWB sights, I have old eyes and I find the Walther sights easier to pickup. I need to take time and refine the FWB sight picture for my style. I think the width of the back sight is set up wide for one handed shooting. I can certainly see the FWB being the better gun.