Rws 45

[jonnyone]

I've dusted off a .177 RWS 45 and had a couple of sessions trying to get reacquainted with it's characteristics. I had this apart over a decade ago and cannot fully recall what I have done on the inside aside of a new ptfe piston head. It may have a new nylon guide n top hat but I can't recall. Anyhow it fires nice enough but I couldn't really get along with it these couple of sessions. I had it's compatriot out the other week in the for m of an Original 50T01. Though the underlever was in .22 and lower powered it was much easier to get reasonable groups with. These two basically share the same power plant in the form of same guide spring and piston set up.
I finally managed to turn in some acceptable groups this afternoon and began to enjoy the gun much better. I shot H&N FTT through it by the way (unless anyone has some suggestions as to an alternative to these)?
Aside of a certain editor of a past sporting air gun mag does anyone have good memories of hunting or using the RWS 45 in the past? What was your take on it? As we know it's basically a Diana 45 in what us basically a 35 stock. I think it looks a tad better than the Diana 45 but I suspect that the Diana stock may handle better?
I'm also debating whether it would be worth my while changing over to a Vortek synthetic head in lieu of the ptfe existing. Anyone got experience of this?
Dave:-(

[landymick]

Its a good rifle, looks better than the Original 45 stock wise but not much better handling really.I think I would change the ptfe for a synthetic version though the leather seal was good enough in the original.

Mine was new in 84 bought after Jim Tyler tested it.Its a rifle that I sold on & wish I hadn't.

[Muskett]

Only ever used the Original 45. Its a springer so forget all that you know in shooting a PCP!
Using springer techniques then its able to 30m or so, but its all in managing the system to keep it "there". When done correctly they are accurate ut all very unforgiving unless well practiced. The 45 is easier to drive than say a FWB Sport and can give a HW80 even HW77 a run for its money. Some seems to want to shoot more accurately/forgivingly than others.

[jonnyone]

Only ever used the Original 45. Its a springer so forget all that you know in shooting a PCP!
Using springer techniques then its able to 30m or so, but its all in managing the system to keep it "there". When done correctly they are accurate ut all very unforgiving unless well practiced. The 45 is easier to drive than say a FWB Sport and can give a HW80 even HW77 a run for its money. Some seems to want to shoot more accurately/forgivingly than others.

I know the 45 has a good pedigree n can still hold it's own against some of it's more popular competitors. I think its earned its place as a classic no less than the Original 45.
Incidentally my gun rack is a PCP free zone. Indeed I think I can probably state that I am likely to be the only airgunner in Britain that has never aimed or fired a PCP.
Its springers all the way for me I'm afraid
Dave

[Muskett]

I am also a PCP free zone, though I have shot one
Sorry if stating the obvious to the well learn'ed

[Drew451]

I have never shot the RWS version but I'm actually trying to purchase one at the moment. The outlet seems a bit slack at responding though.
I rate the Original 45 highly, a lot of well thought out design work went into these guns, which were very different to other Diana's of the period. My .177 O45 is nicer and more accurate than just about every springer I have owned. It still runs the leather piston seal, standard piston sleeve and spring guide. It feels a very different animal to my pals 50T01 which is surprising. I prefer it to the big HW break barrels. I have a .22 45 also but it's a bit rough around the edges. A project gun for spare time I don't have.
Im very curious as to how a synthetic sealed 45 would shoot. I am expecting the RWS 45 to be similar but perhaps less handy than the Original 45. I've always thought the RWS 45 would be more suited to field target shooting than the O45 due to the appearance of the stock. It would be good to shoot them back to back if I get the chance.

[jonnyone]

Its a good rifle, looks better than the Original 45 stock wise but not much better handling really.I think I would change the ptfe for a synthetic version though the leather seal was good enough in the original.

Mine was new in 84 bought after Jim Tyler tested it.Its a rifle that I sold on & wish I hadn't.

My first RWS 45 was purchased cheap after it was found that a previous owner had unsuccessfully tried to change the leather head over. That is in .22. It was a real powerhouse when fixed but had to be throttled back. I seem to recall Jims .177 was FAC? I recall he was quite taken with it n I think this went some way to me going on a search for my first (the .22 gun). The .177 came along later.
Im quite taken with them both but as posted earlier it took some practice to see best of it.
Dave