Which TX200?

[the viking]

Afternoon all, I would like a springer in.177, currently I have a couple of old break barrel .22's that I bought over twenty years ago. They are both accurate and lovely, but now having a couple of pcp's in .177, I can see the benefits of .177. I really fancy a tx200 so as to allow me to punch paper, take part in f.t. and hunt if I cannot for some reason charge the pcp's.
Having spoken to a couple of very good gunsmiths I have been told that the full rifle is more refined than the carbine version, I get the general drift of one rifle being more refined than another rifle, but I'm just wondering if you folks could fill me in on what the actual/specific difference (s) would be that make the tx200 full rifle more refined than its hc sibling.

Many thanks in advance, si..

[DESERT FOX]

The internals are identical,the difference is in barrel length.

I shoot HFT with a MK3 HC. Which being shorter is more pointable and easier to handle say from a hide.

Thery are both as refined as each other.

[Rapidnick]

As has been said the internals are the same so 'more refined' is probably not the way to look at the differences. For general and field use the HC would be-and is-my personal choice as I like shorter rifles. Quite honestly I'd buy the first nice one of either type that comes up 'mint used' on here.

[Trumpetier]

The full length in .177 is easier to cock over a prolonged plinking /target session than the shorter HC

[Barryg]

Stephen Privett took gold in the Springer Class 2015 World Field Target Championships, I understand that it was a HC .177 mk3 with little done to it ( correct me if I am wrong FT fans)
The cocking effort of a .177 HC mk3 is 28 lbs would that tire you

[Shed tuner]

the internals are not really quite the same, as the HC requires more spring preload to make the same power - hence it is slightly "less refined". The difference is about 0.7 FP in .177 This is simply due to the longer, more efficient barrel.

This also makes it quieter, plus the shroud is more efficient in silencing it further, and finally, as stated, it's easier to cock (but the mk3 HC is still easy anyways).

When you short stroke it however, as you should, the cocking effort and efficiency advantages of the full length are amplified.

HTH - JB

[Barryg]

the internals are not really quite the same, as the HC requires more spring preload to make the same power - hence it is slightly "less refined". The difference is about 0.7 FP in .177 This is simply due to the longer, more efficient barrel.

This also makes it quieter, plus the shroud is more efficient in silencing it further, and finally, as stated, it's easier to cock (but the mk3 HC is still easy anyways).

When you short stroke it however, as you should, the cocking effort and efficiency advantages of the full length are amplified.

HTH - JB

Not always .07 FP difference it depends on the individual gun, also if you want it quite the HC can fit a proper silencer and why bother short stroking when the mk3 can already win championships

[Artfull-Bodger]

Not always .07 FP difference it depends on the individual gun, also if you want it quite the HC can fit a proper silencer and why bother short stroking when the mk3 can already win championships

I suspect the guy firing it was the winner not the rifle, and he would have won with a full length too!

Short stroking a Mk3 makes a considerable difference, in standard form it's hold sensitive and sluggish!

[TORNADOS7]

If you were only using it for targets then I'd say the 'Standard' version (full length) would be the better option but considering you're gonna use it for multiple tasks then I'd go for the 'HC' as it's slightly easier (by nature of the shorter barrel) to obtain full accuracy from...

I had a 'TX/Standard' in .177 before my currant .22/HC and to be honest it was quite hard to hunt with due to the slightly more forward bias of the longer barrel/shroud/underlever and the increase in hold sensitivity due to the longer barrel as the pellet stays in the rifle longer allowing more time for you to wobble off aim...

Both rifles are beautiful to shoot though regardless which one you choose...

Hope this helps with your decision...

Ps, I am considering chopping mine in for a .177 version though as like yourself I do appreciate the virtues of the smaller calibre...

That and the pellets are cheaper !

[Barryg]

I suspect the guy firing it was the winner not the rifle, and he would have won with a full length too!

Short stroking a Mk3 makes a considerable difference, in standard form it's hold sensitive and sluggish!

He could have won with a full length because the accuracy is the same,
Why would a champion choose a hold sensitive and sluggish mk3 if a short stroke was better

[prosport.177]

He could have won with a full length because the accuracy is the same,
Why would a champion choose a hold sensitive and sluggish mk3 if a short stroke was better

Are you Piers Morgan??
Always playing devils advocate !!!

[Murphy]

I would get both just to be safe.

[Artfull-Bodger]

He could have won with a full length because the accuracy is the same,
Why would a champion choose a hold sensitive and sluggish mk3 if a short stroke was better

Ask him!

[Trumpetier]

The cocking effort of a .177 HC mk3 is 28 lbs would that tire you

Full length is easier, I do know what I'm talking about, I've owned both.

[Shed tuner]

Not always .07 FP difference it depends on the individual gun

not much it doesn't.. if you swap the entire power plant (comp tube, spring, piston, guides etc) between full length and HC actions, the difference is actually very consistent.