Springers, new or old.

[buttloaves]

I suppose it shows how good the original design for the springer was when over a hundred years later it's still the same apart from a synthetic seal. With all this talk of HW v Walther etc whats the difference between lets say an old BSA standard underlever and a HW 97 apart from the breech area, could one of these old 70yrs plus air guns be made to shoot as sweet as a modern day offerings because from where im sitting they're all the same, just a spring shoving a piston down a tube. I had a 97 in bits a few months back and i have to say i was mighty unimpressed, no low friction bearings or piston rings just a bit of tube with a piston head crimped on one end, so what makes it special in fact all the HWs ive seen inside have a similar underwhelming effect, the piston isn't even flared or not visibly, i think my old 35 had a flared piston at least. Is it a case of simple is better.
Im only talking action here barrels not included although how much have they improved over the years, same manufacturing technique i think.
To think two of the most highly rated springers the 95 and 99 are just tubes and springs when more complex designs don't get as much of a following, im thinking gas rams and low friction piston rings, is the 95 any better than a BSA super sport for instance and if so why?

[Geezer]

I agree with you. From my perspective, springer design (actions, not stocks, triggers, sights) basically stood still between the LJ/BSA of 1907 and the early 1970s, with the introduction of the FWB Sport (long stroke, synthetic parachute seal).

Until the rise in 10M shooting in the 60s, and the Airgun World-fuelled focus on sporting springers from the 70s, there was no imperative on manufacturers to improve performance levels. Most 1950s springers (e.g. Airsporter, MkIII, HW35, Diana 50 and 35 etc) shoot at around the same power, with similar accuracy.

Since then, we have seen improvements in springer design, though not much since about 1990.

Manufacturers have:

- embraced long-stroke for power, having earlier (HW35, Diana 35) tried large-bore and stiff springs instead and found they did not work as well as they thought. We now have lots of springers in the 20+ ft/lbs range.

- learned more about airflow dynamics, giving guns (any sliding-breech u/l) with much more efficient and consistent set-ups than tap-loaders.

- replaced leather washers with more efficient synthetics.

Whereas tuners have refined all the above, and sometimes been copied by, or employed (Ken Turner, V-Mach) by manufacturers to help them design new guns.

But it's still remarkable how well a good older springer stands up to a good modern one - and in some models (HW35, 80), the older ones are arguably better, or at least no worse and better finished.

[TORNADOS7]

I often wonder what would be required to make the ultimate springer, I mean that as in bore, stroke, transfer port size, piston weight, materials used, spring rate, overall weight, barrel length etc etc...

[buttloaves]

I often wonder what would be required to make the ultimate springer, I mean that as in bore, stroke, transfer port size, piston weight, materials used, spring rate, overall weight, barrel length etc etc...

There must be a formula, Jim?

[TORNADOS7]

There must be a formula, Jim?

I would have thought so...

[Geezer]

I would have thought so...

Depends on purpose and power level, doesn't it?

Of production guns, I'd hazard a guess that at 8-9 ft/lbs, the old Diana 27 nailed it; at 10-11, the HW99S (honourable mention BSA Supersport); at 14-15 the FWB Sport (honourable mentions Webley Omega and Diana 34); at 20 the HW80, Diana 48/52, and AA Pro-Elite.

[Rickenbacker]

If somebody one day develops / engineers a solution to cancel out (or significantly reduce) piston bounce - that'll be a biggy IMHO.

Imagine a springer that gives just a single push of recoil - like a rimfire...

[TonyL]

Oh no, Phil!

Cue the "anti-bounce" threads again!!

[Rickenbacker]

Oh no, Phil!

Cue the "anti-bounce" threads again!!

They can't do it Tone. They all know that if you did manage to stop the piston going backwards - the planet earth would move slightly forwards - which would probably cause crocodiles to become extinct.

Equal and opposite reaction, and all that.

[TonyL]

I often wonder what would be required to make the ultimate springer, I mean that as in bore, stroke, transfer port size, piston weight, materials used, spring rate, overall weight, barrel length etc etc...

Well, the venerable 25mm HW77 was just about it for our power level.

And then the odd spin-off / copy / refinement thereof, like the TX.

But then these days we have the stunning little 99 performing so well with a slightly larger bore and shorter stroke.

And the mind-boggling 24mm bore (and less) from our ingenious shed tuners.

[buttloaves]

If somebody one day develops / engineers a solution to cancel out (or significantly reduce) piston bounce - that'll be a biggy IMHO.

Imagine a springer that gives just a single push of recoil - like a rimfire...

The Park Rifle.. No felt recoil, Voila.

[buttloaves]

Whats the point of all this expensive friction reduction solutions when the tried and tested simple spring piston is the most preferred?
Is cost offsetting performance, in other words they're better but not that much better?

[Rickenbacker]

The Park Rifle.. No felt recoil, Voila.

Two pistons - or any other recoil-free design - is not the point I'm making.

[Airsporter1st]

Whats the point of all this expensive friction reduction solutions when the tried and tested simple spring piston is the most preferred?
Is cost offsetting performance, in other words they're better but not that much better?

Its the law of diminishing returns.

Factor in the shooting experience and feel and I'll take a Mk1/2 Airsporter over an Airwolf any day.

[buttloaves]

Its the law of diminishing returns.

That sums it up well.