Springers progress

[TonyL]

Lightweight, skirtless pistons are actually old technology. They always worked well, but the cost and reliability drawbacks meant they were always at a disadvantage.

The future is light to medium weight full bodied pistons.

I think you're right there, Nick.

And depending on the pressure exerted on the piston face, for many guns we're talking in the region of 170 to 200 grams?

Also, remember that many "new" ideas aren't that new at all. I can't remember the name and make of the gun now, but John Milewski featured a rifle once (1910s/20s?) where the target version sported a lightweight aluminium piston giving less power and reduced recoil.. There's very rarely anything "new" that hasn't been tried before.

[Geezer]

What everyone else said. The tuners have more refined techniques now (eg sleeving) than 35 years ago. But that's about it. The old stuff is just as good, if not better, than current production springers.

[GoodWILLHunting]

What everyone else said. The tuners have more refined techniques now (eg sleeving) than 35 years ago. But that's about it. The old stuff is just as good, if not better, than current production springers.

Better in many instances, where off shoring has occurred it's older originally produced guns that are sought after in the 2nd hand market. Thats not just down to nostalgia imo.

[Geezer]

Indeed - though I do mean the best of the old stuff. Not Webley Hawks and Ospreys, Relums, Mk5 Airsporters, most Milbro Dianas.....

I mean HWs, most Dianas, Longbows, Omegas, Tomahawks, FWB Sports, Superstars. Stuff like that.

[FPoole]

Assuming you have a good barrel and the seals are doing their job, it all boils down to the trigger. Drop a fitted guide into a TX200 and it will feel very nice, almost tuned. I recently filled the 2 adjustment screw holes in one of my TX's trigger with JB Weld so I could drill and tap new holes. I angled the holes so that they strike the bottom sear a few mm's farther away from the pivot. The trigger is even better than factory and the gun is even easier to shoot accurately. I think V-Mach sell a trigger blade already modded in this way. A second TX received a lightened LGU piston and seal as well as having the comp. tube end plug shortened. This gives me a stroke of 81-82mm and a piston with seal weight of 195 gr. This gun is also amazing even though it isn't that much of a custom job. Just find a factory TX that is accurate to start out and have at it with the tinkering. They only get better, and if they go the wrong way, just put it back to the last spot and try something new. It really is that easy with the TX. Forgot to add that both these guns have been flogged for 25 years and still going strong.

[Hsing-ee]

With respect, Ali - How about weight?

With modern materials, lightweight pistons, lightweight shrouds etc, nobody wants a pellet gun to be as heavy as the '77, '80, or TX, do they?

Except light weight makes them jumpy and flippy. So how about reducing piston bounce?

Put a couple of Formula 1 engineers on the job, and I bet they'd reinvent the whole springer industry in a weekend.

Hmm. Maybe. The HW50/99 is the lightweight 'perfick' break-barrel springer but it doesn't 'do it' for alot of people who want something a bit more substantial. The most accurate springer, in fact it is one of the most accurate rifles full stop, is John Budd's sleeved down ProElite. The two-way recoil and all the 'stuff' that goes on in a springer is soothed by heavier rifles, and there is also the issue of inertia. The inertia of the heavier rifles damps the movement of the SHOOTER as well as the recoil. In the hands of the average Joe a 12 fpe break-barrel weighing 3 lbs would sway and wiggle around a lot more than a more 'natural' weight like 7 lbs.

[TORNADOS7]

With respect, Ali - How about weight?

With modern materials, lightweight pistons, lightweight shrouds etc, nobody wants a pellet gun to be as heavy as the '77, '80, or TX, do they?

Except light weight makes them jumpy and flippy. So how about reducing piston bounce?

Put a couple of Formula 1 engineers on the job, and I bet they'd reinvent the whole springer industry in a weekend.

I reckon so n'all, hand'm a 'TXHC' and tell'm not to bring it back until it shoots sweeter, weighs less and produces less recoil, I reckon it wouldn't be very long before they were handing it back...

Ps, that or the 'HRC Honda' engineers, letting Honda loose on a 'TX' would be very interesting indeed...

[clarky]

I think there is no difference aside from the perfecting of this Delrin guide/top hat guiding of mainsprings trend.
I have perfected this system off to a fine art (completely chucking out the nonsense of tight guide rod of about a year ago) and finding it improves virtually any gun by a huge margin.
Completely removing twang and vibration but also improving the slip and free movement....plus decreasing the torsion.
It removes the need for piston lining, and silences the action of the gun to the point that i dont bother with a silencer anymore.
Introduced into a BSA Std light pattern for a friend recently (he had gone a bit toy armed since hitting 80) it totally transformed even this gun to shoot better than most off the shelf Meteors etc..

[Geezer]

Hmm. Maybe. The HW50/99 is the lightweight 'perfick' break-barrel springer but it doesn't 'do it' for alot of people who want something a bit more substantial. The most accurate springer, in fact it is one of the most accurate rifles full stop, is John Budd's sleeved down ProElite. The two-way recoil and all the 'stuff' that goes on in a springer is soothed by heavier rifles, and there is also the issue of inertia. The inertia of the heavier rifles damps the movement of the SHOOTER as well as the recoil. In the hands of the average Joe a 12 fpe break-barrel weighing 3 lbs would sway and wiggle around a lot more than a more 'natural' weight like 7 lbs.

This is, it think, true. Springers need a bit of heft.

Also true is that the biggest market is the US, where power is unrestricted, and price is critical. 80% of shooters there want a powerful gun, and 98% want a cheap one. (My guess, not verified figures.)

Which is why there are so many cheap, powerful (20ft/lbs) springers around these days. Most if not all of which are hold-sensitive, inaccurate, and so on.

My "perfect" springer might be, oh, I don't know, something like a 7/8 size Diana 52 with a 25mm bore and early HW77 stroke weighing 7lbs. But that would be an insane commercial proposition, because only about twelve people would actually buy it.

[robhw97k]

Bsa made some nice guns years ago but its all gamo now which is crap,weihrauch and air arms always made top of the range guns mainly hw80 and tx200.retro springer guns bsa air arms weihrauch they were the best.todays spring guns have less recoil than 70s 80s springers.springers are to noisey there no good at my permission need pcp gun.ive always been a springer man got 2 and wouldnt part with them but pcp is what ya want.

[vestlenning]

(...) but pcp is what ya want.

Not this guy.

[TORNADOS7]

Not this guy.

Not I either, without a doubt PCP's have their place in airgunning but any decent quality springer shot well is no less a rifle...

[rabbitwrecker]

but pcp is what ya want.

I've got testicles, so I don't need pfffttt-gun...

[derekj]

In my opinion the pinnacle of spring piston design was the moment Ken Turner revealed his FWB type sliding sledge 12ftlb FT rifle. His stainless steel FT rifles adorned with Dave Koyabashi walnut stocks were simply breath taking

[air-tech]

The peak of springer development, a very distinct one, was when the true recoilless ones were in production - whatever the means to achieve that aim, although all involved a counterweight of sorts to the piston and spring's movement.

As for the rest - as long as the laws of physics are unchanging all that can be done is the airgun equivalent of fitting lightweight alloy wheels to one's car, but leaving everything else unchanged. In the grand scale of things, a minor improvement on the car's performance.

In effect, as, as far as I know, there are currently no true recoilless springers in production, let alone all springers being built to this design, we have actually regressed, and are well off the peak. Sort of like the full takeup of multipoint fuel injection and multivalve engines in the '90's, but imagine that today we had to be back to carbed sidevalves.

There are valid reasons of course. Springers are airguns, but airguns aren't springers. Airguns are anything that can propel a pellet by air pressure, so PCPs built at a third or less of the price of a complex recoilless springer, fundamentally do the same job. Secondly achieving power in a springer one again challenges the laws of physics, let alone in one that is built as a recoilless one.

So, no, we are not enjoying the peak of springer development, that has come and gone, but have actually taken several huge steps backwards.