Diana 45

[Drew451]

One thing that has always puzzled me is the cross pin/ dowel set up. I once read it followed centerfire rifle practice but I have no idea about this, myself.
If you read various web reviews etc., you will see that there is a lot of love for the 45. But do used examples get snapped up? I'm not so sure. Maybe still unfashionable like a lot of Diana's.

[Drew451]

BTDT in SAR definitely rated the RWS45 in 1984 or so.

Someone kindly pointed me towards that test recently and they did give it a huge thumbs up. I would also say that the quality of the review was a cut above most others I have read.
I was not a reader of the magazine as it was a bit before my time. Pity.

[landymick]

I think the cross pin is due to a lack of room to get a good mounting point because of the trigger unit.

The used ones seem to go quickly enough.

[landymick]

Someone kindly pointed me towards that test recently and they did give it a huge thumbs up. I would also say that the quality of the review was a cut above most others I have read.
I was not a reader of the magazine as it was a bit before my time. Pity.

It was Jims review that led me to buy the RWS 45 version even though I already had a .177 Original 45.

SAR the best Air Rifle mag ever, shame it finished.

[Drew451]

Yes I can't argue with much of what you have pointed out geezer. I think official and customer proven evidence pints to the 34 having higher power potential. Not quite sure which one wins on making that power smoother though. As we all know, more isn't necessarily best.
Ironically- and tjis is a purely personal perspective- I think that the RWS 45 was an.improvement over the rather bland 45, and in my book maybe it should have been the first format of the gun rather than.the last? Though its possible that the thinking there was to try and distinguish the 45 as an all new gun rather than a beefed up 35s which the RWS 45 shares a very similar stock to? And yes the stampede to.get the HW80 undoubtedly caused some sales damage to.the 45. But for those that didn't follow the herd I'm sure they continued to enjoy a very well engineered quality product.
It would be interesting to speculate as to what the price point would be of a 45 equivalent these days. And yes it may well be that Blighty could be overlooked if a 45 got re introduced in.the same way we are presently with the new FWB.

In theory the RWS type could have been the first format of the gun as the 35 Super preceded the 45. Except no one thought of it at time. It did give the 45 a new lease of life in the twilight of its run. I find it surprising that the Original 45 ran on till '88. Presumably, they were still quite popular in some countries if not fashion conscious Britain.

[jonnyone]

BTDT in SAR definitely rated the RWS45 in 1984 or so.

I picked mine up around the same time though more by default than design as some numpty had taken the leather head out of it and neglected to replace it- with anything as I later found out. They then passed it onto a second hand shop in town. The seething anger of the shop seller when I passed the gun back to him after it failed to push the pellet out of the barrel was disturbing! I think he would have bent the gun over the head of the guy who flogged it to him.
I simply helped the shop owner out by buying it at a suitable discount.
It still shoots well to this day
Yes I think I recall it was quite a potent weapon against the local squirrels if I remember right- much like my own-in both calibres

[jonnyone]

One thing that has always puzzled me is the cross pin/ dowel set up. I once read it followed centerfire rifle practice but I have no idea about this, myself.
If you read various web reviews etc., you will see that there is a lot of love for the 45. But do used examples get snapped up? I'm not so sure. Maybe still unfashionable like a lot of Diana's.

Yes I recall the same claim. Not quite so sure it worked just in that precise manner either but it works sufficiently well. The plastic grommets are now getting salty though and I had one crack through age not so long ago. Makes you wonder if turned brass replacements may be better longer term or even blued steel inserts?
Yes I was reading one of those review centre things recently and the old 45 was rated 4.9/5.0 so not too shabby.
But it does come down to fashion trends and Diana don't seem to capture the interest that some makes do. Even when some Diana models clearly have numerous advantages over some others makes.

[Drew451]

I think the cross pin is due to a lack of room to get a good mounting point because of the trigger unit.

The used ones seem to go quickly enough.

Thanks Landymick. That does seem logical enough.

[Drew451]

For me I prefer the HW80 if I had to choose between the pair & its not just for the Rekord trigger unit as the 45 unit is very nice when working correctly & the 45 stock is more usable than it looks.

Its the large plastic safety & the habit of the 45 to shear a portion of the pellet skirt (.22) that makes it second best for me.

Yes, the angled breech face does take a bit of getting used to but I think I've adapted to it. Feels quite normal now.

[andrewM]

I have found this discussion most interesting.

I did not know a new FWB Sport had been introduced but, upon googling this, I then discovered that it appears only to have been exported to the USA market. The comments about the new Sport, on this forum - largely in 2014 - are critical of the new Sport and provide a poor impression of it. I had hopes, for a minute, that my desire to purchase a modern springer could be met by the new FWB Sport.

Back to the 45. My own was produced in 1980. In those days, the 45 was a tad under 12ft/lbs but some, I gather, were a little over. I cannot see how the 34 could have been more powerful - as some have suggested here - unless it was an FAC model. Mine seemed to perform best with Silver Jet pellets (in .177), with remarkable accuracy at 60 yds, albeit they did not produce the best power. I gather those pellets have long been discontinued.

I also had an FWB 127 but, if it came to it, I narrowly preferred the 45. I suspect the FWB obtained support from some because of its better looks. That said, the FWBs seem to obtain a considerable premium on the second hand market, perhaps because fewer were made.

I have never fired an HW80, so cannot compare and contrast. However, judging from the comments here, it seems the old 45 (produced, remarkably, nearly 40 years ago) is preferred by some to the new Diana break-barrels and, it seems, is not far away in quality and ability from the best of the modern HWs. I would certainly buy a new version, were one produced, but would it be up to the quality of the old 45? It would also be uneconomic to produce a new version, given the Diana 34 and 280 are in production.

I shall read further comments with interest.

Rgds to all
A

[jonnyone]

I have found this discussion most interesting.

I did not know a new FWB Sport had been introduced but, upon googling this, I then discovered that it appears only to have been exported to the USA market. The comments about the new Sport, on this forum - largely in 2014 - are critical of the new Sport and provide a poor impression of it. I had hopes, for a minute, that my desire to purchase a modern springer could be met by the new FWB Sport.

Back to the 45. My own was produced in 1980. In those days, the 45 was a tad under 12ft/lbs but some, I gather, were a little over. I cannot see how the 34 could have been more powerful - as some have suggested here - unless it was an FAC model. Mine seemed to perform best with Silver Jet pellets (in .177), with remarkable accuracy at 60 yds, albeit they did not produce the best power. I gather those pellets have long been discontinued.

I also had an FWB 127 but, if it came to it, I narrowly preferred the 45. I suspect the FWB obtained support from some because of its better looks. That said, the FWBs seem to obtain a considerable premium on the second hand market, perhaps because fewer were made.

I have never fired an HW80, so cannot compare and contrast. However, judging from the comments here, it seems the old 45 (produced, remarkably, nearly 40 years ago) is preferred by some to the new Diana break-barrels and, it seems, is not far away in quality and ability from the best of the modern HWs. I would certainly buy a new version, were one produced, but would it be up to the quality of the old 45? It would also be uneconomic to produce a new version, given the Diana 34 and 280 are in production.

I shall read further comments with interest.

Rgds to all
A

Morning Andrew.
Thanks for your input. Yes the new FWB has seemed to attract lukewarm reception at best by the look of things. I think.it appears to have the same qualities of the old but in a much cost inflated package. I think cost grounds is maybe why it hasn't been released here.

Diana appear to show the 34 has a higher top end than the 45 and this has been borne out from overhaul and service articles from the US. I think I have read there that perhaps power approaching 18 ft llbs is possible with it and I seemed to recall perhaps 15 with the 45- so the latter is no slouch in FAC trim either. If you had a 34 and 45 alongside each other in cocked position you will note the extra stroke that Diana have built into the 34 over the 45. I still personally feel the 45 shoots sweeter though.

Its interesting that you owned a .177 model back in the day when the airgun fraternity was by far and away shooting .22 at that time? I think.back then some perhaps more enlightened airgunners bought .177 for the flatter trajectory and were more than confident of its killing ability whereas many back then argued the extra momentum of the .22 was best for hunting. Some bought .177 for the newly emerging sport of FT- then in its infancy. So its interesting you didn't follow the crowd. Some guns seemed to.lend themselves to the smaller calibre for some reason and I've a tendency to think the 45 does though.I have to say in owning both calibre guns its a competent gun in either. Its interesting you comment that you compared it more than favourably with the 127- itself a quality, and capable gun. As you know that premium on the second hand market is still enjoyed by the 127 to this day. But for those in the market for a presentable 45, they can still be had and for sensible money by and large. And will still perform well if in good order and maintained.

I think for the reasons you and others here have acknowledged there would be little hope of a 45 being re made and marketed amongst today's modern offerings. Possibly we have reached saturation point maybe on variety of makes n models available. But given it's quality of design, careful engineering, high quality of finish, and not least of all the admiration of many who have owned and used the gun and its current availability on the second hand market, you could ask yourself the question "has the 45 really gone away"?
Dave

[andrewM]

An interesting post, Dave.

I seem to recall, at the time (1979-80) , that the .177 calibre was attracting attention for the flatter trajectory, to which you refer. There was, of course, the view that the .22 calibre possessed greater 'stopping power', so thesis and antithesis led to synthesis in the form of the .20 calibre. Probably, this debate still continues to this day and remains, generally, inconclusive. I have never used a .20, so have no views on it.

Yes, on balance I preferred the 45 over the FWB Sport. I found it slightly more accurate but that might merely have been a matter of pellet selection. I don't think people made the same connection then, with pellet variety, as they do today and so, therefore, there was less experimentation. Indeed, from recollection, many did not appreciate there was a difference in size between .22 and the German 5.5. Whilst the old Eley Wasp was an excellent pellet, gunsmiths quite happily recommended it for German rifles, despite the tighter fit.

I dare say this preference between the 45 and the FWB Sport has the makings of a more modern equivalent of that between the BSA Airsporter and Mk3 Webley - a debate still occurring!

The FWB certainly fetches a premium over the 45 but that might be down to fewer of the former having been manufactured, although I do not have any figures. It could be better looks and, from recollection, the slightly lighter weight.

I am thinking of purchasing a 45 in .22 to see how it performs and am keeping half an eye open for one. On the other hand, perhaps I should simply buy a 34 instead.

I am not technically minded, so the debate between leather and synthetic washers, piston size/diameter, transfer port size and length, various internals, etc, is beyond me. I do recall is that both FWB and 45 performed well out of the box. There seems to be a habit these days of tuning new rifles and that, to me, seems akin to tuning new sports cars upon purchase from the garage forecourt - which should not be necessary.

Perhaps, as some have observed, there is very little more that can be done to improve the springer. If so, I would argue that it was the FWB and 45 that made the quantum leap (in the break-barrel format), from which all the others followed. Perhaps there is an equation, somewhere, that identifies the optimisation of efficiencies in terms of all the internals and recoil factors, at various powers and rifle weights. There lies a question for the technicians on this site. Alas, I am not qualified even to contemplate such complexities!

Rgds
A

[Geezer]

FWB made 60,000 or more Sports. They aren't that rare.

They are just very nice. Despite their flaws.

I agree that in terms of factory springer offerings in the 11-15 ft/lbs bracket, the best of the older guns (BSF 55, 60, 70; HW77, 80, 85; FWB Sport; Webley Omega, Tomahawk, Longbow; BSA Superstar, AA TX Mk1/2; Diana 34 series, 45) are as good and in some respects (fit and finish, for one) as anything you can buy now.

[Drew451]

FWB made 60,000 or more Sports. They aren't that rare.

They are just very nice. Despite their flaws.

I agree that in terms of factory springer offerings in the 11-15 ft/lbs bracket, the best of the older guns (BSF 55, 60, 70; HW77, 80, 85; FWB Sport; Webley Omega, Tomahawk, Longbow; BSA Superstar, AA TX Mk1/2; Diana 34 series, 45) are as good and in some respects (fit and finish, for one) as anything you can buy now.

A class selection. It's a pity that Diana, HW and AA are the only ones from that list offering top springers now. You are totally right to include the Superstar. I shot one for the first time in well over 20 years last week and was very impressed.
I missed the top end Webley breakbarrels but may pick one up someday. And I'm almost ashamed to say I've never had a FWB Sport either. They just didn't capture my imagination somehow.

[buttloaves]

Whats the bore and stroke of the 45?