Are springers stuck in the 80s?

[TonyL]

I think that the only possible way forward is for the manufactureres to utilize modern materials in the power train so to counteract the effects of mass and inertia leading to recoil and make the guns to reach the required power without resorting to ' sledge hammer ' ideology of engineering.

A.G

Yep, this is what I'd like to see. But always remembering that we can't defy the physics. So we'll always need a degree of sufficient force / momentum / inertia there. So, nice, simple reliable engineering built with precision and solidity for longevity. Coupled with stock design to improve ergonomics allowing for a relaxed user and to help promote straight line recoil / surge.

There has got to be so much mileage in getting the transfer port to give up its innermost secrets, too, increasing efficiency further which will prove beneficial to all other aspects.

[Geezer]

Back the OP...

where is the quality carbine Underlever magazine fed springer, an improved version of the original BSA Goldstar ?

Many of us shoot PCPs in preference because of the fumbly finger pellet problem when hunting !

I agree. Diana tried it with the 300R but quickly took it off the market because numpties who didn't read and follow the manual found it really easy to break.

Also a big problem for me that i hate about Springers is the scope mounting rails theoben had the best mounts solid as a rock don't know why other brands don't follow

Weaver/Picatinny is the answer. Ugly as heck, but they work. Especially in mil-spec M1913 form.

Personally I think it's the available stock designs for springers which needs addressing.
How about an existing action in a more target oriented stock. Something with a more upright grip, deeper forend and adjustable cheek/butt.

I'm 50/50 on custom stocks. Some I think are tasteful and functional, some full on target stocks I think are hideous. But there is clearly a market for it

I agree. Just think how much more appealing most Weihrauchs and Dianas would be if they had stocks like those on the AA rifles, or the Webley Tomahawk and Longbow. Let alone something more H/FT optimised. Or an aluminium chassis with fully adjustable furniture.

[Black Beard]

I think, springers are still getting better and a lot of that is down to better manufacturing techniques and amateur tuners. Modern springers are better. You can now buy a specific tuning kit made from excellent materials for less than the cost of a good night out. The internet has allowed us to share ideas and our understanding of how to fix up airguns is much better. What people did 20 years ago to make airguns better is very different to what they do now.

[Rickenbacker]

I am not so sure. I certainly see that sentiment on US blogs and forums, but they represent the hard core enthusiasts. I also see Gamo, Hatsan, etc pushing cheap magnum springers and seemingly doing well.

The link I quoted from is not some blog or forum twaddle. Unless I'm very mistaken, it's from Robert Beeman himself.

THE ODYSSEY OF THE BEEMAN R1
by Robert D. Beeman Ph.D.
https://www.beemans.net/odyssey_of_the_beeman_r1.htm

Sounds like a Webley MkII Service.

Aye, piston going the wrong way - It sure sounds like a Webley to me!

[Hsing-ee]

It's over. This thread is like being in a squat full of 'cultural revolutionaries' in January 1970, all of whom have all just turned 30. It's finished chaps, they are selling hippie wigs in Woolworths.

The AA TX200HC, maybe with a TBT short-stroke nose or a Jon Budd style 22mm conversion, is the end of the road for the 12 fpe springer.

Bunny and pigeon slayers can arm themselves with the ProSport.

Lightweights, youths and tinkerers can feast upon the HW99S and HW30S.

Plinkers can dispose of their time with disposable Hatsans and SMKs.

That's why anyone who is interested in springers is looking backwards into the mists of time. The springer 'end of history' has happened. The only way forward is into the past.

Anyone have a Britannia for sale?

[Mr.Fixit-Norm]

I'm probably going to regret suggesting this, especially if someone better skilled than I were to try it and make a fortune !

So, how about replacing the spring with two powerful neodymium magnets ? Obviously the cylinder would need to be non magnetic ( phosphor / bronze maybe or the magnets could be encased in something hard wearing / self lubricating like Teflon ?? ) , this would eliminate spring boing and I would have thought that power would be very consistent.

Anybody reckon this could work??

Norm

[Rickenbacker]

It's over.

Fair enough.

Everything's made in China now anyway.

Even the china.

[Hsing-ee]

I'm probably going to regret suggesting this, especially if someone better skilled than I were to try it and make a fortune !

So, how about replacing the spring with two powerful neodymium magnets ? Obviously the cylinder would need to be non magnetic ( phosphor / bronze maybe or the magnets could be encased in something hard wearing / self lubricating like Teflon ?? ) , this would eliminate spring boing and I would have thought that power would be very consistent.

Anybody reckon this could work??

Norm

Anything is possible, but my experience of neodymium magnets is that one-dry fire and your 'springer' is going to be full of shards of magnet... It's a neat idea though.

[Hsing-ee]

Fair enough.

Everything's made in China now anyway.

Even the china.

Except for the German china in the 18th century which was a copy of the China from China ...

[Rickenbacker]

Except for the German china in the 18th century which was a copy of the China from China ...

You must mean the china from China. Not the China from China, because that makes no sense at all.

[MikeHW45]

Yep, this is what I'd like to see. But always remembering that we can't defy the physics. So we'll always need a degree of sufficient force / momentum / inertia there. So, nice, simple reliable engineering built with precision and solidity for longevity. Coupled with stock design to improve ergonomics allowing for a relaxed user and to help promote straight line recoil / surge.

There has got to be so much mileage in getting the transfer port to give up its innermost secrets, too, increasing efficiency further which will prove beneficial to all other aspects.

I've just watched the youtube vid of Neil180 fitting and testing the Tony Leach 22mm sleeved liner and piston (tiny) in a TX200. I think this sort of thing would be a realistic way forward for manufacturers. Why make something that's not sweet out of the box. Surely it would not be any more expensive to make a standard rifle with a 22mm liner and softer spring with shorter stroke. True? Or am I naïve?

[Hsing-ee]

You must mean the china from China. Not the China from China, because that makes no sense at all.

Quite right, it makes as much sense as Chinese mass-market airguns which are 'Made to our top specification and assembled, regulated and prepared in England by skilled Gunsmiths.'

Regulated - like trains on a railway.

Prepared - like pies on a country kitchen table by an ample person.

In England - no-where else, for 'tis the home of the ..

Skilled Gunsmith - not one of those illiterate Pathan tribesmen who can make a working AK47 out of old bed-steads.

[Mr.Fixit-Norm]

Anything is possible, but my experience of neodymium magnets is that one-dry fire and your 'springer' is going to be full of shards of magnet... It's a neat idea though.

Thinking about what you've said, if say a 20mm dia sliding magnet was fitted into the back of say a 25mm dia Teflon or PTFE ( are they one and the same? ) rod of about 25mm in length with one of the new style piston washers screwed into the compression end, do you think that would be enough protection from the odd random dry fire?

After all, dry firing a spring can be a very bad idea anyway

Just thoughts really, I'm not a qualified engineer but have spent half my working career in food manufacturing R&D . I'm quite happy to be told it's a stupid half baked idea

Norm

[TonyL]

I've just watched the youtube vid of Neil180 fitting and testing the Tony Leach 22mm sleeved liner and piston (tiny) in a TX200. I think this sort of thing would be a realistic way forward for manufacturers. Why make something that's not sweet out of the box. Surely it would not be any more expensive to make a standard rifle with a 22mm liner and softer spring with shorter stroke. True? Or am I naïve?

Mikey, many people on this fine forum have enjoyed a ride on this particular roundabout a fair few times over the years.

Yes, for our market, and many other "low power" markets, the small bore format would make perfect sense. But, to keep costs under control, the "serious" springers are built with the global market in mind, so the manufacturers, by and large, subscribe to a "one size fits all" philosophy and opt to adjust power for different markets by fitting stronger or weaker springs.

I think a lovely compromise would be a 24 or 25mm (as per TX and earlier 77/97s) and just tweak it a little. Gain a little more efficiency here and there, maybe make use of super-trick modern materials where appropriate and build to finer tolerances and lovingly assembled. That's all it would need. Lower power markets would have super-sweet shooters and by going no smaller than 24mm, higher power values could be attained.

Different piston rod lengths could be used to adjust stroke - but we've been there many times before, also.

[Hsing-ee]

Just thoughts really, I'm not a qualified engineer but have spent half my working career in food manufacturing R&D . I'm quite happy to be told it's a stupid half baked idea

Norm

My first and last gas-powered gun was a half-full R-White's lemonade bottle and a Toffo sweet. Lack of a barrel meant that it didn't develop anywhere near its power potential and accuracy was lacking, but it was great fun. And that is what it is all about. Get yourself a couple of lengths of plastic tubing - or an old bicycle pump - and put on your experimenter's coat... then try it out on a cheap break barrel. Got to start somewhere!