TX200 long or short, what tune.

[MrChipShoulder]

Thank you Nick,

I thought that would be the way to go for the rifle

[MrChipShoulder]

Hi Cooper_dan,

I can't really fault your answer, thank you.

I have asked many things, many times and it always goes one way. But I think at the end of the day, as you say, it's up to me. I really can't see why buying two guns and living with them both as standard for a few months would be a bad idea on any level.

As you say, run them standard for a few tins and see how they both 'pan out' after they run in. I'm sure one will bond with me more than the other.

Looks like I'm buying a full length TX.

Let the personal choice begin

[gtfreight]

Am I correct in thinking that if you tune a new gun it will invalidate the warranty?
I don't know whether you're looking at new or used but If you intend to work on it this may affect your decision.

[cooper_dan]

To add to my reply a bit more.
I had a full length mk3 and an HC, both standard (sound familiar) and I shoot HFT
Initially I used the HC as the balance was better for me and it was great. I was lucky enough that it didn't even need drop in guides to smooth it out. I shot some tuned short stroke versions but never liked them, so kept mine standard. I was scoring low 40's in HFT like this.

Then I bought a mk1 to put in my collection and the shot cycle felt better. Not a drastic change but definitely an improvement on the mk3. It's hard to describe but it just felt like it was doing less work and overall was more enjoyable to use. I dropped the internals into my full length and HC in turn and decided that for whatever reason, the full length felt better. I think this was a combination of the extra muzzle weight, and the more efficient barrel. So I bought a longer latch rod to convert the full length piston to mk1 spec.
Shot this for a while and it was great, but standing and kneeling shots didn't feel as comfortable as the HC. So I added some lead weight to the rear of the stock to bring the balance point back to the same place as the HC. At this point I was practising loads more, and generally scoring mid 40's round HFT courses.

Then I put a lot of work into improving my range finding and reducing parallax error. This has taken me from mid 40's to high 40's and low 50's (on a good day).
The calculated efficiency of the gun went from around 33% in standard form when I started, to almost 40% now.
I'm sure it could go much higher with a more in depth tune, but its such a joy to use as it is that I'm very reluctant to change it. It almost feels like it's now running how the designer intended. It just works very very well and zero reliability issues (about 5000 pellets on the mk2 spring so far).

Overall it's been a bit of a journey of discovery and I've learn a lot along the way. I think me and The Mongrel (my TX ) have bonded in a weird way

[Arthur John Smithsplease]

I happen to prefer the looks of the full length and I believe it is a tad more accurate for target shooting.

Unfortunately for me it is very heavy, and the weight is at the front.

The HC has what for me is better balance, and is easier to manoeuvre. But you pay a price for this: the HC quickly becomes tiring to cock.

Having owned and love them all, I found Weihrauch underlevers suited better than AAs.

But the most accurate underlever I ever owned was the Walther LGU.

[MrChipShoulder]

Well, I now own two under levers, the LGU I bought last week and the TX200 I bought today !

Both are .177 long barrel. The LGU has about 350 shots and the TX has about 200 so far.

I decided to just buy both and sell one off (maybe on here or the Boing Bash). So far there is very little in it for me, but maybe the TX is the better bet as it 'seems' to have less recoil and is far more 'off the peg' tuneable in the future.

It seems only I can decide what is best for me, so I'm doing it this way.

So far I've found the LGU has a nicer cocking action and safety switch, but has some harsh recoil.
The TX has less recoil, but a less nice cocking action and a less nice safety button.

Both chrono well so far with only a few feed deviation each.

[RichardH]

How much shooting have you actually done?

It will be tricky to produce the right result without considerable experience

[TORNADOS7]

For pure target work it's gotta be the full length every time and a set of guides and a light polish should suffice so far as tuning goes...

[TonyL]

Well, I now own two under levers, the LGU I bought last week and the TX200 I bought today !

Both are .177 long barrel. The LGU has about 350 shots and the TX has about 200 so far.

I decided to just buy both and sell one off (maybe on here or the Boing Bash). So far there is very little in it for me, but maybe the TX is the better bet as it 'seems' to have less recoil and is far more 'off the peg' tuneable in the future.

It seems only I can decide what is best for me, so I'm doing it this way.

So far I've found the LGU has a nicer cocking action and safety switch, but has some harsh recoil.
The TX has less recoil, but a less nice cocking action and a less nice safety button.

Both chrono well so far with only a few feed deviation each.

Hi Sunbeam,

Obviously joining in late but, in my opinion, you went for the correct option in going full length on the TX.

By "safety button" (and sorry to be pedantic here), I take it you mean the safety at the rear and not the anti-bear trap lever on the side of the action? A drop of gun oil / light machine oil should help.

I think the correct route is to get plenty of acclimatisation time in. A lighter, Delrin, top hat never goes amiss in these, though. And, if was twangy, a tighter fitting synthetic guide.

As per advice given previously on the LGU, try and conduct some intense pellet testing to see which it prefers.

Being the much longer established option, there are lots more tuning and customising parts available for the TX as opposed to the LGU.

And, if one were to be getting sold off eventually, my money's on the LGU.



Enjoy!