TX200 long or short, what tune.

[MrChipShoulder]

Hi,

I'm looking to buy a TX200 MkIII and have it tuned a little.

I know a tuned gun is no short cut to practice etc etc, but I'd like a second gun so I can make a comparison to what I have already.

I'll be using this gun for pure target, so do I get a carbine or full length? (hopefully that one is easy)

Also I'd like to tickle the inside for a smoother shot cycle. I've read Vortek do a drop in kit that some say does a good job.

Is there a well trodden path that most would say improves the gun from standard?

Thanks.

[NickG]

The full length is easier to tune if you end up going the whole hog, easier to cock also , my favourite gun in fact

[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.

[cooper_dan]

Ask 10 people and you will get 10 different answers on this one.

Firstly, what length?
This depends what kind of target shooting you will be doing. If you will be shooting from different positions you will probably want the one that balances best. This will depend on your technique, build and how you hold the rifle. If you are doing benchrest then it doesn't matter so much. The full length might be best as it is generally a bit more efficient which plays into your second question

What tune
Not an easy one to answer. In my opinion it will depend on what type of shot cycle you prefer. The way I see it, the best way to improve accuracy is to ENJOY the rifle you are using. There's no point spending a load of money on tuning if the end result doesn't suit you and you don't enjoy using it. I shot a 'mega tuned' HW97 a while back and I hated it. Everyone kept telling me how amazing and accurate it was, but I would never have chosen it over a standard one.

Some people prefer the shot cycle of the current mk3. In this case you don't need to do anything, maybe just a set of drop in guides to get rid of any twang and smooth it out a bit. You can also polish the spring ends etc and just make the most of what is already there.
Personally I prefer the shot cycle of the mk2 version, in which case you'll need a piston rod, and mk2 spring/guide
You can do short stroke with a piston nose extension and stiffer spring
Some people like the very light weight 'fast' piston, also needing stiffer spring or more pre-load
And the new trend seems to be reduced diameter tunes

I've seen loads of people buy the gun and get it tuned immediately based on forum advice or reviews. Then they spend 3 months hating it before selling it on for a loss, and then tell everyone that Gun XYZ is rubbish.
The best thing you can do it try some different tunes first before making a decision. Better still, put a few tins of pellets through the standard one, then see if you actually want anything doing to it at all