would a new recoilless springer sell?

[RustyBuzz]

The survival gun and the recoilless springer etc look rubbish but I DO like the look of the modern-manufactured Webley Service Mk II. It's pointless but beautiful. I wonder what standard they are made to?

I like the Webley copy, but if you're going to copy an old design, and you want to make a recoilless springer, surely just make a FWB 300 with 20 mm extra stroke.

I would happily pay £1200 for one of those.

[RustyBuzz]

Jon is spot on.

They should have looked at John Whiscombe's gun and learned from other successful designs...

A nice idea, but poorly designed and not thought through.

I thought this was meant to be released for sale next month too?

Yeah, but John's gun should have been a side lever. I tried to convince him but I was only a kid.

That way you could cock it in one stroke.

[Hsing-ee]

I like the Webley copy, but if you're going to copy an old design, and you want to make a recoilless springer, surely just make a FWB 300 with 20 mm extra stroke.

I would happily pay £1200 for one of those.

Well, that would work perfectly, and would probably get some converts from the PCP FT and HFT brigades as they realise how utterly reliable and consistent such a machine would be. I had a FWB 65 pistol, a pint-size 300 as you know, and after respringing it I shot ten H&N match pellets through my Skan, and it gave the same readout: 465. I thought the chrono was broken, but I tried a heavier pellet and the fps changed. With a unstressed spring and dry-lubed steel piston rings, there's very little that changes with the power development over tens of thousands of shots. A proper FWB match barrel is as good as it gets as well.

However, I have a feeling that Sterling is purposefully trying to be 'different', 'quirky' and deliberately perverse. I just liked the look of the engineering of the Webley Service, I had an original one and it is probably the least intelligent way of designing a spring-gun, but I quite liked the look and its compactness. It could never be more than a plinker though.

[look no hands]

I have a feeling that Sterling is purposefully trying to be 'different', 'quirky' and deliberately perverse.

Which can either go two ways for them, personally I would have burst back on the scene with a CO2/PCP version of the Sterling sub machine gun (come on how many of you thought they had produced such a thing when you saw the sub machine gun photo on their show stand) and then backed up with the B/B springer and a concealed underlever rifle and then put the rumour out about the recoilless rifle after the dust was starting to settle, keep people's interest up but make them pay attention now with the new line up, get the order books filling up and then show them it.

Pete

[TonyL]

........but if you're going to copy an old design, and you want to make a recoilless springer, surely just make a FWB 300 with 20 mm extra stroke.

.

Yes.

[cooper_dan]

I imagine if the internet had been around back then, the same kind of comments would have been made about the Diana mod 60 or FWB 150 when they first came out.
"Why not just copy the HW55 but with a lighter piston and heavier stock. Why bother with a fancy mechanical system"

Sometimes it's worth doing things just to try them. Otherwise we would all be riding around on horses still. the designer has put hundreds of hours of testing and development into this rifle, so I'm sure if there was some glaringly obvious reason to not use a gas ram he would have found it. (And yes he did try springs IIRC).

If anyone can truly investigate, analyse and critique a design from a couple of images and a short video on the internet, they are a better engineer than me.
Maybe it will be terrible, but it might also be amazing.

It might sound loud because there is a very small volume of air being used, with short stroke pistons being accelerated very fast in order to get the required pressure. This might result in the better BC of a pellet out of a springer, with a lock time more like a PCP.... Something that would only be possible on a recoiless springer/gas ram. Just a thought

[nurek]

Yeah, but John's gun should have been a side lever. I tried to convince him but I was only a kid.

That way you could cock it in one stroke.

I think that side lever would have to be pretty long to achieve 12ftlbs, most springers are only around 30% efficient...

The cocking effort on side-lever single stroke pneumatics is enormous and there is a lot of stress on the action, haven't some of them been bent during cocking? Hence the two stroke operation on Whiscombes...

All Whiscombes produce 12ftlbs and are capable of 30ftlbs, not many springers can claim that, certainly not recoiless or even semi-recoiless.

John's guns were made for the US market, the UK or even European market is not big enough to sustain production of these guns in my opinion.

[nurek]

[...]If anyone can truly investigate, analyse and critique a design from a couple of images and a short video on the internet, they are a better engineer than me. Maybe it will be terrible, but it might also be amazing.[...]

It's a discussion forum and that is what is being done, no design is perfect and most things can be improved.

I agree that to fully appreciate it you should see it in the flesh and shoot it, but there are certain things you can see in the images and videos, for example ergonomics.

Let's say you decide to use this gun for HFT and want to mount your scope low, maybe add a sunshade, how will you load the pellets with that loading port so close to the scope rails? Surely, even a non-engineer can see that and comment?

[Hsing-ee]

If anyone can truly investigate, analyse and critique a design from a couple of images and a short video on the internet, they are a better engineer than me.
Maybe it will be terrible, but it might also be amazing.

If it looks like a lash-up and sounds like a lash-up, and they are charging a fortune for it, then it probably is a lash-up.

These things pop up every few years, from the 'ground-breaking' Whaley Crosman through the Black Fox PCP and Imperial double PCP, the Webley Paradigm ... all the mingers are rubbish and end up on the scrap heap of history.

Like Pete, I wished they had made something interesting like a CO2 Sterling SMG, or a PCP replica of a SMLE that shot accurately.

[nurek]

[...the Black Fox PCP and Imperial double PCP, the Webley Paradigm ... all the mingers are rubbish and end up on the scrap heap of history.[...]

Wasn't the Black Fox and the Webley Paradigm designed by the same chap that has designed the T16 Sterling - i.e. Graham Trim?

[cooper_dan]

It's a discussion forum and that is what is being done, no design is perfect and most things can be improved.

I agree that to fully appreciate it you should see it in the flesh and shoot it, but there are certain things you can see in the images and videos, for example ergonomics.

Let's say you decide to use this gun for HFT and want to mount your scope low, maybe add a sunshade, how will you load the pellets with that loading port so close to the scope rails? Surely, even a non-engineer can see that and comment?

I agree with that, but the discussion seems to be veering into - 'the internals/mechanism are probably sh!t/won't work". That's jumping the gun a bit
I've handled this gun and it balanced/handled really nicely. Hopefully the other ergonomic issues could be sorted for the production version

By all accounts the webley paradigm was a good design that worked very well. But the company didn't take it on. Same with the black fox. Didn't look great but worked well. Business management seemed to be the downfall of that one

[RustyBuzz]

I think that side lever would have to be pretty long to achieve 12ftlbs, most springers are only around 30% efficient...

The cocking effort on side-lever single stroke pneumatics is enormous and there is a lot of stress on the action, haven't some of them been bent during cocking? Hence the two stroke operation on Whiscombes...

All Whiscombes produce 12ftlbs and are capable of 30ftlbs, not many springers can claim that, certainly not recoiless or even semi-recoiless.

John's guns were made for the US market, the UK or even European market is not big enough to sustain production of these guns in my opinion.

The issue with John's rifle is that the pivot point for the lever is to far forward, if it were moved behind the trigger unit as on a 300 or 380 you would be able to cock the rifle in one stroke. To do this it would need to be a side lever.

It wasn't my idea by the way, John used to shoot with a chap that worked with him, can't remember his name, but he also built air rifles. He built a side lever 124. Anyhow, it was his idea, I thought it a good one.

The lever need not be any longer than the existing BSA job, also the cocking effort would decrease.