Fixed barrel springers, will there ever be a better setup than the sliding breech

[Geezer]

To be fair, I think Geezer is right about a well fitted and fettled loading tap being a wonderful thing... however, I've used a lot more bad ones than wonderfully good ones. And with modern production methods being what they are (more automation - less skilled human involvement), I wonder if a new tap-loader would be viable... is it possible with modern machinery/materials? Or is it just too tricky to get the thing perfectly sealed and aligned every time...?

Your Mod. 50 sounds like an interesting project, Ali.

Thank you.

Indeed, there is no way it would be economic to make a well-made taploader now to pre-WWII standards if it involved any hand-fitting. It would cost more than, say, a sliding breech, and not perform as well.

Maybe there is some theoretical way of making one using ultra-precise computerised machinery from the space industry, without the hand-fitting. Or 3D printing, or nanotechnology or some other thing I don't understand. But still not economically. And the sliding breech would still be more efficient.

The last vaguely good taploaders were, IMHO, the 1980s Air Arms Camargue/Khamsin. And they weren't cheap, selling for more than an FWB Sport or HW77 (and the Sport or 77 were the 1980s FT champs, not the AAs).

[TonyL]

Although less efficient than a sliding comp tube rifle, and potentially not as accurate, one absolutely wonderful thing about those tap loaders is the ease and safety.

Once, at one of the Bashes, I had a go with various tap loaders. And the speed and ease of loading was great. From a safety point of view, brilliant.....for the first few shots, having been conditioned to safe handling practices with break barrels and slidy guns, I was holding the under (or side) lever. Once re-conditioned though, it was great.....cock gun, return lever, flick the tap, drop a pellet in, close tap and shoot. Takes far longer to describe than to do.

And the one that I simply MUST have is one of the Lincoln Jeffries / BSA pre-war underlevers. I've loved every single one that I've tried.

One day, one day........

[Geezer]

Although less efficient than a sliding comp tube rifle, and potentially not as accurate, one absolutely wonderful thing about those tap loaders is the ease and safety.

Once, at one of the Bashes, I had a go with various tap loaders. And the speed and ease of loading was great. From a safety point of view, brilliant.....for the first few shots, having been conditioned to safe handling practices with break barrels and slidy guns, I was holding the under (or side) lever. Once re-conditioned though, it was great.....cock gun, return lever, flick the tap, drop a pellet in, close tap and shoot. Takes far longer to describe than to do.

And the one that I simply MUST have is one of the Lincoln Jeffries / BSA pre-war underlevers. I've loved every single one that I've tried.

One day, one day........

Tony,

Exactly how I feel about my Mk1 Airsporter. What's not to like? Similar, the Webley MkIII or Diana 50. They won't win target matches, but they are still nice.

[Barryg]

Tony,

Exactly how I feel about my Mk1 Airsporter. What's not to like? Similar, the Webley MkIII or Diana 50. They won't win target matches, but they are still nice.

I like the speed and safety of the mk1/2 airsporter but the mk2s that I had seem to have inconsistent fps and accuracy unlike the sliding breech guns.

There doesn't seem to be real ideas how to improve on the sliding breech, I'm a little surprised since the sliding breech has been out for a while now, the best attempt was perhaps the PS but it's still a sliding breech with a airsporter type lever and it hasn't taken off with other manufactures

Has no one got any exciting ideas

[Hsing-ee]

I like the speed and safety of the mk1/2 airsporter but the mk2s that I had seem to have inconsistent fps and accuracy unlike the sliding breech guns.

There doesn't seem to be real ideas how to improve on the sliding breech, I'm a little surprised since the sliding breech has been out for a while now, the best attempt was perhaps the PS but it's still a sliding breech with a airsporter type lever and it hasn't taken off with other manufactures

Has no one got any exciting ideas

You could use a bolt-action, and instead of a spring-piston design, vent high pressure air from a reservoir UNDER the barrel. The reservoir could be topped off when the pressure drops from a scuba-diving tank. The system would be practically recoilless and the scope could be bolted to the breech, maintaining perfect alignment with the barrel.

[Blackrider]

From a hunting perspective, the HW 77 sliding breech is by far the most practical !
I've used BSA RB2's Airsporters, Superstars and two Goldstars, TX200's but I prefer the wide breech 77 be it a right handed shooter or a left (me)
On a cold winters day out on the edge of the moors clad in fingerless mitts the big breech has it for me !
Same on a 97 but being as the 77 came first, thats the one for me !

[Barryg]

From a hunting perspective, the HW 77 sliding breech is by far the most practical !
I've used BSA RB2's Airsporters, Superstars and two Goldstars, TX200's but I prefer the wide breech 77 be it a right handed shooter or a left (me)
On a cold winters day out on the edge of the moors clad in fingerless mitts the big breech has it for me !
Same on a 97 but being as the 77 came first, thats the one for me !

The only problem with the 77/97 apart from no ABT is this

[Rickenbacker]

You could use a bolt-action, and instead of a spring-piston design, vent high pressure air from a reservoir UNDER the barrel. The reservoir could be topped off when the pressure drops from a scuba-diving tank. The system would be practically recoilless and the scope could be bolted to the breech, maintaining perfect alignment with the barrel.

That's actually a bloody good idea... you'd want to 'sandwich' a transfer port between the barrel and air cylinder, and your loading bolt would need to push the pellet far enough into the bore so that the pellet skirt passed the transfer port 'hole'... if you were really smart, the same 'bolt action' could also cock the trigger, just like a real gun... gets a bit complicated then, because the trigger would need to release some kind of a spring loaded hammer or striker - to knock on an exhaust valve...

Nah, too complicated. It'll never catch on.

[TonyL]

You could use a bolt-action, and instead of a spring-piston design, vent high pressure air from a reservoir UNDER the barrel. The reservoir could be topped off when the pressure drops from a scuba-diving tank. The system would be practically recoilless and the scope could be bolted to the breech, maintaining perfect alignment with the barrel.

That's actually a bloody good idea... you'd want to 'sandwich' a transfer port between the barrel and air cylinder, and your loading bolt would need to push the pellet far enough into the bore so that the pellet skirt passed the transfer port 'hole'... if you were really smart, the same 'bolt action' could also cock the trigger, just like a real gun... gets a bit complicated then, because the trigger would need to release some kind of a spring loaded hammer or striker - to knock on an exhaust valve...

Nah, too complicated. It'll never catch on.

Maybe it'd be worth the two of you properly getting your heads together and presenting this wild and revolutionary idea to one of the manufacturers? You might get escorted out of the building in tight fitting garments and safely and discreetly homed. Or they might just take it seriously and give it a go?