Diana/Original 35 Super Question.

[Drew451]

Im very pleased you got your hands on a good 35S, Dave. Sounds like a good, tidy example youve got. I agree with you on all counts and if its putting out a good, consistant 10 fpe with accuracy to match, it will hit the button, I bet.
1982 is later than most but i think they run on in very small numbers for a few more years. Most seem to be mid to late 70s.
Id be interested to hear more on your 35S as you put it through its paces.

[jonnyone]

Im very pleased you got your hands on a good 35S, Dave. Sounds like a good, tidy example youve got. I agree with you on all counts and if its putting out a good, consistant 10 fpe with accuracy to match, it will hit the button, I bet.
1982 is later than most but i think they run on in very small numbers for a few more years. Most seem to be mid to late 70s.
Id be interested to hear more on your 35S as you put it through its paces.

Well its been put through the paces alright.

I have thoroughly enjoyed its smooth cocking action and not too sharp a recoil for some enjoyable zero checking and familiarisation shooting sessions. I suspect that the last time this gun was in bits was when.being assembled in Germany but despite this it loads and shoots well. The quality of fit between components is excellent, perhaps due to.it not having seen.much use. Not bad considering that I left school a month before this rolled out of the factory in 1982.
The gun came with a small compact and basic Simmons 4x32 scope. I was going to re scope it with a Tasco 4x40 AG but to.be honest it would be a shame to over scope such a light weight springer. Ultimately I'm finding that the scope is better than I first thought under the canopy when.hunting greys and I can pick out bark from fur nicely up in.the top branches.
Talking of which the little 35 had its first victim last night and it was very satisfying hunting with an old classic. This gun.has put a big grin on my mush and sitting in.the shadows waiting for a shot with this old girl took me right back to my youth. With the only exception being this was the gun I didn't own but lusted after back then but I now have. An experience 36 years in.the making.
For a serious bit of target/plinking I will need to rescope her with something a little more high mag, but for now I'm happy with this old light weight hunter.
Unusually the gun seems to prefer heavier pellets giving near 10.7 or tad.higher with AA Diablo Field. Has anyone else found this with their 35? Its usually the reverse??
Dave

[Drew451]

Excellent stuff, Dave. 35 Super working well for you it seems. I don't think a 40mm PA scope is too much. Something like a 2-7x32 would be ideal l, maybe.
AA Diabolo Field at 16 grains would not be my choice but they are doing the business for you. 35s normally work well with the light to middleweight RWS/ H&N pellets I use but I may well give AA's a go now. I like to keep an open mind and experiment with new pellets.
How do you compare the 35S to your RWS 45? Had the safety catch/ lack of ghosting You?

[jonnyone]

Excellent stuff, Dave. 35 Super working well for you it seems. I don't think a 40mm PA scope is too much. Something like a 2-7x32 would be ideal l, maybe.
AA Diabolo Field at 16 grains would not be my choice but they are doing the business for you. 35s normally work well with the light to middleweight RWS/ H&N pellets I use but I may well give AA's a go now. I like to keep an open mind and experiment with new pellets.
How do you compare the 35S to your RWS 45? Had the safety catch/ lack of ghosting You?

Ahhh. An interesting question. I have shot a 45 Jubilee earlier in the week and that was a real.tack driver. I'm really taken with it, and scoped with a Webley Platinum scope its a true hunting tool. Very punchy too.
But back to the 35s. Didn't think it would be but I find it noticeably lighter and easier to.come on aim when hunting. The shot feel is not radically different with the Jubilee being noticeably more twangy than the 35s. Interesting to.note that the Jubilee obviously being dated 1980 is two years.older than the gun that it was meant to supersede. Or was it meant to????
Safety catch- absolutely without fail my.thumb reaches to.snick off a non existent safety catch on the 35s after having shot the 45. I just cannot get used to fact there is none there. Instinct I guess as practically all guns have safeties these days.
The 35 is no slouch in accuracy stakes and I've zeroed it well enough for hunting at the anticipated ranges for the squirrels. But it will get re scoped fairly soon, if only for a session to get a feel for its upper end accuracy.
As you will be aware the 35s stock was the inspiration for the RWS 45 and so from a handling point of view these guns are very.similar. The RWS. 45 stock is a tad longer accounting for the longer 45 compression cylinder.
I'm certainly not at all disappointed with the 35s and it has lived up to the reputation that I gave it or it has earned in its time. I would imagine its a little trickier though not impossible to tease the 11.5 ft llb out of a .177 example, but I think it would have to be a decidedly unwell .22 example not to achieve this level. It reminds me of the advertised power outputs of the Webley Vulcan of old with the smaller calibre seemingly much lower in ME than .22 Cocking effort is surprisingly light by the way.
One question that is still nagging at me is if the "S" version was designed for higher power than the std version? I point again to the fact that Chambers appear to list different part numbers to std n S pistons.

[Drew451]

Ahhh. An interesting question. I have shot a 45 Jubilee earlier in the week and that was a real.tack driver. I'm really taken with it, and scoped with a Webley Platinum scope its a true hunting tool. Very punchy too.
But back to the 35s. Didn't think it would be but I find it noticeably lighter and easier to.come on aim when hunting. The shot feel is not radically different with the Jubilee being noticeably more twangy than the 35s. Interesting to.note that the Jubilee obviously being dated 1980 is two years.older than the gun that it was meant to supersede. Or was it meant to????
Safety catch- absolutely without fail my.thumb reaches to.snick off a non existent safety catch on the 35s after having shot the 45. I just cannot get used to fact there is none there. Instinct I guess as practically all guns have safeties these days.
The 35 is no slouch in accuracy stakes and I've zeroed it well enough for hunting at the anticipated ranges for the squirrels. But it will get re scoped fairly soon, if only for a session to get a feel for its upper end accuracy.
As you will be aware the 35s stock was the inspiration for the RWS 45 and so from a handling point of view these guns are very.similar. The RWS. 45 stock is a tad longer accounting for the longer 45 compression cylinder.
I'm certainly not at all disappointed with the 35s and it has lived up to the reputation that I gave it or it has earned in its time. I would imagine its a little trickier though not impossible to tease the 11.5 ft llb out of a .177 example, but I think it would have to be a decidedly unwell .22 example not to achieve this level. It reminds me of the advertised power outputs of the Webley Vulcan of old with the smaller calibre seemingly much lower in ME than .22 Cocking effort is surprisingly light by the way.
One question that is still nagging at me is if the "S" version was designed for higher power than the std version? I point again to the fact that Chambers appear to list different part numbers to std n S pistons.

There is a difference in the pistons. Perhaps the reason was higher power. Shorter rod may give it a longer stroke. I'm no power junkie so I'm happy with the more usual 9-10 for as long as smoothness and accuracy is there. My 35S is very well used and slightly worn. But it shoots well.

[jonnyone]

There is a difference in the pistons. Perhaps the reason was higher power. Shorter rod may give it a longer stroke. I'm no power junkie so I'm happy with the more usual 9-10 for as long as smoothness and accuracy is there. My 35S is very well used and slightly worn. But it shoots well.

Smoothness and accuracy is certainly there especially considering that the gun is 36 years old. I can cut it some slack if it needs to relube after that length of time!
The 35 was one of the top guns of its time. Walters certainly highlights that.in his book, but its also recognised that in the power crazy stakes of the 80s the 35 lost a great deal of ground to other marques. I think this was mainly due to other manufacturers recognising market trends and Diana content to sit on their laurels with the 35. The introduction of the 45 with upgraded power potential is an acknowledgement they needed to pull something out of the hat to keep pace with other manufacturers. I think the 45 did this admirably.
I'm no power junkie and I would certainly never substitute power over accuracy. But a little bit me thinks the 35 got a bit of a title as a lame duck power wise a little unfairly. Its was more than powerful enough in its day and is still no slouch in that department. But I do wonder if Diana tried to squeeze the last drops of ME from the S series with an altered internal design? As you.suggest this could have been achieved by a shorter rod to the piston giving a tad more stroke.
Its surprising that very.little in the way of manufacturers.literature or advertising blurb could throw some light on this.
Dave

[Geezer]

The 45 was made for the American market.

Back in the early 70s, Americans were getting into the “adult air gun” thing, focused on German and British springers.

The top rifles were the HW35, BSF55/65/70 and Diana 35. All around 9-12 ftlbs in .177”.

Then, in fairly short order, the FWB Sport turned up, making 13-14, and then independent testing suggested that (in the American preferred calibre of .177” - I think the difference is a fair bit less in .22”) was both less powerful than the others, and than Diana claimed. That kind of did for the 35 in America.

The 45 gave Diana something bigger, heavier, equally powerful and cheaper than the FWB. I think it sold OK in the US, but the FWB’s established place in the market, cachet, lightness, handling, etc, kept it in pole position until Beeman and Weihrauch came up with the HW80/R1. Similar size to the 45, but about an extra 50% muzzle energy.

Which makes none of us any wiser as to the “S” models. For me, the key point is that they were brought in across the 25/27/35. Hence my theory they were misguidedly 10M target-oriented.