Is a Pro Sport related to a Venom Mach 2?

[TonyL]

The Mac 1 and 2 were both designed and built by Ken Turner, with input from Dave and Ivan.

KT DID NOT design and build the Mach 1's or Mach 2's he worked for a company that Dave and Ivan approached to build these wonder guns. They sent the designs and the company produce parts and then the venom team built them at the gun barrel works. CD stands for Copied Design as they copied the Mach 1 trigger for the first examples of this trigger.

Mach 1 was introduced 1987 and only 17 made. Mach 2 produced around 1990 and only 8 produced. Trooper Walsh first approached venom in 1987 to produce a wonder lever hence the Mach 2 was first thought of in 1987.
Mach 1.5

Brilliant information from someone most definitely in the know. ^ ^ ^

Very intriguing thread, peeps.

[joffy]

The bsa airsporter carbine looks better

[look no hands]

The bsa airsporter carbine looks better

It's a very close contest between the two, especially if both clad in Walnut, which strangely I have both

Pete

[RustyBuzz]

The Mac 1 and 2 were both designed and built by Ken Turner, with input from Dave and Ivan.

KT DID NOT design and build the Mach 1's or Mach 2's he worked for a company that Dave and Ivan approached to build these wonder guns. They sent the designs and the company produce parts and then the venom team built them at the gun barrel works. CD stands for Copied Design as they copied the Mach 1 trigger for the first examples of this trigger.

Mach 1 was introduced 1987 and only 17 made. Mach 2 produced around 1990 and only 8 produced. Trooper Walsh first approached venom in 1987 to produce a wonder lever hence the Mach 2 was first thought of in 1987.
Mach 1.5

Soooo, how did Mr Turner have what is essentially a Mach 1 in late 82? Ken bought it along to a shoot at the Basingstoke club in the walled garden, ask Mr Peckover if he’s about.

[Geezer]

Soooo, how did Mr Turner have what is essentially a Mach 1 in late 82? Ken bought it along to a shoot at the Basingstoke club in the walled garden, ask Mr Peckover if he’s about.

My guess is parallel evolution.

In the early-mid 80s, lots of people were trying to build a better break-barrel springer, to beat the HW80 and FWB Sport.

So the Venom lads were trying to make HWs better.

KT was also trying to make a better gun, but heavily influenced by the HWs.

In another part of the forest, Webley were taking the Vulcan, and trying to modify it with a new trigger (FWB Sport or Diana 45), stock (FWB Sport), sights (FWB/HW, kind of), and barrel lock (Mk1 Anschutz 335).

And the Omega wasn’t the last word, and Ken and Venom got talking, realised they were on the same wavelength, and then the Mach1 emerged.

[venoman]

From what i have been told , Ken Turner had some input on the design of the Mach 1 but not the Mach 2, he worked for a firm that was making parts for the Mach 1 . He then worked for Air Arms , the air arms CD trigger unit is so much like the Mach 1 unit they say you can interchange parts . Also the Pro Sport looks to be a very near copy of the Mach 2 and i should know i have a Pro Sport and 2 Mach 2s.

[RustyBuzz]

From what i have been told , Ken Turner had some input on the design of the Mach 1 but not the Mach 2, he worked for a firm that was making parts for the Mach 1 . He then worked for Air Arms , the air arms CD trigger unit is so much like the Mach 1 unit they say you can interchange parts . Also the Pro Sport looks to be a very near copy of the Mach 2 and i should know i have a Pro Sport and 2 Mach 2s.

Soooo... If the ProSport is practically a copy of the Mach2, and it was designed by Venom, why did Venom (or was it even Webley that owned Venom then?) let a direct competitor just walk off with their IP and start making the same rifle? I could believe it if AirArms were based in Korea but not in the UK. It just makes no sense. Surely the designs must have been owned by Ken for this to happen?

[MartynB]

It's a very close contest between the two, especially if both clad in Walnut, which strangely I have both

Pete

Go on Pete, let's see some pics

[Weasle]

Soooo... If the ProSport is practically a copy of the Mach2, and it was designed by Venom, why did Venom (or was it even Webley that owned Venom then?) let a direct competitor just walk off with their IP and start making the same rifle? I could believe it if AirArms were based in Korea but not in the UK. It just makes no sense. Surely the designs must have been owned by Ken for this to happen?

There are only a few people who can truly confirm the truth about this saga - sad as it was - and as of the moment it will probably stay with them until the time is right.......

Cheer Steve

[Geezer]

Soooo... If the ProSport is practically a copy of the Mach2, and it was designed by Venom, why did Venom (or was it even Webley that owned Venom then?) let a direct competitor just walk off with their IP and start making the same rifle? I could believe it if AirArms were based in Korea but not in the UK. It just makes no sense. Surely the designs must have been owned by Ken for this to happen?

What intellectual property?

The Pro-Sport was an Airsporter underlever grafted onto a modified HW77 in a nice stock, just as the TX was a modified HW77 in a nice stock. Or the Webley Omega is a Webley/Anschutz/FWB hybrid.

Patents are about truly novel design features. Once they expire, you can copy them. Most successful guns are designed that way.

Licensing manufacture is about selling the whole tech package to make a design (heat treat, steel specs, tooling design, tolerances, etc). If you can work out how to make it without those “trade secrets”, and it isn’t patented, no law against it.

Intellectual property (IP) is more about brand names. It is also a bit about looks, which is why no-one makes a direct Glock copy. Glock have money and expensive lawyers. They may also still have patents. That is a potent combination. But that has not stopped the introduction of Glock-like pistols that don’t look exactly like Glocks and don’t say “Glock” on them.

I think the basic IP question in law is would a reasonable person mistake the copy for the original/inspiration? I imagine AA’s lawyers made a compelling case that the TX and PS were different enough from the HW and Venom that they’d win the case.

So AA could not have marketed the Pro-Sport as the AA Venom Mach2 (IP) but nothing stopped them making it as the Pro-Sport. Just like the Chinese can sell a copy of the Diana 34 as long as they don’t call it a Diana or a 34.

By the way, PS came out in 96. Venom joined Webley in 1999 or 2000.

[look no hands]

Go on Pete, let's see some pics

I'll have to take some as the laptop the Airsporter photo's were on went tits up a few months ago.

Pete

[RustyBuzz]

There are only a few people who can truly confirm the truth about this saga - sad as it was - and as of the moment it will probably stay with them until the time is right.......

Cheer Steve

This is true Steve, only the people involved truly know what happened.

But I do know that in late 82 I shot a rifle built by Ken that, apart from the woodwork, was to all intents a Mach 1. The Mach 2 I have to admit, is just supposition on my part.

Richard

[venoman]

Soooo... If the ProSport is practically a copy of the Mach2, and it was designed by Venom, why did Venom (or was it even Webley that owned Venom then?) let a direct competitor just walk off with their IP and start making the same rifle? I could believe it if AirArms were based in Korea but not in the UK. It just makes no sense. Surely the designs must have been owned by Ken for this to happen?

So i have been told that this nearly happened , there is alot more that Mach 1.5 and myself know about but its not for us to say about.

The Mach 2 has a barrel shroud , the barrel can also be change without that much work. So have the Pro Sport
It has a slot in the bottom of the action so if you drop the pellet it will fall through. -------------------------
The piston and cylinder runs on delrin. -------------------------
The cocking arm lock up without a catch. -------------------------
The anti bear trap locks the piston not the trigger. -------------------------
The trigger will work if you interchange parts.

I handled a fully finished Mach 2 ,must have been 4 or 5 years before the Pro Sport was introduced .
The MACH 1 and 2 were built at Venom and had nothing to do with Webley.

[nurek]

If RustyBuzz was there and saw it with his own eyes who are we to argue?

Back in the day, there was Venom, Airmasters and Ken Turner that tuned guns. RustyBuzz is 1/3 of Airmasters, so I think he knows what he is talking about…

Anyway, all these issues have been all discussed before in topics such as this:

http://www.airgunbbs.com/showthread....h-trigger-unit

Prof51mtw (Professor Mike Wright, spring gun expert who wrote for Airgun World with BTDT, developed HOTS for Whiscombes etc. etc.) sums it up rather nicely in his post #8 here: http://www.airgunbbs.com/showthread....93#post4851193

[TonyL]

There are only a few people who can truly confirm the truth about this saga - sad as it was - and as of the moment it will probably stay with them until the time is right.......

Cheer Steve

This is true Steve, only the people involved truly know what happened.


Richard

Agreed. And the plot thickens even more in light of the more recent posts and links.