Are tap loaders inheritently less efficient?

[45flint]

I started out collecting vintage airguns that interested me. Now to my surprise most of these rifles are tap loaders. Just love the mechanics of that system vs the break barrel. Read in the Blog of a American reviewer that they do have a disadvantage given the pellet can’t be seated in the barrel, but must hop into the barrel at firing. I see his point but question if there is significant difference in well made guns?

[Shed tuner]

it will always be detrimental to accuracy. also the efficiency suffers as the pellet has to be sized to the bore using energy from the air blast, rather than your thumb. It also won't seal as well in the tap, and finally, due to variations in pellet sizes, many pellets will sit further down in the tap, increasing lost volume and further reducing efficiency. last but not least, the tap itself may leak air a little.

For fun shooting at 20-30 yards, it's fine, and very safe. But for optimal efficiency/accuracy, it's actually one of the worst systems.

[andrewM]

A very interesting question, Flint. I shall be interested in the replies you receive.

I have been informed that the engineering at Webley was first class and the tap-loaders were extremely carefully constructed. Presumably, the same is true for the old BSAs, too. I understand, furthermore, that each tap was carefully tailored in each rifle and this suggests that replacement parts might not produce the same fit.

But how did the manufacturers ensure a smooth transition from tap to barrel? The risk must have been an imprecise fit, which would result in the clipping of a pellet as it transferred to the barrel. So, how did they avoid this? Could it be that the entry point of the barrel was a little wider than the exit point from the tap? In this situation, a tapered entrance would presumably have solved the problem. This is how, without any technical abilities, I would have addressed the question but is this what they actually did?

Someone here must know the answer.

[45flint]

Probably matches my style as I seem to be a collector first and a shooter second. lol. Just seems the most elegant method of loading and the one displaying machining precision?

[Muskett]

When done well its not terrible. Just think of the gap revolvers have to hurdle to get into the barrel. For farmyard ranges then the accuracy was more than adequate. 10M bell target or rats in the farmyard over open sights and they did exactly what was required.

With the advent of cheap Jap scopes and the need to go beyond the farmyard did the poor pellets, iffy taps, plus stiff triggers start to show how very limiting the old systems were.

Taps are fine, just not crazy fantastic. Some of the old rifles with them have great open sights, point really well, and can keep it all under an inch if not 1/2" to 25m. Thats all most need for critter hitting plinking good target fun.

[Vic Thompson]

Whilst not tap loading, Steyr and Feinwerkbau use indexing magazines in some of their Rifles and Pistols. They managed to overcome alignment problems as all of the examples I've had of the above were capable of outstanding acuracy.

At a guess I'd say that the engineering challenges required for each method (tap and indexing magazine) are of the same order ? and good alignment can be achieved with either method subject to application of the right level of engineering skills/machinery.

I can't comment about lost volume etc, but again presumably not too much of a problem as I've seen a few tap loaders running smoothly at 11ftlbs +

Lastly, years ago someone told me that the Tap Loader taps were bored out fitted to the gun but whether that's true or not I don't know.

JMHO, Vic Thompson

[bill57]

A bit unfairly maligned. Tap alignment is everything - if it's off, and you don't know how to fix it, then accuracy will go out the window as the pellets clip. I once shot an Osprey at the club, diopter sight, and put 5 shots in an inch and a quarter at 45 yards. My mate, with his new Daystate Renegade, was not impressed.