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.

[Garvin]

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.

Is that maligned or misaligned?

I think it's no accident that the tap-loading designs gave way to those in which the pellet was directly introduced into the bore... That's partly why I love the old tap-loaders though - quality of workmanship had to be brought to bear against an inherently flawed design.

[bill57]

Funny how things change. When I was young the commonest guns were Milbros, Meteors and ASI. The Airsporter and Mk3 were viewed as the pinnacle of air rifle excellence, and in no small part because they were tap loaders.

[Lakey]

I think it is all about the levels of engineering brought to bear, by each maker.

Early Webleys and BSA's, were airguns built by Firearms manufacturers, so engineering tolerances were very tight, and high levels of engineering were brought to the table. That engineering ability dropped off in the 1960's, then again in the 1970's , when guns could not keep being manufactured to such high standards, whilst the companies still made money.

I think that the advantages of a fixed barrel, outweigh, some of the disadvantages of break barrel guns. The standard of the Tap in a 1920's BSA Standard is massively better than the standard of the Tap in a 1970's Airsporter. The first doesnt usually leak air, whereas the second ALWAYS leaks air in my experience. I know which one I would rather have

Problem is that all these guns are now old, and have varying stages of wear and tear. It is hardly fair to compare a Webley Mk3 with a HW77, say as the latter gun is so much newer than the Webley.

The reason I collect older guns is because of the high levels of engineering and manufacture that went into them, and a good tap loader always beats an average direct barrel loading gun IMO.

Lakey

[Geezer]

1. They are less efficient and less accurate and powerful than direct barrel loading methods, all other things being equal.

2. That’s why they faded from about 1960, first on the then new 10M match circuit (think HW55, LG55, Diana 60/65/66, all break barrels, later superseded by side levers like the FWB300 and Diana 75) and soon after in the sporting market (where the break barrel took over, before the post-1984 rush to the HW77). There’s a number of reasons no one makes a tap loader now (mostly cost) and that the sliding breech (eg HW57) guns have “issues”.

3. LJ/BSA and those who copied them perfected the tap loader (with much hand fitting) well before the break barrel matured, so for decades the best rifle was a tap loader.

4. They are really safe, though.

5. And they are nice. They have history. Find me someone who doesn’t like a BSA Long, Airsporter MkI, Webley MkIII....

[andrewM]

Muskett: "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."

Yes, I agree and that was quite sufficient to hit vermin at up to 30yds and over. Using open sights added to the sporting enjoyment.

Vic Thompson: “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.”

I have heard this too - perhaps from Lakey. This could be how they addressed the problem of the transfer from tap to barrel but this would then suggest/explain why replacement parts could be very slightly out of kilter. Thus, the tap loader would be cut exactly to suit the rifle and its barrel. Could wear and tear eventually compromise the factory fittings?

I wonder if the barrels were ever slightly widened at the entry point by any manufacturers, in a tapered manner.

Lakey: “The standard of the Tap in a 1920's BSA Standard is massively better than the standard of the Tap in a 1970's Airsporter. The first doesnt usually leak air, whereas the second ALWAYS leaks air in my experience.”

My 1970s tap-loading Airsporter, which I had as a teenager, was certainly greatly inferior to the 1970s Mk3 I earlier possessed and later sold (with ultimate regret). The pellets for the BSA had to be pushed into the loading chamber with an improvised rounded device (so as not to cause damage to the pellet). With the Mk3, there was never any difficulty; all the pellets dropped perfectly into the hole. Whilst Webley might have cut corners elsewhere, I considered the Webley tap loading facility first class and it far exceeded the cheap 1970s BSA engineering. I never returned to modern BSA products after that. I then discovered this site and over a year ago purchased a magnificent BSA Standard, nearly 100 years old. That rifle and design exceed the abilities of most of the air rifles post WW2, up until the late ‘70s, in my view.

[45flint]

I think it is all about the levels of engineering brought to bear, by each maker.

Early Webleys and BSA's, were airguns built by Firearms manufacturers, so engineering tolerances were very tight, and high levels of engineering were brought to the table. That engineering ability dropped off in the 1960's, then again in the 1970's , when guns could not keep being manufactured to such high standards, whilst the companies still made money.

I think that the advantages of a fixed barrel, outweigh, some of the disadvantages of break barrel guns. The standard of the Tap in a 1920's BSA Standard is massively better than the standard of the Tap in a 1970's Airsporter. The first doesnt usually leak air, whereas the second ALWAYS leaks air in my experience. I know which one I would rather have

Problem is that all these guns are now old, and have varying stages of wear and tear. It is hardly fair to compare a Webley Mk3 with a HW77, say as the latter gun is so much newer than the Webley.

The reason I collect older guns is because of the high levels of engineering and manufacture that went into them, and a good tap loader always beats an average direct barrel loading gun IMO.

Lakey

This seems to ring to to me. The system can be probably as good but must be very finely executed and it’s too expense to pull it off now. Two rifles in my collections surprised me as to accuracy, 1924 BSA Standard and my 1956 Webley Mark 3.

[bill57]

There seems to be an idea that some kind of tapered breech or forcing cone would help in tap loaders, to compensate for misalignment between breech and tap.
While I can see why some would think this, I'm not really sure that this would work, given the softness of the lead, and it would most likely distort as it was guided into the barrel?

[hwtyger]

- Iirc, some Webley taploaders already had a tapered end to the tap to do just this. I know this, because the tap on my Tracker had been installed the wrong way around some day in its life. Causing loading issues (pellet wouldnt drop into the tap completely, needed pushing. Turned it around and pellets dropped nicely all the way, just like with my other taploaders, the ospreys and mk3).
-Tapered may have a downside though. If the breech taperes it more than the barrel needs than you'll loose accuracy too because the pellet cant follow the barrels' twist accurately anymore. So there has to be very tight tolerances between breech/tap ánd barrel diameter too

-I agree that taploaders have disadvantages. Yes the early Webleys were stunningly made. Especially before 60s. No doubt tolerances were very tight.
But stíll, you dó get wear over time because of use. And therefor its possible for tap misalignment to become an issue. Tap misalignment ruins accuracy.

-You also loose power because of the 'hop' necessary from tap to barrel. To get similar power as non-taploaders you'll need to compensate for that (stronger spring etc). That makes a taploader harsher to shoot (more recoil). Allthough imo more noticeable after mk3 imo (80s guns like Osprey) allthough that may also simply be because those generate more power.

Cockingwise I like taploaders. No open breech to get yr fingers stuck
Dont think its hard for a good/new mk3 to win against a HW77 finish wise. The mk3 first models were so much more better made. HW77 is 'simple' mass production