Why would AA make a high end break Barrel for the UK

[TonyL]

Maybe AA are too scared of the competition, from Diana ?
Nah, not likely

Oh, and Sig are doing one.

But, as you'll know, Jon, that Sig is a gas ram.

And with current exchange rates (with the possibility of further weakening of the pound sterling vs US Dollar), I can envisage the price being potentially restrictive to UK buyers.

[Trumpetier]

I really don't see why AA would take the risk. .

It's a good job other manufacturers don't take this stance

[Hartcliffer]

I think there's more chance of me stepping on rocking horse s*** whilst on my to buying a winning lottery ticket than this ever happening. If they were to do any kind of springer, I think it would be more of a side-lever take on the TX, as a "going back to our roots" kind of venture.

[Geezer]

Jesus Christ on a stick. This thing again?

I suggest we start a new thread. If AA made a b/b would it have more “stopping power” in .”1.77” or “2.2”?

AA are a business. If AA judged that a b/b (at any power level) would make them money, they’d sell one. Or more than one. They may be wrong, but they do know a bit more about selling guns than most of us.

[les allam]

Air Arms made the P/Elite for the over seas markets(USA) ,as every one knows it's intended as a Fac springer. In uk spec it doesn't give its best performance ,They are my favourite air gun bar none,but my 2 are non standard .Why didn't Air Arms make a smaller 12ft/lbs break barrel rifle for us in the first place??.
I spoke to a lady at Air Arms about a year after they stopped production of th P/E ,when ordering a service kit for my gun.I asked why did they stop making the P/e and the answer was they were not cost effective to make.They lost money on them for what they sold them for.
I would be interested in a sub 12 FT/lbs B/Barrel gun made by AA ,along the lines of the Webley longbow in size and appearance .
Les..

[Hsing-ee]

Jesus Christ on a stick. This thing again?

I suggest we start a new thread. If AA made a b/b would it have more “stopping power” in .”1.77” or “2.2”?

AA are a business. If AA judged that a b/b (at any power level) would make them money, they’d sell one. Or more than one. They may be wrong, but they do know a bit more about selling guns than most of us.

No, it's not the same again. It's about something called a 'high end' break barrel, the likes of which the world has never seen, and which will cost £1000 and more. Like the Mach guns the V-Mach/Venom made a handful of and never again, or the Pro-Elite which finished up the same, only more expensive to guarantee extinction in even less time...

Normay Vixen anyone?

[Geezer]

No, it's not the same again. It's about something called a 'high end' break barrel, the likes of which the world has never seen, and which will cost £1000 and more. Like the Mach guns the V-Mach/Venom made a handful of and never again, or the Pro-Elite which finished up the same, only more expensive to guarantee extinction in even less time...

Normay Vixen anyone?

OK, got that.

In other break-barrel news, Stephen Archer’s review in the latest (just arrived) AGW says there will in time be a 12 ft-lbs version of the new SIG. If anyone cares about another (HW80, D52, PE etc) detuned UK market version of a 20+ rifle. I don’t think I do, much.

[Barryg]

OK, got that.

In other break-barrel news, Stephen Archer’s review in the latest (just arrived) AGW says there will in time be a 12 ft-lbs version of the new SIG. If anyone cares about another (HW80, D52, PE etc) detuned UK market version of a 20+ rifle. I don’t think I do, much.

It seems in a different class of looks to the old PE.

[Hsing-ee]

It seems in a different class of looks to the old PE.

It might be functional, but it sure is hideous, like a no-brand electric drill. Really would make me want to buy a TX or a ProSport. The rounded end to the breech fork gives me the boak.

There isn't anything that fits the ecological niche of the Anschutz 335 nowadays.

[jonnyone]

I'ts been an interesting read through this thread and I found the sig vid intriguing. I think there will be versions of this thread being done ten years from now
My question I want to throw into the mix here is this- which is cheaper n more economical to make, a break barrel or an under lever/ side lever? This is a question more pitched at the engineering/ tool maker types on here rather than those who tinker ( most of us to varying degrees).
As an outsider to the engineering industry ( I used to butcher wood for a living), it would appear that a break barrel is more simple, has less parts, has less machined n matched surfaces n tolerances to get right than an under lever. Possibly less raw material use too???
Anyway interested in the engineering type take n view on that.
Dave

[mallyally]

The problem with AA making a break barrel at the moment is that it would have to be better than what is currently available for the same price (which the PE wasn't ) which means starting again on the design front (which they wont ) so dont hold your breath

[TonyL]

If they have three prototypes available to them, the TX piston and the CD trigger (guessing these may already be incorporated), maybe not much to do at all. I think the decision whether to launch or not would be down to viability and whether they think a break barrel boingery thing would steal sales from their own underlevers.

Someone did mention higher up in the thread that they could maybe consider going back to their sidelever roots. At first I thought, "Blimey, that'd be nice". But utilising the sliding compression chamber for efficiency would make it too much like a Diana 52, which I've found pretty awkward to use when I have tried them, and nothing like those sleek tap loaders of old which will have been less efficient.

One quick study of an LGV, with its sturdy breech and lovely manual barrel latch, fit the CD and building in some lovely Air Arms styling and finish would result in a most desirable rifle. Just like the LGV vs Century, a sleeved cylinder and 25mm for our market and no sleeve and 30mm piston for the higher power markets.

That'll be a break barrel for me then, please.

[mallyally]

If they have three prototypes available to them, the TX piston and the CD trigger (guessing these may already be incorporated), maybe not much to do at all. I think the decision whether to launch or not would be down to viability and whether they think a break barrel boingery thing would steal sales from their own underlevers.

Someone did mention higher up in the thread that they could maybe consider going back to their sidelever roots. At first I thought, "Blimey, that'd be nice". But utilising the sliding compression chamber for efficiency would make it too much like a Diana 52, which I've found pretty awkward to use when I have tried them, and nothing like those sleek tap loaders of old which will have been less efficient.

One quick study of an LGV, with its sturdy breech and lovely manual barrel latch, fit the CD and building in some lovely Air Arms styling and finish would result in a most desirable rifle. Just like the LGV vs Century, a sleeved cylinder and 25mm for our market and no sleeve and 30mm piston for the higher power markets.

That'll be a break barrel for me then, please.

But could they do it at a compatible Price to the LGV which we already have ? How much value do people put on a name nowadays ? I seen it with Gibson guitars in the Past but Reckon people are a bit more savvy these dayz !

[TonyL]

But could they do it at a compatible Price to the LGV which we already have ? How much value do people put on a name nowadays ? I seen it with Gibson guitars in the Past but Reckon people are a bit more savvy these dayz !

I take your point but feel that the Air Arms product would command a more premium position in the market place due to them being longer established than the (Umarex) Walther springers, the reputation of the TX and that rifle's success in outdoor competitions.

[look no hands]

If they have three prototypes available to them, the TX piston and the CD trigger (guessing these may already be incorporated), maybe not much to do at all. I think the decision whether to launch or not would be down to viability and whether they think a break barrel boingery thing would steal sales from their own underlevers.

Someone did mention higher up in the thread that they could maybe consider going back to their sidelever roots. At first I thought, "Blimey, that'd be nice". But utilising the sliding compression chamber for efficiency would make it too much like a Diana 52, which I've found pretty awkward to use when I have tried them, and nothing like those sleek tap loaders of old which will have been less efficient.

One quick study of an LGV, with its sturdy breech and lovely manual barrel latch, fit the CD and building in some lovely Air Arms styling and finish would result in a most desirable rifle. Just like the LGV vs Century, a sleeved cylinder and 25mm for our market and no sleeve and 30mm piston for the higher power markets.

That'll be a break barrel for me then, please.

What you say is true, I've just got myself an old Air Arms Camargue stock to replace my Combat stock and I didn't realise how compact, comfy and pointable it is (and damn pretty) BUT like you say it's not as nice to use as a break barrel, now if AA where to bring out a BB in the same dimensions and looks, then that would be something different to challenge everything else.

Pete