A 1966 Original Mod 27 rear sight

[Drew451]

Back on 27's, eh?! If you look at Garvins vintage gallery, here, you should find the correct one:

https://forum.vintageairgunsgallery....na-model-27-2/

Not sure which diopter the 27 was compatible with then, possibly pre-diopter 60, maybe the unit more commonly seen on early 35's. The Diopter 60 should fit the rail.

[CapitalBee]

Back on 27's, eh?! If you look at Garvins vintage gallery, here, you should find the correct one:

https://forum.vintageairgunsgallery....na-model-27-2/

Not sure which diopter the 27 was compatible with then, possibly pre-diopter 60, maybe the unit more commonly seen on early 35's. The Diopter 60 should fit the rail.

I must admit to some regrets in selling my last one; they are lovely mid power air rifles. I just fancied something different for some informal bell target (and a cheap restoration project)

[Geezer]

I must admit to some regrets in selling my last one; they are lovely mid power air rifles. I just fancied something different for some informal bell target (and a cheap restoration project)

Seconded. The 27, and its close relatives the 25D, 25DS, and 27S, outclass almost everything else (e.g. some HWs) in that range, on a combination of build quality, trigger pull, accuracy, robustness (apart from the original cheesy seals), and handling. The later 24/26/28 aren’t half bad either.

Absolute classic guns. You can’t credibly do 10M match with them. They aren’t the best for bell target. You can’t hunt beyond classic farmyard distances. You can’t succeed at FT or HFT. But that’s their strength. They are brilliant trainer/plinkers (with barn utility if you have a barn) and an utter pleasure to shoot.

Pity for Diana that for the last 40-50 years the market for a well-made basic 7-9 ft-lbs springer has shrunk to almost zero.

[jonnyone]

Seconded. The 27, and its close relatives the 25D, 25DS, and 27S, outclass almost everything else (e.g. some HWs) in that range, on a combination of build quality, trigger pull, accuracy, robustness (apart from the original cheesy seals), and handling. The later 24/26/28 aren’t half bad either.

Absolute classic guns. You can’t credibly do 10M match with them. They aren’t the best for bell target. You can’t hunt beyond classic farmyard distances. You can’t succeed at FT or HFT. But that’s their strength. They are brilliant trainer/plinkers (with barn utility if you have a barn) and an utter pleasure to shoot.

Pity for Diana that for the last 40-50 years the market for a well-made basic 7-9 ft-lbs springer has shrunk to almost zero.

Apologies for slight thread hijack.

Evening Geezer. When you say the seals were cheesy on the guns listed- in what sense was that? Their materials or quality or longevity etc?
Just wondering what issues were?
Cheers
Dave

[Geezer]

Apologies for slight thread hijack.

Evening Geezer. When you say the seals were cheesy on the guns listed- in what sense was that? Their materials or quality or longevity etc?
Just wondering what issues were?
Cheers
Dave

Actually, I may have confused myself or drawn a false conclusion.

The Giss target guns are well-known for the original white/cream coloured seals degrading over time. The later blue and red replacements don’t have that problem. Nor, in my experience, does the synthetic seal in the later 24/26/28/34/36/38 series, of which I’ve had four, with no issues.

But the 27 (and 35) I think, always used a leather seal. For some reason I thought some had changed to synthetic in the late 70s. But they didn’t, as far as I know.

Duh!

Though I have seen a suggestion that the 27S (and 35S) used synthetics. Never had one apart, so can’t be sure.

Sorry, I try not to get stuff wrong.

[jonnyone]

Not at all mate. Every day's a school day😊.

I know little to nothing of the giss system and the seals of those guns. I've had the main popular Diana's apart such as the 34 and 45 also the 50 and 50T01, and I'm fairly up to speed on the heads on those (indeed I'm hopeful of swapping over to some Vortek seals soon on a 45 and 50T01).

But I was worried for a moment there that there was an issue with some of the seals that I wasn't aware of. You've put my mind at rest.

Intrigued that some 27s and 35s may have factory synthetic seals though. I personally think it was a backward step by Diana holding on to leather seals for so long. Walters also made this point in his book too.
Dave

[Geezer]

Not at all mate. Every day's a school day😊.......

I personally think it was a backward step by Diana holding on to leather seals for so long. Walters also made this point in his book too.
Dave

Thanks, old chap.

I agree. I can understand why they kept leather on the older guns. It works fine, and the HW35 shows that changing leather to synthetic also requires things like changing the transfer port.

They may well have decided to leave well alone and instead plan to move to synthetics for the planned next generation - the 34 etc.

(BTW, people over here often forget how ridiculously successful the 34 has been, especially in its US target market. Perhaps because it never quite replicated that success in the U.K. Americans wanted a decent, accurate, good value gun with a high muzzle velocity. The Brits by the mid-80s either wanted a good farmyard gun (market congested with BSAs and Webleys) or a high-end sporter/FT rifle. The 34 began as the former, sometimes undercutting the guns on price, but - once quickly upgraded with the “TO1” trigger, linger cylinder and scope rail - then became neither fish nor fowl.)

Maybe the experience of synthetics in the 6/10/66 etc made them wary of them too.

I’m also intruiged by the possibility of synthetics in the 27S and 35S, which doesn’t quite fit with the above theory. But the S guns are just weird and a commercial mistake. They are an answer to a question no-one, except maybe in Germany, was asking (“Hello. I’d like a more expensive rifle with a safety feature no-one cares about, the same power, accuracy, and trigger, in a kind of match-style stock despite the fact that all serious match shooters use non-recoiling springers these days”). As with the ABT, they may have (wrongly) believed that a synthetic seal would be an attractive new feature that would attract buyers.

Big mistake not to go synthetic on the 45. It surely would have given it a bit greater power than the rifle it was designed to compete with, the FWB124/7, while with leather it turned out bigger, heavier, harder to cock, and, in FAC/US format, no more powerful than the FWB.

OK, enough rambling.

[Drew451]

I must admit to some regrets in selling my last one; they are lovely mid power air rifles. I just fancied something different for some informal bell target (and a cheap restoration project)

It's in safe Scottish hands.

[jonnyone]

It's in safe Scottish hands.

A statement that is truth- " in part"