A 1966 Original Mod 27 rear sight

[CapitalBee]

Well, I've acquired the above today (in .22" cal') after some horse trading (and Parcelforce's best efforts to lose it). It could do with a spruce up, but is complete apart from the rear sight. Can anyone point me in the right direction regarding the type of sight? The only thing I can say about the mounting is that there is no dovetail slot, just a flat on the breech and two small (M3), which were in place. Or, maybe a peep sight might be more obtainable? The rifle comes with the scope rail fitted.

[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.

[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"

[Geezer]

Well, I've acquired the above today (in .22" cal') after some horse trading (and Parcelforce's best efforts to lose it). It could do with a spruce up, but is complete apart from the rear sight. Can anyone point me in the right direction regarding the type of sight? The only thing I can say about the mounting is that there is no dovetail slot, just a flat on the breech and two small (M3), which were in place. Or, maybe a peep sight might be more obtainable? The rifle comes with the scope rail fitted.

Diana chopped and changed its rifle rear sights a bit. It can be confusing. I don’t claim to have all the answers.

I am confident (though not 100% sure) that should take the plastic (but good) rear sight also used on the model 5 and 6 pistols and some 1970s model 35s and into the 1980s on the cheaper models. Chambers has them for around £20 (Protek doubtless do as well), but listed under the pistols.

[CapitalBee]

Diana chopped and changed its rifle rear sights a bit. It can be confusing. I don’t claim to have all the answers.

I am confident (though not 100% sure) that should take the plastic (but good) rear sight also used on the model 5 and 6 pistols and some 1970s model 35s and into the 1980s on the cheaper models. Chambers has them for around £20 (Protek doubtless do as well), but listed under the pistols.

Thank you for that advice, I'll look into it.