Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 18

Thread: A 1966 Original Mod 27 rear sight

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Hereford
    Posts
    2,972

    A 1966 Original Mod 27 rear sight

    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.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Glenrothes
    Posts
    1,352
    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.
    Last edited by Drew451; 15-01-2019 at 09:34 PM.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Bruton
    Posts
    6,591
    Quote Originally Posted by CapitalBee View Post
    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.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Hereford
    Posts
    2,972
    Quote Originally Posted by Drew451 View Post
    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)

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Hereford
    Posts
    2,972
    Quote Originally Posted by Geezer View Post
    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.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Bruton
    Posts
    6,591
    Quote Originally Posted by CapitalBee View Post
    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.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Glenrothes
    Posts
    1,352
    Quote Originally Posted by CapitalBee View Post
    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.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Pontypridd South Wales uk
    Posts
    1,848
    Quote Originally Posted by Drew451 View Post
    It's in safe Scottish hands.
    A statement that is truth- " in part"

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Pontypridd South Wales uk
    Posts
    1,848
    Quote Originally Posted by Geezer View Post
    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

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Bruton
    Posts
    6,591
    Quote Originally Posted by jonnyone View Post
    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.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Pontypridd South Wales uk
    Posts
    1,848
    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

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Bruton
    Posts
    6,591
    Quote Originally Posted by jonnyone View Post
    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.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Glenrothes
    Posts
    1,352
    Good post/ interesting ramblings though.
    The S variants always ran leather washers as did the regular 27, 35's throughout their production run. Remember that the German competition were still on leather in 77/78 when the O45 and Super series launched and didn't go synthetic until the new series of guns (HW80/77) were introduced. I think it took until 1983 for the HW35 to switch to synthetic. Diana weren't far behind with the 24-34 range in 1984. So just we wee bit slow off the mark.
    Hopefully Capitalbee gets his rear sight! The 27 changed a fair bit in 66/ 67 or thereabouts. Some later models have a unit that's base plate is very similar to that used on the plastic Mod 5 etc type Geezer mentioned. I'm not totally sure if the unit will fit the earlier guns either though. The earlier rear sights look quite different and any fixings are hidden, unfortunately.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Bruton
    Posts
    6,591
    Agree. Have been back through my library and am increasingly sure they were all leather piston washers on the pre-24/26/28/34/36/38 guns.

    The pistol and rifle plastic rear sights were surely the same? They look it.

    Minor point: the German competition with synthetic piston seals started in 1972-3, with the FWB.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Glenrothes
    Posts
    1,352
    Quote Originally Posted by Geezer View Post
    Agree. Have been back through my library and am increasingly sure they were all leather piston washers on the pre-24/26/28/34/36/38 guns.

    The pistol and rifle plastic rear sights were surely the same? They look it.

    Minor point: the German competition with synthetic piston seals started in 1972-3, with the FWB.
    Maybe not the best advertisement for synthetic seals. Did these not tend to go a bit cheesey?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •