Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 29 of 29

Thread: Anshutz 335

  1. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    St.Albans
    Posts
    3,217
    Do you need your gutters clearing?

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Blackburn, Lancs. (under a bridge)
    Posts
    22,944
    Quote Originally Posted by mrto View Post
    Do you need your gutters clearing?
    Is this some strange euphemism?
    Founder & ex secretary of Rivington Riflemen.
    www.rivington-riflemen.uk

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    christchurch
    Posts
    7,130
    I hope not.

    Mrto is trying to obtain an air gun by working on my house.

    Good try, but I can still do my own gutters.

  4. #19
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Quigley Hollow, Nuneaton
    Posts
    17,111
    Quote Originally Posted by Mole trapper View Post
    I had a real clean example here recently that didn't fit in my collection, damn near had to give it away. I try not to think about it too much, but believe in the end I got £65
    Pah, some mate you are Jaimie --- you didn't offer it to me at 65 quid.


    image.jpeg





  5. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    southampton
    Posts
    3,098
    Quote Originally Posted by gingernut View Post
    I sold one to a chap on here and one to the builder who did our kitchen.
    I believe that was me,was it a mk1?... I wanted to compare it to the mk 2 I had to see if there was any big difference between the two and apart from the stock and barrel release there wasn't....open sights were the same as well, I think the sliding rear sight mentioned was on the 330 model or was that 333 model?
    I seem to recall something being mentioned about a slightly larger diameter air chamber on the magnum (mk3) but cannot be sure if that is correct,seem to remember some short piece about the rifle in one of the airgun mags back then.
    Smile!...today is the day you worried about yesterday. :-)

    Supanova II Weymouth....http://www.supanova-charters.co.uk/

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    St.Albans
    Posts
    3,217
    I have two MK1's both have the Anschutz 'sliding' rear sight.

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    christchurch
    Posts
    7,130
    Quote Originally Posted by weebster View Post
    I believe that was me,was it a mk1?... I wanted to compare it to the mk 2 I had to see if there was any big difference between the two and apart from the stock and barrel release there wasn't....open sights were the same as well, I think the sliding rear sight mentioned was on the 330 model or was that 333 model?
    I seem to recall something being mentioned about a slightly larger diameter air chamber on the magnum (mk3) but cannot be sure if that is correct,seem to remember some short piece about the rifle in one of the airgun mags back then.
    I knew it was Web something!
    Nice gun -as they all were.

    The one the builder had was a .177 marked Magnum but it wasn’t a powerhouse.
    Very accurate.
    He brought it back two weeks later saying it had lost accuracy.
    I tightened up the stock screws for him before they fell out!

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Pulborough
    Posts
    997
    I am probably in the market for a worthwhile 335 but cannot quite clinch the difference between the various models.

    I discovered this quote via the internet: "I did buy another 335 from this sites owner later in the 80's by which time they were calling it the 335 'magnum' apparently it had a slightly larger diameter air chamber with the word 'magnum' inscribed within a triangle on the chamber between the end of the scope rails and barrel,the upgrade was a response to the english rifles being upgraded at the time as in the vulcan and merc 's' iirc which were seeing an increase in popularity at the to time."

    Thus, contrary to what I and others have previously deduced, it seems there was indeed an upgrade of sorts in the form of the 'Magnum' and this description was not, after all, to differentiate from the lower power models (sub 6ft/lb) in Germany.

    It also seems the rear sight altered between the Mk1 and Mk2, with the former fitted with the sliding sight (akin to the FWB). Per the photos posted earlier here, the Mk2 seems to have the traditional circular screw for elevation. Or could that have been a one-off? Perhaps, if a standard fitting, the modified sight on the Mk2 was a cheaper sight to fit at the plant.

    Other than the barrel release, was the Mk2 a more powerful version, perhaps also designed to address the occasional splitting of the front stock mounts, caused by recoil, to which some have referred elsewhere?

    Can anyone shed any more light on these points as I am possibly in the market for one of these?

    Rgds
    A

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Christchurch
    Posts
    4,829
    All I can say is with my limited experience with this rifle, there is no logical reason at all why they need to be under powered. They have a fair size compression chamber and the spring is similar in size to a Titan 003. This one needed the power dropped by 3 ft. lb. The only reason I can see them putting out low power is the piston seal material. It seems to be a type of harder PTFE, which can be fine at the early life of the rifle, but is malleable and can also reduce in diameter much quicker than polyurethane. Because this rifle has hardly been used it still has a good fit between piston and chamber. As to owning one, the reasons would be for a collection or nostalgia. My HW95 is just as accurate, much smoother in operation, and feels better balanced, so I would prefer that as an actual shooter.

    Baz

    [IMG][/IMG]
    BE AN INDEPENDENT THINKER, DON'T FOLLOW THE CROWD

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Pulborough
    Posts
    997
    That appears to be a high quality iron sight and, personally, I prefer to shoot with these on older rifles. Alas, the modern stuff very rarely features open sights and telescopic sights make thinks rather too easy.

    From what you say, the power issue is not a problem either.

    Rgds
    A

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Barnsley
    Posts
    364
    [QUOTE=T 20;7649785]Pah, some mate you are Jaimie --- you didn't offer it to me at 65 quid.



    He offered it to me and very nice it is 😃

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    southampton
    Posts
    3,098
    Both my original mk2 335 (purchased 1980) and the mk1 I had and indeed the current mk2 I have were all fitted with the dial rear sight and leather piston seal.
    The sliding rear sight might be the 333 model....as for ptfe seals,from what I know these are after market types, I have one fitted to a mk2 now and imo its a bit more harsh to shoot compared with leather.
    I also have a diana seal which I will replace the ptfe with.
    They shoot nice at around 9-10ftlbs.
    Smile!...today is the day you worried about yesterday. :-)

    Supanova II Weymouth....http://www.supanova-charters.co.uk/

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    East Sussex, Nr Rye
    Posts
    17,109
    The BSF S70 was made to shoot 11ft/lbs and has similar scale to the 335's. I don't think in this scale chamber/rifle getting 11ft/lbs does them any favours. Heck even a FWB Sport do better at a tad under rather than over 11ft/lbs.
    Its not they can't be made to do more but just behave better with less.

    In its day the 335 was always considered a bit low powered than the competition. In those days few people were so chrono needy, few had them and if they did it was a shop's pendulum! More importantly was could you hit something with your rifle in the farmyard. Everything else was marketing hype. The 335 certainly was known for its accuracy though lost out on the hype front. Most rifles were sold with the promise: "full power!"; but the 335 wasn't. Once out of the shop few people knew what their guns were shooting power wise thereafter.
    Of note the 335's aren't "big", and are light weight. Just nice, but not super sexy "man sized".

    Anyhow, the 335 had the reputation for just being a darn well made accurate rifle. The MKII's I've had all shot well, with good triggers. A pleasure to shoot. The stamped checkering was a bit ugg.
    An excellent example often change hands at the £200 mark. It would need to be truly mint to do better. Sadly will always be priced below more "powerful" rifles even though few match them for outright well made quality. For the back garden then few better them for pure enjoyment.

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    clacton
    Posts
    686
    Quote Originally Posted by weebster View Post
    Both my original mk2 335 (purchased 1980) and the mk1 I had and indeed the current mk2 I have were all fitted with the dial rear sight and leather piston seal.
    The sliding rear sight might be the 333 model....as for ptfe seals,from what I know these are after market types, I have one fitted to a mk2 now and imo its a bit more harsh to shoot compared with leather.
    I also have a diana seal which I will replace the ptfe with.
    They shoot nice at around 9-10ftlbs.
    you are correct,the 333 has the sliding elevation on the sight,still a very nice unit.i got the 333 minus the rear sight a while back,found one on line and to my amazement the dovetail was different,apparently they changed part way through production.thanks to "frakor" for that information and as he put it"if you ordered one not knowing you were bound to get the wrong size dovetail"
    atb

Posting Permissions

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