What is the collectibility of the BSA Stutzen tab-loader vs the Stutzen Rb2

[45flint]

Curious which is the better to go for as a collector?

[mrto]

IMO the RB2 is more desirable and a better functioning gun than the later tap loading Airsporters.The MK1 and MK2 are the only tap loading Airsporters worth having as the build quality,fit and finish were very good on these,and both models had a properly lapped in tapered tap which when new were airtight.The taps on the MK1 and 2 automatically opened when the underlever was cocked.

The MK3 Airsporter had a tapered lapped in tap,too,but the automatically opening feature of the tap was dispensed with on this and all subsequent models and had a less elegantly styled stock and cheaper open sights.

Later marks of Airsporter were significantly cheapened in production to the point of becoming disgraceful considering it was the flagship BSA model!The taps on the MK1V and all subsequent marks until they ceased production were parallel and rarely achieved the fine alignment and airtight seal of the earlier tapered taps.

Collectors,of course do find the Stutzen tap loaders desirable,but I personally would not bother with any of them!

[45flint]

Those are great points, remember reading about owners liking the RB2. I’m a Airsporter Mark 2 owner so I’m fond of the tap there. I wonder which is the rarer of the two?

[mrto]

I am not sure,but I think the RB2 was made in far fewer numbers than the MK1 or MK2 Airsporters.

[Geezer]

I am not sure,but I think the RB2 was made in far fewer numbers than the MK1 or MK2 Airsporters.

Far, far, fewer. The Mk1 and 2 were made in huge quantities from 1948-65.

I’d go for the RB2.

But collectors are what they are, and the Mk7 tap loader Stutzen is probably about as rare as the RB2 one. So, in the U.K., I’d expect them to sell for similar amounts.

In the US, who knows? There surely can’t be many over there. Either must be really rare.

[Airsporterman]

I think I would go for the RB2 as loading direct into the breech has to be a far better concept. The RB2 breech is both simple and clever and no risk of any trapped or mangled fingers as with some open breech designs - 10 out of 10 for me - they got it right!

Value wise, they are probably the same, depends on condition etc!

ASM

[Shed tuner]

yeah, if you are going to shoot it, the RB2 is far more accurate than all the other later model tap loaders. But I'd not turn down a nice tap loading stutzen if it came up at the right price - it's somehow more "classic" airsporter

[fozzy45]

IMO the RB2 is more desirable and a better functioning gun than the later tap loading Airsporters.The MK1 and MK2 are the only tap loading Airsporters worth having as the build quality,fit and finish were very good on these,and both models had a properly lapped in tapered tap which when new were airtight.The taps on the MK1 and 2 automatically opened when the underlever was cocked.

The MK3 Airsporter had a tapered lapped in tap,too,but the automatically opening feature of the tap was dispensed with on this and all subsequent models and had a less elegantly styled stock and cheaper open sights.

Later marks of Airsporter were significantly cheapened in production to the point of becoming disgraceful considering it was the flagship BSA model!The taps on the MK1V and all subsequent marks until they ceased production were parallel and rarely achieved the fine alignment and airtight seal of the earlier tapered taps.

Collectors,of course do find the Stutzen tap loaders desirable,but I personally would not bother with any of them!

Really, the tap loaders came first. The rotary breech was a design to keep up with competition and IMHO the tap loader is far better than RB2. RBs are a pain in the ass to load and fiddly.

[mrto]

Really, the tap loaders came first. The rotary breech was a design to keep up with competition and IMHO the tap loader is far better than RB2. RBs are a pain in the ass to load and fiddly.

I think you have misunderstood what I have written!

[harry mac]

As soon as they introduced the RB, it stopped being an Airsporter.
The one I had had a very harsh firing cycle and I never really took to it. My Centenial (based on the Airsporter S), on the other hand is a joy to shoot.

[johnbaz]

I stripped this tap loading Stuttie down years ago for reblueing, It's still in bits somewhere!!



Oh, Here's a Mk1 'Sporter that I bought, It came with the scope fitted!!




Strange thing was that the rail actually worked even though it had two threaded holes in the triggerblock and two holes in the stock that housed the woodscrews

It's like a Blacksmith cobbled it together!!


John

[dvd]

I like the tap loading stutzen best. Taps can be quite good if well made and look far better than the RB alternative from a traditional gun making point of view.
I bought a NIB 22 RB stutzen a few years ago and apart from it's good looks, I was not impressed when I shot it . It was very harsh and even a weaker spring and new seals did not help . The direct loading seemed like a good idea too but the accuracy was not there for some reason. I cut my losses and returned it . The RB has more drawbacks than the tap loader since the o ring can get mangled if the RB is rotated by unknownig persons when the piston is pushing on it .

I got the impression that BSA Quality control and traditional gun making skills was miles ahead with their early tap loading models

[fozzy45]

I think you have misunderstood what I have written!

I can only reply to what is written. You say the tap loader came after the RB. That's how it's written. No. ?

[mrto]

No,but I understand your confusion!

[Shed tuner]

indeed.. later tap loaders, being later than the older, tapered tap loaders, as opposed to tap loaders later than the roller-breech.

I used exactly the same phrase above to differentiate betwen parallel and tapered taps !