The BSA Standard ???

[Binners]

I would also date the gun between 1932 and 1936, as that is when the more angular stock was used on the S prefix guns. After 1936, S prefix guns became T prefix guns.

Lakey

Not wanting hi-jack this fine thread, but your in box is full Lakey and I wan't to know if you are coming to the fair on Sunday....

[andrewM]

Not wanting hi-jack this fine thread, but your in box is full Lakey and I wan't to know if you are coming to the fair on Sunday....

Yes, and so do I as it would be most pleasing to see you.

[rapidboy1]

The etching is all there, just a nightmare to photograph with an ipad and fluorescent lighting.







I noticed a wee stamp on the stock

[slug-gun]

From the photographs, this appears to be an attractive Standard. The rear aperture sight is rare. Strange that the screws that hold it in place have been somewhat defaced; why would anyone wish to remove the sight, given it folds downwards, into place? It looks as if they have been tightened time and again but perhaps as part of the zeroing process.

The power might be greater than the 9.95ft/lbs you report. These rifles are sensitive to pellets. Try Superdomes and see what they produce. I have found them to be accurate in these rifles. The Standards were designed to perform at between 11 to 12ft/lbs.

As a lightning22 suggests, try Protek for the rear sight blade. Failing that, Knibbs.

I would put the value at nearer to £300 and perhaps more. It appears to be in good condition to me (with the exception of the two screws), and assuming all in good working order, it might be possible to get £350 plus for it, given the addition of the rear sight. If I was looking for a specimen like this, I would certainly contemplate paying a higher price than those suggested earlier. However, you would have to replace the missing rear sight blade, first.

Rgds
A

The Standards were not 'designed' to produce any particular foot poundage, certainly not 11 - 12 ft lbs as such. that limit was not introduced until 1968 I believe. They were designed to be powerful however and a new rifle would produce far in excess of the current 12 ft lb limit. I have seen such give a consistent 700 fps with 14.4 g Eley Wasp over a Skan chrono, no dieseling, with a 12 fps consistency!

Anecdotal evidence also suggests that these great old rifles would easily outshoot a modern gun limited to 11 - 12 ft lbs, back in their day.

[andrewM]

The Standards were not 'designed' to produce any particular foot poundage, certainly not 11 - 12 ft lbs as such. that limit was not introduced until 1968 I believe. They were designed to be powerful however and a new rifle would produce far in excess of the current 12 ft lb limit. I have seen such give a consistent 700 fps with 14.4 g Eley Wasp over a Skan chrono, no dieseling, with a 12 fps consistency!

Anecdotal evidence also suggests that these great old rifles would easily outshoot a modern gun limited to 11 - 12 ft lbs, back in their day.

Thank you for that; it is most interesting.

Someone, here, explained that when the 12ft/lb limit was introduced, it was introduced so as to encompass what was already being manufactured or had been manufactured already. That way, British manufacturers would not be compromised by legislation. It was considered, therefore, that 12ft/lb would cover existing air rifles. Garvin might have more information on this.

I suppose, in those days, it was difficult to obtain a power reading and penetration tests were the norm.

Probably, today, after approx. 100 years the springs have lost some of their power. Whilst I was aware that there were exceptions achieving over 12ft/lb, it would be interesting to know what others have experienced here.

I wonder if, in the example you witnessed, a more powerful spring had been introduced.

As you say, these were great old rifles and I rather think that they were not excelled until well into the '70s. The accuracy was not bad either: an inch group at 25-30 yards is easily achievable.

So far as the rifle in this thread is concerned, the high quality photographs and light tend to magnify the most minor scratches, etc. With the exception of the rear sight wooden base - to which someone has already referred - and the wrecked screws - this rifle appears to be in very good condition. I suspect it will be possible to obtain a price in the region of £300-350.

[slug-gun]

Thank you for that; it is most interesting.

Someone, here, explained that when the 12ft/lb limit was introduced, it was introduced so as to encompass what was already being manufactured or had been manufactured already. That way, British manufacturers would not be compromised by legislation. It was considered, therefore, that 12ft/lb would cover existing air rifles. Garvin might have more information on this.

I suppose, in those days, it was difficult to obtain a power reading and penetration tests were the norm.

Probably, today, after approx. 100 years the springs have lost some of their power. Whilst I was aware that there were exceptions achieving over 12ft/lb, it would be interesting to know what others have experienced here.

I wonder if, in the example you witnessed, a more powerful spring had been introduced.

As you say, these were great old rifles and I rather think that they were not excelled until well into the '70s. The accuracy was not bad either: an inch group at 25-30 yards is easily achievable.

So far as the rifle in this thread is concerned, the high quality photographs and light tends to magnify the most minor scratches, etc. With the exception of the rear sight wooden base - to which someone has already referred - and the wrecked screws - this rifle appears to be in very good condition. I suspect it will be possible to obtain a price in the region of £300-350.

The Standard in question was little used and original, and the gunshop where it was tested/owned, removed the mainspring which turned out to be the original 2 part item!

I believe the reason the 12 ft lb limit was introduced was to protect British products (BSA Airsporter/Webley Mk.3) which in the 1960's produced 10 -11 ft lbs, from the American gas and pump up rifles which invariably would easily go over 12 ft lb - ie the Sheridans, Benjamins and Crosmans.

[andrewM]

The Standard in question was little used and original, and the gunshop where it was tested/owned, removed the mainspring which turned out to be the original 2 part item!

I believe the reason the 12 ft lb limit was introduced was to protect British products (BSA Airsporter/Webley Mk.3) which in the 1960's produced 10 -11 ft lbs, from the American gas and pump up rifles which invariably would easily go over 12 ft lb - ie the Sheridans, Benjamins and Crosmans.

Well, there seems little question about that. I wonder whether it was generally representative. What a unique specimen from an earlier era. Perhaps the rather greater recoil had some impact on accuracy.

Such a pity we lost our lead in air rifle technology in the UK. I think the later Airsporters were no improvement upon the old Standards, apart from the introduction of better stocks.

[slug-gun]

Well, there seems little question about that. I wonder whether it was generally representative. What a unique specimen from an earlier era. Perhaps the rather greater recoil had some impact on accuracy.

Such a pity we lost our lead in air rifle technology in the UK. I think the later Airsporters were no improvement upon the old Standards, apart from the introduction of better stocks.

We haven't lost our lead in (sporting) air rifle technology! In terms of spring guns people like Venom Arms, Airmasters, Whiscombe, Air Arms, etc, developed and tuned spring air rifles to a point whereby only decades later did the Germans in the guise of Walther for example try and do a similar thing. Weihrauch spring guns to a large extent are still made very similarly to as they were in the 60's. Which is why so many people tune them.

In terms of PCP's Daystate pioneered the modern pre charged rifle, as did Ripley and other small businesses, and it was years before Weihrauch for example introduced their HW100 range.

Where you might have a point is in terms of Match air rifles where the Germans have indeed ruled the roost. However we are discussing sporting rifles here. Some patriotism please!

[andrewM]

We haven't lost our lead in (sporting) air rifle technology! In terms of spring guns people like Venom Arms, Airmasters, Whiscombe, Air Arms, etc, developed and tuned spring air rifles to a point whereby only decades later did the Germans in the guise of Walther for example try and do a similar thing. Weihrauch spring guns to a large extent are still made very similarly to as they were in the 60's. Which is why so many people tune them.

In terms of PCP's Daystate pioneered the modern pre charged rifle, as did Ripley and other small businesses, and it was years before Weihrauch for example introduced their HW100 range.

Where you might have a point is in terms of Match air rifles where the Germans have indeed ruled the roost. However we are discussing sporting rifles here. Some patriotism please!

I cannot disagree with your observations, excepting in terms of the manufacture of barrels. However, despite this British technology, we have not maintained our earlier lead in terms of volume production. Many British manufacturers use German barrels and I am not sure that any are made here these days. The leading springer manufacturers are from Germany, albeit we produce some limited competition from such splendid manufacturers as Air Arms. We were also ahead of the game with the PCPs. I sold my PCP; as Lakey observed here sometime ago, they do not have a soul! I recently bought a Walther LGV. I have yet to find the time to test it but, despite its weight, it seems to be the best break-barrel available - if informed opinion can be relied upon.