Reply With Quoteis this the one where the end plug crosspin slowly stretches the hole in the cylinder, until it comes flying out / doesn't cock / get's pre-emptively scrapped ?
part time super hero and seeker of justice
The Webley Hawk Mk3 is one of the guns that is commonly slagged off. I am not saying it is a brilliant gun , but think some of the criticism is unfair OR is it?
The Hawk Mk1 had the cam release interchangable barrels, a stupid rearsight that would break if you tried to adjust it, a terrible trigger and a DANGEROUS safety.
The Hawk Mk2 had the screw in barrel and a better rearsight, but from memory, an automatic safety?
The Hawk Mk3 has a non changable barrel, the same rearsight and (I think) a manual safety.
All the safetys are made from something appoaching biscuit tin and tend to break.
The trigger housings are spot welded onto the cylinder and can break (theme here)
The rear stock screw is a tri lobal something or other self tapping screw that goes into a hole that is punched (I think) into the bottom of the trigger housings and only catches on a few threads. The front stock screws are the same sort but have a decent amount of metal to go into.
Hawk Mk3's can be made better by fitting an O ring into the front groove of the piston, fitting a Meteor mainspring, sorting a guide, doing away with the safety and using a sear spring from a Victor.
But the thing that gets me, is that people sing the praises of the Vulcan, when it is more or less a Hawk Mk3 with a bigger diameter cylinder and a mainspring guide? So apart form being a full power gun, why do people praise the |Vulcan and slag off the Hawk Mk3?
Cooler than Mace Windu with a FRO, walking into Members Only and saying "Bitches, be cool"
Registered User
is this the one where the end plug crosspin slowly stretches the hole in the cylinder, until it comes flying out / doesn't cock / get's pre-emptively scrapped ?
Always looking for any cheap, interesting, knackered "project" guns. Thanks, JB.
Registered User
I have never had a Hawk but I do have a Vulcan in .177 and I love it... its my go to plinker I suppose. Maybe the Vulcan is so good it makes the Hawk look bad?
part time super hero and seeker of justice
Yes----But I know of one idiotOriginally Posted by Shed tuner
who many years ago filed out the hole in the cylinder and the end plug to fit a Bsa Meteor pin. Never again!
Cooler than Mace Windu with a FRO, walking into Members Only and saying "Bitches, be cool"
may also be employed in conjunction with a drawn reciprocation dingle arm, to reduce sinusoidal repleneration
That’s the main reason it’s probably the worst British Airgun ever. The ‘replacement’ for the clunky but quality Mk III underlever.
Vulcan Mk I had a wobbly breech but it had a smart new piston washer, a spring guide and it didn’t slowly self-destruct and become dangerous to use over time. The rear retaining pin hole problem doesn’t really have a fix ...
Otherwise they handle well and yes, a nice sleek rifle.
Banned
Well I disagree with pretty much all of that lol
No time at mo but I'll update thread later tonigh.
Banned
Me.I love the hawk mk1.stock shape was way ahead of its time.it even showed itself in the last longbow/tomahawk shape.
I've 6 in line on the wall from the mk1 Hawk to the mk3 Vulcan.you can see the improvements as they get younger.
Hawk mk1 sight was a bit flimsy and them 1mm bbs are a bugger.mk2 up to vulcans were the same.front sights of the hawks did crack used or not.
Rear stock screw threads were cut into a pressed and stretched hole (can't recall the prosses name) screws wernt self tapping but rather a rough thread hard screw that was triangle in shape.most of the later webleys were the same. I believe it was a way of stopping them working loose.never came across a stripped one. Never came across a stretched rear cylinder hole either. I can only assume that's down to someone traibg to get nearer the limit with a over rated ox spring.
Never had an issue with the jaws either well not one that couldn't be sorted with a couple of gentle taps to bring them in snug.
That webley book also mentioned the front stock screws position were changed from the mk1 Vulcan up over.
This isn't the case.mk1 Vulcan had a shallow stock front.later ones were deeper and gave the appearance of them being moved.they were not.
Mk1 has thinner jaws than the mk2 and 3 which were bigger than the cylinder.
Grabbing the barrel and gun and feeling for movement you could sometimes feel play.but the barrel seemed to centralize when it was seated regardless of which way you felt play
I found the later none auto safteys to be weak not the early auto ones .
Yes the early Vulcan got it right with the "power intensification system" piston setup they called it.and of course the extra 2mm dia piston/cylinder (same stroke) gave enough swept volume for there guns to finally reach the 12ftlbs limit(and over)
Registered User
I dont know the mk3, as my only Hawk is a mk2.
Despite all the shortcomings, they are quite OK guns, as Mick/T20 has proven with his sleeved down transfer port on a mk2.
If Webley had understood the need for a smaller port, the Hawk would have been a much better gun.
They understood it when they the introduced the Vulcan and the Tracker- yes, they added the new PTFE seal,
but the other significant difference between the Ospery and the Tracker is the transfer port diameter.
Registered User
My late grandad gave his Hawk Mk3 to me a long time ago. The holes for the spring retaining pin had stretched so it was binned soon afterwards. A shame as I'd have kept it and it was in as new condition but may have been left cocked for a long period.
Always on the look out for Brum / Venom - Webley Longbow / Tommie rifles and parts.
Dodgy Diana User
The Hawk replaced the Falcon.
The Osprey replaced the Mk3.
Registered User
Quite right.
Not the first time I've heard someone say the Hawk was a replacement for the Mk3. Dunno why, as the Mk3 is an underlever, & the Hawk a break barrel.
The Hawk is not anywhere near the quality of a Falcon. Solid steel parts replaced with pressings, the build on my '50's Junior rifle is better than the Hawk. As an ex Webley gunsmith said on here recently, by the '70's the bean counters had taken over.
Bru
Webley Mk3 x2, Falcon & Junior rifles, HW35x2, AirSporter x2, Gold Star, Meteors x2, Diana 25. SMK B19, Webley Senior, Premier, Hurricane x 2, Tempest, Dan Wesson 8", Crosman 3576, Legends PO8.
may also be employed in conjunction with a drawn reciprocation dingle arm, to reduce sinusoidal repleneration
In the late 70s if you went into an iron mongers and asked for their best ‘Wembley’ for shooting rabbits with, they’d sell you a hawk mk iii.
The Osprey was an effete little tool for target shooters and those that liked a shotgun grip and a heavy front end. The Hawk Mk III had more power and was a better functional match for the MkIII.
Dodgy Diana User
Webley’s quoted velocity figures for both were the same - 650 fps in .177”, 550 in .22”, equating to low 8s and about 9.8 ft-lbs respectively.
Though I agree, back then break-barrel = pest control, and sidelever was seen as targety.
may also be employed in conjunction with a drawn reciprocation dingle arm, to reduce sinusoidal repleneration
Ospreys never did more than 8 ish in .22, barely enough to hunt with.
Registered User
I put leather washers in my Ospreys, I can get 9-9.5 ft lbs in .177 from a Meteor spring. Lovely to shoot and very accurate. I had one .22 Osprey that would do over 11 ft lbs off a leather washer. I think it's still kicking around in bits, I never bothered much with it as finding 5.6mm pellets it liked was never easy. It shot Defiants well but they're all gone now.
I don't really like the Osprey stock. The length of pull is short, it is quite heavily pitched and the pistol grip may look graceful, but puts your hand too far from the trigger. The Tracker/Viscount stock is longer and better proportioned overall.
Posting Permissions