Sterling HR rifles

[steviebee]

Hi,
Remembering the Sterling HR81 rifle, A short lived but over engineered rifle of it,s era, was it ever produced in .177?
In regard to the 83 version, other than stock and sight refinements, was the action/breech blocks still stamped as Hr81?

Cheers

[Hsing-ee]

They made .177 but not as many as the .22. The trigger was refined on the HR83. After Sterling stopped production they went on be made by Benjamin in the USA.

Cursed by inefficient design, antiquated features like a leather piston washer, poor trigger and very poor handling, it was very well made and nicely blacked. Roy Hutchison who designed it made a very much better rifle in the Park RH91 and RH93, which could have gone on to glory with a bit of development.

The Sterling is perhaps the only air-rifle that ought to have been fitted with a bayonet lug as the design is strong enough and the accuracy poor enough to make this a sensible addition.

[Geezer]

This is from memory. So may be wrong.

The Sterling made guns were only .22”. .177” and .20” were promised, but only emerged as production items (I can’t discount the existence of Sterling prototypes) once the design had been sold to Crosman-Benjamin, and were briefly and unsuccessfully made in the US by them.

Not sure on the markings. The 83 had a better walnut stock, and an improved trigger, which indeed gave a better pull, but was very prone to breakage and withdrawn. The 83’s deluxe walnut stock was then mated with the regular 81 action and trigger to give the 81 Deluxe.

They were odd guns. Yes, over-engineered (although the trigger design on both was poor, with bits retained by the stock, not the action), but fundamentally a poor design. An inefficient design, with a consequently poor shot-cycle and high cocking effort for the power level. Awfully top-heavy, especially when scoped. And, on Sterling ones, a dodgy front sight.

We all wanted them to be the new, British, world-beating, design that would kick the HWs and FWBs and Diana 45s in the goolies. We ended up with something that was inferior to a BSA Mercury S or Webley Vulcan but cost a lot more.

The bolt action was cool, though.

If that sounds like I hate them, I don’t. They are interesting and in a small way historically important. I have an 81. This thread has reminded me to get it out and shoot it a bit, for things and giggles. But on any objective analysis, they were at best average and over-priced.

[Geezer]

The Sterling is perhaps the only air-rifle that ought to have been fitted with a bayonet lug as the design is strong enough and the accuracy poor enough to make this a sensible addition.

You’ve obviously never owned a MK5 Airsporter.

[micky2]

This is from memory. So may be wrong.

The Sterling made guns were only .22”. .177” and .20” were promised, but only emerged as production items (I can’t discount the existence of Sterling prototypes) once the design had been sold to Crosman-Benjamin, and were briefly and unsuccessfully made in the US by them.

Not sure on the markings. The 83 had a better walnut stock, and an improved trigger, which indeed gave a better pull, but was very prone to breakage and withdrawn. The 83’s deluxe walnut stock was then mated with the regular 81 action and trigger to give the 81 Deluxe.

They were odd guns. Yes, over-engineered (although the trigger design on both was poor, with bits retained by the stock, not the action), but fundamentally a poor design. An inefficient design, with a consequently poor shot-cycle and high cocking effort for the power level. Awfully top-heavy, especially when scoped. And, on Sterling ones, a dodgy front sight.

We all wanted them to be the new, British, world-beating, design that would kick the HWs and FWBs and Diana 45s in the goolies. We ended up with something that was inferior to a BSA Mercury S or Webley Vulcan but cost a lot more.

The bolt action was cool, though.

If that sounds like I hate them, I don’t. They are interesting and in a small way historically important. I have an 81. This thread has reminded me to get it out and shoot it a bit, for things and giggles. But on any objective analysis, they were at best average and over-priced.

I have had 6 of them 5 in .177 4 of them boxed and brand new. all of them made by Sterling. all of them bought 1991-92

[les allam]

I have a Hr81 in .22.
My one has a parkerised finish on the main body of the gun,but the barrel and underlever is blued.
They don’t shoot nice but it’s still an interesting gun.
Les..

[piggy589]

I have had 6 of them 5 in .177 4 of them boxed and brand new. all of them made by Sterling. all of them bought 1991-92

A bloke in our club had a new boxed .177,not cheap at the time.

[micky2]

A bloke in our club had a new boxed .177,not cheap at the time.

I was very lucky with my boxed ones, l bought them from a auction cheap at the time. then sold on to help pay for my other guns in my collection.

[Lakey]

I have a production HR81 in .177 caliber, and I also have an HR83 in a factory left hand walnut stock. All british made. I actually quite like them.

[edbear2]

A few years back, I bought a NOS stock for mine from Helston Gunsmiths at a very fair price, as they acquired a lot of Sterling Firearm parts, and obviously some air stuff was included ......don't know if they still have spares, but may be worth asking if anyone on here is stuck.

ATB, ED

[johnbaz]

I had one and loved it!, I think it was the bolt that made it a novel gun!

Third from the right..


I swapped it for a rubbish Gamo1200 Co2 rifle!!, I sold that pretty quickly as it was rubbish!!


John

[kennyc]

I still have mine, bought it new in '82, took a fair few bunnies with it in the day, basically wore it out
not sure how true it is, but at the time it was in the shooting rags that the project came about because the Stirling Company had lost a contract to make AR15's and they were .22 because they already had the barrel blanks in inventory, they are certainly heavy duty enough!

[Geezer]

I still have mine, bought it new in '82, took a fair few bunnies with it in the day, basically wore it out
not sure how true it is, but at the time it was in the shooting rags that the project came about because the Stirling Company had lost a contract to make AR15's and they were .22 because they already had the barrel blanks in inventory, they are certainly heavy duty enough!

Interesting info on the .177”s above, thanks, guys.

I doubt Sterling were ever in contention to make AR15s. The design was then owned by Colt, and only licensed around that time to Diemaco (now Colt Canada).

Sterling did make AR18s and AR180s, but mostly for the civilian market, from 1979-85. A completely different design from the AR15.

Sterling’s then owner, James Edmiston, maintained that Sterling was driven out of business by the government on spurious accusations of violating export rules to Iraq. Maybe. He also claims that the HR81 was awesome.

The British Government in the 20th Century did have a bit of an institutional prejudice against private-sector gun makers, on the not completely unreasonable basis that things designed and made at the Royal Small Arms Factory were cheaper than buying something similar from the private sector. But they tended to freeze then out, not actively attack them.

Another view is that military/LE sales of the Sterling SMG dwindled, especially with the arrival on the market of the MP5 (Edmiston also maintains that the Sterling was better than the MP5), sales of the civilian/LE Mk4, Mk6, and Mk7 Sterlings did not take off, nor did sales of the AR18 variants, and nor did sales of the Sterling-branded (but German designed, Italian made) Sterling .38/357” revolver. All of which are facts.

I don’t know if Sterling made their own .223” or .22” airgun barrels. But the story above sounds questionable.

[Hsing-ee]

Another view is that military/LE sales of the Sterling SMG dwindled, especially with the arrival on the market of the MP5 (Edmiston also maintains that the Sterling was better than the MP5), sales of the civilian/LE Mk4, Mk6, and Mk7 Sterlings did not take off, nor did sales of the AR18 variants, and nor did sales of the Sterling-branded (but German designed, Italian made) Sterling .38/357” revolver. All of which are facts.

I don’t know if Sterling made their own .223” or .22” airgun barrels. But the story above sounds questionable.

It does sound unlikely that the barrels were repurposed .223 centrefire tubes - surely the twist rate would be too slow for the lumbering pellet?

After filling enormous orders for the WWII era SMG (Patchett wasn’t it?) seems like they got complacent then made a bad bet on the AR18/180 and ultimately failed by not making anything anyone wanted to buy.

SA80 is a bullpupped AR18 so maybe some cause for grievance as the AR18 would have been a better gun than the first gen SA80, at least if fitted the SUSAT sight, and a lot cheaper.

[johnbaz]

I can recall reading an account about the prototype HR81 doing 22ft lbs in initial tests and having to be tuned down to legal limits, This was years ago, Can't recall where I read it!!

I know Roy was a member on here and posted occasionally..


John