Page 1 of 17 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 242

Thread: Why is the HW95 so bouncy??

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Preston
    Posts
    3,167

    Why is the HW95 so bouncy??

    After having been shooting my Diana 34's for a few weeks I picked up my 95 for a plink and was immediately struck by its jumpyness in comparison to the Diana's. Mine is in .177 and short stroked by 12mm in an attempt to calm it down. Its also fitted with v-mach steel silencer for the same reason. Could it be due to excess surge generated by the small t.p.?
    Plinkerer and Tinkerer

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    THAME, ENGLAND
    Posts
    1,771
    I had a 98 in .177, could not adapt to it, my HW95K in .22 is fine
    Pick up your gun, shove a bullet up the spout
    It's the Major Dennis Bloodnok Rock'n' Roll Call Tango

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Preston
    Posts
    3,167
    In theory the 98 should be better due to the barrel sleeve but you shouldn't have to put a lump of iron like that on a gun just to make it right imo.
    Plinkerer and Tinkerer

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    East Sussex, Nr Rye
    Posts
    17,109
    I have a V-Match tuned 95 and its very smooth, but its still very light weight. Mine gives a straight smooth recoil shove but still takes very little to throw out of the group. When practiced with it, it is super accurate, but rarely when first picked up as I've forgotten how hold sensitive it is. Very cheek weld sensitive, I barely rest anything on the rear stock.
    I don't know about jumpy, but they just aren't very forgiving being too light weight. So much so though mine is a .177 and if I did it again I'd probably just go .22 and stick to farmyard ranges.
    Of a positive note they are a sporting weight and really nice to shoot standing unsupported. That can't be said of rifles that starting weight are 81/2lbs unless you are either very strong or very fit.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,556
    Not sure how the venom one is but the clamp on Parker hale universal steel silencer makes a huge difference.
    It slides quite far down the barrel so gives you a very tidy looking rifle.

    Fitted one on a recommendation and it cut the barrel flip down to zero.

    https://youtu.be/_U1yadFTEro

    Basically resulted in much more consistent accuracy out to 50yds.
    Cheers,
    Matt

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Barnsley
    Posts
    120
    I have 2 hw95s a .177 and a .22.
    The .22 is tuned by wonky donky and is fantastic,hardly no movement just a thud upon firing.
    My .177 is used for experiments to make the shot cycle nice trying different springs etc.
    At the moment it runs a factory piston machined down to 195g with an aussie green seal and vortek spring and guides with steelsockets machined down to fit in the factory silencer for a tad more weight.It shoots very nice at the moment using jsb exacts 4.52 die54s for 10.8fpe.I have also put the action into an hw98 stock.More range time reqd after lockdown later this year.
    From what i gather,the key to using the .177 seems to be linked to what state of tune the internals run.If the jumpy cycle can be tamed the rifle is capable of stunning accuracy.

  7. #7
    Barryg's Avatar
    Barryg is offline Registered ̶D̶i̶a̶n̶a̶ User
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Nr. YEOVIL
    Posts
    5,007
    Quote Originally Posted by maximus View Post
    After having been shooting my Diana 34's for a few weeks I picked up my 95 for a plink and was immediately struck by its jumpyness in comparison to the Diana's. Mine is in .177 and short stroked by 12mm in an attempt to calm it down. Its also fitted with v-mach steel silencer for the same reason. Could it be due to excess surge generated by the small t.p.?
    A nice 34 is just better all round gun than a 95 so it is just better to shoot

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Location
    Cary, NC, USA
    Posts
    312

    Hw95l

    My HW95L with a Hawke scope weighs right at 9 lbs. I would not want any rifle that weighs much more BUT that is just me.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Pontypridd South Wales uk
    Posts
    1,848
    I can't really add much to this thread since though I've got an early 85 Luxus and a custom version I haven't spent any length of time shooting either in order to make comparisons with the 34/38 I have.
    The 34 is a very capable gun I know that from my own personal experience. On paper at least having a smaller cross section and lighter (?) Piston the 95 should be the better gun. Should being operative word. Clearly design, weight and overall balance of whole gun comes into things when judging a guns handling characteristics as does it's state of tune and ME.
    The 34 is no slouch and it doesn't really suprise me that maximus has viewed it favourably compared to his 95.
    It's an interesting comparison as I think nowadays both guns fill the same spot within their respective manufacturers range in light of the other guns within those ranges.
    Dave

  10. #10
    Barryg's Avatar
    Barryg is offline Registered ̶D̶i̶a̶n̶a̶ User
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Nr. YEOVIL
    Posts
    5,007
    Quote Originally Posted by jonnyone View Post
    I can't really add much to this thread since though I've got an early 85 Luxus and a custom version I haven't spent any length of time shooting either in order to make comparisons with the 34/38 I have.
    The 34 is a very capable gun I know that from my own personal experience. On paper at least having a smaller cross section and lighter (?) Piston the 95 should be the better gun. Should being operative word. Clearly design, weight and overall balance of whole gun comes into things when judging a guns handling characteristics as does it's state of tune and ME.
    The 34 is no slouch and it doesn't really suprise me that maximus has viewed it favourably compared to his 95.
    It's an interesting comparison as I think nowadays both guns fill the same spot within their respective manufacturers range in light of the other guns within those ranges.
    Dave
    I agree Dave the 95 and the 34 are a interesting comparison but you don't see many custom 34's and that gives the 95 a advantage



  11. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Pontypridd South Wales uk
    Posts
    1,848
    Fully agree Barry. Very pertinent point that.

    But damn I wish you hadn't posted those custom pics there. Awww man!!!!!
    Dave

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Near Wimbledon, SW London, or Lusaka, Zambia
    Posts
    26,322
    you've short stroked it, which is a massive improvement, so the port shoudl be fine at the new, reduced volume.

    Just add a steel mod, and it'll be fine.
    Always looking for any cheap, interesting, knackered "project" guns. Thanks, JB.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Preston
    Posts
    3,167
    Quote Originally Posted by Benelli B76 View Post
    My HW 95 in .20 calibre was jumpy until I opened up the transfer port. I then could reduce the spring length and it now shoots very smoothly. Super accurate rifle as well.

    Baz
    Thanks for the reply. I have been wondering if this is the cause of the problem myself. I'll measure mine and report back. I haven't got a 99 in 177 but my 22 is lovely to shoot. You don't hear people talking about 99s being jumpy like 95s though do you?
    Plinkerer and Tinkerer

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Retford, Notts
    Posts
    34,739
    I have 99s and 95s in both the "main" calibres. Only the 95 in .177 seemed more "bouncy". Fitted a V-Mach kit a good few years ago and it shoots beautifully and very accurately.
    THE BOINGER BASH AT QUIGLEY HOLLOW. MAKING GREAT MEMORIES SINCE 15th JUNE, 2013.
    NEXT EVENT :- May 4/5, 2024.........BOING!!

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Preston
    Posts
    3,167
    Quote Originally Posted by Shed tuner View Post
    you've short stroked it, which is a massive improvement, so the port shoudl be fine at the new, reduced volume.

    Just add a steel mod, and it'll be fine.

    Hi John, its got a vmach steel mod already and still too much bounce for me to be happy with it. Checked the t.p. and its approx 3 mm so as you sa should be ample especially with the short stroke. Its in a cs500 with an airmax 3-9*40 on board so maybe the balance point is further back causing the front to flip about more
    Plinkerer and Tinkerer

Posting Permissions

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