New gun day- early Diana 34....

[jonnyone]

I set out years ago to obtain the guns that I listed after in my youth but could not afford. Thus the early guns I obtained were the HW35e, Original 45, and the FWB Sport. As is so often the case my collecting remit expanded and I've kept going since.
I've bought a few Dianas over the years but never really got that excited about the early 34 model Dianas. That was until yesterday.
Upon stumbling onto what appeared to be an early Original 34 I noticed it was for sale in my home town. Curiosity got the better of me and I was soon driving the short distance to the seller for a socially distanced "possible" deal.
I should really have gone armed with a little more research as I am not as well versed in the lineage of some Diana models with their different dates of introduction and specifications. But when I checked the gun over I knew I had to have it. It was in better order than the photos did justice so it was coming home with me. The deal was struck with the smashing fellow shooter and back home I headed.
Some observations on the gun to the small but dedicated band of fellow Diana collectors on here. The gun is dated 08.84 and has usual length barrel (19.5?). It's the first gun I've bought with the old style plastic pistol type rear sight. The front tunnel is the early slim type on barrel dovetails with non changeable foresight post.
The stock is a very plain affair with the fore end stopping well short of the breech jaws. The vertical depth of the stock is quite shallow giving the impression the front stock screws are set low. There is no recoil pad. The butt has a gentle hollow with large serrations to aid grip once shouldered.
The gun does not have the usual Diana bolted scope ramp. Rather it has shallow and impossibly short dovetails. I think your struggle to get some one piece mounts on there.
The trigger is a very rudimentary affair. I've said many times the trigger designations on these guns confuse me but this must be a very early type. I'd guess directly following the unitised trigger of the Original 45 and it's fixed barrel mate the 50T01. The blade is a curved sheet stamping, and though basic is quite comfy. Trigger action is a short first stage, and a reasonable weighted second/release. It doesn't creep and whilst no knuckle whitener it's not that light either. Try as I might I cannot find any adjustment screws in there despite there being a hole in the guard to adjust.
The gun does appear a little pedestrian in velocity though I've only put some shots into a lead billet when I got home. Cocking effort appears strong and doesn't appear to match with modest " apparent" velocity. I am wondering if the breech seal has lost its ability to seal since the gun does appear to have spent some time in the rack. I'll check it when I get time. It's .22 by the way. Which reminds me the breech is extremely tight for the FTTs I put through it.
I'm very pleased with the purchase as I did debate whether or not to go and view the gun. I'm very glad I did. It's in cracking condition for a near 40 year old gun.
The one thing that did strike me looking over the gun is what was going on the the airgun market at that time. And perhaps the rationale of the 34 and its place in the market. Whilst being very pleased with the gun it's clear that to be fair it wouldn't hold a candle to the HW80 which had come out a few years previously. I bought a new 80 ironically the same month this gun was going out the doors at the factory and putting them besides one another it's chalk and cheese. The 80 has a much more solid feel and one of a gun hand crafted (in those days anyhow). This Diana whilst not wishing to be unkind lacks the qualities and air of the 80. Compared to the Original 45 which it was designed to replace (there again was it)?? This gun does have a certain mass produced feel to it. It's sights, trigger, stock cannot compare to an HW80. But I asked myself was this gun made to compete with it? I have a feeling the answer is no. Had the Original/Diana 52 made an appearance by that stage? That is certainly competition for the 80 certainly in those power crazed days.
But though I've owned this 34 less than 24 hours I've certainly come to appreciate it's qualities. It's place in the market back then. Besides which this gun was later to spawn the more punchy model 36 and 38. Healthier competition for the HW models with their updated triggers and stocks.
I'd welcome any input from those with better knowledge of this gun along the lines of the long and short tube specs. The trigger spec on this example. Just when did the 34 arrive here which will give me some perspective on how early this gun is?
Thanks
Dave

[Drew451]

Oof. Excellent stuff and a really good find, Dave. I actually saw it on that sales site last night and noted its location. It fell perfectly for you in the valleys there! Looks like I'm on here before Geezer so here goes:
34 introduced March '84 but Im not sure when the first of them landed here as Originals. So you have the earliest incarnation of the model with the non adjustable trigger. They are referred to, unofficially, as short tube with 28x77mm bore/stroke which may mirror or at least be very close to the O45 and FWB Sports. Very plain and simplified construction as you say but well built and finished. The short dovetails are best suited to two piece mounts as I think the vast majority of one piece will be too long.
The point of the 34 was to make a simplified, no frills, full power gun that was cheaper to produce than the 35 and 45 that could be offered at a lower price point. Interesting to note that Diana started to develop it very soon after introduction with fitting the revised 3 ball trigger, sight ramp before introducing the fancier 36/38 and more deluxe 34's later. Id say your 34 would be considered a more powerful competitor to an HW50 or possibly a HW35, although I think the 34 needed its 3 ball sear trigger to compete with that gun. Comparisons with an HW80 would be better left to the 36 or 38 with their better triggers, sights, stocks and cast fittings. By the way if you're not too enamoured with the 34 and would rather have an 80/85 I'll send one down tomorrow, cash/whisky either way.

[Geezer]

What Drew said.

In the U.K. they were priced below the BSA Mercuries and Webley Vulcans, and significantly below HWs.

[jonnyone]

Oof. Excellent stuff and a really good find, Dave. I actually saw it on that sales site last night and noted its location. It fell perfectly for you in the valleys there! Looks like I'm on here before Geezer so here goes:
34 introduced March '84 but Im not sure when the first of them landed here as Originals. So you have the earliest incarnation of the model with the non adjustable trigger. They are referred to, unofficially, as short tube with 28x77mm bore/stroke which may mirror or at least be very close to the O45 and FWB Sports. Very plain and simplified construction as you say but well built and finished. The short dovetails are best suited to two piece mounts as I think the vast majority of one piece will be too long.
The point of the 34 was to make a simplified, no frills, full power gun that was cheaper to produce than the 35 and 45 that could be offered at a lower price point. Interesting to note that Diana started to develop it very soon after introduction with fitting the revised 3 ball trigger, sight ramp before introducing the fancier 36/38 and more deluxe 34's later. Id say your 34 would be considered a more powerful competitor to an HW50 or possibly a HW35, although I think the 34 needed its 3 ball sear trigger to compete with that gun. Comparisons with an HW80 would be better left to the 36 or 38 with their better triggers, sights, stocks and cast fittings. By the way if you're not too enamoured with the 34 and would rather have an 80/85 I'll send one down tomorrow, cash/whisky either way.

Evening Drew. So it does seem as if this gun is one of the earliest arrivals. Clearly there's a little bit of lag time between gun leaving factory and going on sale here. My guess would be it came over the counter into a buyer's hands sometime in 1985.
Following your referral to "short tube" gun I compared a late 80s 34s gun and this recent acquisition is indeed a shorter tube than that. Overlaying one action on other looks to give I'd say 10mm at least extra stroke on later gun. I'd wager that Original/ Diana gave no indication to the buying public that this had occurred during production. I bet someone has spotted this production spec change somewhere along the line and between others they've narrowed down as to when this happened. Diana seem very quiet about such spec changes and with the passage of time much of this information will be lost as employees retire. An interesting reference to two other very fine weapons that likely share the stroke characteristics.
I'd certainly agree on the build quality. Nothing shabby there really. Indeed ironically it only has plastic parts within the rear sight. And actually they perform very well too with dependable click stops on the elevation and windage dials.
I take your point on the production costs and price point. Anyone who has had the Diana 3 ball trigger in bits and timed themselves on re assembly will attest that the later triggers are a whole lot less labour intensive.
An interesting observation on the HW50 and it's possible head to head with this gun. A fair match I think. And yes it does appear that once Diana had established the base model then there was a programme of continual upgrade of spec and facelift of easthetics leading to the later guns. I think Diana must have for the basics right with the gun but pushed on development and refinements throughout production.
Coming to your offer of a trade. Given the recent bouncy HW thread methinks if there was a deal on the table you can keep your HW and I'd be choosing a drop of nectar. You'd have to have deep pockets pal cos it wouldn't be just any old blended or single malt even. I'd be leaning toward a certain Mr JW of the blue variety
Dave

[Drew451]

I'd be interested to hear how you find this 84 model vs your later 34's, looks aside. How are you getting on with the simple trigger and how does it affect its accuracy potential? How does it handle compared with the fancier/beefier stocked versions?
I do think the Diana 34 is an all time classic and have never felt it lacked performance in any of it's guises. The early ones are very plain jane but everything comes together very well. A gun doesn't have to be all bells and whistles to work well, although bells and whistles may attract more buyers. You have to wonder if Diana reverted to the 3 ball and sight ramp so soon after launch due to the first series 34's being too basic? I can certainly see the requirement for the more deluxe 36 and 38's. Personally, I enjoy the fact that such a basic looking gun can perform so well and I think you will have to go a long way to find a better break barrel air rifle.

[Geezer]

IIRC the stroke lengths were 77mm (early) and 87mm (later), and the change from short tube/grooves/simple trigger to long tube/rail/“T01” ball-trigger took place during 1986.

I don’t know for sure why those changes took place. I have always assumed that feedback from US dealers was that the 1984 model was just not quite powerful enough to compete in the US “adult airgun” springer market, even at a big price differential to the Beeman/HWs.

The short tube was actually about perfect for the U.K., especially in .22”, as it made 11-12 ft-lbs. The later guns made up to 16 in .22”, a bit less in .177” - the same territory as the HW77, and 85/95.

It intrigues me that the 34’s power plant has the same dimensions as the FWB Sport.

My theory, with no evidence behind it, is as follows.

In the 70s, the top springers in the US were the Diana 35, the HW35, the BSF55, and the FWB Sport. 35 sales collapsed as owners learned that the 35 was the least powerful of the four. So Diana decided that their new rifle would be as powerful as the FWB, and similar to look at and use, but nearly half the price.

By the time Diana got the 34 to market, they had been gazumped by the Beeman R1/HW80, and the introduction in 1984 of the 77 (and maybe getting wind of the imminent arrival of the 85) required a rethink. Added stroke pushed power above the FWB and the 77 - vital in a market where quoted muzzle velocity was a key selling point.

Oddly, although the 77mm stroke tube has the same dimensions as the FWB, the FWB appears to have been a bit more powerful. Probably a more efficient transfer port?

[Geezer]

I'd be interested to hear how you find this 84 model vs your later 34's, looks aside. How are you getting on with the simple trigger and how does it affect its accuracy potential? How does it handle compared with the fancier/beefier stocked versions?
I do think the Diana 34 is an all time classic and have never felt it lacked performance in any of it's guises. The early ones are very plain jane but everything comes together very well. A gun doesn't have to be all bells and whistles to work well, although bells and whistles may attract more buyers. You have to wonder if Diana reverted to the 3 ball and sight ramp so soon after launch due to the first series 34's being too basic? I can certainly see the requirement for the more deluxe 36 and 38's. Personally, I enjoy the fact that such a basic looking gun can perform so well and I think you will have to go a long way to find a better break barrel air rifle.

For a long time, I had thought that the nicer 36 stock was part of the 1986 upgrade to take the no-frills 34 upmarket. But I am sure I saw a reference somewhere to a 36 with short tube, simple trigger, etc. So even though the 36 was not announced in March 1984 with the 24, 26, and 34, it appears that it first saw the light of day in 1985.

I don’t think we’ll ever know for sure, but the changes between 1984 and 1986 suggest that M&G had a quick rethink or two about what the market wanted.

I also wonder, given how long it takes to implement such changes, whether M&G realised before the 34 came out that the HW80 in particular had screwed it, but brought it out anyway as planned from a few years before to claw back some market interest while rushing to change the design to the definitive post-86 one. That would also explain the alleged 1985 D36, as it’s easier to improve a stock than re-engineer the metalwork.

[Drew451]

Yes, I think you are right on it, as usual. And we are getting closer to nailing the puzzle of 34 chronology and where it sits amongst its predecessors and competitors. I don't think its a coincidence that Diana arrived at those dimensions for its 45 and 34 models. Its common practice for manufacturers to buy examples of their competitors wares , especially class leading ones, and tear them apart to see what makes them tick. Doubtless, they thought 28x77 was a great combination, also.
The 45 was a big departure from the 35 and the 34 was very different again but there has been no significant developments until they put a gas ram powerplant into a 30 year old design. And now the 34EMS. I am interested to find out how that one performs.

[Drew451]

For a long time, I had thought that the nicer 36 stock was part of the 1986 upgrade to take the no-frills 34 upmarket. But I am sure I saw a reference somewhere to a 36 with short tube, simple trigger, etc. So even though the 36 was not announced in March 1984 with the 24, 26, and 34, it appears that it first saw the light of day in 1985.

I don’t think we’ll ever know for sure, but the changes between 1984 and 1986 suggest that M&G had a quick rethink or two about what the market wanted.

I also wonder, given how long it takes to implement such changes, whether M&G realised before the 34 came out that the HW80 in particular had screwed it, but brought it out anyway as planned from a few years before to claw back some market interest while rushing to change the design to the definitive post-86 one. That would also explain the alleged 1985 D36, as it’s easier to improve a stock than re-engineer the metalwork.

The 36 and 38 were released in 85 in short tube and unitised 3 ball sear configuration. There may have been all sorts of cylinders/triggers/pistons/fittings coming together at different as we have discussed. They liked to mix things up for various reasons and it seems there are examples out there that dont quite fit in with (near) accepted chronology.
This is going to be somewhat controversial but Ive never thought that the HW80/85/95 shoot as well as the 45 or 34. Weihrauch made some really top class guns but Ive never considered those 3 to be among them, though the 80 is pretty damn good to be honest.

[Geezer]

The 36 and 38 were released in 85 in short tube and unitised 3 ball sear configuration. There may have been all sorts of cylinders/triggers/pistons/fittings coming together at different as we have discussed. They liked to mix things up for various reasons and it seems there are examples out there that dont quite fit in with (near) accepted chronology.
This is going to be somewhat controversial but Ive never thought that the HW80/85/95 shoot as well as the 45 or 34. Weihrauch made some really top class guns but Ive never considered those 3 to be among them, though the 80 is pretty damn good to be honest.

We ought to write a book, Drew. Though I fear only you, I, and maybe Mike Driskill would buy it.

I love HW77s. I like and respect HW80s. I have never got on with 85/95s.

[andrewM]

All very interesting and informative. Thank you for the insights and information.
Rgds
A

[Drew451]

We ought to write a book, Drew. Though I fear only you, I, and maybe Mike Driskill would buy it.

I love HW77s. I like and respect HW80s. I have never got on with 85/95s.

We could give it a thoroughly robust effort Im sure, Geezer. Mr Driskill, Dave Johnnyone- and about 3 others on here would likely contribute or take a punt. Foreword by John Walter. Maybe.

[jonnyone]

Evening chaps.
An interesting development with this gun.
In my earlier observations on the firing characteristics of it I noted that it was quite pedestrian despite giving off some smoke each discharge. Things started to become quite uncomfortable with the firing cycle and indeed at one stage it even felt uncomfortable through the trigger finger. Something wasn't right with this old girl. Not at all. I decided to cease firing the gun in case of doing some internal damage so this morning I decided to take her apart.
Oh dear. Well, that's the exclamation I'm going to insert on this forum as the actual words were a little more colourful. After a nice strong and straight spring and guide (both bone dry) came the piston with what can only be described as the crud remnants of a piston seal seemingly clutching onto the metal piston head dovetail. A light off my phone shone down the cylinder revealed the remainder of the seal nicely conjealed up the cylinder end. It would appear that during its likely lay upon the rack the lube and seal had attached itself to the cylinder end and the action of cocking it had torn the seal off the face of the piston. The only thing that had been driving the pellet down the bore was the piston itself with a modest amount of compression generated by it.
I was initially gutted and speechless aside of a few occasional expletives. I had to careful trim the remaining seal off the piston head with a sharp wood chisel. But the remaining (and majority part) of the seal now had to be removed from the very top end of the cylinder. I eventually achieved this through a combination of using a sharpened 10mm wood dowel and thinners in alternating use. It took a good hour of work but it's cleaned out fully of all remnants.
There was I thinking this occurrence was the curse of FWB and now it's happened to a Diana. The crud that I got out was a brownish colour and I would guess the seal started out life as clear polyurethane or similar but had gone this colour by breaking down and picking up some lube.
I hadn't planned on any of this, indeed had looked forward to having a session shooting the gun. But I am where I am with it and as it's in bits it will now get a spit and polish and re lube.
Some interesting things have come from the experience however. The pre load on the spring was quite high. It was under load the full length of the trigger housing only being released when the latter came out of the cylinder. The guide is the usual Diana affair but actually quite well made- an improvement of fit and finish over the 45, though both are of the same rolled steel tube design. Another suprise to me was that the piston has the same steel liner used in the 45 piston. However in this instance it is rolled steel sheet as opposed to the 45s one piece tube. Another pleasant surprise was a thin steel washer bottom of piston to cover the splines of the liner. The transfer port has a pronounced bell mouth to it. Noticeably so, more than I've noted on recent models. Finally the piston head dovetail is a few thou bigger diameter than recent model guns. However similarly it is a few thou shorter in height. Thankfully a modern seal fits but it will require some sizing to fit the cylinder bore.
So, another school day for Dave whether he wanted one or not.
Anyone else aware of biodegradable Diana seals
Dave

[Drew451]

Evening, Dave. I was waiting patiently for your next installment and its not quite gone where I thought it would. Sorry to hear that the early 34 is very sickly.
Unless I miss my guess, , I'd say that this 84 model has the very first example of a 28mm bore synthetic piston seal fitted to a Diana sporter and it sounds like they used the same material as used on the 66/75 etc. and theyve,.turned to crumbly cheese. The solution is fitting the more modern blue polyurethane seal commonly available.
Based on my own experience, the synthetic piston seals fitted to the 25mm bore 1984 model 24 etc, and the 1985 28mm bore 34/36/38 3 ball models were made of more robust material.
What impresses me is that a steel spring guide and a ppiston sleeve found there way on to the early 34's.

[jonnyone]

No I didn't bargain on having to strip the gun down either. I've had to do this a number of times over the years. By an large sellers are very responsible and truthful over the condition of their guns. I do in part blame myself as the deal was face to face and I did get to test fire the gun. I knew it was down on power first off but was a little blinded in the matter by it's good condition.
The problem is fixable that's the main thing. Just annoying that it takes time and some modest cost.
I have had an eye opener as regards to some of the specs of the gun as I posted first off. But having now been inside the gun I can see how some aspects of the gun hark back to the 45. I say hark back but actually I believe in 84 the 45 was still in production and so maybe this played a major part in the make up of the 34. At least early versions. The liner as you suggest is one positive carry forward. It's noted it was later dropped. A pity.
And I guess ultimately plastic technology has developed a pace even from the 80s with modern plastics being more durable. Credit where it's due the HW piston seal is very durable and I've not heard of any disintegrate.
This 34 will rise from the ashes yet. But not before the modern seal gives up a considerable amount of its circumference to fit the cylinder
Dave