Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 35

Thread: Diana 48/52 history

  1. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    London
    Posts
    5,956
    my three identified minor changes over time (there may be more) are:

    - at some point, the front sight/barrel end interface changed;

    - at some point, the stock-action bolt, or at least it’s head, grew from (unknown) to 11mm;

    - from 2017, the scope rail got longer.

    Last two, thanks to Chambers diagrams and listings.

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Leicester
    Posts
    12,356
    Quote Originally Posted by Geezer View Post
    “T01” then.
    Still has a plastic trigger however it’s still pretty nice to shoot, come across plenty worse than a T01.

  3. #18
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Quigley Hollow, Nuneaton
    Posts
    14,269
    Quote Originally Posted by T 20 View Post
    I have a feeling that my 52 is from 1986 --- I'll have to dig it out and have a look tomorrow.
    My mistake --- 02 87

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Northampton
    Posts
    57
    Here's my 52, bought a year or two back from a dealer- described as an "Original" [and yes, it is in inverted commas] CLASSIC Mod 52 in .22 and dated (I think - it's tiny) 05 91.

    I haven't found references to one quite like it online. There's no provision for open sights, a barrel sleeve, and a muzzle weight, evidently some sort of UK special - but with a conventional (and rather nice) Walnut stock.

    The butt pad isn't contemporary with the piece - it originally had a ventilated "Wiking" pad which was falling to bits. I never thought that finding a replacement could be such a task, or I'd have tried to knock something off the price.... in the end I got a gunsmith to size something down to fit.


    https://imgur.com/cpY36PA

    https://imgur.com/oneZ4t6

    https://imgur.com/gvdvn4M

    https://imgur.com/YhWjMO3
    Last edited by Mr Pusk; 13-09-2021 at 03:56 PM.

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Pontypridd South Wales uk
    Posts
    1,819
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Pusk View Post
    Here's my 52, bought a year or two back from a dealer- described as an "Original" [and yes, it is in inverted commas] CLASSIC Mod 52 in .22 and dated (I think - it's tiny) 05 91.

    I haven't found references to one quite like it online. There's no provision for open sights, a barrel sleeve, and a muzzle weight, evidently some sort of UK special - but with a conventional (and rather nice) Walnut stock.

    The butt pad isn't contemporary with the piece - it originally had a ventilated "Wiking" pad which was falling to bits. I never thought that finding a replacement could be such a task, or I'd have tried to knock something off the price.... in the end I got a gunsmith to size something down to fit.


    https://imgur.com/cpY36PA

    https://imgur.com/oneZ4t6

    https://imgur.com/gvdvn4M

    https://imgur.com/YhWjMO3
    Gorgeous looking gun that. Think they may have done them in a tyro as well with the "classic" moniker.
    Dave

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    London
    Posts
    5,956
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Pusk View Post
    Here's my 52, bought a year or two back from a dealer- described as an "Original" [and yes, it is in inverted commas] CLASSIC Mod 52 in .22 and dated (I think - it's tiny) 05 91.

    I haven't found references to one quite like it online. There's no provision for open sights, a barrel sleeve, and a muzzle weight, evidently some sort of UK special - but with a conventional (and rather nice) Walnut stock.

    The butt pad isn't contemporary with the piece - it originally had a ventilated "Wiking" pad which was falling to bits. I never thought that finding a replacement could be such a task, or I'd have tried to knock something off the price.... in the end I got a gunsmith to size something down to fit.


    https://imgur.com/cpY36PA

    https://imgur.com/oneZ4t6

    https://imgur.com/gvdvn4M

    https://imgur.com/YhWjMO3
    Nice. Mine has the same markings, and what looks like the same muzzle device (though mine is definitely a primitive silencer). Is the receiver really not drilled to fit a rear sight? Cool.

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Northampton
    Posts
    57
    Thank you both. I'm a sucker for a nice piece of wood.

    Quote Originally Posted by Geezer View Post
    Nice. Mine has the same markings, and what looks like the same muzzle device (though mine is definitely a primitive silencer). Is the receiver really not drilled to fit a rear sight? Cool.
    You're quite right, and I wasn't! The receiver is drilled for a rearsight, but the blacking doesn't show any sign of a rearsight having been there, and I don't think the holes have ever had any bolts in them. Plus with the thing on the front, muzzle weight or moderator or whatever it is, there's no foresight. I suppose it could have been added later but it looks all of a piece.

  8. #23
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Glenrothes
    Posts
    1,283
    That is a very nice looking 52. The forend looks very much like the thumbhole version. The angle of the pistol grip looks properly functional.
    1991 is late for an Original, i have seen a few early 90s 52's but not the rest of the range. There are reputedly a few even later Original 54 Airkings in circulation, thoigh.

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    oldbury
    Posts
    1,308

    Classic

    Have several of the t.h classic 52s .can't properly see the mod but looks right

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    London
    Posts
    5,956
    I think - not sure - what was going on was that the U.K. importer (Frank Dyke Ltd) were importing the guns and then substituting a SC stock (when appropriate) and a U.K.-made silencer thingy. I guess the “Original” and “CLASSIC” stampings were either applied for them by the factory, or done in the U.K. for them.

  11. #26
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Glenrothes
    Posts
    1,283
    The "Original" stamping was factory. The Classic script is of variable quality and quite different in style to the other stampings. Whether that points to an afterthought and different tooling in Rastatt or stamping in London after import is beyond me.

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    oldbury
    Posts
    1,308

    Classic

    Some stocks were marked with a cs inside others not. All my classics are what appears to be French walnut even my spare stock. Never seen the none th classic before that's interesting.
    None had open sights as far as I know.
    Must have been scoped option only however for mine I did buy ramps and rear sight units as a option.
    All seem to have similar flying except one which appears more polished.
    They were from what I remember within a year or 2 of each other manufactured date too. May dig them out to peek.
    Personally love the s.I variants and found the t.h easy to hold .moderators were nicely made and fitted well into barrel sleeve .

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    London
    Posts
    5,956
    Quote Originally Posted by Drew451 View Post
    The "Original" stamping was factory. The Classic script is of variable quality and quite different in style to the other stampings. Whether that points to an afterthought and different tooling in Rastatt or stamping in London after import is beyond me.
    The “Original” stamping on mine looks factory (compared to some of my others), while the “CLASSIC” doesn’t. However, the “Original” stamp is offset as if to make space for the “CLASSIC”.

    My rear sight holes don’t look like they’ve ever had anything in them, or on top of them, either.

    I hadn’t had it out of the cabinet for ages. Forgotten how long and heavy it was. Not helped by the period Simmons 4-16x40 on top. But, on a few dry presentations, if you get the technique right, it does hang and hold on target well.

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Retford, Notts
    Posts
    28,357
    Great thread, chaps.

    Much of the finer detail is way beyond me, having never owned a 48/52/54. A situation that I really ought to rectify one day as I regard the model as an all-time classic. Maybe that's just a product of different eras and nostalgia, but the late 70s and 80s were pivotal times for sporting springers, I feel. These days, things have moved on and, especially for lower power markets, like ours, maybe the rifle is less relevant at these powers (unless comprehensively tweaked) and there are rifles with swept volumes more in line with our needs.

    But the big bruiser of a 52 still commands respect.
    THE BOINGER BASH AT QUIGLEY HOLLOW. MAKING GREAT MEMORIES SINCE 15th JUNE, 2013.
    NEXT EVENT :- October 9 & 10, 2021...BOING!!

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Leicester
    Posts
    12,356
    Quote Originally Posted by TonyL View Post
    Great thread, chaps.

    Much of the finer detail is way beyond me, having never owned a 48/52/54. A situation that I really ought to rectify one day as I regard the model as an all-time classic. Maybe that's just a product of different eras and nostalgia, but the late 70s and 80s were pivotal times for sporting springers, I feel. These days, things have moved on and, especially for lower power markets, like ours, maybe the rifle is less relevant at these powers (unless comprehensively tweaked) and there are rifles with swept volumes more in line with our needs.

    But the big bruiser of a 52 still commands respect.
    There’s an old saying…..newer isn’t necessarily better.

Posting Permissions

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