Diana 48/52 history

[Geezer]

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.

[Drew451]

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.

[original45]

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 .

[Geezer]

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.

[TonyL]

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.

[ikarma70]

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.

[DM80]

A couple of 52's from my collection they are great springers.

https://linksharing.samsungcloud.com/zYfXq1xt2OPG

Dave.

[Geezer]

A couple of 52's from my collection they are great springers.

https://linksharing.samsungcloud.com/zYfXq1xt2OPG

Dave.

Thanks.

Stock on the top one is very interesting. Any details/history?