Do the third series Diana 58 “serial numbers” in the tap really make sense

[45flint]

I have 2 third series Diana 58 air rifles and have been doing a bit of research. It is said that the serial number is inside the tap. Below are pics of my tap numbers. The highest number tap number I see in the Gallery is in the 200’s. It is just hard for me to believe that they made this low a number of rifles. Isn’t more likely that these are some kind of batch numbers? The only written article I have on these rifles was written by Larry Hannusch. He says these are serial numbers but he then says that he thinks the rarer Second Series numbers manufactured may be in the thousands? Any thoughts. I guess if these were batch numbers we would have seen ducplicates?

[Mr Pusk]

Hi

I'm afraid your photos didn't make it on to the post.

It's not unknown for rifle makers to put the last two digits of a longer number on components which might be separated (perhaps for blueing after fitting) before final assembly. Do your numbers bear any relation to any other numbers on the rifles?

[45flint]

Hi

I'm afraid your photos didn't make it on to the post.

It's not unknown for rifle makers to put the last two digits of a longer number on components which might be separated (perhaps for blueing after fitting) before final assembly. Do your numbers bear any relation to any other numbers on the rifles?

Pics are there? No other numbers on this model.

[Binners]

Yes, pictures are on and great quality too. I can't get at my 58 at the moment, or I would check it.

[Garvin]

Judging by the number that have come onto the market and given their likely high survivability/limited production window, I don't find it impossible this is a serial number. I don't know where Larry got the 'thousands made' data. The second series 58 was made for far longer (although guns are very scarce). Remember, these top of the line models were very pricey considering how many cheaper alternatives there were.

Edit: not saying Larry's wrong, only that I haven't seen a figure put on their numbers.

[45flint]

Judging by the number that have come onto the market and given their likely high survivability/limited production window, I don't find it impossible this is a serial number. I don't know where Larry got the 'thousands made' data. The second series 58 was made for far longer (although guns are very scarce). Remember, these top of the line models were very pricey considering how many cheaper alternatives there were.

Edit: not saying Larry's wrong, only that I haven't seen a figure put on their numbers.

If these are serial numbers then these rifles are insanely rare! I’ve seen 4 in my 8 years of collecting. This one arrive this week. It was in great condition and shoots very hard. Going to do a UTube demonstrating the series 2 and the series 3 trigger cocking which gives you dry firing capability. Not sure I know of another spring gun except the Hy-Score pistol which allows this?

[MDriskill]

My guess (but that's all it is!) is that these are "tracking" numbers within a production batch, to keep an individual gun's parts together during manufacture. The fact that they are out of sight, and on the most closely hand-fit parts of the gun (loading tap), may support that. The "58" on the cover plate may indicate another model (the 45 underlever perhaps) had a similar plate.

A similar practice is seen on late-production HW 55's. On early examples (serial stamped on the rear receiver section early in the assembly process), all or part of the serial appears in four other places. But on late ones (serial stamped on barrel late in assembly) an arbitrary 3-digit number - unrelated to the serial - appears in those same spots.

An interesting question though! I need to study my lesser-model old Dianas more carefully.

[45flint]

My guess (but that's all it is!) is that these are "tracking" numbers within a production batch, to keep an individual gun's parts together during manufacture. The fact that they are out of sight, and on the most closely hand-fit parts of the gun (loading tap), may support that. The "58" on the cover plate may indicate another model (the 45 underlever perhaps) had a similar plate.

A similar practice is seen on late-production HW 55's. On early examples (serial stamped on the rear receiver section early in the assembly process), all or part of the serial appears in four other places. But on late ones (serial stamped on barrel late in assembly) an arbitrary 3-digit number - unrelated to the serial - appears in those same spots.

An interesting question though! I need to study my lesser-model old Dianas more carefully.

I am really torn between the two thoughts. “Tracking” numbers make sense to me and you do see this done in other rifles. But there is another side as well which causes me pause. There are numbers in the 200’s that are seen. 200 seems really high for a “tracking” number”? Would you really have 200 rifles in a batch to track, seems a bit crazy to me? Also the nail in the coffin of serial numbers would be a duplicate number, we haven’t seen one. I side weakly with serial numbers. Besides any theory which makes your rifle rarer and thus potentially more valuable should be supported.

[MDriskill]

Oddest thing to me is that the Diana number is in a hidden location. If intended as a true individual serial, we can at least say it did not function in the same sense as on contemporary BSA or Webley guns. These of course had a multi-digit serial number placed on an exterior surface, easily visible to the user, and from which the factory could identify model and manufacture date, provide replacement parts, etc.

[leh22]

I was rather surprised to read that the author from that referenced article from the 1990's (from that information starved, pre-internet era) claimed to know the number of Diana 58 specimens manufactured. I decided to see for myself what that author actually claimed in that article:

" Next in rarity is the second model, though the sheer mass and quality of this airgun makes it second to none in terms of desirability. I have no data on the numbers produced, but judging from the lack of specimens encountered, and considering what should be an abnormally high survival rate for so fine a piece, one could not imagine more than a few thousand at best."

Oh...that is what he actually stated!