Diana 45

[jonnyone]

Having picked up a couple of these over the years, I've come to appreciate the quality of engineering and finish that went into the gun. The gun was Diana or at that stage Originals offering to the bit of a power kick that was going on back in the late 70s and early 80s.
However many who have owned this gun will know it was a great deal.more than just a dustbin driller. Its quality shines through from its trigger mechanism (ok the blade itself is a bit pants), but its feel is as good as anything modern. Its barrel hinge arrangement, its underlever and cocking shoe. Its accuracy put many of its contemporaries to shame and will still give a few modern offerings a run for the money.
My question is, bearing in mind we have had a re- born FWB Sport back on the scene after many years- would/could a reintroduction of the 45 be feasible or indeed successful in today's climate? Diana have one of the most extensive range of guns as it is- but do people think there is a market for it to come back into the range?
Dave

[landymick]

It would be nice to see it back with new internals but the 34 has all bases covered these days.

[Geezer]

It would be nice to see it back with new internals but the 34 has all bases covered these days.

Agreed. The 31/34/36/38 is no better, but is cheaper to make, in part because it shares parts across the Diana springer range. It is 1 or more ft/lbs more powerful as the 45, in unrestricted markets, and about half a pound lighter.

And, much as I like the 45, the stock is not great and the barrel is a tiny bit too long.

[derekj]

I remember when the 'Original' 45 in .20 was one of the best bargains ever at around 70quid if I remember correctly. A lovely rifle let down by a nondescript stock that did nothing for correct eye scope alignment. It was however a popular FT rifle back in the day easily competing with FWB 124 and HW 80 and 35 rifles.

[Drew451]

The 45 was a big departure from other Diana's of the period and is very well designed and engineered as you rightly say, Dave. The 34 countered with a simple but effective design that makes good power. I've always thought a polyurethane piston sealed Original 45, resprung to suit, would edge the 34. As it stands, I think there's little or nothing in it.
I like the stock, particularly the earlier version. The butt is not markedly lower than other models with raised combs and I think the gun handles nicely. Perhaps it's not quite as handy as a 34 or 35 admittedly.
Its worth mentioning that Diana brought out a later 45 based on the 34 so presumably the model was missed by some.
Yes, if it was re-released, all syntheticed up, I would definitely buy one. It would be a costly rifle though, considering it's relative complexity. That's what killed it in the first place.

[Geezer]

The 45 was a big departure from other Diana's of the period and is very well designed and engineered as you rightly say, Dave. The 34 countered with a simple but effective design that makes good power. I've always thought a polyurethane piston sealed Original 45, resprung to suit, would edge the 34. As it stands, I think there's little or nothing in it.
I like the stock, particularly the earlier version. The butt is not markedly lower than other models with raised combs and I think the gun handles nicely. Perhaps it's not quite as handy as a 34 or 35 admittedly.
Its worth mentioning that Diana brought out a later 45 based on the 34 so presumably the model was missed by some.
Yes, if it was re-released, all syntheticed up, I would definitely buy one. It would be a costly rifle though, considering it's relative complexity. That's what killed it in the first place.

Agree, with three riders:

- official velocity figures (though who trusts them?) in the 80s put the 34 ahead on power;

- the later 45-based RWS45 and 34-based 45 were slightly desperate attempts to cash in on the 45 model name: neither was very successful;

- my personal theory on the 45 is that it sold very well from introduction until the HW80 arrived in 1980/1, then became very unfashionable. It was indeed a great FT choice in the early days.

And I have a feeling that on cost it would now be at least in the same league as a 97 or TX. Which means it would not sell (like the new FWB Sport).

[jonnyone]

It would be nice to see it back with new internals but the 34 has all bases covered these days.

I take your point. That said having recently had both a 34 and a 45 apart recently (also a 50T01)- I would say that not having a well machined and fitting cocking slipper and piston liner on the 34 was a backward step over the 45.
But I accept that the 34 in overall terms is the modern replacement of the 45. I can't help thinking that the build quality of the 45 was better and the overall quality of machining higher.
In the power stakes (more important across the pond than here) the 45 certainly lost out to the 34.
One of these days I'll try and make time to.have a shooting session with both my 34s and a 45.
I think that a carbine 45 would have been better handling and have a quicker action that even a 34. But that's something that will have to.be marked down as "what could have been".
Dave

[jonnyone]

I remember when the 'Original' 45 in .20 was one of the best bargains ever at around 70quid if I remember correctly. A lovely rifle let down by a nondescript stock that did nothing for correct eye scope alignment. It was however a popular FT rifle back in the day easily competing with FWB 124 and HW 80 and 35 rifles.

I agree. And whilst still not perfect the RWS variant with its cheekpiece and pressed checkering went at least some way to.improving looks and handling.
Dave

[jonnyone]

The 45 was a big departure from other Diana's of the period and is very well designed and engineered as you rightly say, Dave. The 34 countered with a simple but effective design that makes good power. I've always thought a polyurethane piston sealed Original 45, resprung to suit, would edge the 34. As it stands, I think there's little or nothing in it.
I like the stock, particularly the earlier version. The butt is not markedly lower than other models with raised combs and I think the gun handles nicely. Perhaps it's not quite as handy as a 34 or 35 admittedly.
Its worth mentioning that Diana brought out a later 45 based on the 34 so presumably the model was missed by some.
Yes, if it was re-released, all syntheticed up, I would definitely buy one. It would be a costly rifle though, considering it's relative complexity. That's what killed it in the first place.

Very very true. And I think that the gun exemplifies the effort Diana put into the project to bring out a gun that could compete with the FWB.and the 80. True, the 80 would more than edge it at the higher US power levels but as many will attest ut could compete quite favourably with other top.of the range German guns of the day.
I think in engineering terms the 45 was something of a high water mark for Diana in its break barrel efforts. And yet as you say it was also perhaps its undoing.
Maybe that's the bottom line, to produce it again at a standard demanded by the public would make it cost ineffective.

[Drew451]

I'm with you on those counts although the leather washer would hinder the 45 a bit, but never by the 150 fps alleged by some American sources. I assume the 34 has slightly longer stroke.
The RWS version does provide a different shooting experience by virtue of its very different stock. Many would probably prefer it for use with a scope. Not many people found out though.
It is indeed unusual to see one dated after 82. Most are 79 to 81. The HW80 hurt it. I prefer the 45 though, despite having a lot of miles under my belt with both guns.

[jonnyone]

Agree, with three riders:

- official velocity figures (though who trusts them?) in the 80s put the 34 ahead on power;

- the later 45-based RWS45 and 34-based 45 were slightly desperate attempts to cash in on the 45 model name: neither was very successful;

- my personal theory on the 45 is that it sold very well from introduction until the HW80 arrived in 1980/1, then became very unfashionable. It was indeed a great FT choice in the early days.

And I have a feeling that on cost it would now be at least in the same league as a 97 or TX. Which means it would not sell (like the new FWB Sport).

Yes I can't argue with much of what you have pointed out geezer. I think official and customer proven evidence pints to the 34 having higher power potential. Not quite sure which one wins on making that power smoother though. As we all know, more isn't necessarily best.
Ironically- and tjis is a purely personal perspective- I think that the RWS 45 was an.improvement over the rather bland 45, and in my book maybe it should have been the first format of the gun rather than.the last? Though its possible that the thinking there was to try and distinguish the 45 as an all new gun rather than a beefed up 35s which the RWS 45 shares a very similar stock to? And yes the stampede to.get the HW80 undoubtedly caused some sales damage to.the 45. But for those that didn't follow the herd I'm sure they continued to enjoy a very well engineered quality product.
It would be interesting to speculate as to what the price point would be of a 45 equivalent these days. And yes it may well be that Blighty could be overlooked if a 45 got re introduced in.the same way we are presently with the new FWB.

[jonnyone]

I'm with you on those counts although the leather washer would hinder the 45 a bit, but never by the 150 fps alleged by some American sources. I assume the 34 has slightly longer stroke.
The RWS version does provide a different shooting experience by virtue of its very different stock. Many would probably prefer it for use with a scope. Not many people found out though.
It is indeed unusual to see one dated after 82. Most are 79 to 81. The HW80 hurt it. I prefer the 45 though, despite having a lot of miles under my belt with both guns.

Yes I think the fact that Diana stuck with a leather piston head slightly bemused Walter in his airgun book. As you say if it had been fitted out with one from word go I think it would have certainly proved more efficient though not optimistically as much as some would argue. But perhaps certainly to a degree to reduce spring input somewhat and produce a nicer firing cycle.
Again a case of what could have been. But nowt to stop a project to convert over to a synthetic modern equivalent (especially heathens like myself who have no shame in not keeping things standard)

[Drew451]

I agree. And whilst still not perfect the RWS variant with its cheekpiece and pressed checkering went at least some way to.improving looks and handling.
Dave

The RWS does indeed handle well and is more comfortable to shoot. John Walter said the opposite but I'm not with him on this now I have got my hands on the RWS, finally. There's a hint of match rifle about the RWS but obviously in a lighter package.
I find the safety is very handily placed on the 45's and its satisfying to click it off with the thumb. Yes, addictive rifles. And they can trade punches with just about any other standard springer.

[landymick]

I'm with you on those counts although the leather washer would hinder the 45 a bit, but never by the 150 fps alleged by some American sources. I assume the 34 has slightly longer stroke.
The RWS version does provide a different shooting experience by virtue of its very different stock. Many would probably prefer it for use with a scope. Not many people found out though.
It is indeed unusual to see one dated after 82. Most are 79 to 81. The HW80 hurt it. I prefer the 45 though, despite having a lot of miles under my belt with both guns.

For me I prefer the HW80 if I had to choose between the pair & its not just for the Rekord trigger unit as the 45 unit is very nice when working correctly & the 45 stock is more usable than it looks.

Its the large plastic safety & the habit of the 45 to shear a portion of the pellet skirt (.22) that makes it second best for me.

[Geezer]

Yes I can't argue with much of what you have pointed out geezer. I think official and customer proven evidence pints to the 34 having higher power potential. Not quite sure which one wins on making that power smoother though. As we all know, more isn't necessarily best.
Ironically- and tjis is a purely personal perspective- I think that the RWS 45 was an.improvement over the rather bland 45, and in my book maybe it should have been the first format of the gun rather than.the last? Though its possible that the thinking there was to try and distinguish the 45 as an all new gun rather than a beefed up 35s which the RWS 45 shares a very similar stock to? And yes the stampede to.get the HW80 undoubtedly caused some sales damage to.the 45. But for those that didn't follow the herd I'm sure they continued to enjoy a very well engineered quality product.
It would be interesting to speculate as to what the price point would be of a 45 equivalent these days. And yes it may well be that Blighty could be overlooked if a 45 got re introduced in.the same way we are presently with the new FWB.

The RWS does indeed handle well and is more comfortable to shoot. John Walter said the opposite but I'm not with him on this now I have got my hands on the RWS, finally. There's a hint of match rifle about the RWS but obviously in a lighter package.
I find the safety is very handily placed on the 45's and its satisfying to click it off with the thumb. Yes, addictive rifles. And they can trade punches with just about any other standard springer.

For me I prefer the HW80 if I had to choose between the pair & its not just for the Rekord trigger unit as the 45 unit is very nice when working correctly & the 45 stock is more usable than it looks.

Its the large plastic safety & the habit of the 45 to shear a portion of the pellet skirt (.22) that makes it second best for me.

BTDT in SAR definitely rated the RWS45 in 1984 or so.