Quote Originally Posted by andrewM View Post
Thank you for your reply Dave. I am better informed!

In your later comments, you referred to barrel droop. Was this really a problem for Diana and HW? It is hard to believe that their barrels would be so soft that they would succumb to fatigue after repeated cocking. Is it possible to identify the years involved for both brands and was it in the odd example or was it widespread? Has it ceased today?

More generally, if I was marketing a brand in a particular country, I would first see what the users and customers were saying. I would also see why the competition was or was not successful. In Diana's case, I would therefore take note of the criticism of the use of plastic, in particular. I would also be wary of any agent that was selling products that might compete with my own.

As for the Diana 280, it competes against the HW99 but is, perhaps, a little more powerful. With better open sights and some good marketing, it might do considerably better. As for your 34, I will await with keen interest your accuracy tests.

Rgds
A
Droop is not about soft barrels. It’s about manufacturing. Back when airguns were either fitted with open sights on the barrel, or diopters for 6 yd or 10M Match, it didn’t matter and so no one noticed or cared. It did matter using receiver-mounted scopes for FT or hunting.

It’s often associated with break barrels. Ironically, the only rifles I have detected droop on were both fixed-barrels. A D52 and an HW77.

On your other points, almost everyone used plastic or alloy where appropriate. When appropriate, it’s fine. From a functional point of view.