Osprey accuracy

[evert]

I have some Ospreys in my collection, they are nice to handle, nice to look at, and the front heavy barrels combined with the pisol grip angle makes them good for offhand shooting... but..

The orignal piston rings, combined with the unguided spring make them quite horrible to fire, and most other guns i have of similar vintage are more accurate(HW35, BSA Meteor, Webley Victor)

One of my opsreys has gottem a bit of mechanical attention, with a tracker piston and a diana/gami type seal, A Maccari HW50 spring and delrin guides- a much improved gun, but slower than the Trackers with the same setup. Im currently planning to take the Ospreys and the Trackers apart this christmas, the Osprey transfer ports looks larger than the trackers, but measuring is needed.
Im also planning to convert an ospery to take the HW30 seal, hoping this will improve things further.

Wasnt the Osprey intended to be some sort of target gun back in the days? Were they better when the piston rings were fresh?

[thevoid]

I'll be interested to see how you go, my Dad has an unmolested Osprey supertarget with the standard beech stock, I've not been let loose with the internals (yet) I love the side lever cocking and though the loading tap has its own problems I find dropping a pellet into the breech really easy with cold fingers.
Finally is the trigger, I've heard the Omega or maybe the Vulcan 2 stage blade will fit.

[Hsing-ee]

The standard Osprey was sold as a sporting rifle, I think they hoped it would make about 10 fpe, but the internals limited it to about 7.5 fpe in .177 and a maximum of about 9 fpe in .22. Alot of BSA Airsporters were making only 9 fpe in .22 at the time so it was average for those days. I don't know why they were not fitted with a spring guide. The later Tracker and Viscount sidelevers I think have similar internal dimensions but had plastic piston seals and this probably brought the power up to what you might expect, about 10 and 11 fpe.

The Osprey Super Target had a weaker main spring to improve the recoil characteristics for 6 yards and 10 meter paper punching. This model was fitted with a diopter and a bulky wooden target stock, rather than the graceful, shotgun-like stock of the standard Osprey.

If there are accuracy issues, make sure the tap is aligned exactly in the middle of the bore axis. BTDT wrote an excellent article on how he improved the accuracy of a Tracker from awful (3" at 30 yards) to very respectable (less than 1/2") simply by diagnosing an out-of-alignment tap and taking some time to shim it so that it was spot on.

The Osprey has a lovely stock shape and the heavy bull barrel also gives it a unique feel and handling characteristics. An interesting little rifle which was probably not developed enough before it went into production.

The piston rings took a while to run in as I remember, and were there to give good consistency (relative to the standard leather seals that often caused problems on Webley Mk III target guns). I think they rob the rifle of alot of power as well though. The Osprey is a whole generation older than the Webley Victor.

[T 20]

If there are accuracy issues, make sure the tap is aligned exactly in the middle of the bore axis. BTDT wrote an excellent article on how he improved the accuracy of a Tracker from awful (3" at 30 yards) to very respectable (less than 1/2") simply by diagnosing an out-of-alignment tap and taking some time to shim it so that it was spot on.

Hi Alistair

I thought the Osprey had a tapered loading tap ?

so Jim's cure for alignment wouldn't work on it.

Or was it during production of the Osprey when Webley changed from tapered to parallel loading tap ?



All the best Mick

[Hsing-ee]

Hi Alistair

I thought the Osprey had a tapered loading tap ?

so Jim's cure for alignment wouldn't work on it.

Or was it during production of the Osprey when Webley changed from tapered to parallel loading tap ?



All the best Mick

OOOh err maybe you are right. I think it was a Tracker or a Viscount that Jim fettled. I can't remember the tap on the Osprey, I THOUGHT it was a simple drum which would fit with the cost cutting 1970s, but it might be a taper.

[evert]

OOOh err maybe you are right. I think it was a Tracker or a Viscount that Jim fettled. I can't remember the tap on the Osprey, I THOUGHT it was a simple drum which would fit with the cost cutting 1970s, but it might be a taper.

My Ospreys have the parallell tap, shared with the Trackers.

I read elswhere that Ospreys have tapered taps, this leads me to think there are two generations of the model?

Also, thanks for the info on the internals, and the tap-shimming.

If I find differences between the Tracker and Osprey transfer ports, I will post them here.

[T 20]

OOOh err maybe you are right. I think it was a Tracker or a Viscount that Jim fettled. I can't remember the tap on the Osprey, I THOUGHT it was a simple drum which would fit with the cost cutting 1970s, but it might be a taper.

I've sussed it Alistair

Early Osprey taps were tapered and Osprey MK2 taps were parallel as shown by tap part numbers here :-


https://www.gunspares.co.uk/products/24548/Tracker/


I think it was a Tracker that Jim played with that Edbear made a new shim for.




All the best Mick

[Hsing-ee]

The Osprey was a complete goat compared to the Hammerli 400 series.

No need to be rude I know but it was.

Baaaaaah!

[T 20]

I'm happy for you to call Webley all you like Alistair --- they turned me down for an apprenticeship.

Mind you, so did BSA.




All the best Mick

[Hsing-ee]

I'm happy for you to call Webley all you like Alistair --- they turned me down for an apprenticeship.

Mind you, so did BSA.




All the best Mick

Probably just as well, the penny-pinching engineering and lost opportunities would have driven you to drink or worse...

All's for the Best in the Best of All Possible Worlds!

innit.

[T 20]

Interestingly Alistair

At the time (1977) BSA said they weren't gunsmiths as such but a precision engineering company.


Webley did send me a nice book on Webley history along with my dear John letter, so it wasn't all for nothing.




All the best Mick

[Hsing-ee]

Interestingly Alistair

At the time (1977) BSA said they weren't gunsmiths as such but a precision engineering company.


Webley did send me a nice book on Webley history along with my dear John letter, so it wasn't all for nothing.




All the best Mick

BSA must have based that idea on their history of making precisely-engineered motorcycles (hahahahahahahahaha!) as my 1973 Meteor has numerous deviations from the concept of 'precision'. I see no-one is clamouring to buy the 'piled arms' badge to stick on a Shanghaicycle.

And Webley sent you a history? Well, they are now. Innit.

Tant pis.

[keith66]

I bought a second hand Osprey in the mid 80's it wasnt anything special to look at but was one of the most accurate rifles i ever had.
If you get a good one hang onto it!

[hwtyger]

I had my Osprey ST serviced. Goal: nice shooting behaviour. As it is an oldie and ST, power not important.
The spring was replaced with 1 with other thread thickness, HW spring guide was fitted.
Its a very nice shooter now. Ok, not recoilless, but as good as my mk3 ST in the oldies comp. Shooting ragged holes at 6 yrd standing freehand.

[fatttmannn]

Intresting, my late uncle had an Osprey Supertarget which was not bad for bell target , his had Anschutz apeture sights mind( which may have hellped). Myself I have the Hammerli model 2 which is awesumley accurate if not powerful at 8ftlbs in .177 and a Viscount in .22 which dose 10.ftlbs with air arms domes. The Osprey never was a poweful gun, yet have to say I like it and will one day get one, to compare with the Viscount and the Hammerli. My fave sidelevers, are MY Diana 52 in .22 and my Air Arms branded Woodsman again in .22