Are springers stuck in the 80s?

[Geezer]

Serious question.

Have there been any technological advances in springers in the last 30 or so years?

I mean:

- Recoilless or suppressed recoil technology: it all dates back to the improved variants of the 1960 or so M&G Giss System (Park, Whiscombe), or copies of the early/mid sixties FWB sled (TXSR, Diana 54/56).

- Gas-piston: nothing really new since the 1982 early Theobens, which most of us think are better than the later HE ones.

- Conventional: toss-up between the 1984 HW77 and the product-improved TX from the very early 90s. The Umarex "Walthers" seem to mirror, rather than improve, on their designs.

- Weird: electric cocking Rutten/Browning Airstar. Not a success. Funny bullpup Chinese sidelever - ditto, but only a cosmetic and ergonomic change, still a standard springer inside.

- FAC power: lots more guns now, but same formula as the 80, AA PE, Webley Patriot. Big cylinder and very long stroke.

And, if I'm right, what might be a proper innovation for the makers? Maybe 22mm bore 12ft-lbs boingers?

[TonyL]

Technological advances? No.

But something like a 22 to 24mm bore, built to fine tolerances and "factory tuned" with expertly hand-finished components would do me just fine.

[Hsing-ee]

Yes they are, when the sliding-breech escaped from the Match rifle and Communist camps and made it to Sporting Rifle land it was all over. Dumping leather piston seals etc etc were all detail moves.

I think the most important thing has been the improvements of the pellets, and the dumping of the tap-loaders which, with a tiny number of exceptions, were shite compared to their break-barrel sisters. Your Diana 35 is probably far more accurate than any Diana 50 anyone on the board has got, and more powerful too.

There are a lot more to choose from now though, although all variations on a theme. I might get a Hatsan, as that is a truly modern springer.

No one will make a 22mm bore, it is as likely as Air Arms making a HW99S-type rifle. Not a big enough market...

[Geezer]

Technological advances? No.

But something like a 22 to 24mm bore, built to fine tolerances and "factory tuned" with expertly hand-finished components would do me just fine.

My thoughts exactly.

Yes they are, when the sliding-breech escaped from the Match rifle and Communist camps and made it to Sporting Rifle land it was all over. Dumping leather piston seals etc etc were all detail moves.

I think the most important thing has been the improvements of the pellets, and the dumping of the tap-loaders which, with a tiny number of exceptions, were shite compared to their break-barrel sisters. Your Diana 35 is probably far more accurate than any Diana 50 anyone on the board has got, and more powerful too.

There are a lot more to choose from now though, although all variations on a theme. I might get a Hatsan, as that is a truly modern springer.

No one will make a 22mm bore, it is as likely as Air Arms making a HW99S-type rifle. Not a big enough market...

Yup. I can guarantee you that my two Diana 35s are more accurate, powerful (though not by that much) and handle better than my Diana 50.

Sad, isn't it? I mean, you buy an HW77K in 1985, or a TX in 1990, and nothing since is better?

[angrybear]

There's a limit as to how far you can innovate a piston driven by a spring, & anything made has got to be commercially viable to return the development cost.

[Hsing-ee]

My thoughts exactly.

Sad, isn't it? I mean, you buy an HW77K in 1985, or a TX in 1990, and nothing since is better?

Yes, especially since the 25mm 77 and the short stroke TX of the time are better mechanically than the current offerings...

Springers went about as far as they could. It's the same with firearms, the Mauser action is still used when a precisely accurate, magazine fed rifle is needed for sport or war.

There were the Whiscombes, Parks and the like, but they didn't give much of an advantage when everything was weighed up.

[harvey_s]

Not entirely sure what you're expecting really... It seems to me the whole 'springer spring' is all about the rejection of clinical PCP's for the simplicity and independence of the spring powerplant.
If you start fannying about adding complication or making them dead to shoot you're back at square 1 and in the PCP marketplace again...

[TonyL]

Although not revolutionary, I could visualise this amalgam of Prosport / Airsporter / Whiscombe:-

Underlever recessed in the forend. Single cocking stroke. Highly efficient and refined 24mm bore. Secure barrel latch allowing safe direct to breech loading. All running on synthetic bearings and "factory tuned".

The loading procedure wouldn't be the quickest, admittedly, but this would combine some of the benefits of existing designs and the sleek looks of the Prosport / Airsporter designs.

[vestlenning]

There's a limit as to how far you can innovate a piston driven by a spring, & anything made has got to be commercially viable to return the development cost.

Yes and yes.

[Hsing-ee]

Although not revolutionary, I could visualise this amalgam of Prosport / Airsporter / Whiscombe:-

Underlever recessed in the forend. Single cocking stroke. Highly efficient and refined 24mm bore. Secure barrel latch allowing safe direct to breech loading. All running on synthetic bearings and "factory tuned".

The loading procedure wouldn't be the quickest, admittedly, but this would combine some of the benefits of existing designs and the sleek looks of the Prosport / Airsporter designs.

Errm, that is just a sleeved-down Prosport, Jon Budd could spin one up for you in an afternoon.

[TonyL]

Errm, that is just a sleeved-down Prosport, Jon Budd could spin one up for you in an afternoon.

Nope, as this wouldn't have the sliding compression tube, Alistair.

The barrel would be hinged, secured by a precision fit manual barrel latch, but only open a few degrees to allow loading.

[Hsing-ee]

The barrel would be hinged, secured by a precision fit manual barrel latch, but only open a few degrees to allow loading.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOO!!!!! Heresy! A direct-loader with a floppy barrel urghhhhhhhhhhh.

Weren't only the early Whizzers designed along the lines of the Webley Service Mk 2 lash-up nightmare as you describe? Later ones had a proper fixed barrel.

[TonyL]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOO!!!!! Heresy! A direct-loader with a floppy barrel urghhhhhhhhhhh.

Weren't only the early Whizzers designed along the lines of the Webley Service Mk 2 lash-up nightmare as you describe? Later ones had a proper fixed barrel.

Not sure about the Whizzers, Al, as I don't know enough about them.

But the design I'm describing, unlike the old Webley, sees the barrel and cylinder in-line, not "piggy-backed".

I'm not pretending that it'd be the most elegant solution, though.

[Hsing-ee]

Not sure about the Whizzers, Al, as I don't know enough about them.

But the design I'm describing, unlike the old Webley, sees the barrel and cylinder in-line, not "piggy-backed".

I'm not pretending that it'd be the most elegant solution, though.

Hmm. You might like a Rutten Winstar Mach 1, with a front-hinged underlever and a loading trap... It's like a ProSport had sex with a Webley Eclipse while thinking about a Daisy Powerline.

https://www.co2air.de/thema/9463-rut...cal-7-5-joule/

[Blackrider]

In response to the OP. Yes they are and probably won't improve sadly.
The emphasis nowadays is on PCPs regarding the interests of the manufacturers.
But many of us, myself included remember the "glory days of the spring powered air rifle" and still collect and lust for the experiance.
Same with angling, I've just shelled out for a terrific 1980's glass trotting rod and an Allcocks Aerial reel and I can't wait to use them fishing local rivers for grayling !