Do I want a .177...?

[harvey_s]

I'm conflicted...

I want a nice quality springer and I quite like the look of the HW98's.

But I am in two minds about the calibre...

I know all the arguments about .177 over .22 re. the more forgiving trajectory.
I don't actually need the better 'knock down' power of .22 or indeed the better penetration of .177 either as I mainly shoot at targets of some sort.

and here's the but...I've had a couple of cheaper .177 springers in the past - but I've sold them both and one of the reasons was that they seemed to have harsh firing cycles that jarred.
I have also shot cheaper .22's and they seemed 'nicer' to shoot if that makes sense?

So...are better quality .177's much nicer to shoot than the BSA's of this world or is it a foible of the smaller calibre?

Please feel free to make other suggestions if you feel that the HW98 can be bettered or equalled by anything else under £400 as well

[Arthur John Smithsplease]

Cheaper .177 springers are often harsh at 12fpe.

Have you ever shot an HW98, 97k, 77k, a TX200 or a Walther LGU/LGV in 177.

If not try to find somebody who will let you shoot one.

If you are strong enough to deal with the weight of them, I think you will be pleasantly surprised. The HW98 is very good in .177 but very front heavy too.

Personally I've reached that stage in life where I prefer a lighter springer in 22.

[maximus]

Hi, the 98 is a good choice for targets in 177 cal. They easily make 11+ftlbs so nothing too frantic going on inside to make harsh. Personally I am not keen on the adjustable stock from an aesthetic point of view and would look at a 95 with the same sleeved barrel which are only available from Veranderhaus Schneider in Germany by mail order. If you go that route it will require an export spring to fitted when it gets here though.

Regards Max

[45flint]

The more guns I get I like 22 in a rifle, I think less harsh in a springer but another simple reason is the pellets are larger and less fidley to load.

[gingernut]

The answer to your question generally is yes.
The .22 versions of most spring rifles are easier to cock and nicer to shoot than .177 models.

There are exceptions eg My Walther LGV Comp Ultra.
The 98 is a very good rifle and it’s weight tames the .177 version a bit.

[Vernal]

I'm conflicted...



So...are better quality .177's much nicer to shoot than the BSA's of this world or is it a foible of the smaller calibre?

Please feel free to make other suggestions if you feel that the HW98 can be bettered or equalled by anything else under £400 as well

Yes, quality .177s are much nicer to shoot than the old springers, although with a pair of otherwise identical guns, one in .177 and one in .22, the .22 in my experience will be a tad nicer than the .177. But do try the Walthers, LGU and LGV. I have one of each in .177, and they do have a very nice firing cycle out of the box, as well as being very, very accurate for target shooting

[TonyL]

As per the observations above. The HW98, even in the smaller calibre, exhibits very forgiving firing habits and it's very easy to extract high accuracy from. Highly recommended.

[MikeHW45]

The answer to your question generally is yes.
The .22 versions of most spring rifles are easier to cock and nicer to shoot than .177 models.

There are exceptions eg My Walther LGV Comp Ultra.
The 98 is a very good rifle and it’s weight tames the .177 version a bit.

Absolutely, I love my 98 in .177. I've put a delrin guide and top hat in as it was a bit twangy from new. The weighted barrel definitely makes it a lovely rifle to shoot. One of the other chaps on here has short stroked his 98 and that is very nice to shoot with a quick but not overly harsh shot cycle.

[Blackrider]

Had a very nice .177 Cal. 98 set within a left handed CS800 Thumbhole stock and it shot very well, not harsh at all !
It eventually went like so many other airguns to fund something else that I happened to be chasing at the time but it is one of the few guns that occasionally I regret parting with.

[Gareth W-B]

.
As more action inertia needs to be generated to propel a .177 pellet around the 11ft.lb mark than is needed to propel a .22 pellet to the same power lever (best way to explain this is the physics of how much energy do you need to exert to throw a light cotton wool ball twenty feet compared to the energy you would need to exert to throw a pebble the same distance), a lighter rifle will absorb less of the .177 inertia energy than a heavier one.

This is why in my not inconsiderable experience that I proffer light rifles like the BSA Mercury, Airsporter and Super Sport (plus all the BSA Lightening derivatives) are simply ghastly to shoot in .177 compared to the same guns in .22 (Webly Vulcans and all derrivatives therein fit this model, imho, too).

Upper end quality -- and more weighty -- springer air rifles like the HW97K, HW80/80K, HW77/77K, HW98, AA TX200/200HC and AA ProSports are more than capable of absorbing and naturally damping down the aforementioned extra inertia generated by full hop .177 actions however, which is why ALL as I have detailed in this paragraph are such a joy to shoot in any calibre sub 12ft.lb (my very personal favourite off the list being the AATX200HC .177 ).

So go on, treat yourself, and get yourself a 'Super Springer' off the above list in .177, as you will not regret it (but do remember to use a Dampa mount for your scope, too, as I swear by these for all springers). Hope this helps? Atb: G.

..

[eyebull]

Can't argue with that Gareth.
I think carbine barrels on .177's don't help either as it's another power drain that requires the action to work just a bit harder for the same result. My .177 lightning was appalling for all those reasons (and more, but don't get me started again).

My .177 95k is a bit better behaved (but doesn't shoot as nice as my .22 95), and my .177 LGV C U is very very well behaved indeed, but then it weighs a ton. A 98 should be a nice compromise.

As long as you don't try to have a tiny little featherweight carbine doing 11.99 ft/lb, you can have a nicely shooting .177.

[Gareth W-B]

Can't argue with that Gareth.
I think carbine barrels on .177's don't help either as it's another power drain that requires the action to work just a bit harder for the same result. My .177 lightning was appalling for all those reasons (and more, but don't get me started again).

My .177 95k is a bit better behaved (but doesn't shoot as nice as my .22 95), and my .177 LGV C U is very very well behaved indeed, but then it weighs a ton. A 98 should be a nice compromise.

As long as you don't try to have a tiny little featherweight carbine doing 11.99 ft/lb, you can have a nicely shooting .177.

Thank you; good point; agreed --.177 springer BSAs are seriously impeded; again agreed (am quite a fan of the HW95K in both cals); yes the LGV and LGU should both be on my quality rifle list as above; yep the HW98 in .177 is a perfect compromise, and again yep, 100% agree. Atb: G.

[Anothermiss]

Why not consider. 20?

[harvey_s]

So go on, treat yourself, and get (but do remember to use a Dampa mount for your scope, too, as I swear by these for all springers). Hope this helps? Atb: G.

Hi Gareth
Do not todays glass etched reticles negate the need for something like this?

[harvey_s]

Why not consider. 20?

Pellet choice mainly or am I out of date with the selection available?
(I didn't want to be compromised by having to work with less than optimal pellets or finding they were suddenly hard to get hold of)

Plus I don't know many with experience of the calibre...