Weihrauch, Why The Tiles ?

[Muskett]

Though I have a HW95, someone else did the tune and its lovely and smooth. I've yet felt the need to strip it. Thank you all for the info.

Why Weihraich decision to do it this way? Well probably cost and how it fits into the number of machined parts and assembly time by an employee. I'm amazed how they have kept to the price we can get them. When all the additional costs are taken out then there really is so little for the actual gun.
Manufacturing is all about the bottom line for every part and the cost of machinery to get that part. All the pennies add up.
I have to say that as a mousetrap its a very good one and delivers in so many ways.

My rifle someone had almost 1/2 the price of the rifle spent on it again to squeeze every bit of perfection out of it. All for a 12ft/lbs springer but it was sort of worth it if you like springers. Was the extra price of the tune worth it? Well the factory offering isn't exactly shoddy for back yard use. I think the tune is more for the fact it can be done and adds just that bit more confidence. Its still a light weight slightly flighty rifle that wants to shoot straight but takes little to throw one out of the group from hold variations.
Standing unsupported it shoots extremely well, well behaved.
Off the bench its not so happy. A heavier rifle would behave better. If you are conscientious you can find a bench rest hold thats repeatable and the results are pellet on pellet. A little too much head weight on the stock is enough to push one out of the group. Head or something, doesn't take much. This is true of so many piston powered air rifles.

Once zeroed and away from the practice targets, in the field mine does the practical very well. I do keep the ranges sensible. Its a joy to carry about.

[bozz]

Hi looking at the video i am appalled at the poor finish inside the rifle, people talk about Walther springs not being finished well this one is just as bad if not worse, also the amount of metal to metal is not good at all. No wonder they need to go for "TUNING what the mean is building properly. Graham

[robs5230]

Hi looking at the video i am appalled at the poor finish inside the rifle, people talk about Walther springs not being finished well this one is just as bad if not worse, also the amount of metal to metal is not good at all. No wonder they need to go for "TUNING what the mean is building properly. Graham

Yup . I've said for a long time that HW springers should be regarded as "part finished" rifles.

[T 20]

Hi looking at the video i am appalled at the poor finish inside the rifle, people talk about Walther springs not being finished well this one is just as bad if not worse, also the amount of metal to metal is not good at all. No wonder they need to go for "TUNING what the mean is building properly. Graham

From memory, Weihrauch went through a period where they didn't finish the springs, Jim and Terry had a word with Weihrauch about this and they reverted back to properly finished springs ?

The last 77 I bought was made 2 1/2 years ago and the spring was finished on that one, so what's the state of play with new guns now ?

[Geezer]

One opinion I have come across is that the original screw-in block 85 had a thin-walled comp tube (inherited from BSF in some way?), which proved difficult to drill and tap consistently. Hence the adoption of the “tiles”.

Agree with everyone else that this was a retrograde, cheapening, development.

[Barryg]

One opinion I have come across is that the original screw-in block 85 had a thin-walled comp tube (inherited from BSF in some way?), which proved difficult to drill and tap consistently.

Interesting,
Was the thin walled compression tube also one of the reasons that the old 85 had a scope rail? I guess the thin comp tube could be an explanation for discontinuing the screw-in block considering it seemed better.

[FPoole]

Interesting,
Was the thin walled compression tube also one of the reasons that the old 85 had a scope rail? I guess the thin comp tube could be an explanation for discontinuing the screw-in block considering it seemed better.

Yes, it was felt that the scope grooves would weaken the tube to the point of failure, when a mount squeezed on it. The original gun was a poor mans 80 and it was touted as having more power than the 80. The next year saw the power figures revised to give the 80 a slight edge. This was from the old Beeman catalogs. They called the 80 an R1 and the 85 was an R10. This is going back to around 1985 IIRC.

[T 20]

Interesting,
Was the thin walled compression tube also one of the reasons that the old 85 had a scope rail? I guess the thin comp tube could be an explanation for discontinuing the screw-in block considering it seemed better.

Hi Barry

The HW35 has a 2.25mm thick cylinder wall, the HW85 has a 1.88mm thick cylinder wall.

The "Old School" HW85 was a direct descendant of the BSF55 and used the same scope rail but I don't know if the cylinder wall thickness of a HW85 was increased when it morphed into the HW95 ?


Strangely the stocks from the HW85 and 95 are interchangeable which would tend to indicate that the HW95 also has a 1.88mm cylinder wall thickness ?




All the best Mick

[Geezer]

Hi Barry

The HW35 has a 2.25mm thick cylinder wall, the HW85 has a 1.88mm thick cylinder wall.

The "Old School" HW85 was a direct descendant of the BSF55 and used the same scope rail but I don't know if the cylinder wall thickness of a HW85 was increased when it morphed into the HW95 ?


Strangely the stocks from the HW85 and 95 are interchangeable which would tend to indicate that the HW95 also has a 1.88mm cylinder wall thickness ?




All the best Mick

I believe this to be the case.

[T 20]

Was the thin walled compression tube also one of the reasons that the old 85 had a scope rail? I guess the thin comp tube could be an explanation for discontinuing the screw-in block considering it seemed better.

Yes, it was felt that the scope grooves would weaken the tube to the point of failure, when a mount squeezed on it.

Obviously, with the HW95 using the same 26mm ID X 30mm OD tube as the old school HW85 the mounting of a scope had nothing to do with Weihrauch using the alloy scope rail.

I think the real reason the old school 85 had an alloy scope rail is much simpler --- milling the scope grooves into the thin wall tube would have broken through into the back block threads, weakening the joint.






All the best Mick

[Geezer]

Obviously, with the HW95 using the same 26mm ID X 30mm OD tube as the old school HW85 the mounting of a scope had nothing to do with Weihrauch using the alloy scope rail.

I think the real reason the old school 85 had an alloy scope rail is much simpler --- milling the scope grooves into the thin wall tube would have broken through into the back block threads, weakening the joint.






All the best Mick

Personally, I think the sight rail was a holdover from BSF after HW bought them out.

The trigger block change was I believe (a) primarily because of machining difficulties - which raised costs from damaged parts, (b) desire to lower costs anyway, as the 85 was competing directly with the 80. The “tile” system removed the problem of poorly threaded cylinders (and the associated cost) and reduced the cost further from cheaper manufacture, allowing increased sales of the 85/95 at a lower price while leaving the 80 as the upmarket option (especially in unrestricted markets like the US).

I imagine ditching the raised rail (once they ran out of BSF parts, or the BSF machinery wore out) was again to reduce the cost of making a rail and a special piston, relieved to work with the rail.

Honestly, I understand the business rationale behind those sort of decisions.

Pity that when HW bought BSF, that they didn’t keep making the B55, just with a Rekord trigger, even if held on with “tiles”. That would have been awesome.