Why is the HW95 so bouncy??

[charub]

Hi John, its got a vmach steel mod already and still too much bounce for me to be happy with it. Checked the t.p. and its approx 3 mm so as you sa should be ample especially with the short stroke. Its in a cs500 with an airmax 3-9*40 on board so maybe the balance point is further back causing the front to flip about more

Muzzle flip is not the problem. Consistent hold and pressure is.
The rifle goes through the same cycle every shot, the only inconsistency is the shooter.

I have a 95 in .22 I have short stroked and fitted a 98 barrel to combat its liveliness and it’s really nice to shoot, but it is really not at all forgiving of changes of grip pressure, etc.

In a nutshell - practice, practice. If you struggle, a heavier rifle may be the answer?

[Shed tuner]

so TP and stroke are fine, only about 3mm different from an HW99. So what's left ?

A short stiff spring could make it jumpy, or a piston weight. What's inside ?

[maximus]

so TP and stroke are fine, only about 3mm different from an HW99. So what's left ?

A short stiff spring could make it jumpy, or a piston weight. What's inside ?

No piston weight, just delrin washer and top hat. Spring is a HW one, with id guess about 40-50mm of pre-load from memory. Don't get me wrong, it shoots quite nice but according to all theory it should be wonderful at this spec and its not that easy to shoot accurately with. It brought it home to me after having shot the Diana 34s for a couple of weeks just how much sight picture was lost when pulling the trigger.

[TonyL]

Muzzle flip is not the problem. Consistent hold and pressure is.
The rifle goes through the same cycle every shot, the only inconsistency is the shooter.

In a nutshell - practice, practice.

Yes, this.

The technique I concluded suited the 95 and me the best (well, just about any springer, to be honest) is, unlike some advice I've seen where the supporting hand is near the balance point, to have my leading hand right at the front of the stock, giving the rifle a "long and flat cradle" to move backwards and forwards on. When I managed to visit an indoor club in the past for zeroing / pellet testing purposes I'd also have the very front of the stock on the bag (more often than not my patented "Tigger Boinger rest"), left hand under the butt (I'm right handed) and the very lightest of touches on the pistol grip. At 34 yards indoors the .177 was shooting minutely tight little clusters.

[TonyL]

A short stiff spring could make it jumpy

Mmm....I know that more contemporary thinking favours "long and soft", but that .177 of mine which shoots so nicely has the V-Mach kit. Virtually no spring proud of the cylinder prior to pushing the end block home, so hinting at a shorter / stiffer spring. It's one of the really early ones with the factory muzzle weight, just stripped, de-burred, Dri-Slided the cylinder and fitted the V-Mach kit.

[ptdunk]

The missus uses her tuned 95 for HFT, where exactly the same hold shot after shot is not always possible due to variations in position. She definitely found it more forgiving after fitting the Parker Hale steel moderator which significantly reduced muzzle flip.
Later she also got a CS600 stock and does pretty well.

Granted shooting off a bench using exactly the same hold every time then muzzle flip wouldn’t necessarily make a difference.

Matt

[charub]

The missus uses her tuned 95 for HFT, where exactly the same hold shot after shot is not always possible due to variations in position. She definitely found it more forgiving after fitting the Parker Hale steel moderator which significantly reduced muzzle flip.
Later she also got a CS600 stock and does pretty well.

Granted shooting off a bench using exactly the same hold every time then muzzle flip wouldn’t necessarily make a difference.

Matt

That’s exactly why shooting HFT with a springer is notoriously difficult. I agree that it isn’t always possible to shoot from the same position, but with a bit of work you can hold the rifle in a similar position and with a similar amount of pressure each time.

I never shoot from a bench, it simply does not replicate real life shooting unless maybe shooting from a hide.
POI even changes from a prone, kneeling, standing. I just try to remember the differences.

[maximus]

Had another session with it this afternoon in the garden. On the chrono it was doing 11.6 with 8.4 jsb and 11.5 with 7.33 jsb. Tad high but well balanced. I did note that it had a bit of twang with the 8.4s but none with the 7.33 or indeed with 7.9 jsb either. Accuracy was mediocre with the 7.3 and 8.4, best were the 7.9 but it was a windy day up here. So, now its in bits again! The spring is 3.1 wire, 225 long with 32mm pre-load. I have a titan no.5 to try which is the meteor one plus a new 95 spring fro SWSchneider. Iam currently scragging this prior to trying as in my experience these springs settle quite a lot. Anyone know how long I should scrag it for without sh*gging it??7

[TonyL]

The missus uses her tuned 95 for HFT, where exactly the same hold shot after shot is not always possible due to variations in position. She definitely found it more forgiving after fitting the Parker Hale steel moderator which significantly reduced muzzle flip.
Later she also got a CS600 stock and does pretty well.

Granted shooting off a bench using exactly the same hold every time then muzzle flip wouldn’t necessarily make a difference.

Matt

Excellent points and many believe that sourcing a stock that suits or customising one, playing with balance / weight and then getting that practice on from all the different positions is far more valuable than a fancy tune.

[Geezer]

Interesting thread. But no-one yet seems to have answered the basic question: why is it generally believed, and many owners report, that the HW85/95 is unusually “bouncy” and hold-sensitive?

Two hypotheses:

1. Compared to, say, the Diana 34, FWB Sport, HW80, HW35, Diana 45, HW99S and similar, there is something particular to the 85/95 that makes it hard to hit with consistently.

2. Actually there isn’t. These days the 95 is by far the most widely-distributed high-quality break-barrel. All of the above (maybe not the 80 because of its weight) are similar. Most of today’s 85/95 shooters cut their teeth on PCPs or 77/97s or TXs and find the shooting characteristics of a light-barrelled springer challenging (see the references above to sticking half a kilo of steel on the muzzle to tame it).

[Muskett]

Because it is so light weight, and has a spring in it. FWB Sports are the same (I've had at least nine, tuned and factory fresh.)
What makes these sporting rifles interesting is finding a way to shoot them straight. When you do they are accurate as anything out there. By the time you do you've done a shed load of shooting and your other rifles just feel easy.
Adding several pounds of weight then just buy a TX.

[maximus]

Well, thats the point of the thread really, the 95 is not lighter than a 34, a 280 or a 99 yet its harder work to shoot straight with, but why?? To me, and from what I have read on here many times there is a difference with the 95. I am 51 now and have shot spring rifles since I was big enough to hold one so am well aware of what they are capable of.

[Geezer]

Because it is so light weight, and has a spring in it. FWB Sports are the same (I've had at least nine, tuned and factory fresh.)
What makes these sporting rifles interesting is finding a way to shoot them straight. When you do they are accurate as anything out there. By the time you do you've done a shed load of shooting and your other rifles just feel easy.
Adding several pounds of weight then just buy a TX.

So that’s option 2, above.

But maximus and Barry (who, sorry Barry, may be a tiny bit biased) say the D34 (one of my favourites) is better than the 95, despite the similarities between the two. It’s also quite commonplace to hear that the 99 is, and even that the 98 is surprisingly hold sensitive given its weight.

I can’t reach a judgment, because while I own many of the classic break-barrels, I just don’t get on well with my 85, even before I pull the trigger.

As you say, it’s just not good enough to say that Rifle X is fine as long as you hang a bag of sugar off the muzzle. I fully accept the advantages of adding a muzzle “thing” to a springer, but a good springer (eg D34 or FWB 124/127) should be fine without it.

[Hsing-ee]

Well, thats the point of the thread really, the 95 is not lighter than a 34, a 280 or a 99 yet its harder work to shoot straight with, but why?? To me, and from what I have read on here many times there is a difference with the 95. I am 51 now and have shot spring rifles since I was big enough to hold one so am well aware of what they are capable of.

It may be down to the pellet fit then. I cannot remember the article or maybe it was on here, BTDT wrote about it, but it may be that the pellet is starting its travel at a tricky part of the cycle and while it might be possible to shoot it accurately with a super-consistent hold, it's not something an actual human is capable of. If the pellet releases at a more forgiving point then maybe that will work.

Maybe try a different pellet, seating the pellets a little or sizing them. It might be more beneficial than coming on here and being told you don't know how to shoot a springer.

[TonyL]

Well, thats the point of the thread really, the 95 is not lighter than a 34, a 280 or a 99 yet its harder work to shoot straight with, but why?? To me, and from what I have read on here many times there is a difference with the 95.

Okay, maybe a bit of "wild musing" here, but I wonder if it actually does have more to do with weight distribution. I have shot lots of Weihrauchs over the years but not lots of Dianas, so I'm not as fully versed in their finer points. But one thing that always jumped out at me when I handled / tried the 280 was not just how slim it felt but also how "low" mounted in the stock the action seemed. So could be that? I appreciate that the 34 is well loved and respected, but I can't actually remember having tried one. The closest to it that I tried ( and I really don't know how similar it was) was a synthetic stocked one. Maybe a Panther 31? And I wasn't so impressed. But the 99 is super sweet and a revelation.

If I had to be hyper-picky about the 95's action feel, maybe the overall feel, tieing in with the "bouncy" wording is a perceived feel of piston bounce / surge. But perceptions can be misleading and we'd be better measuring it to get a definitive answer. If the answer lies therein and it is piston bounce that is the issue, as Al points out, different pellets may well help address this. As in, JSB derived pellets, with their lower release pressure, should help. But then I guess that, these days, many would be using JSBs anyway?

Could the answer be, rather than many tunes trying to lighten the piston to quicken the action time and reduce recoil, the answer may lie in increasing the piston weight, slowing the action slightly but the increased inertia combatting piston bounce more? Combined with a slight opening of the transfer port?