Why is the HW95 so bouncy??

[HW777]

And now it's shooting smoothly and accurately, so all's good.

To be fair, most springer shooters will judge a springer's firing cycle bass on perceived feel.....and we're all different. To my mind, if it's not twanging and crashing and harsh and as long as it's accurate, me happy.

Before Jim started getting more "digital" with his measuring equipment in his fine articles, he used a pencil taped to the action of the recoiling gun (the pencil obviously able to contact with paper) to measure recoil and surge. Once you know the weight of the internals as compared to the all-up weight of the gun, much could be learned as to what was happening inside the cylinder. Not exact as what he can do now, but eye-opening nonetheless.

Nowhere near as technical as the pencil method, I've always judged a springer by how far the reticle moves off target in relation to the shot cycle, contrary to what many people think, a fast action springer is better for accuracy than a soft sedate actioned rifle, if you shoot a rifle at it's designed power level this becomes self apparent.

[TopDog]

Hi Topdog, can't see a force diagram, just the 3 rifles with the measurements on. Also, whats the sensor, an accelerometer? I haven't got one of them. Of course, most people's evaluation of how the 95 shoots is subjective because they don't have any measurement kit. All I know was that I have always struggled for accuracy with this gun, more than almost any other I own, but to be fair I never shot it stock, went straight to a v-mach kit.

Hi

It's up to the researcher to do any force diagrams and the ONLY way to solve these issues is to get to the numbers otherwise the argument just goes around in subjective circles. There is NO easy answer to any question of dynamic effect experiences but subjective experiences stand little chance of determining the reason and then giving hope for a solution. This was never more highlighted than when I was doing assessments of piston weight and stroke on 97k actions when I had two (as near as possible) identical actions which were modified one at a time and compared by a panel of the best/most experienced shooters at our club. Each time, the one judged the best was used as the reference for the next test after the next modification suite on the other etc etc etc. Once the difference appeared to be miniscule I did two further assessments without changing anything in either action, just swapped the stocks and the results followed one of the stocks, judged by all to be the nicest! It's all what I have tended to call Shooter Feel Good Factor and it applies to any tool I would suggest; if one likes the look of the tool and it appears to be the one for the job, one will do a good job with it. And, the final variable which has the greatest effect is the Shooter, who's abilities and perceptions are key to this satisfaction!

Oh yes, the sensor in the diagram is an accelerometer from the range I have to conduct whatever tests are required at the time. The main reason for including the diagrams was to show the turning moment when recoil will tend (if the action is unrestricted) to rotate the action about the CoG flipping the muzzle up! Of course, the pellet exits the muzzle in the lunge (surge) phase so would flip down! This diagram is oversimplified since the action CoG will shift forwards during the action cycle as the piston/spring assy travels forwards but let's not overcomplicate things so early on! The main points will be that if the action sits low in the stock, the CoG will be less far from the Action dynamic centreline - so flip will be reduced.

Anyway, will bow out again now before I write a book!

I will however, dig out my 0.177 95k which I sorted some years ago and fitted a 98 stock but do not generally shoot nowadays and see what I feel (subjectively) about it now!

Happy airgunning!

atvb
David

[maximus]

Thanks for the comprehensive reply David. I agree with you that if you want a thing to be good you will cut it more slack mentally. I confess that I am feeling a bit that way about the comparison with the Diana's! I don't think I'll be building any test rigs or doing any guzzinters to work out mathematically why my 95 bucked about more (or appeared to) than my Diana's. My question was born out of frustration at the difficulty of shooting good groups and the difference I noticed in loss of target picture when firing. As said earlier in the thread, accuracy has returned once I changed the main spring. I didn't think the one in it was anything silly but changing it has fixed the issue. It just shows that changing one thing on a springer affects another.

[TonyL]

Even further excellent information, David.

Most of my rifles wear relatively small objective lens 'scopes for this reason. Much less scientifically, though, they just "felt right" and, to my mind, looked better with a smaller 'scope on board. But then I've always been more of a "sporting shooter" (more plinkers these days) than FT.

I would welcome a one inch tubed 4x 'scope with objective between 25 and 28mm, with decent glass. And, if of zoom specification, something like 1.5 to 5.

Whenever I've picked up a Diana 280 I've always felt how "right" that rifle feels with the action set low on the stock.

[TonyL]

The best thing about this thread is the idea of a shoot off between the 85/95 and the D34/36/38. Very interesting.

Ideally, add in some others, like the 80 and FWB Sport.

Ooo-er.

[maximus]

The best thing about this thread is the idea of a shoot off between the 85/95 and the D34/36/38. Very interesting.

Ideally, add in some others, like the 80 and FWB Sport.

This can be arranged as I have 177 80 and a new sport in my collection. I might do a warts and all set of 5 x 5 shot groups for each rifle and see how we go.

[TopDog]

Even further excellent information, David.

Most of my rifles wear relatively small objective lens 'scopes for this reason. Much less scientifically, though, they just "felt right" and, to my mind, looked better with a smaller 'scope on board. But then I've always been more of a "sporting shooter" (more plinkers these days) than FT.

I would welcome a one inch tubed 4x 'scope with objective between 25 and 28mm, with decent glass. And, if of zoom specification, something like 1.5 to 5.

Whenever I've picked up a Diana 280 I've always felt how "right" that rifle feels with the action set low on the stock.

Hi Tony

I agree with the small obj lens scopes with moderate mag unless one is a twilight/early dawn hunter! But the very good 28-32mm obj lenses have good light transmission anyway so great for other purposes. I had two very nice (since departed to other rifles elsewhere!) - a Zeiss Diatal-C 4x32 and a Burris 6x28 (the exit pupil on this was a little smaller than ideal) but I favour x6 for most GP use so 6x42 is suggested. The two I use atm are Hawke Frontier 4-16x42 with Jap glass and a Bushnell Elite 4-12x40PA which cover most requirements. Did have a Leupold VX-II 4-12x40 AO until I let it go with a Venom Sidewinder Compact and would choose the Leupold 2-7x33 if buying now (probably set at x5 most of the time!).

Will tell you the story of my 95 investigation some while back when we get the Bashes going again!

atvb
David

[maximus]

Totally agreed, nothing over 40mm objective lens for me.

[TonyL]

Hi Tony

I agree with the small obj lens scopes with moderate mag unless one is a twilight/early dawn hunter! But the very good 28-32mm obj lenses have good light transmission anyway so great for other purposes. I had two very nice (since departed to other rifles elsewhere!) - a Zeiss Diatal-C 4x32 and a Burris 6x28 (the exit pupil on this was a little smaller than ideal) but I favour x6 for most GP use so 6x42 is suggested. The two I use atm are Hawke Frontier 4-16x42 with Jap glass and a Bushnell Elite 4-12x40PA which cover most requirements. Did have a Leupold VX-II 4-12x40 AO until I let it go with a Venom Sidewinder Compact and would choose the Leupold 2-7x33 if buying now (probably set at x5 most of the time!).

Will tell you the story of my 95 investigation some while back when we get the Bashes going again!

atvb
David

You certainly highlight some very nice and useful sounding optics there, David.

And it will be something to very much look forward to to catch up again once Bashing can recommence.

[TonyL]

This can be arranged as I have 177 80 and a new sport in my collection. I might do a warts and all set of 5 x 5 shot groups for each rifle and see how we go.

Ah, that'll be something to look forward to seeing.

So, when you started this thread off, did you envisage it becoming the epic classic that it has become?

[PCPShooter]

My favourite 95 combo is a v mach tuned one (which probably involves a tad of TP widening to match the shorter faster spring) coupled with a heavyish mod - EB Sirocco or PH, with a scope of 50mm AO objective as this meets my cheek position best and I feel indulged in the nice wide angle of view often afforded.......

When set up optimally a 95 in any cal is smooth and pleasant to shoot at uk power, and not jumpy

Would I like a 95 with too small a tp port and too much soft spring -nah
One with a lightweight hw mod where balance is off and barrel won't hold on target - nah

I haven't shot a new Diana 34EMS version, but the last gen 31/34 T0-6 Dianas with sorted internals are indeed just as nice as a well sorted 'stage 1' 95 imo with their tp just about right from factory as it goes

[averageplinker]

Some interesting views throughout the thread. Interesting that a lot of stock is held in the feel of a rifle; I seem to recall BTDT noting on here or in his articles in the mags that a smooth cycle is no good if the accuracy is poop (not his exact words mind )

[Geezer]

Some interesting views throughout the thread. Interesting that a lot of stock is held in the feel of a rifle; I seem to recall BTDT noting on here or in his articles in the mags that a smooth cycle is no good if the accuracy is poop (not his exact words mind )

He has indeed. And I think he’s right.

I prefer the completely dead firing cycle of a Giss gun to the FWB sledge thing. But it’s the FWBs that won the Olympics and internationals.

I quite intensely dislike the typical Theoben rammer’s firing manners. But they hit what they are aimed at, better than a lot of guns with more pleasant shot cycles (yes, I appreciate that there are a bunch of other variables at play).

I can think of other rifles that shoot well (in terms of hitting targets), but are snappy or twangy, or jumpy.

The HW77 combined high accuracy with a smooth cycle (especially compared to the quite lively FWB Sport which preceded it as FT rifle of choice).

It’s hard to underrate the influence of the HW77 35 years ago on our thinking about springers even today.

I wonder if part of the 77’s influence was to persuade us that smooth cycle = accurate, when it’s actually a lot less simple than that.

[Geezer]

A final thought today on springers. Maybe needs a different thread.

The consensus on here is that the original factory 12ft-lbs versions of things like the HW80, D48/52, Webley Tomahawk, D460, etc, are really bad because they retain a 16-20+ ft-lbs piston and long stroke, but use a soft weak spring (and on the 48/52, a TP restrictor) to reduce power and have a long slow lazy cycle. And are inefficient, which means loads of wasted energy.

And therefore that to get the desired quick, smooth, action, you need short-stroking or sleeving or other major internal changes.

And, yes, I’ve shot some of those and they range from nice to VERY nice.

Thing is, in my limited experience, the factory jobs actually shoot quite well. Not brilliantly, but not anything like as bad as you might think. Even the D48/52.

And they did in the past (although a lot of 1980s “12ft-lbs” HW80s were 40-50% over the limit).

One explanation might be that the weight of the 80 etc helps a lot. But the original Tommie isn’t heavy. And the D48/52 is staggeringly inefficient but still accurate.

My hypothesis is that slow inefficient actions benefit from the slowness, because the excess energy not used to propel the pellet is absorbed by the gun and shooter over a longer period of time, reducing its effect on accuracy.

On a similar theme, the FWB Sport is odd. Set aside its poor trigger group and weak lock-up. And that while it handles well (I think brilliantly, but I’ve owned them since 1982, so I am completely used to them and can’t be objective on that front) it is light and muzzle light. It breaks the “rules”. Long stroke is good, but four inches of preload? The Diana 45 feels similar: an action that is a long way from the ideal, but has/had a great reputation for accuracy.

[TopDog]

Some interesting views throughout the thread. Interesting that a lot of stock is held in the feel of a rifle; I seem to recall BTDT noting on here or in his articles in the mags that a smooth cycle is no good if the accuracy is poop (not his exact words mind )

Spot on!! As a little exercise some while ago I did some recoil tests with my Test 80, light hold, firm hold, butt held firmly against cabinet (semi-rigid) and butt held firmly against wall (rigid). Will dig those out and post a collage of the results overlaid!

Action liveliness is of no real consequence as long as it, and the rifle/shooter interface, is the same every time. That, I think, is the essence of a springer and why they are so much fun to shoot! I always turn to springers for pleasure, the PCPs are for the clinical work!

atvb
David