New gun day- early Diana 34....

[Geezer]

I'd be interested to hear how you find this 84 model vs your later 34's, looks aside. How are you getting on with the simple trigger and how does it affect its accuracy potential? How does it handle compared with the fancier/beefier stocked versions?
I do think the Diana 34 is an all time classic and have never felt it lacked performance in any of it's guises. The early ones are very plain jane but everything comes together very well. A gun doesn't have to be all bells and whistles to work well, although bells and whistles may attract more buyers. You have to wonder if Diana reverted to the 3 ball and sight ramp so soon after launch due to the first series 34's being too basic? I can certainly see the requirement for the more deluxe 36 and 38's. Personally, I enjoy the fact that such a basic looking gun can perform so well and I think you will have to go a long way to find a better break barrel air rifle.

For a long time, I had thought that the nicer 36 stock was part of the 1986 upgrade to take the no-frills 34 upmarket. But I am sure I saw a reference somewhere to a 36 with short tube, simple trigger, etc. So even though the 36 was not announced in March 1984 with the 24, 26, and 34, it appears that it first saw the light of day in 1985.

I don’t think we’ll ever know for sure, but the changes between 1984 and 1986 suggest that M&G had a quick rethink or two about what the market wanted.

I also wonder, given how long it takes to implement such changes, whether M&G realised before the 34 came out that the HW80 in particular had screwed it, but brought it out anyway as planned from a few years before to claw back some market interest while rushing to change the design to the definitive post-86 one. That would also explain the alleged 1985 D36, as it’s easier to improve a stock than re-engineer the metalwork.

[Drew451]

For a long time, I had thought that the nicer 36 stock was part of the 1986 upgrade to take the no-frills 34 upmarket. But I am sure I saw a reference somewhere to a 36 with short tube, simple trigger, etc. So even though the 36 was not announced in March 1984 with the 24, 26, and 34, it appears that it first saw the light of day in 1985.

I don’t think we’ll ever know for sure, but the changes between 1984 and 1986 suggest that M&G had a quick rethink or two about what the market wanted.

I also wonder, given how long it takes to implement such changes, whether M&G realised before the 34 came out that the HW80 in particular had screwed it, but brought it out anyway as planned from a few years before to claw back some market interest while rushing to change the design to the definitive post-86 one. That would also explain the alleged 1985 D36, as it’s easier to improve a stock than re-engineer the metalwork.

The 36 and 38 were released in 85 in short tube and unitised 3 ball sear configuration. There may have been all sorts of cylinders/triggers/pistons/fittings coming together at different as we have discussed. They liked to mix things up for various reasons and it seems there are examples out there that dont quite fit in with (near) accepted chronology.
This is going to be somewhat controversial but Ive never thought that the HW80/85/95 shoot as well as the 45 or 34. Weihrauch made some really top class guns but Ive never considered those 3 to be among them, though the 80 is pretty damn good to be honest.

[Geezer]

The 36 and 38 were released in 85 in short tube and unitised 3 ball sear configuration. There may have been all sorts of cylinders/triggers/pistons/fittings coming together at different as we have discussed. They liked to mix things up for various reasons and it seems there are examples out there that dont quite fit in with (near) accepted chronology.
This is going to be somewhat controversial but Ive never thought that the HW80/85/95 shoot as well as the 45 or 34. Weihrauch made some really top class guns but Ive never considered those 3 to be among them, though the 80 is pretty damn good to be honest.

We ought to write a book, Drew. Though I fear only you, I, and maybe Mike Driskill would buy it.

I love HW77s. I like and respect HW80s. I have never got on with 85/95s.

[Drew451]

We ought to write a book, Drew. Though I fear only you, I, and maybe Mike Driskill would buy it.

I love HW77s. I like and respect HW80s. I have never got on with 85/95s.

We could give it a thoroughly robust effort Im sure, Geezer. Mr Driskill, Dave Johnnyone- and about 3 others on here would likely contribute or take a punt. Foreword by John Walter. Maybe.

[jonnyone]

Evening chaps.
An interesting development with this gun.
In my earlier observations on the firing characteristics of it I noted that it was quite pedestrian despite giving off some smoke each discharge. Things started to become quite uncomfortable with the firing cycle and indeed at one stage it even felt uncomfortable through the trigger finger. Something wasn't right with this old girl. Not at all. I decided to cease firing the gun in case of doing some internal damage so this morning I decided to take her apart.
Oh dear. Well, that's the exclamation I'm going to insert on this forum as the actual words were a little more colourful. After a nice strong and straight spring and guide (both bone dry) came the piston with what can only be described as the crud remnants of a piston seal seemingly clutching onto the metal piston head dovetail. A light off my phone shone down the cylinder revealed the remainder of the seal nicely conjealed up the cylinder end. It would appear that during its likely lay upon the rack the lube and seal had attached itself to the cylinder end and the action of cocking it had torn the seal off the face of the piston. The only thing that had been driving the pellet down the bore was the piston itself with a modest amount of compression generated by it.
I was initially gutted and speechless aside of a few occasional expletives. I had to careful trim the remaining seal off the piston head with a sharp wood chisel. But the remaining (and majority part) of the seal now had to be removed from the very top end of the cylinder. I eventually achieved this through a combination of using a sharpened 10mm wood dowel and thinners in alternating use. It took a good hour of work but it's cleaned out fully of all remnants.
There was I thinking this occurrence was the curse of FWB and now it's happened to a Diana. The crud that I got out was a brownish colour and I would guess the seal started out life as clear polyurethane or similar but had gone this colour by breaking down and picking up some lube.
I hadn't planned on any of this, indeed had looked forward to having a session shooting the gun. But I am where I am with it and as it's in bits it will now get a spit and polish and re lube.
Some interesting things have come from the experience however. The pre load on the spring was quite high. It was under load the full length of the trigger housing only being released when the latter came out of the cylinder. The guide is the usual Diana affair but actually quite well made- an improvement of fit and finish over the 45, though both are of the same rolled steel tube design. Another suprise to me was that the piston has the same steel liner used in the 45 piston. However in this instance it is rolled steel sheet as opposed to the 45s one piece tube. Another pleasant surprise was a thin steel washer bottom of piston to cover the splines of the liner. The transfer port has a pronounced bell mouth to it. Noticeably so, more than I've noted on recent models. Finally the piston head dovetail is a few thou bigger diameter than recent model guns. However similarly it is a few thou shorter in height. Thankfully a modern seal fits but it will require some sizing to fit the cylinder bore.
So, another school day for Dave whether he wanted one or not.
Anyone else aware of biodegradable Diana seals
Dave

[Drew451]

Evening, Dave. I was waiting patiently for your next installment and its not quite gone where I thought it would. Sorry to hear that the early 34 is very sickly.
Unless I miss my guess, , I'd say that this 84 model has the very first example of a 28mm bore synthetic piston seal fitted to a Diana sporter and it sounds like they used the same material as used on the 66/75 etc. and theyve,.turned to crumbly cheese. The solution is fitting the more modern blue polyurethane seal commonly available.
Based on my own experience, the synthetic piston seals fitted to the 25mm bore 1984 model 24 etc, and the 1985 28mm bore 34/36/38 3 ball models were made of more robust material.
What impresses me is that a steel spring guide and a ppiston sleeve found there way on to the early 34's.

[jonnyone]

No I didn't bargain on having to strip the gun down either. I've had to do this a number of times over the years. By an large sellers are very responsible and truthful over the condition of their guns. I do in part blame myself as the deal was face to face and I did get to test fire the gun. I knew it was down on power first off but was a little blinded in the matter by it's good condition.
The problem is fixable that's the main thing. Just annoying that it takes time and some modest cost.
I have had an eye opener as regards to some of the specs of the gun as I posted first off. But having now been inside the gun I can see how some aspects of the gun hark back to the 45. I say hark back but actually I believe in 84 the 45 was still in production and so maybe this played a major part in the make up of the 34. At least early versions. The liner as you suggest is one positive carry forward. It's noted it was later dropped. A pity.
And I guess ultimately plastic technology has developed a pace even from the 80s with modern plastics being more durable. Credit where it's due the HW piston seal is very durable and I've not heard of any disintegrate.
This 34 will rise from the ashes yet. But not before the modern seal gives up a considerable amount of its circumference to fit the cylinder
Dave

[andrewM]

All very interesting and informative. Thank you for the insights and information.
Rgds
A