Why is the HW95 so bouncy??

[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.

[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.

[maximus]

Hi Alistair, I have tried all the usual suspects from my pellet selection and no real joy. Any how, this morning I could down the spring by half a coil which dropped the power from 11.6 to 10.2. Added a washer which pushed it upto 10.7 and decided to try it at that. Happy to report that accuracy is now restored and sight picture much steadier on firing.I will be leaving it at that power now, i guess 11.6 was pushing it too much for the short stroke.

[TonyL]

Result!

A nice, sweet and accurate 10.7 beats a snappy, snarling, bouncy 11.6 anyday in my book. And maybe 11.6 was just a little too close for comfort, too?

Wished I'd picked up on the power earlier.

Enjoy.

[Drew451]

Hi Alistair, I have tried all the usual suspects from my pellet selection and no real joy. Any how, this morning I could down the spring by half a coil which dropped the power from 11.6 to 10.2. Added a washer which pushed it upto 10.7 and decided to try it at that. Happy to report that accuracy is now restored and sight picture much steadier on firing.I will be leaving it at that power now, i guess 11.6 was pushing it too much for the short stroke.

Im glad you seem to have yours under control and shooting better. I have been reading this thread with interest (there are two similar ones on the other main airgun forum currently also).
I have nothing very helpful to add to it but for what its worth you are dead right in your opinion of the 95 in isolation and against its competitors. Even with standard stroke and internals it has a tendency to lift the muzzle significantly on firing. Hence the fact that the rifle is usually only available in conjunction with a muzzle brake, moderator and there is a variant with a bull barrel.
Co-incidently the best one I have shot chrono'd at 10.8. It was a used example n a local dealer who had no idea what had been done to it.
I really need tweak and likely detune my own later 85K but I know its a gun I will never truly bond with, unfortunately.

[maximus]

I've had my 95 since 2007, it was originally bought as a 22 and I put a cs500 and vmach kit in it straight away. It never shot how I wanted it to, even broke a reticle on my tasco world class 1.5-5×20. Anyway, in the quest to get it shooting nice its changed calibre as I thought 177 might allow more pre-load, less bounce and in the end short stroked it by 12mm. During these trials its had various springs including the v-mach, titan no. 5 and finally a HW one for a 57 (only one the gunshop had but I'm guessing the same spec as a std 95 but shorter). Anyway, as I said I'll stick with it at 10.7 for now, though 1 more washer might not hurt

[oldskoolzzz]

I really want to like the 95 but just can’t grasp why it’s become my really bad boinger nemesis

I’ve tried dozens and dozens of them from old longer barrelled barrel weight versions to the older 95k then newer 95k and everything else from brand new out the box to Tooned SFS, Tooned Ratworks (worst tune ever seen), home tuned, others that have been shed tuned just about everything bar a full on venom

I always suffer the same issue like many others that pesky muzzle flip I’ve tried heavier silencers, weights, shrouds you name it but it’s still there.

I’ve tried various holds and by far the bench rested sandbag on the forestock with left hand tucked up under the butt (like Tony) has given the best results over any other fandango hold.

I could be completely wrong but am I right in thinking the 95 is basically a long stroked 99?

Now the 99 on the other hand I can shoot reasonably well and I don’t seem to suffer with the flip scenario perhaps as it’s a more short stroke factory setup however we all know the 99s flaws and inherent issues which leads me to believe if I ever try another 95 a short stroke kit should be No1 priority over everything else seeing as I prefer the way the 99 shoots and maybe just maybe it’s the actual longer stroke of the 95 which is the problem and nothing to do with trying to eliminate barrel weight to try and control that flip.

Those that have short stroked the 95 has it been a revolution?

[Muskett]

Weighed both my Sport and 95 and they come in bang on 8lbs scoped. That is lighter than all thoes HW35s, 80s, TXs.
My 95 is far more cheek weld fussy than my Sports. My most forgiving piston system sporting rifle is my Fenman which is a smidge under 81/2lbs.

I certainly think the Sports run smoothest at around 10ft/lbs, 91/2 even. Well 124's do. It might really just be getting to 12ft/lbs in these lighter rifles is all a bit of a big ask. Add one pound in overall weight really helps., as seen by the majority of better behaved heavy weighted rifles.

Two rifles that were light weight and seemed to have factory 11ft/lbs plus were the Vulcan MK1 and BSF S70. Neither gave pin point accuracy but they actually held it there and were pretty good so long as the range was kept in the farmyard. Both had agricultural triggers so had to be held with purpose.
And thats the rub of it: keep to under 25m and they hit stuff. They can hit stuff standing unsupported with practice. Try and force them to 30m and beyond and they struggle whatever the shooting position. For those ranges then best use more of a lump of a rifle.

[Hsing-ee]

Hi Alistair, I have tried all the usual suspects from my pellet selection and no real joy. Any how, this morning I could down the spring by half a coil which dropped the power from 11.6 to 10.2. Added a washer which pushed it upto 10.7 and decided to try it at that. Happy to report that accuracy is now restored and sight picture much steadier on firing.I will be leaving it at that power now, i guess 11.6 was pushing it too much for the short stroke.

Interesting. I have a short stroked 85 and it was very accurate in .177. I am changing it back to .22 so I am going to take your experiment into account, although I think it will be OK as if it worked OK with the little pellets it should be OK with the bigger calibre. So many variables with a springer. The .177 was a short one off a 95, so maybe that made a difference?

[charub]

As said in a previous post.
I have swapped my barrel for a shrouded 98 barrel, and short stroked it. It’s had a thorough de burring, made to fit (tight) guide and top hat and a snug PTFE piston liner fitted.

One really strange thing though - all works were carried out except the nose extension and power was set at just under 12ftlb. I tried it for an afternoon and was still unhappy with the handling, so it came apart and the nose extension was fitted. I then lopped a similar length off the spring - the preload is just enough to hold the back block in place whilst reassembling.
It now shoots really smoothly and is super easy to cock. After reading this thread I thought I would dig the chrono out to see what it was doing, I expected approximately 10.5 ish - it’s actually sitting at about 11.5!!

I can’t work that out, less swept volume and very little preload and the power hasn’t dropped much - but the manners definitely improved.

I have taken something from this though - whatever work you are doing, ALWAYS check over chrono when finished even if you think you are reducing the power.

[Geezer]

So, 3 days and 40+ posts in and we still haven’t really decided whether the 95 is abnormally “bouncy” and, if it is, why.

[Weasle]

As said in a previous post.
I have swapped my barrel for a shrouded 98 barrel, and short stroked it. It’s had a thorough de burring, made to fit (tight) guide and top hat and a snug PTFE piston liner fitted.

One really strange thing though - all works were carried out except the nose extension and power was set at just under 12ftlb. I tried it for an afternoon and was still unhappy with the handling, so it came apart and the nose extension was fitted. I then lopped a similar length off the spring - the preload is just enough to hold the back block in place whilst reassembling.
It now shoots really smoothly and is super easy to cock. After reading this thread I thought I would dig the chrono out to see what it was doing, I expected approximately 10.5 ish - it’s actually sitting at about 11.5!!

I can’t work that out, less swept volume and very little preload and the power hasn’t dropped much - but the manners definitely improved.

I have taken something from this though - whatever work you are doing, ALWAYS check over chrono when finished even if you think you are reducing the power.

I had one of mine running a little hot - it was after a rebuild - new seal, spring / guide and spit and polish tune - I had put a tin of pellets thru it before testing.
I removed a coil... rechecked it over the Skan....and it was even Hotter!!!!!
Eventually I ended up reducing the spring even further before it was at a usable legal level.
My original 95... bought many years ago second hand...an early barrel weighted version in .177,
felt beautifully smooth to shoot and quite mild. However the Skan showed me it was producing virtually 15 fpe!!!!

If I remember correctly, the 95 was originally designed to produce around 15 fpe and that being so, was probably why they feel so good at that output.

Cheers

Steve

[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?

[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.