Results 1 to 15 of 36

Thread: SFS Diana Mod 34 preview

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    tinbum's Avatar
    tinbum is offline Killer Vampire Lesbians on scooters
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Daarn Saaarf!
    Posts
    19,540
    Quote Originally Posted by bighit View Post
    You could but surely a tuned rifle like this is supposed to be should not twang?

    That's if it does twang. Might just be my hearing or my phone
    I have one, in .177. Mine doesn't twang.
    My ignore list: ​<Hidden information>

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    aberdeenshire
    Posts
    25,209
    Quote Originally Posted by tinbum View Post
    I have one, in .177. Mine doesn't twang.
    Did you toon it?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    bideford
    Posts
    2,918
    Quote Originally Posted by tinbum View Post
    I have one, in .177. Mine doesn't twang.
    Nether does mine
    B.A.S.C. member

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    bideford
    Posts
    2,918
    I was a little surprised to see SFS tackle the 34. Its a heavy rifle at 7.5 lbs. Little in the way of custom woodwork unless they have cut a deal with CS that will improve the standard plank.
    It's a long rifle too. A nip and tuck on the barrel length would be in order and could lose 4" and still be good on power though a silencer would add that back on.
    It's supposed to have almost the ideal stroke though so the shot cycle when tuned well should be pretty gentle. Then again my 280 now sorted makes power very easily, is lovely to shoot and is lighter than the 34 so i don't think the 34 would tempt me.
    I hope it's good for SWS and Diana and if it is it should bring Diana a little more mainstream.
    The T06 is a pretty adjustable trigger though has a long first stage pull which does need reducing unless you get a finger .
    extension.
    The 34 in my opinion is probably better compared to the HW80, The 280 being more 95 like.
    I'd be interested to see the finished product.
    Last edited by robs5230; 23-08-2017 at 06:29 AM.
    B.A.S.C. member

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Bromsgrove
    Posts
    870
    Quote Originally Posted by robs5230 View Post
    I was a little surprised to see SFS tackle the 34. Its a heavy rifle at 7.5 lbs. Little in the way of custom woodwork unless they have cut a deal with CS that will improve the standard plank.
    It's a long rifle too. A nip and tuck on the barrel length would be in order and could lose 4" and still be good on power though a silencer would add that back on.
    It's supposed to have almost the ideal stroke though so the shot cycle when tuned well should be pretty gentle. Then again my 280 now sorted makes power very easily, is lovely to shoot and is lighter than the 34 so i don't think the 34 would tempt me.
    I hope it's good for SWS and Diana and if it is it should bring Diana a little more mainstream.
    The T06 is a pretty adjustable trigger though has a long first stage pull which does need reducing unless you get a finger .
    extension.
    The 34 in my opinion is probably better compared to the HW80, The 280 being more 95 like.
    I'd be interested to see the finished product.
    My 34 was the older design of the 90s labelled under RWS....it was somehow nicer for its shorter forend stock which left the breech block exposed. The grain of the wood was better but i never had a problem with the weight which was BSA Mercury ish in general handling and in the shoulder....
    I did chop my barrel and no affect on accuracy.
    Its a super gun and simply needed a better fitting guide rod which today would be of delrin.
    A shortened barrel reguided 34 will take some beating and the proof is in those group sizes in the earlier video.....how you going to beat that.
    It def beats the 99 anyway due to no galling.....versus the 95 the HW might just clip it for general build but the 80 i always felt a touch heavy...
    The FWB sport MK1.....it sits alone ..
    Underlevers of any make........well you could see the extra bit of trouble he had in loading these in the video....not my choice for rough shooting!

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Glenrothes
    Posts
    1,352
    Quote Originally Posted by robs5230 View Post
    I was a little surprised to see SFS tackle the 34. Its a heavy rifle at 7.5 lbs. Little in the way of custom woodwork unless they have cut a deal with CS that will improve the standard plank.
    It's a long rifle too. A nip and tuck on the barrel length would be in order and could lose 4" and still be good on power though a silencer would add that back on.
    It's supposed to have almost the ideal stroke though so the shot cycle when tuned well should be pretty gentle. Then again my 280 now sorted makes power very easily, is lovely to shoot and is lighter than the 34 so i don't think the 34 would tempt me.
    I hope it's good for SWS and Diana and if it is it should bring Diana a little more mainstream.
    The T06 is a pretty adjustable trigger though has a long first stage pull which does need reducing unless you get a finger .
    extension.
    The 34 in my opinion is probably better compared to the HW80, The 280 being more 95 like.
    I'd be interested to see the finished product.
    I put my 34 Premium on the scales recently and it pulled 7lbs 13oz: a bit over the stated weight. Yet, it feels perfect in the hand and balance is very good. The barrel length seems fine, possibly due to the longer fore-end of the stock. I think the 34 is a better gun than the 280 in .177 but in .22 they are closer (both in standard form). The .22 34 does have a slightly under-sprung, easy going feel- not to the extent of an HW80 but along those lines. The .177 feels different- quicker, sharper in response but not harsh. No twang from mine either. Accuracy is as good as I hoped and better than I expected out of the box. A .177 34 and a .22 280 would make a good pairing and the shooter would gel with both and switch between the two easily.
    The SFS 34 appears to perform very, very well in the video. I too hope that CS will offer stocks for the 34 at some point.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Bromsgrove
    Posts
    870
    Quote Originally Posted by Drew451 View Post
    I put my 34 Premium on the scales recently and it pulled 7lbs 13oz: a bit over the stated weight. Yet, it feels perfect in the hand and balance is very good. The barrel length seems fine, possibly due to the longer fore-end of the stock. I think the 34 is a better gun than the 280 in .177 but in .22 they are closer (both in standard form). The .22 34 does have a slightly under-sprung, easy going feel- not to the extent of an HW80 but along those lines. The .177 feels different- quicker, sharper in response but not harsh. No twang from mine either. Accuracy is as good as I hoped and better than I expected out of the box. A .177 34 and a .22 280 would make a good pairing and the shooter would gel with both and switch between the two easily.
    The SFS 34 appears to perform very, very well in the video. I too hope that CS will offer stocks for the 34 at some point.
    I have just seen the Premium version of the 34 ....its stunning...you wont see a better looking sporter ..
    I have decided to invest in one ....going .177 and will delrin guide rod it out.
    Barrel cropping ....may do ...varminter style but will keep as is until sure.

  8. #8
    tinbum's Avatar
    tinbum is offline Killer Vampire Lesbians on scooters
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Daarn Saaarf!
    Posts
    19,540
    Quote Originally Posted by Drew451 View Post
    I too hope that CS will offer stocks for the 34 at some point.
    Me three! I would keep mine if I could replace the stock with something less awful.
    My ignore list: ​<Hidden information>

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Glenrothes
    Posts
    1,352
    Quote Originally Posted by tinbum View Post
    Me three! I would keep mine if I could replace the stock with something less awful.
    Sportwaffen Schneider had some old Model 36 stocks which in theory should fit or be made to fit. Maybe not in the class of CS' walnut but definitely less awful than synthetic.

  10. #10
    Barryg's Avatar
    Barryg is offline Registered ̶D̶i̶a̶n̶a̶ User
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Nr. YEOVIL
    Posts
    5,076
    Quote Originally Posted by Drew451 View Post
    Sportwaffen Schneider had some old Model 36 stocks which in theory should fit or be made to fit. Maybe not in the class of CS' walnut but definitely less awful than synthetic.
    Custom stock 34
    http://imgur.com/448pV6b

  11. #11
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    winchester
    Posts
    232
    Quote Originally Posted by tinbum View Post
    Me three! I would keep mine if I could replace the stock with something less awful.
    I expect Gary Cane would make you one.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •