Quote Originally Posted by Drew451 View Post
There is a difference in the pistons. Perhaps the reason was higher power. Shorter rod may give it a longer stroke. I'm no power junkie so I'm happy with the more usual 9-10 for as long as smoothness and accuracy is there. My 35S is very well used and slightly worn. But it shoots well.
Smoothness and accuracy is certainly there especially considering that the gun is 36 years old. I can cut it some slack if it needs to relube after that length of time!
The 35 was one of the top guns of its time. Walters certainly highlights that.in his book, but its also recognised that in the power crazy stakes of the 80s the 35 lost a great deal of ground to other marques. I think this was mainly due to other manufacturers recognising market trends and Diana content to sit on their laurels with the 35. The introduction of the 45 with upgraded power potential is an acknowledgement they needed to pull something out of the hat to keep pace with other manufacturers. I think the 45 did this admirably.
I'm no power junkie and I would certainly never substitute power over accuracy. But a little bit me thinks the 35 got a bit of a title as a lame duck power wise a little unfairly. Its was more than powerful enough in its day and is still no slouch in that department. But I do wonder if Diana tried to squeeze the last drops of ME from the S series with an altered internal design? As you.suggest this could have been achieved by a shorter rod to the piston giving a tad more stroke.
Its surprising that very.little in the way of manufacturers.literature or advertising blurb could throw some light on this.
Dave