Why is the HW95 so bouncy??

[jonnyone]

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.

But we may have established that a D34 or a D280 shoots with better manners
Jokes aside I do hope the OP gets to the bottom of things. I think there has been many constructive suggestions in this thread and suspect the cause is a combination of factors rather than one single issue.
For my part it's got me curious about my early 85s and how they shoot. I doubt I've put more than zeroing shots through either.
Dave

[oldskoolzzz]

But we may have established that a D34 or a D280 shoots with better manners
Jokes aside I do hope the OP gets to the bottom of things. I think there has been many constructive suggestions in this thread and suspect the cause is a combination of factors rather than one single issue.
For my part it's got me curious about my early 85s and how they shoot. I doubt I've put more than zeroing shots through either.
Dave

Totally agree Dave,

I think the thread has been rather interesting.

Don’t think I’ve ever seen any 95 ‘issue’ threads nailed in one reply and within minutes

Unless the reply was sling the munter in the canal and buy a 99 instead

[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

[Geezer]

Sorry, but I don’t think “they run best at 15 ft-lbs” is an explanation.

The FWB Sport’s designed power was around 14. The D34 is rated by M&G at 14.8 (.177”) and 16.2 (.22”), the HW80 16-20. All of those are generally regarded as adequate to excellent in factory 12 ft-lbs trim. What is so different about the 95?

[evert]

The 95 is one of the guns I've never gotten as good as I want. Bouncy may be a good word for it.
As we have no power limits here, I can work on getting the action to behave balanced without worrying about power, and I've tried several springs, seals and piston weights.

[TonyL]

I do think that "balance" is the key word here, evert.

And by experimentation with transfer port size / choking, spring rate, preload, piston weight there must be a sweet spot. For the record, I'm highly satisfied with mine.

Seem to remember wonkydonky doing a very detailed thread on his tune for a 95 once. Maybe lightened piston with bearings etc.?

[Hsing-ee]

Get a 35 next time. Oversquare like a Benelli Tornado 650. No see-sawing like a pair of ladders. No gentle nudge, a boing then a thwack.

[evert]

Get a 35 next time. Oversquare like a Benelli Tornado 650. No see-sawing like a pair of ladders. No gentle nudge, a boing then a thwack.

Nah... that antique is one of the guns that I actually might sell.
I've recently gotten really well along with the 77k, after it got a detune and some more weight up front, and am planning to get to know the 85 better.

[jonnyone]

Totally agree Dave,

I think the thread has been rather interesting.

Don’t think I’ve ever seen any 95 ‘issue’ threads nailed in one reply and within minutes

Unless the reply was sling the munter in the canal and buy a 99 instead

Ho ho. Well, that I guess is one solution though I'm not sure I'd advocate blocking this country's canals with air rifles

I think no matter where your loyalties lie with your chosen favourite make of gun, very few if any of them are practically perfect in every sense. I don't think there's a spring air rifle that cannot be improved in some aspect. Even if it's as simple as reducing wear and tear or spring twang.
Some air rifles genuinely do seem to have better handling and firing characteristics than others for various reasons.
However, I do wonder at times, that our experiences with some brands/models can be a classic example of hype v reality. Could this be said of the HW95? It's been around a few years now and must have had these general characteristics from.the outset? At least with modern consistent manufacturing processes you would think the first 95 back in the day pretty much acts the same way a current one does?
There again there will always be the. "lemon". A Friday afternoon gun
Yep, I'm definitely curious about the 85s I have here and if I will be able to get them to shoot well (as long as I'm on top of my game)!
Dave

[T 20]

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.

Could it be because the HW95 is a reincarnated BSF 55 which was always said to be hold sensitive.

[Geezer]

Could it be because the HW95 is a reincarnated BSF 55 which was always said to be hold sensitive.

Never found my 55 too hold sensitive, even for a 6.5 pound, 40” 12 ft-lbs carbine.

And no, I don’t think that’s the reason.

[TonyL]

Well, seeing as how many people really like the 99's firing cycle......same bore. According to Bruce's excellent thread on bore / stroke / TP etc., the 95 has a 14mm longer stroke and a piston approximately 30 grams heavier. The transfer ports are also very similarly sized. So, theoretically, reducing the weight of the piston by an ounce or so and lopping half an inch off the stroke should result in a similar prescription.

I think the cylinder on the 95 is a good bit longer. I'd have to free a couple of rifles from the cabinet in order to compare the dimensions. So, more spring space in the 95. But, maybe more crucially, what does this do to the weight distribution / balance? Many have commented in the past about the weird "long" feeling of the handling of the old school 85. Also, wacky as it sounds, maybe worth trying a 99 spring in the 95 but with a spacer behind? Less active coils would often be frowned upon, I know, but I said it was a bit wacky! Worth a looky or total non-starter?

And another wacky one.......could different users' different perceptions of the feel of the cycle actually come down to piston seal sizing too?

[dearne75]

I do think that "balance" is the key word here, evert.

And by experimentation with transfer port size / choking, spring rate, preload, piston weight there must be a sweet spot. For the record, I'm highly satisfied with mine.

Seem to remember wonkydonky doing a very detailed thread on his tune for a 95 once. Maybe lightened piston with bearings etc.?

I tried a WD tuned hw95 at the range and was blown away at how quiet,smooth,accurate and no real movement on firing
I contacted WD and he tuned my .22 hw95.I have to say that its superb in everyway.
As stated in my post,i have a .177 that i use for trying various states of tune.From my notes of 2018 ,i got very good accuracy from the short stroke nose running at 10.75fpe.
At the moment it shoots well with the vortek spring+guides with a lighter piston .It needs some range time for all range accuracy testing ,impossible at the moment due to covid19.I have ordered a short stroke 26mm piston seal from custom airseals which will be tried out some time in the future.

[T 20]

Never found my 55 too hold sensitive, even for a 6.5 pound, 40” 12 ft-lbs carbine.

And no, I don’t think that’s the reason.

Buggered if I know then.

[FPoole]

Hi Nick, the subject rifle of the thread (mine) is short stroked by 12mm. I guess to get them right its still needs the correct spring. In standard stroke I think they shoot best at about 14ftlbs.

I've shot a 95 FAC in .177 and found it very near as good as my TX200's. The 34, on the other hand, was one of the worst looking and shooting springers I've seen.