Why don't you see many custom Diana's? has anyone got one

[TonyL]

Cindy did the KT52 tuned by Ken Turner, some say that was best tuned 52 going.

It had a reduced cylinder, was short stroked and had a lightweight alloy piston running on bearings, all that was in 1988!

Here is an article about it from an 1988 Airgunner magazine:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/4gnkfo8rzfwblkq/KT52.PDF?dl=0

I remember that. Lovely.

[TonyL]

Maybe cause Dianas twang less out of the box than lets say HW. So theres less need for tuning/customisation?

Not sure about that.

In my, admittedly limited, experience, I've come across some particularly twangy Dainas. Especially the 45 I owned briefly back in the 80s. Nearly new. Bought cheaply from a young lad who had bought it from his mum's catalogue. It was the most twangy, most unrefined springer I've ever shot. Awful. I might have been tempted to have a go at fettling but one of my friends wanted it so off it went to live elsewhere. Never regretted that sale.

I would, however, consider giving a 34, 280, 48 or 52 a home one day.

[Shed tuner]

Cindy did the KT52 tuned by Ken Turner, some say that was best tuned 52 going.

It had a reduced cylinder, was short stroked and had a lightweight alloy piston running on bearings, all that was in 1988!

Here is an article about it from an 1988 Airgunner magazine:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/4gnkfo8rzfwblkq/KT52.PDF?dl=0

stroke now 84mm, bore 25mm... Ken made a '77.. I kinda doubt that was coincidental

[nurek]

stroke now 84mm, bore 25mm... Ken made a '77.. I kinda doubt that was coincidental

I guess so and it was probably a step forward to the TX design...

[4end]

Because most people find other airguns to be better.

What absolute twaddle. Is this another opinion from someone who has not had the pleasure of owning or experiencing a tuned Diana and also has a serious condition called IMB which in layman's terms means I am biased because I don't know any better.

[evert]

What absolute twaddle. Is this another opinion from someone who has not had the pleasure of owning or experiencing a tuned Diana and also has a serious condition called IMB which in layman's terms means I am biased because I don't know any better.

It is my own personal opinion





.... (and I do own a few too many Diana air rifles, but they dont speak to me the same way many other airguns do )

[Barryg]

It is my own personal opinion


.... (and I do own a few too many Diana air rifles, but they dont speak to me the same way many other airguns do )

I fully understand having personal opinions about airguns (I do as well) the only difference with me I give clear reasons for liking or not liking a gun and then to debate it to see if I have missed something, I like it when someone says that there is something wrong with my favourite gun as it puts me and the gun to the test and a chance to maybe put it right if it's a genuine fault.

But to say you just don't like a gun without explanation isn't very helpful, in my personal opinion
BTW what are the Diana's that don't speak to you that you have?

[evert]

BTW what are the Diana's that don't speak to you that you have?

I have a few later ones: a 24, two 34's, a 36, and a 48, dating from about 1995 to 2005.
And then a couple from the mid 80's, with the metal spade safety: a 24 and a 34.
Theres also a few 1960's-1970's rifles, some 35's, a 25, and some 27's.
And then there are the Milbro made Dianas, a 23, a 25, a 27, a G46 and a couple series 79 or what they are called.

There are many points where I find the Dianas to be lacking or cheaply made mechanically, but we have argued about those several times in earlier threads

[4end]

I have a few later ones: a 24, two 34's, a 36, and a 48, dating from about 1995 to 2005.
And then a couple from the mid 80's, with the metal spade safety: a 24 and a 34.
Theres also a few 1960's-1970's rifles, some 35's, a 25, and some 27's.
And then there are the Milbro made Dianas, a 23, a 25, a 27, a G46 and a couple series 79 or what they are called.

There are many points where I find the Dianas to be lacking or cheaply made mechanically, but we have argued about those several times in earlier threads

From the list given, there is nothing under 18 years old and some much older. A recent purchase of a 460Mag surprised me with the quality of the build, the blueing and the T06 trigger. Out of the box, it was twangy but lubing with moly and fitting a piston sleeve cured the problem. It could be said that this should not be necessary on a new gun, however, it is not the only German made gun that needs a mild tune up to get it to perform acceptably. The guns, pre 2005 would not have a T06 trigger and this compared with the Reckord trigger is equal to or perhaps a little better and definitely better than the T05 which would be on some of the younger guns listed.
I grew up with Original guns, the 35, 45 and 50 and used them fully until PCP's became available, in recent years came a return to springers and I have bought, borrowed and tried most of the popular springer brands but always return to Diana, presently the 460 and a 96 48/52 both in 177, both superbly accurate and shooting at 11.5ftlb energy

[maximus]

I am a Diana fan and have a few, 3 x T06 34s, 1 x 280, 1 x T01 34 and 1 x T01 52. I agreed that they are generally well made but there are a few things that cheapen them when compared to HW. These are, plastic trigger guard and cylinder end cap plus the cocking lever is thin material rolled over rather than a solid single piece on say a 95 or an 80. Also, I don't agree that a t06 is quite as good a trigger as a record or cd. The first stage is too long and not adjustable to where I would want it without affecting the safety operation (the safety will push out but you can still fire the gun) Despite all these niggles though I still reach for a 34 before my 95 or even an 80. This may be because I generally shoot the guns that I am messing with to try and improve though!

[DM80]

Diana 52 fully glided owned it many years still one of my favourite springers.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/dp5cPF8B5eALP4b1A
https://photos.app.goo.gl/b6phKb81uNb7vFeK6

Dave.

[maximus]

Nice one Dave, do you know who's custom stock that is, its slightly different to the walnut one I dropped across. Thanks Max

[Barryg]

There are many points where I find the Dianas to be lacking or cheaply made mechanically, but we have argued about those several times in earlier threads

First, I prefer to say friendly discussions between fellow airgunners than argued

Can you point out what is cheap or lacking on the 460 it has a one-piece compression tube made from a solid bar what other manufacture can say this, I have examined every part of the 460 closely and compared with say the 77/97 looks better ( I concede on the front sight ) if you think that I am wrong please discuss and we can compare each component side by side

[maximus]

Reasons I never hankered after a 460.
1 very long
2 plastic front sight
3 an fac gun at heart.
4 were relatively expensive but not too bad now.

I have thought about 430s in the past but never took the plunge.

[Barryg]

Reasons I never hankered after a 460.
1 very long
2 plastic front sight
3 an fac gun at heart.
4 were relatively expensive but not too bad now.

I have thought about 430s in the past but never took the plunge.

Hi Max,

1. Only 5mm longer than a HW 95

2. Only one bolt if you don't mind scope only

3. True but easily adapted.

4. A bargain

Also, you posted that you didn't like the cocking link on the 34's but don't forget they are almost indestructible unlike the ones you like