Hi to all, Thank you to so many of you who have responded to my questions.
I don't remember the forum I was on the outher day but I was doing research on the 460's after I had talked to Hector, and someone wrote " the RWS 460 was nothing more than a RWS-48 with a under lever cocking system" I know there is a stock difference but is it the same trigger and chamber and piston ect.ect.The pictures look like there may be a different barrel, but I can't tell.
I have some nice walnut and I have been thinking about buying a 48 and have John tune it and build a thumbhole stock for the 48. How would this stack up to the 460? Before anyone tells me how difficult it is to buld stocks, I have built several in the past.
Are you the same Mike who asked about the difference between a HW30 & HW35 on the Straightshooters Forum? Never did get any feedback on whether or not you decided to get a HW30.
just glad to know I was such a great help in your decision. I just think that the HW35 is the best sporter rifle that Weirauch ever produced. (Before you HW55 fans start jumping on me, I said sporter not match.)As far as your question about the RWS460 & RWS48, I am not gonna be to much help to you since the only Diana rifle I have is a RWS45(Original model), but if this rifle is any indicator of what Dianawerk is capable of producing then you shouldn't go wrong either way. I do find that underlevers are more ergonomically efficient when it comes to high powered spring guns, it gives you more leverage.
The 460 is more akin to the 350 in cylinder length and stroke, it shares some characteristics with the 300 and the 46, but the power generating section is more like the 350.
It also has a spring-closing cylinder, as opposed to the lever-sprung closing one in the 48/52/54 family.
Apart from that, the 460 is a much more "modern" design in that the ergonomics of the airgun recoil cycle have been taken into account and the cycle is much smoother, with less twang and vibrations than in previous models. It behaves, from the start with the proverbial "thunnkk", rather than the "twnag" of other spring guns. Just look at the actions side by side and you will see that the 460 lies much lower in the stock than the 48/52/54 family.
It also suffers from different ailments. You will need to watch carefully what your gun is doing and take care to detect symptoms that can lead to failure such as: weak closing spring, or debris in the closing mechanism, which would be the same thing; the regulation of the lever-holding detent; the tuning of the stock screws; the solidity of the scope base; etc. etc. etc.
Some of these are common to all airguns, some of these are exclusive of the 460.
It is a true powerhouse and like all hyper-performing systems, it needs attention. A well-tuned 460 should have no problem yielding 23-24 ft-lbs. in .22"
I love mine, even if I also love my other Dianas, it's like when you have a bunch of daughters, LOL!
A thumbhole stock is not too useful in high power airguns, as pretty as they are. Just think about this:
A spring torques when compressing, so it torques when de-compressing. We eliminate much of what we feel by putting delrin, nylamid, steel washers and even needle bearings between spring and the rest of the gun, but the torque is still there. Just do a simple test: Shoot a group with the trigger hand holding the gun firmly and then shoot another with no pressure in the trigger hand except between the hand-pad of the thumb and the trigger finger. Look at the groups and you will see what I mean.
When you put the WHOLE hand in contact with the stock (what a thumbhole is supposed to do, if done properly), then there is no place for the gun to torque out and the muzzle will move.
IMHO, the ONLY spring gun that would benefit significantly from a thumbhole stock would be a 12 ft-lbs D 54.
I am sure there are different opinions and even Diana itself disagrees with me on this, but the tests performed so far are veering in the sense of putting thumbhole stocks ONLY in the 12 ft-lbs rated guns for FT to be released next year at IWA, one is a 54, the other is a 460, both in 0.177".
Now, I am sure the market will then ask for the thumbhole stock in all models, it's part of the American marketing (you know, the "Sniper look"), but if we look at it coldly and only from the performance standpoint, a thumbhole stock is counterproductive in full powered airguns.
I don't have any experience with a 48, but I have a monster of a 460 magnum thanks to John in PA. Was shooting 800-810 fps with 14.3 gr pretune. Post-tune, was shooting 840-850fps. Now after about 1000 pellets, I ran it through my buddy's chrony the other day at the range, and now it shoots 860-870 fps! This gun is strong! Short, crisp lock time with a thunk instead of a twang. Trigger is truly a "hair" trigger. Is surgically accurate too to boot! Purchase a 460. I KNOW you will be happy with it!
Sixto, on the HW35 and HW55; I have them both and while they're also both excellent, they're also different enough from each other to warrant just what you wrote.
The spring latch of the 35 is purely a field design. Quick and efficient. When it locks you trust it.
The cam lock of the 55 is purely a ten meter line design. So deliberate, so solid feeling. One is akin to an automatic of the design while the other is the manual shift. I love em both.
On your thoughts Hector, about the 460 as a 12 fpe machine. I would be interested in the length of the shot cycle for that rifle in that configuration. They seem to be finicky and I wonder is 12 fpe would increase or decrease that sensitivity?
Hey, now that you're in the US, we should find some time in the spring to shoot together. Send an email if you're interested. If we time it right, I have a thirty five acre plot we could hit before planting time. If we miss that, there's still more than enough land and places we can have a little airgunnery fun around here.
I Still have to go to México and pack and get a house and the whole Relocation thing, so I will be busy, but I think spring should be manageable.
What you say about the shot cycle of the 54 and the 460 is PRECISELY my point of contention with M&G (Diana). I would like a shortstroked version of the guns with high pre-compression of the piston with a long spacer. But they feel that a simple weaker spring should do.
I am convinced that a properly done 54 would clean the FT world like a storm, but costs these days play a very important role.
We all have to start somewhere. I have been shooting airguns for over two decades, & I am still learning new stuff all the time. You can learn a lot from the people in this forum & in other forums, but be careful there is also a lot of misinformation floating around out there. Don't believe the hype about Gamo airguns & stay away from Chinese junk airguns even if it has a Beeman label on it. Leave that stuff to newbies & people who like to experiment & tinker with their toys. It is better to start of with quality German & English stuff. If you try to go cheap by the time you sort out everything that is wrong with the low quality guns(tune-up, trigger job, barrel re-crown or replacement.)you would have ended up spending as much as brand new Diana rifle or a nice used Weirauch. I know that I am going to get a lot of flack from Gamo owners, but I learned my facts from real people that I have met through the years. They will come in to Tim Mcmurray's shop or Bob Newman's at Air-Venture, complaining about some airgun they bought at Wal-Mart looking for a fix for what ever is wrong with it. Most of the time these people end up walking out of the shop with a brand new R9 or an R1 rifle or a nice used Diana rifle & sometimes even a Crosman Discovery.
I am so onto what you're talking about. This is the kind of meat I can really sink my teeth into.
I'll lead with an example. The HW35 was/is considered to be a short stroked R1. Actually its the converse since the 35 came along and people wanted a higher powered version of the same rifle.
The R1 is for all intents and purposes and long stroke 35. What this tells me is that for all the finagling we could put into finding ways (outside possibly one thought I have), it would simplify everything to bastardize a 54 and slam it down to size.
What I'm thinking is that the most reliable idea would be to cut a ring out of the front of the action of a 54 and bring the two halves back together. A lot of work? Absolutely. But the final outcome would give a guaranteed short stroke ie preferred cycle time.
I'm not saying the rifle's action would be pretty but the point is to compete and compete highly.
Another potential idea is to insert some kind of tube inside the chamber where the swept volume would decrease. IF you decrease the internal diameter enough, you might even be able to get away with a stronger spring (than might originally have seemed right) to shorten the cycle time to what you wanted. In essence, I think the decreased swept volume would offset the increased speed of the piston enough to bring the velocity down to where you would want it. So, smaller inner diameter/stronger spring might meet the criteria too.
I have some ideas for the material media to be used as the insert. On top of that, its possible to hone the internal diameter of the insert to exactly what might be called for.
Again, these are just ideas. And they might be really bad ones. Then again, they might be workable. It could also be possible that something in them is usable if not the whole thought.
I'm sure there's some dynamic equation which relates spring tension against diameter to get us somewhere into the ballpark but I don't know what that would be.
Swept volume is the key. Now, do we do same diameter/shorter stroke or do we do decreased diameter with original length stroke but volume swept at a faster rate? I don't know.
taking the piston and installing a longer stem would decrease the stroke since it would cock sooner on the cocking stroke. this would also compress the spring less. having said that, it would also increase the effective weight of the piston/stem assembly since the longer stem would weigh more. spacing the spring from the rear could adjust the spring preload withoug increasing the moving mass.
not sure how you would remove the existing piston stem.
Now that is an interesting idea. I don't know if it would work with the pivot on the cocking stroke but it just might. That's a really interesting idea.
Another thought I had last night was that if the rifles ran an adjustable pressure gas ram they'd essentially become tunable in that way. That might be another possibility. Notorious for short cycle times and very repeatable in their shooting characteristics, this could be a good way to go too.
Yes there is a slight increase in piston weight due to the stem, but that can be overcome using a shorter piston body. The bell would simply move forward a little to compensate for the extra metal in the stem.
The pre-compression of the spring is necessary because beyond the mechanics of the airgun itself, the SHOOTER can and does benefit from a "shorter trigger release to pellet exit" time. It cannot be called lock time, as I once discussed with Larry Durham, but it is the time we need to shorten as much as possible. So we need a pre-compressed spring and a lengthened stem.
Absolutely right!
Diana is thinking that it is best to avoid having those two additional pieces and apparently is thinking of just using a weaker spring.
I remember that conversation. Since then I've decided to refer to it as cycle time. Or just calling it the firing cycle. Everyone seems to know what I mean and no one's corrected me so that's what I'm stickin' with.