I own a fair number of springers, including the following:

RWS 46E, 46 Stutzen, 75, 350 and 460.
HW 50, 80(R1) and 97.

Observations:

Materials: No plastic on the HWs - metal trigger guards, metal triggers, metal end caps, metal safety button, metal spring guide, metal muzzle brake/sight assemblies (on underlevers). I know plastic 'works'. I just prefer metal. (Exception to plastic being adequate: front assembly of the 46 Stutzen - metal screws into plastic thread is just a lazy, cheap non-workable idea.)

Tolerances: The HWs have a snick-snick cocking action, indicative of very tight tolerances. The sounds and feel of the HWs make my Dianas seem loose and clunky indeed. This is especially apparent with the underlevers.

Overall fit/finish: HW bluing and polishing is superior, and HW takes more care with respect details such as chamfering edges of the breech block.

Quality control: I have a 350 with an off center bore, and I know I'm not the only one. My 46 Stutzen had leaky breech seals and a cocking lever that dropped down with every shot, I get the sense HW doesn't send out such mis-manufactured guns; at least, I've never seen one.

Now, Diana has product in areas HW does not mess with; notably, magnums. But, as my magnumitis begins to wane, I find myself not caring so much about the power aspect. And the recoiless 75 remains very cool. It was innovative, and built toward the end of an era when Diana was a very different company - more like Weihrauch.

But, bottom line: Not even a contest. HW, hands down. Better materials, tolerances, fit, finish and QC. If HW can maintain this gap, Diana will eventually become marginalized and positioned as a second-tier choice.

Sorry, fellers. Just sayin'.

I can only comment on two or three of the gun you are talking about.
1 the HW80/R1
2 the 460
3 the RWS 38/350
Out of the box the 80 has the worst fitting plastic spring guide in the world and the 6 thou shims that go in the barrel jaw must have been tighten up by a 20 stone German now we all know that's asking for trouble, also there is no washer to protect the teeth on the piston sleeve from the spring.
The 460 is something new power with lower weight a trad of with plastic, but when I dismantled my 460 I found the quality equal to AA/HWs and in some cases better like the finish of the in side of the piston,it was as smooth as a cylinder,and what HW underlever could match the power of the 460, its in a different class.
I cant comment on the 350 because I don't have one but my 38 has no plastic except for the trigger and look at the 34/38 breach lock up compared with the HWs.
I am just a Diana fan they have got something when you get them right.
Barry

Concerned with safety. The HW doesn't offer the anti-beartrap; game over.

I do have a TX-200 and yes, better, but I got my 46E's for $184 and my most expensive RWS was $350; not so with the TX-200!

I will say the RWS Stutzen approach to holding the underlever and the front stock screws is not to my liking either. I plan to keep it as is until it gets too troublesome, then turn it into a carbine!

poorly sized action tubes seem to be common. this is why the use a pretty soft
seal.

i was looking at a couple of air arms guns today. one was a pro sport and the other were TX 200 guns. those are beautifully made guns. i am considering selling my HW 50s and my Diana 52 and bying a new TW200 mk iii.

As a spring gun enthusiast I am trying to get a small collections of the best as not any gun seems to have it all.
I have so far added a HW80/R1 .22, TX200 HC .177 and now the 460 .22 these are keepers although I have a few others. But I am still looking, and I don't think that you can say that one make is better than the other.
Diana guns have a character something the others don't seem to have although I like them all.
Barry

Why not just sell them and buy equivalent HW's? No real sense in posting a big rag about them. What did you expect? Most Diana's are priced below the equivalent HW. It's sort of like saying my Volkswagen isn't as nicely finished as my Porsche.

As to plastic, pro or con, that isn't really an issue. Many guns, including some top firearms, utilize modern plastics these days. Many springers are pretty heavy to start with. Shedding some weight by replacing metal isn't such a bad idea. Want to throw out delrin guides and use steel or brass?

Sorry you don't feel your Diana's live up to your expectations but, then, you have to know what you are buying in order to meet them.

BTW, there are even nicer guns out there than HW's. Just depends on your level of spending and your criteria.

-the point was more that I think (know) that Diana can do better. I never said I was 'disappointed', although realistically I could have, given the truly garbage-level of some of the engineering and QC I've bought from Diana lately.

Dianas are OK guns. That's pretty much it. Sort of like a Chevy Aveo, or anything else that "get's you there". It took me lots and lots of work to get the 350 and the 46 Stutz. shooting right, which is a shame for >$300-400 pellet guns.

I appreciate your comment re: "nicer guns out there" - but when it comes to springers, name the brands better than HW? There aren't many. Webley is in the drain, BSA's springer output is thin and probably a HW lateral, or a notch below. AA, they're good guns. Not sure they are better than HW (and I do own a Prosport, so am in a good position to evaluate). That's pretty much it.

Diana is in a bad spot - right between the larcenous Chinese, who are nipping at their heels with cheap copies, but beneath the level of premium brand, like a HW. Pandering to the lowest common denominator commoditized 1,000fps consumer is not a smart place to be.

Why not pick it up a notch?

N/T.

a 34 panther and an old 1954 model 27 (I did own a model 48 at one time, but sold it), I would have to agree that the HW's are made better. I own 5 HW guns, 2 AA guns, 1 webley, 1 FWB, and 1 ruger airhawk which is pretty much a copy of the diana 34. After having said that, the 34 costs around $200 and gives R9 performance and is about R9 size. The R9 costs ...what? about $200 more? At the price point of the 34 I think it's a great gun. Mine is not anywhere near stock anymore, but when it was stock, it shot pretty darn good. The big advantage of the HW's is the rekord trigger. The To5 is a good trigger once it breaks in and is well adjusted, but it doesn't match the crispness (especially out of the box) of the rekord. It can get real close once it's tweaked though. As far as QC on compression tube tolerances, I'd bet that diana tubes have about the same QC issues as HW...you can get one with good tolerances or a one with bad tolerances...it's luck of the draw. Yeah, Diana guns use more plastic, but I'm sure that's helping to keep the costs down. I believe the bluing and machining is better on the HW guns. But I've been inside more HW guns. Now if diana still made guns the same way with attention to detail like my old model 27, it would probably be a toss up, but then they'd probably cost just as much as the HW's. I think it all boils down to personal preference and your budget.
Regards, Scott

Pre-WWII German guns I've owned or seen (including the English)are all about equal in quality. They pretty much stayed even through 1950's. If you start looking at guns in the 1960's such as the Walthers, the Diana's are not as nicely finished. Of course, Walthers were more target-oriented and that certainly carried over into their sporter versions. by the 1970's, some brands got a bit more refined while others, like Diana, kept the same philosophy regarding build quality. Aside from their 10M guns, I've found most post-WWII Diana's lean more or less towards the utilitarian side. Not in the sense of garden tools but more in line with decent hunting guns. As a result, you get good performance for a decent price. If you want a better finish, checkering, buttplate and smoother internals, you pay more for a different brand. But that's like anything else in this world.

As has been stated, the 34 is the rough equivalent of an R9. I suppose a 350 or 460 is analogous to an R1. The R9 and R1 are more refined but they also cost more. That means fewer shooters can afford them and those shooters are a part of Diana's market, not HW's.

If you think about it, there really isn't anything to judge here. Diana's aren't HW's. It isn't a contest between the two companies. It's a choice between the buyers.

I'll just say that after 13 years constant use, my Diana 54 can take on any HW or AA springer both for power and shooting characteristics.
I'm not saying its miles better, but its on an equal footing.
It delivers just as much as any modern HW or AA springer and more importantly, accuracy has never been an issue with it.
Dollar for dollar, its up there with the best of them.

On plastic...
I used to think that plastic was not right on any gun, I even went as far as making a metal trigger to replace the plastic one. Truth be said, it was no better or worse than the plastic one.
The other plastic bits were purely cosmetic and in no way detracted from the gun's performance or integrity.
If anything, they made it a bit lighter and allowed the maker to put more metal where it really matters.

Diana produced a mechanically complex springer in the form of the Diana 75.
So yes, Diana have the technical knowhow and can produce quality if they want to.Above all, I love their commitment to springers.

The question we should be asking is is, who can withstand economic pressure most and still produce quality at an affordable price?

Long live the ol' Lady!!

Dont fully agree; HW tolerances, especially internally, are very sloppy. They normally twang like hell. My 34 and 48 dont or hardly twang.Also lots of variation in pistonseal sizes. Breechblock óutside tolerances also vary a lot.
For breakbarrels, HW's usually have a very sloppy cockinglever with lots of play.
Also, the HWdesigns are years behind. They dont offer other stock options or finishes. And they usually use very boring wood too with boring straight stocklines.
So yés their trigger are better, but internal quality isn't.
They are made to be purely functional. Sure the new chequering made it better, but underneath the chequering? Same boring wood..
Diana offers very nice stock and finish options.

I agree with you on QC with Diana's. Have seen 2 sidelevers with cockingproblems from new..Thats a shame..They're dry internally too.
Blueing on Diana surely wás always less than HW. However, they greatly improved. The new finish looks very good. Didnt get a chance to compare it with HW though..
Diana still ís too expensive imo.
HW usually are easier to shoot than Dianas ,dunno why.

Love my Diana's but they do not come close to the smooth, accurate shooting of the HW's. I think Diana's are very good guns, but not great.I think you can just view many recent threads on this very forum to see the many problems that are listed. You could very well start with the Diana trigger. Not a bad plastic trigger, but come on. Do you really think they were installing this trigger to have the best quality or to cut cost? Where else have they cut corners? It seems that in most cases you get what you pay for. Most of the time it is wiser to pay a little more. I think it is interesting to see how Diana has positioned themselves in the market place. When you go to a big box store, you will see the Gamo's and the cheap Beeman's, and then you more up to the RWS Diana line. You will not see ANY HW's or Beeman R series. I think RWS themselves would tell you that they are a middle grade gun. Above the real cheap stuff but not on the Level of the HW's or R'series. It is what it is!

JMO
dave@vabch

As hear in the UK Diana cost more than HWs and AA, example sorry it is not in dollars, HW97, 315 pounds,AA TX 200, 310 pounds,HW80 290 pounds, RWS 350, 360 Pounds,RWS 460, 375 Pounds.

Beeman is the sole importer for HW product for the US. They skim an unseemly percentage off every unit, driving the price up considerably, and adding no value in the process.

Yeaaa, Beeman!

So Dianas end up "cheaper", here, mostly due to the heavy HW mark-up Beeman imposes. Savvy US buyers source HW from Canadian dealers, routinely saving ~$100/unit. This tactic minimizes/eliminates the price differential.

Ok, the triggers, again. I just got an Air Hawk. This gun has the steel trigger which was sold here as a T05 replacement recently. It is metal but, to be truthful, I have a mid-Sixties Milbro (cheaper Scottish copy of the Diana 27) which has a much more finely machined trigger. Wider, smoother and must be a good grade of aluminum because it's about like new in a gun that was pretty rusty. I really don't care what the triggers in my guns are made of so long as they do the job, don't wear out and feel ok. In that respect, they aren't a mark of low quality or penny-pinching design modifications.

Yes, Diana's are usually the highest priced guns in the sporting goods stores. Same as Remington and Winchester bolt actions. You want Weatherby's or Kimbers, you go to the gun shop. I guess HW's are like that. That's ok. Just remember, new shooters aren't as willing to dump $500 into an air gun as they may be into a firearm. For those, Diana offers a good product at a reasonable price. You aren't sacrificing a lot in the way of quality. Now that the Chinese are cranking out good copies of both companies' guns, that distinction has been over-shadowed. Folks should think back fifteen or twenty years (if they are old enough to recall those days) when there were no Chinese guns and Diana's filled that niche of a decent gun at a decent price.

The trigger part that we see and is touched by the finger, is the least critical component in the whole trigger system. Sure some can be more comfortable to reach or feel, but that's just about it.
Its main function is to simply lever the other parts that are holding the piston back.
These smaller parts are more critical because the stresses are considerable and they are made of hardened metal with correctly ground edges.
These parts and their geometric arrangement is what makes a great or mediocre trigger.
As long as the internal parts of the trigger system are up to the job and give a predictable let-off each and every time, I dont care what the curly bit is made of.

Just curious, but I would like the question answered, WHY ALL THE PLASTIC? aS Stephar stated"
"Materials: No plastic on the HWs - metal trigger guards, metal triggers, metal end caps, metal safety button, metal spring guide, metal muzzle brake/sight assemblies (on underlevers). I know plastic 'works'. I just prefer metal. (Exception to plastic being adequate: front assembly of the 46 Stutzen - metal screws into plastic thread is just a lazy, cheap non-workable idea.)"

Just doesn't add up. Why would you have a plastic safety button, and all the other plastic on a "Great Gun"? I guess I would feel let down if HW and the Beeman R series all of a sudden started coming out with plastic parts as well. There really should be a better answer than "I don't care about the plastic trigger". I really hope the day never comes when your next R7 will come to you shipped with plastic parts. God help us all.

Dave

That's easy, it's easier/less expensive to manufacture intricate parts from plastic than it is to machine them from metal. There is no doubt about it, I'm all for an end product that is machined from metal (none of those cast pot metal parts....). The RWS sight/underlever holder part on the 46 (not the Stutzen) & 460 works great and would certainly be complex to machine. I don't know if they save that much on the little trigger parts, but they certainly take heat for it! RWS uses a high quality (I think it is ABS) plastic that seems to be holding up fine. All that notwithstanding, they used to say vinyl siding lasted forever - we now are seeing some problems with chalking - My 50+ year stone house is just a baby in the life of that material!

It's perfectly all right for me not to worry if my trigger is plastic, metal or made out of tofu. Sure, it would be nice if all guns came with all metal parts. It would be nice if the more expensive guns like HW's came with milled trigger guards, too, but they don't. I, for one, am not going to worry about it.

Dave

Me, I'm having myself a nice Guinness a day early. I suggest you try and do the same. If you can accept it's being made in Canada these days, that is. My, how EVERYTHING has gotten cheaper these daze!

In all reality Red, I really don't care one way or the other. In fact, as long as a guy is enjoying his gun or beer, is what it is all about. In fact when I was a young lad, I use to love Ballentine Ale!Some of my best day's were drinking that beer. I have moved on to more sophisticated Brews, but the fun is not nearly as much as the old days.

Cheers!
dave
Ps you just made me thirsty, and it is not even 3pm yet!

Same with Pabst Blue Ribbon. Miss their special run of Bock they used to do about this time of year with the goat's head imbedded in the ribbon. Speaking of which, you probably had some Ram's Head, as well. Original, imported Lowenbrau, Rheingold, all gone now. Too bad vintage beers don't age as well as those vintage air guns. Even Mad Magazine has changed. Now it's full of ads and cartoons that would have had my rear end spanked for reading them!

I don't know much about airguns and before I bought my 54 Airking I went through many reviews about different brands and reached the conclusion that I will end up with a rifle that will accompany me over the next ten years or so.
I decided that I will have to spend more money in order to have ten joyful years instead of repeating frusation.
Thus I went for my 54.
Along with a rifle bag and the BSA scope I paid 770 Euros which seemed pretty much...

Well, my rifle is still pretty new (500 rouds shot yet) but I think I can already say that this rifle was worth each Euro spent.

Surely a metal trigger would be much nicer but the T05 seems to do its job pretty well.
As for the other plastic parts I could not care less.

My five (Euro)Cents :D

I need to get mine out and shoot it at the range once the weather turns warmer. Mine is in .177. I spent more for this gun than I have for any other and agree that it is well worth it. As I've said, the plastic trigger isn't an issue for me. Have one on another gun and it works well for that, as well. I was looking at yet a different rifle yesterday with a black trigger and had to tap it a couple of times to determine if it were some kind of metal alloy or matte finished plastic. If it's that hard to tell the difference, I can't say there really seems to be one.

The most important thing is how does the gun shoot? I've seen some gorgeous guns that don't shoot nearly as good as they look. I shot three rifles yesterday. Just a small group from each for the heck of it. The last gun I shot was an older Daisy 880 pneumatic. Of the three, it grouped the best - five shots under a dime (at about twenty feet in the basement), using a peep sight.

One thing you pointed out that is, generally, true. Spring air rifles weigh a bit more than rimfires. I have a Romanian Cugir single shot trainer (Mauser action) that handles like a K98. My Ruger Air Hawk feels about the same in my hands. Comes from that big spring and piston, I suppose.

"rimfire"! Yup. THAT was the expression I was lacking. Sorry for my english.
I'm afraid my 54 Airking is spoiling me completely.
My opinion:
For hunting small game I'd use a .22 rimfire up to a distance of about 50 yards.
Every shot beyond that range cannot be considered well aimed and the impact energy loss of the bullet drastically reduces the chance of a clean and deadly hit. This only applies to standard lr .22's since a CCI Stinger would deliver deadly energy even to 100 yards - but without real accuracy.
Compared with standard .22 lr ammo, I dare say my 54 not only matches a rimfire rifle but surpasses it because of its higher accuracy.
Lastly I believe that on the long run this 54 of mine will be cheaper then, say, a Savage MK II since air rifle ammo is dirt cheap when compared with rimfire.