Initial thoughts, a question on custom stocks, and spring gun tuningMay 14 2017 at 11:10 PM
|TNairgunner (Login TNairgunner)|
So as of yet I've made one post on my recently acquired HW95 purchased for the sole purpose of being a light weight woods walker. I previously had a HW50s in .177 and absolutely loved it however it left me desiring a bit more power. So I got the 95 and based on some recommendations from the forum i topped it with a little BSA 2x7 and got to shooting and after a quick sight in at 30 yards here are a few observations. Obviously the Rekord leaves very little to be desired but i was surprised with shot cycle of this rifle, I may have had an odd ball example of a 50s but the 95 seems to have a smoother more docile shot cycle in comparison. Now I've only had the time to tinker around at 30yrds but so far from a rest the rifle is shooting under a dime sized groups with .22 JSBs and prefers a loose-ish grip up front with a tight grasp on the rear. I sighted in and tinkered with the JSBs right off the bat and was happy with the groups so far but i decided to shoot a couple Crosman HPs i had laying around and believe it or not the rifle shot to the same point of impact but my groups opened up just a hair and it preferred a much looser grip all around, I was just barely touching the rifle. During this time a starling made the unfortunate decision to scare my songbirds off the feeder so i swiveled on the bench, settled the crosshairs, and squeezed easy. Needless to say the rifle can shoot! I am sincerely looking forward to spring squirrel season here as we have had a bumper crop of bushy tails this year! Now on to custom stocks! So I am also a PB guy and I am absolutely enamored with one rifle stock in particular. That stock belongs to a 60's Ruger M77. My question to those who own and have dabbled in custom stocks is would it be possible to recreate the same stock but build it to fit the HW95? Would it work, could it be done, why/why not?? Final question, if i wanted to maintain the current power level/velocity of my stock HW95 and simply wanted to tone down the shot cycle (think smoother,quieter, solid thunk), what tune would I go with?
A custom stock maker, or you if you have the skills
|May 15 2017, 8:45 AM |
could definitely copy a near style and fit it. I guess I am surprised that a higher powered HW has a smoother shot cycle than your older 50; but that may be because something needed replaced on your 50.
You can keep the same power level/velocity and smooth the shot cycle even more by sending to a good tuner of your choice. I've never talked to Mr. Maccarri and I don't know how active he is any longer in custom springs. He's an expert though and would be a good place to buy a custom, better spring with the same power results. Tight spring guides, Maccarri stick on buttons, or counter sunk precision set buttons would improve it. Some tuners can even make a custom weighted piston, seal, cut grooves and fit rings to guide the piston as true as possible. A Sunnen honing machine might as well be used if you're going for that much of an advanced tune.
I have opinions that aren't always correct; but I believe EVERYONE here who knows boo about spring guns will tell you Mr. Paul Watts is a WIZARD with all spring guns. David Slade, although busy with RAW can also be hired. These 2 World famous tuners, known by all serious Air Gunners are not the cheapest; but they probably are the best and Mr. Watts definitely has the equipment (a Sunning Honing machine to cross hatch & true chamber is NOT cheap) to make it as fine a shooter as possible. If you do have the cash and hire them, I suggest asking one time what your turn around time may be. I do know NO tuner likes being called often and feeling rushed. I don't know their turn around times.
On the other hand I can guarantee you that John in PA is also VERY good at tuning spring guns. He usually uses Vortek kits but you can have him go with a specialty Maccarri spring also. John, or JIPA as I call him for short will have your gun done and returned within 2 weeks and I'd think you'd be very happy with the noticeable improvements in shot cycle, trigger adjustment, improved accuracy, less hold sensitivity, and affordability. You can also have him cut your choke off or cut and add a customized choke. Depends on what you want to shoot, and what your rifles barrel prefers.
On the JSB to Crosmans. I've noticed Crosmans are perfectly fine out to 50 yards in my air guns. If I want superior accuracy at longer ranges, I usually have to find a JSB that certain rifle prefers best.
I once owned an AZ .22 Rapid that shot NOTHING as well as cheap Crosman Hollow Points at 100 yards. Go figure that one. Domes are usually always more accurate than hollow points and JSB's are usually always more accurate than Crosmans at longer ranges. It's the only rifle I've ever owned that did that though.
Simple thoughts and unbeatable combinations for the R-9.
|May 15 2017, 8:51 AM |
When it comes to tuning an R-9 I would use Macarri internal parts only.
When it comes to Airgun stocks I go to Steve Corcoran. The thing I like about his work is that it is simple, honest, and ergonomically correct for airguns. Once you hold one of his stocks you get the impression that he actually made that stock for himself. Also, words cannot describe the satisfaction one gets when shouldering one of his stocks with Steve's actual deep hand cut checkering that just grabs your hands when handling them.
These two matching stocks are on matching limited edition R-9's that are both .177 and .20 caliber. Keepers fer sure!
Nearly mirrors my R9 .20 cal!
|May 15 2017, 1:16 PM |
Right down to the Steve Corcoran stock, but I used a Vortek SHO kit, and could not be happier.
Man that is a gorgeous pair!
|May 15 2017, 4:33 PM |
What are your thoughts on the .20 cal??
You didn't ask me, but...
|May 15 2017, 7:33 PM |
I love the twenty! Have/had several centerfires in .20 and am a believer.
I love that target! Good shooting! NT
|May 16 2017, 12:28 AM |
Concerning the "spring gun tuning" part, and..........
|May 15 2017, 9:33 AM |
"if i wanted to maintain the current power level/velocity of my stock HW95 and simply wanted to tone down the shot cycle"
IMHO....the power level of a springer directly affects the "tone of the shot cycle". While not light the HW95/R9 is relatively light for the power output which means that at full factory power it's "jumpy". If the weight of the HW95/R9 were reduced by perhaps replacing the heavier beech stock with a lighter walnut stock the gun would become "jumpier" unless the power output was "adjusted down". If the internal sealing is functioning properly and you're only concerned with "twang and vibration" then the correction is to install a tight fitting spring guide and top hat which will stop the "spring oscillation after the shot" quieting things down. Considering that you're shooting ".22 cal" this may be your only option if you want to maintain "current power".
I do realize that lower power tunes with the .22 cal bore may not be good due to the loopier trajectory of the pellet. LOL...even with "greater than factory power tunes" I found that both .20 and .22 cal barrels on my R9s gave me an unsatisfactory LOOPY trajectory curve so I sold both the .20 and .22 cal barrels reverting back to .177 cal "never to look back". I found that a springer of the HW95 power level and weight the .177 cal worked best (for me), however as long as the shots didn't exceed my 30 yard zero distance it didn't matter if the barrel was .177, .20 or .22! It was past my zero distance that the trajectory of the larger calibers became so "loopy" that the actual "range guessing" was too critical for my shooting skills.
60's Ruger M77 stock shape for HW95
|May 15 2017, 11:20 AM |
The American Classic stock shape on the 60's era Ruger M77 is my favorite stock shape, though I prefer a cheekpiece to add additional 'interest' as they call it in art. The HW95 is one of the most popular spring gun actions out there. I've carved several stocks for HW95 (R9).
Here's a picture of the M77 stock:
I've just finished a Classic for HW30 without the cheekpiece. This picture is with the first coat of oil, I haven't taken pictures of it in it's finished state yet, and below that are a couple of stocks I made for HW95 that do have the cheekpiece:
I'd like to vouch for Michael's skills. I owned one of
|May 15 2017, 11:31 AM |
his R1's and he designs the stocks so recoil is absorbed or directed a certain way. His stocks allow you to keep your sight picture and see the pellet travel. Not always, but much better than any other springer I've tried. You don't have to go with super fancy exhibition grade Walnut; but he offers it. If you want gorgeous and have the cash, he is a very fine stock maker.
|May 15 2017, 4:23 PM |
Man oh man!!! The stock on that hw30 has my mouth watering!!!! What beautiful work my man, you wouldn't have a website would you??
Michael is a good guy
|May 16 2017, 12:48 AM |
Haven't had the chance to buy a stock from him yet, but have spoke to him through email. Very nice guy and turns out some awesome looking stocks.
Here's his website:http://www.airgunstocks.com/
Thank ya kindly!
|May 16 2017, 3:30 AM |
I appreciate the link. I'm glad to here his reputation matches his work!!
|May 15 2017, 7:16 PM |
Does having the comb that low make it hard to get a consistent cheek weld with a scope ?
Ie: do you end up with a jawbone anchor point on typical 4x12x42 scopes ?
re. comb height and why I like the American Classic shape
|May 16 2017, 3:18 AM |
I usually design around a 2" dimension from center of optic to top of comb (or the average of the comb height if it slants).
Typically the American Classic stock on a firearm has it's comb height equal to or at most perhaps 1/4" lower than the top of the forearm and has minimal if any drop. Airguns can have special dimension requirements (not so much spring guns, but PCP guns do), so I focus on the critical dimensions: Design starts with the trigger location. It sets the back of the wrist and the pistol grip position. From there the top of the action determines the center of the optic (eye). From there determines the top of the comb (eye to just below the cheekbone). From there determines the drop to the shoulder (even though this dimension is specified from the datum of the top of the forearm, that location is only tangentially relevant, what's really being measured is cheek to shoulder based on head position).
Outside of fitting the above dimensions to one's body, the only part that is really changeable in a design consideration way is drop. Small bore or other minimal or zero recoiling guns used in offhand target shooting disciplines like 10m benefit from the significantly dropped stock. Lots of drop raises the head up (like 10m guns), has a maximum limit of being able to fit in a blank of wood, and makes recoiling guns harder to do follow through with (because recoil is operating through an angle instead of coming straight back).
Less drop fits in blanks easier (making it easier to follow the grain through the pistol grip for example), makes follow through easier on recoiling guns (recoil is not operating through an angle), and lowers the head.
In one sense the lowered head is a trade off accepted by the necessity with heavy recoiling guns to not operate through the large angle that drop creates. A heavy recoiling gun in a significantly dropped stock is challenging, or maybe painful is a better word, so we put up with a low head position.
However the American Classic minimally dropped shape has another advantage for hunting regardless of recoil, and is why I am so fond of the shape: it enhances the pointing aspect of shooting. It has the feeling of 'laying down' on the stock with one's head. This shape can support a slightly longer length of pull. I feel this shape enhances the pointing aspect of shooting because it is like if you quickly and aggressively were to point at something with your finger, you would reach out your arm, lean your body forward, and even perhaps lean your head forward almost as if to lay it down on your arm/shoulder if you were really stretching straight forward with your arm and really aggressively getting your whole body involved with pointing at that thing out there. The American Classic stock shape makes shooting feel a bit like that, as if the gun is an extension of pointing. That's what I like about it so much, particularly on a hunting arm.
|This message has been edited by perfcomp on May 16, 2017 3:19 AM|
Optics on American Classic stocks
|May 16 2017, 7:36 PM |
The 2" drop from the top of the action to the top of the comb sounds like it would work well for iron sights - or maybe optics that are the approximate diameter of an eyeball. (Like the rimfire scopes with 28-32mm objective lenses).
But what about scopes with larger objectives ? What's the maximum diameter scope that typically works well with the American Classic stock ? (Assuming the shooter wants to rest their cheekbone on the comb, and has an average sized head
High optic=high comb, low optic=lower comb
|May 17 2017, 2:07 AM |
The Leapers high mount 30mm has the center of it's tube hole at 1.42 inches. Half the tube diameter of an HW80 (as a largish example diameter), is about .5" above the wood of the forearm. This comes out to 1.92" from center of optic to forearm, so the top of the comb for this example would be virtually in line with the top of the forearm, as Classic stocks typically are.
Low mounted 1" tube optics on a small diameter spring gun are the next lowest, which is 1 1/16" (optic + 1/2 compression tube height). This would suggest a 7/8" lower comb, but as the head gets lower, the vertical distance between the eye and the cheekbone is less. I made just such a stock recently and I think the comb is about 1/2" lower than the top of the forearm which the math says would be 1 9/16" or so for center of optic to comb.
With iron sights, the sight sits maybe 1/2" above the compression tube, plus a 1/2" of tube, so for an iron sight gun the comb would need to be 1" below the top of the forearm. One way to achieve that is with drop which lowers the contact point of the comb. This further helps the situation by raising the low sights up so the head doesn't have to be too low down.
The head up position of a significantly dropped stock is what we all have experience with in airgunning; a classic minimally dropped stock is a completely different feeling. It's primary design influence is to put recoil in a straight line to the shoulder and not operate through an angle. This results in a design compromise in that one has to lay the head down as opposed to a more vertical head position. On the other hand, the low head position accentuates the pointing aspect. It is a very cool feeling, quite different from the target stock's upright head position, which of course also has it's application.
In the end it's a choice of the aesthetics of the comb height determining the optic, or the optic determining the comb height.
|Paul in Zhills|
My HW97K experience
|May 15 2017, 12:52 PM |
I bought this beautiful rifle in .177 caliber. Initially, it shot well and accurately, but with a noticeable twang. Thinking that shooting a couple of tins of pellets would break it in and tone down the twang didn't work. So I installed a Vortex spring kit and seal. I only used two of the five washers that came with the kit because I wanted it to shoot smoothly and I wasn't that concerned with power. The kit worked as advertised. The twang was gone and it shot about the same velocity as original, maybe a few fps more. I think after breaking in, the velocity will drop some as the spring takes a set. This is what I want. However, the shot cycle has a definite "snap" to it, not the "thunk" that I expected. Regardless, I'm not taking it apart again.