Fun pondering the next gun. Hmmm.

[Tallbald]

I've occasionally read here that some new airgunners enjoy looking forward to the next gun purchase, even before the new has worn off the rifle they recently bought. I guess it's part of the fun of the hobby. I am no different, in that so impressed with the build quality of my new Diana 34 Classic, I could see myself selling off another powder burner to fund another quality springer. So my question is this: Suppose I did have freed up $500 I felt I could put toward a .22 caliber springer, and wanted either a side cocking or under-lever cocking rifle. What direction should I look? Don

[robtmc]

Decades ago when I had my old Hammerli side cocker, I loved how I could get into a prone position and reload just by rolling over slightly.  Barrel cockers require such a complete disruption of the shooting rhythm.

Dunno which model RWS or HW it is, but there is a beautiful side cocker I think about, especially after my efforts at getting a cheap Benji Trail NP to shoot well.  I think I may owe it to myself to get a quality German rifle again.

[ac12]

Another rifle to consider is a "nice" low power rifle, such as a R7 or HW30.
A few of us are low power converts.
I enjoy shooting a low power rifle more than I do my medium power rifle.  Sort of like a 22RF, you can shoot all day w/o getting tired or sore from cocking a spring rifle with a high cocking effort.  Also the low power spring rifles are easier to shoot more accurately than a medium/high power spring rifle.  There is less recoil/vibration to deal with.

You may have to sell 2 PB rifles.  $500 will not quite get you a good air rifle, plus you need to get a good scope to match.

You want build quality, I suggest something like an Air Arms TX200 or HW97K.
Here are a few options, with US prices (from StraightShooters) and weight.
- Air Arms TX200 (under lever, about $600, 9.4 pounds),
- HW97K (under lever, bit above $600, 9.3 pounds). 
- RWS-48 (side lever, about $400, 8 pounds),
- RWS-54 (recoilless side lever, about $560, 10.4 pounds)

BTW, your 34 is also available in 22cal.

If you plan to walk and hunt, weight is a factor with these rifles. 
If you will be shooting from a fixed position, then weight won't matter...much.

[Tallbald]

AC12 you and the others make a good point about the 34  in .22. Perhaps going to a magnum .22 would be making the same mistake I made years ago when I taught myself wood turning on a small lathe. Within a year, I became convinced that I would benefit most from a full sized lathe. I bought and had shipped to me a rather pricey full sized one, and although I have put its size to good use for a number of things over the years, I never did really find I needed it like I thought I did. Most all the stuff I've used it for could have been done with some creative thinking on the handier, smaller lathe. The only hunting I ever expect to do again is small game such as rabbits and squirrels, and from the postings I read, many believe the 34 with accurate shot placement would be good for that out to maybe 30 yards (I hope I am remembering correctly).
 Also where another rifle is concerned, weight is indeed a factor. I have lifting restrictions, and with a right leg that sometimes quits without warning causing me to fall, I'd hate to drop my 34, much less a $600 combo. Thinking it through...another 34 in .22 with good glass like the Hawke 3-9X40 would also give me the advantage of similar muscle memory. Folks, I want each of you to know how much I appreciate your all's time sharing with me your thoughts and insight. Don

[thekid]

2...34's, I personally do not see a problem with that.

[Dockey 454]

I'm going with Rob on this one. A 34 in 22, then there is enough money for a decent scope, and maybe a little toward a tune kit.
Tom

[Booger]

No problem with 2 34's, and then get them tuned. You will be glad you did, but on the other hand I love my TX200MK3's. One is being tuned, the other will be tuned, and the D-34 .177 will also be tuned. Once tuned the D-34's are sweet and deadly accurate. The TX200's feel tuned right out of the box. Also consider pellets are much cheaper than bullets.

Then again, what do I know? I have only been shooting since November, and before that it was 37 years ago since I shot last, and that was a Vietnam era M-16.

[Petey]

Get a 48.............you'll love it.

[amb5500c]

You're thinking in the right direction. Any of the above mentioned guns will make you proud to own them.
Richard

[Tallbald]

The 48 is really handsome. Wow. But the weight could be trouble for me, unless I'm missing something. And I flat out could not afford a TX, beautiful though they are. Let me ask this folks. What would a tune do for my 34, who does them, and how expensive is a tune? Am I remembering incorrectly or would a 30 yard head shot with a 34 on a squirrel be stretching it? Thanks. Don

[thekid]

The 48 is really handsome. Wow. But the weight could be trouble for me, unless I'm missing something. And I flat out could not afford a TX, beautiful though they are. Let me ask this folks. What would a tune do for my 34, who does them, and how expensive is a tune? Am I remembering incorrectly or would a 30 yard head shot with a 34 on a squirrel be stretching it? Thanks. Don

30 yard headshot on a squirrel is definitely not stretching it.
The 34's have the ability to reach out quite some distance, it is limited only to the shooter, have popped sparrows in the head at 35-40 yards. They have the power to humanely put down a squirrel at roughly 50 yards if you can pull off the shot.
I have taken so many shots on critters, some might find questionable with the 34's, they are more accurate then the operator. The better you become acquainted with it, the better the team becomes.

[Tallbald]

Rob what caliber is your 34 if I may ask? I hope not to ignite a debate, but as a rule of thumb does retained energy of the .22 beat out the flatter trajectory and higher velocity of the .177, given an equal headshot at a given distance? I ask of course because I already own the .177 version. Don

[thekid]

I have both calibers, that is why I stated " I personally do not see a problem with this" owning 2 34's.

The difference between the 2 is not much, in terms of energy down range.
My 34 .22 stock was 16fpe, with 14.3gr cp boxed domes, at 55 yards should have about 9fpe left.
My 34 .177 stock was just shy 15fpe, with cphp's at 55 yards should have a hair under 8 fpe left.

If you follow Beemans guide a squirrel only needs 3 fpe for a kill with a head shot, (many will disagree) however have taken my fair share with a sub 500fps air rifle. The .177 will penetrate deeper then the .22 at that distance.
Both have been used on fury critters up to 50 yards, depending on the animal. Birds a lot further.

[Tallbald]

Thank you all for the input and points to ponder. Perhaps another 34 in .22 when and if the time comes, would be my best choice. Certainly it would leave more money for quality glass. I can still admire other's 48's, TX's, and finely made rifles from a distance.  Don

[Oldgringo]

Don, have you looked into a used Daisy Avanti 853 from the CMP?  Perhaps you qualify for a new one?  I'm plum tickled with mine.

Back on point, my next air rifle after the very next one may just be a .22 caliber.  It's a lot cheaper to shoot only one caliber but what the 'hey", we only go 'round once.

[ac12]

I still think you need to get a good LOW powered gun.
Some people just blow off the low power rifles, but the practical accuracy of a low powered gun can be amazing.  If you have trouble with a medium/high power spring rifle, a low power spring rifle will be much easier to shoot accurately.

Similar to Gregg (aka Oldgringo) I like my x53 rifles.  In fact I shoot my 953 the most of ALL my air rifles.  Once you do the trigger tune it is a very nice rifle to shoot.  The SSP rifles have NO recoil or vibration when you shoot, making them much eaiser to shoot accurately than anything but a recoilless match springer or a PCP.  The only limitation is your eyes...can you see the target to hit it?  With a scope, I can pick off flies at 10 meters/yards.  I primarily use mine for 10 ring target shooting at 10 meter distance.

[airnutz]

I agree fully with ac12.  Power is not everything.  I have a couple of classic match German rifles that are a thrill to shoot.  As ac12 says, swatting flies is good practice.  You usually don't have to worry about the mess either, nothing is left to clean up.

A couple shoot fairly strong also, and are still quite accurate.  625 to 675 is not bad for a precision gun.

No recoil!

[huklbery]

I vote for low power for backyard shooting as well.  I keep a HW30s with a rear peep, its just fun to zen out and shoot repeatedly.  The distraction with it, picking up a binocular periodically to see where it's hitting paper, the groups are always better than my ability to see.

I'm enamoured with the CZ 200's and how they are lights out in their power range.  This got me to thinking I should find a CZ break barrel.  Sure enough the most recent one is still made as an affordable plinker and can be found here and there on the Inet in the USA. 

http://www.czub.cz/en/catalog/84-air-guns-cz/VSP/Slavia_634_Colour.aspx

I bought one and found it to be a hoot, much like a more powerful more conventional design build on par with the Baikal 60/61.  The first one turned out to be real accurate despite the Scratchy/Drag's on the 1st stage of the trigger. 

A friend was in need of a gun and the B19 Crosman I had given her was just to much in weight and cocking effort.  I substituted the Slavia and she was taking out X's in her first 6 shots at 10m rested elbow (She is a former Marine just hasn't shot in years).  I was sweating the second one I ordered to replace the first, just in case the first one was *the* charmed 1 out of a 100 rifle. Yesterday I shot the second one after mounting a bug buster 6x  for 100 pellets or so, its as good or better than the 1st rifle.

All I can say is its like shooting the BB gun again as a kid, its light and cocking is nothing, hefting it to shoulder and thinking the pellet to target is natural.  The sight picture remains through the scope because of the low kick, just briefly disappearing. 

The build quality is good, like the Baikal stuff they spent the money on a machined lever arm rather than formed sheet metal, things of that nature.  They did not spend it on the finish or blueing.  It feels like a highly refined old school gun that never got into the FPS war's in the 80's.  The plastic stock with more rubbery plastic tactile inserts is quite nice, again because of the low power its not the problem it is in magnums nowadays.

Just allot of fun for under $200 

[huklbery]

The 48 is really handsome. Wow. But the weight could be trouble for me, unless I'm missing something. And I flat out could not afford a TX, beautiful though they are. Let me ask this folks. What would a tune do for my 34, who does them, and how expensive is a tune? Am I remembering incorrectly or would a 30 yard head shot with a 34 on a squirrel be stretching it? Thanks. Don

The balance of a D48 is different than an underlever even with the same weight.  I find the D48 much easier to heft and control than I do the TX200 or XS46U.  I bought mine used and I suspect its a carbine version as it has a very short barrel.  Its the heaviest rifle I have that I reach for first and I actually keep it in my truck in case  run into a shooting opportunity.  Cocking it for me is also easier than a break barrel (of the same power), it would certainly complement a D34.

[ac12]

Mark,
You are lucky you were able to find a replacement for your 634.  The 63x series has not been imported for quite a while.  The 631 was not imported even longer ago than the 634.

See if you can find yourself a 631.  It is the low power version of the 634.  When they were imported (several years ago), they were known as the poor man's R7, accurate and easy to shoot.

The only thing that bugs me about the Slavia 63x series (besides not being imported into the US) is that they have a non-standard 14mm sight rail.  So you need to get a special scope mount, and the red-dots with integral 22RF rails end up being offset from the centerline of the barrel.  I think they were designed to use a Slavia diopter sight, not a scope, so it did not matter to them that the sight rail was a non-standard width.