Author Topic: R1 de-tuned to 14 to 16fpe as a sticks and bucket, HFT style, rifle? (Read 5439 times))

MikeSSS · « **on:** January 13, 2014, 02:37:45 AM »

Most of my shooting is done HFT style, sitting and using shooting sticks. I want an accurate, easy to cock, easy to load and easy to shoot springer. I have other, lighter, air rifles for wandering and plinking.

Break barrels are a lot easier to load than side and under lever spring guns, for me.

My shooting is done at HFT distances, 10 to 55 yards but sometimes farther.

I'm thinking the heavier R1 or HW80, shooting at the power level of an R9/HW95 and Diana 34, might just be the ticket.

At present I shoot a T01 D-34 and am saving for an R9. I also shoot PCP and CO2 rifles but for some reason like springers the best.

What do you think?

Mike

JimL911 · « **Reply #1 on:** January 13, 2014, 04:05:44 AM »

I think getting an 80/R1 in .177 is wasting a good power plant. I would just get the 98. It was designed to be an FT gun.

Mark 611 · « **Reply #2 on:** January 13, 2014, 04:51:48 AM »

I agree with Jim

l8p · « **Reply #3 on:** January 13, 2014, 09:58:01 AM »

I bought a Beeman R9 "Silver Trigger" Sunday. Should arrive Thursday. Taking it to Yegua AC on Sunday to get some opinions. Will post my findings.

palonej · « **Reply #4 on:** January 13, 2014, 02:00:28 PM »

I have a 98 in 177. This rifle is built like a tank, is ridiculously accurate, not pellet or hold fussy, plenty of power and is not too heavy. Great HFT rig!!

IRONWORKER · « **Reply #5 on:** January 13, 2014, 04:40:46 PM »

I've got a Paul Watts tuned .177 R1 & honestly prefer a R9 to it.....

IMHO R1s are best in .20 & .22

tjk · « **Reply #6 on:** January 13, 2014, 07:48:38 PM »

I could see that if you tune it down. And here is why. The weight of the r1 in conjunction with a lighter powered engine would not be very conducive to much hold sensitivity, so I say give it a 'shot' and see how it goes. You'll never know until you try. Everyone shoots and interpreters their springers differently. I do agree with the other posters in that the R1 is overpowered in .177,.....BUT, it's not so bad and performs much better with heavier .177 pellets in return. At least from my experience. Lots of good advice given in this thread so I won't argue with that. But dont be afraid to experiment on your own either. Good luck.

palonej · « **Reply #7 on:** January 13, 2014, 08:34:39 PM »

That's a good point. I have a 56 in 177 and with JSB 10.3 at 925 fps she is one accurate beast!!! I won't shoot anything "light" thru it.

PrunedaleMike · « **Reply #8 on:** January 13, 2014, 11:54:51 PM »

Try a .177 R9. Ed Canoles on Yellow does real good with the R9.

MikeSSS · « **Reply #9 on:** January 14, 2014, 05:04:55 AM »

Quote from: PrunedaleMike on January 13, 2014, 11:54:51 PM

Try a .177 R9. Ed Canoles on Yellow does real good with the R9.

Yes he does! I am sort of copying how Ed does things because he does what works well. I'll have an R9 in the near future. He uses his R9 for both HFT and hunting, so he needs a rifle that is light enough to carry while hunting.

My situation is a bit different. I want a very accurate springer for HFT practice, I'll probably shoot a PCP in matches and have two for that purpose. The R1/HW80 seemed a good choice for my use, especially if de-tuned some. The HW 98 is a rifle I did not know about, but after reading some it seems like the logical choice.

Anybody know what the differences are between the R1/HW80 and the HW98, in shooting characteristics?

Thanks,

Mike

nced · « **Reply #10 on:** January 14, 2014, 09:59:56 AM »

Quote from: MikeSSS on January 13, 2014, 02:37:45 AM

Most of my shooting is done HFT style, sitting and using shooting sticks. I want an accurate, easy to cock, easy to load and easy to shoot springer. I have other, lighter, air rifles for wandering and plinking.

Break barrels are a lot easier to load than side and under lever spring guns, for me.

My shooting is done at HFT distances, 10 to 55 yards but sometimes farther.

I'm thinking the heavier R1 or HW80, shooting at the power level of an R9/HW95 and Diana 34, might just be the ticket.

At present I shoot a T01 D-34 and am saving for an R9. I also shoot PCP and CO2 rifles but for some reason like springers the best.

What do you think?

Mike

My personal opinion is that using a .177 barrel on a "factory power" R1 is STRANGLING the rather large volume of air that's compressed by the piston and in factory trim the .22 cal barrel would be better. You have mentioned detuning the R1 to R9 power levels so IMHO the .177 bore would be just fine, especially since the R1 is considerably larger and heavier than the R9. Where the "rubber meets the road" is the accuracy YOU squeeze from the gun.

For the cost of a new R1 I'd be more inclined to buy a new HW97 if weight wasn't an issue for you. By the way, a .177 HW97 or TX200 tuned to the 14fpe power level is a really nice shooting air rifle! I owned and shot my HW77 for well over a decade and it was detuned to shoot CPLs at 850 fps for the state level ft matches and it worked well. Matter of fact, at the 2010 National match I took 4th place in the hunter class with the detuned "77" and that year the hft class was combined piston and pcp. LOL.....out of 17 hft competitors at that years' nationals only 5 were shooting piston guns! Since that time the hft class was divided between piston and pcp so "like power plants" are competing, assuming there are enough piston shooters to form a squad.

MikeSSS · « **Reply #11 on:** January 14, 2014, 04:24:54 PM »

Ed,

the reasoning, behind R1/HW80, HW98 is that they are break barrels, I have some trouble loading pellets into my FWB S300, the Diana 34 is a lot easier to use, for me.

A friend has an .177 R9 coming so I'll get to shoot his and get a feel for that rifle. Perhaps just getting an R9 is the answer though. As time goes by, the 34 becomes easier and easier to hit with, probably my hold is becoming more consistent.

For some reason, spring guns are just more interesting and fun than PCP rifles.

Mike

MikeSSS · « **Reply #12 on:** January 14, 2014, 06:04:54 PM »

Ed,

that was a fine showing with the HW77, well done!

Did you find much difference in shooting the 77 vs the R9? Shot cycle difference? Accuracy difference? Other differences?

Was pellet loading much problem on the HW77?

Thanks,

Mike

nced · « **Reply #13 on:** January 14, 2014, 09:09:52 PM »

Did you find much difference in shooting the 77 vs the R9? Shot cycle difference? Accuracy difference? Other differences?

Concerning shot cycle differences.......
I tune all my springers and fit them with oring sealed piston caps so they all have a nice shot cycle, but the heavier "77" was less jumpy. The HW77 I owned twanged less out of the box than any of my R9s but it still did twang. LOL........cocking my newest .177 R9 was really rough out of the box and twanged PROFUSELY, however after a few 1250 count boxes of CPLs it's now a real smooth shooter. A couple folks who visit this forum have shot my R9 and can attest to it's smooth shooting.

Concerning accuracy differences........
The heavier HW77 was easier for me to shoot accurately than my R9, especially after I detuned the gun to shoot CPLs at 850fps. Recently I tuned a new HW97 for a friend of my brother and when new my brother set it up and was shooting 3/8" ctc groups with it before it was even broken in. Personally I consider this excellent accuracy even though it was a bit twangy. Well....after a couple months the owner of the "97" asked if I would tune the gun for him since he really didn't like the twang, plus he said that the gun wasn't grouping well. The gun was tuned, twangless and fitted with an oring sealed piston cap......then the test groups were these inconsistent and poor groups at 18 yards (shot hft style)..........

I couldn't figure out the issue till I did what I should have done first.........CLEAN THE STINKIN" BARREL...Dooohhhh
After the bore clean these are the next 5 shots at 18 yards (hft style).........

I noticed that the "97" owner was using a 4-12 HawkeAirmax scope and since I had "focusing related lateral poi shifts" with two Airmax (the original and the Hawke replacement) I tested this setup. Mounting, zeroing, and Aiming at 18 yards hft style (no bench rest) I shot the 5 shot group, then moved up to 10 yards, focused and shot two pellets aiming at the same bull I used for the 18 yard group. This particular AirMax didn't shift the poi too bad since the group only moved about 1/4" laterally, but still this would not be acceptable for my hft shooting. In case you're wondering......here are a couple pics of the targets I shot with my two 4-12 AirMax scopes mounted on my R9.........
Didn't even zero the scope before testing.........

The replacement scope was zero'd..........

Concerning other differences..........
The main differences are the extra weigh of the HW77/97 and the fixed barrel vs break barrel configuration. The fixed barrel configuration does eliminate the need for adjusting the barrel pivot tension. As the barrel shims seat in the barrel tension changes and barrel tension DEFINITELY affects the poi. Normally these poi shifts are so minor that they're un-noticed simply due to the re-zeroing of the gun during shooting sessions.

Another difference is that you're putting your 'loading finger" in the "bear trap" of a "fixed barrel" and if the gun were "touched off" for some reason the finger will get chopped!. The HW77/97 does have a mechanical trigger blocking mechanism that's actuated by cocking the gun, however it's still WISE to firmly hold the cocking lever of a fixed barrel when loading a pellet.

Was pellet loading much problem on the HW77?
Never had an issue with the open loading port of my HW77........

I did have a bit of an issue with the loading port of a TX200 I was loaned for a match but the "open sided" HW77/97 was more user friendly for me and pellet loading became second nature. I'm guessing that the TX200 "open on only one side" loading port also becomes second nature since the users don't seem to have any issues with them either.

MikeSSS · « **Reply #14 on:** January 15, 2014, 03:58:46 AM »

Hmmm, perhaps the 97 is the way to go for a sit and shoot gun. I like German build quality and attention to detail. Especially when you have to put valuable fingers into the loading port of death.

Tonight I tried out several different guns at 5 yards, several had scopes with parallax problems at that short distance but comparison shooting was interesting.

The FWB S300 is a side lever, the scope objective is over the loading port but I could load it OK. Problem was holding the cocking lever while loading the pellet, not so easy for a right hander, the side lever is on the right side and the right hand is needed to load pellets.

I also took out an old B3-1, .177, under-lever. I wanted to see if I could cock an under-lever while seated and load the pellet while holding the cocking lever. The answer was yes. Next I put a scope on the B3, it made inserting a pellet more difficult, even though the objective was behind he loading port. Then there is the fingers in the bear trap thing.

Break barrels look good for a lot of different reasons.

nced · « **Reply #15 on:** January 15, 2014, 09:43:47 AM »

Then there is the fingers in the bear trap thing.

With my HW77 I removed the trigger blocking mechanism so I could uncock the gun without shootin' (uncocking without shootin' not a big deal IMHO) when I first owned the gun. I did ALWAYS hold the cocking lever while loading the gun but can testify that after over a decade of shooting and 10s of thousands of shots the gun NEVER let loose expectantly. The trigger blocking mechanism is a bit of "belt + suspenders" situation because the trigger won't trip until the safety button is depressed.

Patina on my HW77 cocking lever after YEARS of use..........

MikeSSS · « **Reply #16 on:** January 15, 2014, 10:39:40 AM »

Quote from: nced on January 15, 2014, 09:43:47 AM

Then there is the fingers in the bear trap thing.

With my HW77 I removed the trigger blocking mechanism so I could uncock the gun without shootin' (uncocking without shootin' not a big deal IMHO) when I first owned the gun. I did ALWAYS hold the cocking lever while loading the gun but can testify that after over a decade of shooting and 10s of thousands of shots the gun NEVER let loose expectantly. The trigger blocking mechanism is a bit of "belt + suspenders" situation because the trigger won't trip until the safety button is depressed.

Patina on my HW77 cocking lever after YEARS of use..........

I'm not worried too much about an HW77 or HW97 letting the piston go unexpectedly, it is the B3-1 that I'm concerned about. I'm taking it shooting today and may use something to insert the pellets, something more expendable than the fingers. I'll be holding on to the lever for sure.

On your HW77, did the scope get in the way of loading or is the action long enough so that the scope is behind the loading port?

A friend has a used R9 coming in tomorrow, he will use it at Yegua for HFT this coming weekend, I have an RC sailboat regatta to race in, so I can't go to the FT match. He will let me shoot the R9, next time we go practice, I'm looking forward to shooting it. At Yegua, there are not many springer shooters, the rifles I see there are TX200 and HW97. They very well with those.

Off to shoot airguns!

Mike

nced · « **Reply #17 on:** January 15, 2014, 10:59:00 AM »

On your HW77, did the scope get in the way of loading or is the action long enough so that the scope is behind the loading port?
The scope is just behind the loading port, however I only shoot hunter class so I'm not using the very large scopes.
In these pics taken at the 2010 National match my "77" is wearing a 4-16 Bushnell Elite 4200.........

Here is another pic of the same "77" when it was fitted with a 2.5-16 Elite 6500 that I didn't like (had a 30mm tube) so I sold the scope.........

At Yegua, there are not many springer shooters, the rifles I see there are TX200 and HW97. They very well with those.
I've also noticed that the ranks of the piston shooters is dwindling and folks migrate to "easier to shoot accurately" PCP.

HCAirgunner · « **Reply #18 on:** January 15, 2014, 11:42:40 AM »

Quote from: nced on January 15, 2014, 10:59:00 AM

I've also noticed that the ranks of the piston shooters is dwindling and folks migrate to "easier to shoot accurately" PCP.

IMHO it's all in people's heads. I've shot both springers and PCP, and I am decent with both. Neither type of gun is difficult to shoot accurately, there is just a learning curve. Once you know the ins and outs of both types, it's "TOE - MAY - TOE" / "TOE - MAH - TOE"

(Sorry about the caps, but I needed to do that for the phonetics; if I had just typed "tomato / tomato" no one would have known what I was getting at! Ha ha!)

I prefer springers because, unless the spring breaks or malfunctions, you're good to go anytime / all the time, no fussing with spare tanks, refilling, etc.

MikeSSS · « **Reply #19 on:** January 16, 2014, 08:09:56 PM »

OK, I have an R9 coming. Excellent! That settles the R1 vs R9 dilemma for at least a while. This R9 is not very cherry, so opening it up and trying to learn tuning will not pose as much risk as with a new one.

Ed and others, thanks for the guidance and help. The adventure continues.

PCP vs CO2 vs Springer...

I find it easier to shoot PCP and CO2 than springer. There are some exceptions though.

Disco: POI shifts with pressure change in the air reservoir but not in a consistent way. Sweet spot pressure on the two I've used was 1700 psi to 1500, not a very wide range.

Marauder: the one I had was not accurate enough for HFT.

Benjamin 397: just not accurate enough for my use.

FWB s300, it's a springer but shoots more like CO2 or PCP.

Super accurate and easy to shoot: s300 recoiless springer, CZ 200s PCP, BAM-51 PCP, Hammerli 850 CO2, Daisy 888 CO2.

Accurate springers but not as easy to shoot as PCP/CO2: Diana 34, Winchester 450 and Diana 50.

Diana 34, with the right pellets and on the right day, it seems very easy to shoot well. But then there are those other days...

Thanks guys,

Mike Sechrist, in San Antonio

Thank you to our advertisers!

R1 de-tuned to 14 to 16fpe as a sticks and bucket, HFT style, rifle?

Author Topic: R1 de-tuned to 14 to 16fpe as a sticks and bucket, HFT style, rifle? (Read 5439 times))