Author Topic: Some HW50s questions?? (Read 7465 times))

Tomcat · « **on:** February 10, 2015, 01:37:19 PM »

I am lusting for a new airgun. I'm looking at the HW50s, primarily because of the size and weight of this rifle. I already have several very nice springers, including a HW30s in .177, a HW97K in .177, and a TX200 in .22 cal. I would like a little more power than the HW30, although it will be mostly a plinker and paper puncher.

All the guns I have are plenty accurate, but the weight of the HW97 and TX200 keep me from enjoying them as much. I also know from researching the rifles, that many suggest moving on to the HW95 rather than the HW50s, but the extra weight puts me off. I think size/weight of the HW50s would be about perfect.

My main question is regarding the "heavy" cocking effort of the '50. How does it compare to the hw97 or TX200, or a Diana 34, for example? I have shot all of them, and am familiar with their feel. As stated, the weight is the thing I object to. FYI, I am in my early 70's, so weight is becoming more of an issue each year. My little HW30 if great, but I just want a more satisfying smack when I hit my target.

Any insight or experiences you can share will be appreciated.

RC1947 · « **Reply #1 on:** February 10, 2015, 02:33:32 PM »

I've been shooting my HW50s for a couple of years and I wouldn't say that it's difficult to cock. It's a nice size with ample power. RC

Tomcat · « **Reply #2 on:** February 10, 2015, 02:51:20 PM »

Thanks, Randall. Have you any experience with the others I mentioned as a comparison?

anuthabubba · « **Reply #3 on:** February 10, 2015, 03:24:59 PM »

The HW97 and TX200 have heavier cocking than an HW50. Have been shooting a pre-safety HW50s as well as its bigger cousin HW35Dlx, which have the same cocking linkage, without problems except some wear, for decades. Your HW30 has this linkage too. Have read that the newer ones may have or develop cocking difficulties from a too tight link pin or lack of lube. ARH sells a wear reducing insert for the cocking link of these models.

JimL911 · « **Reply #4 on:** February 10, 2015, 03:57:20 PM »

My 50S with a JM kit is about the same as my 34 with Vortek kit.

Motorhead · « **Reply #5 on:** February 10, 2015, 04:54:36 PM »

Long barrel HW35 is IMO a better choice than the 50's

Tomcat · « **Reply #6 on:** February 10, 2015, 05:24:01 PM »

Terry, Jim and Scott, I thank you all for your input. I wish there was somewhere I could get my hands on some of the choices.

Terry, I am happy to hear your comparison to the 97 and TX. Is your 50s the same as the current offerings or is yours the older version which is reportedly lower power, (if I understand correctly)?

JimL911, how would you say the 50s with the JM kit compares to the stock version of the 50s?

Thanks Scott, I'm sure the 35 would be a nicer rifle, but the price is considerably higher. I am more comfortable in the price range of the HW50s at the present time. I should just be happy with what I have, lol.

RC1947 · « **Reply #7 on:** February 10, 2015, 07:03:05 PM »

Quote from: Tomcat on February 10, 2015, 02:51:20 PM

Thanks, Randall. Have you any experience with the others I mentioned as a comparison?

Yup, got both an R-9, and an R-7. The 50s is a solid piece of work, and I shoot it more than the other two. RC

Tomcat · « **Reply #8 on:** February 10, 2015, 07:11:22 PM »

Quote from: RC1947 on February 10, 2015, 07:03:05 PM

Quote from: Tomcat on February 10, 2015, 02:51:20 PM
Thanks, Randall. Have you any experience with the others I mentioned as a comparison?
Yup, got both an R-9, and an R-7. The 50s is a solid piece of work, and I shoot it more than the other two. RC

Thank you.

RC1947 · « **Reply #9 on:** February 10, 2015, 07:42:51 PM »

Here is my 50S, the only .22 rifle I own, with a Tech Force 3-9x scope, 3 screw one piece mount by Hammers. I reworked the dovetails for the front sight so that I could install a muzzle brake. Can't focus on open sights anymore. RC

Tomcat · « **Reply #10 on:** February 10, 2015, 08:11:35 PM »

Quote from: RC1947 on February 10, 2015, 07:42:51 PM

Here is my 50S, the only .22 rifle I own, with a Tech Force 3-9x scope, 3 screw one piece mount by Hammers. I reworked the dovetails for the front sight so that I could install a muzzle brake. Can't focus on open sights anymore. RC

Very nice! I like the muzzle brakes. I have one on my HW30s also.

JimL911 · « **Reply #11 on:** February 10, 2015, 08:16:06 PM »

The JM kit makes it a little easier than stock.

joek · « **Reply #12 on:** February 11, 2015, 01:19:27 AM »

I have a beeman R6 (HW99S/HW50S) easier to cock than my marksman 72 (forerunner to the HW95) never been a problem, can plink all day

Tomcat · « **Reply #13 on:** February 11, 2015, 10:03:25 AM »

Thanks JimL and Joek. I appreciate the response.

Oldgringo · « **Reply #14 on:** February 11, 2015, 11:19:46 AM »

I've seen these 'difficult to cock' comments and I don't think my unturned HW50S was anymore difficult to cock than was my pre-tune Diana 34.

I expect my tuned HW50S will be just as easy to cock smoothly as is my tuned Diana 34 once I get her back from air gun tuner Lee aka Shootist.

Tomcat · « **Reply #15 on:** February 11, 2015, 05:40:06 PM »

Quote from: Oldgringo on February 11, 2015, 11:19:46 AM

I've seen these 'difficult to cock' comments and I don't think my unturned HW50S was anymore difficult to cock than was my pre-tune Diana 34.

I expect my tuned HW50S will be just as easy to cock smoothly as is my tuned Diana 34 once I get her back from air gun tuner Lee aka Shootist.

Thanks Greg. I have previously owned a Diana 34, and sold it not because of the cocking effort, but because of the weight and overall length. It just was not comfortable for me to hold and shoot. I think the HW50s would be better suited for me in the size/weight category.

JimL911 · « **Reply #16 on:** February 11, 2015, 06:34:16 PM »

It's not that the 50 is difficult to cock. It's the amount of effort to cock it for the power level that is the downside. The same effort to cock a 16 fpe gun in a sub 12 fpe gun is why the 95 is recommended over the 50S.

Tomcat · « **Reply #17 on:** February 11, 2015, 07:51:50 PM »

Quote from: JimL911 on February 11, 2015, 06:34:16 PM

It's not that the 50 is difficult to cock. It's the amount of effort to cock it for the power level that is the downside. The same effort to cock a 16 fpe gun in a sub 12 fpe gun is why the 95 is recommended over the 50S.

Thanks JimL, the cocking effort is not as important to me as the weight and length of the rifle. My HW97 and TX200, while on the top end of what I like for cocking effort, are not unmanageable. It is the holding while shooting offhand that I find difficult. If the 50s is as light or lighter cocking than the 97, TX or D34, I think I could be happy with it. I find the HW30s to be very easy cocking and just want a little more "oomph"

.

Tomcat · « **Reply #18 on:** February 11, 2015, 07:55:18 PM »

Sorry, i hit the wrong button above. I just have a case of the lusts right now. I surely don't need another airgun, and if I resist and procrastinate long enough I will be off on another tangent and want something else, lol.

Mulby · « **Reply #19 on:** February 11, 2015, 10:33:57 PM »

I'm guessing not many of us here need another gun, but don't let your want if the 50s fade. They are great rifles. I've had mine for about nine years now, rock solid and fun to shoot. About two years ago I refreshed it with a PG2 kit. Made a great rifle even better.

Thank you to our advertisers!

Some HW50s questions??

Author Topic: Some HW50s questions?? (Read 7465 times))