Data Tables (measures taken by author)
Weihrauch HW 97 K Technical specifications:
Manufacturer Type
Weight
Overall length Barrel length Calibre
Stock type
Length of pull Energy
PROS: CONS:
H. Weihrauch, Germany
Under-lever, spring piston power 9.5 lbs (laminate stock) 39.7 inches
11.75 inches rifled (14.5 overall) .177 tested; .20; .22, .25. available Sporter, beech or laminate (coloured) 14 inches
12 fpe (tuned up to 15 fpe in .177)
Trigger, loading, quick handling, balance, accuracy, ambidextrous use
Grip, dovetails, barrel droop, dieseling
Air Arms TX 200 HC Technical specifications:
Manufacturer Type
Weight
Overall length Barrel length Calibre
Stock type
Length of pull Energy
PROS: CONS:
bine is that it is a very good, sturdy, and high quality gun, and a really beautiful product. It is less of an all-rounder for an under cocker. This is, of course, less of an issue when its owner has no 97 K at the side to play with, thus allowing him more time to master the TX. Its operation is more time consum-
ing and demands more attention than the HW. With its factory stock it is less appropriate as a good starter for FT nov- ices. It’s not a very good all-rounder for all sorts of competition, in my opinion. Its beautiful walnut stock seems too thin and vulnerable in that theatre. Releas- ing its ratchet system takes much time when this is a constraint (timed shots in FT and HFT). Some have found a way to neutralize or silence the ratchet for this purpose and for hunting. The words style and elegance come to mind. In sum, this TX is less of a fine tool, but very much a beautifully finished
Page 152 Winter 2012 Air Arms, United Kingdom
Under-lever, spring piston power +/- 8.5 lbs (walnut stock) 38.6"
9.5" rifled (shrouded: 12.6") .177 (tested), .22 available Sporter, beech or walnut 14.4"
12 fpe tested, up to 15.5 fpe in .177
Build quality, classy looks, barrel and scope rail alignment, smooth shot cycle, easy strip
Loading, slow handling
pride of ownership item. The pair compared
I will limit myself to some short
and general remarks here. For spring- piston HFT use where shooters are under time pressure, I would rather recommend the HW. The TX is maybe fit for classic
hunting rather than for competition. However, in view of its smoothness, it does not immediately demand a tune. Apart from the cost of a tuning kit or even a full professional tuning job, the base pricing of these rifles is so similar that it could hardly be decisive for the ultimate choice between them. About details of tuning spring piston guns, see my contribution in the October 2010 issue of TVHM. Of course, neither is perfect. But
my conclusion for now is that none of the negatives discussed above is a valid reason to part with either one of these
fine rifles. On the subject of stocks, both lack a bit of “flesh” underneath the cock- ing link system in the belly of the stock. With the linkage taking up so much space here in under-levers, the stock “belly” wood needs to be thicker and fuller. This would make for more solid stocks that are less prone to breaking and cracking. A beavertail fore-stock with more meat at the flanks better compensates for the weak spot at the cocking slot. Running back toward the trigger guard, it would give a stronger cantilever or bridging effect to the fore-end. A pear-shaped cross section would fit the hand nicely, resulting in a sort of finger groove running along the top. A wider fore-end counters variable pressure from the leading hand and so aids off-hand shooting accuracy. It also would help these guns to stabilize in bench rest work. For any type of air rifle generally, a more vertical pistol grip, in my opinion, is more suited in view of the very careful aiming required, rather than the quick-to-the-shoulder shotgun- like handling. I’m eagerly awaiting a good synthetic stock for each of these guns for heavy field use situations, either as an OEM option or as a retrofit. The tests concerned only the 12 fpe ver- sions but both guns are also available in full power versions doing about 15 fpe in .177 calibre. Left-hand versions are available. Accuracy of both appears to be
excellent, but needs to be milked for its full potential by testing a lot more dif- ferent pellets. Remember that neither is really run in yet. However, I should finally come around to having my 97 K tuned by my trusted UK firm, I think! On the technical side, I have one
accuracy-related question that remains unanswered: Which cocking lever latch system exerts less undue and variable pressure on the barrel? This was a head-to-head of two
heavyweights in both the literal and figurative sense: purposeful versus graceful, function vs. style, business vs. elegance. Lots of air gunners have turned to either one of them, some to both. I cannot blame any one of them. Both make very good 50 yards-plus pest control tools, offering great versatility and satisfaction. They just nicely com- plement each other. Should I perhaps call them a pair of “Wonder levers”?
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180 |
Page 181 |
Page 182 |
Page 183 |
Page 184 |
Page 185 |
Page 186 |
Page 187 |
Page 188 |
Page 189 |
Page 190 |
Page 191 |
Page 192 |
Page 193 |
Page 194 |
Page 195 |
Page 196 |
Page 197 |
Page 198 |
Page 199 |
Page 200 |
Page 201 |
Page 202 |
Page 203 |
Page 204 |
Page 205 |
Page 206 |
Page 207 |
Page 208 |
Page 209 |
Page 210 |
Page 211 |
Page 212