Diana 56TH, recoilless, in .177. ('TH' = Target Hunter)
When I bought this, several years ago, I went through two different scope mounts, then gave up and bought my Marauder. I bought this one, specifically designed for the Diana side-lever cannons, but didn't get around to trying it.
Today, I tried it, and found that no amount of scope adjustment would bring the point of impact up high enough. Yep, I had it mounted backwards. Got it turned around so the hook of the Weaver mount hooks over the front of the scope mounting rail. A stop pin is provided, but is totally unnecessary.
I shot maybe 10 rounds, and it was wandering a bit; I was worried it had already eaten my trusty (and cheap!) old Leapers 3-12x40. But it settled in, and now it's zeroed at 13 yards, ready to go.
Here she is:
I'm going to review Tom Gaylord's comments on the 54, which is the the same as my 56TH, except the stock's not as nice. He did two 3-part blogs on it: one in 2006, and one in 2011. Here are links to the 3rd part of each one, which has links back to the first two parts at the beginning. I like his blogs, I hope he keeps at it.
RWS Diana 54 – Part 3[/QUOTE]http://www.pyramydair.com/blog/2006/11/rws-diana-54-part-3/embed/
RWS Diana model 54 recoilless rifle: Part 3[/QUOTE]http://www.pyramydair.com/blog/2011/05/rws-diana-model-54-recoilless-rifle-part-3/embed/
There are a few key points that make these rifles so special:
When I bought this, several years ago, I went through two different scope mounts, then gave up and bought my Marauder. I bought this one, specifically designed for the Diana side-lever cannons, but didn't get around to trying it.
Today, I tried it, and found that no amount of scope adjustment would bring the point of impact up high enough. Yep, I had it mounted backwards. Got it turned around so the hook of the Weaver mount hooks over the front of the scope mounting rail. A stop pin is provided, but is totally unnecessary.
I shot maybe 10 rounds, and it was wandering a bit; I was worried it had already eaten my trusty (and cheap!) old Leapers 3-12x40. But it settled in, and now it's zeroed at 13 yards, ready to go.
Here she is:
I'm going to review Tom Gaylord's comments on the 54, which is the the same as my 56TH, except the stock's not as nice. He did two 3-part blogs on it: one in 2006, and one in 2011. Here are links to the 3rd part of each one, which has links back to the first two parts at the beginning. I like his blogs, I hope he keeps at it.
RWS Diana 54 – Part 3[/QUOTE]
RWS Diana model 54 recoilless rifle: Part 3[/QUOTE]
There are a few key points that make these rifles so special:
- Magnum power, but without hold sensitivity or shooter-perceived recoil
- Easy cocking effort, for it's power level. (33 lbs.) This one, which shoots at 20 FPE feels easier to cock than my TX200, which shoots at around 15 FPE.
- Properly heavy, they say 11 lbs. without scope. It feels heavier than that to me; maybe because of the barrel weight way out front....
- Lots of barrel droop + magnum recoil = needs a special scope mount.
- Spendy; (for a springer) costs more than a TX200
