In Line v Break Barrel Springer Review

[Fischer]

There is talk a straight line like the HW97 or other underlever or sidelever option is chosen over a "break barrel".

The barrel being cocked and broken to return to an accurate position is tested with any under lever or side lever with the surprising result those quality break barrels (HW30, 35E, 50S, up to the 98 you name it!)

I have BOTH! I have the underlever in .20 HW97KT and the sidelever .20 Diana 54 Air King and the HW98 .20 as a real shower of what's what.

All HW98s are NOT finicky about shooting ANY pellet.

The idea a fixed barrel as in HW97K or D54 compared to the HW98s I have is pointless.

They BOTH are extremely extremely ACCURATE!

There is no difference in accuracy in my testing between a fixed barrelled air rifle and a 98 break barrel.

 

[bdzjlz]

Fischer, I also have several of each, and while I agree that both are extremely accurate, and one should not be afraid of a quality break barrel, day in and day out, nothing beats the accuracy of my AA TX200, ProSport, and Weihrauch 97Ks. I have 98s, R9s, 95s, 56THs, and custom tuned 48s - all great spring rifles, and while I wouldn't be afraid to take any one of them to the woods, and would actually prefer to carry the lighter break barrels while finding them significantly easier to load, for hands down consistent pin point accuracy, I would pick an underlever every time.

Not to pick a fight - just my experience and opinion.

DZ

 

[bandg]

Fischer, I also have several of each, and while I agree that both are extremely accurate, and one should not be afraid of a quality break barrel, day in and day out, nothing beats the accuracy of my AA TX200, ProSport, and Weihrauch 97Ks. I have 98s, R9s, 95s, 56THs, and custom tuned 48s - all great spring rifles, and while I wouldn't be afraid to take any one of them to the woods, and would actually prefer to carry the lighter break barrels while finding them significantly easier to load, for hands down consistent pin point accuracy, I would pick an underlever every time.

Not to pick a fight - just my experience and opinion.

DZ

I agree. Not that a break berrel can't function well. They can and many have seen that. But consider what seems to widely be considered one of the best break barrels ever made-the Walther LGV. It has an additional locking mechanism beyond the common chisel or ball detent. Why? To make lockup as certain as possible. Is that absolutely necessary? Maybe not. But maybe that is why they are widely viewed as amongst the best.

 

[Steveoo]

98 all the way for me, or even better an older 80.

The break barrel often criticised for its lock up issues is not relevant with these, and with the 98 stubby bull barrel, there is no resonance coming from the barrel on closure. It closes like a fine shotgun. The 80 with a replacement pivot bolt is not far behind it.

So, if lock up is not the issue with these 2 guns, I can then enjoy the barrel broken aspect when walking the fields, and no fumbling with pellets into sliding breech covers.

If FT then yeah, the fix barrel 97 and TX200 edges things, as we do not need to concern ourselves with the additional loading contraptions.

The LGV comment above is noteworthy, with its barrel lock feature, an often overlooked gun which can provide a legitimate argument to my above choice. My only caveat being that weaker cast, clam shell trigger block in comparison to the massive over engineered one of HW...never bettered.

 

[bandg]

98 all the way for me, or even better an older 80.

The break barrel often criticised for its lock up issues is not relevant with these, and with the 98 stubby bull barrel, there is no resonance coming from the barrel on closure. It closes like a fine shotgun. The 80 with a replacement pivot bolt is not far behind it.

So, if lock up is not the issue with these 2 guns, I can then enjoy the barrel broken aspect when walking the fields, and no fumbling with pellets into sliding breech covers.

If FT then yeah, the fix barrel 97 and TX200 edges things, as we do not need to concern ourselves with the additional loading contraptions.

The LGV comment above is noteworthy, with its barrel lock feature, an often overlooked gun which can provide a legitimate argument to my above choice. My only caveat being that weaker cast, clam shell trigger block in comparison to the massive over engineered one of HW...never bettered.

One's perceived quality of the trigger group of any given rifle wasn't the line of the OP's question. Break barrel vs. underlever was the line of his question and this LGV design was originated to address exactly that concern. Whether the additional lockup is "better" can certainly be debated but the "quality" issue is a deflection. But to that, I'm perfectly happy with my LGV (and LGU, in spite of some work needed recently) and prefer both over my Weihrauch HW97. Others will certainly have different opinions.

 

[Fischer]

It's not surprising you'll find the fixed v broken barrel unsolved.

I think in both cases we need to start with quality so there are no questions anymore about consistency, hardness, tensile strength, mechanical and engineered design, and on hand adjustments (final touches made by hand) to send out a good air rifle in break or in line barrel.

To me the fixed types I have are the HW97K-T .20 (my first years ago I still have to this day!), HW57 .177, HW57 .22 and D54 .20.

When I finally got my first HW98 (.20) I followed with a .25 and then a .177.

Now I get to enjoy all pellet calibers in the same styled rifle--I do lack the HW98 .22 but I have the HW95L and HW80K .22s now, and the purchase of another HW98 to get the .22 version is a bit harder to justify when I already have the OTHER calibers and enjoy them THE MOST in the HW98.

 

[Steveoo]

Bandg....you make a fair comment buddy, i may edit the comment reg the Trigger block....

I guess I was explaining why I chose the 98 in preference to the LGV when the LGV is possibly even better in regard of the lock up.

Horses for courses...Another good choice could be the HW35 lock up if we are just talking break barrel versus fixed..

 

[bandg]

Bandg....you make a fair comment buddy, i may edit the comment reg the Trigger block....

I guess I was explaining why I chose the 98 in preference to the LGV when the LGV is possibly even better in regard of the lock up.

Horses for courses...Another good choice could be the HW35 lock up if we are just talking break barrel versus fixed..

I agree. And I've had no experience with the 98 but read often that it is a first class rifle. Unless I'm mistaken, there were a few rifles made with the "extra" lockup mechanisms and it seems most were high quality and accurate. Maybe the quality was more related to the accuracy than the additional lockup. As to the trigger, you are certainly correct in that the HW mechanism is superior in most ways to the Walther mechanism but I guess the bottom line is how much strength is required. I have an HW97 and the trigger is fantastic. But my Walthers (both of them) now have very good triggers and will outshoot my HW97 most days, admittedly after a lot of trigger work on the Walthers and none needed on the HW. I would also have to say that overall HW build "quality" is just better. I did have a recent collapse of the cocking arm to linkage rivets on the LGU that required a re-rivetting repair. That area is no where near as solid as the mechanism on the Weihrauch's. I'll wager that the HW mechanism will still be working as produced in 20 years. In contrast, I have quite a stock of spare parts for the Walthers in case they are needed. I enjoy those rifles enough to be willing to accept their less "solid" build. Like many things, different strokes.