TX200 Mark III: Part 1

by Tom Gaylord, a.k.a. B.B. Pelletier

TX 200 Mark III
B.B.’s TX200 Mark III

This report is long overdue, and I know that I’ve reviewed the TX200 air rifle in the past; but with the migrations of the blog through different softwares and website changes, it’s temporarily become too difficult to find the old reports. I usually look them up in a search engine, but even that doesn’t work very well for this topic. So, here we go, again. This time, we’ll follow my full format for a report, plus I’ll do some additional testing that’s based on some of the interesting things we’ve been exploring in other reports in the past year.

Blog reader Beazer asked for this report specifically because he’s just received a new TX200 Mark III, but I make so many references to the gun in other test reports that its time has come just on general principal. The TX200 Mark III is the finest spring-piston air rifle available today. Please notice that I did not say “one of” or “perhaps” or any other temporizing modifier. This is flat-out the best spring gun there is today — bar none.

And let me clear up something else. When I say the TX200 Mark III, I am NOT referring to the shorter TX200 HC (Hunter Carbine) that’s quite a bit harder to cock, nor do I mean the Pro Sport, which is also an underlever spring-piston air rifle and just as hard to cock as the Hunter Carbine. Nor do I refer to the TX200 SR (semi recoilless) that’s no longer made. I mean ONLY one gun — the TX200 Mark III. Don’t try to paint the entire Air Arms springer line with what I’m about to say about the TX200.

History
If this is a Mark III, there must have been a Mark I and II — right? Yes, there were. The Mark I was not called a Mark I. It was just called a TX200, and it came out in the late 1980s. It differed from the Mark II that followed in that it didn’t have the sliding chamber catch that’s on the outside of the spring tubes of Marks II and III. You simply pulled the underlever down and cocked the gun directly, then held onto the cocking lever while you loaded; so in case the sear slipped, the sliding compression chamber didn’t amputate your fingers.

The TX200 looked different than the Weihrauch HW 77, which was the rage at that time; because, instead of using an offset barrel and air transfer port, the TX centered the barrel on the compression chamber. Since the barrel is a smaller diameter than the compression chamber, this gave a distinctive “humpback” look to the rifle, where the HW 77 line was straight. The barrel hump is a characteristic of the TX200 profile.

TX 200 Mark III barrel hump
The barrel hump is characteristic of the TX200 profile.

But the centered air transfer port made all the difference in terms of power because the TX200 was able to develop power easier than the HW 77. The mainspring could be shorter and lighter, and cocking could be easier.

In 1994, the TX200 Mark II came out. That rifle had the first sliding compression chamber catch mounted on the right side of the spring tube, and it made such a clickety racket that field target competitors like me soon learned to hold down on the latch while cocking the rifle. The Mark III has reduced the number of clicks to just 3, which most shooters don’t find objectionable.

TX 200 Mark III compression chamber catch and breech
The sliding compression chamber catch is shown at the left. The 3 notches in the sliding compression chamber are all that hold the chamber from sliding forward until the sear grabs the piston. You can also see the old-style straight checkering on my beech stock.

I tested my rifle for The Airgun Letter, then I let Jim Maccari tune it for me and I tested it again. Finally, I sent it off the Ken Reeves for one of his tunes, and that series of tests was the last I did. After that, I just shot the rifle until the TX200 Mark III came out.

I bought a TX200 Mark III in the year 2000 and found that it had all the sophistication that my fully tuned Mark II had, so I said goodbye to the Mark II and kept the Mark III. That’s the rifle I still have today, and it’s the main one I’m using for this report. Therein might lie a problem.

Baffles – yes or no?
It appears that Air Arms may have made a design change to the rifle in 2008 without changing the Mark-series designator. They may have eliminated the baffles in the barrel shroud. The Mark III in my posession has at least 3 baffles and perhaps 4 inside the barrel jacket, and I’ve been advising people that all TX200 Mark IIIs have these baffles. But a somewhat cryptic mention made in the Blue Book of Airguns suggests that the baffles may have been eliminated in 2008. Even though the gun that’s being sold today is still called a Mark III, it may not be the exact same design as the gun I’m testing for you.

I can see the baffles in my rifle by looking down the bore with a tactical flashlight, plus I can use a wire coat hanger to feel and count them. Edith has emailed Air Arms to get an answer, and we’ll let you know what she finds out.

I’ve never asked Pyramyd Air for a Mark III to test; because as long as it’s still a Mark III, it should be exactly the same as my rifle on the inside. That’s what the term Mark means! But there may have been some changes that I missed. So, I’ve decided to also break down and order a current production TX200 Mark III to test.

I’m aware that the stock carving changed from straight checkering to a reverse crosshatch carved pattern with floral embellishments on the edges. And the new forearm is also scalloped and a bit thinner. I like the new look better; but until researching for today’s report, that was the only change of which I was aware.

TX 200 Mark III new stock carving
This TX200 is owned by Jerry, one of our blog readers. You can see the new style of stock carving, plus Jerry’s stock is walnut.

The rifle
That’s enough history. Now, let’s look at the rifle. The TX200 is an underlever spring-piston air rifle that uses a sliding compression chamber. When you cock the rifle the entire compression chamber slides back out of the way, giving you great access to load the pellet directly into the breech. The sliding chamber is then returned home, leaving the piston cocked until the shot is fired.

The latch that holds the underlever is a ball bearing catch that’s about as unobtrusive as possible. Only one thing could be better, and that would be a lever linkage that goes over-center as it’s returned home. I know that because the Venom Mach II was a $2,000+ underlever that looked exactly like a TX200 and used such a system. I was privledged to shoot one of the very few examples that were made when I was at the DIFTA field target club. But that rifle was handmade by Ivan Hancock; and if it was still sold today, the price would probably be north of $6,000.

TX 200 Mark III underlever latch
The underlever is held by a large spring-loaded ball bearing. It’s both smooth and unobtrusive.

TX 200 Mark III breech
When the rifle is cocked the sliding compression chamber is back out of the way, giving good access to the breech.

Trigger
The TX trigger is a refinement of the famous Rekord trigger that Weihrauch has made and sold successfully for the past half-century. The refinements are in the area of better adjustability for the two stages and a more positive safety. Even though Air Arms does produce this trigger in a factory, it’s still highly refined. The Chinese tried to copy the TX200 did a fair job of it but have never been able to get the trigger right.

The TX is renowned for the fit and finish of its wood and metal parts. All wood is finished smooth and sharp, and the metal is both highly polished and deeply blued. Plastic? There isn’t any to be seen. In fact, TX owners gripe about the occasional use of aluminum on their rifles. They’re like Rolls Royce owners who complain about the loud electric clock!

The wood is overly generous in its dimensions, lending a bulky feeling to the rifle. It feels like a real handful that an owner can look at in one of two ways. Either, it feels too heavy — at 9.3 lbs, unscoped — or it hangs well in the hands — a vision of stability. Same rifle — two different viewpoints. But the gun is what it is and isn’t likely to change. A walnut stock will trim some ounces, but you’ll still know you have a rifle in your hands.

The TX comes in both .177 and .22 calibers. I’ve always recommended .177 because I think of this rifle as a field target gun; but the truth is that it’s great in either caliber. In .177, the rifle will shoot Crosman Premier lites in the high 800 f.p.s. range right out of the box; but after a couple thousand shots, it’ll top 930 f.p.s. with the same pellet.

Scoping the rifle
The rifle comes without open sights; and if that’s a deal-breaker for you, then walk away. The TX200 Mark III is no more made for open sights than a Corvette is made for a 4-cylinder economy engine. You don’t just scope this rifle, you scope it with the best glass you can afford because the inherent accuracy warrants it.

The scope rails are 11mm grooves cut directly into the spring tube. Three vertical scope stop holes provide a place to anchor the scope rings. When we get to part 3, I’ll show the scoping situation in detail.

What we’ll do
I will review my TX200 Mark III for you exactly as if this were a test of a new airgun. My rifle has been shot many thousands of times, but it has never been tuned or fooled with. Other than adjusting the trigger, I’ve left the gun exactly as it came from the box 13 years ago.

After accuracy testing — maybe out to 50 yards — I hope to do some other kinds of tests for you. The one that springs to mind is testing the rifle rested directly on a sandbag versus the artillery hold, as that was an interesting topic recently. I’m sure there are other things people will want me to do.

I also hope to get a new TX from Pyramyd Air to compare to my broken-in rifle. I’ll examine it in detail to see what the differences are and report back to you.

This promises to be an interesting test that I can see stretching to numerous parts, so let’s get started!

73 thoughts on “TX200 Mark III: Part 1

  1. The gun reminds me of my Diana 54 Air King that is a side lever. But the TX200 is a under lever which I like also.

    But why is it the most accurate; that you say springer. My 54 is pretty accurate.

    And why the heck if it was baffled at first; why would they make it not baffled ?!?

    And I’m asking myself why I don’t have one yet. And If my 54 had some baffles in it. It would be my most favorite springer.



    • If they removed the baffles it’s probably for dweebs like us Canadians who can’t have silencers, shrouded, baffled or anything that quiets down the report of our airguns or firearms.

      J-F


    • GF1,

      I didn’t say it is the most accurate air rifle. Your 54 is probably just as accurate. I said it is the best, and I feel that it is.

      Why the baffles? To reduce the discharge sound. Why remove them? Because many places have restrictions against gun with baffles.

      B.B.



  2. Maybe, if they ever become available, you could test it against the Mav 77? Crosman probably would not like that very much though, unless the Chinese finally start getting triggers right. Hey, maybe even a head to head of the Hatsan Dominator?


    • RR,

      I plan to test the MAV 77 when they become available. And although the trigger isn’t up to TX 200 standards, it’s still pretty good. It certainly beats a lot of what’s on the market.

      B.B.


  3. “So, I’ve decided to also break down and order a current production TX200 Mark III to test.”

    Dang. Thanks for taking one for the team BB!


  4. I am presently considering the purchase of a TX200 MkIII and so your selection of this rifle to receive a current review is much appreciated. However, I believe it would be of greater value to me and to others who are presently sitting on the fence if you waited to receive a sample rifle from PA and conducted the review with the product shipped today. I suspect that most of us would be willing to wait a little longer to read your review of a currently shipping test rifle.


    • Eric,

      I’m doing the report this way so I can test a broken-in rifle. I usually don’t get a chance to do that.

      I don’t expect the new TX to perform differently than the one I own. I have shot them, and they are the same. But because of the baffle issue I do want to take a close look at the current gun to see if I have missed anything else.

      I would say buy a TX 200 with confidence.

      B.B.


  5. I find I am entering sproinger phase 3. Phase 1 was when I discovered the world of modern air guns and because my wallet is not that thick, I decided on a sproinger to be my first one. After much research I purchased a CFX. With a new trigger and much practice, I was pretty accurate with it out to 25 yards.

    But I could not get the accuracy I wanted at 50 yards with it, so I turned to SSPs and PCPs and left sproingers behind, phase 2.

    Now I have learned that I can accept the shortcomings of sproingers and I am wanting to start messing with them again, phase 3.

    There is one shortcoming most have though that I cannot tolerate and that is the trigger and the only cure is to dig a little deeper into the wallet. I have learned that you are not going to get a good trigger on a sproinger unless you are willing to pay for it. That goes for any air gun or powder burner for that matter.

    Unfortunately, my wallet and my wife is not about to let me buy a TX200 MkIII with walnut stock at this time. I guess I will just have to save my pennies and have a bunch of yard sales and dream of the day when my toy fund can squeeze one in.


    • RR,

      This is definitely one of the times when you get what you pay for. I know that a TX 200 costs a lot, which is why I want to test it so thoroughly for you.

      The trigger is very nice. It can be adjusted very light and crisp, though it lacks an overtravel adjustment that would make it better.

      As far as accuracy goes, the TX is no more accurate than the Diana 54, but it does what it does without needing to be recoilless. And it is smaller and lighter than the 54, though it’s still a handful.

      Stick with me and I’ll show you all its quirks.

      B.B.


      • I,m with ya Man! We’ll probably talk about Rekord triggers some in a couple of weeks too. I’ve been looking hard at the 34P Compact.


  6. BB I was wondering, we have a detuned version available for us here now. Would you by any chance know how they detune it? Do they put a softer or shorter spring or do they put a vent hole in the piston seal?

    They do mention it has very low recoil but I think you mentioned that the regular rifle already has very low recoil so that may just be part of the rifle description…

    I can give you the link to the store as it’s not really a PA competitor and the rifle is 100$ more here. Which brings the question: can a springer really be worth 700$ + the price of the scope?

    J-F


    • J-F,

      I know that 12 foot-pound TXs do exist, but I have never heard of one set up for Canadian specs. The problem is, by UK law a gun will always be what it is officially manufactured to be. So they cannot de-tune a 12 foot-pound gun, because their Home Office does not allow them to recognize it as anything but a 12 foot-pound gun — regardless of what it actually puts out. That keeps the “clever” guys who always try to skirt the law, at bay.

      To be a Canadian-spec gun the TX would have to be designed to not exceed Canadian specs no matter what was done to it. They will do that when there are sufficient sales, such as the U.S. guns that they can also sell in the UK as firearms, but because Canada has some of the most restrictive limits for an airguns (even more limiting than Germany) the potential market is extremely limited. I doubt they will do it.

      B.B.


  7. BB: I noticed that the fourth photo in this write-up showed the scope running WELL past the open chamber. I”ve had this on a few very cheap springers when I had to put decent scopes on them for my ageing eyes. How does this set-up on the TX-III effect ease of pellet loading? Thanks!



      • BB,

        add me to the list of folks who found the TX to be difficult to load when the scope runs past the loading port as in your photo. There’s just not enough room to get my fingers into the port while holding the pellet so it doesn’t fall while I try to insert it in the breech. I’ve had to try to balance the pellet on a finger while positioning and inserting the pellet into the barrel. I’ll bet this becomes extremely difficult when the weather goes to 40 deg F and my fingers start to get cold.

        I’ve just purchased the new generation Leapers or UTG Bug Buster scope to replace the present scope to see if I like this setup any better. The alternative is higher mounts but I’ll see what works for me.

        Fred DPRoNJ


        • Fred…

          I would not consider higher mounts as a viable option . I use mount height to get the scope into the best position for comfortable sighting. Makes shooting much easier.
          I don’t know that you would have to go to a Bug Buster. You might find something that works without getting that short. You also can run into problems with those super short scopes because of positioning problems. You can’t slide them around much to get them into position.

          twotalon


  8. B.B. or anyone with a TX and a tape measure….

    What is the distance between the butt pad and the rear edge of the breech opening ? Has to do with scope mounting and scope length as relates to the breech opening.

    twotalon



      • B.B.

        Thanks.
        I wanted to do a comparison with my 97K on the scope issue. My 97K is an even 24″ from the top corner of the butt pad to the rear edge of the breech opening. I have an Airmax 3-9×40 with high mounts on it. The front of the scope is still a good two fingers behind the breech, and poses no problem. Scope length selection may be the biggest issue here.

        twotalon


        • twotalon

          My 2 cents – only 1-piece mount, and as low as scope objective allows. That will give you more consistent installation and better grip, also canting will be less trouble in case you are prone to canting the rifle.

          duskwight


          • duskwight

            I don’t know how you fit yourself to the rifle. Seems like doing it your way forces you to conform to the rifle, while my way forces the rifle to conform to me. I like setting up for the most comfortable fit and feel . You do it your way and I do it my way. Anybody else can do it their way. Us decadent Yankee imperialists have some strange ideas, you know.

            How are you doing with your home brewed rifle ? Get it looking good and working smooth yet ?

            twotalon


            • Comrade twotalon,

              I believe fitting is a mutual process.
              However one-piece for a springer is a better choice – Party says it is so, and Physics seconds Party, my own humble experience is completely in line with Party’s rulings :)

              My project was finished and tested this spring. It shoots, but that’s not the way I expect it to be and not what great comrade Stalin meant when he said “shooting”. I need it to be lighter and shoot faster and tighter. However – I got experience, and that’s precious. I wrote a line-to-Lenin’s-mausoleum-long list of corrections and reworks. And now I’m collecting money and assembling my brain into fist to take second attempt at blueprints.

              duskwight


              • duskwight

                I agree that one piece mounts would be better as an initial attempt so that the installation would not need to be watched closely. So far I have not had any problem with two piece mounts as long as I use the ones with the no slip tape. If they caused a problem , then I would go to the one piece setups.
                The biggest problem I have seen with two piece mounts (included with cheap scope on a package deal)was on a cheap Daisy springer (Hatsan). The recoil was trying to tear the cheap mounts right off of the grooves. They were visibly leaning after just a few shots.

                twotalon


  9. BB,
    I agree that the TX200 and the other Air Arms springers are well made. They have very nice wood stocks, Walnut is available, and the bluing is very deep. They are also well machined, deburred and very smooth. Like you said, the trigger is the best available in a modern springer.

    But, in spite of all of that, the Air Arms springers are pretty far down on my list of guns that I like. They are heavy and hard to load, especially if the scope extends over the loading port. Give me a lighter weight break barrel such as BSA Supersport, R9 or even a RWS 34 over a TX200.

    David Enoch


  10. BB,

    I am surprised that you knock the Chinese. I remember you tried the Chinese copy along side the UK version and the Chinese was more accurate. Go Figure !


  11. I just got a reply from Simon Gibbon, the Sales and Business Development Manager at Air Arms. He said the TX200 MKIII has internal baffles for sound moderation. I’ve alerted the staff at Blue Book about this error in their latest edition.

    Edith


  12. B.B.

    Aaah… Now that’s THE Rifle. Of all non-match springers that I ever held in my hands or shot (I mean mass-produced) I believe that’s the creme de creme. Funny, but the common name for that fine machine here is “hunchback” or “hawknose”. It is also the most accurate rifle among full-power factory rifles that I shot, which is quite an achievent by itself, as in springers power and accuracy don’t marry too well. In my experience it’s even more precise than D-54 (at less weight and size). However less size can be a downturn – TX200 is a bit too short to be comfortable for guys of my size.

    The trouble with Chinese copies of Rekord trigger on B-40 is just like with any other Chinese copy – quality of work and quality of materials used for that work. Mainly it’s due to lower hardness, lower precision and lower quality of finish for contacting surfaces of the sears. Of course, Chinese trigger feels good – but true TX feels perfect.

    duskwight


  13. Thanks Edith for the info about the baffles.

    So BB does the TX200 compare to a Marauder in sound? I would like to know in case I get one.

    And the gun is that smooth when it shoots? I guess the gun would be easier on the scope also then.

    Sounds like it is a nice gun.


  14. This rifle is on my short list of under lever springers, so I’m following this test closely. Personally, I have a hard time imagining a better trigger than the Rekord, but I’ll believe BB when he says it’s so. I just don’t have any experience with it. I have the Rekord on an HW57, a good trigger on the Izh 46m, the Elite on an HW90, and whatever that great trigger is that’s on the AA S410E. The Rekord is my favorite, followed closely by the S410E’s trigger so far (haven’t really decided that one yet…). The 46m goes off by just thinking about it, which I’ve never really gotten used to, and the Elite is just a touch mushy and unpredictable, but overall pretty good and light. Someday, I’ll have a TX200 Mk3 to round out my collection and maybe then I’ll get to see the difference! Just need to CL and gunbroker some things first…

    /Dave


    • Dave,

      The air arms 410 trigger is more adjustable than the rekord and the tx200. The Rekord is a phenomenal trigger but cannot be adjusted as finely as the air arms tx200.

      Kevin


  15. You might be interested in looking at some of the posts over at http://www.airarmsownersclub.com There have been a bunch of recent reports of significant problems with recent TX200′s – mine included. People have been running into issues of poorly machined compression chambers, broken springs, “grease” that’s effectively sludge, and so on. Air Arms hasn’t been especially responsive to any of the complaints.

    My report, for example:
    —-
    I have the TX200HC ( U.S. version ) that I purchased back in June. Out of the box it was very, very harsh. I put around 500 pellets through it and it was still all over the place – twangy, chrono spread of over 40fps over a 10-shot string, groups looked like they were from a shotgun, etc.

    I put in the Vortek PG2 FT kit, and things improved immensely – it’s an entirely different gun now. I stripped out all of the old grease, replaced the spring/guides/etc, and used the included piston o-ring seal. Now it’s running at around 14fpe with around 100 shots through it, and the fps spread is always < 5 fps.

    I must admit that I was more than a little annoyed that I had to replace the innards of such an expensive gun right off the bat, but after reading other tales of woe here and elsewhere I decided it wasn't worth it to send it in for service and just have to deal with whatever new set of problems it came back with. But now I'm extremely pleased with the performance and accuracy.



      • Well, the thing is that my TX200HC is smooth now that the innards have been replaced, so it’s not something inherent in that particular model or design. I’ve never used the non-HC version, but I find the cocking effort perfectly fine, even for my wimpy arms. ;-)

        The problems with swarf being found in the grease, etc. is happening to both the TX200 and HC models according to a bunch of postings on AAOC. Unfortunately it appears to be wildly inconsistent – some people are getting great guns right out of the box, while others ( like mine ) were absolutely awful.



        • Rich and others: I’m sorry to hear the difficulty you’ve had with your TX200 HC. I purchased mine (.177 TX200 HC) through PA about 3 or 4 years ago. It is the newer version that has the fish scale checkering and the cocking lever has the grippy endpiece the same as yours. I must say though mine has been a real gem. By far the smoothest out of the box springer I own. I’ll guess I’ve put about 4k to 5k pellets through it with absolutely no problems. In fact, I’ve never had the stock off that I remember. Velocity on mine has not increased the way BB’s personal gun did, but it did not decrease either. It will digest all but the very heaviest pellets; in fact one of the more accurate pellets in mine is the JSB Monster 13.4 gr. That is as heavy as I’m willing to go though. JSB Exact Heavy 10.3 gr are the best overall.

          It isn’t the perfect gun though. I agree with David Enoch in that it is heavy. Also I have to gripe about the finish on the walnut stock. You have to pay extra for the walnut but IMO it is in a “barely finished” state. I’m not a wood finishing expert but I feel there is much improvement needed at least for the walnut stock versions. What I’m waiting for (in vane probably) is an Air Arms breakbarrel that is as smooth as the TX’s but about the same weight as an R9/HW95. That is an airgun I would definitely buy.

          David H


          • Hi David:

            Interesting comments about the stock – in my case, I have the walnut, and it is as perfect as a stock can possibly get. Not a single blemish, and superbly finished. I was absolutely amazed at the quality.

            I don’t really mind the weight since I use mine strictly for target work – about 50% on the bench, and the rest a mix of kneeling or sitting. I definitely would not want to have to cart the TX200 around hunting or shooting offhand much. :-)


          • David H,

            The “barely finished” state of your walnut is characteristic of a hand0-rubbed oil finish. I don’t think that is what it is, because that would cost too much money, but they must have a spray finish that does the same thing.

            B.B.


  16. I’m starting to see a real downward spiral in airgun quality for some reason and it appears that just about everything is being made in china to chinese standards. I got hold of a Crosman MTR77 the other day and found out using sights on it was a thankless task. The reason is the plastic sleeve on the barrel rotates when toy try and cock it changing the sight picture for every shot. I got hold of a Ruger explorer. The first time I broke open the barrel to cock it and fire it I got a face full of springs and other things. The gun is useless. (made in China). I think I’m going to have to walk away from this sport until gun makers stop settling for “good enough is good enough” from Chinese factories where they haven’t got a word for quality much less an understanding of the concept. I’m really seeing this as a safety concern as well as a trashing of the sport. How can you enjoy a sport when your gun falls apart in your hands? I may revisit airgunning later if quality improves, so I’ll keep watching and see if things improve. Until then looks like I have to move on to powder burners.


    • John,

      Just because some guns are made in China doesn’t mean all are. Quality airguns are still made in England, Germany, Mexico, Spain and, of course, the U.S. Why not select those guns and forget the Chinese?

      Even better, you can buy used guns. There are many brands & models that are known for quality, yet don’t cost an arm & a leg.

      Just because some people produce Yugos doesn’t mean I’ll stop driving cars.

      Edith


      • True, there are some guns made in other countries. I do like my Russian guns. However since I cannot tell by name brand who is outsourcing their stuff to china, I have to suspect it all from being chinese. Ruger is a well known American gun maker as is Marlin, Crosman, Daisy, but most if not all the airguns made under those names are chinese made. With their non-existent quality for my own safety I am figuring everybody is suspect. I’d love it if Pyramyd air would include where a gun is made somewhere in the gun’s specs or description. That would help people like me out a lot who are growing to hate chinese made stuff. Only airgun I am trusting right now is my Airforce Condor since I know they are made in Texas and have a lifetime warranty. With the Ruger explorer, I pretty much got stuck with a broken gun. Yeah, I am pretty mad about all the really poor manufacturing. So like anything, when you are mad about it, it’s best to walk away for a while, go do something else. But I’ll keep an eye on airgunning since it was my first passion. But right now I’m kind of wanting a divorce.


        • John,

          Pyramyd Air used to include where guns are made but stopped since we never know where the guns are made. That’s for many guns…but not all guns. We still know the following:

          Air Arms guns: UK
          BSA PCP guns: UK
          Weihrauch (HW) guns: Germany
          Beeman guns made by HW: Germany
          AirForce Airguns: US (barrels are German)
          Diana rifles: Germany
          Anschutz: Germany
          IZH-Baikal: Russia
          Walther 10m guns: Germany
          Hatsan: Turkey

          I should also say that the above may have some minor parts made elsewhere than the countries shown.

          Edith


          • I’ll look at some UK guns and german, but I’m really starting to rethink some of my guns I have had my eye on. I’m looking ay Evanix rainstorm 3d in .357. I just discovered I can get one of those. Rather homely gun but compact. Any word on where those are made? I have champagne taste on a beer budget but if it is any good I’ll save up for it in time. I do want to add a decent big bore to the collection now that I have sold off most of my collection.



              • I’ll research korean guns a bit, check out several sources on their quality. I’m looking for a big bore and it looks like they are the only game in town for .357 and above. But I do need to improve the quality of guns in my stable. I’m still fighting with a leaky disco. So with that in mind I am getting really picky on quality since I’m getting tired of struggling with guns that leak or fall apart.



                  • Well, last I checked, south korea wasn’t china. And I do know that is the only thing they are allowed to hunt with there. Since I need something big bore I might have to look into them. I can’t seem to find many other people making any big bore airguns.


                    • John,

                      Dennis Quackenbush is making has been making big bores for long time. Another guy that is very sick has been around almost as long as Dennis but you won’t see guns from him for quite a while.

                      For an entry-level big bore you should look at pyramydair airs Sam Yang 909 45 Cal. When you get into big bores it’s all about bullets and whether or not you’re willing to cast or buy already cast. Extreme accuracy is been seen from multiple people in Casting pure lead with the Lee swc .452.

                      Impressive 100 yard accuracy.

                      Kevin


        • China can still make some great guns, look at the P17, if that pistol isn’t the most accuracy per dollar in the airgun world I don’t know what is.

          J-F


  17. Wow, another classic. These never get old. That’s interesting to hear the reason for the hump, whose looks I don’t care for. But the BAR had a distinctive hump that didn’t impair its superior performance. My two worries about this gun is that they will stop making it or that they will let the quality slide. The report about the B40 outshooting the TX200 (an admittedly strange test with very unusual circumstances) encouraged me to get my B30, and the performance of the B30 seems to bear out that test.

    Slinging Lead, I hadn’t heard that about FrankB chasing off looters with his laser light. But I’ve heard about this tactic before. Reportedly, some guard stopped a major prison break by playing his red tactical laser across a crowd of prisoners. But if you are doing that with only the laser and not the gun, you should be at a good distance to protect yourself. Otherwise, you better hope that the looters are not trained to charge into an ambush which is the accepted response.

    Wulfraed, to be fair to Chuck Norris, there was a time when circumstances combined to make his acting look good. In one episode of Walker, Texas Ranger, some criminal infiltrates the Rangers complete with cowboy hat and does all sorts of damage. Finally, Norris runs him down, landing a helicopter on a highway to stop his car. When the guy came up with his,”What’s this about? Is this a joke?” Norris responds, “You see me smiling?” Since he never smiles anyway, this worked really well.

    As for Seagal, he too has his lines, mostly reeking of violence. One guard blocks his way saying, “If I let you in, I lose my job.” And Seagal replies, “Wouldn’t that be better than losing your teeth?” Heh heh. But his smirk does ruin it. I suspect he is smirking at being the reincarnation of Buddha, as he seems to believe, at least when he’s not harassing women who are auditioning for roles in his movies.

    Matt61


  18. With regards to the TX trigger: I was wondering how it would compare to the trigger on a top of the line 10M match rifle. I have an HW-77 and an FWB-602 and, good as the Rekord unit in the HW is, the FWB trigger feels much more sensitive and predictable even to my fairly inexperienced index finger. I would assume that the triggers on the current 10M rifles are significantly better than the 602 as well.


    • Match triggers are in the low ounce range. They also only need to withhold 6 FPE of spring. While you can eliminate the second stage from a TX (and other triggers) leaving it discharge with even less pull weight, it’s not predictable. Once you dial back in some second stage, it will be heavier in order to remain “safe.” I’d say you can easily get into the 8-10 ounce range, but I don’t have a gauge to measure and wouldn’t go lower.

      Having two screws on the CD (not to mention the old Diana T01) makes it a bit nicer than the rekords that I love.


    • PS-Nothing wrong with pull weight in the 1 to 1.5 pull weight, IMO, as long as it’s a clean break that remains predictable. My biggest trouble is going, immediately, from one trigger to another expecting the first shots to break at the same time.


    • nowhere,

      Yes, you may correctly assume that current 10-meter rifle triggers are better than the trigger in the 602. But better is getting into a very fine category when you compare vintage 10-meter triggers with those of today. It is doubtful that anyone other than a competitor would notice the difference.

      B.B.


  19. I personally find the TX200 hard to load. The breech is 1/2″ too far down and 1/4″ too far inward from the edge of the loading port. In comparison, the HW97 and HW77 are much easier to load since the breach is about 1/4″ from the top of loading port, and only inset about 1/8″.

    I like the reach to the TX200 trigger a lot better though. The HW’s are about 3/8″ too far forward for my hands and fingers.

    Ps: With a 12x scope, the loading port is not obscured at all. A16x scope might also work depending on where it sits for proper eye positioning.


  20. Howdy Mr. BB. THANX, sir. The way you’re doing this report is even better than I could have imagined, just like my TX. “Testing” your old true blue, then testing a new outa the box T-Rex is why you are the master. Thanx to your recommendations, I have a rifle & setup that is exactly what I was looking for X10. Now, if my shot doesn’t go where I want it to I know that it ain’t the gun & I can work on identifying what I’m doing wrong & fix it. A side note, I thought that my southpaw version was simply a matter of the cheek piece being on the right, but in studying your pictures, I saw something else & hadta drag mine out ta check & wah-lah!, The breech port on my lefty is also moved to the left side. Mine is alot easier to cock & load than Mr. Nasty. Just one more thing that makes it such an awesome piece. Posted here on purpose. Hafta choose my words carefully. I have a Harley shirt that reads “If I hafta explain, you wouldn’t understand”. Thanx for all you do sir.
    Shoot/ride safe
    Beaz


  21. BB,
    Looking forward to your continuation of this blog.I will be picking up a TX200 HC in .177 at PA tomorrow 8/18 and will be interesting to see how these 2 current TX200 models stack up to each other.Im just getting back into airgunning and wanted a quality springer, hope the current TX200 models dont disapoint.


    • Keith,

      Welcome to the blog!

      Like I said in this report, I do not compare the Hunter Carbine to the regular TX. All the HCs I have shot have been very harsh, compared to a regular TX. Hopefully that won’t be your experience.

      B.B.


  22. Well i picked up my TX200 HC today at PA and so far,,, so good.Ive put a few hundred rounds through it and tried a few different pellets but only shot 20 yds today.So far it seems to like JSB Exact heavies 10.34 grn,,H&N FT Trophy 8.64 grn,Crossman Premier lites 7.9 grn and Crossman Premier Ultra Magnum 10.5 grn(i think i bought these at Walmart and it shoots them very good soo far.These groups at 20 yds are roughly dimed sized.As a springer breaks in does the groups typically get tighter??

    This being a HC model i cannot really tell if its shooting harsh or not without haveing a regular TX200 model right next to me to shoot and compare.I do not find it hard to cock or think that its not back yard friendly,,,the pellet hitting the pellet trap makes more npise than the rifle being fired.


    • HC,

      Do springers get more accurate as they break in? Possibly. After all — the barrels do smooth out to some extent.

      But I think they become more accurate as you learn their quirks and how they like to be handled. It comes down to the same thing in the end.

      Congratulations on your new rifle.

      B.B.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


+ 8 = 9

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>