Hatsan 95 combo breakbarrel air rifle: Part 1

by B.B. Pelletier


The test rifle was prettier than the one shown on Pyramyd Air’s website.

This Hatsan 95 combo breakbarrel is the third Hatsan-brand air rifle I’ve tested since the SHOT Show. I started out with very high hopes for the brand, but the two rifles I’ve tested thus far — the 125TH and the Torpedo 155 — have both been lacking in accuracy and refinement. They both met their power and velocity goals with no problem, but the Quattro triggers on them were not adjustable, as far as I was able to determine.

I’m aware that some people are advocating installing longer screws in the Quattro trigger for better adjustability, but I don’t want to test these guns that way. A new buyer will probably not make that kind of modification, and I want to test these guns as that new person will experience them.

Good reports
I’ve read a lot of good comments about the model 95 that I’m about to test. In fact, it was those comments that guided me to this rifle. Owners say it’s accurate and also well-behaved. I hope so. I’ll bend over backwards to give this rifle every chance to shine, but I’m not going to do anything that an average new owner wouldn’t do.

The Hatsan 95 is large, but it’s not in the same league as either of the two rifles I tested before. It’s about the same size as other large air rifles, like the Beeman R1 and the RWS Diana 350 Magnum.

I couldn’t resist firing a shot, just to see how this rifle handles itself, so I triggered off one round. The rifle cocks about as easily as can be expected of a spring gun in this power class, and the discharge was relatively smooth. I’ll have a lot more to say about it after I put a couple hundred rounds through the gun.

The metal and part of the walnut stock were dripping with oil when I opened the sealed plastic envelope the gun comes in. I wiped it down carefully; but if there was that much oil on the outside, it makes me wonder about the inside. Let’s hope it isn’t full of oil like some spring guns.

The rifle
For those who are keeping score, I am testing rifle number 101123711.

The Hatsan 95 is a large spring rifle that has a square-section forearm. The forearm is deep but not wide, feeling almost carbine-like in my hands. The line of the butt is straighter than most air rifles, meaning it has less drop at the toe. As a result, the rifle comes up to the shoulder ready to shoot. The sights will be on a level with your eyes, with no need to scrunch your head lower or higher. It’ll handle a scope well.

The wood is walnut, as mentioned, and few companies do walnut as well as Hatsan. It’s very smooth and even, and the stain is an attractive medium brown. Both the forearm and pistol grip have pressed checkering that’s reasonably rough. The pistol grip is too far back from the trigger and feels clunky to me. There’s no swell on either side of the grip and also no cheekpiece, making the 95 a truly ambidextrous rifle.

I will criticize how Hatsan attached the rubber buttpad, because it looks like they did it with hardware from Home Depot. Two bright-plated Phillips screws look entirely out-of-place on the end of the dark rubber buttpad, seeming to belong more in a men’s restroom on a West Virginia freeway than on a fine air rifle.


The screws that hold the buttpad look like they belong in the stall of a men’s room.

The metal is finished matte, which is to say virtually no polishing under an industrial black oxide finish. The triggerguard and muzzlebrake are both plastic, but the rest of the gun (other than the sights) seems to be wood and steel.

Sights
The open sights are fiberoptic and the front sight is too big to fit in the rear notch. I’ll shoot this gun with the open sights — at least at 10 meters; but with these sights, I don’t hold out a lot of hope for precision. The front red fiberoptic tube is very dark and doesn’t seem to gather light very well indoors. I took the rifle outdoors on a sunny day; and as long as I was in the sun, the red dot was okay. The moment I stepped into the shadows it faded. The actual dot is very small. When it’s lit, the sights look okay, with two green dots bracketing one small red one. But whoever designed these sights was not a rifleman, because they’re not very useful in the real world.

The rear sight adjusts in both directions and, except for the green dots, is a pretty nice sight. It has a square notch, and I wish I could use it with the front sight, but the housing for the red dot tube in the front is simply larger than the entire rear notch. The adjustments are crisp and positive, and there are scales on both adjustments so you know where you are.

The rifle I’m testing is in .22 caliber, which I thought was appropriate for the power. While I’m on the subject of caliber, have you discovered yet where Pyramyd Air shows the different calibers of the rifles on their website? There’s a small table showing a single caliber in the description, and it’s located to the right of the picture of the rifle. Put your cursor over the table or the words “Choose your airgun” directly below that area and it will expand to show all the calibers that model comes in. Click anywhere in the column for the caliber you’re interested in, and it’ll remain there when you move the cursor off the table. It’s a clever way to fit more information on the page!

The other Hatsan features
The 95 has the Quattro trigger and the SAS shock absorbing system. It doesn’t have the scope rail that accepts both Weaver and 11mm scope rings. The 95 takes onlyย 11mm rings, though it does have a built-in recoil stop.

The price
I normally don’t pay any attention to how much an airgun costs, except for perhaps a sideways glance to make sure it isn’t over the moon. This rifle certainly isn’t, that’s for sure. Until I looked at the price, I thought I was dealing with a $350 airgun — not a $150 gun! Yes, that’s right, the Hatsan 95 retails for under $150! Now, if it isn’t accurate, the price doesn’t matter. I’m not one of those shooters who evaluates everything by how much it costs. It’s either accurate or it isn’t, and I have NO time for guns that aren’t accurate.

If it is, then the Hatsan 95 could well be the best new buy of this year. If it isn’t, I will be sorely disappointed because they seem to have gotten almost everything else right.

27 thoughts on “Hatsan 95 combo breakbarrel air rifle: Part 1


  1. Given that this is the third Hatsan/Quatro (or whatever the spelling is — Quatro sounds like Audi’s 4wd system) to be tested this season…

    It might be worth sacrificing one just to see if aftermarket screws /can/ improve the trigger.

    I understand the desire to do the tests “as-shipped”, but /if/ changing adjustment screws can turn “pig’s ear” into a “silk purse” it may be worth the mention.

    Fiber-optic sights must DIE! Especially the trend for large green (a color the eye is quite sensitive to) rear with a small red (almost as bad as blue for sensitivity) front. I would much prefer small red rear (being close to the eye, they’d appear larger) and a green front.



    • Bob,

      Hi! Good to hear from you.

      No, I have never had a stock that was made to fit me. I think the closest I ever came was a German Weatherby .270 I owned at one time. The straight stock seemed to fit me well and came up fast. I never thought that rifle had much recoil, which is what a good stock will do.

      B.B.


  2. Hey, GLAD to see this rifle reviewed, BB! After looking ALL over for a lower-priced, accurate .177, I settled on this one, ordered it a few weeks ago, then began to CAREFULLY bring it up to speed. While I agree it IS a looker, solid in all aspects except the scope (that failed after 95 standard rds went through it), I simply could NOT get this rifle to deliver consistent reliable accuracy (with a good 3x9AO scope). After yet another frustrating day at the range, I talked to Rick, who suggested that my low velocity readings (~82% of “nameplate” & his confirmed values (and my poor accuracy results) suggested it should be replaced. I’m now waiting for that replacement, hoping that Hatsan v2.0 does far better. I’ll let you all know how this goes, but no idea when to expect replacement… —Barrika


  3. Back in the middle of March I wrote a few ‘fair & balanced’ (to my mind) observations on the Turkish airgun industry in general and the current Hatsan craze specifically. It was deemed an incendiary rant and exiled to the “Non Productive Posts Gate” by one of the forum owners.

    In comparison to the anathema heaped onto Gamo a few years ago after the introduction of their updated product line by one of the forum owners my post was high praise indeed.

    Your Hatsan tests to date bear out the wisdom of my suggestion to not get aboard the bandwagon and adopt a ‘wait and see’ position for the time needed for history to shine light on the subject.

    Despite my reservations I too hope that Hatsan can get their—–er—‘assemble their fertilizer’ to build a quality product. At this point in your tests they’re stepping back up to the plate with the count already at 2 & 0. If they fail to put this one out of the park it’s game over. Tom


  4. Hi BB

    I was really looking forward to your review of the 95. I’ve had mine now for about a month and I am very satisfied with it. It seems as if the American model differs from the one I bought here in South Africa in a number of ways. The scope rail on my rifle takes both 11 mm and Weaver mounts. Although the barrel has the black oxide finish, the rest of the rifle is quite well polished. The buttpad is attached to the butt with two small matte black Phillips screws, about 2 to 3 mm in diameter. The rifle is sold in South Africa without the Optima scope (apparently a Hatsan house brand), but this is probably a good thing, as I would prefer to fit a better scope anyway. At the price you guys pay for this gun, you can afford to fit a decent, powerful air rifle scope. I agree with you about the sights, but most of us will probably not use open sights on this rifle.

    BB, a question: how does altitude affect the performance, specifically muzzle velocity, of air rifles? All my springers (Beeman, Gamo, and Hatsan) shoot between 15 and 19% slower than the specified muzzle velocity using Umarex Mosquito 6.8 grain wadcutters. PCP guns seem to shoot at about their stated specs. I presume it has something to do with our altitude. We are 1548 m (5077 ft.) above sea level and normally aspirated cars have a 17 to 18% drop in performance at this altitude. Does anybody have any accurate data or some formula or equation on how to calculate the expected velocity drop due to the lower air pressure at higher altitudes?

    Regards.
    Vasco.


  5. BB,
    Is it third times the charm or three strikes on Hatsan? I will say that I prefer rough black-blue metal on barrel to reduce glare, so I guess that doesn’t bother me. Trigger adjustment that doesn’t would be a problem. I see your point on the Phillips head screws, but maybe it is time — straight slots come from the tradition of making the screws by hand, so why should we limit our fastener choices to that now, esp. since we have better options? Or is it the plating and the flat-head to which you are objecting?

    That is a remarkably straight stock, with very little drop. I agree with Bob from Oz that I think you meant “drop at heel” or perhaps even the more individual “drop at comb” — the “toe” of the stock is on the lower side :).


    • BG_Farmer,

      I object to the bright plating. It looks like the screws they use to hold the walls together in a men’s room on the freeway. The butt pad is black, so why aren’t the screw heads matching?

      It’s just a small nit I had to pick.

      B.B.


  6. Didn’t the last Hatsan tested really flame out? Well, we don’t want to be prejudiced. That sentence about keeping score could be interpreted as saying that B.B. has tested over 101 million rifles. Sometimes it seems that way, but surely that can’t be true. ๐Ÿ™‚ Is anyone keeping track of the serial numbers of rifles that are tested?????

    Desertdweller, Browning was Halsey’s chief-of-staff, not his second in command. I don’t know the disposition of Yamamoto’s ships at Midway, but I do know that he was a highly brilliant individual, and I would be surprised at such a boneheaded move as dividing his forces. But stranger things have happened. Yes, hitting the Japanese with their fuel and ammunition on deck seems very lucky. But I believe it was Napoleon who said that success in war depends on making probabilistic calculations of uncertainty. Something like that. Once you know where the enemy is, you can (with the aid of your decoders) figure out when he is going to strike, and then deduce when to hit him while his planes are out. Once you do that, you have a much higher chance of also hitting him when the fuel and ammo is exposed. Browning actually wrote out these ideas in a thesis for the Naval College before the war, so it wasn’t all coincidence.

    Gerry, you went through the archive of the last 6 years of the blog? That makes me self-conscious. ๐Ÿ™‚ Well, as to picking off the shot early, I can step away from metaphysics and marshal powerful allies. This is the advice of Elmer Keith who says to fire as soon as you get the sight picture. And this is also the advice of our very own PeteZ who passed on the advice of his coaches to have the courage to take the shot early. I also can’t resist a little bit of metaphysics. Bruce Lee in Enter the Dragon says, “When the time comes to hit, I do not hit. IT hits all by itself.” Then the old monk listening to him says (stroking his beard), “The IT that you describe is a powerful weapon…”

    I wouldn’t worry about the Jaws of the Subconscious. In the fullness of time, the Jaws will find you. Chomp. Maybe they already have with this moment of quiet that you describe. As a matter of fact, I’ve noticed that the top shooters look more deliberate than I do, so this is something to investigate. But I figure that I’ll stick with my method as long as I’m showing improvement. As you have no doubt noticed. Victor is the guy who really know about this stuff.

    Matt61


    • Matt,

      From all accounts I have read of Yamamoto, he was a brilliant guy. Educated in the US, a world-class poker player. Even a nice guy personally.

      Given all that, I think he was influenced in his decision by the politics of Japan. He had to have known the dangers inherent in splitting his forces into four groups that could not be mutually supportive. I can only surmise that to have done differently would have been to admit the possibility of defeat. By dividing his forces, he pretty much assured that defeat.

      Rochfort’s intel group did a great job of revealing the Midway Plan’s objective. But that intel alone could not have ensured victory for the US if Yamamoto have even combined one of his other three groups with the Strike Force. By the end of the battle, the USN was not only low on fuel and munitions for its remaining two carriers, it was almost out of aircraft, too. If he had gone into the battle with one or two additional carriers, and spaced them properly, we probably would not have won it.

      Yamamoto was dealing with an un-co-operative army, which naturally thought the role of the navy was to support the army in its ground operations. The Japanese Army was very aggressive and prone to overextend its resources. The Japanese Navy was more conservative, openly modeled on the British practice in both ships and tactics. As with most navies, the Japanese Navy was the most professional and career-oriented service, avoiding political influence as much as possible. This lack of co-operation with the army went so far as to cause the army to operate its own ships.

      Yamamoto was the victim of intercepted intelligence. A schedule of his base inspections fell into US hands, and a flight of P-38’s shot down Yamamoto’s plane in what was actually an assassination. This opens an interesting question. What if the people aboard the planes under attack had bailed out?
      Would they have been shot up in their parachutes in order to assure killing Yamamoto?

      Les


    • As I recall the Battle of Midway, Yamamoto was searching desperately for our Carriers and sent out several search planes. It was actually Vice-Admiral Nagumo on board Akagi, who, not knowing our aircraft carriers were in the area,decided to refuel and re-arm his bombers to continue the attack on Midway. The Japanese search planes, with one exception, could not find our task forces and the one plane that did, radioed the information which apparently Nagumo, was not able to receive. Yamamoto’s mistake was having his reserve ships and battleships too far away from Nagumo’s task force to be able to come to their rescue during the battle. This is Wilkipedia’s link and provides a great summary of the brave men of our Pacific fleets heroic actions:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Midway

      Fred DPRoNJ


      • Matt61, Fred, Les,

        Yamamoto’s strike force for Midway was divided three ways. The least important was the invasion force for the Aleutians. The most important was the carrier strike force to go after Midway itself; this also included troop ships for the invasion of Midway. The four fast carriers, Akagi, Hiryu, Soryu, and Kaga, were in this force. Most of the firepower was in Yamamoto’s own battleship-based fleet (the “Main Body”, and that was sailing about 2 days behind the carrier group.

        Why?

        Yamamoto expected that the carrier force plus the troops would secure a foothold on Midway, maybe even seize the whole island. That would be intolerable to the USN which would need a few days to assemble a task force at Pearl. By the time the USN sailed into the waters around Midway the trap would close when they ran into the Japanese “Main Body.” The Main Body would be fresh and undamaged, and of course the USN would have only two carriers because the Japanese thought it impossible that the Yorktown could be battle worthy so soon after the Coral Sea battle.

        Japanese doctrine argued against concentration of forces and in favor of many moving parts in many directions. Split his fleet? That was in his blood.

        Yamamoto had nothing to do with the search aircraft; Nagumo commanded the carrier force independently. He sent out a rather small search force, which only made one pass at each sector. And one sector was uncovered because the search plane had mechanical troubles. Yamamoto and Nagumo stayed in mutual radio silence, even after the battle began for good reason: Yamamoto thought that if he lit up, it would tell the USN where he was. Of course, it turned out that we already knew pretty accurately thanks to Rochefort and company.

        There are a number of theories as to why the US attack came at about the same time as the Japanese were rearming and refueling, and so had unusable flight decks. It was surely a failure of command on VADM Nagumo’s part. But remember, he did not know that the US had carriers in the area. We did send out a B-17 group from Midway to bomb the Japanese formation. As you might expect not one bomb from the B-17s hit a Japanese CV.

        Yamamoto’s strike force was not reinforcements. It was the “Main Body” and its BBs were supposed to sink what remained of the US fleet. Why did the Japanese only have 4 large carriers? Because two were badly beaten up at Coral Sea, and the Japanese could not conceive of the need for more than four anyway because their attack was to be a surprise.

        The Wikipedia article is not a substitute for the book I referenced in my last note on Midway. And it’s wrong in some spots. If your library doesn’t have that one, it will likely have Gordon Prange’s book, and if still not, Walter Lord’s very old one. They all three get the Japanese order of battle correctly, but they tell different stories about why the US dive bombers found the Japanese carriers with loaded flight decks.

        Yes, Yamamoto was killed as a result of our communications intelligence. We knew exactly where he would be, when, and we went after him. Given our estimates that he was worth a battleship or several to the Japanese, why not? He wore a uniform; by all the laws of war he was a combatant and fair game. It raises the question of whether it is moral in warfare to target a specific enemy soldier and go after him personally. If you think shooting down Yamamoto was assassination, you probably think we should not have gone after Osama — at least that’s the logic of the situation. Given the strategic and tactical errors he made at Midway, Coral Sea and maybe even Pearl Harbor, perhaps we should have let Yamamoto live and continue to command the Japanese Navy.

        As it happens all this is at the top of my mind because I’ve just been reading and rereading the books because of my fascination with the battle.

        First radiation treatment was today. I’m really worried because it seems to have made my jaw and teeth hurt intolerably. That shouldn’t have happened.

        pete


        • Pete,

          great response. I guess I have to get to the library and look for those books. Have to do it before my treatment and also radiation. Hang in there, Partner.

          Fred DPRoNJ


        • Pete,

          I hope you get feeling better soon.

          I was considering Yamamoto’s Combined Fleet to have been divided into four parts: The Aleutian Diversionary Attack Force; The Midway Invasion Force; the Strike Force (Nagumo’s carriers) and the Main Force (Battleship Group with Yamamoto in Yamato).

          Shooting down Yamamoto was certainly an assassination. I was concerned about the morality of it, not in comparison of OBL, but of the general prohibition against machine-gunning enemy airmen and sailors in parachutes and life rafts. While exceptions were made, generally American, British, and Germans refrained from doing this. So, if it was OK to kill him in the plane, what about if he had bailed out (he didn’t, and was found dead in the wreck). I doubt if anyone would be able to identify him floating down in a parachute harness.

          Pete, you are the first person I have heard suggesting that Yamamoto was an inept commander that may have been helpful to keep alive. Everyone else seems to be of the opinion that the guy was a military genius. I see no genius in his Midway Plan. He does get credit for predicting that, if the war was not won in the first six months, the production capabilities and the fighting spirit of the Americans would crush Japan. He should know, he spent a lot of time here.

          The discovery of the USN force was made by the crew of a recon plane from the Cruiser Tone. This plane did not get off on time due to a problem with the catapult.

          The discovery of the Japanese fleet was made by a PBY flown out of Midway.

          Les


          • Hi, All,

            Les,

            Aha! You took the invasion force as two parts. I couldn’t figure out where you got the fourth component. And yes, your descriptions of the spotting of the two opposing forces is right on, according to every book I read.

            I don’t know about killing people in parachutes. The British tended not to machine gun German pilots who bailed out over England on the grounds that there was no way for them to get back to the Continent and rejoin the Nazi forces. On the other hand, they reluctantly agreed that it was OK to shoot a German bailing out over occupied Europe on the grounds that he could continue the fight. I’ve never persuaded myself one way or the other definitively.

            To me Yamamoto was one of those commanders whose tactical analyses were brilliant, and whose pretty pictures of arrows and such were convincing as long as the enemy did what he thought they would do. The problem is that he could only issue orders to one side, not both. Following in the tradition of the Russo-Japan War, he and Combined Fleet were always looking for decisive fleet actions and traps to spring on the adversary. The problem is that when you make a mousetrap you have to persuade the mouse to push on the treadle and fire the killing lever. That meant that the opposing fleet had to enter a very small range of sea space for all of the Japanese forces to bear against it. Hence lures, bait, decoys, and ultimately losses.

            You’re right: there was no great brilliance in the Pearl Harbor attack, just guts and a supreme trust that the fleet could keep radio silence. Neither Coral Sea nor Midway showed much real brilliance.

            In one of my favorite day dreams Yamamoto survives the war and is interrogated by USN historians. When asked what naval battle spelled the doom of the Imperial Japanese Navy, he answers forthrightly: “Pearl Harbor.” He was right with his caution that Japan had to win fast.

            I just finished reading an obscure little book called “The Road to Rainbow” by Henry Gole. It’s Gole’s PhD thesis, and it revolves around the history of the War Department’s War Plans office between WW1 and WW2 along with the Rainbow War Plan in place in 1941. When considering war in the Pacific the USN students at the War College consistently suggested that we would suffer a major defeat to open the battles, and then struggle for a year and finally trounce Japan as our production geared up. As it happened, it was only six months to Midway.

            Yamamoto might have made a great chief of intelligence analysis. As a tactical commander, not so much.

            The radiation treatment on Thursday and Friday got increasingly rougher. The weekend’s rest will be a help. I expect to be a veggie on Tuesday after the last one. The response is non-linear, so the last shot is worse on you than the first.

            Fred,

            Thanks for the compliments. Didn’t know you were about to be irradiated. Sorry to hear that.

            A side note: The Midway invasion fleet sailed from Hiroshima. So much for whether it was a military target.

            pete


  7. BB, since you brought it up… The way P.A. “displays” additional calibers a gun is available in on their new website is one reason I refuse to use their “new and improved” website even though its search features are far better when I need to look up information on an airgun to answer a question at Yahoo Answers. I’d far rather they simply take up a bit more screen space and display the information the way they did on the original site since it makes it quicker and easier to find. However that’s just my unsolicited opinion, which probably means nothing to anyone…

    Oh… You said a few months ago to remind you that you were supposed to do a final accuracy test on the Crosman 2100 in part 3.



    • J,

      Who said this means nothing to anyone? I care. Pyramyd Air cares. I always forward these types of comments to the marketing department so they know what the customer thinks. They went over many options for displaying the different calibers, and their biggest concern was reducing clutter. The nesting concept was one way to do that.

      Edith


      • Thanks Edith. I just assumed (based on my experiences with companies like Yahoo, Google, etc… changing the interface on their products and their total lack of reaction to people saying they don’t like something about the new intereface) that the folks at Pyramyd Air had settled on a layout and weren’t interested in feedback. That’s why I didn’t say anything last year when the Beta site went live.

        For what its worth, I can understand and approve of the desire to have a clean (uncluttered) and simple interface. My concern is that by requiring a selection/mouseover that (depending on how its done and the tech level of the user) may not be apparrent it sort of hides information. I did a quick check and the most recent version is better about making it obvious that there’s a mouse-over/selection available than the version I remembered from last year. However I still wish that the information didn’t require a mouse-over though since it makes it apparrent at a glance what all the options are.

        Yeah… I know I’m rambling… Anyway, I appreciate the response and its heartening to see that P.A. cares about feedback.


        • J,

          I just heard back from Val, he’s Pyramyd Air’s president…and, yeah, he appreciates your opinion and said it’s still a work in progress. We’re always looking for ways to improve the website. All ideas are welcome. Basically, Pyramyd Air is not married to what you see and will gladly make changes that make shopping & searching easier and more enjoyable.

          I was asked by Val if you’re CF_45 (or something like that) on Yahoo! answers. If you don’t want to answer here, you’re welcome to contact me at edith@pyramydair.com. I don’t know why he wants to know.

          Thanks,
          Edith


          • Edith,

            No I’m not CF_45. Though CF_45 and I correspond frequently via e-mail. I go by J Kirsch on Yahoo Answers. At least when I’m on. I don’t visit Yahoo Answers as frequently as I used to anymore mainly because if you’re not careful it can take up huge amounts of time without you realizing it…

            As for why he’s interested, its probably because CF45 is one of the most knowledgeable people when it comes answering airgun questions on Yahoo Answers. (I’m pretty good, especially if a question involves a research element or inexpensive multi-pumps, but hands down CF_45 has more experience with airguns than I ever will, especially springers…) He’s also one of the most prolific people when it comes to answering airgun questions.


  8. Here’s to hopes for “third time’s a charm”! Saw a 95 on the AA and yellow for $95 a while back. Down from $110. Tempting, but the Torpedoes torpedoed that one for me….

    /Dave



  9. You are correct on the Quattro trigger adjustment or the lack there of. We folks in the US get an assembly that is not fully adjustable as the European variant (thanks probably due to ambulance chasing lawyers) so accuracy is sacrificed due to heavy trigger pull, at least on one I briefly owned. Rather than replacing cap screws with set screws or changing to lighter springs I sent a 125 nitro back due to trigger issues. I would buy another Hatsan nitro in a heartbeat if they would say screw it and make the US version “FULLY” adjustable and capable of <4# trigger pull.
    Just an opinion.


Leave a Reply