by Tom Gaylord, a.k.a. B.B. Pelletier
The LGV Master Ultra with a wood stock is what readers have been asking to see. Today we shoot it at 50 yards.
This is the final installment on the Walther LGV Master Ultra. When combined with the 6-part review I did of the .22-caliber Walther LGV Challenger, that’s 12 separate reviews of the new LGV rifle. I think that’s more than enough information to help anyone make up their mind.
For this report, I took the rifle to my outdoor rifle range two different times. The first time, the wind kicked up as I was shooting the first group, so I only managed to shoot one 10-shot group that day. It took a long time because I had to wait to shoot between wind gusts. The second day at the range, the weather was perfect. It was one of those rare days where the wind never gets up to one mile per hour all day long, so I feel the rifle has gotten as fair a test as I’m able to give.
To remind you of the way it’s set up, the LGV Master Ultra is scoped with a Bushnell Banner 6-18X50 AO scope mounted in BKL 1-piece rings. Nothing special about the scope or mounts, except that they both work very well with this rifle.
Today, I’m shooting at 50 yards. Two things about this are exceptional. First, I’m shooting a spring rifle at 50 yards. If you’ve never tried it, don’t knock it. You can’t just double the size of a 25-yard group and get what it’ll look like at 50. Second, I’m shooting 10-shot groups. They’ll always be 40% larger than 5-shot groups. So, factor that in as you read my report.
Day one on the range
This first day began okay; but before the first group was finished, the wind picked up. I waited between gusts, and I’m pretty sure the wind did not account for any increase in the group size. I shot 10-shot groups, as is my custom. That way, I seldom wonder if the results are anything but representative of the rifle. Yes, it’s harder to shoot 10 shots well, rather than 5; but I find that if you start thinking that way, the next thing you know is that you’ll be looking for only the best 5-shot groups among all you’ve shot. That’s harder to do with 10-shot groups because they take so long to complete.
The shooting at 25 yards had convinced me that I needed to rest the forearm at the end of the cocking slot, instead of with my off hand touching the triggerguard. That gives the rifle a very stable hold without the normal shakes you get when you hold it the other way.
I got just one group this day. There were more shots, but the wind picked up enough that I found it impossible to say that it wasn’t influencing the size of the groups. The single group I shot was with Crosman Premier lites, the 7.9-grain pellet that had performed so well at 25 yards. At 50 yards, 10 pellets made a group that measured 1.509 inches between centers. So I brought it home, to await the perfect day for another test.
The first group of Premier lites went into 1.509 inches at 50 yards. Due to the wind rising, this was all I could shoot this day.
That day came last week. It was supposed to be raining, but the skies were dry and overcast. As mentioned, there was barely a breath of air the whole four hours I was at the range. The first group was shot with the Premier lites, for which I had so much hope. Ten went into a group measuring 1.561 inches between centers. It was time to face facts — this was the best the rifle was going to do with this pellet at 50 yards. Now, it was time to experiment.
This second group of Premier lites was shot on a perfect day. It measures 1.561 inches between centers. The first group was also the best group.
Next, I tried Beeman Devastators — a lightweight hollowpoint pellet that has no hope at 50 yards, except when the conditions are perfect, as they were this day. Ten went onto a group that measured 1.852 inches between centers. I think that’s pretty good for a hollowpoint at 50 yards, but it probably doesn’t look too good in the photo.
Beeman Devastators did very well for hollowpoints at 50 yards. Ten went into 1.852 inches.
The day was still dead calm, so I thought I’d keep shooting. The next pellet I tried was the H&N Baracuda Match that hadn’t done as well as I’d hoped at 25 yards. At 50 yards, 10 of them made a 1.637-inch group…but this group was strange. Six pellets landed high in a tight 0.829-inch bunch and the other four landed low, making a 0.777-inch group of their own. This result would bear some further investigation, if I owned this air rifle.
H&N Baracuda Match pellets printed these two groups. Six on top and 4 below, for a total size of 1.637 inches between centers. There are no holes under the dime.
I can see sorting these pellets by weight and being very selective of each pellet, rather than just shooting everything straight from the tin, as I did in this test. I make no promises; but when you get results like this, there may be a good reason.
The last pellet I tested was the JSB Exact heavy, a 10.34-grain dome. I had high hopes for these, as well; but when the first 6 landed in 1.586 inches, I stopped because the final 4 had no chance of tightening that.
Six JSB Exact Heavy pellets went into 1.586 inches. I didn’t complete this group.
So that was the test at 50 yards. It didn’t turn out as I’d expected. The 12 foot-pound .22-caliber LGV Challenger produced better groups that hovered around one inch. The wind cannot be blamed for this, so the 12 foot-pound rifle just turns out to be more accurate at long range.
The final word
I said the Walther LGV is the TX200 of breakbarrel springers at the end of the other test, and I’ll not change that assessment. The action is incredibly well-built, the trigger is fine and the accuracy is better than average for a good spring-piston rifle. I like the barrel latch, and I no longer need the last foot-pound of power to validate an airgun’s worth. What I’m after is a wonderful shooting experience that this Walther delivers.
89 thoughts on “Walther’s new LGV Master Ultra .177 air rifle: Part 6”
I became a proud owner of FWB 65 – several “grey” spots due to its age (it’s older than me 🙂 ), but it still works perfect and makes extremely nice groups with consistent speed. Sorry for being most time offline recently – I’m moving to another apartment, so all tools are packed, no place to work and what’s worst – no time.
An FWB 65, you say? Wonderful gun! I have owned them and they make great target pistols.
Now, as for your absence from this blog — we can excuse you this time, but please submit your request for leave time in advance from now on. There are schedules to be maintained, you know. 😉
Comrade, I thought papers from People’s Comissariat for Moves, local Party Commitee, AK owner license and signed certificate for my pet bear would be enough… Now where can I get coupons for the form to fill in a request for this blog?
It’s a typical mistake. Many people make it on the first few moves. Send a small contribution and I will see that the right paperwork is filled out and gets put in your file.
Only too happy to help a friend. 😀
In between the rain showers here in MD on Saturday, I finally got to shoot my Walther LGV Master Ultra in .177 that was delivered Tuesday. The wind was calm for most of the shoot. I outfitted the rifle the same as you did B.B., the Bushnell Banner and BKL one piece mount (had to order that directly from BKL Tech as PA was out of stock).
After cleaning the barrel with a half dozen dry patches (not much crap in the barrel, just some of the usual brownish gunk usually found in a new gun), I shot about 50 or 60 Crosman CPL lights from a measured 50 feet. After the usual warm up and sighting in the scope, I was pretty much consistently hitting within the 9-ring of the Gamo paper target ( https://www.pyramydair.com/product/gamo-paper-targets-100-pack?a=147#refId=850c816bff99d955a9924f0105ad9827 ).
I basically used my sniper hold, resting the forearm of the stock on an elevated rolled up terry towel, with my left hand directly below the bottom rear of the stock. I tried a couple other holds, and found the rifle wasn’t all that picky on how it was held.
The trigger is pretty exceptional, nice wide blade and predictable action. I left it at stock settings; I may try some of the adjustments to get it to break a tad lighter. The cocking effort was a bit more than expected, but seemed to be getting easier toward the end of my shooting.
The wood on this rifle is very nice, warm color, well finished with nice pistol grip stippling. The metal is nicely and consistently blued with just a bit of a sheen to it. It’s a well made rifle and definitely lives up to the Walther branding.
I’ve posted some pics over on the GTA in the European Gate/German category, look for “Wrecktangle” user.
I’m thinking that this rifle may become legendary status, and become to breakbarrels what the TX 200 is to underlevers. It does compare very favorably with the TX 200 in build and accuracy.
I admit, I have a lot more shooting to do with the Walter, but for now it’ll be the gun I grab off my rack when I get the opportunity to shoot.
Finally someone besides me has one of these. Now you can tell them what you think.
I’m glad your rifle is working out so well.
Where you from in MD? I’m in Baltimore (originally Cumberland).
Hagerstown. I retired from Baltimore City P.D.
Homicide: Life on the Streets. Hate it or love it?
Good book! I met the author and got an autographed copy. That book was written when I was still there. Knew a lot of the characters mentioned. I loved it, best job in the world. But glad to be away from it. (but secretly miss it)
I haven’t read or even heard of the book (although now you’ve made me want to).
I felt the Fontana/Levinson television series, especially the first season, was as raw, unvarnished drama as I had ever seen. That heartbreaking ending of the first episode, where a young detective’s first-day at Homicide ends with his taking a call, going unaccompanied to the dark crime scene, not even yet roped off, a crowd standing directly around a young girl’s body, and a pouring rain washing away any potential for physical evidence. The look on his face . . . .
Did velocities settle down on this LGV? With the scope and rings you used, how did you address staying very close to optical center on such a large scope? I’ve learned the hard way that this is another extremely important aspect of accuracy, especially when using higher powers. I’ve given up on using non-adjustable vertical mounts and shims.
The height of the scope is irrelevant when you are zeroes for one range and only shoot at that distance. As long as you don’t cant, it’s not a problem.
You keep from canting by using visual cues at the target. Just keep lining the scope up the same way and the rifle will always be in the same attitude.
The issue I’m referring to is not rifle cant, but adjusting the cross hairs too far off optical center to adjust for the high mounted scope and pellet drop at 50 yards can cause shot gun patterns. Chasblock didn’t have to adjust much past optical center, so this didn’t appear to be an issue for him. I’ve compared accuracy between staying close to optical center and being off say by 1 full rotation down, and for me the results were dramatic. Less sensitive with a Bushnell or Hawk scope, very significant on a UTG scope. I started to use shims, then decided that adjustable mounts allow for much better fine tuning.
That’s not a problem with either of the LGV’s I have tested. Both have almost no barrel droop. So the erector spring remains under a lot of tension and the scope stays on zero. In fact, the adjustments are over in the tighter, rather than looser, range of their travel.
A quote out of a guide for setting up a scope for field target use…
“For Field Target, the most crucial distance is 55 yards. This is the longest distance and
therefore where your scope needs to perform at its peak. So, the scope needs to be at
“Optical Centre” when the elevation turret is set to 55 yards. By this we mean that when
set to 55 yards, the elevation turret will be in the middle of its adjustment range.”
I learned this the hard way. It does have an impact on long distance accuracy.
Yes, if I was shooting field target I would be concerned about the scope height — though not too concerned. I have seen FT rifles that had their scopes mounted five inches above the bore line. The trick isn’t the scope height — it’s knowing where the pellet will land at every distance — assuming the erector tube isn’t floating.
But once again, I was shooting at 50 yards and only at that distance. It made no difference where the scope was adjusted, as long as the erector tube wasn’t floating, which it wasn’t.
An equivalent situation is the guy hunting buffalo versus the guy shooting groups at 500 yards. The buffalo hunter does need to know what the range is for every shot. The target shooter doesn’t care. Once he is on paper, the bullets are all going to the same place.
TC, if I may address your question. I used the same setup as B.B. Once the scope was mounted, it took 10 clicks to the right and 5 clicks up to get to the center of target from the scope’s optical center. This was by far the easiest scope I’ve ever gotten on target.
Your adjustments of 10 and 5 clicks indicate no issues with your scope setup. I’m very surprised in BB’s 50 yard results, yet there was some indication at 25 yards that accuracy with the .177 was less than that of the .22 LGV. I’m not ready to give up on the .177 LGV, but anything over 1″ at 50 yards is just not acceptable to me in a premium break barrel. How loud do you find your LGV?
TC, I’ve only fired, as I said, 50 or 60 pellets thru it. There was the usual burning off of oils during the first 20 or so shots. No smoking, just the crack that you get with a new gun. But toward the end of my session, essentially the only thing I heard was the spring uncoiling. Very quiet gun.
Keep us posted on your results. With all the engineering poured into the LGV, I really feel the .177 results will be better.
I can’t remember if, when you tested the TX200, you also tested this fine rifle at 50 yards?
I can’t remember, either. Maybe I need to test it again?
I’ll second that test, BB!
The TX200 and the LGV Challenger are both on my short list. Is there any possible way you can test a “new” TX200 if you decide to do it? That way I’ll have a better idea of what to expect out of the box. If not, that’s ok too, since I already know from your last test and from their reputation that they break in well.
The TX200 is $100 cheaper than the new LGV.
The TX200 is a well proven springer in competition, not just in plinking.
The TX200 has a great trigger too.
The 12 foot-lb version of the XT200 is very smooth, but no the FAC (or USA) version.
Last but not least, you can mount any scope of any height on the TX200, not so with a break barrel gun.
Perhaps PA should import the 12 ft-Lbs version of the TX200. I mean BB and some of us like that great shooting experience and don’t care for that extra foot-Lb of energy.
A 12 foot-pound TX200 is harder to cock than the FAC model. I used to have oner. It also vibrated more.
The 12-foot-pound gun has a shorter stroke. believe me — you would not like it as much. They did import them and nobody liked how they cocked or shot. In fact, I sometimes get requests for tuners who can take 12 foot-pound TX200s back to FAC specs.l It’s a lot of parts no one has, because the entire powerplant has to be converted.
Thank you for your input. You are the first and ONLY person that said the U.K. version of the TX200 shoots no smoother than our FAC TX200, because everyone I spoke to, said just the opposite. Maybe it is because they converted their FAC TX to 12 ft-Lb using a Tuning Kit that they purchased, and did not purchased a U.K. TX200.
The LGV Master Ultra (beech) is ambidextrous. The left-handed TX200 in beech is not $100 cheaper to me, it is $60 cheaper. The LGV Challenger (Same powerplant as the Master Ultra) is also ambidextrous and costs $64 less than the lefty TX200. It also weighs a pound less than the TX200 in beech.
Keep in mind I am referring to the US version of the TX, as the UK version, as far as I can tell, is made of unobtainium or exotictrillium and is recollected in “nostalgi-fondness.” It’s better than the FAC in the same way the old Sheridan .20 pellets were better than today’s .20 CPLs and Benjamins — it’s better in some guilded past.
If you don’t like the Walthers, don’t buy one. I probably won’t, either.
But if you choose to draw an unfavorable comparison between it and the UK version of the TX200, I say forget the UK TX200! Get an old sliding action version of the TX 200; I suspect you’ll love it. Everyone knows the reason A.A. discontinued it was because it was so wonderful it made buyers instantly combust with joy when they experienced its smoothness. It made phlem on a doorknob feel like 200 grit!
I never said I don’t like the new Walther LGV. I do like it very much, but NOT for $700, and NO you don’t get what you paid for, which most people think you do. Because the cost of doing business and taxes in Germany is significantly higher than even us, a German gun with the same quality and performance as a gun made outside western (socialistic Europe) cannot compete, cost wise.
You are certainly right about paying versus getting. There are plenty of products that are overpriced junk, and plenty that are quite good despite being affordable.
If the Challenger version were $100 less, I’d buy one, but I agree that these are in the upper range for springers. It is also true that I have too many air rifles as it is!
More and more I am narrowing my collection down to Feinwerkbaus and a couple Dianas. But I find it frustrating that FWB have made so few models! I have a 150, two 300ses, a 601, and a 124. I’ll not spend 2000 dollars on a 10 meter pcp unless somehow I wake up some morning as a world-class shooter, so that is out! ;^)
Forget the tx200. For $25… less you can have a condor and much more accuracy and power than this Walther springer and no springer recoil or vibration. From there you can get a 12 inch barrel and frame cap and you them have a Talon SS. Or just shroud the 24″ barrel and you have a Condor SS on steroids. Throw on a decent scope and a bipod and you can easily reach out to 100 yards with accuracy that the LGV can’t touch at 50 yards. And best of all you can very easily adjust the power to suit your needs in infinite ways. If your going for a sports car you might as well go for the best sports car you can get.
My TX200 is a Mark III, which is the latest design. And my rifle compares favorably to all the brand-new TX200s that are coming out of the UK today. I shot a brand new TX last year and it was identical in feel,m and accuracy. So, rather than tie up an expensive gun for 6 months, I will just use the one I have.
If I thought there was a difference I would get a new one. But I am sure there isn’t.
That said, every TX does need to be shot to break in. They don’t get smoother, but they do speed up.
Now that’s just not right! You’re not making my decision any easier you know!?! How on earth am I supposed to blame YOU for my mistake if you’re not giving me clear and concise direction on which to buy first?!?
(Took lessons from the wife on those statements….) 🙂
Mr. BB, Yes please, sir. Mine is back ordered til end of the month. Wrong hander versions take longer. Would love ta know what the TX is capable @ 50 yrds in the hands of a master.
Presently the LGV Master Ultra,.177, wood stock is unavailable in the US. This model would interest me as a buying choice. I wonder where could find one for sale. Are there any good internet/web sites which specialize exclusively in used or even newish air rifle sales, like gunbroker.com or gunsamerica.com does for firearms. I’ve checked, these sites have only limited air gun listings, unfortunately. Thank you. Regards. Lajos
No, you did not test the TX200 at 50 yards. This sounds like a good excuse to get some range time in with one of your favorite rifles.
Then, it’s on!
I can’t find a later report than
Then look here:
Back on 04/16 I said:
“Based on where you’re at (that day was 10M/open sights), I’m hereby on record that this version will produce field run groups of about 1.5″ with best pellet. Which is ok, but not great, for a top-end springer.”
Bing-badda-binging-BING! GIVE the MAN a CEE-gar!
Shame, really. One of those times I would have been OK with being dead wrong. Being a springophile, I wanted this one to be a winner. Its hard to justify six clams for a piece with clunky-functional lumber that won’t significantly out-shoot my humblest piece, a modded Crosman Phantom. Here’s hoping Feinwerkbau shortly announces the new 224….
What fpe is the FWB 224 supposed to produce? My San Anselmo 124 is less powerful than the later San Rafreal ones, but it is still about 9.5 fpe. No vibration or twang at all, and it is about as smooth and quick snapping as an HW97. (I do suspect it has a high-end tune.) Smoother and more accurate than my R7, but easier to stay on target for follow-through. At 10m my groups are only a few mm larger than those produced by my 150, 300s, and 601. (I do now have a 300s that does 7.25 fpe.)
The 224 would be interesting if it were a 13 to 16 fpe breakbarrel. That could (emphasis: COULD) be a breakbarrel to rival the best underlevers.
Actually, I have to ask why FWB doesn’t do their version of the HW77 / AA TX200 / HW97? I envision a $1500 TX200 that shoots like a 10m PCP but has much less attractive wood!
Michael, the “224” is imaginary — ‘I wish’, but I am resignedly confident that FWB has little inclination to get back into springers.
A decent running 124 should generate over 12 fpe. Methinks you have A) a de-tuned gun, or B) a broken mainspring or a bad seal (piston or breech). If a bad seal (and the original piston seals do deteriorate), best to fix it before you hammer the innards to death.
What I have is one of the very first FWB 124 air rifles ever made, sold from the Beeman’s house in San Anselmo before they moved the business to San Rafael. It shoots like it’s supposed to: Hobbies around 810fps, CPLs at about 795. I didn’t calculate the fpe. before my previous post, so maybe it’s around 10-10.5 fpe, not 9.5, but for a tuned (not necessarily detuned in the least) S.A. 124, that’s about right. San Rafael 124 models shoot Hobbies at about 850 fps. (What does that come out to in fpe.?)
My 124 has what looks like a recently (5 years or so) replaced leather breech seal. As for its piston seal, I plan to work on a few springers over the summer, so while I am opening them up, I’ll go ahead and take a look inside this one, too.
I will take a 12 ft-lbs version of the TX200 any day over the LGV, and is a lot cheaper too ($100).
$700 for the LGV, wow!
IMO one could do much worse than the LGV Challenger for $566, although only in .22. This powerplant seems to favor the larger caliber a LOT.
I perfer to buy an RWS 34 and tune it with sightly lower power. It will shoot smooth, cocks easier than original, and the new To6 trigger is pretty good too. And when it si done, it will cost me a little more than 1/2 of what an new LGV would cost.
Yeah, man…drag out that TX for a few groups when you get the chance.
The LGV is a “no sale” item with me, but I do appreciate what Walther has put into it. Weight and “what would I do with another German rifle” are the factors. Nobody talked me out of it except…..me.
Everybody is sating that this gun is wonderful, but I tend to think it isn’t since I have seen much tighter shot groupings from less expensive guns n other reviews. This is one gun I will definitely pass on since it is so much like countless other guns like it. I just cannot justify spending that much on another .177 caliber break barrel that has the same muzzle velocity, similar stock, same power plant, as every other gun on the market.
I agreed. I perfer to buy an RWS 34 and tune it with sightly lower power. It will shoot smooth, cocks easier than original, and the new To6 trigger is pretty good too. And when it si done, it will cost me a little more than 1/2 of what an new LGV would cost.
I learned to stick with what I have in my racks now. Without spending any more I have a number of guns that have proven successful hunters and equal or better in accuracy to this new gun. I’m thinking of one that I spent about $100 on several years ago. Break barrel springer with a nice wood stock. I’ve taken muskrat at 30 yards with that gun. It’s a Ruger Airhawk. If I can hit a half-dollar sized kill zone at 30 yards on a swimming animal, that has to be a good gun. I’ve also done that with a Gamo Whisper. Synthetic stock, and barrel. I’ve taken starlings with that gun. So the kill zone is much tighter. I think I paid around $150 for that gun when they first came out.
Hey John , since you like to shoot muskrats, and have a good spot , it might suprise you to know that they are a much desired furbearer with a current market value of $10+ average for large Michigan rats . If you put up 60 pelts ,instead of blowing them up with a AK round from your MOA AK, you could easily buy a LGV, or even a new Air Force PCP rifle.
I suppose I could do that since my prefered gun is my condor .22 but I don’t really have 60 muskrats on my hit list. normally there are anywhere from 2-5 that I need to kill every year depending on how many are born before I nail the female. So even if I did know how to preserve the pelts and where to sell them there wouldn’t be enough profit in it to make it worth my while. So it’s cheaper to stick with what I have which is every bit as good if not better in some ways to the new stuff that is out, and simply save up for something that I am really jazzed about that won’t get lost in the racks or actually does what it is supposed to do. I was all happy about the Condor SS until I found out it was a noisy beast. My enthusiasm for that gun went right in the toilet when I discovered it wasn’t as quiet as the prototype. With at least half a dozen proven hunting guns That more or less look and function like the Walther LGV I cannot justify the price when I know what I have was cheaper and has tighter shot patterns.
I have to ask an off topic question. The Crosman MK-177 in tan is $99.99. But get it in black and its $149.99, It’s the exact same gun but in a different color. Why is the black gun so much more expensive than the tan gun? It seems to me they should be the same price. I can’t see paying so much more for a black all plastic gun than for a tan all plastic gun.
Me, either. They charge more for stainless steel and nickel guns, too, and I won’t have them in my collection. So I guess it boils down to taste.
I can see the extra cost for nickle plating. It is a rather expensive process. However we are talking injection molded plastic here. It can’t possibly cost any more for black plastic than it does for tan plastic. Look at the M4-177. It’s around $70. Same black plastic as the black MK-177. This price has to be an error. No way the gun is worth $149.99 just because it is black injection molded plastic that they use for cheaper guns than the MK-177. It should be $99.99 like the tan version.
The black gun is priced the same as the MK-177 kit, which includes a case and other accys (it’s not activated yet on Pyramyd Air’s website). We’re trying to determine if the black gun we’re getting is really just the gun and price is wrong or if it’s really a kit and the picture is wrong. I hope we’ll have it fixed by tomrrow.
Ok. That explains alot. I like the black version better but I can do without the kit. I’m hoping to see the price change instead of adding a bunch of stuff I can live without. This thing is likely going to be ending up a wall decoration along with an M-417, AIR 17 and a few other “tactical” air rifles I’ve collected through the years. This is one of the few air guns I got all jazzed up about and haven’t had that squashed due to the actual thing not living up to expectations. I already know the thing is a plastic gun so I won’t be that disappointed. I was seriously put out to discover the m-417 was almost all injection molded plastic.
BB: What a tough crowd, and maybe more than a tad inexperienced judging from the comments on the groups. Personally , I’m impressed because they are TEN SHOT groups , with a brand new gun not broken in yet, outside , in the wind , and with un-sorted pellets. Yes , if sticking with JUST break barrels, there are guns that are ( or were once ) less expensive than this one, but I bet I can count them on one hand and probably one or two of them are not around anymore. They aren’t made in China either. I would buy one , and may someday, disposable income permitting.Thanks for a honest review. BTW, did you ever try the pistol primers in your .22 Hornet reloads for your SS rifle? Also, just bought a Hawke scope from PA for one of my airguns and was surprised to see that it came optically centered right from the box. It is my first Hawke scope and so far I like it very much.
I would expect you to understand. You have tried to do this.
I have tried pistol primers. So far I don’t see any difference, but I’ve got 5,000 small rifle benchrest primers on order, so there is more to see.
Keep us posted if you can sneak a blog in about it or maybe a Shotgun news article.Reloading accurate .22 Hornet ammo is probably harder than shooting break barrel air rifles outside in the wind. Lucky if you can get primers of any kind.We are dry here. My old man would say ” a good soldier is always provident”. So , at least for now,(here anyway),if you weren’t provident ,your SOL…
I regret posting my comments against this new LGV, because I love what Walther is producing which is this innovative LGV, and I am afraid that if they see my post, they’ll think twice before producing another innovative airgun. I wish I can take out my posting which is “…buy an RWS 34 and tune it with sightly lower power. It will shoot smooth, cocks easier than original, and the new To6 trigger is pretty good too. And when it si done, it will cost me a little more than 1/2 of what an new LGV would cost.”
Joe, Not slamming anyone in particular but I have tried shooting at 50 yards and greater with a lot of springers. I have a D-34 in .22 and it is a fine gun. I have a 46 Diana which is only a 11 ft/lb gun in .22 as well and it will shoot rings around the D-34. I just lube tuned/deburred the 46 but I’ve have shot it A LOT! I have a 48 as well ,and it is more powerful but not as accurate as the 46. These are quality guns. I have fooled with several Crosman and Gamo break barrels, and while wonderful values and more than adequate for under 30 yard pest control and informal target shooting, they are not as good. It’s the barrels more than anything, with triggers second. It is VERY hard to shoot 10 shot groups at the 50 yard distance outside with a springer. Especially a break barrel. The best one I have is a .177 R-10(HW 85) with a Maccari kit in it that does around 850 fps with JSB Exacts. It is like trying for consistant tight 10 shot groups with a common .22RF sporter at 100yards. I see a lot of reviews with 3 shot groups with cheap.22 RF’s at 50 yards that are 3/4″ . Now imagine if the reviewer shot ten? If most hunters were honest they would admit it is damn seldom that you take a tree squirrel at more than 25 yards in average woods cover. The ones that brag a lot are like the hunters who’ve shot dozens or deer or whatever, and have never missed or lost any. They are full of excrement and their advice is worth less than what most advice is.
I agreed with you about the accuracy of the Diana’s barrel, but the Walther’s are no better, especially the newer guns after Walther is sold to Umarex (I think). I had a Walther LGM-2, sold it and brought a FWB 601. I had a Walther LP-200, that couldn’t put 10 shots into the 10-ring at 10 meters. One guy at my club has a Walther LP-300 and admitted to me is not a accurate gun. So from my experience and what I know, Walthers are no better than Diana in terms of accuracy. Matter of fact, for a sporter air rifle ( not 10-M Air rifle) I pick a Diana over a Walther any day. Sure you can tell me that Air Arms buy all its barrels from Lothar Walther, but it is not the same company as the one that makes Walther airguns. Also I’m sure that Air Arms gets better barrels from Lothar Walther than you and I can, because we only buy 1 or 2, Air Arms buy several thousands and thus can demand more.
So basically Joe all your vitriol about the LGV comes from ‘he said, she said’ second hand opinions.
Just out of interest…have you ever seen an LGV in person?
Please read my last posting again if you didn’t. I did have a Walther LGM-2 which wasn’t as accurate as other 10-M pneumatic AR. I did have a Walther LP-200 and also wasn’t accurate and sold. I had shot (but not own) an OLD Walther LGV; that gun is very smooth and I like it very much, but cannot compete with a pneumatic on accuracy. So, how many Walther airguns did you own and shot?
Well Joe, I’ll ‘man up’ and eat my words…I did misread your post.
I’ve only owned (own) one Walther…the LGV Ultra (.177) I received last week.
So far I’ve only shot it at 30m…where it was shooting about .75″ groups (5 shot).
So far I consider it a very well spent $600 (its price in Canada).
I guess my issue with your posts are that there has been a lot of slagging of a rifle that you’ve never laid hands on.
If you try one and can then honestly say you don’t think it worth the money, I’d respect you opinion a whole lot more.
I remember when I had my Alfa Romeo and people would claim how their VW Jetta’s/Golf’s were just as good at 1/2 the price…until they drove my Alfa.
You owned an Alfa Romeo? What model/year?
A VW can match an Alfa like a Crosman can match this wonderful LGV… With time, effort and money you can make it close to it, or just get the original first and be done with it.
Speaking of building cars to match exotics did you see the Factory Five car outrun a Lambo on a road course in the latest issue of HotRod mag? Last month they had some Cobra and this month it’s tube chassis ’32 replicas turn and they apparently saved the best for last.
J-F, I had a 1969 1750 GTV.
I’m the first to admit that our ’96 Jetta was faster and could have outhandled the Alfa…but sitting behind the big wood steering wheel in soft leather seats, with those beautiful Veglia gauges staring you in the face…there just was no comparison.
And for many that counts for something.
So far my opinion of the LGV is the same. I think it’s a lot like my Slavia 631. Sure, there are a lot of $100 Chinese 500fps airguns that may perform on par with the Slavia…but the extra $120 that the Slavia costs is well spent on the ‘feeling’ (esoteric I admit) and the fit and finish. I am hoping my LGV performs a bit better at 50m than the test gun did…but even if it doesn’t it just ‘feels’ like an expensive gun.
Man was that a nice little looking car or what, it’s beautiful but you just can’t compare 1996 to 1969 cars.
I couldn’t agree with you more, I don’t think you can compare the LGV with a lot of rifles made outside of Germany or England.
My Hatsan AT44 groups under a 1/4 inch at 10M but the fit and finish and overall quality and feel isn’t on par with the stuff coming out of AirArm, Walther, Diana or Weihrauch.
I would like to say that the old Walther LGV was very easy to cock, even more so than the FWB 300S, and it has a very good trigger as I recalled. All this along with a very smooth firing cycle makes me want to buy one, but unfortunately Walther moved on with the development of 10-M AR. If Walther makes that old LGV again but with an adjustable wood stock, I will buy one, and willing to pay even more than the $700 that they want the this new LGV.
Joe…I try to not get myself into the position of needing to apologize…but now is one of those times.
I think we still for the moment disagree on the merits of the new LGV. But re-reading a couple of your latest posts (some of which I missed) you are obviously much more knowledgeable than I was giving credit for…and your history with older Walther guns definitely counts for wanting to hold the new gun to a very high standard.
No apologize is necessary. My writing is too direct and may offend some, sorry.
I’m with you on being impressed with this gun in all of its versions. I guess I look at both the fact that it’s an “un-broken-in shooter” right out of the box and that it will be something to handed down when I’m gone, not just a throw away…
My only thing against 10 shot groups is that it’s hard to find a standard of comparison with them. What can a TX200 do at 50 yards with 10 shots? It will put five into an inch right?
Matt , Want to see how good (consistant)you shoot day to day with one rifle? Set a target at 50 yards, put it up then put another in front of it. Shoot ten shots at it every day for ten days. Don’t change the back target, just the front one each time. See how big the group gets on the backer.
That is why at 10m Olympians have to shoot 60 times in an hour! A bit of a challenge, especially off-hand.
Good news! I’m rapidly making up ground in my GIS class. The young whippersnappers are fading. And now that I have the terminology under control for the byzantine software, the concepts are not so difficult. My technical training with airguns is standing me in good stead!
What is GIS?
Are you taking a class in how to move backwards at the same exact moment and with the same exact force as you move forward, thereby feeling as though you are not moving in either direction at all? (LOL)
Seriously, though, what IS GIS?
Most likely: geographical information system… google “arcgis”
Software extract/chart information on geographical concerns (probably with the ability to define the regions of interest — US states, major metropolitan area, etc.)
OK, sounds good to me.
But hey, no “Attaboy” for my obscure comical reference to the GISS recoil-canceling system?
I just got eyeballs on the new Jim Shockey springer. I’m pretty well convinced not to buy the thing since it looks to be a dressed up rebranded Gamo Whisper. I already have one of those. Maybe it would be a good idea if this gun ever gets reviewed to show us how it is better than the Gamo Whisper which it looks very much like. I’m not convinced that gun is worth my money and trouble to get. It seems most of the new guns I’m going to need some serious convincing to get me to pry open the bank account.
So the .177 high power LGV is not as accurate as the lower power 22 at long range!? I wonder how a high power 22 would do? Pity they don’t make em.
BB, now that you’ve had a chance to use both the composite and wood version, any conclusions on how nice is the composite? I prefer wood, but there are some nice composites, like the HW97K STL.
Also any parting thoughts on the lower powered 22 vs the 177? Still bothers me that we don’t have a true apples to apples test of 12FPE 22 to 12FPE 177 and even more so a 16FPE 177 to 22 for choices.
I’d like to just buy one of each and trade the barrels off to see what combinations would produce what results. I’d kind of like a 12FPE .177 and 16FPE .22.
Normally I like wood over synthetic, but not this time. I like the 12 foot-pound gun the best. And I think the .22 caliber is better for wind-bucking reasons.
I can’t stop comparing the Walther LGV to the Weihrauch HW95k. But, on paper, the weihrauch seems to have the edge: it comes from a German company with a rock solid reputation, just like the Walther, but it is lighter, shorter and cheaper (at least in Europe).
BB, is there any chance that you could review the HW95k/Beeman R9? There are plenty of reviews of the HW80k and the HW97k, but for some reason the HW95k is always overlooked. I don’t understand why. I have all three of these rifles (I don’t have the Walther), and the HW95k in .177 inch/4,5mm is clearly my favorite; it is lighter and more svelte than the HW80k, less muzzle heavy than the HW97k.
In 2010, B.B. did a 3-part review of the current Beeman R9. Have you read it?
He also did a review in 2006 on the old blog:
Thank you very much for your swift, kind and patient reply, Edith! I tried the search function, but apparently I didn’t try hard enough. This will not happen again.
A lot of respect for your and B.B.’s professionalism!
Best regards from Belgium,
I don’t use the same search feature you use. The one I use is in the admin section and works MUCH better than the one available to our blog readers. It took me just a few seconds to locate these older blogs.