by Tom Gaylord
Writing as B.B. Pelletier
Walther Parrus with wood stock.
This report covers:
- JSB Exact Jumbo 15.89 grains
- What to do?
- Changed my hold
- H&N Baracuda Match 5.53mm
It’s been a long time, but today is the 25-yard accuracy test for the Walther Parrus with wood stock I’m changing things today, so try to keep up.
I installed the Sun Optics Tactical Hunter First Focal Plane Scope in BKL 30mm Double Strap high rings. I looked at the Parrus barrel alignment before mounting the scope and noted that the test rifle has a major barrel droop. I therefore shimmed the rear ring, but I thought that would not be enough, and I was right. This Parrus I am testing droops as much as any Diana breakbarrel I ever tested, so consider that when you select a scope mount.
I mounted the first focal plane scope for this test.
I knew during sight-in that I was going to have a problem zeroing this scope because of the barrel droop. I shot at 12 feet, followed by 10 meters and finally at 25 yards/ I zeroed with RWS Superdome pellets that I thought would be accurate because of the 10-meter test results. That proved incorrect. I even missed the backstop once while trying to zero the rifle. When I did get this pellet zeroed, I put three shots into 5 inches. No wonder I was having a problem!
JSB Exact Jumbo 15.89 grains
Next I tried some JSB Exact 15.89 grain domes that were thankfully hitting close to where the Superdomes were. But when 3 shots landed in almost 3 inches, I abandoned this pellet, as well.
What to do?
That was what I feared about the powerful Parrus from the beginning. Powerful breakbarrel air rifles can be a challenge to shoot accurately. What I do when that happens is shoot a heavier pellet. That seems to slow things down. And this is where this test went in a different direction, because from this point on, all testing was done with a single brand and model of pellet.
Changed my hold
I also changed the way I held the rifle at this time. Naturally I’m using the artillery hold for this recoiling spring-piston air rifle. My off hand had been back by the trigger guard up to this point, but I now slid it forward to the back of the cocking slot. The Parrus is a large heavy rifle and this hold helps steady it noticeably.
H&N Baracuda Match 5.53mm
I selected the H&N Baracuda Match pellet with the 5.53mm head next. It was the last pellet I shot on this day.
The first group hit the bullseye right away. But not every pellet landed where I aimed. There were no pulled shots in the 1.565-inch group of 10 shots. The group is not very impressive until you notice that there are 3 outlying shots and 7 that are 0.593-inches apart. Something told me to stop chasing the best pellet and just stick with this one for the rest of the test.
Ten Baracuda Match in 1.565-inches. Seven are in 0.593-inches.
The second group of Baracuda Match pellets landed in 1.757-inches, with 7 of them in 0.595-inches. I felt the rifle was trying to tell me that I hadn’t yet found exactly what it wanted, but I was getting close.
Ten Baracuda Match in 1.757-inches. Seven are in 0.595-inches.
I was about to quit but I thought I’d give it one more try. Same hold. This time 10 Baracuda Match pellets went into 1.892-inches, with 7 of them in 0.763-inches. Something is definitely happening, am I am not understanding it entirely.
Ten Baracuda Match in 1.892-inches. Seven are in 0.763-inches.
Things I noticed during the test
The trigger became lighter and more positive as the test progressed. I could feel it moving through stage 2 to the release point, but the move was perfectly smooth.
The rifle became easier to cock as the test progressed. The total force may not have changed that much, but the cocking stroke was smoother. All my shots for this test were cocked one-hand, where I had been using two hands to this point. I think the Tune in a Tube is responsible for that.
The BKL scope mount slid back about one-eighth inch during the test. That’s obver 40+ shots. I had the base clamp screws as tight as they would go without stripping, so I think the Parrus needs a scope base that has a positive mechanical stop. There’s just too much recoil.
Using the first focal plane scope was no different than using any other scope. I never changed the magnification, so the primary benefit of this type of scope wasn’t tested. I think it will be of use to hunters who change scope magnification a lot, but for shooters who always shoot at the same distance, I see no advantage. I will say these optics are clear and bright, though.
The bottom line, I think, is that this rifle needs to be broken in. It needs about a thousand shots for things to smooth out and settle down. And, given the way I test things, we’re never going to see that.
I do want to remount the scope in a better droop-compensating mount that has a mechanical scope stop and give the Parrus another try. I have a gut feeling that this rifle might be capable of shooting 10 shots into sub 3/4-inch groups at 25 yards under the right conditions.
59 thoughts on “Walther Parrus with wood stock: Part 4”
Next time you go to the range, Take a newer shooter out with you, give him the parrus, and 2 tins of pellets and point him at the target and say have fun.
Then you come back and test it after he has done the break in.
You don’t have to do all the work, delegate authority,
There are many of us who would love to help you if we lived closer.
We might start a new type of review system.
You write the initial review, then choose one of us you trust, send us a gun you want us to do the grunt work with, then you step back in, write the final review after the gun has been broken in to compare the results after 2 tins of pellets.
no modifications to the guns, period.
You get the gun for 1 week. Plenty of time to run 2 tins through it. (Unless it is to be used for a different previously agreed time period)
The gun must be returned in as good of condition as when you received it, or you just bought it, (if you aren’t willing to accept that stipulation, don’t offer to be a tester.)
What do you think?
I think if I had the people I would do that. It is a good idea. I’d need an adult to shoot this one because it is hard to cock.
I will look around for someone like that.
I was thinking the same kind of thing that Ian suggested for breaking in rifles could be applied to sorting pellets – pass the job off to someone who has the time.
What a grand idea! Now that you have been “flying solo” for over a year, using one or more surrogates to assist you in testing and evaluating airguns and other products would be very helpful and take some of the time constraints and stress off your shoulders. The only real cost would be shipping in both directions. With the internet, Skype, and Facetime available these days, communication should be painless. You would still retain control and the final outcome, but the tedious and repetitive work could be done by your “assistants” or “your people”. It appears that you have a great selection of qualified volunteers on your blog.
Sure. And you can drive up here every weekend to pack up my shipments for me. 😉
I’m sure Punkie, Dale and Roy are more than qualified to pack the shipments and address the boxes too. All you have to do is supervise this happy crew.
I agree with you sending over is too much of a hassle. But what you can do is collecting data. For instance I have my Diana 50 and I can chrony it and give some results on accuracy together with date, serial and type.
If you do a blog with the prerequisites of the test together with a form I can fill in (type of pellet, weight according to tin or measured) and paperwork I have to deliver (photo of the scoring card together with the dime, photo of the rifle) you get probably get an amazing amount of data which you can use to illustrate a point.
Especially when you plan to do an older rifle, you can ask beforehand for data, say three series of ten shots with different pellets. As every rifle is then compared with itself as baseline all results can then be used to see a trend for that rifle. There are always some people out there who have that gun and are willing to do some work.
Some things are difficult though to do, the previous owner of my Diana said he could hit a sugar cube every time on forty yard distance. I am still trying for one hit.
I said NEWER shooter.
We have new Airgunners coming into the hobby at all ages.
I have never been a break barrel springer guy, I have owned a few, but never liked them.
My first adult non break barrel springer was a Barnett Spitfire back in the 80’s.
It’s not that I can’t shoot a springer accurately, I can, it’s just not my favorite power plant for all day shooting..
I left that and went to a Tau Bruno co2 gun and never looked back.
Through the years, a few more break barrels came and went of various quality.
Shortly after they came out, I picked up a NPXL for hunting.
Thinking I was missing something in the newer gas ram guns, it was ok, but more power than I needed, and when the scope rail broke off, it reaffirmed my dislike for springers other than the FWB match guns.
Over the last few years, I have shot my friends tx200, and a couple of his other high end de tuned 12 ftlb springers.
Again, I am finding myself thinking I am missing out on something (the grass is greener syndrome)
I don’t need the magnum power, I have precharged guns for that.
More and more, I find myself looking at the new spring guns when I see one.
I’m in with Ian and RidgeRunner — I’ll run a tin of pellets through the Parrus. I’ll even Paypal you the shipping costs, and a deposit on it, to hold until I return it in the same condition. I’m really curious to see what this thing would be like once broken in, and intrigued by the challenge of shooting a springer this powerful. If you want to discuss, you can always send me a private Facebook message, or email — jemellon (66) (at) gmail(dot)com. Remove all the parentheses.
Is it finally that time of year when the weather is right for you.
Me meme took. The weather that is.
It is indeed finally bearable to be outside for a long period of time around here. I have managed to get in a little trigger time.
This Saturday I will be going to the Hickory, NC airgun show with Lloyd Sikes and my son-in-law. They have a range set up there, so we are planning on doing a little shooting while we also drool over all the toys.
This is where I always feel that the Diana 48/52 range doesn’t get the respect that its due, its the only springer that I know that produces over 20fpe and will still produce TX200 levels of accuracy. Nearly everything else falls apart. In some respects our UK non FAC limit of 12fpe isn’t the handicap one would think….so many spring guns shoot nicest at these power levels…
I agree with you. Trying to squeeze these power levels out of a sproinger requires a tremendous amount of engineering in order to build something that is not like holding onto a half wild mule on Meth.
I bought my Tomahawk as a project rifle with the very intention of reducing it’s power among other things. It is a very nice looking air rifle and for what I paid for it, I can afford to try different springs, etc.
Everyone keeps wanting more and more power, but what good is such if you cannot hit your intended target.
“What good is +500 FPE if you can’t hit what you are shooting at.”
Hi Ridgerunner, your Tomahawk is based around the Hatsan 55/60 (177/22) platform, itself based on the old Webley Vulcan, not the smoothest shooter itself.
The Hatsan 60 remains the only rifle I’ve yet to tune smooth, I suspect the transfer port is too big and the piston too heavy, causing a slam under almost any spring pressure, I gave mine away as a plinker
Thanks for the info. I will certainly keep it in mind. A few of the things I have been considering is shorter and/or lighter springs, a gas spring, a lighter piston with buttons. I had not thought of the transfer port, but I could modify it to have interchangeable ports.
As I said, it is a nice looking rifle and I bought it new for less than most of the sproingers at Wally World. I knew from the beginning this was a sow’s ear and I would not likely be able to make it into a silk purse, but it will be an excellent learning platform and who knows, it might end up halfway decent.
Wally World is American slang for Wal-Mart — a large discount store over here.
Well said! Few people understand things that clearly.
I used to be a power monger. How could I live in the U.S. and not be? But in the past 10-15 years I have noticed that my tastes have focused on those rifles that produce less than 12 foot pounds. In fact 6-9 foot pounfs will often be the nicest spring guns.
I agree. I have the 48/52 in .177 and .22, and also the 54 in .22. I really enjoy shooting each of them, and the accuracy is impressive. I really do like shooting my lower powered springers too, but there’s something about those Dianas that really grabs me.
They don’t get the respect they deserve, they came out some 37 years ago, the first sliding breech spring gun, its cocking pressure is a mere 28lbs for up to 24fpe in .22 and it takes a 14fpe TX200 to match the accuracy. A combination of features nobody else is even getting close to.
Not the prettiest rifle though and a bit lumpy to carry around, but unmatched as a 50 yard “bunny basher” in .22
Agreed about the virtues of the Diana 48 series based on my B30 which is a cheap Chinese knockoff. One great unanswered question I have is whether it would have been worth it to pay the extra $150 (after my expensive tune of the B30) to get the Diana 48 instead. Even the B30 is amazingly accurate at 900 fps.
Hmmm, probably in terms of resale value and finish, but there is a certain pleasure in taking something cheap and making it perform as well as something expensive.
There’s nothing wrong with Chinese springers…if you get a good one…I bought a couple of Remington Express, one of them was pretty accurate, the other threw pellets all over the place… And there’s the rub, the QC can be variable. So for my money I’d rather go for the real deal secondhand if the funds won’t stretch.
I like Ian’s proposal and would be quite willing to accept his terms. If you need a grunt shooter, here I am.
These groups are a teaser. Like you stated, the Parrus seems to want to shoot. I am having basically the same results with my Tomahawk. I too am hoping that after it breaks in it will settle down some.
I think though with these uber magnum sproingers you need to spend a good bit of time with them and learn the “feel” of that particular air rifle. How else would an air rifle like the R1/HW80 have managed to survive this long?
With your testing different air rifles every day, it is hard for you to give one the time it will take to truly learn it and all of it’s little quirks. That is one of the reasons I refuse to have a large “collection”. I want to squeeze the most I can out of each one I shoot. If it is good enough, then it stays, at least until something that shoots better comes along. 😉
You know, if I didn’t write this blog I would probably be much like you. In fact, I am going to a gun show this weekend and putting some of my best firearms on the table. I have owned them, seen what they can do and no longer shoot them like I used to. So what is the sense in them taking up room in my closet?
I feel the same way about airguns — BUT for a couple things. If I get rid of my Walther LGV Olympia, for example, will I ever want another one? Garands are easy to find; Walther LGV Olympias are not!
Sounds like there is a blog in there, somewhere.
If you get a wild hair and decide you want to get rid of that LGV, you let me know. Seriously. That goes for that Daisy/FWB300 also.
Okay but I think that one will go at the estate sale.
Now why in the world do you want another 300s.
I think you know. Also, that particular one has special sentimental attachments for BB and surprisingly for me.
Ergonomically, my R1 is one of the best fitting guns I’ve ever shot. I shot my xs46u in comparison and it felt pretty clunky and unnatural after shooting the R1 for a couple of weeks. Now that I’ve put a better scope on my R1 and have sorted out the hold it likes, I can shoot about the same one hole groups with as I do with my 13.5 fpe xs46u at 6-7 yards in my Indoor Range. There’s definitely something to be said for fit and feel of a gun in regards to accuracy.
It is indeed most important for it to “fit” and to spend time to get the “feel”. The Tomahawk fits me very nicely and has been showing some promise, sort of like this Parrus. I need more trigger time with it. I also wish to calm it down a bit. It can be a challenge to enjoy shooting a sproinger if it is trying to slap you side the head every time you pull the trigger.
There is the possibility of my acquiring a Weihrauch in the near future. I am thinking more along the lines of the HW95. I can get a brand new one for just a hair over $300 and it is a little calmer than the R1/HW80 and it still has enough power for what I want.
Now if someone was to offer me a real good deal on a R1, I just might take them up on it. 😉
I was very surprised at how smooth the R1 is. Seems about as smooth as my Mike-Melick lube-tuned XS46U, which is a 13.5 fpe gun. The XS46U turned out to be a really great gun. For the price, you can’t beat it. Ergonomically, though, the R1 is head and shoulders above it.
I read another blog recently where he was expounding upon the reasons for high priced air rifles when cheaper ones performed just as well. He was saying that shooting a quality air rifle is an experience in itself. The feel of something that is well made in your hands, the superb trigger, etc. make the extra expense worthwhile.
My Diana 46E is that way. I am wanting to sell it, but every time I shoot it…
Would a good JB paste, brass snake help break in the rife? Maybe 2 to 3 times the normal amount?
When people market the drooper mounts, you hear them talk about inches @10 yards change, mm of elevation, and minutes of angle change. Is there a formula, or better yet, a calculator program that can convert all three methods?
With magnum springers with droop, wouldn’t a dovetail to Weaver or Picatinny drooper platform and then normal rings be stronger than a one piece drooper mount?
Sorry for all the questions but droppers are an interesting subject that does not get enough attention, IMHO.
I’m not aware of any calculators that exists. For me it has always been trial and error.
I don’t think it’s the barrel of the rifle this time. I think it’s the hold and perhaps the pellet.
Would the UTG droop compensating mount fit on the Parrus? If so, do you think that would also help minimize scope movement from the recoil?
For the BKL mounts – did you tighten them before you put them on the rifle ?
If you tighten the BKl mounts before mounting them, they will become tighter so that you have to spread them using the screw in the other mounting hole to even slide them onto the gun. Once they are on, they will be so tight that you can’t slide them by hand – even when there are no screws in the mount.
Typically, this pre-tightening procedure will eliminate the slippage for most springers.
Yes, these BKL mounts are the same ones I have been using for several years. I took them off a rifle to use them here. I did have to spread them with the screw to install them.
The Parrus has a heavy jolting forward impulse that I guess no amount of clamping pressure can hold against. I once crushed a Beeman R9 spring tube so tight the mainspring started crunching when the gun was cocked, and the BKL mounts still slipped a little.
BKL mounts are wonderful in most situations. I certainly use them a lot for their convenience. But there are some springers that just overcome them — at least in my experience.
I meant to post this on your “Time Out” blog yesterday, but forgot. Thanks to the wonders of the internet I am now the proud new owner of 2 things—- A complete set of something called “The Airgun Letter”, and also a pretty good copy of a book called “The Beeman R1; Supermagnum Air Rifle”, all by some guy named Tom Gaylord. You wouldn’t happen to know anything about either of those, would you?
They make good wrappers for stale fish!
Still would like to see a retest with set of rings like the Sportsmatch 30mm adjustable rings I have on my 460 Magnum.
Hearing all these good comments on the RWS 48 is interesting to me. I searched and read the last report I found that BB did on it. Got me wondering, if some of the “buzz” a little, yet everyone says how great they shoot, I’m wondering if Tune in a Tube could make it a really great shooter?
Yes, I can almost guarantee that an RWS 48 is in the proximal zone of tuning greatness. I know that because I got a B30 for $150, hoping to make a killing on the RWS 48 quality. The B30 shot okay, but it literally kept falling apart on me. The front sight fell off. The rear sight wouldn’t adjust, and some other piece kept falling out of the inside of the rifle. When I sent the rifle back to PA, they said the part that fell out held the cocking lever in place and they didn’t know why the whole lever didn’t fall out.
So, I had a tune done for $150 (the entire price of the rifle) by a guy named Rich from Mich, a very nice guy who no longer seems to be in business. He used a Macarri spring to replace the original that was in three pieces, and basically turned the rifle into a new gun. Since then the rifle has shot as well as I could want. Given that the B30 is essentially a cheap copy of the RWS 48 and that a tune could remake a rifle that was falling apart, I have no doubt that a real RWS 48 could tune up very nicely.
Where would you put the TIAT on a Model 48/52? Coincidentally, I just added another one to my collection. Picked it on the classifieds, and it arrived today. The seller had removed the action from the stock for shipping, so I had to reassemble it. I had never had one out of the stock before, and it’s not readily apparent, like on my HW breakbarrell, as to where you would squirt the TIAT. I did put some into a couple of small openings, but a spring was not visible, only what I assume was a nylon guide — and I really couldn’t see a significant area of that, to apply the Tune to.
Something occurred to me last night after shooting as I had done thousands of times before. My groups were okay, but they haven’t changed obviously for a long time. In part this is because my 5 yard shooting distance is so short that it doesn’t register changes very easily. But one could also interpret this as a rut. Then I thought of some coaching advice for swimming. The coach said that to improve, you don’t actually have to kill yourself, as many novices seem to think, exceeding your limits every time you go out, to improve. Physiologically it has been proven that if you consistently take the body up to its limits, that will be enough for steady improvement over time. I wonder if what is true for cardiovascular fitness can also be true of the hand eye coordination and whatever else goes into shooting. Does consistent performance actually signify long-term improvement rather than stagnation? That is a comforting thought.
Saw The Magnificent Seven last night and boy that was great. Edith got on my case for spoiler comments on the movie Pacific Rim, so I will make sure not to reveal anything critical. The remake status of this film is an interesting question by itself. The original classic was The Seven Samurai by the Japanese Director Akira Kurosawa and is an acknowledged classic. The Yul Brynner Western version (like a number of Clint Eastwood spaghetti Westerns) was a pretty direct copy of the Kurosawa film. I don’t think anyone considers it the equal of the original, but it is a very respectable film in its own right with a very credible adaptation to the American West. That would seem to put the onus on yet another remake that is the third in the series and in the same setting as the second one. Can it succeed? Yes, as far as I’m concerned. I thought the choreography of the final battle was outstanding, almost sublime, and it goes to show that close-quarters battle existed long before the name appeared. And it also vindicated someone’s comment that the lever-action rifle was the submachine gun of the West. There was also a certain amount of tomahawk and knife fighting, the original American combat style and even some knife throwing at which I clearly have a long way to go. Maybe this had a specific appeal to me, but I highly recommend this film. I have not seen such great work with lever action rifles in a long time.
Also, it might intrigue reenactors to see how Denzel Washington does a super-fast reload of his revolver. Ejecting the shells seems like a cumbersome process that is generally omitted in these films. But this film has a close-up of Denzel ejecting the casings so fast with one hand that they fall out of the gun in a continuous stream. How he did this with one hand, I have no idea. The clip was too short for me to follow.
What’s too close?
I’m guessing that you may have covered this before, but this rifle provides a case in point re. my question.
What is with this “droop” issue? It seems to me that barrel alignment/scope-mounting suitability are (or should be!) fundamental considerations in rifle design/manufacture.
How is it that the marketplace (and particularly reviewers) seems to accept as “just the way out is” this failed basic element which is evident in any number of these products?
Why does/has not the potential customer base demand better quality from mfgrs. in this regard?
I’m remind of the old dictum, accurate I believe, that “You get what you settle for!”
Why are we “settling”?
Thanks for any response.
I have addressed this many times before. “They” do not get it, because “they” do not shoot airguns, though “they” wok for companies that make them.
Until that changes, we can only hope.
It appears that HW gets it right. My R1 doesn’t seem to have any droop.
For some time Ive considered “droop” to be a throwback to a …particularly.. German design, if you look at traditional “Bavarian” stocks (early HW77 etc) you will notice that the cheekpiece slopes towards the rear, welding your cheek to it makes a barrel point upwards, a downwards cant to the barrel counteracts this, if shooting competition using open sights (the majority of use back when designed) the Germans, with their 7.5fpe limit use a lot less optics than we do.
I think, and this especially rings true of Diana, they have kinda forgotten why they do this, or at least disregard foreign complaints because, after all, no one in Germany is complaining.
Similar glacial development can be seen in the oversized transfer port, unchanged since dieseling leather seals were the norm.
In other break barrels it can be seen as poor design or manufacture but I doubt this is the case here.
That said, I have a Diana 38 that mildly droops and two 52’s that don’t at all.
I simply suspect that Diana haven’t revisited the designs since optics and textile seals have become the norm…and like natural evolution these anachronisms still persist.
Weihrauch seem to have realised this sometime in the early to mid eighties, and definitely recognised the subtle difference in how synthetic and leather seals produce power, and changed their TP size to suit, a modern HW35 doesn’t droop either, whereas a 1975 one definitely will.
I think Dr. Beeman was able to talk Weihrauch into working on the droop. But I talked to Diana in the ’90s and they weren’t changing for anyone! And, as you said, they has forgotten why.
There’s a parallel with trying to get Chrysler to fit seatbelts or Rolls Royce to move to Radials (or getting the British motorcycle industry to update), a sort of entrenched arrogance that does a company no good at all, Diana simply need to shave a fraction of a degree off the breech angle and drill through a straight TP that’s approx a millimeter smaller and their rifles would improve no end for a minimal outlay, but you might as well shout down a well
Don’t know how to edit ;-(
…should be demand/demanded
…should be reminded
Should be Unacceptable. If we gave them the sales results their poor attention to design/manfacture deserves, the bean counters would have no beans to count, and I’m inclined to think whoever is interested in making money from sales would kick some design-butt.
We should simply NOT-BUY even otherwise-desirable rifles with this glaring fault.
(One man’s opinion, if nothing more.)
So sorry for what I would call, “frustration with my new air rifle” I have two Parrus’ and neither one has a drooper mount on it. Both are in the synthetic stock, one has a Straight 10x scope and the other has a BugBuster 3-9
The trigger is good on both, they both group really nice ,sub 1/4 at 25 yards. My .22 really likes 13.4 JSB Match Diabolo, the .177 likes CPH’s. Only thing about them I don’t really like is they are Long. Would like to have one in a Carbine. I love my R1 and HW80 Carbines
Good to know about the RS pellets. I will try them next.
looks like it was a quality control lapse by Walther that got you that drooper! I was just thining that there was benifit to having droop in airguns if most of the top manufacturers put them on their guns. I have a modern HW 90 an an antique  HW 50 and neither have droop. From your experience am I just lucky or do Weirauch rifles suffer from droop as badly as Dianas. I was appalled at the amout of droop I encountered on brand new Diana 34 a friend bought recently. I hope Walther aint jelous lol.