This report covers:
- What have we seen recently?
- Gas springs
- Repeating mechanisms
- Barrel and caliber change
- That was it, except for Sig
- Is anything new on the spring gun horizon?
Of all the airgun powerplants, the spring-piston is one of the newest, simplest and yet one of the least innovated designs. Compared to pneumatics and CO2 guns, springers aren’t much different today than they were 150 years ago.
What have we seen recently?
I guess the biggest spring gun innovations we’ve seen in recent decades have been gas springs and reliable repeating mechanisms.
Gas springs
Call them gas rams or gas struts — the industry they are borrowed from calls them gas springs. They are sealed units that simply use compressed gas or air to provide the thrust needed to propel a piston. That piston has a seal that compresses air in front of it to power a pellet. A very small volume of air is compressed to high pressure in an instant. The pressure rise is so violent that it can deform the skirt of a pellet under the right circumstances.
Gas springs do this well because there is no coiled steel in them. That frees the piston to move at a higher velocity than a coiled steel spring can push it. And compressed gas weighs less than coiled steel, so the airgun with a gas spring can be lighter yet also more powerful. And gas isn’t as responsive to temperature as the lubricants used in coiled steel spring powerplants, so gas spring guns will work better in cold weather. They are affected by the cold — just not as much as steel springs.
Repeating mechanisms
We’ve recently seen many repeating spring guns hit the market. We have tested a couple of them in this blog. They feed reliably, which was the issue with the first repeating mechanisms used on springers in the 1960s. But accuracy isn’t their strong suit. Of all the repeating breakbarrels we have tested, the Umarex Synergis stands out as more accurate than most. It’s not TX200 accurate, but very few springers are.
Barrel and caliber change
I suppose we can add the ability of a barrel and caliber change to our list. Beeman offers a couple spring-piston rifles with that capability and I tested one. But there aren’t a lot of choices in the market.
That was it, except for Sig
And that is about as far as spring gun technology has gone. It seems that airgun manufacturers just aren’t putting their efforts into advancing spring-piston technology. The one bright spark of hope in recent years was Sig with the ASP20.
Sig ASP20.
Sig gave us the keystone breech. Their engineers completely redesigned the breech lockup to give bank-vault security. The top of the breech flared out as a wedge and the detent pulled the wedge down into the action forks when the barrel is closed. That made this breech like the keystone in an arch.
The ASP20 keystone breech (yellow arrows) flared out on both sides and was pulled tight into the action forks by an angled detent (blue arrow).
By itself the keystone breech was a wonder, BUT — Sig also found a way to eliminate barrel droop! They bored the holes for the pivot pin through both the breech and the action forks with them assembled. That ensured perfect barrel/spring tube alignment! If there were awards for airgun design, this breech would have gotten one.
And that’s not all. Sig engineered the Matchlite trigger — a brand new adjustable trigger for springers. They made it impossible to adjust out of the safety zone. It was perhaps not as adjustable as a Rekord, but it wasn’t far from it!
The ASP20 Matchlite trigger.
Unfortunately Sig abandoned their springer in midstream. I’m not aware of any company other than Sig and the few other innovations already mentioned that has brought anything really new to the market.
Other powerplants do innovate
We have seen precharged pneumatics (PCP) shoot sub minute-of-angle groups at 100 yards and we’ve seen them drop cape buffalo. Ton Jones shot one over a mile, hitting a steel target that even centerfire rifle shooters find challenging.
In the world of CO2 we have seen a plethora of full-auto guns and guns with select fire come to market in recent years. And replica airguns are a very strong market that grows each year. Like spring-piston guns, CO2 guns have a power limitation, so the innovations have been in areas not related to power.
We have seen at least one Russian-designed single-stroke-pneumatic use a unique pumping linkage to drop the force required to pressurize the airgun. We have also seen Air Venturi use a similar pump linkage with a multi-pump air rifle. And now that Crosman has downsized, will Air Venturi pick up the slack and give us an affordable multi-pump big bore like… oh, wait — that’s tomorrow’s report!
Is anything new on the spring gun horizon?
My question to all of you readers is — what’s new with spring-piston airguns?
Tom,
As far as spring pistons go the application drives technology. You’ve seen and experienced what Tony Leach has done with the Tx200 platform. Now if only it could be applied to a new rifle. Less weight because it would be using a smaller tube diameter from the get go (the Tx200 has to be sleeved down adding weight) and minimal to no recoil impulse. The problem is that the market will not accept it because a) low velocity b) short hunting range limitation nevermind that it is accurate and doesn’t slap you every time you shoot.
Siraniko
Siraniko,
I REALLY need to think about that. Is it that different?
BB
Tom,
Not quite radical but it is a refinement. As of now spring piston rifles depend on mass mainly to dampen the recoil or using a balanced spring system to do it. With Tony’s innovations I can imagine a recoilless springer of reasonable weight.
Siraniko
BB,
I seem to recall the Walther LGV range from about a decade ago being quite innovative too.
Walther and Sig were just too late though; price point PCPs have stolen springers’ thunder.
Sometimes a gun is so well designed though that it doesn’t need improving upon. Take for instance the Colt 1911 and Browning M2, both in use for over a century. The MG42 too, still in use since WWII, though chambered in 7.62mm NATO nowadays.
Anyone looking to enjoy the pinnacle of springer design could do worse than to get themselves a HW77 (over forty year old design) or its more expensive English clone, the TX200.
The world has moved on and It’s unlikely we’ll ever see springers better than those on the market again.
The Walther LGV from a decade ago is hard to beat, part of the secret sauce for me is the barrel latch. I never shot a LGU but I understand that they could give any under lever a good run for their money. My LGV Master is just wonderful , I simply did a lube tune just because that is what I do with a new rifle, it shot great from factory. I purchased installed the metal “tuning” trigger because Walther’s lawyers would not allow them to send the LGV out with a great trigger. It is just about the perfect break barrel rifle IMHO. Ruger dies the same thing with the trigger in their 10/22 it may be a liability issue or a money making issue I do not know but Ruger makes a very fine trigger for the 10/22 that they will happily sell you.
SSC,
The LGV Master is indeed a wonderful air rifle. It and the Walther Challenger GT were my favourites of the range. Such a shame they are no longer available. And yes, the barrel latch on them is a very nice feature and, I think, even better implemented than on the Weihrauch HW35.
My oldest RWS/Diana piece is a Model-36 which was (and is), apparently, a souped-up version of M-34. Mine was made in W. Germany in 1989. It is the measure of everything since, save, perhaps for my very latest Diana N-Tech 340 Luxus in walnut. The former is faster, in .177, but the latter is far, far smoother and lacks the cheek slap of the former even given it is .22 caliber.
If I were to dictate to Diana, which would be foolish as my degrees are NOT in engineering, I would ask that the power plants would be gas rams, the scope rail would be Picatinny, the triggers the TO-6, and the BASIC sight package would be the hooded/globe front (with the insert package of choices) AND a Williams Peep with Target Knobs and a Merit Disc AS STANDARD. All this for a known, short-range, but HIGHLY accurate springer or gas ram piece with NO pretentions of shooting the neighbors’ lawn mowers spark plugs on a too early Saturday morning!
The primal engineering change I would want would be to machine out the Diana Droop Disease (D3) that has been inherent in my fleet of RWS/Diana springers since 1989. I’m no mechanical engineer (my son, the Lt. Col. is!) but could it not be possible to design in a ZERO DROOP at, say, 10 Meters (pick your distance and make it standard, Diana!), with a set standard for sight “height”/Scope centerline height? Maybe design a minimally adjustable precision milled scope rail standard from the factory even if at additional cost that could “dial out” D3? And if one would design that adjustable rail, make it a Picatinny on top, please!
I’ve been throwing lead down range since 1989 as an ADULT with sophisticated arms. I understand my inherent limitations, i.e., approximately 10 Meters (my basement range and the property lines from any window in my suburban home. I don’t NEED nor WANT a PCP that can shoot 100 Yards. I buy springers for precisely that reason! I want high levels of accuracy at a short range from an arm that is consistently controllable. Being able to hit a neighbor’s spark plug on his mower too early on a Saturday morning five houses away just isn’t my need or interest! And…would likely bring the interest of the Township police department after a few mowers, a ruler, pencil and map drew intersecting lines to my house!
My N-Tech 240 Luxus is a joy to shoot, as is my a bit older M-36, but both had a significant flaw in the sights provided. Diana, after ’89, decided to make a mechanically hinged rear sight instead of using the recurved spring of my ’89 M-36. THAT was NO improvement and added horrid inaccuracy to each of them. Indeed, as a test brought on by curiosity, putting on the 1989 rear sight with the recurved spring on them made the later rifles shooters until their Williams peeps arrived in the mail or the UTG Scope (for the M-34). That “new” standard Diana rear sight DESIGNED IN INACCCURACY because of the “slop” in the sight elevation pivot for both elevation AND windage! The point here is that Diana could incrementally improve its tried-and-true models and bring them ever closer to perfection FOR THEIR INTENDED USE (e.g., including pitching the mechanically hinged rear sight and returning to the recurved spring!) and, hopefully, avoid inflicting poor designs on their successive models.
Knowing the INTENDED USE (and the limitations thereof) might demand of Diana that they focus on several models intended for different range potential AND to advertise and educate their consumer base as to the differences. Perhaps this escapes Diana’s management because years ago the assumption was that the standard springer, or maybe one with a bit more oomph was sufficient for all needs? It isn’t that way anymore; the PCPs have shown us that BIG differences exist in different power plants. Nothing made that more plain than about a decade ago I went with a powder-burner friend to an outdoor range to shoot. 100 yards was beyond the aimed ability of even my most powerful springer despite my best efforts – some things are just NOT meant to be. I could nail things at the pistol range all day long, but not the rifle! As Clint Eastwood said in a movie: “A man’s gotta know his limitations….”
I wonder, as I look back to ’89 who is managing “the farm” at Diana and other companies today? Is it the engineering and quality control folks intent on relative “perfection” or marketing folks whose criteria is sales, sales, sales? I think the latter, and I am historically mindful of the advertising of VW back in the 50s and 60s when its sole passenger car MODEL was the Beetle and then the Super Beetle. They sold those “Kraut Vagens” because people listened to the ads about their mechanical superiority and consistency while Detroit made ever-changing (for good and ill) models for decades. Note: One can still buy VWs today. Anyone know of a NEW Pinto or Vega (new) for sale???? Clint Eastwood’s character was right!
In sum, I am of the mind that engineers and QA people need to have more say in their products. Sales should have reflections/advertisements on actual intended purpose and outcomes, and actual development and production should strive to fulfill intended parameters. I have pretty much achieved short-range “perfection” with the pieces I own (the fault in shooting is now MINE and not the pieces themselves). As long as I practice (in the cold winter months downstairs), I can attain a modicum of success, accuracy, and satisfaction. I know my and my arms’ limitations pretty much. I buy within the parameters of my situation and not the boasts of marketing.
That’s my story, and I’m sticking to it. I affirm a variation of the French Philosopher, Decarter’s, affirmation, “I think, therefore I am!” but with a modification, “I bitch, therefore I am.” I’m done now, so I leave it to others’ thoughts….
LFranke,
The Diana 36 is a very nice air rifle. I shouldered a couple of second hand ones in pristine condition in a gunshop in Domodossola, Italy about 3 years ago. Unfortunately, I couldn’t buy one, as they were above the power limit at which they require buyers to have a local gun license.
I too get frustrated with Diana’s failure to make improvements to their air rifles. Barrel droop and lousy scope rails are uncalled for. Plastic cylinder end caps, safeties, sights and trigger blades have also got to go.
I agree. Is there any excuse for manufacturing in barrel droop, year after year,l decade after decade? NO. Theoretically, the exception might be that since the breach seal sits slightly proud, it would push the barrel down a wee bit, but I never actually heard that as an excuse or justification. Anyway, if one preferred open sights, an empty picatinny or weaver rail would take away from the looks of the rifle, but certainly, if one were going to rivet a dovetail onto the top of the spring cylinder, one could at least include a proper scope stop hole.
Plastic triggers do not bother me much, except if I wanted to add a trigger shoe, but why not mold a nice, wide plastic trigger? But plastic trigger guards and sights are really foolish. It is rare for them to last longer than the rest of the gun.
Diana had a great metal rear sight. They are getting hard to find.
Your comments are cogent and apt. That’s particularly true about the GENETIC Barrel Droop that Diana does not seem able to eliminate. One would think that a persistent test of every weapon going off the production line (yeah, coming from that line elsewhere) could be shot in a jig and a figure arrived at of droop. THEN, some computations, a bit of testing, to correct the geometry of the breech block. Every RWS/Diana I’ve owned has had the problem, I don’t see why it could not be corrected some – maybe not perfect but BETTER!
The scope rail could be a Picatinny. So, add a few bucks to the final price and make the change. The traditional rail has stop pin holes, but if you like Williams Peeps, you’ll need other solutions. I made them with pallet steel strapping, some measuring and cutting and some finish-up bluing. A Picatinny rail would be SO MUCH BETTER.
The trigger isn’t an issue with me. The trigger guard could be metal, say brass, but if one is careful, one gets by. The bigger issue with me is the front stock screws. Maybe a bigger diameter and a thicker boss for them to enter AND a bigger head washed against the stock? So, it wouldn’t be as pretty, but maybe the screws would stay snugged in their beds?
I have oft thought that a correction the barrel angle by changing the breech angles would be followed up by a simple catch that would allow the breech to be snapped into battery and STAY there until the latch was released. The current system works, but that ball bearing lock does weaken with time – in my case 30+ years! (Yeah, it’s not much of a complaint, but if the geometry was tightened up, complete the job with a simple latch lock!)
RWS/Diana is my primary brand choice, and probably will be for my remaining (increasingly fewer) years. But…passing these on to my Lt. Col. Army Engineer son would be suggestive of a longer career for these air arm gems than for me.
I agree with everything except “The traditional rail has stop pin holes….” Those little divots are too shallow to work as scope stop holes.
The old Diana’s had a second lock screw on the stock screws.
Very few sproingers have barrel locks. But I shot B.B.’s Barakuda, and I LOVED the barrel lock.
B.B.,
You asked, what’s new with spring-piston airguns?
Not being an early adopter of the spring-piston powerplant until decades after my return to airguns i think SIG AIR also started the practice of functional sound moderators on their ASP20 builds as well as LASER welding to reduce heat deformation.
shootski
PS: So far it seems that shooting my two ASP20 Whiskey 3 combos on at least a 10 shots per month schedule has avoided the gas springs from any measurable performance loss. Both have projectile (diabolo pellets and bullet/slug) counts into the thousands with no failures of airgun or scope.
I think that one more, really important, point was forgotten today. The adjustability of the gas system. WH 90 can be tuned from 10 to 20+ fpe. By the way trigger and breech lockup leave nothing to be desired compared to the innovative Sig design.
We should also mention the recoiless mechanism of the Norica ZRS.
Bill,
Adjustable power is a good one. I need to consider that.
BB
B.B.
Absolutely correct, nothing new just the “same old, same old”.
At least most of them are quality same old………
-Yogi
PS perhaps pistol seal material is relatively new?
I try to use the appropriate tools for the job and I see springers as modest power plinkers/pesters best at close (sub 25 yard) distances.
For increased range, power and hunting, there’s better choices available.
Springers like the FWB 300, 10 meter target rifles, are incredibly accurate but hardly main stream. The TX200 is a real beauty but man, it’s heavy to carry for a walkabout!
Think that the springers power and velocity wars has already explored the potential of the platform. People can choose how much cocking effort they want to deal with, lots of choices are already available.
Myself, I like springers for their simplicity and can’t see how they can be improved without making them heavier, more complicated and more expensive.
IMHO, something like the FWB 124 is the best compromise (weight, low cocking force and decent power) all around springer and the light weight HW30 is the ideal all-day-shooter for casual plinking.
Think that the only improvement I can make to the HW30 is to fit a peep sight to it (my FWB 124 already has one 😉 )
Just my 2 cents 🙂
Hank
Umarex Komplete is an innovation example deserving mention. While using nitrogen gas to propel a piston is nothing new, putting it in a cartridge is new (or is it). Thanks to a HardAir report I am also using 88 gr CO2 cartridges in my .22 caliber Komplete. Accuracy at 25 yards is not compromised. Time will tell but I am hoping for 100 plus good shots from a less expensive CO2 cartridge. The Komplete is a two power rifle depending on which gas you choose. It can do 2 MOA accuracy shooting 10 shots at 25 yards or more and is quite handy to operate.
I have not seen any Umarex ads claiming CO2 can be used in the Komplete. Are there long term problems waiting to happen. For less than $200 I’m more than willing to chance it.
PS: I thank my lucky stars for buying a Sig ASP20.
Deck
Deck,
To me this is “same stuff, different day”. The only innovative thing is the nitrogen. Umarex has been playing around with this basic design for quite some time now.
Do not get me wrong. In the PCP world this is a great innovation. In the sproinger world?
RidgeRunner
Nope, it’s no sproinger cause there’s no piston. But for me at least it is a new innovation.
Deck
The Giss system was an innovative answer to springer recoil. So is the Norica.
Finally, since scopes have improved, it seems that springers should begin moving away from dovetail and adopt weaver or picatinny rails as standard. This would help lower scopes because adapter rails would not be needed.
RG,
The Giss system was indeed most innovative. I have had such before and it does indeed work beautifully. A bit on the complicated side.
The Norica? Is it not just an updated and cheaper version of the Diana 54? I think Umarex tried that also.
Ahem, now it is my turn to speak. Sit down, shut up and hang on.
Here at RRHFWA I have an impressive collection of the “old gals” surrounding me as I type this out. Most of them are sproingers. I have had the “pleasure” of shooting some of the newer sproingers that have come to market recently. With the vast majority of them, I am not impressed. More often than not, they are nothing more than reruns of what has come before.
One of the “newer” innovations I have experienced is the gas sproing. it has underwhelmed me greatly. I cannot truthfully say that I enjoy being slapped side the head every time I pull the trigger.
I have tried multishot sproingers also. Really? I am told by the marketeers that is so you have a quick followup shot. Really? You still have to remove it from your shoulder and most likely place the butt on your hip, reach up and pull down on the end of the barrel or cocking lever, return such to battery, replace said sproinger to your shoulder and if your quarry has still not run away or fell over laughing, take aim and fire. Chambering a pellet is not that much more.
Recently I even tried a combination gas sproing, multishot. Golly gee whiz, that was fun. Oh, I failed to mention I could not hit the broad side of a barn while standing inside.
No, I have not had the pleasure of shooting an ASP20, which I am sure I would truly enjoy. The lockup and trigger sound like things I would indeed like and promote. Alas, Sig decided they would rather make pistols for the US Government. I understand. That is where the money is.
I have also not had the true pleasure of shooting a Theoben gas sproing. To the best of my knowledge, it is the only gas sproing that was adjustable to come to market and be successful in operation. As is so often the case, they were a bit too early to catch on with the US market. They also were not understood by most of the morons who did buy one.
That brings us to Weihrauch. I cannot say this is a fact. Our host will have more knowledge than I in this matter. It is my understanding that when Theoben finally did “give up the ghost” so to speak, the design of the adjustable gas sproing was sold to Weihrauch. They built the HW90 around this most remarkable device and from what I understand, Weihrauch did an exceptional job of it.
I do believe that Bob Ryan is correct in the fact that the “new” batch of cheap PCPs has greatly affected any further innovations in the sproinger market.
I have had the pleasure of shooting a walnut stocked TX200. I have also had an opportunity to play with an HW97. I have not had the opportunity to shoot a Theoben, an ASP20 or an HW90, but would indeed welcome such an opportunity.
Next time you meet up with FM, we’ll try and do an HW90 .25 “happening,” in full-power mode.
FM,
That sounds like a good bunch of fun.
FM,
How many foot pounds does your .25 kick out?
That is a good question FM has been trying to answer for weeks while being thwarted by weather and lack of Round Tooits from doing so; been meaning to set up the chrony and establish the performance and FPE baseline for the HW90. When FM finally “gits ‘er done” will let you know.
Found this quote from the owner of a .25 HW90 posted on the Airgun Nation forum site:
“Max power seems to be highly dependent on the piston seal. With the stock seal it’s about 22 fpe. With the Vortek vacuseal, I got about 32 fpe.” No idea what brand, weight pellets this commenter used in his testing.
Basil,
I have NEVER seen a 10 foot-pound increase from a piston seal. I think that is suspect.
BB
FM will know when he runs his own tests. The resident HW90 is unmodified or enhanced in any way, the gas spring left as set by Weihrauch. There could be a YouTube video on the subject but have not searched for one.
FM,
Yeah, that’s got to be a typo. Surely the poster meant 23 fpe with the Vortek seal, not 32 fpe. A 1 foot-pound increase is plausible, a 10 foot-pound increase is not.
No doubt, otherwise that would be one Magical Seal enthusiasts would step over each other for; here are the numbers for the HW90 – managed to squeeze in some shooting time yesterday. Only had two pellet types to work with so here we are:
With H&N Field Target Trophy 20.06 grain…
Shot 1 – 664 FPS, 19.64 FPE
Shot 2 – 662 ” , 19.53 ”
Shot 3 – 666 ” , 19.76 ”
Shot 4 – 669 ” , 19.94 ”
Shot 5 – 663 ” , 19.58 ”
With RWS Super H-Point Field Line 25 grain…
Shot 1 – 568 FPS – 17.91 FPE
Shot 2 – 574 ” – 18.29 ”
Shot 3 – 576 ” – 18.42 ”
Shot 4 – same as No. 3
Shot 5 – 562 FPS – 17.54 FPE
The rifle did fine, FM’s shooting not so much but this was not an accuracy test though did do some windage adjustments as was shooting a bit too much to the right. The target was an 8″ bull at 25 yards. Hope this is of some use. Right arm got a workout. 🙂
FM,
That’s an impressive power level for a .25 cal. gas springer!
I have just one gas springer, a Hatsan 1000s about 10 years old. It might be about time to run it through the chrono and compare the velocities with tests I did on it back then to see if it has lost much power.
Hi BB,
Maybe the Black Bunker folding rifle can be considered an example of springer innovation. But, no surprise that it didn’t leap to mind! Seems to promote a novel set of features rather than introduce new technology of intrinsic merit to advance springer design.
Best,
Andy
That’s right! There is still a lot of room for development in the spring air gun that uses pure human power to do work.
1. It is necessary to design a new lever system to increase the input energy. 2. It is necessary to eliminate the recoil force of the spring and improve the accuracy. 3. The retraction system of the current market products has lost 10% of the initial velocity.
Ha! You’re right. It did not immediately leap to mind.
Please humor FM The Unready and Inexpert; we’re talking innovation here – how about innovation in seeking and adopting innovative materials that would make springers, PCPs and gas (CO2, nitrogen) guns better?
Case in point: could there be a “magic material an/or process” that would cure 90%+ of o-ring failure and life expectancy issues? The other day FM watched the refurbishing of a ‘67 MGB roadster on “Wheeler Dealers,” one of his must-watch automotive-related programs. One thing done was to replace the suspension rubber bushings with polyurethane ones, improving handling and firming things up. In addition the poly bushings have a significantly higher life expectancy than the stock rubber parts. FM would have done this with his ‘74 had he not decided to sell it.
Would it be feasible/workable to make polyurethane o-rings, piston seals and so on for our airguns or would this just be another of FM’s wishful-thinking, reality-denying it’s-not-going-to-work ideas? Of course it will add manufacturing costs to the equation, if this were feasible. Doesn’t have to be poly either – maybe there is something even better out there, hopefully affordable.
Make sense? Or is this just proof FM’s brain has a common-sense leak?
FM, I think if you look back there has been a lot of discussion about o-ring materials vs. purpose and application. Urethane, Viton, etc. I replace CO² gun o-rings with urethane because it is more resilient and does not absorb the CO². And for the little oring on the bolt, Viton has been touted as a more abrasion resistant choice.
Shootski has spoken about this and with authority, backing up his positions with documents from o-ring manufacturers and dealers.
Try this google search:
O-rings site:Pyramydair.com/blog
Appreciate the reminder – FM’s “rememberer” could use some o-rings, no doubt. Do recall some of the prior discussions involving materials and their suitability for these airgun applications.
Sorry for the late comment. For those of you with oversized .22 bores, there is this offering of a tin of .22 Wasp pellets (with a few others mixed in?):
https://www.gunbroker.com/Item/1072325373
BB,
Is it possible for someone to build off of what SIG has done, and then abandoned?
Or is it patent-protected?
Thank you.
Thanking you for all you do,
dave
Dave,
I can’t remember the details, but I think there was something mentioned here on the blog some time back about Sig scrapping or repurposing the tooling for the ASP20. An awful loss if that’s what happened. They could at least have sold the technical dossier on to an interested party willing to continue the production under license, or develop it further.
Bob, yes, it would have been nice if they had done that!
The license the production of other replicas. If they didn’t want to let Uncle Xi receive the knowhow, they could have still found another willing manufacturer in the US or Europe. Oh well.
Dave,
I don’t know about the patents. That would need to be thoroughly researched.
BB
BB, I hear you; it’s just too bad SIG dropped the ball…or as Trump would say, “Sad!” 😉
You could also call it snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
Patents can be licensed, royalties can be paid. If Sig does nothing, patents will eventually expire. What would be awesome is if Sig licensed to Weirauch. Then the gun would be built properly.