GTA
General Discussion To Gateway To Airguns => Airgun Gate => : thebookdoc November 08, 2009, 05:23:45 AM
-
I'll hopefully make some useful notes as I go. I'm about 5'10", 180lbs, so notes on feel may differ from your experience if you are a different size. I find all three of these rifles fit well to my frame. Tested velocity, accuracy, trigger pull, weight, feel. Because 2 of these rifles are .177 and the other is .22, I have tried to create standard .177 and .22 measures for comparison. Equations used for determining "normal" velocity:
1/2(m*[v^2]) = e
(2*e/m1)^[1/2] = nv1
(2*e/m2)^[1/2] = nv2
(m*[v^2])/FPC = ft. lbs.
V = measured AVE velocity
M = Original pellet weight (lbs)
e = energy constant
M1 = .00113 lbs .177 standard
M2 = .00204 lbs .22 standard
nv1 = Normal velocity for .177
nv2 = Normal velocity for .22
grains per pound = 7000
foot pound constant (FPC) = 450240
7.9 gr = .00113 lbs
10.5 gr = .0015 lbs
14.3 gr = .00204 lbs
18.2 gr = .0026 lbs
All three guns have similar recoil...though the RWS350 is somewhat more notable and the TF89 .177 the lightest recoil of the three. Regretfully I did NOT weigh out the pellets used for testing, so some of the spread and deviation may be attributable to slight weight differences between pellets.
-----
TF89 .22 New (less than 100 pellets through; owned less than 1 month [10/26]; untuned)
Trigger: 3lbs
Weight: 9 lbs
10 Yard Grouping: .5 C-T-C 5 shot group
Pellet: Beeman Crow 18.2 grain
10 Shot Chrony Testing
Low FPS: 709
High FPS: 720.6
AVE FPS: 715.3
Spread: 11.9
StD: 3.89
Feel: Nicely balanced. I haven't been shooting this gun long, and frankly I think it is the worst grouping I've shot, but I didn't want to taint the results. What may have tainted them slightly is that I am used to shooting my TF89 .177, which is nearly identical in design. I plan to customize this rifle with a custom stock and muzzle brake, and it will be getting a tune, which will smooth it out more and maybe even slow it down a bit. It is starting out pretty awesome.
e = 665
NV1 = 1084.9
NV2 = 807.5
Foot pounds = 20.68
---
RWS350 .177 (less than 100 pellets through; owned less than 1 month [10/26]; untuned)
Trigger: 3lbs
Weight: 10.6 lbs
10 Yard Grouping: .7 C-T-C 5 shot group
Pellet: JBS Exact Heavy 10.5 grain
10 Shot Chrony Testing
Low FPS: 904
High FPS: 915
AVE FPS: 908.7
Spread: 10.81
StD: 3.31
Feel: Barrel heavy. Still smokes and diesels slightly. Neither TF89 ever did. Heaviest cocking rifle of these three. While the FPS seems high, noting the NV1 and NV2 and foot pounds, it really is no more powerful than the TF89 .22 -- slightly less perhaps due to the caliber difference. I was frankly expecting quite a bit more from this gun -- both more power, better accuracy, and a more polished feel. For 2.5 times the cost of the TF89 .22, I think I had the right to expect that... and I wonder if it was really money well spent. The TF89 .22 will blow this gun away on all fronts with a tune...and at that point the TF will still be a less expensive purchase.
e = 619.3
NV1 = 1046.95
NV2 = 779.2
Foot pounds = 19.26
-----
TF89 .177 (owned 1 year; 4000 pellets through; Gene tuned)
Trigger: 1.5 lbs
Weight: 9.2 lbs
10 Yard Grouping: .25 C-T-C 5 shot group
Pellet: JBS Exact Heavy 10.5 grain
10 Shot Chrony Testing
Low FPS: 808
High FPS: 818
AVE FPS: 812.7
Spread: 9.78
StD: 2.82
Feel: Nicely balanced. Lightest & smoothest cocking of the three. Smoothest, best accuracy. Also the rifle I have shot the most by far and so I am familiar with it. The rifle was never chronied before the tune, but I do know accuracy went from .75 to .2 C-T-C. Previously chronied after the tune at 840 fps. I am surprised at the drop off in the foot pounds here, but not at all with the accuracy (which is actually not as good as I have been shooting with this rifle).
e = 495.4
NV1 = 936.4
NV2 = 696.9
Foot pounds = 15.4
-----
The one surprise I got here is that the .22 was actually pushing more foot pounds than the RWS350! It didn't feel like that was what was happening. I'm glad about my choice to customize the .22. I think it is going to be an awesome project...and I'll be tracking it in my signature...
-
Thank you! I have been looking for a review like this on the TF89 for a long time! Very well written BTW.
A+!
-
thebookdoc - 11/8/2009 12:23 PM
I'll hopefully make some useful notes as I go. I'm about 5'10", 180lbs, so notes on feel may differ from your experience if you are a different size. I find all three of these rifles fit well to my frame. Tested velocity, accuracy, trigger pull, weight, feel. Because 2 of these rifles are .177 and the other is .22, I have tried to create standard .177 and .22 measures for comparison. Equations used for determining "normal" velocity:
1/2(m*[v^2]) = e
(2*e/m1)^[1/2] = nv1
(2*e/m2)^[1/2] = nv2
(m*[v^2])/FPC = ft. lbs.
V = measured AVE velocity
M = Original pellet weight (lbs)
e = energy constant
M1 = .00113 lbs .177 standard
M2 = .00204 lbs .22 standard
nv1 = Normal velocity for .177
nv2 = Normal velocity for .22
grains per pound = 7000
foot pound constant (FPC) = 450240
7.9 gr = .00113 lbs
10.5 gr = .0015 lbs
14.3 gr = .00204 lbs
18.2 gr = .0026 lbs
All three guns have similar recoil...though the RWS350 is somewhat more notable and the TF89 .177. Regretfully I did NOT weigh out the pellets used for testing, so some of the spread and deviation may be attributable to slight wight differences between pellets.
-----
TF89 .22 New (less than 100 pellets through; owned less than 1 month [10/26]; untuned)
Trigger: 3lbs
Weight: 9 lbs
10 Yard Grouping: .5 C-T-C 5 shot group
Pellet: Beeman Crow 18.2 grain
10 Shot Chrony Testing
Low FPS: 709
High FPS: 720.6
AVE FPS: 715.3
Spread: 11.9
StD: 3.89
Feel: Nicely balanced. I haven't been shooting this gun long, and frankly I think it is the worst grouping I've shot, but I didn't want to taint the results. What may have tainted them slightly is that I am used to shooting my TF89 .177, which is nearly identical in design. I plan to customize this rifle with a custom stock and muzzle brake, and it will be getting a tune, which will smooth it out more and maybe even slow it down a bit. It is starting out pretty awesome.
e = 665
NV1 = 1084.9
NV2 = 807.5
Foot pounds = 20.68
---
RWS350 .177 (less than 100 pellets through; owned less than 1 month [10/26]; untuned)
Trigger: 3lbs
Weight: 10.6 lbs
10 Yard Grouping: .7 C-T-C 5 shot group
Pellet: JBS Exact Heavy 10.5 grain
10 Shot Chrony Testing
Low FPS: 904
High FPS: 915
AVE FPS: 908.7
Spread: 10.81
StD: 3.31
Feel: Barrel heavy. Still smokes and diesels slightly. Neither TF89 ever did. Heaviest cocking rifle of these three. While the FPS seems high, noting the NV1 and NV2 and foot pounds, it really is no more powerful than the TF89 .22 -- slightly less perhaps due to the caliber difference. I was frankly expecting quite a bit more from this gun -- both more power, better accuracy, and a more polished feel. For 2.5 times the cost of the TF89 .22, I think I had the right to expect that... and I wonder if it was really money well spent. The TF89 .22 will blow this gun away on all fronts with a tune...and at that point the TF will still be a less expensive purchase.
e = 619.3
NV1 = 1046.95
NV2 = 779.2
Foot pounds = 19.26
-----
TF89 .177 (owned 1 year; 4000 pellets through; Gene tuned)
Trigger: 1.5 lbs
Weight: 9.2 lbs
10 Yard Grouping: .25 C-T-C 5 shot group
Pellet: JBS Exact Heavy 10.5 grain
10 Shot Chrony Testing
Low FPS: 808
High FPS: 818
AVE FPS: 812.7
Spread: 9.78
StD: 2.82
Feel: Nicely balanced. Lightest & smoothest cocking of the three. Smoothest, best accuracy. Also the rifle I have shot the most by far and so I am familiar with it. The rifle was never chronied before the tune, but I do know accuracy went from .75 to .2 C-T-C. Previously chronied after the tune at 840 fps. I am surprised at the drop off in the foot pounds here, but not at all with the accuracy (which is actually not as good as I have been shooting with this rifle).
e = 495.4
NV1 = 936.4
NV2 = 696.9
Foot pounds = 15.4
-----
The one surprise I got here is that the .22 was actually pushing more foot pounds than the RWS350! It didn't feel like that was what was happening. I'm glad about my choice to customize the .22. I think it is going to be an awesome project...and I'll be tracking it in my signature...
Maybe I'm reading this wrong but the RWS 350 .177 clearly beats the TF89 .177
Where you say "The one surprise I got here is that the .22 was actually pushing more foot pounds than the RWS350" shouldn't that happen with a .22 against a.177 cal?
Like I said I may have read this wrong...thanks for posting
-
so there is no big difference from the tech 89 and the 350 other than quality???
-
Well, you might consider that because the velocity is higher that one gun beats another...but I was feeling the guns. The recoil of the RWS is certainly stronger than the TF89 .177, and it should be for 4 FPE difference...but the accuracy of .25 compared to .7?! I'd rather have a gun shooting accurately than merely fast. If I have to reduce the RWS FPE to make it more accurate (which is suggested by many people that own them), then really I don't see much of a difference between these two, and then there is the question of feel and accuracy. But then that raises the question of power and how accurate the ratings are.
Other reviews, and this is something I perhaps did not make clear, suggest the RWS350 will be shooting closer to 1200FPS. I don't see that at all from my testing. maybe I got a bad one. I am certainly not getting that. The .22 was supposed to be more efficient, yes, but the ratings for the guns are 1100/900 for the TF89, and 1250/1050 for the RWS magnum. I was expecting that the RWS would read more FPE because of that higher power rating. It didn't. Granted it would have been better to compare .22 to .22, but that flaw has to stand. I was expecting the rifle that cocked harder and had more kick out-of-the-box to be shooting with greater FPE. It didn't.
SO...I'm not impressed with the power, I'm not impressed with the accuracy, I'm not impressed with the feel, it is harder to cock, the trigger is no better, and it'll need a tune to behave right. I fail to see what I gain by spending about $180 more on a rifle when it doesn't even perform better out of the box!~
-
I don't know that I can say 'quality'. How do you measure that if not by performance? I see a difference in price. Maybe I'd feel differently after putting 10,000 pellets through each of these. Right now, the TF89 .22 wins hands down.
-
I just got my TF89 .22 back from Gene and all I can say is WOW, it cocks smooth as butter it shoot 15.3 grain Gamo hunter pellets at 830FPS which equals out to 23.3 Ft lbs of kenetic energy, the trigger breaks at 1lb 15 ounce and just drew its first blood today, the squirell actually flew out of the tree when the pellet hit him! I'm much happier with my Gene Turbo tuned TF89- that cost me less for the gun and the tune than I would have paid for a RWS350, I'm sure that RWS makes a fine gun but why pay more for a name when you can get better performance at a cheaper price?
-
shawn67 - 11/9/2009 11:32 AM
I just got my TF89 .22 back from Gene and all I can say is WOW, it cocks smooth as butter it shoot 15.3 grain Gamo hunter pellets at 830FPS which equals out to 23.3 Ft lbs of kenetic energy, the trigger breaks at 1lb 15 ounce and just drew its first blood today, the squirell actually flew out of the tree when the pellet hit him! I'm much happier with my Gene Turbo tuned TF89- that cost me less for the gun and the tune than I would have paid for a RWS350, I'm sure that RWS makes a fine gun but why pay more for a name when you can get better performance at a cheaper price?
sounds like you got a keeper
-
Richard, did you have scopes on any of the tested guns? Or open sights?
-
why pay more for a name when you can get better performance at a cheaper price?
That was generally what i was setting out to prove to myselfGlad you followed through with a Gene tune. I have several rifles now that I need to send to him!
-
Well I owe a lot of it to you Doc, I was on the fence between the TF89 and the B28, I followed your reccomendation and boy am I glad I did, thanks for all you info that pushed me the right way
-
im in the same boat the only gun i wont tune will be the newly bought gamo whisperer .22 il get that gas rammed but my tech 89,ruger black hawkand 350p.22 cal will be sent to gene once i get my goodies for the year i just shot my 89 today with crosman point pellets(premier)and the power was outstanding next will be the hollowpoints
-
I have scopes on all of them. Open sights are removed on all. They are all quality, springer-rated scopes. Cheapest scope was on the one that did the best in accuracy. Most expensive on the one with the least accuracy.
TF89 .177: Bushnell Banner 6-18x50 ($89)
TF89 .22: Swift 6-18x42 High Recoil ($190)
RWS350 .177: Leupold 3-9x33 EFR Ultralight ($320)
All used on their lowest multiplier because of the short distance. I meant to add those in and just forgot. All were sighted in in earlier sessions and checked before chronying.
-
Glad it helped. No need for everyone to go through the expense of comparison. But frankly I think it was worth it -- especially since I'll be spending a bunch more on customizing. I have not thrown in the towel on more expensive guns completely, but my need to have one isn't nearly as strong, and my curiosity has been satiated.
-
RWS 350 is a legend, yes "Legend." Ask anybody who's been in airgunning for quite some time about magnum springers. The 3 responses you'll get...RWS350, Patriot, 1250.
Go look on the straight shooters forum under RWS 350 "Our Take" to see how it performs in a .22 cal. (21 fpe to 24 fpe) Also do a search on Pyramid Air blog and search RWS 350 to see the reviews.
Don't worry, you bought an awesome gun. Germans are known for their guns ...fit, finish and performance.
Enjoy your new gun, Eric
-
A little off topic, what did you like about the Leupold EFR scope over other high quality scopes?
-
I like the Leupold for several reasons... It is light (no need to add a bunch more weight to any of these guns), I like the way the optic takes over my field of vision and the metal virtually disappears, I like the clicks and adjustments. Just a nice scope all around. But again taking nothing from the others.
-
Patton, the reason I tested the RWS350 is because it gets such good reviews. I couldn't imagine the expensive guns were really that much better. It may have something to do with my experience and the lack of breakin time. But really the test was RWS350 vs. TF89 .177 tuned, and RWS350 vs. TF89 .22, untuned. The tuned gun is a comparable price after the tune $300/$275; the untuned .22 is about 40% of the price ($300/$119). There should be no comparison at that difference and there was. When I compare now to the Walther Force 1000 when that arrives, what will be the result then?
None of these guns stink. But I want my dollar to count for something tangible. It seems there are a lot of people badmouthing Chinese guns, basing that probably on some $25 piece of junk they got from a tool store. I'd like to hear of other people doing actual comparisons. I think some of the bandwagon of those already on the euro-gun pep-club makes it difficult for beginners to feel good about enjoying their Chinese guns. I think that's a shame. I couldn't believe those guns would really be that much better...and I went about testing it directly -- not relying on what other people were writing in reviews.
I think if you do an honest comparison, you'll find the same thing.
-
Interesting test. I don't own (or have much familiarity) with any of the three guns in questions, but wonder if perhaps the OP could clear up some potential contenentions I have with the conclusions of the test. The first relates to overall performance in terms of velocity. I recall that when using the 10.5 gr JSB, the TF89 shot nearly 100 fps slower than the RWS 350. As someone else pointed out, comparing foot pounds of energy between a .177 and a .22 is not especially valid. One could infer that a 350 in .22 would shoot comparably faster than the TF89 in the same caliber, based on the .177 numbers. Another issue that struck me was the accuracy component. I know Chinese guns can shoot very well; I have a B-21 that I am quite pleased with in terms of accuracy. I also know that German guns, on the whole, are great shooters. The OP noted that the 350 exhibited noticeably more recoil than either of the TFs. I suspect that accuracy is going to improve both as the RWS settles in and the shooter gains more shooting experience with it. In the end, though, if the OP is pleased with the TFs, that is really all that matters.
-
Perhaps it is not terribly valid on all points, and I believe I mentioned a few of the same. In fact I believe it was me who suggested the .22 and .177 comparisons were probably not completely valid.
The calculations -- at least on the same gun -- are fairly accurate. For example, I chronied the .177 TF89 with 7.9 grain pellets, and it came in at about 940...The calculated velocity was 936.4... Granted there may be differences with pellet shape. As far as speed I do not believe I did the .22 any favors using the Crows. I haven't seen aerodynamics tested, but the rather large blunt cup would not be something I imagine would help.
The .177 is tuned. The .22 is not. Whether that equates to greater or lesser velocity with the tune I think depends on the tuner. In seeking goals of accuracy, sometimes speed is not enhanced in favor of smoothness and function. I treat the TF89 .177 and TF89 as separate guns. Any one of these underperformed considering what they are advertised to deliver. The hope was that calculation of foot pounds would get us somewhere in the ballpark.
I don't doubt the RWS350 would be harder hitting in a .22 than the TF89. However, I'm not sure by how much. Do I think it would be so much as to warrant twice the cost? I don't see it. I do see the two versions of the same gun have about 100 fps difference in NV2 and NV1. Add 100 to the RWS and it is still just 50 fps faster than the .22...Can that really be enough of a performance difference to justify that much cost? And what about accuracy where it seems at least in this test to have been inferior?
I have no need to condemn one rifle and tout the other as I own both. To me there is no doubt which is the better buy...and perhaps I have not been clear enough on that. What is it in the supposed 'quality' and 'performance' that is worth twice the cost?
I wouldn't mind having a gun that costs more and shoots better. I don't think I have it here.
-
I think a .22 cal is necessary for the 350 mag to shine. Here is an example: http://www.airgunone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1980
-
Anybody have some real world velocity numbers for a TF89 in .177 that's been broken in, but NOT tuned? I've been looking for a nice (not harsh) shooting .177 that will push the heavy pellets (10.5 gr) over 800 fps and preferably 850 fps.
thanks, Scott
-
I'll be getting a Walther Force 1000 today or tomorrow, and it is really the same gun -- but a LOT cheaper (see here: http://www.gatewaytoairguns.com/airguns/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=21213&mid=169306#M169306 ). I'll be chronying this weekend -- but brand new. If you can wait till the weekend I'll have numbers on it.
Before the tune, my .177 gun had about 2500 rounds through and the fps was about 870 with 7.9 gr HOWEVER, that gun had some internal damage which was part of the reason for the tune -- I think brought about by some accidental dry-firing and hyper-velocity pellet use. I don't do either of those things, and I'm more careful who gets to touch/borrow the rifles -- which contributed to both issues.
I've shot 4 TF 89s now, and the one I had tuned was the roughest of the bunch. I sent one to my brother that was almost as good as the tuned rifle...but I only put about 10 pellets through to sight it in for him. It was 840+ with 10.5 gr.
-
I don't doubt the RWS .22 is nicer than the .177, but the .177 was the one I got the deal on. However, look at the numbers for the TF89 .22 ... that's pretty darned nice!
I didn't mention that I shot for accuracy seated, resting elbow to knee. I did NOT use a bench rest.
-
Thanks Doc,
Pretty much all I have is high end springers...R9 (PW soft-tuned), HW97K, TX200 tuned by Ed K. my most powerful .177, but not as powerful as I'm looking for, AA Proelite in .22, 34 panther in .22, webely exocet in.177, fwb 124, HW85 in .22, etc. I do have a ruger airhawk that I had rebarreled with LW barrel, but it's only doing around 11 fpe. I like to tinker so the tf89 may be my best bet. I'll check out the walther force and will be looking forward to your review.
thanks, Scott
-
Was the one you sent to your brother dieseling a lot to get 840 with 10.5 gr?
thanks, Scott
-
Dieseling? No, not at all.