Testing TF89 .177, TF89 .22, and RWS350

[KK0605]

A little off topic, what did you like about the Leupold EFR scope over other high quality scopes?

[thebookdoc]

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.

[thebookdoc]

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.

[Dehouser]

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.

[thebookdoc]

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.

[avidairgunner]

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

[WVscott]

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

[thebookdoc]

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.

[thebookdoc]

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.

[WVscott]

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

[WVscott]

Was the one you sent to your brother dieseling a lot to get 840 with 10.5 gr?  
     thanks, Scott

[thebookdoc]

Dieseling? No, not at all.