Took delivery of my Ruger AirHawk today, got it from R&R for $100 (with a 4x32 scope) before shipping. I was real curious to see how decent it was, considering the fact that Glenn Seiter at Umarex USA spoke very highly of this model, especially for the price. This particular rifle is serial #00000209, so we are definitely on the front end of the production cycle.
There has been a lot of speculation that it's a BAM rehash of a Diana model 34, and as it turns out there's a lot of truth to that. It's not dimensionally identical (the stocks wouldn't interchange, for example), but the design of the basic mechanism is obviously the same.
So how does it stack up to the 34? Well, to begin with, while the wood and metal finish are certainly decent enough in the price range (and frankly I think it comes off looking better than any AR1000 variant I've seen), it's not up to Diana standards. It's more akin to the Crosman Quest in this department, which certainly isn't bad.
As I found out when I disassembled the rifle, BAM copied the very nice Diana T05 trigger - and frankly they didn't do a terrible job. As it came out of the box this particular example operated as an extremely long single stage trigger, albeit one with a light pull. Turns out that for whatever reason (production tolerances of some sort undoubtedly) the trigger adjustment had to be screwed all the way in before any noticeable 2nd stage could be felt. Fortunately this proved to be a good setting on this particular rifle... the 1st stage is still rather long but the 2nd stage is creep-free, breaking cleanly at around 3-3.5lbs. Perhaps a little tougher than my Diana guns, but not enough to really be objectionable.
Not surprizingly it took several dozen shots to work the Chinese oil out of the gun... I had 10-20 shots that really sounded like a .22 short. The breech pivot is really stiff on this one, stiff and sticky. At least it's tight - and initial tests (well before break-in) shows that the accuracy might be promising.. My last 5-shot group (10 yards) had 2 fliers at about a 1/2" spread, but the other three pellets virtually went into the same hole. I suspect that this will improve with time, as I had not even cleaned the barrel yet. Also during this initial testing the buzzy firing behavior became apparent - enough to be noticeable and slightly annoying, but not enough to be painful (as in my 440). At this time I also noted a problem with the rear sight - it was reluctant to go low enough to be useful at moderate ranges. It appeared that it SHOULD have gone down further, and it felt like there was something jamming the threads. I didn't force it at the time, I decided to look at it more carefully later.
I then tossed a few shots over the chrony - and sure enough, my suspicions of low velocity were confirmed. The gun was doing only about 810-820fps with Premier 7.9's, well below what a proper running Diana would do. I tried shimming the breech seal (since both my .177 and .22 Panthers suffered from breech seal leakage) and that seemed to bring it up 30 fps or so.
Next step is a complete teardown to see what it looks like inside. It comes apart just like a '34, but from the guts of it you'll never confuse this gun with the German original! Everything was coated with that lightweight brown Chinese oil... whether it was naturally brown or tinted with rust I can't be sure (although I suspect the latter). After less than 100 shots the seal was surprisingly beat up, with a definite chunk missing from the edge. Inspection of the compression tube quickly revealed the reason - poor stamping/cutting of slots and holes, with sharp edges around the cocking slot and metal flashing pushed inward from where the rear pin holes were punched. It took a LOT of deburring, all necessary if I was ever gonna get a new seal in there without damaging it.
I worked the rear part of the compression tube with a 320 grit flapper wheel, and used a 320 hone on the forward part of it (where the seal rides). I followed that with a 400 grit hone and a 600 grit sandpaper flapper and washed it out with brake cleaner. Side note - I know the chamber finish I used goes against conventional wisdom, but I did it this way based on Jim Maccarri's recommendation. Since I was using one of his seals, it seemed only logical to follow his finishing instructions. Yes, the large Apex seal fits this gun just fine... and sSo does the Diana breech seal. The spring appears to be very similar to the Diana spring, although by my calculations it is a tiny bit softer.
Before I reassembled the breech pivot I applied a generous film of moly paste to the side washers and the pivot bushing. One surprising difference between the Diana 34 and the Ruger is the cocking link - the Ruger uses an articulated link similar to the one on the Diana 350, while the original '34 uses a one-piece link. I always prefered the articulated link since it reduces side-loading on the piston during the cocking stroke, so this was a pleasant surprise. Plus, with an articulated link you don't have to actually remove the link or the barrel assembly to get the piston out.
I next looked at the troublesome sight elevation adjuster wheel, and found what appeared to be grit of some sort in the hole. Fortunately the threads didn't seem to be overly damaged, and it seems that a little cleaning has restored the full adjustment range on the rear sight. The sight itself is very similar to the B26 rear sight, with solid detents and no side play to speak of.
After I got it back together I ran another few shots over the chrony and saw a small improvement - but this was after I had removed the seal shims I had installed earlier (since they were from my .177 Panther). I have to make some more shims and get some mileage on the gun before I can pass credible judgement on the velocity. the pivot is still very tight, but at least it isn't sticky as it was before.
At this point I have to pronounce the AirHawk to be something of a disappointment - but I guess I shouldn't be surprised. It has to be more expensive to manufacture than the less sophisticated Crosman Quest which actually sells for more, and the fact that it is based on a Diana gun means that it is more of a diamond in the rough. In the really rough, that is... but if the accuracy proved to be decent there's no apparent reason why this rifle can't be made into the equal of the Diana, at least as far as shooting goes. The asthetic finish won't be up to the same standards, but franky I prefer the Ruger's rear sight and the gun itself is a little smaller and lighter than a real '34 - so the trade-off isn't all bad.
Once I get it properly broken in I'll be able to comment on the shooting characteristics in more detail, which (hopefully) will be in only a few days' time.
