Last edited:
Be warned people - there's a long post ahead. But it's about a couple of cool springers, so settle in and enjoy. 
I've been trying to make time this week to try out the springers I brought back from the Carlisle show. Loved the show, even if I did overspend....
As I was walking through the show I was fortunate to spot an RWS 94 (by its safety button no less). It was under a jumble of rifles on a row manned by three guys who weren't even sure whose stuff was where on the tables. I think they've been friends for a long time.
My thought process: "I know the 94's. I love the 94's! I'm gonna look at that 94..."
Confirm its a. 22...... check.
Has sights......? check.
Confirm no damage, etc....? check.
Price?
I didn't need it, but I wanted it (I know, I know...) as a backup for the one I own. I have one in .22 that is one of my long time favorites. I don't shoot it too often because I'm worried I'll screw it up and not be able to get parts (the triggers can be an issue).
Another 94 isn't what I was looking for at the show, but the price had been set for selling, not for sitting, so on impulse I bought it. No reservations. Well, I hoped the trigger didn't have issues but that was it.
A little later, I happened to walk back that way again and to my surprise I spotted another one, this one in .177 with a Beeman muzzle brake in place of the sights. 98% as nice as the .22, and suddenly I started thinking about owning it.
Now, up until that moment, I hadn't been very interested in a 94 in .177 because they are light guns but strong shooters. Basically 7lb mini-magnums. My "old" .22 is making around 18fpe and that's typical. Some owners report getting over 20 fpe with a fresh spring and a Vortek seal. I wouldn't look to do that myself, but you can see how the 94's could/should be jumpy shooters. Some people have suggested that about the .177's in particular, and I don't doubt it.
That said, I got the idea that the owner of these rifles likely didn't own a pair of them by accident, so we made the same deal for that one and I came home with both.
Good times!
A quick sidebar for those who dont know about the RWS 94's: they are actually older Cometa 400's made to whatever requirements RWS contracted for, in the '90s/2000s I believe. They were probably standard production guns (Cometa is a good manufacturer as-is), but some feel that they were a little nicer. I don't think so myself, but I'm just guessing. I've never seen a 400 from the same tine period.
They are light but adult sized rifles with a strong following, and Cometas are currently being imported into the US by Keystone Arms in PA. I like them a lot, and they are probably the best of the "mid-tier" makers.
The 94's clearly said Made in Spain on them so no one should think that RWS was trying to pass them off as German made back then. They simply imported a different line, probably for a different consumer target.
Sidebar over. Back to the guns!
The rifles came to me together but not really as a set, and they are set up differently. It turns out that the .177 has been tuned down to about 12 fpe. Yet despite the long comp tube and low-ish power, it doesn't have a lazy firing cycle. It has a very nice cycle in fact, laid back but businesslike. Composed. And of course, the rifle is super easy to cock. The ball detent releases very easily yet delivers stable and repeatable lockup. The cocking stroke is so smooth and quiet that you can hear yourself smile.
The trigger is also excellent and my first shots with a mechanically centered scope put pellets nearly on the vertical centerline and a bit high at 9 yards - no droop going on with this rifle! And that centered POI indicates that there are no geometry issues between the scope rails, comp tube, pivot joint, barrel axis, etc. Thats something I always look for in a rifle.
The accuracy really shocked me - after a few very promising sighters I settled in to make a 5 shot group. I don't know why the first shot was about a pellet diameter higher than the rest, but the next four made a single pellet-sized hole right below it. Barely egg-shaped. I zoomed in on the photo so you can see what I mean. Wow. Someone sure set this rifle up well! Likely down to the position of the muzzle brake.
OK, nothing more to prove here!
Time to move on to the .22....
But, there was a little hang up... I didn't want to swap the CV Life 3-9 away from the rifle it was on, which had been the plan.
So I decided to give the .22 a go with the sights. Understand, I knew it meant that I probably wouldn't find out how it shoots. Old eyes make for blurry targets over irons but hey, I'm always optimistic.
So you know, the .22, has a very different personality. Both have tight bores, but the .22 is making close to 19 fpe with 14 grain wadcutters, and the pellets I tested were pretty tight in the barrel - it could shoot stronger yet with other pellets. Yikes!
It's also a little stiffer to break open & cock, and, sadly, "spring creaky" when doing so. Nothing a proper guide or even a soda bottle sleeve won't fix, I'm just getting spoiled.
The .22 is the "brute" of the pair, while the .177 has the finesse.
Oh, one more thing - it turns out that both are stunning shooters.
Get this - running out of tine, I shot a few 3-shot groups and kept screwing up one shot in each group, and I knew it as I shot. But at least I could see the sights well, so I kept going. Then I found a good, almost natural hold position and fired what I felt was a really good 3 shots in a row. Something I could hang my hat on.
Still, I didn't quite believe it when I walked up and found that all 3 had passed through the same hole.
But no mistake - Lightning had struck again!
Yes, I have a photo, so it really happened. ha ha! (see below)
Both of these rifles have exceeded my expectations.
Now, I know that this was just a tiny sample and may not mean anything. Maybe I just got lucky, right?
And even if i didn't, I know that those groups may open up disproportionately as distance to target increases.
But still, I'm excited for the future!
The .177:
The .22:
I've been trying to make time this week to try out the springers I brought back from the Carlisle show. Loved the show, even if I did overspend....
As I was walking through the show I was fortunate to spot an RWS 94 (by its safety button no less). It was under a jumble of rifles on a row manned by three guys who weren't even sure whose stuff was where on the tables. I think they've been friends for a long time.
My thought process: "I know the 94's. I love the 94's! I'm gonna look at that 94..."
Confirm its a. 22...... check.
Has sights......? check.
Confirm no damage, etc....? check.
Price?
I didn't need it, but I wanted it (I know, I know...
) as a backup for the one I own. I have one in .22 that is one of my long time favorites. I don't shoot it too often because I'm worried I'll screw it up and not be able to get parts (the triggers can be an issue).Another 94 isn't what I was looking for at the show, but the price had been set for selling, not for sitting, so on impulse I bought it. No reservations. Well, I hoped the trigger didn't have issues but that was it.
A little later, I happened to walk back that way again and to my surprise I spotted another one, this one in .177 with a Beeman muzzle brake in place of the sights. 98% as nice as the .22, and suddenly I started thinking about owning it.
Now, up until that moment, I hadn't been very interested in a 94 in .177 because they are light guns but strong shooters. Basically 7lb mini-magnums. My "old" .22 is making around 18fpe and that's typical. Some owners report getting over 20 fpe with a fresh spring and a Vortek seal. I wouldn't look to do that myself, but you can see how the 94's could/should be jumpy shooters. Some people have suggested that about the .177's in particular, and I don't doubt it.
That said, I got the idea that the owner of these rifles likely didn't own a pair of them by accident, so we made the same deal for that one and I came home with both.
Good times!
A quick sidebar for those who dont know about the RWS 94's: they are actually older Cometa 400's made to whatever requirements RWS contracted for, in the '90s/2000s I believe. They were probably standard production guns (Cometa is a good manufacturer as-is), but some feel that they were a little nicer. I don't think so myself, but I'm just guessing. I've never seen a 400 from the same tine period.
They are light but adult sized rifles with a strong following, and Cometas are currently being imported into the US by Keystone Arms in PA. I like them a lot, and they are probably the best of the "mid-tier" makers.
The 94's clearly said Made in Spain on them so no one should think that RWS was trying to pass them off as German made back then. They simply imported a different line, probably for a different consumer target.
Sidebar over. Back to the guns!
The rifles came to me together but not really as a set, and they are set up differently. It turns out that the .177 has been tuned down to about 12 fpe. Yet despite the long comp tube and low-ish power, it doesn't have a lazy firing cycle. It has a very nice cycle in fact, laid back but businesslike. Composed. And of course, the rifle is super easy to cock. The ball detent releases very easily yet delivers stable and repeatable lockup. The cocking stroke is so smooth and quiet that you can hear yourself smile.
The trigger is also excellent and my first shots with a mechanically centered scope put pellets nearly on the vertical centerline and a bit high at 9 yards - no droop going on with this rifle! And that centered POI indicates that there are no geometry issues between the scope rails, comp tube, pivot joint, barrel axis, etc. Thats something I always look for in a rifle.
The accuracy really shocked me - after a few very promising sighters I settled in to make a 5 shot group. I don't know why the first shot was about a pellet diameter higher than the rest, but the next four made a single pellet-sized hole right below it. Barely egg-shaped. I zoomed in on the photo so you can see what I mean. Wow. Someone sure set this rifle up well! Likely down to the position of the muzzle brake.
OK, nothing more to prove here!
Time to move on to the .22....
But, there was a little hang up... I didn't want to swap the CV Life 3-9 away from the rifle it was on, which had been the plan.
So I decided to give the .22 a go with the sights. Understand, I knew it meant that I probably wouldn't find out how it shoots. Old eyes make for blurry targets over irons but hey, I'm always optimistic.
So you know, the .22, has a very different personality. Both have tight bores, but the .22 is making close to 19 fpe with 14 grain wadcutters, and the pellets I tested were pretty tight in the barrel - it could shoot stronger yet with other pellets. Yikes!
It's also a little stiffer to break open & cock, and, sadly, "spring creaky" when doing so. Nothing a proper guide or even a soda bottle sleeve won't fix, I'm just getting spoiled.
The .22 is the "brute" of the pair, while the .177 has the finesse.
Oh, one more thing - it turns out that both are stunning shooters.
Get this - running out of tine, I shot a few 3-shot groups and kept screwing up one shot in each group, and I knew it as I shot. But at least I could see the sights well, so I kept going. Then I found a good, almost natural hold position and fired what I felt was a really good 3 shots in a row. Something I could hang my hat on.
Still, I didn't quite believe it when I walked up and found that all 3 had passed through the same hole.
But no mistake - Lightning had struck again!
Yes, I have a photo, so it really happened. ha ha! (see below)
Both of these rifles have exceeded my expectations.
Now, I know that this was just a tiny sample and may not mean anything. Maybe I just got lucky, right?
And even if i didn't, I know that those groups may open up disproportionately as distance to target increases.
But still, I'm excited for the future!
The .177:
The .22:
