Rws 54 air king

[GARD72977]

I am very new to high end airguns. I decided to purchase one to hone my skills for the ML competitions that I have started shooting. After a little research I think the RWS 54 Air King my be the gun for me. My intention is to hone my existing skill not to learn to shoot a spring piston air gun. Any thoughts on these. My budget is a little short for this right now. I had rather sell/save for a few weeks to buy the right gun the first time.

[MT Chambers]

If you don't really want to learn to shoot a spring piston gun, I'd suggest a PCP type airgun, some, like the Marauder or Hatsan are quite affordable, if you're stuck on springers, I'd recommend an AA 200TX or Weihrauch.

[rattletrap1970]

I have a RWS model 52. I think its a fairly easy gun to learn (not like a PCP, but still OK). The 54 is a little weird cause the action slides in the stock. i never like that. They tout it as a recoil absorbing thing (and they do recoil), the 52 is the same gun but with the action fixed in place. All in all it is a very good, powerful spring gun.

[GARD72977]

I may be more confused not than before. Thanks for the input guys. I guess there is some more research to do. The RWS 54 seemed appealing because from what I have read it does not matter how you hold the gun it shoots the same. I don't mind the weird recoil I just want something to practice lining up the sights and pulling the trigger. Im wanting something quality.

[backroad]

I have rws models 34 and 48 both older guns 96 and 97 both very accurate and fun.But the 34 is the gun i always grab first much lighter and shoots freehand a lot better.

[JonB_in_Glencoe]

I love the model 54, I have one in .177 and one in .22 they are tack drivers, much more so then standard spring-air rifles in my hands.

What I think the sliding action does ???
I think it takes the potentially inconsistant human factor influence out of the forward recoil reaction.
Good Luck,
Jon

[roysha]

A couple of things you need to know about the 54. I am assuming you have just done on research and not handled one. If you have indeed had one in hand then just ignore the following comments.

First, the 54 is a BIG gun. Not only physically large, but quite heavy also. It is probably the hardest airgun on scopes that is readily available. I have read where it has eaten even the best of scopes in just a few hundred shots. I cannot personally say one way or another because mine is strictly iron sighted.

It is very comfortable to shoot because of the "recoiless" action. However the down side to that is that the trigger moves forward when the gun is cocked so in effect lengthening the length of pull. If you have large hands it is of no consequence but people with smaller hands tend to find it a bit uncomfortable. I believe the action slides 5/16-3/8 inch or so.

Since it is a "magnum" class springer, the cocking effort is substantial.

It is amazingly accurate.

Even with the above draw backs, (not the amazing accurate part) I would not trade mine for anything else in it's class, period!

If you just want to hone your skills, I would like to suggest an FWB 300S. Admittedly they are 20 plus years old but the cocking effort is just 9 lbs, and they are recoiless. There are a lot of them around on the used market at around what the 54 would cost, plus if properly maintained, you can sell it for what you paid for it. If you achieve the level of proficiency to shoot as well as even a well used one can shoot, you will have, shall we say, arrived!

If you want a new gun the AirArms TX 200 is very hard to beat and also in that price range. Although not recoiless, it is still very easy to shoot and the cocking effort is nowhere near the 54 and it's brethren.

[GARD72977]

Great info. The size of the gun is a plus. The muzzleloaders that I compete with are large guns. I have no intention of using a scope so the 54 may just be what im looking for.

Is it true that the way you hold it does not effect accuracy?

[HARRYMPOPE]

My 54 was just like my 48 in that it did Iike to be held lightly.guys have played with the sliding mechanism to make the 54 shoot but I have never done so.The tx200 is an easy gun to shoot as far as springers go.my current rws 48 .177 from 1989 shoots well held about any way but the POI varies with the hold.

[rattletrap1970]

I have to agree on the accuracy. At picnics at my house in the summer, I break out the 52 (.22 cal) and fold dimes in half at 35 yards and give 'em to the kids for souvenirs. The gun ain't no joke, but, get the right scope, cause it's a scope killer for the wrong ones.

[HARRYMPOPE]

I have to agree on the accuracy. At picnics at my house in the summer, I break out the 52 (.22 cal) and fold dimes in half at 35 yards and give 'em to the kids for souvenirs. The gun ain't no joke, but, get the right scope, cause it's a scope killer for the wrong ones.

My 48 has had good luck with the old BSA "Airgun" marked 4-12 scope.Not sure if it the same as their "Essential" but its very clear.My 48 is about that accurate as well.I personally woudnt spend the extra $$ for the 54 over a 48 or 52 and would step up to the TX200 or HW77 or 97.My 48 is darn close to my TX on some days.

[grizzlyadams]

+1 on the 48..... they dont get much more accurate.if you cant hit a squirrel in the head at 50yds.....it is your fault, not the gun

[GregRPG]

I have a 54 with a 3x9 BSA Airgun scope and it shoots better than the 34 I had. Use heavy pellets and all will be fine.

[GARD72977]

I still need to save a little. I really leaning toward the 54. Not sure I want a PCP.

[GARD72977]

Im seeing the rws with several different names RWS 54, Diana RWS 54 and the Umarex RWS 54. Is there any difference in these guns?

[rattletrap1970]

Diana makes the rifle and it is then branded RWS. The 48 was the base model of the "High Power" side lever Air rifle. The 52 was a snazzier version sporting a checkered walnut stock. Both rifles shared the exact same power plant. The 54 "Air King" is a 48/52 dropped into a sliding stock which was meant to alleviate some of the recoil (I shot it and didn't like it).

I also owned a Falcon FN19-TW PCP Air Rifle and I have to say it truly was a Cadillac.

http://i885.photobucket.com/albums/ac51/rattletrap1970/Guns/Airguns/FalconForSale02.jpg (http://s885.photobucket.com/user/rattletrap1970/media/Guns/Airguns/FalconForSale02.jpg.html)

[GARD72977]

I do understand why some people would not like the 54. All the extra support equipment for the PCP is a turn off for me. I just want something to practice with. I live in the country so sound (within reason) is not a issue. I want open sights and most PSP do not offer this. To be honest any quality air rifle would be just fine. I have decided that I owned to many guns and have sold most. I only want one air rifle so I have to research what is best for my needs


.Quality - I want to enjoy owning it
. Economy - for practice. so 177 and springer
. Power - 50yd target
. Accuracy - I know open sights will limit this
.no hunting
. no competition - But I will enjoy keeping track of my own progress

So far the 54 seems to fit my needs very well but a 48 may also be a great option


I want to improve my skills in competitive woods walk with a ML. I wonder if the 48 would be more help with the follow through needed to shoot a Flintlock?

[grizzlyadams]

the follow through required will definitely hone your skills further

[rattletrap1970]

I think what you are asking for is an RWS model 48. I like the idea of the barrel and my scope being permanently in the same axis.
i don't like break barrel guns.

.Quality - Quality Costs
.Economy - I personally believe .22 will give you more options
. Power - 50yd, .22 is going to buck wind better and velocity and power are more efficient in this caliber due to the volume of usable air behind the pellet.
. Accuracy - .22 is just as accurate, more so when wind and distance is concerned.
.no hunting
. no competition - But I will enjoy keeping track of my own progress

[GARD72977]

Alright guys. I would like to think everyone for your advice. After a lot of thought I bought a RWS 350 Magnum 177. I found one new with the t05 trigger for a good price. Im thinking the extra recoil will help me learn the shoot a Flint lock better. I bought some of the heavier pellets. Im not cought up in the velocity. I do not expect the kind of accuracy that most of you are shooting. Im just wanting to hit medium size targets at 25-50 yds with open sights. I have to say that I had a lot of fun learning about airguns especially springers. Just glad its over and cant wait to get my hands on it!

Rattletrap1970 I appreciate you advice on the RWS 48 and think it would have been great but I got the 350 much cheaper.

[grizzlyadams]

gard.....the 350 is a good gun as well. the recoil impulse is a bit longer/stronger than the 48....it will still be a great trainer

[Larry Gibson]

I am a confirmed "springer" man and consider the M54 "king" indeed. Below is an article I wrote several years back. Still have the M54 and also used it for off hand practice on an indoor range for HP practice. Put an aperture rear sight and M14 front sight on it. It had the weight and feel of my M1A match rifle and I'm firmly convinced my winter indoor practice with that M54 was the reason for my success during HP competition with my M1A, especially offhand.

.22 Cal RWS 54/Crosman Premiers – weighed/tested at 10 to 90 yards
By Larry M. Gibson

Television had little on that I found interesting several evenings ago. So I began another tedious and boring project, weighing pellets! My method was as described in a previous posting, “.22 cal RWS M54/Chronograph Results and Pellet Weight Variation”, on 8/16/99 at 00:56:43. In that article I described how the weight variation of Crosman Premier .22 cal pellets had a most decided effect on the chronographed extreme spread and standard deviation in feet per second of 10 shot strings. I hypothesized that same weight pellets Vs “out of the box “ pellets would result in a measurable difference in group sizes at ranges of 30 to 70 yards. Thus began my quest to weigh and test.

I weighed 230 CPs out of a box marked “Die #1” dated July 30 1996. I also opened a new box of CPs marked “Die #1” dated Feb 25 1999 and weighed a sampling. The pellet to pellet weight variation was similar between the two. The chart breaks down by weight in grains (gr) the number of each weight and the percentage each weight was of the total.

Gr-------#-------%
14.0-----3-----01.3
14.05---27----11.8
14.1-----43----18.7
14.15---53----23.0
14.2----57-----24.8
14.25---25----10.8
14.3----18-----07.9
14.35----4-----01.1

Again I found 3.5 tenths of a grain weight variation or 2.5%. To keep vZc happy I used a micrometer that measures to .0001” and measured a sampling of each weight at the head and skirt diameters. Frankly, I found the diameter variations measured on different points of the pellet diameters to be greater than any variation of diameters between different weights. Since I already own the barrel and have purchased the pellets, meaning I’m going to shoot them, the real meaningful measurement is going to be group sizes. Sorry vZc!

The next night I was able to conduct the shooting portion of the test. I have access to a building where I can shoot to 90 yards. I used a 6 foot folding table for a bench rest with sandbags front and rear. A cardboard box with a face 30x30” and 12” deep stuffed with old phone books was the pellet trap. This made it handy because I used a Bushnel Pro-800 range finder to set the box at all ranges tested. I use the range finder when hunting so it validates the holdover data for practical use. I use a Magic Marker to make a + on the backside of regular target paper for aiming points.

I used my RWS M54 with a RWS 450 3x9 riflescope (set at 9x) to conduct the test. All testing for group size of the weighed pellets was conducted at a range of 50 yards. I fired a 5 shot test group with each weight of pellet except the 14 and 14.35 grain weights. I only had 3 and 4 of each weight respectively. Also a “control” group of 10 pellets “out of the box” was fired. The chart lists the center to center group size for each weight pellet.



Weight Group
grains Size

14.00---------.22”
14.05---------.53”
14.10---------.6”
14.15---------.76”
14.20---------.54”
14.25---------.66”
14.30---------.47”
14.35---------.56”

Average group size for the 8 groups: 0.5425”

The 10 shot control group measured 1.5” center to center. Seven of the ten were in a 0.85” cluster. There were three “flyers”, one high and two low that opened the group. Obviously sorting the pellets by exact weight produced superior groups and accuracy. The question was; what weights produced the 7 shot cluster in the control group and which were the flyers?”

Looking at the target it was easy to see the center of three test groups coincided with the center of the 7 shot cluster of the control group. The weights of those groups are 14.10, 14.15 and 14.20 grains. Those three weights composed 66.5% of the pellets. Not surprising, the centers of the 14.00 and the 14.05 groups were high and the 14.25, 14.30 and 14.35 groups were low. Over laying all 8 test groups (37 shots) using the aiming point as a reference produced a composite group of 1.65”.

I then took the remaining 14.10, 14.15 and 14.20 grain pellets and mixed them up. The rifle was then zeroed at 50 yards with the point of impact being 0.3” above point of aim. The target box was then moved from 10 yards to 90 yards in 10 yard increments. The riflescope was not adjusted other than the focus at each range. This gave me the exact trajectory of this pellet. I prefer to use hold off for elevation and wind when hunting. The group sizes then give an indication of the vital area of a small game animal I can reasonably expect to hit from a solid rested position. The chart lists the trajectory and the group (5 shot) at each range.

Range
Yards--------0---10---20----30----40----50-----60----70-----80-----90
Trajectory
Inches-___-2___0_+1.1_+1.6_+1.6__+.3__-1.9__-5.1__-10.2_-20.0

Group
Size________.15”_.20”__.35”_.45”__.56”_.78” _1.08”_0.85”_ 3.0”


On the 90 yard group I ran out of weighed pellets so I shot it with pellets out of the box. The group was 1.3” wide with the expected vertical stringing being 3”.

This test has validated my original conclusion that weighing and sorting CPs is an erstwhile, though boring, endeavor. This is especially the case if one is shooting targets or hunting at ranges further than 30 yards. If just plinking “out of the box” will do nicely. Excuse me while I go weigh pellets. However, 1.5” ten shot groups will do for most hunting inside 50 yards. Perhaps it’s “Miller time”. Where did I leave that TV Guide anyway……..

[HARRYMPOPE]

One group with each weight? Where is the data for unsorted pellets at the same indoor range same # of shots.?

George

[Larry Gibson]

One group with each weight? Where is the data for unsorted pellets at the same indoor range same # of shots.?

George

That data is in the article. Quoted from post above;

"Also a “control” group of 10 pellets “out of the box” was fired (at 50 yards). The chart lists the center to center group size for each weight pellet.

The 10 shot control group measured 1.5” center to center. Seven of the ten were in a 0.85” cluster. There were three “flyers”, one high and two low that opened the group.

On the 90 yard group I ran out of weighed pellets so I shot it with pellets out of the box. The group was 1.3” wide with the expected vertical stringing being 3”. (note the much larger and non-linear increase in group size over the previous groups fired with weight sorted pellets. All test groups were 10 shots.)


Larry Gibson