Air arms vs Fx airguns
- Thread starter Hard2hurt223
- Start date
Kind of a loaded question here. For what exactly? For a modest ranged rabbit, squirrel, groundhog gun, I'm taking an AA. I dont need a ton of tunability and I'd rather not have to worry about bumping the barrel and throwing my zero.
If I'm looking for an all around gun that I can shoot slugs as far as I can imagine or if I'm looking for a bit more power to use on larger game like fox or coyote, FX all day.
If I'm looking for an all around gun that I can shoot slugs as far as I can imagine or if I'm looking for a bit more power to use on larger game like fox or coyote, FX all day.
Upvote 0
This is sort of an odd question to ask.
The best at what? The manufacturers are obviously targeting two different segments of the market.
If you're asking which one is better at being ready to shoot out of the box? Air Arms, no question. Which one is better at shooting heavy slugs? FX. Durability and reputation for being bulletproof? AA. Tunability? Probably FX (depending on the model).
I PERSONALLY prefer AA guns - I love the way the stocks fit my body, speed shooting is my main game and I contest that AA's have the best and smoothing cocking action in the game. For the types of shooting I do, they just do better. I also think they are MUCH prettier
The best at what? The manufacturers are obviously targeting two different segments of the market.
If you're asking which one is better at being ready to shoot out of the box? Air Arms, no question. Which one is better at shooting heavy slugs? FX. Durability and reputation for being bulletproof? AA. Tunability? Probably FX (depending on the model).
I PERSONALLY prefer AA guns - I love the way the stocks fit my body, speed shooting is my main game and I contest that AA's have the best and smoothing cocking action in the game. For the types of shooting I do, they just do better. I also think they are MUCH prettier
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Total opposites in terms of what you get out of the box.
FX: you get a mostly assembled and setup gun with tons of little parts and lots of adjustability and points of possible failure. That's likely to be "obsolete" in a year or less when it's "upgraded"
Air Arms: you get a basically ready to go rifle with almost zero adjustability and very few parts and points of possible failure. The design has been around mostly unchanged for a couple decades.
Decide which one you need/want.
Neither are my first choice, but if I say anymore the FX fans will gang up on me and threaten to stone me to death with stale crepes.
FX: you get a mostly assembled and setup gun with tons of little parts and lots of adjustability and points of possible failure. That's likely to be "obsolete" in a year or less when it's "upgraded"
Air Arms: you get a basically ready to go rifle with almost zero adjustability and very few parts and points of possible failure. The design has been around mostly unchanged for a couple decades.
Decide which one you need/want.
Neither are my first choice, but if I say anymore the FX fans will gang up on me and threaten to stone me to death with stale crepes.
Upvote 0
Air Arms because they are so prettier and I am old and still like pretty things,oh yea the way they feel against my body and they are not temperamental like some of the others I know, plus I like hardwood..
Upvote 0
Don't own either, no need for that expensive stuff for my hunting. My $500 rifles will kill that squirrel or racoon just as dead as that $2000 FX and they shoot just as well to my ranges anyways. Also, I think FX guns are ugly except the dreamline and crown. I like wood stocks.
Air arms are nice looking, just never had the pleasure to shoot one. Won't either, unless someone let's me shoot theirs, because I won't buy one lol.
Air arms are nice looking, just never had the pleasure to shoot one. Won't either, unless someone let's me shoot theirs, because I won't buy one lol.
Upvote 0
Air Arms. I like airguns which only need regular o-ring (every 10 years just because not because it needs it) replacement.
John
John
Upvote 0
No offense I feel like more context is need for this question. I've had both and they each had thier place for different situation.
Upvote 0
I prefer FX for the adjustable power, expandability, different stock options, local to US factory service and parts. AA makes great rifles but to me they don't offer any advantages over comparable FX models. Does that make FX rifles better? I don't know but for me I like what they offer by comparison better.
Upvote 0
I think the AA rifles are gorgous! Here are my AA 400MPR, AA 500HFT, AA S200. They all outshoot me. For general plinking, I want to buy a FX Maverick .177. I would hope with less moving parts it would be easier to service and be more trouble free.
Upvote 0
I have an AA S510XS and an FX Dreamline Classic, both are great airguns and both are extremely accurate. As far as liking one more than the other, I really can't say because they both have attibutes I like! The walnut stock and blued finish on the S510XS is much nicer than that of the Laminate stocked Dreamline, but the buttery smooth action on the Dreamline is nicer than the action of the S510XS. IMO, the biggest advantage the Dreamline has over the S510XS is the ability to change calibers.
Upvote 0
My opinion is the only real comparison to fx would be in the dreamline series with a tube configuration. That is tough. Aesthetically 150 % AA but versatility 150 % FX. For me it would probably be the dreamline because of the versatility.
Upvote 0
I guess I should have specified more if you had to pick one gun to do everything which brand would it be
Upvote 0
I have not tried a AA rifle, but they dont look half bad.
But really what i want in my next gun, no one or very few make today.
A: I want a rifle made to shoot slugs ( and it have to be the .177 caliber i am locked to )
B: I want to be able to adjust for at least some range of slug weights, but as it is now in .177 the range are 10 grain to 20 grain ( pretty much )
I will easy be able to live with 13 grains being the lightest i shoot.
C: I really would like this to be in a conventional rifle look, i dont really need bull pups as a bench shooter.
D: Wood would be nice, but a tactical frame i would probably be able to live with.
But really what i want in my next gun, no one or very few make today.
A: I want a rifle made to shoot slugs ( and it have to be the .177 caliber i am locked to )
B: I want to be able to adjust for at least some range of slug weights, but as it is now in .177 the range are 10 grain to 20 grain ( pretty much )
I will easy be able to live with 13 grains being the lightest i shoot.
C: I really would like this to be in a conventional rifle look, i dont really need bull pups as a bench shooter.
D: Wood would be nice, but a tactical frame i would probably be able to live with.
Upvote 0
I'd hardly call any gun "obsolete" just because improvements are made to a new model, anymore than an older car is obsolete because newer models have more features. For me, the fact that I can upgrade a gun if I choose, is a benefit not a drawback.
Upvote 0