Lots of good conversations here on the FX DRS Pro. Here is a long response to get all my thoughts out after reading comments over the past 24 hours. The point of my original post was the goal of making an airgun design as close to the form of a firearm has a lot of historical examples and has a meaningful purpose.
I am a HUGE military training rifle collector and military history nut. Also, U.S. Army Veteran Tank Gunner whose secondary job was a Unit Small Arms Armorer for my unit. I LOVE the mechanics of rifles just as much as I love shooting them. Do I work in the airgun industry? Yes. Do I live and breathe this stuff daily? It is a diagnosable obsession!
View attachment 428450So what was the point of my original post? TONS of history has led up to the FX DRS Pro design and ya, I am pretty excited about it. The historical aspect that interests me most about all this is looking at the FX DRS Pro as the ultimate airgun training rifle.
The military figured out a LOOOOONG time ago that the more trigger time you get your troops the more proficient they become as an expert marksman. .22LR was the chosen approach for a good part of the 20th century as a cost-effective way to do so. Furthermore, it opened up WHERE marksmanship training could be performed and no longer needed hundreds of yards. Hell, they even used gallery gun power level .22LR shorts to shoot indoors!
They figured out right away that just going to the .22 caliber wasn't enough and needed to make training rifles that had as close to the same form factor as the primary issued service rifle of the time. This is my collection of every .22LR dating from pre-WWI through WWII of every single U.S. military-adopted .22LR training rifle (yes I love this stuff). The two specifically I want to point out are the 1922 Springfield .22LR (uses the actual Springfield M1903 action) and the H&R 65 .22LR (very similar form factor to the M1 Garand). These two specifically were created to mimic the manual of arms and ergonomics of their full-sized service rifles of the M1903 Springfield and the M1 Garand.
I know there are quite of few Brits here on Airgun Nation and y'all did the same thing. The Mossberg 42MB (5th from the top) was adopted by the Brits as a training rifle as it has a very similar ergonomic design to the Pattern 1914 Enfield and Lee Enfield No.1 and No.4.
View attachment 428448 The small-bore / .22LR / and now airgun training rifle concept is alive and well in modern times and we see companies and products like Bergara B-14R in .22LR use a AICS style magazine that accepts .22LR cartridges to mimic its center-fire big brother. I don't know if you've checked prices on 6.5 CM ammo lately, but if you think airguns are expensive. Try burning through a few hundred rounds of Hornady 6.5 Creedmoor 147 gr ELD Match Ammo and let me know how much lighter your wallet feels or if your credit card has melted.
Having the FX DRS Pro with almost the EXACT form factor as my centerfire Begara 6.5 CM (or any other Rem700 form factor rifle) you can now burn off 1000s of rounds for a fraction of the cost of the center-fire equivalent platform and the same can be said for the .22LR version too because you're not feeding your precision .22LR bulk green box Remington. You're spending $15-$25 a box of 50 rounds Match Grade Ammo. Airgun slugs are a small fraction of the cost.
So to this point of, "why make an air rifle look like something it is not"... I personally think it is an important approach to marksmanship training and our history as shooters. If the FX DRS Pro design doesn't appeal to you and you want super high shot count or super compact design, well... they have those designs too! I just think it is cool that I can now have an airgun that feels and operates almost EXACTLY like my precision centerfire rifle and I personally will be a better shooter the more trigger time I get behind it.
