This or That? Air Arms

This or That? Air Arms


  • Total voters
    45

Airgun Nation

Administrator
Staff member
Aug 24, 2020
883
2,372
Colorado, United States
AAthisthat.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Josh1973
THIS, but only if its in something like this: (or a Lukas Parsley, AluTec and some others)
1730315684651.png

Strictly my opinion..... In this day and age of CADD, CNC, advanced material sciences and research in ergonomics, why are we still using the classic/sporter stock design? And wood is getting to be a scarce-er resource, increasingly expensive option especially when offered in the quality shown in the survey picture

Dont get me wrong, the TX stock shown is gorgeous. But its not my thing. The TX is an awesome rifle that can have its end-user experience greatly enhanced with a more modern stock offering.

(OP, feel free to delete if Ive hijacked....)

Flame away!
 
This. Or Dan’s suggestion. Lord knows we don’t need yet more assault-style airguns. Modern materials, yes. Ergonomic, yes. But modern doesn’t have to be tactical. Stay true to Air Arms heritage, that is why I love the company. Let others glom onto the tactical me too style. Be different, be better by being who you are.
 
I don't like the tactical stuff at all, form following function can be OK, but let's not beat the poor thing with the triple ugly stick.
I like the integration of the air bottle as a butt stock and or the forend for that matter. Can we do a better job of making it look like a rifle stock? The basic shape of the butt is an oval cross section, not as inherently strong versus round, however the shape can work with good engineering. Polymer based stocks offer many advantages over classic wood and can look identical surface finish wise. Steyer makes a modern sporting rifle called an AUG that is beautifully integrated design wise, easy handling via a bullpup design and integrated scope that doubles as a carry handle. Point is, it is a 30+ year old design, yet looks like it could have been designed last week. So many of our "modern" PCP rifles look more like a rapid unscheduled disassembly of a hardware store. Not so modern either, Clark packed a Giradoni PCP rifle way back in 1804 to impress the natives. It was a PCP, it was not called that. The journals refer to Clark's air rifle.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gorman805
I voted traditional springer, but I’m in both camps. For me, I don’t mind a “tactical” looking rifle as long as it’s done right. My issue is that many PCPs in that category look like they’ve been cobbled together from parts (almost everything Umarex, Skout Epoch, etc.). There are obviously many also that look good (BRK Sniper and Ghost, several bullpups, etc.), but I just find a traditional rifle looks best in most cases. Odd that I say that as I have a Taipan Vet and two EDguns, but still lol.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rcrochte