A comparison between the DIANA 46 and the 430
Sometimes it is interesting to look at history and assess how much we have advanced (progressed), or retreated (regressed) in the things we "make".
As we all know, and feel, just a few decades ago changes took, well, decades; nowadays change seems to come in a matter of days.
The airgun industry is not too different. It just happens that they still take between 3 and 5 years to bring a project to fruition.
So, this time around we will look at two guns closely related to each other, as they were designed to occupy more or less the same "ecological niche" within the airgun "biosphere".
On one hand, the original "classy Lady" role was played by the DIANA 46.
From the very late "nineties", to the early "tens", the DIANA 46 came out in 2 basic models and in some "juicy" variations that defied imagination.
The two basic models were the rifle, and the carbine.
All the carbines came out in a full length "Mannlicher" style stock.
The rifles came out in "half stocks".
For TWENTY years that the gun was in production, several VERY SMALL runs of "Luxus", "Prestige", and at least one (AFAIR) was made in "Royal" grades.
With prices to match. The Luxus retailed for well over 1k$ and the Prestige for over 2k$, the Royal was auctioned and it is unknown how much it fetched and where it is. The Luxus changed the checkering for "Ferlach style" fish-scales, the Prestige changed the borderlines for carefully sculpted oak leaves and the checkering for medium/small game scenes. Truly for plutocrats.
Most, however, came out in the rifle / half stock format that was, in itself, quite agreeable to the eye and the hand.
It embodied the quintessential Gentleman's Birding rifle.
As we all know, and feel, just a few decades ago changes took, well, decades; nowadays change seems to come in a matter of days.
The airgun industry is not too different. It just happens that they still take between 3 and 5 years to bring a project to fruition.
So, this time around we will look at two guns closely related to each other, as they were designed to occupy more or less the same "ecological niche" within the airgun "biosphere".
On one hand, the original "classy Lady" role was played by the DIANA 46.
From the very late "nineties", to the early "tens", the DIANA 46 came out in 2 basic models and in some "juicy" variations that defied imagination.
The two basic models were the rifle, and the carbine.
All the carbines came out in a full length "Mannlicher" style stock.
The rifles came out in "half stocks".
For TWENTY years that the gun was in production, several VERY SMALL runs of "Luxus", "Prestige", and at least one (AFAIR) was made in "Royal" grades.
With prices to match. The Luxus retailed for well over 1k$ and the Prestige for over 2k$, the Royal was auctioned and it is unknown how much it fetched and where it is. The Luxus changed the checkering for "Ferlach style" fish-scales, the Prestige changed the borderlines for carefully sculpted oak leaves and the checkering for medium/small game scenes. Truly for plutocrats.
Most, however, came out in the rifle / half stock format that was, in itself, quite agreeable to the eye and the hand.
It embodied the quintessential Gentleman's Birding rifle.
This specific 46 suffers from a cocking lever failure, we'll look into it in detail later
After the "exit" of the 46 from the line, many saw the 460 Magnum as the successor to the 46, but that was wrong.
Th 460 Magnum was designed from the ground up to be a powerhouse. Under no circumstances would it be reasonable to dedicate such a slender "Thunder of Zeus" to the 5.5 to 12 ft-lbs region.
The 460 was a success. Building upon the power delivered by the bore and stroke of the 350, the fixed barrel version was well received by the market. At last a piston airgun that delivered solid 23 ft-lbs. in 0.22" cal. WITHOUT dieseling/combustion. No need for compressors, hoses and tanks. That limit is important because pellets themselves become unstable at much above 875 fps and there was no sense in creating more power just to waste precision and accuracy.
So, it took some time, and by the late "tens" the 430 came onto its own. This one followed more or less the same developmental path of the 460. It took the bore and stroke of the 280 (its break-barrel testbench) and put them into a fixed barrel architecture.
The 46 was slim because the use of a pop-up loading port allowed the dispensation of the sliding compression chamber of the 460. And, so, when the 430 was born, it was a bit heavier and bit less "svelte".
Still the beauty of a Mannlicher stocked 430 is truly something to behold.
Th 460 Magnum was designed from the ground up to be a powerhouse. Under no circumstances would it be reasonable to dedicate such a slender "Thunder of Zeus" to the 5.5 to 12 ft-lbs region.
The 460 was a success. Building upon the power delivered by the bore and stroke of the 350, the fixed barrel version was well received by the market. At last a piston airgun that delivered solid 23 ft-lbs. in 0.22" cal. WITHOUT dieseling/combustion. No need for compressors, hoses and tanks. That limit is important because pellets themselves become unstable at much above 875 fps and there was no sense in creating more power just to waste precision and accuracy.
So, it took some time, and by the late "tens" the 430 came onto its own. This one followed more or less the same developmental path of the 460. It took the bore and stroke of the 280 (its break-barrel testbench) and put them into a fixed barrel architecture.
The 46 was slim because the use of a pop-up loading port allowed the dispensation of the sliding compression chamber of the 460. And, so, when the 430 was born, it was a bit heavier and bit less "svelte".
Still the beauty of a Mannlicher stocked 430 is truly something to behold.
And comparing them side by side, the 430 (L in this case) and the 46, neither yields anything to the other:
In this picture, the 46 has been repaired with a new cocking lever.
Of course we can see the more "modern" design of the 430. More curvaceous, organic, lines, fully ambidextrous; while the 46 exhibits the classical beauty of the 70's: angular lines, clearly delineated MonteCarlo (above), four points checkering, etc.
Yes, the 430 is a BIT shorter. Remember we "lost" the long transfer port that was the pop-up loading port.
Now, both the 46 and the 460 had problems with the cocking lever.
Originally designed for the 46, the forces required for the 460 to work at full power were a bit much, the "composite" construction of the cocking levers didn't help either. Outside the German market, that is mostly limited to 5.5 ft-lbs, the rest of the world saw more than a few cocking levers bent, or broken.
When the time came to change the "Type" of the rifle (from T-05 to T-06), DIANA took advantage and redesigned the cocking lever:
Yes, the 430 is a BIT shorter. Remember we "lost" the long transfer port that was the pop-up loading port.
Now, both the 46 and the 460 had problems with the cocking lever.
Originally designed for the 46, the forces required for the 460 to work at full power were a bit much, the "composite" construction of the cocking levers didn't help either. Outside the German market, that is mostly limited to 5.5 ft-lbs, the rest of the world saw more than a few cocking levers bent, or broken.
When the time came to change the "Type" of the rifle (from T-05 to T-06), DIANA took advantage and redesigned the cocking lever:
On top, the T06 cocking lever, on the bottom, the T05 cocking lever. Which one do you think will be stronger?
Here we can see how the T05 cocking lever (bottom) had a tendency to deviate from straight.
BUT, aesthetics is not what we're after here. What we are interested is in the mechanical aspects and the performance side, so, let's leave the appearance and get into the actual machine.
When the 430 came out, shooters started to complain about the cocking effort required.
Of course, in a Stutzen / Bergstutzen, with a shorter barrel and, consequently, a shorter cocking lever, it was expected, but in the rifle?
Hhhhmmmmm not so much.
And yet, in the 46, it's incredibly easy to cock the mainspring, and getting 12 ft-lbs out of the engine is not a problem even with the super-long transfer port.
So, ¿WHY?
The situation is quite obvious when seen, fully cocked, side by side:
When the 430 came out, shooters started to complain about the cocking effort required.
Of course, in a Stutzen / Bergstutzen, with a shorter barrel and, consequently, a shorter cocking lever, it was expected, but in the rifle?
Hhhhmmmmm not so much.
And yet, in the 46, it's incredibly easy to cock the mainspring, and getting 12 ft-lbs out of the engine is not a problem even with the super-long transfer port.
So, ¿WHY?
The situation is quite obvious when seen, fully cocked, side by side:
In this picture, you can see that the ARC of travel for the 46's cocking lever is well over 140° While for the 430L it is a little less than 110°
And here comes one of the peculiarities of engineering that is not obvious to those that do not USE the products they design:
Changing one thing WILL change everything else.
Remember we said that the 430 and the 430L were a bit shorter than the 46?
Well, shortening the fore-section of the rifle moved the "fulcrum" point of the lever back, shortening the cocking stroke, shortening the arc, and INCREASING in tangential proportion (which means that any decrease will comport an "out of proportion" increase), in the cocking force needed to fully load the mainspring.
Efforts were made to lengthen the cocking lever when the 430L was brought out but, alas, the market didn't think it was enough. I've written several articles about the 430 Stutzen and the 430L, so I will not elaborate a lot more on them.
NOW; when this 46 arrived, quite candidly, it was a shock for me.
The owner had referred to it as the "RWS Underlever", so I took it to be the 460, after all, precious few 46's were sold into the US; probably a result of a very bad "marketing stunt" where the RWS people (then the responsible party for US marketing and sales) brought out the 46 as a "direct competition" to the TX-200.
In my conversations, neither Herr Wirth, nor Herr Zedler (successive CEO's of M&G), ever spoke on those terms.
So, when I unpacked the rifle and saw it was a 46, my heart sank. Don't get me wrong, I love the model, had one many years ago and when I moved to the US, it had to be sold and stay back in Mexico.
Soooooo, ¿why the apprehension?
There are precious few spare parts anywhere in the world for the 46.
We, the owner and I, communicated with each other, set a budget, and the decision was made to move forward with the repair.
Changing one thing WILL change everything else.
Remember we said that the 430 and the 430L were a bit shorter than the 46?
Well, shortening the fore-section of the rifle moved the "fulcrum" point of the lever back, shortening the cocking stroke, shortening the arc, and INCREASING in tangential proportion (which means that any decrease will comport an "out of proportion" increase), in the cocking force needed to fully load the mainspring.
Efforts were made to lengthen the cocking lever when the 430L was brought out but, alas, the market didn't think it was enough. I've written several articles about the 430 Stutzen and the 430L, so I will not elaborate a lot more on them.
NOW; when this 46 arrived, quite candidly, it was a shock for me.
The owner had referred to it as the "RWS Underlever", so I took it to be the 460, after all, precious few 46's were sold into the US; probably a result of a very bad "marketing stunt" where the RWS people (then the responsible party for US marketing and sales) brought out the 46 as a "direct competition" to the TX-200.
In my conversations, neither Herr Wirth, nor Herr Zedler (successive CEO's of M&G), ever spoke on those terms.
So, when I unpacked the rifle and saw it was a 46, my heart sank. Don't get me wrong, I love the model, had one many years ago and when I moved to the US, it had to be sold and stay back in Mexico.
Soooooo, ¿why the apprehension?
There are precious few spare parts anywhere in the world for the 46.
We, the owner and I, communicated with each other, set a budget, and the decision was made to move forward with the repair.
Hunting for the spare part
The internet has been a mixed "tool" for humanity.
On one hand, it allows us to reach much further out in our searches. Make friends with people we have never met, learn things we would have never learnt, etc.
On the other, it is a constant source of worries because between malware, frauds, extortions, easy money laundering, and other bad actors, in a way, it has become a "jungle" in itself, where survival is a matter of preparedness, knowledge and strength.
In the end, a tool cannot be too different from its creators, and so, it's as flawed as humanity itself.
Anyway, beyond the philosophy, through the internet we were able to source from Europe, a spare lever for the 46.
To my delight, when the part arrived, I noted that it was completely made of steel. No aluminum there.
Sure, the gun weighs a bit more, but the strength afforded by the all steel part is a worthwhile tradeoff if you are shooting at anything above 7.5 ft-lbs.
Once the part arrived, it was not a big problem to swap it. Some polishing here and there, and new pins with custom washers to prevent the pins from travelling sideways too much and the little carbine was back in working order.
My instructions were to repair the little rifle, and so I limited myself to that, no changes in spring, piston, seals, ORings, etc. Just a small adjustment to the T01 trigger that was a little creepy, and the 46 was "up to snuff".
The rifle went from this:
The internet has been a mixed "tool" for humanity.
On one hand, it allows us to reach much further out in our searches. Make friends with people we have never met, learn things we would have never learnt, etc.
On the other, it is a constant source of worries because between malware, frauds, extortions, easy money laundering, and other bad actors, in a way, it has become a "jungle" in itself, where survival is a matter of preparedness, knowledge and strength.
In the end, a tool cannot be too different from its creators, and so, it's as flawed as humanity itself.
Anyway, beyond the philosophy, through the internet we were able to source from Europe, a spare lever for the 46.
To my delight, when the part arrived, I noted that it was completely made of steel. No aluminum there.
Sure, the gun weighs a bit more, but the strength afforded by the all steel part is a worthwhile tradeoff if you are shooting at anything above 7.5 ft-lbs.
Once the part arrived, it was not a big problem to swap it. Some polishing here and there, and new pins with custom washers to prevent the pins from travelling sideways too much and the little carbine was back in working order.
My instructions were to repair the little rifle, and so I limited myself to that, no changes in spring, piston, seals, ORings, etc. Just a small adjustment to the T01 trigger that was a little creepy, and the 46 was "up to snuff".
The rifle went from this:
To this:
What cannot be seen in the pictures is that we adjusted the ball in the lever detente:
It is important to note that the ratchet was added not because great force is needed, but because great CONTROL is needed, the ball lies at the end of a spring'ed bolt. That bolt runs in a piece that is plastic.
Excessive force one way or another can damage the muzzle piece, or tighten too much the bolt and damage the lips where the ball turns:
Excessive force one way or another can damage the muzzle piece, or tighten too much the bolt and damage the lips where the ball turns:
Setting the detente at the best position requires high control of the torque applied, there is little tolerance in this.
Also not obvious in the picture of the complete rifle is that these rifles deserve better pins than the OEM ones.
On one hand, the OEM ones usually are made to tolerances that favour the "-" part because that makes for ease of assembling.
On the other, all mechanical things wear out. A high grade of steel pin (hardened and ground), will fit better and wear out less the carrier parts because it is polished and, properly lubed, will not hold "grit/dust".
So, you need to start from a full size hardened steel "dowel", cut it with a carborundum hacksaw:
Also not obvious in the picture of the complete rifle is that these rifles deserve better pins than the OEM ones.
On one hand, the OEM ones usually are made to tolerances that favour the "-" part because that makes for ease of assembling.
On the other, all mechanical things wear out. A high grade of steel pin (hardened and ground), will fit better and wear out less the carrier parts because it is polished and, properly lubed, will not hold "grit/dust".
So, you need to start from a full size hardened steel "dowel", cut it with a carborundum hacksaw:
Then use carborundum and diamond files to trim/round//chamfer the ends, and to create the slot for the C Clip:
The finished clip has the proper chamfers to be inserted (right to left) and the proper flat at one side of the notch to lock the C-Clip
Handmade pins may look "funky", but they are easier to insert, easier to install/locate. After all there is not much room in the cocking lever linkage:
I was curious to evaluate how a 20 year old spring would do, and so, I took some Chrono readings:
For the small size of the rifle, this is remarkable performance. The 0.22" cal does have more expansion ratio in the barrel, so a higher than normal energy was expected, but this surpasses the expectations.
The tests also highlighted a few important points:
a) the long TP is more detrimental in 0.177" cal than in the 0.22"
b) the barrel is on the "fatter" side, the GAMO Match, that seal at the front gave impressive performance on the energy side, not too good at the target.
c) the JSB's were at the bottom of Energy, though they did yield the better consistency.
d) the performance of the GTO's was no surprise.
I really do not know why this pellet is not more popular.
I have written a few articles on the GTO, and in 0.22" it really performs well.
Made by JSB totally in Tin (Sn), it is a good balance between caliber, weight, energy retention at range and accuracy.
Now, how did the gun perform at distance?
Well, we have already said that this was designed as the "Gentleman's birding carbine" so we will not test at long range, but within the range where you can expect to shoot birds or tree dwellers (25 meters), it does quite well:
The tests also highlighted a few important points:
a) the long TP is more detrimental in 0.177" cal than in the 0.22"
b) the barrel is on the "fatter" side, the GAMO Match, that seal at the front gave impressive performance on the energy side, not too good at the target.
c) the JSB's were at the bottom of Energy, though they did yield the better consistency.
d) the performance of the GTO's was no surprise.
I really do not know why this pellet is not more popular.
I have written a few articles on the GTO, and in 0.22" it really performs well.
Made by JSB totally in Tin (Sn), it is a good balance between caliber, weight, energy retention at range and accuracy.
Now, how did the gun perform at distance?
Well, we have already said that this was designed as the "Gentleman's birding carbine" so we will not test at long range, but within the range where you can expect to shoot birds or tree dwellers (25 meters), it does quite well:
The Super H Points disappointed in this carbine, probably a function of the slightly large bore.
Same for the Crosman Copperhead Pointed.
The GTO's however, performed creditably well.
When compared with an OEM D430L shooting the pellets that it likes best (QYS 8.49's), the groups are similar and perfectly adequate to the purpose at hand.
Those little black bullseyes are a bit under ½", so head shots in anything worth taking with an airgun out to 25 meters (27 yards), would not be an issue.
BTW, the groups were shot from the knee, no supports used and DO note that I am not using my FT-ready 430L, as that would be a totally unfair comparison.
Same for the Crosman Copperhead Pointed.
The GTO's however, performed creditably well.
When compared with an OEM D430L shooting the pellets that it likes best (QYS 8.49's), the groups are similar and perfectly adequate to the purpose at hand.
Those little black bullseyes are a bit under ½", so head shots in anything worth taking with an airgun out to 25 meters (27 yards), would not be an issue.
BTW, the groups were shot from the knee, no supports used and DO note that I am not using my FT-ready 430L, as that would be a totally unfair comparison.
Conclusion and the "Future":
So, have we advanced in these last 20 years?
My personal conclusion is that: NO
¿Was the 46 ahead of its time? In a way, yes.
WHY was it taken off the line? Because the market demanded more power and the little seals in the Pop-Up TP had a tendency to "fly off" (a problem that is easily corrected).
¿Did the replacement (430) lived up to expectation?
Not really. It COULD have. Some improvement was gained with the 430L but, still, the market did not recognize it and, before the third iteration could come to the market, that one also fell off the cliff.
So, what's in the future?
At this point in time, I really do not know.
I THINK that M&G should (as far as the Performance line is concerned):
- keep the D54 AirKing Pro, the 460 Mag, and the 48 in full production
- return to the 34 Classic because the EMS, as great as the concept is, simply does not align to current M&G strategy, philosophy, and/or operational procedures.
- launch TWO specific FT oriented models; one based on the D430, and another based on the 54.
¿Why FT?
Ford, Audi, Renault, and some other car brands have made Racing cars. From LeMans, to Nürburgring, to F1
¿Why?
Because, as brands, you need to have a "Prestige", and show the world that you are at the forefront of technology.
FT is to the airgun world what Racing is to the auto world. The place where technologies are TRULY put to the test. Something that not even Bench Rest can achieve.
¿Are they market ready products? Nope!, but, you know? it DOES NOT matter.
Those "specials" establish a brand, create "buzz"; make, otherwise unaware persons, aware of the brand AND the activity.
In few words, those "specials" EXPAND the market. It is not a question of market share, it should be a question of Market SIZE.
The spring-piston lines think that they are competing with the PCP's, that's why most of the brands have both lines.
Truth is that there are a LOT of shooters out there that dislike the idea of compressors, pumps, hoses, air tanks/time bombs, and complications like that. That is the domain of die-hard airgunners.
Spring piston makers should be concentrated on making spring-pisotn guns that appeal to the average powder burner or non-airgunner.
From my own experience, most of the high end projects come from people that want to shoot an airgun that gives nothing to their RF's (within 50-75 yards). AND do NOT want a PCP.
THAT should be the objective.
AND, M&G/DIANA is uniquely positioned to fulfill that need/want.
Will they see it?
Time will tell.
Keep well and shoot straight!
HM
So, have we advanced in these last 20 years?
My personal conclusion is that: NO
¿Was the 46 ahead of its time? In a way, yes.
WHY was it taken off the line? Because the market demanded more power and the little seals in the Pop-Up TP had a tendency to "fly off" (a problem that is easily corrected).
¿Did the replacement (430) lived up to expectation?
Not really. It COULD have. Some improvement was gained with the 430L but, still, the market did not recognize it and, before the third iteration could come to the market, that one also fell off the cliff.
So, what's in the future?
At this point in time, I really do not know.
I THINK that M&G should (as far as the Performance line is concerned):
- keep the D54 AirKing Pro, the 460 Mag, and the 48 in full production
- return to the 34 Classic because the EMS, as great as the concept is, simply does not align to current M&G strategy, philosophy, and/or operational procedures.
- launch TWO specific FT oriented models; one based on the D430, and another based on the 54.
¿Why FT?
Ford, Audi, Renault, and some other car brands have made Racing cars. From LeMans, to Nürburgring, to F1
¿Why?
Because, as brands, you need to have a "Prestige", and show the world that you are at the forefront of technology.
FT is to the airgun world what Racing is to the auto world. The place where technologies are TRULY put to the test. Something that not even Bench Rest can achieve.
¿Are they market ready products? Nope!, but, you know? it DOES NOT matter.
Those "specials" establish a brand, create "buzz"; make, otherwise unaware persons, aware of the brand AND the activity.
In few words, those "specials" EXPAND the market. It is not a question of market share, it should be a question of Market SIZE.
The spring-piston lines think that they are competing with the PCP's, that's why most of the brands have both lines.
Truth is that there are a LOT of shooters out there that dislike the idea of compressors, pumps, hoses, air tanks/time bombs, and complications like that. That is the domain of die-hard airgunners.
Spring piston makers should be concentrated on making spring-pisotn guns that appeal to the average powder burner or non-airgunner.
From my own experience, most of the high end projects come from people that want to shoot an airgun that gives nothing to their RF's (within 50-75 yards). AND do NOT want a PCP.
THAT should be the objective.
AND, M&G/DIANA is uniquely positioned to fulfill that need/want.
Will they see it?
Time will tell.
Keep well and shoot straight!
HM
RSS Feed