View Single Post
Old 12th January 2012, 06:33 PM
Editor's Avatar
Editor Editor is offline
New Member
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Leamington Spa
Posts: 4

As this thread relates to a test carried out and published by me, in my magazine, I would like to add my comments – and, in particular, defend certain ill-informed judgements made by people who should, quite frankly, know better than to criticise a shooting media that helps keep the industry that they make a living from as buoyant as it is.

Firstly the matter of the ‘regulator’; and in answer to Cameron. Jamesy is quite correct here: like the HW100, Weihrauch’s new HW101 is not regulated per se, but does have a valve system that ensures its air delivery is extremely consistent.

I was the first tester in the UK to receive the HW101, so spent a lot of time with it (as I like to with all my test kit). Compared to the many HW100s I’ve fired since I was invited over to Weihrauch’s factory in 2003 to assist in the final production thrust of the (then four-year-old) prototype, the HW101 was remarkably consistent over the chrono. Moreso than I’ve seen before. This can be seen from power trace I published in my magazine.

As a result, I asked the official UK importer, Hull Cartridge, whether a regulator had, indeed, now been fitted. The answer? “No. It’s exactly as per the HW100.”

So, it is a fact stated by the UK's Weihrauch importer that the HW101 (and HW100) do not have an air regulator fitted. A fact. It is, therefore, not wrong of me to say that the gun is not regulated. It isn’t!

However, it is clearly also a fact that these PCPs do feature a valve design – as Jamesy says, a system of washers – which help in the consistent release of air. The design does this extremely well, so much so that some people consider this ‘metered’ system to be on a par with a regulated PCP.

But the HW100/1 is no more ‘regulated’ than, for instance, an ex-factory Air Arms S410; it’s just that the HW100/1’s valve release system (for want of a better, collective description) does it with a much greater consistency throughout the usable charge. But it is not an air regulator, per se (or ‘typical regulator’, as Jamesy calls it) – simply a very consistent valve system. If you want to describe its washer-system an air regulator, then you’ve really got to refer to all PCPs as being ‘regulated’ as they all release a certain amount of air when the hammer strikes the valve. ‘Air metering system’ would, perhaps, be a better description.

So, Cameron, I hope this justifies why I wrote what I did – and I’m certainly sorry if I’ve in any way confused you (which I don’t feel I have). Please afford me the respect of someone who’s been involved in the airgun testing business for over 30 years, though; I’d like to think that I do, in fact, get the fundamentals things correct!

Secondly, to address Tench’s comment. That is a quite derogatory, extremely ill-informed and highly unprofessional statement to make, especially as you apply it with such a broad brush, Simon. If you don’t buy any of the mags, do you actually read them? I suspect not. I shan’t answer on behalf of AG and AGW – though I hope Terry Doe also lets his views be known – as I don’t publish those titles any more.

But I don’t believe you can read Airgun Shooter; if you did, you’d understand that it has the following it has for the very reason that it is so credible, unbiased and accurate in its reportage. As many who know me well will tell you, that was exactly the reason why I agreed to launch Airgun Shooter with Blaze Publishing in the first place. And I have assembled a team who do not get very basic facts incorrect – not least because I check everything myself personally, anyway.

Furthermore, I - as would the publishing company (which prides itself on the independence of its publications) - take extreme umbrage to your statement that the title panders to the advertisers’ needs, Simon. I don’t remember agreeing to some advertisers’ requests to not give your services three pages of editorial coverage (completely unlinked to advertising space, let’s not forget) in the magazine a year or so ago. In fact, I distinctly remember saying it was none of their business!

So please don’t jump on the ‘let’s knock the airgun press’ bandwagon that so many forums seem to love doing. Speaking as someone who’s been in this industry for much longer than you, you need to understand that the press is crucial to the industry which gives you your daily bread – and those of us heavily involved with your sport's media are very experienced airgunners as well as journalists, and we take our roles extremely seriously. I certainly do, as everyone who knows me will attest to.

Reply With Quote