Nice....

M.
mandeep.khera wrote:hai man nice pice
can u let me know specification
and if i may is it for sell as well
if yes then the price plz
fantumfan2003 wrote:Has been reviewed in the January 2011 issue of Airgun World in the UK. Needless to mention its highly recommended by them.
.
Prabhath wrote:The 97k with the wooden stock looks way better. What say FF?
hamiclar01 wrote:fantumfan2003 wrote:Has been reviewed in the January 2011 issue of Airgun World in the UK. Needless to mention its highly recommended by them.
.Airgun World has never spoken ill of any gun.
Although the design is, interesting, they have not looked out for "thumb up" shooters. That's enough for a thumbs down for me.
You obviously haven't suffered the recent imports, with latches falling apart and screws rattling about in the box itself. Don't even get me started on the list of brand new guns with broken springs!!!! Naaah, Weirauch quality is not what it used to be. By the way, I was faulting not the 97k, but the crappy stockfantumfan2003 wrote:Find faults with an HW Weihrauch springer ?
As for "thumb up" the AGW Editor who reviewed it says ...........
"There's something quite clever about the way the 97K's new synthetic stock, specifically the grip has been designed. There's no "thumb up" option and at first I was'nt impressed by that at all, until I slipped my hand into the curvy goodness and had a fumble about. I discovered that the finger groove for a right-hander becomes a thumb shelf for a lefty, and vice very much versa. The result is a well supported hand, and a trigger finger that's free to do its stuff under minimal muscle tension."
hamiclar01 wrote: You obviously haven't suffered the recent imports, with latches falling apart and screws rattling about in the box itself. Don't even get me started on the list of brand new guns with broken springs!!!! Naaah, Weirauch quality is not what it used to be. By the way, I was faulting not the 97k, but the crappy stock![]()
AirgunWorld "adjusts" their thumb to sit on an imaginary notch that was not designed for the purpose. Isn;t this proof enough that they only write good of guns, never balanced articles? There has been a raging debate in forums here over this typical gun magazine proselytism. The defenders, who all , obviously were correspondents and editorial staff, stated they needed advertising revenue, which they were hardly going to get if they picked faults.
So, my two cents:
Enjoy the pics.
Take the AGW review with a pinch of salt.
Don't buy before you try. Not everyone gets on well with thumbhole stocks.