RWS 94 .22cal Review

Overall Rating

Very accurate, fun to shoot, nice looking gun, nice feel.

Powerful, but not as powerful as advertised. Advertised power (825 fps .22) is more appropriate for much more expensive springer, not entry level adult springer like the RWS 94.

The RWS 94 is a nice air rifle, it just did not meet my expectations, power-wise. I think I was expecting LOTS of power, and while I first thought I was getting a rifle that was more powerful in .22 than other RWS rifles that cost more (the diana 36 and 40), what I really got was a nice rifle that had an inflated power rating, but realistically was still very powerful for it's price range. I have learnt a lot about shopping for air rifles, the RWS 94 is part of my experience, and I'd like to share what I've learnt.

First off, there are many good things to say about the rifle. It is very accurate, easy to shoot, good looking, relatively powerful and appears well made. It is overall a lot of fun to shoot. For the money, I highly recommend this rifle.

Here is my story:

I have an old Benjamin 392, I have been looking to upgrade for a while, and based off of what I've read on the net, extensive reviews on the RWS 94 .22, and the Cometa Fenix 400 (apparently the same gun), I decided this is the gun for me. I haven't shopped for a new air gun in ages. I received the gun, and all my expectations were met with the RWS 94, except it's claimed power. Perhaps it is just the gun I received, but let me share these numbers with you. Using a variety of pellets, and certainly after a good cleaning, very very light lubing and taking enough shots to "break it in", I found this gun consistently puts out about 16 ft pounds at the muzzle. I gathered this information by shooting different pellets and measuring with my chrony (5 different Beeman types, RWS Hobby, Crossman Premieres, RWS Superdomes, Benjamin Diablos & cheap Crossman Wadcutters). I then calculated power by using a ft/lbs energy calculator with the fps and the weight of the pellet.

Here is what I found misleading, and why I expected more power.

--The gun is rated as 825 fps in .22. I couldn't get within 100 fps of that at the muzzle, in my tests, regardless of the pellet. I did not use the lightest pellets on the market, but did test with very light RWS Hobby and Beeman Laser light weight pellets, among others. Think about it...825fps in .22 for a rifle under $200? That is one factor that sold me on this rifle, and after owning one, I still find this hard to believe.

--RWS has been known to inflate the fps claims (well documented and griped about on the RWS 350 .22). While the RWS 350 is a very powerful rifle, you can see that RWS overestimated the claimed 1050 fps on that model by roughly 20%. Want to see numbers> Check out the article at straightshooters.com on the RWS 350 to see for yourself. You'll find an extensive test done on the RWS 350, and see that most of it's numbers at the muzzle are around 825, and often even below 825. Should I still realistically expect my entry level RWS 94 to shoot 825fps at the muzzle, when one of the most powerful springers out there, RWS 350, shoots less than 825 at the muzzle in 16 out of 23 pellets tested? Yes, the pellet weight varied greatly on those pellets, but you get the point....

--I didn't realize that actual power could be so much lower than claimed power because I deal with electronics for a living, where rated power had better be rated power. It appears that with air guns, there is much more tendency to inflate numbers.

Yes, I've read reviews and looked at databases where people claim their stock RWS 94 shoots 14.3g pellets at and above 825 fps (google and you'll find the database), which would indicate a power rating in the range of 21.5 ft lbs of energy. Those must be some lucky people who happened to get a great RWS 94 rifle, because if their claims are true, that means their RWS 94 rifle is in the same power class as the RWS 350, RWS 48 and RWS 52 (look at the numbers at straightshooters.com), and I find that hard to believe.

My expectations based off of what I've read about the RWS 94 was to get a gem of a rifle, almost a steal for the price. The reality is that the RWS 94 IS an excellent, well made product, but if you're expecting a rifle that produces in the range of 20 ft lbs of energy, you might want to look at a different model, like the RWS 350.

The RWS 94 is a great rifle, I think it's a quality air rifle for sure. I have been focusing on the power, because let's face it, there are a lot of us out there that find the power of an air rifle a key selling point, and I think the power on this rifle, like other RWS rifles, is inflated. I would rate the fps of this rifle in .22 at about 700-725, not the claimed 825. You will not find another rifle in the RWS 94's price range that claims 825 fps in .22, and I think there's a good reason why....you have to pay more $$$$ if you really want that kind of power, and RWS is exaggerating a bit too much.

Besides that, it's thumbs up for this air rifle.

Members' Comments onMrBloo's Review

• Humble on 21st Dec 2006

  I didn't really see a review here. The whole "review" you simply complained about the power. A paragraph mentioning the inflated advertising would have been plenty. The thing you need to realize is that airgun companies never show what average velocities are. They don't show the velocities that regualar users of a .22 caliber air rifle will get. Its all about sales. They use the lightest pellet in exsistence, shoot down hill with the wind at their backs etc.......The enviroments they test the rifles are so controlled they can't be reproduced in a realistic hunting situation. RWS doesn't just do this either almost all guns that are advertised to shoot the "Oh so desirable" 1000 fps realistacally shoot more along the lines of the mid 800s and maybe 900. Its all about marketing, get over it man and actually tell the users what you think about the gun, not the manufacture's power inflation.