GTA
All Springer/NP/PCP Air Gun Discussion General => PCP/CO2/HPA Air Gun Gates "The Darkside" => Topic started by: Motorhead on November 17, 2019, 06:57:59 PM
-
Let me start with saying what I'm going to disclose myself and Travis Whitney of JSAR had discussed Many times in the past 6+ months or so as the R&D behind the scenes was happening. We had the conversation that at some time these tuning traits should be brought to light and shared. In the past 6+ months further testing and tuning with an Actual Raptor valve ( SS-2 in function ) retrofitted into my WarP , have got to get some really good data and more importantly some Cause & Effect when changes are made in TRANSFER PORT SIZE ... which for now will be the focus of this thread.
To recap on how these valves work ... simply put is by having a DUAL use poppet head, one larger diameter side sealing the valve throat as is typical, Other end being reduced in diameter and extended into a sealed tube / chamber and sealed via an o-ring. * What has happened is the pressure within the valve internal space bearing down on the closed poppet has had PART OF IT'S TOTAL AREA isolated by having the opposing end up in the o-ring sealed chamber. THUS the pressure exerted on the poppet seat is greatly reduced and the valve will break free and open far easier with not only LESS hammer weight, but less strike energy as well ( Softer hammer spring, less hammer stroke etc .. )
While this sounds all good & fine we all like easy cocking fast cyclic actions 8) there is now the issue of getting the valve poppet to close quickly and this by design utilizes a partially hollow valve stem that goes from just under the poppet head within valves throat up into the end of the poppet within the chamber. * So at any time when valves pressurized the chamber at the upper end of poppet is at atmospheric pressure being vented via the poppet stem into throat, then out the barrel. Yet there is pressure surrounding the poppet that is kept from escaping via the o-ring mentioned earlier sealing it.
Here is where we're going .... WHEN THE GUN IS FIRED there is a spike in pressure filling the valves throat and ultimately launching the pellet or slug. In that very short time span that released pressure travels up threw the partially hollow valve stem and INTO the chamber pressurizing that space. In this instance the poppet which has traveled inward within the chamber via the seat side being lifted is now acted on by the pressure filling chamber and is quickly pushed back down the chamber violently closing the seat. Crazy stuff !! and now with this base knowledge to chew on we will address the purpose of this thread ;)
Understanding the hammer that opened the valve, it's weight mass etc is also holding the poppet from closing very fast being reliant on the Balance chamber to push back so hard the hammers lift on poppet can be stopped with hammer forced to then go back the direction from which it came and allow poppet to close again. This is the tuning trick that for those incline will find HUGE efficiency gains, lower muzzle report and less air used in general at any given power level.
Because these valves have such generous port values, huge throat and transfer path they BREATH SUPER WELL releasing mass volumes of air that produce Really big power !!
Controlling there DWELL ( How long the air is flowing is dwell ) and this is controlled by HOW EFFECTIVE THE BALANCE CHAMBER is to sense the mass flow and SHUT IT DOWN !!!
For once the pellet or slug is underway and moving 1/2 the barrel length or less, releasing more air IS NOT DOING A THING or very little and somewhat caliber & projectile weight dependent.
TRANSFER PORT SIZE MATTERS and is a MAJOR major tuning parameter with these valves and Bigger IS NOT better in many instances belief it or not ???
AS WE CONSTRICT THE OUTFLOW or air leaving valves throat we are INCREASING the amount and strength of the air that makes it into the balance chamber / tube and gets the valve to close.
Valve opens EASY and breathes volumes, but control of getting it shut down is paramount to Efficiency & a Low muzzle report.
Below is a test recently done while shooting NSA .22 caliber slugs. hammer weight, stroke, spring tension never changed ONLY TRANSFER PORT SIZE. * Barrel is @24" with an elongated transfer port offering FULL caliber port specs so it to breaths to the bores caliber 100%. Pressure regulated at 2200 psi.
BIG transfer port at .250" being slightly greater than caliber @ 935/940 fps
>Caliber spec transfer port at @ .210" @ 980 fps
Smaller yet transfer port at .175" @ 980 fps
Smaller yet transfer port at .160" @ 960 fps
Smallest transfer port tried at .140" @ 915 fps
Whats really interesting is listening to the gun fire with the top 4 tests especially ( All Shots are exceeding 50 ft lbs ! ) in .22 caliber too. NOISE, that of the residual after the shot released air that is the heard muzzle report.
The largest port arguably having excessive volume poppet to slug and the least efficient with a good WOOOSH sound upon firing. * Still making great power !!
With the .210 transfer the report was notably quieter and as a tuner you know the dwell was reduced. YET it making MORE power ... kewl !
With the .175 transfer the report becomes a muffled SNAP and is quieter yet again. Whoa same power too ! Now I know we're wasting less air and dwell has really been cut back.
With the .160 transfer the report sounds like a 12fpe pcp with LDC ... Sounds like a cricket farting being weirdly concerning the guns power had tanked, yet we only lost 20 fps.
Finally the .140 transfer ... about like the above just less power tho still FLINGING these 24.8 slugs with authority !
With all my testing coming to light in this shared manor, I not going to get into efficiency number beyond a recent check I just did a few days ago. That being when the .210 port was fitted and thought I was done and giggle happy. Efficiency numbers crunched at 1.29 fpe/cu in shooting the NSA 24.8 at the above speed which was Awesome. Having just run these smaller transfer port tests just hours ago ... IT'S EVEN BETTER and going to keep the .160" transfer in place for now and see just what the efficiency does. * Have a fun shoot next weekend and will be shooting the gun quite a bit and able to really gain some extensive real world numbers.
Hope this all makes some sense, was not overly long winded and you gain some knowledge from it ;)
Scott S
-
Wow! Most of this went way over my head, but it looks like the .160 TP is an optimal set-up! Cool stuff!
-
Scott, what you wrote made me understand how the balance valve works in my Raptor and why it’s so flexible and efficient. Thank you!
-
Thanks for sharing all this valuable info Scott. Keep it coming!!!!!
-
8) WOW Scott, it all makes perfect sense
this is this first use of a variable transfer port makes sense to me. in other guns choking the port for lower power wastes air on Fx and Hatsans
But would be desirable for the SS-2 tunability,,,just WOW
-
Thanks for taking the to be long winded! Lots to soak up in those few paragraphs.
So say you wanted to make it a 35fpe pellet shooter, you could choke the t port even more and get some super efficiency numbers if im follow correctly? Less t port= shorter dwell? I would imagine 2.0 wouldn't be too much of a stretch.
-
Great info! Thanks for the break down. Is the gun your testing on regulated?
-
"Pressure regulated at 2200 psi."
Info opens up some interesting possibilities...
-
Great writeup, Scott.... It sounds like when you choke up on the transfer port you are raising the pressure in the throat of the valve, which causes the pressure in the balance chamber to rise faster.... therefore closing the valve quicker.... Interestingly, you are still getting enough air in the barrel to stay very close to the plateau velocity....
The only thing that didn't fit with my expectations is the reduced velocity with a 1/4" transfer port.... Then I reread your post and realized that you are only working with a .22 cal barrel.... Therefore you are creating a pressure drop between the throat and the pellet which is unnecessary and undesireable.... My guess is that is having two effects.... It is reducing the pressure available to push on the pellet.... while simultaneously causing that lower pressure in the balance chamber to be less effective in closing the valve....
In any case, whether that explanation is valid or not.... NICE JOB !!!.... and thanks for sharing.... I would ask you one question.... Is there any possibility that in the test with the 1/4" transfer port that the hammer could be hitting the back of the valve (because of the reduced closing force)…. and therefore bouncing back and reducing the velocity?....
Bob
-
Thanks for taking the to be long winded! Lots to soak up in those few paragraphs.
So say you wanted to make it a 35fpe pellet shooter, you could choke the t port even more and get some super efficiency numbers if im follow correctly? Less t port= shorter dwell? I would imagine 2.0 wouldn't be too much of a stretch.
Understand these valves are primarily focused on MAKING POWER ! .... If your application can be well served by a conventional valve at low to modest power there is little point to go this route IMO.
As too ever smaller transfer size, there is a limit quickly reached that happen sooner with a heavier hammer and increased tuneablity with a light hammer.
This simply because at any given pressure within the valve and throat, and that pressure threw the small hole / path connecting to a given area balance chamber ... can and will only exert a given amount of push back based on the pressure / area within the chamber.
As a hammer gets heavier the inertia it carried via the hammer spring throwing it to open the valve is less effected by the closing forces created by the chamber getting pressurized. Lighter the hammer greater is the ability to influence its motion by the opposing force created by the chamber / poppet pushing back.
Yes some stuff going on no doubt ... Cause & effect, just keep whats doing what and it starts to make more sense.
The limit of reduced transfer size becomes relative to being able to stop the hammers LIFT and reverse its direction with any control. As you go smaller it is still somewhat GREY to really get a handle on IF OR NOT ? the power finally drops away because DWELL is so controlled/ chopped ? ... Or the Restriction in flow controlling the power potential ? * I think this has a large bearing on a hammers weight where a heavier hammer over powers the closing effects of the chamber less so than a light hammer.
ying - yang to be sure ....
-
. I would ask you one question.... Is there any possibility that in the test with the 1/4" transfer port that the hammer could be hitting the back of the valve (because of the reduced closing force)…. and therefore bouncing back and reducing the velocity?....
Bob
Can't say ... When it happened originally a few days ago actually replaced the .250 transfer with the .210 transfer no less than 3 times figuring a pinched o-ring, misaligned port or something ... validating the velocity drop on the big port and rising with the smaller one. Being the firing system is only using 30 grams of hammer weight and an SSG did not think so.
Previous testing with my other balanced valve ( WAR converted valve ) which opens even easier, my PEAK power was still sitting at @ 980 fps with the 14.8's or 1020 fps with the 23's THIS BASED ON REGULATOR SET POINT and available air within plenum. Raising pressure the power rises and less pressure it becomes slower.
Getting this DROP may very well be excessive lift and the kinetic rebound of the hammers striker off the back of valve body ??? simply don't know ???
Scott S
-
following
-
I have been seriously considering a Raptor and this may be the final reason to place my order.
1. Are the transfer ports replaceable?
2. If so, what level of disassembly is required
3. What affect on the different transfers will reducing the regulator set point produce
Thanks
-
I have been seriously considering a Raptor and this may be the final reason to place my order.
1. Are the transfer ports replaceable?
2. If so, what level of disassembly is required
3. What affect on the different transfers will reducing the regulator set point produce
Thanks
Yes transfer ports are replaceable by removing the upper receiver & barrel assembly from the lower tube.
* THE PRODUCTION JSAR RAPTOR uses a different weight hammer, different operating pressures, different calibers etc etc etc …. This post if for those who wish to TUNE there guns or valves based upon there specifics at hand. There is no way to have a paint by numbers give me this size transfer etc without a whole lot more folks having them and giving tangible input as to what they find optimal .. We understand it, can cover the mechanics / pneumatics, but shy of a sure fire cook book.
I have no official affiliation with JSAR and can't speak to what the future holds for manufacturer provided fine tuning parts or pieces.
THIS IS A TUTORIAL for those who wish to spend the time and effort to FINE TUNE beyond factory spec / as delivered guns or valves.
-
And I thought My excitement was already peaked! Oh yeah, this is gonna be "Special"! ;)
Knife
-
I have one of the gen 2 valves. I am on the fence about building up a rifle though as I’m really liking the size and weight of my prod better. I’m having a hard time getting all the power I want out of a prod in .172 (so far hit 755 fps with a 26gr slug) but it appears after reading this the gen 2 valve could be overkill for .172? I may have to build up a different caliber just to utilize my valve to it’s full potential..
-
Great Stuff Scott thank you. David
-
thx for the insight into those efficiency numbers
-
Jeremy.... I don't think you have to worry about having the valve "too big".... Last winter I made my own version of the SS-2 valve (it started in my thread on developing a simple balanced valve)…. sized for a .357 cal.... I successfully used barrels in .308, 7mm, .257 and .224 caliber, just by changing the transfer port diameter to taper the (large) valve exhaust port down to the size of the barrel port.... A bit of playing with the hammer spring preload, and all 5 calibers worked great....
Bob
-
I have one of the gen 2 valves. I am on the fence about building up a rifle though as I’m really liking the size and weight of my prod better. I’m having a hard time getting all the power I want out of a prod in .172 (so far hit 755 fps with a 26gr slug) but it appears after reading this the gen 2 valve could be overkill for .172? I may have to build up a different caliber just to utilize my valve to it’s full potential..
Adding additional info ... In .172" you have such little area for the pressure to work against that the velocity achieved is going to be more tied to PRESSURE than valve output volume.
In a P-rod, 1720 sized air tube running at high pressure to get any speed ( providing as well sufficient barrel length ) your not going to have many shots available before pressure become too low for the power you got while pressure was higher.
In small calibers at the upper power levels in said caliber ... PRESSURE wins the day and there is no work around.
-
Due to repeat PM's on the subject of Tuning ... here a post from a few months ago that gets into the subject having pictures and early conversations on the use of Choking the transfer size. Which in this threads converted WAR valve is REALLY really important to get the output stable.
See: https://www.gatewaytoairguns.org/GTA/index.php?topic=160999.msg155792422#msg155792422 (https://www.gatewaytoairguns.org/GTA/index.php?topic=160999.msg155792422#msg155792422)
Scott S
-
Interesting read on the valve Scott.
I don't understand the loss of power with an over bore size TP though. I would be curious if you took the .172" TP and manually pushed the projectile 1/16" to 1/4" further past the barrel port. You know pressure delta across the TP with adequate volume.
Based on some data Bob generated years back your 22 should hit over 100 fpe at 3000psi with .2" porting and it looks like according to the graph your on par with .172" porting. Any chance of you trying this out ?
https://www.gatewaytoairguns.org/GTA/index.php?topic=46011.0 (https://www.gatewaytoairguns.org/GTA/index.php?topic=46011.0)
-
your 22 should hit over 100 fpe at 3000psi with .2" porting and it looks like according to the graph your on par with .172" porting.
You lost me on the relevance of this Tim.... He is getting just over 50 FPE at 2200 psi.... What point are you trying to make?....
I think Scott's point is that with this particular balanced valve design using a slightly smaller port is not costing performance.... I don't know if he is using a retractable bolt probe or not, and if not, what diameter it is.... If he has a conventional bolt probe that is, say, 0.094" diameter, then any port larger than 0.196" would not gain power anyways.... It is not surprising that there is no gain in going larger than bore size porting, as the bore itself (or the chamber area minus the probe) becomes the limiting factor on power.... If there is any surprise here, it is that the power is significantly less with an overbore port.... rather than just marginally so because of the pressure drop it causes....
Bob
-
Interesting read on the valve Scott.
I don't understand the loss of power with an over bore size TP though. I would be curious if you took the .172" TP and manually pushed the projectile 1/16" to 1/4" further past the barrel port. You know pressure delta across the TP with adequate volume.
Based on some data Bob generated years back your 22 should hit over 100 fpe at 3000psi with .2" porting and it looks like according to the graph your on par with .172" porting. Any chance of you trying this out ?
https://www.gatewaytoairguns.org/GTA/index.php?topic=46011.0 (https://www.gatewaytoairguns.org/GTA/index.php?topic=46011.0)
Tim, Currently with the gun set up and running so well ( regulated ) I don't see in the foreseeable future undoing it by removing REG, Put in a heavy hammer, change ssg spring etc just for a test.
Tho said, when first screwing around with the FIRST GENERATION SS valve did do some unregulated tests which can be found here: https://www.gatewaytoairguns.org/GTA/index.php?topic=143027.msg1448481#msg1448481 (https://www.gatewaytoairguns.org/GTA/index.php?topic=143027.msg1448481#msg1448481)
Test was inconclusive being we could not get a full hammer stroke using an SSG, and Never did try it with a real heavy hammer and heavy spring.
In my testing similar to current set up ... INDEED increases in pressure raise the velocity and pretty substantially too. But come days end only have a 3K bottle and need to get some shot before pressure falls to set point ... Thus we stopped at 2200 psi where I've got plenty of power and 40 or so premium shots.
100 FPE I seriously DOUBT ... but then again ???
-
Scott,
It would be just so cool breaking the 100fpe mark with a 22. ;D ;D ;D You got to do it man. So cool.... :D
Bob,
I wasn't making a point, I am just trying to understand if there is some kind of limiting factor in the valve design that is preventing the mathematical reasoning.
The power and efficiency doesn't add up when comparing to a conventional valve with a .25" throat, .2"exit port, .17" TP, barrel port .17" and thin bolt probe (non regged).
I know because my .22synrod can generate 50FPE at those pressures with that efficiency and with a barrel length of 19.5".
I don't want to ruin Scott's post. It's just questions and envy of the cool stuff and the TP change from .17" to .25" was really weird in regards to power levels.
-
Scott,
It would be just so cool breaking the 100fpe mark with a 22. ;D ;D ;D You got to do it man. So cool.... :D
Bob,
I wasn't making a point, I am just trying to understand if there is some kind of limiting factor in the valve design that is preventing the mathematical reasoning.
The power and efficiency doesn't add up when comparing to a conventional valve with a .25" throat, .2"exit port, .17" TP, barrel port .17" and thin bolt probe (non regged).
I know because my .22synrod can generate 50FPE at those pressures with that efficiency and with a barrel length of 19.5".
I don't want to ruin Scott's post. It's just questions and envy of the cool stuff and the TP change from .17" to .25" was really weird in regards to power levels.
Im not sure why you think a balanced valve makes less power in fact they usually make more power. Given the same exact set-ups with same pressures and plenum sizes a balanced valve typically will majke more power. Scotts set up is not for raw power if he wanted to do that he would pull the reg and have full length plenum and put in a heavier hammer and drive the valve dwell higher its all in the set-up that determines the out come.
-
Tim,
I think your missing a POINT MADE going back a few years ago when forum conversations started happening about such valves, be them Cothrin, SS or any prototypes & various individuals one offs.
THAT BEING the primary reason to go with a balance / reduced opening type valve was that of EASIER COCKING when compared side by side to a conventional valve at equal power. So yes, it is very doable with like size ports in a conventional valve your going to make equal power. This has NEVER been in dispute IMO.
Another advantage to a "per-Say" balanced valve configuration is LESS CYCLIC VIBRATION being your no longer required to propels a massively heavy hammer with equally strong spring to fire the gun. End result being in most applications in sporter weight guns ... Better accuracy ! Lets not forget the trigger mechanics as well are effected and generally for the better with less load applied to them.
If one would to put in summery what your argument / question is in rebuttal, it would be that a balanced type valve makes getting big power output far easier, requires less mechanical heft in the parts and pieces to fire the AG.
No argument that the system has more parts, likely less reliable than a conventional valve system. The gains however outweigh the negatives IMO. Misapplication where & when such valves are utilized is an entirely different conversation.
My take on it & nothing more ...
Scott S
-
i think he's only referring to this chart Bob made. hes just being hopeful. but i dont think 100fpe can be achieved in .217 caliber at 3000psi.
-
Well, it certainly can be in .224 cal.... My Hayabusa shoots 47.6 gr. bullets at 1035 fps (113 FPE) using 3000 psi in a 29" barrel.... and detuned to 100 FPE the efficiency is 1.19 FPE/CI....
but that has nothing to do with this thread, so my apologies....
Bob
-
What I thought this post was about.
Quote:
"more importantly some Cause & Effect when changes are made in TRANSFER PORT SIZE ... which for now will be the focus of this thread.
and
TRANSFER PORT SIZE MATTERS and is a MAJOR major tuning parameter with these valves and Bigger IS NOT better in many instances belief it or not"
My comments and questions have absolutely nothing to with me thinking that a balanced valve makes less power than a conventional valve. In fact, I am currently trying to make a decision on what valve I want to replace my 25 with and thought asking questions may help my decision. ;D
Great information and thanks for sharing.
-
Yesterdays shooting with the WarP and SS-2 / RAPTOR valve with the .160" transfer port.
42 shots at @ 975 fps ( 500cc bottle, 3K fill, 2.2K set point, 24.8 slug ) results in an efficiency of 1.31 8)
I'll take that to the bank any day !!
When I get a few extra dollars I see a 4500 psi Carbon bottle in this guns future ( Either a 480 or 580 cc )
* Given gun is producing 42 @52+ ft-lbs shots on just 800 psi, going to a 4350# fill bottle would give it @ 2150 psi to use and if math's correct would yield @ 103 shots on a 480cc and @ 124 shots on 580cc
This is crazy !! for such a high power .22 ... IMO
-
You won't get quite the increase in shot count you will expect going to 4350, compared to a 3000 psi tank.... Air doesn't act as an ideal gas (with a linear pressure/density ratio) at over 3000 psi.... In other words, the pressure will drop more each shot from 4350 psi than it will from 3000 psi.... Still, you will end up with a wonderful shot count.... 8)
Bob
-
That's an awesome shot count as is let alone adding the bigger better bottle. Scott do you think the 2nd gen SS valve would work well in 357 cal?
-
That's an awesome shot count as is let alone adding the bigger better bottle. Scott do you think the 2nd gen SS valve would work well in 357 cal?
Unless somethings changed ... valve having @.280 throat, .125 poppet stem is going to have an exit area equal to @ .250"
So in a .357 your likely going to have modest power being the Bore / Transfer area is only going to be @ 50% ( If I crunched numbers correctly ) being not ideal IMO.
For a .357 and HEAVY slugs would be looking at getting the Transfer / Bore ratio at 80% or better.
But this said as a guy WHO DOES NOT SHOOT BIG BORE stuff ... so don't take my word on it.
-
1/4" porting is a bit small for a .357.... Having said that, my first edition of my .357 Hayabusa, with a 28" barrel on 3000 psi, peaked out at 225 FPE, and could be tuned for a decent string at 200 FPE with a 1/4" port.... The same gun with 0.281" porting peaked at 257 FPE and could be tuned for a short string at 230 FPE.... Increasing to 0.328" ports with my balanced valve only resulted in another 10 FPE peak, but gave the ability to get an efficient tune at 250 FPE at 3000 psi....
Most guys tuning a .357 / 9mm use either a 9/32" or 7 mm transfer port (0.281 - 0.285")…. Going larger really requires a retracting bolt to take full advantage of the larger porting.... The same goes in .22 cal.... If you aren't retracting the bolt there is no point in using bore-size porting....
Bob
-
Sounds like a .250 port will do the trick with what I'm wanting. 150 fpe is about all I expect out of it. Now I need to figure which valve to go with. Thinking a Don Cothran valve.
-
Here is what I got with a Cothran Powerhouse valve in a 28" barrel at 2900 psi.... 127 gr. bullet @ 850 fps = 204 FPE....
(https://i378.photobucket.com/albums/oo221/rsterne/30%20cal%20Disco%20Double/DD%20Cothran%20Efficiency_zpsqzb8n5tb.jpg) (http://s378.photobucket.com/user/rsterne/media/30%20cal%20Disco%20Double/DD%20Cothran%20Efficiency_zpsqzb8n5tb.jpg.html)
Be advised, however, that you cannot get a bell-curve with a Cothran valve.... as the pressure drops, so does the velocity.... Also note that as you reduce the hammer strike the efficiency increases until the valve "falls over the cliff" and fails to fire properly....
Sorry, Scott, I guess we sidetracked your thread.... again.... ::)
Bob
-
Such is the sharing of relative information ... forever sifting to find years later what you wish to read & be enlightened with .
-
Yes, sorry Scott. I have been watching how very successful you have been with this valve in 22 caliber and I had to inquire about the 357 application. It goes to show that where something works outstanding in one application, not so much for another. You have had such good results that I found myself going through a mental price tag to turn my one 22 into a bottle gun and install the 2nd gen valve yesterday lol.
-
I’ve been following this for a little while now and was able to get some sound advice as well. My .357 is one low power shot after a long sit, but then is fine until, of course, I let it sit for a long time…it’s a killer though, and the accuracy is out of this world!
-
I’ve been following this for a little while now and was able to get some sound advice as well. My .357 is one low power shot after a long sit, but then is fine until, of course, I let it sit for a long time…it’s a killer though, and the accuracy is out of this world!
O-ring sticksion is a real issue when you have said o-ring sitting Static and under a lot of pressure. It dang near glues itself to surfaces it is sealed against. When valve stem is struck the static o-ring is forced to become Dynamic and this initial BREAKING LOOSE is what causes the first shot to be sub power.
Surface finishes on the thimble, lubrication type can change how sticky an o-ring will be under this application. JSAR had been using Krytox grease and the thimbles finish that of a reamed hole w/o polishing.
If mine ... would take valve apart and highly polish thimble I.D. with cotton tip and rouge with a dremel tool. remove all traces of previous lubrication then using Lubriplate GR-132 grease.
Now that said .... I no longer use these valves in factory configuration and redesigned all the guts for my 3 personal rifles that use this SS-2 basic design valve. See: https://www.gatewaytoairguns.org/GTA/index.php?topic=167384.msg155876534#msg155876534 (https://www.gatewaytoairguns.org/GTA/index.php?topic=167384.msg155876534#msg155876534)
I don't do these conversions for hire and post such info for those who can fabricate and follow / continue down this R&D path.
Scott