GTA
All Springer/NP/PCP Air Gun Discussion General => European/Asian Air Gun Gates => German AirGun Gate => Topic started by: Bayman on June 14, 2022, 01:49:03 PM
-
Yesterday I received my first Air Rifle Headquarters kit. These kits have a great reputation so I wanted to try one on my 20 caliber R1. I was hoping that I'd see better power and less difference in power between the 11.42 H&N FTTs and 13.73 JSB Exact
The gun has had a Vortek PG4 kit in it for a while. The Vortek spring uses 0.148" wire wound to a OD of 0.865". The PG4 kit normally comes with a 26.5 coil spring that's open on both ends. I prefer closed spring ends so I had my kit made with the trigger end closed and a total of 27 coils.
Pluses - smooth operation when completed. It also has very little preload so they're easily installed without a spring compressor.
Minuses - The cocking shoe or foot on some guns will gouge the steel outter guide. This is remedied by grinding and polishing the cocking shoe or foot for clearance. This doesn't happen on every gun but it happens enough it's a pain in the you know what.
My impressions of the Macarri kit is it looks well made. The guides are snug but not too tight. It came with a small amount of tar. The spring uses 0.136" wire and it's wound to an OD of 0.830". The spring has quite a bit more preload. I had a hard time getting the gun together without a spring compressor. The preload will lessen some once the spring takes a set.
Pluses - smooth operation and straightforward installation.
Minuses - you'll need a spring compressor.
Power
Vortek
JSB Exact (act weight 13.81) 743 fps = 16.92 fpe
H&N FTT (act weight 11.81). 811 fps = 17.24 fpe
JM Power kit
JSB Exact (act weight 13.81) 708fps = 15.37 fpe
H&N FTT (act weight 11.81). 787fps = 16.24 fpe
The ARH website says that you'll be disappointed if you're a first round chronographer and the kit needs time to break in. I'm not sure what needs to break in. The kit clearances aren't that tight. I'll give it some time to break in and I'll update this thread of anything changes.
As far as comparing the two kits behavior, they both shoot nicely with no twang or buzz. The gun cocks easier with the JM kit an shoots a little smoother. It should, it's making less power by using a thinner wire spring with narrower diameter. It makes a nice shooting R1 but as of now it's making less power than my R9 in the same caliber with a Vortek kit.
Overall my experience with the ARH kit was good. It was less problematic to install than the Vortek steel kits. I'm hoping power from the JM kit eventually equals the Vortek. Time will tell.
-
Thanks for the comparison Ron, you bought a JM kit before I could get you mine to install. What you describe is what I've always heard, Vortek makes more power but is a tad harsher, JM a little less power and a little smoother. Maybe the smoother is because of less power, will be interesting to see if the power comes up on the JM kit but I am not sure that will happen. Kind of hard to really compare the shot cycle if the power level is not the same.
-
Thanks for the comparison Ron, you bought a JM kit before I could get you mine to install. What you describe is what I've always heard, Vortek makes more power but is a tad harsher, JM a little less power and a little smoother. Maybe the smoother is because of less power, will be interesting to see if the power comes up on the JM kit but I am not sure that will happen. Kind of hard to really compare the shot cycle if the power level is not the same.
Thanks Jeff. This gun has a fairly fresh seal in it. I suspect the power might climb a bit as a result of the seal loosening up. I too don't understand how the power in the kit will increase over time. I hardly lubed it to keep drag down to a minimum and the guides aren't terribly tight.
We'll see what happens. If the power does climb, I'll switch back to the Vortek kit and see if it makes more power than before. If the power increases across both kits it will because of the seal.
As far as the shot cycle goes there's really not much difference between the two. It's kind of hard to tell the difference. Considering the Vortek makes more power at the moment, I'd have to say that both kits are very good.
I do have to say it didn't surprise me that the JM kit made less power. After all its a lighter spring wire and a smaller diameter. It does have more preload and coils so I was hoping that maybe it was a different material and it would produce more power than it's statistics would imply.
I was shooting it today and it gained about ten fps. We'll see if it continues to increase.
-
The spring has quite a bit more preload. I had a hard time getting the gun together without a spring compressor. The preload will lessen some once the spring takes a set.
It makes a nice shooting R1 but as of now it's making less power than my R9 in the same caliber with a Vortek kit.
I would not try to open up or try to replace a spring without a spring compressor - In my opinion even if you are strong enough it is safer to use a spring compressor - especially if something slips - you should not recommend not using one.
Why compare the R1 to the R9 - If you are not happy with the R1 = sell it.
-
I'd not heard before about issues of the cocking shoe hitting the vortek kit's metal exterior guide. Are there particular guns you've found this most problematic?
I'm getting ready to put in a new spring in my D460 and had been debating between Vortek and Macarri. So its interesting to read these experiences even if they're on HWs.
-
I'd not heard before about issues of the cocking shoe hitting the vortek kit's metal exterior guide. Are there particular guns you've found this most problematic?
I'm getting ready to put in a new spring in my D460 and had been debating between Vortek and Macarri. So its interesting to read these experiences even if they're on HWs.
I only have experience with the Weihrauch Vortek kits. I've had to relieve the cocking foot on a couple of Hw30s and a Hw50. The Hw95 and the Hw80 with the new style cocking shoes can drag on the steel guide.
Clearancing the foot or the shoe is kind of a pain because you have remove the spring and barrel to grind and polish it. If you reassemble it and don't get it right you'll have to disassemble it again and relieve it some more..
I never had these problems with the older Vortek plastic outer guides.
-
Just goes to show you that sleeve on the VT kit is useless!!! it serves no purpose IMO, VT at 1 time made a kit just like JM, that sold for about $60 bucks, Tom probably saw no real profit in these kits and they disappeared form his web page, ;)
-
FWIW, the ARH kit in my HW95L .22 is absolutely soundless when cocking until the piston latches onto the trigger. During install I really polished the cocking shoe, along with everything that I could reach, and lubed with Krytox GPL-205. FPS seemed to settle at 722 after 2K to 3K shots using the FTT 14.66 gr pellets. I did not count the # of coils in the ARH spring but the original Weihrauch spring has 34. The ARH guides were a snug fit in the ARH spring. I do NOT see any dieseling when shooting now and I recommend the GPL-205 grease for anyone planning on a kit install in their rifle.
-
The spring has quite a bit more preload. I had a hard time getting the gun together without a spring compressor. The preload will lessen some once the spring takes a set.
It makes a nice shooting R1 but as of now it's making less power than my R9 in the same caliber with a Vortek kit.
I would not try to open up or try to replace a spring without a spring compressor - In my opinion even if you are strong enough it is safer to use a spring compressor - especially if something slips - you should not recommend not using one.
Why compare the R1 to the R9 - If you are not happy with the R1 = sell it.
I'm not recommending anyone to use or not to use a spring compressor. That's a personal choice. I prefer not to use one, you do as you please.
As far as the R9 / R1 comparison goes, I put it out there for informational purposes. Perhaps it will help someone make the right decision for them. I personally think in 177 and 20 caliber the R9 is a better gun. In 22 I think the R1 is a better gun. I'm not complaining about the R1. I'm just giving facts about the two gun's qualities and stating my personal preference. Anyone can have their own feelings about either gun and that's fine with me. I really try to keep my post objective and based on facts.
As for selling my R1, I'll probably hang on to it now that I put another new 20 caliber barrel on it. If I feel I want more power from it I will just put back the 29 coil 0.865"x 0.148" Vortek spring. It was making 18-19 fpe before I switched to 27 coil spring and then the JM kit. Or I'll just convert it 22. I have too much time and money tied up in it to let it go now. Besides it's still a cool gun.
-
I'd not heard before about issues of the cocking shoe hitting the vortek kit's metal exterior guide. Are there particular guns you've found this most problematic?
I'm getting ready to put in a new spring in my D460 and had been debating between Vortek and Macarri. So its interesting to read these experiences even if they're on HWs.
I only have experience with the Weihrauch Vortek kits. I've had to relieve the cocking foot on a couple of Hw30s and a Hw50. The Hw95 and the Hw80 with the new style cocking shoes can drag on the steel guide.
Clearancing the foot or the shoe is kind of a pain because you have remove the spring and barrel to grind and polish it. If you reassemble it and don't get it right you'll have to disassemble it again and relieve it some more..
I never had these problems with the older Vortek plastic outer guides.
First off I want to say nice write up Bayman. Also want to add that the Vortek PG3 kit I put in one of my Diana 350's also had some clearance issues between the cocking shoe and outer spring guide. I cleaned up and slightly relieved the outer guide some for better clearance, along with an extra bit of moly on that area. Getting things lined up was interesting, but seems to have worked out well enough and I'm happy with Vortek's kit. Should mention that kit dropped power to ~18ftlbs from it's stock 21ftlbs, but it's a .177 so no big deal, if anything still a bit hot.
-
I’ve had both in my HW95, and the power was pretty much the same.
With either I had similar numbers to Deerstalker Dave. But I am not a fan of the full power shot cycle.
So I went with the Vortek because it’s easy to cut coils without having to rework the end of the spring.
Cutting three coils really takes the edge off of the shot cycle and I went from 730fps to 700 with 13.43 Falcons.
But my son gave me a 12fpe Vortek kit for Christmas. I put that in and my 177 barrel back on. Oh my goodness, now I understand why so many love the older 12fpe guns.
-
So I went with the Vortek because it’s easy to cut coils without having to rework the end of the spring.
This is one of my problems with the newer Vortek top hat design - I like a closed spring rather than the open spring.
-
I can’t tell the difference when in the gun.
-
FWIW, the ARH kit in my HW95L .22 is absolutely soundless when cocking until the piston latches onto the trigger. During install I really polished the cocking shoe, along with everything that I could reach, and lubed with Krytox GPL-205. FPS seemed to settle at 722 after 2K to 3K shots using the FTT 14.66 gr pellets. I did not count the # of coils in the ARH spring but the original Weihrauch spring has 34. The ARH guides were a snug fit in the ARH spring. I do NOT see any dieseling when shooting now and I recommend the GPL-205 grease for anyone planning on a kit install in their rifle.
"FWIW, the ARH kit in my HW95L .22 is absolutely soundless when cocking until the piston latches onto the trigger"
Lol... Ya, i thought mine was broken just a snap braking the barrel, then a light click catching the trigger then a snap latching the barrel..
Smooth as greased owl sheit with melted butter on a Teflon slide (using krytoxa as well)..
Im a believer in that krytox now.. that small tube done 3 guns + a fab here and there and still got enugh to easy do another gas ram at minimum. It goes a long way like brell cream, a little dab will do ya.
Also all guns its use in now smooth and quite actions. Nice 🙂
-
<
I'd not heard before about issues of the cocking shoe hitting the vortek kit's metal exterior guide. Are there particular guns you've found this most problematic?
I'm getting ready to put in a new spring in my D460 and had been debating between Vortek and Macarri. So its interesting to read these experiences even if they're on HWs.
I only have experience with the Weihrauch Vortek kits. I've had to relieve the cocking foot on a couple of Hw30s and a Hw50. The Hw95 and the Hw80 with the new style cocking shoes can drag on the steel guide.
Clearancing the foot or the shoe is kind of a pain because you have remove the spring and barrel to grind and polish it. If you reassemble it and don't get it right you'll have to disassemble it again and relieve it some more..
I'd not heard before about issues of the cocking shoe hitting the vortek kit's metal exterior guide. Are there particular guns you've found this most problematic?
I'm getting ready to put in a new spring in my D460 and had been debating between Vortek and Macarri. So its interesting to read these experiences even if they're on HWs.
I only have experience with the Weihrauch Vortek kits. I've had to relieve the cocking foot on a couple of Hw30s and a Hw50. The Hw95 and the Hw80 with the new style cocking shoes can drag on the steel guide.
Clearancing the foot or the shoe is kind of a pain because you have remove the spring and barrel to grind and polish it. If you reassemble it and don't get it right you'll have to disassemble it again and relieve it some more..
I never had these problems with the older Vortek plastic outer guides.
"I never had these problems with the older Vortek plastic outer guides."
Hummmm......the very first Vortek PG2 kit I bought had exactly this problem with the plastic "outer guide" in my R9. Here is a pic of the grooving in the guide that crated "plastic shavings" in the receiver tube. To solve the "plastic shaving problem" I also polished the cocking shoe sliding surface and radius the sharp edges. After the "cocking shoe honing and sharp edge removal" there was no other issues with "plastic shavings in the receiver" however that early PG2 kit in my R9 lost 80 fps velocity before I finished a case of CPLs (about 4500 shots in 3 months) so the PG2 kit was retired and replaced with an ARH offering. Here is a pic of the PG2 kit outer guide........
(https://i.imgur.com/MvM3n9f.jpg)
-
I'm just grateful that we have two aftermarket vendors that still cater to us springer guys. ;D ;)
With quality products I mite add...
-Y
-
As for selling my R1, I'll probably hang on to it now that I put another new 20 caliber barrel on it. If I feel I want more power from it I will just put back the 29 coil 0.865"x 0.148" Vortek spring. It was making 18-19 fpe before I switched to 27 coil spring and then the JM kit. Or I'll just convert it 22. I have too much time and money tied up in it to let it go now. Besides it's still a cool gun.
Hi Ron,
Can you remember how much preload the 29 coil Vortek spring had when making 18 - 19 ft. lb. in the R1?
Just trying to get a handle on the energy efficiency of what we in the UK call FAC rifles.
Thanks,
Jim
-
Very helpful comparison Ron, thanks. I use both Vortek and ARH kits in my spring guns and have had good outcomes with both. All of my guns are tuned down from factory power levels and I have a slight preference for the ARH shot cycle. The big advantage of the Vortek kits is that they are much easier to clip coils and adjust power with their top hat design.
R
-
As for selling my R1, I'll probably hang on to it now that I put another new 20 caliber barrel on it. If I feel I want more power from it I will just put back the 29 coil 0.865"x 0.148" Vortek spring. It was making 18-19 fpe before I switched to 27 coil spring and then the JM kit. Or I'll just convert it 22. I have too much time and money tied up in it to let it go now. Besides it's still a cool gun.
Hi Ron,
Can you remember how much preload the 29 coil Vortek spring had when making 18 - 19 ft. lb. in the R1?
Just trying to get a handle on the energy efficiency of what we in the UK call FAC rifles.
Thanks,
Jim
Thanks for checking in Jim,
I didn't measure the preload in inches. On either kit. I'll guess about 1.5-1.8" with Maccari kit unset. I did measure the springs.
29 coil Vortek (with set) - 9.562
~30/31 coil JM (without set) - 9.875
~The JM spring is hard to accurately count coils because the spring has opposing closed ends and the end coils are some what collapsed
I imagine that JM spring will be a similar length or shorter than the Vortek once a set has taken.
I don't have the equipment to measure preload in force. I believe the 29 coil Vortek spring has a greater spring rate so I think the Vortek has more applied preload.
Be well
Ron
-
Another 250 shots through the gun with the JM kit this morning. That's about 500 total. The power seams to have stabilized.
JSBs 13.81 act weight 719 fps average = 15.85 fpe
H&N 11.73 act weight 799 fps average = 16.71 fpe
It picked up about a half pound of energy since installment. At this point the shot cycle feels no different than the Vortek.
This kit is a good option for someone that wants a proven kit design with a simpler installation that isn't overly concerned about power. Another perk is this kit On Sale is about $20 cheaper than the Vortek kit.
-
Very thorough and interesting analyses, Ron, THANKS!
One more thing is still pending:
Endurance comparison.
Over a few thousands of shots, you MAY discover that the Vortek now equals the Maccari in output.
While springs are cheap and they are fairly easy to replace in the Vortek kits, it is still a source of long term lack of consistency.
To ME, the most valuable datum was the OD of the new PG3 springs. It clearly shows that steel is a better material for the outside guide, as it allows a slightly larger OD of the springs, and THIS is huge because stresses inside the steel in the springs go up with the CUBE (third power) of the OD.
To put it in numbers:
If spring "A" has an OD of 1.00
and spring "B" is built from identical steel and with the same methods, but the OD is 1.05 (that is 5% difference)
then the internal stresses (strains) in spring "B" will be 13.6% lower.
This will lead to lower fatigue and a longer life.
0.865" is substantially better than older OD's. Still not 0.890", but it is better.
I may need to test the new Vortek kits, I can always forge closed / square properly the end of the spring, and lathe off the grooves to have a "normal" top-hat/spring end interface.
;-)
THANKS!
HM
-
Very thorough and interesting analyses, Ron, THANKS!
One more thing is still pending:
Endurance comparison.
Over a few thousands of shots, you MAY discover that the Vortek now equals the Maccari in output.
While springs are cheap and they are fairly easy to replace in the Vortek kits, it is still a source of long term lack of consistency.
To ME, the most valuable datum was the OD of the new PG3 springs. It clearly shows that steel is a better material for the outside guide, as it allows a slightly larger OD of the springs, and THIS is huge because stresses inside the steel in the springs go up with the CUBE (third power) of the OD.
To put it in numbers:
If spring "A" has an OD of 1.00
and spring "B" is built from identical steel and with the same methods, but the OD is 1.05 (that is 5% difference)
then the internal stresses (strains) in spring "B" will be 13.6% lower.
This will lead to lower fatigue and a longer life.
0.865" is substantially better than older OD's. Still not 0.890", but it is better.
I may need to test the new Vortek kits, I can always forge closed / square properly the end of the spring, and lathe off the grooves to have a "normal" top-hat/spring end interface.
;-)
THANKS!
HM
Hector thanks for chiming in,
I appreciate the lesson in spring science. That's cool. I've had some Vortek springs lose power some power from initial install. They do settle down a bit after a few thousand rounds. Usual it's only about 2% maybe 3% of the velocity tops. Once they do they last a good long time. My first PG2 kit done in my Hw95 back in 2015 had at least 50k shots before it broke last year. It was making nearly the same energy the whole time. I had one Hw30 Vortek spring lose 7% because I left the gun cocked for several days. My fault. I had one Hw50 Vortek spring break in less than a year. It probably still had 20 or 30k shots on it when it broke. After Vortek gave me a new spring, I remembered that I accidentally dry fired the gun twice when loose fitting pellets fell out while closing up the gun. I'm sure that didn't help spring life.
My point is I'm a completely neutral party and keep an objective point of view. Unfortunately I have to provide current useful information to counter people who propagate antiquated experiences because of biases. I am not speaking of you specifically but your message regarding Vortek spring life mirrors some of that old internet information. I have quite a bit of experience with the Vortek kits. Some of it good some of it not, but my information is always legit and unbiased.
Also the Vortek kit with the 27 coil spring that was used in initial comparison was in the gun for a year and probably 20k+ shots. The power levels listed in my initial comparison were taken this week minutes prior to removal. It's unlikely that the Vortek kit would have ever sagged to the JM Power levels.
Hi Ron,
Can you remember how much preload the 29 coil Vortek spring had when making 18 - 19 ft. lb. in the R1?
Just trying to get a handle on the energy efficiency of what we in the UK call FAC rifles.
Thanks,
Jim
Hi Jim
Today I removed the JM kit and I measured 1.375" of preload. It would be fully set by now.
I reinstalled the PG4 kit with the 29 coil spring. It had exactly 1" of preload.
Velocities with the 29 coil PG4 kit
JSB Exact 13.81 act weight 777 = 18.51 fpe
H&N FTT 11.73 act weight 860 = 19.24 fpe
The gun shoots just as nicely at these power levels so I will leave it with this package.
Jim another thing you may find interesting is the same gun and kit with a different 20 caliber barrel made 18.05 fpe with JSBs and 19.04 fpe. I slugged that barrel and it was very loose in the middle and the choke was ridiculously tight. Weihrauch replaced the barrel under warranty. What I find most interesting is the shot cycle is considerably nicer with the new barrel. I believe the loose barrel fit caused some pressure bypass making for some power loss and piston slam. I'm also happy the power disparity between the H&N FTT and JSB Exact has closed up a little. This piston seal is relatively new so I believe there still may be some free power increase as the gun loosens up.
Be well
Ron
-
Hi Jim
Today I removed the JM kit and I measured 1.375" of preload. It would be fully set by now.
I reinstalled the PG4 kit with the 29 coil spring. It had exactly 1" of preload.
Velocities with the 29 coil PG4 kit
JSB Exact 13.81 act weight 777 = 18.51 fpe
H&N FTT 11.73 act weight 860 = 19.24 fpe
The gun shoots just as nicely at these power levels so I will leave it with this package.
Jim another thing you may find interesting is the same gun and kit with a different 20 caliber barrel made 18.05 fpe with JSBs and 19.04 fpe. I slugged that barrel and it was very loose in the middle and the choke was ridiculously tight. Weihrauch replaced the barrel under warranty. What I find most interesting is the shot cycle is considerably nicer with the new barrel. I believe the loose barrel fit caused some pressure bypass making for some power loss and piston slam. I'm also happy the power disparity between the H&N FTT and JSB Exact has closed up a little. This piston seal is relatively new so I believe there still may be some free power increase as the gun loosens up.
Be well
Ron
Hi Ronn
Thanks for the information. By my reckoning, the spring is potentially making 49 ft. lb. available to the piston, so the energy efficiency is circa 37%, about the same ball park, as it happens, as a sub-12 ft.lb. HW80.
The spring places a force of 285 lbf on the piston at release, and the preload force is 84.7 lbf.
Your .20 barrel is interesting. I re-barrelled an HW95 breech block, and found that the rear of the HW barrel had straight knurls pressed into it, and either this, or the subsequent swaging of the barrel into the block, created a tight spot. With the rest of the barrel having a wider diameter, a choke becomes essential.
Cheers,
Jim
-
Hi Ronn
Thanks for the information. By my reckoning, the spring is potentially making 49 ft. lb. available to the piston, so the energy efficiency is circa 37%, about the same ball park, as it happens, as a sub-12 ft.lb. HW80.
The spring places a force of 285 lbf on the piston at release, and the preload force is 84.7 lbf.
Your .20 barrel is interesting. I re-barrelled an HW95 breech block, and found that the rear of the HW barrel had straight knurls pressed into it, and either this, or the subsequent swaging of the barrel into the block, created a tight spot. With the rest of the barrel having a wider diameter, a choke becomes essential.
Cheers,
Jim
Thanks for the information Jim. I'm familiar with the breech area creating a choke on the Weihrauchs as well as end choke. The last barrel was considerably looser than normal and about the last 2" before the end choke the pellet would literally fall through. Then the end choke was so tight you nearly had to pound the pellet out. Most if not all of the Weihrauch barrels I've checked are snug through the breech block, drop to light drag in the middle and snug again at the end choke. The pellet should stay engaged with the rifling the whole way. It didn't on my last 20 caliber barrel.
I have a new issue maybe you can help me with? It seems the additional power has created a lock up/vertical dispersion. I honed the lock up chisel bore and it slides freely but it doesn't seem to hold the barrel in place strong enough. I've tried the pivot tension from tight to loose and it doesn't hold vertically. There's no vertical free play in the breech but you can feel it come off lock if you wrap your hand around the breech and move the barrel up and down. It's not much but it affects the accuracy big time.
I'm wondering if the wedge is fully extended before applying enough pressure to hold the lock position. I'm considering cutting back the stop wall on the chisel detent a few thousandths to alow it extend I tiny bit more.
Any help would be greatly appreciated
Thanks
Ron
-
Just my thinking on this but you could always add a spacer or 2 to preload the JM kit for more power, JM sells these spacers I'll bet you would see the power levels come up with more spacing JMO ;)
-
Thanks for the information Jim. I'm familiar with the breech area creating a choke on the Weihrauchs as well as end choke. The last barrel was considerably looser than normal and about the last 2" before the end choke the pellet would literally fall through. Then the end choke was so tight you nearly had to pound the pellet out. Most if not all of the Weihrauch barrels I've checked are snug through the breech block, drop to light drag in the middle and snug again at the end choke. The pellet should stay engaged with the rifling the whole way. It didn't on my last 20 caliber barrel.
I have a new issue maybe you can help me with? It seems the additional power has created a lock up/vertical dispersion. I honed the lock up chisel bore and it slides freely but it doesn't seem to hold the barrel in place strong enough. I've tried the pivot tension from tight to loose and it doesn't hold vertically. There's no vertical free play in the breech but you can feel it come off lock if you wrap your hand around the breech and move the barrel up and down. It's not much but it affects the accuracy big time.
I'm wondering if the wedge is fully extended before applying enough pressure to hold the lock position. I'm considering cutting back the stop wall on the chisel detent a few thousandths to alow it extend I tiny bit more.
Any help would be greatly appreciated
Thanks
Ron
The only similar problem I've encountered with an HW break barrel, Ron, was with my 1979 HW50 (25mm cylinder) which I have owned from new. After about 25 years of heavy usage, the breech started to open a fraction as the recoil turned to surge, and it turned out to be a combination of wear in the latch and fatigue of its spring. Renewing both cured the problem.
I would try replacing the latch spring as a first step. I suspect the latch and chisel detent will be case hardened, and I would be wary to reprofiling either.
-
Thanks for the information Jim. I'm familiar with the breech area creating a choke on the Weihrauchs as well as end choke. The last barrel was considerably looser than normal and about the last 2" before the end choke the pellet would literally fall through. Then the end choke was so tight you nearly had to pound the pellet out. Most if not all of the Weihrauch barrels I've checked are snug through the breech block, drop to light drag in the middle and snug again at the end choke. The pellet should stay engaged with the rifling the whole way. It didn't on my last 20 caliber barrel.
I have a new issue maybe you can help me with? It seems the additional power has created a lock up/vertical dispersion. I honed the lock up chisel bore and it slides freely but it doesn't seem to hold the barrel in place strong enough. I've tried the pivot tension from tight to loose and it doesn't hold vertically. There's no vertical free play in the breech but you can feel it come off lock if you wrap your hand around the breech and move the barrel up and down. It's not much but it affects the accuracy big time.
I'm wondering if the wedge is fully extended before applying enough pressure to hold the lock position. I'm considering cutting back the stop wall on the chisel detent a few thousandths to alow it extend I tiny bit more.
Any help would be greatly appreciated
Thanks
Ron
The only similar problem I've encountered with an HW break barrel, Ron, was with my 1979 HW50 (25mm cylinder) which I have owned from new. After about 25 years of heavy usage, the breech started to open a fraction as the recoil turned to surge, and it turned out to be a combination of wear in the latch and fatigue of its spring. Renewing both cured the problem.
I would try replacing the latch spring as a first step. I suspect the latch and chisel detent will be case hardened, and I would be wary to reprofiling either.
Thanks Jim,
There's no way I'm reprofiling the chisel or the detent. I learned a hard lesson with a used RX1 a few of years ago. After spending A LOT of time and money to get it to shoot nicely. A week later the detent on the compression tube started to wear away and it went quickly when it did. The compression tube has to be replaced to replace the detent. I chose to part out the gun. Now I'm very cautious about the area.
The latch and spring on the R1 are new as is the barrel. There's a notch on the back of the chisel to clear the retaining roll pin. I'm gonna try to widen that notch a tiny bit to ensure the chisel isn't topped out against the retaining roll pin.
I'm not sure what I'll do if that doesn't work. I'm hesitant to increase the latch spring pressure because I don't want to damage the detent/compression tube. That's GAME OVER.
I may have to reduce power or step up 22 to reduce start pressure. Funny how things work. I wanted power, I got it and it opened a whole new problem. It's a never ending learning experience.
Be well
Ron
-
Yesterday I received my first Air Rifle Headquarters kit. These kits have a great reputation so I wanted to try one on my 20 caliber R1. I was hoping that I'd see better power and less difference in power between the 11.42 H&N FTTs and 13.73 JSB Exact
The gun has had a Vortek PG4 kit in it for a while. The Vortek spring uses 0.148" wire wound to a OD of 0.865". The PG4 kit normally comes with a 26.5 coil spring that's open on both ends. I prefer closed spring ends so I had my kit made with the trigger end closed and a total of 27 coils.
Pluses - smooth operation when completed. It also has very little preload so they're easily installed without a spring compressor.
Minuses - The cocking shoe or foot on some guns will gouge the steel outter guide. This is remedied by grinding and polishing the cocking shoe or foot for clearance. This doesn't happen on every gun but it happens enough it's a pain in the you know what.
My impressions of the Macarri kit is it looks well made. The guides are snug but not too tight. It came with a small amount of tar. The spring uses 0.136" wire and it's wound to an OD of 0.830". The spring has quite a bit more preload. I had a hard time getting the gun together without a spring compressor. The preload will lessen some once the spring takes a set.
Pluses - smooth operation and straightforward installation.
Minuses - you'll need a spring compressor.
Power
Vortek
JSB Exact (act weight 13.81) 743 fps = 16.92 fpe
H&N FTT (act weight 11.81). 811 fps = 17.24 fpe
JM Power kit
JSB Exact (act weight 13.81) 708fps = 15.37 fpe
H&N FTT (act weight 11.81). 787fps = 16.24 fpe
The ARH website says that you'll be disappointed if you're a first round chronographer and the kit needs time to break in. I'm not sure what needs to break in. The kit clearances aren't that tight. I'll give it some time to break in and I'll update this thread of anything changes.
As far as comparing the two kits behavior, they both shoot nicely with no twang or buzz. The gun cocks easier with the JM kit an shoots a little smoother. It should, it's making less power by using a thinner wire spring with narrower diameter. It makes a nice shooting R1 but as of now it's making less power than my R9 in the same caliber with a Vortek kit.
Overall my experience with the ARH kit was good. It was less problematic to install than the Vortek steel kits. I'm hoping power from the JM kit eventually equals the Vortek. Time will tell.
Hey Ron,
I read your comparison showing the ARH kit at a pretty low FPE relative to what my .20 caliber HW80 (ARH R1 spring only).
Keep in mind this spring was purchased about 5 years ago as Jim's R1 after market spring for $20. I've even clipped two coils as it was a bit unruly beforehand.
Took 3 shots today with 13.73 JSB's: 790, 799 and 794 FPS; this is roughly 19+ FPE.
I don't know if it's the spring, the gun or combination of the two, but my HW80S has always been a monster shooter. The firing cycle is fairly abrupt, but the gun is so accurate ... I don't care. I think I got really lucky with this gun :D.
I really don't have an axe to grind on the ARH vs. Vortek debate - as I prefer the Vortek springs in my .20 caliber R9 and R10.
I have ARH springs (only) in every other Weihrauch I've tuned.
Kirk
-
Yesterday I received my first Air Rifle Headquarters kit. These kits have a great reputation so I wanted to try one on my 20 caliber R1. I was hoping that I'd see better power and less difference in power between the 11.42 H&N FTTs and 13.73 JSB Exact
The gun has had a Vortek PG4 kit in it for a while. The Vortek spring uses 0.148" wire wound to a OD of 0.865". The PG4 kit normally comes with a 26.5 coil spring that's open on both ends. I prefer closed spring ends so I had my kit made with the trigger end closed and a total of 27 coils.
Pluses - smooth operation when completed. It also has very little preload so they're easily installed without a spring compressor.
Minuses - The cocking shoe or foot on some guns will gouge the steel outter guide. This is remedied by grinding and polishing the cocking shoe or foot for clearance. This doesn't happen on every gun but it happens enough it's a pain in the you know what.
My impressions of the Macarri kit is it looks well made. The guides are snug but not too tight. It came with a small amount of tar. The spring uses 0.136" wire and it's wound to an OD of 0.830". The spring has quite a bit more preload. I had a hard time getting the gun together without a spring compressor. The preload will lessen some once the spring takes a set.
Pluses - smooth operation and straightforward installation.
Minuses - you'll need a spring compressor.
Power
Vortek
JSB Exact (act weight 13.81) 743 fps = 16.92 fpe
H&N FTT (act weight 11.81). 811 fps = 17.24 fpe
JM Power kit
JSB Exact (act weight 13.81) 708fps = 15.37 fpe
H&N FTT (act weight 11.81). 787fps = 16.24 fpe
The ARH website says that you'll be disappointed if you're a first round chronographer and the kit needs time to break in. I'm not sure what needs to break in. The kit clearances aren't that tight. I'll give it some time to break in and I'll update this thread of anything changes.
As far as comparing the two kits behavior, they both shoot nicely with no twang or buzz. The gun cocks easier with the JM kit an shoots a little smoother. It should, it's making less power by using a thinner wire spring with narrower diameter. It makes a nice shooting R1 but as of now it's making less power than my R9 in the same caliber with a Vortek kit.
Overall my experience with the ARH kit was good. It was less problematic to install than the Vortek steel kits. I'm hoping power from the JM kit eventually equals the Vortek. Time will tell.
Hey Ron,
I read your comparison showing the ARH kit at a pretty low FPE relative to what my .20 caliber HW80 (ARH R1 spring only).
Keep in mind this spring was purchased about 5 years ago as Jim's R1 after market spring for $20. I've even clipped two coils as it was a bit unruly beforehand.
Took 3 shots today with 13.73 JSB's: 790, 799 and 794 FPS; this is roughly 19+ FPE.
I don't know if it's the spring, the gun or combination of the two, but my HW80S has always been a monster shooter. The firing cycle is fairly abrupt, but the gun is so accurate ... I don't care. I think I got really lucky with this gun :D.
I really don't have an axe to grind on the ARH vs. Vortek debate - as I prefer the Vortek springs in my .20 caliber R9 and R10.
I have ARH springs (only) in every other Weihrauch I've tuned.
Kirk
Thanks Kirk for the objective information. I haven't seen you around in a while. I hope you are doing well. The JM kit I got is listed as the "New Deluxe Power kit". Maybe he changed springs? I'd be curious what size spring you got in your Hw80. Do you remember by any chance?
Take care buddy
Ron
-
Yeah Ron, I've been mostly shooting and tuning my two RAW HM1000xLRT's for the last couple of years. The tune are particularly tricky using pellets, slugs and different regulator set points - lots to learn and shoot well at 100 yards.
Besides today, last time I shot my Springer's was last August while camping. I've been reading some German posts, but I usually don't think you guys need my opinion much anymore as there's many experienced shooters here ;).
I honestly don't remember the spring size (some of my posts from 2016 or 2017 likely would show it), also I usually make my top-hats thick-er to space the spring some, plus I use the OEM piston seal instead of JM which tend to be oversized. I think the compression chamber in my HW80S fits the piston seal very nicely.
-
Yeah Ron, I've been mostly shooting and tuning my two RAW HM1000xLRT's for the last couple of years. The tune are particularly tricky using pellets, slugs and different regulator set points - lots to learn and shoot well at 100 yards.
Besides today, last time I shot my Springer's was last August while camping. I've been reading some German posts, but I usually don't think you guys need my opinion much anymore as there's many experienced shooters here ;).
I honestly don't remember the spring size (some of my posts from 2016 or 2017 likely would show it), also I usually make my top-hats thick-er to space the spring some, plus I use the OEM piston seal instead of JM which tend to be oversized. I think the compression chamber in my HW80S fits the piston seal very nicely.
I'm glad you're doing well. It was good hearing from you.
Stay well.
Ron
-
Yeah Ron, I've been mostly shooting and tuning my two RAW HM1000xLRT's for the last couple of years. The tune are particularly tricky using pellets, slugs and different regulator set points - lots to learn and shoot well at 100 yards.
Besides today, last time I shot my Springer's was last August while camping. I've been reading some German posts, but I usually don't think you guys need my opinion much anymore as there's many experienced shooters here ;).
I honestly don't remember the spring size (some of my posts from 2016 or 2017 likely would show it), also I usually make my top-hats thick-er to space the spring some, plus I use the OEM piston seal instead of JM which tend to be oversized. I think the compression chamber in my HW80S fits the piston seal very nicely.
I'm glad you're doing well. It was good hearing from you.
Stay well.
Ron
You too Ron ;),
I still think Weihrauch Springers represent "The Ideal" spring piston airgun (for Me) in the marketplace today 8).
-
Close to clutching at straws here, Ron, but could the (presumably new) breech seal be standing too proud of the breech face and reducing detent/latch overlap?
-
Close to clutching at straws here, Ron, but could the (presumably new) breech seal be standing too proud of the breech face and reducing detent/latch overlap?
That's actually a real good suggestion. Ive had Hw30s with the ball detent have minor lock up issues from that. After a while the breech seal flattens out and the barrel reliably rest on the stop pin. I'll look into it on this gun.
The problem seems more drastic than the Hw30 and didn't happen with this barrel on this gun at lower power. I would think if it were the seal it would have had poor locking at any power. I'll look at it and play with it some more this morning.after coffee. As always,
thank you for your help.
Be well
Ron
-
One further point, Ron, is that the factory export spring rate is circa 55 lbf/in, against yours nearer 63 lbf/in, so the force driving recoil acceleration will be less, and I believe it's the initial recoil acceleration, and consequent rifle rotation around the centre of gravity, that's opening the breech.
It may be that the spring you are using is just over the limit of the breech locking capability.
-
The trick you installing new breech seals is to heat them up! I use a hair dryer that's at least 1500deg on max setting, I heat the seal until its pliable then install it while its hot and close the barrel so it form fits! let it cool then start shooting the rifle! ;)
-
One further point, Ron, is that the factory export spring rate is circa 55 lbf/in, against yours nearer 63 lbf/in, so the force driving recoil acceleration will be less, and I believe it's the initial recoil acceleration, and consequent rifle rotation around the centre of gravity, that's opening the breech.
It may be that the spring you are using is just over the limit of the breech locking capability.
Other than your last sentence I'm afraid I don't understand what you're explaining.
I sanded 0.002" off the breech seal and the lock up feels much more positive with no flex. This along with oiling the latch and snugging the pivot tension a tad made some difference.
Still the POI would stay pretty good a while and then go away so I switched to solid mounted Hawke Vantage scope and the groups immediately improved. Often one hole (at ten yards) so I reinstalled Dampa mounted Airmax and the vertical dispersion returned. To diagnose the scope and mount I then installed the Airmax on the Vantages Sportsmatch rings. The Airmax printed as good as the Vantage in solid rings. It seems the Dampa mount wasn't returning to zero all the time.
After burning through almost 500 JSB 13.73 Exacts today I switched to testing with H&N FTT 11.42. After 10 or 15 conditioning shots the FTTs printed single round hole groups for 60-70 rounds with the solid mounted Airmax. I switched back to JSBs and the first two groups were single round hole the opened up to ragged holes. It might have been a leading thing or I was simply fatigued after wrenching on, cocking and shooting this thing for 6 hours. I locktited the screws and put it aside until tomorrow.
As much as I like the gun to prefer the heavier JSBs, the efficiency and accuracy says it prefers the lighter H&Ns.
Thanks for your help. While no one thing seemed to cure the gun today, I can tell you your suggestion about the breech seal made a noticeable difference. Thank you.
-
The trick you installing new breech seals is to heat them up! I use a hair dryer that's at least 1500deg on max setting, I heat the seal until its pliable then install it while its hot and close the barrel so it form fits! let it cool then start shooting the rifle! ;)
Thanks Mark that's a great idea.
-
Lots to learn when installing new seals? some of you guy's out there do not have the knowledge of us old guy's, their maybe other issues with power from your HW you don't want to hear! ;)
-
Mark I would appreciate your ideas and I absolutely enjoy this post. Thanks Ron for starting a great one. Thanks to everyone for sharing the vast amount of knowledge we are privileged to read.
-
Lots to learn when installing new seals? some of you guy's out there do not have the knowledge of us old guy's, their maybe other issues with power from your HW you don't want to hear! ;)
Mark you can suggest what you want. With all due respect don't treat me like an idiot.
-
One further point, Ron, is that the factory export spring rate is circa 55 lbf/in, against yours nearer 63 lbf/in, so the force driving recoil acceleration will be less, and I believe it's the initial recoil acceleration, and consequent rifle rotation around the centre of gravity, that's opening the breech.
It may be that the spring you are using is just over the limit of the breech locking capability.
Other than your last sentence I'm afraid I don't understand what you're explaining.
I sanded 0.002" off the breech seal and the lock up feels much more positive with no flex. This along with oiling the latch and snugging the pivot tension a tad made some difference.
Still the POI would stay pretty good a while and then go away so I switched to solid mounted Hawke Vantage scope and the groups immediately improved. Often one hole (at ten yards) so I reinstalled Dampa mounted Airmax and the vertical dispersion returned. To diagnose the scope and mount I then installed the Airmax on the Vantages Sportsmatch rings. The Airmax printed as good as the Vantage in solid rings. It seems the Dampa mount wasn't returning to zero all the time.
After burning through almost 500 JSB 13.73 Exacts today I switched to testing with H&N FTT 11.42. After 10 or 15 conditioning shots the FTTs printed single round hole groups for 60-70 rounds with the solid mounted Airmax. I switched back to JSBs and the first two groups were single round hole the opened up to ragged holes. It might have been a leading thing or I was simply fatigued after wrenching on, cocking and shooting this thing for 6 hours. I locktited the screws and put it aside until tomorrow.
As much as I like the gun to prefer the heavier JSBs, the efficiency and accuracy says it prefers the lighter H&Ns.
Thanks for your help. While no one thing seemed to cure the gun today, I can tell you your suggestion about the breech seal made a noticeable difference. Thank you.
Well done on getting it sorted, Ron.
To explain my first paragraph. When a springer is shot, the recoiling rifle wants to rotate about its centre of gravity, which is under the axis of the cylinder. The butt wants to fall, the muzzle to rise, and the greater the force the spring places on the piston and rifle at piston release, the fiercer the snap from a stationary barrel to one that's rising, and this places a strain on the barrel latching mechanism.
One way to reduce the tendency for the rifle to rotate is to put a heavy scope on it, which raises the centre of gravity nearer the axis of the cylinder. Using a Dampa mount isolates the rifle from the mass of the scope at the very start of recoil, whereas the Sportsmatch mount is a direct connection between the mass of the scope (mainly the glass) and the rifle.
I wholeheartedly agree with your last sentence. When diagnosing any issue, be it the IC engine, human disease or a spring/piston airgun, it's tempting to look for a single cause, when often there will be two or more contributory factors at work.
-
I'm sorry you feel that way? not my intent, information you post makes my wheels spin, to help you figure out what's going on with your rifle, Myself having been inside more HW rifles then I can count and having work done on them by people who have tools like SUNNEN Honing machines {ETC} I have a vast knowledge far beyond basic tuning, the information you have posted about your experiences with this R1 is nothing more then a basic tune up, IMO if your seals are not robbing your power you my have an out of round compression tube and no tune in the world will fix that! The tube has to be fixed, unfortunately HW's are known for having out of round tubes from time to time, and a lower power rifle with all you have done to this R1 is a good indicator, ;D
-
Yeah, even though this post is about Vortek and Macarri tune kits, they are somewhat unable to be tweaked unless you have the ability to make top-hats, spacers, spring guides, etc to really sort out your problems. That's why you buy a kit in the first place - ease of changing out the power plant.
About 3 years ago I tried to tune a beautiful (circa '95) R1 in .177 caliber and could not get close to the power I knew it was capable of. I tried ARH and Vortek springs of varying size and even tried a .20 caliber barrel ... which didn't fit the gun correctly?
Sold it on ebay and ended the frustration. The compression cylinder was likely out-of-round and I didn't want to fiddle with it anymore. However, the person who bought it was perfectly happy with a 15.5 FPE .177 caliber R1 - so every one was happy ;).
-
I'm sorry you feel that way? not my intent, information you post makes my wheels spin, to help you figure out what's going on with your rifle, Myself having been inside more HW rifles then I can count and having work done on them by people who have tools like SUNNEN Honing machines {ETC} I have a vast knowledge far beyond basic tuning, the information you have posted about your experiences with this R1 is nothing more then a basic tune up, IMO if your seals are not robbing your power you my have an out of round compression tube and no tune in the world will fix that! The tube has to be fixed, unfortunately HW's are known for having out of round tubes from time to time, and a lower power rifle with all you have done to this R1 is a good indicator, ;D
Mark
First of all I don't feel like an idiot. You sometimes treat me like an idiot. I'm respectful of you. You should do the same in return.
To the matter of power. What little power the gun might be down is because the piston seal is fresh. I explained that several times. I prefer to let the piston seals run in. I have my reasons that I won't get into.
Here's the facts
Standard 0.148" wire Vortek kit after about a year
6/2/22 177 = 17.6 fpe
6/3/22 New seal installed, power dipped about 1.2 fpe
177 = 16.34 fpe
.20 = 17.72 fpe
6/13/22 Install 0.136" wire JM kit
.20 = 16.71 fpe
6/14/22 Installed Vortek 0.148wire +2 coils
.20 = 19.6 fpe.
If you add roughly a pound to account for the fresh piston seal the gun is very healthy.
After accounting for the piston seal the only time the gun might be considered low powered is with the JM kit. That's easily explained by the fact its a thinner wire and smaller diameter spring.
The gun made perfectly acceptable power prior to seal change. I doubt the seal change made the tube out of round.
Look I try to keep my posts fair and unbiased. I provide this information for the benefit of others, I don't need to be talked down to like a kid. I've actually operated Sunnen hones and built race engines. I'm quite familiar with cylinder sealing and diagnostic procedures. I'm open to anyone's suggestions when treated as an equal as Jim and Kirk do. If you are going to be condescending, I'll figure things out without you.
Have a nice day Mark
Ron
-
Trying to come back to the main principle of the thread, perhaps it is important to remember the different OBJECTIVE of both kit makers.
JM is all about smoothness of shot cycle, consistency, and accuracy
Vortek sells on power and Silence of the shot cycle.
So, it is understandable that the basic "philosophies" of spring design differ.
JM's springs can usually be spaced up if you want/need more power. It's part of their design intent because you can find the power spacers in JM's website.
Vortek decided to go to the stepped top-hat route and that is interesting because it allows increased pre-load without altering the masses at play.
As long as we keep the perspective that it is not an "apples to apples" comparison, I think the discussion is providing valuable information and is being very useful.
Thanks!
HM
-
One further point, Ron, is that the factory export spring rate is circa 55 lbf/in, against yours nearer 63 lbf/in, so the force driving recoil acceleration will be less, and I believe it's the initial recoil acceleration, and consequent rifle rotation around the centre of gravity, that's opening the breech.
It may be that the spring you are using is just over the limit of the breech locking capability.
Other than your last sentence I'm afraid I don't understand what you're explaining.
I sanded 0.002" off the breech seal and the lock up feels much more positive with no flex. This along with oiling the latch and snugging the pivot tension a tad made some difference.
Still the POI would stay pretty good a while and then go away so I switched to solid mounted Hawke Vantage scope and the groups immediately improved. Often one hole (at ten yards) so I reinstalled Dampa mounted Airmax and the vertical dispersion returned. To diagnose the scope and mount I then installed the Airmax on the Vantages Sportsmatch rings. The Airmax printed as good as the Vantage in solid rings. It seems the Dampa mount wasn't returning to zero all the time.
After burning through almost 500 JSB 13.73 Exacts today I switched to testing with H&N FTT 11.42. After 10 or 15 conditioning shots the FTTs printed single round hole groups for 60-70 rounds with the solid mounted Airmax. I switched back to JSBs and the first two groups were single round hole the opened up to ragged holes. It might have been a leading thing or I was simply fatigued after wrenching on, cocking and shooting this thing for 6 hours. I locktited the screws and put it aside until tomorrow.
As much as I like the gun to prefer the heavier JSBs, the efficiency and accuracy says it prefers the lighter H&Ns.
Thanks for your help. While no one thing seemed to cure the gun today, I can tell you your suggestion about the breech seal made a noticeable difference. Thank you.
Well done on getting it sorted, Ron.
To explain my first paragraph. When a springer is shot, the recoiling rifle wants to rotate about its centre of gravity, which is under the axis of the cylinder. The butt wants to fall, the muzzle to rise, and the greater the force the spring places on the piston and rifle at piston release, the fiercer the snap from a stationary barrel to one that's rising, and this places a strain on the barrel latching mechanism.
One way to reduce the tendency for the rifle to rotate is to put a heavy scope on it, which raises the centre of gravity nearer the axis of the cylinder. Using a Dampa mount isolates the rifle from the mass of the scope at the very start of recoil, whereas the Sportsmatch mount is a direct connection between the mass of the scope (mainly the glass) and the rifle.
I wholeheartedly agree with your last sentence. When diagnosing any issue, be it the IC engine, human disease or a spring/piston airgun, it's tempting to look for a single cause, when often there will be two or more contributory factors at work.
Thanks Jim for the explanation. I'm wondering if this explains the increase of vertical dispersion with the Sportsmatch Dampa mount as opposed to the solid Sportsmatch rings. I wasn't having any issues with it at lower power levels. Perhaps there's nothing wrong with the Dampa mount and the gun is simply oversprung.
This morning I did ten three shot groups at ten yards with both JSBs and H&Ns. The 9th group of each I tried a firm hold. On the tenth group of each I used a loose hold.
The H&Ns clearly printed with less vertical dispersion. Group 14 might have been my fault. I got rattled when I screwed up the first shot. The flyer on 16 l have no idea.
For some reason the JSBs induce more vertical dispersion than the H&Ns at this power level. Not sure if it's harmonics, higher start pressure or recoil associated. The H&Ns are more accurate across the board.
In some ways I made myself feel like an idiot now. I should have tried the H&Ns before going nuts to eliminate the vertical stringing I was getting with the JSBs. In my defense the JSBs printed well at lower power so I figured they should print fine at higher power. Plus vertical dispersion is usually associated with lock up issues not pellets.
Oh well, live and learn.
Take care
Ron
-
Trying to come back to the main principle of the thread, perhaps it is important to remember the different OBJECTIVE of both kit makers.
JM is all about smoothness of shot cycle, consistency, and accuracy
Vortek sells on power and Silence of the shot cycle.
So, it is understandable that the basic "philosophies" of spring design differ.
JM's springs can usually be spaced up if you want/need more power. It's part of their design intent because you can find the power spacers in JM's website.
Vortek decided to go to the stepped top-hat route and that is interesting because it allows increased pre-load without altering the masses at play.
As long as we keep the perspective that it is not an "apples to apples" comparison, I think the discussion is providing valuable information and is being very useful.
Thanks!
HM
Hector thanks for trying to get things back on track. The thread has gotten very deep into some technical topics I never understood and find quite interesting. It's also been a place where some people have come to aire their biases and ego. I'm not interested in either.
To get back on topic, it was suggested earlier that spacers could be added to JM kit to pick up the power. This is true but there's only so much you can do with spacers. In this application I seriously doubt there's enough room for spacers to make up the difference in power between the two kits. The spring is simply weaker.
Keeping this fair and current, the Vortek stepped tophat was pretty much a gimmick. It's not used on the Hw80 full power kit. It was used on the Weihrauch 25 & 26mm kits. I have installed a bunch of these kits and I've never seen more than 15 fps difference between the high and low tophat settings . It's usually ten fps. I've discussed this with Tom at Vortek. I haven't seen a stepped tophat from him in months. He may have abandon the concept.
Thank you for adding your knowledge to the thread and being a gentleman.
Be well
Ron
-
the Vortek stepped tophat was pretty much a gimmick
This is also my opinion and why I only get closed springs when I buy springs from Vortek
Currently have ARH R9 spring on order to replace OEM
-
Hi Ron, first off I have no ego or bias, I only use my own experiences when it comes to spring kit makers, if you were implying to me? I also respect you as a person who is in the air gun community, your findings on this rifle are what they are, I think Kirk and Hector have basically said the same thing I have tried to convey or what I was trying to say, but anyway theirs a lot good info that has come out in this thread, Cheers! 8)
-
Trying to come back to the main principle of the thread, perhaps it is important to remember the different OBJECTIVE of both kit makers.
JM is all about smoothness of shot cycle, consistency, and accuracy
Vortek sells on power and Silence of the shot cycle.
So, it is understandable that the basic "philosophies" of spring design differ.
JM's springs can usually be spaced up if you want/need more power. It's part of their design intent because you can find the power spacers in JM's website.
Vortek decided to go to the stepped top-hat route and that is interesting because it allows increased pre-load without altering the masses at play.
As long as we keep the perspective that it is not an "apples to apples" comparison, I think the discussion is providing valuable information and is being very useful.
Thanks!
HM
+1 ;)
-
As for selling my R1, I'll probably hang on to it now that I put another new 20 caliber barrel on it. If I feel I want more power from it I will just put back the 29 coil 0.865"x 0.148" Vortek spring. It was making 18-19 fpe before I switched to 27 coil spring and then the JM kit. Or I'll just convert it 22. I have too much time and money tied up in it to let it go now. Besides it's still a cool gun.
Hi Ron,
Can you remember how much preload the 29 coil Vortek spring had when making 18 - 19 ft. lb. in the R1?
Just trying to get a handle on the energy efficiency of what we in the UK call FAC rifles.
Thanks,
Jim
Jim I just realized that I totally goofed in measuring preload lengths. I measured from the end of the compression tube to the end of the springs. This is ok as a side by side spring comparison but it doesn't represent the true preload length. It doesn't account for the amount the trigger block threads into the compression tube. A weak guess for that would be about a half inch. I'll get the exact amount next time I open the gun. I have a feeling it will be soon.
I'm probably going to cut the 29 coil spring or shim the 27 coil a tad. I'd like to find a happy medium of power and accuracy.
Thanks again for the help. Sorry about providing you bad preload measurements.
Be well
Ron
-
Jim I just realized that I totally goofed in measuring preload lengths. I measured from the end of the compression tube to the end of the springs. This is ok as a side by side spring comparison but it doesn't represent the true preload length. It doesn't account for the amount the trigger block threads into the compression tube. A weak guess for that would be about a half inch. I'll get the exact amount next time I open the gun. I have a feeling it will be soon.
I'm probably going to cut the 29 coil spring or shim the 27 coil a tad. I'd like to find a happy medium of power and accuracy.
Thanks again for the help. Sorry about providing you bad preload measurements.
Be well
Ron
Hi Ron. Thanks for the correction, and don't give goofing a second thought - we all do it from time to time!
I remember the HW trigger block thread at nearer an inch, but to compromise, if it's 20mm then the force acting on the piston at the point of release is near 1,500N, or 337 lbf, which will give blistering recoil acceleration. The energy efficiency drops to 30%, which is not good news, as a lot of the lost energy drives piston bounce and hence recoil surge.
Reducing the spring by one coil wold raise its rate from 11.1 to 11.5 N/mm, but the reduced preload would reduce the force acting on the piston to nearer 320 lbf. What we don't know is what effect that might have on energy efficiency.
Thanks for the update.
Jim
-
Jim I just realized that I totally goofed in measuring preload lengths. I measured from the end of the compression tube to the end of the springs. This is ok as a side by side spring comparison but it doesn't represent the true preload length. It doesn't account for the amount the trigger block threads into the compression tube. A weak guess for that would be about a half inch. I'll get the exact amount next time I open the gun. I have a feeling it will be soon.
I'm probably going to cut the 29 coil spring or shim the 27 coil a tad. I'd like to find a happy medium of power and accuracy.
Thanks again for the help. Sorry about providing you bad preload measurements.
Be well
Ron
Hi Ron. Thanks for the correction, and don't give goofing a second thought - we all do it from time to time!
I remember the HW trigger block thread at nearer an inch, but to compromise, if it's 20mm then the force acting on the piston at the point of release is near 1,500N, or 337 lbf, which will give blistering recoil acceleration. The energy efficiency drops to 30%, which is not good news, as a lot of the lost energy drives piston bounce and hence recoil surge.
Reducing the spring by one coil wold raise its rate from 11.1 to 11.5 N/mm, but the reduced preload would reduce the force acting on the piston to nearer 320 lbf. What we don't know is what effect that might have on energy efficiency.
Thanks for the update.
Jim
Thanks Jim.
I'll measure the block as I'm sure I'll have it apart today. I'm going to check the seal fit and resize it if necessary. If it's tight I'll resize it and put in the standard Vortek 27 coil spring and see what happens.
Take care
Ron
-
Keep me posted posted on your progress, I’m working out of town and this thread helps me through the day as I set here waiting on nothing to go bad lol
-
Jim,
I'm wondering if you have ever attached a FWB 300 or a Diana 75 up to your sled system?
When I shoot my Diana 10M at the range I swear it recoils less than the fancy FX PCP's all lined up.
The Giss system is truly amazing.
-Yogi
-
Ron are you using a Macarri piston seal or Vortek? I recently went through down on power issue with a Macarri kit for my R10. The piston seal was snug so I sanded it on the lathe. Made little difference. I believe it was Kirk who suggested I try a Vortek seal and DO NOT size it. Made a big difference in power and open my eyes to Vortek seals.
I know this doesn't address the spring differences, but for me the issue of down on power was a piston seal.
-
Ron are you using a Macarri piston seal or Vortek? I recently went through down on power issue with a Macarri kit for my R10. The piston seal was snug so I sanded it on the lathe. Made little difference. I believe it was Kirk who suggested I try a Vortek seal and DO NOT size it. Made a big difference in power and open my eyes to Vortek seals.
I know this doesn't address the spring differences, but for me the issue of down on power was a piston seal.
Per Ron's suggestion I used an ARH kit with a Vortek seal in my HW95L & after about 4K of pellets the FPE average is 17. Nothing done to the seal other than lubing with Krytox GPL-205.
-
Hector thanks for trying to get things back on track. The thread has gotten very deep into some technical topics I never understood and find quite interesting. It's also been a place where some people have come to aire their biases and ego. I'm not interested in either.
To get back on topic, it was suggested earlier that spacers could be added to JM kit to pick up the power. This is true but there's only so much you can do with spacers. In this application I seriously doubt there's enough room for spacers to make up the difference in power between the two kits. The spring is simply weaker.
Keeping this fair and current, the Vortek stepped tophat was pretty much a gimmick. It's not used on the Hw80 full power kit. It was used on the Weihrauch 25 & 26mm kits. I have installed a bunch of these kits and I've never seen more than 15 fps difference between the high and low tophat settings . It's usually ten fps. I've discussed this with Tom at Vortek. I haven't seen a stepped tophat from him in months. He may have abandon the concept.
Thank you for adding your knowledge to the thread and being a gentleman.
Be well
Ron
Ron;
I do agree that you can only do so much with spacers.
But I have found that, in a properly sprung system, a LITTLE spacing can make a rather large difference.
I don't have data about JM or Vortek springs, having dropped their use some time ago in search of utmost log term consistency, but using a Titan XS #1 (0.127" WD, 0.827" OD, 31 coils in 11") as an example on an LGV that is using an OEM piston and seal, a 0.160" spacer at the rear, increases ME by a bit over 1/2 ft-lb. from slightly under 12 ft-lbs to over 12 ft-lbs
Do bear in mind that it is less than 1 W.D. and yet the difference in ME is a full 5%
By the same token, increasing the spacing to 0.195" produced nearly no difference, and at 0.275" the rifle would not cock/latch. Which would seem to indicate that the LGV had "maxed out" its internal capacity.
In yet another instance, a D54 with an ORing sealed piston and a Titan XS #4 spring (0.142" WD, 0.890" OD, 28 coils in 9.9"), originally tuned for the 8.49 grain pellets was yielding 8.7 ft-lbs with the H&N's BFT (9.57's), but a spacer of 0.320" made the energy jump to 12.11 ft-lbs, that is 3.4 ft-lbs, or 39% of energy gain from a relatively thick spacer, but perfectly doable in most large formats. Dropped down to a 0.200" spacer and the output became 11.7 ft-lbs, which is perfect for WFTF level shooting. Again, showing the higher versatility of larger compression chambers.
I have found this seemingly inconsistent/irrational behaviour almost across all the calibers/energy levels, which means that some testing may be beneficial in most cases; so I have made sets of 5 calibrated spacers that allow me to go from 0.0400" to 0.430" and they are a useful tool to decide where to trim a spring or how to make a top-hat.
;-)
Spacing (front and rear) and weighing of the piston/front end of the spring are just tools in the tuner's toolbox.
And, as fickle and variable as airguns are, it is interesting to leave no stone unturned, sometimes you may find that the stone is a geode ;-) !
Keep well and shoot straight!
HM
-
Hector thanks for trying to get things back on track. The thread has gotten very deep into some technical topics I never understood and find quite interesting. It's also been a place where some people have come to aire their biases and ego. I'm not interested in either.
To get back on topic, it was suggested earlier that spacers could be added to JM kit to pick up the power. This is true but there's only so much you can do with spacers. In this application I seriously doubt there's enough room for spacers to make up the difference in power between the two kits. The spring is simply weaker.
Keeping this fair and current, the Vortek stepped tophat was pretty much a gimmick. It's not used on the Hw80 full power kit. It was used on the Weihrauch 25 & 26mm kits. I have installed a bunch of these kits and I've never seen more than 15 fps difference between the high and low tophat settings . It's usually ten fps. I've discussed this with Tom at Vortek. I haven't seen a stepped tophat from him in months. He may have abandon the concept.
Thank you for adding your knowledge to the thread and being a gentleman.
Be well
Ron
Ron;
I do agree that you can only do so much with spacers.
But I have found that, in a properly sprung system, a LITTLE spacing can make a rather large difference.
I don't have data about JM or Vortek springs, having dropped their use some time ago in search of utmost log term consistency, but using a Titan XS #1 (0.127" WD, 0.827" OD, 31 coils in 11") as an example on an LGV that is using an OEM piston and seal, a 0.160" spacer at the rear, increases ME by a bit over 1/2 ft-lb. from slightly under 12 ft-lbs to over 12 ft-lbs
Do bear in mind that it is less than 1 W.D. and yet the difference in ME is a full 5%
By the same token, increasing the spacing to 0.195" produced nearly no difference, and at 0.275" the rifle would not cock/latch. Which would seem to indicate that the LGV had "maxed out" its internal capacity.
In yet another instance, a D54 with an ORing sealed piston and a Titan XS #4 spring (0.142" WD, 0.890" OD, 28 coils in 9.9"), originally tuned for the 8.49 grain pellets was yielding 8.7 ft-lbs with the H&N's BFT (9.57's), but a spacer of 0.320" made the energy jump to 12.11 ft-lbs, that is 3.4 ft-lbs, or 39% of energy gain from a relatively thick spacer, but perfectly doable in most large formats. Dropped down to a 0.200" spacer and the output became 11.7 ft-lbs, which is perfect for WFTF level shooting. Again, showing the higher versatility of larger compression chambers.
I have found this seemingly inconsistent/irrational behaviour almost across all the calibers/energy levels, which means that some testing may be beneficial in most cases; so I have made sets of 5 calibrated spacers that allow me to go from 0.0400" to 0.430" and they are a useful tool to decide where to trim a spring or how to make a top-hat.
;-)
Spacing (front and rear) and weighing of the piston/front end of the spring are just tools in the tuner's toolbox.
And, as fickle and variable as airguns are, it is interesting to leave no stone unturned, sometimes you may find that the stone is a geode ;-) !
Keep well and shoot straight!
HM
Hector,
If my dull wits are firing on all synapses, spacing the rear of the spring would increase preload, and spacing the front of the spring would increase preload and the effective mass of the piston?
If so, what difference does the relative changes in the weight distribution of the whole mechanism make to the performance of the gun?
Thanks for your patience.
-
Hector thanks for trying to get things back on track. The thread has gotten very deep into some technical topics I never understood and find quite interesting. It's also been a place where some people have come to aire their biases and ego. I'm not interested in either.
To get back on topic, it was suggested earlier that spacers could be added to JM kit to pick up the power. This is true but there's only so much you can do with spacers. In this application I seriously doubt there's enough room for spacers to make up the difference in power between the two kits. The spring is simply weaker.
Keeping this fair and current, the Vortek stepped tophat was pretty much a gimmick. It's not used on the Hw80 full power kit. It was used on the Weihrauch 25 & 26mm kits. I have installed a bunch of these kits and I've never seen more than 15 fps difference between the high and low tophat settings . It's usually ten fps. I've discussed this with Tom at Vortek. I haven't seen a stepped tophat from him in months. He may have abandon the concept.
Thank you for adding your knowledge to the thread and being a gentleman.
Be well
Ron
Ron;
I do agree that you can only do so much with spacers.
But I have found that, in a properly sprung system, a LITTLE spacing can make a rather large difference.
I don't have data about JM or Vortek springs, having dropped their use some time ago in search of utmost log term consistency, but using a Titan XS #1 (0.127" WD, 0.827" OD, 31 coils in 11") as an example on an LGV that is using an OEM piston and seal, a 0.160" spacer at the rear, increases ME by a bit over 1/2 ft-lb. from slightly under 12 ft-lbs to over 12 ft-lbs
Do bear in mind that it is less than 1 W.D. and yet the difference in ME is a full 5%
By the same token, increasing the spacing to 0.195" produced nearly no difference, and at 0.275" the rifle would not cock/latch. Which would seem to indicate that the LGV had "maxed out" its internal capacity.
In yet another instance, a D54 with an ORing sealed piston and a Titan XS #4 spring (0.142" WD, 0.890" OD, 28 coils in 9.9"), originally tuned for the 8.49 grain pellets was yielding 8.7 ft-lbs with the H&N's BFT (9.57's), but a spacer of 0.320" made the energy jump to 12.11 ft-lbs, that is 3.4 ft-lbs, or 39% of energy gain from a relatively thick spacer, but perfectly doable in most large formats. Dropped down to a 0.200" spacer and the output became 11.7 ft-lbs, which is perfect for WFTF level shooting. Again, showing the higher versatility of larger compression chambers.
I have found this seemingly inconsistent/irrational behaviour almost across all the calibers/energy levels, which means that some testing may be beneficial in most cases; so I have made sets of 5 calibrated spacers that allow me to go from 0.0400" to 0.430" and they are a useful tool to decide where to trim a spring or how to make a top-hat.
;-)
Spacing (front and rear) and weighing of the piston/front end of the spring are just tools in the tuner's toolbox.
And, as fickle and variable as airguns are, it is interesting to leave no stone unturned, sometimes you may find that the stone is a geode ;-) !
Keep well and shoot straight!
HM
Thanks Hector. I resized the piston seal today with hopes of freeing up some power. Before buttoning up everything, I cocked the gun with the stock off. The spring was as close to coil bind as I could visually tell. As I suspected spacers aren't a practical option as mentioned earlier. Anyway the seal still had more drag than I like. I went against my preference to run in the seal and turned it down. Which took forever to reduce the drag by approximately half. The net gain was ten fps with the Vortek, zero with the JM kit. While I don't think the tube is out of round, I believe it is tapered. The drag lessons towards the TP. I will probably try a factory parachute seal to accommodate the widening bore.
Right now the JM kit is in there. Still terribly under powered but the accuracy is insane. I need a break from this project so I'll leave here and comeback to it where I get a traditional parachute seal.
Thanks for checking in.
Ohhh @ Jim in the UK
The threaded length of the trigger block is 18mm. So add 18mm to the erroneous preload measurements I gave you earlier.
Everybody have a great weekend
Ron
-
Ron,
Enjoy the weekend! ;D
Having a compression tube that widens at it base(ie. transfer Port) does not sound like a good thing!
If I understand history correctly Air Arm's only break barrel model, the Pro Elite, had the inverse problem. The compression tube narrowed closer to the transfer port.
This lead to piston heads breaking off and almost sent the company into Bankruptcy.
Until you get the compression tube dimensionally correct, the idea of an expanding parachute seals seems like a band aid on a bigger problem. ???
Think about honing the comp tube?
-Yogi
-
Ron,
Enjoy the weekend! ;D
Having a compression tube that widens at it base(ie. transfer Port) does not sound like a good thing!
If I understand history correctly Air Arm's only break barrel model, the Pro Elite, had the inverse problem. The compression tube narrowed closer to the transfer port.
This lead to piston heads breaking off and almost sent the company into Bankruptcy.
Until you get the compression tube dimensionally correct, the idea of an expanding parachute seals seems like a band aid on a bigger problem. ???
Think about honing the comp tube?
-Yogi
Thanks Y. I'm not even sure at this point the bore does widen. The drag lessens towards the front this may be a result of the finish. It does get shinier towards the TP.
The gun with the standard Vortek kit and broken in Vortek piston seal shot JSB 8.44 970fps which is 17.6fpe. In the same condition with a loaner 22 barrel it shot 14.66 FTTs 765fps for 19 fpe. I'm pretty sure that's about right for a R1. I could be wrong.
I just finished another 22 R1 with the same kit. It made the same 19 fpe with the same pellets and barrel that I borrowed to test mine. If my tube is bad then his must be too. It's unlikely that two out of two R1s built a decade apart both have bad tubes.
The rifle with the standard Vortek kit makes a little over 18 fpe in 20 caliber. That falls between the power of the 177 & 22 which seems to make sense.
When I over sprung the Vortek kit to make a cannon out of it, it introduced a whole slew of accuracy problems. Not to mention the gun was less enjoyable to shoot.
The rifle with the 20 caliber barrel and JM kit makes 15.8 fpe.. The rifle cocks and shoots nicely and is very accurate. I need to step back from this project a while. I'll continue to use the gun in this arrangement and see if the power increases with breaking in as the ARH website suggests. I think the spring is simply less powerful than the Vortek or OE due to its smaller wire and outside diameter. Sometimes a duck is just a duck.
I think my final arrangement will likely be a standard Vortek seal & PG4 kit. I'll just have to accept that 18 fpe may be this particular guns practical limit in 20 caliber.
Be well
Ron
-
I think my final arrangement will likely be a standard Vortek seal & PG4 kit. I'll just have to accept that 18 fpe may be this particular guns practical limit in 20 caliber.
Be well
Ron
I think getting 18 FPE and good accuracy is not much of a sacrifice - power shouldn't be the end goal away. You can tell when you have a balanced firing cycle ;).
-
Update : in the never ending search for power, accuracy and manners I disassembled the gun with the intention of further loosening the fit of the JM piston seal. Much to my surprise after a few days and few hundred pellets the piston gravity slides under its own weight. It slides smoothly and evenly. The seal held pressure in compression stroke at ever point of the stroke. I don't believe there's anything wrong with the compression tube or power loss from leakage. Although no signs of dieseling I decided to switch the gun from moly to Krytox to quiet a creaky Vortek spring kit. I'm running a 28 coil spring in the Vortek PG4 kit. They normally come 26.5 coils in their full power kits.
With 20 caliber barrel.
JSB Exact 13.81 actual weight - 742 Avg, 8 ES, 2 SD & 16.88 fpe
H&N FTT 11.73 actual weight - 828 Avg, 5 ES, 1 SD & 17.85 fpe
With 22 barrel and no other changes
JSB Express 14.35 - 692 Avg, 60 ES, 22 SD & 15.26 fpe
JSB Exact 15.89- 679 Avg, 36 ES, 12 SD & 16.29 fpe
Obviously this gun and or barrel doesn't like JSBs
H&N FTT 5.53" 14.82 actual weight - 752 Avg, 7 ES, 2 SD & 18.61 fpe
H&N FTT 5.54" 14.82 actual weight - 735Avg, 11 ES, 2 SD & 17.77 fpe
Gun isn't very accurate and shot cycle kind of harsh. While apart I removed the JM seal and reinstalled the used Vortek piston seal. The Vortek seal had more static drag but wasn't tight either. I added a 0.125" thick steel washer above the top hat to increase piston weight and preload to reduce piston bounce.
JSB Express 14.35 - 750s so terrible I didn't finish the string approximately 17.9 fpe
JSB Exact 15.89- 725Avg, 20 ES, 6SD & 18.58 fpe
Again this gun doesn't like JSBs. No surprise.
H&N FTT 5.53" 14.82 actual weight - 774 Avg, 5 ES, 0 SD & 19.71 fpe
H&N FTT 5.54" 14.82 actual weight - 767 Avg, 12 ES, 3 SD & 19.35 fpe
Better than the > 1fpe gain from the last set of changes, the shot cycle has completely changed into something I'm proud of. Plus it shoots one round hole groups in my ten yard basement test range.
At almost 20 fpe, accurate and has a great shot cycle is where I stop with this project. I'm still annoyed that it sounds like an old gate spring if you cock it slowly but it's shooting as good as I ever wished for, so I will have to live with the noise. Between having intermittent accuracy issues from both the Dampa mount and the parachute seal and not following my gut and chasing well meant suggestions this hasn't been an easy project. I'm not always the sharpest knife in the draw but I make up for it in shear determination. Outside side of the creaky cocking, I'm really happy with the outcome now.
Oddly I did another R1 for a friend and his came and went to both of our satisfaction in a fraction of the time. It was his suggestion to switch the gun over to 22 that I think was key to the good end result. When I get more 20 caliber ammo I will switch it back to 20 in this configuration just to see what happens. Until then it stays this way. The 177 barrel goes up for sale and I will give the JM kit to someone who'll pay for a tune with the power levels disclosed within this thread.
Be well all.
Thanks everyone who contributed.
Ron
-
Being anal pays off in the end ;D
Good work my friend.
-
Being anal pays off in the end ;D
Good work my friend.
Lol! That's a good way of putting it.
Thank you
Stay cool
Ron
-
Hey Ron,
Glad you got it worked out ;).
Kirk
-
Please see my previously posted R1 chrono results using the older .152 wire Vortek PG2 spring.
Along with the Aussie Custom Air seal for comparison.
-
Please see my previously posted R1 chrono results using the older .152 wire Vortek PG2 spring.
Along with the Aussie Custom Air seal for comparison.
Thanks for posting that Robert. Vortek doesn't offer the larger 0.152" spring in a kit anymore. The current offering maxes out at 0.148“. The OE R1 spring was also a 0.152" spring. I'm quite happy with the power and the way the gun shoots now. I'm happy for you if you feel the same way about yours.
Take care.
Ron
-
I do not think I am anything but a DIY amateur in the art of tuning an airgun.
I do follow the basic 1st steps of cleaning all and de-burring the compression tube before proceeding any further.
I have asked alot questions here on GTA and have been well advised by many members including Ron ( Bayman ).
I have learned some basic skills - but again I do not profess to be any kind of expert.
My chrono results table for my two well adjusted and mannered R1's is how my R1's have progressed.
They both are accurate and well behaved in the shot cycle in my opinion.
( My R9 5mm with a ARH Hornet Spring is in my opinion a smoother shooter and equally as accurate )
-
I do not think I am anything but a DIY amateur in the art of tuning an airgun.
I do follow the basic 1st steps of cleaning all and de-burring the compression tube before proceeding any further.
I have asked alot questions here on GTA and have been well advised by many members including Ron ( Bayman ).
I have learned some basic skills - but again I do not profess to be any kind of expert.
My chrono results table for my two well adjusted and mannered R1's is how my R1's have progressed.
They both are accurate and well behaved in the shot cycle in my opinion.
( My R9 5mm with a ARH Hornet Spring is in my opinion a smoother shooter and equally as accurate )
Do you have a chronograph results table for the 20 caliber R9? If so I like to see it. I got one of those guns too.
Thanks
Ron
-
My R9 started as a .22 from Flying Dragon - I moved .22 barrel to the R1 and put a .20 barrel on the R9
( also added a TH and SS washer to piston end of spring )
-
My R9 started as a .22 from Flying Dragon - I moved .22 barrel to the R1 and put a .20 barrel on the R9
( also added a TH and SS washer to piston end of spring )
Nice. Your R9 is also making about a pound more muzzle energy than mine. Good job.
Thanks for furnishing the table.
Take care
Ron
-
Im a PCP guy with just a single springer, looking to add to the stable, that I am working on at this time. What is Krytox GPL-205 that you guys seem to love so much? What are its properties and where do you use it. Where do you buy some. Other than lubing springers is it suitable in auto loading powder burners?
-
I'm sure ED will chime in on this 1 ;D
-
:o
I'm sure ED will chime in on this 1 ;D
Yep.....think I'll pontificate again on that space station lube called Krytox. ;D
"What is Krytox GPL-205"
After years of using diesel prone "dinosaur oil" based molly bearing lubes (like molly paste and tar) in my HW springers I read about the non-dieseling Dupont lubes called Krytox. My first test was using Krytox GPL205 in my .177 Beeman R9 and since the Krytox stuff is 'spensive (compared to the molly lubes I used previously) I bought a 1/2 ounce tube, literally slathered the R9 internals with the stuff deliberately getting some on the face of piston seal to test the Krytox non-dieseling claims that was made by the poster. Here is a pic of the remaining Krytox from the 1/2 ounce tube.........
(https://i.imgur.com/XCgzCBF.jpg)
Sure enough, even though the R9 was "excessively lubed" there was no dieseling and further testing was done over time...........
(https://i.imgur.com/EJSxLJ4.jpg)
"What are its properties"
Here is a Dupont chart showing various properties and formulations of Krytox ..........
(https://i.imgur.com/qoL5lt9.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/51O4FWm.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/Y2Dbdu3.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/jUY0olo.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/6zcKAEd.png)
"where do you use it"
For me Krytox grease and oil is a "one lube for all" and I replacing all my diesel prone dinosaur oil based greases and oils for all lubing except for parts that weren't easily disassembled like the cocking lever rivet and such. For those areas I use Krytox oil.
"Where do you buy some"
I order mine on-line from a few different vendors............
https://www.amazon.com/Chemours-D12431805-Krytox-GPL205-Grease/dp/B073Y4557Y (https://www.amazon.com/Chemours-D12431805-Krytox-GPL205-Grease/dp/B073Y4557Y)
https://www.chempoint.com/products/chemours/krytox-greases/krytox-greases-for-general-purpose-applications/krytox-gpl205-grease (https://www.chempoint.com/products/chemours/krytox-greases/krytox-greases-for-general-purpose-applications/krytox-gpl205-grease)
https://tmcindustries.com/products/krytox-gpl-205-grease?variant=32024429592643 (https://tmcindustries.com/products/krytox-gpl-205-grease?variant=32024429592643)
"Other than lubing springers is it suitable in auto loading powder burners?"
I don't know but Krytox has been around for decades and it's used in many industries like automotive........
(https://i.imgur.com/zh9AxkE.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/hiAGIrb.png)
Concerning different Krytox formulations the GPL number gives a lot of info. For example, the first digit of the number GPL-1xxx denotes oil and GPL-2xxx denotes grease. The second digit denotes the additive with GPL-x0x denotes no additives, GPL-x1x denotes "extreme pressure grades", GPL-x2x denotes "anti corrosion grades". The third digit denotes the viscosity of the base oil. GPL-xx4 denotes iso grade 68, GPL-xx5 denotes iso grade 150, GPLxx6 denotes iso grade 220 so on and so forth..........
(https://i.imgur.com/7x9Dx1z.png)
Some things I prefer about the inert Krytox lubes from personal experience.
1. Krytox lubes don't diesel. Matter of fact they can be used for pure oxygen applications.
2. Krytox doesn't "outgas" and thicken with age like petroleum based lubes. Here is an example of some molly paste that thickened in a closed container for a couple years to the point that a socket head cap screw was supported on the edge of the container with only half of a couple threads embedded in the paste..........
(https://i.imgur.com/Q2gK841.jpg)(https://i.imgur.com/49r76NW.jpg)
Since the molly paste had a petro based carrier the thickened grease was reconstituted to proper viscosity with mineral oil.
3. During the first couple years of Krytox use, after the "Plain Jane" GPL205 test I used the GPL 225 formula with the "anti wear and corrosion additive" because it seemed like a good application for springer internals. Well, just for grins I degreased a couple steel nails, lubed one with a light coat of "Plain Jane" GPL-205 and left the other bare. Then I wrapped the nails with a paper towel soaked with a strong solution of salt water, then left them for a couple days in the salty paper towels. Here was the result..............
(https://i.imgur.com/sQgYKe4.jpg)(https://i.imgur.com/T8QbxRZ.jpg)
LOL...since I don't strip my springer parts and soak them in salt water solution for a couple days I felt that the "Plain Jane" GPL-205 was perfectly adequate for all my internal lubing.