BSA R-10, now what?

[Racing]

Yeah, look. This thing happened ok? 
Need to revisit though, came out a little to good to be true.. new day tomorrow.



Yep. Barrel in place too. Fact is, so is the shroud. Out of steel though, on 28*1. Diffusor, steel as well. 5,5mm through hole and then a couple of elongated "windows" aīla FX on 9mm diameter. Yep. Runs as true as they come.. Sports a 1/2"-20 UNF up front of course, have test fitted a moderator of own desing.. works as intended. Shroud, diffusor and so on still "in the raw" though. Plan to just spray the various pieces down with regular flat black for the moment.
Shroud works vs a "dead stop" on the diffusor, renders it canīt go anywhere really and.. it sports a 26mm o-ring up there to seal it off. Out rear reused the stock BSA piece. Works.. what can i say?

As noted, one of them "universal" regulator doo-dads is on its way. That being said though i came to take a closer look at the stock setup and as it turns out that "cylinder" ontop there that mates to the valve via an allen bolt up front.. that isnīt really used. At all. Whatīs up with that? Cause that could very well be used for a plenum as i see it.
I came to realize this as i opened up various openings/orifices today and thought to myself.. hey! Wait a minute here! Just wait a god *amn minute! 
This ainīt right!
So come tomorrow, Mrs is a registered nurse so i asked her to bring me some cc marked pumps..iīm going to check the volume of that there space.
IF that works out, bingo. In such a case scenario it needs to be figured out how to seal it off and thatīs about it.

[Racing]

Spite it beinī the missus birthday, thus cutting work short, a very productive day.

Sry to say, with a leak at the poppet n seat. Opted to dress it with an insert of my own and i guess i effed up somewhere.? No biggie, will just have to revisit that and take care of the issue.

That being said..
Came to have a sit staring at that block that the thing sports stock. OH is there EVER a number of openings within that needed attention to make performance increases happen! 
So set out to handle that why now various such openings within the block is set at 6mm flat. N for a difference it made.. But getting ahead of myself here.
So. Spent a bit of time handling all of that, making sure it no where got the best of me.
That "chamber" within the block i thought might be "to the rescue".. nope. On a 17mm diameter rendering that all it hands if i seal it off AND max that out is a mere approx 12ccīs.
In short.. nope.
Fact is, it might be iīm off here but it seems the designer went to great extent to make sure the gun would be limited no matter what and indeed if the info iīve been handed is correct, which i see no reason for it not to be, even the FAC version was offered at a mere 18fpe.
Hm.
Thus i made the call to go where i need to as far as this, seeing the power goal in mind. In short i guess that i either go the route of a universal pressure regulator (which is en route from China as we speak) and this in liason with some sorts of "extension" to work as a plenum of USE ... or a setup where i enlarge that chamber up there AND elongate it to make it all happen and then use a Huma or whatever to regulate the pressure.

But. For now, have cleaned the entire block up and so forth thus running the thing on system pressure, 232 bar.



As such i got to at least try it aaaaaand.. this larger shroud i filled per some high end mans ideas and due the now way more "constrictive" diffusor the shroud indeed does its job.
I got to try it out before closing shop for the day at least, just a few shots out the door into a birm. Me n the gun inside, and iīm REAL happy to report that the thing has become friggin DEAD silent! 
Literally.
Now.
True. No idea of exit speeds for them pills but just from the feel of it they at least were not going "12fpe" speeds.. iīll tell ya that much. So in short this has come to prove good promise.

Come tomorrow, time permitting, iīll adress that leak at the valve and take it from there. Then thereīs all "the small bits", like indexing the moderator vs the barrel and what not. If that pans out, going to dress that moderator to some closer yet tolerance baffles. Thinking 5,5mm through would be the ticket, not that the thing is loud where weīre at.

Also got to redo the indent for the "ball bearing" locking setup. Need to look into that further too, i want to arrive on something that feels 101% positive in use.

[rkr]

FAC guns make around 28-30 fpe with 18.5" barrel but that seems to be the practical limit without modifications.

[Racing]

Yeah, so ok.
All of you that work on your own guns knows where iīm coming from on this but the truth of the matter is that some guns are just.. cursed.
Yeah.
This is one of those.

I redid the valve, as an entity, 4 times before i figured out that the innards and the outside were not in para. As youīve read previous i opted to go 2mm valve stem on this unit and thatīs where all my issues started.
As far as the valve that is.
Iīve opted to go 4,4mm transfers and in doing so iīm a rather firm believer in that as weīre getting into the "under the seat", well air becomes REAL turbulent at that stage why i often opt to go a tad larger.
Seeing where this is heading (regulated and all) i opened her up a TAD in as much i made 5,5mm into 6 flat. Ok. Now. As there was runout i was unaware of.. just donīt go there.
Do not 
Suffice it to say that in the end i had butchered that valve body up such that it was time for the BIG hammer why the now valve seat in there is out of a local bearing bronze available to us here under the name of JM-7.
That is one TOUGH bearing bronze and should as i regard it be compared to the current crop beryllium and what not. It doesnīt stop there tho.. leaks. It leaked no matter what up ītil that point right and as i was fed up beyond belief with that *rap i cut an o-ring groove into the outer circumferance of the new seat as well. Enough leaking already!!
Set out to fab me a poppet, indeed on a 2mm spindle and seeing the now 6 flat under the seat i opted to go 7 flat on the poppet.
It all worked out in the end and... *sigh of relief*

Well.
At this rate i came to figure that for some reason the hammer spring tension alone would "lean into" the poppet under load and make the thing leak. Say wut? Thereīs friggin 232bar in there!
Might be so.. So for once i actually went backwards and handed the valve a somewhat stiffer return spring, which seems to have alleviated the issue. To little shooting done yet to be conclusive though and NO it is NOT a matter of hammer bounce. (Albeit iīm absolutely sure thatīs present as well).

On the "lockup" then. That turned out to be an exercise in patience! If EVER!
What i did was first up go closer tolerance on the actual steel ball. For various reasons, i guess, BSA opted to make the cavity for it 7mm, then using a 6mm diameter ball.
Figured that must have been the easy way out (thinking production here) why i opted to hand my own probe a 6mm hole just one not as recessed. Now, this turned into sorts of a thinking exercise in as much that the ball is on 6mm and thus the entry hole for it needs to be the same while in turn the spring for it should rather not be.. as itīs there to gain support from the actual ball in case.
This ALSO brings that the drilled hole for said ball to get in there needs to be on 6mm, which hands that the spring WILL have room to wiggle around a tad. For better for worse.
I soon enough realized that as i went up markedly in spring pressure the bolt would freeze up. Seize just about, and by any measure become impossible to work.
As it turned out this was in short a matter of to LITTLE freeplay. By removing 0.15mm on the other circumferance of that stock plastic insert the bolt/probe rides in this "drawer upon drawer locking effect" was removed. Mind you, the innards of said plastic tube STILL a rather snug fit vs the probe, per stock. Where iīm at with this right now is that the actual banjo bolt has been slightly flattened out, per RKR ideas, on the surface that takes up the thrust upon firing in the recess where it rests upon firing (in battery, in locked mode) and then in turn a rather stiff spring has been installed for that steel ball that now works on a 6mm recess on the probe.
That recess btw has had its edges every so slightly rounded off to ease entry as well as disengagement. Truth of the matter is that SO far this seems to work rather well!
Before i had to keep my thumb on the actual bolt handle to keep the thing shut under fire, now.. i just cock the thing, close and fire. If this holds true further up the road.. weīll see but THUS far it shows promise at least.

Now.
Am i saying the thing is working?
Yes! Yes it does, and what it does on a 232 bar fill with the hammer spring backed ALL the way out as far as itīll go is stiffin them 20 grain H&N hollow point slugs out the snout at 950-960fps.
Keep in mind that all openings/orifices within the stock block that resides upstream of the valve has been opened up to 5,5mm flat. A FAR cry from how these things are put together from BSA.
But yes. She works and in fact as of current hands more than i bargained for even. Is this an issue? Nope. Not at all, in fact is shows good promise of things to come as that regulator show up one of these days.

However. Thereīs a caveat to this and that is that accuracy suffers. I therefore ripped the barrel out of there again and tossed it on the lathe. While both chamber and crown has seen work previous it wasnīt with any overly attention to detail, which it sure got now!



Yeah yeah! Whatever! Whatīs your point here? My point is that i now had me an R-10 on a 550mm barrel doing what i asked for and then some to be quite candid. However.. lackluster as far as accuracy.
Barrel. Now. I havenīt had time to spend a friggin MINUTE tuning the thing as of yet and hope to get to that asap. However.. more pitfalls..
Huh?
Yeah.
I installed a cut down hammer spring for an Impact right.. well that stock rather feeble fine thread adjuster by BSA didnīt take especially kindly to that so it broke in half.
Curtains...
So there i was. Now having to either scavenge what i needed as far as threads on the lathe yadda yadda.. or simply make myself a new end plug.
I opted for the latter, now sporting a more common 1/2"-20 UNF for adjuster threads and simply made me an adjuster out of way more sturdy constructed steel.
So all good.
That end plug then out of aluminium. Bad move.

Huh?
The stock thing is out of steel and the allen capscrew that comes in from the top, keeping the actual breech to the tube, is an M4. Ditto then for the "hidden" allen cap screw just by the barrel, and that thing bolts into the valve housing which is out of brass right.
Aluminium used by me just some generic stuff.. and that there screw up front, the threads on the valve housing had seen better days. Trust me on this..
Never did i expect tho..

I was sitting there firing a few shots, like maybe 10 or so into it, when i was rewarded with a giant BOOM and the entire rifle came apart! 
No lie! Weīre literally talking two pieces here! Barrel incl breech and scope cape off while the tube et al stayed in the stock. I must have looked like a friggin seagull in heat staring at the mayhem!

Ok.



So what in reality is keeping the gun one piece is two pieces of M4 cap screws? Yep. Yes it is. I figured as such that if them M4īs had done the trick for 30yrs.. then M5īs should friggin do it forever so.. out the taps and what not came.
I went to great length making sure that both screws were NOT sized "generic" but were of the absolute maximum length, and thereby engagement, possible and back together the thing went.

Thatīs basically where i let off for the night. Piece is back together and if let to for as much as 30mins come tomorrow iīll be testing this thing out the door into the birm on the outside.
Itīs time it showed what itīs made of after all of this trouble.

On the note of exhaust note, or more to the point the lack thereof, i am as noted now running on a 28*1 tube for the shroud. Thatīs not the end tho cause the barrel is wrapped with regular Wettex too, which has turned out to be a blessing if ever.
The through hole on the diffusor is on a mere 5,5mm remember and thereīs to bluntly put ample "windows" cut into the diffusor ahead of that 5,5mm hole, making the shroud very very active - and it shows.
The LDC up front in turn is a 5 chamber jobbie of mine and the two stacked.. the thing is DEAD silent in operation seeing them 950-960fps. VERY very happy with that. Just what the Dr ordered.

Anyways.
Fresh take come tomorrow.. and weīll take it from there. If it all goes down the drain as far as accuracy.. might be me on that one. With the piece apart i checked pill depth on chambering and as it turns out i MIGHT have gone like maybe 2mm to deep. Set it to 18mm flat if memory serves.
Thereīs of course a zillion different views on the matter but for an airgun... iīm real happy as the pill either ends up ON the rifling or in VERY close proximity to it.
What iīm saying is that if it turns out accuracy is suffering no matter what iīll cut like 10+mm off and start over. No harm..

That being said plz also take into consideration that this thing still sports a "pellet probe" up front. This is counterbored on 4,1mm which is a rather large loss in swept area vs the 4,4mm transfers and this at a point where that area is needed the most really.
Idea to setting up for a a retractable probe maybe? Maybe so.. but IF so iīll spend a bit of time figuring out the whats and what nots first..

When that reg arrives of course the idea is for them say 45J to happen on as low reg pressure i can get away with and that WILL entail getting all flow issues solved no doubt.

Whatever.
To be continued lads..

[Racing]

Productive day boys.
I got around to having a sit with the piece, firing at regular airgun targets on a birm outside and.. nope.
Accuracy IS lacking and as iīve tossed n turned every other stone as far as that only one thing left to do and that was redo the chamber.
So this time out with a WAY more anal approach to it all, checking progress as i went.
Where iīm at right now them 20īs are juuuuust presented to the rifling by the probe so.. I guess weīll know soon enough.
I KNOW the barrel used is capable of downright insane levels of accuracy why it in other words is up to me to make it happen.
Well, challenge accepted i guess.



As noted, that there ordeal with the gun literally coming apart.. a new aluminium end plug, going to M5 threads yadda yadda yadda. Well. That kind of became a pet peeve to me in a hurry why i opted to revisit the stock part, which is out of steel.
That stock adjuster.. nope. Broken. Wouldnīt take the heat. Ok. So what i did was take a 16mm endmill to the plug on the lathe and then in turn turn me a flanged insert for a juuust press fit threaded 1/2"-28 UNEF. Secured it using the TIG welder.
Then of course making me a "adjuster nut" on the same thread. A little bit of tinkering iīd say and we were all good. Both looks n feels like a ZILLION times stronger.

Then for the bolt lockup.
Having dived into this a tad more hardcore now i have to, again, hand it to RKR that heīs on the money. What MIGHT come is that i mill a "track" on the outside of the breech to hold a steel ball and a spring for that "banjo fitting" to overcome. Thatīll all depend...
However.
For now i settled on bringing the Dremel tool out and reshape that recess on the receiver that the banjo fitting is walked into a tad.. What i did was sorts of "J hook" it and meanwhile also grind a flat on the banjo fitting AT an angle, in an attempt to interlock the two.
This.. kind of works. I guess. At least the days where said recess about slingshots the banjo outta there are gone.. That much is for *amn sure.

Mind you, challenging the indent on the probe for the spring loaded steel ball, which is stock,is no doubt part of the game as well. As is that "adjuster" at the absolute rear end/top of the receiver.
Main fact still is though, as is stock the thing WILL jump open upon firing and this spells death to a lot of things..  accuracy and what not not the least.
If i recollect what was the net result as i increased bolt handle weight on El-Cheapo recently.. yeah.
Yep. Gonna go there too.

So. As of today a way more pronounced recess for the banjo fitting to bite into. Way more spring pressure for the steel ball (again, donīt forget about the tension adjuster out back) and iīm as a final straw going to fab a fresh way heavier bolt handle for the piece come tomorrow, brass end and all.
If all that doesnīt end the ills here.. time to cut that track into the receiver and implement a ball n spring.. Cause stop bolt movement i will. At all cost.

This though, has to be said, was way more involved n trial and error than i had ever thought. Spent hrs at end playing around with it, really questioning myself as i went.
So i sincerly hope my "plan of attack" here will suffice.



Uhu. As i more often than not end up using the hammer spring for an FX Impact as theyīre as available as they are to me.. You get the picture. As such iīd say that the various fasteners and so forth are way more on par now vs stock, and i presume this will make the thing dead stable.
That there with setting chamber depth in turn...
"Slug" probe.
Hm. The probe o-ring i opted to use is way thicker and more sturdy vs stock. Yes, this also leaves that the absolute end there of the probe doesnīt sport all that much diameter material all said.
But. it also hands that the o-ring in case is "mallable" in a manner a thinner one is not, rendering it might be itīll take all them "jumps" presented by the mag and so forth.
Whatīs more, it might then as such be an idea to chamfer each "port" on the mag to cater to this, if i decide to go that route.
If anyone else has objections please voice up!



That all being said the unit IS an airhog. To the point itīs just folly. So. I believe it has been dubbed a "blast master"? Anyways, thought iīd get away cheaping out just making a singular rod.. bad move.
So will fab me a new one and at that try my best to make it "drawer interlock" too. Giving thought to setting that bracket at a slight angle to make it become out of sequence with the hammer motion.
That way itīll be no worries to cock the hammer per normal but as the actual HAMMER will want to bounce there will be a "drawer on drawer" interlocking action happening.
Well.

That blast master and the heavier bolt handle up tomorrow.

[rkr]

It is worth noting that a blast tamer did not work in my .172 BSA. I believe the reason was that the 2mm stem valve was still open when it was hit by the BT.

[Racing]

I hear you.

The basic idea though, wouldnīt it be of worth having the blast tamer at a slight angle to the path of the hammer?
Thinking as such that it needs to get into operation on the hammer rebound right and if the tamer is slightly skewed this will interlock the tamer vs its bracket and thereby keep the hammer from going any appreciable amount rearward.?

If the 2mm stem version doesnīt work wouldnīt that be a matter of weight of the tamer?

[Racing]

"The price of progress is trouble" - John Kettering
Tonight... all the stars aligned guys. They really did and this is where it got messy.. ROTFLMFAO
Color me impressed now cause THIS R-10 is as of tonight all it was NOT just a few days ago.

First up. Airhog. Figured as much that loads of this was due hammer bounce, and indeed. Blaster tamer in its own rights then (made one, ready to install btw), and as you all know a valve poppet on a 2mm spindle diameter.
I came to question the entire hammer setup and how it performs. First up, as i add ALL the pieces of that hammer together it comes down to approx 68 grams, and that is quite a lot to be candid.
I opted to leave my home brew spring guide out due this, which at least handed me a more sane 57 grams. But rest assured.. it IMO needs to come down a tad still. 45 grams total would make me happy iīd say. Hammer is hardened btw and needs to be annealed before cutting into it, as rehardened when done.

Anyways. The hammer sports a pin of sorts at its front face, which is what hits the poppet spindle right. As i checked how things moves around that hammer is capable of ,in theory, pushing the entire valve housing out of the tube they both reside in with quite a margin, to no avail really. In turn i had the poppet spindle out the valve housing a healthy 5mm too (iow more than stock (for most PCPs even)).
So a bit of iteration and basic math later what i did was turn me a shim to drop into the hammer side of the tube on 4mm thickness. This makes the hammer come to a dead stop like 1,5mm before it bottoms out vs the valve housing.
Using a shim, out of aluminium, as i wanted to be able to backtrack need be if my thinking was off. Well, it wasnīt. Now all of a sudden the thing behaves like itīd never done anything else. Seeing the end results here that pin on the hammer will become shorter and i will take that aluminium shim out. One thing at a time though right..

I can tell right now that albeit monumental amounts LESS air is let out of the valve, total, she still spits them 20īs out the snout at around 950. Which as i regard it is ample and then some seeing the task at hand.
So.. a clear win on every count on that one.

Now. It may VERY well be that a SSG setup is called for still, or too more to the point maybe, but already where weīre at this thing is now USABLE, and that for more than a few mere shots.
Happy camper in other words!

Now. The other design criteria was for silent, and did we EVER go silent! 

Shroud tube has been replaced with one on 28*1mm. In other words an inner diameter of 26mm, which is a rather far cry as far as total volume goes vs the stocker.
However, the most imperative part of it all here is the new diffusor out of steel. First up with ample "windows" cut into it ahead of the through hole using an endmill and then with a rather minimal through hole, which is doable as this diffusor is threaded directly to the new 550mm barrel (now approx 535). As we can control linearity of the diffusor vs the barrel the through hole can be kept rather tight vs caliber, which in practice makes the shroud way way way more "active" all said.

Enter..
Some of the high end mans these days use filler within their shrouds, and now so do i. KISS. Keep It Simple Stupid, so what that means is that regular Wettex kitchen rag is wrapped around the barrel and secured with regular electricians tape. Then the shroud tube is set atop that and done deal.
The shroud ends at like a "shelf" on the diffusor, and one with an o-ring groove cut into it too. In short as you push the shroud forwards it will seal, well.

The diffusor then ends, the other side of the shroud, in an industry standard 1/2"-20 UNF thread to install a LDC.

As some of you are aware i make my own LDCīs and take pleasure in "unwrapping" the secrets thereof. Thus my own made moderators makes the store bought variety into an absolute joke in comparsion - my own for very simple reasons being that much more effective.
I for one see NO reason what so ever for a PCP being loud. In fact i find it kind of defeats half the purpose as a PCP CAN be had to be REAL silent. As it turns out, even WAY more so than i ever imagined.

Well. Tonight i came to experience a whole new LEVEL of silent, iīll tell ya that much! The LDC in case is a 5 chamber jobbie and the baffles within.. letīs call them sorts of stylized washers of sorts. The trick, to my findings, as in No1, is to keep the through holes of the baffles and the end cap to an absolute minimum and when so applied.. results are there. I absolutely guarantee it.
For this to happen though it becomes a game of linearity and concentricity why ALL of my home brew LDCīs HAS to be installed, torqīd down hard and checked for runout, on a lathe using a dial indicator.
Iīll say well is good enough as runout is held within hundreds of a millimeter.. yep. Iīm that anal about this stuff.

Let it suffice to state that all of the through holes, from the diffusor onwards, are on 5,x mm diameter and it works so well itīs laughable.

Last thing tonight before closing shop me and friend Mats took this BSA over to the camping table i use for platform as i try PCPīs out.. finally ready for use. Modified hammer stroke, weight n all. Yadda yadda...

I fired the thing and we stared each other down like two idiots. The silence was broken by the FX radar app stating.. "942 fps". We kept staring at each other like, XXX just happend?
We thought that seeing how silent it was weīd be looking at MAYBE 400fps.. not so obviously! We were in a very healthy 900 midrange! 

Looked at Mats going.. redo?!! And i did.. same net result just the voice on the app stating "948fps". We literally burst into laughter going.. "This is insane! Just insane!".
The thing is SO quiet youīll hear a pin drop MEANWHILE you fire the *amn thing, i kid you not!
Iīve NEVER experienced the likes!!

As you can see from the picture i opted to make me a new bolt handle. 10mm steel axle and a 22mm brass ball. A way heavier bolt handle. Issue is.. need to shorten that like 5-7mm to be happy with it, that aside.. Yep. This, as a total, just plain works.
Bolt handle, "J hook" cutout for the banjo fitting, stiffer spring for the steel ball and in turn a modidied detent on the probe. She stands DEAD still upon firing. Thus of course sealing the gun up as our creator intended, lending a gun sp silent SPITE the performance level weīre talking itīs nothing short of insane.
Just downright insane i tell you.

Nope. Didnīt get around to accuracy testing, seeing the fresh chamber and so forth, that will be on the agenda come tomorrow. I KNOW the barrel brand installed to work VERY well with slugs and i sincerly hope itīll deliver. If not, drawing board time me thinks. But.. iīll refrain from concluding anything what so ever until iīve tried it all come tomorrow.

Yeah. That and up the road the install of an external reg, coupled with a thought through layout of the stock now unused internals to be a plenum volume.

If she hands even CLOSE to the accuracy i hope for come tomorrow this will no doubt be my new prized "ratter", mission accomplished in such a case scenario.


... to be continued.

[Racing]

Yeah, so results are in and all in all my hopes came true.

Sheīs an absolute tac driver. Weīre talking hole in hole at 30 meters using them 20 grain H&Nīs and done deal.

So took her ratting tonight, sorry to say tho no rats. Buuuut.. theyīll be there, rest assured.

A few reflections this close upon..
First up, seeing how she works a SSG is no doubt in order. More to the point, she needs one - direly. As i bump hammer spring to far the valve wonīt even close so.. At that rate though weīre pretty far up the speed ladder in all honesty so as is, no harm no foul.

Seeing that she needs a bigger air bottle. Itīs that simple, and as one of them external bottle mounted regs is en route i guess iīll be ordering a bottle shortly too. Just.. i believe iīll stay with the smaller diameter around 50mm+.

The mag that came with IS rather knackered. Seen better days and although it DOES work i have a hard time seeing itīll cope long run, and where weīre at i plan to keep this piece for a while.
Enjoy it.
Both as a target gun and a ratter. Keep in mind i got this unit as payment for a job i did on another PCP why i really donīt mind spending a few bux on it.
Been sorts of a problem child to an extent, i guess, but them issues ironed out weīre there.

In short, thatīs us. Right there.

Where iīm at i set the thing to work around 920-950 all depending. In short from approx 50 to 55J and that will suffice and then some for whatīs at hand. Cause make no mistake, this IS a "ratter" primarily. Thatīs the main purpose and task for the piece.

So.. a SSG surely. I want to lighten the hammer at the same time, which means i have to anneal it to be able to cut into it in a usable manner. Sure. Got a few of them coromant cutters for the lathe but truth be told as itīs as simple as it is to anneal hardened steel into something way more mallable i fail to see the reason not to.
Didnīt get to it today but iīll also make me a new bolt handle asap. Nothing wrong with it really, the one i made, apart from being overly long and due that cumbersome.
On that note, that there idea with a "splitable" bolt probe.. iīm not so sure about that but then again have no ambitions to redesign the entire gun.

But again.
A sight of releif today really as it handed me the results on target it did, REAL happy with that.
Next up will be trying both the 16 grain slugs as well as the 16 grains Rabbit Magnums. Not that it really matters all that much to be honest, there IS ammo it does seem to love so..

[Racing]

Well, if nothing else i got around to making myself a SSG setup today.
Loaded day at the shop though to trials will have to wait for tomorrow.

[rkr]

We want photos 

[Racing]

Ask n ye shall receive!
LOL



As noted. Valve seat material is REAL hard being a bearing bronze. We get yellow metals known as Johnson Metal around here and that there is JM-7. To hand an idea, over the yrs iīve also for instance used it for valve seats in engines. As in race engines.
Yes.
Iīm a material nerd. Guilty! 



Indeed. A simple SSG setup, and as it turns out.. it was indeed needed. Yep, cut into the lovely stock at the rear, sorry to say. No two ways about that tho as the rifle needed this. Difference is quite staggering actually.
Now giving thought to a blast tamer too, but.. well, weīll get there i guess.

As is, after having the thing apart for the oumptieth time, i must have disturbed the barrel/shroud/mod in some manner cause accuracy is direly lacking. So will need to dig into that asap. Baffle clipping i suppose.
Today tho.. work on a customers Reximex Zone, in an effort to make it even more quiet.

[Racing]

Yeah. On that. Believe i found the culprit, to be blunt.
The ONLY part of the LDC i didnīt make myself was the endcap, and as iīm an engineer iīm effin lazy by nature right. Thatīs the reason one BECOMES an engineer in the friggin first place dagnabit! 

Anyways. Got this box/pile of 1/2"-20 UNF thread protectors i keep taking off rifles, that never gets used right. Stared into it and THERE it was! One that already had a press in bung installed and drilled!
PERFECT! Just a great endcap for the moderator of mine, no work involved what so ever apart from the 3pcs of M3 holes.

...or.. not so much. At all actually.

I sincerly hope i donīt have to explain this one huh? Made a new one from bar stock steel and enough already. Yes. It is on the rifle and YES iīve checked the entire enchillada with a dial indicator. DuH!!

That being said.
I replaced the barrel right and as such followed the stock BSA idea of countersinking a hole for the transfer port to work off of. I did so.. like 1mm to deep and in hindsight it MIGHT be that 1mm was on the wrong side of heaven..
Point being that iīm not so sure that brass transfer port will handle the extra millimeter cause the last times iīve had the receiver off the block that one o-ring has been shot to smithereens..
So i believe what i need to do is check with the dial calipers for set depth here and need be turn me a fresh transfer port. Not the end of the world is such a case scenario.
It truly explains a lot tho, it really does.

That to whits end tho.. that SSG seems to do what itīs been asked to. As much as the rifle turned REAL quiet as was it sure didnīt turn any louder from playing around with that SSG, keeping to the muzzle speeds weīve already arrived on.
Kind of, of course, sends me thinking if itīd be an idea to.. "check" what can be had from her but.. nah. Iīll refrain from that. As noted, "horsepower monsters" iīve got enough. Not the goal in this case.

But.
With a diffusor n moderator setup dialed in coupled with a transfer port thatīll keep SHUT... hm. Might very well be exit speeds will jump a tad at the settings iīm at anyways.
Thatīll be fresh! That endcap? TBH iīm kind of unsure how it all ruled out, how i got this phenomenal accuracy IN SPITE of that off center hole.... No matter i guess as now the new one in on there by every page in the book.

As i had to help this dude with his Reximex Zone today.. that kind of ate up time you wonīt believe! On that note, those of you owning a Zone, itīs REAL simple making the piece WAY more quiet as the stock setup might LOOK like a shroud.. but itīs not. Itīs just a tube, sporting a moderator solution aīla the venerable P-15/35. Ie; a heap of cones shoved down that tube to make a moderator out of it.
So.
What i did was replace the stock "end" of the barrel (which is nothing but a piece of steel with an o-ring groove cut into it) with one off of an FX Impact. Presto, active shroud.
Then filled the shroud using regular Wettex rags, as per always, and the thing went.. just about "numb" noise wise.
In short good move and it sure did the trick.

Them Zone units.. handed what they crave theyīre sorts of a modern take on the P-15 and REALLY REALLY REALLY good guns! Accurate you wonīt believe!
Nah.
A winner in my book and sorts of a pity not more enthusiasts "discover" them.

[rkr]

Ask n ye shall receive!
LOL



As noted. Valve seat material is REAL hard being a bearing bronze. We get yellow metals known as Johnson Metal around here and that there is JM-7. To hand an idea, over the yrs iīve also for instance used it for valve seats in engines. As in race engines.
Yes.
Iīm a material nerd. Guilty! 



Indeed. A simple SSG setup, and as it turns out.. it was indeed needed. Yep, cut into the lovely stock at the rear, sorry to say. No two ways about that tho as the rifle needed this. Difference is quite staggering actually.
Now giving thought to a blast tamer too, but.. well, weīll get there i guess.

As is, after having the thing apart for the oumptieth time, i must have disturbed the barrel/shroud/mod in some manner cause accuracy is direly lacking. So will need to dig into that asap. Baffle clipping i suppose.
Today tho.. work on a customers Reximex Zone, in an effort to make it even more quiet.

I was hoping you had come up with a simple telescopic center rod solution for the SSG that would require no stock carving. I think I should use SSG for my .172 as well. While blast tamer has been working really well with all my "normal" BSAs I actually managed to double the air usage with it in this 2mm valve stem gun. Normal BSAs are designed for short and snappy valve opening needed for 12 fpe guns, 3.2mm valve stem and a very stiff valve return spring that also helps it keeping the valve from rocking side to side. Add short hammer throw and an excessive amount of spring force is needed if you want to keep the valve open for longer times.

Are you saying that you fill the over the barrel part of the shroud with wettex? What I've been doing is to drill some 1mm ventilation holes at the very breech end of the shroud and then fill the rear of the shroud with felt to slow down the exiting air.

[Racing]

On the Wettex, yes.
Exactly, and it seems to work very very well. Friend turned me to try Wettex out for subsonic use a while back and at first i thought he had lost his marbles entirely. As it turned out though, not so.
That stuff sits together better than one would think. Cheap, available basically everywhere and does seem to stand up to use over time too.

Telescopic huh?
Just a brief thought but.. i wonder if that wouldnīt call for a shape but round? Just me thinking here that any other shape would be way easier to control as far as torsion?
Then again, a SSG in its simplest form.. they work and work rather well so a small cutout all said isnīt the end of the world. At least to me it isnīt.

On the poppet in turn.
As youīre aware thereīs a screw on "lid" for the valve. First up i conedrilled the entry point for the air on the housing, then opened up the 4 holes a tad.
That lid though sports a plastic washer stock, one that iīve done away with.
But the point, to us, is that it also sports a threaded hole. If iīve read your posts correctly you for one use that hole to limit poppet movement?
What i did for trials was drill yet another hole in the poppet, from the opposing side, and install a 3mm short piece of rod. This to aid poppet movement in becoming as linear as i can ask of it.
What iīll be doing here within time though is turning an entirely new poppet sans any "shelf" for return spring use and then braze the hole  on the lid and drill it out to 2mm that one too.
Then again, am i reading you correctly in that a physical limiter makes the valves performance more consistent? Or put another way, easier to dial in for any given use? Why iīm asking i guess is obvious. Then again, again if iīve read you correctly, youīre running at a WAY different performance level vs what iīm currently doing, and got any intent upcoming to do with this unit.

On a general whole in turn, having seen n experienced what i have with this R-10, indeed itīs been more "intricate" and labor intense to get going vs many more contemporary designs. You recall i souped up a Hatsan Factor in 22cal for a guy a while back? Or more to the point helped out doing so. That was also a puff "strangled" in numerous places for whatever reason. This a non reg version but.. it turned into me making a plenum for it regardless as that proved to be the simplest manner in which to "jump" all that there and get performance to rise. Nothing special, at all, but none the less.
I believe theyīve redesigned that at Hatsan since, especially so for their "new" series Factor-s.

I appreciate that the R-10 was developed in a country where 12fpe rules reign but that being said i kind of fail to see the reason as to why itīs "strangled" in such a complex manner and at that many points internal.
Me thinking itīd suffice with one or at the most two such points?
Ditto with the stock shroud setup. What gives there cause as far as iīm concerned that whole mess is there for looks and done deal?
Cause, the thing is.. itīs no doubt a quality built rifle. Thinking both materials and design here. Iīve been a bit puzzled by all that anti tamper cr*p the Brits have to put up with and as far as iīm concerned really fail to see where thatīd stop anyone from hopping up their PCP just cause they happen to live in Britain.

Now knowing all to well what internal mods on the block brings.. I still vote for the need of a plenum. Doesnīt have to be something extreme by any measure, just a more "stable" platform for the gun to draw from, and if iīve come to understand this correctly the newer R-12 and its monoblock isnīt all that much better?
From a design POW isnīt that really to sell the gun rather short? Point being that there IS a rather vast market outside the UK isnīt there? What iīm saying, i guess, is that iīm giving thought to making myself an entirely new block to try out. Got an industrial production mill standing around after all with all the bells n whistles to go with it.. and aluminium isnīt exactly overly expensive, not even 7075 is. Such a block "hogged out" should bring all the plenum we could ever ask for?

Anyways.
For today, put the thing back together and see where that takes me. Iīll be measuring the need for transfer port length and make myself a new one need be.
Btw.
Seems the stock on mine must have shrunk slightly or similar. As i bolt the mechanics of it back itīs barely that the sear setup clears. Will look into that as well.

[Racing]

She sure keeps me on my toes, iīll tell ya that much. Uhu.. fresh transfer port and indeed then a full millimeter longer. From having shot the piece like 50 rounds tonight it seems itīs keeping together, which it didnīt previous due blown o-rings.
So yeah. That sorted.

Now.
I kind of nurtured the idea of that flow loss grande at the pellet probe. Tranfers on a whole is on 4,4mm which suffice and then some for what iīve got in mind here but..
Being efficient yadda yadda. So. As youīre aware this unit sports a probe with a threaded "end" to it why i took to turning me a pin probe, or "slug probe" if you wish.
In doing so i also reasoned back n forth as far as breech sealing...and one thing led to another. Per usual.

Thereīs this black colored plastic doohickey thatīs installed like both sides of the mag well. Connected by a sorts of "bar" at the top. Welp.. I cut the larger piece of that off and then turned a replacement out of brass.
This brass piece then sporting like a "forcing cone" if you wish and whatīs more.. two holes drilled through the breech into this brass ring/spacer that i threaded M4 to keep it in place under load.
Huh?



Yeah. So the barrel got a sorts of recess/pocket cut into it using an 8mm end mill .. and of course to hold an o-ring. One that seals vs the probe in a more conventional manner.
This o-ring sees "crush" vs said brass piece above and presto..
Thus the typical probe seal, the actual probe carrying an o-ring, per BSA standards.. not so much in this case.

So. What was the outcome of this?
Well. It at least left me kind of flabbergasted cause.. one thing at a time right and that modified transfer port now makes sure of less leakage no doubt. Thatīs the only practical difference though vs whatīs been done as far as the probe and the outcome kind of made me end up in sorts of awe cause..
Before we had like 950-960fps using them 20 grain H&Nīs... and that jumped QUITE a bit..now handing 1010-1020fps.
Probe pin then on 1.5mm diameter.

In my world this goes to show how imperative differences in flow can be especially where we turn the air stream. As been noted before porting indeed helps in this department too no doubt.
But thatīs a VERY healthy jump of 60fps from.. nothing. Really.

However.
The more i get involved with this BSA the more questionable decisions show. Iīve reported on the threads on the valve thatīs for the one screw of two keeping the two major parts together.. that was shot right why i replaced that simple n dirty by going M5 vs the stock M4.
Be that as it may iīve come to take this thing apart a time or two and sure enough.. them now M5 threads on the valve housing, which is brass, sure let go. Again.
I appreciate that most mans of PCPīs donīt take what we do here into account, all good. But it kind of turns frustrating to be beat by c*ap like this over and over.
So this time out, enough already i tossed a Heli-Coil in there and done deal. Thus both the screw at the front, per above, is now into steel and out rear it certainly is stock even. Just.. on M5 since a while.
Ditto.
The cast aluminium breech.. that sure is starting to strike me as being made from repopped Coke cans from the really far east, been done as cheaply as theyīd go.
So yeah.

Like the hole for the transfer port on the breech. Itīs starting to turn oval..why iīm honestly giving thought to sleeving the piece using high end steel to deal with that once and for all.

Hm. Thereīs been enough of these pitfalls as far as this gun IMO and.. i need to think ahead. I really do. Poor choice of materials?
Well.
Donīt get me wrong here, knowing all to well that the BSA R series guns sure got its followers, but.. to an extent iīm sorry to have to say yes partly on that one.
They sure could have made the various parts more sturdy as far as iīm concerned cause itīs like theyīve regarded MTBF like a sport of sorts.. Not cool.

That doesnīt detract from what the gun is over all though. Not one yota even. Iīm truly looking forward to making this a regulated gun once again as that "universal" reg shows up, but.. one thing at a time and while waiting on that to show up from China i can sure still make good use of the piece.
Rats sure wonīt notice the difference! Iīll tell ya that much!

Will that breech seal solution of mine stay? Let me put it this way.. Iīve been down the road of souping PCPīs up more than once and the gun room of mine at the shop sports a fair amount of PCPīs so able.
That is NOT the intent of this BSA tho, as explained previous. Idea STILL is for a "reasonably" poweful ratter and at that rate 45-50J will sure as eff do the trick all said.
So where iīm at this is starting to evolve into a game of holding back really. Cause make no mistake.. them 4,4 transfers, the FX Impact hammer spring, the SSG and so forth and so forth amounts to one thing.
Capacity.

Be adviced what i just recently experienced with "El-cheapo" sending them 20 grains H&Nīs right through "the wall" like it was going out of style, the LabRadar touching down at 1288fps.
To MOST that is a FAIR amount of power from a 177cal i bet and the real point of the excercise here is to keep with that but do so holding back.
Why?
Well, first up iīve got no real use for a 100J 177cal PCP. If power is the name of the game iīd say 177cal is the wrong place to start. it DOES however keep advantages, to me.
100 meters and in. All good. One of the benefits of sending a 20 grain 177cal pill downrange at that rate is that itīs WAY more flat shooting than for instance a 22cal gun shooting 25,4īs.. or a 25 shooting 34īs... Altho the latter two no doubt carries more oumph downrange it, IMO, comes down to the task at hand.
Rodents.
N see the rodents wonīt notice the difference, at all. Theyīll be just as dead from a 177cal as a 25cal. Hence my reasoning here, in all honesty being someone that just "discovered" the caliber in case.

Mind you. Tonight what made me company on the rats was my FX Wildcat Mk III in 25cal. It sure gets the job done too, and leaves a bloody mess to be quite honest doing so. But... more died in as far as holdover and what not. Just comes with the territory, albeit.. being me... this Mk III being setup rather docile at like 85J or so.
Thing is, thus far iīve been all about the 25 mainly and the 22s for.. SnG. The 177 never crossed my mind really. Until i noticed that H&N market their 20 grain slugs in that caliber.
To be quite honest iīd gladely try even heavier pills in 177. Wouldnīt mind say a 24 or 25 too.. Just to see whatīs there to be had.

Be that as it may for all intent and purposes the 177 IS more flat shooting vs the other two and as long as said 177 then carries enough oumph to push the rodents over even at range.. all good.

If thereīs ONE thing lacking yet though.. i need a fresh mag for the piece. The original the former owner beat the living c*ap out of, most likely when he came to rape the probe end.. Iīve patched the stock one mag together and.. it works again iīd say. But all said.. i need fresh parts on that count, for the long haul at least.

[Racing]

@ rkr

Given it a tad of thought, would it be an idea to fabricate a separate thimble? Thus handing more freedom as far as dimensions, sealing, set chamber depth, replacing barrel at will way simpler and so on.

Think FX Impact et al here.

[rkr]

@ rkr

Given it a tad of thought, would it be an idea to fabricate a separate thimble? Thus handing more freedom as far as dimensions, sealing, set chamber depth, replacing barrel at will way simpler and so on.

Think FX Impact et al here.

I have thimbles in all my BR guns. In addition to what you say it allows barrel indexing and easy barrel cleaning from breech end as the barrel is easy to take off. I have my actual barrel in my .172 BSA attached by three grub screws through the side of the breech. My experience with lead bullets at 1000ish fps is that you need to scrub the barrel with a bronze brush every 100-200 shots if you want to keep the best accuracy. What I don't like is o-rings inside the barrel, I have them on probe in all my guns. It's easy to replace them when they are on the probe and you can hone the thimble much tighter without an o-ring there which makes the bullet feed in absolutely straight in relation to the barrel.

If you want to shoot 24-26 grainers swap in a .172 barrel with 9" twist and use NOE bullets. That allows similar ballistics and trajectory as .22lr subsonics with 1/30th of a cost / shot.

The breech flex thing these will fix it mostly, longer plate connecting the two halves of the breech with extra screws and one piece scope mount over the thin ridge connecting the breech halves.
IMG20220718112730 by abbababbaccc, on Flickr

[Racing]

Yeah.
Iīm starting to debate with myself if a thimble isnīt called for.
Tried her out today a little more in depth and no doubt.. accuracy issues still. Point is, the only thing i can come to think of that could be off is set depth for the pill.
Didnīt really look all that hard into that when i did the pin probe, which is whatīs still on there. Accuracy with the pellet probe, way better.
I guess it to part is a matter of knowing what to expect too, as PCPīs can hand accuracy itīs halfways insane .. put into context.

Anyways.
I turned me a bung out of steel on a 5mm through hole. Countersunk that 8mm hole for an o-ring to 1.8mm total. Then welded that bung to the end of the barrel where after i dressed it all down to given "thickness".
Worked and worked rather well iīd say.

As noted tho. Accuracy. Or the lack thereof more to the point. Even tried pills expanded towards 4,60mm.. no difference. With or without mod, no difference.
Then.. life isnīt all PCPīs.. , had loads of work to handle today.. But come tomorrow iīm going to pick the thing apart again, for the oumptieth time, to check set pill depth and if off.. just turn yet another probe end.
Or..
Might be a better idea to drill out the existing probe and thread for an M3 scew and then turn that down to 1.5mm dia. Handing a probe with adjustable depth setting?

[Racing]

@ rkr
(or anyone else thatīs in it at a more profound level.)

Seating depth.
As some of you might be aware i shoot a bit of blackpowder too. Both muzzle loaders and breech loaders. The ML guns.. letīs just leave them behind for a moment here and instead look at the breech loaders.

Many of these use a paper or linen cartridge. One of the "issues" this brings is the lack of "firing platform" in as much that most such cartridges lack the ability to really reference the pill.
Thus iīve had great great success from using bore-riders. Be it an old Sharps, Starr, Chassepot, Monkey tail or what have you.. all of them benefit GREATLY in the accuracy dept from the use of bore-riders.

For a modern cartridge gun, different matter all together as the brass casing HANDS a platform and thus..

Many into more "involved" blackpowder shooting even go as far as breech seating the pills separately and then shove a loaded up "blank" cartridge behind that pill.
Then thereīs those claiming that breech seating is of no consequence.

If we step back a pace or two here and take a look at what WE`RE doing using PCPīs thereīs in fact quite a bit of similarity to early breech loading blackpowder guns.

No matter how we turn this the chamber of a PCP will always have to be greater in diameter vs the bore. Question isnīt really if but by how much.
At the same time most pills for PCP are claimed to be from lead alloy but truth be told i kind of fail to see to what degree.? Come to think of it, iīve never even SEEN a quote as far as what BHN is relevant.
Suffice it to say that most PCP (or airguns on a whole) pills are real real soft why i wonder if theyīre not really just plain lead? Anyways..

That such a soft pill can deform from being FORCED into the rifling i guess is anybody clear.. while at the same time we see sub par performance for setups where the pill is "left as is" in the chamber. Ie; hasnīt taken to the lead in of the rifling even.

Would that render that seating depth should be checked for basically ALL combinations of probe/chamber/pill?
If you ask me, then yes.
But.
To what degree? Where to we draw the line as far as presenting the pill to the bore? Has the workings of using a bore-rider even been touched upon by the PCP industry?

What iīm saying is that powder driven guns these are NOT and as such they present issues all by themselves, while at the same time we find similaritys vs for instance later blackpowder era guns.

Donīt get me wrong here. Of course weīre to a degree splitting hairs here but.. the basic facts iīd say still holds true. Or do they?