4th test (CP1 co2 "MatchMaster" pistol)

4th test (CP1 co2 "MatchMaster" pistol)

Joined: November 17th, 2006, 3:51 am

April 15th, 2017, 6:48 pm #1

Another stop on the CP1 co2 pistol journey.


Set myself a goal of a total of 300 foot pounds out of 1 12gr. with all shots inside of 3% varation AND something close to 5 foot pounds of energy. 60 shots at 5 foot pounds would be ideal, but I'd take 65 shots at about 4.6 foot pounds or 55 shots at 5.4 foot pounds (anywhere in that range).

Broke it in first, made a shroud, adjusted the trigger, found a reddot sight size I liked, and shot it enough to break it in.

Basically taking care of the little things while waiting for warmer weather for testing. Been 77-81F for all of the following tests.

HAve to pick some percentage of varation for comparison, and I really don't care if you pick 2%, 3%, 4%, 5% or 8%...so long as it's the same. Knowing co2's nature one's a rifle/pistol gets tuned up (when it drops off in speed, it drops off like a narcoleptic vulture) so I reworked the old tests with a 3% goal. (After all, what good is a low powered .177 if it's not accurate and consistant?).

To keep it kind of even, kept the same tin of 8.44gr. JSB's for all tests.

TEST #1. As issued (just well broken in):

3% for 42 shots...average ve. 509fps/ 4.86fpe / 204 3% foot pounds per 12gr.

TEST #2. Next serious testing, adjusted the striker spring tesnion down a little (by reducing the spring guide's "top hat" to the point where there was just a tiny touch of compression when the end cap went back on)and put a "buffer pad" on the face of the valve.

In retrospect, don't think the buffer did "jack".

3% for 48 shots...average 508fps/ 4.84fpe / 232 3% foot pounds per 12gr.

TEST #3. Got all serious about it and reduced the internal valve diameter by sleaving the inside. Basically restricting both gas flow and volume a little bit.

(you'll have to look up previous posts on that to get shot strings)

3% for 51 shots...average 508fps/4.84fpe/ 247 3% foot pounds per 12gr.

TEST #4. Went back inside and reduced the striker weight by 20%. Are those that say that 20% won't be noticed....but it hasn't worked out that way for me.

So with the striker reduced from 35 to 28grams (just picking 1oz/28grams as "good 'nuff").




3% for 59 shots...average 509fps / 4.86fpe / 287 3% foot pounds per 12gr.

DERN...so close....like 4% of goal close.

What I did notice in all of this is that the velocity didn't change. Thinking on that, can only conclude:

1. It's a gas hog in .177 as issued...squirting out more co2, mostly later than be used to drive the pellet. LArger bore (they do make it in .22...and in .25 in Europe) might make more use of that than a .177.

(To counter balance that, does seem (from other tests) this one is a bit fast compared to others. Just the random nature of acceptable tolerances of mass produced parts most likely).

2. After all the above, it's still shooting just as fast as when it started....so it might be time to look into strangling off the transfer port a little bit.

3. Looking at this shot count, think I rushed it a little and didn't let the pistol warm up to ambinat temp. Started slow, stayed a little slow until it found it's balance (warming up from outside temp. vs cooling down from shooting at a measured pace).

4. Likely, at back yard ranges, I'd have gotten to shot # 64-65 before noticing the velocity decline...just takes a lot of velocity change to be noticed at 15-25 yards.

SO....for that one reviewer that claimed +80 shots...my first reaction was "BS". Now I'm thinkin it "could be". Would be some "ifs". IF he was just plinking at short range and jusdging by the point of impact change (which would be pretty high....like 6-8%) AND if the pistol was spitting out pellets in the 4.0 to.4.3 foot pound range.

NOPe...still thinking BS.
Last edited by gubb33ps on April 15th, 2017, 6:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reply
Share

Joined: March 28th, 2002, 6:54 pm

April 15th, 2017, 8:17 pm #2

to...

#1...be as easy/cheap to manufacture as possible

#2..heavy enough to forestall valve lock under anything near "normal" temperatures

So all of them have strikers heavier than would be best for efficiency.

Now, I haven't messed with high end dedicated match pistols, and it's likely those have more carefully designed strikers. It would be interesting to see what some ten meter hi buck co2 pistols had for striker weights.

If your gun didn't lose any velocity with 20% off the striker,and gained shots, why not go lighter?
Last edited by classicalgas on April 15th, 2017, 8:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reply
Share

Joined: June 9th, 2016, 11:17 pm

April 15th, 2017, 10:18 pm #3

Another stop on the CP1 co2 pistol journey.


Set myself a goal of a total of 300 foot pounds out of 1 12gr. with all shots inside of 3% varation AND something close to 5 foot pounds of energy. 60 shots at 5 foot pounds would be ideal, but I'd take 65 shots at about 4.6 foot pounds or 55 shots at 5.4 foot pounds (anywhere in that range).

Broke it in first, made a shroud, adjusted the trigger, found a reddot sight size I liked, and shot it enough to break it in.

Basically taking care of the little things while waiting for warmer weather for testing. Been 77-81F for all of the following tests.

HAve to pick some percentage of varation for comparison, and I really don't care if you pick 2%, 3%, 4%, 5% or 8%...so long as it's the same. Knowing co2's nature one's a rifle/pistol gets tuned up (when it drops off in speed, it drops off like a narcoleptic vulture) so I reworked the old tests with a 3% goal. (After all, what good is a low powered .177 if it's not accurate and consistant?).

To keep it kind of even, kept the same tin of 8.44gr. JSB's for all tests.

TEST #1. As issued (just well broken in):

3% for 42 shots...average ve. 509fps/ 4.86fpe / 204 3% foot pounds per 12gr.

TEST #2. Next serious testing, adjusted the striker spring tesnion down a little (by reducing the spring guide's "top hat" to the point where there was just a tiny touch of compression when the end cap went back on)and put a "buffer pad" on the face of the valve.

In retrospect, don't think the buffer did "jack".

3% for 48 shots...average 508fps/ 4.84fpe / 232 3% foot pounds per 12gr.

TEST #3. Got all serious about it and reduced the internal valve diameter by sleaving the inside. Basically restricting both gas flow and volume a little bit.

(you'll have to look up previous posts on that to get shot strings)

3% for 51 shots...average 508fps/4.84fpe/ 247 3% foot pounds per 12gr.

TEST #4. Went back inside and reduced the striker weight by 20%. Are those that say that 20% won't be noticed....but it hasn't worked out that way for me.

So with the striker reduced from 35 to 28grams (just picking 1oz/28grams as "good 'nuff").




3% for 59 shots...average 509fps / 4.86fpe / 287 3% foot pounds per 12gr.

DERN...so close....like 4% of goal close.

What I did notice in all of this is that the velocity didn't change. Thinking on that, can only conclude:

1. It's a gas hog in .177 as issued...squirting out more co2, mostly later than be used to drive the pellet. LArger bore (they do make it in .22...and in .25 in Europe) might make more use of that than a .177.

(To counter balance that, does seem (from other tests) this one is a bit fast compared to others. Just the random nature of acceptable tolerances of mass produced parts most likely).

2. After all the above, it's still shooting just as fast as when it started....so it might be time to look into strangling off the transfer port a little bit.

3. Looking at this shot count, think I rushed it a little and didn't let the pistol warm up to ambinat temp. Started slow, stayed a little slow until it found it's balance (warming up from outside temp. vs cooling down from shooting at a measured pace).

4. Likely, at back yard ranges, I'd have gotten to shot # 64-65 before noticing the velocity decline...just takes a lot of velocity change to be noticed at 15-25 yards.

SO....for that one reviewer that claimed +80 shots...my first reaction was "BS". Now I'm thinkin it "could be". Would be some "ifs". IF he was just plinking at short range and jusdging by the point of impact change (which would be pretty high....like 6-8%) AND if the pistol was spitting out pellets in the 4.0 to.4.3 foot pound range.

NOPe...still thinking BS.
Is it possible that the lighter striker and same striker spring cancelled each other out? Have you thought about trying a stronger valve spring and/or lighter striker spring?

All I can say about the 80 shots per cartridge is that MY gun won't do it in stock tune, unless we're only talking about a pellet making it out of the barrel w/o regards to velocity or accuracy.
Reply
Share

Joined: December 30th, 2008, 6:16 pm

April 16th, 2017, 12:42 am #4

to...

#1...be as easy/cheap to manufacture as possible

#2..heavy enough to forestall valve lock under anything near "normal" temperatures

So all of them have strikers heavier than would be best for efficiency.

Now, I haven't messed with high end dedicated match pistols, and it's likely those have more carefully designed strikers. It would be interesting to see what some ten meter hi buck co2 pistols had for striker weights.

If your gun didn't lose any velocity with 20% off the striker,and gained shots, why not go lighter?
I made a Titanium striker hammer and valve stem for a Pardini K60 CO2 pistol in the late 80s. The standard Pardini steel hammer weighed 11.25 grams, but the titanium substitute weighed 5.91 grams.

The lightweight, titanium hammer did not seem to perform better than the standard one. And to the downside, it, and various aluminum versions caused more galling problems that offset any benefits. Turns out that steel was a fine material, not to mention economical.

So, the project itself was more intriguing than the final results, because the learning experience was priceless. Turning titanium on the lathe was both challenging and fun. It required construction of a water cooling system which was the challenge. The fun? Holding 1/2 handful of titanium shavings at shoulder height, lighting it with a match, letting go, and watching it disappear before it hit the concrete floor.
Last edited by MB-BOB on April 16th, 2017, 12:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reply
Share

Joined: November 17th, 2006, 3:51 am

April 16th, 2017, 1:00 am #5

Yeah...am calling "BS" on that stock 80 shot count, unlss anything that managed to exit the barrel counts.

Relize that I may be to goal (60 shots/ 300 foot pounds/ all inside 3%) already. Using one pellet for testing kept things even along the way, but being this close, will have to try a string with heavy pellets...if the past is a guide, should be slower but earn a little more energy and likely eek out a a shot or two more.

Only two 12gr. "Match" guns I'cve had were a Hammerli Master pistol (years back...lost it in a flood 2005) and an Alfa Proj rifle.

HAd them both apart, but never got a weight on the strikers, but remeber being imprssed with how small/light they were (and as much of a PIA as it is to get that Alfa apart, I'm not likely to do it just to get the weight now).

With a bit of work, got an old Crosman 2000 (the old version...not the 2009 PCP) to manage 75-80 shots, and those are no were near the refinement of the first two.

From those three, know a single 12gr. can give (depending on temperature) 70-90 good low varation shots per 12gr.

The 20% lighter striker did work...moved the shot count up 9 shots (about 18%) with no loss in speed. So if heavy weight pellets won't get there, that's the direction I'll keep going...whittle off a few more grams from the striker, test, repeat, until I see an acutal drop in average velocity.
Reply
Share

Joined: September 7th, 2001, 3:52 am

April 16th, 2017, 1:19 am #6

Another stop on the CP1 co2 pistol journey.


Set myself a goal of a total of 300 foot pounds out of 1 12gr. with all shots inside of 3% varation AND something close to 5 foot pounds of energy. 60 shots at 5 foot pounds would be ideal, but I'd take 65 shots at about 4.6 foot pounds or 55 shots at 5.4 foot pounds (anywhere in that range).

Broke it in first, made a shroud, adjusted the trigger, found a reddot sight size I liked, and shot it enough to break it in.

Basically taking care of the little things while waiting for warmer weather for testing. Been 77-81F for all of the following tests.

HAve to pick some percentage of varation for comparison, and I really don't care if you pick 2%, 3%, 4%, 5% or 8%...so long as it's the same. Knowing co2's nature one's a rifle/pistol gets tuned up (when it drops off in speed, it drops off like a narcoleptic vulture) so I reworked the old tests with a 3% goal. (After all, what good is a low powered .177 if it's not accurate and consistant?).

To keep it kind of even, kept the same tin of 8.44gr. JSB's for all tests.

TEST #1. As issued (just well broken in):

3% for 42 shots...average ve. 509fps/ 4.86fpe / 204 3% foot pounds per 12gr.

TEST #2. Next serious testing, adjusted the striker spring tesnion down a little (by reducing the spring guide's "top hat" to the point where there was just a tiny touch of compression when the end cap went back on)and put a "buffer pad" on the face of the valve.

In retrospect, don't think the buffer did "jack".

3% for 48 shots...average 508fps/ 4.84fpe / 232 3% foot pounds per 12gr.

TEST #3. Got all serious about it and reduced the internal valve diameter by sleaving the inside. Basically restricting both gas flow and volume a little bit.

(you'll have to look up previous posts on that to get shot strings)

3% for 51 shots...average 508fps/4.84fpe/ 247 3% foot pounds per 12gr.

TEST #4. Went back inside and reduced the striker weight by 20%. Are those that say that 20% won't be noticed....but it hasn't worked out that way for me.

So with the striker reduced from 35 to 28grams (just picking 1oz/28grams as "good 'nuff").




3% for 59 shots...average 509fps / 4.86fpe / 287 3% foot pounds per 12gr.

DERN...so close....like 4% of goal close.

What I did notice in all of this is that the velocity didn't change. Thinking on that, can only conclude:

1. It's a gas hog in .177 as issued...squirting out more co2, mostly later than be used to drive the pellet. LArger bore (they do make it in .22...and in .25 in Europe) might make more use of that than a .177.

(To counter balance that, does seem (from other tests) this one is a bit fast compared to others. Just the random nature of acceptable tolerances of mass produced parts most likely).

2. After all the above, it's still shooting just as fast as when it started....so it might be time to look into strangling off the transfer port a little bit.

3. Looking at this shot count, think I rushed it a little and didn't let the pistol warm up to ambinat temp. Started slow, stayed a little slow until it found it's balance (warming up from outside temp. vs cooling down from shooting at a measured pace).

4. Likely, at back yard ranges, I'd have gotten to shot # 64-65 before noticing the velocity decline...just takes a lot of velocity change to be noticed at 15-25 yards.

SO....for that one reviewer that claimed +80 shots...my first reaction was "BS". Now I'm thinkin it "could be". Would be some "ifs". IF he was just plinking at short range and jusdging by the point of impact change (which would be pretty high....like 6-8%) AND if the pistol was spitting out pellets in the 4.0 to.4.3 foot pound range.

NOPe...still thinking BS.
Almost all my Co2 pistol fiddling has concentrated on souping them up for greater power, but your 59 consistent shots at 500+ FPS is way better than I would have imagined. Good job.

Like Scot, I'd be curious how an even lighter striker would behave, but I doubt it would do any better. I agree with him that it could be more prone to valve-lock issues in higher temps. I've had 2 Pardini K60's and an FWB Mini 2 that were sadly inconsistent in temps as low as 80 degrees; sometimes to the point of utter uselessness. I suspect light strikers at least partly to blame.
Reply
Share

Joined: March 28th, 2002, 6:54 pm

April 16th, 2017, 2:25 am #7

I made a Titanium striker hammer and valve stem for a Pardini K60 CO2 pistol in the late 80s. The standard Pardini steel hammer weighed 11.25 grams, but the titanium substitute weighed 5.91 grams.

The lightweight, titanium hammer did not seem to perform better than the standard one. And to the downside, it, and various aluminum versions caused more galling problems that offset any benefits. Turns out that steel was a fine material, not to mention economical.

So, the project itself was more intriguing than the final results, because the learning experience was priceless. Turning titanium on the lathe was both challenging and fun. It required construction of a water cooling system which was the challenge. The fun? Holding 1/2 handful of titanium shavings at shoulder height, lighting it with a match, letting go, and watching it disappear before it hit the concrete floor.
I note that the factory Pardini striker weighed less than half what Gub's lightened one did, but lighter yet didn't help...so maybe there is such a thing as "too light"?

I'd expect that to be the case, and I'm certain that there are differences in the energy needed to crack the valves,making direct comparisons between the two guns...iffy?
Reply
Share

Joined: March 28th, 2002, 6:54 pm

April 16th, 2017, 2:35 am #8

Is it possible that the lighter striker and same striker spring cancelled each other out? Have you thought about trying a stronger valve spring and/or lighter striker spring?

All I can say about the 80 shots per cartridge is that MY gun won't do it in stock tune, unless we're only talking about a pellet making it out of the barrel w/o regards to velocity or accuracy.
(up to 2200 psi) I've never seen a need to push the spring strength up.

I do some mods to lower cracking effort, and sometimes to lengthen striker throw before stem contact, but I don't usually don't even fit a preload adjuster.

Running co2 in a well developed system,22 ft/lbs in .22 is fairly easy with a striker reduced 30% and a factory spring at factory preload.

Gub needs enough striker momentum to pierce a cartridge, but I run bulk, so there's another reason he might need to stay heavier.
Last edited by classicalgas on April 16th, 2017, 2:37 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reply
Share

Joined: November 17th, 2006, 3:51 am

April 16th, 2017, 4:16 am #9

Thes cp1's are fun, and can be accurate, but aren't 10 meter match pistols.

Even ignoring triggers, sights, and stocking, there are different basic design features. There is more than bench accuracy at play here.

With a co2 really designed for match use (and the few that ran on 12gr.), they are designed from the ground up to be minimum power. Are designed and made to do one thing, accurately toss .177 pellets out at low speeds.

What we're doing with "sporter" designs is trying to force them into being what they don't naturally want to be.

So let me ask....if you were to design from the ground up a match pistol's internal system, just for match type shooting:

1. LArge internal valve volume or small?
2. Light striker or heavy?
3. Long striker stroke or short (which goes along with spring length and stiffness)?

I just picked 60shots/5 foot pounds/ 3% varation as a goal, and a desire for a truly quiet back yard pistol. Getting the gas use per shot down reallyd did quiet it down even more (shrouded); not losing any energy was kind of a bonus.
Reply
Share

Joined: April 28th, 2010, 12:23 am

April 16th, 2017, 5:48 am #10

lighter hammer, lighter springs, and less movement from the shot cycle.. An LW barrel from a crosman, carving the grips to fit the hand, getting the trigger down to 3-4 ounces.. Installing match sights, the list goes on.. the gun would have very few stock parts.keep in mind the skanaker actually shot close to 600 fps with wadcutters.
Last edited by robnewyork on April 16th, 2017, 5:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reply
Share