Jump to content

The Chef

Forum Regular
  • Content Count

    1,922
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Posts posted by The Chef

  1. I think it acts like the bearing spring guide in an AEG or the VSR.

     

    The buffer sits where it is, but allows the spring to rotate on the bearing.

     

    I think its a bit of overkill in this respect, but I can see why its used in an AEG.

    The constant compression/decompression of the spring might cause some rotational movement in the spring, which can now move freely rather than stressing the spring.

  2. CoCo,

     

    yeah, thats excellent. It's not instantly obvious from the profile view, but the 3D view shows it perfectly. That's probably a better solution than using the flexible AEG nub.

     

    That is some excellent work.

     

     

    Thinking about the barrel location (I always look for the easy solution), rather than having to machine the barrel shroud to accept the AEG clip, could you not just drill a section out of the barrel so it can take the existing small roll pin? Or something like 3 grub screws placed around the barrel to locate it?

     

    Just a thought.

     

    But that is indeed some truly fantastic CAD work. Are you using SolidWorks?

  3. Pretty sweet there CoCo.

     

    Agreed on the flexible nub. Easy to sort though. Just alter the schematic to have a concave semi circular aperture in the actuator arm. Either that, or a solid H nub, like the VSR.

     

    My one concern, where is the adjustment screw? I don't think there is enough meat above the arm itself to contain an adjustment screw, or is the same bevelled nut doing the job as it does in the original?

     

    I'm not sure that the bevelled nut will operate the arm what with it being such an acute angle. But I like the idea.... very sound.

     

    My own personal view would be to have a very similar system of AEG barrel installation. But instead of having an internally adjustable unit, the adjuster is just a long grub screw that is accessible from the top rail of the receiver. Much like the Tanaka or Ares/Star systems.

  4. So I think the logical conclusion is that the BB is getting a bit of both,

     

    Stuck in 117 and held up by the hop nub.

     

    Dan, Otto. I think you can both feel vindicated by that.

     

     

     

     

    Now all I need to know is this.

     

    Do the relative points on a VSR hop rubber match up to the WE? If so. I'm going to mill out a nozzle/hop housing to take one.

     

    I think I'm going to peruse those CAD drawings for the correct dimensions and check them against an old barrel I've got kicking about! Another job for tomorrow.

     

     

     

    ***edit***

     

    oh... Marky, I think the extra Ball Bearing and Hop Rubber in the diagram relate to the CQB barrel. So, same part, they'd just have a different part number for a component picking list (###### way of doing it, but I've had to deal with a similar system).

  5. Well I have to say that people's perseverance with this is ASTOUNDING. Truly amazing chaps. Now I know this post is a bruiser, but please take the time to read it carefully.

     

    COCO. that CAD work is sublime. You should be very proud of yourself.

     

    Now, at a risk of causing offence. Otto/Dan... Please don't fall into the trap of thinking that your own viewpoint is essentially the correct one. As far as I can see, they are BOTH extremely valid, so don't try to shout the other down to promote your own. This isn't a wee'ing contest. Its problem to solve.

     

    Otto hit the nail on the head with this comment.... "it's not rocket science"

     

    Personally my view is thus...

     

    The BB is getting stuck in a combination of places. Partly being held by 117, and partly coming to rest against the hop up nub. As we've already determined the gap between the two is minimal (+/- 1-2mm), and as we have seen when firing between different modes (superbly demonstrated by COCO's pics and CAD), the BB rests in a different place by a few mm, so can easily be resting either at 117 or the hop-up nub, supporting both Otto's and Dan's theories.

     

    Lets not delve too deeply here.

     

    We know the hop-dot is too small. The contact area on the BB is TINY... and if this is misaligned even slightly it moves that point of contact to the left or the right of centre. This causes hook (try it on a snooker ball). The added element of crud in the gas only exacerbates this, as does the BB sticking on part 117. Compare this to an AEG rubber. The bump extends across the whole of the barrel. This creates an even and large contact point across the whole of the top of the BB.

     

    We know the hop-dot is way too hard. We all suffer maddeningly aggressive hop. Its either on and we can fire round corners, or the BB's roll out of the barrel. You can tell this by squeezing it, then doing the same against a normal AEG rubber. This hardness is only increased by the usage of a metal ball bearing directly on top of it as its actuator. You get a tiny dot of an actuator on a tiny dot of hard rubber..... you see where I am going?

    Compare this to a VSR H-Nub. The contact points are 'on the edges', effectively at 11 and 1 o'clock. The bit in the middle is allowed to flex as the BB passes it. The same goes for AEG rubbers. They have the small compressable actuator, this allows the BB to create it own even pressure as it passes.

     

    Most (certainly AEG's and VSR's/Tanaka's in my experience) have the BB held by the hop rubber bump. I shall direct you to this handy pic on WGC.

    http://www.wgcshop.com/pcart/shopper.php?i...-TMSCP_srch_vsr

     

    Any shroud at the front of the rubber (ie 117) is designed purely as a nozzle air seal as far as I see it. In an AEG the nozzle pushes the BB past the rubber lip into the barrel, it is then held by the bump, spring then fires, hey presto (rinse and repeat very quickly). Failure to get the BB in this correct place caused problems elsewhere as was my experience with the BGS system.

     

    So making sure that it sits between the bump and 117 is pretty paramount. As Otto suggested earlier.

    Dan's suggestion of creating a non-sticky film on 117 does the same thing but from the other end. It removes this sticky bit.

     

    ****I'm losing the thread myself at this point****

     

    So... in conclusion.

    The inherent instability of the hop system is down to design and material. Its too small and too hard for its purpose.

    Look at the facts...

     

    Listed with contact area/contact place/material density

     

    WE Hop - small/centre/hard = rubbish

    Tanaka Original - small/centre/hard = rubbish

    Tanaka V2 - larger/edges/softer = better

    AEG - Large/Variable(due to compression)/Soft = good

    VSR - Large/edges (H-Nub)/Soft = brilliant

     

    **as an addendum and to illustrate a point**

     

    Marui Socom. Gas pistol as you are all aware, so should in theory suffer from the same gas inconsistencies to a point. Phenomenally accurate! I mean out of a SOCOM or a WE M4, gimme the SOCOM every day of the week. I'll own you hands down.

    has the same hop system as the VSR (as does the Hi-Capa, also very accurate).

     

    **end addendum**

     

    I think BB placement in 117 is having some effect, but the majority of our issues come from the hop design itself and gas inconsistency/contamination.

     

    I may be wrong, but thats how I see it. We're all wee'ing into the same pot, just from different sides.

  6. Now I know this may not be entirely relevant but this whole 117 debate made me think of my Tanaka experiences.

     

    When installing the BGS hop system we basically had the same problem. The BB getting stuck in the mouth of the rubber (@ effectively what is 117) and when it fired this was imparting unusual spin which varied depending on which part of the rubber was 'sticking' at the time prior to the BB hitting the hop which added its own spin.

     

    This was causing erratic BB flight. Sometimes it jammed in there completely.

     

    The cure was a long nozzle which placed the BB directly past this choke point and in place for the hop.

     

    So I guess the same should apply.

     

    Otto's suggestion of a longer 'gap' seems fair.

     

    I assume the little plastic collar behind the nozzle is what currently determines the final nozzle position, and consequently the BB's 'chambered' point in relation to 117.

     

    But I agree, there is a serious revision needed in the hop department and I hope that the latest version is a success.

    Only time will tell.

  7. I can't say much more than everyone else about the reliability of my rifle really.

     

    Its an AFC version 1 and nothing has 'broken' on it yet, and thats seen 3-4 weeks of skirmishing. Yes the hop up is infuriating, and the hold open function seems to not want to work despite my best efforts, but all in all, nothing has fallen off or stopped it working.

     

    Is it as accurate as an AEG, in a word, no.

     

    If you're so worried about it, then steer well clear. This is a rifle you have to want knowing there will be some issues. Its as simple as that.

     

     

     

     

     

    But back to more important things.

     

    Hop up's.

     

    I've given up waiting on CO2 so I'm turning my attention to the hop-up which is grabbing my goat daily.

    Having looked at it, I'm convinced I can get a VSR hop system to fit. It will be a bucket load of work, but I'm probably going to give it a go.

     

    I'll sound out my plan and see what you all think (and I haven't got my numbers guide here so I'm flying blind on part numbers, forgive me).

     

    Basically, remove the barrel/hop from the brass housing, and remove the rubber barrel end.

    I'll need to check the exact dimensions, but I think that a VSR hop rubber will place the hop in pretty much the same place as the existing one.

    So then I'll need to machine out the brass barrel housing to accept the wider VSR rubber.

    The barrel will need a collar to help align it in the brass part.

     

    Then you can either use the ball bearing system for the hop, or my preferred idea is to make a tiny H Nub to work with the existing collar adjuster.

     

    The hop rubber will need the square block on the right hand side removing, but thats small beans compared to the rest of it.

     

     

     

     

    My reasoning for this is that the WE system is very similar (if somewhat inferior, sorry WETTI) to the Tanaka system (which would be an easier conversion, but lets try and get the best to fit shall we!), and the VSR system has been converted for the Tanaka, so why the hell not the WE?

     

    So what do you think?

  8. Just make sure that whatever mod you do (particularly adding that locking nut) you must compensate on the plastic collar so that the total length remains the same. Too long and you'll be ramming your nozzle dead. Too short and you won't close the seal and drop your performance.

     

     

    Aye, I was going to make a stepped bush, so the locking nut could sit inside it, so the diameter would be wider. Thus providing better lateral stability. But yeah, keep the length the same.

    Now to find some suitable material.

  9. Well, mission accomplished for me.....

     

    I've managed to mod my Gen1 nozzle a little.

     

    It was firing at a healthy 500fps on Propane, which is a tad hot....

     

    So I took the brass nozzle off, ran a 3mm Die down the end of the Steel Rod to lengthen the threads a little and screwed the brass nozzle back on.

     

    Hey presto, she's now firing at around 350fps. And what's better, the whole set-up is adjustable all the way between that range! All I have to do is twist the nozzle a few turns.

     

    I've also added a small O ring to the thin part of the nozzle. No idea what effect this has, but hasn't stopped anything working!

     

    P1000568.jpg

     

    Interestingly, she now hops perfectly for 0.2's!! so full of WIN all round.

     

    I think when I get time, I'll run the Die down a bit further so I can put a small 3mm Locking nut on behind the nozzle assembly, and then make up a larger collar to replace the small plastic one that sits behind the nozzle assembly to help keep everything super square.

  10. I have to say I'm just letting the dust settle over this now.

     

    I'd love the bits to come out, but I am just a bit fed up of chasing them, so I'm going to just wait and see.

     

    I'm going to try and mod my piston so I can get it down to a reasonable FPS, I'm going to alter my BB weight to try and get the hop somewhere near straight and then its going to be straight in for CQB.

     

    I'll look at upgrading it when everyone has actually got things in stock and not just talking about 'this stuff's great but I can't tell you!' or 'its coming in March.. oh no... April... make that May!'

     

    Proof of the pudding is in the eating and all that!

     

    I know all about product testing and development. The art is to estimate a long time so you don't appear to 'run over time' to your customers, but not too long to make them think you're having a laugh.

  11. NewComer I have to disagree.

     

    I've got CO2 mags for my TM Hi-Capa (incidentally they are WE magazines) and they are pretty much perfect.

     

    Bearing in mind its about 6 degrees celcius here, when using a magazine with propane, if I rapid fire the pistol, I'll get major cool-down and possibly even a gas out by the end of the magazine.

     

    I can do this without fear or incident when using a 12g CO2 Bulb magazine.

  12. I'm with Carsten on this one ^^^^.

     

    Er.... What?

     

    So are we saying the Steel Nozzle should not be used for CO2?

     

    Is this Gen 2 innards going to be retro-fitable to our exisiting models?

     

    I'm holding on for various bits to come out, but then we hear that certain parts that are already released are going to be obsolete.

     

    I'm lucky that I've held off buying, but I'm sure those guys who have already got the steel nozzle sets on the understanding that they will be CO2 compatible will be a mite pizzled.

     

     

    But I'm still holding on for CO2 mags, (new innards now) and a new barrel/hop.

     

    Can we get a bit of a definitive answer?

  13. hmmm, brushes up on his knowledge of specific metal hardnesses....

     

    I think Aluminium is still harder than brass, but not by much, but that would still transfer any damage to the brass part.

     

    not wanting to be the harbinger of doom here, but doesn't this look like a direct approach to solving the issue of 'the O Ring being shredded' rather than the issue of 'why is the O Ring being shredded'?

     

    In this case, the cause is the opposite end of the physical problem. Stop the Flop (no viagra jokes here please...) and stop the O Ring shredding.

  14. Chris, I hear what you're saying. It had occurred to me that because of the need to vent the blow back gas that the cylinder would need to leave the brass part.

     

    But that gas should vent pretty quickly, and the force of the recoil spring should be sufficient to push the bolt back even after a short period of venting. So a couple or three holes around the rear end of the brass cylinder 'should' be sufficient. Relative pressures do equalize pretty sharpish if given the chance.

     

    Failing that, looking at the other end of the problem......

     

    why not make the base end of part 38 the same size as the hole it fits in. In effect making part 38 and the new stabilizer piece as a one part unit.

     

    So the enlarged base of part 38 would alleviate any sideways movement. You could also fit a larger bolt to the rear end to secure it on the bolt carrier. Obviously the bolt part will be dependent on any clearance issues behind it.

     

    Obviously I understand the manufacturing implications behind this, so it might not be financially viable to do such a thing.

     

    There is a very big trade off between the best solution and the most cost effective.

     

     

    EDIT...

     

    Ooooohhh.... just seen that update WETTI.

     

    I like the thinking, hopefully the frontal metal lip will help guide the rod back into place saving the seal in the process.

     

    Playing devils advocate here (It's a habit of mine, I used to build sportscars and you have to see these problems before you build the thing), with this new part. Say the part 38 is allowed to become loose and flop around (which is the current issue). The force of the recoil spring pushing that extra metal lip back against the brass part 112 deforming it in the process. So it may cause further problems (not least an instant Jam). It may not, only time will tell. Any deformation of the relatively soft brass will still be enough to damage the seal.

     

    The way to alleviate this would be to have the face of this new part more conical (enough to allow sufficient venting, but maybe big enough to keep it within the brass tube), so it guides back into the brass tube rather than trusting it to fate.

     

    I'd draw a picture if I could use Paintshop.... (if I had a copy of Paintshop...)

  15. Cheers WETTI, was just trying to get everyone singing from the same hymn sheet.

     

    Personally, I am not unhappy with the stock recoil. I'm probably going to leave that bit well alone.

     

    On the subject of the gas rod stabilizer and seal 122 going kaput.....

     

    would there be any benefit in extending the brass tube 112 so the seal never leaves the brass tube (so it can't misalign) and porting the end of that brass tube with a hole or two to vent the blow back gases?

     

    or am I barking up the wrong tree here?

     

    Well, I'm just waiting on the hop/barrel upgrade before I buy all my other bits.

     

     

    Edit...

     

    Whoop! post number 3500 in this thread!

  16. For WETTI:

    Propane (C3H8 to give its chemical formula) is a natural gas.

     

    Green Gas/Top Gas tend to be made up of Propane, Silicone (usually between 0.5-2%, used a lubricant) and some aromatics, so you can smell any leaks.

     

    They are proven to be one and the same thing. So when we talk about Propane, assume we mean Green Gas (but without the lube).

     

     

     

     

    My point was, TS-One claimed they have tested their products to withstand Green/Top Gas (propane) and claim to have increased recoil on their new recoil buffer when using Green/Top.

     

    Customers on this very thread, using propane (green/top) have recorded no such result and a very minimal increase in recoil if any at all, and as such have been disappointed by their purchase. So in the eyes of the Consumer, this puts the claims of TS-One in doubt.

     

    TS-One then go on to say that using a higher powered gas is not recommended (I assume they assumed propane (green/top) was more powerful, which we know it isn't) to use the M4.

     

    BUT...... and here's the rub....

     

    WE are releasing CO2 magazines, which is DEFINITELY more powerful than propane/green/top.....

     

    ERGO.....

     

    TS-One state their products are not to be used with a higher power gas than propane/green/top, so therefore their products are not tested to work with the new CO2 capability of the WE M4.

     

    that was all that I was trying to get across.

     

     

    But that said, the whole concept of increased manufacturer/consumer dialogue is tremendous and you all deserve to be a major success on that fact alone.

     

    Edited for clarification of some points.

    and to add a few more full stops....

  17. Very refreshing indeed.

     

    I note that...

     

    We run our tests on top gas only. Propane is NOT suitable to run in this gun

     

    Odd, because I'm sure WE recommend that the WE M4 is run solely on Green (propane) because the blowback action is probably not sufficient when run on 134a. Please correct me if I am wrong.

     

    And if this is the case, surely it would be prudent to run your tests using Propane or equivalent.

     

    Bearing this in mind.... if your current products are not designed to work with Propane, what the hell is going to happen when the CO2 mags are released? That will blow your product testing out of the water!

     

    On a personal note, do we know when the new barrel/hop sets will be available? There are conflicting reports flying about and I'm sure most people are waiting for this bit alone.... seeing as power is not an issue, but accuracy at the moment is...

  18. yeah I have to agree with everything thats been said.

     

    I didn't want to be overly critical to the WA mainly because I'd be talking supposition rather than from first hand knowledge which is what I like to base my responses upon.

     

    So all my references to the WA here are only from what I have read about other people's experiences and I can't corroborate any of them.

     

    From the 2 guns, they both seem to have issues. The WE M4 doesn't have problems 'non-stop', it does have a few niggles here and there, but like I said earlier in this thread (not in response to your query), its new, there will be issues, but in all my years 'softing, I've never seen such a response to customer feedback, than WE have provided with this rifle.

     

    Personally, I'm looking forward to the new hop/barrel set-up, because the existing hop is very skittish and does need attention. That is the WE's biggest failing in my opinion. But its been addressed already, which is nice. How well the upgrade will perform, only time will tell.

     

    So in terms of issues, I'd say they are both on par with each other.

     

    The WE is certainly cheaper, both in initial cost and repairs. The WE parts are cheap. The mags are cheap, and this gun is worth considering purely on that fact alone.

    The power variables for the WE will set you back $19 for the steel version, whereas the WA NPAS system is somewhat more expensive from what I gather.

    Only the G&P version has a metal body, you'd be paying extra for the privilege of the metal body, which the WE already has.

     

    I see you're at the Werkz, so you'd probably want to downgrade the WE anyway. It might well be a bit hot for the CQB environment, but the 30 round mags are really a nice touch. A shocker almost. Certainly made a huge difference from my normal game, and thats saying something seeing as I normally only use a sniper rifle and Hi-Capa back-up. Must be a purely psychological thing, but it's good what ever it is.

     

    Personally, I took a gamble on the WE. But it was a thought through gamble.

    Its cheaper than the WA, by a considerably margin. You have to feasibly factor in at least 6 mags too. With such limited capacity, you need a few of them. I've currently got three, and it's not enough.

     

    If you're after one, speak to Mark at Tactical Quartermaster, he's a top bloke and will certainly help you out. I'm sure LWA will be just as good, but I've never had any dealings with them.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the use of session cookies.