This one is also nearly ready to ship. Ranger Delta 32 for Van Brown.

The stock is just blocked out and inletted. I wanted to get some ballistic's info. at the range yesterday. This was enough to shoot it. I'll take out probably 30-50% of the wood you see here to make it sleek and light.

Van needed a 32 that had a wish list thus: At least 100 fpe. Slug at least 800 fps. At least 7 shots per fill. Extremely quiet. Deadly accurate. As light as the rest of the package would allow.

I have him 7 or 8 level shots, with an average of about 122 foot pounds. The 77.2 grain default Barnes slug averages 843 fps IIRC.





I'll show you again, as it's finished field testing.

Gary

Gary...

Sounds like good performance specs on that rig. Funny, but I was thinking, if I ever got a chance and the funds to place an order on the LEDGER, and if I went for a .32, this would be the specs I'd like to see. Though I'd probably go for something other than a Delta... no idea which model, since you have several of interest, and, by the time I'd most likely be able to order, you'd probably have something new and interesting available. Looks like this will be another nice piece, when it's done.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This one will be used by a professional in varmint removal. Lakeside communities overrun by beaver populations that were "seeded" into the area some time back by a government program. Now eating everything in sight. Other varmints too - different circumstances.

The stock will look dramatically different. That was just a blocked out blank that I inletted enough to protect the action for range testing.

Gary

Regarding your BB gun question: Any pressure curve is "relative" to the nature of the valve/hammer set. For rough examples: If you design a valve that wants to run at 4,500 psi ... it's going to drop out of it's performance range by about 3,000 psi - requiring a refill. If you design a valve that's peak effeciency is at 1,000 psi, it will drop out of effeciency around 500 psi. Design for 100 psi, it will drop out down around 65 psi. You don't get anything that will start at 4,500 and give level performance all the way down the scale. The porting, valve components, hammer, etc., must always be a balanced set - designed to run within a given "window" of pressure. The wider the differential it will handle, the more versitile the set.

Gary

Gary,

I know this isn't the right thread, but... I take it this means fill pressure has no bearing on number of shots? It's simply a matter of how much air the gun carries, not the fill pressure? (Though higher pressure would seem to indicate more air shoved in a given container size.) I've just heard others here mention using fill pressure change (max/min) alone as a performance factor... asking questions on such matters. I have read posts on fill pressure's effect on velocity, so I just got curious as to what fill pressure would do to shots per charge, given the same size resivor. Guess it all has to do with the design of the valvework, as the most important... if not THE ONLY factor... in a gun's performance specs? Hmmm. I rechecked, and noted that you gave (pretty much) every performance spec but fill pressure on this Delta. With 843fps, 7 to 8 level shots, what range of PSI did it take, and would designing the gun for a lower range of fill pressure change those performance specs? Thanks....

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You're very close. Correct - fill pressure alone does not give more shots.

Any given valve/hammer assembly will "require" a given "bracket of psi" to function correctly. Fall outside that window (high or low) and the valve/hammer assembly cannot do it's work. Too high, you get valve lock ... too low, you get massive porting of air.

We've discussed altering psi in order to artifically regulate a rifle which is on a regulator feed line. Give it a steady diet of just alittle too much psi, in order to intentionally take the valve/hammer out of it's comfort zone (and make it produce less power, because the system is functioning in partial valve lock). A quick and dirty way of shooting a very powerful gun, which is already turned down low, but can be turned down lower yet, in this manner, by just a twist of the regulator.

The other reason to tweak the fill pressure is to get the longest plateau of shots per fill. You find the starting psi at which the gun starts just a hair toward the valve lock side, the goes thru it's comfort zone, and ends up just slight under optimal psi. This gives a bell curve of shot velocities which start just a hair lower than peak ... goes thru peak, and then sinks just a hair under peak. It's the best you can get with a normally self-regulated PCP with rebounding hammer system (the design of most PCPs we know).

Add a larger reservoir to get more shots per fill. Yes.

The Delta 32 was designed to run with a 3,400 psi initial fill. It drops down to about 1,600 psi on the last shot of it's level plateau of approx. 8 shots at 120+ fpe average. That means the valve/hammer system is "self-regulating" over an 1,800 psi drop in reservoir pressure. That's beyond excellent.

Gary

barnespneumatic Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You're very close. Correct - fill pressure alone
> does not give more shots.
>
> Any given valve/hammer assembly will "require" a
> given "bracket of psi" to function correctly.
> Fall outside that window (high or low) and the
> valve/hammer assembly cannot do it's work. Too
> high, you get valve lock ... too low, you get
> massive porting of air.
>
> We've discussed altering psi in order to
> artifically regulate a rifle which is on a
> regulator feed line. Give it a steady diet of
> just alittle too much psi, in order to
> intentionally take the valve/hammer out of it's
> comfort zone (and make it produce less power,
> because the system is functioning in partial valve
> lock). A quick and dirty way of shooting a very
> powerful gun, which is already turned down low,
> but can be turned down lower yet, in this manner,
> by just a twist of the regulator.
>
> The other reason to tweak the fill pressure is to
> get the longest plateau of shots per fill. You
> find the starting psi at which the gun starts just
> a hair toward the valve lock side, the goes thru
> it's comfort zone, and ends up just slight under
> optimal psi. This gives a bell curve of shot
> velocities which start just a hair lower than peak
> ... goes thru peak, and then sinks just a hair
> under peak. It's the best you can get with a
> normally self-regulated PCP with rebounding hammer
> system (the design of most PCPs we know).
>
> Add a larger reservoir to get more shots per fill.
> Yes.
>
> The Delta 32 was designed to run with a 3,400 psi
> initial fill. It drops down to about 1,600 psi on
> the last shot of it's level plateau of approx. 8
> shots at 120+ fpe average. That means the
> valve/hammer system is "self-regulating" over an
> 1,800 psi drop in reservoir pressure. That's
> beyond excellent.
>
> Gary

Is it OK if I will go to some technical details?

These technical details are found from sam yang 909 and they relate to what was said.

Well, I'm just operating with my 909 and specially with its valve and hammer spring design, because I'm trying to modify that 909 towards better (but absolutely safe) performance.

I have opened or made more room to the transfer port yet. I tried to widen that port as much as it could be enlarged without making those walls too thin to take the pressure.

But to the point.

When I first opened the 909 hammer and valve system it really surprised me. Namely, there is hammer, valve and normal hammer spring which puts the hammer in speed towards the valve, and... There's nothing too surprising yet.

There are all those parts which I supposed to find, BUT then there is one other spring pushing the valve shut, its pushing against the hammer and hammer spring (I call it counter spring) together with the pressure at the reservoir.

I didn't suppose to find such counter spring... but there certainly is such.

I'm thinking that I may try to get rid of that counter spring completely... if it is possible. Well, I don't know.

My guess is that its meaning or its function is FIRST to be there to make it possible to use hand pump: to pump the gun's reservoir full from completely empty state. And SECOND, I think it allows us to shoot the gun to the very low pressure without rising the air consumption too high when there is not too much pressure in tank to push the valve shut.

Those are the thought functions of such spring.

But is such valve necessary?

I think that it is not necessary; and I think that it is even is bad for the gun's performance, because it pushes against the hammer spring. The poor hammer spring must do double work: open the valve against reservoir's pressure, and against the push of that counter spring.

Well, there is one more thing which is bit strange too (and I think it is related to the counter spring). The hammer valve is in quite a tension yet when the gun isn't cocked (it must be related to the counter valve somehow). And I think that if I remove the counter spring I must add completely new spring there to do the job (without that pre-tension).

Let's see.

Well, I guess I have some work ahead. I mean I have quite a task if could modify the hammer system of the 909 and so that I will be able to find new balance without counter valve.


Well, it is amazing work, those valves, springs and hammers when they work in harmony,and when one finds the harmony. I appreciate and respect the work of Gary Barnes more, the more I know about PCP rifles and their complex internal balance and principles.

How much testing you have to do with each gun, its hammer system and PSI charge before you'd get gun in balance? Could it be so that you could know the power of each part by your intuition without doing much testing with each gun? I mean do you know the power levels, pressures and guns internal needs so well, that you could just put those parts together by knowwing it will work , and the gun will be ready when you have all parts?

Hello Sepetus,

First ... yes ... I've gotten to know how to design guns on paper, so that the projected power curve will be met.

Now ... I'm afraid you have some misunderstandings of the systems my friend. The spring inside the pressure reservoir pushing against the valve head must be there. It's been in PCP valve designs for 300 years. It hold the valve head in place when there is no air in the reservoir. Without it, the valve head would just float when you tried to put air in it. It holds it shut until there's some reservoir pressure to take over.

It's the pressure inside the reservoir that's providing the resistance to the hammer, by holding against the surface area of the valve head. That will be hundreds of pounds per square inch of back pressure - depending upon the size of the valve and the psi in the reservoir. That tiny valve spring is nearly meaningless as compared to the psi acting upon the valve head.

Now, when the valve opens, it's mostly the rush of air thru the valve port, that holds the valve head open momentarily. But, as the pressure in the valve and transfer port starts to equalize, the valve head will come under some small pressure from the valve spring. But - mainly, it's still all about the remaining psi in the reservoir - that's slamming the valve head shut.

Regarding the hammer spring pre-load ... that's the only thing that gives the hammer some "snap" when it's released. Take away that pre-load, and the hammer will have no strength and be useless. Without it, you'd need for the hammer to travel a foot to build up any power.

Good luck. Keep thinking about the systems. Don't get into the high pressure stuff until you have a good grasp of the physics.

Best,
Gary

Gary...

Indeed, that is quite impressive. So, I take it this means you can determine certain factors based on performance needs? With my BB pistol idea, the thought was 225 fps, about 50 shots per fill max (with a fifty round, single-action repeater mechanism to match, preferably), in a gun that could be slung in a holster on the hip. What would the fill PSI need to be, and how large a reservoir would be necessary at that level of performance? Conversely, if the reservoir at that level would make the gun too bulky, # of shots and size of mag could be cut in half. How would that change the reservoir size? Thanks....

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Roose,

Sorry, I haven't a clue. Those specs. are so far below anything in my experience. I couldn't even guess.

As we've kicked around, the complexity of what interests you here (and thus it's build time), is not remotely in balance with the valve of the finished pc. If the gun were laying here complete, nobody would buy it, for the price of a Yukon. Being small, does not mean the parts are simplier. They still need to be machined, and often, heat treated. There is a corresponding list of parts, to all PCP guns. Pressure vessels have to be just as safe. Everything has to be blued. In short ... the build time way too long, by powers of 10.

When I agreed that I'd thought of a small little gun to shoot indoors would be fun, I met a simple single shot. Maybe even a small spring gun. And, as you can see, in 13 years, I've never built one ... because I realize that there'd be no market for it.

There are dozens of little BB pistols available for near give away pricing. I'd buy one of each, if that was my area of interest.

Gary

Gary...

Well, couldn't hurt to inquire... still, I can't help thinking how neat it would be. Yep, a single shot would be fine, but you already have some nice single shot pistols available, down to .25 caliber, I believe? If not BB, then a .25-.32 air revolver would fill a need. Load with six rounds, charge with air, fire six shots, reload and re-charge. Of course, that would totally vaporize even the largest snail... but it would be fun. And difficult to make. And expensive. Oh, idea: What about a muzzle-loading pistol? I know you've made rifles in that configuration, but I don't remember seeing any muzzle-loading pistols anywhere. That would be neat, anywhere from .32 on up. Kinda like an Alpine pistol, perhaps? That should be do-able, I would think, and would be fun to shoot. Would also make a nice companion piece to a Bison.

Sorry, I keep seeing all this stuff in my head, every time I go to your site...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Roose:

The Hoss is essentially a muzzle loader with a tap load breech for roundball.

-- Jim

Yeah, the Hoss...one small difference though...

It's roundball are about the size of snails ; ) Not gonna be much meat left one one of those afterwards.

Yeah, the Hoss...

But, like you said, Jim, it has a breachloading mechanism... I'd be thinking a smallbore Hoss without an open breach. Just stuff it down the muzzle, cock, aim and fire. Rotorhead, I'd have to agree, the present Hoss would be overkill on snails. Of course, it would also be overkill on squirrels and rabbits and other little edible critters. I was also thinking something like the Bison, which, if I remember right, has an air tube in the buttstock. My thought, a smaller-bore muzzleloader with the air tube in the grip, with perhaps more air under the barrel, a place to secure the ramrod between tube and barrel, and a nice set of adjustable sights... scopes are nice, but open sights would be more appropriate for a muzzleloader. It would not only be fun for small game, but, set for low power, it could make for a tidy and "simple" target pistol. How's that sound, guys?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gary's not back from his trip looks like.

But I can tell you about what he would say. He's already built pistols. If you go through his web site you can find different ones.

Their not any cheaper and he still has to build them like the rest, one piece at a time and their are just as many parts. Just smaller tubes and barrel.

Dory

Hi Dory,

Exactly correct.

Gary

May not be cheaper, but does that really matter, so long as it's what you want? That's what I like about Gary's work... if you've got the cash, he has the talent. Of course, there are limits to time and what is possible, but I still like the idea of something different, something out of my head, made real. Even if it's a 10-20K BB pistol... *grins*

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Roose,

I would bet the Heritage sans the breech loader would make a great muzzle loading pistol.

So. Who's going to put up the cash? I'm pretty sure Gary won't be making any muzzle loading BB guns on spec! I can't see making a hand crafted one-off custom airgun to a specification lower than what anyone can buy for $50 at WalMart.

Correct again. At this point in my work, I don't have the time to make things of confusing merit. The time could be invested in a project which has more value to my overall body of work.

Gary

Also ... footnote: no muzzle loader pistols. Muzzle loaders are already something you need to keep your nose out of while loading. A pistol is too easy to loose track of the muzzle. The Hoss is a breech loader. The idea of an occasional heavy load - down the muzzle - is just a rare special purpose round.

What will be added will be slide breech pistol formats.

Well, Gary, it was a thought. At the present, my main thing would be deciding between a .25 or a .32 rifle... like you've said before, there's a big step between these two calibers. I like both the Maverick and the Appaloosa, something compact and light and handy. The .25 appeals for small game, the .32 for heavier stuff. Shoot... can't remember what you called that swaged round ball stuff, but I like that for ammo. Simple and easy to make, with the proper swaging gear. I also really like that brass moderator option you make available... I believe both the Maverick and the Appaloosa are available with it, in brass? I think either of those rifles, set up for use with open sights, or some very compact holo-type sight, like the Docter [www.docterusa.com], would be neat. Oh, and I just thought of something... with that brass moderator, all that exposed brass could make a nice surface area for engraving, or some kind of decorative machine-work, if it's thick enough. I also remember seeing rifles owned by Native Americans, and all the tack-work and other detailing they'd embellish their guns with. With the name Maverick... and especially with the name Appaloosa... such embellishments would be fitting, I think. A bit of leather, some feathers, a few tacks and such, this could make for a very unique piece of usable art....

Which would probably mean no Docter sight! Or any scope sight, whatsoever, just to keep a period look....

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, the idea would be a pistol in .25/.32, for game from rats on up to rabbits or larger, or for plinking and popping targets. And yes, Bigbore, the Heritage, sans breechloader mechanism, would make a good muzzleloader. Though I was looking farther back, at the Alpine as a pattern, or a Bison in pistol format. From a purely looks angle, either of these would make for a very classy gun. Something a bit different than the Heritage series. For those who want something bigger, a .45 option would be nice, as well, on a bigger "chassis", so to speak.

Jerry... I see your point, but then, personally speaking, I like unusual things, and the very thought of having a custom-made repeater BB pistol, made without plastic and/or potmetal (made to last), has an appeal that no $50 WalMart toy would ever have. A pride of ownership out of all proportion to its modest performance. After all, rich people buy Ferraris and other expensive cars for a reason, even though they could get from point A to point B in a $15,000 econo-car just fine. And such an item, you would have to admit, would make for quite a conversation piece, wouldn't it?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes Roose, I see your point; Gary could build such a gun and it would be a fine piece. But the point about rich people and ferraris seems off to me. Ferraris are not modest performing cars. They are exceptionally high performing cars and that is what sets them apart from economy cars designed just to get one from point a to point b. I suppose someone could build a super high quality car that performs just like a GEO Metro or another economy car but who would buy it?

Actually, a more apt metaphor would be a restored classic roadster like a Bugeye Sprite, or an MGA or such. People spend inordinate amounts of money bringing classic cars like those up to better-than-new specs, and still end up with a car thats easily eclipsed in performance and practicality (not to mention price) by a used Mazda Miata.

As far as Barnes airguns go, repeaters are pretty thin on the ground. I can think of exactly...none? I think that his original Garibaldi-style hammer-struck valve rifle had a magazine, and some of the old Chaparrel pistols had a rotary magazine, but none of them were semi-autos.

I still think you'd be best off in the near term with one of those real-pistol-look-alike CO2 pellet pistols with the PBA (zinc alloy) slugs for your garden walks. If you can find one of the old Makarov-based items, so much the better, though the Mak wasn't exactly a target pistol in its original form either. Some of the factory airgun outfits have revolver-magazine rifles that can be made in a pistol format, but they're not quite ready to just stick in a holster.

If I was to order a Barnes pistol right now, it'd be a Victory pistol/carbine convertible in either .25 or .32. I really like the look of those, particularly in stainless. They make a really handy-looking carbine with the other stock option.