Jump to content

Ad_

Members
  • Content Count

    46
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    N/A

About Ad_

  • Rank
    AF-UK Starter

Profile Information

  • Guns
    TM P90RD, AA L85 (mostly upgraded to A2 spec), ICS MP5A5, AKS74U, WE M&P9, WE G17 Gen5, +others
  • Loadouts
    P90RD + M&P, Cadpat
  • Sites
    UWG Fawkham
  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. That will eventually happen when the cutoff lever has worn down to the point that it can no longer release the trigger contacts after firing - none of these mods to restrict it to semi-auto only will help when that happens and the only way to fix it would be to install a new cutoff lever. Get a good quality P90 (I would expect the cheap versions to fail a lot sooner rather than later) and keep it well maintained and it shouldn't be a problem for a long time.
  2. Yes, if it's not installed or not in the right place the nozzle won't return as it should
  3. That looks a lot like a nozzle return spring. Here's the exploded diagram for the CZ Shadow 2 - looks like it is the nozzle return spring (part 92)
  4. There are two sets of contacts; one that gets disconnected by the cutoff lever after firing and another set further back that are used for full auto fire. When you fire the P90, a half-pull of the trigger only engages the first set of contacts so it only fires a single shot. Pulling the trigger completely engages the second set of contacts so it continues firing. The fire selector simply blocks the trigger from being pulled back completely when it's set to semi auto mode.
  5. You could try modifying the selector to prevent full auto from being selected, or you could modify the trigger assembly to disconnect or remove the full auto contacts. I'd strongly recommend fitting a MOSFET to protect the trigger contacts at least.
  6. Much of the shot-to-shot variation seems to be due to weight/size/shape varying from BB to BB.
  7. That looks like it would probably produce results similar to Super Lube - https://www.ak2m4.co.uk/internal-parts/grease/super-lube-lubrication-grease-5ml-syringe I don't think it's likely to change that much though, but I'll have to test them more. The previous grease setup I used didn't vary much from the initial application up until I cleaned it out earlier
  8. The Gun Sav does feel much lighter/thinner and more slippery between my fingers, whereas the Super Lube feels more like other silicone greases... but as the results show it's more complicated than just how it feels I cleaned out & regreased my P90RD's gearbox earlier as it hasn't been done for a long time (at least a couple of years & it's fired many tens of thousands of shots in that time). Before starting I tested it with unsorted BioSphere 0.2g BBs: 336.9 336.1 338.9 336.8 336.6 336.8 337 338.5 335.4 334.1 Min 334.1 Max 338.9 Avg 336.71 It was very difficult to pick between Gun Sav and Super Lube, but I went with Gun Sav. After everything was cleaned up & regreased I tested it again: 329.8 330.7 331.8 331.2 329.4 332.9 328.9 331.8 332.2 331.9 Min 328.9 Max 332.9 Avg 331.06 So with the TechT Gun Sav I actually lost a bit of power compared to the old grease. I then took it apart again, cleaned, regreased and re-tested with Super Lube: 323.9 325.9 325.9 326.8 326.6 325.6 324.2 326.2 325.1 323.3 Min 323.3 Max 326.8 Avg 325.35 More power loss... This will require more investigation. It may just be that these greases just need time to settle in, although my previous setup didn't require that. I'll get some more Marui grease so I can retry the previous setup (Systema grease applied to the cylinder with Marui silicone grease on the piston) and I'll also try mixing Super Lube + Gun Sav in a similar manner.
  9. Yes, you were I didn't do any kind of extended/long term tests; these were all done yesterday except for the Gun Sav which was tested today.
  10. I weighed a bunch of the BioSphere BBs and filtered out any that seemed to be under/overweight, or the scales seemed "uncertain" about (i.e. borderline), then fired another 10 through the chrono. It has narrowed it down a bit: 321.8 321.3 323 321.9 321.9 319.8 321.8 320.6 320.3 322.3 Min 319.8 Max 323 Avg 321.47 If I had better scales I could probably narrow it down further. Variation in diameter around each BB will also make a difference.
  11. Possibly, but it's also possible that it's due to variation in the weight of the BBs as they're not all going to be exactly the same weight
  12. In another discussion here TechT Gun Sav was highly recommended to me as a cylinder grease, so I bought some to try out. I've now tested it along with some other greases I have for comparison, and I'm posting the results here in case anyone else is interested. These are the greases I tested: Tokyo Marui silicone grease Systema cylinder grease Super Lube silicone grease TechT Gun Sav The Marui silicone grease and Systema cylinder grease I've had knocking about for years, both seem ok but I've mainly been using the Marui grease in my guns (or a combination of the two). I bought the Super Lube late last year from AK2M4 to test as the Marui grease was almost all used up - this is my first time using it. I used a Marui P90TR with the following upgrades to test them: Prometheus purple hop rubber & bucking Guarder air seal nozzle Guarder enhanced steel cylinder head Guarder chromed cylinder Deep Fire aluminium piston head with 'super' O-ring Guarder SP90 spring Deep Fire (I think) bearing spring guide Guarder steel bushings IRF2804 MOSFET Blade fuse Deans connector For each test, the cylinder set was disassembled, the cylinder was degreased and the cylinder head, piston head and piston head O-ring were wiped down thoroughly to clean off the previous grease/oil before applying the new grease. Next, some high viscosity silicone grease was applied over and just behind the cylinder head O-rings and the cylinder and cylinder head were reassembled. The cylinder was lubricated using the grease to be tested. The piston O-ring was coated with a fine amount of silicone oil before fitting it back on the piston head, and then a fine amount of the grease to be tested was also applied to/slightly behind the piston head O-ring. After reassembling everything the gun was dry fired without the upper receiver to check it and help even out the grease. Before testing, a standard magazine loaded with some BioSphere 0.2g BBs was inserted and a few shots were fired to further even out the grease. 10 shots were then fired through my Xcortech X3500 chrono and the results were recorded. These are the results: Marui Silicone Grease: Min 310 fps Max 315 fps Avg 313.59 fps Systema Cylinder Grease: Min 308.5 fps Max 313.1 fps Avg 310.6 fps Super Lube silicone grease: Min 318.9 fps Max 323.5 fps Avg 321.03 fps TechT Gun Sav: Min 318.7 fps Max 322.3 fps Avg 320.68 fps Using the Marui grease as the baseline the Systema grease actually seems a little worse, although its lacklustre performance could be due to its age (and I always found it worked best in combination with other greases anyway). The Super Lube and Gun Sav do offer a notable improvement over the Marui grease though and seem to be about comparable to each other.
  13. With regular lenses or thermal lenses? Because I've tried both and while the regular lenses did fog up, the thermal lens barely even starts to (and the top vent is usually covered as I normally wear a boonie hat, so the airflow through them isn't ideal)
  14. Thermal lenses work great too - I use some Revision Desert Locusts with thermal lenses & it's difficult to get them to even start fogging up.
  15. I've been doing some comparisons of the bio BBs I have over the past week or so as well - ASG Open Blasters, BioSphere, Nuprol RZR Bio, all in 0.2 & 0.25g. On paper these should be identical - they're all supposed to be 5.95mm with 0.01mm tolerance either way - and while they all perform adequately enough at 0.2g in my experience from shooting them prior to the lockdown the ASG Open Blasters seemed to the best of the three, and the Nuprols had a habit of double-feeding sometimes. I haven't used the .25g BBs enough to have any idea which of those three shoots the best though. 20 of each BB were weighed and measured and they were broken apart to check for air bubbles. When measuring a BB's diameter I rotated it and re-measured to check the variation in diameter around it & get an idea of its "roundness", noting the min, max and average diameter. Some were measured then soaked some in water for >24h (was generally around 40h-ish) and then re-measured to check for any swelling due to water absorption. There are some caveats to keep in mind: The scales I used only have a 0.01g resolution which isn't really precise enough (and they're cheap, so they're not exactly top quality either) however they should at least be sufficient to show up any significant discrepancies between the specified weight and actual weight. They're also sensitive enough that things like airflow around them can skew the result. To attempt to compensate for these to some extent I weighed each BB repeatedly and used the most frequent result. Similarly, my digital calipers (Facom 1300EA) have a resolution of 0.01mm so borderline values might read either way, but again this should be enough to show any significant variation at least. Just because I didn't find any air bubbles in a BB doesn't necessarily mean that there weren't any; there could have been some in the parts of the BB that were not exposed or they may have been too small to see with the naked eye. Also, 20 BBs is a small sample size So this isn't exactly a rigorous, in-depth look & you shouldn't take the results as entirely accurate. Also they're likely to vary from batch to batch, with some being better or worse than others. But it should at least provide some interesting information & comparison between these three brands of BB beyond merely shooting with them Nuprol RZR Bio 0.20g: Weight: Typically 0.20g, 3 measured 0.21g Size range: 5.92 - 5.95mm; 11 measured within tolerance. Roundness: 13 measured with max variation of up to 0.01mm, 4 with 0.02mm, 3 with 0.03mm There was no sign of swelling after soaking in water. Nuprol's BBs have a consistent weight but their measured size was outside of specification on almost half of the BBs tested - minimum measurements of 5.93mm were not uncommon and a few were even as low as 5.92mm. None measured above 5.95mm. They are relatively soft though - I had to be very careful when measuring their size & shape as it was very easy to read lower measurements even with the small amount of force applied by the calipers. I did not see any bubbles inside any of the BBs tested. BioSphere 0.20g: Weight: Typically 0.20g, 6 measured 0.19g Size range: 5.94 - 5.96mm; all measured within tolerance. Roundness: All measured with max variation of up to 0.01mm (15 did not vary to an extent I could measure with my calipers) There was no sign of swelling after soaking in water. BioSphere's BBs are quite consistent in weight (trending more towards the lighter side) and impressively consistent in size/shape, measuring 5.94-5.96mm with no more than 0.01mm variation in diameter around any given BB - all within the specified 5.95 +/- 0.01mm tolerance. They readily split into fragments when crushed, and unfortunately I found a bubble in every BB I tested. Here's a photo of one that I managed to crack open more or less cleanly showing the air bubble: ASG Open Blaster 0.20g: Weight: All measured 0.20g Size range: 5.90 - 5.96mm; 6 measured within tolerance. Roundness: 9 measured with max variation of up to 0.01mm, 7 with 0.02mm, 3 with 0.03mm, 1 with 0.04mm There was no sign of swelling after soaking in water. The Open Blasters had a very consistent weight with all of them measuring 0.2g, but their size and shape varied to a greater extent than the Nuprols, from 5.90mm to 5.96mm. One of the BBs tested varied between 5.92 and 5.96mm! They seem to be of a similar material as the Nuprol BBs but a lot harder. I did not see any bubbles in any of the BBs tested. Nuprol RZR Bio 0.25g: Weight: All measured 0.25g Size range: 5.91 - 5.95mm; 3 measured within tolerance. Roundness: 15 measured with max variation of up to 0.01mm, 3 with 0.02mm, 2 with 0.03mm There was no sign of swelling after soaking in water. Unsurprisingly these are much like the 0.2g version - their weight is quite consistent while their size and shape is about as variable, though they seem to be a bit smaller on average and a couple measured as low as 5.91mm. The 0.25g Nuprol RZR Bio BBs are significantly harder than the 0.20g version and didn't deform so readily. I did not see any bubbles inside any of the BBs tested. BioSphere 0.25g: Weight: Typically 0.25g, 9 measured 0.24g Size range: 5.93 - 5.94mm; 16 measured within tolerance. Roundness: All measured with max variation of up to 0.01mm (17 did not vary to an extent I could measure with my calipers) There was no sign of swelling after soaking in water. These varied a bit more in weight than their 0.2g version, and like their 0.2g version trended towards the lighter side. Their size and shape was very consistent too with none varying by more than 0.01mm, although they were slightly smaller than the 0.2g version with all of them measuring between 5.93mm and 5.94mm. Unfortunately, just like the 0.2g version I found an air bubble in every one of these I inspected too. These were also much harder than the 0.2g version and they had a tendency to shatter suddenly once they started to crack but I did manage to break open cleanly for a photo: ASG Open Blaster 0.25g: Weight: Typically 0.25g, 6 measured 0.26g Size range: 5.90 - 5.95mm; 1 measured within tolerance. Roundness: 13 measured with max variation of up to 0.01mm, 4 with 0.02mm, 2 with 0.03mm, 1 with 0.05mm There was no sign of swelling after soaking in water. These seem to be slightly less consistent in weight than their 0.20g version, trending slightly towards the heavier side. Their size & shape is about as variable, ranging from 5.90 to 5.95mm and like the others these also trend slightly towards the smaller side. I did not see any bubbles inside any of the BBs tested. As I posted earlier in this thread, AFAIK most are made from PLA & as such I wouldn't expect them to biodegrade very quickly in the environment.
×
×
  • Create New...