Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 18

Thread: Hawk MK1 mainspring and fun

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Cambridge UK
    Posts
    2,758

    Hawk MK1 mainspring and fun

    Hawk Mk1 Ser. No. 21615
    Complete with .177 and .22 barrels, present from daughter. Cosmetically very good except for broken rear site. But performance was dire. I stripped it down ... the end block refused to move under spring pressure so I gingerly 'persuaded' it to move, expecting a surge as it broke free. Nope .. it wasn't moving because the spring was too weak to push it out. Spring was no longer than the cyclinder with no preload, and clearly collapsed Piston washer (ptfe) looked good, as did breech seal.
    At this point I had a Titan XS spring (No. 7) advertised as being for the Hawk Mk 1-3. From the start it was clear it was too long so I removed a few coils to give about 2" of preload. I could tell by trying to fit it that it was still too much so reduced it to 22.5cm long and 27 coils. Fitted with marked preload (about 1") but not too difficult. Firing was a marked improvement with performance about on spec, depending on pellet. But action was somewhat harsh and noisy. Cocking was OK but I could tell it was not perfect; spring had been a fair fit in the piston but I doubt if I could have fitted a piston liner.
    Then came Jim Tyler's recent AGW (August) article in which he fitted a Meteor spring as he felt the spring he had fitted was too strong. I had a Meteor spring (Titan XS again, No. 6) so stripped rifle down and fitted it. It was, again, clearly too long so needed cutting to fit to give approx 1 " preload again. I took the opportunity to make a form of spring guide ... but putting the guide in the piston, not a floating one as Jim used but a true guide fitting in the base of the piston. The guide was about 5mm shorter than the piston interior space.The end block acted as a top hat. Rifle is now much sweeter to shoot, much quieter and performs better in .177, reaching 650fps with Wasps but .22 has not changed. Just goes to show that a strong mainspring does not always equal more muzzle energy.
    While doing all this, I tested the piston for air tightness. It was good but out of curiosity I added some oil to the stock fixing holes, sealed the breech seal and pushed the piston in. Oil was expelled from one hole indicating a leak from the cylinder. I guess it was via the screwed in block but decided that I could ignore it as the stock bolt would provide a pretty good plug. I did ponder treating it as I would an HW35 but noticed that the bottom of the cylinder was profiled and that the PTFE piston seal was similarly profiled ... so I left it alone. I have come across such leaky breeches before ... the last time was a rifle where the hole for the stock bolt had penetrated the transfer port channel. But on the Hawk the transfer port channel is too far away to be 'in the line of fire' as it were.
    I mentioned the broken rear sight .. the part that incorporates the sighting notch had broken, although the main body was still present, pivoting on its pin. Remedy was to make a steel plate that I screwed and glued onto the body part ... a bit fiddly to fasten but it works. Elevation / depression is via the original thumb wheel with a spring underneath that pushes the new plate up. I do not think it has all the movement of the original but it works. The other fiddly bit is the small star washer that secures the windage screw ... I have yet to find a replacement in the same style but the old one is performing well.
    So ..... thanks Jim for the Hawk inspiration.

    Cheers, Phil

  2. #2
    T 20 is offline Super Moderator and Spoonbender
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Quigley Hollow, Nuneaton
    Posts
    4,892
    Hi Phil

    I thought I'd show you this --- I was given it by a pensioner last year while I was mending his son's JCB in his back garden (secondary developement).

    http://i1138.photobucket.com/albums/...2_05090186.jpg

    http://i1138.photobucket.com/albums/...2_05090190.jpg

    I haven't done anything with it yet, since I half expect the old chap's son to ask for it back when he finds it gone.

    I like to think it tells the story of a Father teaching his son to shoot --- and the pair of them building a case for the gun.





    I have also found the standard 20mm OD springs too tight in the piston and have used a 19mm OD Meteor spring in one Hawk.

    John Knibs now has an even better spring for both the Meteor and Hawk in spring No 11 which is 18.8mm OD and 3mm wire.




    All the best Mick

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Worcester
    Posts
    19,834
    Quote Originally Posted by Phil Russell View Post
    Cosmetically very good except for broken rear site.


    I'd look for a spring around 2.9mm wire diameter, 19.1 - 19.3mm outside diameter, with between 30 and 33 coils (giving rates between 32 lbf/in and 29 lbf/in respectively) that gave a natural (without packing) preload of around an inch. That should be in the right ball park.

  4. #4
    T 20 is offline Super Moderator and Spoonbender
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Quigley Hollow, Nuneaton
    Posts
    4,892
    Quote Originally Posted by BTDT View Post


    I'd look for a spring around 2.9mm wire diameter, 19.1 - 19.3mm outside diameter, with between 30 and 33 coils (giving rates between 32 lbf/in and 29 lbf/in respectively) that gave a natural (without packing) preload of around an inch. That should be in the right ball park.
    Hi Jim

    The standard Meteor MK6 is about the nearest I can find to that spec after cutting but again the OD is only 18.8mm.

    Have you tried sleeving the Hawk transfer port down to 2.5mm yet (you'll need to use a Vulcan breach seal) ?


    I sleeved My HW35 down from 4mm to 2.3mm yesterday, the power hardly altered but the firing cycle was transformed and the chrono keeps reading dup.
    I still can't believe all that air could get through a 2.3mm hole.


    You really must try it on your Arnie




    All the best Mick

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Worcester
    Posts
    19,834
    Morning, Mick.

    I think I almost certainly used a spring from an earlier Meteor in my Hawk many moons ago, and don't have the specifications, but it did suit the Hawk.

    I don't currently have a Hawk, but I understand how sleeving an over-sized transfer port can improve efficiency. I tried it on the 335, but that was before I discovered the bulge in the cylinder wall, which was effectively reducing the compression stroke to a fraction of what it should be, so the sleeving was to no avail. I really must get around to trying to cure that.

    Cheers,

    Jim

  6. #6
    ggggr is offline This post will self destruct in 5..4..3..2..1..
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Flintshire Ch6 sort of near bagillt
    Posts
    1,675
    A couple of things here. always thought that meteor springs fit hawk pistons better than Webley ones. I took up a Hawk piston To MAG and asked for a meteor mainspring to fit. Alan, quite rightly, pointed out that it was a Hawk piston I had. I told him to try a Webley spring in the piston and then a meteor one (silver streak I think) and he agreed that the meteor was a better fit.
    I cannot understand why the Hawk mk1,2 and 3 have the same mainspring, when the mk1 has a shorter cylinder. They always seem oversprung with one of these fitted.
    On the subject of the sleeving the transfer port, I tried this after reading Mick,s comments on the B2 and the Hawk earlier this year. Not having a chrono or anything, and having a bit of time to kill one Saturday night, I found a rivet that would fit the breech seal hole on the cylinder and then put the breech seal back in. The pellet seemed to be hitting the backstop harder and the POI moved about an inch to the left and higher ( I think). I tried it on another hawk with the same result. The rivet then fell into the cylinder , prompting a quick strip down. If you are not an engineer, I suppose the easiest way of sleeving is to us some Ptfe rod or similar to make a breech seal and open up the hole a bit at a time.
    I also had the leaking cylinder thing with a hawk. I had to unscrew the cylinder end and jaws and use loctite to sort it. When chronoed for me, that had gone up from about 6.5 to 8.8ft lb.
    Cooler than Mace Windu with a FRO, walking into Members Only and saying "Bitches, be cool"

  7. #7
    T 20 is offline Super Moderator and Spoonbender
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Quigley Hollow, Nuneaton
    Posts
    4,892
    Quote Originally Posted by ggggr View Post
    If you are not an engineer, I suppose the easiest way of sleeving is to us some Ptfe rod or similar to make a breech seal and open up the hole a bit at a time.
    I also had the leaking cylinder thing with a hawk. I had to unscrew the cylinder end and jaws and use loctite to sort it. When chronoed for me, that had gone up from about 6.5 to 8.8ft lb.
    Hi Guy

    I doubt that PTFE would last very long as the hot air would erode it.

    I have been told that you can buy 4mm OD microbore brass pipe on the bay, this could be cut to length and worked in an electric drill to size it.

    I normally form the chamfered lead in by simply spinning the brass sleeve up and putting a Stanly knife blade up it --- works well.


    I wonder if the leaking Hawks could be sorted the same way as I did my HW35, with a little loctite 271 forced into the joint from inside the cylinder ?




    All the best Mick

  8. #8
    ggggr is offline This post will self destruct in 5..4..3..2..1..
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Flintshire Ch6 sort of near bagillt
    Posts
    1,675
    Quote Originally Posted by T 20 View Post
    Hi Guy

    I doubt that PTFE would last very long as the hot air would erode it.

    I have been told that you can buy 4mm OD microbore brass pipe on the bay, this could be cut to length and worked in an electric drill to size it.

    I normally form the chamfered lead in by simply spinning the brass sleeve up and putting a Stanly knife blade up it --- works well.


    I wonder if the leaking Hawks could be sorted the same way as I did my HW35, with a little loctite 271 forced into the joint from inside the cylinder ?




    All the best Mick
    Hi Mick---I meant making a full breech seal out of ptfe and then putting a hole in it, rather than actually trying to sleeve the transfer port itself. assumed that this would be ok as some people use ptfe to make breech seals for Cadets and Majors? Would hot air open up the hole in the middle if you more of less copied the Webley seal out of Ptfe but just put a smaller hole in it? The 4mm pipe would be handy for the centre of Webley pistol seals made of leather.
    The trouble with the leaking hawks is that there are only about 2 threads on the plug, beyond the stock screw hole.At first I thought the stock screw hole was too deep but the air was actually coming around the thread. I think I used 271 loctite to sort it out.
    Cooler than Mace Windu with a FRO, walking into Members Only and saying "Bitches, be cool"

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Worcester
    Posts
    19,834
    Quote Originally Posted by ggggr View Post
    Hi Mick---I meant making a full breech seal out of ptfe and then putting a hole in it, rather than actually trying to sleeve the transfer port itself. assumed that this would be ok as some people use ptfe to make breech seals for Cadets and Majors? Would hot air open up the hole in the middle if you more of less copied the Webley seal out of Ptfe but just put a smaller hole in it? The 4mm pipe would be handy for the centre of Webley pistol seals made of leather.
    The trouble with the leaking hawks is that there are only about 2 threads on the plug, beyond the stock screw hole.At first I thought the stock screw hole was too deep but the air was actually coming around the thread. I think I used 271 loctite to sort it out.
    I think the breech seal on the Hawk needs to be elastic, to deform as the breech is closed, then to return to its original shape to seal the breech. PTFE is not elastic; squash it and it stays squashed.

    The other point is that Mick is reducing transfer port size to raise the compression ratio, which you would not achieve by restricting just the hole in the seal, I'm afraid.

  10. #10
    ggggr is offline This post will self destruct in 5..4..3..2..1..
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Flintshire Ch6 sort of near bagillt
    Posts
    1,675
    Quote Originally Posted by BTDT View Post
    I think the breech seal on the Hawk needs to be elastic, to deform as the breech is closed, then to return to its original shape to seal the breech. PTFE is not elastic; squash it and it stays squashed.

    The other point is that Mick is reducing transfer port size to raise the compression ratio, which you would not achieve by restricting just the hole in the seal, I'm afraid.
    Re the Ptfe washer not returning to shape---fair enough. I assume they are ok on the cadet and Major becasue the block slopes? I would have thought that any restriction of air flow would up compression ratio? made leather washers for small Webley and Diana rifles, where the hole in the washer closes up to the point where the gun wont fire (although clearing the hole a few times until the seal settles works). assume that the compression had increased to the point that the piston could not force the air out? I think (offhand) that compression ratio (on an engine) is the volume of the cylinder/volume of the head so a 500cc cylinder with a 50cc head = 10 to 1 compression? On a webley, as you could consider that the seal is about 1/4 inch thick, any reduction in the size of the hole in it must reduce volume and therefore up compression? Obviously with a thinner washer, less of an effect.
    Cooler than Mace Windu with a FRO, walking into Members Only and saying "Bitches, be cool"

  11. #11
    T 20 is offline Super Moderator and Spoonbender
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Quigley Hollow, Nuneaton
    Posts
    4,892
    Quote Originally Posted by ggggr View Post
    Hi Mick---I meant making a full breech seal out of ptfe and then putting a hole in it, rather than actually trying to sleeve the transfer port itself. assumed that this would be ok as some people use ptfe to make breech seals for Cadets and Majors? Would hot air open up the hole in the middle if you more of less copied the Webley seal out of Ptfe but just put a smaller hole in it? The 4mm pipe would be handy for the centre of Webley pistol seals made of leather.
    The trouble with the leaking hawks is that there are only about 2 threads on the plug, beyond the stock screw hole.At first I thought the stock screw hole was too deep but the air was actually coming around the thread. I think I used 271 loctite to sort it out.
    Hi Guy

    As Jim says the idea of reducing the transfer port is to raise the static compression ratio of the gun.

    A standard MK2/3 Hawk has a swept volume of about 37 cc and the standard transfer port has a volume of about 0.201cc giving a compression ratio of 184/1.

    If you sleeve the transfer port down to 2.5mm over its full length the transfer port volume reduces to 0.079 cc giving a compression ratio of 468/1.

    2.5mm is the standard size of a Vulcan transfer port by the way --- so no flow problems with that size port.

    If you just replaced the Transfer port seal with a PTFE seal/reducer I think there would be problems with the double reduction in transfer port diameter. The PTFE would probably erode as the air went through it and as Jim says PTFE has no memory so if you squash it it stays squashed.

    I'm still experimenting with all this at the moment but I'm finding synthetic seals and O rings seem to like a compression ratio of in between 300/1 - 600/1 whereas leather seals prefer to run below 200/1.

    This could explain why folks who change HW55s from a leather to synthetic piston seal don't like the firing cycle ?

    On my favourite HW77 I have opened the transfer port up to reduce the compression ratio from its standard 1055/1 down to 490/1.







    All the best Mick

  12. #12
    ggggr is offline This post will self destruct in 5..4..3..2..1..
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Flintshire Ch6 sort of near bagillt
    Posts
    1,675
    Part of the thing trying to get across here Mick is that because of the design and thickness of the hawk seal, is that the volume of the hole in the washer should also be taken into consideration? (the volume of the seal must be about 1/3 of the volume of the transfer port?) Ie that the hole should be considered a part of the transfer port in just the same way as if you fitted a sleeve to the transfer port that extended as far as the front edge of the seal and then for example fitted an O ring for a seal instead of the Webley job. I can see you trying that soon to save on Webley seals except I bet you turn your own.
    On something like a meteor, with a very short port and a seal on the barrel it would be a different case.
    I wonder why the small Webley and Diana rifles had a washer on the cylinder side? I think on the Diana 23 it was a very shallow recess as well?
    Cooler than Mace Windu with a FRO, walking into Members Only and saying "Bitches, be cool"

  13. #13
    T 20 is offline Super Moderator and Spoonbender
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Quigley Hollow, Nuneaton
    Posts
    4,892
    Quote Originally Posted by ggggr View Post
    Part of the thing trying to get across here Mick is that because of the design and thickness of the hawk seal, is that the volume of the hole in the washer should also be taken into consideration? (the volume of the seal must be about 1/3 of the volume of the transfer port?) Ie that the hole should be considered a part of the transfer port in just the same way as if you fitted a sleeve to the transfer port that extended as far as the front edge of the seal and then for example fitted an O ring for a seal instead of the Webley job. I can see you trying that soon to save on Webley seals except I bet you turn your own.
    On something like a meteor, with a very short port and a seal on the barrel it would be a different case.
    I wonder why the small Webley and Diana rifles had a washer on the cylinder side? I think on the Diana 23 it was a very shallow recess as well?
    Hi Guy

    I know what you're saying in that the original Hawk seal has a smaller hole in it than the Vulcan, the seal is however shown as the same part number on Chambers for both guns --- so does the Hawk seal collapse and closed up over time?

    My calcs above are based on using a new Hawk/Vulcan breach seal which has a 4mm hole through it so with a new seal the Hawk has a 4mm transfer port straight through.

    Yes I do make the transfer port sleeve so that it goes from breach face to cylinder face, this also holds the seal better than the standard setup.

    For the transfer port seal I just cut some hard rubber tube to length, I mount the rubber tube on a rod in the lathe and cut using a Stanley knife blade in the toolpost.

    I think the Hawk has the seal in the breach so that you only need one breach seal for the two barrels --- the design of the Hawk/Vulcan locking pin also leaves little room for the seal in the end of the barrel.

    I think I have a Diana 23 kicking about somewhere and if I remember correctly the breach plunger is in the end of the cylinder so there's plenty of room in there for the seal. The other problem is that the barrel is sleeved and not solid so it's not ideal to put a seal in the end of it.


    Oh and don't think that I've forgotten that I owe you a Vulcan cylinder Guy, I still have it safe and sound for when you're settled and you want it.





    All the best Mick

  14. #14
    ggggr is offline This post will self destruct in 5..4..3..2..1..
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Flintshire Ch6 sort of near bagillt
    Posts
    1,675
    Cheers Mick-- give you a shout when I get sorted with a place.
    Part of the thing I was on about was that the width and volume of the Webley breech seal should be taken into consideration in a calculation, but it looks like you have done that.
    As a bit of an experiment Mick, could you try a Ptfe seal with a smaller hole in it and let me know the difference in fps or ftlbs, compared to a standard seal? I know you say that it wont last I would just be interested as to what it does, because I found that it moved POI on the 2 guns I tried it on and it SEEMED to be hitting the backstop harder (No chrono obviously)
    I think the reason why Webley,s have the breech seal on the cylinder is something to do with on old airguns that had this set up, you could take out the breech seal and fit a firing pin to fire live rounds. Everybody went over to a seal on the barrel but Webley stuck with the seal on cylinder set up but choked the barrels to stop you doing this. pretty sure I read this in an article in AGW about 1980 It may have been something to do with an air shotgun?
    Re the Diana 22/23 small Webley rifles, I think on the Diana 23 version I had, the breech seal was very thin (about 1/2 th thickness of the 22). I think I made it up out of the tongue of an old boot
    Ps the 23 is the proper barrel version of the 22, like a Webley Ranger.
    Cooler than Mace Windu with a FRO, walking into Members Only and saying "Bitches, be cool"

  15. #15
    T 20 is offline Super Moderator and Spoonbender
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Quigley Hollow, Nuneaton
    Posts
    4,892
    Quote Originally Posted by ggggr View Post
    I cannot understand why the Hawk mk1,2 and 3 have the same mainspring, when the mk1 has a shorter cylinder. They always seem oversprung with one of these fitted.
    Hi Guy

    You're right again mate I've just put my MK1 and MK2 together and the MK1 has a completely different and shorter cylinder with no swelling for the breach block as the MK2 and MK3 have.

    My MK2 is an early one with the MK1 style stock, I always took it that Webley just used up MK1 stocks on the early MK2s --- but the stocks are completely different as is the cylinder and stroke (I'll try to stick a piccy up later).

    So it looks as though Jim's spring reccomendations in his excellent article on tuning the MK3 Hawk don't fully cross over to the MK1 as a shorter spring would be needed.


    Quote Originally Posted by ggggr View Post
    Cheers Mick Part of the thing I was on about was that the width and volume of the Webley breech seal should be taken into consideration in a calculation, but it looks like you have done that.
    Well while I was comparing MK1 and MK2 Hawks I noticed that the MK1s original seal has a 4mm hole through it and from the days when I used a Hawk as my main gun I vaguely remember the seal hole being fairly big and having to change it when it closed up, so perhaps they were always 4mm straight through ?





    All the best Mick

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •