Chiappa FAS 6004

[zooma]

If you can find a good FAS 604 (either a mk 1 or a mk 2) it is probably not too much of a worry if it is leaking as seals are easy and inexpensive to find and it is not beyond the skills of most shooters to change them at home or even in the club range !

If repairing an FAS 604 yourself is not something you would want to do yourself there are lots of RFD's that can do this simple job for you including our own BBS guru DM88.

My first FAS 604 was a very well used old mk 1 with an adjustable anatomical grip that had had a hard life and it did not seal as well as it should by the time I became its latest owner so I found the exploded diagram and took it apart - and although that is always the easy bit - I was pleasantly surprised to find that it went back together again just as easily after I had changed the seals.

Many years later this pistol is still performing well and I would be surprised if it did not continue to do so in the foreseeable future.

The FAS 604 air pistol does not look like it was build down to a price - whereas the current 6004 looks to me it is a like a low budget production item (in comparison) even though they shoot well enough.

FAS 604 pistols are highly thought of and always sell quickly whenever one becomes available so they also make a good long term investment that you are unlikely to loose much (if any) cash on if you ever decide to part with it and you would never have any problems selling it.

My opinion from everything I have seen and heard is that the 6004 would not be such a solid long term investment either from a monetary or durability point of view - and that is a shame as I was one of the first to be contacted by the new FAS company in Italy when they started production of them and I thought it looked like a great replacement for a very well loved match pistol.

Our own IJ had to have one as soon as they became available () and brought it to our club where we were able to give it a "good coat of looking at" but it failed almost immediately ( well documented on a BBS thread) and was returned with the option of an exchange. Another new 6004 was not taken as an option!

I very much doubt if the FAS 6004 will ever be held in such high esteem as the FAS 604 or if they will still be mechanically sound after 30 - 40 years use but I would not be at all surprised if the old FAS 604 pistols were still going strong after double that length of time !

[Aimstraight]

The FAS 604 air pistol does not look like it was build down to a price - whereas the current 6004 looks to me it is a like a low budget production item (in comparison) even though they shoot well enough.

Agreed. I understand that a new 604 would have cost (in todays terms) a lot more than the cost of a new 6004 (which is not a small sum). Maybe they thought they would not recoup costs on sales, if production costs are as high as the original 604.

[zooma]

Agreed. I understand that a new 604 would have cost (in todays terms) a lot more than the cost of a new 6004 (which is not a small sum). Maybe they thought they would not recoup costs on sales, if production costs are as high as the original 604.

I think you are absolutely correct to draw the comparison between the "actual" price of both the original FAS 604 and the current FAS 6004 as they are very different and it puts the whole discussion regarding the comparison of the two into a much sharper perspective.

The FAS 6004 is a much less expensive pistol to buy from new than the FAS 604 was and so it would be unreasonable to compare the two without considering the cost element.

When considered in this way the FAS 6004 is a nice looking pistol that does share many of the original 604 features in the same way that the GAMO Compact does... but for a little extra cost the new FAS manufacturers could have looked a little more carefully in certain areas such as those already mentioned in this thread and at the material choice and thread dimensions around the weak rear sight area.

Maybe FAS will produce a mk 2 version of the 6004 in the future where they address the "snags" that prevent this being an excellent and good value for money SSP match pistol - and if they do this then my own interest in owning one would be revived and I would rather pay the extra for an improved 6004 than buy a new GAMO Compact for less cash.

The 6004 does have great potential and I hope the manufacturers address the areas of concern in the near future as it would not take much to improve it considerably.

[Arthur John Smithsplease]

Are these guns still selling well.

You cannot expect the quality of the originals for the price Chiappas is charging. They're only about $400 in the US.

But then I remember a time when the original 604 came in for its fair share of criticism for leaks and perished seals. I think some retailers stopped selling it because of these problems.

Maybe for someone who just likes to shoot at home the 6004 would be a fnice alternative to the huge top heavy HW75.

What bothers me is the low velocity the gun appears to produce. I read somehwere that a gun producing less than 390 fps will not make clean holes in a Bisley paper target.

If any owners would care to comment on this I'd appreciate it. Does it seem sturdy enough to last a few years?

[Arthur John Smithsplease]

For some reason my previous post hasn't been published so I thought I'd see if posting again would get it up on the forum.

[I. J.]

Our own IJ had to have one as soon as they became available () and brought it to our club where we were able to give it a "good coat of looking at" but it failed almost immediately ( well documented on a BBS thread) and was returned with the option of an exchange. Another new 6004 was not taken as an option!

Tis true. I waited many a weeks for the new FAS6004 to arrive and picked one up as soon as possible from my local, friendly retailer. In the very short time I had it (2 days ) it seemed to shoot fine if somewhat low. Thats when the trouble started. When I came to adjust the rear sight the adjusting screw (2mm steel) stripped the ally thread. http://smg.photobucket.com/user/Airs...l?sort=6&o=133 Perhaps mine was just a rouge example or I dont know my own strength.
I exchanged it for a s/h FWB100 - now that is a lovely piece of equipment.

HTH
Ian

[Iain K D]

Aside from the slight niggle with actually opening and closing the gun, everything had been working fine – until I took it to the club (not having checked it at home first) and straight away felt the cocking stroke to be wrong: on closing the gun, there was some movement, but no real resistance, a slight ‘pffft’ of air, and only then compression. Power was low, I assume, for a couple of shots, but non-existent for a couple of others – the pellet simply did not move.

I’ll say now that I don’t quite know what exactly caused this, but the gun has been stripped, cleaned, re-lubed and put back together – and has worked for another few visits to the club.

I had already found a dismantling guide for the FAS and the 6004 came apart in exactly the same way. One slight constructional difference, I think, is that the 6004 has a brass bushing passing through the valve housing for the rear pivot pin (which on mine, at least, was a tighter fit in this bushing than the frame) The actual finish of the valve housing, though, doesn't really bear comparison to the 604.

http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/n...hiappa/001.jpg

Removing the cylinder and trigger assembly from the frame, it was – still – quite a tight fit in the frame, notice the wear and scratches on the side of the blued steel trigger mechanism housing. I don’t know, of course, how this compares to the original; like the overlever and frame rubbing slightly, does this suggest parts just being cast and then not really tidied up before assembly?

http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/n...hiappa/004.jpg

Of the various parts in the trigger mechanism, the trigger pivot pin is fixed in place, the sear and hammer are not, and the latter was removed quite easily. The hammer had what looked like wear on the bent – full cock ‘notch’, if you will – and its front face below this, where it gets dragged past the sear on cocking (this is visible looking behind the trigger when opening the gun). I didn’t notice what these surfaces looked like brand new: would this really have just been left as the rough unfinished edges of the steel laminations – and still expect to get a decent trigger pull?

http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/n...Chiappa/08.jpg

The trigger mechanism, valve housing and cylinder came apart as expected, after which the piston was removed from the valve end of the compression cylinder. The o-ring here wasn’t damaged at all, so that wasn’t the cause of the fault, but it has gone back in with a light smear of silicon grease – when I first got the gun, I lubricated it with Abbey SM50 through the air inlet hole. The outside diameter of the piston head also got a smear of Moly G-N paste – I suppose with the movement of the cylinder on opening and closing the gun, there could be some contact here.

http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/n...hiappa/006.jpg
http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/n...hiappa/007.jpg
http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/n...hiappa/010.jpg

Examining the bore of the compression cylinder, it did seem to be marked about half way along, possibly just slightly worn. Whether this had some bearing on the issue, I don’t know – could a less than perfectly lubricated o-ring not seal on this portion? This cylinder is supposed to be stainless steel – that is what the handbook refers to, not in the parts list but in the general description of operating the gun: “The stainless steel cylinder is designed to achieve a consistent air pressure with little effort while loading.” I saw what looked like brass edges, beneath an external (and internal – except where it was worn?) plating, mostly at the rear edges where it is chamfered to fit over the valve housing and sealing o-ring.

One benefit of having the gun apart was that the small steel insert at the rear of the frame for the overlever catch to engage with could be removed – access to its securing nut was a bit limited otherwise. This was given an extra chamfer at its top edge, so the overlever catch can ride over it more easily, and the recess in the frame it sits in was gone over lightly with a flat file – just enough to touch some high spots (hmmm - what did I say about the frame being cast and not cleaned up).

http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/n...hiappa/011.jpg
http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/n...Chiappa/12.jpg

The gun now opens cleanly when the release catch is pressed, and can be pushed shut without having to press the catch while doing so. Since the rearsight hasn’t broken yet either, I do still enjoy shooting this – comparisons with the Gamo Compact are inevitable (I’ve had the club gun out) and while that gun is superior in some ways, the handling of the 6004 is undoubtedly much better.

Postscript – this is what individual pellet holes look like at 10 metres on ‘Bisley’ target cards. This was with RWS Geco, which felt slightly tight when loading but still gave muzzle velocities of around 360 – 370 ft/s. I also used up a tin of Bisley Practice which loaded much more easily, but they were a little heavier and slower.

http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/n...Chiappa/14.jpg
http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/n...Chiappa/15.jpg

Iain

[Aimstraight]

.....Of the various parts in the trigger mechanism, the trigger pivot pin is fixed in place, the sear and hammer are not, and the latter was removed quite easily. The hammer had what looked like wear on the bent – full cock ‘notch’, if you will – and its front face below this, where it gets dragged past the sear on cocking (this is visible looking behind the trigger when opening the gun). I didn’t notice what these surfaces looked like brand new: would this really have just been left as the rough unfinished edges of the steel laminations – and still expect to get a decent trigger pull?

http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/n...Chiappa/08.jpg....Iain

Thanks for the update. Can you please clarify what the above photo is showing....the parts look very rough?

[Inspector 71]

Should the 6004 actually be on sale? It would appear that the poor parts' finish renders this pistol not fit for purpose?

I'm very glad I have a fabulous 604 MkII.

[RobinC]

Should the 6004 actually be on sale? It would appear that the poor parts' finish renders this pistol not fit for purpose?

I'm very glad I have a fabulous 604 MkII.

Come on be fair! It is Italian after all! And form will always over rule function, Alfa cars? Ducati before Audi bought them?

The old ones were also a bit Italian, my Mk 1 bought new (lost count of the years, 32 years ago?) despite being very regularly and heavily used is still working perfectly today, my MkII also bought new, the seals went inside the first hour of use and it was full of swarf, but its perfect now.

As one who has had most makes of Italian motorcycles (and still has 3) you don't neccessarily buy Italian and expect it to work, its part of the charm!

Have fun, and good shooting.
Robin

[TRS1]

An old thread... But any recent knowledge of new 6004s... Old threads seem to suggest QC issues.

Any recent purchasers of new ones here?

[Aimstraight]

Thanks for the update. Can you please clarify what the above photo is showing....the parts look very rough?

Right, I have had a look and see what this is...it first looked like the sear, but they call this the hammer To be more precise (on mine) it's the two outer edges that make contact/do the work, these have been polished/worn to give a good clean let off. The pressed steel parts on the insides seem to be to add strength/rigidity (they call this the internal hammer). This engages with a pressed steel part (they call the pawl...this seems to be the sear) that in turn is operated by the trigger.

[Iain K D]

Thanks for the update. Can you please clarify what the above photo is showing....the parts look very rough?

Just to clarify what I'm referring to, the trigger mechanism consists of three essential parts from front to back (look at the cross section of the 604 and the 6004 manual explaining trigger adjustment):
Firstly, the trigger blade,
Behind that an arm pivoted near its lower edge and running diagonally up and forward - the sear. The trigger blade contacts the top end of this arm via the two adjustment screws set into it (the trigger, that is).
Thirdly the hammer (ignore how the hammer is made, and that it has a mainspring and guide attached).
Once the gun is cocked, the hammer is held back by the bottom, inner edge of the sear engaging a lip on the hammer - that is the face you can see in the picture.
Now in order to cock the gun, the at-rest hammer has to be pulled past the sear and it may be that this has caused wear similar to that in the picture on the front face of the hammer - as you look at the picture, the bottom edge immediately round from the polished area.
I say this may be wear, as I find it hard to believe that to get a good trigger pull you would rely on the rough unfinished edges of the laminations that make up the hammer - this is not a B2 or a 'Webley' Typhoon. So, maybe this had already been ground up a bit to get a nice sharp edge to give a crisp trigger pull - I don't know.
Construction wise, the trigger blade is alloy.
The sear is blued steel but - from memory - nothing overly solid, only stamped/folded.
The hammer is four steel plates permanently fastened/riveted together - the outer two being a different shape, so as to fit around the valve stem (and also the mainspring guide rod).

Iain

[Iain K D]

http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/n...Chiappa/17.jpg

This is the gun partially opened: the trigger mechanism has started to move - remember it is attached to the air cylinder - and the sear is being dragged past the front face of the hammer. See how rough the face of the hammer is here.

http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/n...Chiappa/16.jpg

This is now open enough to cock the hammer (and still open, hence the position of the trigger). The bottom edge of the sear has engaged with the hammer. On the front face of the hammer you can see the rough, laminated construction as it disappears into the frame and a glint closer to the sear - just below what might be called the full cock notch.

The question is - is this just wear or would this be brought to a sharp corner in the interest of a good trigger pull?

Iain

[Aimstraight]

http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/n...Chiappa/17.jpg

This is the gun partially opened: the trigger mechanism has started to move - remember it is attached to the air cylinder - and the sear is being dragged past the front face of the hammer. See how rough the face of the hammer is here.

http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/n...Chiappa/16.jpg

This is now open enough to cock the hammer (and still open, hence the position of the trigger). The bottom edge of the sear has engaged with the hammer. On the front face of the hammer you can see the rough, laminated construction as it disappears into the frame and a glint closer to the sear - just below what might be called the full cock notch.

The question is - is this just wear or would this be brought to a sharp corner in the interest of a good trigger pull?

Iain

Just had a closer look at mine with a bright Cree led torch. There seems to be some variability in finish between our pistols! The last 5mm of the visible part of the hammer has been polished to remove the rough stamp markings on the inner and outer laminations. Regarding the earlier photo that showed the shoulder of the hammer that the sear latches when set, mine has a more regular profile across the four laminations and also appears to have been polished on the last 5mm.

The minimal marks on yours appears to be (normal) wear, whereas on mine it appears to have been deliberately profiled.

This not the only difference as previously mentioned, the casting near the breach is painted black on mine (bare on yours), the plastic end cap on mine is black (white on yours), the bottom edge of the barrel has been chamfered (not on yours which snagged the alloy casting), and mine has no shim on the barrel (present on yours).

I will try to get some close up photos, but it might be difficult in situ (I have no plans to strip the pistol).