Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 44

Thread: Chiappa FAS 6004

  1. #16
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Cheshire
    Posts
    860

    An update ...

    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

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    2,060
    Quote Originally Posted by Iain K D View Post
    .....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?

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Pendlebury, Greater Manchester
    Posts
    2,639
    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.

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    2,060
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimstraight View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Aimstraight; 02-11-2015 at 04:00 PM. Reason: Edited to refer to hammer, pawl and sear.

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    2,060
    Ref the photo from Iain:
    http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/n...Chiappa/08.jpg

    The exploded view in the printed manual for the FAS 6004 is barely readable, but I have located a pdf manual on line:
    http://www.chiappafirearms.com/product/2681/manuals

    The two inner laminated parts in the photo are indeed described as the internal hammer (12) that fit within two outer parts described as the external hammer (11).

    This engages with what we might call a sear, the manual describes it as a Pawl (10). This appears to be a piece of pressed steel on my pistol...interesting to know what Iain found during stripdown (maybe it was solid)?

    Here is a good illustration of the location of the internal parts in the completed FAS 604:

    http://www.myhostedpics.com/images/zoned10x/fas604.jpg

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Rossendale and Formby
    Posts
    5,595
    We have a new club member who is shooting a 6004 and it seems to be working OK.

    I will have a word with him at the club this week, but as far as I am aware he has had no problems with his and he is very happy with it - especially the excellent anatomical grip that does fit very nicely.

    So in our club we have had IJ's early example that never lasted more than a few hours and another more recent example that is working to the owners satisfaction at the moment.

    Does anyone know if there has been any changes made during the production of the more recent 6004 models to improve the reliability, quality and strength ?

    I certainly hope so as it should be a nice SSP target pistol - but only if they make it properly!!
    Rossendale Target Shooting Club. Every Tuesday and Thursday evening 7 - 10pm.

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Cheshire
    Posts
    860
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimstraight View Post
    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

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Cheshire
    Posts
    860
    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

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    2,060
    Thanks Iain, all clear now. I noticed that 16.jpg in your bucket shows the finished assembly (trigger blade, sear, hammer).

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    2,060
    Quote Originally Posted by Iain K D View Post
    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).

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    2,060
    Quote Originally Posted by zooma View Post
    We have a new club member who is shooting a 6004 and it seems to be working OK.

    I will have a word with him at the club this week, but as far as I am aware he has had no problems with his and he is very happy with it - especially the excellent anatomical grip that does fit very nicely.

    So in our club we have had IJ's early example that never lasted more than a few hours and another more recent example that is working to the owners satisfaction at the moment.

    Does anyone know if there has been any changes made during the production of the more recent 6004 models to improve the reliability, quality and strength ?

    I certainly hope so as it should be a nice SSP target pistol - but only if they make it properly!!
    See the few differences noted above....there might be more.

    I have the pistol that AMAC used to have, and I am very happy with it....seems I bought one of the good ones.

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Rossendale and Formby
    Posts
    5,595
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimstraight View Post
    See the few differences noted above....there might be more.

    I have the pistol that AMAC used to have, and I am very happy with it....seems I bought one of the good ones.
    Maybe the new FAS company are getting their act together and the later and current production 6004 models are getting a little more attention to take care of the rough areas and those that have caused some concern - even though they are built down to a lower price target than the original FAS company who produced the 604 pistols?

    Has anyone else had any problems with the rear sight like those suffered by IJ on his? His failure was terminal whereas the faults and problems listed on this thread are poor quality or rough finish but the pistol can still be used and corrected or repaired.

    The screw thread ripping out of the casting on IJ's example was not repairable and has been the biggest concern that has prevented others (such as myself) from taking the risk of buying one.
    Rossendale Target Shooting Club. Every Tuesday and Thursday evening 7 - 10pm.

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    2,060
    There is a video on YouTube of someone not being able to lower the rear site enough....a similar issue that IJ experienced....which of course ended in disaster with the stripped thread.

    Considering how many have been sold (?), there does not seem to be many reports of the stripped thread that IJ experienced....horrendous as that was. I agree with IJ, a fine steel thread into an ally billet is not nice

    Regarding the stripped thread, I see there is some more information on the CAPA site, a question that comes up there is whether or not the diameter of the elevation screw has been increased/improved on later models? If every I have mine apart I would let you know.....but TBH I'm not keen to touch it I wonder if Iain K.D had this apart....maybe not? I remember he commented on the springs that apply load to the elevation screw.

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Cheshire
    Posts
    860
    I'm afraid the rearsight is one thing I've not had apart - I was already well aware of IJ's horror story. I have adjusted it slightly and got it zeroed at 10 metres with no real difficulty.

    You're right, though, the springs pushing the sight up do seem stiffer than necessary when compared to an Izh-46 or the Weihrauch and Gamo overlever SSPs.

    I did take the overlever catch off when I first got the gun, which would show the underneath of this area and might've given a clue as to the elevation screw size - but unfortunately didn't think to look.

    http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/n...Chiappa/02.jpg

    Other than removing the grip - a steel bolt going into a steel bar through the frame - I would hesitate to take this gun apart 'just to see how it works'. Everything else is bolts going into alloy (barrel clamp, overlever catch, trigger mechanism attaching to valve housing): not something to remove and tighten up repeatedly, I suspect.

    For what it's worth - I got mine at the end of June and the serial number begins '15E...' - probably not the earliest production run by Chiappa?

    iain

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    2,060
    Agreed, if it ain't broke don't fix it...I'm not removing those screws anytime soon.

    The S/N on mine begins 14G which suggests older than yours. For whatever reason, original build, customisation or being well run in, the hammer profiles look smoother.

Posting Permissions

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