Is there a mechanically perfect springer?

[FPoole]

Just the opposite problem with my LGU piston in my TX. The factory piston works perfect and the LGU needs a bit of a bump sometimes. Always felt a little extra meat was needed where the tip of the top sear presses on the top of the second sear. As it presses down on sear 2, it pulls sear 2 forward and allows the safety to pop free. Seems to me that it needs to touch the second sear a little sooner in the cocking stroke. In the end, I really don't care if the safety sets or not, but it would be better that it work perfectly.

[Scott.]

I would have thought that most of not all of the quality branded springers were mechanically perfect on paper...
(Otherwise the so-called engineer who designed it is a total walloper)

That would of course have been before the bean counters forced economical compromises into the equation and undid all their hard work

[Carl2]

I would have thought that most of not all of the quality branded springers were mechanically perfect on paper...
(Otherwise the so-called engineer who designed it is a total walloper)

That would of course have been before the bean counters forced economical compromises into the equation and undid all their hard work

I agree that's why I cannot fathom out why Beeman are still selling that daft rifle that fires 2 shots at the same time. I thought I may buy one just for a laugh but any test shows just how hopeless this rifle is.

[cooper_dan]

I would have thought that most of not all of the quality branded springers were mechanically perfect on paper...
(Otherwise the so-called engineer who designed it is a total walloper)

That would of course have been before the bean counters forced economical compromises into the equation and undid all their hard work

An engineer's job is basically managing compromises to produce a product with the desired cost/performance/weight/durability etc.
We don't get to design 'perfect' products, with possibly the exception of F1 but even they are working to rules.

If there is a 'perfect' design it would have to be an individual's pet project from the outset. And even then it would never be perfect because there are ALWAYS compromises to be made

[nurek]

I am surprised that no one has mentioned the Whiscombe?

It's mechanically perfect with its two pistons cancelling out recoil and it has the best trigger in the business.

[cooper_dan]

I am surprised that no one has mentioned the Whiscombe?

It's mechanically perfect with its two pistons cancelling out recoil and it has the best trigger in the business.

Depends on your definition of perfect.
The way a whiscome works with a gear rack on each side of the gear will create a slight twisting moment around the vertical axis (i.e twist left or right as you are holding it). Due to the centre of gravity of each piston being offset to one side of the cylinder axis.

Is it noticeable? Probably not
Is it 'perfect'? No

[nurek]

Depends on your definition of perfect.
The way a whiscome works with a gear rack on each side of the gear will create a slight twisting moment around the vertical axis (i.e twist left or right as you are holding it). Due to the centre of gravity of each piston being offset to one side of the cylinder axis.

Is it noticeable? Probably not
Is it 'perfect'? No

My definition of perfect? Are you having a laugh? Going by your definition nothing can ever be perfect. Spring airgun is a mechanical object which is subject to forces, stress, strain etc. etc. If we look at details like bending of the compression tube due to offsets, almost every spring gun is subject to it, if the locking mechanism is not inline with the center of the piston/spring (and it never is on conventional springers).

As for the Whiscombe, if you want to analyse bending due to moment it's actually happening in both the vertical and horizontal planes (vertical due to what you said above) and horizontal as the gear is offset from the center of the piston/springs (it's below it), hence force is applied away from the place where the load is being held, bending the cylinder.

If we go into that much detail, maybe you'd expect airguns to be 100% efficient too, or anything less is not perfect...

Please define perfect

[Baxterbasics]

My definition of perfect? Are you having a laugh? Going by your definition nothing can ever be perfect. Spring airgun is a mechanical object which is subject to forces, stress, strain etc. etc. If we look at details like bending of the compression tube due to offsets, almost every spring gun is subject to it, if the locking mechanism is not inline with the center of the piston/spring (and it never is on conventional springers).

As for the Whiscombe, if you want to analyse bending due to moment it's actually happening in both the vertical and horizontal planes (vertical due to what you said above) and horizontal as the gear is offset from the center of the piston/springs (it's below it), hence force is applied away from the place where the load is being held, bending the cylinder.

If we go into that much detail, maybe you'd expect airguns to be 100% efficient too, or anything less is not perfect...

Please define perfect

I put 5 shots into a 5p piece target at Cobham club's 100m range back in 2006. Thats fingernail group at 100m. With a springer.
As close to perfection as anything yet done.

[oldcurmudgeon]

The man himself has designed a balanced piston which addresses said problem, but unfortunately is not available as he has retired from producing his masterpiece.

[cooper_dan]

I don't think the meaning of 'perfect' is up for debate. Look in a dictionary.
My point was that there isn't a mechanically perfect springer. Cant be done.

[Scott.]

An engineer's job is basically managing compromises to produce a product with the desired cost/performance/weight/durability etc.
We don't get to design 'perfect' products, with possibly the exception of F1 but even they are working to rules.

If there is a 'perfect' design it would have to be an individual's pet project from the outset. And even then it would never be perfect because there are ALWAYS compromises to be made

Good point and well made thanks Dan.

In my ignorance I was thinking about if from the point of view of say a 1983 MK1 HW77, then the 1985 MK2 might have been a bug fix then 20 or so years later the MK3 (is it a MK3??) with the 26mm cylinder and moving forward to today with arguably cheaper components and QC corners cut in the aim of maximising profit.

I can now see the flaw in my thought process as I never really considered (again in my ignorance) that the prototypes would have been made to a costing too.

Cheers
Scott