Also my view (which I'll have mentioned a few years ago in a similar thread - and touched on here again up above) and from my point of view as one who can't undertake any of the engineering / testing work required - if anything was to work as an "add-on" rather than a more "integral re-engineering" (like altering the piston weight / TP etc.), I'd feel more comfortable with the inertia idea than the idea that the extra friction from the seal delivering the "brake". As has been mentioned, we can't argue with physics and I feel that the "grippy" stalling device would transfer other undesirables into the action itself? The inertia idea, especially if inside the piston, is self-contained. Again, any energy has to go somewhere and, as has been said, we're just looking to postpone any negative effect from surge rather than trying to get rid altogether.

Still watching with great interest and can't wait to see the results.

But then you also wonder how much more tiny little gains can be made by just tweaking what is already there by playing with those different seals, the piston weight, its sectional density, spring force, preload, and TP diameter and volume. And that perfect tune will still only be 100% perfect (or as near as can be hoped) for one pellet and its release pressure. So we'd better be hoping it's the rifle's favourite pellet (and then even that could change once the tune is altered with different release and barrel exit timings). And that's just tweaking what's already there from the (seemingly) uncomplicated power plant.

God, I love springers.