So for about the last 24 months, I've had her on a serious diet. Now I am happy to
report that she lost nearly 13 ounces and is feeling so much better. And let me
say one thing, when I pick her up with one hand now she is light as a feather.
Well, almost a feather.
Things I have done so far:
OEM main tube was lightened by me.
Barrel is OEM and trimmed down by me.
Main tube plug is made of Delrin by me.
Gas cap is aluminum, comes from HPA and bored out by me.
Hammer is made from Delrin by me with a modified 1701P striker.
Valve is an aluminum Disco rear end with a brass Pro-Top by Anthony.
Trigger grip frame is aluminum by Bluefork Design and then hogged out by Gregg.
Front barrel band is aluminum, made by Anthony, drilled by Rich and milled by me.
I have tried to get my head around the ACMSP concept.
I do understand fully the concept. But for the life of me I cannot understand why this innovation, I call it a gift, has apparently not been as widly accepted in the airgun community as I might expect if would/should be.
I know that Steve in NC pioneered, paved the way and did bring debouncing to light in a very practical manner. Also I know that yourself and James are strong advocates of the air conserving concept. Keep it up!
But lets talk a bit about efficiency.
For openers, I believe that the springer must be eliminated from efficiency discussion. To me, the springer is nothing but a love-hate affair. Love it for its efficiency and its profile of what I think a long gun should look like, but hate it for its violent firing cycle.
I do believe that some day the springer, once tamed and and engineered to a reasonable retail price, will outdistance the ACMSP, the PCP and the SSP in popularity.
But back to efficiency regarding the ACMSP versus the PCP.
Should an efficiency rating can be assigned the PCP by simply precharging the gun, firing a string and do math calculations to determine AIR consumption versus ejecta fpe?
In the real world we cannot view an electric automobile efficient only because we spend less per mile. We have to consider the subsidies doled out to the manufacturer and the end user to calculate just how inefficient the whole project really is in a practical arena. Same goes for wind turbines.
Therefore when a fellow touts the efficiency of a PCP, he never considers the entire behind the scene costs. Such as air compressors, air tank and accesories, traveling and filling service costs to fill a tank and so on.
All I am saying that when we calculate efficiency, leave the free air out of the equation and do real world bean counting which is COST consumption versus ejecta fpe.
If then we can agree on such criteria, and consider the ACMSP, a self contained package which is powered up by a renewable energy resource,(Mia Copa for eluding to pumping) then the ACMSP is truely the halmark of efficiency.
This forum is not affiliated with the Crosman Corporation in any way// Information presented in this forum is intended for informational purposes only; use at your own risk//Posts made to this forum are solely the opinion of the individual member