logo by smgunner

Dean's HiPac 2240

Tactical Trijicon ACOG TA01 Style 4x32 Cross Sight Rifle Scope + Kill Flash
TROBB Solid Aluminium Dovetail Power Block with Gmac hollow probe and G-mac Bolt
Gmac Brass Power Adjuster Spring And Guide/Drilled Out Standard Valve For more air space
Hammer Mods//Gmac 30% Lighter valve Spring/Gmac Brass Safety Catch//Transfer port drilled out
Full Gmac Trigger kit/Gmac barrel cut to 9inch/Weihrauch Silencer/Custom Home Made Grips/
New TRACER LEDRAY GL2 LAMP 90m Range Beam//HI-Pac

 Return to Index  

Dang right

May 26 2012 at 8:07 AM
Ron  (Login oo7fuzz)
Crosman Forum Member
from IP address

Response to "....that's why it hasn't really changed over a hundred years or whatever "...this is not

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.

Anyway, thats what I think.

 Respond to this message   

Crosman Corporation 1-800-724-7486