FX HUMA vs. FX

I have both but have not tested side by side, from pure observation there is no noticeable difference between the 2.

Technically, there is a point of diminishing return and at some point it could possibly have negative affect when it comes to transfer port size. At the end of the line bore size is the last and finally restriction and no matter how big the slug port is it all will get restricted back down to the bore size. Once the TP is bigger than the bore size any bigger theoretically won't make much of difference. It's the weakest link in the chain theory.

These days if you order a TP/inlet from FX you will get the latest integrated version with the barrel holder portion too which is the better and cheaper way to go.

The latest Huma xfer port (V2) is very similar to the one Ernest Rowe made with the flared or beveled edges. I tried an ER port on my 0.25 cal, 700mm M3, which resulted in a loss of power (30 fps less than the factory xfer port). It might make a positive difference on the smaller calibers, but I don’t know.

Didn't Ernest come out with this first?

jbravo103 said:

The latest Huma xfer port (V2) is very similar to the one Ernest Rowe made with the flared or beveled edges. I tried an ER port on my 0.25 cal, 700mm M3, which resulted in a loss of power (30 fps less than the factory xfer port). It might make a positive difference on the smaller calibers, but I don’t know.

Click to expand...

Yes, bigger TP meaning bigger space to be filled before the air reach the pellet/slugs. At lower reg pressure and smaller plenum it can/will have negative affect on the speed/power of the gun. At higher reg pressure it's best to have a little bigger TP than the bore for max power provided the gun has enough plenum/air.

The basic concept is to allow the air to flow as freely as possible with as little turbulence as possible. While also inducing no pressure loss or even more optimally, inducing a pressure increase. I found on my Crown that running the port wheel wide open while using these other concepts in tandem both smooths and accelerates the air charge. This is a 22 cal, throat is factory Id, outer edge is flared to 30 cal. Inside is radiused to help air make the 90 degree turn. Different port design but all the same concepts apply. Smooth the transitions, keep voulme to the bare minimum, squeeze as much air into the barrel as possible. Results from this are basically identical to the best dual port results I've seen. And dual port results seem to be all over the place 30-70fps or thereabouts

No need for me to add any additional rhetoric to this wonderful description.
Thank you @Long_Gun_Dallas

The evolution for .25 ports looks something like these

bigHUN said:

The evolution for .25 ports looks something like these

View attachment 376586

Click to expand...

Beautiful transfer ports, leaving aside the original, which of the others is better than the original?

darknes said:

Beautiful transfer ports, leaving aside the original, which of the others is better than the original?

Click to expand...

please don't expect someone will hold your hand with this Q, you better try it yourself how it plays out for your game.
If it worked well in my setup your could be very much different...

Hey Guys,
I tried the huma TFPin my Crown mk2 .22 600mm . I didn't really ser any difference. Maybe I need more reg pressure than I was using, roughly 155 , to see any addition velocity. If anything it decreased slightly. Could it be that the larger volume TFP need much more reg pressure so you get a "pop" of air instead of a "poof" of air?
Mike

bigHUN said:

The evolution for .25 ports looks something like these

View attachment 376586

Click to expand...

Could you throw some light regarding to the europeairguns multiport? Did you saw any increase in fps? Thks