I don't get why you'd want to discourage me from reaching out to Sweden to ask about all of this? What's the harm?
I'd like to better understand why I'm seeing what I am. I'll definitely be reaching out.
Best, Steve
Upvote 0
AEAC's FX Impact M3 "Flat-Spot" Search Tool
- Thread starter Airgun Nation
- Start date
I'd like to better understand why I'm seeing what I am. I'll definitely be reaching out.
Best, Steve
UPDATE:
I got on a call with Sweden this morning and we looked at the 3 charts together. The below is what they had to say.
You are indeed correct weevil & EDventure about the mechanical ratio between the Power Wheel and QTS. Their inputs are intended to be equal & offsetting by mechanical function and are intended to be taken advantage of in the flexible manner in which you describe. Thank you both for pointing this out and for adding it to this thread.
Sweden went on to say that they found the test results "intriguing & exciting," and that I may have "discovered a hack that could be quite useful in locating a mechanical sweet spot in a gun's overall system-mechanics... a sweet spot where PW & QTS interact with a bit less resistance, hence offer enhanced performance." They theorized that by running this test, one could easily locate & identify this theoretical system sweet spot, and perhaps build upon its usefulness. For now, they are calling the data "undeniable." Both they, and I, need to play with it more... and hopefully you guys will too.
After the holiday vacation, Sweden will run my "flat spot search tool" test in an effort to better understand it. I'll catch up with them afterwards and share what comes of it.
So where do I go from here in my research?
I intend to continue probing the M3 for nuggets and will continue to experiment with the usefulness of this "flat spot search tool" across varying reg pressures, velocities, ammo, guns, and configurations. By looking beyond the status-quo M3 community tuning guidelines, and by encouraging one-another, we'll get further faster!
Best, Steve
I got on a call with Sweden this morning and we looked at the 3 charts together. The below is what they had to say.
You are indeed correct weevil & EDventure about the mechanical ratio between the Power Wheel and QTS. Their inputs are intended to be equal & offsetting by mechanical function and are intended to be taken advantage of in the flexible manner in which you describe. Thank you both for pointing this out and for adding it to this thread.
Sweden went on to say that they found the test results "intriguing & exciting," and that I may have "discovered a hack that could be quite useful in locating a mechanical sweet spot in a gun's overall system-mechanics... a sweet spot where PW & QTS interact with a bit less resistance, hence offer enhanced performance." They theorized that by running this test, one could easily locate & identify this theoretical system sweet spot, and perhaps build upon its usefulness. For now, they are calling the data "undeniable." Both they, and I, need to play with it more... and hopefully you guys will too.
After the holiday vacation, Sweden will run my "flat spot search tool" test in an effort to better understand it. I'll catch up with them afterwards and share what comes of it.
So where do I go from here in my research?
I intend to continue probing the M3 for nuggets and will continue to experiment with the usefulness of this "flat spot search tool" across varying reg pressures, velocities, ammo, guns, and configurations. By looking beyond the status-quo M3 community tuning guidelines, and by encouraging one-another, we'll get further faster!
Best, Steve
Upvote 0
In to see results but fear there may be too many variables with the Micro-3 PW-various settings approach.
Now, I have yet to see the actual testing method, but unless there is somehow a precision method being used to replicate the exact same position for the micro adjuster being at '3' after each macro move, that in itself should introduce a significant variable.
I noticed the y axis scale in the flat spot testing chart was more granular, therefore will naturally show more variation in the string. Tossing the extreme outlier high/low, it looks relatively similar to the proceeding charts.
I'm curious if you captured 2nd rear reg pressure during testing to validate the outliers we're not due to something else. Also, when the hammer spring and valve adjuster are changed, it does take a hot minute for them to settle back in (they're probably starting to settle just as they're changed for the next 5 shot string)
If there is a mechanical sweet spot, it's most likely due to manufacturing error rate in parts production for any of the related parts for the hammer adjustment. Eg-curve on power wheel section, etc.
Like I said, in for results--if it didn't feel like 50 below outside with a blizzard warning, I'd be outside celebrating the holiday with some testing of my own!
Edit: I'd love to be proven wrong so I can add an additional 80 shots to the tuning process of these things!
Now, I have yet to see the actual testing method, but unless there is somehow a precision method being used to replicate the exact same position for the micro adjuster being at '3' after each macro move, that in itself should introduce a significant variable.
I noticed the y axis scale in the flat spot testing chart was more granular, therefore will naturally show more variation in the string. Tossing the extreme outlier high/low, it looks relatively similar to the proceeding charts.
I'm curious if you captured 2nd rear reg pressure during testing to validate the outliers we're not due to something else. Also, when the hammer spring and valve adjuster are changed, it does take a hot minute for them to settle back in (they're probably starting to settle just as they're changed for the next 5 shot string)
If there is a mechanical sweet spot, it's most likely due to manufacturing error rate in parts production for any of the related parts for the hammer adjustment. Eg-curve on power wheel section, etc.
Like I said, in for results--if it didn't feel like 50 below outside with a blizzard warning, I'd be outside celebrating the holiday with some testing of my own!
Edit: I'd love to be proven wrong so I can add an additional 80 shots to the tuning process of these things!
Upvote 0
I've been waiting on this video to release for a long time. I've had a 25 compact M3 for a couple of years now that I haven't even tried to tune. Only part of the rifle that I've messed around with is the macro wheel. It was tuned at UAG where I purchased it from and it shoots JSB 25.39gr 895fps and Hades 22.54gr 875fps very accurate. I believe my first reg is at 150 and the second reg is at 110 Macro 16 Micro 3.5
Upvote 0
While I realize that this is like comparing apples to oranges, one of the primary reasons why I got rid of my Impacts and kept the Maverick is due of the simplicity and efficiency of the hammer tuning mechanism. The (8) PW settings on the Mav. proved to be perfectly adequate for truly "quick" tuning, whereas the micro-adjustability of the M3 was time / lead / air consuming.
A quick and dirty visual representation of what I mean is this:
A quick and dirty visual representation of what I mean is this:
Upvote 0
And well, the more I look at the graphs provided, makes me realize it's very click bait-y (sorry!)
The flat spot chart is run at 10 fps increments, with 6 levels, with a 50fps spread. The "sweet spot" charts at 50 fps increments, with 5 levels, with a 200fps spread. Duh the flat spot chart is going to look like it's all over with a 50 fps min/max vs a 200fps min/max but eyeballing, it's not more than a couple fps worth of ES different (if that). Given the conditions of the testing (I can only speculate), this would be well within the standard error rate of what we could expect to see as results.
Reminds me of how I create corp presentation decks on how much I want to show a change or impact...easiest game in the book, mess with the y axis values...sell the execs the story you want them to believe. In this case we are the ones being sold
Last edited:
Upvote 0
And well, the more I look at the graphs provided, makes me realize it's very click bait-y (sorry!)
The flat spot chart is run at 10 fps increments, with 6 levels, with a 50fps spread. The "sweet spot" charts at 50 fps increments, with 5 levels, with a 200fps spread. Duh the flat spot chart is going to look like it's all over with a 50 fps min/max vs a 200fps min/max but eyeballing, it's not more than a couple fps worth of ES different (if that). Given the conditions of the testing (I can only speculate), this would be well within the standard error rate of what we could expect to see as results.
Reminds me of how I create corp presentation decks on how much I want to show a change or impact...easiest game in the book, mess with the y axis values...sell the execs the story you want them to believe. In this case we are the ones being sold
Sorry I came across this way. That isn't at all how I would want to make anyone feel. I can understand how my excitement & misunderstanding of the find could be perceived as ingenuine. I've since edited it for anyone new who comes along.
The reason I enhanced the resolution of the Test was so that I (and we) could better see & understand the anomaly I had identified. Both the Test run and the Tunes are pretty-tight-clear-to-the-viewer 12 fps-ish ES runs regardless of resolution I selected (we can all clearly see that by the axis data) however that 3 PW span (8-9-10) 10-shot flat spot in the middle of the test is running about half the ES as the rest of the Test.
Hope that sets ya at ease a bit.
I wouldn't want to mislead anyone or convince them of anything that isn't true or helpful.
Best, Steve
Upvote 0
If the piston is longer than it should be , like it was on my Maverick , you should be calling FX. The reg is not open all the way with the adjustment screw is flush and it makes tuning a nightmare. It should be 16mm if I remember correct. New brass ones were 16.3 mm, too long.
Upvote 0
the c-1 on every gun im sure is close but how close, this matters a ton and watch for them to come loose,
Upvote 0
Steve,
The flat spot is just a region in a graph that appears to you to be significant. In order for it to be deemed statistically significant, you would need to repeat the test many times - likely hundreds of times given the very small difference in ES. Even if this generated a statistically valid improvement, would it really be worth wasting thousands of pellets to potentially improve ES by a tiny fraction?
Moving to a slightly different question, what do you intend to achieve with an “eco-tune”? Higher efficiency of air use and increased shot count? If that’s true, you might want to take a look at the following “untold secret” and crank up your reg pressure:
www.airgunnation.com
Finally, with reference to this part of your earlier response: “I intend to continue probing the M3 for nuggets and will continue to experiment with the usefulness of this "flat spot search tool" across varying reg pressures, velocities, ammo, guns, and configurations. By looking beyond the status-quo M3 community tuning guidelines, and by encouraging one-another, we'll get further faster!”
Don’t you think it would be useful to understand the basics (“status quo”, in your somewhat condescending words) of tuning and M3 function before you get to the hidden gems?
Mod edit: insulting content removed. 7 day timeout for new member. Rule #1 - Exercise common sense and be considerate towards your fellow users. The diversity of opinion and intelligent civil discourse is encouraged; by the same token: rude, lewd, vulgar, obscene, flaming, baiting, trolling, hateful, threatening, insulting, violent, or slanderous content will not be tolerated. You may challenge others' points of view and opinions, but do so respectfully and thoughtfully.
The flat spot is just a region in a graph that appears to you to be significant. In order for it to be deemed statistically significant, you would need to repeat the test many times - likely hundreds of times given the very small difference in ES. Even if this generated a statistically valid improvement, would it really be worth wasting thousands of pellets to potentially improve ES by a tiny fraction?
Moving to a slightly different question, what do you intend to achieve with an “eco-tune”? Higher efficiency of air use and increased shot count? If that’s true, you might want to take a look at the following “untold secret” and crank up your reg pressure:
Tuning - Tuning for efficiency and shot count (without forgetting precision)
How to tune for efficiency? And how to tune for shot count? And what impact does it have on the accuracy? I've noticed that this is being discussed in multiple topics all the time over multiple forums and platforms and thought it would be a good idea to elaborate a bit on this. Feel free to add...
www.airgunnation.com Finally, with reference to this part of your earlier response: “I intend to continue probing the M3 for nuggets and will continue to experiment with the usefulness of this "flat spot search tool" across varying reg pressures, velocities, ammo, guns, and configurations. By looking beyond the status-quo M3 community tuning guidelines, and by encouraging one-another, we'll get further faster!”
Don’t you think it would be useful to understand the basics (“status quo”, in your somewhat condescending words) of tuning and M3 function before you get to the hidden gems?
Mod edit: insulting content removed. 7 day timeout for new member. Rule #1 - Exercise common sense and be considerate towards your fellow users. The diversity of opinion and intelligent civil discourse is encouraged; by the same token: rude, lewd, vulgar, obscene, flaming, baiting, trolling, hateful, threatening, insulting, violent, or slanderous content will not be tolerated. You may challenge others' points of view and opinions, but do so respectfully and thoughtfully.
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote 0
Troll much, I do not get any feeling of Steve being condescending in any way, just a discussion on tuning an air rifle.
Upvote 0
Steve, keep up the good work and continued information and support for the airgunning community! I hope I am speaking for everyone when I say thank you and we always look forward to your information, reviews and videos!
Upvote 0
Hope you haven't given up on this or any videos you may have planned or may have in the works. Keep up the great work!
Upvote 0