Perhaps you misunderstand "pellet seating" I have said this before, but I'll repeat this for your benefit. The magazine bores are exactly .250". The rear side of the magazine is chamfered to retain the oversize pellet skirt, which is .260" on the JSB pellet. It is that chamfer that retains the pellet from falling advertently into the barrel that creates jams. Seating the pellet further into the magazine bore defeats the ability to retain the pellet. The GK1 magazine is designed for pellets, not slugs. Slugs, having no skirt, must bind in the .250" bores by being slightly larger.Shoothbreez, have you used his loading gate with the pellet seater? I would like to get feedback on someone whom owns a GK1 and uses it as I have been buying so many things for my GK1 .25 yet the pistol will not arrive for another 10 days or so? I plan on initially using JSB 25.39 and the 33.95 pellets primarily as I still contemplate on slugs for occasional need for more stopping power.
Thus I want to know if that loading gate that has that nice feature of seating the ammo is a useful. It seems maybe when I eventually use slugs it will be maybe more important to ensure the ammo is seated but from reading the forums it also sounds like it is good to seat them for close to 100% assurance??? but since the action is so reliable it also sounds like others feel seating is not that important??
This important point seems to be slow to catch on with this pistol. I have found this to be true in my experience with not just this gun. I only shoot pellets, and have never felt the need or desire to seat a pellet in any of my airguns over the past 50 years, and I have owned way more than I can remember. I know it's been a common theme in competition for decades, where you're looking to gain as much consistency as possible.Perhaps you misunderstand "pellet seating" I have said this before, but I'll repeat this for your benefit. The magazine bores are exactly .250". The rear side of the magazine is chamfered to retain the oversize pellet skirt, which is .260" on the JSB pellet. It is that chamfer that retains the pellet from falling advertently into the barrel that creates jams. Seating the pellet further into the magazine bore defeats the ability to retain the pellet. The GK1 magazine is designed for pellets, not slugs. Slugs, having no skirt, must bind in the .250" bores by being slightly larger.
The key to high FPE in any airgun is as little throttling as possible. The cross-sectional area of the channel to the HPA should be as high as possible, the equivalent of 6-9mm diameter (all the way), even if the barrel inner diameter is then 5.5mm or whatever. Most PCPs can't get this right because you then need very high hammer forces (to open up a large valve/piston), or a balanced valve and so on. The Huben system doesn't have a hammer/conventional valve and can get around this problem.Someone made a compact (shorter) version of the GK1:
Honestly looks pretty good, aside from the 3D printed shroud that is. If the shroud was made out of aluminum it would be better. Obviously the shorter airtube reduces the short count quite significantly. But apparantly the power loss is minimal, despite the shorter barrel. Only a about 4 or 5 fpe.
It kinda makes me wish the GK1 receives more modularity in the future, similar to how Edgun does it with the Leshiy 2. Options for different grips, barrels, shrouds, etc would be pretty awesome. The gun is so easy to take apart, it would take minimal effort to swap out the airtube for example. Not sure how easy it would be to change between barrels, without messing up the alignment.
Anyway, knowing Huben, they aren't really the type of manufacturer to go for this modular stuff. So I guess we'll just have to make do with after market stuff from 3rd parties.
I refuse to modify my grip in any way. They go for 279 euro a piece on the Huben webshop. Which is honestly a criminal amount for a small piece of wood. You can buy an entry level PCP for that money. No way Im touching it. I'd rather wait for after market grips or print my own in due time.I've actually redone my GK1 grip - shaved the wide area on the bottom and all of the hump on the back and now I regret this a bit. The widened bit on the bottom definitely needs to go, but the bit of the hump which coincides with the exact center of your palm needs to stay. The lower part of the hump can/should also go. So basically, the stock grip needs a narrower bottom, lengthwise, by removing the widened portion and the lower part of the back hump (by making it curve towards the bottom even more). It also obviously needs a wider and thicker top, but this can't be modded very easily.
I first checked that they do have spare grips before I did it, of course. It is better overall as it is now, but it could have been slightly betterer. Don't go modding anything other than only the bottom of the grip, if at all - that's my experience.I refuse to modify my grip in any way. They go for 279 euro a piece on the Huben webshop. Which is honestly a criminal amount for a small piece of wood. You can buy an entry level PCP for that money. No way Im touching it. I'd rather wait for after market grips or print my own in due time.
This is correct - seating is not needed and only serves to deform the pellets and make them loose in the mag. Just click them in, using the stock gate, which prevents the skirts catching on the action, and shoot. Fast and easy.This important point seems to be slow to catch on with this pistol. I have found this to be true in my experience with not just this gun. I only shoot pellets, and have never felt the need or desire to seat a pellet in any of my airguns over the past 50 years, and I have owned way more than I can remember. I know it's been a common theme in competition for decades, where you're looking to gain as much consistency as possible.
My GK1 has about 700 JSB 13.4's down the barrel so far without a hint of an issue, with the exception of using an aftermarket loading gate for about 5 minutes that caused some pellet distortion.
I would not purchase a gun that "required" seating. Simply don't need it, and I like keeping things simple.
Just my personal opinion, YMMV
Thanks for trying to educate us Steve, we can all use that.
Have fun
Yeah I thought it looked greatSomeone made a compact (shorter) version of the GK1:
Honestly looks pretty good, aside from the 3D printed shroud that is. If the shroud was made out of aluminum it would be better. Obviously the shorter airtube reduces the short count quite significantly. But apparantly the power loss is minimal, despite the shorter barrel. Only a about 4 or 5 fpe.
It kinda makes me wish the GK1 receives more modularity in the future, similar to how Edgun does it with the Leshiy 2. Options for different grips, barrels, shrouds, etc would be pretty awesome. The gun is so easy to take apart, it would take minimal effort to swap out the airtube for example. Not sure how easy it would be to change between barrels, without messing up the alignment.
Anyway, knowing Huben, they aren't really the type of manufacturer to go for this modular stuff. So I guess we'll just have to make do with after market stuff from 3rd parties.
Kelly showed me one he had. There was the option to chop the shroud (then it doesn't marry the action well) or a 3d printed ABS one he showed me. The ABS one looked better, the chopped one kind of ruined the aesthetic, but not too bad. I doubt Manny's pigs care how it looks lol.WOW,...I want a shorty now.
I knocked the bottom lip off mine but left the hump,...to me it feels fantastic.This is the result of shaping the grip; arrow points towards the bit that probably should have stayed (and stayed more than the sketch implies).
View attachment 424512
I still think the lower part of the hump also needs to go but I'll test that on the next grip, if there is one.I knocked the bottom lip off mine but left the hump,...to me it feels fantastic.
It's all about what power level you chose to operate at.Does 22 get more shot count? % how much? Is it quieter too?