Bout 750fps with 26gr Hades. Shooting through lower walkout into the open. Muzzle outside/meter outside
Upvote 0
Huben pistol.
- Thread starter Nomadic Pirate 66
- Start date
Bout 750fps with 26gr Hades. Shooting through lower walkout into the open. Muzzle outside/meter outside
M0ist0ne,
Thank you for putting in the effort to produce and evaluate a design from a stranger on the internet.
Matching or beating DFL performance of equivalent size is my general goal. Many people on GTA like my designs because they have less "snap" to them, even if they measure a few dB louder than something else. Your sound recordings illustrate than shopping based on a 2dB difference may skip over one that sounds better; to the owner, and more especially the people next door.
I know that I can reduce dB further, by thinning out the parts, but my first priority is to not offer designs that are likely to blow up. While I state my disclaimer about the person printing the part, and choosing to shoot it, taking responsibility, my attitude is that robustness has to be a priority when I design mufflers for 40+ FPE PCPs.
This leads to weevil's question about fitting 3D printed parts into CF tubing:
Weevil, I very much prefer to design inserts that fit into CF or aluminum tubing; whether glued, or contained by threaded endcaps or pins. The strength of someone else's 3D prints is an unknowable variable, while that of CF tube and certainly aluminum tube, is much more predictable.
In this particular case, the AGN/GTA member who asked for these designs, wanted ones that are self contained; despite my strong suggestions to go with CF or Al outer tubing. So, if you have particular tubing in mind with a known ID (measured is best), then I can modify any of my designs to fit into that.
If I was to suggest tubing, it would be 6061-T6 tubing from the cheapest reliable source; Aircraft Spruce - see link and image below:
www.aircraftspruce.com
It is 4x more expensive from McMaster, but they provide working pressure values, if you don't want to calculate it: https://www.mcmaster.com/89965K731/
I calculate muzzle pressure based on average pressure to achieve a given FPE. I assume the muzzle pressure is equal to the average pressure. This is only true when your air tank is depleted down to the lowest pressure that can achieve a given FPE. Otherwise, muzzle pressure is lower than average pressure; typically by a factor of 2 to 4 in PCP rifles. A smaller ratio applies to short barrel pistols.
Then, by calculation, I expand the barrel full volume of air into the first blast chamber volume, as it it is a closed system, to calculate the bulk pressure. I want this calculated blast chamber pressure to be half the rated working pressure of the outer tube. That pressure is exaggerated, because the chamber has a large leak in the form of the central bore passage, but I ignore that to make up for how abruptly the pressure is applied.
So, the simple answer is "yes"
Thank you for putting in the effort to produce and evaluate a design from a stranger on the internet.
Matching or beating DFL performance of equivalent size is my general goal. Many people on GTA like my designs because they have less "snap" to them, even if they measure a few dB louder than something else. Your sound recordings illustrate than shopping based on a 2dB difference may skip over one that sounds better; to the owner, and more especially the people next door.
I know that I can reduce dB further, by thinning out the parts, but my first priority is to not offer designs that are likely to blow up. While I state my disclaimer about the person printing the part, and choosing to shoot it, taking responsibility, my attitude is that robustness has to be a priority when I design mufflers for 40+ FPE PCPs.
This leads to weevil's question about fitting 3D printed parts into CF tubing:
Weevil, I very much prefer to design inserts that fit into CF or aluminum tubing; whether glued, or contained by threaded endcaps or pins. The strength of someone else's 3D prints is an unknowable variable, while that of CF tube and certainly aluminum tube, is much more predictable.
In this particular case, the AGN/GTA member who asked for these designs, wanted ones that are self contained; despite my strong suggestions to go with CF or Al outer tubing. So, if you have particular tubing in mind with a known ID (measured is best), then I can modify any of my designs to fit into that.
If I was to suggest tubing, it would be 6061-T6 tubing from the cheapest reliable source; Aircraft Spruce - see link and image below:
6061T6 Round Aluminum Tubing | Aircraft Spruce
6061T6 Round Aluminum Tubing 6061T6 Round Aluminum Tubing
www.aircraftspruce.com It is 4x more expensive from McMaster, but they provide working pressure values, if you don't want to calculate it: https://www.mcmaster.com/89965K731/
I calculate muzzle pressure based on average pressure to achieve a given FPE. I assume the muzzle pressure is equal to the average pressure. This is only true when your air tank is depleted down to the lowest pressure that can achieve a given FPE. Otherwise, muzzle pressure is lower than average pressure; typically by a factor of 2 to 4 in PCP rifles. A smaller ratio applies to short barrel pistols.
Then, by calculation, I expand the barrel full volume of air into the first blast chamber volume, as it it is a closed system, to calculate the bulk pressure. I want this calculated blast chamber pressure to be half the rated working pressure of the outer tube. That pressure is exaggerated, because the chamber has a large leak in the form of the central bore passage, but I ignore that to make up for how abruptly the pressure is applied.
So, the simple answer is "yes"
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Silencer Sounds & Looks
I will admit that I'm attracted to attractive stuff.
And a black aluminum pipe, or a CF pipe, isn't very attractive in my mind (I know, my mind can be wrong — it has been about twice in the last 10 years).
So, while I applaud all this highly innovative and cutting-edge silencer design — I still always buy the off-the-shelf stuff.
Sorry....
Because... — I simply find it highly attractive when the silencer has grooves, perforations, winglets, and decorative lines.
I would have bought a STO years ago — but they look as plain Jane as if Jane was wearing a beige-brownish dress size cuadruple-X.
I already asked a machinist that received accolades here at AGN and who was making silencers —
if he could make me a silencer with the interior magic that he invented —
and with the visual attractiveness of a Ramus, a 0dB, an Impact Air, or a DonnyFL for its aluminum housing.
➔ I got no answer.
So, would it make sense for me to buy a used DonnyFL or other attractively packaged silencer, and pay you guys to design, print, and install an innovative interior insert? Yeah, that idea sounds kind of dumb even as I type it.....
Just wondering out loud.
Thanks for reading this.
Matthias
Upvote 0
Matthias,
I am aware that exterior design matter, despite preferring plain Jane, with no bells or whistles to cover her intrinsic goodness.
Anyway, right now I am conspiring with two other guys about what exterior shapes might have more appeal for a Huben pistol; even before planning the inside design. So, no promises about when such design/s may be complete in functional form, but a sneak peak as to what might be coming.
I am aware that exterior design matter, despite preferring plain Jane, with no bells or whistles to cover her intrinsic goodness.
Anyway, right now I am conspiring with two other guys about what exterior shapes might have more appeal for a Huben pistol; even before planning the inside design. So, no promises about when such design/s may be complete in functional form, but a sneak peak as to what might be coming.
Upvote 0
Please take a look at the shorty Huben pistol muffler shapes below. The basic shapes were suggested and negotiated by the three individuals that are driving this muffler project: The customer; the printer, and the designer (me). Matthias' quest for a muffler with looks may or may not be addressed by these, but the general size and shape was proposed by the customer.
The request was for a muffler that would be short enough to fit into a holster. It would still make the Huben pistol hearing safe, for hunting at full power. 2.75 to 3" long was suggested. All of my related models shown blow are 3" long. Other length would be possible, but I wanted to start with what was requested first.
A short muffler has the laws of physics against it, so it will need all the help it can get. To that end, expansion volume is added ahead of the pistol's air reservoir. The rebated shape below the pistol muzzle is echoed to facilitate insertion into a holster. And as a nod to styling.
Rather than a single oval shape, there are two conjoined ovals. Both for styling, and because the outer wall will have greater stiffness against internal air pressure.
So, the question is, which shape looks the best, and which the worst? Left to right; 1, 2, 3, 4 (don't count the bare muzzle).
The last two images are captured from behind, so the numbering is reversed (or refer the image number). On the rear images, note how closely the muffler profile matches the pistol. Also use that to form an opinion about which looks best.
The last three mufflers (based on the frontal image) have the same basic design, except that the fillet radius in the middle differs: The radii are 10; 7.5 and 5 mm, respectively. The larger fillet radius contains more space inside the muffler. The smaller fillet radius creates a stiffer structure.
The first muffler next to the bare muzzle model has a larger upper radius than the other three. I am keeping my opinions to myself, until I hear yours
The request was for a muffler that would be short enough to fit into a holster. It would still make the Huben pistol hearing safe, for hunting at full power. 2.75 to 3" long was suggested. All of my related models shown blow are 3" long. Other length would be possible, but I wanted to start with what was requested first.
A short muffler has the laws of physics against it, so it will need all the help it can get. To that end, expansion volume is added ahead of the pistol's air reservoir. The rebated shape below the pistol muzzle is echoed to facilitate insertion into a holster. And as a nod to styling.
Rather than a single oval shape, there are two conjoined ovals. Both for styling, and because the outer wall will have greater stiffness against internal air pressure.
So, the question is, which shape looks the best, and which the worst? Left to right; 1, 2, 3, 4 (don't count the bare muzzle).
The last two images are captured from behind, so the numbering is reversed (or refer the image number). On the rear images, note how closely the muffler profile matches the pistol. Also use that to form an opinion about which looks best.
The last three mufflers (based on the frontal image) have the same basic design, except that the fillet radius in the middle differs: The radii are 10; 7.5 and 5 mm, respectively. The larger fillet radius contains more space inside the muffler. The smaller fillet radius creates a stiffer structure.
The first muffler next to the bare muzzle model has a larger upper radius than the other three. I am keeping my opinions to myself, until I hear yours
Attachments
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Wow, the level of sophistication that we're reaching in the airgun community is simply amazing!! Very, very cool.
And thank you to all who contribute with their expertise, creativity, time, money, and machinery.
Let me say this, and you can hold me to my word:▪ IF a silencer shaped like model 1 through 4 was available,
and
▪ IF it was significantly more effective than a straight tube design of the same length —
to be near backyard friendly at around 20FPE-ish in .22cal,
and
▪ IF the exterior looks were non-shiny with a rough texture,* and the front with a decorative opening like a DonnyFL's,
➠ ➠ THEN I would be prepared to pay $150 and more (for a longer size) for one of those.
Make that $200 if there was a quick disconnect.
Please, take my money!!
Of course, we're assuming that precision is not negatively influenced.
And I'm not in a hurry, I'm saving up for the pistol. But I can always buy the silencer before I get the pistol, right?!
Accessorizing, accessorizing....!
I'm excited.
Shame on the manufacturers with their access to monster CNC manchines — they long ago should have gone this route (so far I can see only EDgun producing off-center shrouds/silencers).
This is going to be a good day.
Matthias
*a rough texture as in
TeslaToTheMoon's print, here:
Last edited:
Aestheticly speaking, I prefer 3 and 4.Please take a look at the shorty Huben pistol muffler shapes below. The basic shapes were suggested and negotiated by the three individuals that are driving this muffler project: The customer; the printer, and the designer (me). Matthias' quest for a muffler with looks may or may not be addressed by these, but the general size and shape was proposed by the customer.
The request was for a muffler that would be short enough to fit into a holster. It would still make the Huben pistol hearing safe, for hunting at full power. 2.75 to 3" long was suggested. All of my related models shown blow are 3" long. Other length would be possible, but I wanted to start with what was requested first.
A short muffler has the laws of physics against it, so it will need all the help it can get. To that end, expansion volume is added ahead of the pistol's air reservoir. The rebated shape below the pistol muzzle is echoed to facilitate insertion into a holster. And as a nod to styling.
Rather than a single oval shape, there are two conjoined ovals. Both for styling, and because the outer wall will have greater stiffness against internal air pressure.
So, the question is, which shape looks the best, and which the worst? Left to right; 1, 2, 3, 4 (don't count the bare muzzle).
The last two images are captured from behind, so the numbering is reversed (or refer the image number). On the rear images, note how closely the muffler profile matches the pistol. Also use that to form an opinion about which looks best.
The last three mufflers (based on the frontal image) have the same basic design, except that the fillet radius in the middle differs: The radii are 10; 7.5 and 5 mm, respectively. The larger fillet radius contains more space inside the muffler. The smaller fillet radius creates a stiffer structure.
The first muffler next to the bare muzzle model has a larger upper radius than the other three. I am keeping my opinions to myself, until I hear yours
View attachment 388497
View attachment 388498
View attachment 388499
View attachment 388500
View attachment 388501
View attachment 388502
View attachment 388503
View attachment 388504
View attachment 388505
If you ever need a design tester...you let me know
Upvote 0
I was so excited about this project, I forgot to state my preference about model 1 thorugh 4.
➠ To me(!), model 2, 3, and 4 are so similar — let interior design requirements dictated what's best.
Model 1 looks nice enough that I would buy it.
However, I'm not sure how much more performance could be attained by adding a small fraction of an inch to it — it certainly isn't as pretty as the other models.
I rather add 1/2" of length to Model 1—3, and avoid the bulge of Model 1.
Only my opinion.
Matthias
Upvote 0
Matthias,
Texture helps to hide the cheap 3D printed look. BuckRail use shallow honeycomb for this.
Adding texture is relatively easy, depending on how badly you want it I think that the 8-section shapes shown above will take some doing, if one want to be really fancy with the texture. Then again, I am brute forcing my own texture designs, rather than figuring out how to use Solidworks texture wrap function.
I prefer texture that is pretty and functional, such as the embossed triangles I used for another guy's muffler. Can't show you the internal structure, as he was adamant about that.
As for taking your money; do I have a bridge to sell you
Texture helps to hide the cheap 3D printed look. BuckRail use shallow honeycomb for this.
Adding texture is relatively easy, depending on how badly you want it
I think that the 8-section shapes shown above will take some doing, if one want to be really fancy with the texture. Then again, I am brute forcing my own texture designs, rather than figuring out how to use Solidworks texture wrap function.I prefer texture that is pretty and functional, such as the embossed triangles I used for another guy's muffler. Can't show you the internal structure, as he was adamant about that.
As for taking your money; do I have a bridge to sell you
Upvote 0
Thanks for the feedback, so far.
What about larger front face corner radii? Easier to get into a holster, and echoes the look of the air tank. Makes the Muffler look a little less bulky too.
The images below have the second and third muffler compared. The third one has the corner radii kept at 1 mm. The second muffler has the frontal corner radius increased to 2 mm; then to 3 mm.
Which looks better?
For reference, the 1.5 OD by 5" long offset muffler M0ist0ne printed (above) has a 2 mm front corner radius.
What about larger front face corner radii? Easier to get into a holster, and echoes the look of the air tank. Makes the Muffler look a little less bulky too.
The images below have the second and third muffler compared. The third one has the corner radii kept at 1 mm. The second muffler has the frontal corner radius increased to 2 mm; then to 3 mm.
Which looks better?
For reference, the 1.5 OD by 5" long offset muffler M0ist0ne printed (above) has a 2 mm front corner radius.
Upvote 0
Yeah, a honey-comb pattern has a special place in my heart (and I don't even eat honey).
But that triangle-shaped design looks already very good.
One more box checked off on the way to buying your bridge, my friend. Matthias
Upvote 0
I prefer 2,3&4 over 1. #2 seems to conform most closely to the shape of the muzzle. It is unfortunate that the gap between the expansion chamber and tube cannot be covered by a flange due to the method of attachment. In the absence of that, I would suggest looking at a design that has a recessed expansion chamber with the size of the recess matching that of the differential between muzzle attachment point and tube. Forgive the crude schematic!:Please take a look at the shorty Huben pistol muffler shapes below. The basic shapes were suggested and negotiated by the three individuals that are driving this muffler project: The customer; the printer, and the designer (me). Matthias' quest for a muffler with looks may or may not be addressed by these, but the general size and shape was proposed by the customer.
The request was for a muffler that would be short enough to fit into a holster. It would still make the Huben pistol hearing safe, for hunting at full power. 2.75 to 3" long was suggested. All of my related models shown blow are 3" long. Other length would be possible, but I wanted to start with what was requested first.
A short muffler has the laws of physics against it, so it will need all the help it can get. To that end, expansion volume is added ahead of the pistol's air reservoir. The rebated shape below the pistol muzzle is echoed to facilitate insertion into a holster. And as a nod to styling.
Rather than a single oval shape, there are two conjoined ovals. Both for styling, and because the outer wall will have greater stiffness against internal air pressure.
So, the question is, which shape looks the best, and which the worst? Left to right; 1, 2, 3, 4 (don't count the bare muzzle).
The last two images are captured from behind, so the numbering is reversed (or refer the image number). On the rear images, note how closely the muffler profile matches the pistol. Also use that to form an opinion about which looks best.
The last three mufflers (based on the frontal image) have the same basic design, except that the fillet radius in the middle differs: The radii are 10; 7.5 and 5 mm, respectively. The larger fillet radius contains more space inside the muffler. The smaller fillet radius creates a stiffer structure.
The first muffler next to the bare muzzle model has a larger upper radius than the other three. I am keeping my opinions to myself, until I hear yours
View attachment 388497
View attachment 388498
View attachment 388499
View attachment 388500
View attachment 388501
View attachment 388502
View attachment 388503
View attachment 388504
View attachment 388505
——— ———
| |
——— ———
——- ——-
| | |
——- ——-
I’m not a fan of the angled expansion chamber end and don’t see that fitting the aesthetic in the bigger picture. In my mind, a flat expansion chamber end would (1) conform better by drawing less attention to the gap and (2) improve volume. However, perhaps it is a key element of fitment into generic holsters.
On another note, I think that it’s clear from this thread that there is a significant separate “market” for a maximally backyard friendly design, in which folks could still use the iron sights. I think it’s safe to say at this point that the commercial options are all too large in diameter. Speaking from my perspective, in that scenario, I can tolerate long if it is effective and lightweight. I favor a simple tube design that could be enclosed in CF to match the air tube. I don’t think I’m as demanding as Matthias but I do love the look of my gold impulse 1200. However, I’m already growing tired of the starburst red dot resulting from my astigmatism.
Finally, I’m curious about your mode of operation. You provide STLs on here yet you speak of a “customer” and “printer”. I assume that means that these devices will ultimately be sold somewhere?
Edit: my schematic was butchered upon publishing, but hopefully the text explanation is sufficient.
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Weevil,
Thanks for your perspective.
The customer in this instance is the person who asked me to design a series of mufflers. He is actually not my customer, as I do not charge for my work. Despite that, I put in concentrated effort, as if I am being paid $100 per hour.
The "customer" actually wants functional mufflers made for him. I do not make parts for other people, but I can recommend a few printer guys that sell prints they make at reasonable prices - assuming the the customer can't print his own; and does no know a printer guy. So, the "customer" is actually the customer of the print producer. If my designs are bad, both my reputation and that of the printer guy will suffer. So I act as if the end user is my customer.
The million dollar question is, why don't I charge for my work? One of my repeat "customers" told me he thought my offer to help a few years ago sounded like a scam. Now he has come to realize that I enjoy being useful, despite being employed and with a very limited income; and just short of official retirement age.
Theoretically I operate a consulting company. At least, my city charges me an annual business license fee, simply because I had 1099 income in the past. However, no hobbyist is going to pay me my standard consulting fee for a custom muffler design. Even at minimum wage, the cost would put most people off, if quoted up front. So, rather than do nothing, I do a lot of interesting things. What I get out of it, is have people make and test many more of my designs than I could possibly do by myself. In that sense, they work for me, for free .
I have to look through the fact that different strategies and meter "calibration" are involved when different people run the tests. By looking at and filtering lots of data, I get better at designing mufflers, and try to incorporate all my insights in the next generation.
The fact that I am not paid for my designs means I am free to share them with anyone. Some of whom end up doing testing for me; if they are motivated to do so. Like this volunteer: https://www.airgunnation.com/threads/huben-pistol.1287461/post-1567983
My two trusted printer guys are keen to print any design I come up with, and test it for me, whenever possible. They are helping with development work, for free; because they know someone will want a copy and need a printer guy. Production and sales is where the money is. I am in design and development. That is where the fun is. Hopefully I will happen into an opportunity to sell my services. Until then, everyone is treated like a paying customer.
If my Huben pistol muffler "customer" wants to identify himself on this thread, I do not mind. But his identity is not mine to give away.
That will teach you for asking a simple question
Thanks for your perspective.
The customer in this instance is the person who asked me to design a series of mufflers. He is actually not my customer, as I do not charge for my work. Despite that, I put in concentrated effort, as if I am being paid $100 per hour.
The "customer" actually wants functional mufflers made for him. I do not make parts for other people, but I can recommend a few printer guys that sell prints they make at reasonable prices - assuming the the customer can't print his own; and does no know a printer guy. So, the "customer" is actually the customer of the print producer. If my designs are bad, both my reputation and that of the printer guy will suffer. So I act as if the end user is my customer.
The million dollar question is, why don't I charge for my work? One of my repeat "customers" told me he thought my offer to help a few years ago sounded like a scam. Now he has come to realize that I enjoy being useful, despite being employed and with a very limited income; and just short of official retirement age.
Theoretically I operate a consulting company. At least, my city charges me an annual business license fee, simply because I had 1099 income in the past. However, no hobbyist is going to pay me my standard consulting fee for a custom muffler design. Even at minimum wage, the cost would put most people off, if quoted up front. So, rather than do nothing, I do a lot of interesting things. What I get out of it, is have people make and test many more of my designs than I could possibly do by myself. In that sense, they work for me, for free
.I have to look through the fact that different strategies and meter "calibration" are involved when different people run the tests. By looking at and filtering lots of data, I get better at designing mufflers, and try to incorporate all my insights in the next generation.
The fact that I am not paid for my designs means I am free to share them with anyone. Some of whom end up doing testing for me; if they are motivated to do so. Like this volunteer: https://www.airgunnation.com/threads/huben-pistol.1287461/post-1567983
My two trusted printer guys are keen to print any design I come up with, and test it for me, whenever possible. They are helping with development work, for free; because they know someone will want a copy and need a printer guy. Production and sales is where the money is. I am in design and development. That is where the fun is. Hopefully I will happen into an opportunity to sell my services. Until then, everyone is treated like a paying customer.
If my Huben pistol muffler "customer" wants to identify himself on this thread, I do not mind. But his identity is not mine to give away.
That will teach you for asking a simple question
Weevil,
To address your more technical question, if folks want backyard friendly, my advice would be to use an air rifle. They are more efficient at a given power level and therefore quieter, "out of the box". Especially if they are shrouded. Therefore, making rifles even quieter with add-on mufflers is a much easier task.
The Huben pistol is very powerful, considering its 8" barrel. If you want it backyard friendly at full power, it may take a foot long muffler. That begs the question; why not just start with a short rifle? Or, as some people are doing, dial back the power.
Now, I am not going to tell anyone that what they want is impossible or silly. I simply set expectations to "hearing safe", rather than backyard friendly for mufflers either side of 5" long. I am willing to try something, provided no one is disappointed because they are expecting magic.
I usually do not start with styling, because that is moot, if function is inadequate. The fact is that whipping up a design in the space of a few hours is more fun to me than watching TV. I do have a different baffle technology that I am keen to try in the "shorty" conjoined tube design above. I actually have two, but the second one is going to be developed in private, rather than given away prematurely. If I did not have that spark of a possible solution, I would be less motivated. I think that conventional baffles would not be very effective at a 3" length.
The desire for a quick release mechanism keeps coming up. That would make a long muffler less of a pain to use on a pistol. However, I am of the opinion that to achieve and maintain proper alignment would take machined metal mating parts. I think that printed parts on both sides of the "joint" would lack the precision and durability required and expected. If I did a quick release design, I would want to have it tested privately before risking my non-existing reputation by posting the design on AGN. If reputation matters, browse my 6000+ posts on GTA.
To address your more technical question, if folks want backyard friendly, my advice would be to use an air rifle. They are more efficient at a given power level and therefore quieter, "out of the box". Especially if they are shrouded. Therefore, making rifles even quieter with add-on mufflers is a much easier task.
The Huben pistol is very powerful, considering its 8" barrel. If you want it backyard friendly at full power, it may take a foot long muffler. That begs the question; why not just start with a short rifle? Or, as some people are doing, dial back the power.
Now, I am not going to tell anyone that what they want is impossible or silly. I simply set expectations to "hearing safe", rather than backyard friendly for mufflers either side of 5" long. I am willing to try something, provided no one is disappointed because they are expecting magic.
I usually do not start with styling, because that is moot, if function is inadequate. The fact is that whipping up a design in the space of a few hours is more fun to me than watching TV. I do have a different baffle technology that I am keen to try in the "shorty" conjoined tube design above. I actually have two, but the second one is going to be developed in private, rather than given away prematurely. If I did not have that spark of a possible solution, I would be less motivated. I think that conventional baffles would not be very effective at a 3" length.
The desire for a quick release mechanism keeps coming up. That would make a long muffler less of a pain to use on a pistol. However, I am of the opinion that to achieve and maintain proper alignment would take machined metal mating parts. I think that printed parts on both sides of the "joint" would lack the precision and durability required and expected. If I did a quick release design, I would want to have it tested privately before risking my non-existing reputation by posting the design on AGN. If reputation matters, browse my 6000+ posts on GTA.
The 4 section Impulse air is plenty backyard friendly. It’s a mystery why it works so well on the GK1 and it has been languishing in my drawer for a year because I found it to be much less effective than the DonnyFLs on my FX rifles. As to the broader question of why to choose to use a pistol in the backyard, there are many rationales. First and foremost, one might choose to get this as their only PCP and want it to have as much versatility as possible. I could in theory screw on your louder, holster-compatible mod for hunting in the woods and then attach a more effective mod and reduce power for backyard plinking. Second, pistols have great applicability for pesting in enclosed environs like my chicken coop. Third (and no doubt there are more), a pistol is a more discreet and transportable device for me to be in possession of in my yard. As my (cool) neighbor pointed out, when they first saw my M3, they thought it was an assault rifle! Again, the contents of this thread speak to the desire to have a backyard friendly option. My rifles also all need mods, so the notion that the pistol becomes a rifle is moot, given that my rifles are all plus-sized in comparison. What we have here is a airgun that is more powerful and way shorter than the highly prized small bullpups, such as the Leyla and Veteran shorty. That makes it very special.
Upvote 0
Weevil,
Thanks for your clear, concise and logical explanation. I hope never to suggest that I expect people to justify their air/gun choices.
Back in the old country I owned only handguns because I deemed rifles too easy to shoot. Then I was into pistol bullseye to 50 meters with a .22, and metallic silhouette to 200 with a Super Blackhawk. I figured that if you could master a PB handgun you could shoot any rifle even better (a spring air rifle is also a good teacher for consistent hold and follow through, that help one shoot well in general). Now, I have more rifles than handguns because if something needs to be ventilated, it is so much easier to hit with a rifle, even at only 25 yards. Yes, if you need to maneuver in tight spaces and carry it about, a handgun is better.
If available range is short, then air pistols are more fun because they force you to apply the fundamentals. And I mean, for shooting offhand.
Thanks for your clear, concise and logical explanation. I hope never to suggest that I expect people to justify their air/gun choices.
Back in the old country I owned only handguns because I deemed rifles too easy to shoot. Then I was into pistol bullseye to 50 meters with a .22, and metallic silhouette to 200 with a Super Blackhawk. I figured that if you could master a PB handgun you could shoot any rifle even better (a spring air rifle is also a good teacher for consistent hold and follow through, that help one shoot well in general). Now, I have more rifles than handguns because if something needs to be ventilated, it is so much easier to hit with a rifle, even at only 25 yards. Yes, if you need to maneuver in tight spaces and carry it about, a handgun is better.
If available range is short, then air pistols are more fun because they force you to apply the fundamentals. And I mean, for shooting offhand.
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Hi everyone! I am the “ customer “ that has been communicating with Subscriber.
I wanted an offset moderator with the main goal of using the iron sights. Online searches did not give many results. Mostly about the RAW or Leshiy, but one thread caught my eye. Member Mackeral5 had a custom build with an offset moderator which is very effective. I contacted him and he in turn suggested contacting Subscriber. My main goal is being neighbor friendly. We have 1 range here. It’s 20 plus miles from me and only available on Sunday’s, not really worth going if I’m only shooting an airgun. My second goal was to be able to use the iron sights. I read all the posts here. Lots of talk about wanting to holster the gun taking it on hikes….ect. So that’s the most recent discussion we have going on. I am still shocked that he does not charge for his services. I do like the fact that the internal design does differ quite a lot to what generally available. My pockets are quite shallow, like the little corner one on Levi’s jeans, the one you can put your house key in. I wish I have cargo pants. LOL! I have no access to a printer. So he had another guy print one for me. The cost was extremely reasonable so I jumped on it quick. So far the journey has been nothing but pleasure-able. The fact that the communication has basically been non stop and different ideas are being suggested along the way. So far wait time is almost non existent. Subscriber has freely offered up his renderings- please refer to his warnings about the designs. A few people have been printing them with very good results. The Huben GK1 is very relevant now, I don’t believe there is any other factory made pistol that can match or beat it. Why buy it if you can only shoot it every now and then due to its loudness? Hopefully these moderator designs are effective enough so we can enjoy shooting it rather than just look at it. So the journey continues.
I wanted an offset moderator with the main goal of using the iron sights. Online searches did not give many results. Mostly about the RAW or Leshiy, but one thread caught my eye. Member Mackeral5 had a custom build with an offset moderator which is very effective. I contacted him and he in turn suggested contacting Subscriber. My main goal is being neighbor friendly. We have 1 range here. It’s 20 plus miles from me and only available on Sunday’s, not really worth going if I’m only shooting an airgun. My second goal was to be able to use the iron sights. I read all the posts here. Lots of talk about wanting to holster the gun taking it on hikes….ect. So that’s the most recent discussion we have going on. I am still shocked that he does not charge for his services. I do like the fact that the internal design does differ quite a lot to what generally available. My pockets are quite shallow, like the little corner one on Levi’s jeans, the one you can put your house key in. I wish I have cargo pants. LOL! I have no access to a printer. So he had another guy print one for me. The cost was extremely reasonable so I jumped on it quick. So far the journey has been nothing but pleasure-able. The fact that the communication has basically been non stop and different ideas are being suggested along the way. So far wait time is almost non existent. Subscriber has freely offered up his renderings- please refer to his warnings about the designs. A few people have been printing them with very good results. The Huben GK1 is very relevant now, I don’t believe there is any other factory made pistol that can match or beat it. Why buy it if you can only shoot it every now and then due to its loudness? Hopefully these moderator designs are effective enough so we can enjoy shooting it rather than just look at it. So the journey continues.
Upvote 0
Thanks again for the brief test. Just wondering with all the mods you tested are there poi changes using the iron sights?87.8-88.1 un-modded, very not neighborhood friendly
Upvote 0