Quote:
Originally Posted by juicy
Question: Single stackers are known for small gas capacity. From what I understand, using a lighter BBU and a lighter (e.g. stock plastic) slide should help to reduce the gas mileage per fill. What else could further reduce gas consumption?
|
I'm working on a document that will cover many performance characteristics (such as this one) and how to improve it, but just so you get the jist of it, improving gas consumption breaks down in to two concepts:
- Conservation of gas and improvements in gas efficiency
- Reduction in gas consumption
For the former, the theory is to seal up any and all areas where gas may be wasted in order to harness the maximum amount of gas energy for the required task (whether it's to shoot the projectile or to move the slide.)
The latter draws thought in to what it is that causes gas to be consumed, for how long, and in what volume. The primary solution for this is to reduce the amount of required potential energy as much as is possible, ie by removing as much resistance as possible by creating a slide assembly that is as light as is absolutely possible, and installing a recoil spring as light as is manageable. The secondary solution is allowing the timing mechanism (that control the gas flow) to complete their cycle as quickly as possible. The two solutions can be (and in many ways, are) intertwined.
Quote:
Originally Posted by juicy
Also, would using Japanese mags (i.e. TM's that afford consistent fills) help combat the cool down effects that (as far as I've noticed) single stackers are plagued by? Seems to me like small gas storage equals quicker time to cool down when fired rapidly - though I may be mistaken, as I haven't owned an a TM/full clone as of yet.
|
In my experience, yes, original TM mags almost always perform better than clone mags in almost all aspects.