Any experience with the Steyr LP1 conversion to Air?

amonkey · Post by **amonkey** » Fri Aug 11, 2006 11:50 pm

I'm about to switch to compressed air after all these years and while shopping for 'The Next One', I found Pilkguns offers a Steyr conversion for my old, trusty LP1.
Has anyone out there used this conversion. If so I'd love to hear. Sounds like a great idea. Thanks for sharing....

Tycho · Post by **Tycho** » Sat Aug 12, 2006 1:46 am

Check out the Steyr connected threads of the last two weeks, there are some interesting thoughts about this. The conversion itself, from a mechanical point, shouldn't be a problem.

David Levene · Post by **David Levene** » Sat Aug 12, 2006 3:31 am

I have not had it done myself (aI'm already CA) but I know several people who did a few years ago.

In the morning they had a CO2 LP1, in the afternoon they had a CA LP1.

That's really the end of the story. No drama, no problems.

Fred Mannis · Post by **Fred Mannis** » Sat Aug 12, 2006 11:37 am

As David said, 'no drama, no problems'. I bought the conversion kit from Scott, talked to Warren a bit, and did the changeover. Helpful to have a chronograph so you can set the velocity to your liking. Mine is 525 f/s with Vogel Green. Perhaps a bit high, but the gun still shoots better than I can and I can get over two matches from a cylinder.

Fred

Richard H · Post by **Richard H** » Sat Aug 12, 2006 5:04 pm

Better question is why do you want to switch? Seeing that you already have a CO2 pistol I assume you're setup for CO2.

Mark Briggs · Post by **Mark Briggs** » Mon Aug 14, 2006 10:12 am

I went through this conversion process a year or two ago. As stated by other posts above, the mechanical aspects of the changeover were simply not a problem.

I DID, however, encounter a difference in performance which drove me to return to Co2. When shooting with compressed air my particular LP1 would not produce groups as tight as it did with Co2. I had previously done group testing with this gun using Co2 and produced excellent results. With CA, irrespective of velocity setting, I couldn't come close to producing the same groups. As a comparison, I am able to obtain groups of .285" regularly on Co2, and the best I was able to produce on CA was about .360". May not be much, but it's the difference between a 10 and a 9 (and besides, I want to know when I shoot a 9 it's my fault, not the gun's fault - knowing your gun will hold the x-ring is a big confidence booster, even if it doesn't buy you any points technically).

scerir · Post by **scerir** » Mon Aug 14, 2006 3:29 pm

Mark Briggs wrote: I DID, however, encounter a difference in performance which drove me to return to Co2.

Did you realize if the pistol, loaded with Co2, was more stable during the shot and immediately after the shot? I'm inclined to think that the stability of the pistol during the shot is a critical factor. Imo, the stability does not depend so much on the quality of the release, that is to say that the pistol may move erratically even when the release is perfect.
Regards
s.

Fred · Post by **Fred** » Mon Aug 14, 2006 7:17 pm

scerir wrote: Did you realize if the pistol, loaded with Co2, was more stable during the shot and immediately after the shot? I'm inclined to think that the stability of the pistol during the shot is a critical factor. Imo, the stability does not depend so much on the quality of the release, that is to say that the pistol may move erratically even when the release is perfect.
Regards
s.

That's similar to what I was trying to say under the topic "Wei Pang pistol brand" below. I don't know if my CA-converted LP-1 was less accurate from a vise than it was when it was CO2 powered, but it certainly felt much less stable during shot release in the hand - enough so that I converted it back to CO2.

Why would this be the case, scerir? I'm happy with the CO2, but I would like to know why ;-)

Thanks,
FredB

scerir · Post by **scerir** » Tue Aug 15, 2006 2:10 am

Fred wrote: I'm happy with the CO2, but I would like to know why ;-)

I do not know. Imo, the stability of the pistol during the shot is something which normal shooters do not think of. On the contrary, top shooters seem to be concerned about this factor (stability), And this is perhaps the reason why they seem to like - also for their old Lp1 - the new barrel of the Lp10 (with those 3 'holes') much more than its 'compensator' and its trigger. Btw, there is a well known top shooter which likes the Benelli Kite exactly because of its incredible stability during the shot. Well, that said, I'm inclined to think there might be some interference (not a mechanical interference) between the 'collapsing' action of the trigger during the shot and the acceleration and velocity of the _specific_ expanding gas through the barrel. That is to say that the instability of the pistol, due to the collapse when the shot breaks, might be substantially increased by the specific dynamics of the specific gas. I've tried to reduce the 'collapse' in my Lp10 (reducing the sear engagement up to a certain point) and I've noticed that the barrel was completely stable, during the shot, and the shots were well inside the ten ring or close to it. Only time will tell if it was a real effect or just the usual 'placebo' effect :-)
Regards,
serafino

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Tue Aug 15, 2006 5:20 am

I've tried to reduce the 'collapse' in my Lp10 (reducing the sear engagement up to a certain point)

If you reduce the sear engagement too much you will create a "kickback" in the trigger. That is the trigger will actually kick forwards when you fire. Thats why they glue that screw in the factory setting!

scerir · Post by **scerir** » Tue Aug 15, 2006 11:39 am

Anonymous wrote: If you reduce the sear engagement too much you will create a "kickback" in the trigger. That is the trigger will actually kick forwards when you fire. Thats why they glue that screw in the factory setting!

Well, yes. Speaking of the Lp1 (always) and the Lp10 (often but not always, as far as I know) if you reduce the sear engagement you also reduce the 'collapse'. But if you reduce _too much_ the sear engagement you get the 'kick-back'. There is a point, in between, that is free of 'collapse' and free of 'kick-back' (Emil Senfter has shown that to me in those early years). This is the magic point I prefer, because it makes the pistol more stable, during the shot, or it seems so to me. But it is a personal choice.
Regards,
s.

Mark Briggs · Post by **Mark Briggs** » Fri Aug 18, 2006 4:07 pm

Scerir - to answer your question, I have to agree with Fred's comment above. When my LP1 was powered by CA it felt like a sharp "crack" of recoil when the shot fired. By comparison, with Co2 it feels much more like a gentle 'push', much less abrupt than CA. While I justified changing back to Co2 ostensibly to regain a better test group size (the scientific side of me needed empirical evidence before I could make the change), I have to admit the pistol just feels nicer to shoot when using Co2. Since I didn't like the way it felt when shooting CA it didn't take much "scientific evidence" to convince me to move back to Co2.

As a positive side effect, the visible Co2 gas coming from the compensator is an excellent training aid. If I don't see the gas then I was mid-ranging rather than focusing on the front sight when the shot fired! ;-)

scerir · Post by **scerir** » Sat Aug 19, 2006 3:50 am

Mark Briggs wrote: When my LP1 was powered by CA it felt like a sharp "crack" of recoil when the shot fired. By comparison, with Co2 it feels much more like a gentle 'push', much less abrupt than CA.

A sharper 'crack' of recoli would mean, imo:
1) A strong(er) initial impulse, caused by the initial expansion of the specific gas;
2) A (more) extended acceleration of the specific gas through the barrel;
3) Both the above;
4) The spring of the firing pin not properly set.
I'm inclined to think that number 2) is what causes the (supposed) sharper 'crack' in CA pistols, like the Lp1-air (and the suipposed poor groups of shots on the target). But I may be wrong :-)
s.

Brian B · Post by **Brian B** » Sun Aug 20, 2006 12:28 am

Would be interesting to hear from any science/engineering type person on the rate of expansion of CA vs CO2 gas.
Maybe the CO2 has a gentler expansion process, expands at a more steady rate than Air.

I'm inclined to think also that comparing LP1 to LP10 and how it feels has a lot to do with the muzzle weight.
The LP1 has more weight out front with the heavier CO2, as well as a longer shroud /comp (both with Ali cylinders).

Mark Briggs · Post by **Mark Briggs** » Tue Aug 22, 2006 10:20 am

In all honesty, a comparison between LP1 and LP10 is at best a very unfair comparison. Having owned both pistols at the same time and shot them side by side, I would have to say that it's an 'apples to oranges' comparison. The recoil absorber and vented barrel of the LP10 make it feel so much different than the LP1 as to make any comparison of recoil characterists completely impractical.

That having been said, certain aspects of these pistols (ie sights, grip, trigger) are well suited to side-by-side comparison. And in many respects the LP1 fairs very well when compared to its newer brother.

scerir · Post by **scerir** » Tue Aug 22, 2006 3:49 pm

Brian B wrote: I'm inclined to think also that comparing LP1 to LP10 and how it feels has a lot to do with the muzzle weight.

Yes, we can only compare Lp1-co2 (Alu ciylinder) to Lp1-air. The weight and the balance should be the same (more or less).

Btw, did the Russian shooter (Pyzhyanov, or something like that) use the Lp1 or the old Lp, for his world-record? Does somebody remember if that old Lp was a good one?

s.

Tycho · Post by **Tycho** » Tue Aug 22, 2006 4:16 pm

I thought I remembered pics of him with a Steyr (which would have been a CO2 LP1), but there's another TT thread at

http://www.targettalk.org/viewtopic.php?p=48378

where it's said he used a FWB Model 2. After thinking about it long enough I'm not even sure if the Steyr was available in 1989 (I believe I saw the first one in 1990 or 1991), but that may also have been different for the elite :-)