TargetTalk

RobStubbs wrote:I've read most of the above thread, but I can't say all of it. I would state that you will get far worse precision and acuracy from your gun with the absorber off. It's not a case of making it like an LP2, it behaves differently. Mine broke a couple of years back and it became unusable. From shooting 9's and 10's the groups opened out to 7's and 8's so group size became about 3 times larger. I got it repaired and back to where it was before. If you are getting through lots of air, then look for a solution to that problem - i.e. something maybe leaking - rather than trying to muddle through it with a sledgehammer approach.

Rob.

Can't say I've had the same experience. After reading this thread I went to the range and deliberately de-activated the stabiliser (by pushing the front of the catch lever) for a series of shots to see if there was any change in point of impact. There wasn't, the shots all went in to the 9 ring, just the pistol recoiled more.

therider wrote:Northpaw analysis of the effect of the vents on muzzle speed is correct.

But of course....Thanks, "therider", you have seen the light.

Usefullnesss of barrel vents? If they were not usefull, I think Steyr would not have incorporated the vents in their barrels.
The vents release presurized air upward, and the reaction force is a downward directed trust, to counteract pivotation of the gun at discharge. They are pretty effetive, but, consumes some air, yes.
To get a noticeable downward directed trust from the upward escaping air , quite som air under pressure behind the pellet must released through these vents. In physics, one can`t get something from nothing. The energy (air under pressure) escaping from the vents drains some energy, that would otherwice contribute to acceleration of the pellet.
The energy of the ai in the cylinder is pV, btw, where p i pressure and V is volume of cylinder. The pressure energy is transformed to kinetic energy as air escapes from the vents.

Hope his helps.

I repeat: there is nothing wrong with the 3 LP10s in our club. They are not leacking air. They perform very well, but air cylinder mileage is surprisingly short.

And to "Robbstubbs": there is no reason the LP10 should start to spray pellets due to an unactivated absorber. The gun does ot become variable simply due to an absorber out of action. The guns spread is simply due to the tremor of your own hands. Nothing else.

Northpaw
we all feel enlightened now.

however you do not need upwards thrust from vents to prevent recoiling.

My MGH1 does not recoil and it has no vents nor recoil absorber. At variance with Morini 162EI which has that light and nice ( i really like it) upward flip, MGH1 does not flip. I suppose this is due to the air being stored just behind the diabolo. Of course it is not as still as Pardini k12.

It is however as unforgiving and as rewarding as 162EI.... If you shoot well you'll think that only one of your diabolo hit the target, as you really get a single hole (without a vice!).....but the lightest mistake and it is a 7!

I too do not see any problem with LP10. Althougth I have seen groping deteriorating with the gun on the vice far before the cilinder was empty, one still has plenty of air for completing a competion.

RobStubbs wrote:I've read most of the above thread, but I can't say all of it. I would state that you will get far worse precision and acuracy from your gun with the absorber off. It's not a case of making it like an LP2, it behaves differently. Mine broke a couple of years back and it became unusable. From shooting 9's and 10's the groups opened out to 7's and 8's so group size became about 3 times larger. I got it repaired and back to where it was before. If you are getting through lots of air, then look for a solution to that problem - i.e. something maybe leaking - rather than trying to muddle through it with a sledgehammer approach.

Rob.

^The voice of reason.^

To the OP.

Just got back in from the range tonight as I've been doing some structured training with my LP10 each day since last Saturday up until this evening. I've shot 3 lots of 5 targets with 10 shots on each target each day, so 150 pellets each time. Just used one cylinder on each occasion, which gave consistent shots right through each session. Tonight I shot another couple of targets at the end of the session and the groups remained consistent, so 170 shots tonight.

These are not full power shots and were never claimed as such. As mentioned before this LP10 has been set up by the UK importer to shoot optimally with the pellets I use. I get 150+ regulated and consistent shots from one full size cylinder. Enough for my needs.

What any other pistol does or doesn't do is pretty irrelevant if you are determined to stick with your Steyr. If you want more shots then use a different pistol. If you don't want an absorber then use a different pistol. If you are not happy with your Steyr, guess what? Use a different pistol.

Alternatively get it set up for what you want from it. If it will not do that then the answer is above somewhere.

hth

Mick

micken wrote: These are not full power shots and were never claimed as such.

This is exactly what I have claimed from the very beginning.

micken wrote: ...Use a different pistol.

No, our Steyr LP 10s perform very well, but cylinder shot count is far below expectations, set at the pellet velocity recommended by the factory.

Seem more of the posters appear intimidated by me claiming cylinder mileage is far below info from the factory? Why?

If I reduce the velocy to 135 m/s , I would expect an impressive increase in mileage, maybe even 170 shot/cylinder?

Why are you not considering the facts? Due to the vented barrel, a LP 10, at factory recommended pellet velocity, will just give some 75 - 80 shots from one cylinder, untill the velocity decreases, and hence, the point of impact changes. Those are the bare facts.

northpaw wrote:

micken wrote: These are not full power shots and were never claimed as such.

This is exactly what I have claimed from the very beginning.

micken wrote: ...Use a different pistol.

No, our Steyr LP 10s perform very well, but cylinder shot count is far below expectations, set at the pellet velocity recommended by the factory.

Seem more of the posters appear intimidated by me claiming cylinder mileage is far below info from the factory? Why?

If I reduce the velocy to 135 m/s , I would expect an impressive increase in mileage, maybe even 170 shot/cylinder?

Why are you not considering the facts? Due to the vented barrel, a LP 10, at factory recommended pellet velocity, will just give some 75 - 80 shots from one cylinder, until the velocity decreases, and hence, the point of impact changes. Those are the bare facts.

No one is intimidated by what you say, they just are having different experiences - period. My two LP10e gets much more mileage than you do without a loss in accuracy. My LP50 gets better than what you are reporting but no where near what my LP10e's get. All 3 use the long cylinders.

When you say "the facts" I have only read what your experiencing and your conjecture that the vents are to blame. If you want to prove how much (if any) the vents impact air consumption then you need to do a controlled experiment possibly by blocking the vents on several guns report the before and after findings. Heat shrink tape should do the trick.

You do realize the vents also allow air to escape the barrel ahead of the pellet allowing it to reach top speed earlier - right? Local conditions such as altitude & relative humidity also plays into the equation of pellet performance.

I am not doubting your experience but I have a problem with conjecture. If everyone had the same experience one MIGHT conclude the vents were the cause but until a designed experiment is done it is still only a hypothesis with no real proof. I might even agree that it seems logical the vents could be a possible reason for greater air consumption, but it doesn't explain why we are getting such varied reports on air consumption. Again, no designed experiment no proof! It is very OK to have an opinion but please don't pass it off as "the fact" especially when others are getting different results.

- Dave

dronning wrote: You do realize the vents also allow air to escape the barrel ahead of the pellet allowing it to reach top speed earlier - right?

No, this is again a myth, the air in the bore in front of the pellet has very little mass (weight), and its influence on pellet acceration is nil. Of course. If you are in doubt, please just calculate the weight of that air. Density of air is in the 1,3 grams pr. liter range. The weight of air in the bore is best measured in milligrams.

A controlled experiment, yes, and who is willing to do that work? The best guess would be the Visier magazine.

northpaw wrote: No, this is again a myth, the air in the bore in front of the pellet has very little mass (weight), and its influence on pellet acceration is nil.

Take a TGV train in France when it enters a tunnel at 350km/hour, and then you tell me if because it has little mass , there is no influence! And the mass of the train is slightly higher than that of a pellet (although speed is also higher, but only by a ratio of 5-6).

There is hardly any similarity. The train is not driven by air overpressure from behind. The air in barrel in front of pellet is pushed out of the muzzle, hardly any air out of the barrel vents, because the air pressure in front of pellet is relatively low, and the vents are much smaller than the sectional area of the bore.
The difference in pellet velocity fired in vacuum relative to ambient pressure is negligible. Any influence dissappears in the white noice of the prosess.

But, if anyone wants to belive in the "air-in-front-of-pellet" effect, - just go ahead.

Think I have been able to bring forward the bare facts: a long cylinder of a LP10 will, at pellet velocity recommended by the factory, just give 75 - 80 consistent shots. Note the fatory velocity setting of the LP10s, as they are shipped from factory, is much lower than recommended pellet velocity from same factory.
The reason for this tradition I don`know.

I really don't buy into this "big vent, big loss of air" theory.

If you take off your barrel, that would be a insanely big vent of air.

You are saying you will have much less shots now from your cylinder?

I doubt it. But I might be wrong. But I am very skeptical of the "big vent, big loss of air" theory.

Short barrel with "big vent" have the same shots from the cylinder vs. long barrel.

northpaw wrote:Think I have been able to bring forward the bare facts: a long cylinder of a LP10 will, at pellet velocity recommended by the factory, just give 75 - 80 consistent shots. Note the fatory velocity setting of the LP10s, as they are shipped from factory, is much lower than recommended pellet velocity from same factory.
The reason for this tradition I don`know.

OK, I can see that you've totally lost it now.

Goodbye and best wishes in your endeavours to shoot straight and consistent. I can't really add much more to help.

Buy a SSP.

In this thread we have made an in depth investigation of the high-air-consumption shortcoming of the LP 10, an otherwice excellent gun.
I will get in contact with the company, and advice them to reconstruct internals to increase cylinder mileage. And encourage incorporation of an option for easy blocking off of the absorber. And, an option for unvented barrels.

Hope that may help.

northpaw wrote:In this thread we have made an in depth investigation of the high-air-consumption shortcoming of the LP 10, an otherwice excellent gun.
I will get in contact with the company, and advice them to reconstruct internals to increase cylinder mileage. And encourage incorporation of an option for easy blocking off of the absorber. And, an option for unvented barrels.

Hope that may help.

Ok this post made me re-read the whole thread. NO where did I find an "in depth investigation", just a discussion of experiences.
Good luck presenting the varied results discussed in this thread as fact and getting any serious response!

- Dave

northpaw wrote:In this thread we have made an in depth investigation of the high-air-consumption shortcoming of the LP 10, an otherwice excellent gun.
I will get in contact with the company, and advice them to reconstruct internals to increase cylinder mileage. And encourage incorporation of an option for easy blocking off of the absorber. And, an option for unvented barrels.

Hope that may help.

You could also suggest that they call it the LP2...

Maybe it's just me...

I have an extra cylinder and a pump. 100 shots per cylinder is just fine with me. It takes me a couple of hours of shooting to deplete it to 100 bar and just a couple of minutes to fill it back up with my pump, AND I have a spare cylinder. You guys argue about some silly stuff.

David

Well, think we have brought the iformation out there, to the owners and users of the LP 10, those worrying about the surprisingly short cylinder mileage, thinking their guns are leaking. Which they are not.

Thanks to my opponents, RobbStubbs and others, struggling heaily to deny, cover up for, and smokescreen the facts. You have, yourself problably unaware of this, contributed to keep this thread active for an extended period, and hence, supplied some help to shed light upon this topic.
Robbstubbs: the best way to let an unpleasant fact disappear is to stay silent, - "silencio" we italians say. :-)

Thanks to you all for the help.

The italians actually say "Silenzio", not silencio.

And yes one of the most useless discussion was kept alive!

The only fact I see in this thread is that you keep denying that any LP10 owners are getting the Steyr published mileage, or better. When someone only accepts discussion that supports their desired outcome, a person could only conclude that there is some kind of delusional disorder involved.

That fact is obvious and it's been entertaining!

It has been a pleasure to be able to encourage owners of LP 10s. Owners sleepless at night cause they are worrying about their LP10, is my gun leaking or not? Most often not, cause the short mileage is simply a feature of that gun.

Hope my efforts here have helped some.