Jump to content



to add your 300x250 banner, pay ad zone 5
Airsoft Atlanta is your source for quality airsoft guns and rifle parts
to add your Text Link here, pay ad zone 3

AirsoftAtlanta.com AirsoftNMore.com Airsplat.com AirsoftRC.com
Vote for us to add your 180x30 banner here, pay ad zone 2

If you appreciate this website, please ASF Donation or Check Out the ASF Store. If you can not help us financially,
then at least help us by telling a friend: Share us on your favorite social networking website Bookmark and Share

Important Announcement!

Our Pinzgauer Project is in "Pre Launch" - Click Here to let us know what you think before the project goes live.

Photo
- - - - -

R-hop installation manual (Necro Exempt)


  • Please log in to reply
439 replies to this topic

#1 hunterseeker5

hunterseeker5

Posted 03 August 2011 - 06:09 PM

For an up-to-date thread with photos, please visit this thread: http://forums.airsof...hp?topic=7292.0

For more concise info about the R-hop and its installation, please go to this link: http://forums.airsof...hp?topic=4820.0
I've been working on and answering questions about the R-hop and decided to cobble together some of the responses into an installation manual of sorts which covers the basics. The thing I want to emphasize is that with increased contact area comes increased sensitivity to downward pressure from the bucking. As a result it takes a different feel to get one of these adjusted right, but once it is installed correctly it should require little or no pressure from the hop arm above, and the hop dial should be used for fine tuning only lest you deform the hop from its bb hugging shape.

YOU DON'T NEED TO FOLLOW MY INSTRUCTIONS, THEY ARE JUST A SUGGESTION AND AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT I USUALLY DO. There is also an FAQ down below which is a great quick reference.Feel free to experiment.


every hop window is different, so I can't sell patches which are drop-in ready. I ship all of them over-size for people to cut down.
The process is best done with a VERY sharp knife and/or sandpaper, in some cases wrapped around a dowel, and a small round file. This sandpaper must be a fine grit, usually about 400, and when you're finished clean the patch thoroughly to avoid getting the grit in your barrel. You'll definitely need to cut down the two sides of the U and depending on your hop window and ammo you'll need to cut the channel deeper as well. I find its best to cut the piece to length LAST because thats the easiest cut and for whatever reason edges are always more difficult spots.
When you have one you are ready to drop in and test, cut the hop mound off your bucking, drop the patch in the hop window, and slide the bucking over just like a regular G-hop. Then, and this is the CRITICAL step, insert the whole thing into your hop unit and TEST IT MANUALLY FIRST. Put a bb in the chamber and push it through with a small rod, old hex key, or anything small enough. This is important because when working with a hop unit like this its super easy to apply too much force and make it impossible for your bb to pass. The bb should pass with just a gentle touch. If its producing mild resistance it probably won't jam, but you'll probably have wild over-hop. This really is an important step because, as always when messing with hop units, if you over-clock it you'll cost yourself a piston.
One thing I will say is that once you get the mod running the way you want you will be able to improve reliability by permanently adhering the contact patch to the bucking. Don't do this until you get the backspin you want, otherwise it'll be a mess, but put the contact patch in, and slide it all the way to the back (gearbox end) of the window. It may help to adhere it here with a MINUSCULE touch of CA at the four corners to keep it in place, but don't let it get anywhere near the inside of your barrel just drop it on the outside and let it wick itself as far in as it'll go. (in theory you can use tape too, but that messes with thickness and airseal blah blah blah. Then take your hop bucking and turn all of it inside out except the lips. Put a drop of CA on top of the contact patch and unroll the bucking onto it over the barrel. If you do it right it'll permanently attach the contact patch to the bucking and keep it from being drawn forward into the chamber which causes a pinch jam. (obviously) This is something I do to mine, but only when I finish experimenting because it somewhat permanently attaches everything. Getting a bucking which has been attached like this off it a bit of a pain.


If this still leaves you dumbfounded there is a great deal of information in the G-hop thread. It is an excellent resource. Please read that first:
http://forums.airsof...hp?topic=3603.0


Here are some images, some of which were stolen from other threads, showing what a correct install looks like. Any further images people would like me to capture pertaining to user installation of the contact patch I will try to capture and will add here.








I also developed a new technique. You see the problem is that you can't really see how the contact patch is sitting until you install it into the hop unit fully. At the same time you can't really see how its sitting when its in there because the hop rubber obscures it. If you're really desperate to see how your contact patch is sitting, and where the interference is, you can cut the lips off a hop rubber, while retaining that edge which is required for the barrel to seat properly, and then install it in the hop unit. This allows an unobstructed view of the inside of the barrel and the contact patch.



We already have seen the demonstration that the R-hop is somehow able to magically propel a bb further than a bb out of a normal hop despite no differences in spin velocity or muzzle velocity. Here is a theory as to why, which I've dubbed the "vibration theory."
[quoteMy R-hop does not produce the oval shaped, or vertical skew, that a "flat hop" or regular hop with SCS would do. Shredder himself recommended that a mod akin to what people now called the flat hop (flat hop is just the latest name for a mod which is 5-8 years old, and I find it a bit amusing watching everyone here reinvent the wheel for the hundredth time) where you remove the hop mound and rotate the bucking to work in conjunction with the SCS nub in order to better produce the bb contour. The problem with that system is that there is on give. There is almost no rubber anywhere in there and its all being held in rigid plastic. Also, given that the SCS is round, the length of contact is extremely short. Your spin is therefore on axis but inconsistent in velocity so you get that vertical skew. The R-hop can use a wide variety of different nubs to press down, including the SCS, mainly because very minimal downward pressure is applied when installed properly. I do recommend a soft and long nub like a firefly rather than a short and hard one like an SCS. Honestly with an R-hop you'd be better off with a regular soft round nub than an SCS. What makes the R-hop special is that its already contoured to the shape of the bb, it protrudes as far around the barrel as possible, and is as long as the barrel window will allow. As a result spin is applied much more slowly. You see normally, with all these systems except the flat hop, the length of the contact patch is extremely short. so the downward force must be very high and the spin must be applied to the bb very rapidly. What makes the "Flat hop" which evolved into the G-hop, which applied into the HE G-hop, which evolved into the R-hop which evolved into the ER-hop (each being superior to its predecessor) is that the contact with the bb is much longer than on the hop mound (lump in a normal hop bucking). This longer slower acceleration allows spin to be applied much more gently and stably to the bb producing more stable spin...... and this is where we enter into the realm of theory. Lets start with the top theory. The top theory is that if you were to spin a top (we're talking about the child's gyroscopic toy here) the more stably the spin is applied the more smoothly the top will spin. The G-hop, R-hop, etc are like slowly but firmly spinning the top between your two fingers. If you do this the top will spin smoothly and on axis. Spin imparted by the hop mound can be likened to spin applied to the top by flicking its rim with your finger. The result will almost always be spin which is off the top's central axis and so it will appear to wobble and its spin velocity will be much less consistent. Reports from the field support this. People who've used my R-hop, even under severe over-hop conditions, report that the bbs will fly skyward but will all come down to land in the same spot. Similarly groupings are very tight because your spin will be consistent and on-axis when you have it tuned properly. Now though we have to delve into the realm of even crazier theory to explain an observed phenomenon: extended range. You see with the G-hop and now the R-hop we have a great deal of evidence showing that not only does this system make your rifle more accurate, but actually extends the distance the bbs will travel and their flight pattern. This is puzzling because, superficially, this seems impossible. I myself refused to accept it for the longest time because I couldn't come up with an explanation for it. Here is my theory though: when the bb passes the mound to have spin imparted its actually not rotating around its center, its being forced to rotate around an axis above its center. This would cause a tendency to reorient a bb to bring its center of mass, which doesn't exist at its geometric center, in line with its center of rotation. While this may not fully be possible it will create a tendency for the bb to find an axis of rotation which coincides with a center of mass as far from the geometric center as possible. This will create a "vibration" or "wobble" in air which will increase its presented surface area to the air when flying that should increase drag and decrease range as well as reducing accuracy of course. Contrary to this a longer and slower system of imparting spin like the R or G-hop attempts to force the bb to rotate around its geometric center giving it the tendency to find an axis of rotation which as best as possible causes the geometric center to its center of mass or rotational center. This reduces this wobble or vibration in air allowing reduced drag and increased flight distance. In theory it will also allow for the longer flatter trajectories we've witnessed.
THIS is the best theory I have as to why the R-hop actually, without adding any more velocity either forward or rotational, increased the distance a bb will fly by a significant margin.

Helpful videos:
http://www.youtube.c...feature=related


http://www.youtube.c...feature=related

This thread will also be periodically edited by ASF staff to try and keep all info concise and keep all irrelative/extraneous post from cluttering it up.

Edited by airborne101, 25 February 2013 - 12:15 AM.

  • 0

#2 hunterseeker5

hunterseeker5

Posted 03 August 2011 - 06:13 PM

Oh its also worth mentioning that currently Skag and Major9 are offering installs of this if you can't do it yourself. They'll probably want to weigh in here.


R-hop FAQ

Q: What barrels are suitable for an R-hop install?
A: Essentially all of them. Across all brands and models I've not yet found one which can't take an R-hop. Some, such as PDI, can benefit from modification but the R-hop is very broadly compatible by design and from AEPs to GBBRs we've installed them to great effect.

Q: What tools are typically required?
A: Fine sandpaper, about 400 grit. THATS IT. Most people benefit from a good sharp knife and a dowel, to wrap the sand paper around, but thats all it takes. It really is that simple.

Q: What bucking do you recommend for use with the R-hop
A: I get this question a lot, and I never seem to give a satisfactory answer. The point is that the R-hop frees you to use your bucking solely for airseal. Use what seals best for you in your specific system with your specific nozzle cut. Obviously at high power this is very advantageous because you may finally use hard buckings without any drawbacks.

Q: What nub do you recommend you use with the R-hop?
A: You can actually use the stock tubular “nub” or hop packing that comes with most AEGs, or the stock arm used in some guns, or the grub screw system used in some other guns. Ideally you'd like something that places even pressure along the entire length of the contact patch (R-hop) but its not required. Most people who want upgraded nubs just make them from scrap bits of sorbo left over from cylinder head stampings.

Q: What does ER, IR, and IER mean?
A: These prefixes indicate specialized R-hops. I stands for “ice” and indicates cold weather tolerance, so the IR-hop works in effectively all temperatures. It technically can be frozen, but everything else in your gun would have failed long before the hop. E stands for “extended” and indicates a special longer patch just slightly less than twice as long as an R-hop. These improve performance beyond the regular R-hop. IER is obviously a combination of the two, and is an extended cold tolerant hop.

Q: When should I switch from the R-hop to the ER-hop?
A: You can use the ER-hop with any mass bb, but I normally tell people to start switching over in the ~.28 -.3g+ region.

Q: How do you modify the arm of the hop up and chamber for ER Hop?
A: This varies from hop to hop. If you tune it well you don't need to modify anything, the arm will serve only as a fine tuning. The full modification on an M4 hop is to remove the arm lift spring and the shelf on which it sits. You then either sand the arm or make a contoured nub to fit the arm which will apply even pressure the length of the R-hop. If you pull apart the hop and look the solution will quickly become apparent.

Q: What is the life expectancy of the R-hop?
A: Its hard to say, because nobody has successfully worn one out yet. There is a lot more material there to wear than a normal hop mound, and its not being stretched like a flat hop, so the answer is a properly long time. Different install tricks, such as adhering it to your bucking, can in theory extend its life even further, but its life expectancy is already so long nobody has put enough cycles on one to actually find out.

Q: Do I need to dremel the hop up window?
A: No. Now that I gave you the simple answer here is the complicated one: some windows like those on some GBBRs do need modification because of their shape. The extended hops also require a modified window. I strongly recommend you do not modify your hop window if you do not know what you're doing. Even the tiniest burrs will prevent your barrel from functioning properly. What you use to re-cut the window (dremel, file, milling machine, etc) is almost irrelevant because when you're done you need to deburr that window and THAT is the critical ingredient. When I re-cut the windows on guns its a six step process: rough cut the window, cut the front of the window (at an angle), re-cut the window by hand with a ceramic file, deburr, polish all the surfaces and edges, and burnish all surfaces and edges. You'd be amazed how poorly windows are cut on most barrel brands, even ones you'd expect better from.

Q: What speed on the dremel? What bit?
A: Multiple bits, and if you need me to tell you DON'T DO IT YOURSELF.

Q: What temperature is the temperature I would need to use the IR-hop?
A: The best attribute of the ice hops is thermal stability. You can use regular R-hops down to cold temperatures, but their surface friction coefficient changes depending on the temperature. The ice hops don't really change. I normally say if you intend to play in 32F (0C) or below temperatures just use the ice hop. It works in the summer too, so its not a seasonal thing you need to change.

Q: Is the R-hop more accurate at warm temperatures than the IR-hop?
A: In theory yes, but nobody has demonstrated that either is more accurate, and both are easily more accurate than a regular hop by a large margin. I'd say the difference between the R and ER is MASSIVE compared to any difference between the R and IR in warm weather.

Q: What is the minimum weight bb that I can use with an R-hop? ER-hop?
A: I guess you could use .12s on the ER-hop if you really wanted to. ??? It works (I've tried it, and THAT is what you call thorough testing) but it isn't what you'd call purposeful.

Q: Why do I need to leave a space between the R-hop and the front of the hop up window?
A: Because if the R-hop is pulled forward ahead of the bb and pinched such that it can't deform and move upward out of the way it'll be pinched between the bb and the leading edge of the barrel window. This is why I advocate angling the front of your barrel window and/or leaving a gap. This pinch type jam is very rare with the R-hop, much more common with the G-hop, but its still possible and since prudence in this case is free....... more often with the R-hop you can get a partial pinch which doesn't create a stoppage but puts undesirable and inconsistent spin on the bb.

Q: What kind of glue is best for the R-hop install?
A: Cyanoacrylate, although thats not a substitute for proper surface prep. As with everything what you put in is what you get out. Clean both parts thoroughly and prior to bonding make sure they're dry.

Q: What kind of blade is best used to cut the R-hop?
A: A sharp and thin one. Xacto blades are a common choice and for good reason.

Q: How do I hold this thing while cutting/grinding it?
A: Some people use tweezers, nails, the tips of a drafting compass, a drop of hot glue on the top of the contact patch and attach that to a handle of sorts....... The most clever solution is shown in a video by Maekii where he has some fine sandpaper on the inside of half a tube which he sets the hop in. There are lots of possible solutions, and you may come up with the next genius one. I may have invented the R-hop, but everyone else invented the best ways to install it.

Q: My bbs keep overhopping! What do I do now?
A: First make sure your R-hop is flush with the outside of the inner barrel. Then simply remove material from the inside of the R-hop until you get the correct amount of hop. Its worthwhile to also check and make sure you're not getting a pinch type jam. It should take the slightest force to push a bb through a properly tuned R-hop. After you're first install you'll see just what sort of gentle touch I'm talking about.

Q: How do I cut off the mound on the inside of the bucking?
A: Flip it inside out and then use a rotary tool or a knife

Q: How much do you charge to install an R-hop for me?
A: I don't currently do R-hop installs on an individual basis, although I do entertain offers of bulk orders from dealers. If you'd be interested in placing such an order send me an email or PM. Serious inquiries only. I have taken group orders in the past, and I might consider doing it again, although I'd like to cut out some of the ugly logistics. In essence as always everyone has a price. Its also worth noting that a number of fine techs offer R-hop installation services.

Q: What should the R-hop look like installed?
A: Shamelessly stolen from Anachro12: “One of the ways I explain the r-hop to people is to tell them to imagine that the hop up window could be cut out as one single piece of metal removed from the barrel. Imagine what the shape of that cut out would be. The same width and shape, flush with the outside of the barrel but just a tiny fraction of a mm thicker in the part that extends into the barrel.”

Q: How long does it take to install an r-hop?
A: My record is less than 5 minutes, not including actually testing it to make sure it works. (so in essence its a bullsh*t record) Expect your first install to take a couple hours. I can't stress enough TAKE YOUR TIME ON THE FIRST ONE AND DON'T USE POWER TOOLS. There is a learning curve, go slowly until you get your technique down. Trust me when your friend's see your rifle perform they'll want you to do it for them and you WILL make your money back doing it for them.

Q: What barrel length works best?
A: This really is more dependent on what your system is tuned for than anything else. Its generally accepted that 455mm is most accurate with conventional hops, and we have no evidence to suggest something else is true with the R-hop, but really the rest of your system should dictate barrel length.

Q: Should I cut the alignment ridge off my hop bucking and rotate it so a smooth even surface is presented to the top of the R-hop?
A: In a word yes. Due to the potential for sealing issues you might be better off, if you can remove the mound evenly and smoothly, not rotating the bucking but if know what you're doing by all means have at it.

Q: What does shipping cost if I live in another country, and what does CONUS mean?
A: CONUS means CONtinental United States. Shipping elsewhere is 1$ for as many packs as you like.

Q: How do I purchase an R-hop?
A: Its pretty informal. You can contact me via PM or my email if you like, but the bottom line is that the prices and options are on my site and pretty well laid out. Just paypal that amount to my email address (check the contact section of my website) and I'll get it shipped right out to you. Remember to add 1$ for non-CONUS shipping, and also please remember to put in the payment description WHAT EXACTLY YOU ARE ORDERING. Also for people using the gift option, either because you want me to ship somewhere other than your confirmed address or because you don't want paypal to take a nice bite of fees out of your payment, please remember to put your shipping address in the payment description or a separate message. Otherwise I have your money, and thats wonderful and all, but I have nowhere to send your order.


A big thanks to everyone who submitted the questions which made this FAQ. I couldn't have done it all without you.

Edited by airborne101, 01 December 2011 - 05:26 PM.

  • 0

#3 Star_folder

Star_folder
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Carolina
  • Interests:Airsoft.

  • My Temperament:2,5,7,10

Posted 03 August 2011 - 06:30 PM

Boy, what a wall of text. But still, thanks for posting this here HS5.
  • 0

#4 skag187

skag187

Posted 03 August 2011 - 08:10 PM

it's not a wall of text, it's a wall of tech!!!

if anyone out there needs any help on this, shoot me a PM, as HS5 said, I, along with Major9 are offering contact patches, installs, I'm even willing to do complete "drop in" barrel groups for those interested.

Edited by skag187, 03 August 2011 - 08:11 PM.

  • 0
Now the tech recommended by Hunterseeker5 for R-hop installations. http://www.facebook....PressureAirsoft
Retail/Dealer advertising in your signature is not allowed unless you are a Sponsor. ~Airborne101 I'm not here to sell, I'm here to try and help

#5 major9

major9
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wisconsin

Posted 03 August 2011 - 09:01 PM

Direct Copy/Past from ASM:

At Hs5s request, I'll update what I have seen from my experience.
First off, I do at least 4 R-hop installs a week, so I have pretty much gotten my system down.

The most noticable improvement came with a customers G&P I was working on.
First off, the gun is shooting roughly 350-380 fps <AT> 50 rps (11.1v 4000mAh 45/90c bat).
Anyways, when I recieved it (brand spankin new from EHA), it curved its shots all over the place, and just shot poorly.
Now, With properly tuned R-hop, I can hit a man sized at a measured out 275 feet. Possibly more, but that is all the room I have.
We're talking headshots at roughly 200 feet here.
All of this is using either .28g AE bbs or .3g KSC bbs.
There it is guys. Hard numbers. HS5 isn't the only one who can do this sort of thing.

Also, as for installing R-hop:
I actually take a semi-different approach.
I use a relatively hard (the name escapes me) sanding bit (not diamond), and slowly shave down the bucking. I just find this easier to use than a diamond bit. Also, I suggest running your dremel at a relatively low speed. The patches are fairly soft, and its easy to take to much off.
Once its fitted in the barrel, you almost always encounter over-hop on <.28g bbs. If that is happening, I carefully take a rat-tail file to it, until it is perfect for the bbs the owner plans on using.

-Major9
  • 0

#6 krap101

krap101
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rockford, IL

Posted 04 August 2011 - 03:03 AM

QUOTE (hunterseeker5 @ Aug 3 2011, 06:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Here is my theory though: when the bb passes the mound to have spin imparted its actually not rotating around its center, its being forced to rotate around an axis above its center. This would cause a tendency to reorient a bb to bring its center of mass, which doesn't exist at its geometric center, in line with its center of rotation. While this may not fully be possible it will create a tendency for the bb to find an axis of rotation which coincides with a center of mass as far from the geometric center as possible. This will create a "vibration" or "wobble" in air which will increase its presented surface area to the air when flying that should increase drag and decrease range as well as reducing accuracy of course. Contrary to this a longer and slower system of imparting spin like the R or G-hop attempts to force the bb to rotate around its geometric center giving it the tendency to find an axis of rotation which as best as possible causes the geometric center to its center of mass or rotational center. This reduces this wobble or vibration in air allowing reduced drag and increased flight distance. In theory it will also allow for the longer flatter trajectories we've witnessed.
THIS is the best theory I have as to why the R-hop actually, without adding any more velocity either forward or rotational, increased the distance a bb will fly by a significant margin.


The difference in the "geometric" center and the center of mass is a property of the bb, and you can't change this. The bb will always rotate about its center of mass, and this is another thing you cannot change (at least in air... bowling is a counterexample, but there is another force acting in this case. A throwing knife is a good example of the rotation about the cg). At the same mass and velocity, there is a limit to how far the bb can travel before it "dips", and this a byproduct of the bernoulli effect and in turn magnus forces. One thing that you can change though, is consistency, which was that entire "argument" we had about slip and consistency. Even a perfect bb with perfect hopup you will still see "wobble" as this is caused by airflow over a sphere, causing alternating vortices called the karman street effect; however, this is effect is usually overpowered by the inconsistencies in the bb. The only way you would see an increase in the flat portion of the trajectory is that you were using to heavy of a bb, and the previous hopup was not able to provide enough, or because the hopup was zero'd at a longer distance.

As always, this isn't an attempt to bash on your product, but it will probably come off this way, as there is only text.. So I'll add smilies...

a-salute.gif a-shocked.gif a-wink.gif
  • 0

#7 hunterseeker5

hunterseeker5

Posted 04 August 2011 - 08:34 AM

QUOTE (krap101 @ Aug 4 2011, 04:03 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The difference in the "geometric" center and the center of mass is a property of the bb, and you can't change this. The bb will always rotate about its center of mass, and this is another thing you cannot change (at least in air... bowling is a counterexample, but there is another force acting in this case. A throwing knife is a good example of the rotation about the cg). At the same mass and velocity, there is a limit to how far the bb can travel before it "dips", and this a byproduct of the bernoulli effect and in turn magnus forces. One thing that you can change though, is consistency, which was that entire "argument" we had about slip and consistency. Even a perfect bb with perfect hopup you will still see "wobble" as this is caused by airflow over a sphere, causing alternating vortices called the karman street effect; however, this is effect is usually overpowered by the inconsistencies in the bb. The only way you would see an increase in the flat portion of the trajectory is that you were using to heavy of a bb, and the previous hopup was not able to provide enough, or because the hopup was zero'd at a longer distance.

As always, this isn't an attempt to bash on your product, but it will probably come off this way, as there is only text.. So I'll add smilies...

a-salute.gif a-shocked.gif a-wink.gif



I like your smilies, but you missed something. When the bb rotates here it rotates on a single axis. What I am saying is that this axis may not be completely random. You see within the three dimensions of the bb some of these directions in which it can rotate will better allow the center of mass to coincide with the geometric center.

How about to visualize this lets scale it up and make a sort of wacky example. Take a slightly larger plastic ball. Lets say that its completely spherical and uniform in density. Any way it can rotate will therefore cause its geometric center to coincide with its center of mass. BUT what if we drilled a hole off center through it? Well then if you rotated this ball the center of mass and geometric center MAY still coincide but may not depending on its orientation. How? Just as two examples if the sphere is spun such that the hole is parallel to the axis of rotation you'll see wobble. Conversely if you spin it with the hole perpendicular to the axis of rotation its geometric center and center of mass will coincide ON THIS AXIS and it will not wobble. Taking this back to bbs each one has a series of voids and density inconsistencies, and its my theory that the two hop systems have an effect on how the bb finds its axis of rotation relative to its center of mass.

I like your theory about the smileys:
a-laugh.gif a-cool.gif a-cheesy.gif

*edit*
Your argument is based in theory, and for the longest time I agreed with you. After enough time experimenting with this though I am stuck with the conclusion though that something larger is at work. Several independent sources have confirmed that trajectory is affected in a way our current theories can't explain. That is why I created this one. If you have another better theory please put it forward, but lets twist theories to suit facts not facts to suit theories here. You see my longstanding argument regarding this was that increased range and flatter trajectory isn't possible because if it were just a matter of "perfect spin" you would occasionally see a single bb sail far beyond all your others. This clearly isn't the case though (unless you have inconsistent power output) so we have to come up with something fundamental to the different hops which explains why we observe these altered trajectories. Clearly the theory that when a bb exits the barrel all things become equal is false. Something different is happening to the bb with the R-hop and G-hop and I'm tying to explain it.

Edited by hunterseeker5, 04 August 2011 - 09:40 AM.

  • 0

#8 sniperelite7

sniperelite7
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Menifee, California
  • SOA Name: Brad T.

Posted 04 August 2011 - 01:18 PM

I have to say I think I got lucky with installing the nub the third time around. With me dremeling out the channel, then slicing out the perfect fit for the hopup window. I then cut the U to size and after sliding on the bucking found that it did not protrude into the barrel with the hopup set too off. Turning the hopup on revealed a perfectly horizontal profile. Did that in about 15 minutes, contrasted to the fit and file approach I took for the second time around which ended up taking 5 hours on two separate days and yielded a mangled nub.

Results where poor though. With the up/down variation of the shots being too hectic to hit a half torso sized target at 200ft with acceptable consistency. I am using a flat nub that I had butcher'd from a ziptie. Just a flat slab of plastic for the prongs of the hopup arm to push down on. Think that would be the cause of it? The only other nub I have would be an scs spacer and I woudn't know how suitable that is for this.

Another question I have is that, if the prongs of your hop arm are to wide allowing the nub to have some play while placed in them. Would that account for the up/down variations I am seeing assuming of course I replace the zip tie nub with the scs or a round one?

Please note my guns fps does not vary at all, averaging a +/- 1.5 fps variance last I checked.

Edited by sniperelite7, 04 August 2011 - 01:19 PM.

  • 0

#9 hunterseeker5

hunterseeker5

Posted 04 August 2011 - 03:07 PM

QUOTE (sniperelite7 @ Aug 4 2011, 02:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I have to say I think I got lucky with installing the nub the third time around. With me dremeling out the channel, then slicing out the perfect fit for the hopup window. I then cut the U to size and after sliding on the bucking found that it did not protrude into the barrel with the hopup set too off. Turning the hopup on revealed a perfectly horizontal profile. Did that in about 15 minutes, contrasted to the fit and file approach I took for the second time around which ended up taking 5 hours on two separate days and yielded a mangled nub.

Results where poor though. With the up/down variation of the shots being too hectic to hit a half torso sized target at 200ft with acceptable consistency. I am using a flat nub that I had butcher'd from a ziptie. Just a flat slab of plastic for the prongs of the hopup arm to push down on. Think that would be the cause of it? The only other nub I have would be an scs spacer and I woudn't know how suitable that is for this.

Another question I have is that, if the prongs of your hop arm are to wide allowing the nub to have some play while placed in them. Would that account for the up/down variations I am seeing assuming of course I replace the zip tie nub with the scs or a round one?

Please note my guns fps does not vary at all, averaging a +/- 1.5 fps variance last I checked.



Well thats a new one. You're getting spin velocity inconsistency? Something in there is very clearly shifting. SO..... humm Your ziptie won't yield the most consistent spin velocity because its too hard, but........ hummmm. I don't suppose you could post pictures of this? Also knowing the power output, ammo brand, barrel brand, etc would be useful. And while you're at it since you have a chrono you can tell us your power output is consistent without the R-hop, how consistent is it post install? Specific numbers, quantities, brands, everything would be helpful here.

Honestly I've personally started moving away from the dremmel and more towards 400 grit sandpaper to shape these things. When I do use a knife its always a mirror polish edge on VG10 steel. Other steels just don't have a fine enough grain structure and don't take a consistent enough polish on the microscopic level to really be useful to cut these contact patches precisely. (If you're wondering what I'm talking about look at my youtube channel) The other thing is that hearing that the nub is protruding flat across the inside of the barrel doesn't sound right. Either your barrel window is cut WAY too shallow or you did something really wrong here. Again though without knowing anything other than you saying "its inconsistent at 200 feet" its really hard to diagnose. I'm really not sure what you're doing wrong here, but something isn't right.
  • 0

#10 sniperelite7

sniperelite7
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Menifee, California
  • SOA Name: Brad T.

Posted 04 August 2011 - 03:30 PM

I am using a Prometheus 6.03 that has been polished on the inside via 1000 grit sandpaper and a metal polish. It was cut and recrowned by myself, the crown is smooth and even. But not perfect as there is a small gouge within the crown running circular and adjacent to where the barrel ends.

Fps output is 440 fps chrono'd with .30g bioshot BB's. The fps output is the same with the r-hop installed.

I had dremeled the r-hop rubber down to a similar profile as the nub in the fifth picture on this thread. Then cut the ends of the "U" so that it would be flush with the barrel as in the first picture.
  • 0

#11 hunterseeker5

hunterseeker5

Posted 04 August 2011 - 03:56 PM

QUOTE
Then cut the ends of the "U" so that it would be flush with the barrel as in the first picture.


THATS your problem. You inadvertently broke the cardinal rule of these hops: the front face of the rubber can't touch the front face of the hop window. If its pushed in there you're going to get a partial pinch style jam, which in most cases like yours will just result in inconsistent amounts of hop. Notice in the two other pictures how the rubber allows a small gap between the front of the rubber and the front of the window. This leaves you with a choice. You can do what I did in that first picture which is radius the trailing edge of the bucking so it can't pinch like this, or you can cut it ever so slightly shorter.
(usually as soon as I get too confident god comes to smack me down, so I'll add a disclaimer to this statement)

QUOTE
I am using a Prometheus 6.03 that has been polished on the inside via 1000 grit sandpaper and a metal polish.

I'm going to pretend that I didn't just hear this.
  • 0

#12 sniperelite7

sniperelite7
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Menifee, California
  • SOA Name: Brad T.

Posted 04 August 2011 - 04:11 PM

QUOTE (hunterseeker5 @ Aug 4 2011, 03:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
THATS your problem. You inadvertently broke the cardinal rule of these hops: the front face of the rubber can't touch the front face of the hop window. If its pushed in there you're going to get a partial pinch style jam, which in most cases like yours will just result in inconsistent amounts of hop. Notice in the two other pictures how the rubber allows a small gap between the front of the rubber and the front of the window. This leaves you with a choice. You can do what I did in that first picture which is radius the trailing edge of the bucking so it can't pinch like this, or you can cut it ever so slightly shorter.
(usually as soon as I get too confident god comes to smack me down, so I'll add a disclaimer to this statement)


I'm going to pretend that I didn't just hear this.


Got it! Ill shorten the r-hop, good thing I didn't glue it in. Should I though, or is that left up to personal preference as I recall you saying you've ran the r-hop without it being pulled forward despite not being connected to the bucking. Whew, but that still leaves the whole what to do with the nub. Zip ties are still out.

QUOTE (hunterseeker5 @ Aug 4 2011, 03:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I'm going to pretend that I didn't just hear this.


Great, what other cardinal rules have I broken today? sp_ike.gif
  • 0

#13 dASm

dASm

Posted 04 August 2011 - 04:22 PM

When I install this, it has way too much hop. I've found I can only get the correct amount when my contact patch is close to half it's original thickness! Which is a lot of time with a rat tail file and sandpaper.
Am I doing something wrong? I'm cutting it to the length of the window (well, slightly less), removing the nub from a bucking, installing it under the bucking, then installing the barrel w/ patch and bucking in a nubless hopup unit with hop all the way off.
  • 0

#14 GoLgo 13

GoLgo 13
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Osan, South Korea

Posted 04 August 2011 - 04:55 PM

Pretty interesting. Is there any more video evidence to support this set up?

Gunsmith engineer is a friend of mine from a rival team. I have fired his G-hop gun. Pretty impressive, but the whole process seems like a shot in the dark to me. He even seemed to think so. But then again that guy is from another planet when it comes to airsoft mods. He will try anything for even the slightest benefit.

I should ask him if he has been trying to develop any improvement on it, or if he knows about the R-hop.
  • 0

#15 hunterseeker5

hunterseeker5

Posted 04 August 2011 - 06:38 PM

QUOTE (GoLgo 13 @ Aug 4 2011, 05:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Pretty interesting. Is there any more video evidence to support this set up?

Gunsmith engineer is a friend of mine from a rival team. I have fired his G-hop gun. Pretty impressive, but the whole process seems like a shot in the dark to me. He even seemed to think so. But then again that guy is from another planet when it comes to airsoft mods. He will try anything for even the slightest benefit.

I should ask him if he has been trying to develop any improvement on it, or if he knows about the R-hop.



Gunsmithengineer came up with what he calls the HE G-hop. Its a similar principal, but does a number of things I don't like including taking a lathe to the barrel.

I have exchanged emails with him before. There was a bit of a language barrier, but if you do talk with him tell him I'm a huge fan of his work and thank him for me if you would be so kind. :)

In regards to your questions about "video evidence" I quite frankly don't bother. People who know me from ASM know I don't believe in "proof" or "demo" videos because they are so easy to fudge and fake they seem to be a magnet for controversy and rather than prove anything they seem to bring out a great deal of negative sentiment. The people who know me know what I've done and know that this stuff is no BS. I do always run my products through testers, who remain anonymous, to assure that comparable results are independently verified and that the product is ready for market. And finally I've been accused of "doing the impossible" at times, so clearly some percentage of people think I'm somehow capable of superhuman feats beyond the grasp of mere mortals. It is for this reason that, rather than post my own performance figures, I leave the posting of performance figures to other techs who use my products. It just seems to have more credibility that way because, lets face it, I can say anything to hock crap if I like, but getting other respected techs to stand behind something I think is worth infinitely more. Does this make sense? Major9's numbers posted above of headshots at 200' and easy torso shots at 275' using a far less than ideal ammo and barrel at ~1.25J is a convent example of performance if thats what you're looking for.


QUOTE
When I install this, it has way too much hop. I've found I can only get the correct amount when my contact patch is close to half it's original thickness! Which is a lot of time with a rat tail file and sandpaper.
Am I doing something wrong? I'm cutting it to the length of the window (well, slightly less), removing the nub from a bucking, installing it under the bucking, then installing the barrel w/ patch and bucking in a nubless hopup unit with hop all the way off.


I already explained this over on ASM, but I'll explain it again over here. There is no standard for barrel window length or depth between brands, in fact there isn't even good consistency within a lot of brands and even production batches. I wanted to produce something which could literally be dropped in, unfortunately due to variances and different ammo masses that just isn't possible. I therefore opted to design a product which could be applied to all production barrels I've yet seen. This is where a little experience comes in. Once you see what the right amount of protrusion for your application is you can remove a lot of material quickly with power tools and then do just the finishing by hand. Ultimately though its really not that much material to remove, no matter how you look at it, because there really isn't that much material there at all. As I keep telling people this isn't a lego upgrade, this is real tuning. If you want something that you can put in your gun in 5 minutes I highly recommend you stay away from precision rifles. The amount of time require to tune hops, compression, and the hours/days spent sitting at the bench sighting in and getting to know your gun at different ranges and practicing so you'll be ready to engage targets in the field means that if you don't have time, patience, and the drive to really push your gun to the limit then precision rifles really aren't for you. If its not about getting the maximum from your gun and making that perfect shot, if you're satisfied with the "good enough" you can get from lego upgrading, this product really isn't for you.

Edited by hunterseeker5, 04 August 2011 - 07:04 PM.

  • 0

#16 dASm

dASm

Posted 04 August 2011 - 08:08 PM

QUOTE (hunterseeker5 @ Aug 4 2011, 07:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
See wall of text above.


Yeah, I understand about the tuning. I was just surprised on how much I have to grind off on thickness as well as length, and wanted to make sure this wasn't abnormal.

With those kind of performance figures, I'm surprised anyone is satisfied with good enough :P

One thing I've noticed, though, is getting far better results from taking material off the top, rather than the contact patch - I can never seem to get the contact patch back as smooth as it originally was.
I think that might be helpful to add to the guide.
  • 0

#17 Karr

Karr
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pueblo, colorado
  • Interests:Airsoft/milsim, shooting, cars, horticulture, girls.<br />
  • SOA Name: Kristopher

Posted 05 August 2011 - 02:36 AM

Well I am really looking forward to using the R-hop as it just seems too nice to pass up. I will likely install this in an m14 I have yet to build, though from what I hear it sounds like it would be great in my m4. If you don't mind can I ask a few quick questions;

Have you had any experience, or know of those who have, in using this setup in a PDI chamber for a l96 variant? The reason I ask is because they use AEG barrels but more importantly it basically has two hopup units in one, in that it has the left and the right adjustment(im sure you are aware). Would this prove to complicate thing too much as now we are adding a new axis for malfunction and uneven pressure? When tuning on a standard barrel is it common that the shot is mostly streight right from the start and the tuning is just elevation control, or does the left right ever get affected? I imagine if you were to somehow sand the U unevenly you could altar the path the bb takes, has this happened to many(any)?

Second quick question, using the standard R patch and an m4 shooting 400 with .2s is it okay/possible to tune the gun to work well with .25s or do you need to jump to .28?

Thanks HS5


Ah and I may have missed it, but what IS your youtube channel named?

Edited by Karr, 05 August 2011 - 02:36 AM.

  • 0

#18 Anachro12

Anachro12
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Virginia USA
  • Interests:Xbox ID Anachro12<br />Movies, Motorcycling (have Honda Rc51 1000cc V-twin sportbike)<br />target shooting with realsteel, cooking and hanging out with my dogs.

Posted 05 August 2011 - 06:00 AM

Some pointers gained from a few installs:

1.The thing to remember here is that the final thickness of the R-hop rubber is going to be only slightly thicker than your barrels thickness. If it is much more it will protrude too far into your barrel and overhop, especially with all the pressure from the bucking on it. This is why your second install goes faster. You can quickly sand the R-hop rubber until you are close to the right thickness and then slow down and be careful to remove the rest.

2. Be precise removing material.you have to keep the shape the same on both sides of the inner channel. Stay on the same axis as the channel, If you move the axis from side to side the shape will be different throughout the inner channel.

3. The bucking will put pressure from all sides so if your R-hop inner channel is not wide enough it will be even worse in the barrel. Make sure the contact patch has the same curvature as the inside of the barrel.

4. It your hop window is too shallow it will be hard to get a hemispheric shape to the R-hop rubber, you will more likely see a flat mound in the barrel. The problem arises from the shallowness of the barrel cut, if you look down at the hop window in a shallow barrel, the square hole is much smaller than in a barrel with deeper side cuts. If you can use a barrel with deeper sides then that would work better. On a barrel I had with a shallow window I cut it larger with a diamond dremel bit but you have to be careful that the new edges of your window are still the same depth on each side and that the actual surface is flat.

5. Mark the front of the rubber with a sharpie so that you always put your R-hop in the same orientation.

6. .2 bbs are way too light for this hop unless you spend a lot of time tuning. I did not have that patience. I never use that weight anyway. I was happy to use .28s as my minimum bb weight in setting up my R-hops. I will try out some .36s soon as as well.

Peliminary results show a much flatter trajectory and nice accuracy at long range. Hven't measured distances yet, I am too busy taking shots I would have thought were too far before.


  • 0
-Made by Sith
QUOTE (Johnday @ Feb 18 2009, 02:08 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Im glad I went full auto on him, he's my friend and he's got a crush on my sister

#19 hunterseeker5

hunterseeker5

Posted 06 August 2011 - 12:55 PM

QUOTE (Anachro12 @ Aug 5 2011, 07:00 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Some pointers gained from a few installs:

1.The thing to remember here is that the final thickness of the R-hop rubber is going to be only slightly thicker than your barrels thickness. If it is much more it will protrude too far into your barrel and overhop, especially with all the pressure from the bucking on it. This is why your second install goes faster. You can quickly sand the R-hop rubber until you are close to the right thickness and then slow down and be careful to remove the rest.

2. Be precise removing material.you have to keep the shape the same on both sides of the inner channel. Stay on the same axis as the channel, If you move the axis from side to side the shape will be different throughout the inner channel.

3. The bucking will put pressure from all sides so if your R-hop inner channel is not wide enough it will be even worse in the barrel. Make sure the contact patch has the same curvature as the inside of the barrel.

4. It your hop window is too shallow it will be hard to get a hemispheric shape to the R-hop rubber, you will more likely see a flat mound in the barrel. The problem arises from the shallowness of the barrel cut, if you look down at the hop window in a shallow barrel, the square hole is much smaller than in a barrel with deeper side cuts. If you can use a barrel with deeper sides then that would work better. On a barrel I had with a shallow window I cut it larger with a diamond dremel bit but you have to be careful that the new edges of your window are still the same depth on each side and that the actual surface is flat.

5. Mark the front of the rubber with a sharpie so that you always put your R-hop in the same orientation.

6. .2 bbs are way too light for this hop unless you spend a lot of time tuning. I did not have that patience. I never use that weight anyway. I was happy to use .28s as my minimum bb weight in setting up my R-hops. I will try out some .36s soon as as well.

Peliminary results show a much flatter trajectory and nice accuracy at long range. Hven't measured distances yet, I am too busy taking shots I would have thought were too far before.


1) true in most cases, but as your barrel window gets shorter, shallower, your bbs get heavier, and the bore gets larger the contact patch need become thicker. Always test before you just rampantly thin the patch. Any patch can be fitted to any gun and barrel I've yet come across. This total compatibility in our world with a nightmare of different specs and incompatibilities is what I'm going for.

4) If you are modifying your own barrel window, which is very possible, be very careful to tame the edges and burrs. I've seen people leave parts of the barrel at too sharp an angle which can cut the bb, take bits off, and/or apply spin.

6) I agree. Its not so much that you can't shoot .2s or .25s, its just that there is no point. This is a modification for accuracy, not cheapness. If you want to shoot the sh*tty light .2s and .25s thats fine, but you're wasting your time trying to install serious accuracy mods. The most accurate shooting on record in the 30m challenge was done with a gun shooting less than 1J (about 328fps with a .2) and guess what mass bb was used? Nope you're wrong it was a .36g. Lets assume that mass needs to correlate linearly with kinetic energy output. (a pretty bold assumption, since it may in fact be exponential) so 90% of our guns are shooting 400fps with a .2, or about 1.5J. That would suggest, given the aforementioned correlation assumption, that the ideal ammo for most of us to shoot is .54g. Even if you step back and take the .3s that are common in 1J guns it suggests that you should be shooting .45s at 1.5J. Go shoot some ammo which is a lot heavier than you'd expect is right. You may just be surprised.


QUOTE
Have you had any experience, or know of those who have, in using this setup in a PDI chamber for a l96 variant? The reason I ask is because they use AEG barrels but more importantly it basically has two hopup units in one, in that it has the left and the right adjustment(im sure you are aware). Would this prove to complicate thing too much as now we are adding a new axis for malfunction and uneven pressure? When tuning on a standard barrel is it common that the shot is mostly streight right from the start and the tuning is just elevation control, or does the left right ever get affected? I imagine if you were to somehow sand the U unevenly you could altar the path the bb takes, has this happened to many(any)?

Second quick question, using the standard R patch and an m4 shooting 400 with .2s is it okay/possible to tune the gun to work well with .25s or do you need to jump to .28?


This is an interesting thing. I've not experimented with this particular combination. The chamber sounds like it would be advantageous, but you need to make sure that it is providing pressure along the length of the contact patch, rather than bowing it in the middle, and that its allowing sufficient give as the bbs pass otherwise you'll see decreased spin consistency.

You can tune your gun to run .25s, but if you're serious about accuracy heavier is much better. (and will decrease your round delivery time downrange) I really try to avoid recommending specific products when possible because there are always batch variants and someone is always a complainer, so there is a full disclaimer attached to this, but G&G .28s and .3s are good rounds. I recommend shooting something in that range at minimum, more for your own performance rather than the good of the R-hop.
  • 0

#20 sniperelite7

sniperelite7
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Menifee, California
  • SOA Name: Brad T.

Posted 06 August 2011 - 07:36 PM

I do believe I have finally installed it successfully, with the profile resembling a shallow "u" as per what major9 has told me. A quick test firing showed that no bb's spun to the right or left. No overhop occurs, even on .25s(the BB weight I use for cqb). No trouble over hopping .3gs when adjusted to do so. I'll conduct a formal test hopefully tommorow morning when there is no breeze.

The only thing that has me concerned is a pinch jam. Being unwilling to use superglue due to all the test fitting I've been doing, I sanded the front part of the r-hop so that it has a slight slant. This would be sufficient enough to prevent the bb from pinching the hop correct?

That just leaves me with the nub that pushes down on the rhop. I took some 100mph tape, layered, and cut it into a rectangle for the arm to push down on it. Its firm enough to hold its shape, but soft enough I hope.

As for BB's, I'll probably be using bioshot .36gs when the are released. Still, cost becomes an issue and it is easy to fall back on the current line of thinking which is that a high quality bb will out perform its heavier lower quality counterpart.
  • 0

#21 hunterseeker5

hunterseeker5

Posted 06 August 2011 - 08:06 PM

QUOTE (sniperelite7 @ Aug 6 2011, 07:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I do believe I have finally installed it successfully, with the profile resembling a shallow "u" as per what major9 has told me. A quick test firing showed that no bb's spun to the right or left. No overhop occurs, even on .25s(the BB weight I use for cqb). No trouble over hopping .3gs when adjusted to do so. I'll conduct a formal test hopefully tommorow morning when there is no breeze.

The only thing that has me concerned is a pinch jam. Being unwilling to use superglue due to all the test fitting I've been doing, I sanded the front part of the r-hop so that it has a slight slant. This would be sufficient enough to prevent the bb from pinching the hop correct?

That just leaves me with the nub that pushes down on the rhop. I took some 100mph tape, layered, and cut it into a rectangle for the arm to push down on it. Its firm enough to hold its shape, but soft enough I hope.

As for BB's, I'll probably be using bioshot .36gs when the are released. Still, cost becomes an issue and it is easy to fall back on the current line of thinking which is that a high quality bb will out perform its heavier lower quality counterpart.



Correct. You should not get a pinch type jam. Since you didn't manage it before in the worst type of configuration you should be fine now.
  • 0

#22 shlunka

shlunka
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Virginia
  • Interests:Philosophy, airsoft, anything mechanical, complicated things, guitar.

Posted 06 August 2011 - 08:27 PM

Just curious, but what would happen if you were to extend the barrel window to be several inches long? Or is there some point where more window is bad?
  • 0
Click HERE to join the ASF Chatroom!

#23 airborne101

airborne101

    If you have a problem, and no one else can help...

  • Forum Administrator
  • 10,705 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, IL

  • My Temperament:Melancholy

Posted 06 August 2011 - 08:37 PM

How much of a gap should there be between the front of the window and the front of the contact patch? I know this wont be a drop in fit and that it will require a little bit of work, but I noticed that picture #6 shows much more space than pictures #1 & 4.
  • 0

#24 sniperelite7

sniperelite7
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Menifee, California
  • SOA Name: Brad T.

Posted 07 August 2011 - 10:19 AM

Tested it out, spin consistency seems to be more under control. Side to side consistency however, is average. Not hitting a Chest/Head sized target at 200 ft with acceptable consistency. The hop-up arms are shimmed, as well as the barrel. The barrel's crown is somewhat damaged(shallow gouge running half the diameter of it). I am however thinking that it is more of the bioshots fault, .30g BB's may just be too light for 530fps.

HS5, if you recall Whiskey11, he always advocated that BB's should fly at 380fps, no matter what weight you used. I never really saw you dispute that theory and was wondering what you thought about it. As I believe that is what is coming into play here.


  • 0

#25 hunterseeker5

hunterseeker5

Posted 07 August 2011 - 11:03 PM

QUOTE (sniperelite7 @ Aug 7 2011, 10:19 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Tested it out, spin consistency seems to be more under control. Side to side consistency however, is average. Not hitting a Chest/Head sized target at 200 ft with acceptable consistency. The hop-up arms are shimmed, as well as the barrel. The barrel's crown is somewhat damaged(shallow gouge running half the diameter of it). I am however thinking that it is more of the bioshots fault, .30g BB's may just be too light for 530fps.

HS5, if you recall Whiskey11, he always advocated that BB's should fly at 380fps, no matter what weight you used. I never really saw you dispute that theory and was wondering what you thought about it. As I believe that is what is coming into play here.



Holy crap. You're never going to consistency with bbs that light at that power level. Its just highly unstable, especially given the likely density inconsistencies of the bio ammo. The only ammo I've seen people able to really attempt to stabilize at power like that which is so light are the .27 BBB max ammo and you're still just throwing away range by using ammo that light. If 200' is your goal, and you're not going to use heavier ammo, you'd be better off stepping the power down.

I never disputed W11's theory because to do so would be nitpicking. I personally would say its not that black and white, because you can achieve stabilization at higher velocities with denser ammo, but I'd say that you should really come in lower than W11's recommendation by about 50fps with anything plastic or in the plastic mass range. When you get into significantly heavier ammo and significantly finer surface finishes, namely .66 ceramic and .88 steel bearings, you can get away with more. Remember that you're not sacrificing delivery time because the denser bb better retains kinetic energy and so actually passes the lighter rounds down range.

QUOTE
Just curious, but what would happen if you were to extend the barrel window to be several inches long? Or is there some point where more window is bad?

Two things happen. First you reach a point of diminishing returns where you're increased consistency isn't worth the amount of work it is to tune. This point of diminishing returns increases with higher mass ammo, so while light ammo should use an average length window something closer to the range of a gram may well benefit from well over an inch of contact. Second you start to create a headache with airseal and downward pressure. I am currently experimenting with extending the window MUCH further than the ER-hop, but there are a number of technical challenges. Ultimately the result will be something that I may offer exclusively for customers who send in their P* fusion guns for work.


QUOTE
How much of a gap should there be between the front of the window and the front of the contact patch? I know this wont be a drop in fit and that it will require a little bit of work, but I noticed that picture #6 shows much more space than pictures #1 & 4.

Excellent question. The answer is that ultimately it varies. In my experimenting I've found all you really need is to use the forward cant of most barrel windows to butt the front edges of the hop against the base to prevent contact between the front edge of the R-hop and the barrel window. That said things like radiusing the front edge allow you to go further in most cases and push it right up against that front edge. The rigidity and thickness of material make such a pinch type jam very difficult to achieve at normal hop pressures, so that clearance is a safety and consistency feature more than anything else. In essence a mm or so at the center.
  • 0

#26 airborne101

airborne101

    If you have a problem, and no one else can help...

  • Forum Administrator
  • 10,705 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, IL

  • My Temperament:Melancholy

Posted 08 August 2011 - 12:16 AM

So I can basically butt the contact patch up to the bottom of the window, so long as there is a gap at the top of the window in the front? Basically what is shown in the 4th pic, with perhaps a little more space.

I have also decided to link this in the Internal Tweaks guide which is pinned. While it isn't really a tweak per say, but an part, I think that we can all agree that this part will truly help maximize performance and therefore should go in the thread that helps you get the most out of your gun.
  • 0

#27 krap101

krap101
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rockford, IL

Posted 08 August 2011 - 12:31 AM

QUOTE (hunterseeker5 @ Aug 4 2011, 08:34 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I like your smilies, but you missed something. When the bb rotates here it rotates on a single axis. What I am saying is that this axis may not be completely random. You see within the three dimensions of the bb some of these directions in which it can rotate will better allow the center of mass to coincide with the geometric center.

How about to visualize this lets scale it up and make a sort of wacky example. Take a slightly larger plastic ball. Lets say that its completely spherical and uniform in density. Any way it can rotate will therefore cause its geometric center to coincide with its center of mass. BUT what if we drilled a hole off center through it? Well then if you rotated this ball the center of mass and geometric center MAY still coincide but may not depending on its orientation. How? Just as two examples if the sphere is spun such that the hole is parallel to the axis of rotation you'll see wobble. Conversely if you spin it with the hole perpendicular to the axis of rotation its geometric center and center of mass will coincide ON THIS AXIS and it will not wobble. Taking this back to bbs each one has a series of voids and density inconsistencies, and its my theory that the two hop systems have an effect on how the bb finds its axis of rotation relative to its center of mass.

I like your theory about the smileys:
a-laugh.gif a-cool.gif a-cheesy.gif

*edit*
Your argument is based in theory, and for the longest time I agreed with you. After enough time experimenting with this though I am stuck with the conclusion though that something larger is at work. Several independent sources have confirmed that trajectory is affected in a way our current theories can't explain. That is why I created this one. If you have another better theory please put it forward, but lets twist theories to suit facts not facts to suit theories here. You see my longstanding argument regarding this was that increased range and flatter trajectory isn't possible because if it were just a matter of "perfect spin" you would occasionally see a single bb sail far beyond all your others. This clearly isn't the case though (unless you have inconsistent power output) so we have to come up with something fundamental to the different hops which explains why we observe these altered trajectories. Clearly the theory that when a bb exits the barrel all things become equal is false. Something different is happening to the bb with the R-hop and G-hop and I'm tying to explain it.


Without actual data (rpm of the bb), I can't accept that the bb is spinning at the same rate, is going the same velocity, is fired at the same trajectory but goes farther. I agree that the theory doesn't always match the results, but let's not make a theory just to have a theory. I'd imagine that the problem might be that you aren't comparing two things with only one variable, and I'd expect major "zero'd" his rifle at 200+ ft. If this is a grouping test, then it is acceptable, but as a measure of how effective a hopup is, I don't think so. I've had a problem with these sort of tests for awhile, but it would be too much work to change the "global" norm. When I set my hopup for a test, I set the "zero" of the hop to where it flies straight and then dips at the end. While zeroing my vsr-10 (with the buffer), I zero'd it beyond this range, thereby eliminating my ability to shoot anything close in (the bb swoops up for around 20 or so feet, then levels off and goes on its merry way). You can hit 100 yards with a 1J weapon, but only if it is zero'd to that range, and if it is, you will most likely only be able to hit within maybe 10 or so feet of that range, and everything else will be too hard to compensate for. You would need to make some sort of side by side comparison, and somehow ensure that either the rpm of the bb was the same in both guns or the bb flies along the same trajectory in both guns. Finally, it's possible the compression is different (my vsr-10 goes between 390 and 560, depending on where the hopup is set), and this could explain the longer range (higher velocity).

As for finding its center of mass, an object, given enough time, will always "try" to rotate about one of its principle axes (axis with the lowest moment of inertia). Two examples of this are the nonuniform cores of bowling balls (when you spin it, it eventually finds its principle axis), and the cd player in microgravity (youtube). Although the gyroscopic effect of the cd had a role, it wanted to rotate in the same plane as the disk because this orientation had the lowest moment of inertia. (this is the data not the theory).

If you've read the thread/website on the airsoft trajectory project, you know the kind of data I'm looking for: range, rpm, height, distance, time, velocity etc etc.

a-laugh.gif a-kiss.gif a-grin.gif a-shocked.gif a-wink.gif

Edited by krap101, 08 August 2011 - 12:32 AM.

  • 0

#28 hunterseeker5

hunterseeker5

Posted 08 August 2011 - 10:07 AM

QUOTE (airborne101 @ Aug 8 2011, 12:16 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
So I can basically butt the contact patch up to the bottom of the window, so long as there is a gap at the top of the window in the front? Basically what is shown in the 4th pic, with perhaps a little more space.

I have also decided to link this in the Internal Tweaks guide which is pinned. While it isn't really a tweak per say, but an part, I think that we can all agree that this part will truly help maximize performance and therefore should go in the thread that helps you get the most out of your gun.


Yes. The reason there is a larger gap in picture six is because I moved a nub from another barrel, and because I was dissatisfied with the amount of cant and depth of the barrel window.

I'm with you there. Most internal tweaks involve someone's product anyway, or its relative lack of capability. The various teflon tape mods are all examples of this. :)

QUOTE
Without actual data (rpm of the bb), I can't accept that the bb is spinning at the same rate, is going the same velocity, is fired at the same trajectory but goes farther. I agree that the theory doesn't always match the results, but let's not make a theory just to have a theory. I'd imagine that the problem might be that you aren't comparing two things with only one variable, and I'd expect major "zero'd" his rifle at 200+ ft. If this is a grouping test, then it is acceptable, but as a measure of how effective a hopup is, I don't think so. I've had a problem with these sort of tests for awhile, but it would be too much work to change the "global" norm. When I set my hopup for a test, I set the "zero" of the hop to where it flies straight and then dips at the end. While zeroing my vsr-10 (with the buffer), I zero'd it beyond this range, thereby eliminating my ability to shoot anything close in (the bb swoops up for around 20 or so feet, then levels off and goes on its merry way). You can hit 100 yards with a 1J weapon, but only if it is zero'd to that range, and if it is, you will most likely only be able to hit within maybe 10 or so feet of that range, and everything else will be too hard to compensate for. You would need to make some sort of side by side comparison, and somehow ensure that either the rpm of the bb was the same in both guns or the bb flies along the same trajectory in both guns. Finally, it's possible the compression is different (my vsr-10 goes between 390 and 560, depending on where the hopup is set), and this could explain the longer range (higher velocity).

As for finding its center of mass, an object, given enough time, will always "try" to rotate about one of its principle axes (axis with the lowest moment of inertia). Two examples of this are the nonuniform cores of bowling balls (when you spin it, it eventually finds its principle axis), and the cd player in microgravity (youtube). Although the gyroscopic effect of the cd had a role, it wanted to rotate in the same plane as the disk because this orientation had the lowest moment of inertia. (this is the data not the theory).

If you've read the thread/website on the airsoft trajectory project, you know the kind of data I'm looking for: range, rpm, height, distance, time, velocity etc etc.

a-laugh.gif a-kiss.gif a-grin.gif a-shocked.gif a-wink.gif


Your first point, about spin velocity, I disagree with. You see if the ONLY thing this mod is doing is putting the "perfect" spin velocity on the bb you would, at least occasionally, by accident get that same perfect spin velocity with a regular hop as well and watch one round sail well beyond all the others. This must be the case because clearly we're capable of applying over-hop with a normal hop bucking, so the argument that a normal hop's spin velocity can perfectly straddle the "ideal" spin velocity but never achieve it just doesn't hold water.

For the record we don't subscribe to the over-hop to increase range theory because it produces results with much lower accuracy. You're better off taking a higher hold than you are turning your hop up. You'll certainly never actually hit anything at 100 yards if your strategy is to crank your hop up like that to take level shots. I have no idea what kind of screwy crap you are doing with your VSR, but those power fluctuations are massive and a major detriment to precision shooting. Your point though that he is screwing with the power to somehow "cheat" I don't think will get you very far either. Major9 can speak for himself in terms of what sorts of holds he is taking.

You're trying to shoot down my explanation as too hypothetical and without enough data, and you're basing your counter argument on entirely synthetic data from the ATP? The ATP is a cute synthesis of theory and some experimental range data to back it, but I certainly wouldn't be basing the counter argument that a new type of hop can't increase the range of level flight on it.

I think this whole argument of yours is sliding a bit sideways. Lets try and bring this back to center with the premises on which the theory is based:
we know the G-hop and R-hop can increase "level" flight distance and range at the same power output relative to a regular hop bucking. (this is not based on the idea of sending your bb on an unusable over-hopped trajectory)
we know that it can't be solely based on spin velocity because if it were a regular hop bucking would at least occasionally apply that perfect spin to the bb and it would demonstrate identical ballistic characteristics to this hop. (and it doesn't)
ergo some unexplained phenomena is occurring. What or why I don't know, hence the theories, but if you aren't willing to accept the first two premises then I don't think we're going to have a productive argument because arguing whether or not a group of people, and the group is growing every day, are observing some phenomena is really not purposeful.

a-cool.gif a-shocked.gif a-laugh.gif
  • 0

#29 major9

major9
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wisconsin

Posted 08 August 2011 - 11:15 AM

QUOTE (krap101 @ Aug 7 2011, 11:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Without actual data (rpm of the bb), I can't accept that the bb is spinning at the same rate, is going the same velocity, is fired at the same trajectory but goes farther. I agree that the theory doesn't always match the results, but let's not make a theory just to have a theory. I'd imagine that the problem might be that you aren't comparing two things with only one variable, and I'd expect major "zero'd" his rifle at 200+ ft. If this is a grouping test, then it is acceptable, but as a measure of how effective a hopup is, I don't think so. I've had a problem with these sort of tests for awhile, but it would be too much work to change the "global" norm. When I set my hopup for a test, I set the "zero" of the hop to where it flies straight and then dips at the end. While zeroing my vsr-10 (with the buffer), I zero'd it beyond this range, thereby eliminating my ability to shoot anything close in (the bb swoops up for around 20 or so feet, then levels off and goes on its merry way). You can hit 100 yards with a 1J weapon, but only if it is zero'd to that range, and if it is, you will most likely only be able to hit within maybe 10 or so feet of that range, and everything else will be too hard to compensate for. You would need to make some sort of side by side comparison, and somehow ensure that either the rpm of the bb was the same in both guns or the bb flies along the same trajectory in both guns. Finally, it's possible the compression is different (my vsr-10 goes between 390 and 560, depending on where the hopup is set), and this could explain the longer range (higher velocity).

As for finding its center of mass, an object, given enough time, will always "try" to rotate about one of its principle axes (axis with the lowest moment of inertia). Two examples of this are the nonuniform cores of bowling balls (when you spin it, it eventually finds its principle axis), and the cd player in microgravity (youtube). Although the gyroscopic effect of the cd had a role, it wanted to rotate in the same plane as the disk because this orientation had the lowest moment of inertia. (this is the data not the theory).

If you've read the thread/website on the airsoft trajectory project, you know the kind of data I'm looking for: range, rpm, height, distance, time, velocity etc etc.

a-laugh.gif a-kiss.gif a-grin.gif a-shocked.gif a-wink.gif

Hitting 100 yards with a 1J weapon isn't happening with flat-hop.

Also, I zero my gun in for the flattest trajectory possible. The hop-up didn't change in any of my tests. I would zero it for the 10m test, and then just shoot.
  • 0

#30 sniperelite7

sniperelite7
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Menifee, California
  • SOA Name: Brad T.

Posted 08 August 2011 - 02:08 PM

QUOTE (hunterseeker5 @ Aug 7 2011, 11:03 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Holy crap. You're never going to consistency with bbs that light at that power level. Its just highly unstable, especially given the likely density inconsistencies of the bio ammo. The only ammo I've seen people able to really attempt to stabilize at power like that which is so light are the .27 BBB max ammo and you're still just throwing away range by using ammo that light. If 200' is your goal, and you're not going to use heavier ammo, you'd be better off stepping the power down.

I never disputed W11's theory because to do so would be nitpicking. I personally would say its not that black and white, because you can achieve stabilization at higher velocities with denser ammo, but I'd say that you should really come in lower than W11's recommendation by about 50fps with anything plastic or in the plastic mass range. When you get into significantly heavier ammo and significantly finer surface finishes, namely .66 ceramic and .88 steel bearings, you can get away with more. Remember that you're not sacrificing delivery time because the denser bb better retains kinetic energy and so actually passes the lighter rounds down range.


So what your saying is that despite the fact that bioshots are pretty damn good in terms of weight and spherical consistency(as far as plastic ammo will be). The BB's will have that weight distributed unevenly across its mass, and why would this be a trait of any bio-degradable BB's? On another note, SGM's .29s? Would you say that those are consistent enough to be stabilized at higher power levels?

At the most I will probably shoot .36g bb's depending on cost, which is what I am looking into right now. As much as I would love to shoot ceramic or steel(I've read your postings on their safety issues), fields round here would never allow it and I;m just not rich enough to afford it.

I'll be backing the power level off to better accommodate the .3s and post my results here.

Edited by sniperelite7, 08 August 2011 - 04:46 PM.

  • 0

#31 krap101

krap101
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rockford, IL

Posted 08 August 2011 - 03:51 PM

QUOTE (hunterseeker5 @ Aug 8 2011, 10:07 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Yes. The reason there is a larger gap in picture six is because I moved a nub from another barrel, and because I was dissatisfied with the amount of cant and depth of the barrel window.

I'm with you there. Most internal tweaks involve someone's product anyway, or its relative lack of capability. The various teflon tape mods are all examples of this. :)



Your first point, about spin velocity, I disagree with. You see if the ONLY thing this mod is doing is putting the "perfect" spin velocity on the bb you would, at least occasionally, by accident get that same perfect spin velocity with a regular hop as well and watch one round sail well beyond all the others. This must be the case because clearly we're capable of applying over-hop with a normal hop bucking, so the argument that a normal hop's spin velocity can perfectly straddle the "ideal" spin velocity but never achieve it just doesn't hold water.

For the record we don't subscribe to the over-hop to increase range theory because it produces results with much lower accuracy. You're better off taking a higher hold than you are turning your hop up. You'll certainly never actually hit anything at 100 yards if your strategy is to crank your hop up like that to take level shots. I have no idea what kind of screwy crap you are doing with your VSR, but those power fluctuations are massive and a major detriment to precision shooting. Your point though that he is screwing with the power to somehow "cheat" I don't think will get you very far either. Major9 can speak for himself in terms of what sorts of holds he is taking.

You're trying to shoot down my explanation as too hypothetical and without enough data, and you're basing your counter argument on entirely synthetic data from the ATP? The ATP is a cute synthesis of theory and some experimental range data to back it, but I certainly wouldn't be basing the counter argument that a new type of hop can't increase the range of level flight on it.

I think this whole argument of yours is sliding a bit sideways. Lets try and bring this back to center with the premises on which the theory is based:
we know the G-hop and R-hop can increase "level" flight distance and range at the same power output relative to a regular hop bucking. (this is not based on the idea of sending your bb on an unusable over-hopped trajectory)
we know that it can't be solely based on spin velocity because if it were a regular hop bucking would at least occasionally apply that perfect spin to the bb and it would demonstrate identical ballistic characteristics to this hop. (and it doesn't)
ergo some unexplained phenomena is occurring. What or why I don't know, hence the theories, but if you aren't willing to accept the first two premises then I don't think we're going to have a productive argument because arguing whether or not a group of people, and the group is growing every day, are observing some phenomena is really not purposeful.

a-cool.gif a-shocked.gif a-laugh.gif


I disagree about the overhop (mine isn't massively overhopped). You can hit 100 yards and it has been done with 1J. I never said intentionally, but changing hopups and since your hopup is significantly longer, it will reduce the volume within the barrel in the hopup>>increased fps. I used my vsr as an example. If you've shot a vsr, you know that the amount of fluctuation between 0 hop and 100% hop is a bit ridiculous (I didn't believe it myself until I chrono'd my gun with 3 different chronos). When the hopup is set, my deviation is +-.1 fps. I used atp as an example because it is one of the only "empirical" tests done. We measure results, while he measured the variables with lead to the results. No ATP wasn't a counter argument, but an example of what would need to be done to conclude this argument. I would be most interested in the angular velocity data.

I'm sure you've already read it, but my new theory is based on the test done with steel bb's down a barrel, and you've already read that thread. I want you to poke holes in it to see if it will still float :P.

a-wink.gif a-cheesy.gif a-cool.gif a-salute.gif a-shocked.gif

  • 0

#32 hunterseeker5

hunterseeker5

Posted 08 August 2011 - 06:04 PM

QUOTE (sniperelite7 @ Aug 8 2011, 02:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
So what your saying is that despite the fact that bioshots are pretty damn good in terms of weight and spherical consistency(as far as plastic ammo will be). The BB's will have that weight distributed unevenly across its mass, and why would this be a trait of any bio-degradable BB's? On another note, SGM's .29s? Would you say that those are consistent enough to be stabilized at higher power levels?

At the most I will probably shoot .36g bb's depending on cost, which is what I am looking into right now. As much as I would love to shoot ceramic or steel(I've read your postings on their safety issues), fields round here would never allow it and I;m just not rich enough to afford it.

I'll be backing the power level off to better accommodate the .3s and post my results here.



Yes there are inclusions, and imperfections in density distributions even in super nice ammo. None of its perfect. All that said I don't know whats wrong with your gun. I can keep guessing, but they are just that: guesses. I've never seen the gun. Your descriptions may be highly symptomatic of a particular issue, but the best I've got is a diagnosis for those symptoms. :P Keep trying. If it doesn't work you can feel consoled knowing its something you're doing wrong. :P


QUOTE
I disagree about the overhop (mine isn't massively overhopped). You can hit 100 yards and it has been done with 1J. I never said intentionally, but changing hopups and since your hopup is significantly longer, it will reduce the volume within the barrel in the hopup>>increased fps. I used my vsr as an example. If you've shot a vsr, you know that the amount of fluctuation between 0 hop and 100% hop is a bit ridiculous (I didn't believe it myself until I chrono'd my gun with 3 different chronos). When the hopup is set, my deviation is +-.1 fps. I used atp as an example because it is one of the only "empirical" tests done. We measure results, while he measured the variables with lead to the results. No ATP wasn't a counter argument, but an example of what would need to be done to conclude this argument. I would be most interested in the angular velocity data.

I'm sure you've already read it, but my new theory is based on the test done with steel bb's down a barrel, and you've already read that thread. I want you to poke holes in it to see if it will still float :P.

a-wink.gif a-cheesy.gif a-cool.gif a-salute.gif a-shocked.gif


The power variations that come with zero hop to full hop come from a variety of things including in some cases bbs rolling down the barrel with the hop off. That said you can also tune a gun to put out more power with the hop on then with the hop off. There are lots of tuning tricks, often people have them totally by accident.

Your new theory has a few problems, but I'll address that elsewhere. Without getting technical here I'll just say that the formations in the barrel are conceptually identical in formation patter to the formation of moguls at ski resorts, that is they form due to the presence of the previous one and they reinforce each other.
  • 0

#33 krap101

krap101
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rockford, IL

Posted 08 August 2011 - 08:25 PM

QUOTE (hunterseeker5 @ Aug 8 2011, 06:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Yes there are inclusions, and imperfections in density distributions even in super nice ammo. None of its perfect. All that said I don't know whats wrong with your gun. I can keep guessing, but they are just that: guesses. I've never seen the gun. Your descriptions may be highly symptomatic of a particular issue, but the best I've got is a diagnosis for those symptoms. :P Keep trying. If it doesn't work you can feel consoled knowing its something you're doing wrong. :P




The power variations that come with zero hop to full hop come from a variety of things including in some cases bbs rolling down the barrel with the hop off. That said you can also tune a gun to put out more power with the hop on then with the hop off. There are lots of tuning tricks, often people have them totally by accident.

Your new theory has a few problems, but I'll address that elsewhere. Without getting technical here I'll just say that the formations in the barrel are conceptually identical in formation patter to the formation of moguls at ski resorts, that is they form due to the presence of the previous one and they reinforce each other.


It is nothing wrong with my gun. Simply put, bolt action rifles (or at least vsr's) behave opposite of aeg's in that aeg's fps is lowered with higher hop, while BA is increased.
  • 0

#34 hunterseeker5

hunterseeker5

Posted 08 August 2011 - 11:20 PM

QUOTE (krap101 @ Aug 8 2011, 09:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
It is nothing wrong with my gun. Simply put, bolt action rifles (or at least vsr's) behave opposite of aeg's in that aeg's fps is lowered with higher hop, while BA is increased.



Thats just a function of your tuning its not an inherent property of your system. You can do that with both AEGs and BSARs and you can create the reverse effect in both as well. There is nothing magical about a sear held piston driven system as compared to a gear held one.
  • 0

#35 buppus

buppus
  • Location:Buffalo, NY

Posted 09 August 2011 - 03:29 PM

QUOTE (hunterseeker5 @ Aug 8 2011, 10:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Thats just a function of your tuning its not an inherent property of your system. You can do that with both AEGs and BSARs and you can create the reverse effect in both as well. There is nothing magical about a sear held piston driven system as compared to a gear held one.

I've heard this before, but haven't been able to find anythign on it - can someone link me to some info on this (AEG's shooting hotter w/ hopup on)?
  • 0
Everything You Need to Know about MOSFETS - DIY Guide

QUOTE (Zemanova @ Nov 10 2011, 11:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
if you can fart, you can solder

#36 hunterseeker5

hunterseeker5

Posted 10 August 2011 - 10:47 AM

QUOTE (buppus @ Aug 9 2011, 03:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I've heard this before, but haven't been able to find anythign on it - can someone link me to some info on this (AEG's shooting hotter w/ hopup on)?



Can you read Japanese? Its the only deliberate demonstration of the principal I've yet seen someone post. I'll summarize for you: in the demonstration there was a gain of about ten meters per second as I recall by turning the hop on. This demonstration was, of course, under 1J.
  • 0

#37 buppus

buppus
  • Location:Buffalo, NY

Posted 10 August 2011 - 12:55 PM

I cannot, unfortunately. . . and it's not that I'm incredulous, it's that I want information on how it's done and how it works to see if I can replicate it.
  • 0
Everything You Need to Know about MOSFETS - DIY Guide

QUOTE (Zemanova @ Nov 10 2011, 11:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
if you can fart, you can solder

#38 ServedConsistently

ServedConsistently
  • Location:MN

Posted 10 August 2011 - 02:30 PM

QUOTE (hunterseeker5 @ Aug 10 2011, 10:47 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Can you read Japanese? Its the only deliberate demonstration of the principal I've yet seen someone post. I'll summarize for you: in the demonstration there was a gain of about ten meters per second as I recall by turning the hop on. This demonstration was, of course, under 1J.


Google Chrome will do it for me.

This has piqued my curiosity.
  • 0
Anything that doesn't kill me...Has made a grave tactical error.

#39 sniperelite7

sniperelite7
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Menifee, California
  • SOA Name: Brad T.

Posted 11 August 2011 - 11:30 AM

For everyone who has done the r-hop or the flat-hop right. Are you adjusting your hop to have a slight arc up to get the BB's out there? Or is it just flat and level so you can lob? Because having the BB's arc is something I see plenty of people do for long range purposes. However, it doesn't appear very practical for skirmish purposes. Thoughts? Sorry if this appears to be hijacking the thread, but something is telling me that this is what the r-hop is meant for.
  • 0

#40 soccer77

soccer77
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Champaign, Illinois
  • Interests:Sports: Watching and Playing<br />Airsoft<br />Watching Movies<br />Reading books<br />Running/Lifting/Biking/Hiking/Camping/fishing/shooting/etc..<br /><br />This should suffice for only being used on an ASF.
  • SOA Name: N/A

  • My Temperament:N/A

Posted 11 August 2011 - 12:06 PM

I usually [when using the Flat Hop] dismount the scope and increase the hop up until I know the bb's are hitting the target [I do this at 350 feet].

Then I remount the scope and zero it in to 300 feet, then turn off the hop up. Now that my scope is set, all I do in game is increase the hop up to fit different situations and I can do so very quickly.

As far as the scope is concerned its a Flat Line Trajectory and from my testing at various ranges it seems to be flat as well.

I do not keep te Flat Hop on its maximum range setting to lower the wear and tear on it.

If it is the R-Hop, I would treat the settings the same except its more of a "fixed" hop so increasing and decreasing as much as the Flat Hop isn't exactly needed.

Edited by soccer77, 11 August 2011 - 12:08 PM.

  • 0




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users