Notos at 10 ftlbs enough

Jump to latest Follow Reply
I do not own a notos currently but will through this out there as a thought to achieve a lower power tune in unison with the other options as well . lol

Restrict the transfer porting or lessen the volume of plenum space as well . You can ignore the suggestion if I am incorrect about any of these as I do not have access to one to look at in person . :coffee: I Hope these ideas help to reduce the power where you need it to be . ;)
 
Upvote 0
I bottled my Jet 1 .25 at 800 psi for 8 fpe. The hammer spring was too much for the valve stem without the high pressure air buffer and it broke at the o ring groove. I'm currently waiting on parts to repair it and it will be getting a weaker hammer spring when it goes back together.
IMG_20231126_143600286-01.jpeg
 
  • Like
Reactions: BackyardSniper, Neu and Airgunmann
Upvote 0
swNCsw said:
you could also take a different route by increasing the regulator pressure to a much higher level making it harder for the hammer to open the valve decreasing the dwell time to a short hp burst . ????? Not the ideal tune to some but effective none the less .
Click to expand...
The issues with both your suggestions is, by decreasing transfer port opening, you will achieve velocity, but will not lower air consumption, or report of the gun. By raising reg pressure too Hugh, you essentially have an unregulated gun that will start to show a bell curve in shots (not as drastic as an unregulated platform, but still changing poi) this in my opinion defeats the purpose of owning a regulated gun in the first place. It also puts undue stress on the valve pin and hammer components. Harmony is king.
 
Upvote 0
madeintheuk said:
The issues with both your suggestions is, by decreasing transfer port opening, you will achieve velocity, but will not lower air consumption, or report of the gun. By raising reg pressure too Hugh, you essentially have an unregulated gun that will start to show a bell curve in shots (not as drastic as an unregulated platform, but still changing poi) this in my opinion defeats the purpose of owning a regulated gun in the first place. It also puts undue stress on the valve pin and hammer components. Harmony is king.
Click to expand...
I am very much aware of this lol.
swNCsw said:
Not the ideal tune to some but effective none the less .
Click to expand...

I did not claim that it would improve efficiency lol.


Hence what I said above in my quote of myself haha. but it does keep it from shooting holes in the roof bye lowering the foot pounds to a level restricting a hole. Again NOT THE IDEAL TUNE TO SOME BUT EFFECTIVE NONE THE LESS We are not talking perfection but it works in a way that you do not shoot holes in the roofing haha .

To each their own no worries . You do not like it then ignore it no problem . Not everyone has the funds to buy multiple pcp's tuned to perfection in every instance for every scenario . Some have to sacrifice a little here or there to make what they have work and do the best they can type of ordeal haha.
I am not a mind reader and do not claim to know everyone's personal situation up front but was just trying to help with a suggestion .

No one has to do it this way if they do not want too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Genob and Airgunmann
Upvote 0
How dang high did you think I meant to turn up the reg pressure haha. I am talking just outside of the knee when you increase the pressure just enough to see a decrease in speed a little at a time to achieve the velocity desired . Not a perfect tune . A tune that works for the desired task again not a competition, professional, balanced work of art . Something that doesn't blow a damn hole in the roof hahaha. geesh !
 
  • Like
Reactions: Airgunmann
Upvote 0
madeintheuk said:
The issues with both your suggestions is, by decreasing transfer port opening, you will achieve velocity, but will not lower air consumption, or report of the gun. By raising reg pressure too Hugh, you essentially have an unregulated gun that will start to show a bell curve in shots (not as drastic as an unregulated platform, but still changing poi) this in my opinion defeats the purpose of owning a regulated gun in the first place. It also puts undue stress on the valve pin and hammer components. Harmony is king.
Click to expand...

Your Brocock your crown and your dreamline that you used to own restricted the airflow with the dial on the side that lets you choose low/ medium /or high ( in the older versions .177 /.22 - .25 /.30 ) So why would you have a problem restricting the airflow ??? That makes no sense to me lol . I guess I do not understand where you are going with the comments . Look at the dial on the side of your older pcp's that you have owned in the past and enlighten me please haha.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Genob
Upvote 0
madeintheuk said:
The issues with both your suggestions is, by decreasing transfer port opening, you will achieve velocity, but will not lower air consumption, or report of the gun. By raising reg pressure too Hugh, you essentially have an unregulated gun that will start to show a bell curve in shots (not as drastic as an unregulated platform, but still changing poi) this in my opinion defeats the purpose of owning a regulated gun in the first place. It also puts undue stress on the valve pin and hammer components. Harmony is king.
Click to expand...

some of your older pcp's with built in airflow restriction lol

mad uk 2.PNGmad uk 3.PNGmad uk 4.PNGmad uk 5.PNGmad uk.PNG

???????????? I do not get it lol .
 
Upvote 0
Another point for your consideration on restricting airflow is the dual transfer port in the barrels of some of your past pcp's . One is a pellet port and the other is a slug port and some of the older ones are even smaller lol.

Think about it ! :coffee::LOL:

I also said in my original post in unison with the other options (( Which are irreversible )) for fine tuning reversible choices rather than permanent changes that cannot be reversed .

Maybe try to ask a question of why I suggested such instead of critiquing something you do not fully understand ???
Derick is a excellent tuner ( a Pro if you will ) just keep using him as you have in the past and you will be fine .

We can agree to disagree and that is fine bye me. Block me if you will I don't care lol . I do not block anyone as it is fine to debate and learn things even bye making mistakes which I do the same as everyone else. ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: markhooper
Upvote 0
The approach of high pressure and low valve dwell may not improve shot count but it would most definitely produce higher efficiency. The downside is shot-to-shot consistency is negatively affected, as the gun is operating at a state of partial valve lock. That said, it can work very nicely for short-range work where the ES won’t cause a meaningful difference in the trajectory, and it makes for a very soft report...good stuff for pest control in a barn.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: swNCsw
Upvote 0
nervoustrig said:
The approach of high pressure and low valve dwell may not improve shot count but it would most definitely produce higher efficiency. The downside is shot-to-shot consistency is negatively affected, as the gun is operating at a state of partial valve lock. That said, it can work very nicely for short-range work where the ES won’t cause a meaningful difference in the trajectory, and it makes for a very soft report...good stuff for pest control in a barn.
Click to expand...
Thank you Sir. I Agree in full lol .
 
Upvote 0
If you avoid a few more vulnerable areas cows are not at any risk from a notos. With respect to the roof, if there is a chance to test penetration with the stock gun I would do it. It probably cannot go through a steel roof of any reasonable gauge, for instance. It definitely cannot go through 3/4 sheathing. My Prod is tuned up to a little lower power than a Notos and cannot shoot through 1/2 inch plywood. So waferboard sheathing is probably safe too.

Pigeons may be a little tougher than you think. If you don't have to turn the power down I wouldn't.
 
Upvote 0
@swNCsw, WOW! did I hit a trigger?

Everything I stated is true. Including transfer port sizing. Yes I owned a few that did it. Is it ideal? Nope. That’s why FX decided instead of doing the low medium high thing, they would base it on caliber instead. A transfer port too large is detrimental to a .177, too small is detrimental to a .30 etc.

You’re quite the stalker though. Literally going through posts to try and prove a point. What point though? The ones I made myself? Transfer port runes aren’t ideal.

The rest of my points were for the OP, so he didn’t do something stupid and raise reg pressure to damage his pcp whether it’s a cheap one or not. Certain ways of doing things are just not ideal, or worthy of damaging a perfectly good pcp just to get a level of performance you’re looking for. I also did say cutting a few coils off the spring would work too. Not sure how that makes it expensive to modify. 🤔
 
  • Like
Reactions: Berserkeley Mike
Upvote 0
Airgunmann said:
I might ditch some hammer weight or a coil off the spring maybe both
I wish I remember the link to this drop block that someone posted before I would repost it it works very well no tapping or nothing pretty much plug and play
I'll have to get some pics this weekend when I'm working on it
Click to expand...
I think airgunarcheryfun out of Canada sells one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: markhooper
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Resources
Menu