500 fps limits

[poil27]

Not trying to add fuel to the flames, but here's a (theoretical) question for ya'll. I have a custom MK I running on HPA (650 psi). Took a bit of playing around with reg pressures and hammer spring, but I now have it shooting consistently in the 495 - 498 range. My question is this: If I swap the end cap (with the HPA fitting) for the original Co2 cap, and put a capsule in, it shoots in the 540-ish range. I have no intention of ever running Co2 in it again, but seeing as it was originally Co2 powered, is that how it would be tested should the occasion ever arise?
Should I clip the hammer spring so that it shoots sub-500 fps on Co2, then adjust regulator pressure (again) to get me back to where I was? I really don't want to mess with it seeing as it is doing what I had planned from the start - lots of shots @ just under 500 fps - but I also don't want to have a (potentially) restricted gun.

Let the debate begin...

Todd

oups i've lost the end cap you will have to test it with hpa...

just to be sure i would get the speed down a bit 490 to 495

[AirGunEric]

That's an interesting question/dilemma. You re-designed it to use one power source, but using another it will quite possibly go over the limit. I would think that a similar comparison would be the opposite situation, if you buy a Co2-powered gun and then pumped 1500psi of air into it- you would also be over 500fps/4.2fpe. So- how does the law apply to this- how the gun was "found" or how the manufacturer "intended" it to be used - ?

If someone could be charged with how a gun "could be" used if it were returned, partially, to it's factory specs- and a judgment were rendered in court to this effect, then everyone who has taken a Co2-powered gun, pumped 1500psi of HPA through it could also make the same argument "but if I partially return it to factory specs, then it would not be a firearm"- thereby throwing out any potential charges in that case. I'm no lawyer, but it would suggest to me that charges would need to be laid based on "how it was found" if fully constructed, rather than "what it could be if part x or y were installed" or the 'law' would lose it's application in subsequent cases.

Mind you, in the event of police coming to someone's house looking to lay charges, they will find anything/everything they can charge you with- to "up the ante" when it comes to making a deal later on. Look at some of the stranger laws that have been enacted of late- for example the one about it being illegal to wear a mask if involved in a riot. Is it not illegal to be involved in riot already? Is the penalty for being involved in a riot not high enough for people? If not, then raise the maximum potential jail time for being in a riot, not add secondary, silly things to be used to either increase the sentence, or add another "bargaining chip" to the crown/prosecutor's bag of tricks. It's this indirect, "add another item" to the potential laundry list of crimes that people can be charged with that is the problem- instead of spelling things out simply, plainly and directly, the politicians and lawyers need to (apparently) stay employed- so they muddy things up consistently. Frankly, I think if anyone gets charged with a crime of any sort these days on any issue/activity, they are left with few options but to hire the best lawyer they can afford and let them sort it all out on their behalf- anything less could be considered foolhardy.

[SeanMP]

I think there are lots of historical examples of this that would set a persons mind at ease.

The item is assessed in the "as found" condition.

I just looked into this question on a powderburner issue and got the same response.

Back in the day it used to be a pretty common practice to convert surplus military rifles into sporters. A common issue was the mag capacity was over the legal limit but you could have a gunsmith convert the mag or buy one off the shelf. So, the rifle could be illegal again if you put in an original mag but as long as you were using the legal mag all is fine.

Another issue was barrel length. Some of the carbines fell .1 or .2 below legal so a gunsmith would have to fit a muzzle extension. As long as the muzzle extension was fitting with red loctite it could not be removed by "ordinary means" and thus was legal.
That may be the answer to your HPA question.

[sholo]

Well I guess I will go by the "how it is found" logic and leave it as is. Like you said - too many variables. It was purposely modified to run on HPA (which is how it would be found), and velocity tests were done using standard 14.3 gr ammo.

If they (boys in blue) really want to charge me - or anyone else for that matter - my goose is cooked no matter what configuration I may have...

Todd

[SeanMP]

If you could further that and make the HPA cap so it can't be removed by "ordinary means" then your laughing.

Maybe a pin or red loctite

[poil27]

If you could further that and make the HPA cap so it can't be removed by "ordinary means" then your laughing.

Maybe a pin or red loctite

i have to agree on this

[sholo]

If you could further that and make the HPA cap so it can't be removed by "ordinary means" then your laughing.

Maybe a pin or red loctite

There's a thought. Good thinking!

Wouldn't be hard to pin...

Thanks,
Todd

[averagejoe]

What about red locktite?

[AirGunEric]

Loctite would be more of a pain in the arse to remove if/when service is required- whereas a pin could be driven out alot easier.

[sholo]

Loctite would be more of a pain in the arse to remove if/when service is required- whereas a pin could be driven out alot easier.

My thoughts exactly...

Todd