• Welcome to the DeeperBlue.com Forums, the largest online community dedicated to Freediving, Scuba Diving and Spearfishing. To gain full access to the DeeperBlue.com Forums you must register for a free account. As a registered member you will be able to:

    • Join over 44,280+ fellow diving enthusiasts from around the world on this forum
    • Participate in and browse from over 516,210+ posts.
    • Communicate privately with other divers from around the world.
    • Post your own photos or view from 7,441+ user submitted images.
    • All this and much more...

    You can gain access to all this absolutely free when you register for an account, so sign up today!

STC x-runner

Thread Status: Hello , There was no answer in this thread for more than 60 days.
It can take a long time to get an up-to-date response or contact with relevant users.

tromic

Well-Known Member
Aug 13, 2007
1,773
241
153
http://www.stcitalia.net/x-runner.html
I bought this device. I like the idea of new piston and shock absorber. I was expecting that the shock absorber would be more quiet that the original in Cyrano, but it wasn't. I believe that both piston and shock absorber would last longer than the original. I had supposed that the piston would have lower friction that the original Cyrano's piston but it wasn't. The original piston had 0.8 kg friction and the x-runner had 1.3 kg. The weight of original piston is 8 gr and the x-runner's weight is 11 gr. STC piston is 9 mm longer then the Mares piston what means 1.3 % lower energy of the spear.
 
Last edited:
Gun at about 2 bars in both cases!






 
Last edited by a moderator:
Tromic, here is a thought for your consideration. The pneumatic speargun pistons usually have two or three rubber seals, a rear cup type seal and one or two "O" rings on the body of the piston. More seals mean more friction, but they stop the piston wobbling in the inner barrel. On the original late sixties model "Sten" the back-to-back dual rubber cup seal was very narrow and the piston tended to wobble, sometimes letting a blast of compressed air escape while the gun was being cocked. Mares at first overcame this wobble effect with a small plastic housing in the area of the sear lever that fitted inside the inner barrel tube, it stopped the piston's mushroom head from tilting on the sear tooth and stopped wobble at that position, but not when the piston zoomed off down the barrel or was being pushed back during loading of the gun. After that Mares changed to longer pistons in the familiar cylindrical format, usually with three seals, two cup type or cone seals at the ends and a mid-piston "O" ring.

Viktor Doroganich has built his unique pneumatic spearguns with a tapered body piston and only one rear seal. However this design requires tight control of the spear at the muzzle end to eliminate piston wobble as the piston only touches the wall of the inner barrel at its rear end. Normally you do not have this degree of muzzle control in a wet barrel pneumatic speargun, you only have a muzzle centralising washer for the shaft which is also the shaft stop ring. The vacuum barrel system does require a sealed slider, so this element can be used to control piston wobble. My suggestion is that you turn down the piston body to form a long taper and get rid of all the seals but the rear seal. These deletions will minimise friction in the inner barrel and also lighten the piston. One drawback will be that the tapered body piston will not be surfing along on the pressure wave inside a wet barrel if you use a Mamba type system, however it may not be a problem. Viktor Doroganich used a wet barrel because he adopted a hydro-brake muzzle on his speargun, so he needed the water inside the barrel. Also he could vent his muzzle with many relief port holes because it is made from titanium and screws onto strong stainless steel threads, the inner barrel being made from stainless steel. That meant that he did not have to worry about weakening the muzzle with so many relief port holes in a tight ring around the muzzle.

Attached is a photo of the Doroganich muzzle's directional control line slides. They fit closely on the shaft and are plastic "O" ring sealed at the rear periphery to control slop in the muzzle bore so that the line slides cannot fall out. There are no shock absorber springs or stop rings on the shaft, the spear tail stop diameter just strikes the rear of the line slide at the end of the shooting line's run. As the spear approaches the muzzle this frictional fit in the muzzle line slide (which is also made of titanium) is ejected by the pressure wave in the barrel, but by then it has done its job of directional control of the piston and spear combination.

A vacuum barrel pneumatic speargun could provide much the same function, so why not trim down the piston body and use the spear shaft to control its stability in the inner barrel instead?

You could do worse than to follow the lead of one of the masters of speargun design and fabrication.
 

Attachments

  • Sea Hunter 16.jpg
    Sea Hunter 16.jpg
    42.3 KB · Views: 205
Tromic, here is a thought for your consideration. The pneumatic speargun pistons usually have two or three rubber seals, a rear cup type seal and one or two "O" rings on the body of the piston. More seals mean more friction, but they stop the piston wobbling in the inner barrel. On the original late sixties model "Sten" the back-to-back dual rubber cup seal was very narrow and the piston tended to wobble, sometimes letting a blast of compressed air escape while the gun was being cocked. Mares at first overcame this wobble effect with a small plastic housing in the area of the sear lever that fitted inside the inner barrel tube, it stopped the piston's mushroom head from tilting on the sear tooth and stopped wobble at that position, but not when the piston zoomed off down the barrel or was being pushed back during loading of the gun. After that Mares changed to longer pistons in the familiar cylindrical format, usually with three seals, two cup type or cone seals at the ends and a mid-piston "O" ring.

Viktor Doroganich has built his unique pneumatic spearguns with a tapered body piston and only one rear seal. However this design requires tight control of the spear at the muzzle end to eliminate piston wobble as the piston only touches the wall of the inner barrel at its rear end. Normally you do not have this degree of muzzle control in a wet barrel pneumatic speargun, you only have a muzzle centralising washer for the shaft which is also the shaft stop ring. The vacuum barrel system does require a sealed slider, so this element can be used to control piston wobble. My suggestion is that you turn down the piston body to form a long taper and get rid of all the seals but the rear seal. These deletions will minimise friction in the inner barrel and also lighten the piston. One drawback will be that the tapered body piston will not be surfing along on the pressure wave inside a wet barrel if you use a Mamba type system, however it may not be a problem. Viktor Doroganich used a wet barrel because he adopted a hydro-brake muzzle on his speargun, so he needed the water inside the barrel. Also he could vent his muzzle with many relief port holes because it is made from titanium and screws onto strong stainless steel threads, the inner barrel being made from stainless steel. That meant that he did not have to worry about weakening the muzzle with so many relief port holes in a tight ring around the muzzle.

Attached is a photo of the Doroganich muzzle's directional control line slides. They fit closely on the shaft and are plastic "O" ring sealed at the rear periphery to control slop in the muzzle bore so that the line slides cannot fall out. There are no shock absorber springs or stop rings on the shaft, the spear tail stop diameter just strikes the rear of the line slide at the end of the shooting line's run. As the spear approaches the muzzle this frictional fit in the muzzle line slide (which is also made of titanium) is ejected by the pressure wave in the barrel, but by then it has done its job of directional control of the piston and spear combination.

A vacuum barrel pneumatic speargun could provide much the same function, so why not trim down the piston body and use the spear shaft to control its stability in the inner barrel instead?

You could do worse than to follow the lead of one of the masters of speargun design and fabrication.

I made the friction lower this way: http://forums.deeperblue.com/pneumatic-spearguns/82834-cyrano-piston-modification.html

The plug in the piston's boring prevents the front of the piston to enlarge to much in diameter thus lowering friction. Other advantage is that it makes separation of piston-shaft easier. Getting rid of all the seals but the rear would cause air leakage if applied to Mares piston. The rear seal is oil wiper. O-ring is necessary too.

The spear shaft already controls the stability of the piston thanks to taper end of the shaft. After loading the gun, the piston is fixed to the shaft. It could not wobble.
 
Last edited:
I found that on some Mares pistons the mid-body "O" ring did nothing except keep the piston body off the barrel wall. The pistons held air even with it removed. On the original "Sten" piston design there was no mid-body "O" ring, just one double-sided rubber cone seal. I once dug a tiny flat pebble out from under the mid-body "O" ring on a piston, it was not sealing and there was evidence of moisture penetrating beyond the "O" ring to the front of the rear cone seal, but that gun still held air. I only took the piston out to do some preventative maintenance on the gun, then I realised that the "O" ring on that gun did nothing, except keep water from corroding the rear half of the piston when it was sealing properly. Obviously this was a metal piston, the 3 seal model.

The friction that I am talking about lowering is the friction of the piston travelling in the inner barrel, not the frictional fit of the spear tail in the face of the piston. As I read it that is what your "Cyrano" piston modification is describing. My proposal is to machine the body of the piston to a gradual taper leaving only the last few millimetres of the piston at the original diameter. You can either leave the cone seal there or the "O" ring as you really only need one seal to keep pressurised air in the gun. The multiple seals used there now are to stop the piston wobbling, which can also cause pressurised air to be lost, however a cone seal can resist a small amount of wobbling without leaking. The Russian "Prism" or "Virginia" pneumatic speargun uses a nylon piston with just one cone seal on the rear end, however I would hesitate to hold that gun up as an example of a sophisticated gun, but it does get away with using only one seal on the piston. I think the three seals on the black body STC piston are the reason for its lower performance.
 
Last edited:
I had air leakage with my Cyrano piston before I changed the mid-body O-ring with 6 x 10 instead of 8 x 11. Without the O-ring the gun would not hold the pressure. Maybe the rubber cone seal on the Sten was different? The STC piston with O-ring has smaller OD than the Mares piston with O-ring but it has nylon cone seal and is using some PTFE grease in the groove between two O-rings. I believe STC piston would have lower friction after some time used in the gun. The friction was 1.5 kg when I put it in the gun. Next day it was 1.3 kg. I will plug it also to reduce the friction fit of the spear tail and try to use fork oil instead of grease. On STC shock absorber there is no annular slot to accept and center the piston like Mares absorber has.
Cyrano piston modification - also lowers the friction of the piston traveling inside barrel, not only the frictional fit of the spear tail in the face of the piston.
 
Last edited:
Another example was a Scubapro "Magnum" pneumatic, these are a variant on the "Sten", but with no common parts. I pulled one apart to check the design of the power regulator which works in the opposite way to that on a "Sten", high power is with the cursor pushed forwards, not back, and low power is with it back, which would normally be high power on a "Sten". I imagine this important difference has caught out more than one owner of these Scubapro guns!

The metal piston had to be removed from the rear end of the inner barrel and I found that the outer periphery of the mid-section piston "O" ring had small pieces chopped out if it, yet the gun still held air pressure OK (the damage was definitely there before I pulled the piston out, I made sure of that fact before removing it). Close examination with a magnifying visor showed that the "O" ring had been cut during initial speargun assembly, so it had never sealed, yet the gun worked flawlessly. I could tell that I was the first person to ever dismantle the gun as there were no tell-tale disassembly marks on the inlet valve body, which is what you have to undo to dismantle the gun; I used an adjustable pin wrench. The muzzle on these guns is staked to prevent you taking the muzzle off as there is no oil to change via that method. I soon put oil into the gun, I am no believer in grease staying long enough in one place for pneumatic speargun lubrication. Plus guns always get some water inside them due to the water contained in the atmosphere going in when you pressurise the gun, especially in very humid air conditions. This water can lead to corrosion inside the gun, although it will be very minor as the amount of water is small. With oil sloshing freely around inside the gun you completely eliminate any internal corrosion.
 
I had air leakage with my Cyrano piston before I changed the mid-body O-ring with 6 x 10 instead of 8 x 11. Without the O-ring the gun would not hold the pressure. Maybe the rubber cone seal on the Sten was different? The STC piston with O-ring has smaller OD than the Mares piston with O-ring but it has nylon cone seal and is using some PTFE grease in the groove between two O-rings. I believe STC piston would have lower friction after some time used in the gun. The friction was 1.5 kg when I put it in the gun. Next day it was 1.3 kg. I will plug it also to reduce the friction fit of the spear tail and try to use fork oil instead of grease. On STC shock absorber there is no annular slot to accept and center the piston like Mares absorber has.
Cyrano piston modification - also lowers the friction of the piston traveling inside barrel, not only the frictional fit of the spear tail in the face of the piston.

The friction is same with fork oil SAE W10. That is good, so the grease was good too. The boring is already 11 mm so I do not need to change anything. Mares has boring 21 mm so I made a 11 mm plug and got 10 mm boring.
 
Today I have put the Mares Cyrano piston at the picture which I bought for spare to measure the friction to have measurement with both pistons new. I was surprised when discovered that the piston get in very difficult. It seems that the cone sealing is wrong type, maybe for the 13 mm piston. Piston that was in the gun, also mares, which I measured, had different shape and smaller OD cone sealing. I suppose that some older guns had sealing with the cone seal. The seller/servicemen of my Cyrano insisted that the air leakage was due to defective cone seal despite I showed him the mares service manual where the cone seal was named oil wiper. To remember the air leakage ceased when I changed the O-ring so I concluded that the O-ring was important for holding the pressure in the gun.
 
Last edited:
The naming of the rear cone seal as an "oil wiper" is just to distinguish it as a component, but that does not mean it is not a pressure seal. I have disassembled and repaired many pneumatic spearguns over nearly four decades. Many of the sixties pneumatic spearguns used multi-ribbed and cone ended seals on their pistons, there were no "O" rings. The real wiper seal on Mares pistons was the front cone seal, it was exactly the same type of rubber cone as the rear one, so that is why the parts list referred to it as a wiper.
 
The naming of the rear cone seal as an "oil wiper" is just to distinguish it as a component, but that does not mean it is not a pressure seal. I have disassembled and repaired many pneumatic spearguns over nearly four decades. Many of the sixties pneumatic spearguns used multi-ribbed and cone ended seals on their pistons, there were no "O" rings. The real wiper seal on Mares pistons was the front cone seal, it was exactly the same type of rubber cone as the rear one, so that is why the parts list referred to it as a wiper.
Thanks, Peter. I believe both sealing are important. You could maybe have only one (cone seal/O-ring) with higher friction/OD or two (cone seal and O-ring) with lower friction/OD. I think it is better to have two sealing rings which together could better seal and protect from water and center the piston.
 
Last edited:
Well there is actually a reason behind the seal choice which has to do with the degree of variability of the inner barrel bore. Most pneumatic spearguns today are built with precision bore aluminium tubing that has been accurately produced to the correct size, however in the past some barrels were bored and honed or ground to size by taking rod stock and drilling it out, then cutting the exact bore diameter. In Russia you often see the term calibrated barrels, which means the inner barrel bore has been accurately machined to size. A cone type seal can still seal with some degree of variability in bore diameter along the barrel length, it is much more tolerant of slight diameter variations than an "O" ring is as the rear end of the rubber cone can compress in or expand out to a certain degree, the air pressure behind it flaring out the tail end of the rubber cone against the inner wall of the barrel tube. So the cone type seal is more adept at conforming to any small changes in bore diameter along a barrel. We tend to take inner barrel bore sizes being a constant for granted, but it was not always the case. High precision bore barrels can just use "O" ring equipped pistons as the seal has a consistent interference fit against the inner barrel wall. The other advantage of cone seals is that they conform to minor imperfections in the barrel from abrasive wear, they are less likely to leak even if the interior surface is not an absolutely perfect circle. This is because the actual contact area with the barrel is wider for a cone type seal than it is for an "O" ring, the former being more of an annular contact band, hence it will have more drag than the "O" ring which has a narrower contact surface with the inner barrel, but the degree of compression of the "O" ring used also has an effect.

A high precision stainless steel barrel, which is more immune to the effects of abrasive wear, can use "O" rings, but as aluminium barrels are more susceptible to wear the tendency has been to always use cone type seals on the piston tail as the primary air pressure seal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: spaghetti
Peter I agree to all you said. I see the front O-ring more like water wiper. Of course it also seals. It better removes the water in front of it than the cone seal at the back of the piston could. Cone seal on the front of the piston would do it better but it would have higher friction.


 
Last edited:
DeeperBlue.com - The Worlds Largest Community Dedicated To Freediving, Scuba Diving and Spearfishing

ABOUT US

ISSN 1469-865X | Copyright © 1996 - 2024 deeperblue.net limited.

DeeperBlue.com is the World's Largest Community dedicated to Freediving, Scuba Diving, Ocean Advocacy and Diving Travel.

We've been dedicated to bringing you the freshest news, features and discussions from around the underwater world since 1996.

ADVERT