The small end is 0.200" outside diameter now, with a 0.140" inside diameter for the #6 screw. That only leaves 1/32" per side.
If we were to use a #4 screw, which is 0.112" in diameter, then the outside diameter of the small bushing end could probably be reduced to about 0.150". It would be close, but that might allow the use of a smaller spring that I found with a 0.240" outside diameter, which woud fit in a 1/4" hole.
If we wanted to maintain 1/16" of wood between the trigger mechanism and the spring hole, then the current 5/16" diameter version could have the screw hole positioned 7/32" away from the trigger mech.
If we reduced everything to fit in a 1/4" diameter hole, then the screw could be placed 3/16" away from the trigger mech.
In either case, I think it would probably be best to leave a little more than 1/16" of wood between the spring hole and the outside of the stock.
Let me draw that up, and see if there is any other way to arrange the components in a smaller package.
Dan - If it were me, I think that I would give it a try, with an admittedly high pucker factor. I drew this stock as 1-1/4" wide by 1-1/2" tall, with 3/8" radiused corners. The spring hole is 1/4" diameter, and the screw is a #3 machine screw, not a wood screw. I found a spring that should work. As you can see, it's possible, but with little room for error.
"Measure twice, cut once . . ."
Edit - I forgot. You said your stock has 1/2" radiused corners, but I don't think that would change things substantially.
The top part of the sleeve need only be about 1/8" tall to function properly. Anything longer than that is mostly aesthetic. I like it flush with the top of the stock, because that way the edges of the hole are not exposed to damage. But it certainly could be recessed deeper.
Is the sleeve necessary? If instead of putting a groove in the sleeve, you make a hole in the head of the screw, wouldn't this also work? I know that while screwing in the screw you would load the spring(or overload it) but couldn't this be figured out too. Wouldn't that also reduce the width?
This is some cool stuff. Nice work Tin Man.
Very clean work as always Tin Man.
Is the sleeve necessary? If instead of putting a groove in the sleeve, you make a hole in the head of the screw, wouldn't this also work? I know that while screwing in the screw you would load the spring(or overload it) but couldn't this be figured out too. Wouldn't that also reduce the width?
If the sleeve could be eliminated, then the diameter of the spring could be reduced to the point that the spring was just large enough to fit around the screw. You just gave me an idea. There is another way, but the installation would be a little more delicate. Ponder this:
Reading the pics below from left to right. Start with two holes. A larger 3/16" hole (for the screw and spring) and a smaller, overlapping 1/16" hole. When installing the screw, the end of the spring is pushed off into the smaller side hole, so the spring does not get tightened as the screw is turned. When the screw is almost tight, allow the end of the spring to snap into a slot cut in the head of the screw. Rotate the screw a little more to properly tension the spring. The top end of the spring would have to be left a little longer, so that it could be manipulated, and then cut flush when the installation was complete, but it might work?
Good thinking Ray.
Jeff, here's a possible way around that problem. The whole reason for the extra hole is so as not to torque up the spring during installation because the line release has to go in first, and consequently it anchor the spring. Why not put a thin slot in the line release instead of a pin hole so that it can be installed once the screw and spring are in place. Then you just give the screw/spring one more turn.
Another problem is getting the head of the screw thick enough that the very small bit of spring anchored in it will not pop out. Are there screws with a thicker head? The tolerance of the line release slot in the stock will have to be very small for the line release not to wobble and allow the spring to pop out of the screw head hole.
Also the spring will be significantly longer this way, will it still provide enough torque?
Another idea is a very specialized screw. It only needs threading at the end that actually bites into the other side of the slot.
Hmmm. You are right that a longer spring would have to be of a larger wire diameter to have enough torque. It could be done, but looking through the McMaster catalog, I don't see any stock springs that would work.
The slotted idea may have potential. I have a tiny cutter that would allow me to make such a slot. It might actually be easier to install, as the hardest part with the present design is stabbing the end of the spring into the tiny hole. I'll have to try that.
I think the spring could easily be fastened to the head by driving the screw through a plastic bushing, of the same diameter as the screw head, but having a slot along the length similar to the old bushing. Once the bushing was screwed on all the way against the head, it couldn't move. Simple. That would allow a longer piece of the spring end to be engaged than would be possible with just a hole through the head. And the little plastic bushing could easily be cut to length to fit guns of different heights.
Definately could be a "Mark II" version here.
Exactly.
How about a washer(a little smaller than screw head with similar slot to turn) on top of the spring right under screw head? You could permanently attach the spring to it. Once you tighten down the screw enough you could rotate it just like the sleeve and then tighten screw.
You need to be a member to leave a comment.