Weapon # 1 . – A good Olympic Class gun, also by modern standards
I was curious upon several fronts:
– Exactly what were the changes produced between the LG55 and the LGV? (after the analyses We refuse to call them improvements).
– Exactly why, regardless of the changes, the functionality of the brand at best competitive levels during individuals years still struggled?
– Why did Walther decided to redo COMPLETELY the particular LGV for the 2015 incarnation?
Once all the issues had been corrected the LG55 got proven to be a delightful little weapon to shoot, and effective at MUCH more than middling precision.
So , we procured not just one but TWO LGV’s from your olden days (¿ Fantastic Days? ), one through an early manufacture and an additional from a later date.
Both were promoted as “Defekt” in the sense that people KNEW they would need a re-seal (to say the least).
But , we all went ahead and obtained them.
By the time they appeared, I was somewhat busy, so the project had to be put on keep.
With some other projects taken care of and the series of articles upon Spring-Piston rifle Dynamics nicely on its way, it was time to obtain the first one done.
Considering that this gun is a later on version, with the “Olympia” share and adjustable Match bring about (even the blade will be adjustable), it was decided to established this to “F I am Fü nfeck” power degree (that is 7. five Joules or about five. 5 ft-lbs, which is the normal for Olympic 10 Meters match).
The weapon is a good looking gun:
This is why the somewhat earlier DIANA 65 has a more rounder stock, and the LGV includes a more “angular” stock. this particular stock would later end up being reflected in the DIANA sixty six
A BIG shock was the steel sleeve within the LGV barrel, that is a LARGE chunk of steel, considering over 770 grams (1. 7 lbs).
At first I was somewhat eager of the OEM sights, because the experience with the LG55 acquired proven they were totally insufficient. But I decided to move ahead and observe.
I will not really go into detail about the disassembly process, as it is the same as the particular LG55, but I will declare even after the half 10 years that passed between the fifty five and the V, the closes had not changed and still presented a serious problem to the wellness of the gun.
This gun in particular had been shot extensively, then left behind.
The seals were not the crumbly mass, but the goeey/sticky/slimy gunk. Perhaps somebody decided that Ballistol had been capable of everything, including resurrecting dead seals, and had additional some hydrocarbon that blended some of the seal material then as it evaporated, left the particular mush in the compression holding chamber to be cleaned by the following gunsmith (me).
Anyhow, Acetone to the rescue!
After stoppering the TP with a wood dowel, acetone was put and left for durations to soften the clutter inside. And changed frequently.
Then a smooth brass rod was refined and shaped to the within curvature of the compression holding chamber to have something to shift the mess.
Little by little, with patience, plus over two days, the whole thing turned out:
Once the compression chamber had been clean, we could see that , while the LG55 includes a straight and short Exchange Port (TP), the LGV has a long and inclined TP. For the extremely little volume of the machine, this is actually not necessary, and it detracts in the efficiency of the engine.
The particular piston was re-built making use of almost the same technique since the LG55 (allowing for the main, but long TP), and tried the OEM springtime with the intermediate “double guide”.
Results were less than encouraging.
Velocities in the reduced 400’s and extreme propagates of 18 to fifty eight, were not precisely what we had observed with the LG55
So , we inserted one piece OEM spring (from 60 years ago), and MV’s immediately came back on line: reduced to mid 500’s had been good and extreme propagates dropped to between nine and 34.
With something more consistent with what we assume was a great benchmark performance back then, we all shot a test target using the bare barrel:
AH! I abruptly remembered that the steel “anchor” was around, so I set up it and re-sighted:
And this moment had been when I thought that there was some thing not quite right there.
I had ordered two suspension springs from ARH that replicate the OEM spring, therefore i installed it and examined it.
Cycle was therefore twangy and disagreeable which i had to stop the test.
The short “guides” that Walther incorporated into the spring securing nut were not enough.
I recalled Scott (Motorhead) experiences plus decided to provide the gun using a full guide.
A spare OE LG55 spring locking enthusiast was used to make the amalgamated guide.
First, a tooth cavity was made in the enthusiast:
And then rejected to dimensions:
Well one of the changes carried out by Wlather between the 2 modes was that the LGV spring locking nut (the one that can be seen in the history of the photo) became the heat treated part with the particular model change, and so, Very hard to machine.
Shot cycle became what should be, and we tested the particular gun:
Indeed I pulled one, APOLOGIES! My Bad!
Now the gun is usually behaving as it should. Within the hands of a good marksman, this gun is indeed effective at “Match grade” results.
For that second part, we will take a look at an early version that had been transformed into an “FT” gun (German Rules with Pentagon Farreneheit rifles), and we will explore the ability limits of the little motors.
Keep well and take straight!