Differences between ReTro valve and X-valve Design

[Smokee_2_7]

either a massive leak, or a massive full auto effect.

I had the uncontrollable full auto when i tried to go back to one o-ring in my buddies x-valve. That's the incident that prompted this thread to begin with. .

[cgrieves]

Yup, you got it- full auto :) Do the models which utilise one on/off O-ring have a milled cavity in the on/off recess? Mine is flat so does this mean I have an earlier Emag valve?

With two o-rings my on/off assembly won't stay in the valve- I have to push it in using the strip screw before I can fully push the valve into the body, so I guess my next options are to shorten the pin and use the Quad O-ring or use two round O-rings and get an RT on/off assembly (which I assume is slightly shorter to accomodate the O-rings?)

[Smokee_2_7]

Well, since my retrovalves have this additional recess and the new x-valves do not, i would say that your emag is. . .Different. lol.

I don't know when they changed the design, or or what 'valve they did away with the recess first.


I would say that your emag valve is newer than my old retros (possibly because both valve were born before the release of the emag. . heh) and that they changed back to the non-recessed design sometime in the emags earlier career. Now everything has no recess. It dosent affect performance, it just causes some confusion when you're used to one design and suddenly encounter the other.

as far as the 2 not wanting to go into the valve, from my experience this is noraml. when i installed my teamates' x-valve a couple weeks ago, i noticed the same thing right out of the box- - the on/off assembly didnt want to go in all the way.

As the valve got oiled and broken in, it has become a non-issue really.

If I were you,

I'd stick with the quad-oring, and order a couple shorter legnth on/off pins. (i recommend this OVER shaving the one you presently have). In theory, you will see that the pull will get lighter and more reactive the shorter you go, and when you get too short, it'll go full auto on you.

I also know that you can lower reactivity by lowering input pressure- - this gave me an idea about a week ago. Since Im running one of my retrovalves at about 850, if I shortened the on/off pin considerablly i would have full auto. NOW, if after doing that, I (in theory) should be able to lower the reactivity by decreasing input pressure- - lowering the input pressure required to make the gun do what I like.

The driving reason for this is that pesky problem that most of us have encountered- - the trigger gets crappy reactivity as your tank pressure gets close to your output pressure. I always fill my tank up when it gets to 1000 or 900.

What if I could get the same performance out of my gun with the input pressure at only 500 or600, due to a shorter on/off pin? would this let me run my tank down to 700 ish pounds before the trigger started to suffer? This is a test that I will perform, as soon as I get a chance to order a bunch of shorter on/off pins. If it works, that means that the number of effictive shots i get from a tank has increased= = increased gas efficency.


So, like i said, if I were you . . .I'd keep the quad-oring and try the shorter and shorter on/off pins. Then, when you get too short, lower you're input pressure. See if you can find a hapy medium there somewhere.


Carl

[cgrieves]

Excellent, that sounds like good reasoning. Many thanks,
Corin.