Preface:
I will have masters degree in Quality systems in May
I have a spare tophat
I have a spare beercan
I am consulting CNC milling engineers for this
My Pm8 is operating right at 185 psi @285 fps right now
DM9s11s use same bolt kit and operate at 145 psi @ 285 fps
Dm14 operates at 140 psi
I am sorry for all of the annoying threads about Protos I have been making, they are just too close mechanically to the Dyes.
Background
My tank (91 ci) gives me currently 1874 shots per fill
I can only carry 1510 paintballs onto the field
Problem statement:
How can a Proto Matrix 2008 be modified to equal the operating pressure of a Dye matrix 20092011 at 285 feet per second.
Objectives:
1. Quieter shot
2. More Perceived Smoothness
3. Be able to call my Pm8 a Pm9.9
Modifications to be Attempted:
1. Tophat Diameter Reduction (detailed further)
2. Bolt back cap trimming (
530 mod)
3. Having a section of the interior bolt engine sleeve "bored out" (a write up for a later day)
What I am trying to do in pictures:
Mill off the area indicated in red arrows
Measurements and Math
Inner Tophat diameter = .682 inches
Outer Tophat diameter = .775 inches
Top hat area to be milled length=1.04 inches
I am not sure how thin is too thin for this part but I think a reduction of .08 is the deepest I would be willing to go
Area= π x radius squared x height
π x.385 ^2 x 1.04 = 0.48428907392148098688197032810607

π x.3475 ^2 x 1.04 = 0.39454162579005456854218876325423
=0.08974744813142641833978156485184
or about .09 cubic inches increase in dump chamber volume
Questions
1. How much of a pressure reduction would there be in the result of this mod? How much when combined with the 530 mod?
2. How thin is too thin for this grade of aluminum? is .1 inches thick enough to retain shape during operation of the marker? to not break during lubing?
3. Does the cost of this modification and the other two modifications exceed the cost of a Dm9? Does the forward LPR offset this cost?
4. Are there any unforeseen advantages/disadvantages to lowering the pressure?
5. If possible, should the modifications be made to a point that lower than 145 psi operation is feasible?
Any thoughts are appreciated!!!