Originally Posted by Ratinator
Am I correct in thinking the new hammer has the same contact point as the old spade hammer, all be it a smaller contact area?
I have seen evidence of this on the underside of the roller bearing.
They are both machined above centre of the total thickness of the bar used.
May I enquire why the spade hammer is not under load all the way through the cycle and the new one is ?
Theyre a totally different design.
When the spring and bottom washer shove the old hammer down the tract they then stop at the base of the spring guide but the hammer travels on its merry way for a few mm until it strikes the firing valve. The hammer tries to rotate (as does the new one) whilst under tension but after that its free to do what it likes. So depending on its position when its going through its cocking cycle this will dictate wether it rubs on the roller or not. Polishing both helps but friction is still friction. As in my last post i stopped the hammer rotating (or i hope i did) with a bearing setup and this failed miserably, dont go there its a waste of a firing body.
The external hammer is under constant pressure even in its rested state but gives the least issues and of course doesnt get the chance to go piiiiiiiiing and doesnt seem to suffer valve bounce (although Tench is your man for that as its all about weight and pressure and energy and speed and stuff). It cant touch the roller for obvious reasons. Its the better standard option of the two but like you said neither are without flaws. Theyre generally not well made and do well with a polish up including the spring guide. Polishing the spring and adjuster are also a good step forward.
I ended up making my own hammer and adjuster and a couple of other bits but spent some time working the lock time which tbh i started to get a bit anal about. Making the journey for the air from the firing chamber to the pellet as quickly and easily as poss was important to me but that might just be because im not set right.