So right now I'm working on a breach mod for my BBB, and I've got myself some 1/2" SCH40 PVC, 9/16" brass, and 19/32" brass set up to make the breach. The PVC is the shell for the whole thing, the 9/16" brass is the main barrel, and the 19/32" brass is functioning as the breach (as so many brass breaches do). With my current setup, I've got the breach's pattern dremelled into the PVC, and the breach itself dremelled into the 9/16" brass. But I'm having some issues:

• How should I nest the brass within the PVC? There's a considerable gap between the outside of the 19/32" brass and the PVC. While this is good for the breach design, allowing the material to slide freely up and down the barrel, when it comes to securing the stuff in there, I'm at a loss. What is the best way to anchor the 9/16" brass to the barrel?
  .
  .
• How do I make the breach slide easier? - ANSWER EDITED IN This one I don't really expect an answer to, but if anyone has any information on it I would be most appreciative. After I dremelled the breach into my 9/16" brass, the 19/32" slide has been having considerable difficulty sliding over it. This poses a bit of a problem, as there aren't many adhesives that I know of that stick to brass well, and I can just imagine handle after handle simply popping off under the strain of having to move the slide back and forth. I've already tried giving a tiny inward bevel to the hole in the brass and removing any protruding material, but nothing has helped on that front. Has anyone else encountered this kind of problem, and if so, how did you deal with it?
  
  ANSWER TO NUMBER 2: I actually discovered this one myself. Evidently the brass tubing is in tension with itself to maintain the circular shape. When I cut the hole, the material naturally wanted to open up to a flat plane. This meant that it was trying to unroll itself, in the process making that portion of the tube wider than it should have been. The solution was to take a pair of pliers and (GENTLY) squeeze the tubing back into a more fitting shape. After doing that, the 19/32" brass slides right as rain again.

Thanks in advance.

Perhaps I'm missing something, but would this foam be available to Nerfers outside of Australia? I mean shipping would be relatively cheap (it's foam), but I'm curious to know if it would even be possible...

(I assume you are using hardware store foam.

Yes. I was unaware there were different grades of foam available for purchase. If I may ask, what's the best place to get denser dart foam? We got ours from Lowe's (none at the Ace Hardware in San Dimas)--and it is rather flimsy and doesn't want to stay straight (even after trying a few of the methods listed in the sticky thread).

That...does seem like a good idea. Only problem is that the glue gun I got doesn't have high and low settings (then again, it was only $3, so I can't complain). Should I invest in a new, better gun, or is there another workaround?

So I've got a n00b's question. My friend and I started making our first ever batch of Stefans the other night (crude, misshapen things), and upon beginning the process of hot gluing the domes onto the darts, several times I found that the dart itself was actually melting, causing the still hot glue of our creations to dribble down the side of the dart and nearly scald my finger. Naturally, after this happened two or three times, we decided to rethink our strategy concerning the Stefan darts we were making, and I thought to finally ask a legitimate question on these forums.

My question is this: how do I prevent the foam of my new darts from melting on account of the hot glue?

And before you yell at me to do a search, know that I tried multiple times to find a topic/post about this issue (keywords "stefan melt" minus quotes), and to no avail.

So the warning message is out, because its ineffectiveness is evident. What about auto-close? So far as I can tell, there is no practical benefit to keeping threads like that open. If the only argument against it is that it's a little bit harder to implement than I'd thought (though certainly easier than the warning message), dare I suggest you all in the moderation give it a shot?

Also, a problem isn't worth complaining about unless you're going to take steps towards a solution; if you're unwilling to try and fix it, then you're just making noise for the sake of making noise.

I feel I must preface this by saying that there are two ideas being presented here as alternatives to one another. I imagine the first has already been suggested, but the second may not have been, and from what I gather it's relatively easy to implement. Since I gather that thread necromancy (posting in an old, dead thread) is a pretty big issue here, I have come up with two alternatives.

1. Thread Timeout This is a functionality I see in a lot of other forums. Essentially, any thread older than a given age (say, one month) will be locked. It would most certainly prevent against necromancy, as any thread dug up through the search method would be incapable of being replied in if it's old enough to gain the wrath of the general populace.

2. Age-Based Notifications The idea is that after a thread reaches a certain age, the reply form adjusts itself to include a notification that the thread is older than the cutoff age (say 1 month), and prompts the user to instead start a new thread. Such a thing could also be modified to suggest that the user send their question or comment to a moderator. While I can see that this might be seen as redundant (as the thread's age can easily be determined by checking the date on the last post), I feel it's necessary to point out that checking the date isn't exactly the first thing on a newbie's mind when they see a thread they want to reply to--especially since it is so small and isolated within a forum post. This idea would bring the information to the front, which would help more mature and attentive newbies to know that they are about to commit forum treason. See here for an example of this idea.

The advantage of the first option over the second is that the first is already built into the admin control panel as an option that can be adjusted very easily. However, the function is blind to threads that may have been set up to allow for thread necromancy. On the flip side, the second option is a little bit harder to implement, and wouldn't entirely prevent necro-posting. But the second option would be more sensitive to threads that ought to remain open.

And I apologize if I'm overstepping my bounds by coming back just to post a suggestion. I just encountered that feature while browsing the internet and thought it would be indispensable here.

So I already ran the idea past VACC, though he seemed convinced that such a thread would get shut down in a manner of minutes if posted, despite how potentially useful it could be to the community. I just wanted to get a second (or more) opinion on the matter. Note ahead of time that the thread I'm proposing would probably be best if a moderator or someone of similar status posted it.

One of the problems I've seen on this forum is the fact that there are a lot of useless posts being made that ask the same questions over and over, which tends to irritate staff and experienced member alike. While offenders are told to "use the search" to help them with their queries, often times without at least a basic knowledge of nerfing and its materials or at least the basic semantics and jargon that are used to describe the modding process, the search can prove quite useless to a n00b.

I understand that this isn't exactly a n00b-friendly forum, and that the moderation has no intention of changing that, but my idea (which I've seen successfully implemented on other forums) is this:

A FAQ thread. New and old members alike can post legitimate questions (like, "what's the 'crayola barrel mod?'" and "what are stefan darts, and how do I get them?" and "what do I need to start modding my guns?" -- not "what's your favorite gun?" or any B.S. like that), and then those questions can be answered by anyone who's bored, feels like being helpful, and has the knowledge. And once a question has been answered sufficiently, both the question and answer are edited into the first post in a clear, indexed fashion. This would require a bit of moderation to maintain, as any time someone posted a question and answer, those would have to be edited into the first post, but I ultimately think it would be worth it. Not only would it provide a one-stop solution to the majority of n00b questions that are asked, thus cutting down on threads and posts that are deemed repetitive and useless (most forum n00bs are drawn to the word "FAQ" like moths to a flame), but it would provide a place where anyone can be directed before the thread is closed if they ask a repetitive question.

And paramount to this idea is that once a question has been asked, answered, and included in the first post, it shouldn't be asked again in the thread with the expectation of a friendly or helpful response. Also paramount is that any question about nerfing and modding, no matter how basic or foolish it may seem, would be allowed and would be allowed to be answered. But perhaps the most controversial stipulation to this thread idea (at least with a forum so vehemently against necro-posting), if a person posts a legitimate question that hasn't already been answered, no matter how long it has been since the last post, the thread should be readily revived and the answer given.

A potential argument I can see against this idea is that all of the information is already out there, members just have to use the search to find it. I already addressed this by saying that without a basic understanding (which isn't exactly readily available), the search doesn't have much use. Another is that the information is already available mostly in sticky threads, but in having read through most of those, the information is incomplete and is scattered through more than a dozen of them: this is a one-stop place for the n00b to get basic knowledge.

Ultimately what I see is a broken system. Mods tell the n00bs to use the search, but the majority of them don't (it's easier to post a new thread and ask someone else to do the research for you than it is to do the research yourself). Usually, if a n00b has a question, he'll skim a few sticky threads, and then if his question isn't answered, either post a late reply in one of those, or post a new thread, asking the question that's been asked probably dozens of times before. The other problem with telling a n00b to use the search is that if he finds an old thread about what he was talking about, and he's got a question about it, he'll resurrect the thread and get yelled at simply for doing what he thought was good and proper. This thread eliminates that. The FAQ would stand out in this n00b's eye, because it is a list of the frequently-asked questions that people getting into nerf modding have. If he's got any kind of a brain, he'll check there, and likely have his question answered without bothering the rest of the community.

Here is an example of what I'm talking about (albeit a little outdated, but still).

And I apologize if it's against this forum's etiquette to post an idea like this if it's already been rejected by one of the forum leaders. While it's no excuse, I am new here...

Thoughts?

If I remember right, it was a question about BBB replacement springs. Though I may be mistaken. Probably am.

Either way, I took the initiative to send the guy a PM asking him to put the question back in, and explaining to him why you don't get rid of the question once it's been answered (it's common netiquette). No need to get on his case in-thread when the issue can be resolved with a PM.

Very nice. Once I get some better barrel material (besides dried up crayola markers), I'll definitely give it a shot.

Regarding the pegs, I just used a pair of needle-nosed pliers and twisted mine out. Fires a hell of a lot better that way than even my friend's "modded" Maverick, and that's without doing anything to the internals.

Also, the rubber band seems like it would actually cut down on the life-expectancy of the gun. I had a Tek-10 where the arm that goes from the slider to the back of the plunger actually snapped from there being too much strain on the thing while cocking the gun. While that's a different gun, its internal design is almost identical. If I were you, I'd reinforce that arm as soon as possible so it doesn't buckle or snap.

The 19/32 is 1/32 inch bigger in diameter than the 9/16, so while it does allow it to slide freely inside it, it is a very tight fit.

Regarding barrel materials, it really does come down to personal taste, and how much you're willing to spend. Being the cheapo that I am, I went with the basic crayola mod: I've got a crayola marker with a bunch of electrical tape wrapped around it and shoved inside the stock barrel acting as a replacement on my BBB. Works quite well for what I've got it doing, not to mention with how I've got it set up, I can still use the "missile" darts. I'm too lazy to make stefans, so I primarily use it to fire stock suckers with some pretty great results (still haven't done range testing, as I'm not done with the gun yet, but it does leave welts on exposed skin at around 10 feet). It also shows promise when using streamlines.

So...I'm curious. I live in Massachusetts, but go to college in California. So 3/4 of the year I'm in SoCal, but 1/4 of the year I'm in MA. Is there any way to get the system to recognize that, or ought I just to put my location as where I am the majority of the time?

Also, if I change my location in my profile, will it change it on the map (might wind up in the Seattle area)?

So I recently finished a basic mod of my new BBB, and in firing it, I couldn't help but notice a fairly large disparity between where I thought the darts were going to go and where they were actually going. It was consistent, so I was pretty sure it wasn't the gun, but what I figured out was something rather interesting.

With two-handed guns (and the BBB in particular, due to its peculiar setup with the trigger at the back), I have found that I am generally more accurate if the hand I place at the front of the gun is my dominant hand. While I could learn how to be more accurate leading lefty, it seems to make the fire a lot straighter if the hand in charge of orientation is stronger.

So my question for you is this: which hand do you put at the front of your two-handed gun? Have you ever tried switching? Discuss!

Nerf War Schedule

Check there, even though it looks like it hasn't been updated in a while. It also doesn't look like there's any events in Oklahoma, sadly for you.

I do believe this belongs in that forum, as well, though I may be mistaken.

And as per your original question, I'm binary between SoCal and Massachusetts for school, so can't really help out.

My advice? Just start shooting your friends with your modified guns to get them to arm themselves for defense. Then show them how to mod their guns and you've got a small armada of people you can Nerf with.

EDIT: It looks like there's a few events happening in Wichata, Kansas, but I know that's a bit of a hike from Tulsa, Oklahoma.

I'm new, yeah, but wouldn't felt pads inhibit the dart's aerodynamics (as opposed to a hot glue dome)? I'd be interested to see how a dart made with the felt pad would fly versus one with the hot glue dome versus one with just the washer...

Aye, thanks for the welcome. And I apologize for assuming that you were all trying to shun my ideas and play some kind of decrepit honor-shame game. Bad past experiences as the newbie and all.

Interestingly enough, while the search before posting was fruitless to anything relating to this topic, after I looked again, the concept was sure enough included in one of the stickied "basics" threads.

And J_cobbers settled the whole push-pull thing pretty well, I think (and added to my conception with the dart-seal thing: I hadn't even considered the flexibility of the dart material and how the pressure effects it). I just suck at articulating my knowledge sometimes.

Now here's a question I have for you folks (as I prepare to begin adding barrels to some of my guns): would some form of dry lubricant (like graphite) in the barrel be a good idea?

Also, wouldn't it also be best to experiment with the different masses of darts with different guns--especially one such as an SM1500/AT2K, as you referenced? I imagine it's similar to different bowlers using different weights of bowling balls.

Wow, way to welcome a newbie with, guys. I did a bit of research, trying to find if anyone had considered these things before, and it makes good sense that Boltsniper would have actually figure out the math behind it--something I was wont to do, but didn't have the time.

It's good to see that this is something that the community at least recognizes, which was my ultimate goal. I'll admit that I should've done a bit more research before posting my THEORY, perhaps deriving the same formulas that Boltsniper had before posting, and perhaps trying to figure out the semantics of the forum (what with dead space and all). In either case, in an ideal system (which, if you all had read, I said was incredibly rare to find in a Nerf gun), my theory stands.

But let's all continue to play "Attack the n00b," shall we?

Oh, and as regards the marker barrel mod, that would be an utterly fantastic idea if any of my friends were still using such rudimentary tools in their art. I'm in college, so money is incredibly thin (and my artsy friends have moved on to pastels and paints--I have no ties with anywhere that would have a plethora of markers to borrow from, either). As it stands, trying to track these things down is proving incredibly difficult and almost not worth the time. I did just manage to get my hands on a BBB, though, so there is a trip to Lowe's in the future for some PVC and/or brass so it'll shoot darts (whenever I get the cash).

And you all are right when you say that the best way to figure these things out is through experimentation. What I'm doing is not creating math to make a new phenomenon; rather, I'm taking the phenomenon that I can imagine, figuring out the math behind it, and using that math to try and figure out (in my then very sleepy mind) how to optimize the system. I'll admit that I got a couple things wrong when writing that up in the limbo between Zombieland and sleep, but those have been addressed for the most part (with the exception of friction: I intentionally left that out, because mine was a discussion on air pressure, and I figured friction was something the community was already very much aware of--which you all are).

Oh, and while I was talking about an ideal system with no leaks or anything of the sort, I'm not so foolish as to think that such a system is actually attainable. Even in attempting to seal up the leaks in my newly acquired BBB, I realized how much of a fool's errand it was. The principal does still apply, but there is a lot of compensation that needs to be made for it (to imaseoulman, while the volume of the two tubes does greatly depend on the internal diameter [ID, I presume], by my estimate, the leaks in an unsealed gun would typically make up for that difference).

And again, I don't mean to step on anyone's toes. I just had an idea that I wanted to see if people were already aware of: which it seems most of you are.

(nice back bend, though, Split)

Okay, so this is a concept that I'm not sure if it has been discussed before here, or even if it's been thought up, but it seems to me like something needs to be said about barrel length and the relation it has to fluid dynamics in an ideal closed system. I feel I need to preface this by saying that I don't mean to step on anyone's toes, and with the complete understanding that I am a newbie on these forums, at least by post count. And if the concept is already known to the community at large, then please someone inform the staff so they can close/delete this. Also, if this belongs in the Articles Section, I wasn't sure if I was actually allowed to post it there.


Introduction
The problem I see that exists with barrel modifications is that the overwhelming majority of these modifications tend to make the barrels entirely too long, and that they place the darts in locations that do not provide for optimum performance. Mind, this theory takes some explaining, so if you don't feel like reading about my physics, take my word and skip down to my conclusion.

The Basics
First, it is important to establish how Nerf guns work. And I'm talking more in-depth than "plunger pushes air, which pushes dart," because while this is a functional and conceivably accurate description of the process, there's a lot more at play here than simple indirect push-shove of airflow. Now, it may be shocking to some of you, but the darts we love to shoot aren't actually "pushed" out of the barrel, they are actually "pulled." Here's how it works. When the piston (i.e. plunger) shoots forward, the pressure within the chamber (the space between the piston and the dart) rapidly climbs. This difference of pressure creates a vacuum on the other side of the dart. Now, I don't know how many of you have taken high school physics, but it doesn't take a physicist to say that vacuums suck, or rather that in fluids (like air), systems seek equilibrium. The air behind the dart is all trying to be at an equal pressure with the air on the other side. And since the dart can move down the chamber, expanding the volume and thereby decreasing the pressure, the dart tends to very quickly move towards the end of the chamber. As long as the pressure within the chamber is greater than the air pressure outside, the dart will accelerate. In order to maximize the dart's velocity (and thereby its range), the idea is to maximize the amount of time it spends accelerating, which means maximizing the amount of time that the air pressure behind it is greater than the air pressure in front of it.

Barrel Length
Now herein lies the difficulty. In an airtight system, any barrel where the dart loses the vacuum in front of it before leaving it is actually incredibly inefficient; meaning any barrel where there is a lack of air pressure pushing on the dart before it leaves the gun and equilibrium can be restored is actually slowing the dart down. This is because once the pressure inside the chamber is equal to the pressure outside, there is no more vacuum for the fluid to flow towards. What happens, then, is as the dart's built up momentum carries it further down the barrel, the pressure in the chamber behind it actually decreases (because the volume is increasing). This means that there is a vacuum behind the dart, and the difference in air pressure is actually pulling back on it, causing it to accelerate negatively ("decelerate"). Practically, this means that the dart's momentum is actually fighting against air pressure if the barrel reaches this length.

To solve this problem, the barrel from where the rear of the dart is placed to the end of the barrel should be equal in volume to the air compression chamber (where the piston and spring are). Here's why. When the trigger is pulled, the compression chamber takes all of its air and rams it into that small area between the chamber's end and the dart. Thus, the volume is the variable that has decreased in the pressure equation, and the easiest way for the system to equalize is to make up that lost volume. As I've said, the dart will continue to accelerate until the pressure is equalized, and if that occurs when the lost volume is made up, then it stands to reason that that would be when the volume from the bottom of the dart (the reverse piston, if you will) and the end of the compression chamber to the end of the barrel is equal to the volume of the compression chamber.

Dart Placement
A second difficulty I have seen is that the darts and "breeches" are placed relatively far away from the end of the compression chamber. The problem with this is that the initial volume of the system is larger, and so the change in volume (and thereby the change in pressure) provided by the compression chamber are reduced. Think of it this way: if the compression chamber adds 30ccm' (cubic centimeters) worth of air to the chamber, if there's already 100ccm of air in there, the difference will only be 130ccm:100ccm. If, though, there's only 5ccm of air in the chamber, the difference will be 35ccm:5ccm. For any of you who are good at math, it's fairly easy to point out that 35ccm:5ccm>130ccm:100ccm. For those of you non-math oriented, the 100ccm model only puts 30% more air into the system, where the 5ccm model puts 600% more air. And where there's more air, there's more pressure, and where there's more pressure, the darts will accelerate faster.

So presuming the goal of trying to maximize acceleration, it makes greater sense to place the dart as close to the compression chamber as possible. This minimizes the initial volume, thereby maximizing the pressure difference upon compression and maximizing acceleration. By the same token, it also makes sense that when constructing Stefan darts, a hole should not be burned into the bottom unless it is absolutely necessary. This is because that hole increases the initial volume of the system when it's primed, thereby reducing the pressure difference on firing.

Conclusion
The goal of power modification should be to maximize the acceleration of the darts through the manipulation of the fluid dynamics in the system of the gun. This can be best accomplished by: (1) limiting the barrel--from the bottom of the dart to the end--to match the volume of the compression chamber (a good length for most guns is usually just a little bit longer than the compression chamber), (2) placing the dart's initial spot as close to the end of the compression chamber as possible, and (3) if you're using Stefan darts, to not burn a hole/dent in the bottom of them.

Please also note that this is from a purely theoretical standpoint. As I believe I've said, I have yet to perform a barrel mod to my guns, namely due to a lack of time and resources. I also want to acknowledge that this assumes ideal circumstances, namely an airtight system, which is very rarely the case. It also needs to be said that this does nothing for the accuracy of the gun, which a longer barrel may correct, even if it is at the cost of firepower. I don't expect anyone's guns to be perfect on account of this, but it should help people come close (the closest I've seen is the Fast Action Rifle by Boltsniper, because it exhibits all of these principles).

*bows*

I may be a bit late on the reply, but honestly the Tommy 20 probably isn't going to be the best gun for your buck. For one, and this is just personal opinion, I don't like the enclosed barrels like that: they just take too long to reload. For two, it's battery operated, which means that you're going to be pouring money into batteries in the long run, which is just a bad investment. It's also my experience that electronics tend to be harder to modify, and that they also tend to die faster. For three, there's a new gun by Nerf, the N-Strike Rapid Fire Blaster CS-20.

Link

Target has it listed at $25.99, which is only $4.50 more expensive than the Tommy 20. The gun also appears to be more accurate, and while it probably has even less modding potential, from what I've seen, you won't need to do any modifications to it. And here's the kicker: it doesn't need batteries, and will clear all 20 shots faster than any other gun I've seen (easily beat out the Vulcan, though I don't know what the benchmark is).

EDIT: looks like everything I've said has already been said. x_x