I like this, quite a bit.

As for a name for the "Cosmetic Barrel Cover", I would call it a heatshield. Not that there's any heat to shield from, that's just it's "real-steel" counterpart. Barrel shroud could also work. I only suggest them because they sound WAY cooler.

Finally finished Sergei the Soviet Sledgehammer:
Longstrike forend with MP40 Handguard and integral light
OMW Modkit (Unleashed Stages I & II)
Raider Stock
Sweet-ass Paintjob

Glorious Star of Soviet Might:




Glorious Tools of the Laborers who rose against the bourgeoisie




Bask in the Soviet Glory!

The Orange Mod Works AT Mod Guide (free e-book) has instructions on how to brass breach the blaster as well

I'm guessing that you meant to make this post here in this thread, not the several-years-old thread bob linked, so I've moved it.

Yeah, thanks. Sorry for the hullabalu

Sorry. Didn't realize it had been discussed before. I just thought it would be handy to have a list attached to one of the previously-made document that was already intended to help new folks. Please, pardon my mistake.

So I've been lurking the site for a bit, and as far as I've found, there's no list of the commonly used acronyms. For most of the board, that's probably not a problem, and for a good portion of the acronyms, they aren't hard to figure out, but some are just beyond me.

And I'd rather not start a new thread every time I want to know what an acronym means, or even keep asking every time I see an unfamiliar combination of capital letters, so I'm suggesting that a list of acronyms and their meanings be compiled into a comprehensive list and either pinned somewhere (IE: General Nerf) or attached to an existing thread or document (IE: the new player's guide, or the new member's guide, respectively)

Just a thought. Not trying to tell anyone how to do their job.

Also, what the hell is an RSCB?

yeah, I just opened that up, probably as you were typing. The lower arm of the ejection lever was snapped off, to it didn't catch and release the shell-catches. Damn. Oh well, thanks for the help man.

The blaster is entirely unopened. It came stock with this issue. The two catches that hold the shells in place don't release when the blaster's breech is open.

All right, I've searched left and right, and I can't find answers elsewhere, so here goes:

I've got an Over-Under Double Shot that won't eject the shells. Any solutions out there? Is this a common issue?

I think there is something to the idea of having printed lower and upper receivers. You don't even need to print them as functional blasters. you can just print shells that join in the middle via pins (like an AR15). The lower could just be a trigger and or a stock, and the upper can just be a plunger tube and a catch. How they are customized could be left up to the end user. You can make uppers with plunger tubes just large enough for pistol rounds, or ones large enough to be considered primaries. I guess the advantage to the system would be you have a dedicated lower with features you are already used to, with interchangeable uppers you can use to adjust to different scenarios. That way you are used to the ergonomics of the blaster regardless of the round. This should help with your aim. But I guess this doesn't matter too much since we are dealing with nerf darts here.

It'd still be pretty groovy if you can swap out internals that accept Stefans for internals designed for stock darts, given that some places don't allow anything but stock darts...and that way you don't need to have a slew of different blasters...

Hell, if we want to get all sciency I'll bring psychoacoustics into it, and back up Beavers statements as well. That's one of the main aims of a suppressor. Not just to make it hush-hush movie-style quiet. You want to change the profile of the sound as much as you want to dampen it. Folks can't tell quite where you are although they know you are close. They tend to back up. It's not for standing behind a tree or something like that. Along with silencing the internals (springers and air sometimes) your shots blend in with background noise better.

Beaver mentions string stops and I will bring up: carefully laid out draw extensions, self stick linoleum floor tiles as damping material, gel(silicone?) shoe insert material incorporated into the plunger padding, elastic sports wrap around the outside, neoprene and foam wraps, and quickcrete around the plunger tube (as bedding material, think tinfoil for method) as mechanical methods of dealing with sound.

One method I have tried for gel & or rubber plunger padding is to sew & glue a slice between 2 layers of craft foam and cut it down with a stanley knife to shape. It helps to thin down the craft foam & or the plunger itself (when possible) to keep the thickness down. Craft foam compresses too much anyway. I have tried using a smaller disc of rubber cell phone cover material in the center of many setups to create a more conical shape. I haven't been able to get rubber or silicone stuff to glue up well, hence the odd methods.

I realized that I do have a way to test for perceived sound reduction. I'll place my phone with a dbmeter out a distance, up off the ground and test, outdoors. I have dbmeter pro but if someone can suggest a better app I'll try to use that. I do have a janky video camera I could use. If you have some suggestions on blasters to try you can pm me. I don't have a metric ton of stuff though.

I'm well aware of how suppressors work.

The misunderstanding was when I thought we were talking about stock springers, which doesn't make one goddamn lick of sense.

I feel we, the general public, should be able to make our own bill, The SOPA Act: Shit On Political Assholes.

Well, we can. Anyone can write a bill. You just need to get a congressional member to present it.

Good luck!

I haven't tried this particular design, but I did have the opportunity to play around with one at the last Apoc. I am a little confused about this design: are the vents actually part of the barrel, or is the suppressor portion wider than the barrel?


"Because I could" or "Because it's cool as fuck" are part of the reason, but silencing your guns actually helps more than you might think. That audible pop when a blaster fires tells people I am shooting at you, which gives them extra time to react. I can't tell you how many times I've pegged someone with a blowgun simply because they didn't realize I was shooting at them.


Suppressors will work best on airguns, but they can be effective on spring-powered blasters. You just need to work on silencing the main body of the blaster (e.g, stuffing it with FBR), since a lot of the noise comes from the plunger head hitting the front of the plunger tube. On a side note: PACs work very well with suppressors, since the strings stop the plunger head short of impacting the coupler.

I think you misunderstood why I asked that question. I asked because, as far as I've ever been able to tell, they heard you firing because your internals were loud, not the darts exiting the barrel. I just don't see how enough air will be leaving the barrel while pushing that dart to make a suppressor a necessity (or even effective) on a spring-operated blaster. I'll have to agree with Zorn, I would want to see the data for spring-powered blasters.

This is...interesting. First off, you're correct on the legality of it, but not only because it's removable. It's not intended to suppress a real firearm, and would not do so effectively, which is what maintains its legality. If it were capable of suppressing a real firearm, then detachability would not save you.

Now, for a couple of questions:

I'm assuming this only works with tank-powered blasters, not spring-powered. I make this assumption because the darts make no discernable sound leaving the barrels of my blasters (I avoid tank-powered like the plague). The noise is, obviously, produced by the internals themselves.

So, TL:DR, this only works with tank-powered blasters, correct? Also, is that even a tank-powered blaster? I probably sound like an idiot if it's not, because it doesn't look like you pump it up. EDIT: Now I definitely feel like an idiot, because the crossbows, or crossbow-based blasters y'all make, aren't pumped. So I'm stumped.

And two, why do you need a suppressor for any dart blasters that are safe to fire at others? If the answer is "Because I could" or "Because it's cool as fuck", then please, take no offense to this question. I'm just curious if it provides any actual benefit.

By the way, this is cool as fuck.

... A .22 round can most definitively be lethal. Anything propelled by gunpowder or any sort of explosive can be. Think of what some of the high power nerf blasters do, especially if you have ever seen the head of a stephan fail. Then multiply that power by a lot.

EDIT: If you look on the side of most ammunition, the lethal range is labeled on it. The .22 LR I have at home is labeled at just over one mile for lethal range.

AMEN BROTHA! HEAR WHAT HE HAS TO SAY!

But seriously, he's right. .22s are small-caliber weapons, but they're still lethal, and they're not "toy" guns.

Still, this is the Off-Topic, and I'm sure this board is populated by plenty of engineers, or engineering-minded people. Considering we're discussing (or supposed to be discussing) the design of the rifle, and not it's legitimacy on NERF Haven, I don't see how it's a problem.

Haha, making it semi auto would be so much more complicated, and the chance of the bullet exploding in your face is much and much higher!
it is bolt action, but the bolt would be connected to the part in front of the spring.
Zumatrix

Eh, semi-auto's not that bad, but I can see what you mean.

It's honestly easier to make a homemade weapon full auto than it is to make one semi-auto.

.22 LR is the most common, by a great margin.

Z64052187,
.22 Caliber LR is the most common rimfire (if I know what I'm talking about), so most likely .22 Long Rifle.

I'm well aware of how common it is, I know more about real firearms than I do about NERF blasters, to be honest. I asked because I'd prefer .22 mag in a hunting rifle as opposed to .22 LR. I was just curious what style of .22 it would use.

Hell, you could probably tweak the system to make it take .223

I can't see a bolt handle, I'm assuming it's semi-automatic? Correct me if I'm wrong.

I think it looks good. Simple, and simple is reliable. Would you be able to adapt the design for larger calibers, or are you looking strictly at .22?

And are we talking .22 Long Rifle, .22 Magnum, what?

As an addendum to that, you can always design the part to be a clam-shell case, and also have a pin to remove any particular part that may need replacing. Neither has to be exclusive.

You make a good point, I concede.

Though I will be working on designs that aren't clamshell because I like them.

You could certainly do this. The design does become somewhat more complicated due to the increase in support material it would require, though.

I've even seen an AR-15 lower 3d Printed by a few different people (though not with a low cost printer, yet)

I really don't think it would be necessary for springers though, as you can just add material to the critical clam-shell parts to reinforce any weak points (and add more screws if necessary)

Not necessary, perhaps, but I feel it could be beneficial if a part breaks to pop it open, swap the part out, close it up and reinsert the pin.

Also, I have a couple of ideas that a clamshell wouldn't be as good for, but those are just concepts at the moment. Hopefully a write-up on them, if they succeed, but until then...

And thanks, for clearing that up. I'm a little new to a lot of things.

Forgive my ignorance of 3d printers...but would it be possible to make a design that wasn't a clamshell design? It would increase what the blaster can handle (without separating at the seams), and, if designed right, could provide easier access to the internals (think M16/AR15 pin system/upper and lower receivers).

Again, pardon any ignorance I have on this topic, just trying to help.

Recon with Longstrike forend, PVC "tightbore", lighted handguard (incomplete), AR removal, and paintjob (also incomplete)