- → ambushbug's Content
There have been 100 items by ambushbug (Search limited from 24-November 93)
Buzz Bee RFR (2x)
Lanard Max Shot (modded with removable barrels - a single shot and a turret made from an Ertl rapid fire blowgun)
Wookiee Bowcaster (modded)
Lanard Speed Loader
Ertl FS 1010 Rifle
plus, I managed to kill a Buzz Bee Air Bazooka and a Tek 6
I say go for it, though from the sound of it you're already planning a war. Shit, just think of the possibilities: in addition to snow fortresses, you might be able to incorporate vehicles (e.g. toboggans, GT snow racers, tire tubes) into the war - depending on the terrain. Like the ultimate snowball fight. Hmmmm......you got me thinking this could be something REALLY good.
I don't think age has anything to do with it. I'm a 30 year old, married, PhD student with a social life who enjoys (and just discovered) nerf. And I'm not sure but I don't really recall many Nerf guns being around when I was 15. Maybe the bow n arrow.....
So Speedloaders are at:
And that 12 shot shotgun outdoors gun thingy is at:
-Bass Pro Shops
-Any hunting store
I think i'll just go to Fred Meyers down in the states.
I got my speedloader from Wal Mart (Toronto area) - though personally, I don't think its too spectacular. With air restrictors (only) removed, I don't think it gets more than 30 feet.
We also play with all thed lights off so it wouldnt be visible.
but presumably the monitor would be. Unless you managed to hook up a USB extension cable long enough to control the launcher (and a camera) from a different room.
Doesn't sound that useful but it sure looks like fun.
seems like this would be very difficult to do. Anybody who's been fishing knows that without some decent resistance (usually weight), the line tends to tangle up in the reel or upon leaving it during casting. I imagine your average dart wouldn't be heavy enough to peel line out in a consistent way or without feeling the drag of the monofilament behind it. A heavy dart probably would but then range would suck majorly.
Slowing down the dart won't be a problem unless your string and reel are tight and slow. But if it's pretty loose then there won't be a difference in range.
And who wants to wait for their dart to be reeled in while the enemy is peppering you with foam?
In any case, I'm only speculating but I remain to be convinced. Try it and show us some video.
I hear ya. I'm 30 years old and can frequently be found in the toy aisles of any department store or scouring the TRUs in my area. I'm always amused and a little embarrassed whenever I'm at the check out counter and they ask me if I need a gift receipt...
...and they most certainly didn't give me anything free, other than some odd looks. I guess that's the price to pay when you buy toy guns at my age, huh?
I've seen a few PVC/CPVC turrets based on a similar idea but yours looks cleaner than most. Well done.
Y'know, this mod really makes me think about what can be done with the RFR, Mustang 6, and Clip Tek. If you can remove the Buzzbee shells from the Doubleshot, is it possible to remove them from the other Buzzbee blasters out there? The Mustang 6 would probably end up being better than the Maverick, and the Clip Tek would be awsome. We could probably squeeze 70' of so out of the RFR, and it would all be shell-less! Awsome job, I agree, best Double Shot mod I've seen.
I can't comment on the other blasters but I doubt that breech/CPVCing the RFR would make any improvements - the problem is the tiny plunger - there's no cure for that. In fact, I'm not sure that the ranges would differ from the cpvc shell mod and there would definitely be a loss in terms of RoF
as looking like a ghetto-version of the N-strike Unity and I'm inclined to agree.
If you buy it and find otherwise, let me know.
My friend has these, and they can shoot, without modification, taggers and stephans. Hell, you can even shoot a AA battery out of it. It's basically a slingshot (NOT a nerf slingshot) with a trigger. It flings the ammo with about the same force as a well modded Nitefinder. They are pretty cool, but my friend never showed me how well the original tag-balls work. I think that he said they can go 50 ft flat.
That's all well and good, but what is the accuracy? There's no point in slinging something for 60+ feet if it won't hit its target.
whether its slingshots or NERF, we all know its often the ammo - not the launcher - that determines accuracy.
In any case, if the ammo is indeed less than ideal, a trigger-style slingshot that can launch crappy ammo 50 feet might have some mod potential for shooting nerf darts/stefans.
It appears to be another "safer", low tech and less messy version of paintball. Judging from the descriptions on the website, the ammo are 19mm (~ 3/4") puffballs that stick to hook/loop velcro targets (on the body or otherwise).
The 'blaster' is powered by surgical tubing (slingshot-esque) and is similar in principal to some homemades I've seen on this site.
Anyone had any experience with it? I'm intrigued about the possibility of modifying the blaster (e.g. add a plunger) to shoot darts/stefans and/or use the ammo for Nerf blasters (e.g. obviously with larger ID barrels than typically used). I'm a little skeptical of whether the ammo would have the correct weight or be able to provide a good airseal but its hard to say just from looking. The prospect of spherical but soft ammo is something that I find appealing (for gravity-fed hoppers/clips) and, if I recall, was also the impetus for a post by Tidge a long time ago. I never did hear whether or not he got a chance to try any of the ideas out.
It looks to me as if these have no purpose. For $7, I can get a Nite Finder and hit 70+ feet. For $15, I can get a Max Shot and hit 130+ feet. For $30, I can get a Longshot and hit 100+ feet with an awesome rate of fire. These are all cheaper options than a $42 "Tagball" gun that only hits 70 feet. They are all better options. Therefore, Tagball guns are not a reasonable option for the average Nerfer, and will not appear in many arsenals.
I agree that the price tag (if that is indeed the price) is steep but my interest isn't in 'bang for the buck' - its the adventure/risk of modding something new (i.e. different from the status quo). Personally, I could give a rat's ass about all the blasters people get boners over once they come out (e.g. the Maverick, the Longshot, Spidey/Venom dart tag set) because everyone and their grandma is working on modding it. I'm glad people are shelling out $$ and investing time/creativity in modding them but I don't want to bother with them (most of the time).
I'm really more interested in the ammo than the blaster but how people should spend their money is only of concern to the spender. If I recall, people said the ERTL pump shotgun was overpriced but I know of a few people who'd swear by them (myself included). Anyway, this thread wasn't intended as a "what is your opinion on this blaster" thread. It was (as indicated in the subheader) more of an "can anyone tell me anything about this" thread.
I'm not the "average nerfer", nor is my arsenal.
I think there might be some confusion here. Many have described shotgun 'rounds' as requested in Dark's original message. But I believe Talio was responding to Dark's message header asking about "shotgun SHELLS". I guess Ompa's description of the spare barrels method is the closest thing but I have no expertise in this area.I thought it was just common knowledge in the community. I used to use them in short-range urban wars with any of my blasters using 1/2" adapters. It pretty much halves the range, but for a five-shot spread that ricochets to fill an alleyway, it's worth it.
Stefan Shotgun shells are merely theoretical, no one has ever done it and if they have, it didn't work well enough or was too complicated to be accepted by the community.
Toss in more weight to each Stefan bit for more range... Keep in mind you won't find most of your shotgun darts afterwards, so I'd recommend not dedicating weights to their manufacture.
Couldn't the orange Buzz Bee shotgun-esque shells be modded to fire "shot"? Though both the Double Shot and RFR have pretty poor air volume, so its effectiveness may be limited.
He (?) was nice enough to give a vague description when I PMed him but there was never a write-up.
Anyway, thanks for the write-up, I'm gonna try the brass. Something's also gotta be done about the pump/cocking handle. I find it terribly uncomfortable.
By fluke, I stumbled upon two AT2Ks at Wal Mart in Toronto (in a clearance aisle - returns?)- sorry, both tanks are integrated into active guns. But if I recall correctly, the airtank in the BLUE SM3k is the same/similar as my AT2Ks. Again, I'm not sure whether you already have/can find an SM3k (I got mine at a thrift shop). Or even if you'd be willing to sacrifice a 3k.
Problem being I live in Canada. No AT2K's here.
judging from the video and the pics, I believe the forward motion (just prior to re-cocking the spring) slides that thin purple "guide rod" forward, forcing air through the vinyl tubing, pushing all the darts in the clip down. As a result the dart closes to the front/bottom gets loaded into the barrel and... fire!
But, can you explain the clip system? Thanks!
Nice mod - I never would have thought of that. I may try this out - though my 3B has already used that space (the sliding rod) to create a breech/bolt system similar to the "4B" (inspired by Piss Bacon's and Lukeinator's mods). I may have to pick up another one.
A few questions:
1) how did you figure out how much vinyl tubing (air volume) was required to advance one dart?
2) how does the Y-junction between the clip and barrel work so smoothly? Is the barrel the same diameter as the clip?
3) what are the ranges like? Suffer at all compared to the clip-less? Presumably, this would still let you use long barrels, right?
Not to be a science geek but I just had a question regarding how you calculated the "power" of the blaster. You reported a number in Joules (a measure of work). If I recall, one equation for measuring this is:
The power or the joules is around 1.6 joules, yes I did some math.
work = force (in Newtons) x distance (in metres)
How did you calculate force (if this is the equation you used)? Cause if there's an easy way, this might be a cool metric to use when reporting ranges for my mods (I live in the city, where I don't have the required distance for outdoor range testing).
edit: it occurred to me that force = mass x acceleration. Mass can be measured with a pretty high precision electronic balance but I imagine acceleration must be even trickier to measure.
I thought of the vertical motion of the lever and thought that a bolt attached would only swing down one inch, not enough to interfere with anything in the idea. I might buy a rfr and see if I can no shell mod...no I wouldn't I'd buy a good gun instead like two nitefinders instead...or a maverick and a spring...
I'm not sure what SHA means by "lateral motion" (lateral, at least in anatomical terms, typically refers to motion away from the middle line that runs lengthwise, front to back) though I think he's getting at the fact that, basically the 'nub' of the lever still moves in an arc, requiring one to engineer something a little fancier to pull off Lynx's idea (try it, you'll see). More importantly, however, a one-inch nub for a lever (as in Lynx's idea) doesn't provide much "leverage" at all (it's like sawing off one end of a teeter-totter) - leverage is proportional to the distance between the point of force and the fulcrum). I suspect that it would be too short to work. I think the direction connection to the bolt is more feasible but, hey, its always better to actually try than to speculate (that goes for all of us; MOD FIRST, POST CONCEPTS SECOND!)
If you have a rfr please try something like this so this speculation ends...The rod through the lever could be further down, but the leverage would work...The faux barrel would work as a nice track for the pump and umm...yeah...
-sigh- as you speculate some more... You seem awfully sure that one could muster enough leverage with your design. But that's just an assertion until you can actually prove it (or at least have a rational explanation based on facts).
The side view's left right motion is the lateral motion...
Incorrect. The whole point of terms like "lateral", "medial", "longitudinal" etc. is that it DOES NOT depend on the angle from which one views and oject. If it did, then coining such terms would be absolutely pointless (i.e. one could always just refer to 'left' and 'right' etc.).
Back on topic: it would be cool to see a pump-action RFR from an aesthetic standpoint. Unfortunately it won't really change the ROF by much and it doesn't address the biggest problemwith the RFR - its shit range.
Oh yeah I forgot the Duct Tape Strap idea.
And where do I reinforce in the RFR? I have no idea where the "plunger, catch" is. Please give me a tutorial preferably with pictures. Where do I get sheel metal? I know I can get epoxy in lowes, but do they offer sheet metal in lowes too? I can't do it right now, because I am out of town...
You guys got any good ideas for the ammo holster? I plan on getting either extra clips + shells + darts and just shells + darts.
My friend, the best thing to do is to open things up yourself and see how things work - then you should be able to figure out what people are referring to when they refer to a "catch".
There are already some pics of the guts of this blaster. Look at the orange thing at the right of the 2nd last pic.
That's the part that 'catches' the plunger when you cock it.
That said, I haven't ever had an RFR (I have 3) break on me, though admittedly, I don't use them much anymore.
In terms of straps/ammo holders, the duct tape method is okay but looks pretty ghetto. Go steal the shoulder strap of your sister's gym bag and clip it onto the some zipties installed somewhere at the rear and front of the blaster. Again, you can experiment to see which positions you like best. If you're creative, you should easily be able to turn your strap into an ammo holder/bandolier.
Of course a laser pointer isn't all that useful unless you play in the dark but you're right, it is cool. Not to mention, I have used it for intimidation purposes. For example, some of my friends had to think twice before sticking their head/arm out of a hiding place when my laser said "I see you".
Range AND high ammo load - I never guessed it could get better than the FS 1010 (pump ballgun).
Hopefully this will be available in my area.
If anyone manages to get some internal pics up, that would be great!
It would be nice to take the time to actually type out what gun you're talking about. If you're going to ask a question, at least be precise.
I didn't know the Nintendo DS had air restrictors.
I agree, one should type out (explicitly) the blaster in question somewhere in the text or header. I thought he was referring to the Disk Shot.
When I load my Pump Shotgun the seal is so good that when I pump it the dart gets sucked back into the plunger tube. I thought about putting somehting in the way to stop it, but when I tried it just got stuck and the pressure was so great I couldn't finish cocking it. Any help would be awsome.
the same happens with mine - though that's a small price to pay for a good airseal (muzzle loading is alot easier than the removable barrel method). As you probably figured out, even if you can only half-cock the blaster, if you release the pump handle quickly, the half-cocked spring spits the dart back out.
If your dart/barrel fit is pretty tight (e.g. the dart doesn't slide all the way down due to gravity alone), then maybe a slightly longer barrel will make it easier to cock (more air volume required to suck the dart towards the plunger - though this might also mean alot of friction on the way out). I personally prefer a slightly looser dart/barrel fit (e.g. 9/16 brass works for my darts) and using plumber's goop, I jam up the back end (the one closest to the plunger) with about 2" of 17/32 brass and 0.5" of 16/32" PETG nested in that to keep darts from being sucked into the plunger. The setup makes it effectively a nested brass barrel - if you get it right, about 1.5" of the dart should lodge in the 17/32" brass section, maximizing air pressure and, thus, the force/velocity of the shot.
It is like Forsaken Angels mod but with a clip. Nice mod, I think I may get one of these but there are no bass pro shops around. How much are they?
Actually, I think there's a little more nuance to it than merely adding a clip. The clip is the easy part - its getting the breech to work simultaneously with the pump that was the point of this mod (that may not have been apparent in the pics or the crappy video). If this is unclear, let me know and I'll try to get some better video.
And I apologize for not including some links in the writeup - I originally intended to "edit" and add links for a bunch of previous mods I referenced:
- my old write up of the Ertl FS-1010 internals
- the original Bacon Bow mod that inspired this
- Forsaken Angel's plunger modifications
- the assemby of my own peculiar clip (originally designed for my version of the Bacon Bow)
however, I had difficulties in getting the edits accepted (the write up was in two separate messages at first but the editor function seemed to consolidate the two, putting the 'edited' version over the image limit). Long story short, sorry for this double-post but it has neccesary reference information.
six-five-two: the darts in the videos/pics are my own custom ammo made from Buzz Bee stock darts. They're cut down to 1.5" and tipped with a small "puck" of (pre-cut, cold) hotglue and a craft bead, sealed with (melted) hotglue. They're experimental ammo right now (I call 'em 'Cyclops' darts - b/c to me, the tip looks like a single eye). Better darts than my other stefans (but I AM terrible at making regular stefans).
General Cole: the 'travel' on the breech (assuming I understand correctly) is a little under 3" (7.2 cm).
Ambush bug you son of a bitch.
I was talking about doing something like this a while back but got distracted with other guns, life, women, work.
I like your mod functionally but I think it is a little hideous.
Now I am inspired to make yet another pumpshotgun mod with clip. Damn you for making me do this.
When I am done with my 3 current projects I will start on it. The LS will have to wait.
Yeah, it could be more fancy (i.e. the thing was made from alot of scrap material in about three hours - but is structurally sound considering I work without a dremel or epoxy) but I had to get the little bugger done ASAP. Not for use or anything, I'm just obsessive compulsive when I'm curious to try something out. So, for the sake of concentrating on writing up my goddamn thesis, salvaging my career (and maybe my marriage) I'm okay with the gun looking like ass....
Glad to be spreading the disease of distraction..... and as always, I look forward to seeing what unholy device you can conjure up.
off-brand ball gun (aka the ERTL FS-1010 Pump Shotgun) I bought at a local Bass Pro shop. Given the internals, I was pretty optimistic of its potential. I brassed it and was pretty happy with its performance singled
Its got great range (think Max Shot) and its airseal is so tight that darts can be muzzle loaded in the 8" brass barrel (9/16") and get sucked the rear of the barrel when cocked. This makes for a good RoF with no breeching necessary.
(NOTE* for any mod using a 9/16" barrel, be sure to jam some PETG or brass of smaller inner diameter in the back of the barrel to prevent darts from getting sucked right into the plunger.)
But I had been thinking of ways to turn this thing into an even more formidable weapon in terms of ammo load and RoF. I was trying to think of a way to clip-mod this in a way similar to my version of Piss Bacon's BBB mod (aka the Bacon Bow). Of course the problem was that the shotgun, like most Nerf blasters, lacked the BBB's unique cocking mechanism that allows the barrel/breech system to fire darts at a position closest to the plunger. I ended up buying another ERTL shotgun recently and went to work.
Well, my solution was to split the handle of the existing shotgun pump into two sections (front and rear). The front handle still functions to cock the plunger but the rear can now move independently to work a breech, sliding the brass (9/16") barrel backwards over the dart. Not sure what to call this type of mechanism - kinda like pump and bolt action at the same time.
I'll do my best to explain what I did but I'm afraid I didn't have a camera available during some of the crucial early steps. Hopefully though, the pics will give you an idea and you can fill in the blanks. I don't talk about replacing the existing barrel and installing the new barrel/breech as Forsaken Angel already provided a good write up for the the former and the latter was performed by a procedure that I used when making my Bacon Bow.
The "arm" used to link the rear handle to the barrel/breech consisted of some spare black plastic tubing (just lying around) and a broken aluminum tent stake
The blunt end of the stake was jammed very tightly into some PETG do facilitate gluing to the inside of the rear handle. The pointy tip of the tent stake was eventually jammed into the hollow black plastic tube and secured with some e-tape and a tightened hose clamp.
The handles were hacked from the original pump - here are the handles after the cutting was already done
Note the position of the tent stake.
To accomodate the backwards sliding (closed breech) arm (with hose clamp), I had to hack/sand out some space in the bottom of the front handle
To install the stake, I screwed the rear handle back together and once I got everything in position, I used some krazy glue to attach it and a pile of hotglue around it to support the stake. But be careful not to add too much glue - there still need to be space to accommodate a screw when the rear handle is slid forward (open breech)
. The black plastic arm extension connected to the 9/16"barrel via a series of hose clamps and a CT clamp
The new breech (19/32" brass) was mounted to the plunger with some e-tape and a piece of PVC coupler (gray thing).
more in a sec (image limits).....
I was afraid the connection was weak so I took some old (green) plastic tubing and cut out a ring to add support to the junction between the PVC coupler and the (brown) plunger tube
Then I wrapped the ring in black e-tape
To allow it to accommodate my clips, I added a clip guide cut from some scrap transparent orange PETG
I glued it to the the PVC coupler opposite from the breech opening
I also secured this connection with a (white) ziptie
My clip slides into position and is held by the guide. Since the clip is spring fed, I keep it in a semi-sideways position
But since the breech can still be rotated, the clip can also be mounted vertically (above) - so, in theory, it can also accommodate gravity-fed clips
I'm very happy with the result. I just need to make more clips or ones of greater capacity. I am currently working on a 25-round drum-magazine. I'll write it up if it works. If it does, I might not want to buy that Longshot anymore.
Sorry - no official ranges (I live in a tiny apartment in the downtown core). And I didn't bother to do anything with the plunger/internals (Forsaken Angel posted a clever way of maximizing the air delivery) as when I war (seldom), it is usually indoors where anything beyond 60 feet is a bit of overkill - but this thing is STILL a welt-bringer!
In case you don't get how it works here's some (crappy) video of:
the pump/breech mechanism
installing the clip and firing (that carboard target/trap is point blank)
single breech-loading (e.g. if I'm out of clips)
I hope you found this stimulating! Comments?
In response to the comment by Banshee saying that he/she likes integrating blasters that are complementary - I agree - that's why I use the sm750 as for a 'shotgun' effect (I load multiple darts in the barrel) and I'm sure you've thought of this too.
anyway - good job.
I am on crack... it occurred to me that of course I didn't do a pump relocation because the SM750's pump and tank are one piece... unlike the 2k that is described here. Anyway, the comment regarding the ring/trigger still applies...
this is what the original looked like:
it has a 5 shot manual turret for megas.
I chopped down the petg chambers to accommodate some buzz bee shells.
I removed the pegs and drilled larger holes in the back of each of the orange shells.
Some electrical tape and hotglue connected the existing PETG, shells and circular turret disc.
I had cut down the front portion of the turret frame a bit because the new chambers (for micros) are shorter than the original (for megas). The central axle (around which the turret rotates) was cut down a bit too - the tip is the screw-in point for the back half.
Here's the back half of the turret frame. Notice I added a custom cut piece of foam sheet (the black stuff) in an attempt to make a tighter seal. I also added some lubricant directly on the foam sheet.
Assembled, it looks like this.
I mounted it as a removable rig (using cpvc coupler) on my max shot.
I have to admit its range isn't as good as single barreled (with buzz bee shell barrel) - only about 35 feet (stock micros). Furthermore, even though the turret has built in notches to align the chamber with the barrel/plunger, proper alignment (on the modded version) isn't as obvious (doesn't click) as in let's say an AT2k so the RoF doesn't really increase substantially from muzzle-loading the single barrel. So why didn't I just use the turret At2k or my Lanard Speed Loader? I don't really know but I'd like to think this was a semi-successful venture. In any case, the turret was originally built for megas and I think their large gauge means it would be pretty easy to nest your own chamber materials inside (e.g. brass/pvc etc.) to allow it to shoot micros without even doing any cutting to the turret - just use e-tape.
quoting Precision Nerfer:
Um, I would say "schmoe" is a liar... really man, no one is that bad."
- you missed the point - this (as I said) is an example using fake data. There are many plausibile reasons 'Joe' and 'Schmoe' could get different results (e.g. if each uses a slightly different standard or if fired under different ambient temperature) without having to invoke lying. Get outside, measure stuff. You'll see its an empircal truism that virtually everything exhibits alot of variation- figuring out 'why' is the trick.
But providing that both nerfers stick to their own standard while firing both the stock and the modded NF, useful (objective comparisons can be made).
quoting Precision Nerfer:
"Um, why should we mod then? Think about it. If we aren't doing it right now, then why even do a modification? "
- well, believe it or not, some people actually mod because they think it is fun and, as adjudged by them, it improves the quality of their nerfing experience. And they don't care about ranges in terms of somebody else's estimation.
quoting Precision Nerfer:
"It might get 30 feet less then what is said! "
quoting Precision Nerfer:
If we are not going to claim range, what's to tell a good mod from a great one?"
-this is exactly my point; you can't tell a good one if everyone measures things differently
quoting Precision Nerfer:
":Estimation from the mods done?"
- that would be a start. I don't know how other people measure things but I know what my NF or Max Shot perform like. A comparison to those mean more to me than distances. But like I said, not every one does the same mods but EVERYONE has fired their blasters stock (or have access to stock blasters).
quoting Precision Nerfer:
"We have to give at least a general range claim or else we just WON'T bother making a mod write up...."
- you might think so but I disagree. I've learned alot over the years on this site and it had nothing to do with ranges. Everyone who mods probably knows that writeups are always useful (ad that has nothing to do with posted ranges) and, similarly, many have learned that is is also best to trust your own instinct and know-how when it comes to deciding on what mods to do.
quoting Precision Nerfer:
"it would be meaningless without ranges."
- I think that is a pretty short-sighted view of modding/nerfing. I think posting the ranges as people have is the thing that is meaningless.
people on the NIC get into verbal wars about shit like ranges. If you don't believe it, fine - disscout the person who you think is lying or
In reply to Badger:
I'm not sure why you seem to take offense to my comments but you are, of course entitled to a rebuttal (and of course, I will doe the same).
"Hey Ambushbug, I think you took this topic the wrong way. I am not trying to "standardize" how one would test the ranges of a modified blaster, rather, I was simply giving my evaluation of his mod so as to dismiss all of the constant
flaming that was occuring every time PN talked about it."
- I suppose you're right - your main point was not standardization. So I guess I misunderstood. However, you seem to have also misunderstood my point. My point was not to 'attack' your approach to reviewing a blaster to evaluate PN's claims. As I said, it is valuable. I am really getting at the issue of "range testing" in standardized way and, while my comment may have been a bit tangental, it is just a general reaction to the issue of 'proving' ranges.
"Now I am going to pick apart your assessment of why my testing was not done in a way to be easily duplicated, whereas it is easy to replicate my results and my testing styles if one is careful and watchful of what they do.
[quote]various darts were used[/quote]
Two, not various, darts were used. PN supplied the darts that he made for the gun, which were CDTS (they are not considered stock anymore as they have an altered tip). The stefans were also used to get a view of distances when the gun fires the most commonly used type of ammo for a modified gun."
- as I said in the original post, it is understandable that modded blasters/darts were used in the review of PN's NF, blaster and dart were designed for one another. But the method of evaluation doesn't allow someone (who doesn't have the same modded blaster stefans) to have any information independent of your review.
"[quote]performance depends on air temperature/pressure (as Badger alludes to)[/quote]
Where did I ever mention pressure? I also never mentioned air temperature, rather I was referring to ambient temperature. I have seen marked changes in performance in springers when they are subjected to long periods in both hot and cold climates. There was no eulding."
- I guess I misunderstood here too. I thought you were implicitly referring to factors (temperature/pressure etc.) that chemists and physicists (or engineers) have shown to influence all physical properties/measurement. Why would temperature & air pressure/density not be relevant to "ambient" condiitions? I though that was what you meant in the comment regarding Which is why you made the comment regarding playing "up in the mountains (well above 2000 feet) on a very hot and dry day" Surely alot of these factors probably have relatively small effects for processes at the velocities we are interested in but from the standpoint of making inferences, this is worth serious consideration.
"[quote]height/angle is not exactly controlled (e.g. "steadying with both hands" is hardly objective)[/quote]
I am 6'1" in height holding the gun at eye-level, so at a level of 5'7". As for the angle and your statement that the angle is not exactly controlled, once again, I am not developing a standard for testing, but the angle was controlled. Unlike over 90% of the nerfers, I do have a good understanding of how to stabilize a gun to prevent recoil. A real firearm has alot of recoil due to the bullet being propelled by a gunpowder charge so the recoil can't all be prevented, while a Nerf blaster that has been modified has such a small amount of recoil in comparison that it could be steadied with just a small amount of effort. I am trained to use both handguns, rifles, and automatics and I am an expert marksman with all three as per the standards of the USAF, so I think I know how to fire a Nerf blaster and steady it to eliminate the recoil as well as to keep it at a level trajectory."
- I'm sure you do know how to fire a real gun (I don't, nor do as you say "90% of nerfers"). So what? I'm a scientist by profession who gets paid to be objective (and teach university students to be objective). Still so what? One needs neither firearms training or a PhD to be able to say that a handheld setup is not very precise.
And of course a nerf blaster doesn't fire like a real gun does (who said it did?). But that has nothing to do with precision/repeatability.
"[quote]comparison to the modded max shot[/quote]
This comparison was done simply to verify that the measurements were correct and to show that the NF was not shooting 100 feet or better. It was not so much meant as a comparison. More of a guide. I used it as a simple test to see if it was possible for the gun to fire 100 feet or not. Once it didn't meet or surpass my MaxShot in the range tests, I proceeded with the individual measurements of the NF's performance. Just to let you know, my MaxShot simply has the AR sawed off, but the original front cone that the AR was attached to is still there. A piece of 21/32" brass was rammed onto the internal airflow stem that is found under the front cone. This acted as a coupler for my style of barrels. I then rammed (literally) the cone back into place, disabled the safety that is inside the gun, and screwed it back together. The spring is stock as is the rest of the gun. My barrels use the same PETG that PN used in his NF. Yes it is a different class of blaster as opposed to the NF, but it was only used as a ruler for what 100 feet looks like."
"I also didn't do a distance breakdown as the shots from both my MaxShot and his NF were in a consistent range with a simple +/- 3' range of error or miscalculation. No one can completely eliminate human error."
- of course human error cannot be eliminated (and here, the "error" is not necessarily of human origin, darts perform differently too), that's why there is a whole branch of stuy called statistics
"There is no need for a breakdown unless one shot flies much farther or shorter than the rest."
- not true, the variance (not just outliers or "one flying much farther than the rest") is important for making objective assessment of differences between two things (e.g. range of blasters). One can only tell whether one fires 'significantly' farther than another by knowing what's a big difference and a small difference (based on the standard deviation, i.e. determines what is a little and what is alot). That's what statistical tests do: they judge whether a difference is a little or alot based on an objective (i.e. data-based) criterion.
On another note, I never tried to measure distances at DCNO as it was an outdoors event, it had just recently stopped raining prior to the start of the war, and it was quite windy. Any ranges measured there would have been subjective, but when you are surrounded by at least 6 other experienced nerfers who, like yourself, have seen what a gun that can shoot 100 feet should look like, and the gun you just fired doesn't perform as such, it isn't subjective anymore as it is verified by multiple experienced modders and players.
- I know you didn't measure ranges at DCNO - nor should you have. You have better things to do, like NERF. Yes, its nice to have other people around to observe the results but it does not affect the subjectivity (unless they all indepedently tested/measured ranges). I never said you were a liar (which the only thing bystanders can guard against), I just said the range testing was not objective (e.g we all do it slightly differently and, thus, are expected to get slightly different results).
In closing, you picked apart my style of evaluating the NF without having any knowledge of what my personal background was, my experiences, or my knowledge base.
- I'm not judging your experiences or your background or your opinions. I can accept these at face value. I'm just pointing out that there is alot of subjectivity involved that provides a bystander (e.g. one who hasn't actually fired PN's NF) little data that he/she could actually use to compare with blasters he/she HAS fired (which is what I thought on of the purposes of sharing this information was). As your signature says, "you're brutally honest". Great - so am I. Reviews and statistics are separate things. Like reading a car review oniine: half is the opinion of the person who got to test drive it and others are actual facts/numbers (e.g. 0 to 60 mph in ...)
I personally don't give a fuck about ranges either. If my MaxShot can hit a person that is running away from me into the woods and tag him in the back of the neck, it is good. If it is accurate enough to fire through a split tree and an opening in a bush that is only about 2" in diameter and hit someone, it is good. Some people are genuinely honest about their ranges. I take each person's word on a case-by-case basis.
-no argument there
- Anyway, I don't want to hijack this thread - but feel free to argue with me further (via PM).
In principle, I like the fact that Badger is trying to 'standardize' ways to measure ranges but, despite his best intentions, the measurement is not done in a way that is easy to duplicate anyway.
The following problems make comparisons difficult:
- various darts were used
- performance depends on air temperature/pressure (as Badger alludes to)
- height/angle is not exactly controlled (e.g. "steadying with both hands" is hardly objective)
- not to mention that better summary statistics are required to make a fair assessment - its not just the 'average distance" but also the 'variance' in ranges that determines performance
- comparison to the modded max shot makes some sense in terms of allowing Badger to get a feel but that doesn't provide much objective information (e.g. Badger's mod is not identical to another person's mod). In actuality (this will sound counterintuitive at first) one should use an unmodded blaster and stock darts as a reference. For example, if Badger compared PN's NF ranges to a stock NF firing stock darts (so long as the testing for both blasters was done at the same temperature/height/angle), then this would provide a more objective comparison because, I anyone could make a similar comparison between their own mod and a stock NF/darts.
That is, if I knew my mod shot 15% (on average) further than a stock NF with stock darts (at any given temperature) but Badger's mod shot 20% further than a stock NF, then I'd know Badger's mod gets better ranges than mine. This would be true regardless of whether or not we test fired at different temperature/pressure etc. (even if my ABSOLUTE ranges were higher)
I'll illustrate with a fake dataset:
Assume two nerfers (Joe and Schmoe) live in very diferent climates. Joe lives in a place where it is hot and humid. Schmoe lives in a place that is cool and dry. Both agree to test their modded NFs against a stock NF, firing stock darts at the same height/angle.
AVERAGE = 59.6'
STANDARD DEVIATION = 4.56'
AVERAGE = 42.6'
STANDARD DEVIATION = 2.07'
AVERAGE = 78.2'
STANDARD DEVIATION = 8.41'
AVERAGE = 71.6'
STANDARD DEVIATION = 4.22'
so who's mod is better? I'd say that Joe's is better (despite having lower ABSOLUTE ranges - this is probably accounted for by the climate he lives/nerfs in). Joe's mod improved the range of a stock NF by 39.9% while Schmoe's mod improved the range of a stock NF by only 9.2%. Furthermore, the standard deviation of Joe's ranges (4.56') are about half of the ranges found by Schmoe (8.41'), suggesting that Joe's mod is also more consistent.
There are some simple statistical tests that could even be applied to such comparisons but I suspect that would be beyond the scope of the 'average' nerfer - but my only point is that there ARE ways to perform standardized tests of mods (not that I think anyone would ever implement this). I am also aware of the conundrum - who the hell would mod something to fire stock darts!!!
Again, my point is that if people want ways to compare the efficacy of their mods, there ARE ways! But if you won't do it right, then DON'T bother claiming ranges because they are pretty much meaningless (the way that people currently do it anyway). Besides, everyone who nerfs knows that the guy pulling the trigger is more important than the 'range' of the blaster. And anyone who mods, knows that a good mod is based on alot of things and the effectiveness of the mod is based on whether it achieves the desired SUBJECTIVE goal.
This is not to say that Badger's assessment is not a valuable 'review'. In fact, I think his comments regarding its efficacy in a war (DCNO), while subjective, is very informative. But it clearly does not provide a means for OBJECTIVE assessment things like ranges.
There is way too much talk of ranges on the NIC - sorry I just couldn't resist pointing out how ridiculous it is to see thread after thread (or flame after flame) about this shit ........
EDIT: 100th post !?!
Sounds like the turret is misaligned causing the airflow to be uneven (e.g stronger on the left/weaker on the right side of any given turret barrel). That's just a guess, though.
I'm wondering if that can apply to forums too. Sure, seeing countless repeats of pointless posts is annoying but (for a non-mod) member, it takes less time to read a stupid post than to reply to it. I'm sure most have started to figure out certain members who are less "productive" than others. I have. And, accordingly, I stop reading posts from these people. I guess I'm in agreement with Duxbarian; if we don't bother with stupid posts, then that's punishment enough. And the remedy is not in the hands of moderators but everyday members.
In terms of your AT2K + BBB example, there's a front handle on the BBB that's begging for a trigger.
I've also experimented with making darts from broken stock darts - probably most people have. I've got a few made using the hotglue/thumbtack method (adopted from somebody else's dart tips - was it Langley?). Although I wouldn't claim that these abruptly change direction as you suggest, I have noticed that they do carry alot farther than the original stock dart - but the accuracy is shit. I'm no physicist but my guess is that the modified darts are lighter (without the head), which contributes to slightly more distance (in lower-powered guns anyway)but the lack of weight also makes it more erratic in flight (more affected by air resistance/perturbations or imperfections in the dart). My NF has a bit of a recoil which tends to send shots a little high - I think this is effect becomes more apparent with these lighter darts.
Wow I just made a sorta stefan it is a stock dart with no head, hot glue, and a small metal tack in it. I put that in my nite finder (with about 15 small rubber bands) and actually pushed it in far (how does one push it in mor easily without using a ramrod?) It shot clear across my basement and actually started rising before it hit the oposite wall. I dont know why the darts it fires veer up after about 20 feet but they do. any advice?
But this is only conjecture.
In terms of advice, I'd say put a bit more weight on the tip and your darts will follow a straighter path (i.e. the momentum of the weighted tip will tend to overcome the other preturbing forces acting on the dart).
And you could make it so the NF fires before the SSPB, by making the wire longer. I do belive that would work.
No shit buddy - that's what everybody has been saying.....
Nice mod Nerfturtle! I might pick up a new NF and SSPB because of this. I did the old 'vertical' SSPB integration on an NF for someone else but I wasn't a big fan of the button either.