45 replies to this topic

[hereticorp]

I really got into playing around with this thing over the weekend and I think I've managed to make something that I would be willing to use in a war.

Thanks go to A Side of Nerf for the original designs, and to CS for his suggestions in the original L+L thread that got me thinking about various aspects of this blaster.

So without further adieu, I give you the L+L Rev 1.5.



I made a lot of small adjustments to this edition, I gave up on a couple ideas and I added a couple new things, I'm including a bunch of pictures here for anyone else who wants to make one of these.



The plunger rod, I made one adjustment to this after this picture, I added a second notch about 2" further up, the notch as seen here does not compress the +Bow spring 100% and it was hurting ranges.



The plunger head, blatantly stolen from the +Bow Rev. 1. 1/4" Polycarb on the front, 1/8" on the back with enough flex room so that the washer can fit nicely into the plunger tube.




I went through several iterations of the catch mechanism, basically the top one followed the original templates and the botton one is the one I ended up using.



This is the final version, and this isn't 100% perfect to my satisfaction, but it's close and it works.



All put together



The catch mechanism, I used a slightly stronger spring than in Rev 1 and the cone-shape to it makes it a little more stable in place.



The gun cocked.



L+L without hte barrel, you can see that the spring rests on the 1/8" polycarb plunger head. You can also see some of the protruding screw heads, these are a problem to be dealt with later.



Different angle, you can see how the plunger fits into the rest of the works.

Edited by hereticorp, 17 November 2008 - 02:12 PM.

[hereticorp]

Putting the barrel on was interesting, because it tended to flop a little. I put a screw through the top of the rear of the barrel to reinforce the stability of the barrel. It could have just as easily gone through the bottom, but I liked it on top.



One other thing to note is that I hammered the front piece out far enough so that the front barrel screw would just catch the back edge of the coupler piece. This allows for a longer throw distance on the plunger and a more secure fit of barrels into the coupler



Cocked to the second notch on the plunger rod.



The trigger is very solid, but I think that's ok, it won't accidentally go off if you're running that way.



I marked the second notch by pulling the plunger back to full extension and then using a sharpie to mark where to cut. It ended up being about 2" further forward.



This is the blaster with an 8" PETG barrel couplered on.



It looks pretty good this way, but I wasn't quite happy with it.



There are also some pokey bits that need to be sanded down for comfort's sake.



Especially the back corners of the barrel frame.



You can see here where I sanded down the corners so that they wouldn't stab me.

[hereticorp]

I also sanded down the rear part of the grip so that the 1/8" Polycarb was even with the 1/4" polycarb. The uneven surface was making it uncomfortable to hold



You can see here where the original hole for the coupler was and why I moved it forward the way I did, there's no way a barrel was going to stay nicely in that coupler with only that tiny amount of space there.



I also took a dremel cutting wheel to all the protruding screws on the gun, cutting them off and then grinding them down made the whole grip way more comfortable, and I may add some sort of shapeable foam to it so that you can't feel the screws at all, but for now it's quite comfortable.




For looks sake I also cut off the screw ends on the barrel attachment screws



This is where my thumb webbing rests so it needed sanding down badly, this is also the corner area that I mentioned earlier.





Some people asked in the previous thread about the plunger handle hitting my hand, you can see here that it clears my hand by a decent amount now that I chopped it off a little bit.



The gun was a little awkward to cock with the plunger handle as it was, so I hollowed out the handle a little more and then sanded it, it's very comfortable to cock now.





The completed L+L Rev 1.5, with a 12" brass breech barrel on it, I'm actually using this with the +Bow, but I'm going to be making an 8" version of it for the L+L so this is a good example of what it'll look like when I'm done.

Ranges (Tested with 8" PETG):
1st Notch: 55' average
2nd Notch: 80' average

The first notch may perform better with a 4-6" barrel, but I haven't done those tests yet.

Despite all the issues I had with this thing initially, I really like this little pistol now, it would make a grand addition to the +Bow or just a great sidearm to have for a war.

I'm looking forward to new editions of the templates and CAD drawings from CS or whoever else is working on them.

[Kid Flash]

If I ever get around to buying all the tools and materials for the +bow I will definitely make one of these as well.

[Soothsayer]

I still don't trust that cocking handle. Seems like making a rounding circle would be more efficient. I'm aware polycarbonate is the real deal, but I can really just see it being a cold day and that cocking handle snapping right off.

Other than that, I hope to see someone sell these soon, hopefully with varying cocking handles.

Nice work for sure.

[hereticorp]

Soothsayer, on Nov 17 2008, 04:35 PM, said:

I still don't trust that cocking handle. Seems like making a rounding circle would be more efficient. I'm aware polycarbonate is the real deal, but I can really just see it being a cold day and that cocking handle snapping right off.

Other than that, I hope to see someone sell these soon, hopefully with varying cocking handles.

Nice work for sure.

Heh, talk to CS about polycarb, it's not going to snap, period.

I'll be selling them and I can make them with nylon rod cocking handles as well as with the polycarb handles. I'll just have to devise some way of making sure the rod stays straight up and down while cocking. We'll see what I can come up with.

[hereticorp]

Just Some Bob, on Nov 17 2008, 06:51 PM, said:

No offense intended, but what do you do your cutting with?

I imagine if you could add a scroll saw, your stuff would bound from very impressive, all the way up to massively amazing.

Something cheaper to consider, since you've mentioned a Dremel, is to get a Dremel router attachment, and clamp that into a board to make it into a router table.

You really enjoy the negative don't you?

Anyway, all cuts except for the interior ones are done with a scroll saw.

I hate dicking around with undoing my scroll blade to do small internal cuts, so I use a dremel. I don't see that it makes a difference in performance.

The top two catch plates were too wide by the templates provided and so I had to trim them down, I used a dremel for that, and as I said in the post, they didn't turn out well. The bottom one is scroll cut on the outside.

But seriously, the internal cuts don't affect the performance of the gun, so I'm going to go with the less pain in the ass route. Just my take on things.

[Draconis]

While I do like the concept of the round rod, that 1/2" nylon is pretty heavy stuff. Honestly, I don't care for the mass it adds over the 1/4" PC rod. I like your improvements, though. I look forward to standardizing this design so we can get some consistent results!

[hereticorp]

Draconis, on Nov 17 2008, 08:14 PM, said:

While I do like the concept of the round rod, that 1/2" nylon is pretty heavy stuff. Honestly, I don't care for the mass it adds over the 1/4" PC rod. I like your improvements, though. I look forward to standardizing this design so we can get some consistent results!

The mass it adds? Seriously?

Nylon rod is light, it's heavier than a piece of polycarb sure, but it's not going to appreciably affect the weight of the gun, especially with a little 8" piece.

Besides, the gun is extremely comfortable at this point and I prefer some heft to the featherweight feel of most nerf pistols anyway. And on the plus side, a little more weight in the back will balance out the front barrel.

[VACC]

I don't want to be Debbie Downer here, but I still fail to see how this is, functionally, a pistol. The problem comes from the original design, really. The +bow does not fundamentally change the dimensions of a crossbow because most of the crossbow's barrel is sticking out the front of the gun anyway. On the other hand, the Barrel of a LNL is mostly housed inside the body of the gun. Putting a 12 (or 8) inch barrel on the front of the gun drastically alters the function of the gun. The role of a sidearm is to defend yourself when you cannot prime your primary. If you were to fire this gun in defense and miss, you would not be able to run and reload quickly. You would either have to find a teammate or surrender. What I'd be interested to see is if you could find a barrel settup that could be loaded quickly and easily on the run while retaining solid performance.

VACC

[hereticorp]

VACC, on Nov 18 2008, 09:10 AM, said:

I don't want to be Debbie Downer here, but I still fail to see how this is, functionally, a pistol. The problem comes from the original design, really. The +bow does not fundamentally change the dimensions of a crossbow because most of the crossbow's barrel is sticking out the front of the gun anyway. On the other hand, the Barrel of a LNL is mostly housed inside the body of the gun. Putting a 12 (or 8) inch barrel on the front of the gun drastically alters the function of the gun. The role of a sidearm is to defend yourself when you cannot prime your primary. If you were to fire this gun in defense and miss, you would not be able to run and reload quickly. You would either have to find a teammate or surrender. What I'd be interested to see is if you could find a barrel settup that could be loaded quickly and easily on the run while retaining solid performance.

VACC

A breech setup should allow for a decent run/reload setup.

I could put a 4" barrel on the front and prime only to the first notch and do pretty well with front-loading just like any NiteFinder or DTG.

[VACC]

hereticorp, on Nov 18 2008, 09:17 AM, said:

A breech setup should allow for a decent run/reload setup.

I could put a 4" barrel on the front and prime only to the first notch and do pretty well with front-loading just like any NiteFinder or DTG.

A breech is very difficult to load quickly on the run. It's nice when you're still and steady, but try opening it smoothly, seating a dart cleanly in the bobbing sharp metal gap, and closing it while you are on the run. It's impractical. Now try shoving a dart down the front of the barrel, or flipping a *short* flip breach and shoving an already primed barrel in the bushing. Practicality wins 9 out of 10 times (stats have been fabricated for emphasis).

If you need to take an accurate ranged shot you should be using your primary. Your secondary needs to be reliable when you are under fire. That's not to say that range on a secondary isn't useful, just that it doesn't make any difference how far the thing shoots if you can't load it in a pinch. I'm not speaking from theory here, but from experience.

Splitlip's setup on his pistolsplat is an excellent example. His barrels are 4-6" each, and triple stacked for flip loading. The thing shoots 80+ ft and he is next to impossible to charge because of the reload speed.

[hereticorp]

VACC, on Nov 18 2008, 09:30 AM, said:

hereticorp, on Nov 18 2008, 09:17 AM, said:

A breech setup should allow for a decent run/reload setup.

I could put a 4" barrel on the front and prime only to the first notch and do pretty well with front-loading just like any NiteFinder or DTG.

A breech is very difficult to load quickly on the run. It's nice when you're still and steady, but try opening it smoothly, seating a dart cleanly in the bobbing sharp metal gap, and closing it while you are on the run. It's impractical. Now try shoving a dart down the front of the barrel, or flipping a *short* flip breach and shoving an already primed barrel in the bushing. Practicality wins 9 out of 10 times (stats have been fabricated for emphasis).

If you need to take an accurate ranged shot you should be using your primary. Your secondary needs to be reliable when you are under fire. That's not to say that range on a secondary isn't useful, just that it doesn't make any difference how far the thing shoots if you can't load it in a pinch. I'm not speaking from theory here, but from experience.

Splitlip's setup on his pistolsplat is an excellent example. His barrels are 4-6" each, and triple stacked for flip loading. The thing shoots 80+ ft and he is next to impossible to charge because of the reload speed.

It would be just as easy to make a flip loader for this gun as it is to make a breech, heck, a staggered flip loader would also work, so you rotate it, just like the one that we saw for the NF a while back that had like 15 barrels all glued together.

[Draconis]

hereticorp, on Nov 18 2008, 04:17 AM, said:

Draconis, on Nov 17 2008, 08:14 PM, said:

While I do like the concept of the round rod, that 1/2" nylon is pretty heavy stuff. Honestly, I don't care for the mass it adds over the 1/4" PC rod. I like your improvements, though. I look forward to standardizing this design so we can get some consistent results!

The mass it adds? Seriously?

Nylon rod is light, it's heavier than a piece of polycarb sure, but it's not going to appreciably affect the weight of the gun, especially with a little 8" piece.

Besides, the gun is extremely comfortable at this point and I prefer some heft to the featherweight feel of most nerf pistols anyway. And on the plus side, a little more weight in the back will balance out the front barrel.

I meant the moving mass of the actual plunger. Rather than just the total mass, which I don't mind at all. But if we lower the mass of the plunger, then it can accelerate much more quickly. Faster plunger -> higher pressure -> Higher dart speed -> longer shot. While it may not be something we worry about with a +Bow, we sure do with a sidearm. Vacc has an excellent point, though. I'm going to work on a slightly shorter stroke version to see what I can come up with. Perhaps 1/3 of a +Bow spring, and a lighter plunger might net us enough distance?

[VACC]

hereticorp, on Nov 18 2008, 10:26 AM, said:

It would be just as easy to make a flip loader for this gun as it is to make a breech, heck, a staggered flip loader would also work, so you rotate it, just like the one that we saw for the NF a while back that had like 15 barrels all glued together.

Yeah, I would deffinately try some flip breaches out. A tighter fin might allow you to reduce the length of the barrels too (also something Split got pretty decent results from). Don't go to the other extreme and make 15 shot ones, though. 2-4 should really do it. And don't take any of this the wrong way. It's very impressive work. I just favor constructive criticism over unconditional praise. That may make me an asshole, but hopefully it will improve your creation as well.

VACC

[sputnik]

VACC, on Nov 18 2008, 12:22 PM, said:

Yeah, I would deffinately try some flip breaches out. A tighter fin might allow you to reduce the length of the barrels too (also something Split got pretty decent results from).

VACC

Do you mean tighter fit?
If not, what do you mean tighter fin?

[hereticorp]

Draconis, on Nov 18 2008, 12:47 PM, said:

I meant the moving mass of the actual plunger. Rather than just the total mass, which I don't mind at all. But if we lower the mass of the plunger, then it can accelerate much more quickly. Faster plunger -> higher pressure -> Higher dart speed -> longer shot. While it may not be something we worry about with a +Bow, we sure do with a sidearm. Vacc has an excellent point, though. I'm going to work on a slightly shorter stroke version to see what I can come up with. Perhaps 1/3 of a +Bow spring, and a lighter plunger might net us enough distance?

I seriously doubt that the mass of a nylon rod is going to make a difference with relation to the mass of a rod of polycarbonate.

But I'll let you know once I do some tests, I'll probably machine a new catch mechanism this weekend and we'll check it out.

[hereticorp]

VACC, on Nov 18 2008, 01:22 PM, said:

hereticorp, on Nov 18 2008, 10:26 AM, said:

It would be just as easy to make a flip loader for this gun as it is to make a breech, heck, a staggered flip loader would also work, so you rotate it, just like the one that we saw for the NF a while back that had like 15 barrels all glued together.

Yeah, I would deffinately try some flip breaches out. A tighter fin might allow you to reduce the length of the barrels too (also something Split got pretty decent results from). Don't go to the other extreme and make 15 shot ones, though. 2-4 should really do it. And don't take any of this the wrong way. It's very impressive work. I just favor constructive criticism over unconditional praise. That may make me an asshole, but hopefully it will improve your creation as well.

VACC

I don't think you're an asshole at all, the idea of a flip loader hadn't even occurred to me, I was building just for the fun of building. I appreciate any constructive criticism, such as you were giving. I'm just sick of JSB telling me that my cuts could be better.

A tighter fit will definitely let me have shorter barrels, I'll try it out with some shorter PETG and see how it goes, 6" is probably the minimum but I'll give it a shot with 4" too just to see.

I was thinking of a 4-shot in a line, but I may just go with 2 2-shots with a belt holster. We'll see. I'll put together some ideas while I'm making the new catch mechanism.

[Split]

Lesson learned: Split is king.

I don't much understand the entire school of homemades. To me, it's a place to try out new ideas, functions and goals that haven't been explored by Hasbro. There are tons of examples: FAR, Rscb barrels, +bow to name a few. I don't really see the point of this one. It's a springer homemade, and more expensive than an LnL.

Why do you keep double posting though?

Oh, and I use 3.5" barrels. When he says tight, he means like high density megas in OMC thickwall petg tight.

Edited by Splitlip, 18 November 2008 - 02:50 PM.

[Draconis]

hereticorp, on Nov 18 2008, 11:30 AM, said:

I seriously doubt that the mass of a nylon rod is going to make a difference with relation to the mass of a rod of polycarbonate.

But I'll let you know once I do some tests, I'll probably machine a new catch mechanism this weekend and we'll check it out.

It all makes a difference. I forgot to ask... Are you using the original design's 1" Sch. 40 PVC for the plunger tube?

[VACC]

Splitlip, on Nov 18 2008, 02:50 PM, said:

Oh, and I use 3.5" barrels. When he says tight, he means like high density megas in OMC thickwall petg tight.

You're darts are weird. They're banned at east coast nerf wars now. That just happened.

[eddieoctane]

Draconis, on Nov 18 2008, 03:27 PM, said:

hereticorp, on Nov 18 2008, 11:30 AM, said:

I seriously doubt that the mass of a nylon rod is going to make a difference with relation to the mass of a rod of polycarbonate.

But I'll let you know once I do some tests, I'll probably machine a new catch mechanism this weekend and we'll check it out.

It all makes a difference. I forgot to ask... Are you using the original design's 1" Sch. 40 PVC for the plunger tube?

How much it differs really depends on the spring constant. With a relatively high force from the spring, the difference of a few grams become negligible. Although if you want to get really technical, Nylon does have a higher tensile and yield strength, which means it can handle more force from the spring. Following my gut instinct and my knowledge (albeit limited) as an engineering student, I would say Nylon is the best choice, but only because you can use a stronger spring with it. With the same spring, PVC appears better, but I'm willing to bet not by much.

[hereticorp]

eddieoctane, on Nov 18 2008, 04:15 PM, said:

Draconis, on Nov 18 2008, 03:27 PM, said:

It all makes a difference. I forgot to ask... Are you using the original design's 1" Sch. 40 PVC for the plunger tube?

How much it differs really depends on the spring constant. With a relatively high force from the spring, the difference of a few grams become negligible. Although if you want to get really technical, Nylon does have a higher tensile and yield strength, which means it can handle more force from the spring. Following my gut instinct and my knowledge (albeit limited) as an engineering student, I would say Nylon is the best choice, but only because you can use a stronger spring with it. With the same spring, PVC appears better, but I'm willing to bet not by much.

Yes, I'm using the original design's plunger tube.

And eddieoctane, we're talking about Polycarbonate vs Nylon plungers, PVC didn't come into it at all, the only place PVC is used is as the plunger tube.

What I might do is shave the sides of a nylon rod down so that I can use straight sides on the hole in the catch, thus making sure the rod doesn't rotate when you cock the gun. We'll see how it works out. My main objection to the rod is the rotation potential, it has nothing to do with the relative density of Nylon Rods vs 1/4" Polycarbonate.

We're not going to be able to use a stronger spring than we have, it's a heavy cock as it is, using something with a higher compression pressure would just make it stupid.

Splitlip, on Nov 18 2008, 02:50 PM, said:

Lesson learned: Split is king.

I don't much understand the entire school of homemades. To me, it's a place to try out new ideas, functions and goals that haven't been explored by Hasbro. There are tons of examples: FAR, Rscb barrels, +bow to name a few. I don't really see the point of this one. It's a springer homemade, and more expensive than an LnL.

Why do you keep double posting though?

Oh, and I use 3.5" barrels. When he says tight, he means like high density megas in OMC thickwall petg tight.

Split is king of the NIC for the time being.

It's a place to build things, no matter if they duplicate the existing things or not. For me it's fun to put things together and make them work, it's not really about money for results, I like to build things.

The point is that I built it, and it will last a lot longer than anything Nerf makes, it's also very easy to repair if anything breaks and replacement parts are just a web-order away.

Because the NH forums used to auto-combine sequential replies into one post, and for some reason it stopped doing that lately and I'm not used to editing existing posts to reply.

I have to agree with VACC, your darts are weird. I'll stick with my 4-6" barrels.

[A side of nerf]

I'm going to try to answer some questions and shed some light on this gun.

Quote

I don't want to be Debbie Downer here, but I still fail to see how this is, functionally, a pistol. The problem comes from the original design, really. The +bow does not fundamentally change the dimensions of a crossbow because most of the crossbow's barrel is sticking out the front of the gun anyway. On the other hand, the Barrel of a LNL is mostly housed inside the body of the gun. Putting a 12 (or 8) inch barrel on the front of the gun drastically alters the function of the gun. The role of a sidearm is to defend yourself when you cannot prime your primary. If you were to fire this gun in defense and miss, you would not be able to run and reload quickly. You would either have to find a teammate or surrender. What I'd be interested to see is if you could find a barrel setup that could be loaded quickly and easily on the run while retaining solid performance.

I have to actually agree with you on that. When I designed this gun I tried to keep proportional emphasis on three major aspects of the gun.
1. Looks
+ I wanted this gun to look very close to the LnL so much that it's cosmetic parts took presidence over mechanical. It wasn't until I first stuck the barrel on that I had drastically been mistaken to design it as so.

2. Range
+ Ranges were higher than expected. It's range puts it in "limbo" between a primary and a secondary.

3. Affordability
+ Affordability was a tricky thing. This gun was in no way intended to be made without first having purchased supplies for a +bow. It does however cost less than an LnL.

Quote

I don't really see the point of this one. It's a springer homemade, and more expensive than an LnL.

LnL= ~$40
L+L= $26.78

That's why this gun was designed to build off of the +bow's spare parts to keep a cost-effective under 30$ budget.


This may sound weird but this gun currently serves as my primary. My reason being, that's how I nerf. I like to travel light (in this case a small pistol) and run/ get close before I take my shots. I like this pistol because it fulfills those categories and still has a good range.

This is because that is the way I nerf, if that's not how some do it, then this might not be a gun for them. That's why between SNAP's, FAR's, +bow's, L+L's, etc... there are so many styles.

whew! (exhales sharply)

-A side of nerf

[CaptainSlug]

A side of nerf, on Nov 18 2008, 06:57 PM, said:

L+L= $26.78

I still don't really understand your price figures. Because after you make a +Bow you still have lots of material left over to make an L+L. The only parts left to buy are more standoffs and an extra pipe bushing

I've been too busy to do much of anything Nerf-related lately though so I may have to hand my design off to someone else.