354 replies to this topic

[sam]

Is the new plunger rod design going to be strong enough? I always felt that the rods used for the stock were the flimsiest part of the +bow.

[CaptainSlug]

.Z4., on Sep 22 2008, 05:07 PM, said:

Just one more quick question: Will the Rev. 2 supply list require any new things or more of some of what's on there? I'm in the process of placing a McMaster order and want to know what to get.

Just order two more 1-1/2" length standoffs. You'll need those to make the newer priming handle.
Everything else should be able to be made from your leftover materials or existing parts.

sam, on Sep 22 2008, 09:36 PM, said:

Is the new plunger rod design going to be strong enough? I always felt that the rods used for the stock were the flimsiest part of the +bow.

1/2" OD Nylon is plenty durable. Will be more durable and easier to make than the previous design.

Edited by CaptainSlug, 22 September 2008 - 11:20 PM.

[Blasphemy]

sam, on Sep 22 2008, 09:36 PM, said:

Is the new plunger rod design going to be strong enough? I always felt that the rods used for the stock were the flimsiest part of the +bow.

Sam, if you are really concerned about durability then you can get part #8576K15 (Black Delrin 1/2" Diameter Rod) instead for about $1.75 more. But, I'm sure, like CS said, nylon should be well-suited for the job enough.

Edited by Blasphemy, 23 September 2008 - 04:48 PM.

[CaptainSlug]

Rev.2 plans are done and updated in the first post.


Rev.2 Construction write-up
Involved way more changes than I had initially expected to make.

+ Part cost total reduced to around $75
+ 1/2" more plunger travel
+ Reduced plunger head weight and friction
+ Scroll Saw is no longer a specifically required tool
+ Switched from o-rings to a rubber washer
+ Increased durability
+ Improved ergonomics
+ Reduced machining time
+ Nearly full interoperability between Rev.1 and Rev.2 parts (Most of the parts do not need to be explicitly remade in order to upgrade from Rev.1 to Rev.2)

Edited by CaptainSlug, 23 September 2008 - 09:49 PM.

[bobafan]

Very nice writeup, as always.

I have two questions.
1. I was wondering a bit about the handle. If I'm looking at this right, the two 1/4" pieces are about 1/4" apart. How does the gap feel comfort-wise?
2. This is for anyone with a +bow. How does the front grip feel? It seems like the edges of the grip assimbly would be a bit uncomfortable.

Thanks

[CaptainSlug]

bobafan, on Sep 24 2008, 12:35 AM, said:

I have two questions.
1. I was wondering a bit about the handle. If I'm looking at this right, the two 1/4" pieces are about 1/4" apart. How does the gap feel comfort-wise?
2. This is for anyone with a +bow. How does the front grip feel? It seems like the edges of the grip assimbly would be a bit uncomfortable.

1. Feels great. Just make sure you deburr and sand the edges. If you don't like the standard grip you can alter, remove, or add whatever kind of grip core pieces you want.
I made it as pictured to keep weight, part count, and machining time down.
Most of the blaster is designed in a way that if someone were to accidentally purchase a metric sheet thickness instead of a fractional size they would still be able to make most of the parts based off of the templates. The tolerances for the thickness of the parts is quite wide for this reason.
2. You could easily cut a section of 1-1/4 PVC and make a rounded foregrip that attaches to the integration rails. As-is the blaster is wide enough that the squareness isn't uncomfortable.

Edited by CaptainSlug, 24 September 2008 - 12:07 AM.

[Cannonball]

So with the new parts list, does 75 only buy you enough to make one, or will there be surplus parts to make another?

[rork]

After looking over the new design, I would just like to say: nice. This has removed any hesitation I had been harboring in regards to building one or three of these--much simpler, and even prettier than before On a more technical note: how does the washer compare to the old o-ring setup, in terms of both sealing properties and friction?

[bobafan]

Cannonball, on Sep 24 2008, 02:20 AM, said:

So with the new parts list, does 75 only buy you enough to make one, or will there be surplus parts to make another?

I added up the cost of materiel for 3 and got around $120 plus shipping. Cost of the materials for one was quoted at around $90 plus shipping. (that might be from rev 1)

Edited by bobafan, 24 September 2008 - 12:28 AM.

[CaptainSlug]

rork, on Sep 24 2008, 01:23 AM, said:

how does the washer compare to the old o-ring setup, in terms of both sealing properties and friction?

Some people were having problems with the o-rings creating too tight of a seal. Most likely caused by variability in the OD of the 1" rod. Using the rubber washer removes this inconsistency.
The seal is not quite as tight as before and therefore offers less friction.

Cannonball, on Sep 24 2008, 01:20 AM, said:

So with the new parts list, does 75 only buy you enough to make one, or will there be surplus parts to make another?

Rev.1 Part list: around $85 + shipping and cost of label paper
Rev.2 Part list: around $75 + shipping and cost of label paper

With either part list you end up with excess screws, washers, springs, and o-rings or rubber washers.
With the Rev.1 part list you will have excess foam sheet and nylon rod

Edited by CaptainSlug, 24 September 2008 - 01:10 PM.

[jwasko]

I really like the cylindrical plunger rod, Slug. And from what I hear, the new trigger is a big improvement (as far as ease of firing and/or comfort).

I'm mainly posting, however, to bring to your attention a possibly important typo in your Rev. 2 writeup:

In the picture for step 21, you label the holes in the hex bushing as being 9/64" while in the writeup of that step you say to drill a 5/32" hole.

I don't know if that actually matters or not, but in case it does...there you go.

Edited by jwasko, 24 September 2008 - 01:15 PM.

[CaptainSlug]

Fixed. A 9/64" hole is a much tighter fit for #6-32 screws.

[Blasphemy]

Awesome, just awesome. This is what I have been waiting for. Now, when I can find a bit of free time I can finally begin machining. Thanks Slug. By the way, two quick questions about this new design. First off, how much smoother is the priming action of this new plunger, or is it the same as the old one and just more durable? Also, in your opinion is this new handle more comfortable than the solid core polyethylene grip?

[CaptainSlug]

Blasphemy, on Sep 24 2008, 03:26 PM, said:

First off, how much smoother is the priming action of this new plunger, or is it the same as the old one and just more durable?
Also, in your opinion is this new handle more comfortable than the solid core polyethylene grip?

1. Handle is more comfortable and slides better. Plunger rod has less room to wiggle as it slides through the catch mechanism.
2. A solid core grip is preferable, but takes much more time to make because you have to put effort into rounding it out through sanding. Grip core could be made out of wood or other materials if desired.

Edited by CaptainSlug, 24 September 2008 - 03:57 PM.

[Z4]

Looks great! Heaps of kudos. I've already downloaded the templates and have cut out a few pieces, I'm waiting on a McMaster order now, but should have it finished early next week. I just have a few quick questions though. How do you get your 1/2" nylon rod so straight? When I ordered some for my first one, it was kind of crooked and didn't really ever straighten out. Also, for the grip edges, would a Dremel with an abrasive grinding disc or a 2 wheeled grinding table suffice or do you think sand paper is better? Last one: The catch plate no longer has to be beveled, correct?

Thanks a lot, great work improving an already phenomenal blaster.

[CaptainSlug]

.Z4., on Sep 24 2008, 10:23 PM, said:

1. How do you get your 1/2" nylon rod so straight?
2. Also, for the grip edges, would a Dremel with an abrasive grinding disc or a 2 wheeled grinding table suffice or do you think sand paper is better?
3. The catch plate no longer has to be beveled, correct?

1. I tend to order the white nylon rod, which always comes in straight 6' lengths.
2. The grinding table or a belt sander will work fine. You shouldn't use high speed rotary tools with plastics.
3. Correct.

[slowguitarman]

CaptainSlug, on Sep 24 2008, 10:55 PM, said:

You shouldn't use high speed rotary tools with plastics.

Why do you hate dremel tools so much? Unless you are using the tool on its highest speed setting and liquifying whatever it is that you are cutting, there is no problem with using a dremel. On my current big project (which I will post whenever get a chance to paint it), there are 45+ different pieces of plexiglass, and all of them are beveled, rounded, engraved and/or some very odd shape and all were made with a dremel and sandpaper. I will admit that I would rather have had a scroll saw or band saw for some of these pieces, but the dremel got the job done anyway.

[CaptainSlug]

slowguitarman, on Sep 24 2008, 11:28 PM, said:

Why do you hate dremel tools so much?

Well, I've owned three and all three of them broke in less than a year. And the cost of replacement cutting discs is ridiculous considering their short usage life.
They're useless and expensive for anything other than fine engraving work. They complicate and increase the level of risk in tasks that could be done easier and much more safely with much more capable tools.
Unless you're working in a tight space that other tools can't reach, you shouldn't use a dremel. If all you own is a dremel, then you should consider buying other tools that won't eat time, money, and your fingers.


/opinion

Edited by CaptainSlug, 24 September 2008 - 10:43 PM.

[slowguitarman]

CaptainSlug, on Sep 24 2008, 11:35 PM, said:

slowguitarman, on Sep 24 2008, 11:28 PM, said:

Why do you hate dremel tools so much?

Well, I've owned three and all three of them broke in less than a year. And the cost of replacement cutting discs is ridiculous considering their short usage life.
They're useless and expensive for anything other than fine engraving work. They complicate and increase the level of risk in tasks that could be done easier and much more safely with much more capable tools.
Unless you're working in a tight space that other tools can't reach, you shouldn't use a dremel. If all you own is a dremel, then you should consider buying other tools that won't eat time, money, and your fingers.

Wowzers, I can't believe three broke that quick.

The cutting disks aren't a problem for me, I use my dremel quite a lot, and I still have 4 reinforced disks from a 20 pack I bought three years ago. I've also never hurt my fingers with it, so I don't really see the risk of using one. If I could use other tools, I would, but I don't have the space for them or the money to buy them. A $20 pack of cutting disks every few years is much more manageable than buying a scroll saw, band saw, CNC machine, lathe, drill press...

If you have access to those things, use them by all means, but I don't see how one could call a dremel expensive compared to all those other tools.

/opinion haha

Edited by slowguitarman, 24 September 2008 - 10:50 PM.

[Split]

I don't want this to become a discussion about Dremels as much as the next guy, but I do find that your hatred for them is irrational. The cutting disks can last forever if you're using the tool correctly. And apart from bushings, I've never had any problem with any of them. I've had my cordless one short under heavy load when the battery gets low dozens of times and no problems with it. If you're using the right speeds and the right bits with a good hand and eye then it can be used for every little thing more efficiently than switching tools repeatedly. I'm not saying this because I don't have the other tools or I'm not as good with them - I have a very comprehensive workshop and I'm experienced with every tool in it.

Oh, and I love rev. 2 by the way. I'll be making several of them soon I believe. Thanks for all of the work you've put into it.

Edited by Splitlip, 24 September 2008 - 11:14 PM.

[Blasphemy]

Well, I have been machining today and and yesterday and have had fairly good results:

However, I am wondering, since I don't have an exact 7/64" size drill bit, whether or not I can use a 1/8" (8/64") or 3/32" (6/64") size drill bit instead. Thanks in advance.

[CaptainSlug]

CRAP. On the 23rd I apparently uploaded an outdated version of the template file. So if you downloaded it between the 23rd and now you need to downloaded it again.
If you printed it out, simply double-check the hole sizes indicated on the sheet from the one you printed and the current version.

Primary differences
- Grip core hole sizes
- Grip hole sizes
- Plunger priming rod hole location

Blasphemy, on Sep 28 2008, 03:04 PM, said:

However, I am wondering, since I don't have an exact 7/64" size drill bit, whether or not I can use a 1/8" (8/64") or 3/32" (6/64") size drill bit instead. Thanks in advance.

Do not drill the holes you need to tap any larger than 7/64" inch or you you won't be able to add a usable thread to it. 3/32" Might work, but will bind on the tapping bit so you'll have to tap the hole slowly.

Edited by CaptainSlug, 28 September 2008 - 10:11 PM.

[Split]

What are the 12 1 foot lengths of music wire for? Neither "music" nor "wire" are mentioned in the Rev 2 writeup at all. Are they for making the catch spring? Thanks.

Edited by Splitlip, 30 September 2008 - 11:59 AM.

[CaptainSlug]

Splitlip, on Sep 30 2008, 12:44 PM, said:

What are the 12 1 foot lengths of music wire for? The words music nor wire are mentioned in the Rev 2 writeup at all. Are they for making the catch spring?

1 inch, not 1 foot.

Used as the trigger catch spring. But any comparable length spring with a load rate between 1 and 5 pounds will work.

Edited by CaptainSlug, 30 September 2008 - 11:57 AM.

[Blasphemy]

If I wanted to replace the rubber band on the +bow with an extension spring, in about what length range would it have to be?