11 replies to this topic

[Beener]

Hello everyone. This is my first post and I did use the search function but was overloaded with answers that didn't speak to my question. I have purchased some used blasters for my children and I am looking to get them back to new or in some cases, way better. I have seen people talk about removing the posts and the explanation is usually that if you remove them, you can use homemade solid darts. If my kids will use mainly stock Nerf Darts, is there any benefit to removing the posts, other than getting more air in the barrel. I will be removing restrictions and stretching springs,met ape under orings, as my other mods.

[meteorhound1]

I don't believe there would be a real purpose in removing the dart post if you're not going to use stefans. As for the other mods there are some risks to them. With spring stretching, it will overall weaken your spring in general () and only increase your power for a few shots. As for AR (Air Restrictor) removals, unless a barrel replacement is being done, there isn't really much point because the AR doesn't kick in until maybe after the dart has left the barrel (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZGYx3-BPq8). AR removals also increase the risk of breaking your blaster when dry firing. The whole point to the AR is to make sure the blaster doesn't break when it is dry fired. I recommend that you keep the AR in for these blasters due to the fact that you are having your kids use this. Sometimes we kids like to do dumb things such as dry fire a whole ton for no reason. Teflon taping the O-ring or replacing it is good but if the seal is too good, the stock spring may not be able to push the plunger fast enough to get more power. If you really want more power, then get a spring replacement and also a barrel replacement. If a barrel replacement is done, then an AR removal is almost necessary to get enough air to push the dart from the barrel. If the barrel is too long however, then the dart will stop accelerating before it leaves the barrel.

P.S.: Sorry for the long rant...

[Beener]

Not a problem, that's the kind of info I was looking for!
Thanks

[Exo]

No. DO NOT STRETCH THOSE SPRINGS! EVER!

[C-A 99]

Removing the posts can improve dart compatibility in general. For example, streamlines do not work in many blasters because their AR posts are too long. Trimming or removing the posts from blasters like the NiteFinder, Strongarm, Rough Cut, Rapid Fire 20, Berserker, and numerous other blasters will make them more compatible.

On the other hand, some stock Buzz Bee barrels seal in the middle instead of the back of the dart. In this case, the AR post seems to push the foam out a bit to help it seal. This is primarily observable in the shells for Buzz Bee blasters, although if you're concerned about dart compatibility at all, it's best to avoid those blasters anyway. (As well as Streamlines in general; Elites don't have the compatibility problem with lengthy AR posts.) Aside from BBT blasters with shells, the Air Max 1 and 6 use barrels that seal mid-dart, and seem to only work very well with the included Extreme darts. If you don't plan on barrel modding, and care about dart compatibility, may need to avoid those blasters.

Barrel replacements are often the best mods, especially for air blasters. For springers, I shouldn't have to state the obvious that a stronger spring can make the blaster wear out faster, but the degree of that problem varies from blaster to blaster depending on how they're designed.

For safer dry firing (after AR's are removed), it's a good idea to pad the plunger. Buzz Bee does this on a number of blasters to make them safe to dry fire without any shells loaded. For my CPVC'd NF, I used a felt pad similar to (but larger than) the felts used in homemade slug darts. There may be a better solution out there that I'm not yet aware of, however. (Aside from the obvious, "don't dry fire" solution.)

[Some Guy]

No. DO NOT STRETCH THOSE SPRINGS! EVER!

I am going to tell you the truth about spring stretching. I stretched the spring in my LS to about 2-2.5x the original length, and it still has lots of pre-compression after more than 1000 shots (over a year ago). Spring stretching does not work if you don't stretch it enough, although, it can damage the spring if your not careful. What I have learned, though, is that you never should stretch springs in reverse-plunger blasters. When you do, you cannot stretch it enough to the point that it gets a permanent stretch without making it too hard to put the blaster back together. On top of that, bending and messing with the spring will cause problems with the catching and priming in those plunger setups.

My point here is that stretching springs can be done successfully only if 1. you have the right type of plunger setup, 2. you stretch its spring enough, and 3. don't mess up the spring

~SG

[Daniel Beaver]

I am going to tell you the truth about spring stretching. I stretched the spring in my LS to about 2-2.5x the original length, and it still has lots of pre-compression after more than 1000 shots (over a year ago).

Springs are designed so that they don't reach stresses high enough to cause plastic deformation, ensuring that the elastic modulus stays relatively consistent over the life of the spring. The severe deformation you're describing results in strain hardening, which increases the hardness but lowers the yield strength of the spring steel. The higher elastic modulus results in the initially greater strength of the spring, but the lower yield strength means that you stray into plastic deformation during regular compression, which will gradually lower the yield strength until it reaches an equilibrium below the characteristics that the spring initially exhibited. I would posit that your spring is now actually measurably weaker than before your stretched it, or you haven't actually cycled it through 1000 shots like you say you have.

Stretching springs is bad. This is well understood, and it doesn't stop being true because some guy says so.

Edited by Daniel Beaver, 23 November 2013 - 10:53 PM.

[azrael]

Another benefit to not removing posts, for nubs, is that with stock darts, posts can help crappy or well used darts still have a decent seal in the barrel/cylinder/bolt. Well used darts have foam that is no longer stiff, and the post can help them keep their shape.

[Daniel Beaver]

Another benefit to not removing posts, for nubs, is that with stock darts, posts can help crappy or well used darts still have a decent seal in the barrel/cylinder/bolt. Well used darts have foam that is no longer stiff, and the post can help them keep their shape.

This is a very important point - stock darts are hollow, so those posts push back against the inner walls of the darts, which improves the seal and gives the barrel a little static friction (which improves springer performance). Of course you need to remove posts if you want to use homemade darts, but it can affect performance with stock darts.

[C-A 99]

I think the barrel pushes worn darts back in place much more so than AR posts. (At least in Nerf-branded blasters.) Like I mentioned previously, barrels that seal in the middle of the dart (i.e. some of the crappy ones BBT makes) may need the AR to assist in getting the dart to seal, but this design is very prone to problems overall even on darts that are used relatively lightly, and is why I don't buy shell-ejecting BBT blasters anymore. (The Air Max Extreme series has this problem too; they don't work as well with non-Extreme darts due to that seal, but I'm rebarreling these blasters anyway, which is why I picked them up.) Oddly enough, the Barbarian/Zerker doesn't have this design issue, and the barrel seals with the dart at the very end which makes it easier to load the dart into a tighter/better barrel seal.

I thrown worn darts out in a separate pile anyways. They can cause problems with jamming or simply not sealing with the barrels. I have a number of suction tip darts, and if they can no longer seal in, say, a Maverick, I often remove the tip/weight and glue it on the opposite side. They shoot like new after that.

[Some Guy]

Springs are designed so that they don't reach stresses high enough to cause plastic deformation, ensuring that the elastic modulus stays relatively consistent over the life of the spring. The severe deformation you're describing results in strain hardening, which increases the hardness but lowers the yield strength of the spring steel. The higher elastic modulus results in the initially greater strength of the spring, but the lower yield strength means that you stray into plastic deformation during regular compression, which will gradually lower the yield strength until it reaches an equilibrium below the characteristics that the spring initially exhibited. I would posit that your spring is now actually measurably weaker than before your stretched it, or you haven't actually cycled it through 1000 shots like you say you have.

Stretching springs is bad. This is well understood, and it doesn't stop being true because some guy says so.

Although the spring metal is weaker after stretching, its compression is a lot heavier and still is. I combined the stretched LS spring with a stretched NF spring, it has a stock bolt with AR removed, and I am blasting streamlines way past 100 ft angled (because flat range with streamlines is unpredictable). Although I said I shot it 1000 times, I probably have shot it more like 600 - 900 times. I have been blasting with it regularly with high capacity mags/drums in battles and extensive range tests for the past year, and even after that, pulling it back is still about 3/4 the strength of a [k26]. I do agree that stretching springs is bad for the spring and the blaster, but with proper reinforcement, doing it can be a good alternative for a long time to get more distance out of your blaster than a worn spring.

In conclusion, it blasts obviously harder than it would have if the springs were never stretched, and turns out to be a good alternative in the LS if the spring is already greatly worn and your willing to do reinforcement. When the spring becomes crap (which still hasn't happened to me) replace it. This should no longer be a big deal, I just wanted to say that it's not that it should never be done, it can work for a long time, and I proved it. If you want to protest more, test it out yourself first.

~SG

[Zorns Lemma]

Although the spring metal is weaker after stretching, its compression is a lot heavier and still is. I combined the stretched LS spring with a stretched NF spring, it has a stock bolt with AR removed, and I am blasting streamlines way past 100 ft angled (because flat range with streamlines is unpredictable). Although I said I shot it 1000 times, I probably have shot it more like 600 - 900 times. I have been blasting with it regularly with high capacity mags/drums in battles and extensive range tests for the past year, and even after that, pulling it back is still about 3/4 the strength of a [k26]. I do agree that stretching springs is bad for the spring and the blaster, but with proper reinforcement, doing it can be a good alternative for a long time to get more distance out of your blaster than a worn spring.

In conclusion, it blasts obviously harder than it would have if the springs were never stretched, and turns out to be a good alternative in the LS if the spring is already greatly worn and your willing to do reinforcement. When the spring becomes crap (which still hasn't happened to me) replace it. This should no longer be a big deal, I just wanted to say that it's not that it should never be done, it can work for a long time, and I proved it. If you want to protest more, test it out yourself first.

~SG

This is the same argument as rifled barrels for foam projectile aerodynamics.

The established models say that you are wrong. Therefore, if you want to demonstrate that you are indeed correct, the onus is on you to provide statistically significant empirical evidence to the contrary and thus give plausible falsification of our current theoretical knowledge.

You've cited a single sample of anecdotal evidence, heavily susceptible to selection bias, confirmation bias, availability bias, congruence bias, and affect bias, among other logical and cognitive fallacies. In addition, the insufficient sample size means you are incorrectly ignoring prior probability with your (most likely flawed) posterior findings.