28 replies to this topic

[ACnerfshop]

I am working on making an HPA system that can be hooked-up to a variety of blasters. I have taken all the necessary precautions. The rig uses air, not CO2. I have a reg that goes from 4500psi - 50 psi and then another reg for anywhere from 100psi - 0psi.
Edit: I also have an OPVR that I can adjust anywhere to 20psi - 100psi.

No matter where I looked, I was unable to find any information on the stock PSI that a Big Blast, Buzz Bee Range Master, and Nerf Rapidfire 20 use. I don't plan to use anymore pressure than stock to keep them war legal and to not over stress the parts.

I've only been able to experimentally find the stock pressure of the Supermaxx 1500 which is around 30psi.

Any help from people with more knowledge of the stock pressures that the above blasters use would be very helpful.

Thanks in advance!

Edited by ACnerfshop, 23 February 2014 - 05:08 PM.

[rego]

Most single shot blasters operate at around thirty psi or less, while I believe that fully automatic blasters, such as the mag strike and rapid fire 20, can handle pressures of about seventy psi. (I've taken my rf20 to fifty reliable with no issues, besides extreme rate of fire.) There was an old thread about this a long time ago. There may be some useful information in CaptainSlug's "Paintball Tanks With Nerf" thread.

Also, being working on an HPA setup at the moment, could you share what type of regulator you are using and the hpa tank specifications?

[ACnerfshop]

For the first Reg that goes from 4500psi - 50psi I'm using a RAP4 AG1 Air Regulator (about $70 depending on where you buy it). For the 100psi - 0psi I'm using a Cal Hawk 1/4" Inline In Line Brass Air Regulator (about $7 depending on where you buy it). For my HPA tank I'm using 68 ci 4500 psi carbon fiber tank. I have a more expensive tank because it's much nicer than the regular aluminum 3000psi tanks and I do go paint-balling occasionally.

Thanks for the other information. Unless someone else has actual data on the specific tanks I will likely use 30psi for the Big Blast and Range Master.

Edited by ACnerfshop, 24 February 2014 - 12:27 AM.

[cheerios]

Thanks for the other information. Unless someone else has actual data on the specific tanks I will likely use 30psi for the Big Blast and Range Master.

I have a 20 PSI McMaster OPRV on my Big Blast and it added range. I'm guessing stock BBBB PSI is ~15.

[ACnerfshop]

I have a 20 PSI McMaster OPRV on my Big Blast and it added range. I'm guessing stock BBBB PSI is ~15.

Ok, thanks for the information. I guess I will have to adjust the pressure to what seems about right and to keep it war legal.

[Draconis]

Ok, thanks for the information. I guess I will have to adjust the pressure to what seems about right and to keep it war legal.

Agreed, that is good information to have, Cheerios. I thought it was higher.

AC, keep in mind that many war hosts have stated that air-powered blasters are to be empty at the beginning of rounds, and would require pumping at that time. Pre-filled tanks are generally not allowed to circumvent that requirement. This will all depend upon the hosts, though.

[ACnerfshop]

AC, keep in mind that many war hosts have stated that air-powered blasters are to be empty at the beginning of rounds, and would require pumping at that time. Pre-filled tanks are generally not allowed to circumvent that requirement. This will all depend upon the hosts, though.

I was not aware of that rule. I guess it will be more of a "shits and giggles" type of the blaster, but I still want it to be war legal (as in range and power) for any hosts that don't require an empty tank at the beginning of a round.

[Mully]

My recommendation would be to just start the pressure at 10psi, and then just dial it up a little after a few shots until you've reached power equivalent to that of a standard 4b.

@Draconis, It's interesting you say that, I haven't ever heard of those sorts of restrictions.

[cheerios]

@Draconis, It's interesting you say that, I haven't ever heard of those sorts of restrictions.

It's often times an unstated rule anymore. Basically anything that runs off of a regulator and a hard air tank isn't allowed at most wars.

[azrael]

It's often times an unstated rule anymore. Basically anything that runs off of a regulator and a hard air tank isn't allowed at most wars.

I think that's a bit silly though. A well made air blaster can be just as safe or safer than a powerful springer.
You just need to apply proper safety to construction.

[cheerios]

I think that's a bit silly though. A well made air blaster can be just as safe or safer than a powerful springer.
You just need to apply proper safety to construction.

It's not about safety it's about fairness. A blaster you don't have to prime at all is way too OP.

Edited by cheerios, 24 February 2014 - 06:37 PM.

[rego]

This is where innovation comes into play. The main limiting factor is the price of parts, which are rather high for an HPA setup. Making it cheap and easy to make gives everyone the same edge, so the game remains balanced. Unfortunately, price is still rather high of pneumatic parts, so the difficulty comes from finding items cheap enough to make the blaster as accessible as a plus-bow or rainbow.

I myself have conducted extensive research on airguns, and they are unfortunately rather pricey to get into, due to the need to purchase tanks, regulators, connectors, and tubing. After the initial investment, the price goes down significantly.

Back to the topic, I would recommend starting at a low pressure and going from there until you get about stock ranges. The pressure should actually be rather low, most likely around ten to fifteen psi. Good luck in your airgun adventures.

[Blood Angel]

It's not about safety it's about fairness. A blaster you don't have to prime at all is way too OP.

The Nerf Dart Tag Snapfire 8 does not need to be primed. Is the Snapfire 8 too overpowered?

If it is supposed to be about fairness why even mod blasters? Just have everyone play with one Nerf Jolt. That's fair. right?

[cheerios]

The Nerf Dart Tag Snapfire 8 does not need to be primed. Is the Snapfire 8 too overpowered?

No, because it isn't an air gun that has the capability to shoot ~100' without having to prime the blaster between shots. The argument with the Snapfire 8 is the same argument that could be made for any of Nerf's new flywheel blasters, but those aren't able to shoot past the century mark without the darts spiraling out of control.

[Blood Angel]

No, because it isn't an air gun that has the capability to shoot ~100' without having to prime the blaster between shots. The argument with the Snapfire 8 is the same argument that could be made for any of Nerf's new flywheel blasters, but those aren't able to shoot past the century mark without the darts spiraling out of control.

I still don't see the problem. First off, there was never any indication that this would be semi-automatic, full automatic, or even magazine fed blaster. The 12/16 gram co2 blasters I plan to make are all bolt action (some magazine fed, some single feed). Second, I don't see what is unfair about it. If it does fire 100 feet with insane rate of fire, there is no guarantee that it will be accurate fire. One accurate, well placed, well timed shoot will beat 18 shoots going all over the place.

Even if the shoots for this high rate of fire air blaster are accurate and has 100 foot range, it is not a game changer. There are plenty of pump action homemades that boast 120 foot ranges and are just as accurate. There are vast numbers of example where accurate slow rate of fire beat out higher numbers of full automatic fire. And those stories are not the exceptions, they are the common place.

What you are saying is that if I played a stock war with stock darts (where all ranges and accuracy are equal) that all the nerf elite styrfes, stockades, rayvens, and rapidstrikes are OP compared to the elite rampage, alpha trooper, and retaliators. And that is simply not true.

Edited by Blood Angel, 26 February 2014 - 07:11 PM.

[Draconis]

First off, there was never any indication that this would be semi-automatic, full automatic, or even magazine fed blaster.

That is the point of having a pressure tank... It would at LEAST be semi-automatic as far as the firing mechanism is concerned.

The 12/16 gram co2 blasters I plan to make are all bolt action (some magazine fed, some single feed). Second, I don't see what is unfair about it. If it does fire 100 feet with insane rate of fire, there is no guarantee that it will be accurate fire. One accurate, well placed, well timed shoot will beat 18 shoots going all over the place.

You seem to have little grasp on the relationship between range, accuracy, dart quality, and barrel design. Also the difference between verbs and nouns.

Even if the shoots for this high rate of fire air blaster are accurate and has 100 foot range, it is not a game changer. There are plenty of pump action homemades that boast 120 foot ranges and are just as accurate. There are vast numbers of example where accurate slow rate of fire beat out higher numbers of full automatic fire. And those stories are not the exceptions, they are the common place.

What you are saying is that if I played a stock war with stock darts (where all ranges and accuracy are equal) that all the nerf elite styrfes, stockades, rayvens, and rapidstrikes are OP compared to the elite rampage, alpha trooper, and retaliators. And that is simply not true.

The difference is that flywheels are stupid and noisy. And will really NEVER be that good. You can get offended all you want, but you're just wrong. *shrugs*

[KaneTheMediocre]

I still don't see the problem. First off, there was never any indication that this would be semi-automatic, full automatic, or even magazine fed blaster. The 12/16 gram co2 blasters I plan to make are all bolt action (some magazine fed, some single feed). Second, I don't see what is unfair about it. If it does fire 100 feet with insane rate of fire, there is no guarantee that it will be accurate fire. One accurate, well placed, well timed shoot will beat 18 shoots going all over the place.

Even if the shoots for this high rate of fire air blaster are accurate and has 100 foot range, it is not a game changer. There are plenty of pump action homemades that boast 120 foot ranges and are just as accurate. There are vast numbers of example where accurate slow rate of fire beat out higher numbers of full automatic fire. And those stories are not the exceptions, they are the common place.

What you are saying is that if I played a stock war with stock darts (where all ranges and accuracy are equal) that all the nerf elite styrfes, stockades, rayvens, and rapidstrikes are OP compared to the elite rampage, alpha trooper, and retaliators. And that is simply not true.

It's highly unlikely that an NIC war host will allow a CO2 powered blaster, regardless of what other things you do to sabotage it's effectiveness. In general, the unspoken rule is that you can't carry the stored energy onto the field--you have to put it in the blaster during the game. This presents a physical game balancing factor regarding refire rate, range, and ergonomics. Batteries are a flagrant violation of that rule, but no one really cares because no one has ever made a competitive battery powered blaster.

In addition, single-primed blasters (like most springers) have a safety factor in that no dart will ever be given more energy than the nerfer provides in a single hand motion. Barring visibly obvious workarounds like a foot loop or a hand crank (or whatever the fuck the ultimator does), spring powered blasters are never going to provide drastically more energy than what we are expecting, nor can they ever store and catastrophically release more than a single shot's worth of energy

Sure, there are pump-action springers that shoot 120 feet NIC flat (about 20 degrees from actual flat). But, they are usually huge, poorly balanced (usually front-heavy), and a bit difficult to prime. The plunger movement adds a significant recoil, which combined with typical barrel placement / support, degrades functional accuracy. A CO2 powered blaster will have none of these problems unless you deliberately add them.

Finally, the NIC community has always been anti-CO2 for the aforementioned reasons among others, so even if you did something about all of those things, you're still dealing with an attitude that CO2 is scary and evil. Years of contrary experience with actually safe and fair blasters could slowly change that attitude, but discussion of a hypothetical blaster won't.

[Blood Angel]

You seem to have little grasp on the relationship between range, accuracy, dart quality, and barrel design. Also the difference between verbs and nouns.

The difference is that flywheels are stupid and noisy. And will really NEVER be that good. You can get offended all you want, but you're just wrong. *shrugs*

I have a high understanding of the relationship between range, accuracy, dart velocity, dart quality, barrel design, barrel length, air pressure, air flow rate, and ballistics. My verbs and nouns were correctly used as far as I can see. Unless traditional English had changed.

I never really liked flywheels. So I never considered them good. But in the sense of actioned fire vs semi automatic and full automatic fire, I am not wrong. The shooter tends to be more important than the platform in more cases than not.

[Draconis]

I have a high understanding of the relationship between range, accuracy, dart velocity, dart quality, barrel design, barrel length, air pressure, air flow rate, and ballistics. My verbs and nouns were correctly used as far as I can see. Unless traditional English had changed.

This sentence, among others, would imply otherwise:

One accurate, well placed, well timed shoot will beat 18 shoots going all over the place.

I never really liked flywheels. So I never considered them good. But in the sense of actioned fire vs semi automatic and full automatic fire, I am not wrong. The shooter tends to be more important than the platform in more cases than not.

But see, now you are wandering off in to Notthesameconversationland. You keep bringing up blasters that do NOT have the same kind of equivalent performance to a CO2/HPA powered blaster. Exactly the reason that high ROF blasters are less accurate and have lower performance is why they are allowed. If you change that, so that someone can accurately spam a bunch of darts down the field, then it completely changes. I'm not sure why you are continuing to argue, when you have admitted that your own point of contention is faulty.

[Blood Angel]

It's highly unlikely that an NIC war host will allow a CO2 powered blaster, regardless of what other things you do to sabotage it's effectiveness. In general, the unspoken rule is that you can't carry the stored energy onto the field--you have to put it in the blaster during the game. This presents a physical game balancing factor regarding refire rate, range, and ergonomics. Batteries are a flagrant violation of that rule, but no one really cares because no one has ever made a competitive battery powered blaster.

In addition, single-primed blasters (like most springers) have a safety factor in that no dart will ever be given more energy than the nerfer provides in a single hand motion. Barring visibly obvious workarounds like a foot loop or a hand crank (or whatever the fuck the ultimator does), spring powered blasters are never going to provide drastically more energy than what we are expecting, nor can they ever store and catastrophically release more than a single shot's worth of energy

Sure, there are pump-action springers that shoot 120 feet NIC flat (about 20 degrees from actual flat). But, they are usually huge, poorly balanced (usually front-heavy), and a bit difficult to prime. The plunger movement adds a significant recoil, which combined with typical barrel placement / support, degrades functional accuracy. A CO2 powered blaster will have none of these problems unless you deliberately add them.

Finally, the NIC community has always been anti-CO2 for the aforementioned reasons among others, so even if you did something about all of those things, you're still dealing with an attitude that CO2 is scary and evil. Years of contrary experience with actually safe and fair blasters could slowly change that attitude, but discussion of a hypothetical blaster won't.

I understand all of that and understand that pressured air is a known stigma in the NIC.

I am aware of the unspoken rules, the ideas that are in general, and the allowed exceptions due to lack of concern. I don't see re-fire rate, range, nor ergonomics of stored containerized energy unbalancing a game to the point of termination. Unless the blaster in question poses a safety concern, which is a legitimate reason. The advantages and potential of a faster firing, ergonomic, more powerful, longer ranged, more accurate blaster does sound like a game changer. But it really isn't. No one will ever allow a blaster to be more powerful than what is accepted as safe. And the rate of fire is off set by the weight of the containerized power source; effecting mobility. If the air blaster uses 12gram or 16gram co2 cartregages, then the cartregages must be replaced from time to time; effecting re-fire rate.

I also agree that hypothetical blaster discussion will not change the co2 is scary and evil attitude.

[Blood Angel]

This sentence, among others, would imply otherwise:

But see, now you are wandering off in to Notthesameconversationland. You keep bringing up blasters that do NOT have the same kind of equivalent performance to a CO2/HPA powered blaster. Exactly the reason that high ROF blasters are less accurate and have lower performance is why they are allowed. If you change that, so that someone can accurately spam a bunch of darts down the field, then it completely changes. I'm not sure why you are continuing to argue, when you have admitted that your own point of contention is faulty.

There is nothing grammatically wrong with that sentence.

I've already brought up that stock flywheels to stock priming blasters, that have similar performance, are not game chargers. If co2/hpa blasters are shooting faster and farther than the more powerful spring blasters, than it might be a safety issue and shouldn't be allowed. If the performances are similar but the co2/hpa blasters are more accurate, than work around it with tactics and teamwork. You could also make a co2/hpa blaster yourself.

[Draconis]

I don't see re-fire rate, range, nor ergonomics of stored containerized energy unbalancing a game to the point of termination. Unless the blaster in question poses a safety concern, which is a legitimate reason. The advantages and potential of a faster firing, ergonomic, more powerful, longer ranged, more accurate blaster does sound like a game changer. But it really isn't. No one will ever allow a blaster to be more powerful than what is accepted as safe. And the rate of fire is off set by the weight of the containerized power source; effecting mobility.

I think that the rest of us are thankful that you don't run wars.

If the air blaster uses 12gram or 16gram co2 cartregages, then the cartregages must be replaced from time to time; effecting re-fire rate.

I believe you mean [i]cartidges[/], but I cannot be certain. Also, cartridges would be a ridiculous and expensive solution to the problem of laziness. Just build a better fucking blaster.

There is nothing grammatically wrong with that sentence.

Well, that is true, if one assumes that you cannot spell.

I've already brought up that stock flywheels to stock priming blasters, that have similar performance, are not game chargers. If co2/hpa blasters are shooting faster and farther than the more powerful spring blasters, than it might be a safety issue and shouldn't be allowed. If the performances are similar but the co2/hpa blasters are more accurate, than work around it with tactics and teamwork. You could also make a co2/hpa blaster yourself.

I have, and I dismantled it because it was ridiculous. Honestly, I think it all comes down to laziness. If your blaster is air-powered, but has a stupid pump, just replace the pump.

[Blood Angel]

I think that the rest of us are thankful that you don't run wars.

I believe you mean [i]cartidges[/], but I cannot be certain. Also, cartridges would be a ridiculous and expensive solution to the problem of laziness. Just build a better fucking blaster.

Well, that is true, if one assumes that you cannot spell.

I have, and I dismantled it because it was ridiculous. Honestly, I think it all comes down to laziness. If your blaster is air-powered, but has a stupid pump, just replace the pump.

Ok, I realize how stupid I am, and I think you for pointing it out to me. Hopefully it will help me grow as a nerfer and maybe change the way I think about modding. I guess I had a brain fart or something (no excuse). I also should never try and go through forums on my cell phone. The auto-correct and the small screen make it had to both read and type.

I agree with you. I does come down to laziness. You get out, what you put in. I know a majority of people would think the rate of fire and accuracy would unbalance the game. Whether or not that actually will or does unbalance the game, is a non-issue at that point. If most of the people feel it does, than it does.

[Meaker VI]

...Unless the blaster in question poses a safety concern, which is a legitimate reason. The advantages and potential of a faster firing, ergonomic, more powerful, longer ranged, more accurate blaster does sound like a game changer. But it really isn't. No one will ever allow a blaster to be more powerful than what is accepted as safe. And the rate of fire is off set by the weight of the containerized power source; effecting mobility. If the air blaster uses 12gram or 16gram co2 cartregages, then the cartregages must be replaced from time to time; effecting re-fire rate.

You appear to be aware of the most major issue with HPA/Co2 blasters - safety. I have yet to hear of such a blaster that isn't a safety concern one way or another. If you build it out of PVC and it cannot be pressurized enough to fire a dart that could hurt someone, it's a failure hazard just waiting for your pressure vessel to explode. If you build it out of aluminum, steel, brass, or other pressure-rated fittings and the blaster itself is *safe* (won't explode), you've basically built an air rifle. Even if you can adjust it's settings to use more/less pressure, if it's capable of holding enough pressure for multiple shots, it's also capable of releasing it all into one very dangerous shot.

[pinhead52]

I think the most important factor in this discussion is one that nobody is addressing; Nerf is NOT Paintball. Yes, if you can somehow get a blaster to fire 60 darts per second at a possible range of 100 feet, that will make up for accuracy deficiencies, just like paintball, but then we take out the beauty that makes Nerf different. Here you have to make concessions, and ultimately carry multiple blasters. You will likely have one accurate at three digit ranges, but it will take almost a second or more to ready a new dart, and another that can put out 20 or so darts in a matter of seconds within "sidearm range".

Yes, you can use pneumatics and any clip system blaster to make a Nerf system that fires and reloads semi or fully automatically like a paintball marker. It would even be impressive if you did it. Heck, I plan to do it myself. Then I'll put it on the shelf in the spare bedroom next to the singled Titan and anything else that's really cool, but would never be allowed in a real war. If knowing that your amazing blaster wouldn't be allowed on a field and that you'll have to work with basically the same tools as everyone else, despite being able to put way more money into the sport than other people playing frustrates you, then please sell me your blasters and buy a paintball marker. Make sure to tell them all how mean we are too.

Oh, and at it's core this is an idea thread, but I'm now part of the problem, so I'll leave you with this; Build your blaster, then put up pics and videos, THEN ask for help.