76 replies to this topic

[Aeromech]

For everyone asking about the 3D files, yes I will post them RIGHT HERE

https://drive.google...WG8tOGxPNHJ4WnM

 

Preface

The ESLT is one of those blasters that is ubiquitous throughout the community. You see at least one at every war, and the [EDIT: stock] performance just does not live up to the hype, at least not without significant upgrades to the design. The seal leaks in both the front and at the plunger head itself, the "plunger rod" is a specialty component that can only be made if you have a lathe available;  any seal that might have been made at the front redirect piece is broken the second that rod starts moving. Overall, you're left with a blaster that approaches double rainbow weight with modified rapidstrike performance. While ideal for indoor skirnmishes, to say this competes with rainbows and SNAPs is, (as far as I'm concerned) an outright lie. This prototype, soon to be production, blaster is meant to be the next evolution of the ESLT and combines my experience with rainbows, solid modelling, and actual nerfing to create a blaster that fills all the roles previously described.

 

Objective

Create a blaster that is shorter than a traditional rainbowpump, with a muzzle velocity comparable to that of a low end rainbow (>220 FPS).

Create a blaster that weighs less than the ESLT (<3 pounds, 4 ounces)

Allow for quick change of barrel, (<30 seconds)

Allow for quick user servicability (Replace spring and back up in <2 minutes.)

Allow for easy lubrication (No special tools to lubricate)

Solve the leaking issues of redirect blasters

Use 3D printing where applicable to provide an ergonomic blaster experience.

In short, Create what the ESLT SHOULD have been.

 

 

PCSR: Pumpaction Compression Spring Redirect Blaster

(or Politically Correct Soviet Russia, depending on who you ask)

 

The prototype looks a little different than the initial model, so bear with me here. Operation, however, is identical.

 

This was the original design from back in August. School brought blaster production to a hault until now, but I am very pleased with the results. Let's take a look inside, shall we?

 

 

This is the beauty of the PCSR. There is no forward barrel rest like on the ESLT, so that barrel up there can be any type and any length of barrel you want. So whatever's already on your Rainbow/SNAP at home? throw it right on here and it will work with YOUR DARTS and not proprietary darts that only one person makes. And that main energy spring in the back? It's a [k25], and can be subbed out for a [k26] with the removal of 2 screws. You can upgrade or swap out your spring in under two minutes with nothing more than a screwdriver. So if you're indoors and don't feel like blowing holes in people, you can put in a weaker [k25] spring and an 8 inch pistol barrel, or throw in a [k26] and a 14 inch barrel for outdoors play.

 

Back to operation: The trigger is connected to that black nylon rod on the bottom. That rhinocerous shaped piece in the stock is actually the catch, it is pulled forward by a rubber band wrapped around a screw just in front of it (not pictured). It catches in the little recess in the floating piston and that's what locks it in place. You'll see in the next photo.

 

 

That stock-catch moves up and catches in the recess of the piston. This is what locks it in place. When the blaster is primed, the pump is pulled back and the nylon rod in the main tube pushes back on the floating piston until the piston is locked back. See that little black piece in the redirect piece? That's a specialty McMaster component that costs a touch more that the o-ring that the ESLT uses, but ACTUALLY SEALS AGAINST THE PUSHER ROD. It's used in pistons and actually creates a decent seal. The whole seal on the prototype isn't perfect, but I have concluded that's because I messed up the normal "goop seal" and the next one should be better. Still seals better than an ESLT. moving on...

 

 

Ready to fire. The pump is pushed all the way forward. Because the rod is stationary when the blaster is fired, a better seal is created because nothing is moving through the rubber piston seal. There's no movement to break the seal. When the pump is all the way forward, it opens up the channel in the redirect piece allowing air to flow to the barrel. Much like how a throttle works, really. This piston seal has another benefit: It grips against the rod tightly enough that THE PUMP DOESN'T SLIDE AROUND when the blaster is primed. This is the only pumpaction homemade that I know of with this feature, meaning this blaster can be fired safely, without damage, with one hand, so long as the pump is already all the way forward. You can run with the thing one-handed and not have to worry about the pump sliding back.

 

To fire the blaster, the trigger is connected to a nylon rod which pushes down on the rhinocerous catch. When the catch drops, the piston slams forward and we all are happy that the experimental blaster actually works. Now onto the real thing...

 

 

She's beautiful, ain't she?

 

 

Shitty size comparison. This was for instagram, so it's not perfectly straight, but you get the idea ; )

 

 

Here you can see the catch in the back of the stock.

 

 

Modified the piston from an o-ring to a skirt seal piston, because initially it wasn't sealing. If this exercise has taught me anything it's that O-rings are utter shit.

 

 

Primed back. The draw is longer than a traditional blaster because it has to overcome the extra distance from the redirect piece, but it's something you get used to. Overall length is 3 inches longer than an ESLT, but that's only because of the length of the pump. Could easily be made shorter, but I like my pumps long.

 

She's fucking gorgeous and this is only the prototype. I should have another (production model) ready for Frozen Foam on Saturday. In Summary:

 

-Half a pound lighter than an ESLT

-4 inches longer than an ESLT in current configuration. Much shorter than even a Double rainbow when barrel length is included

-Roughly 220 FPS with a [k25] (untested but sound/echoes in my hallway match roughly 220 FPS)

-8 inch pump draw

-Pump stays forward when primed due to friction from pump-rod seal, a feature unseen in any other homemade.

-Roughly 6.5 inches of spring compression with .75 inches of pre-compression.

-Uses commonly available springs for propulsion and only one "specialty" part (the rod seal, but it's $5 for 5 on McM, so it won't kill ya).

-Certainly not 100% seal, but better than an ESLT

-Can change a barrel as easily as any traditional homemade.

-Pump comes out with two screws only, allowing for fast lubrication of the pump rod.

-Spring removes with two screws only (production model won't use duct tape, and will instead use zip ties or an extra ring on the stock to hold in place.)

-Pretty comfy, yo (not quantitative, but hey it just feels good).

-Uses only 10 3D printed parts.

-Still needs slots to be made, but hey ya can't win 'em all.

 

 

This blaster has met every goal I've set for it and then some. It gets Double rainbow performance at close to the size of an ESLT, at 15% lighter weight. Adding a little bit of a pump-grip to the thinwall PVC will probably negate that weight difference, but for me, I like the AR-15 cylindrical pumps so long as they have traction, i.e. I am a filthy skater and have skateboard tape laying around. I think I found myself a new primary.

 

 

 

And just in case you were wondering, yes I have a HUGE ego.

 

 

-Aeromech

Edited by Aeromech, 27 April 2016 - 12:45 AM.

[orangeparkour]

Will STL's and design files be shared eventually? Looks like a really nice design and I would love to build one. Really good work overall.

 

Also I would disagree and say that ESTL's do not only shoot proprietary amo that only one person (myself you are obviously refering to) makes. 

[The2ndBluesBro]

They were built to shoot silicone domes. People liked the metal darts better. Very nice improvement to a decent design. With this and the homemade mill, you're really cranking out the mods/homemades lately. Even though I still prefer the +bow, despite its lack of innovation compared to today's homemades, this will be a good addition to the directory. I think this is what Slug intended the 2-11 to be to the +bow, except this was done right and doesn't require some giant size of pipe (I'm looking at you, 2" polycarb tube). Defiantly one of the better pump action designs out there, although I still think pullback is superior for higher spring constant blasters. 

[Aeromech]

They were built to shoot silicone domes. People liked the metal darts better...  I still think pullback is superior for higher spring constant blasters. 

Will STL's and design files be shared eventually? Looks like a really nice design and I would love to build one. Really good work overall.

 

Also I would disagree and say that ESTL's do not only shoot proprietary ammo that only one person (myself you are obviously refering to) makes. 

They do not ONLY shoot propriety ammo, but it's what they were designed for, and therefore provide sub-optimal performance for most other ammo types. People do tend to use slugs more and that's the point. The ESLT comes shipped with a barrel meant for silly-domes. If nobody uses them anyway, the barrel needs to be replaced to accommodate the darts being used. The forward barrel rest on the ESLT demands the barrel must be 14 inches long no matter what. And if fatter/denser foam is used the ESLT can and will get some of the nastiests jams you've ever seen, partially caused by that non-vaccum-forming plunger seal. It gets stuck and then cannot get unstuck by priming back. Point being, it's a pain in the ass to change the barrel on that thing.

 

As for uploading the .STL files, you can refer to http://nerfhaven.com...o-borrow-eslts/ for my answer. Not one week ago, I came asking for a favor from the community and was greeted as a theif. Forgive me, but I'm not in a particularly generous mood at the moment. You will pay for a blaster just like anyone else. I will not release the files for the time being. TL;DR, When I can have people trust that I won't steal their $100 blaster, I will trust them that they will not try to sell MY $100+ blaster as their own.

 

EDIT: Thank you to my friends, who, upon reading this post, volunteered some ESLTs for me. And thank you Orangeparkour, upon rereading the thread, most of the comments there were trying to be helpful. Sorry to those of you I offended, the few bad ones left a bad taste in my mouth.

Edited by Aeromech, 28 December 2015 - 10:57 PM.

[jwasko]

When I can have people trust that I won't steal their $100 blaster, I will trust them that they will not try to sell MY $100+ blaster as their own.

That's really sad. I always appreciated the open source nature of the nerfing community, and always hated the increase over the last ~5years in users (and companies like OMW) creating shit to sell.

 

Don't get me wrong the mistrust was shitty too, and I hope that in the future people are similarly cautious but less idiotic about it.

 

I appreciate that you did share the base design in spite of the earlier mistreatment. I've been wanting to create something similar (but non-3D printed) and it's great to see a similar product carried to completion.

 

Is the trigger pull easy? It looks like releasing the catch pushes the plunger back against the main spring, so it'll be a fine balance between a catch that slips, and a catch that takes too much force to release. Of course, 3d printing makes it easier to replicate a working design that's the right balance between the two I suppose.

Edited by jwasko, 28 December 2015 - 09:17 PM.

[orangeparkour]

Ok, that's your decision and I'll respect that. I do have to disagree with you referring to the silicone domes as a proprietary amo though. I literally have a lengthy tutorial I made for them in my signature, and the molds could be made with a ball endmill and a drill press or mill. There is nothing that stops everyone else from making silicone domes. Yes the ESLT's work well with them, but I have also seen them properly launch slugs. Also I dont believe anyone on this forum thinks you a thief, in fact, the only reference in that thread to thievery is that Cheerios points out the risk and how easy it would be to commit thievery. If I had an ESLT I would gladly let you film it and show it off as I respect the work you do.

Edited by orangeparkour, 28 December 2015 - 09:26 PM.

[Aeromech]

That's really sad. I always appreciated the open source nature of the nerfing community, and always hated the increase over the last ~5years in users (and companies like OMW) creating shit to sell.

 

Don't get me wrong the mistrust was shitty too, and I hope that in the future people are similarly cautious but less idiotic about it.

 

I appreciate that you did share the base design in spite of the earlier mistreatment. I've been wanting to create something similar (but non-3D printed) and it's great to see a similar product carried to completion.

 

Is the trigger pull easy? It looks like releasing the catch pushes the plunger back against the main spring, so it'll be a fine balance between a catch that slips, and a catch that takes too much force to release. Of course, 3d printing makes it easier to replicate a working design that's the right balance between the two I suppose.

 

The open source nature of this hobby is the reason this blaster exists. I will say that outright. I have had some friends offer me their ESLTs to use so I think that situation has been dealt with.

 

EDIT: Thank you Orangeparkour, it really means a lot. One of these days I'll release the files. They aren't 100% yet and I'd like to get a couple made first before I set them free to the wild. Just like this is somewhat an improvement to the ESLT, I'm sure someone could improve this more too. Alright, less drama, more nerf...

 

To answer your original blaster question, the rhinocerous catch (I guess that's what we're calling it now?) has changed slightly from these original drawings. The trick is to get the catch sear angle to be tangential to the circular travel of the catch, this way you are not trying to further compress the mainspring, but merely overcome the friction force, which isn't that bad. It's a heavier trigger, but no worse than a heavy rainbow type trigger.

Edited by Aeromech, 03 January 2016 - 05:27 PM.

[The2ndBluesBro]

Ok, that's your decision and I'll respect that. I do have to disagree with you referring to the silicone domes as a proprietary amo though. I literally have a lengthy tutorial I made for them in my signature, and the molds could be made with a ball endmill and a drill press or mill.

That is way more work than just making domes or slugs. Not to mention getting the silicone right and even if they are made right you need to dump cornstarch into your barrels so they feed. The only advantage I've seen attributed to them is their percieved safeness, which is dumb because there have never been any serious injuries from regular Stefans anyway. Stefan Mohr made a semi perfect design which has been perfected by modern nerfers.

[CaliforniaPants]

are you upset? you seem upset. 

 

your complaints about the plunger rod being a special piece are nullified by the fact that you still have used a 3d printer every step of the way, which is arguably way more specialized and hard to replicate compared to a lathe; which you could easily replicate with a file and some time. especially your plunger head which seems needlessly complicated in shape just because you could.

[cheerios]

Yo you mad bro? My only point in that is that other people have stolen members' blasters in the past and that it's entirely possible for it to occur now. I don't get why you're so butt hurt about me making an extremely valid point.

[Aeromech]

your complaints about the plunger rod being a special piece are nullified by the fact that you still have used a 3d printer every step of the way, which is arguably way more specialized and hard to replicate compared to a lathe; which you could easily replicate with a file and some time. especially your plunger head which seems needlessly complicated in shape just because you could.

 
And I disagree with you on the plunger rod. Tell me, can you accurately file threads into a 1/4" steel rod with any kind of precision? I didn't think so. And these days, 3D printers are getting more and more common whereas lathes are almost unheard of unless you go to engineering school or something.
 
The plunger head is exactly as complicated as it needs to be, allow me to explain:
 

 
1) This protrusion supports the main propulsion spring so it doesn't buckle in the plunger tube
2) This rear section provides support for the piston against the plunger tube. This is the first point of solid contact. Two are needed to ensure the piston remains cocentric to the plunger tube
3) This is the region where the catch engages the piston. It must be recessed for obvious reasons
4) This area supports the skirt seal
5) This provides the second point of contact with the plunger tube but also widens so that the force of hitting the redirect piece is distributed, making breaking less likely.
 
The piston wasn't designed that way because it looks cool, it looks like that because it works. This is in fact the 3rd piston design I tried and it function the best of all of them. The reason it's curved and angled is either to help the thing catch or to distribute the forces in such a way that the piston is stronger than if it was just a bunch of straight cylinders, which are likely to shear.
 
 

Yo you mad bro? My only point in that is that other people have stolen members' blasters in the past and that it's entirely possible for it to occur now. I don't get why you're so butt hurt about me making an extremely valid point.

This isn't getting us anywhere. Let's cut the shitposting shall we? This is a Nerf site last I checked.

Edited by Aeromech, 29 December 2015 - 02:09 AM.

[CaliforniaPants]

shit post 4 LYFE

 

i thought you were talking about the eye on the end, thats what i meant for files. my bad. however there;s a thing called a tap and die set, it works very well for cutting threads. people have been using it for a long time.

 

now i understand the plunger setup, does it have any problems with it riding against the inside of the tube and dragging? my worry would be that over time as the spring shortens it would not have the same pressure against it and would cause it to go a little cocked down the plunger tube and rub away at the material, then making the seal not be square and causing issues. places 2 and 5 being the concerns. obviously this is a long term thing but still a concern.

[Aeromech]

 

i thought you were talking about the eye on the end, thats what i meant for files. my bad. however there;s a thing called a tap and die set, it works very well for cutting threads. people have been using it for a long time.

 

now i understand the plunger setup, does it have any problems with it riding against the inside of the tube and dragging? my worry would be that over time as the spring shortens it would not have the same pressure against it and would cause it to go a little cocked down the plunger tube and rub away at the material, then making the seal not be square and causing issues. places 2 and 5 being the concerns. obviously this is a long term thing but still a concern.

 

Ah very true. But then I have to buy a special tool to make it. I am big on ease of assembly and servicing, I don't even like slots because they're kind of sloppy to make without a mill and very time consuming in my experiences. My goal here is being to get more people involved in the hobby, and the motivation for eventually releasing the files.

 

I've yet to experience that problem with these. And luckily, the piston and spring can be replaced in under two minutes, (again, back to the ease of maintenance thing,) so you can swap out the entire piston and spring right then and there if problems do arise. However, I don't see that happening really. I've used 3D printed plunger heads with similar measurements and haven't had problems with them. I'll be warring with this prototype this weekend and will tell you if I experience any difficulties.

Edited by Aeromech, 29 December 2015 - 02:22 AM.

[orangeparkour]

One thing that you mentioned, but after sleeping and thinking about the design, is how impressive it is that there are so few printed parts. Makes it really easy to replace stuff, and when you first said that I just sorta agreed and thought w/e, but it is actually a bigger deal with a lot of blasters. Also, what is the specific mcmaster part you are using to seal the plunger rod? I'm really curious as a decent seal for a 1/2 rod without adding too much extra friction is awesome.

Edited by orangeparkour, 29 December 2015 - 07:37 AM.

[Meaker VI]

Good grief you guys, what's with all the flaming?

 

Aeromech, this looks awesome. I wasn't aware of the issues you're talking about with the ESLT, but I like the simplicity of the parts here. It'd be really great if it were possible to do with off-the-shelf stuff, or with optimally printed pieces that could be readily replaced by parts that are easy to source.

 

One note on the ESLT that I liked - the barrel support helps keep the barrel facing the same direction as the blaster body. Removing that makes it possible (probable) that your barrel isn't aligned and thus makes aiming more difficult (without practice). You could probably design one into the grip, but that'd cost your "fits with any barrel" idea. It'd probably be best to slot the pump grip and put one sticking out were the pump-plug is. And I suppose designing it to fit 1/2" PVC would allow it to be compatible with just about any micro-caliber dart.

 

RE: Slots - I've had success using string to cut slots. It's tedious, but made the best cut I've managed. I've also heard router tables (shoot, in PVC, a router bit chucked in a drill press can do it; not like the PVC causes much lateral force) can be set up for efficient slotting, so no need for a mill, but I agree they're trouble to make.

[Birch]

To be honest, while this blaster is cool and more powerful than an ESLT, it is still way more complicated and larger than it needs to be. This rainbowpup style of bull pup is a really inefficient design. There is so much more room for error, as well as a final product being quite a bit longer and more bulky than necessary. 

 

In my opinion, the best and only practical style of bullpup is the reverse-inverse aka. multiple orgasm style of priming. It takes up less space, is significantly easier to make, and is more powerful than a PCSR or ESLT. I just don't get why more people don't make reverse-inverse style bullpups. There are http://nerfhaven.com...up/#entry339179detailed write-ups on these styles of blasters, but they have gone quite unnoticed.

Edited by Birch, 29 December 2015 - 12:14 PM.

[jwasko]

1. why is everyone flaming Aeromech?

2. it is still way more complicated

2b. and larger than it needs to be.

3. This rainbowpup style of bull pup is a really inefficient design. 

 

In my opinion, the best and only practical style of bullpup is the reverse-inverse aka. multiple orgasm style of priming.

4. It takes up less space,

5. is significantly easier to make,

6. and is more powerful than a PCSR or ESLT.

7. I just don't get why more people don't make reverse-inverse style bullpups. 

 

1. B/c the internet

2. Really? Seems simpler. The catch is only one piece plus a push-rod, for instance.

2b. Different strokes for different folks. I recently watched Aeromech's video on Double Rainbows, and he seems to prefer long strokes anyhow. If you want something that minimizes length then yeah you should build something else. That's the beauty of a an honest-to-God homemade: It's made to suit your playstyle.

3. The rainbowpup had the spring up front, under the barrel, and used a backwards-facing plunger like an ESLT. This does none of those things.

4 True, but...

5. This design could easily be replicated in a SNAP-style way, even with a clothespin trigger. You can't do that with a Reverse-Inverse bullpup since it needs a rainbow catch.

6. ...Maybe...?

7. Some people prefer RSCBs over hoppers (*raises hand*), and a reverse-inverse bullpup design cannot be used with an RSCB. Or, at least, you'd be missing the point by adding the additional length needed for an RSCB.

 

But yes, Reverse-Inverse bullpup designs are really cool, just as the PCSR is.

Edited by jwasko, 29 December 2015 - 12:31 PM.

[Birch]

 

3. The rainbowpup had the spring up front, under the barrel, and used a backwards-facing plunger like an ESLT. This does none of those things.

 

 

Sorry, I couldn't come up with a better way to describe it. I was just talking about having a seal on the plunger rod, and the air out put in the middle of the blaster. 

[snakerbot]

This rainbowpup style of bull pup is a really inefficient design.

My extension spring rainbowpup has less draw, a weaker spring, and more dead space than JPRoth1980's pumpsnap (made by NoM) and was chrono'ing at similar FPS.  I don't know exactly why this was, could have been plunger mass, friction, or hell, even dart fit, but if the design itself was that inefficient I would have expected to see a substantial FPS difference.

 

5. This design could easily be replicated in a SNAP-style way, even with a clothespin trigger.

Didn't Rogue do exactly this like six years ago?  I'm honestly surprised it didn't see more attention/development.  Maybe the fact that he and Aero both independently came up with the design several years apart says something about the concept.

 

You can't do that with a Reverse-Inverse bullpup since it needs a rainbow catch.

I'm not convinved.  This sounds like a challenge.

Edited by snakerbot, 29 December 2015 - 03:01 PM.

[Aeromech]

To be honest, while this blaster is cool and more powerful than an ESLT, it is still way more complicated and larger than it needs to be.

 

In my opinion, the best and only practical style of bullpup is the reverse-inverse aka. multiple orgasm style of priming. It takes up less space, is significantly easier to make, and is more powerful than a PCSR or ESLT.

 

Jwasko kinda beat me to the punch, but in terms of complexity, I think this thing is simpler than an ESLT, and about as simple as it could be. The pump mechanism is one rod and the propulsion mechanism is a two piece piston held together by a screw. They are independent of one another so they can be replaced separately and without taking the whole thing apart. An ESLT is connected through the center, so even to perform basic plunger-rod related maintenance, the whole thing has to be taken apart. Serviceability on this blaster is literally the easiest I've seen on any homemade out there.

 

The MO is a great design and probably superior to this one, but my technical specifications were designed to be an improvement of the ESLT, not the MO, primarily because the ESLT recieves so much hype and fails to deliver without extensive modifications and surgery. Once you have the parts printed, It's no more difficult than an MO to produce, based on the literature I've seen on the MO. If I was to design a blaster with the intention of competing with the MO that would be a different story....

[Meaker VI]

In my opinion, the best and only practical style of bullpup is the reverse-inverse aka. multiple orgasm style of priming. It takes up less space, is significantly easier to make, and is more powerful than a PCSR or ESLT. I just don't get why more people don't make reverse-inverse style bullpups. There are http://nerfhaven.com...up/#entry339179detailed write-ups on these styles of blasters, but they have gone quite unnoticed.

 

It looks like that style of blaster might be more elegant, but it also looks no simpler to build. Seems more complex, actually, just free of 3d printed parts.

 

But for those with access to a 3d printer, these style blasters are largely plug & play. The slots look to be mostly end-slots, which can usually be cut with a regular saw.

[Aeromech]

It looks like that style of blaster might be more elegant, but it also looks no simpler to build. Seems more complex, actually, just free of 3d printed parts.

 

But for those with access to a 3d printer, these style blasters are largely plug & play. The slots look to be mostly end-slots, which can usually be cut with a regular saw.

 

Bingo. I love open slots because it means two things: First, if anything slides into those slots, in this case, the pump assembly, the only thing that needs to be done is to remove the cap piece at the end and you can slide out the pump, without having to take apart a fairly important sub-assembly. Second, it means that the design is more accessible to newer builders, and simpler to more seasoned builders, making the design all-around more attractive. I've advocated open slots since I started making homemades.

[jwasko]

Didn't Rogue do exactly this like six years ago?  I'm honestly surprised it didn't see more attention/development.  Maybe the fact that he and Aero both independently came up with the design several years apart says something about the concept.

As in Nerfrogue83? I just glanced through his posts and I don't see any Homemade topics. If it was on NerfRev, I wasn't really active on the forums while the south rebelled/that site was active. Or did you mean someone else?

Actually this whole design (and what I've been toying around with replicating in homemade form) is very close to Badwrench's "LSTD" longshot. The only guy who I know tried a similar priming setup was Atomatron with his HEC 2C (if I understand his build right) but he put the grip/trigger at the back instead of bringing it forward as seen here.
 
By the way, Aeromech, while we're slobbering all over you here: You make some really awesome relocated triggers. Both this and that rainbow carbine are ingeniously simple.
 
 

I'm not convinved.  This sounds like a challenge.

By all means.

Edited by jwasko, 29 December 2015 - 03:54 PM.

[blitz]

As in Nerfrogue83? I just glanced through his posts and I don't see any Homemade topics. If it was on NerfRev, I wasn't really active on the forums while the south rebelled/that site was active. Or did you mean someone else?
 

It was Louiec3. Here's the post we are thinking of http://nerfhaven.com...hread/?p=280995

 

@Aeromech: very impressive design. I'm interested in how the 3D printed parts (specifically the floating plunger head and catchpiece) will hold up. For redundancy's sake, could a rod be screwed into the PH which would sit inside the spring and a another tube to guarantee the head wouldn't tilt out of place?

 

EDIT: Also, in order to get rid of the string/zip ties, would it be wise to extend the 1.5" halfpipe piece to include the back stock/catch assembly? Seems like you could make it more modular/solid that way.

 

I guess these are irrelevant, but just a thought for the future. Excited for the files. 

Edited by blitz, 29 December 2015 - 07:53 PM.

[Aeromech]

By the way, Aeromech, while we're slobbering all over you here: You make some really awesome relocated triggers. Both this and that rainbow carbine are ingeniously simple.

That's where this design started from. I'm finally adding a stock to the telescoping blaster I made a while back, so I'll have at least 2 blasters for Saturday that use the relocated trigger system.

 

 

It was Louiec3. Here's the post we are thinking of http://nerfhaven.com...hread/?p=280995

 

@Aeromech: very impressive design. I'm interested in how the 3D printed parts (specifically the floating plunger head and catchpiece) will hold up. For redundancy's sake, could a rod be screwed into the PH which would sit inside the spring and a another tube to guarantee the head wouldn't tilt out of place?

 

EDIT: Also, in order to get rid of the string/zip ties, would it be wise to extend the 1.5" halfpipe piece to include the back stock/catch assembly? Seems like you could make it more modular/solid that way.

Damn, it appears Louiec3 did this with a SNAP type catch at some point, huh. I had no knowledge of this to be honest with you.  Good for him.

 

 

 

The catch I'm not really worried about. The 3D printed ESLT catch operates on similar principles and has held up well. As for the floating plunger head, piston number 2 snapped in half pretty soon after I started using it. Recall I said this is the 3rd piston design. So, what does one do? Increase the layers of the print from 6 to 8, and add a hole running through the middle where a screw can be sunk. This composite piston has the lightweight properties of plastic but the loading is now being supported by the steel screw instead of the more brittle plastic.

 

As for extending the 1.5" reciever, hmmm that could work. It would add some weight though. I'll test out these models at my war this weekend and see if that's necessary, I was actually planning on shortening the receiver a bit. Also, the string is on there to support the foam face cushioning, it provides no actual structural benefit.

Edited by Aeromech, 29 December 2015 - 09:33 PM.