Jump to content


Photo

Possible Mav Mod

Look!

16 replies to this topic

#1 Nerf Warrior

Nerf Warrior

    Member

  • Members
  • 88 posts

Posted 09 June 2005 - 06:56 PM

Ok, I was looking at my Mav and I thought of cutting off the front part and single barreling it. Is this a good idea?
  • 0
-ÜNerf WarriorÜ-

#2 AirApache

AirApache

    Member

  • Members
  • 743 posts
  • Location:Indianapolis, IN
  • State:Indiana
  • Country:United States

Posted 09 June 2005 - 07:02 PM

The answer to that is most likely no.

The reasons for this are because the Maverick specializes in it's rate of fire. If you wanted to single it then you might as well just go and buy a NiteFinder or something. In addition, the plunger size/spring power is too little for you to reap any benefits off of singling it.

My advice to you is to try to find a way to reduce air loss in the current mods. I'm just sticking with the stock Maverick, personally, because I'm getting a good 20 feet off of each shot with high accuracy (due to the factory made darts).

But hey, it's your Maverick.

-AA
  • 0
Indiana '11

#3 userjjb

userjjb

    Member

  • Members
  • 57 posts
  • Location:Lowell, MA

Posted 09 June 2005 - 07:13 PM

I'd say go for it, if you don't mind experimenting and maybe breaking it. It will give you mod experience, and at the very least you'll have a unique gun. If it works, I think you may be suprised with the range. Just my two cents.
  • 0
When life gives you lemons, simply say more morphine please.

#4 Uncle Hammer

Uncle Hammer

    Member

  • Members
  • 750 posts
  • Location:Austin,TX 78758

Posted 09 June 2005 - 08:13 PM

How could you be surprised with range? This thing singled would be equal to a scout. If you single it, then your ruining the point of a mav, its ROF.
  • 0
Don't mess with Texas cuz its bigger than France, bitch..
QUOTE (Talio)
Catagory 5 hurricanes are the mighty dick of God.  You don't mess with that!  You don't mess with Gods dick!

#5 Davis

Davis

    Member

  • Members
  • 210 posts

Posted 09 June 2005 - 08:45 PM

It's been discussed, and done, already.
Posted Image
  • 0
QUOTE ("Devious")
2. Laugh like a maniac as you pummel them with your balls.

#6 flamebo388

flamebo388

    Member

  • Members
  • 277 posts

Posted 09 June 2005 - 08:55 PM

But that one wasn't done as well as it could have been, if he had nested the barrel in side of the front part of the plunger he would have got more range. Not to meantion a smaller gun.
  • 0
And as everyone knows, money makes the world go round. It's also the root of all evil, therefore the world going round is evil, and we should stop the rotation of the planet.

#7 footemps

footemps

    Member

  • Members
  • 47 posts

Posted 09 June 2005 - 10:45 PM

does that really matter though? That only equals the range of a nested scout with an insanely stretched spring. A nested NF with a stretched spring would still outshoot it.
  • 0

#8 userjjb

userjjb

    Member

  • Members
  • 57 posts
  • Location:Lowell, MA

Posted 09 June 2005 - 11:23 PM

How could you be surprised with range? This thing singled would be equal to a scout. If you single it, then your ruining the point of a mav, its ROF.

Well if you look in the thread I just made on my Tek 6 mod, you'd see what I mean. RoF is useless (outdoors) if it shoots 20 ft. But if you single it, it might turn out to be a good single shot. The physics regarding gun/dart range isn't as simple as, "Oh it's plunger tube is shorter, so it sucks".

I'm not saying a singled Maverick is going to be the best gun ever, but the important part is to innovate, experiment, create! If all you do is follow other people's mods and just replace barrels, nerf modification will stagnate. But if you're willing to take a chance and think outside the box, eventually you will be rewarded with unexpected results. It's a little thing I like to call "thinking".
  • 0
When life gives you lemons, simply say more morphine please.

#9 MysticNinja

MysticNinja

    Member

  • Members
  • 114 posts
  • Location:NC

Posted 09 June 2005 - 11:34 PM

The physics...

Alright what the fuck?

...regarding gun/dart range isn't as simple as, "Oh it's plunger tube is shorter, so it sucks".

Yeah, thatís pretty much it aside from width. Well for what weíre doing anyway.
Itís simple if two spring guns both have good seals, good spring, good barrels, good darts then the one with a plunger tube with a larger mass will fire further.
  • 0
An eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind.

#10 flamebo388

flamebo388

    Member

  • Members
  • 277 posts

Posted 10 June 2005 - 12:48 AM

Why do so many people think the scouts and mavericks plunger tubes are the same size, they're totally different, the mav has a much larger tube, if you don't believe me I'll post a god damn picture and lay it to rest. I hate how so many totally just forget about the maverick and scout because they don't shoot that far,range isn't everything you know, the scout is a small weapon that can be easily stuffed in a pocket and the maverick has the best rof of any nerf made pistol. Besides, too many of you seem to want one shot wonders(I.E. crossbow, sm5k, maxshot etc.) so a nf wouldn't help you as much as a mav would anyways, and if you suck bad enough to miss your crossbow shot I highly doubt you'll be able to hit them with a single nf shot. Nerf warrior, if you want to do it don't listen to these guys and just do it, just nest the barrel in the plunger tube and you should get more power.
  • 0
And as everyone knows, money makes the world go round. It's also the root of all evil, therefore the world going round is evil, and we should stop the rotation of the planet.

#11 footemps

footemps

    Member

  • Members
  • 47 posts

Posted 10 June 2005 - 01:15 AM

Well, right now I'm trying to improve on the weakness of the mav, which is the range. I'm not askin for a one shot wonder, I'm looking to improve upon what can be improved. And with what I've observed, the only thing that needs improvement is the range.

Right now I'm doing a plunger transplant from my nf into my mav and maybe an oring mod. After that I might do my fixed turret idea. (cuttign off the front, finding a beefy long screw, screwing and epoxying the turret to the turning mechanism directly. maybe with a little support from below) If the fixed turret turns out well, I can lengthen barrels to 4 or 5 inches and get ranges closer to an nf.

Is that innovative enough jjb?

btw flamebo: I'm not arguing that the mav can get more range off a nest mod. That's pretty much a given. I'm just saying doing such a mod defeats the whole purpose of having the mav (unless you broke it... or placed the turret into a different gun)

edit: flamebo: I think it would be nice if you posted a comparison pic. It would serve as a great resource to the whole NIC

Edited by footemps, 10 June 2005 - 01:18 AM.

  • 0

#12 userjjb

userjjb

    Member

  • Members
  • 57 posts
  • Location:Lowell, MA

Posted 10 June 2005 - 04:58 AM

The physics...

Alright what the fuck?

...regarding gun/dart range isn't as simple as, "Oh it's plunger tube is shorter, so it sucks".

Yeah, that’s pretty much it aside from width. Well for what we’re doing anyway.
It’s simple if two spring guns both have good seals, good spring, good barrels, good darts then the one with a plunger tube with a larger mass will fire further.

No, unfortunately, it's not that simple. Take a look about what chiefthe said about the maximum kinetic energy density that they design the guns by and you'll see that yes there is "physics" to it. There are many non-linear effects in a spring gun, and it's not just the volume of air moved by the plunger. It's dependent upon the plunger seal, the amount of friction on the plunger, the spring constant, length of plunger travel, plunger tube diameter, barrel diameter, barrel length, and a bunch of other things. Congrats to you if you can construct a model that can take all those variables into account and give the dart range. If it were that easy then all you'd do is calculate out what all the optimum dimensons should be for a given range and have the perfect gun. Take a look at Cx's article on barrel choice and you'll see that there's more to nerf physics than what meets the eye.

Is that innovative enough jjb?

I wasn't saying you weren't innovative footemps, in fact quite to the contrary, I was trying to support your effort. Sorry if that was ambiguous. Good luck and be sure to keep us updated.

Edited by userjjb, 10 June 2005 - 06:25 PM.

  • 0
When life gives you lemons, simply say more morphine please.

#13 MysticNinja

MysticNinja

    Member

  • Members
  • 114 posts
  • Location:NC

Posted 10 June 2005 - 05:40 AM

No, unfortunately, it's not that simple. Take a look about what chiefthe said about the maximum kinetic energy density that they design the guns by and you'll see that yes there is "physics" to it. There are many non-linear effects in a spring gun, and it's not just the volume of air moved by the plunger. It's dependent upon the plunger seal, the amount of friction on the plunger, the spring coefficent, length of plunger travel, plunger tube diameter, barrel diameter, barrel length, and a bunch of other things. Congrats to you if you can construct a model that can take all those variables into account and give the dart range. If it were that easy then all you'd do is calculate out what all the optimum dimensons should be for a given range and have the perfect gun. Take a look at Cx's article on barrel choice and you'll see that there's more to nerf physics than what meets the eye.

Congrats, obviously Iím the one who looks like an idiot. Please read my post through. I addressed EVERY thing you said.

My point is no matter how good your mod is if you single barrel a gun with a smaller plunger tube its getting less range that a mod done just as well to a gun with a larger plunger tube.

Iím not telling him not to do it. Far from it, Iím just saying itís not that complicated. He should do it if thatís what he wants and what he likes. If he can use it well, crappy gun or not, thatís all that matters.
So he can, you know, nerf, and have fun.. Isnít that what this is all about. Having fun, itís not complicated. I love modding as much as I do nerfing but damn it some of this shit is just common sense. You do one single barrel replacement I swear youíve done them all alright. Granted this is a vast statement and may be too broad. But you donít have to have a write up for every mod done. There is nothing wrong with it, but donít think that slapping a stick of brass on any gun is truly original. And thereís a difference between original and stupid. Posting any mod is great, itís good for the community. That said stop seeking consent for mods from the community, and stop needing validation your all that much more hard core that said other person.
  • 0
An eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind.

#14 AirApache

AirApache

    Member

  • Members
  • 743 posts
  • Location:Indianapolis, IN
  • State:Indiana
  • Country:United States

Posted 10 June 2005 - 10:14 AM

RoF is useless (outdoors) if it shoots 20 ft.

Really? You want me to show you how wrong you are?

Just think about it. When your opponent has a Maverick and both of your primaries are emptied, he's running full speed at you, do you really think then that RoF is useless?

And the gun is pretty damn accurate unmodded. As in I've practiced it to the point where anything less than 25 feet is mine.

And for you little kids who think you're so smart in physics because you can name off physics terms, listen up. The dart and barrel interaction can be learned quite in detail through some research on your own, and with the help of cx's "Darts and Barrels" article. Have you guys even looked at the Maverick plunger system? Only half the air in that plunger ever leaves the system, which is approx. 2 inch cubed. Now you look at the Nitefinder which is about 5"x1.5pi" and then you tell me why it's such a great gun. The tiny plunger loses some air through several ways when the Maverick is unmodded, but all in all if you cover some of those up then you only lose some feet compared to when it is singled. Furthermore, the plunger seal is designed to be efficient and it's not going to make a difference for when you choose to single it or not. Do you even know what a spring coefficient is? It's directly related to the strength of it, so you just said "it depends on how strong the spring is." *gasp* I would have never guessed! Length of the plunger travel and tube diameter? Wait a second, I think that's EXACTLY the same thing as the volume of air that comes out! userjjb, the only thing that affects the distance between a singled maverick and an unmodded one is the fact that air loss areas are removed and a longer barrel is placed. The fact is, however, you can't make the barrel much longer because the plunger tube is so damn small and you only get half of it, and it's an extremely inefficient plunger tube design. So you might get 10 or so more feet, but you just lost 5 extra shots. And 30-35 feet doesn't define impressive.

To be honest, I don't care if you single that bitch, but you came online and you asked us what you thought, so I'm just telling you that if it were my Maverick then I wouldn't spend the time/materials/money on ripping off it's advantage and throwing on a single barrel.

Edited by AirApache, 10 June 2005 - 10:41 AM.

  • 0
Indiana '11

#15 userjjb

userjjb

    Member

  • Members
  • 57 posts
  • Location:Lowell, MA

Posted 10 June 2005 - 06:24 PM

I don't want people to think this is turning into a flame war, I would just like to clear things up.

And for you little kids who think you're so smart in physics because you can name off physics terms, listen up.

I don't know if this was directed at me, but I'm neither little, nor just rambling off physics terms. I'm actually two and half years older than you, and have just completed my second year as a physics major in college, so I know a thing or two.

The dart and barrel interaction can be learned quite in detail through some research on your own, and with the help of cx's "Darts and Barrels" article.

I wholeheartedly agree, the best way to figure out good designs is to experiment with them

Now you look at the Nitefinder which is about 5"x1.5pi"

Actually it's 1.5"x1.5^2"pi, the plunger head doesn't travel the whole length of the plunger tube so it's only 1.5 inches in length. Also the area of a cylinder is pi*r^2*h, not pi*r*h

The tiny plunger loses some air through several ways when the Maverick is unmodded, but all in all if you cover some of those up then you only lose some feet compared to when it is singled.

This remains to be tested, but I'm inclined to agree.

Furthermore, the plunger seal is designed to be efficient and it's not going to make a difference for when you choose to single it or not.

I agree.

Do you even know what a spring coefficient is? It's directly related to the strength of it, so you just said "it depends on how strong the spring is." *gasp* I would have never guessed!

It's called the spring constant normally, but its in units of acceleration times mass per unit length, in SI units thats N/m. I never said range is directly related to the spring constant, in fact I'm inclined to disagree. It isn't a linear relationship.

userjjb, the only thing that affects the distance between a singled maverick and an unmodded one is the fact that air loss areas are removed and a longer barrel is placed.

I agree, if all you do is make it airtight, as well as providing the dart with a better fit, and making better use of the air output.

The fact is, however, you can't make the barrel much longer because the plunger tube is so damn small and you only get half of it, and it's an extremely inefficient plunger tube design. So you might get 10 or so more feet, but you just lost 5 extra shots.

This also remains to be measured, but I also think range won't be improved much. But! if all you do is assume then you can be placed with the likes of Aristotle and others who assumed things and had their intuition proved quite wrong, (you can thank him for making people think heavier things fall faster for 1500 years)empirical methods are the only true way.

I mean no disrespect to you AirApache, I just feel it is appropriate to have some sort of rebuttal. Discussion is healthy.

Anyways, good luck footemps, and nerf on dudes.

Edited by userjjb, 10 June 2005 - 06:30 PM.

  • 0
When life gives you lemons, simply say more morphine please.

#16 NinjZ

NinjZ

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,005 posts
  • Location:jersey

Posted 10 June 2005 - 06:51 PM

Actualy, if you take out the restrictors and seal up the rings in the back of the turret it gets decent ranges for what it is. Mine is gettign 50' flat and I didnt even put new barrels in the turret. I just use some fatter un-stretched stefans or stock ammo.
  • 0

#17 AirApache

AirApache

    Member

  • Members
  • 743 posts
  • Location:Indianapolis, IN
  • State:Indiana
  • Country:United States

Posted 10 June 2005 - 10:30 PM

Good deal, userjjb; I'm glad you agree with me on the most important issues.

Yup, radius squared might make a difference so its approx. .75^2pi" not 1.5pi". I was going for Area x Length, but that slipped.

My point was that you brought a lot of unnecessary physics into a case where the only major factors are air loss and barrel mods. Sure, the size of the barrel depends on what type of mod and how much air you lose, but the spring coefficient and plunger tube volume have no impact on this discussion.

AA
  • 0
Indiana '11


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users