Jump to content


Photo

The Great Debate

Shells or no shells?

21 replies to this topic

Poll: Opinion on shells. (83 member(s) have cast votes)

To use or not to use?

You cannot see the results of the poll until you have voted. Please login and cast your vote to see the results of this poll.
Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 Ronnies07

Ronnies07

    Member

  • Banned
  • 17 posts

Posted 24 April 2007 - 07:56 PM

This is something that I would like to hear others opinions on.

But I am a tad reluctant in making this thread in fear of a flamewar. Hopefully we can have a CIVILIZED discussion.
"If you try to fail, but succeed, which have you done?"

#2 Cmdrmack

Cmdrmack

    Member

  • Members
  • 545 posts
  • Location:Decatur, GA
  • State:Georgia
  • Country:United States

Posted 24 April 2007 - 08:00 PM

Shells have a tendancy to get lost.
  • 0
QUOTE(Predalien_Ro @ Apr 7 2008, 10:24 PM) View Post

Oompa: FECES!? Who in their right mind would try that shit!?


Bigger Salvo

{FWPC}

#3 Fireshot

Fireshot

    Member

  • Members
  • 134 posts
  • Location:Amherst, MA
  • State:Massachusetts
  • Country:United States

Posted 24 April 2007 - 08:05 PM

Shells have a tendancy to get lost.


And they can increase loading time of either the gun, if single shot, or the clip.
  • 0

#4 Ronnies07

Ronnies07

    Member

  • Banned
  • 17 posts

Posted 24 April 2007 - 08:25 PM

Shells have a tendancy to get lost.


And they can increase loading time of either the gun, if single shot, or the clip.


I dont see why someone would do that. A breech or break barrel would also work.
"If you try to fail, but succeed, which have you done?"

#5 joeyaglr444

joeyaglr444

    Member

  • Members
  • 377 posts
  • Location:Toronto, Ontario

Posted 24 April 2007 - 08:37 PM

i like shells, especially the fact that if i run out of magazines i can just pop them in through the port, Only issue is alot of clip feds that come out of Buzz bee company, tend to lose reliability. it jams.
but other than that i like shells. I think theyre more for presision shooters not losers but a good shot.
  • 0
Boys Become Men....Men Become Wolves

Blaffair to Rememblack.

#6 SHADOW HUNTER ALPHA

SHADOW HUNTER ALPHA

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,116 posts

Posted 24 April 2007 - 08:59 PM

Your answer to the question varies greatly on the type of gun you use. Shotguns, like the ones under development in my thread, use magazines with springs that could deform and crush unshielded darts, and therefore shells are required to make the gun more functional. They also allow for faster loading in clip-fed spring guns.

However, it is nearly pointless to use shells in an air gun. The barrel needs to be complete and intact (no receivers cut out for shells) for maximum efficiency.

Pros of shells:

+better reload time for some weapons, and greater reliability in spring magazines
+they look badass
+they protect the darts from being crushed

Cons of shells:
-can be hard to find
-can be time-consuming to make
-probably not the best choice for air-powered guns

Edited by SHADOW HUNTER ALPHA, 25 April 2007 - 08:27 PM.

  • 0
The only commonly shared fate among us all is death. I turn to the shadows so that I may not be unfamiliar with hell's corridors when I arrive. - SHADOW HUNTER ALPHA

Founder of the Shadow Militia.
Founder of Nightshade Laboratories and The Nightshade Armament Corporation.

#7 CaptainSlug

CaptainSlug

    Resident Mad Scientist

  • Administrators
  • 4,761 posts

Posted 24 April 2007 - 10:20 PM

My preferred alternative is to simply integrate barrel sections into a clip, similar to the powerclip and magstrike clips. The functional result is similar to having shells, but they don't have to be ejected, collected, and the weapon is much faster and easier to reload.

I see shells as a somewhat lazy solution because it is very possible to make a high capacity magazine that doesn't crush or deform the darts. It simply requires more precision in what spring is used and a breech system that can load the "naked" darts.

So I obviously vote no.
  • 0
The little critters of nature, they don't know that they're ugly. That's very funny, a fly marrying a bumble bee. I told you I'd shoot, but you didn't believe me. Why didn't you believe me?

#8 AssassinNF

AssassinNF

    Member

  • Members
  • 904 posts

Posted 25 April 2007 - 08:49 PM

Shells have a tendancy to get lost.


Shells also have a tendency to suck.

Look at buzzbee's guns:

The double shot, RFR, and that revolver thing are pitiful, and they have little to no range potential.

I will admit that Boltsnipers Shell guns are amazing, but they would be so much cooler and easier to use if they were shell-less.

Shells are annoying, they get lost easilly, and they add way too much extra reload time. Not to mention that they destroy the gun's ranges in the case of the buzzbee guns.

Maybe its my hatred for buzzbee, but I just don't see the purpose of shells.


Plus shells vs. shell-less = RFR vs. Longshot, and We all know who wins there.
  • 0

Probably dead by now, or something.


#9 SHADOW HUNTER ALPHA

SHADOW HUNTER ALPHA

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,116 posts

Posted 25 April 2007 - 09:37 PM

Shells are annoying, they get lost easilly, and they add way too much extra reload time. Not to mention that they destroy the gun's ranges in the case of the buzzbee guns.

Maybe its my hatred for buzzbee, but I just don't see the purpose of shells.

Plus shells vs. shell-less = RFR vs. Longshot, and We all know who wins there.


True, but you are citing specific examples. Buzz Bee's shells are poorly designed for our uses, but well-designed and durable shells do not in any way hamper reload time. The only annoying things about shells are that if you don't have any, you can't use the gun (until someone devises a universal feeding system), and that they can be hard to find (if you are careless enough to lose them in the first place). Shell catchers can help, but certain guns are just too poorly designed for using shells. Again, I say that shells only perform well in certain guns and under certain conditions.

CS: Some people do not have the capacity to make systems that fine, so shells are used. I am working on a special project for the Longshot, and it's a bitch to machine the parts thoroughly enough so that there are no hitches at all.

Edited by SHADOW HUNTER ALPHA, 25 April 2007 - 09:38 PM.

  • 0
The only commonly shared fate among us all is death. I turn to the shadows so that I may not be unfamiliar with hell's corridors when I arrive. - SHADOW HUNTER ALPHA

Founder of the Shadow Militia.
Founder of Nightshade Laboratories and The Nightshade Armament Corporation.

#10 CaptainSlug

CaptainSlug

    Resident Mad Scientist

  • Administrators
  • 4,761 posts

Posted 25 April 2007 - 10:33 PM

CS: Some people do not have the capacity to make systems that fine, so shells are used. I am working on a special project for the Longshot, and it's a bitch to machine the parts thoroughly enough so that there are no hitches at all.

The longshot's not a great example because it's design isn't terribly friendly towards modification. My biggest complaint being the location of the hardpoint on the bolt.

To make a system that can load a dart from a magazine WITHOUT SHELLS all you really need is a sliding tube with thin walls to swallow the dart, then a face or mating tube that seals against the breech tube at the end of it's slide cycle.
I'm currently working on a homemade that will make an ideal replacement for the mechanism in the longshot. I also plan to adapt the design into multiple versions so that it could be either a pump or spring powered gun.

Shells are not vital unless the magazine you are working with has a spring strong enough to distort the darts. If you have a magazine with a spring of the appropriate compression load then they're not needed.
It's that simple.

A shell also adds another interface you have to make a seal for. The fewer places you have to make a seal the better.

Edited by CaptainSlug, 25 April 2007 - 10:34 PM.

  • 0
The little critters of nature, they don't know that they're ugly. That's very funny, a fly marrying a bumble bee. I told you I'd shoot, but you didn't believe me. Why didn't you believe me?

#11 Retiate

Retiate

    Member

  • Members
  • 778 posts
  • Location:Gig Harbor, Washington
  • State:Washington
  • Country:United States

Posted 26 April 2007 - 11:35 PM

I think for overall performance, guns without shells would win it. Shells require time and money to make, they can get lost, and if you have no shells, you can't use the gun.
However, shells keep darts from getting crushed, they look extremely cool, and they make shorter darts more compatible with guns that hold bigger darts (A 1" dart would jam in the LS, but would fit right into a shell for a gun, like Boltsniper's FAR).
So I am going to vote no preference because I think shells are really awsome (I could play with my friend's Double Shot all day...). But when it comes to convenience, I think no shells would be better.
  • 0

#12 AssassinNF

AssassinNF

    Member

  • Members
  • 904 posts

Posted 27 April 2007 - 09:00 PM

Shells are annoying, they get lost easilly, and they add way too much extra reload time. Not to mention that they destroy the gun's ranges in the case of the buzzbee guns.

Maybe its my hatred for buzzbee, but I just don't see the purpose of shells.

Plus shells vs. shell-less = RFR vs. Longshot, and We all know who wins there.


True, but you are citing specific examples. Buzz Bee's shells are poorly designed for our uses, but well-designed and durable shells do not in any way hamper reload time. The only annoying things about shells are that if you don't have any, you can't use the gun (until someone devises a universal feeding system), and that they can be hard to find (if you are careless enough to lose them in the first place). Shell catchers can help, but certain guns are just too poorly designed for using shells. Again, I say that shells only perform well in certain guns and under certain conditions.


Yes, I'll admit that I'm biased against shells because of Buzzbee's crap.

Especially after my double shot fizzeled out and my best friend's RFR just fucking exploded today.


Shells have their place, but that place is not in my arsenal.

And the homemades I'm working on will definitely be shell-less ;)
  • 0

Probably dead by now, or something.


#13 Quilan Fett

Quilan Fett

    Member

  • Members
  • 678 posts

Posted 27 April 2007 - 09:08 PM

I agree. After using my friends Doubleshot, I rue the day I use another gun with shells.
  • 0
SNAP Shotgun


This guy can see the future!

QUOTE(pokemaster @ Mar 3 2009, 04:18 PM) View Post

hasbro in a nerf war!!!!! dude the will cancel it and confinscate are guns

#14 Jin Kazama

Jin Kazama

    Member

  • Members
  • 119 posts

Posted 27 April 2007 - 10:21 PM

Yeah, just from experience, I can say shells aren't worth using in nerf simply because there are several easier ways to get similar results in a nerf gun. Its more of a for fun kind of deal than a practical one.
  • 0
Webmaster of Ultima Nerf

#15 younggunner

younggunner

    Member

  • Members
  • 22 posts

Posted 27 April 2007 - 11:01 PM

My personal opinion on shells is that they can make a great gun better and a crappy gun worse.

Examples, Boltsnipers guns versus Buzzbee guns

Imagine Boltsnipers guns without shells, they are still great guns but shells make them better, and Buzzbee guns just plain suck

So basically what I am trying to say is that whether or not you use shells depends on the quality of the gun and the time and effort you want to put into the gun to make it work
  • 0
Visit My Site
Join My Forums
Nerf Design

#16 butleriscool123

butleriscool123

    Member

  • Banned
  • 56 posts

Posted 28 April 2007 - 08:39 AM

I think shells are fun to play with, like if you are playing around, shooting at your tv. But shells are hard to use in a war

#17 Cennipe

Cennipe

    Member

  • Members
  • 87 posts

Posted 28 April 2007 - 12:14 PM

Shells, you have to pick up durning a war, unless you can make them cheap enough to lose, I don't think that is posible though. They can be hard to make, like Boltsniper's BS8 shells, can be expensive, if made out of brass, takes extra work and moving parts in the gun making it more complex, and can cause enginering chalanges. The only good thing is that they prevent the darts from getting crushed and they look cool. Aslo, like others have said, it increases loading time.
  • 0
"Man, a being in search of meaning" Pluto

My user name is pronounced "eat shit." I know that losing is looked down apon in nerf, but, what ever.

#18 DeceitfulSteve

DeceitfulSteve

    Member

  • Members
  • 29 posts
  • Location:Los Angeles, California

Posted 30 April 2007 - 12:45 AM

I had to vote "no shells" because of the complexity is adds to a gun. Boltsniper gets brought up during shell discussions so compare the complexity of the FAR & SCAR to the NTS or Longshot.

That being said, there is a nagging desire to create ammo belts or ridiculously high-capacity magazines. These failed designs sit on a shelf right next to CO2 powered guns and converted paintball markers.

Regarding cost/difficulty of manufacture: Use lip balm tubes. As Ambushbug points out they have the same OD at 1/2" CPVC and an ID similar to 17/32" brass. Also, use a shell catcher.
  • 0

#19 Guest_yourface_*

Guest_yourface_*
  • Guests

Posted 23 May 2007 - 03:58 PM

I don't like shells at all. I was prejudiced from the beginning...

The first time I used a BuzzBee Double Shot, the shells ejected into my unprotected eye. I didn't bruise, but it wasn't fun either. I just don't like shells. They get lost and they are hard to load.
  • 0

#20 privateer

privateer

    Member

  • Members
  • 50 posts
  • Location:Parkersburg, WV

Posted 23 May 2007 - 04:40 PM

I was hell bent on making a shell-fed homemade... until I actually started making it. EVERYTHING has to be precise to guarantee a good seal. Bolt's stuff is amazing; his products are what got me into homemades in the first place. However, it's much simpler for a non-engineering student to simply make a brass breech and a box magazine.

I don't have the multitude of O-Rings or the highly refined skillz required to build a gun with shells.

I vote "NO" for MY CASE ONLY. Shells are still badass.
  • 0
"How are you gentlemen??
All your base are belong to us!!"

{Presbyterian College Nerf}

#21 nerfer909

nerfer909

    Member

  • Banned
  • 141 posts

Posted 28 May 2007 - 01:29 PM

I personally think that shells are fun, but can get lost, and with buzzbee guns, you have a 1 in 100 chance of getting a good one, I got a double shot, and its ranges were 45 feet right out of the box, but my freind broke it, so my preference is shells.
QUOTE
Step 1: Throw TTG against wall.
Step 2: Drive to Toy Store.
Step 3: Buy a NF.


Blasphemy. I think you need to throw yourself against a wall, drive to store and buy yourself a brain.

#22 Liam

Liam

    Member

  • Members
  • 207 posts
  • Location:Baltimore, Maryland

Posted 03 June 2007 - 10:44 AM

Shells:

1) Can get in the way...
2) Slows reloading time...
3) Can easily get lost

I PREFER NO SHELLS.
  • 0
The chances of one person taking a bomb on a plane are one in a million. The chances of two people taking a bomb on a plane are one in a trillion. So if you're scared of a terrorist attack, bring a bomb on a plane.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users