21 replies to this topic

[Ronnies07]

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.

[Cmdrmack]

Shells have a tendancy to get lost.

[Fireshot]

Shells have a tendancy to get lost.

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

[Ronnies07]

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.

[joeyaglr444]

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.

[SHADOW HUNTER ALPHA]

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.

[CaptainSlug]

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.

[AssassinNF]

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.

[SHADOW HUNTER ALPHA]

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.

[CaptainSlug]

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.

[Retiate]

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.

[AssassinNF]

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

[Quilan Fett]

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

[Jin Kazama]

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.

[younggunner]

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

[butleriscool123]

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

[Cennipe]

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.

[DeceitfulSteve]

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.

[privateer]

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.

[nerfer909]

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.

[Liam]

Shells:

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

I PREFER NO SHELLS.