20 replies to this topic

[nerfturtle]

So, I was standing in my workshop yesterday, trying to find a use for a spare nitefinder I had lying around. i had been toying around with some inline clip-ish designs for it, but they didn't seem like they would work. Then I had an idea, So work began on the back loading turret prototype. Keep in mind this is only a prototype, so I didn't have looks of neatness in mind when making it. take a look.

Looks like an ordinary turret huh?
Not quite.

Heres the beauty of it. You can load it form the back of each barrel, increasing long-period ROF tenfold.
Heres a picture of a dart half-way in.

And all the way in.

My next idea for it is going to be even cooler, I'll give you a hint, spring fed inline.
Eh?

[keef]

Looks good. Nice idea so far.

You should lower the barrels to 3 inches.

4 would sound more correct but since your using a turret, I think lowering it would work better due to the air traveling to longing distances.

Does that make sense?

[General Cole]

Good idea. I like turrets, but was tired of messing with coulplers for them.

[SHADOW HUNTER ALPHA]

I developed the idea for the spring-fed inline turret feeder a while ago. However, I didn't say anything because I had no time to make a prototype. The shotgun project is eating most of that time, but the system is the basis for a heavy support weapon in design.

As for your turret, not bad. Not the most eye-pleasing work, but plenty more effective than many other concepts.

[Coodude26]

I'm thinking you could just take a weak long spring and a section of maybe PVC pipe and just have the place where you would normally put a dart spring fed, although it might just load all of em at once so I dunno. Nice job.

[Retiate]

Hmmm. I've got an idea...


[The green says "Inline Clip".]
If you don't understand how that works, it's an inline clip mounted on top of the Nitefinder. After you shot and rotated the turret, the spring would push a dart into the empty barrel that just lined up with it.

Problems with this might be that if a dart was already in the barrel, it might load another dart behind it (though that's unlikely if you can find the right spring). The cool thing about this design is you can make your inline clip as big as you want and the range won't decrease.
Well, that's just what I thought of when you showed a turret then said "spring-fed inline clip".

Edit: SHA, is this what you meant when you said "spring-fed inline turret feeder"?

Edited by Retiate, 08 September 2007 - 05:53 PM.

[Z-man12]

I foresee a problem. Won't the spring load more then one dart, unless you have a way to controll the number of darts going into the barrel. It seems to me that unless there is a way to make the resistance much lighter in the inline clip then in the barrel it will just feed them all though the barrel.

Edited by Z-man12, 08 September 2007 - 06:18 PM.

[SHADOW HUNTER ALPHA]

Retiate: Yes. The rotating chambers would only be the length of the dart, and I would use several Handyman springs to push the darts forward. (NOT the hyper-strength ones. There is another part number of the same or approximately the same length, but much much weaker.) Since the chambers are the exact length of the dart, my design would have the advantage of eliminating any over-feed issues. An aluminum plate similar to the one on the back of nerfturtle's rear-loader would block the darts from moving forward and simply popping out of the chamber. However, the disadvantage is that there is one more seal (between the chambers and the barrel) that you need to create if you want a barrel longer than the length of your dart.

[frost vectron]

Spring fed inline?

http://nerfhaven.com...?showtopic=9565

With the right spring, darts are not crushed--even without shells.

Edited by frost vectron, 08 September 2007 - 07:51 PM.

[SHADOW HUNTER ALPHA]

Spring fed inline?

http://nerfhaven.com...?showtopic=9565

With the right spring, darts are not crushed--even without shells.

Wrong idea, good try. It's more along the lines of what Retiate kindly illustrated in his post.

[frost vectron]

I tend to disagree. It's the same concept, except you're changing the barrel-end. Instead of a single barrel, it feeds out into a turret.

I mainly posted it to show that it is possible to build a spring-fed inline without shells that does not crush darts.

The main problem is how to control how far each dart is pushed into the end of the barrel.

[General Cole]

Just make the back end of the turret more loose than the next section. Then you have an easy section to load darts, but it wont keep adding darts.

[Carbon]

Just make the back end of the turret more loose than the next section. Then you have an easy section to load darts, but it wont keep adding darts.

That's what I did in my turret. Although, I think it would probably work better without the spring. Tip it forward, and allow the dart to fall into the expanded rear area. A spring would press more or less depending on compression, so the amount of insertion would vary.

[nerfturtle]

The back of the barrels are loose, cause' I'm satrting to work on the idea I hinted at (Retiate kindly described it) But as of now the only problem is dart length. If the darts are too short, more than one dart could be pushed in and rotation would be jammed. If the dart is too long, it sticks out the back and rotation is jammed. I was toying with an idea of self adjusting losse barrels, but it's going to take some work. If anybody has any ideas on the subject I would love to hear them.

[keef]

Add brass that acts as a tightener, or just add tightening rings with pipe cutters.

[Falcon]

Looks great! I think I'll stick with my front-loading turrets simply because not ever gun leaves me space to put a dart in from the back, plus the amount of work needed to construct one of these in comparison with just using a 2k turret, but I REALLY like it all the same.

As a bit of a side observation, though...

Don't anyone take this as an insult, because it's not intended to be, nor is it targeting any one person in any way. No one was bashing him for it, but I noticed something while reading this...

A few people (including the turret's maker himself) commented that it wasn't the most pleasing thing to look at. I agree; it's not incredibly clean. It doesn't look like it was manufactured or anything. It looks like it was made in his garage. Probably was.

But now I have a question:
Five years ago, would anyone have commented that it didn't look all that clean?

Frankly, I think five years ago, the entire community would be gawking at it in hysterics. For that time period of our hobby, this would have been cutting-edge workmanship and incredibly clean.

Why have times changed so much? SO many incredibly effective guns were held together by nothing more than Hot Glue and duct tape back in the day, it amazes me. I haven't seen a gun held together by duct tape in a few years now.

Make no mistake; cleanly modified guns are a GREAT thing. We all love them. We love how uncannily realistic we can make guns look; as though we bought them in the store that way. But is that really a means for judging a gun?

I think the community has been spoiled by incredibly clean modifications. A lot of incoming Nerfers have incredibly high standards to follow, because no one uses duct tape and hot glue anymore. If it's not at least epoxied or gooped, it seems to fall under "average" and not given much notice (other than to be said that it doesn't look clean.) Modifications by Forsaken Angel, Captain Slug, KBarker, and others, which are incredibly clean and just reek of perfection are actually starting to bug me. Not because of jealousy; they do great work, and I encourage them and others to keep at it. But do we REALLY have to make such things our standard?

Go take a jaunt through the modifications/paintjobs thread. Read some of the comments. SO much attention is paid to cleanliness and it's so thoroughly and closely critiqued that I'm led to wonder if some mods done by some newer members might be kept from our sight because they're afraid that it's not clean enough and will be criticized for it. Some incredibly awesome concepts that we may never see because they're held together with duct tape.

Am I making sense?

It's just something I've noticed over the past while, and I felt like commenting on it. Don't mean to hijack the thread here; we've got a great discussion going in here, so if you are going to comment on what I've said, don't forget to say SOMETHING either pertaining to the mod itself or the concepts being discussed. But while you're doing so, try to remember where we started from; that turret kicks ass and is just as clean as the next guy's work in my eyes.

[keef]

^Thats the signal for me to post me SSPB!
And BBB!

[Z-man12]

Mods can always be cleaner, up to a point. Just because something is ugly dosn't mean it can't be usfule. Many things I start on look ugly. But the idea of showing something that looks like a lump of trash turns my stumic.

When I first started looking into nerf-mods. The only reason I stuck around was because there were people who didn't just use ductape, e-tape, and hotgule.

I think all mods have their merrits. I like mine clean, that dosn't mean I will say something about one being ugly. I take what I like from it and keep the rest to my self.

Just my two cents.

This is a great idea for a mod, be it cleanly done or not. It is well excuted.

[Steveep]

Falcon:

I guess I'll just throw in my two cents here. Yes, you are making sense. But I blame the people who harshly criticize those who's mods turn out looking less than stellar. When I first started modding nerf guns, it was duct tape and hot glue, just like anyone else. Just like in any other industry, the standards must rise, otherwise, there is no progress. When automobile manufacturers first started putting air conditioning in vehicles, it didn't affect the handling of the cars, it just made them a little more comfortable. Forsaken Angel and CS are simply the cutting edge of Nerf modification. We shouldn't expect everyone's mod to look and perform as well as theirs.

So yes, I'm agreeing with you, with my own little twist. So to all who would criticize someone's work, keep in mind that just cause you could make it look better, didnt mean they could. Someone put their best efforts into it and they'll learn to make it look better through trial and error.

Edited by Steveep, 12 September 2007 - 07:36 PM.

[SHADOW HUNTER ALPHA]

When I said it wasn't the most eye-appealing thing, I was taking into consideration these points. The standard is whatever the person can create in the time frame and with the materials they have. By no means did I mean to sound insulting, if anyone here thinks that. However, it is also notable that aesthetic value has become one of the more over-rated categories in grading others' mods and general work. The usefulness of the device outweighs the appearance, but the look of a "mean & clean" gun is also important for some. Granted, a gun that looks incredibly clean also has a high value (look at the top modders' works and at DT's paintjobs...), but it is only half of the true value.