Jump to content


Member Since 12 Sep 2005
Offline Last Active Sep 04 2008 12:48 PM

Posts I've Made

In Topic: Pump Shotgun 2k Integration.

29 August 2008 - 09:18 PM

Very nice integration! I did a sm750 + ERTL pump shotgun combo a while back, though yours looks way nicer than mine (I didn't bother to do the pump relocation to the stock like you did; nor is mine painted). One thing though that I prefer on mine over yours is that I added a thumb-activated trigger (an upside down trigger from another toy, installed where the rear sight is - simply connected to the SM750 pump via steel wire; ugly but it works well); I personally never liked the 'ring' triggers as they are pretty awkward to discharge without changing aiming/firing position.

In response to the comment by Banshee saying that he/she likes integrating blasters that are complementary - I agree - that's why I use the sm750 as for a 'shotgun' effect (I load multiple darts in the barrel) and I'm sure you've thought of this too.

anyway - good job.

I am on crack... it occurred to me that of course I didn't do a pump relocation because the SM750's pump and tank are one piece... unlike the 2k that is described here. Anyway, the comment regarding the ring/trigger still applies...

In Topic: I Give You...cerberus

11 November 2007 - 12:56 PM

Functional, I'm sure but 'integrations' usually mean something different than merely gluing one blaster to another (see NF-sspb integration).

In Topic: Pn's Nf Mod Evaulation Results

11 November 2007 - 06:59 AM

In reply to Precision Nerfer:

quoting Precision Nerfer:
Um, I would say "schmoe" is a liar... really man, no one is that bad."

- you missed the point - this (as I said) is an example using fake data. There are many plausibile reasons 'Joe' and 'Schmoe' could get different results (e.g. if each uses a slightly different standard or if fired under different ambient temperature) without having to invoke lying. Get outside, measure stuff. You'll see its an empircal truism that virtually everything exhibits alot of variation- figuring out 'why' is the trick.
But providing that both nerfers stick to their own standard while firing both the stock and the modded NF, useful (objective comparisons can be made).

quoting Precision Nerfer:
"Um, why should we mod then? Think about it. If we aren't doing it right now, then why even do a modification? "

- well, believe it or not, some people actually mod because they think it is fun and, as adjudged by them, it improves the quality of their nerfing experience. And they don't care about ranges in terms of somebody else's estimation.

quoting Precision Nerfer:
"It might get 30 feet less then what is said! "

- apparently.

quoting Precision Nerfer:
If we are not going to claim range, what's to tell a good mod from a great one?"

-this is exactly my point; you can't tell a good one if everyone measures things differently

quoting Precision Nerfer:
":Estimation from the mods done?"

- that would be a start. I don't know how other people measure things but I know what my NF or Max Shot perform like. A comparison to those mean more to me than distances. But like I said, not every one does the same mods but EVERYONE has fired their blasters stock (or have access to stock blasters).

quoting Precision Nerfer:
"We have to give at least a general range claim or else we just WON'T bother making a mod write up...."

- you might think so but I disagree. I've learned alot over the years on this site and it had nothing to do with ranges. Everyone who mods probably knows that writeups are always useful (ad that has nothing to do with posted ranges) and, similarly, many have learned that is is also best to trust your own instinct and know-how when it comes to deciding on what mods to do.

quoting Precision Nerfer:
"it would be meaningless without ranges."
- I think that is a pretty short-sighted view of modding/nerfing. I think posting the ranges as people have is the thing that is meaningless.

people on the NIC get into verbal wars about shit like ranges. If you don't believe it, fine - disscout the person who you think is lying or

In reply to Badger:

I'm not sure why you seem to take offense to my comments but you are, of course entitled to a rebuttal (and of course, I will doe the same).

quoting Badger:
"Hey Ambushbug, I think you took this topic the wrong way. I am not trying to "standardize" how one would test the ranges of a modified blaster, rather, I was simply giving my evaluation of his mod so as to dismiss all of the constant
flaming that was occuring every time PN talked about it."

- I suppose you're right - your main point was not standardization. So I guess I misunderstood. However, you seem to have also misunderstood my point. My point was not to 'attack' your approach to reviewing a blaster to evaluate PN's claims. As I said, it is valuable. I am really getting at the issue of "range testing" in standardized way and, while my comment may have been a bit tangental, it is just a general reaction to the issue of 'proving' ranges.

quoting Badger:
"Now I am going to pick apart your assessment of why my testing was not done in a way to be easily duplicated, whereas it is easy to replicate my results and my testing styles if one is careful and watchful of what they do.
[quote]various darts were used[/quote]
Two, not various, darts were used. PN supplied the darts that he made for the gun, which were CDTS (they are not considered stock anymore as they have an altered tip). The stefans were also used to get a view of distances when the gun fires the most commonly used type of ammo for a modified gun."

- as I said in the original post, it is understandable that modded blasters/darts were used in the review of PN's NF, blaster and dart were designed for one another. But the method of evaluation doesn't allow someone (who doesn't have the same modded blaster stefans) to have any information independent of your review.

quoting Badger:
"[quote]performance depends on air temperature/pressure (as Badger alludes to)[/quote]
Where did I ever mention pressure? I also never mentioned air temperature, rather I was referring to ambient temperature. I have seen marked changes in performance in springers when they are subjected to long periods in both hot and cold climates. There was no eulding."

- I guess I misunderstood here too. I thought you were implicitly referring to factors (temperature/pressure etc.) that chemists and physicists (or engineers) have shown to influence all physical properties/measurement. Why would temperature & air pressure/density not be relevant to "ambient" condiitions? I though that was what you meant in the comment regarding Which is why you made the comment regarding playing "up in the mountains (well above 2000 feet) on a very hot and dry day" Surely alot of these factors probably have relatively small effects for processes at the velocities we are interested in but from the standpoint of making inferences, this is worth serious consideration.

quoting Badger:
"[quote]height/angle is not exactly controlled (e.g. "steadying with both hands" is hardly objective)[/quote]
I am 6'1" in height holding the gun at eye-level, so at a level of 5'7". As for the angle and your statement that the angle is not exactly controlled, once again, I am not developing a standard for testing, but the angle was controlled. Unlike over 90% of the nerfers, I do have a good understanding of how to stabilize a gun to prevent recoil. A real firearm has alot of recoil due to the bullet being propelled by a gunpowder charge so the recoil can't all be prevented, while a Nerf blaster that has been modified has such a small amount of recoil in comparison that it could be steadied with just a small amount of effort. I am trained to use both handguns, rifles, and automatics and I am an expert marksman with all three as per the standards of the USAF, so I think I know how to fire a Nerf blaster and steady it to eliminate the recoil as well as to keep it at a level trajectory."

- I'm sure you do know how to fire a real gun (I don't, nor do as you say "90% of nerfers"). So what? I'm a scientist by profession who gets paid to be objective (and teach university students to be objective). Still so what? One needs neither firearms training or a PhD to be able to say that a handheld setup is not very precise.
And of course a nerf blaster doesn't fire like a real gun does (who said it did?). But that has nothing to do with precision/repeatability.

quoting Badger:
"[quote]comparison to the modded max shot[/quote]
This comparison was done simply to verify that the measurements were correct and to show that the NF was not shooting 100 feet or better. It was not so much meant as a comparison. More of a guide. I used it as a simple test to see if it was possible for the gun to fire 100 feet or not. Once it didn't meet or surpass my MaxShot in the range tests, I proceeded with the individual measurements of the NF's performance. Just to let you know, my MaxShot simply has the AR sawed off, but the original front cone that the AR was attached to is still there. A piece of 21/32" brass was rammed onto the internal airflow stem that is found under the front cone. This acted as a coupler for my style of barrels. I then rammed (literally) the cone back into place, disabled the safety that is inside the gun, and screwed it back together. The spring is stock as is the rest of the gun. My barrels use the same PETG that PN used in his NF. Yes it is a different class of blaster as opposed to the NF, but it was only used as a ruler for what 100 feet looks like."

"I also didn't do a distance breakdown as the shots from both my MaxShot and his NF were in a consistent range with a simple +/- 3' range of error or miscalculation. No one can completely eliminate human error."

- of course human error cannot be eliminated (and here, the "error" is not necessarily of human origin, darts perform differently too), that's why there is a whole branch of stuy called statistics

quoting Badger:
"There is no need for a breakdown unless one shot flies much farther or shorter than the rest."

- not true, the variance (not just outliers or "one flying much farther than the rest") is important for making objective assessment of differences between two things (e.g. range of blasters). One can only tell whether one fires 'significantly' farther than another by knowing what's a big difference and a small difference (based on the standard deviation, i.e. determines what is a little and what is alot). That's what statistical tests do: they judge whether a difference is a little or alot based on an objective (i.e. data-based) criterion.

On another note, I never tried to measure distances at DCNO as it was an outdoors event, it had just recently stopped raining prior to the start of the war, and it was quite windy. Any ranges measured there would have been subjective, but when you are surrounded by at least 6 other experienced nerfers who, like yourself, have seen what a gun that can shoot 100 feet should look like, and the gun you just fired doesn't perform as such, it isn't subjective anymore as it is verified by multiple experienced modders and players.

- I know you didn't measure ranges at DCNO - nor should you have. You have better things to do, like NERF. Yes, its nice to have other people around to observe the results but it does not affect the subjectivity (unless they all indepedently tested/measured ranges). I never said you were a liar (which the only thing bystanders can guard against), I just said the range testing was not objective (e.g we all do it slightly differently and, thus, are expected to get slightly different results).

In closing, you picked apart my style of evaluating the NF without having any knowledge of what my personal background was, my experiences, or my knowledge base.

- I'm not judging your experiences or your background or your opinions. I can accept these at face value. I'm just pointing out that there is alot of subjectivity involved that provides a bystander (e.g. one who hasn't actually fired PN's NF) little data that he/she could actually use to compare with blasters he/she HAS fired (which is what I thought on of the purposes of sharing this information was). As your signature says, "you're brutally honest". Great - so am I. Reviews and statistics are separate things. Like reading a car review oniine: half is the opinion of the person who got to test drive it and others are actual facts/numbers (e.g. 0 to 60 mph in ...)

I personally don't give a fuck about ranges either. If my MaxShot can hit a person that is running away from me into the woods and tag him in the back of the neck, it is good. If it is accurate enough to fire through a split tree and an opening in a bush that is only about 2" in diameter and hit someone, it is good. Some people are genuinely honest about their ranges. I take each person's word on a case-by-case basis.

-no argument there

- Anyway, I don't want to hijack this thread - but feel free to argue with me further (via PM).

In Topic: Pn's Nf Mod Evaulation Results

09 November 2007 - 10:21 PM

First off - for the most part, I'm not so concerned with the ranges people post because, the way people measure ranges is so subjective, absolute ranges reported mean pretty much jack-shit. Not to mention that some just outright lie.

In principle, I like the fact that Badger is trying to 'standardize' ways to measure ranges but, despite his best intentions, the measurement is not done in a way that is easy to duplicate anyway.

The following problems make comparisons difficult:
- various darts were used
- performance depends on air temperature/pressure (as Badger alludes to)
- height/angle is not exactly controlled (e.g. "steadying with both hands" is hardly objective)
- not to mention that better summary statistics are required to make a fair assessment - its not just the 'average distance" but also the 'variance' in ranges that determines performance
- comparison to the modded max shot makes some sense in terms of allowing Badger to get a feel but that doesn't provide much objective information (e.g. Badger's mod is not identical to another person's mod). In actuality (this will sound counterintuitive at first) one should use an unmodded blaster and stock darts as a reference. For example, if Badger compared PN's NF ranges to a stock NF firing stock darts (so long as the testing for both blasters was done at the same temperature/height/angle), then this would provide a more objective comparison because, I anyone could make a similar comparison between their own mod and a stock NF/darts.
That is, if I knew my mod shot 15% (on average) further than a stock NF with stock darts (at any given temperature) but Badger's mod shot 20% further than a stock NF, then I'd know Badger's mod gets better ranges than mine. This would be true regardless of whether or not we test fired at different temperature/pressure etc. (even if my ABSOLUTE ranges were higher)

I'll illustrate with a fake dataset:

Assume two nerfers (Joe and Schmoe) live in very diferent climates. Joe lives in a place where it is hot and humid. Schmoe lives in a place that is cool and dry. Both agree to test their modded NFs against a stock NF, firing stock darts at the same height/angle.

Joe's ranges:

modded NF:

AVERAGE = 59.6'

stock NF:

AVERAGE = 42.6'


Schmoe's ranges:

modded NF:

AVERAGE = 78.2'

stock NF:

AVERAGE = 71.6'


so who's mod is better? I'd say that Joe's is better (despite having lower ABSOLUTE ranges - this is probably accounted for by the climate he lives/nerfs in). Joe's mod improved the range of a stock NF by 39.9% while Schmoe's mod improved the range of a stock NF by only 9.2%. Furthermore, the standard deviation of Joe's ranges (4.56') are about half of the ranges found by Schmoe (8.41'), suggesting that Joe's mod is also more consistent.

There are some simple statistical tests that could even be applied to such comparisons but I suspect that would be beyond the scope of the 'average' nerfer - but my only point is that there ARE ways to perform standardized tests of mods (not that I think anyone would ever implement this). I am also aware of the conundrum - who the hell would mod something to fire stock darts!!!

Again, my point is that if people want ways to compare the efficacy of their mods, there ARE ways! But if you won't do it right, then DON'T bother claiming ranges because they are pretty much meaningless (the way that people currently do it anyway). Besides, everyone who nerfs knows that the guy pulling the trigger is more important than the 'range' of the blaster. And anyone who mods, knows that a good mod is based on alot of things and the effectiveness of the mod is based on whether it achieves the desired SUBJECTIVE goal.

This is not to say that Badger's assessment is not a valuable 'review'. In fact, I think his comments regarding its efficacy in a war (DCNO), while subjective, is very informative. But it clearly does not provide a means for OBJECTIVE assessment things like ranges.

There is way too much talk of ranges on the NIC - sorry I just couldn't resist pointing out how ridiculous it is to see thread after thread (or flame after flame) about this shit ........

EDIT: 100th post !?!

In Topic: Rfr---shotgun?

20 October 2007 - 09:56 PM

If you have a rfr please try something like this so this speculation ends...The rod through the lever could be further down, but the leverage would work...The faux barrel would work as a nice track for the pump and umm...yeah...

-sigh- as you speculate some more... You seem awfully sure that one could muster enough leverage with your design. But that's just an assertion until you can actually prove it (or at least have a rational explanation based on facts).

The side view's left right motion is the lateral motion...

Incorrect. The whole point of terms like "lateral", "medial", "longitudinal" etc. is that it DOES NOT depend on the angle from which one views and oject. If it did, then coining such terms would be absolutely pointless (i.e. one could always just refer to 'left' and 'right' etc.).

Back on topic: it would be cool to see a pump-action RFR from an aesthetic standpoint. Unfortunately it won't really change the ROF by much and it doesn't address the biggest problemwith the RFR - its shit range.