Tactical Automag prototype thread. Please help.
Okay, I am designing a woodsball marker that uses the excellent line of AGD products. I have been posting on PBnation about this concept marker, and I am going to post it here as well for your input. Specials thanks to the people on PBnation that have helped me thus far.
The reason behind this marker is simple: The Spec Ops Longbow, and soon to be "Black Cell" line of products disappoint me. There are dozens of reasons why the Longbow system is foolish, but its saving grace is the ADG marker that fuels it.
What is strage is that they use a TAC ONE as its base tho? Why not a Custom ULE, or even a hopped up Pro Classic? The Longbow makes NO use of the TAC ONE's picatinny rails, or most of its fast firing upgrades. It is simply overkill, and the price reflects it.
The purpose of my AGD marker concept marker is simple: To beat the Longbow at its own game. Better erganomics, balance, feel and most importantly... price!
In order to finally create this marker, Ill need a little help from you, the experts. The good news is that I got plently of nice pictures ot check out, and also I will be constructing the final approved design. That way, you can actually see the fruits of the labor put into its design.
I would like to thanks everyone who takes the times to help me design this marker. Half of the reason why I choose AGD is the fact that there is such a support base associated with the brand name, and for that I am very gratefull.
Okay, here is the basic design, and I will follow each picture with a few questions or curiosities I may have...
There are two options. One is to create a marker that allows the instalation of the Spec Ops air-thru Longbow stock...
and the other option is to create the stock from scratch, either by bending aluminium...
or C and Cing the stock peice...
So, I am curious as to which is going to end up being cheaper. The longbow stock is pricey, but less work in the long run.
Also, I am curious how to drill the stock, or aluminum, into the grip of the marker, and even the frame rail. On Pro Classic frame there are already holes in the rear, if one decides to mount their asa from the rear of the marker. Can a similar modification be made on an RT rail? I know there are not holes there already, but is this possible if one made the holes themselves? If this was possible, I could mount the stock into the frame as well, making it much more durable and steady.
Also, I am probably going to use a warp feed. This will lower the overall profile, and be somethig that can directly compete with the Qloader. The marker could end up looking something like this (is the Spec Ops stock is used...)
That is with a vert feed. I might opt to go warp feed, and not use the picatinny riser block. I am also not sure about that either.
So, as you can tell, I got alot of questions. Thanks for your patience, and for your help.
I have a Tac one, and I agree that the Longbow is rediculous. The 21 rnd tube makes the RT capabilities of the Tac1 irrelevant; furthermore, it is my understanding that the reg on the Tac1 is meant to be consistant in strings, not for "OSOK's" Anyway, I would really like a nice stock for my tac1. At least for the future, you might consider trying to find a way to attach a 98c CAR stock to the back of the tac1. It would look mean and I think it would still be functional. Regardless, I like all of your ideas. Please keep us informed.
The good news is that if the Spec Ops Longbow buttplate is attached to the rear of the Automag/TAC ONE grip (see first diagram), ANY Spec Ops stock can then be attached. Of course they would have to sell me that one peice (the buttplate), and I am not even sure if they do that.
Regardless if it works out I will post my plans here so you can try something similar to you marker. When a few more things get ironed out here, the findings should benifit all automag owners that want a more tactical feel from their marker.
Thanks for the input.
P.S. This is how the buttplate attaches itself to the bent aluminum bar...
This would be better if it could be attached ot the rt frame, and not the handle screw tho.
... and the crowd goes mild.
I like it. I've been attempting to design a way to use the automag's completely inclosed, internal design to make a more "scenario" type gun. I like your designs so far. If you need someone to throw ideas off of, feel free to email me at DSR29A@hotmail.com I have a lot of designs that I've come up with. Plus I have some connections with a machine shop.
Wow. A machine shop hookup is sweet! Really, alot of these designs are stunted, as I have to rely on "easy to make" techniques. A machining place would make alot of things a reality, alot quicker.
I will doodle around a 'lil more, and maybe if you are into the designs we can build a few. I by no means want rights to the design, and I would be thrilled and flattered if other people used it and helped me build it. Thanks for the heads up!
My dad owns his own machine shop. He's a damn good machinist as well. He's made several stocks for my different guns. None of them have been to extensive though. I would recommend that the stock be removable. I think using a design similar to the spec ops stock would yield the best results. Having a solid stock may look better but it would be harder to connect to the gun. A gas thru is also highly recommended. I'll give him some specs and see what he can do. It may take a little bit, he's currently involved in a very large deal with a big company so he's very busy. Keep me informed of any ideas you come up with. I'm always happy to talk design/construction. It's a big hobby of mine.
what you could consider too is looking at some the BT gear and then making an adapter to make it fit the mag , that folding stock looks pretty sweet (to me anyway)
I agree that the key to a great tactical Automag will be its ability to house other companies stocks and parts.
The main thing to add, like you guys mentioned, was stocks from other companies. That is huge, as there are already so many air thru choices availible, in so many styles. Another clear choice is the addition of either 3/8th dovetail sights on the top of the marker shroud (like the tippmans) or picatinny rails.
I would keep on the path of designing my own stock, but I really do not have an idea of what hardware to use to mount the peices together. If I got that buttplate from the Tippman a-5, or the buttplate from the Special Ops air thru Longbows stock (little flat peice), then it would be much easier to design. I suppose I should get one of these and then continue my tinkering. Perhaps I should check out some kind of Tippmann parts site?
Really, this "tactical" Automag would be most versitile if it was [potentially upgradable with most of the Tippmann/Special Ops upgrades.
Also, I am not sure what format to use when passing my ideas on to a machinist? Can my scale photochop renderings be turned into CAD files, or whichever files a machinist uses? Do machinists also do their own computer renderings? I am not the greatest at designing in three dimentions, but I try to have my two dimention drawings make up for it.
I will go down the more Special Ops variety of the Automag in my next drawings. Expect some more soon. Thanks again for your help guys. I am stoked to hear about your dad the machinist DSR75, and I hope he is stoked about the potential prospect of making something new.
Well... this kinda harks back to the original idea...
I think that is one of the better ways to do the stock, or stock adapter. The air thru stock is held in, or sandwiched in like the Special Ops longbow shroud does. Is there even a female plate thing in there, or is it just screwed into the sandwich? That sounded dirty didnt it? You know what I mean tho. Is it really that simple?
Oh yeah, and I am putting the stock/s lower, to allow for mask clearance. Something the Longbow does not do by a longshot!
I will try this design with some other stocks, and a front shroud (which I am still kinda unclear on...)
Ugh. I cant sleep.
Here is a shroud that is a two peice cover. Each peice connects with the other vertically. This is a warp left frame.
The bottom peice connects to the frame near the finger guard. This is connected the same way that foregrip extenders do.
The top peice connects to the stock adapter near the rear, but I am not sure how yet.
Each peice has a picatinny rail/s, or dovetail screwed in.
Very vague, but I just wanted to see if the idea agreed with anyone.
EDIT: Oh yeah. Here is a way to attach em. Kinda ugly still, but I will make a purdy version a little later, and based on feedback as well... Looks like that stock adapter part that connects to the frame has a good use after all, in attaching the top shroud.
Last edited by famousgamer; 01-17-2006 at 06:11 AM.
An adapter is a great idea. I only have experience with 98c stock, not the a-5. Do they connect a different way? I'm sure they do since you have a specific one for each. As far as how he makes his stuff. We'll take your ideas off the paper and put our knowledge together on the best way to try and make your design. We may have to tweak some things here and there that are not feesable. I think I may need to break down and get an RT rail so we have a better idea of how to build it. I'll try to get some pics of the stock he made for my tippmann pro carbine a few years back. Also mask clearance is HUGE!! I like using a red dot. It comes natural to me since I use one when I hunt. The thing I hate most about all the commercial stocks out there is that there is NO mask clearance. It's obvious that Spec Ops never field tested their "longbow sniper" before having it sent off. Or if they did they didn't have masks on. I like the drawings you have up. You are putting a lot of work into it. Just be patient on our end. Like I said in another post, he is really bogged down right now. I'm actually going down there this weekend to help him with some projects.
is it just me, or does the stock seen too low? I prefer to have a stock a bit more inline with the main body of the gun.
Also, specops sells just the rear end of the longbow. It attaches to the same six holes that the RT sight rail does, placing it higher. Albeit, it also costs $150 but it provides another attachment idea
Have you ever tried to aim down then barrel of the gun or use a red dot with a stock that high? You can't do it with your mask on. I've seen the spec ops one before. No way I'm paying $150 when I can make it myself for quarter of the price. Plus that thing looks hideous.
I'm used to rifles and shotguns, so yes. Aside from that, I use OEG's so I don't have to get me head so close.
Originally Posted by DSR75
My other point, since you obviously missed it, you can run an adapter plate to the six threaded holes on the side of the RT rail so you don't have to modify the trigger frame by either drilling into the middle of it or using a longer rear screw.
If you can make one, go ahead. I don't care, I was answering some questions that were put forth in the thread and adding my $0.02 about placement, not aesthetics.
I didn't mean to come across as rude or not appreciative. I apologize for that. Thanks for the imput.
I appreciate your plans for using an ADG design as your base, but have you really looked at the Black Cell Longbows? (This is not spam- the explaination follows.)
I have ALWAYS had the same complaint that you do about air-through stocks, i.e. that they are far too high and interfere with a good sight picture. I agree that the original Longbows fail miserably at their stated purpose for this reason. But the new Ion-based Black Cell stocks are set much lower, and I'm curious to find out if they allow enough room for a mask. On the Longbow Black Cell versions there is also the matter of the sight rail being raised even higher above the main body. I think it looks like it might work.
Mind you, I'm talking about the Q-bow, since as you mentioned that 20-round tube magazine is just ridiculous. But this would probably work wolderfully with a Warp feed if you are dead-set on one. Of course if you want a normal hopper on top that's a no-go.
For the record, though, your design is still better. It's about what I always come up with when I fantasize about my ultimate woodsball gun, except that I like the Q-loader. (I'm into woodsball, but not really milsim.) I'm trying to convince myself that I need a Tac-1 E-Mag to work on a similar project.
Last edited by acrosome; 01-17-2006 at 01:00 PM.
I'm torn about using either a q-loader or warp feed. I'm afraid of using either one for the simple fact that I feel I will break them. I've never used either but the q-loader appears fragile. The warp seams more sturdy but requires batteries and makes noise. I'm also afraid of catching the tubing on something. While I prefer to find a good hide, I occasionally like to stalk or flank. In doing do I need something that, if the occasion arose, I could feel comforatable running, diving, sliding with. What is your experience with the q-loader? I would love to be able to make a scenario/tactical line of products for AGD b/c I feel that are one of, if not the best, markers and companies out there.
As far as mask clearance, it appears that the black cell does accomodate your mask. I've never used one before so I am strictly making this statement off of an observation of the pic that you posted.
gamer I like your idea's !!! they look a hek of a lot better than the longbow. Personally I'd give luke a holler about any machining you might need.
The Q-loader is about as sturdy as a really well-made hopper, but I will grant you that it is longer so you get more leverage if it gets torqued from the end. It's still plenty sturdy. I'd say it probably is easier to break a Q-loader than a warp feed or a hopper-- I just can't stand the ergonomics of a warp feed. Well, if I'm going to be honest I've never played with one so I can't be sure, but I've held one and I found it annoying. Maybe I just needed to get used to it. You also cannot fire while reloading a Q-loader, and that can be a bummer, but the less batteries I have to rely on the better.
I just order the longbow shroud for myself i don't hav access to a machine shop so i can hack and cut away to make mines work with a mask.
i just find it funny that agd has one moveing part in their design. i figure they would have made q loader style automags in the shape of a p90/m4 by now. i mean it only use one part to shoot the paintball unlike many moving parts like my bm2k. agd step up your woodsball game!!!
BACK IN THE GAME.
As far as the 6 holes on the RT rail... they are not all aligned straight. It kind of steps out three times. Ths is not to say that a good machinist could not match these steps with an adapter peice, but it makes it tougher.
The RT rail would be nice to use, except for a few reasons: Firstly, we do not know if we can even drill through the back end of the RT rail into the stock adapter peice, for added stability (and looks). We know we CAN with the original style frame.
Also, we know that we can use the front end hole (used for the front grip, gas thru grip and grip extention peice) to build of off. On the RT we have to rely either on the front three screws, or the grip holder peice that is supplied with the RT marker. Bother of which just arent as easy as using the already usable hole in the front of the original frame.
All in all it is just going to be simpler using the old style frame, at a very small sacrifice. It is also cheaper, and I want this to be a very inexpensive and sill a solid marker.
As far as mask clearance... I am still not convinced that the black cell stuff really delivers. For example...
This is how paintballers shoot. Obviously, paintball shooting is ten times different than regular rifle/shotgun shooting...
and rifle shooting, for comparison.
And this is the clearance of: two regular comfortable (but not cool looking) paintball t-stocks, the special Ops stocks, and the concept we are working on...
Now, judging by the stances in the first picture, and the stocks in the second, it is plain to see which are going to work better for paintball. The Black Cell is much better than the Longbow, but still relies on a sight riser.
This no riser thing is hugely important, because I want to totally avoid risers in every form. A single focal plane to shoot from. Thats what our marker needs. This would make for super accurate snap shooting, and make for a very close red dot alignment. This will also greatly lower the profile of the marker. Also, a warp fed mag frame is technically the lowest profile frame you can get. Even lower than a Q fed marker (unless it is fed from the warp left/right feed.
I think the warp would be better than the Q loader, for a few reasons. Much more sturdy, due to the mounting plate. Way smaller profile. Also, you can stick the top of your marker over a log, bush, etc, and rest the barrel on whatever cover you are using. This makes your profile SO low, because you save that extra distance the Qloader would have taken up to get over your cover. Not a huge thing, but its all the subtleties that are gonna make this ADG tactical rule. Aslo, the warp is totally ADG. I love the Qloader, so its a tuff one, but I am leaning towards warp.'
Using the warp means sacrificing looks tho. Also, not relying on risers or handles on the top also sacrifices looks (I think they look neato). I think in the end, the tactical ADG marker is going to feel 10 times better, perform ten times better, and look almost as good as that black cell. Having said that, it is actually a goal of this markers concept to look better, and we are not done designing yet!
DEIT: added pictures
Last edited by famousgamer; 01-17-2006 at 07:19 PM.
Oh yeah, and this whole 18 inch barrell thing that the Longbow/Qbow and Black Ops thing is doing is kinda Overkill. Anything past 14 inches does not give any more accuracy (or so I have read), and it will only serve to slow down the paintball with the added friction provided by the extra barrell length.
Now, this is all internet reading, so I may be off, but if it is true this should be another feature in the ADG tactical protoype. A shorter, more efficient barrel. This would also make for a more manouverable marker as well, and with no Q loader in the front it would be an even smaller profile. Kinda like a sniper carbine.
Another doodle... getting closer?
I like how the mag is smaller, and tighter. If you can imagine picking up the gun, sighting it and shooting, the mag would be much quicker and more intuative. The hoses on the mag are cleaner and simpler.
For the people with machining experience out there... should I be making these shrouds three dimentional, or more flat? Are these going through a computerized c and c machine, or being cut and ground out of sheet metal? I am not quite sure how it is done, or the best/easiest way?
This is kinda a FAMAS design. I didnt intend to make a milsim design, but the FAMAS actually is a cool idea. The whole handle becomes a fast aiming focal plane, for intuative aiming, as opposed to a short rail or block. Of course a red dot also suits it nice.
After I saw that pic of that holding a FAMAS I thought WOW that is alot of head clearance! In this design, I moved the stock up, as there was now more clearance created by the sight rail.
I guess it is a matter of taste. What kind of gun feel should we be going for, to make the ultimate woodsball machine?
Here is a mass, or profile comparison.
This is a mag kit with the same dimentions as the Black Cell Longbow, except the stock is still a little lower.
Kinda interesting. The AGD takes up less mass, and would be way cleaner. No multiple hoses, complicated loading house, etc. I still love that Q loader tho. Hmmm.
EDIT: And if that is that, then that means this is this...
Thats why the stock is going lower. I like the lower profile one better, but I suppose this is also a matter of taste.
Last edited by famousgamer; 01-18-2006 at 04:55 AM.
I cant sleep. Can you tell?
Okay, so here is an interesting starting point. I do NOT want the design to end here. I think it can be improved greatly, tho it is already an improvment over the Black Cell in my opinion. More mask clearance, smaller package, lower profile, etc.
Ugh. It makes me like the Q loader even more. I kinda dont want to, but... ugh. It might be a better choice rather than the warp feed. I am torn.
You are now seeing why I'm having a hard time as well deciding between the q and the warp. I'm keeping track of all the ideas so I can throw them off my dad when we get a chance to get started on this. Don't think I've given up.
snap shooting with a stock? That's a lot of motion. I'd love to watch that. There are reasons that speedball guns are short, light, and not run remotely.
As for shooting POV, it's up to the individual shooter. Look at the pictures that were posted with the rifle/ shotgun shooters. With the exception of the drawing with the m-16, everyone of them could be wearing a paintball mask and still have enough clearance, not that we actually play that way. As for the FAMAS picture, you are failing to recognize that while there is a lot of "stuff" above the level of the stock, it still sits inline with the body of the gun and the barrel aiding in keeping the weapon steady. You also have the added benefit that a bullet actually travels in a straight line, for all intents and purposes at the ranges we deal with, while paintballs do not.
As for the rear holes stepping out, have you ever seen one? There are wings that extend after the holes towards the back, but the holes must be inline otherwise the RT sight rail wouldn't fit. I just brought it up as it would require less modification the the gun.
I give you kudos for the thoughts and am not trying to stifle your creativity, in fact I'm trying to help you think a bit more broadly. My ideas might not help, but at least I'm making you think a bit.
If it's worth doing, it's worth doing properly.
Man, I like that last one with the Q-loader. As I said, it's just about what I come up with when I fantasize about the perfect woodsball gun. I see that you are not using a top-mounted feed, as the longbows do. Would you run the q-loader into a left-sided feed, as is often done with the Warp Feed?
And where do I send the check?
Seriously, I think I've decided on the Tac-1 to use for a similar (if somewhat less ambitious) project. I really could care less about looks, so an air-through T-stock suits me just fine. I'm going to start looking for one, but if you know of a good one I'm willing to take suggestions.
I also didn't realize that you weren't necessarily intending to use your design for a "sniper" gun. In such a role I think the Ion Q-bow stock is fine, but for normal-style play (as illustrated in the pictures in you post above) then, yes, I think the Ion Q-bow stock is still far too high.
Last edited by acrosome; 01-18-2006 at 10:01 AM.