Last edited by rukh013; 12-12-2013 at 08:01 AM.
careful now, adding detents might add more weight
on second thought, why? doesn't the barrel have the detent on it, and also the detents would need to go through the barrel as well to work correctly.
I just want to eliminate the detents from the side of ULE bodies and put them underneath
How about a nylon tipped front frame screw that goes into the body just a little bit. So basically only the nylon tip would stick into the body.
The issue I see is the bolt cutting anything like that off. Even the ego detents would get cut off by the bolt. Somebody needs to design and make a spring loaded detent that goes in the rail. Or possibly a way to put the old nubbins in a channel milled in the rail or bottom of the body. A little recess could allow it to go down when the bolt passes over it.
The nubbin is my only complaint with twist lock. I'm die hard twist lock. But nubbins need manipulation to have enough tension for force fed hoppers. I do want to test out modified spyder detents in my tl barrel though next summer.
but it is tested to this exact thought,
plus many others.
detent placement can be put in many places.
with the new polymer it is stiff when docile, but when pressure is put to it, it reacts with the proper tension,
and also can be tweaked.
came to be to expensive to work with.
I have the cash but dont have the time to bring this back to testing.
so all I can say is your are on the right track.
but moving detents is kind slow progress.
same thing just done a different day.
I sell new 800 mah Emag batteries, in dealers section, or pm for pricing.
im thinking intimidator/spyder detents... yes they will wear out but they are:
2) made for multiple markers (macdev clone, all CCM's, empire vanquish, eclipse (similar enough), azodin, etc)
3) With the fall of angel it won't be long til all angel threaded anything is hard to find, ask people searching for feednecks that don't just slap ccm's on
4) When they fail they are easy to replace
5) Not as easily shot out
Perhaps the body could be milled with an oval instead of a circle. Then the rail would get a spot for the base of the detent. With an oval the detent could have a small space to go into when the bolt is pressing on it.
Another way is with an oring, even cheaper and easier to find than Spyder detents. CCM switched the T2 over to this style and ASP does it for Phantoms. A small channel is milled and a oring is pressed in. It sticks into the breach a little and stops double feeds. I'm thinking that should be even easier to do than to get Spyder detents t work. I'll find some pictures.
HERE is the link to the CCM thread on MCB.
The big issue is getting XMT or whoever to make the bodies without the detent hole. I would love the Ripper body I paid for to come this way. Unfortunately I don't see that happening.
all the benefits are listed, but i'll play Devil's Advocate:
1) by moving the detent and having them being held into the rail, replacing them is more of a chore as you have to drop the body and valve to replace them.
2) more involved machining process. ULEs are simply made but when you add in a cover or even moving the place where the detent is, it will make the price goes up on the bodies.
3) you will have to have some sort of retainer as the detents will need something to hold them in the body, as when you get to the ULE'd and other milled rails, the lack of material will play into the pricing of having not only to remake the detents, but having some retainer that will also work with the multitude of milled rails.
4) though its a good idea, does anyone know how the detent fingers react with the mag bolt? does anyone know if or how long a finger detent will last with a mag?
5) if this works, can anyone think of a good and decent way of retrofitting existing bodies when the angel detents "dry up"?
i am not trashing a good idea, just asking for some thought into the mater.
ccm owners dont complain about them because most are underboring anyway. i havent had working detents in my s6 in years. this detent system has already been done.doc machine uses them on his mag to cocker adapters. i would rather have the ball detents than the nubbins. but if you are trying to make them. i would mod a rebuildable detent to work if it came down to it. use one of these http://www.warpig.com/paintball/technical/misc/v2/ fill in the part that threads in and redrill a hole for the nubbin and put it back together. saves you having to do machining to the body and will fit all mag bodies.
This is what I was thinking the whole time reading this thread. Take away the nubbins and the weight, and the speed of stripping out a twist lock barrel wins over cocker threads. Only problem then becomes availability, as a lot of manufacturers already fail to make TL barrels.this detent system has already been done.doc machine uses them on his mag to cocker adapters.
But making ULE bodies designed for TL barrels and without detent holes, and then integrating a lightweight aluminum version of the TL-cocker adapter is feasible and a more cost effective way of doing this.
I think Luke has made everything except a body...
CCM bolts have slots milled into them so that the bolt doesn't cut the detent off. I don't think there is any one perfect way but I personally would go for having to do more work to replace a hidden detent and have a more visually appealing body.
Didn't someone do a draw up a new body that had hidden/flush detents on the sides? It was sick looking design too.
Edit: Question as I am not familiar with these types of detents. Is the only part that sticks through the "finger"? If so, wouldn't all that needs to be done is to drill a hole through the body and mill a shallow pocket in the rail?
I did just pick up a classic mag with a power feed body...do you smell money burning?
You may need to be careful about the rail you use with this. Something like Luke's ultra light at least may not cover the detents fully.
Last edited by Spider-TW; 12-12-2013 at 10:32 AM.
That's why I suggested the oring type detents. I would imagine it should be easier to machine. A groove on each side of the front frame screw in the rail and matching grooves in the body.