Good Low/No Rise Clamping feedneck.

[Mindflux]

Do any of you have suggestions for a good low/no rise clamping feedneck that doesn't reqire halo/egg sanding? I know there's a few out there... but I'm having trouble locating them. I think maybe check-it has one? Anyone else have suggestions?

Thanks!


Ryan

[ChucktheMAGician]

Not sure on the sanding part, but, http://www.maverickracinginc.com/cgi-bin/aplus/store/merchant.cgi?cart_id=7179615.4214 :)

[Mindflux]

Hm yes I've heard about this one. it says it's clamping, but I see no clamping portion to it.

[ChucktheMAGician]

The milled part unscrews. It's kinda like a big threaded sleeve. The picture of the black autococker one shows a little how it's 2 parts.

[Mindflux]

Hrmm yeah I sort of see it.

I'd really like to find something that requires no sanding. I tried to call A+ but got an answering machine.

[wyn1370]

you can get one very similar to the A+ from roguefactor
or CCM (http://www.chipleymachine.com/angel.htm) makes a fantastic one, just make sure to call if you want one and ask for an angel no-rise, they only have high and low on the sight
I've got a check-it, but the neck is way too long, had funk mill it shorter than rethread it

[Mindflux]

Rogue's requires sanding. We had this discussion the other night :)

i'll check CCM

[wyn1370]

sorry I missed the no sanding part
I'm not sure about the check-it, my halos where already sanded

[RoadDawg]

Rogue's requires little sanding or not playing with the screw on part attached. Flyboy was using his with his halo w/o the tightening clamp and it was on nice and tight. I had to sand my Halo to fit my warp anyway so it was no biggy for me.

[Mindflux]

Originally posted by RoadDawg
Rogue's requires little sanding or not playing with the screw on part attached. Flyboy was using his with his halo w/o the tightening clamp and it was on nice and tight. I had to sand my Halo to fit my warp anyway so it was no biggy for me.


Hmm, that's good to know. I'm suprised Rogue didn't mention it. I am really not interested in sanding my loader. I like my equiptment to be as 'stock' as it can be (barring marker upgrades of course). I know they engineered it to be sanded down.. but dang.. if I don't have to, I'm not going to!

[RoadDawg]

I hear ya. My tsa also needed to be sanded but it fits real tight w/o the clamping part. I think Rogue is unaware of this, that is probably why he didn't mention it.

[Rynoboy06]

My old halo shell required significant sanding on my feedneck and my new one fit perfectly on the exact same neck. So there may be some variation between halos.

[-=Squid=-]

www.chipleymachine.com

They make excellent feednecks, which if I recall do not require sanding of the feedneck. I wouldnt recommend the A + or roguestyle feeds, they really arent that great unless you want your hoppe to spin around, or you want to put your hopper in feedneck all goofy.

[Tron]

Get the checkit works extremely well.

[-=Squid=-]

Originally posted by Tron
Get the checkit works extremely well. Yes, check it is nice as well, but I would only recommend if the chipleys were unavailable.

[Mindflux]

Originally posted by Tron
Get the checkit works extremely well.

Do you have a pic of it on your marker?

[RoadDawg]

Originally posted by -=Squid=-
www.chipleymachine.com

I wouldnt recommend the A + or roguestyle feeds, they really arent that great unless you want your hoppe to spin around, or you want to put your hopper in feedneck all goofy.

I'm trying to figure out what you mean. I've got a RogueClamp and my hopper neither spins nor looks goofy. Only problem I did have with spinning was before I actually loc tited the feedneck on.

[MicroMiniMe]

I'm using two of the A+ no-rise with Halos. No sanding needed. It doesn't spin either. I don't know what thats referring to. Use a hair of loc-tite if your that concerned. Hand tightened mine have never moved during a game. The HALO is in there tight, it might be looser for any sanded hopper or Non-Halo, never tried. I'm sure my Rev would need a bit of tape to get it tight.

[-=Squid=-]

Originally posted by RoadDawg


I'm trying to figure out what you mean. I've got a RogueClamp and my hopper neither spins nor looks goofy. Only problem I did have with spinning was before I actually loc tited the feedneck on. what I mean is that you cant just stick your hopper in there and clamp it down like chipleys. You have to adjust the collar BEFORE your put it on. If you dont you cant get it tight. Its a goofy system, that chipley perfected.

edit: When I said spin, I meant your hopper. If you try and tighten it with the hopper on the feed already, it will still be so loose it will spin. So you cant do that. You have to put it on AFTER you adjust the collar, which just seems goofy when you can just stick it in and tighten a band with an allen wrench (chipley, checkit)

[MarkM]

I have the A+ feedneck on my Angel and I didn't need to sand either my Halo or the Egg...all you have to do is slightly bend the screw part apart for the first time of using as it can be a little too small to begin with.. prise open every other section and I do mean slightly and when the neck is screwed down it is totally solid.

http://www.fallingaway.com/ao_upload/markm_feedneck.jpg

[RoadDawg]

Originally posted by -=Squid=-
what I mean is that you cant just stick your hopper in there and clamp it down like chipleys. You have to adjust the collar BEFORE your put it on. If you dont you cant get it tight. Its a goofy system, that chipley perfected.
That's new to me. I never once had to adjust Rogue's. All you do is loosen the clamp put the hopper in and tighten it down. No messing around with necessary. Maybe I'm lucky or maybe others aren't.
EDIT: I've never had any of my hoppers spin. The whole neck spun only cause it wasn't tight enough but I fixed that part.

[wyn1370]

I run into the same problem squid's talking about with my timmys and cocker, but then all my necks are smaller than a stock halo. The best way is to adjust the neck before putting the hopper on.

[-=Squid=-]

Originally posted by wyn1370
I run into the same problem squid's talking about with my timmys and cocker, but then all my necks are smaller than a stock halo. The best way is to adjust the neck before putting the hopper on. Ya, I guess roaddawg just isnt catching what im saying. Its a litter harder to explain without having it here to show you.

EDIT: Gah! thats what I meant! You HAVE to adjust the collor before you put it on with A+ and rogues, with chipleys and check its you dont. However, I DID like my A+, I just think they are not as good of a design is all....

[Hexis]

I have an A+ neck, and it's nice and all, but I'm ordering a CCM neck soon. It's quite difficult to get a nice tight lock on the A+ design because of the design.

I think the CCM design is a better setup.

[RoadDawg]

I'm guessing that your meaning you have to pull the clamping parts out a bit to make them fit correct? If so the only thing similar to this is the fact I played with a unsanded TSA and ended up having to play unclamped but it was still heck of tight. Rogue's clamp neck is a inbetween of the halo and Revvy. Anyways. It would be easier with graphics but I think I get what your saying. I must've been lucky cause I haven't had to adjust the neck besides a little sanding which wasn't much anyway.

[joshweinerhead]

FBM makes a choke chain that is sick .. i had one on my impulse and never had to sand my halo to make it fit ... check out their site ... www.fireballmountain.com

[MarkM]

When you get the feedneck it threads together fine as the thread is a nice wide one but if you try to put your unsanded loader into it it won't fit...so as there is some tolarence with the nice wide threads you adjust (bend) the threaded section outwards to make it bigger the hopper will then fit and the slack is then taken up when you lock the collar down and will stay at the correct size to fit your loader...I personally have not had any problem with getting the A+ lock down tight...wet gloves or sweaty hands and yes you will find it difficult but then I prefer the look of the A+ as although easier (but need a tool) the Chipley has gaps that paint can get into if hit in the feedneck...the A+ if you look at what you are doing you can get the feed neck of the loader totally to the bottom to keep the loader as low as possible. The choice is down to you.

[wyn1370]

but the gaps in the chipley will be filled by the hopper neck and once it's tightened down the paint won't go any farther than the hopper neck

[Hexis]

All of the clamping designs have slots cut into the part that mates with the Hopper, otherwise they wouldn't clamp. In all of the designs the hopper neck should form a pretty good seal at the botom of the open part of the neck. Paint should not enter the feed neck in any correctly setup clamping feed neck.

[MarkM]

I understand about the slots but even with the slots closing due to the clamping action if you don't make sure the feed neck is all the way down there will be a gap on all of the clamping necks that clamp at the top like the chipleys...Rogue and A+ are covered by the collar, just because some people realise that you "can" get the feed tube all the way down doesn't mean that everyone does it...think how many people ask questions on here that to be honest are common sense.
My choice of an A+ feedneck was not because of this possible problem it was supply as I couldn't find a Chipley at the World Cup in the colour I wanted. it was only after using it I noticed that the gaps "could" be a problem with the other versions.

[pito189]

Originally posted by RogueFactor
I have played with all of them. And if hit hard enough, ALL of them will allow the hopper to twist. With the Strangler design, there is no need for tools. With the CCM/Check-it there is.

Exactly, what is the point of having to use another allen wrench on the gun if you don't have to.

[Hexis]

I understand defending your product, but how about being honest?

The A+ design, and I suspect the RF design (same thing pretty much) clamp a the top only as well. The tapered thread on the main part of the feed neck will tighten at the top only. This is quite effective to clamp onto the hopper, and is much bette than a simple cup (like the normal ULE neck).

Think about it this way, the bottom of the tapered thread is slotted to a point, this is the flex point in the design. The bottom does not get any smaller. Instead each of the vertical fingers with tapered thread flex twords the inside of the next, then they meet the hopper, securing it.

The CCM design works in a similar way, but uses a collar around the top to accomplish the same thing.

The mating I'm talking about is the bottom of the hopper to the inside of the feedneck.

Here, I think a drawing will help. The Blue line is the seal, the Red is not.

http://www.hxxl.com/~mjb/Paintball/ClampingFeedneck.jpg

[rikkter]

i want a ccm simply because its so simple looking. all these clamping ones, rogues, the a+, they're fat. and i'm pickyy

[ChucktheMAGician]

Hexis, the slashed part of your diagram shouldn't be angled out like that. The part that the feed neck rests on is straight. The ring/sleeve is angled not the interior. Therefore the empty area where you have the red line doesn't exsist. I think it all comes down to personal preference, which one do you think looks best!! Oh and I think this thread wins the "most posted in" award for the day!!:D

[Hexis]

That space is exaggerated in the drawing. It does exist, otherwise there would be no clamping action to the clamping feed necks.

[OfficerGoat]

I'm a fan of CP's Quicklock feedneck. They make collars specific to your loader. This works VERY well for me .. its nice to be able to pop your loader in and have it just snap into place without any fuss. The folowing link has a couple of pics on my timi.

http://garindan.phpwebhosting.com/Paintball/2k2timi/

[Mindflux]

Those look collared.

From that last pic.

phpwebhosting! hey I Used to use them ;)

[OfficerGoat]

Originally posted by Mindflux
Those look collared.

From that last pic.

phpwebhosting! hey I Used to use them ;)

Yes they are collared. Like I said tehy make different sized collars depending on the size of your feedneck. It takes a bit to get the colar setup .. but you only need to do that when you first get it and after that just snap it in. :)

Yeah for 8 bux a mo I can't whine too much about phpwebhosting. I actualy have a web box setup localy... I have just been too lazy to xfer my data over ;)

[Mindflux]

Originally posted by OfficerGoat


Yes they are collared. Like I said tehy make different sized collars depending on the size of your feedneck. It takes a bit to get the colar setup .. but you only need to do that when you first get it and after that just snap it in. :)

Yeah for 8 bux a mo I can't whine too much about phpwebhosting. I actualy have a web box setup localy... I have just been too lazy to xfer my data over ;)

I use arteryplanet.net for the same price (now), but get 800 meg of space, 16 gig of transfer and 2 extra "addon" domains, so I run 3 domains off one hosting fee, for 8 dollars a month :D

[Hexis]

I never called you a liar. And now I see you simply don't understand how your product works.

The taper on the top of your threading is the part that constrits on the neck of the hopper. That taper exists only at the top. The collar can't effect the neck below the taper. Nevermind that the bottom is a solid part, and no ammount of normal constriction will deform that metal with out doing permanent damage.

[-=Squid=-]

To me its worth using another tool, just because it works better, and to me is still easier. Who cares about paint in your feed? Theres a solid 4 seconds to clean...

[logamus]

rogue, you might want to use a pic of the raw neck. you cant really see the slots on the black ones.

[MarkM]

While you were doing that I was busy drawing the attached pic showing exactly the same thing ;) but drawn from the A+ feedneck I have in my hand.

[Hexis]

What exactly do you think happens when you thread the collar on there and "clamp" down on the Hopper neck?

The top constricts, the bottom does not. This creates the taper you are so insistant on stating does not exist.

[jayloo]

Nice debate...anyway I only have an A+ feed neck and it works great for a revie, halo, and egg...no probs. I know this because I have used these setups.

That is all, please continue.

[MarkM]

What the hell lets stir this pot even more :D

[MarkM]

and this one bad pic but you can see the gap of the feed neck when in place but clamped down it dissapears ;)

[Hexis]

MarkM you are missing my point.

That neck still clamps only on the top. Take a picture of the inside while it's not clamped, then (without a hopper) tighten it down. You will see what I mean. The top is smaller, the base is the same size. It's all about how the metal flexes and how the top taper is.

[MarkM]

Your point would be correct if you understood where the first point of compression takes place it is towards the bottom of the thread to begin with...that's what the taper is there for...if it was the top as you suggest then you wouldn't be able to tighten the neck all the way down.

[Hexis]

My point is that it does not tighten the whole way down. It can't. The fingers of the main part can't tighten all the way down, it's simply not possible. The bottom can't tighten the same as the top.

[logamus]

Originally posted by Hexis
My point is that it does not tighten the whole way down. It can't. The fingers of the main part can't tighten all the way down, it's simply not possible. The bottom can't tighten the same as the top.

while i agree with this, i dont understand why that is relavent as far as paint getting into the feed tube if hit. with the outer shroud clamped down all the exposed openings are covered. so what is the big deal exactly?

[MarkM]

It tightens at the bottom first and then as you continue to screw down the collar the tops constricts. You can if fact continue screwing the collar down to below the feed neck and when doing this you can actually see the second point of contriction which is indeed the top but it tightens at the bottom first....with a hopper in place this means it tighen effectively along the whole length of the feed neck installed. Where as then Chipley only constricts at the top where the collar is. As I said earlier I wanted a locking feedneck and would have happily bought a Chipley one, it is only after I got the TYPE not the make that I discovered I had by accident made the better choice.

[Hexis]

Originally posted by RogueFactor
On the strangler it is the outside of the actual feedneck that is tapered, and the inside wall that is straight. So, it doesnt just clamp at the top, but evenly througout becuase the inside wall IS NOT tapered.


This is what I'm talking about. I'm pretty sure my drawing above shows that most if not all clamping feednecks will seal well enough to keep paint out, regardless of the design.

The two differen designs discussed here do not work that differently from eachother. The top constricts on the hopper neck, and the bottom shoud seal well enough to keep paint out. Regardless of the width of the collar.

[Hexis]

Originally posted by MarkM
It tightens at the bottom first and then as you continue to screw down the collar the tops constricts. You can if fact continue screwing the collar down to below the feed neck and when doing this you can actually see the second point of contriction which is indeed the top but it tightens at the bottom first....

Are you trying to say that the slots close at the bottom? That's laughable.

[MarkM]

Originally posted by Hexis
Are you trying to say that the slots close at the bottom? That's laughable.

Ok steady as you are getting close to.....
Whilst I will give you NOT the very bottom but if you were able to fit you finger inside in in EXACTLY the same way as a loaders feedneck would sit you will feel the tightening towards (is that a better word for you?) the bottom before the top would tighten...ever thought that there are tapered threads for a reason..hose fittings are tapered so the further in they go the tighter they become...and the fatter end not the thinner end...same principle.
To qualify my first sentence on THIS post, aggree to disaggree as this would be sensible.

[ChucktheMAGician]

Originally posted by RogueFactor
Its satisfying that at least MarkM understand how it works.
Hey now I was the first one after the pic to say the inner walls were straight, after examining my Rogueneck of course ;) :p :D

[ChucktheMAGician]

Originally posted by RogueFactor
My apologies Chuck, you were the first.
That's ok, some free Rogue gear would heal my broken heart tho:rolleyes: :eek: :D

[Smitty2k1]

Ok, so I just read a good chunk of the thread, however, do all these clamping feednecks work well with revvy's? Or do you still encounter the same problems with having to sand/not getting a tight fit and such?

I <3 my old school revvy with x board...

[MarkM]

Revy's have a smaller neck than the loaders that we have talking about as the main benifit of a clamping neck of whichever type allows you to not have to sand the loaders neck may not be quite as tight. I have just tried a revy on the A+ neck and whilst it does clamp, getting it as low as possible is a little difficult and totally as tight as a Halo or Egg was difficult too but it did indeed clamp down and the collar covered the slots. Note the revy's I own are all pre BE so there might be a difference with the later ones. My pre BE clear revy and pre BE solid black revy was very tight into the stock Angel gated feed and the Halo/Egg will not fit that particular neck without sanding, so it is a smaller feedneck plus it is very short compared to either the Halo or Egg hence the trouble I had getting it as far down as I could.

[RoadDawg]

Rogue's is designed to accept revvies and Halo's *sanding the Halo first of course or simply playing w/o the outer shroud* I for one don't have a revvy but Rogue does and when he was first designing it that is what he had in mind. Plus after doing tests on my RogueNeck and my 3 hoppers all are clamped on from bottom to top. If I had a good camera I'd take pictures but my 2.0 $45 blue light special just doesn't do the job.