It's time for a new automag body... a "resurrection" automag

[rukh013]

Call me crazy but if these new age space *****es can have hidden detents why can't the beefier, better, brawny-er, bad-a** automag?



Imagine this is a ULE body with no visible detents

No more angel threaded detents to buy
No more anno matching
Less blow outs
More awesome


http://i1325.photobucket.com/albums/u632/Brandt_K_Mangum/th_20131211_221934_zps74d994e8.jpg (http://s1325.photobucket.com/albums/u632/Brandt_K_Mangum/?action=view&current=20131211_221934_zps74d994e8.mp4)

http://i1325.photobucket.com/albums/u632/Brandt_K_Mangum/20131211_222338_zps68c8708e.jpg

http://i1325.photobucket.com/albums/u632/Brandt_K_Mangum/20131211_222322_zpsb86a73f2.jpg



Who's with me?

[JLuke]

careful now, adding detents might add more weight :p

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.

[rukh013]

I just want to eliminate the detents from the side of ULE bodies and put them underneath

[BLachance75]

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.

[blackdeath1k]

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.

[knownothingmags]

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.

I forget the polymer we mixed a while back.
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.

cool though :D

[rukh013]

im thinking intimidator/spyder detents... yes they will wear out but they are:
1) CHEAP
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

[BLachance75]

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.

[BLachance75]

HERE (http://www.mcarterbrown.com/forums/ccm/194229-t2-oring-detent.html) 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.

[rukh013]

HERE (http://www.mcarterbrown.com/forums/ccm/194229-t2-oring-detent.html) 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.

he quoted me $500 for one body/rail combo

I imagine if i were to get more interest he would lower price

[Nobody]

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.

[rukh013]

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.
I agree but CCM T2 owners (same detent) don't complain about the difficulty, and don't change them as often because they don't shoot out. They can't rub the metal that retains them like an angel threaded detent... aren't you tired of one detent being slightly different and having to use an oring or two???
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.
new bodies, not retrofiting old ones. simply stop milling deetents into the sides where they are exsposed
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.
yes, for new rails that are going to be ULE'd they will need a portion to remain to retain the detents. Very minimal and should still be a few grams lighter
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?
the fang/finger detent was DESIGNED for a open bolt system and are far superior to ball detents
5) if this works, can anyone think of a good and decent way of retrofitting existing bodies when the angel detents "dry up"?
forget the retrofit, as much as i would love to retrofit this into my chord body, it is not feasable. Do this for all new bodies made

i am not trashing a good idea, just asking for some thought into the mater.

thanks for the input. More ideas please I am very open to suggestion

[captian pinky]

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.

[Spider-TW]

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?

Doc's adapter uses finger detents. They would last at least 3 cases (under loader tension), then I lost track with my spares.

You could build a finger detent into an angel detent body for testing.

[rukh013]

Doc's adapter uses finger detents. They would last at least 3 cases (under loader tension), then I lost track with my spares.

You could build a finger detent into an angel detent body for testing.

eBay search "angel fang detent" they work well I have two

[Justus]

this detent system has already been done.doc machine uses them on his mag to cocker adapters.

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.

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.

[Spider-TW]

I think Luke has made everything except a body...

:ninja:

[rukh013]

I think Luke has made everything except a body...

:ninja:

:D

XMT's on it but IF there is interest I'm getting it cut to test... i'll post up results

[BLachance75]

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.

[BLachance75]

:D

XMT's on it but IF there is interest I'm getting it cut to test... i'll post up results

I already paid for a Ripper body only. If you and he come up with a good way of doing this let me know. I'm definitely interested and I would get a Ripper rail and the mod.

[rukh013]

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.

Thats what i want as well hench the S6.5 I took it from. It is the best design i've seen for the detent, it gives the detent finger somewhere to go

[rukh013]

I already paid for a Ripper body only. If you and he come up with a good way of doing this let me know. I'm definitely interested and I would get a Ripper rail and the mod.

ASK XMT... I'm hoping to lower the cost stated by getting more "testers" onboard

[C_losjoker]

Didn't someone do a draw up a new body that had hidden/flush detents on the sides? It was sick looking design too.

[OPBN]

ASK XMT... I'm hoping to lower the cost stated by getting more "testers" onboard

I'd possibly be interested in a Ripper body if the pricing was able to be reduced. Also not looking to be a guinea pig either. Someone needs to prove the validity of the design before I would be fully onboard.

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?

[Spider-TW]

I'd possibly be interested in a Ripper body if the pricing was able to be reduced. Also not looking to be a guinea pig either. Someone needs to prove the validity of the design before I would be fully onboard.

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?

You also need a little slot on the bore side for the finger to fold into (or other space), so it's usually three operations with some small tool bits.

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.

[BLachance75]

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.

[OPBN]

You also need a little slot on the bore side for the finger to fold into (or other space), so it's usually three operations with some small tool bits.

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.

Ok, so a drill bit, a couple of files to make the groove for the finger to bend in and that should be it right? Wondering if something like the Armada rail would work? Think the ULE milling would be too severe. But if that was the case, it could probably be rigged in by taping it or bunching up something under it to keep it in place right? Part of my fear would be the bolt sheering it off.

[BLachance75]

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.

I got one of those $110 ULE classic mags from Hawaii. I think I need t go send a PM or 2 to some people on MCB.

[rukh013]

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.

like the ASP phantom detents?

[BLachance75]

Exactlly

Here is a quick picture showing where I think they would be. I attached a picture of the CCM T2 milling for reference.

http://i561.photobucket.com/albums/ss59/blachance75/c82d9564-81cb-4a20-928e-24a7f60b4fc7_zps9a831d69.jpg (http://s561.photobucket.com/user/blachance75/media/c82d9564-81cb-4a20-928e-24a7f60b4fc7_zps9a831d69.jpg.html)

I sent a PM to someone on MCB, I'll let you know what comes of it.

[luke]

I think Luke has made everything except a body...

:ninja:

Actually oring detent bodies have been on the to-do list for years. The oring idea has been around for awhile, I don't recall where it was that I saw it first, but it was years ago.

[Nobody]

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.

oring detents SUCK

ICD B2K4s used oring detents and even with the body being milled for just a quarter of the oring showing through, with the bolt having relief cuts in it, and the detent would maybe last 2 cases, if that. the bolt would compress the oring either shear off the oring(which were 010 urethane orings) or just grab enough of them and get shot out. ICD on the PM which replaced the B2K4, went to a ball and spring that is the same as Freestyle, Dye DMs and such. as a retrofit, i generally stuff 1 or 2 finger detents in the same hole in order to not have to deal with the orings in any of my B2K4s, and this is from a diehard B2K guy. if anything, i would rather see the bodies threaded for cocker detents or even Mini or Axe detents and forget the hole thing. i would like to see progress forward and not taking a step back.

the comparisons with other guns do not fly. pumps don't shoot as fast as a semi and semis can't RT with the likes of an Xvalve being pumped with 1100psi from a SHP reg. so a one baller pump is worlds apart from a Xvalve putting 20bps out. so just forget that. what i would like to see is a guinea pig put a detent together that has a finger detent and even an oring detent and see how it is after a case, or 2 case, or 5 cases. that's the biggest thing. the reason for the possible mod is to make things better not to supplement a lack of supplies.

[luke]

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.

"Easier" is not really a relative term, it's just a different operation.

[OPBN]

I'm actually interested in it mainly for use in a pump, so changing out a couple of O-rings or a detent every case or two wouldn't bother me. For this particular build, I would love to have a detentless Ripper body.

[BLachance75]

I don't necessarily think that ROF has anything to do with it. It has more to do with the ability of the orings to keep a modern loader of choice from pushing a ball past the orings. If the slot on the rail was deep enough so that the oring had the ability to lower out of the way of the bolt as it slides over I would think it will help with the life expectancy of the orings.

Even if you can only get 2-5 cases out of the orings I see that as an upgrade. Orings cost pennies so the cost of replacing one is very little. If you shoot out a regular detent you lost $10-20. Spyder detents are in the $1-3 range depending on where you get them. It will be the same amount of work to replace one of them as it would an oring. Personally I will go with the $.05 oring over the other options.

I have asked somebody about getting it done and I will gladly test it out. If it doesn't work then I'm out the money for the milling. I can live with the risk. Part of the reason for the mod is aesthitics, part upgrade, and part the dwindling supply of parts. Angel detents will eventually run out, orings will always be around.

[BLachance75]

"Easier" is not really a relative term, it just a different operation.

Would it be less operations though. I said "easier" thinking it would be less operations. It probably isn't the best choice of words.

[rukh013]

"Easier" is not really a relative term, it just a different operation.

what would you do?

I think ,with the newer electros using these type of detents, they have increased reliablity of the end product

[rukh013]

I'm actually interested in it mainly for use in a pump, so changing out a couple of O-rings or a detent every case or two wouldn't bother me. For this particular build, I would love to have a detentless Ripper body.


I have asked somebody about getting it done and I will gladly test it out. If it doesn't work then I'm out the money for the milling. I can live with the risk. Part of the reason for the mod is aesthitics, part upgrade, and part the dwindling supply of parts. Angel detents will eventually run out, orings will always be around.

would either of you mind PM'ing XMT about making these for yourselves to test with me?

[OPBN]

would either of you mind PM'ing XMT about making these for yourselves to test with me?

That's the problem, I'm not really in a position to throw $3-400 into a body design that end up being a paperweight if it doesn't work.

How are the O-ring detents held in?

[GoatBoy]

Only briefly scanned this thread.

I've been using dual Ego detents in my mag for quite some time now.

I switched from Spyder detents like Doc's adapter uses to Ego detents because I have more of them, and I like them a little better.

I think dual opposing finger detents are the way to go. One finger detent alone is not enough for small paint unless you use a finger which is unusually large and obtrusive.

Your setup is not completely opposing, so you'll have to take that into consideration. I think you are also precluding the possibility of a warp fed body as well. Might interfere with pump mag installation too; I'd have to look at the milling again.

All of these are reasons why I built this all into my mag2cocker adapter.

http://www.shapeways.com/model/757621/mag2cocker-v5.html

In my opinion, this would be the way to go on future bodies designed from the ground up.

Caveat: I actually haven't tested this with a hard force feed loader; at most it's been used with spring feed and First Strikes, which don't roll out anyways.

[Laku]

would something like this be possible for our current type of angel detent?
http://www.paintball-online.com/sites/paintball/images/fullsize/MTBTWCIBD.jpg

Would there be enough space in our current detent holes to have some kind of spacer and cover to hold Those Ego/spyder type detents?

[blackdeath1k]

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.

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.

My aluminum twist lock freak is pretty light. I will use a different barrel when I mill and prototype retrofitting 2 spyder finger detents in a tl barrel though. I love my TL. Detents are there only downfall to me.

[Spider-TW]

Detents are there only downfall to me.

Fodder for another thread; it would be nice to have some space-age, color coded nubbins that you could just change out for more or less detent action.

[blackdeath1k]

Actually if you read from the beginning it fits in this thread. While talking about finger detents. If they can work in a ule body they could work in a TL.

I renig! You are talking about special detents with different tensions. OK. Yes. That would not fit this thread.

GOAT. What does an ego detent look like? Can't say I've seen that style. Thought most all newer stuff went to ball detents.

[Spider-TW]

Actually if you read from the beginning it fits in this thread. While talking about finger detents. If they can work in a ule body they could work in a TL.

I renig! You are talking about special detents with different tensions. OK. Yes. That would not fit this thread.

GOAT. What does an ego detent look like? Can't say I've seen that style. Thought most all newer stuff went to ball detents.

You might only need a mill bit to put a pocket on a TL barrel, using the existing thru-slot for the finger. It should be a reversible change as well (you could go back to nubbins). Another good test.

[GoatBoy]

Spyder detents are already available in different hardness. Color coded depending on vendor.


GOAT. What does an ego detent look like? Can't say I've seen that style. Thought most all newer stuff went to ball detents.

They look like Spyder detents, but:


Kind of an oval base
Not as tall (yet another reason why I doubled up on them)
"Finger" portion is thicker at the base





Anyways, I think one of the technical issues moving to an aluminum twistlock body is going to surprise you guys:

It’s the front grip frame screw.

On a classic steel body, the front screw is a nice solid steel weld nut solidly welded to the body.

On the ULE body, when they did away with the TL, I think that gave the body more meat (taking away from the chamber that used to belong to the barrel) on the underside for the threaded insert where the screw goes. And the aluminum body badly needs it because, well, aluminum isn’t as hard as steel. (Imagine me cringing every time I struck that rusted front grip frame screw with the hammer, from the other thread.)

I would not trust a classic-spec insert to survive on an aluminum body, especially considering how abusive some of you are with your equipment.

Possible solution is to “rob from Peter to pay Paul” -- steal some meat from the rail area where it’s not really needed, and allow the body to be thicker in that area.

(Obvious solution is to stick with steel bodies of course. Hence some of my design decisions.)

[luke]

Would it be less operations though. I said "easier" thinking it would be less operations. It probably isn't the best choice of words.

Not if you had to do the rail too.
A spot, drill, tap operation like this is pretty simple. In reality I would say that the o-ring operation might be more complex but that would depend on the type of cnc machine it's being done on and the type of setup it was. Small tooling like what would be required to do the oring milling can't be pushed to hard, I would wager that the spot/drilling/tapping operation (even with the tool changes) would be a faster operation than the single tool machining op for the oring. ;)

But even with that said it does not make an argument for whether or not it's a viable idea or not (which was my original point ;) ). Really I would say it boils down to testing (time/money/effort), reliability and customer support. ;)

[BLachance75]

Makes sense

[Justus]

(Obvious solution is to stick with steel bodies of course. Hence some of my design decisions.)

We seem to be on the same page with where to start with this idea. But since this would require a new holeless body anyway, why not alleviate the concern of the amount of thin aluminum on a TL styled ULE body and just make it a unibody/rail?

Edit: might make it hard to use the TL adapter that way...

[C_losjoker]

How about a body with the hidden eye milling and using detents like proto rail?

Detents used on the evil m's are just a ball and spring. Spring is held in place by milling pocket in the eye cover. I would think making a cover with a pocket inside that would be flush with the body would be easy to do. Spring and ball would also be around for years no worries about not finding in stock.

[BTAutoMag]

what about a dye eye pipe?

[BLachance75]

I was actually thinking about that. I'll measure the one in my DM7 tonight to see if it could potentially fit.

[Nobody]

I don't necessarily think that ROF has anything to do with it. It has more to do with the ability of the orings to keep a modern loader of choice from pushing a ball past the orings. If the slot on the rail was deep enough so that the oring had the ability to lower out of the way of the bolt as it slides over I would think it will help with the life expectancy of the orings.

Even if you can only get 2-5 cases out of the orings I see that as an upgrade. Orings cost pennies so the cost of replacing one is very little. If you shoot out a regular detent you lost $10-20. Spyder detents are in the $1-3 range depending on where you get them. It will be the same amount of work to replace one of them as it would an oring. Personally I will go with the $.05 oring over the other options.

I have asked somebody about getting it done and I will gladly test it out. If it doesn't work then I'm out the money for the milling. I can live with the risk. Part of the reason for the mod is aesthitics, part upgrade, and part the dwindling supply of parts. Angel detents will eventually run out, orings will always be around.

been there done that. oring detents do not hold up against forcefeed loaders. even putting some macroline tubing in the detent(so that the oring surrounds the macroline), does not last. as much as it doesn't cost all that much, after how many games of tearing down your gun to put in a new set orings would that get old?

again, i am all for hidden detents, but people, you are jumping too quickly here. though the ideas are good and there is a basis(costs, availability of current detents, esthetics), we are not thinking this through. the biggest issue of doing something this big(total redesigning of the ULE body) is that people will have to compromise. to a point, you have to make a list of what you want: finger detents, warpfeed accessibility, ease of use. then weigh it against: costs of designing, costs of prototyping, costs of manufacturing. yes, i'm not talking about the new AGD ULE body, but what are we talking about? will this only be for future PL bodies?

there is a lot to deal with here. we don't know how long a finger detent will last in a mag. most adapters like Doc's TL are used by people with classic valves whether its in pump form or semi. like i said before, to what effect a finger detent will have on a high RoF mag bolt. what depths do we need to have on that detent? where can you put them on the body?

hell, i say get a pool of money of all the people that want them, commission a slug type body where you can test the theory with placement and depth and go from there. that way you can prove that it can work, that you can foresee any possible problems(like being associated with the rail, and the various screw holes) and put to rest any questions with hard evidence.

[GoatBoy]

We seem to be on the same page with where to start with this idea. But since this would require a new holeless body anyway, why not alleviate the concern of the amount of thin aluminum on a TL styled ULE body and just make it a unibody/rail?

Edit: might make it hard to use the TL adapter that way...

A rail+body for TL purposes is probably more doable than you think. And it's also kind of more logical in the grander scheme of things.

Another difference between a ULE and a Classic body is the fact that the front grip frame screw is a blind hole vs. through-hole...

... so the obvious answer there would be to go back to a twist-lock adapter, but instead of using the classic twist-lock pin, just make the threaded hole a through-hole and use a longer frame screw to lock the adapter in. I uh... accidentally discovered this "feature" when making mine; something I'm going to build into my next iteration of the mag2cocker adapter.

Incidentally, in case nobody has noticed -- I see pretty much zero reason why the mag2cocker adapter should be made out of metal.

But a single rail+body presents another challenge: no through-holes for foregrip mounting. You have to do what PTP did with the Micromag, or go sideways with the RT style things, or put a dovetail or picattiny into the rail.


As far as finger detents, I think they will work fine in a mag -- just as well as in an Ego. The problem with the finger detents is when you try to use them with closed bolt markers, or markers that normally sit at rest with the bolts forward.

[BTAutoMag]

I was actually thinking about that. I'll measure the one in my DM7 tonight to see if it could potentially fit.

that would help me

[blackdeath1k]

I will for sure be sporting one if not 2 finger detents in my TL next spring. We will see how it works out.

[BLachance75]

again, i am all for hidden detents, but people, you are jumping too quickly here. though the ideas are good and there is a basis(costs, availability of current detents, esthetics), we are not thinking this through. the biggest issue of doing something this big(total redesigning of the ULE body) is that people will have to compromise. to a point, you have to make a list of what you want: finger detents, warpfeed accessibility, ease of use. then weigh it against: costs of designing, costs of prototyping, costs of manufacturing. yes, i'm not talking about the new AGD ULE body, but what are we talking about? will this only be for future PL bodies?


I can't speak for the OP but I see this for the nice milled bodies, Ripper, Phoenix, Shockwave and the such. That way the smooth lines of the marker aren't interupted by detents sticking out.

I seeing it being an option for people, not a necessity. If you want regular detents more power to you. If you want a clean look thats great as well. I don't think that the OP was saying that all ULE bodies should have a new detent system. I think he is looking for options for those of use that want something different.


been there done that. oring detents do not hold up against forcefeed loaders. even putting some macroline tubing in the detent(so that the oring surrounds the macroline), does not last. as much as it doesn't cost all that much, after how many games of tearing down your gun to put in a new set orings would that get old?

I haven't heard of people having issues with the new T2s. Plenty of people are using Rotors or other force feed loaders on them without issue.

[rukh013]

^

yes, XMT and others have made some sexy bodies... I just want more options. Cleaner, sexier

[knownothingmags]

^

yes, XMT and others have made some sexy bodies... I just want more options. Cleaner, sexier

I could print you some one color skins to go over you ule. :D

[BTAutoMag]

You and I will talk.

[C_losjoker]

Can you do a clam type body that would incase the ule? I have an idea.


I could print you some one color skins to go over you ule. :D

[knownothingmags]

Can you do a clam type body that would incase the ule? I have an idea.

if you have thoughts and such, drawings, or just questions, pm so I don't kill this thread of the rails.

[djinnform]

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.

What's the bore size of Doc's Adapter? (Twistlock to AC) Can you underbore it?

[Justus]

What's the bore size of Doc's Adapter? (Twistlock to AC) Can you underbore it?

It's just an adapter to allow you to use any cocker-threaded barrel. It has no bore size, because there is no bore. Put any bore size on it that you want.

[GoatBoy]

Actually, the adapter does have a bore size.

The automag bolt is very close to 0.680, so the adapter has to at least clear that. I've got one of Doc's around here; I think it came out to at least 0.685 measured. If I find it I'll see, but for the purposes of the question, you can't underbore the adapter because then the bolt's going to have a bad day.

[Justus]

I have to disagree. A bore size is just that - the size of the bore. Since the adapter has no bore, it can have no bore size.

It does have a breech size, but that makes no difference on underboring, overboring or bore-to-paint matching.

On twistlock barrels, the bore and breech are permanently connected as one barrel (or barrel back in 2-piece situations). On cocker-threaded bodies (ex. ULE bodies) the breech remains as part of the body, and the bore (barrel) is connected. On TL bodies with an adapter, the adapter serves as a less easily removed breech, to which the bore is again connected.

[GoatBoy]

I have to disagree. A bore size is just that - the size of the bore. Since the adapter has no bore, it can have no bore size.

It does have a breech size, but that makes no difference on underboring, overboring or bore-to-paint matching.

On twistlock barrels, the bore and breech are permanently connected as one barrel (or barrel back in 2-piece situations). On cocker-threaded bodies (ex. ULE bodies) the breech remains as part of the body, and the bore (barrel) is connected. On TL bodies with an adapter, the adapter serves as a less easily removed breech, to which the bore is again connected.

Ah yes; that's technically breech size.

Breech size can matter though. It's where the ball drops in. If it's too large, it allows the next ball in the stack to partially enter the chamber and you get the wounding-the-next-ball effect.

Or if you have a curiously shaped paintball with a skirt on the backend that you don't want the bolt hitting -- the way to address that is by adjusting the breech...