Twistlock vs. Cocker Threaded Barrels

[Nobody]

Ok, i will take a different tact here.

Twistlocks are great and all other barrel threading sucks.
With the breech, you don't need eyes to ensure that for an electro that paint is detected.
With the breech, you need to have a dedicated mimimal body circumference so the breech can fit. So no milling near the barrel end or you'll have a huge body area.
For the barrel breech, you also have to have a dedicated barrel lock & the ability to access it and set it in a specific place, so again, milling or even body options are limited. You will always have a tube and rail. No unibodies.
The detent was a marvel and much needed piece of ingenuity when it came out yet you can not just turn in the detent if you are having roll outs.

But now, let's look at getting your favorite TW made into something usable.
1) we need a thick enough back that can be hacked to accept the inserts
2) we need a barrel long enough to be face bored for the insert. Not a machinist, but that would need a longer bit to go longer into the barrel, to stand off the breech
3) for face boring, you need a barrel that has enough meat to accept a 2nd tip threading to lock the insert into the back. Can't shoot out your insert, that would not be good
4) let's hope that whoever does this is good, so it won't mar the anno. Since there is a lot of work to be done, the chances increase with every process

So please. If i am wrong here, let TK's moustache strike me down in a fury of diet coke fizz. Any advantage that a TW gains is quickly lost in the flexibility, availability, ease of use. And though, ths 3 seconds to remove a TW is much better, it does not matter much with a ball break. And to change barrels out or at the end of the day, it doesn't even matter. If needed, you remove the valve and use a pull through squeegee. No barrel removal at all.

So TW barrels are dead, and though for a few original guns, its time to move into the 21st century here. They had their time now its to move on, use what the sport is giving you, instead of fighting(and loosing, IMO) to keep things the same.

[Chrome]

Twist lock, because I am one of the (apparent) minority who likes (has) to have a clear sight line down the top of my marker, to achieve this I have no problems using an elbow, and no one makes (or likely will ever make) a direct right feed aluminum body that I could put a cocker barrel on, as I would probably be one of the only people willing to buy such a thing. I tried going down the PTP bolt-on direct feed road, but let's just say that didn't go well and leave it at that.

[ghost flanker]

When I bought an Inception Freak back the front needed to be .697 for use with an Apex tip.

So bore size is part of the equation for the Apex to function correctly.

Could've fooled me. Apex 2 worked just fine with the minimag barrel and Deadly Wind adapter. Who said a .679 bore size was part of the equation for the Apex to function properly?

[ghost flanker]

Something I liked about Luke's old feedneck conversions was that they were low and just a little outside, so that if the loader is heavy, you can roll your wrist over just that much to balance the weight and profile. When the paint is small, you can run a gravity loader, adjust the force on the hopper, or try taping or backing up the detent. Or, you get out a ULE body mag.

IMG_3652.jpg
I like Luke's converted bodies, as well. Also, a dual detent RT twist-lock barrel should more than take care of any problems with small paint and forcefeed loaders.

[going_home]

Could've fooled me. Apex 2 worked just fine with the minimag barrel and Deadly Wind adapter. Who said a .679 bore size was part of the equation for the Apex to function properly?

Nice

[GoatBoy]

You guys ever heard that joke, "How do you shoot a blue elephant?" If I throw a cocker barrel in a TL adapter, which "barrel design" am I using?

There's a little bit of false dichotomy here because the twist-lock system is compatible with cocker threaded barrels. And some of the pros/cons are a matter of perspective. (i.e. I prefer the steel bodies to the aluminum ones.)

AGD just never took full advantage of the twist lock system. Imagine if, at the beginning, they had said, "Like your barrel? Buy our gun and this dinky adapter from us and keep using your favorite barrel. When you're ready for a full twist lock barrel, we'll be here to take the rest of your money, because we like money and we know you have some so it's our job to convince you to part with it."

There are simply a lot of advantages to having direct/removable breech access, even if you don't care for the actual twist-lock mechanism.

Conversely, the biggest drawback is it's kind of hard to add anti-chop eyes (while maintaining backwards compatibility).

[Nobody]

You guys ever heard that joke, "How do you shoot a blue elephant?" If I throw a cocker barrel in a TL adapter, which "barrel design" am I using?

There's a little bit of false dichotomy here because the twist-lock system is compatible with cocker threaded barrels. And some of the pros/cons are a matter of perspective. (i.e. I prefer the steel bodies to the aluminum ones.)

AGD just never took full advantage of the twist lock system. Imagine if, at the beginning, they had said, "Like your barrel? Buy our gun and this dinky adapter from us and keep using your favorite barrel. When you're ready for a full twist lock barrel, we'll be here to take the rest of your money, because we like money and we know you have some so it's our job to convince you to part with it."

There are simply a lot of advantages to having direct/removable breech access, even if you don't care for the actual twist-lock mechanism.

Conversely, the biggest drawback is it's kind of hard to add anti-chop eyes (while maintaining backwards compatibility).

You are putting the car before the cart and horse. The TW adapters only came out way after the ULE bodies, and i suspect mostly for the Original RT users as they got fully shafted on the possibilities of new aluminium bodies and the industry pretty much saying that cocker threads win, regardless of the better & quicker release threads.

Also, the idea of an adapter only came from people not wanting or willing to change bodies and from the people that couldn't find centerfeed TW barrels. This was a bandaid, a supplement to the problem but not a fix. If i remember correctly, Doc Nickel came up with it, not AGD. It was for himself or someone that broached the idea & Doc ran with it.

The point is more that why have the adapter in the first place? You are removing the weight of the TW Adapter, the TW barrel pin, the weight of the SS body, the hopper elbow for all the weight of a ULE body.

And finally, AGD never made barrel, only represented the system to the companies that made barrels. Though many companies NOW offer barrel kits with their highest end guns, 20 years ago, that didn't happen or was the norm. The TS was only developed because TK in the early 90s felt that there was not enough precision or consistency in barrels to use on his gun. And he was right in that early thinking, but now CNC control of milling machines are thoroughly in the manufacturing side for paintball.

So again, TW were a stop gap, like an electronic carb. Time to move to full injection or dare i say, direct inject. Or a tube TV to plasma to LCD. Time to give up the ghost and take out the middle piece.

[GoatBoy]

You are putting the car before the cart and horse. The TW adapters only came out way after the ULE bodies, and i suspect mostly for the Original RT users as they got fully shafted on the possibilities of new aluminium bodies and the industry pretty much saying that cocker threads win, regardless of the better & quicker release threads.

I'm not making any claims other than what was precisely stated, with one hypothetical which in itself didn't make any claims either.

The point is more that why have the adapter in the first place? You are removing the weight of the TW Adapter, the TW barrel pin, the weight of the SS body, the hopper elbow for all the weight of a ULE body.

Not sure I actually understand this sentence. The only real delta is the weight of the aluminum tube vs. the stainless steel tube. The rest of the bits are comparable, negligible, irrelevant, or possibly in favor of the TL adapter given the density of plastic vs. aluminum. (I never said the adapter had to be made of SS.)

The point of having the adapter as a separate piece is... you can have it as a separate piece. It means you can rotate your breech inside the same gun and possibly get multiple feed orientations in the same body without resorting to the expense of an X-Mag or MM2k9. The breech area is where a lot of complexity is piled up, and it is a very easy argument to simplify the body, which is just a steel tube and some washers, by moving the complexity of the breech, detents, and barrel threading into it's own injection moldable part. (Before you start -- if it's good enough for the grip frame, it's good enough for an adapter.)

If people don't like TL barrels, I totally understand. They have their problems. But then again, so do the ULE bodies.

However, looking at this from a design perspective, you have a baseline amount of complexity needed to accomplish a task. And you have a choice to rearrange where the complexity goes. Do you load all your complexity into one single part, or do you logically split the complexity where it makes sense? Would the Automag have made more sense if they, for instance, tried to tightly integrate the valve with the body? It's roughly the same argument.

Outside of electronic eyes, there really isn't anything more "modern" about an aluminum body. They serve the same function; they're just made a little different.

Fortunately, I don't have to argue this one alone. Look at the Tiberius T9.1 and the TPX.

The Tiberius uses a TL barrel. On the T9.1, the same body accomodates mag feed as well as hopper feed because you just rotate the breech/barrel and open the secondary feed port.

The TPX uses a threaded barrel block. By total freak accident, it turns out that you can rotate that separate piece and modify the body for a hopper-fed TPX. But had that not been a separate part, then you would have no options. So imagine if that threaded barrel block had been integrated into the pistol body. More "modern"? Or a total mistake?

[PBLife]

Soooo would you say there might be a market for an aluminum TL barrel in .684 total control bore or some other size variants?

[vintage]

Soooo would you say there might be a market for an aluminum TL barrel in .684 total control bore or some other size variants?

probably too small of a market or Simon would have gone ahead with the Stella in twist lock. I would love to have that option but unfortunately I don't see it happening.

[Nobody]

I'm not making any claims other than what was precisely stated, with one hypothetical which in itself didn't make any claims either.



Not sure I actually understand this sentence. The only real delta is the weight of the aluminum tube vs. the stainless steel tube. The rest of the bits are comparable, negligible, irrelevant, or possibly in favor of the TL adapter given the density of plastic vs. aluminum. (I never said the adapter had to be made of SS.)

The point of having the adapter as a separate piece is... you can have it as a separate piece. It means you can rotate your breech inside the same gun and possibly get multiple feed orientations in the same body without resorting to the expense of an X-Mag or MM2k9. The breech area is where a lot of complexity is piled up, and it is a very easy argument to simplify the body, which is just a steel tube and some washers, by moving the complexity of the breech, detents, and barrel threading into it's own injection moldable part. (Before you start -- if it's good enough for the grip frame, it's good enough for an adapter.)

If people don't like TL barrels, I totally understand. They have their problems. But then again, so do the ULE bodies.

However, looking at this from a design perspective, you have a baseline amount of complexity needed to accomplish a task. And you have a choice to rearrange where the complexity goes. Do you load all your complexity into one single part, or do you logically split the complexity where it makes sense? Would the Automag have made more sense if they, for instance, tried to tightly integrate the valve with the body? It's roughly the same argument.

Outside of electronic eyes, there really isn't anything more "modern" about an aluminum body. They serve the same function; they're just made a little different.

Fortunately, I don't have to argue this one alone. Look at the Tiberius T9.1 and the TPX.

The Tiberius uses a TL barrel. On the T9.1, the same body accomodates mag feed as well as hopper feed because you just rotate the breech/barrel and open the secondary feed port.

The TPX uses a threaded barrel block. By total freak accident, it turns out that you can rotate that separate piece and modify the body for a hopper-fed TPX. But had that not been a separate part, then you would have no options. So imagine if that threaded barrel block had been integrated into the pistol body. More "modern"? Or a total mistake?

Ok, i will clarify.

When you consider all of the components of a TW body(the adapter, the elbow, TW pin, the Tw body) with an adapter to a ULE body, the weight is much more if using all the same parts (cocker threaded barrel, same frame, rail, foregrip, etc). Now, some people don't mind the weight, but to me, the more weight, the less you want to hold the gun during play. The less weight, the more time playing and the longer you can play. Why do you think barrels, hoppers, bodies, and even HPA tanks all shave off weight?

Now, i have never been in a situation where i needed to rotate the breech on anything. I can't even fathom a situation where i would need to. Please elaborate on this.

I remember story of comparing US vs German equipment in WW2. The Germans would design a gun breech in 40 odd parts and work beautifully when clean, maintained and non-combat use. The US designed the same breech in 3 parts, knowing that it used hard but needs to be tough. Simpler is often times, the best option in a design tbat has a use. Granted a body/breech area of a mag (when comparing TW to a ULE bodies) is much easier for use when compared to my previous example. Now, the complexity of a simple tube to a threaded barrel is in favor of the tube, no doubt. But this is a more of a debate on viabilty not ease of manufacturing.

But field use or even player modification is not a design feature, especially when it was not expected, but i don't know who designed the gun, so i can not say that it wasn't a possible design feature. But i will say that in a pistol, there are considerations that you must do to fit everytbing that you might need in a pistol size package. Look at the PT Extreme, had a hopper adapter but had other problems

[GoatBoy]

I think you are confusing "what is historical" with "what is technically better".

When you consider all of the components of a TW body(the adapter, the elbow, TW pin, the Tw body) with an adapter to a ULE body, the weight is much more if using all the same parts (cocker threaded barrel, same frame, rail, foregrip, etc). Now, some people don't mind the weight, but to me, the more weight, the less you want to hold the gun during play. The less weight, the more time playing and the longer you can play. Why do you think barrels, hoppers, bodies, and even HPA tanks all shave off weight?

Again, you will probably lose the adapter weight argument if compared against plastic. Not only is plastic less dense than aluminum, but a separate plastic piece can have internal voids in it where material isn't even needed. Little bit harder to do that with a solid aluminum body, so the volume isn't even the same. I can literally calculate the equivalent weight if you want. Actually, wait, I don't even need to calculate it. I just need to find my scale, which has recently gone missing...

OK, everybody remember this little fella?



It represents, fairly realistically, the aluminum material for the chamber and threading as it would sit, implemented, in a ULE body.

Here's roughly the same functional piece implemented in PLA:



Even a solid SLS nylon version still wins:



Your arguments are running totally against reality. When you "consider all of the components", you'd better not consider the adapter because it is literally, literally hurting your argument.

The elbow isn't a function of the barrel. It's barely a function of the body; it just happens to be that way on the steel bodies because AGD decided to do it that way. They didn't have to -- they just did. And it's irrelevant anyways.

The TL pin is optional. I don't even use a TL pin in my guns. There are other ways to solve that problem (including just ... a lighter mini-TL pin); it just happens to be that way because AGD decided to do it that way.

So in the end, as I tried to state earlier, the thing that matters is essentially the steel main tube vs the aluminum main tube, and maybe the attachment points. I think it amounts to about 60g worth of difference. And by the way, the back half of the bodies are kind of just along for the ride anyways. (I.e. CF sleeve the back half of either body if you really care that much.)

I'm not arguing against weight savings. If it's lighter, it's lighter.

I'm arguing against bad arguments. You keep piling things on that are either irrelevant or literally hurt your own argument.

Now, i have never been in a situation where i needed to rotate the breech on anything. I can't even fathom a situation where i would need to. Please elaborate on this.

Already cited... 4 examples. X-mag (hopper/warp feed), MM2k9 (hopper/warp feed), Tiberius T9.1 (hopper/magazine feed), TPX (hopper/magazine feed).

And it's not just being able to rotate the breech. You can change the shape of the breech to feed FSR's, and you can also monkey with the detents easier.

For example, some people didn't like the detents on the TPX, so they modified that breech block to accept ... cocker detents I think. If you screw up, well you just toss that one part and get a new one.

There are also aftermarket breech blocks now which feature both FSR entry and dual detents for the TPX.

It's just kind of a useful thing, and I don't think it was even really intentional on Tippmann's part. Like any time Tippmann ever does anything right, you have to wonder if it was just a total accident.

But field use or even player modification is not a design feature, especially when it was not expected, but i don't know who designed the gun, so i can not say that it wasn't a possible design feature. But i will say that in a pistol, there are considerations that you must do to fit everytbing that you might need in a pistol size package. Look at the PT Extreme, had a hopper adapter but had other problems

The reason I pointed out the T9.1 and TPX is because they are so similar to an Automag. I see no reason to bring the PT Extreme (or cars, or TV's, or tanks, or whatever) into this, unless you're again trying to sabotage your own argument.

Cuz like... if your idea of modernity is all the complexity loaded into the single main body... the PT Extreme represents that.

[Nobody]

I think you are confusing "what is historical" with "what is technically better".




Again, you will probably lose the adapter weight argument if compared against plastic. Not only is plastic less dense than aluminum, but a separate plastic piece can have internal voids in it where material isn't even needed. Little bit harder to do that with a solid aluminum body, so the volume isn't even the same. I can literally calculate the equivalent weight if you want. Actually, wait, I don't even need to calculate it. I just need to find my scale, which has recently gone missing...

OK, everybody remember this little fella?



It represents, fairly realistically, the aluminum material for the chamber and threading as it would sit, implemented, in a ULE body.

Here's roughly the same functional piece implemented in PLA:



Even a solid SLS nylon version still wins:

The true weights are useful. I fully admit that i am guessing on the actual weight, this is showing what the printable plastics can do, but are these available to any? I am basing this off of the standard adapter that Doc makes. But it is true to history. Aluminium replaced steel, the plastics replace aluminium. Yes the advances in this arr growing more and more, thus making options like this viable.

Your arguments are running totally against reality. When you "consider all of the components", you'd better not consider the adapter because it is literally, literally hurting your argument.

The elbow isn't a function of the barrel. It's barely a function of the body; it just happens to be that way on the steel bodies because AGD decided to do it that way. They didn't have to -- they just did. And it's irrelevant anyways.

The TL pin is optional. I don't even use a TL pin in my guns. There are other ways to solve that problem (including just ... a lighter mini-TL pin); it just happens to be that way because AGD decided to do it that way.

So in the end, as I tried to state earlier, the thing that matters is essentially the steel main tube vs the aluminum main tube, and maybe the attachment points. I think it amounts to about 60g worth of difference. And by the way, the back half of the bodies are kind of just along for the ride anyways. (I.e. CF sleeve the back half of either body if you really care that much.)

I'm not arguing against weight savings. If it's lighter, it's lighter.

I'm arguing against bad arguments. You keep piling things on that are either irrelevant or literally hurt your own argument.

Whag i am getting at is the whole gun. Yes, when using a TW powerfeed or straight feed body, you add in the feedneck. You have to. It has no other way of attaching a hopper to it. For the time, it was fine but now it is a bit of an anachronism now, when you have better options & more compact options at that.

I am basing this off stock guns, not personal mods. If you choose to not use the TW pin, then it can not be considered stock and thus not a valid example. But as far as i know, no one else runs a mag without it, and don't know why you would but that goes to the next point you made.

Already cited... 4 examples. X-mag (hopper/warp feed), MM2k9 (hopper/warp feed), Tiberius T9.1 (hopper/magazine feed), TPX (hopper/magazine feed).

And it's not just being able to rotate the breech. You can change the shape of the breech to feed FSR's, and you can also monkey with the detents easier.

For example, some people didn't like the detents on the TPX, so they modified that breech block to accept ... cocker detents I think. If you screw up, well you just toss that one part and get a new one.

There are also aftermarket breech blocks now which feature both FSR entry and dual detents for the TPX.

It's just kind of a useful thing, and I don't think it was even really intentional on Tippmann's part. Like any time Tippmann ever does anything right, you have to wonder if it was just a total accident.

Again, I NEVER SEEN A REASON WHY YOU WOULD NEED TO ROTATE THE FEEDNECK IN ANY WAY, especially during a game. Not arguing your examples.

Monkeying with the detent. Yeah that is smart. PTP screwed up on the detents plus other "mystery" problems and look what that did to the 2K9 bodies. Great idea of having a warp, angled and centerfeed bodies, yet it was such a good idea that how many people used that idea? Add in all the associated problems of people using other angel threaded detents to mag bodies. AGD got it perfect with theirs so why try to improve on perfection? Why sit there and say, i can do it better and possibly ruin a body just to be different? No sir, that is a stupid "Option".

First Strike rounds? Really? Are they even a factor anymore? Hell, are they still even legal in a majority of fields? If i wanted a FS gun, i would have ome setup specifically for that. Why try to make 1 gun a jack-of-all-trades, when you don't have to? And if a peraon is cost conscious that they might want to, then tbey wouldn't be waisting money on FS rounds. Kinda like going to a buffet to get 1 dish, and a small one at that.

The reason I pointed out the T9.1 and TPX is because they are so similar to an Automag. I see no reason to bring the PT Extreme (or cars, or TV's, or tanks, or whatever) into this, unless you're again trying to sabotage your own argument.

Cuz like... if your idea of modernity is all the complexity loaded into the single main body... the PT Extreme represents that.

The TPX, yes similar because the idea was borrowed or taken or worked on by AGD, at least that is the rumor. I brought up the PT Extreme because it had the same modularity for barrels and parts.

Yet for modern bodies, the mag is still ahead of its time. Modular design, 1 size allen wrench (in most cases) very few screws to put the gun together. Hell just now are people coming into what the Mag did some 20 years ago.

So no, other than showing the weights (thank you for that) of possible adapters, it is kinda useless when compared to the whole of the gun, wbich is muly arguement. Its like picking only 1 answer in a 2 question poll.

[GoatBoy]

AGD got it perfect with theirs so why try to improve on perfection? Why sit there and say, i can do it better and possibly ruin a body just to be different? No sir, that is a stupid "Option".

If *anything*, I think this is the main point. It seemed like AGD really did believe they did everything perfectly. And as such, the customers are expected to do things one way: The AGD Way.

And unfortunately if you thought AGD Perfection v1 was better than the superceding AGD Perfection v2, well... you're gonna hate Fridays.

First Strike rounds? Really? Are they even a factor anymore? Hell, are they still even legal in a majority of fields?

I think they got "insurance banned" at fields. I also think that it's a matter of time before they return.

If i wanted a FS gun, i would have ome setup specifically for that. Why try to make 1 gun a jack-of-all-trades, when you don't have to? And if a peraon is cost conscious that they might want to, then tbey wouldn't be waisting money on FS rounds. Kinda like going to a buffet to get 1 dish, and a small one at that.

Overall, I don't like owning more guns than necessary. Can't stress that enough. It's anathema to most paintballers, but I don't find much joy in "owning things for the sake of owning things". I am cost conscious, *and* I waste money on FS rounds. I don't eat at buffets very often. There is this Indian place that I really like though...

So almost all of my work has actually been specifically for the purpose of folding multiple guns into one. I wanted to fold my q-loaded mag into my spring-loaded mag so I only really have 1 gun. As it currently stands, one gun can run a q-loader, spring feed, mag feed, and First Strike loader. And it doesn't fill those roles half-assed -- it actually does them pretty well.

But *all* of that is predicated one one thing: breech access.

I can't argue with you if you think TL barrels themselves are outdated. They obviously are.

But the system itself has some... "modern" side-effects.

[Nobody]

If *anything*, I think this is the main point. It seemed like AGD really did believe they did everything perfectly. And as such, the customers are expected to do things one way: The AGD Way.

And unfortunately if you thought AGD Perfection v1 was better than the superceding AGD Perfection v2, well... you're gonna hate Fridays.

I think they got "insurance banned" at fields. I also think that it's a matter of time before they return.

Wishing it won't make it happen. Holding out for a niche, you may be waiting a long time.

Overall, I don't like owning more guns than necessary. Can't stress that enough. It's anathema to most paintballers, but I don't find much joy in "owning things for the sake of owning things". I am cost conscious, *and* I waste money on FS rounds. I don't eat at buffets very often. There is this Indian place that I really like though...

So almost all of my work has actually been specifically for the purpose of folding multiple guns into one. I wanted to fold my q-loaded mag into my spring-loaded mag so I only really have 1 gun. As it currently stands, one gun can run a q-loader, spring feed, mag feed, and First Strike loader. And it doesn't fill those roles half-assed -- it actually does them pretty well.

But *all* of that is predicated one one thing: breech access.

I can't argue with you if you think TL barrels themselves are outdated. They obviously are.

But the system itself has some... "modern" side-effects.

Kudos for proper use of anathema.

I don't like mag fed gun. They are stupid. I laugh at the mil-sim wannabes when i see them on the field. I find it utterly moronic to see some play walk up with a pump then fire off 5 rounds autotriggering the hell out of a gun like a semi. These are the things i find moronic on the fields. Yet, it is not my place to say no to theme until i am made "King of All Things". I rather like to see all players on the field, more players on the field, regardless of what they are using. So if i like to show up to the field with a minimum 6 guns (classic mag, half block sniper, 2-3 Mags, 2-4 ICD guns, my Axe and my Ripper Resurrection) cause i don't know what the day will bring, who may need to borrow a gun or what the hell is working that day, or just what i want to use tbat day. Don't turn your nose up at me.

Anyway, ever hear of the term "Jack-of-all-trades, Master of none"? Though, your set works for you. You are happy with it. Nothing wrong with that. It in my eyes will fail. I give credit, in that the mag platform can and does lend itself to the modularity and youbare intimately familiar with it, yet this is no so far off the original question, albeit a fun diversion, from the question that this has no credence to that said question.