Good Low/No Rise Clamping feedneck.

[MarkM]

What the hell lets stir this pot even more

[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]

Re: ...

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

[ChucktheMAGician]

Re: Re: Re: ...

Originally posted by RogueFactor
My apologies Chuck, you were the first.

That's ok, some free Rogue gear would heal my broken heart tho

[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.