Consumer Survey #2: HFD (Once Again, Sorry AGD :P)

[OysterBoy]

Ok, this is the second survey in regards to our concept gun, the 'derringer' (PATENT PENDING). Original Survey: http://www.automags.org/forums/showthread.php?t=130672

Finally, a flash-mockup of the gun...but, no server Anyone willing to provide a SECURE server that i could upload a picture onto?

Questions:
1) If a gun were incredibly tight, with a working backspin feature BUT, had a ROF of about 10 BPS max, would you be interested?

2) If same gun were tight, with no backspin feature, and a relatively decent ROF, would you be interested?

3) If said gun were cocker threaded, but with a slightly higher feed neck then average (think BKO/B2K3, Only a little higher) would you be interested?

4) If said gun were incapable of being electronically fired (ATM), and is not reccomended to be opened up, would you be interested?

5) If said gun had a version, to be used with halos, Q-Loaders, and Warps only, and were tourney ILLEGAL, but delivered insane ROF (with sub-par efficiency; think classic automag/shocker, only a little worse) would you be interested?

6) If gun had the specs of those listed in Q1, and were priced in the area of an E-Blade, or less (later on) would you be interested?


Thank you,
HFD
Alex Hnatiuk

EDIT:

PICTURE (Drawing)

http://members.rogers.com/headfirstdesigns/Derringer.jpg

[Koosh]

So you expect people to buy an expensive, slow, ineffecient gun that you can't take apart, and isn't tourney legal?

Good luck...

[OysterBoy]

Thats nice of you to assume, but thats incorrect.

The questions were to be taken seperatley, hence the numbering.. Its called a survey, thats how you learn things.

[barrel break]

Questions:
1) If a gun were incredibly tight, with a working backspin feature BUT, had a ROF of about 10 BPS max, would you be interested? tough question, but, no, the reason people want a tight gun is for speedball, and speedball players generally want high ROF, backspin (distance) is not normally a deciding factor due to the small size of todays fields

2) If same gun were tight, with no backspin feature, and a relatively decent ROF, would you be interested? probably

3) If said gun were cocker threaded, but with a slightly higher feed neck then average (think BKO/B2K3, Only a little higher) would you be interested? no, high feed neck=bad

4) If said gun were incapable of being electronically fired (ATM), and is not reccomended to be opened up, would you be interested? not sure what the question means

5) If said gun had a version, to be used with halos, Q-Loaders, and Warps only, and were tourney ILLEGAL, but delivered insane ROF (with sub-par efficiency; think classic automag/shocker, only a little worse) would you be interested? no, tourney illegal usually translates to field illegal in these cases

6) If gun had the specs of those listed in Q1, and were priced in the area of an E-Blade, or less (later on) would you be interested? slightly if even, yes if less

[-=Squid=-]

Im sorry, but having seen the designs for this gun, I just dont think its going to be possible to build a functioning unit.

Say you DO manage that part, the trigger pull will still be EXTREMELY heavy. When I say extremely heavy, im talking like having to strain yourself to pull it once.

[OysterBoy]

As stated a while ago, you havent seen the gun designs, at least not the new ones. The old designs were flawed, but we've worked up a new way which we feel is much better, and should not have any pull-weight problems.

[personman]

Questions:
1) Maybe, not really though.

2) Moreso than #1

3) Ehhh High feednecks are a neg.

4) What?!?!? I live to take apart guns. If I cant take it apart, count me out.

5) Wait, a gun thats illigal with an insane ROF? What's the point? Why dont you just take a spyder and remove the sear and cock it back and let it fly?

6) Uh, no, sorry.

[OysterBoy]

Finally, a mockup picture..

Damnit Squid, Im not doing a whiteboard ever again..

http://members.rogers.com/headfirstdesigns/Derringer.jpg

[barrel break]

I'm sorry, but that is the epitome of ugliness

[-=Squid=-]

Finally, a mockup picture..

Damnit Squid, Im not doing a whiteboard ever again..

http://members.rogers.com/headfirstd.../Derringer.jpg

Why no more whiteboard with me?

Either way, the problems I saw with the old design still seem like problems to me. I just dont see this getting off the ground.

[steveo356]

1 maybe if its still extremly light cuz for woods ball i like my guns small jus like speed ball u can hide in smaller things
2 rof isn't the most important thing which some peopel dont understand for me the feel of it would be important here.
3 i dun like realy high feed necks i dun mind a short neck n a forced hopper tho (halo)
4 doesn't realy bother me me plus electrics n board n stuff equal realy confused ill leave it to the pros here
5 hmm i dun like to drain my pockets on backyard guns so nope
6 maybe if it looks good and is extremyl reliable (like a dream backup) i might pick one up

[OysterBoy]

I'm sorry, but that is the epitome of ugliness

lol. And the classic mag was a supermodel in bikini? hehe.

And I somewhat agree, but that is a MOCKUP, meaning the basics. And ideas of how it could look nicer? Not you, Squid, lol.

As for previous design flaws, they've been fixed. The only reason Squid didn't see the changes is because he was too busy drawing human fallices (sp?) on the whiteboard haha.

[Cryer]

answers:
1) No. Backspin is pointless. By the time the ball reaches the target, he will have had plaenty of time to move. If hes too far away, move up.

2) Maybe. But its going to have to be more than a tight gun with decent ROF. There are tons of those in the market already.

3) Cocker barrel-threads? still a maybe. cocker feedneck-threads? no.

4) No. I have to be able to strip it.

5) No.

6) No.

[Fred]

1) If a gun were incredibly tight, with a working backspin feature BUT, had a ROF of about 10 BPS max, would you be interested?

A model 98 can shoot faster than 10... and would be cheaper than yours... why would I want yours?

2) If same gun were tight, with no backspin feature, and a relatively decent ROF, would you be interested?

which makes it different or better... how? from any other marker on the market?

3) If said gun were cocker threaded, but with a slightly higher feed neck then average (think BKO/B2K3, Only a little higher) would you be interested?

You want it to be tight... but are making it intentionally taller... think about that...

4) If said gun were incapable of being electronically fired (ATM), and is not reccomended to be opened up, would you be interested?

you aren't allowed to fix it... good call...

5) If said gun had a version, to be used with halos, Q-Loaders, and Warps only, and were tourney ILLEGAL, but delivered insane ROF (with sub-par efficiency; think classic automag/shocker, only a little worse) would you be interested?

have you ever heard of marketing?

6) If gun had the specs of those listed in Q1, and were priced in the area of an E-Blade, or less (later on) would you be interested?

not likely...


I really think you're grasping at straws here, you appear to want to design something to do something, but you're completely NOT committed to anything. Most of these ideas have been done before, and some weren't that good to begin with... look at the history of the sport and market trends, Tournament Legal and ready is the name of the game. Backspin is rectastic and even when the paint does make it out farther, it doesn't break... cool idea, but in reality it has little use without being able to dump A LOT of paint while using it.

Pick a design style, if small and compact is your main design goal, stick with it 100%, that means lowrise/norise or warp/qloader.

its pretty apparent you're way over your head in this little project of yours...

[OysterBoy]

Thanks for your opinion, flawed as some of it may be.

This survey was intended to get a feel as for what you (public) want. This means you DONT want high-rise bodys, DO want high ROF, Legal, etc. I hope you realise the gun will not have the specs listed in the questions, at least not all of them.