Ropeyshep

Made a little dropper panel so I can move my admin pouch down, makes the front of my chest rig a little cleaner. 2” Velcro at the top, three rows of PALs at the bottom. 

Also a couple of very hi-viz muzzle covers. 
 

Just knocked up a new belt, thicker and stiffer than I’d normally make, used three layers of webbing for the main belt, meant there were five layers to attach the adjuster webbing, that’s a workout for the machine. Also added Velcro which is a new one for me, hoping it helps with the rotational stiffness. 

Just to give a little data to this thread/topic and to see for myself if there is a significant difference in the behaviour of Bios in wet conditions or a difference between the behaviour of Bios versus Non-Bios, I put a small sample of whatever I had in the house into ziploc bags of water following my last post so these are figures based on the sample BBs being completely submerged in tap water for 18 days (it was night time so I'm counting only whole days).
 
Following the submersion, I measured five BBs from each wet sample and five BBs from the original dry source bottle/bag. I don't have a massive selection and most of those are Bio so I don't have a great control group of non-bio BBs to select from.
 
So, the hypothesis tested is that Biodegradable BBs swell out of spec on absorption of moisture.
 
The attached table is a summary of the results and I think the conclusion I first draw is that there is no absorption or swelling of BBs after nearly 3 weeks underwater.
 
The variation within samples appears greater than that between wet and dry in most cases. Also, I am pretty happy with my standard choice of Nuprol RZR 0.28g Bio 😉
 
There are obvious limitations to the test, primarily in that the sample sizes are small, I can't be fussed expanding the test but I'd be more than happy to applaud anyone who wanted to, I am happy to email the full data table with individual measurements, if anyone is that bored on lockdown. Another possible source of error is the measurement equipment, I used my general garage micrometer to do the measuring, it doesn't have a valid certificate of calibration and it has a stated precision of 0.01mm so the variation seen in most samples falls inside the possible error of the test equipment.
 
Thirdly, this isn't a blind test, I knew what each sample was and so there may be subconscious bias but I doubt it.
 
I really hope this lockdown ends soon, I clearly have too much time on my hands.

Just to give a little data to this thread/topic and to see for myself if there is a significant difference in the behaviour of Bios in wet conditions or a difference between the behaviour of Bios versus Non-Bios, I put a small sample of whatever I had in the house into ziploc bags of water following my last post so these are figures based on the sample BBs being completely submerged in tap water for 18 days (it was night time so I'm counting only whole days).
 
Following the submersion, I measured five BBs from each wet sample and five BBs from the original dry source bottle/bag. I don't have a massive selection and most of those are Bio so I don't have a great control group of non-bio BBs to select from.
 
So, the hypothesis tested is that Biodegradable BBs swell out of spec on absorption of moisture.
 
The attached table is a summary of the results and I think the conclusion I first draw is that there is no absorption or swelling of BBs after nearly 3 weeks underwater.
 
The variation within samples appears greater than that between wet and dry in most cases. Also, I am pretty happy with my standard choice of Nuprol RZR 0.28g Bio 😉
 
There are obvious limitations to the test, primarily in that the sample sizes are small, I can't be fussed expanding the test but I'd be more than happy to applaud anyone who wanted to, I am happy to email the full data table with individual measurements, if anyone is that bored on lockdown. Another possible source of error is the measurement equipment, I used my general garage micrometer to do the measuring, it doesn't have a valid certificate of calibration and it has a stated precision of 0.01mm so the variation seen in most samples falls inside the possible error of the test equipment.
 
Thirdly, this isn't a blind test, I knew what each sample was and so there may be subconscious bias but I doubt it.
 
I really hope this lockdown ends soon, I clearly have too much time on my hands.

Convincingly put, I’m sold. 

They need to get the rims alternating, pretty sure that’s where the problem is. 

Just to give a little data to this thread/topic and to see for myself if there is a significant difference in the behaviour of Bios in wet conditions or a difference between the behaviour of Bios versus Non-Bios, I put a small sample of whatever I had in the house into ziploc bags of water following my last post so these are figures based on the sample BBs being completely submerged in tap water for 18 days (it was night time so I'm counting only whole days).
 
Following the submersion, I measured five BBs from each wet sample and five BBs from the original dry source bottle/bag. I don't have a massive selection and most of those are Bio so I don't have a great control group of non-bio BBs to select from.
 
So, the hypothesis tested is that Biodegradable BBs swell out of spec on absorption of moisture.
 
The attached table is a summary of the results and I think the conclusion I first draw is that there is no absorption or swelling of BBs after nearly 3 weeks underwater.
 
The variation within samples appears greater than that between wet and dry in most cases. Also, I am pretty happy with my standard choice of Nuprol RZR 0.28g Bio 😉
 
There are obvious limitations to the test, primarily in that the sample sizes are small, I can't be fussed expanding the test but I'd be more than happy to applaud anyone who wanted to, I am happy to email the full data table with individual measurements, if anyone is that bored on lockdown. Another possible source of error is the measurement equipment, I used my general garage micrometer to do the measuring, it doesn't have a valid certificate of calibration and it has a stated precision of 0.01mm so the variation seen in most samples falls inside the possible error of the test equipment.
 
Thirdly, this isn't a blind test, I knew what each sample was and so there may be subconscious bias but I doubt it.
 
I really hope this lockdown ends soon, I clearly have too much time on my hands.

Just to give a little data to this thread/topic and to see for myself if there is a significant difference in the behaviour of Bios in wet conditions or a difference between the behaviour of Bios versus Non-Bios, I put a small sample of whatever I had in the house into ziploc bags of water following my last post so these are figures based on the sample BBs being completely submerged in tap water for 18 days (it was night time so I'm counting only whole days).
 
Following the submersion, I measured five BBs from each wet sample and five BBs from the original dry source bottle/bag. I don't have a massive selection and most of those are Bio so I don't have a great control group of non-bio BBs to select from.
 
So, the hypothesis tested is that Biodegradable BBs swell out of spec on absorption of moisture.
 
The attached table is a summary of the results and I think the conclusion I first draw is that there is no absorption or swelling of BBs after nearly 3 weeks underwater.
 
The variation within samples appears greater than that between wet and dry in most cases. Also, I am pretty happy with my standard choice of Nuprol RZR 0.28g Bio 😉
 
There are obvious limitations to the test, primarily in that the sample sizes are small, I can't be fussed expanding the test but I'd be more than happy to applaud anyone who wanted to, I am happy to email the full data table with individual measurements, if anyone is that bored on lockdown. Another possible source of error is the measurement equipment, I used my general garage micrometer to do the measuring, it doesn't have a valid certificate of calibration and it has a stated precision of 0.01mm so the variation seen in most samples falls inside the possible error of the test equipment.
 
Thirdly, this isn't a blind test, I knew what each sample was and so there may be subconscious bias but I doubt it.
 
I really hope this lockdown ends soon, I clearly have too much time on my hands.

Just to give a little data to this thread/topic and to see for myself if there is a significant difference in the behaviour of Bios in wet conditions or a difference between the behaviour of Bios versus Non-Bios, I put a small sample of whatever I had in the house into ziploc bags of water following my last post so these are figures based on the sample BBs being completely submerged in tap water for 18 days (it was night time so I'm counting only whole days).
 
Following the submersion, I measured five BBs from each wet sample and five BBs from the original dry source bottle/bag. I don't have a massive selection and most of those are Bio so I don't have a great control group of non-bio BBs to select from.
 
So, the hypothesis tested is that Biodegradable BBs swell out of spec on absorption of moisture.
 
The attached table is a summary of the results and I think the conclusion I first draw is that there is no absorption or swelling of BBs after nearly 3 weeks underwater.
 
The variation within samples appears greater than that between wet and dry in most cases. Also, I am pretty happy with my standard choice of Nuprol RZR 0.28g Bio 😉
 
There are obvious limitations to the test, primarily in that the sample sizes are small, I can't be fussed expanding the test but I'd be more than happy to applaud anyone who wanted to, I am happy to email the full data table with individual measurements, if anyone is that bored on lockdown. Another possible source of error is the measurement equipment, I used my general garage micrometer to do the measuring, it doesn't have a valid certificate of calibration and it has a stated precision of 0.01mm so the variation seen in most samples falls inside the possible error of the test equipment.
 
Thirdly, this isn't a blind test, I knew what each sample was and so there may be subconscious bias but I doubt it.
 
I really hope this lockdown ends soon, I clearly have too much time on my hands.

Just knocked up a new belt, thicker and stiffer than I’d normally make, used three layers of webbing for the main belt, meant there were five layers to attach the adjuster webbing, that’s a workout for the machine. Also added Velcro which is a new one for me, hoping it helps with the rotational stiffness. 

https://www.uktactical.com/p-8927-warrior-universal-pistol-holster-multicam.aspx

Well you don't want 11.1v AND SHS 13:1 - just 11.1v as a cheap stop gap
 
you don't HAVE TO install the mosfet right away either on a std motor (with tabs)
you could just install a sb160 schotky diode across the cheap std motor with tabs to reduce arcing for a while...
 
 
 
NB - DO NOT WRAP ONE AROUND A SHS, G&G MOTOR
as the two screws connect/short through the mounting plate under end bell 101% of the time
(but are insulated with plastic washers/sometime plastic screws etc... so just stopped from a short)
 
YOU PLACE A DIODE IN A SHS TYPE MOTOR YOU CAN SHORT THE TWO TERMINALS
(in a cheap std "2 tab" motor the poles never contacts the same section at same time)
 
What they do - stop the spikes from motor/inductive load...
 
loads of stuff out there but a before/after...
 
https://youtu.be/F3IsdlBVwSI?t=260
 
& go to say 5:10 to see nearly no spark with diode
 
https://youtu.be/F3IsdlBVwSI?t=310
 
(that spark is same arcing at trolley/switch in gun)
 
So ICS know their stuff for reducing arcing - though wtf didn't they do this by default ???
However only for cheap 2 tab motors, even G&G cheapo 18k motors shouldn't have this fitted
(coz shorting at the lock ring under end bell with added diode on SHS/G&G type motors)
 
What this translates to - you can drop a diode in, run on 11.1v on shit motor and reduce the arcing
thus not needing to install a mosfet straight away, to run on higher juice to squeeze out more zest
 
NB does NOT eliminate arcing at switch like mosfet,
but seriously reduce arcing from spikes for say 20p (on cheapo 2 tab motors) to run on higher juice
perfect for cheapo £100 gun, you want to add a bit more zest with least fucking about out of the box
(later on when it busts, needs a tweak then open & do the upgrades/mosfet etc...)

Best comment in the doobly-doo so far.

AvE by any chance?

Not on that style of sight, it's just solid Chinesium there.

And then have it snap off, since it's secured right at the very edge of the polycarb.
 
 
 
That, really.  I put flat plates on the front of my red dots, either glued on or if there's enough metal there, drill and tap and bolt it on.
 

 
 
 
I've had a sight and camera lens shot out both in woodland and in CQB (one of each in each environment) so I don't take the risk any more.
 
 
 

You say that now...

Yeah there is an mod you can buy which attaches to the barrel end to add hop. (Duno if its adjustable)
For the Aussies its better than nothing 👍
 
I think laser tech could be the future. iCombat system is quite cool 
Just imagine 300mm range and no cheating
 
 

Where did you get the handguard and stock from if you dont mind sharing?
 
I have been saying this for a while, I still have ahalf a box of blasters in the garage. As soon as I am through them I am making the switch.
Problem is I only use semi auto and I pick my shots so a bottle can last me ages.

Must've worded it wrong.
Has to be a specna btw.
 
M4 because I don't want to buy yet another full set of magazines (still have to get more flash mags for the ak).
 
Thanks but no SRC/ICS.
SRC I just don't trust them and ICS is a hair too expensive for a base gun.

Starting to get things! Charger and lipo bag. Mind the bag was bigger than I thought haha!

You say that now...

I've been softing for 17 years now, ever since i was 16. Wow time fly's. I have so many epic stories, moments and memories from over this time. Met some great people, some not so and had some insane moments. 
 
In reality, bar the sheer amount of gear you can get now, affordably not much has changed from what i can remember. 
 
Battery tech is the most obvious change and very welcome, gone are the days of trying to cram a days softing in with the great big batteries of yesteryear. 
 
I've owned pretty much every type of gun, (AEG, GBB) from the OG brands These where only Marui & CA really when i started, well that is all i ever bought from Fire support. Up until maybe a year or so ago i had my CA M16A4 that was my second ever purchase, it would be 17 years old now and it still worked fantastically, only having 1 rebuild ever before we parted ways, it had been my main weapon for at least 6-8 years. Fire support at the time where easily the go to shop, though i frequently placed HUGE orders from Japan.
 
I have introduced so many people into the scene over the years, i started taking my brother in law when he was 12, hes now mid 20's and we still go a couple times a month. 

He won't be saying that last week

np . The fn57 was the first to have a 15mm bbu, then the px4. I think I'm possibly wrong  with the uspc as I think it came after the px4 because the uspc introduced the improved slide stop mechanism as well as using the 15mm bbu