ParHunter

I can only drool when I see the quality of these prints. Somehow my Ender3 can’t quite match that 😉

Good to hear that the kinky tubes don't really cause a problem. In that case they might actually be a 'positive' over the more rigid tubes from ExFog. I saw the trick with the spring on a YouTube video (https://youtu.be/0oXgzxNgdJE?si=OvnlCnOwSRhGrDK1) Nice idea but will only try it if needed. 'Premature optimization is the root of all evil.' Donald Knuth

My son has been using ExFog for over a year now and is very happy apart from that, he hasn’t found a good solution for mounting the tubes to his googles yet (but then he isn’t trying very hard either). I’ve recently received the Novrtisch Antifog Unit 2nd Gen and can now actually compare the two. First of all they both will do the job just fine, it is more about the features and the attachments they come with. Usability: The ExFog uses one button to toggle between different modes, low, medium, max, off while the Antifog has an analogue potentiometer aka knob and a ‘max’ button which goes to full power for 30 seconds to defog the glasses and then goes back to the current mode. IMHO the Antifog wins the usability. Having to toggle through the different modes is a bit annoying, having an analogue knob is more convenient. Tubing: The Antifog comes with green tubes so that is nice but they are a bit on the soft side and it is easy to get kinks. On the other side because the tubing is softer movements don’t tend to pull the tubings out of the glasses but just kink them. I guess that is a benefit. The ‘T’ attachment that comes with the Antifog has IMHO a more solid connection (it doesn’t disconnect as easily) as the magnetic adapter you now get with the new ExFogs but the ExFog connectors are more versatile. ExFog wins the attachments unless you have a google where you can actually use the T connector. Then the Novritsch adaptor is superior. Overall I would say ExFog wins the tubing one but time will tell. I haven’t been able to play with my Antifog yet thanks to a dodgy foot. The flexible tubing might not be an issue at all. Attachments: The Antifog only comes with some Velcro stickers, that’s it. I bought the Novritsch bonie with it which has Velcro on the back so that is not a problem and most helmets have Velcro patches on the back but if I play with my Barrett then I have a problem. Luckily I have all the attachments from my son’s ExFog. That comes with all the Velcro stickers and a head band so that you can wear the unit without anything. That head band just has a Velcro patch on so it works with the Antifog as well. The winner here is clearly the ExFog. Summary So even though the ExFog wins two out of the 3 categories here I would choose the Antifog on the field just because of the usability issue. The one complaint my son has with his ExFog is that his tubes come undone from his goggles. He routes them inside his helmet and they come straight down and he pushes them through holes on the top of his goggles. The tubes are quite stiff to avoid kinks but it also means that any shear force is likely to pull them out while some softer tubes might just kink for a bit and then relax again. Is anyone playing with Novritsch Antifog and can give their feedback on how the tubes behave?

Unfortunately I can’t say the say the same for myself. Once I’ve put on all my gear I weigh a lot more 😜

For me that’s how a G3 should look like, not all that other fancy modern stuff 😉 The G3 was my service rifle back in the Cold War and it looked just like that one. Now if the recoil could give you bruises then you are on to a proper replica! You should get a long leather sling to go with it. Can’t remember how it attached to the top of the hand guard though.

Shame, it is not far from me but I just checked the calendar and we have our seasonal festivity at the golf club aka getting shit faced so will have to give the 7th a miss. But I will look out for announcements of further meet-ups.

I had to google that stock 😉 I was thinking of using a spring and a bolt to lock it in place but I am trying not to over-engineer it if possible. I will try with a 'latch' that snaps into place but that you can easily unhook (but still fixed enough not to get unlatched.

This is still work in progress but I’ve designed a print in place foldable stock adaptor for my TAC41 LS. I still have to improve the lock in place as it is currently too easy to fold the stock accidentally. Any suggestion for a good locking mechanism? Currently it is done with small protrusion that locks into a little groove.

It wasn’t about the suppressor but printing an inner barrel extension inside the suppressor when you can’t achieve an air seal between the inner barrel and the extension.

Given the calculator @Pseudotectonic linked to I’ve established that the ratio for my TAC41 LS is 4.32 with the 330mm barrel (the volume of the cylinder is quoted as 41cc). That sounds way too high. Even with a 440mm barrel it is still a ratio of 3.25. I have yet to play with the TAC41 or shoot it at any distance further than 10m so I have no idea how she actually behaves on the field so I won’t go ahead and order a longer inner barrel just yet (which Airsoft retailer is best for parts?) but I would like to plan ahead. Coming back to my idea of printing a ‘silencer’ with a build in barrel extension (probably not at 6.05 but a bit wider). I didn’t study fluid dynamics but I could imagine that it would be very easy to create turbulences and make things considerably worse. Am I right with my guess or could a little gap between the inner barrel and the barrel extension actually ‘release’ some of the excess pressure without creating turbulences around the BB? Update: ChatGPT shot down my idea saying that it would indeed create turbulences. So would probably go down the route of a longer inner barrel which would be concealed by a suppressor.

Thanks for the link @Pseudotectonic very helpful! I understand that a stronger spring would compress the air quicker and thus provide more acceleration. I was just wondering whether the spring comes into the equation for determining the optimal barrel length but it seems not.

Is there somewhere a formula in matching your inner barrel to your piston and spring? I understand that the volume of the cylinder (the active part - how do you actually figure that out? I guess you could measure how far you pull back the bold handle) should be higher than the volume of the inner barrel but by what factor? And how does the spring come into the equation? I got a TAC41 LS and I was told the barrel is too short for the gun and I should get a longer barrel for it. And that was mentioned as the first improvement I should do. Apparently I could go down to the weaker 100NM spring and pretty much achieve the same distance but with better accuracy. They also mentioned that the bb would be pushed offline when the air pressure is too high when the bb exists the inner barrel. On another note, would it be possible to 3d print a ‘compensator’ with build in barrel extension? I guess you would not be able to get a good air seal.

I managed to fit them both in with optics by removing the stock of the TAC41 which is easy to do. Saved myself a few quid there 😉

What is the recommended BB weight for a TAC 41 LS? 0.45?

When I bought my first rifle I bought a Nuprol Large Case with the internal Size: 102x33x12.5cm That was big enough for the Krytac with scope and a few mags and my AAP. But now the collection has grown and a TAC 41 LS joined the lineup. Unfortunately the two rifles won’t fit into the same case. It is not the length but the width of the case that is too small. I can see the Nuprol XL case is a lot longer but only 6 cm wider (137×39×12.5cm). That doesn’t seem big enough for two rifles or does the extra length allow you to have the rifles laid out better? What cases are you using for multiple rifles?