Page 1 of 2

pneumatic vs combustion

Unread postPosted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 7:44 am
Author: uberlad
I have been conducting an investigative study contrasting pneumatic cannons and combustion, based in the following criteria:
Range
Damage (close range)
Ease to make
Cost efficiency
'X' factor
Portability
(If you can think of any more, feel free to contact me).
This study uses medium size cannons (By which o mean hand/shoulder held, not the huge artillery pieces, or the mini ones,) and average results, I am currently constructing two on an even par to conduct an experiment, I am hoping for input from everybody.

Unread postPosted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 8:03 am
Author: joannaardway
*Megadeth's "Angry Again" can be heard in the background*

There are more topics discussing this than ANYTHING else (including PVC vs. ABS). And there are probably more in the last month than I can count on one hand. Go away and read one of those - There is a search button for a reason.

This is not new.

Now, leave this alone, be sensible, use the search button and see if you can get people's opinions of you back out of about 5 digits in the negative.

And while you're at it, don't kick up any old threads.

Unread postPosted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 1:40 pm
Author: Recruit
Joannaardway is right. Also there is no comparision really for then except simple combustions are normally funner then Pnuematics and Pnuematics are way stronger. (goes gets a shield my swords and daggers and gets ready to fend off the flamers). :lol: :lol:

Unread postPosted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 1:58 pm
Author: zeigs spud
over all just go with a pneu. only thing they lack is a huge a$$ bang and they can be a little on the high-priced side.

Re: pneumatic vs combustion

Unread postPosted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 2:46 pm
Author: Pete Zaria
uberlad wrote:i have been conducting an investigative study contrasting pneumatic cannons and combustion, based in the following criteria:
range
damage (close range)
ease to make
cost efficiency
'X' factor
(if you can think of any more, feel free to contact me)
this study uses medium size cannons and average results, i am currently constructing two on an even par to conduct an experiment, i am looking for input from everybody.


Add portability. I prefer pneumatics when I'm nearby an air compressor, and combustions when I'm out in the woods shooting crap. My over/under propane injected combustion ends up seeing more use than my old sprinkler valve pneumatic, because of portability.

Peace,
Pete Zaria.

Unread postPosted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 3:49 pm
Author: judgment_arms
What’s with people, I haven’t seen anything top-o-da-line in a long while, I think 90% of the posts made within the last three or more weeks have bean asking a question that has bean answered at least fifty times, or posting a gun they made from plans. The last one’s okay I guess, but come on, I just made a post in another thread like this yesterday, compile all the presented data from all the countless “which is better” topics then make a right up and post that, then contact the modds a have ’em make it a sticky that way nobody has to ask.

But just since this thread's already got a lot of posts in it:
Can you be a little more specific on what you mean by medium sized cannon, Uberlad? Because if you ask me the S.W.A.T. gun would be medium sized, with Second Amendment (pumpkin chucker) being a large cannon.

Recruit wrote:...Also there is no comparision really for then except simple combustions are normally funner then Pnuematics and Pnuematics are way stronger. (goes gets a shield my swords and daggers and gets ready to fend off the flamers). :lol: :lol:


And I find that a pneumatic cannon is far more entertaining than a combustion. (Cocks hammer on .50cal plains rifle) y’all got a problem with that?

Unread postPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2007 9:28 am
Author: joannaardway
judgment_arms wrote:And I find that a pneumatic cannon is far more entertaining than a combustion. (Cocks hammer on .50cal plains rifle) y’all got a problem with that?

Ain't got a problem, but I likes the sound of going huntin'. I'll go gets my 4-bore lever action rifle.

Unread postPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2007 10:16 am
Author: jackssmirkingrevenge
joannaardway wrote:Ain't got a problem, but I likes the sound of going huntin'. I'll go gets my 4-bore lever action rifle.


You must be quite a girl if you can handle something like this :shock:

Image

:D :D :D

Unread postPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2007 10:31 am
Author: joannaardway
I'm 6' 1" (yes, pretty tall), and about 11 stone, a lot of which is muscle, because I'm usually fairly active.

Unread postPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2007 11:20 am
Author: jackssmirkingrevenge
joannaardway wrote:I'm 6' 1" (yes, pretty tall), and about 11 stone, a lot of which is muscle, because I'm usually fairly active.


Still, take a look at the 4 bore cartridge compared to the 700 nitro express:

Image

Now, this is the sort of recoil the 577 nitro express (smaller than the 700) generates:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ged4lz_Fw2Y[/youtube]

Still think you'd be up to it :wink:

Unread postPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2007 4:53 pm
Author: pyromaniac
Why are they doing that in such a small room?

Unread postPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2007 4:57 pm
Author: ShowNoMercy
And why did he fall over so much? I can't imagine the recoil to be that much, I mean I have shot a .50 caliber pistol and I didnt fall over. So whats the deal with this guy?

Unread postPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2007 5:04 pm
Author: judgment_arms
joannaardway wrote:Ain't got a problem, but I likes the sound of going huntin'. I'll go gets my 4-bore lever action rifle.


4bore lever-gun, what’s the make and model on that?

4bores’ are nice, but nothin’ beats the big fifty (.50-110), and yes I know that a 4bore is bigger than the big fifty, it’s a mater of opinion.

EDIT: looked at the video, that guy’s a doorknob, can’t even shoot a .577 express, dang. I saw a guy shoot a .577 express double gun on American Rifleman TV, he was a little old man and he shot it with out any trouble at all…
But what do you expect from a dress wearing towel head, no offence intended.

Unread postPosted: Wed Mar 21, 2007 4:13 am
Author: joannaardway
No make and model - I made it in my shed, at the same time I was perfecting cold fusion and vacuum point energy - carefully obeying the laws of thermodynamics. (That's one law you don't want to be arrested for breaking)

I know what 4-bores are like. It's all to do with stance. A good firing stance, and the recoil is still massive - but you won't end up on your backside.

Unread postPosted: Wed Mar 21, 2007 4:33 am
Author: jackssmirkingrevenge
ShowNoMercy wrote:And why did he fall over so much? I can't imagine the recoil to be that much, I mean I have shot a .50 caliber pistol and I didnt fall over. So whats the deal with this guy?


It depends, did you shoot a 0.50AE (about 1,500 ft/lbs) pistol like the desert eagle or a 0.50 BMG (about 12,500 ft/lbs) pistol like the Thunderer?


The round they're firing in the clip produces around 11,000 ft/lbs, close to 0.50 BMG rifles like the Barrett M82 - without the benefit of recoil reducing features like a muzzle brake and recoiling barrel.