Feeling a little down after I decided to do this..

[gwoloshyn]

I made a cannon (my golf ball launcher) seen below and it wasn't enough power for me because there was alot of dead space in the launcher which I didn't like. I decided to modify it for power, minus the looks. I shouldn't have done this. The cannon now is more powerful, but it just doesn't look quite as cool as it did .

Do you prefer your cannons built for power or looks?

[joannaardway]

Ah, this is a difficult problem. I tend to build for power, then adapt a bit for looks.

I admit it looked pretty cool before, but in consolation, what you have now should be more powerful, and safer.

[jackssmirkingrevenge]

Pretty guns are for poofs.

What makes a launcher cool is what it does to the target or the mechanical function of its action, not making it look slightly less than the collection of plumbing supplies that it is.

This might not be as pretty as this but if someone pulls the trigger the damage is exactly the same.

Function over form I say. The Nazi tanks of WW2 might have been the best in the world but they lost the war

[paaiyan]

Function over form my good man.

[Hotwired]

Theres always a way to make something look good and efficient

Unfortunately that involves a lot more procrastination than just going for looks OR efficiency.

Mind you, my design process/cash flow/inclination levels seem to be finally getting to a "build a cannon" stage again.

I err slightly more to the appearance and ergonomics of a cannon just on the principle that if it's comfortable and easy to use it'll be more enjoyable.

Power is overrated in my opinion, ergonomics and appearance should be more popular than they are.

Incidentally the best quote I've heard of the liberator was that it was only useful for getting yourself a better weapon

[paaiyan]

I count ergonomics in the function category. What I mean is it should work well and feel good, rather than look good.

[jackssmirkingrevenge]

Incidentally the liberator is a small, quick and cheap pistol which the best quote I've heard of was that it was only useful for getting yourself a better weapon ^_^

How about something a little closer to home, where would the British tommy in WW2 have been without the Sten

[experament-u2]

ergonomics is my thing i like to start by putting a basic design down for a gun the change it accordingly to give it more power and functionality.
but i do prefer to lean more towards looks 8)

[Hotwired]

Where would the British tommy in WW2 have been without the Sten

I actually think the sten was quite good for what it was

The FP-45 liberator however is really naff compared to a m1911 though so it's not really a good comparison.

[jackssmirkingrevenge]

The point of that comparison was that they fired the same round - ok so the M1911 has a slight velocity advantage due to the longer barrel - but in practical terms, being shot by either weapon has the same effect. Getting shot by an ugly gun won't wouldn't make one any less dead

[Hotwired]

You might as well use a zip gun for comparison

The liberator had an effective range of 3-8m because of it's short and unrifled barrel so as far as ability is concerned it isn't comparable.

Besides I don't think it's an ugly gun. Aesthetics as far as I'm concerned include how the design has been laid out to the best advantage.

Power in spudgunning is the plain over-under or inline model with minimal dead space and bends.

I like it when thats modified to give a better appearance or better ergonomics as long as it doesn't affect performance too much.

[silverdooty]

it looks like you sold your soul.

i would have either:

1. move your blowgun to the lower 45 coming off your chamber, removed the upper p-trap and gotten a longer barrel. the larger pilot volume would be a small sacrifice.

2. move your sprinkler valve forward to behind your breech eliminating most dead airspace. you could then possibly get rid of the hose to your blowgun making your pilot volume minimal.


if it were truly about function over form, everyone building pneumatics would have a 4" chamber, a mauler valve and a 6' golf ball barrel. the only thing to set everyone apart would be primer stains.

[jackssmirkingrevenge]

You might as well use a zip gun for comparison

Ah, but that would be an example of a *simple* gun. I used the Liberator as it's acknowledged to be one of the ugliest guns ever made, if you disagree then all I can say is de gustibus non est disputandum

For example, there's nothing aesthetically beautiful about the PTRD:



But the 14.5mm anti-tank round it fires makes it very attractive in my book

[spud yeti]

I must say that I'm a happy medium kinda guy. I love the gun to have power, but it still has to look good. I often design a gun sheerly for power, then add other items and overlays to make it look awesome and have sweet ergonomics, yet they dont hinder the performance.

What you should have done with this, is have the simple over-under of the new gun, but have the stock of the old. The stock isnt connected to the air, therefore minimalizing kinks and increasing power, whilst still looking great.

Its still an awesome cannon though

[dongfang]

Hi,

I like a form that explains the function... like all parts of the gun must fit harmoniously together, not a single bolt too few or too many, or too small or too large. And no unnecessary stuff on the gun, either. It takes some years of experience to dimension everything right, and it shows on one´s designs.

Old tallrigger ships are designed on the basis on 100s of years of experience: Whenever something broke, the replacement was made a little stronger. Whenever something outlasted the lifetime of the rest of the ship, is was made a little lighter on the next ship. They are very durable without looking clumsy.

The Nazi tanks of WW2 might have been the best in the world but they lost the war Wink

Wasn´t it Guderian to say: All in all, a German tank is 10 times as effective a weapon as a Russian one. The damn thing is that the Russians have 20 times more tanks than we have....

Regards
Soren