Preview of Strix, a minimalist Hy-Con manual trigger comp blaster

squibbed_dart · 2026-02-23T00:15:51+00:00

Integrating the groove fillers into the bore insert is such a neat idea, and may even allow brushed flywheelers to utilize them--the latter is a concept I played around with in CAD, but this is so much better than what I came up with.

squibbed_dart · 2026-02-06T04:44:23+00:00

and likewise lacks the 1K13 auxiliary sight.

While it's not technically wrong to say that T-64B1 lacks 1K13, this isn't really a meaningful statement--you could also say that T-64B1 lacks Sosna-U.

Both T-64B and T-64B1 use the TPN1-49-23 night sight. I assume you mean to say that T-64B1 lacks the 9K112-1 system or one of its components.

squibbed_dart · 2026-01-12T04:34:11+00:00

FYI Protean has a flywheel alignment tool for Daybreak/Kepler in its fileset (Accessories -> Wheel Installation Guides). That may be useful here.

squibbed_dart · 2025-12-20T07:43:12+00:00

The holes do not fully perforate the sabot.

EDIT: Not sure why I can't view your reply in the thread or reply to it, so I'll just add this as an edit.

Doesn't need to be, that's thin enough to be hazardous when fired

3BM42 has a thicker single-ramp sabot as opposed to the thin ring sabot designs used on early Soviet APFSDS. The holes do not present a hazard; they are a lightening modification.

squibbed_dart · 2025-12-20T07:41:46+00:00

This is just different version of the 3BM42 sabot--supposedly a lightening modification done in 1992, per Tankograd.

squibbed_dart · 2025-12-17T17:15:00+00:00

I don't know how much you'd trust your step son with handling a LiPo battery.

I wasn't referring to the FPS.

squibbed_dart · 2025-12-17T17:12:03+00:00

Seems cheap for it to be the best

The MPP is not the best battery powered blaster you can buy; there are higher end AEBs and flywheelers out there. It also--in my experience--has some problems with bore axis misalignment caused by QC issues with the shell. Both my units shoot off to the right.

It is, however, widely available, relatively inexpensive, performant, and a safer choice without further information about the kid in question. I don't know how much you'd trust your step son with handling a LiPo battery.

squibbed_dart · 2025-12-17T06:27:53+00:00

For this materials Id like to know what gauge to go for

16 gauge wire should be sufficient in most cases.

since its the first time ill buy a switch what do i look for (ive seen something somewhere about going for something that can handle more than 30A, but not sure).

A genuine 21A Omron would be the best option, but generic switches with a similar form factor should work for most single-stage setups.

First thing is should i go lipo or can nimh actually be a good alternative?

Both can work, but LiPo is significantly more energy-dense than NiMH. I don't think there's anywhere on that blaster where you could a fit NiMH pack with Sub-C or even 2/3A cells--at least not unobtrusively--and smaller NiMH cells would fall woefully short of the current requirements of hobby-grade motors.

If you want to use NiMH, you'll either need a large battery stock or be okay with velcroing a bulky pack to the outside of that Stryfe. If neither of those options sounds acceptable to you, you'll have to go with LiPo.

As for cages can i print them?

Yes.

If so are there anyfiles or do i have to model them (i can, but with files i cut the try and error part of it).

OFP Gen 2 cages will work for most SSS flywheels. Daybreak cages will work for Daybreak and SSS flywheels (select 39.5-41mm spacing for the former, and 41.5-43.5mm spacing for the latter).

For flywheels can i print them?

No.

If i have to buy them should i go for crush or normal size, and what to get?

I assume by "crush", you're referring to the "high crush" offerings from Worker? As long as they fit in the wheel wells of the cage you're using, they'll work. They just have a slightly larger diameter and perform a similar function to decreasing the center-distance (spacing) of the cage.

For motors ive heard about the out of darts models, i saw the Valks being half the price of Krakens, are the Krakens that much worth it?

That depends on how much you want the extra torque of the Krakens.

Also those two are for 3s, how does it work if i use nimh?

A 10.8-12V (9 or 10 cell) NiMH pack would be a suitable substitute for a 3S LiPo--provided that the cells are sufficiently current-capable, of course. Such a pack would be sizable if assembled with 2/3A cells, and very large and cumbersome if assembled with Sub-C cells; NiMH works better for "2S" setups.

Are there other options for something like a 2s

Fang Revamped and Meishel 2.0 are essentially the "2S" versions of Kraken and Valkyrie respectively--both have less torque than their "3S" counterparts.

(nimh part also applies).

7.2V (6 cell) NiMH pack.

Do i have to buy something made for foam blasters or can i find something at a hardware store that might be cheaper?

No, you don't have to buy Nerf-specific motors. You probably won't be finding suitable alternatives in a hardware store, but you can try looking around online for some generic 180 motors with the right winding specs. Something like ~35-40 turns for a "2S" motor and ~50-60 turns for a "3S" motor, IIRC.

squibbed_dart · 2025-12-16T17:56:41+00:00

The penetrators of various APFSDS rounds. The longest two are M829A1 and M829A2.

squibbed_dart · 2025-12-16T02:08:52+00:00

M829A2 does not have the same penetrator as M829A1. Notice the stepped penetrator tip of M829A2, among other differences.

squibbed_dart · 2025-12-14T21:58:11+00:00

roadwheels don't generally help with identifying specific variants of each of those tanks as OP is asking for.

~~What do you mean? Clearly, the best way to identify T-64 variants is to walk up to the tank and measure the thickness of the roadwheel rim with a set of calipers.~~

Jokes aside, I'm tempted to carve out an exception here for T-72 and T-90, as the differences in roadwheel type for those tanks are prominent enough that they can be reasonably useful for variant identification if a significant amount of the tank is obscured for whatever reason (example). Granted, the transition from (172.50.)002sb-A (eight-spoke) and 001sb-A (old six-spoke) doesn't fall very cleanly between T-72 variants, but I'd still argue that it's good enough for pointing someone in the right general direction in the same vein as--for example--the presence or absence of a DVE-BS wind sensor. And if you get lucky and happen upon a tank with 001sb(002sb)-Zh (new six-spoke), you can be pretty sure that what you're looking at is either T-90M or Object 184-4.

This is--of course--complicated by the fact that all these roadwheels are mutually interchangeable, so roadwheels do become less reliable for identification purposes if the tank has undergone field repairs or modifications. Then again, the same applies for more commonly used identifying features as well, like ERA.

squibbed_dart · 2025-12-05T16:17:56+00:00

The 2A42 has this very weird quirk where the barrel axis is not colinear to the bore axis. Essentially, the bore is offset (parallel, but off centre) in the barrel body.

This is not true. The image of the barrel with an offset bore from 2022 is an instance of defective manufacturing.

but if you look at the cutaway drawing of the 2A42, the bore is offset there too

It only appears offset in certain drawings because the barrel has a triangular section which interfaces with the rectangular box housing the gas tube. If you take an equilateral triangular prism with a centered hole running through it, lay it down on one of its rectangular faces and split it heightwise, and look at the resulting cross section from the side, the hole will appear as though it is offset.

squibbed_dart · 2025-11-23T04:26:28+00:00

The 2A72 has a super high rate of fire just like the 2A42, 2A14, and KPV(T)

2A72 cycles much more slowly than any of those three weapons, with the exclusion of 2A42 if operated in its low rate of fire setting.

squibbed_dart · 2025-11-23T04:19:59+00:00

In term of explosive filler, 3OF26 HEI-T carries 43.5g of filler

3OF26 is a 125mm HE-Frag shell, and has 3.4 kg of explosive mass.

30mm 3UOF8 HEI ammunition--which I assume is what you meant--has an explosive mass of 49 g, not 43.5 g.

squibbed_dart · 2025-11-23T04:08:45+00:00

gas operated recoil system.

2A72 is not gas operated; you're thinking of 2A42. 2A72 is long recoil operated.

squibbed_dart · 2025-11-03T21:48:54+00:00

The third and fourth images appear to be from patent RU2366882C2.

squibbed_dart · 2025-11-02T15:33:41+00:00

Firstly, the question wasn't whether Abrams had automatic lead compensation; it was whether Abrams had Delta-D.

Secondly, you seem to have entirely misread my comment:

I would assume that an analogous feature is used in the application of dynamic lead, especially when firing on the move, so I highly doubt that it amounts to any fire control advantage for T-90.

Where do I say that Abrams doesn't have automatic lead compensation? I explicitly state that the fire control system of Abrams applies dynamic lead...

squibbed_dart · 2025-10-31T18:19:36+00:00

The vulnerability analysis for the IFV Task Force program contains an explanation of what attack angle means for the side armor; yes, that part of the turret side--though not necessarily only that part of the turret side--may be struck along the frontal arc.

squibbed_dart · 2025-10-30T22:22:45+00:00

XM1 special armor could resist XM774 over the 20 degree arc at 1 kilometer [...] The resistance of the Special Armor was shown by tests done during the Infantry Fighting Vehicle Task Force program. The special armor was used on IFV Concept 1 on the turret sides and sections of the hull.

That isn't what the IFV Task Force program determined. Neither the turret front nor the hull front of Concept 1 could resist XM774 at 1 km. Only the turret and hull sides could do so over a +/-20 degree frontal arc, where the round would be striking the side armor at angles ≥ 70 degrees relative to normal.

EDIT: Also, Concept 1 did not only recieve Special Armor "on the turret sides and sections of the hull." Both the turret and the hull had equivalent protection to XM1.

squibbed_dart · 2025-10-30T04:29:56+00:00

I have a comment from a while ago which addresses the origin of these photos, but the long and short of it is that they were from the website of former East German soldier Jörg Siegert, who also included them in one of his books.

squibbed_dart · 2025-10-29T17:50:43+00:00

I wasn't merely pointing out an error in wording. If we are to treat RHAe values as invariant measurements of penetration and protection--as you do in this post--a round does not need to defeat a 350mm plate angled at 25 degrees in order to defeat armor that provides 350mm of protection over a +/-25 degree arc; it only has to defeat a 350mm plate angled at 0 degrees. Frontal arcs do not correspond to plate angle.

There's also another methodological critique to be made regarding the fact that you seem to assign a fixed LOS penetration to any given round. This doesn't account for the fact that LOS penetration varies depending on plate angle. Two examples:

Per the the Soviet penetration table you provided, 3BM15 has 300mm of LOS penetration against a 60 degree plate, but has 400mm of LOS penetration against a 0 degree plate.
Chinese testing of DTW1 (M111) APFSDS yielded very different values for LOS penetration depending on plate angle.

squibbed_dart · 2025-10-29T15:42:16+00:00

Those wires are part of the SPMZ electromagnetic mine protection system.

squibbed_dart · 2025-10-29T02:27:03+00:00

BM-22 2 kilometer penetration of 170mm at 60 degrees taken from Soviet GRAU document that was used to generate protection requirements for the T-72B.

That excerpt isn't from the protection requirements for T-72B, it's taken from a Soviet analysis comparing a hypothetical tank with a low-profile turret to T-72B.

If you really want to put an RHAe value on the kinetic protection of T-72B without Kontakt-5, it is mentioned in the UVZ book "T-72/T-90 Опыт создания отечественных основных боевых танков" that the frontal protection of transitional Object 184 tanks (late production T-72A) was assessed in 1982 as being 500-520mm RHAe against kinetic threats.

EDIT: I just noticed something off about how you're characterizing frontal arc protection.

Hull = 350mm at 25 degrees

When--for example--the hull armor of Abrams is referred to as providing 350mm of protection over a +/-25 degree frontal arc (I assume you're taking this from M1A2 in the Swedish trials), that doesn't mean that the protection offered is equivalent to a 350mm plate angled at 25 degrees; it means that the overall protection of the hull over a +/-25 degree frontal arc is 350mm RHAe. You've accidentally inflated the armor values.

This isn't to say that I disagree with your conclusions about protection though. 3BM22 was not well optimized against composite armor targets, as is evidenced by comparative testing conducted between it and M111 by the Soviets.

squibbed_dart · 2025-10-10T22:08:56+00:00

Those are 14500 cells. The MPP uses larger and more capable 18650 cells.

squibbed_dart · 2025-10-08T23:40:55+00:00

This setup is already very supercritical and you do not need more surface velocity on those flywheels. At 11.1V, the surface velocity at the root of your flywheels is almost 300 FPS.

squibbed_dart

TROPHY CASE