Battle practicality of homemades

[the oncoming storm]

With all this talk about homemades being the way of the future I have decided to check the battle practicality of famous homemades listed in the homemades building guild section of SSC judging each quality out of ten. Taken from the "what is battle practicality" thread these are.

Range
Soakage
Field Life
Rate Of Fire
Durability
Maneuverability
.
.
.
2L Homemade (fast attack class)

Range..................9
Soakage...............3
Field Life...............2
Rate Of Fire..........10
Durability..............7
Maneuverability......10
Overall practicality...68%
.
.
APH (Tanker Class)

Range..................10
Soakage...............10
Field Life...............10
Rate Of Fire...........1
Durability..............7
Maneuverability......3
Overall practicality...68%
.
.
CPH (Tanker class)

Range..................10
Soakage...............10
Field Life...............10
Rate Of Fire...........3
Durability..............7
Maneuverability......3
Overall practicality...71%.
.
Super Cannon 2 (Water Cannon class)

Range..................10
Soakage...............10
Field Life................5
Rate Of Fire.......... 1
Durability..............1
Maneuverability......1
Overall practicality...47%
.
.
Riptide (Fast Attack class)

Range..................9
Soakage...............7
Field Life...............10
Rate Of Fire...........5
Durability..............6
Maneuverability......7
Overall practicality...73%

[HBWW]

My ratings are as follows. I removed stream settings, because that's a very easy issue to resolve, although on the flip side, it is very difficult to build a nozzle selector like the stock ones. Added factors "Ease of Build", "Maintainability", and "Cost".

2L Homemade*:
Range: 4/10 - I can only imagine how horrible the dropoff is.
Output: 5/10 - Same issue as above.
Capacity: 5/10 - Well, it's a 2L bottle.
Weight: 7/10 - Which means it's fairly light.
Size: 8/10 - And small too.
Comfort: 4/10 - But not very ergonomic nor nice to carry.
Durability: 8/10 - Despite use of cheap parts, simplicity adds to durability.
Versatility: 3/10 - It requires a hose...
Field Life: 3/10 - And drops off very quickly, reaching useless performance levels long before running out of water.
Pumping/Refill Time: 7/10 - Filling from a hose should be quick.
Ease of Build: 9/10 - As said about simplicity earlier...
Cost: 10/10 - It's a 2L bottle and few parts, doesn't get any cheaper than that.
Maintainability: 8/10 - Most parts can be replaced with little or no trouble.
Overall: 3/10 - It could probably take on the SC 400, but I don't see it doing well against higher class blasters, and the lack of a solution for the dropoff makes it nearly useless. (With a small bike pump, this would be resolved.)

APH (My Design, NOT SSC's):
Range: 6/10 - Lots of turbulence once pumped up, due to the power and the fact that it's an APH.
Output: 8/10 - APH's are famous for their sheer output. Only APWC's can surpass this in output.
Capacity: 10/10 - Attached to a 5 gal solar shower. I could only carry 1-2 gal anyways.
Weight: 6/10 - The PVC chambers are heavy, but still managable.
Size: 7/10 - Takes up some space, which the backpack makes worse, but it's all still quite managable.
Comfort: 7/10 - The pipe grips quite well, and the PVC torque arm makes for slightly easier shooting.
Durability: 9/10 - Good parts, aluminum dowel pump instead of wood, PVC all around. Lack of metal parts means almost no risk of mis-threadings.
Versatility: 7/10 - Good for lots of situations: high capacity requirements, high power requirements, etc. Mobility is limited by backpack and hose, however.
Field Life: 7/10 - This is untested, since I never took this to combat with the backpack on. The number is just a guess based on the solar shower capacity and the high output.
Pumping/Refill Time: 4/10 - It's a high capacity APH and a 1/2" pump. Lots of pre-pumping needed, and after that, still needs a lot of water pumping. This score could be increased with a larger diameter pump, such as 3/4" used on old AP SS's. Also, the backpack takes a white to fill, but it does attach to the VHS for more reliable and faster filling.
Ease of Build: 8/10 - No special tools or rare parts required, pretty straightforward even for n00bs once a proper guide is written. The check valves I use aren't as easy to find, but are still there. (I found them at another ACE, previously thinking they were only on McMaster Carr where I got them.)
Cost: 7/10 - A bit pricey especially if you don't have much pipe to start off with. With pipe and tools, this is less of a factor. Still, check valves are expensive.
Maintainability: 7/10 - No detatching parts, anything on the pump that gets stuck will be stuck for a while.
Overall: 7/10 - It can take on some CPS's, I would think, but needs more combat testing to prove it.

CPH (My Design, although SSC's is very similar):
Range: 8/10 - This thing hits near 2000 range (few feet short) with a stream half the size from two layers of LRT (which are somewhat weak but give good lamination). Not bad IMO. It's like the Water Warriors of homemades: high range by nozzle quality and ball valve with lower power.
Output: 7/10 - A bit lacking but still good enough to work effectively.
Capacity: 10/10 - I have a separate backpack and solar shower for this.
Weight: 7/10 - Nothing but light PVC and some LRT, except for the PC casing which puts on quite a bit.
Size: 7/10 - A CPH doesn't need that much space, although the PC casing does occupy quite a bit.
Comfort: 8/10 - Pipe grip works very well here, no issues. It's certainly a lot more comfortable to hold for your main hand than the Vindicator.
Durability: 7/10 - My LRT keeps exploding because I cut short lengths. Everything else is 9/10 or 10/10 though; even the pump has put up for a while without issues.
Versatility: 7/10 - Lacks support for larger nozzles, but does well at the ones I use.
Field Life: 9/10 - Lower output and higher range gives great field life.
Pumping/Refill Time: 7/10 - Even with a smaller 1/2" pump, it works quite well. Backpack refilling is same as with my APH.
Ease of Build: 7/10 - Most of the trouble is with getting the LRT to stay on, but after that, it works fine.
Cost: 7/10 - About the same as the APH.
Maintainability: 9/10 - Lots of parts detatch.
Overall: 7/10 - Lacks the power of the APH as well as some design improvements I made.

DR homemades (DR-3, DR-4, DR-5)*:
Range: ?/10
Output: ?/10
Capacity: 10/10 - Solar shower like mine.
Weight: 6/10 - Lots of metal parts, not light to carry about.
Size: 7/10 - Good use of space, reasonably sized.
Comfort: 3/10 - Drenchenator says he didn't finish sandpapering things. Even then, I can't see either homemade being comfortable at all to hold and use. There are large handle gaps, the plastic is still rough, and the shapes aren't ideal. Anyway, judging by the rating you gave here, it's pretty clear you haven't handled these.
Durability: 6/10 - There were issues with the screws and pump, although these problems should be resolvable without too much fuss. (Just add Loctite and switch to my pump design. =p)
Versatility: 7/10 - Swappable nozzles as usual, although these are at 1/2" instead of 3/4".
Field Life: ?/10
Pumping/Refill Time: ?/10
Ease of Build: 4/10 - Not much to say here. Seems to require special tools as well.
Cost: ?/10 - Looks expensive with all the metal parts.

* Denotes a homemade I haven't built or handled before, or have very limited experience with, which means the scores/information is quite possibly complete garbage. However, the same clearly applies to the OP.


Anyway, I do need to check out more homemades in general, especially JLSpaceMarine's CPH. However, I've reached a reasonable level of battle practicality with the basic, 2nd gen homemades alone. To get better than that, you really, really need a good build/design. Having a tracked pump and trigger doesn't mean anything if handles/grips aren't shaped very well and smooth/easy to carry.

@Drench: You've done some very interesting work so far, at a far higher level of complexity than most of us would venture into. That said, it looks like 2nd gen homemades are going on better so far, with higher reliability, ease of construction, and lower costs. Adding that shell over internals is most certainly never easy to do, and requires a really good job to be done for it to be effective and useful. In any case, I look forward to seeing your work develop.

[darthmeow]

I adjusted the APH ratings for my custom APHs. I have fought APH vs MX in a soakfest before and it can definitely outrange the MX, but it is a lot less maneuverable and leaks.

APH My custom with 2 2 liter soda bottles:
Range: 8/10 - About the same as my 21K.
Output: 9/10 -It is a bit more powerful than a normal APH.
Capacity: 6/10 - yes the shower holds 5 gallons, but I can only fill it half way and the PCs hold 1/2 of a gallon.
Weight: 4/10 - The soda bottles reduce the weight a bit.
Size: 8/10 - It is way more bulky than any stock soaker.
Comfort: 7/10 - I need to make a grip for it. The ball valve I used opens and closes fairly quickly though.
Durability: 8/10 - if I fix the pump leaks, it should be quite durable, it is made of PVC after all.
Versatility: 5/10 - Good for soakfests and high power situations.
Field Life: 4/10 - The huge PCs combined with the not full backpack reduce the field life.
Pumping/Refill Time: 6/10 - It has a 1 inch wide pump with 2 feet (changed to a bit more than 1 foot to prevent leaks) of draw! It never takes more than about 10 pumps to hit full pressure. The backpack does take a while to refill.
Ease of Build: 9/10 - All the parts are threaded on this new APH, so it can be built very quickly.
Cost: 5/10 - The soda PCs reduce price a lot.
Maintainability: 9/10 - all parts detach.
Overall: 7/10 - It probably can take on CPSes.

Edit: I fixed the pump problems

[Drenchenator]

I think numbers are too subjective, so I'll give write out my thoughts for the points I'd like to make.

The APH design is generally too tall and front-heavy. It works, but I never really liked it from a usability standpoint. The standard CPH design works very well and is highly practical. Ben and I used it a lot in battles in high school. It's currently the most practical and easy-to-build high-performance design.

My guns generally work okay, but they aren't ready for primetime just yet.

Comfort is an issue for both of my guns. Riptide was primarily designed to work, so comfort was a secondary concern. I wear gloves when using Riptide because the grip eats into my hand. Cloudburst is actually much better, but I can definitely improve it by using a better grip (I'm looking into Nerf designs) and smoothing out all the edges with sandpaper. They are well-balanced and handle well, though.

Durability is a fussy little thing. At Downpour, I did have trouble with Riptide's pump, because that was because it was wooden and kept expanding, which meant that the pump seals would disconnect. Cloudburst uses an entirely plastic pump, and despite extensive testing it hasn't encountered any issue at all. Riptide does require frequent tightening of its bolts because I didn't use lock washers, but Cloudburst uses sheet metal screws, just like stock water guns, so the screws won't loosen up.

I won't lie: neither Riptide nor Cloudburst were easy or quick builds. If I had all the parts, I could build a new Cloudburst in a weekend, but it's still a lot of work.

Neither Riptide nor Cloudburst require special tools. The only tools I used to build them are a drill press, a coping saw, a jigsaw, a hacksaw, an adjustable wrench, files, and sandpaper. These are standard woodworking tools, and most are entirely manual tools. A better question to ask is whether Riptide or Cloudburst require any special techniques, which they didn't really; I just used each tool when appropriate.

I think my designs are a step forward, but I'm not going to think poorly of anyone using older, more robust and established designs -- what CA99 calls second generation designs. They work well, so who's to say they're terrible?

I will contest one thing. Complexity is hard to define, but I'm going to define it for my purposes. If you think complexity is just having many parts, well, a lot of things have many parts and aren't necessarily complex.

Complexity is having many different parts without a unifying interface to simplify things. What do I mean by that? Riptide is a complex design, but Cloudburst isn't. The parts in Riptide were assembled in a Frankensteinish mess; nothing goes together and many parts conflict (just try to remove the trigger without having to take apart the entire gun!). Cloudburst, on the other hand, has a unifying framework that keeps things simple and prevents parts from conflicting. This keeps complexity under control. This framework is the base plate and the thick pieces emerging from it. The base plate keeps everything organized and keeps parts in their places, where they won't conflict with much else. In this sense, Cloudburst is a much simpler and less complex design, since each part is mostly compartmentalized but still part of the whole gun.

[HBWW]

Where did you find a suitable plastic dowel for the Cloudburst pump?

I suppose "special tools" was the wrong term to use, but I don't think a lot of us have drill presses, and I don't have a jigsaw. Unfortunately, this seems to be a major limitation for most of us, although acquiring more tools may be well worth it if it means access to much better designs. (Say, the cheap, capable 3D printer we're waiting for.)

I stole the term "2nd gen" from DX. Don't know what else to refer to them as. Anyway, their only real weakness is the lack of a trigger, as far as I can see. That said, nicely shaped PC cases for CPH's that stop the bladder dead on (without allowing it to get damaged) would be a welcome addition, but may not happen for a while.

I suppose I will have to examine Cloudburst more thoroughly to see how this framework is put out.

[Drenchenator]

I used polycarbonate rod for Cloudburst's pump (McMaster-Carr part number 85485K43). I couldn't find anything suitable locally, so I just got pretty much the best material I could find on McMaster.

Technically, you don't need a drill press or a jigsaw: you can replace the drill press with a handheld drill and you can replace the jigsaw with a regular saw and the coping saw and the handheld drill. I used the drill press and jigsaw to save time, but the design doesn't preclude using other tools. You will absolutely need the coping saw, though, because some of the curves you have to cut are internal to parts and the coping saw is the only tool that can handle that. Unfortunately, having tools is the entrance fee to play the game, so if you don't have the right ones it's going to be hard to play.

[marauder]

Correct me wrong, but it seems like the main reason making an ergonomic homemade is so expensive is that you have to get so many of the parts from places like McMaster or specialty stores. Those are cheap when you buy in insanely high bulk numbers, but we're doing this as individuals, not international companies.

[the oncoming storm]

Updated the stats to be more clear

[the oncoming storm]

with snow in the forecast for tomorrow I have made a small staff sling to see how it fares against hand thrown projectiles. I will see how it fares and post my thoughts tomorow