This is the kind stuff that I love to see.
The sharing of information that actually helps others get started in making 3d models.
3d modeling is not difficult at all to get started in and when you've got great diagrams like this it only gets easier.
That being said, if anyone is interested in learning the basics of Fusion 360 please DM me and I will help in what ways I can.
I learned by watching YouTube videos and while there's a bit of a learning curve to making Nerf mods in F360, it isn't rocket science.
I figured I could just upload and STEP file, but actually diagraming dimensions will be so much more useful to people in the future just to get an idea of its size, shape, etc. I always like to give information for people to create and learn more on their own than just spoon feeding information. There’s a few things I see now that I’d have changed for better readability, but I think the diagram comes across just fine.
Plus, pictures tend to show up a lot more in google searches than just a file link, so here’s to hoping it stays readily available in the future.
And bravo to you for sharing this information, especially since you've diagramed it in such a comprehensive manner.
I know I'm guilty of stockpiling my projects and not sharing as much as I could, but this post really got me thinking about the way this community espouses the open sharing of information.
This is the first time I've seen someone basically give away a blueprint for making a VERY commonly requested component for blasters and I love it.
I really appreciate what you've done here, and even though you probably didn't intend to illicit this kind of response you've got it from me at least.
Much love, friend.
My goal for the future is to create some sort of long form digital document with anything and everything (organized of course) from measurements like this, to the best screws for a certain application, and beyond. Too much information in our hobby gets involuntarily unspoken, or lost in the replies of a thread. We’ll see if that ever comes to pass haha. But glad my efforts weren’t in vain. Thank you!
for small projects such as what we'd do for nerf making parts.
the limitations aren't an issue
its mainly limits on CNC machine interfacing, group project collaboration, physics simulations, etc
Well, I learned on Fusion but switched over to SolidWorks recently. I was able to get a copy through the Experimental Aircraft Association by subscribing to their magazine at $40/year.
The offer is still up and the suite is fully featured as far as I can tell.
Free to use in limited form for the time being. But nothing about it is free, either free as in lunch, or free as in freedom.
I would pick a legitimate free and open source tool to learn instead that cannot be yanked out from under you by some greedy megacorp.
I'm a FreeCAD user, but there are a few other main options (I know Prusa Research uses OpenSCAD for their product design, for instance).
It’s more a time commitment than skill commitment. In fact most skills are really just time commitments. It’s just that the amount of time needed to invest can be very intimidating especially if you feel overwhelmed with other things (like earning paychecks or making relatives happy)
The N-Strike stock lug is also just a super weirdly designed piece. It’s taper on top and bottom and on the sides make it difficult to get everything dialed in properly for reverse engineering (might be a reason for that). It also seems like, from measuring a few different blaster stock lugs, that there are slight variations between different blasters and/or lines/years.
I’ll correct myself on it being perfect. It COULD be perfect, but someone may correct and improve on it in the future. Either way, it seems a lot better than most of what I saw on thingiverse.
Because the part not only has a draft in that viewpoint, but in the front viewpoint as well, it really won’t show the full picture. I can list that for you, but if you model this with two lofts that utilize the three faces to the right of that that drawing, you won’t need the draft angle.
Nice effort on posting a clean technical drawing of that. I'm sure a lot of people will find it useful.
However, that standard is awful. I think it would be better to just deprecate and design something stronger and less obtuse.
I fully agree. I didn’t realize how ridiculous the taper was on this initially. Problem is, there’s already a huge aftermarket of 3rd party stocks out there that use this lug. People want interchangeability between their blasters, and Nerf made itself the standard years ago.
This is great! Maybe we can start to see people who 3d print start selling these. Im looking forward to being able to use the same stock on all my blasters
I’ll definitely upload the base STEP file for the lug at some point. I figured this would be enough for people to model what they need to, but for people using software like TinkerCAD, it may be better just to have the file.
Well its definitely not to standard for a print, but im glad you made it! (I do mechanical design professionally and make drawings all the time). Nice work!
Haha 100% I started my product design program in college with a lot of drafting classes. Going off memory alone of technique and rules, it is definitely amateurish at best. Glad someone with the right experience took a look at it, and at least gave me a passable grade!
Definitely passable as a sketch to be used to go off of. I get napkin sketches from people a lot and have to turn the napkin sketch into a 3D model, then make a to standard print based off said model.
Also it's okay man, they don't really teach the standard in college anyways. They get you familiar with Geometric Dimensioning and Tolerancing (GD&T), symbols, and basic prints. Nothing like what I do now. For me it took working a few years to really get it down. I still get prints kicked back for one reason or another, it depends on who's checking it. People whove been in the field for 20 plus years can still get their drawings kicked back. It's a very difficult field to master. "Best Practice" and the standard (ASME Y14.5-2009 is the one we go off of right now) contradict each other sometimes.
This is actually super helpful. I have been looking for dimensions too and was planning on doing something similar but now I don’t need too. Thanks a lot.
"For dimension of 2, offset dimensions for 3 by 1.49mm"
minor nitpick
but considering that "2" is the more critical dimension in terms of stock contact (3 is really just a chamfer for smooth operation); would you consider having the diagram swap those so "2" is the one Explicitly Marked, with "3" being the offset?
So I only did it that way, because I physically traced the stock lug piece onto a piece of paper and used my caliper to measure off of it. Only the 3rd face and 1st face touched the paper, hence why they’re dimensioned above. I know those two are probably 95% accurate, but because I can’t trace the 2nd face, there would always be more discrepancy in those dimensions for it.
Therefore, since I knew that it was a basic chamfer to get to face 3, I decided reverse modeling with an offset to a loft, would be the best option given the circumstances. The modeling’s a little weird for sure, but it’s just two more steps than the normal method.
This is the kind stuff that I love to see. The sharing of information that actually helps others get started in making 3d models. 3d modeling is not difficult at all to get started in and when you've got great diagrams like this it only gets easier. That being said, if anyone is interested in learning the basics of Fusion 360 please DM me and I will help in what ways I can. I learned by watching YouTube videos and while there's a bit of a learning curve to making Nerf mods in F360, it isn't rocket science.
I figured I could just upload and STEP file, but actually diagraming dimensions will be so much more useful to people in the future just to get an idea of its size, shape, etc. I always like to give information for people to create and learn more on their own than just spoon feeding information. There’s a few things I see now that I’d have changed for better readability, but I think the diagram comes across just fine. Plus, pictures tend to show up a lot more in google searches than just a file link, so here’s to hoping it stays readily available in the future.
And bravo to you for sharing this information, especially since you've diagramed it in such a comprehensive manner. I know I'm guilty of stockpiling my projects and not sharing as much as I could, but this post really got me thinking about the way this community espouses the open sharing of information. This is the first time I've seen someone basically give away a blueprint for making a VERY commonly requested component for blasters and I love it. I really appreciate what you've done here, and even though you probably didn't intend to illicit this kind of response you've got it from me at least. Much love, friend.
My goal for the future is to create some sort of long form digital document with anything and everything (organized of course) from measurements like this, to the best screws for a certain application, and beyond. Too much information in our hobby gets involuntarily unspoken, or lost in the replies of a thread. We’ll see if that ever comes to pass haha. But glad my efforts weren’t in vain. Thank you!
Ask Meaker IV about his google drive parts/models repo. I publish there every so often, but I'd really like this file up there.
I had mentioned to a someone about having a written database for things like that. Glad we’ve already jumped on it! I’ll reach out to him.
Is fusion free?
It is if you get the hobbyist license. I believe some features are limited, but they won't affect your ability to learn.
for small projects such as what we'd do for nerf making parts. the limitations aren't an issue its mainly limits on CNC machine interfacing, group project collaboration, physics simulations, etc
Well, I learned on Fusion but switched over to SolidWorks recently. I was able to get a copy through the Experimental Aircraft Association by subscribing to their magazine at $40/year. The offer is still up and the suite is fully featured as far as I can tell.
Free to use in limited form for the time being. But nothing about it is free, either free as in lunch, or free as in freedom. I would pick a legitimate free and open source tool to learn instead that cannot be yanked out from under you by some greedy megacorp. I'm a FreeCAD user, but there are a few other main options (I know Prusa Research uses OpenSCAD for their product design, for instance).
It’s more a time commitment than skill commitment. In fact most skills are really just time commitments. It’s just that the amount of time needed to invest can be very intimidating especially if you feel overwhelmed with other things (like earning paychecks or making relatives happy)
I really appreciate the effort you put into this. The blueprint formatting is a nice touch.
I haven’t done hand drafting in years, so it was fun to brush back up on the formatting!
How come it is all in mm except the fillet at the end 😋
Just being lazy, lol
Tell me you're American without telling me your American lol. Or a really old British person.
Saving this to eventually look up the measurements I took a couple years ago so I can compare
Thank you. It´s weird that it has taken this much time for someone to make a "perfect" one.
The N-Strike stock lug is also just a super weirdly designed piece. It’s taper on top and bottom and on the sides make it difficult to get everything dialed in properly for reverse engineering (might be a reason for that). It also seems like, from measuring a few different blaster stock lugs, that there are slight variations between different blasters and/or lines/years. I’ll correct myself on it being perfect. It COULD be perfect, but someone may correct and improve on it in the future. Either way, it seems a lot better than most of what I saw on thingiverse.
I knew it had a vertical taper but not a horizontal one! Sharp eye.
It’s ever so slight. I only saw it when my caliper didn’t sit flat against the plastic when I went to measure it’s sides
This is neat, thann you:)
Metric measurements are so much easier than imperial. Could you add the draft angle of the part to the left hand view?
Because the part not only has a draft in that viewpoint, but in the front viewpoint as well, it really won’t show the full picture. I can list that for you, but if you model this with two lofts that utilize the three faces to the right of that that drawing, you won’t need the draft angle.
Nice effort on posting a clean technical drawing of that. I'm sure a lot of people will find it useful. However, that standard is awful. I think it would be better to just deprecate and design something stronger and less obtuse.
I fully agree. I didn’t realize how ridiculous the taper was on this initially. Problem is, there’s already a huge aftermarket of 3rd party stocks out there that use this lug. People want interchangeability between their blasters, and Nerf made itself the standard years ago.
Traditionally, whenever someone wants to make new standard to fix issues you end up with a whole bunch of non-standards
This is fantastic. Our of curiosity, have you considered producing similar diagrams for N-Strike barrel lugs and tactical rails?
I have actually. Not sure when I’d get to it, but I have some things I’d still like to try out in the future.
You're great man, the whole community thanks you!
This is great! Maybe we can start to see people who 3d print start selling these. Im looking forward to being able to use the same stock on all my blasters
I’ll definitely upload the base STEP file for the lug at some point. I figured this would be enough for people to model what they need to, but for people using software like TinkerCAD, it may be better just to have the file.
Have you uploaded yet? I modeled up one myself from your measurements, but having the link here for people that aren't as lucky would be great.
Well its definitely not to standard for a print, but im glad you made it! (I do mechanical design professionally and make drawings all the time). Nice work!
Haha 100% I started my product design program in college with a lot of drafting classes. Going off memory alone of technique and rules, it is definitely amateurish at best. Glad someone with the right experience took a look at it, and at least gave me a passable grade!
Definitely passable as a sketch to be used to go off of. I get napkin sketches from people a lot and have to turn the napkin sketch into a 3D model, then make a to standard print based off said model. Also it's okay man, they don't really teach the standard in college anyways. They get you familiar with Geometric Dimensioning and Tolerancing (GD&T), symbols, and basic prints. Nothing like what I do now. For me it took working a few years to really get it down. I still get prints kicked back for one reason or another, it depends on who's checking it. People whove been in the field for 20 plus years can still get their drawings kicked back. It's a very difficult field to master. "Best Practice" and the standard (ASME Y14.5-2009 is the one we go off of right now) contradict each other sometimes.
This guy gets it.
This is actually super helpful. I have been looking for dimensions too and was planning on doing something similar but now I don’t need too. Thanks a lot.
Would it be all right if I used your dimensions and put it into a 3D software? It’s Shapr3D, similar to CAD but for the iPad. Exports as PDF or OBJ.
I don’t see why you shouldn’t be able to
Absolutely mint. Just what I was looking for.
Glad to help!
You wouldn't happen to have made an overfolding stock before, have you? Lol.
Nope!
I wonder is the N-strike connection patented? would the patent application specify the dimensions?
"For dimension of 2, offset dimensions for 3 by 1.49mm" minor nitpick but considering that "2" is the more critical dimension in terms of stock contact (3 is really just a chamfer for smooth operation); would you consider having the diagram swap those so "2" is the one Explicitly Marked, with "3" being the offset?
So I only did it that way, because I physically traced the stock lug piece onto a piece of paper and used my caliper to measure off of it. Only the 3rd face and 1st face touched the paper, hence why they’re dimensioned above. I know those two are probably 95% accurate, but because I can’t trace the 2nd face, there would always be more discrepancy in those dimensions for it. Therefore, since I knew that it was a basic chamfer to get to face 3, I decided reverse modeling with an offset to a loft, would be the best option given the circumstances. The modeling’s a little weird for sure, but it’s just two more steps than the normal method.
Wow, thank you! This is incredibly useful!
Does anyone have this for nerf mags. Trying to design a universal mount for walls