Sharir1701 Knex Gun Videos To Be Removed

Hey guys! If you don't know me, this probably won't interest you much, so go right ahead. On the other hand, if you do know me, I just wanted to make a short announcement for the sake of clarification and understanding. Again, if you know me, then you would have known that I used to make innovative style Knex guns and I was quite the messy builder. I had a few good guns along the line (REMPAR, all S-series, M17s), and some pretty horrible ones too (SABR, FPMG, SAR5). I've stopped building for over a year now, and I'm pretty confident I'm not going to go back to it. I still have all my Knex boxed up somewhere, but I won't be using it in the conceivable future. Now, I'm sure not many of you know this, but I've started not so long ago, to be a small YouTuber. I post almost exclusively MineCraft content, of all shapes and sizes, and I am quite passionate about that. Now, the old Knex videos I have on my channel are all unlisted, so that nobody on my channel can find them, but you guys here can still watch them if necessary. For a couple months now I've been watching the analytics for my Knex videos and it seems like almost no one at all is still watching them, which seems very reasonable, as they're quite old and most people have already seen them. I don't REALLY mind them being there, but I would prefer to remove them, as I have absolutely no interaction with them, and as it appears, nobody does, really. So, I've decided to remove them from my channel. I'm not going to go straight ahead and remove them right now, no. What I've decided to do is to post this forum topic letting anybody who's interested know about this, and consider it for a second. So, my point is, if there's anybody who would like me to keep those videos up, for some reason, please tell me down below. I will make my final decision in two weeks from now, on January 15th (-ish). Just a little bit of advice, if anyone wants to see any of my videos for the last time, it would probably be a good idea to do so now, and that's also part of the reason I'm posting this. I'd just like to point out that me taking these videos down has no other implications on my Instructables account. All my 'ibles will remain as they are, but just without the videos. I'm probably going to forget to even take the embedded videos off if I do delete them from YouTube. So, once again, let me know if you really want me to keep them, if you're still interested, go watch them now, and lastly, have a happy new year and an amazing day! GODSPEED!

Topic by Sharir1701   |  last reply


Review: Sharir1701's Bushmaster M17S

Sharir1701's M17S is truly a pretty gun. Even my mom said so, but it does have its draw backs. In this review, I am going to do my best to give you the pros and cons of this gun, so that you can decide weather to build it or not. Now, the gun might be somewhat outdated, but it is pretty cool all the same. First off, let us talk about the cons, as those will really be the things you will really want to see. Cons: Looks: He stated in the 'ible of his M17S that "this is my bushmaster m17s replica thats like 95% perfect as a replica..." but I quite disagree. The barrel area is not quite accurate. His is too thick, the barrel is WAY two small (though, I admit, with his setup it would be pretty hard  to edit that), his trigger guard is not quite curved enough, and the handle is curved way to far. The carrying handle is not high enough, and the attachment bar is too block like. The butt-stock area is horrid. it is not flat on top, it is WAY too big, and it does not have the right types of curves. Mechanism: The mechanism does not always block the FP, and the safety does not always work. The mag lock is also a waste, as the mag stays in fine with out it. Piece Consumption: This gun is VERY piece consuming, and took up almost all of my orange connecters, green rods, and dark grey connecters (even with my attempts at piece saving). This is not really a disadvantage to the gun its self, but just keep that in mind. I am sure there are MANY ways to fix this as a problem. Now to the pros. Pros: Looks: Looks good over all, but again, not very accurate. Comfy, and yet sturdy, this gun is not at all a wast of time! Mechanism: The mechanism on this gun is FANTASTIC. I love the way it works, and the mech is quite effective (minus the disadvantage above). All of the mechs are easy, work great, and are VERY "smartly" done. Effective overall. Range: Fantastic! With a couple rubber bands you have your self an effective gun! Overall: This gun is so much fun to build and to mess around with. It's big, sturdy, has great range, has great mechs, and is just awesome overall. I would love to see this gun's mechs thrown into a concept gun/fake gun. Hope this helps you out. And as always, rate, comment and subscribe!

Topic by The Red Book of Westmarch   |  last reply


Knex War?

Hey guys! Sharir1701 here and, as most of you guys that knew me back when I was still around probably know, I've lost most of my interest in Knex. I do, however still come on the site ever so often to browse, comment and so on. I've noticed during my past couple of visits that there seems to be a "war", so to speak, raging on between some members of the community, regarding the effect of bulldozing a gun with rubber bands, as well as "how good" is the NAR. In this forum I am assuming you all have basic knowledge in Knex gun technology, are familiar with the stated guns and have a little bit of background in mechanical engineering. Moving on. You might know my opinion about the subject already, but I would like to state it once more as well as explain it better, so perhaps some people that disagree with me could understand my point of view. BUT, before I do that, I can't help but feel guilty for tossing the long burning logs into a small fire. About a month or two ago, in one of my visits, I posted a comment on one of Red's topics (or 'ibles, strike me dead for my memory) about my quite specific opinion about each and every one of the three guns in question in the said topic, the ZKAR, the NAR and the TR8. I said a few things about rubber bands and brute force vs. complexion and efficiency, and I may have started something unintentionally. That argument has been around since, if I recall correctly, 2009, but it hasn't been brought up again in a while. I feel like I made that happen and then I enraged a few more people by saying that "efficiency and good design beats brute force any day" (or something like that...). I'm not taking credit for starting this thing again, but rather I'm apologizing for sparking up an old and possibly pointless argument. Nonetheless, I will now explain my opinion on the subject and hopefully nobody gets mad at me for doing so, but if you have a valid counter argument, please state it below in an understandable and polite way. Thank you. If so, then, what is this whole thing even about? The "KI Crew", as I like to call them, have been very proud of their NAR and TR-n series guns for a few years now. The TR series I'll admit is very good, but I don't accept the "add as many rubber bands as possible" argument. Now, the NAR, personally, I dislike the gun. I have had nothing but bad range tests with it in the 3 times throughout the past 4 years that I've built it, and I've heard similar results from several people and some close friends. I highly doubt I was doing something wrong all THREE times, so don't bother to bring that up, please. The NAR is a gun designed for nothing else but being capable of withstanding great amounts of force and shooting a single round "the strongest a pin gun can shoot". How? Very simple - make a massively dense and very shock-proof body and then just add as many rubber bands as you can before your hands start bleeding. Now, let me explain, I'm saying 2 points here. First, the NAR is nothing special, just a strong structure with a simple connector barrel and a reinforced pin. We've seen it before, people. The claim that it's a good gun simply because you can put on as many bands as you want, pretty much, is, in my eyes, invalid. So I can make a bomb and just put as much explosives on it as I can afford, surely it'll be better than an atomic bomb... WRONG. It won't. Theoretically, even if it makes a bigger bang, it takes so much effort and it is so non-elegant that it loses it's point within itself. (Do not take this metaphor out of hand! You know what I mean). Second, and more importantly, I'm claiming that even if my first claim is wrong, if you look at the technical side of things you'll see that the very premise that adding more and more rubber bands to a gun will make it much stronger, is wrong in it's origins. I'm sure we all know this, but let me remind us all the physics of how a basic pin gun works. When the potential energy stored in the strained rubber bands, and rested on the cocked pin, is released, it accelerates the pin. The pin then proceeds to gain speed and it reaches three main milestones:  The initial strike of the bullet (The pin is already accelerated and is just touching the bullet, but the bullet is still). The point of equality, as I've dubbed it before (Just a few tiny fractions of a second after the initial strike, at this point the pin is ever so slightly slower than it was in the initial strike, but the bullet is now travelling at an equal speed as the pin, with a tiny gap between the two, meaning they aren't actually touching at this point) And finally, "the crash" (the bullet has left the barrel, the pin is at it's highest speed and is the most energetic as it pointlessly crashes into the back of the barrel losing and wasting all of it's remaining energy). In a world where you could use 100% of the acceleration of the pin and transfer it all into the bullet, adding more bands would indeed make a much stronger gun. BUT, that is impossible, in fact, it's no where near that. To put it all into a short sentence, the bullet accelerates and fires with a fraction of the energy released during the shot and to a certain limit, it is almost exactly the same amount of energy after a certain point. So, let's talk Maths. There is a direct correlation between the number of rubber bands on a gun and the amount of acceleration (and force) in the pin when fired. The pin's acceleration as a function of the number of rubber bands on the gun is in the order of magnitude of y=x. That's true, and that is where the misguided claim in question comes from. However, if we take a look at the graph of a bullet's acceleration as a function of the number of rubber bands on the gun, we can conclude, according to the above explanation, that the function is in the order of magnitude of y=sqrt(x). That means that up to a certain pivot, which I claim is, on average, around the 2-3 rubber band mark, adding more rubber bands does in fact produce a drastically stronger shot, but past that point, adding more rubber bands adds more brute force, yes, but it makes the shot stronger only just slightly, and by an increasingly smaller amount the more bands you put on it. BUT, and this is the big BUUT, the graph of the force required to cock the gun as a function of the number of bands on the gun is, again, in an order of magnitude of y=x. In conclusion, up to a certain, quite low point, adding more rubber bands will give you a drastically stronger shot without stressing the gun too much and without making the pull incredibly hard. However, past that point, adding more rubber bands adds an insignificant amount of power to the gun while introducing a whole lot more difficulty in operating it, resulting in an overall, worse gun. That is why I claim that a gun built around the sole concept of being capable to handle a lot of rubber bands is a nice concept, but is much worse than a gun built around efficiency (meaning you try to invest as much of the potential energy of the pin into the bullet by making a more efficient layout and a smarter usage of the forces in play). If you got this far, thank you for reading my article, and I hope this will put an end to this silly argument, but knowing how people's feelings work and how male ego and testosterone works, I bet it's far from it. Happy Knexing everybody ;)

Topic by Sharir1701   |  last reply


ideas for k'nex guns

Hey guys ! between if you've heard of me or not, probably not, i really like building k'nex guns, and i have made a few decent guns over the past year. my best gun would be SABR (Sharir170's Amazing Bullpup Rifle, instructions posted), second would be triple S rifle (Sharir1701's Super Sniper, not posted), and third would be a full-auto rifle i haven't named or posted (it works on an amazing new mechanism that i discovered with my friend, but he begged me not to post it, and made me swear, so i can't post it or show it or even explain how it works (major soz)). anyway, i'm plain out of ideas, and i really wanna build some new guns, so if you'd like me to build something, anything, you name it, and i just might build it and post it. you might be asking yourself : why should i do this... i've never heard of this guy, and therefore don't know if he's any good, and he's not a pro member on 'ibles, so he can't send me a patch... all i have to say is that i've never given up on a k'nex goal i've set for myself and i just work on it on and on until i get it. and what you will get from this is the opportunity to build the gun you requested me to design, and get credit for the idea on the 'ible. anyway, if any of you have any good ideas at all, say so and i might build them, no matter how stupid you think they might be.

Topic by Sharir1701   |  last reply


S2 Bolt Action Pistol Review

When joined Ibles, I knew that I didn't have any guns ready to upload, so, I decided to post some reviews, being that I already had some  guns built. The S2 pistol by  Sharir1701 seemed to be a logical choice, so I grabbed some blue rods did a little bit of testing. Please realize that even though I have just joined the site, I have a wide range of experience with knex guns, such as the ZKAR, TR8, Racker Rifle, and many of Red Book of Westmarch's replicas. In this review I am not going to do the ratings on a scale of one to ten, because Knex guns differ so much. Say you have a gun that shoots 70 feet. You give it a eight out of ten, because that is great range. However, the SRV3 shoots 500 feet, so 70 feet is NOT eight out of ten any more. Due to that, a truly honest review would rate even very nice guns quite low, due to the fact something will probably is better. If you don't understand this, that is OK, because I do, and I am the one writing the review. Also note that this one has Sharir's pin guide holder thingy. Anyway, let's jump right into the review! RANGE:  Frankly, this gun does not live up to Sharir's claim of 100+ feet. I only got 65-70 angled using two size 117 bands, which is still great range for any gun. Sharir says that it will only get that range with three bands. Sometime ago, I used 3 and did not 100 feet. I don't remember what exactly I got with three, but I am sure it didn't get past 75-80 feet. RELIABILITY: This is one of the gun's good points. Knex bolt actions don't have a great reputation for being reliable, but the S2 works nice and smooth. When I decided to review the pistol, I thought it would be nice to test the reliability and give ya'll the numbers. Here they are. I put the gun through two hundred rounds, and it had: 3 failures to fire, 4 failures to load, the pin guide broke twice, the bolt broke once, and the chambering rod popped out of the bolt twice. Now this sounds REALLY bad. However, the pin guide issues, the chambering rod issues and the failures to load were my fault.  The pin guide and chambering rods broke when I was jerking the bolt back too vigorously, and the rounds that wouldn't load were because I was manually  chambering the round, instead of having a return band chamber it. after I added the band, no trouble. ROF: Now this is one part I didn't really test. It charges slower then a ZKAR, but faster then most pin guns. It is good enough for most uses in a Knex war. COMFORT: Pretty comfortable. The handle is quite good, and I think it would be even better for someone with larger hands then mine. The problem is that there is not really a good place for your other hand to go except for the magazine, which doesn't make the best handle. To be truthful, it is kinda awkward to hold. It is too big for a pistol, but doesn't have a stock like a rifle. (Ok, you COULD use the pin guide holder as a stock, but it doesn't work that well) CUT PARTS: The gun is fine when it comes to these. There are several recommend, but you only need one cut gray rod for the chambering rod. ALL IN ALL: This is an awesome gun. not too many pieces,  looks kinda cool, and is fairly accurate. The ammo is blue rods, and i have a couple hundred of those, so it works great for me. Range seems about right, and it is very fun to shoot. In a war it would do pretty good, but the ammo is hard to find in the grass. The mag is a bit small, holding around 13 rods due to the mag pusher taking up quite a bit of space in the mag. This, a TR8, and a ZKAR would make a fine war arsenal.

Topic by CorgiCritter   |  last reply


"Knex War?" (The Math Bit)

Hey guy! Sharir1701 here and I just want to start off by saying that I'm not back into Knex warfare, but I have something to show you. About a year and a half ago, I posted this forum topic. There I explained why, in my opinion, just adding more rubber bands to a gun will not actually produce an overall better gun (past a certain, low point). I'm not getting back into that discussion, but I simply wanted to share something regarding that. Don't ask me how or why (I don't know, myself), but a few days ago I suddenly remembered that old assumption I made. Being a perfectionist, I hate leaving things unfinished or unexplained (particularly math and physics related inquiries). Back when I posted that topic, I had little to no formal Physics knowledge, and the beginnings of an understanding in mathematics. Now, I have a much broader understanding, much more knowledge, and an ability to explain and evaluate what I once couldn't. Anyway, what I'm trying to say is, back then, I didn't have the tools to prove my claims. I firmly believed in them, but I couldn't confirm them. It's nothing complicated, but, like I said, just something I'd like to share. I also want to point out that, although I personally don't enjoy spending days upon days perfecting a little plastic mechanism for firing (mostly) non-aerodynamic plastic projectiles, anymore, there still is a warm spot in my heart for the craft I once loved. More to the point - this is a small article just showing something I did in a few minutes the other day, that helps me to better understand how a Knex gun works. I hope that in writing this, more people that are still building guns, will think about more accurately calculating certain things about their guns to help improve their performance and hopefully produce more efficient guns. The final note I have is that I'm about to show you equations, all of which can be plugged with real, measurable numbers, to calculate to a high degree of accuracy, the forces at play. This means you can actually calculate the most efficient layout for a gun, and also that in designing your next, you will be able to use these equations, and many others, to find optimal solutions to your problems. So, what's all this fuss about? Well, basically, I just proved with a few, painfully easy equations that my conjecture about the forces in a gun, working on the pin, is true. I'll just get to it: First, Hooke's Law states that the force necessary to change the length of a spring or a (tense) rubber band is F=K*dX, where F is the force, dX is the distance you want to change, and K is a constant number, that each rubber band (or spring) has. You can quite easily measure both of these. For rubber bands connected parallel to each other (assuming they are the same type of rubber band, which ever is your chosen standard), this equation becomes F=K*dX*N, where N is the number of rubber bands used. dX and K are both constant in the regards of the pull of a pin on a standard Knex pin gun. Therefor, the amount of force required to cock a pin (pull it back to it's full length) is linearly correlated to the number of bands you put on your gun. Next, if we examine Newton's equation of work and energy, W=dE=F*dX, where W is the work, dE is the change in energy in your system (input from an external force, i.e. your hand), F is the force applied along a length of movement, and dX is that length. Let us define the base position of the pin (not cocked, minimum tension on the rubber bands, fully in the barrel, etc.) as having 0 energy. This then means that the work applied to the pin by cocking it is equal to all the potential energy it has. From this, plugging in the force, we get Ep=K*(dX)^2*N. Let us assume a perfect world, where we neglect the effects of friction and air resistance, and assume all the momentum of the pin is transferred into the bullet as it fires (I will briefly mention in the end, why everything we're neglecting here just strengthens my claim in reality, but let's continue for now). After being released (in other words, shot), the maximum velocity the pin reaches right before the end of it's journey can be found using the equation for kinetic energy Ek=1/2*M*(Vmax)^2, using the fact that (again, neglecting energy wasted as heat due to friction) the energy is conserved, as no external force is working on the system, which then means that Ep,start=Ek,end => K*(dX)^2*N=1/2*M*(Vmax)^2 => Vmax = sqrt(2*K*(dX)^2/M) * sqrt(N). The first sqrt term in the final equation is all one big constant (again, K is the ratio associated with the rubber band, dX is the distance the pin travels, and M is the mass of the pin), meaning we can conclude that (C for constant) Vmax=C*sqrt(N). Finally, force applied by a moving, massive object can be calculated using Newton's second law, F=dP/dT (P is the pin's momentum, T is the time it takes for the pin to go from velocity Vmax to 0, transferring all it's energy into the gun and the bullet, but as I said, let us assume all of it goes into the bullet), or F=M*dV/dT (M, mass of the pin, dV is the difference in velocity, Vmax-0, which is simply Vmax. This is because P=M*V, which means dP=M*dV, ignoring relativity). So, F=M*C/dT*sqrt(N). The time varies slightly, but insignificantly, so let us assume it is a constant. So that's it. The force exerted by the pin on the bullet is some constant (calculatable, as mentioned and as shown), times the sqrt of N, the number of rubber bands on the gun. So there you go. Just a little something I did out of the blue the other day and thought I would share a proof of my conjecture from what feels like eons ago. I hope you enjoyed. Finally, I would like to tell you guys, perhaps as a little tease, since I'm not sure if I will ever upload it, but I have made 1 more gun after I stopped posting. I have already slightly teased about it in my user info. I guess I'll tell you guys what it is if I'm already posting something here again :) Possibly my most enjoyable, most well received, and quite innovative gun of all time? The REMPAR-2. I built the REMPAR-3 (I was also going to call it S5 when I thought about posting it). In a brief summary, it's a pump action, chambering (or bolt action as I and many others falsely used to call it), magazine fed rifle, that's only 5 layers thick all over, except one tiny area where it's 8 layers thick (1.5 extra on either side), as a reinforcement, not necessary if you use less rubber bands. Oh, actually, there's another small necessary area where it's 7 layers thick, but it's tiny and doesn't make the gun look bulky at all, and who cares. Plus, the one is around the pump, which looks quite natural, and the other is "disguised" as a detachable sight (not really detachable) that also looks fine. It also looked fairly good for a gun that I made, it used (if I remember correctly) a grand total of 0 broken pieces, which is a big accomplishment for me (the mag has some broken white rods, but fuck off), and it worked flawlessly, reaching ranges over 80ft and being able to go at 2-4 rounds per second, depending on your skill level with it. In other words, I could shoot 4rps; My girlfriend, with no experience or practice, could do 2rps, which says something about the gun's comfortability and ease of use in my opinion. It shot blue rods up to an accuracy of about 5x5cm (2x2in) over 30ft, which is amazing for a Knex gun, and it was truly super comfortable. It wasn't even long at all, which is saying a lot, looking at some other people's attempts at 5-wide pump actions (I may also be guilty of an attempt several years ago). Being quite short and only 5 wide, it is also quite light. I'm sorry, I just really liked this gun, I think it was truly my best creation ever (of course, the S3 is by far the most innovative gun I've made, but it's mostly a concept gun, not meant for real effectiveness). I may post it in the future, but I'll make no promises. I suppose I won't leave you guys completely hanging and take a picture of it. Oh yes, there's also a neat, fun little thing I did, originally because I saw no other option, but then I actually really loved it. I'm talking about the mag-lock. It locks automatically (there's a band on it, but it ripped a long time ago, so...) and the mag cannot fall out. Then you pull on it with your middle finger, similar to a trigger, and the mag just drops right out. Love it :)

Topic by Sharir1701   |  last reply