GTA
Support Equipment For PCP/HPA/CO2 and springers ,rams => 3D printing and files => Topic started by: Mel on September 22, 2024, 12:32:22 PM
-
Hi i found Daisy Powerline 415's .stl file at Thingiverse by great Terry Harman.
But i can't find for 426, anyone has it? I would be so thankful. As it is not available anywhere, i would like to print it myself. Thanks
-
Mel,
It looks like the pic-rail underneath the 426 muzzle could be used to attach a suppressor. As on this Buck-Rail product:
https://buck-rail.com/2019/12/14/daisy-powerline-426-silencer/
(https://i0.wp.com/buck-rail.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/426-Silencer-On-Gun.jpg?w=1280&ssl=1)
Below the last image at the above page, is an offer to download the print file. Now, I get file not found, but perhaps you could contact BR and ask them about it:
https://buck-rail.com/contact-us/
If they don't want to help you, generating a similar design would be easy enough; round or rectangular.
-
Hi i contacted them, suppressor is out of stock for a long time now and they don't share file anymore.
June 2021 it was shared as DAISY-426-SILENCER.zip but no available anymore. Please anyone?
-
Well, Mel
If you can take measurements off the front of your 426, that define the rail's relationship to the center of the bore axis, designing you a round moderator of any reasonable diameter and length should be a simple matter.
If you want a rectangular shape to match the pistol, more dimensions would need to be known. The length of the rail from the muzzle face is also pertinent.
I suggest 25 mm OD and 100 mm long, so the mod does not look stupidly large.
I don't know how close the rail under your pistol's muzzle is to the official specs:
(https://accurateshooter.net/pix/picrailspec99op.png)
If you like, I can use the above specs to design you a "tube"; but I need to know the center of the bore axis to a reference surface on the rail. To keep it simple, perhaps the flat top of the rail (inverted on your pistol) would suffice. I will be generous with the bore to BB clearance, both to tolerate misalignment, and to allow for BB dispersion from the smooth bore barrel.
You get the STL and print it yourself, or have it done near to your location. This is a free service that comes with your GTA membership. :) Or just because you can't find what you are looking for.
-
Design is not easy, baffles inside, look great work by Terry Harman with Daisy 415:
(https://cdn.thingiverse.com/renders/43/95/e1/b9/7b/46ae6ac04c14b7edf476466b0b322085_display_large.JPG)
(https://cdn.thingiverse.com/renders/7e/87/d9/ae/a2/18b624767f23469ebf92280b38599e04_display_large.jpg)
(https://cdn.thingiverse.com/renders/db/73/85/27/2b/130bea9d21c7bad972d6bc4f64c0f4e0_display_large.jpg)
Would you also design baffles? Thanks
-
Baffles? Absolutely, yes. I said "tube" as a euphemism for the device. It may be that I am making communication difficult by being too clever for my own good; because your English seems excellent.
That sectioned design has a "spigot" interface to the barrel. I don't know if there is room for that on the 426. I suspect that we could get away without that, but the more detail you provide, with measurements, the more intricate design can be made - and actually fit.
-
Ok thanks so much for your help. I'll take measurements and post them asap.
-
So, I assumed a 4" length and a 1" width across flats for the 426 Moderator. Before long I arrived at the design shown below. Yes, it has no rail adaptor interface yet, so the lower curved aspect might need to shift up or down relative to the bore. Yes, the design images posted above may have influenced me, despite saying that a rectangle would be harder to do properly.
What is the width of the pistol, across the flats? I will make the mod width match that.
What about obscuring the front sight? Do you want clearance for that; or a "sighting trough"? Or a replacement print sight integral with the moderator?
-
Here are the measurements
It should look like this
(https://i0.wp.com/buck-rail.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/426-1st-Iteration.jpg)
(https://i0.wp.com/buck-rail.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/426-Silencer-Backish.jpg)
(https://i0.wp.com/buck-rail.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/426-Silencer-Frontish.jpg)
(https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/61Jxpt9wMeL._AC_UF1000,1000_QL80_.jpg)
-
Thanks, Mel
There is a lot to digest there.
-
Thank you always
If too difficult, maybe flat 90 degrees design without skirts would be enough if in good contact with the 10.75mm diameter crown/muzzle when attaching the silencer, just some little gas might leak when shooting
Something like this
-
Thanks for the simplification suggestion, Mel. That will help the process, as my brain is a little fried from working on a Leshiy Classic shroud insert in .357, for about 14 hours - below.
So, don't be disappointed if you don't see a complete design for your 426 by tomorrow.
-
Mel,
It is possible that some of the other sketches include this information, but could you please measure aspects A to E shown in blue on your sketches, attached below?
The length of the rail from the flat muzzle face (E) would ideally be longer than the sketch suggests. What is the maximum length feature I can design to engage that rail before it interferes with some other aspect of the pistol?
Could you post some pictures of your pistol; straight from the side, and from the front?
-
"Could you post some pictures of your pistol; straight from the side, and from the front?"
(https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/61Jxpt9wMeL._AC_UF1000,1000_QL80_.jpg)
(https://www.mundilar.net/4437-large_default/pistola-co2-daisy-powerline-426.jpg)
(https://neonsales.co.za/cdn/shop/products/daisy-mod-426-co2-pistol-4-5mm-cal-neonsales-south-africa-13.jpg)
-
I have a design version to offer based on all the info I have. It may be time to do at least the truncated test print to see if it fits, and if the barrel and moderator bores seem aligned.
A good fit would be rattle free, but snug enough to hold the moderator in place when shooting. If the test part seems OK, then print the complete moderator. If the test print does not fit right or the alignment between bores has an obvious vertical shift, I will refine the design.
If everything fits, but the moderator blows off, or moves out of place, I will design a retention feature, using the segments in the pistol's Pic-Rail to secure it.
See images below. STL files for the moderator and the short test print are attached in one ZIP file - directly below text; above yellow image.
Print with rear of moderator pointing up, or the internal cones won't print correctly.
-
WOW Amazing! I will try to print it asap and then comment. Thanks so much again for your interest and work!
-
Glad you like it. Getting it to fit is likely going to take more than a few tries, with it loose in one place and tight in another.
Then the size if the hole at the rear of the mod may need to be increased, so the "nose ring" at the barrel can fit into the moderator. Or it may work OK, as is...
-
It's being difficult finding 3d printing service around me, maybe 2 and very expensive, even more if several tests should be made.
I'm thinking in buying a mini 3d printer for pieces 10cm high máximum, would it be possible reducing suppressor from 12 to 9.5cm long? Maybe reducing length at front, or back or in the middle...
If you think it would be worthless because of being too short suppressor, i'll go printing it as is in the city. Thanks again, i'm excited to test your design...
-
Mel,
Perhaps I can split the moderator into two parts that are glued together after printing?
Before we can go anywhere, the test print needs to be done to see if it fits. and if the barrel is aligned well enough with the central bore of the moderator. The retention pic-rail "legs" are 25 mm long, I don't know if those are too long to fit on your pistol. Perhaps you could measure the rail length on the pistol, front to rear, in case my rail legs are too long.
I assumed that you had your own printer. I wonder if there are Daisy 426 owners in Spain, on this forum, with printers?
-
Mel,
Perhaps I can split the moderator into two parts that are glued together after printing?
Great idea!
Before we can go anywhere, the test print needs to be done to see if it fits. and if the barrel is aligned well enough with the central bore of the moderator.
You are completely right. 1st i will print test piece
The retention pic-rail "legs" are 25 mm long, I don't know if those are too long to fit on your pistol. Perhaps you could measure the rail length on the pistol, front to rear, in case my rail legs are too long.
From pic attached i see length of rail is at least the same as front, 38mm. It wont be a problem
I assumed that you had your own printer. I wonder if there are Daisy 426 owners in Spain, on this forum, with printers?
Thank you, don't worry, always wanted having a 3d printing myself :D, i can afford it. If a decide to buy new one, i will receive it in less than a week, im right now thinking about it...
-
Mel,
I will work on this on Sunday.
-
Mel,
I will work on this on Sunday.
Thanks 4 all subscriber but i wouldnt like to have you working on Sunday or you free time :(
I just ordered the printer! :D Waiting to arrive. 1st i will print test piece and comment. I will be able to do all tests i want instead of driving to the city every time...
Print full piece in two parts will do. Or maybe print it in diagonal with a base i could cut once finished. Printer admits 10cm x,y,z. That is 17cm diagonal. What do u think? Thanks m8!
-
I split the moderator so the longer of the two parts is under 9 cm long. They have alignment prongs for that can only be assembled the correct way round. The prongs should also provide more gluing area than a simple butt joint.
The attached ZIP file contains both the front and rear section print files.
See images below.
I will make adjustments to the two parts, if indicated by trial fitting the test part to the pistol rail and muzzle. In fact, the rear section is the one likely to change.
-
My designs are intended to be self-supporting, when standing upright on the printer platen. What you said about printing on a diagonal to handle longer parts should work, if the parts are also 45 degrees above horizonal. To do that you will need to use external supports. These supports are then removed, after the part is complete.
Any moderator design or print orientation that requires internal supports results in an unusable moderator. This is because internal supports cannot be removed. So, I try to avoid needing supports. I cheated a little with the tops of the hollowed slots that accept the alignment pins. Their are small sections that are unsupported there and should be cut wedge shaped at 45 degrees.
When I get your part fit results I will make refinements to my models.
-
Fantastic design work as usual subscriber, you'd think that with the proliferation of rails on handguns this sort of attachment would be more common. One concern would be achieving a relatively air tight seal with the muzzle, allowing the gas to leak to atmosphere while it's at its highest pressure out of the barrel is going to reduce the effectiveness of the device.
-
I split the moderator so the longer of the two parts is under 9 cm long. They have alignment prongs for that can only be assembled the correct way round. The prongs should also provide more gluing area than a simple butt joint.
The attached ZIP file contains both the front and rear section print files.
See images below.
I will make adjustments to the two parts, if indicated by trial fitting the test part to the pistol rail and muzzle. In fact, the rear section is the one likely to change.
I'm surprised with your design with the prongs! Love it! So excited waiting for the printer to arrive...
My designs are intended to be self-supporting, when standing upright on the printer platen. What you said about printing on a diagonal to handle longer parts should work, if the parts are also 45 degrees above horizonal. To do that you will need to use external supports. These supports are then removed, after the part is complete.
Any moderator design or print orientation that requires internal supports results in an unusable moderator. This is because internal supports cannot be removed. So, I try to avoid needing supports. I cheated a little with the tops of the hollowed slots that accept the alignment pins. Their are small sections that are unsupported there and should be cut wedge shaped at 45 degrees.
When I get your part fit results I will make refinements to my models.
Your solution in two parts is great, i forget about diagonal printing. Big Thanks again for your time!, You'll be the 1st to know when i print the 1st try. Best regards.
-
Jack,
I am not sure that a CO2 BB pistol has that much muzzle pressure to contain. In any event, using the venturi principle where gas flow causes a vacuum at the open junction, rather than leaking outwards might be feasible. Think about a gas torch nozzle, that draws in air to make a combustible mixture.
An 80% sound reduction may be enough, over what would be possible with a perfect seal.
If this were something like a 60 FPE Huben GK1, a leak-free connection would be very important. Compared to a 2 FPE BB application.
-
Fantastic design work as usual subscriber, you'd think that with the proliferation of rails on handguns this sort of attachment would be more common. One concern would be achieving a relatively air tight seal with the muzzle, allowing the gas to leak to atmosphere while it's at its highest pressure out of the barrel is going to reduce the effectiveness of the device.
I already thought about attaching a rubber or foam ring where the suppressor meets the gun in order to avoid leaking
If the suppressor fits tight in the rail, maybe no ring needed, just appling good force when attaching the suppressor to make good contact with the muzzle.
Anyway, i'll tell just when i try 1st print
-
One could experiment with modeling clay to see how much sound or air is leaking out, when the junction is left open. Or very soft foam gasket could be made, attached by means of an adhesive backing.
If I had more detailed measurements about the pistol muzzle detail shape, I could add mating features to the moderator to create more of a "labyrinth seal":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labyrinth_seal#:~:text=A%20labyrinth%20seal%20is%20a,the%20oil%20lubricating%20the%20bearing.
-
Mel,
It is possible that some of the other sketches include this information, but could you please measure aspects A to E shown in blue on your sketches, attached below?
The length of the rail from the flat muzzle face (E) would ideally be longer than the sketch suggests. What is the maximum length feature I can design to engage that rail before it interferes with some other aspect of the pistol?
Could you post some pictures of your pistol; straight from the side, and from the front?
Hi subscriber, i took the missing measures you asked me to, in case they are useful, thanks!
-
Mel,
Version 2 of the two piece moderator has the rail section improved, based on the last specs you posted. I also made the rails longer to offer more stability and friction.
I made an accommodation for the pistol muzzle "snout", to hopefully provide a better "seal".
Version 2 STLs are attached in one ZIP file, below.
-
Version 2B has a rear section just like V2, except the raised ring at the pistol muzzle interface is removed - in case it clashes with some of the other raised muzzle features.
I also realized that you would need a Version 2 Test Print to verify rail fit and bore alignment. So the STL for that is attached with the full rear section for Version 2B, below.
-
Version 2B has a rear section just like V2, except the raised ring at the pistol muzzle interface is removed - in case it clashes with some of the other raised muzzle features.
I also realized that you would need a Version 2 Test Print to verify rail fit and bore alignment. So the STL for that is attached with the full rear section for Version 2B, below.
WOW
Thank you so much subscriber, looking forward to receive the printer and do all the tests!
-
Version 2B has a rear section just like V2, except the raised ring at the pistol muzzle interface is removed - in case it clashes with some of the other raised muzzle features.
I also realized that you would need a Version 2 Test Print to verify rail fit and bore alignment. So the STL for that is attached with the full rear section for Version 2B, below.
Hi subscriber, what about a lowered rear section where the muzzle meets the suppressor instead of raised? In order to make the suppressor fit into the crown of the muzzle. Is this nonsense? Crown is 2.625mm thick and 0.5mm deep, placed at 5.375mm from the center, approx.
Im sure crown protudes/stands out the circle below it or the semicircle above it, although just a very little. (see attached pic)
I got all the .stl's already converted to .gcode, for rapid printing just the moment i receive printer. Nervous!
-
Mel,
If I understood correctly, that raised ring on the muzzle has an OD of 16 mm. I made the hole in the back face of the moderator 16 mm in diameter with a radiused bevel that should be a close fit with the 16 mm OD ring.
I prefer not to place material in the 5.4 mm ID section, because the metal part of the barrel moves forward as part of the firing cycle. I do not want to interfere with that.
-
Mel,
If I understood correctly, that raised ring on the muzzle has an OD of 16 mm yes, correct. I made the hole in the back face of the moderator 16 mm in diameter with a radiused bevel that should be a close fit with the 16 mm OD ring. ok then, my mistake, just a newbie :)
I prefer not to place material in the 5.4 mm ID section, because the metal part of the barrel moves forward as part of the firing cycle. I do not want to interfere with that. ok, forget then about previos post, all doubts will be solved when attaching the 1st test print :) big thanks!!
-
Last post i think i didnt explain myself well
I meant this: see attached
By the way, as a newbie and as i wait for the printer to arrive, im already learning about 3d printing software (Easyware is very easy), meshmixer to divide piece into several parts with square union points (i followed YouTube videos)... Very interesting!
But subscriber, your division with prongs is awesome!
-
Mel,
I would be happy to add a groove with a semi circular section. It is just that the gun muzzle seems to have other bumps on it. At the moment, the outside of that groove exists as the outer edge of a hole.
No matter what the muzzle interface looks like, having the barrel bore to moderator bore concentric to perhaps 0.1 mm is more important. I would be happy to add the groove, but think it over constrains the interface, if it is shifted. Once we have that interface so close that no error can be seen on the test print, the groove makes sense.
-
Mel,
I would be happy to add a groove with a semi circular section. It is just that the gun muzzle seems to have other bumps on it. At the moment, the outside of that groove exists as the outer edge of a hole.
No matter what the muzzle interface looks like, having the barrel bore to moderator bore concentric to perhaps 0.1 mm is more important. I would be happy to add the groove, but think it over constrains the interface, if it is shifted. Once we have that interface so close that no error can be seen on the test print, the groove makes sense.
Of course, good aligned contact is the 1st and most important
Thanks again subscriber for your attention!
-
At last! 3D printer arrived! It is already printing test piece V2. Stay tunned, i'll comment very soon!
-
8)
-
Hi subscriber! Rail is too tight, piece broke. Bore is almost aligned, or mightbe it is because of broken piece although i attached it hard and tight , i think even less than 1mm would work. See pictures:
-
I measured, it is less than 1mm, divided by 2, it is bringing center down 0.5mm
Besides, piece broke at rail base when dettaching from printer, maybe 100% fill there would help. Thanks!!
-
Thanks, Mel
I will shift the rail to bore by 0.5 mm.
I will have to guess at how much clearance the rail needs.
Yes, this part need 100% infill.
-
Thanks, Mel
I will shift the rail to bore by 0.5 mm.
Thanks subscriber! I think 0.4 or 0.5 will be enough
I will have to guess at how much clearance the rail needs.
I think reducing all the rail line by 0.3 or 0.5 might work, i mean making bigger gap by 0.3 or 0.5, then i test again.
Yes, this part need 100% infill.
I mean infill only 1 or 2mm above and under the plane line where rail starts from piece.
As piece broke there, i glued it trying my best to keep the very same position as original, i think it is not the cause of misalignment, i hope :)
It is true that i chose fast printing for the test piece, maybe if i choose standard or optimize printing, piece won't break...
Thanks again for your patience and work!
-
I now see that my test print did "fill density 15%", maybe 80 or 90% will make harder piece and won't break in the middle, i might then use this setting with your next "aligned and not so tight" test piece :)
-
I am busy verifying the changes between version 1 and two. So will send the update files over in the next 15 minutes or so.
These parts generally have thin walls and should be printed at 100% infill. The rail "legs" are highly stressed and should not be weakened to save material, cost or print time.
-
Version 2 of the rear moderator section (and its short test piece) have the following changes:
The rails are moved down by 0.5 mm relative to the barrel center axis on the rear moderator body.
The rail profile is slimmed down by 0.25 mm at all contact faces. This means that the space between rails is 0.5 mm wider than on version 1.
It is possible that slimming out the rails will add to the 0.5 mm lowering of the rail, so that a 0.25 lifting of the rail will be required to fix it...
-
I am busy verifying the changes between version 1 and two. So will send the update files over in the next 15 minutes or so.
I hope im not bothering you :(
These parts generally have thin walls and should be printed at 100% infill. The rail "legs" are highly stressed and should not be weakened to save material, cost or print time.
Sorry for that, im completely new at this, now i know how to change setting to 100% infill :)
Version 2 of the rear moderator section (and its short test piece) have the following changes:
WOW again!
The rails are moved down by 0.5 mm relative to the barrel center axis on the rear moderator body.
We'll see if it is too much, added to rail reduction, exciting!
The rail profile is slimmed down by 0.25 mm at all contact faces. This means that the space between rails is 0.5 mm wider than on version 1.
Great, i see you made suppressor rail smaller to give more space to the gun rail
It is possible that slimming out the rails will add to the 0.5 mm lowering of the rail, so that a 0.25 lifting of the rail will be required to fix it...
Just when finished printing i'll report!
Thanks again for all Mr. subscriber!
-
Mel,
When I offer to help someone, I am taking on the work that goes with that. The trial fit method often requires a number of iterations. So, no, you are not bothering me.
Being new at printing means there are a lot of options and variables unfamiliar to you. No shame in that. The tricky aspect is that the dimensions of your print depend on the printer, material, and settings. This means that parts that fit well off one printer, may not fit off another printer.
If you want to be able to print any reasonably designed part on the internet, you should check the calibration on your printer. I created a few test parts that might help you to verify that a 20 mm part in CAD prints close to 20 mm. Square, flat and hollow or round parts do not print the same, so you might want to print at least know what offsets you might have to deal with. If the errors are large, you may want to calibrate your printer. Certainly if you have a percentage dimensional error you should calibrate it out. If all your parts are 0.1 mm wide or narrow, just knowing about it may be enough to design extra clearance or engagement into parts, in CAD.
Test prints can be found here: https://www.gatewaytoairguns.org/GTA/index.php?topic=204046.0
-
Mel,
I was trying figure out if you are up early or late. I did not know that Spain spans several time zones, but uses only one. The same time zone as South Africa, where I grew up and still have some family living there.
It is hard to figure out what time zone I am in now, as I am retired, and no one nags me to get up or go to bed.
-
Mel,
I was trying figure out if you are up early or late. I did not know that Spain spans several time zones, but uses only one. The same time zone as South Africa, where I grew up and still have some family living there.
It is hard to figure out what time zone I am in now, as I am retired, and no one nags me to get up or go to bed.
Good morning to everyone!
Hi subscriber, I wake up at 6:20 am everyday, even weekends :)
But today, like many other days, i woke up at 4am :o and learned about printing infilling
Now it is 8am, im entering work, hace a great day!
-
Hi subscriber!
Now it is aligned although still a little too tight
Maybe 0.25 more space? I think alignment would admit it even without changes...
I stopped printing before it finished as it had enough rail for testing...
I don't know why it still breaks in the middle if i chose 100% infill and piece is really hard... I see thats the weakest part
Maybe if i select infill in triangles instead of lines or something like that...
-
Mel, that is useful info. Especially, the picture of the rail print place on the front of the pistol, so the rail to rail fit can be see.
I will add a bit more space, and enlarge the fillets at the point where the "legs" are breaking off.
-
Updated print files with more space in the rails are attached:
-
You could try more "wall layers" - those follow the outside shape of the part. Also try different pattern infill.
What material are you using? Are you running it hot enough? One can judge the latter by looking to see if fractures are between layers, or breaking filament material. Layer separation suggests inadequate welding; and possibly running too cold.
I would not change too many things at one, before you have a good fit. Materials can shrink differently on cooling with different settings, and upset the fit.
Hi subscriber!
Now it is aligned although still a little too tight
Maybe 0.25 more space? I think alignment would admit it even without changes...
I stopped printing before it finished as it had enough rail for testing...
I don't know why it still breaks in the middle if i chose 100% infill and piece is really hard... I see thats the weakest part
Maybe if i select infill in triangles instead of lines or something like that...
-
Mel, that is useful info. Especially, the picture of the rail print place on the front of the pistol, so the rail to rail fit can be see.
Thanks!, good to know
I will add a bit more space, and enlarge the fillets at the point where the "legs" are breaking off.
You could try more "wall layers" - those follow the outside shape of the part. Also try different pattern infill.
What material are you using?
im using PLA
Are you running it hot enough?
205°C
One can judge the latter by looking to see if fractures are between layers, or breaking filament material. Layer separation suggests inadequate welding; and possibly running too cold.
Appart from the rail breaking, the piece is really hard and resistant
I would not change too many things at one, before you have a good fit. Materials can shrink differently on cooling with different settings, and upset the fit.
Here are my last print settings, maybe you can give me advice what to modify:
-
As strange as it may seem, I do not consider myself a print setup expert, because I have only an old printer that I have not used in years. My designs are printed mainly by other people. They provide me with feedback to improve the parts when they print and use them. One forum member has printed hundreds of my designs and he produces parts that are strong and that are very close to size where it counts. I will ask him to look at your settings and see if he wants to offer advice.
PLA is very strong and stiff, but it is also rather brittle. That should not be a problem for your Daisy project. For more potent airguns I would suggest PETG.
-
Im now printing test piece changing this:
"Shell thickness" from 1,2 to 2,5 (maybe this is the most important)
Again, 100% infill
I'll report!
-
... One forum member has printed hundreds of my designs and he produces parts that are strong and that are very close to size where it counts. I will ask him to look at your settings and see if he wants to offer advice...
Mel,
Your setting generally look ok for PLA. It is sometimes difficult to get good layer adhesion on PLA, I think that is what you are encountering. On the side view it looks a a bit more like a flakey biscuit than a solid hunk. Is it a good brand of filament/a new roll? If it has absorbed water from the air it gets more brittle, and adhesion may suffer. I've wasted a lot of time trying to get no-name PLA to print decently -- some absolutely will not print well -- so just know sometimes it is not your printer and it is not you -- some filament is just junk, and there's always another brand to try.
Since the printer is new, did you do an extrusion calibration to verify that when 100mm of filament is requested, 100mm of filament gets used? It looks like it's pretty good overall -- not under-extruded -- but worth checking.
Once calibrated, did you run any temperature towers? Print the same small structures at multiple temperatures (keep your speed and layer height constant) to see what temperature that filament likes best -- as far as bridging quality, surface quality, and really important -- layer adhesion. See if they want to flake apart at the layer lines with a thumbnail or dull knife -- they should not.
Ideally you'd do that for every filament, but once you get an idea what works for one PLA, it's a good starting point for other PLAs.
Not required, but a heated bed around 50C may help some. I'd stray away from using rafts -- wastes time and materials -- unless you really need them to get good bed adhesion.
All that said, from what I can see, the shortcut is to just try hotter -- try 210 and see if layer adhesion improves. 215 and 220 are fair game too, but not much more than that on PLA. At some point, it will get too runny/stringy and no amount of retraction will be enough to stop it. They say PLA needs full fan -- but it depends on how strong the fan is -- anywhere from 50-100% is probably ok to try. But mess with that AFTER trying hotter nozzle -- only adjust one parameter at a time or you may be chasing your tail trying to figure out why the print got better or worse.
Good luck, have fun.
-
Thanks Bob, for that detailed and clear list of printing factors to look at.
-
Im now printing test piece changing this:
"Shell thickness" from 1,2 to 2,5 (maybe this is the most important)
Again, 100% infill
I'll report!
Hi all!
After this last test, the piece was perfectly aligned and more easy to attach, although still a little too tight i think
So i decided to print the two real parts, it is already printing the rear :o
I'll post the final result soon!
I tried to reduce fan speed but i see no difference, the printer is very basic i understand
Thanks subscriber for your Big help :)
And everyone else for your advices
-
Getting there, Mel!
You should expect to need to clean up the fuzz and a few bumps and clumps, to make the parts fit. If you have pictures of where there is hard contact, I can make adjustments to the design in CAD.
I left 0.1 mm clearance on the alignment tabs on all sides. I did it by adding clearance to the sockets, not the prongs. If more clearance is required I may thicken the walls, so I can add more clearance to the sockets, without the remaining walls breaking through.
-
Getting there, Mel!
You should expect to need to clean up the fuzz and a few bumps and clumps, to make the parts fit. If you have pictures of where there is hard contact, I can make adjustments to the design in CAD.
I left 0.1 mm clearance on the alignment tabs on all sides. I did it by adding clearance to the sockets, not the prongs. If more clearance is required I may thicken the walls, so I can add more clearance to the sockets, without the remaining walls breaking through.
Good morning everyone!
Subscriber, last night it finished printing, took all day for both parts, i stopped it in the middle of the rail printing to go to bed. Now i have tried and yes, rail still to tight, it broke, up to the wide middle, i attach pictures.
I even sanded it a little before installing but it broke, i see it was not enough.
I would ask you to give it more space to the rail, like 0.25 as before or 0.50.
About the prongs, they also broke when joing for glueing as they need more space at the rear piece for the prongs at front piece.
Thanks again and hope not being too demanding :)
PS: i'm gonna glue it and sand it and see if it fits without breaking again, i'm gonna also print 14x14x14 test piece to measure and check it is printing correctly
-
Mel,
I will make the adjustments you asked for. Just need to finish a job for another customer first.
-
Mel,
I have modified the front and rear moderator parts and saved that as Version 4, by making these changes:
I added 0.4 mm of total clearance between the rail legs. If they are still tight, try to measure them and the mating part on the pistol, before breaking the legs off. :)
In increased the thickness of the left to right curved bridge under the rails by 2 mm, to strengthen it. Other than appearance, I believe that section can be even thicker?
I increased the clearance between alignment prongs and their spaces by 0.2 mm per surface pair. I also made the prongs thicker by 0.1 mm without reducing the clearance, by increasing the wall thickness of the moderator by 0.3 mm, all the way around.
I hope this version works for you. Download the attached ZIP file containing the front and rear part STLs.
-
Mel,
You should print at least two test prints with the same shapes. If the 14 mm cube prints 14.4 mm in one axis, and a 7 mm cube prints 7.4 mm in the same axis, then you have a fixed error, rather than a percentage error.
I expect to see the deviation in dimensions to be made up of both a fixed errors, and a percentage errors. A fixed error can be added or subtracted out, while a percentage error needs to be calibrated out by multiplication. To make the part smaller, multiply by a fraction.
Yesterday Bob was talking about the length of filament extruded (actually volume). If the machine is pushing out more than 100 % filament, then the part walls will tend to be fat, or wider than expected. Under extruding will tend to make the walls narrow, and the parts potentially weak.
-
Hi subscriber, after glued i used a mini drill and discovered that rail was not wide enough, that why it broke
It is only rail width that might be changes
I printed the 14mm cube, i measured 14.30mm, 14.35mm and 14.4mm depending of face, a 0.3 to 0.4 error
Let's see if v4 0.4mm more space between rail legs will do.
I can always use the mini drill if minor clearance must be added between the legs
Next: 7mm cube and v4 rear and front sections for rail and prongs testing
Thanks thanks thanks for your patience and hard work
I'll let you know ASAP!
-
Happy saturday!
I reduced 14mm cube by 50% so that i printed 7mm cube, i measured 7.1mm in all faces, so 0.1mm difference, it was 0.3 with 14mm cube.
Just printed front part, prongs broke just by handling, maybe because i chose fastest printing, but please subscriber don't worry about it, no more changes, i can superglue both parts aligned without issues, i keep them together with a quick bar clamp
Yesterday i tried the suppressor and i really noticed noise reduction. Very happy about it
Now printing rear part, i'll measure piece and gun rail distances before installing to avoid breaking.
I am very thankful to subscriber for his selfless help and work!
-
Thanks, Mel
This simple moderator should take the edge off the report on your Daisy. If it does that I call it a win.
It looks like you could use settings to make the parts fit better, such as shown in these videos:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t76ScnXf3Tg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzPqBt2SrcE
How to get accurate prints:
Cubes are not the only calibration parts that matter. Circular tubes must also be considered; especially for the rounded sections of your moderator. The "flash" or "elephant foot" at the corners and especially bottom face of the part must be files off before measuring the part. Filing a chamfer on the cubes and tube before measuring is a good idea; just as it is to deburr a machined part before measuring:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7OsnMLDIMw
This video channel is full of useful videos about 3D printing:
https://www.youtube.com/@CNCKitchen/videos
-
Hi subscriber!
Rail fits perfect! And it is really hard
It is only 0.25 to 0.50 misaligned, distance between muzzle center and the rail base should be rised by 0.25 to 0.50 (perhaps 0.4?), but maybe bb doesnt make contact with suppressor when shot and v4 is final version as I would not want to disturb anymore, tomorrow i'll try and see if bb comes out well without issues.
Or if you wouldnt mind, final alignment would provide v5 final version
I don't mind at all printing all the times needed
I attach pictures although misalignment cannot be appreciated i think
Good night!
-
Hi subscriber!
It is only 0.25 to 0.50 misaligned, distance between muzzle center and the rail base should be rised by 0.25 to 0.50 (perhaps 0.4?)
Should the distance be increased, or the moderator raised, relative to the bore-line? One is an addition, the other a subtraction.
-
Good morning subscriber!
Sorry for my bad explanation
Im gonna crop rear part with meshmixer, fast print a test, measure exact misalignment and post a picture so that you can see what i mean for the very last final change.
I should have posted a better picture or drawing
Kind of misalignment is like the one i posted the first time, see attached picture as an example
Please wait a little so that i take exact measurement and comment it
-
Thanks, Mel
Understood
-
Hi subscriber! Final measurements!
Pic1: As you can see the hole makes contact with gun ring and piece is bended forward
Pic 2 and 3: I measured and discover 0.4mm misalignment (rise hole and therefore bore-line by 0.4mm?)
Pic4 and 5: Apart from misalignment, if i twist the test piece it fits perfect without any clearance (i cannot move the piece even a little), maybe making the internal hole just a little bigger it would compensate printer error and therefore assure perfect fit in future printing, so that the hole never touches the gun ring and wanna bend the suppressor forward and break the rail
Thank you subscriber for your support!!
PS: I forgot! Even with that little misalignment,v4 works great! Bb doesnt touch the walls and come out without issues! I love the way you reinforced the rail
Last picture just for fun
-
Sorry, pic 2 and 4 should be turned 90°
Corrected:
Edit:
Now we are arriving the end of this adventure, i wanna thank subscriber again! :)
Its been very interesting and i learned a lot
I always wanted having a 3d printer and i finally got one
Im now printing a mudguard support for a electric scooter with 100% infill for resistance as i learned here! ;)
Very happy for having found this forum and members!
-
Sorry, pic 2 and 4 should be turned 90° right
Corrected:
Edit:
Now we are arriving the end of this adventure, i wanna thank subscriber again! :)
Its been very interesting and i learned a lot
I always wanted having a 3d printer and i finally got one
Im now printing a mudguard support for a electric scooter with 100% infill for resistance as i learned here! ;)
Very happy for having found this forum and members!
I forgot to say no hurry at all about v5, enjoy Sunday! I hope you all got a great day!
-
Mel,
Version 5 of the rear daisy 426 moderator has the bore axis shifted up by 0.4 mm, relative to the pistol barrel bore. It also has the moderator rear hole diameter increased by 0.5 mm; as requested.
The zipped STL is attached
Print it first, before we declare victory :)
-
Mel,
Version 5 of the rear daisy 426 moderator has the bore axis shifted up by 0.4 mm, relative to the pistol barrel bore. It also has the moderator rear hole diameter increased by 0.5 mm; as requested.
The zipped STL is attached
WOW how fast!
I should have waited until tomorrow monday to post measurements and not bother you in weekend :o
Sorry and thanks again! :)
I'll comment after printing! I'll surely be final version!
-
Mel,
I am pretending to be retired, so week days, weekends, holidays are all the same to me. :)
-
Mel,
Version 5 of the rear daisy 426 moderator has the bore axis shifted up by 0.4 mm, relative to the pistol barrel bore. It also has the moderator rear hole diameter increased by 0.5 mm; as requested.
The zipped STL is attached
Print it first, before we declare victory :)
By the way, i see Zip contains rear part, i guess front part should also be modified to meet bore at the same line
When i try v5 i guess you will post front part so that i can get a full suppressor?
-
Mel,
That is a good question, but no, the front section is the same as for V4.
If you think about it, I moved the moderator rail on the rear section down by 0.4 mm relative to the moderator bore axis. That moves the moderator bore up relative to the pistol when the rail mate. The front and rear moderator sections share the same bore axis and are aligned on the outside, and via the prongs and slots.
I hope that makes sense.
-
Mel,
That is a good question, but no, the front section is the same as for V4.
If you think about it, I moved the moderator rail on the rear section down by 0.4 mm relative to the moderator bore axis. That moves the moderator bore up relative to the pistol when the rail mate. The front and rear moderator sections share the same bore axis and are aligned on the outside, and via the prongs and slots.
I hope that makes sense.
Yes, i understand,very Interesting
I guess you maintained distance from the top of suppressor so that the same front part can be used
Very intelligent solution!
-
Well, moving the bore of the moderator relative the the "box" would be a lot of work. But moving the rail is a 5 minute job. So, I choose to do the latter.
-
Well, moving the bore of the moderator relative the the "box" would be a lot of work. But moving the rail is a 5 minute job. So, I choose to do the latter.
I applaud you 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻 Very clever and pro job!
I learn new stuff everyday 😃
-
Good morning!
I just started printing v5 rear part
I sliced it with Cura, it seems it optimizes printing and will do a better job
To begin with, generated .gcode file is 25% lighter than the one by Easyware (6mb vs 8mb) what makes me think printing is optimized and it will even take less time
Stay tuned!
-
By the way, this is the printer i bought
I know it is not an european or USA product and it is very entry level for beginners but it had ridiculous price and fast shipping for my first tests and prints. Happy with it.
-
There are so many choices for printers, it can be hard to choose.
I slice my designs in Cura before "publishing" them to see if there are obvious problems. Despite not printing them myself.
-
Hi subscriber!
Alignment is perfect! Rail attachment is perfect!
Cura slicing did a much better job than Easyware
Same printer, completely different results
Now printing v4 front part
The only defect i see is that the biggest prong hole became transparent,very thin wall? Printing error? (pic 3)
I think it won't be a problem if prong in front piece covers the hole, i'll see when printing finishes.
Thanks 4 great job!
-
Final thoughts!
Hi subscriber, i finally joined the two parts
If i could ask a final change, and although they are very cool, i would eliminate the prongs and their holes as they are too long and weak, i had to cut them a little and they broke just with handling
Besides that, all the rest is perfect and very happy with that. A suggestion might be just a mark like a dot or triangle in both parts for matching when glueing instead of the prongs.
Btw, would you like to share your creation with your name in Thingiverse for other Daisy 426 users to see? As you did great job it might be cool other people can enjoy it. Or maybe you would prefer them to register and download from this forum if interested.
So a final v6 version without prongs? I don't mind at all print it for testing. It would be my 4th full printed version :o LOL
If not, v5 is great, glued and ready as a final version, completely satisfied
Thank you subscriber for all!
-
Mel,
I designed the walls rather thin to make the part very light, as it hangs from the rail. The other reason I made the walls thin was to have more open space inside for the external volume.
I wonder if the walls had been thicker would the outside surface be more even? Or, is that roughness an artifact of the cantilever gantry printer? I do get the impression that the surface and general shape is more true using the Cura slicer.
Either way, sanding the surface roughness out is not an option; so filling it in with glue, dented car panel "body filler", or wall smoothing cellulose plaster and then sanding it seems to be the only option.
While I am at it, I will post the STL for a one-piece moderator of this design, later, so people with a larger printer can make it.
EDIT I will do a version without the prongs also.
-
While I am at it, I will post the STL for a one-piece moderator of this design, later, so people with a larger printer can make it.
EDIT I will do a version without the prongs also.
Glad to hear it subscriber!
For me no other changes are needed than eliminate the prongs and maybe adding matching marks, although i didnt find any problem when matching by myself.
The walls will be thick enough without prongs, no need to modify that at all.
Very good idea a version in 1part for others with bigger printer.
Very thankful to you for all the time dedicated to this interesting adventure!
-
Version 6 two-piece moderator has the prongs and slots removed; and alignment simples added underneath.
Version 6 is also saved as a one-piece conventional part. See images below. STLs are saved in two ZIP files to keep them organized.
-
One piece Version 6. STL attached below.
-
WOW subscriber, you are the f*cking master
Always impressed with your designs! Love the 2 matching dots under the suppressor
I think we conclude here
It all started when i asked for help finding a 2021 .stl file and you offered selfless help with a new design!
And i told you "but it must have baffles", not knowing the master work you could do LOL
THANKS!!!!!!
-
I posted the link to the Version 6 files on the BB gun section of GTA Forum:
https://www.gatewaytoairguns.org/GTA/index.php?topic=216184.msg156560606#msg156560606
I have hundreds of designs that I decided not to post to Thingyverse or other forums, but you are welcome to post links to this thread, or the direct reply links to Version 6. I you do not know how to post direct links, post the link directly above in this reply.
As an example, here are two similar looking (but internally different) moderators I designed a few days ago for the Huben GK1 pistol, as requested by forum member JungleShooter. The picture was sent to me today by forum member miksatx of his two GK1 pistols, sporting the new mods that he printed for himself:
-
I posted the link to the Version 6 files on the BB gun section of GTA Forum:
https://www.gatewaytoairguns.org/GTA/index.php?topic=216184.msg156560606#msg156560606
I have hundreds of designs that I decided not to post to Thingyverse or other forums, but you are welcome to post links to this thread, or the direct reply links to Version 6. I you do not know how to post direct links, post the link directly above in this reply.
Hi subscriber, i agree that's the best decision, let people search Daisy 426 suppressor in this forum and keep the stl here. If someone search "Daisy 426 suppressor" at Google, 1st or 2nd link will lead him/her here
As an example, here are two similar looking (but internally different) moderators I designed a few days ago for the Huben GK1 pistol, as requested by forum member JungleShooter. The picture was sent to me today by forum member miksatx of his two GK1 pistols, sporting the new mods that he printed for himself:
WOW, these look much more complex moderators, great job as the others you published in this forum! (I made an advanced search by member "subscriber" and word "moderator", "silencer" and "suppressor" and saw your other works)
-
Last final version V6
I reinforced rail joint line with some superglue just in case
Thanks subscriber!
Edit: in 2 last pics, the 2 bottom suppressors were sliced with Cura instead of Easyware, huge difference with the same 65€ printer
-
That moderator looks good on the pistol. Any larger would be too large.
-
That moderator looks good on the pistol. Any larger would be too large.
Yes i agree, looks great!
Just to clarify last pic from top to bottom:
1st short rail
2nd 0.4mm misalignment
3rd broken prongs glued
4rd final without prongs
All of them are fully functional! :)
Thanks subscriber!
(All with rail repaired with superglue,need to buy better pla or PLA+ or PLA meta i heard about)
-
Hi subscriber!
Today i received a laser beam for picattinny rail in order to test my gun deviation when a bb is shot, and i noticed that rail was taken by the suppressor :o
Of course i don't wanna bother you anymore and it is only an idea :) but would be very difficult adding a rail at the front of the suppressor for picattinny accesories? Is it just a copy-paste matter or a really hard work? Again i don't wanna bother.
Just a thought, just wondering...
Im completely satisfied with V6!
Hace a nice day!
(https://ae-pic-a1.aliexpress-media.com/kf/Seed277d426074f5ba131af18de10ad8eL/Medidor-de-distancia-infrarrojo-profesional-tel-metro-port-til-colimador-infrarrojo-regla-Digital-dispositivo-de-medida.jpg_640x640Q90.jpg)
-
Mel,
You have to consider the extra weight of a rail section, with a laser attached to it, hanging from the moderator, and that flexing the "legs". At some point you will be shooting the moderator baffle bore hole edges...
If the laser fits a standard Pic-rail, adding that to the moderator design would not be too difficult. But if printing many versions to get the fit right will be required, then I am not keen on the job.
-
Sorry i attached the picture later
It doesnt have to be precise 'cos laser has a clamp that would easily fit almost anywhere
(https://ae-pic-a1.aliexpress-media.com/kf/Seed277d426074f5ba131af18de10ad8eL/Medidor-de-distancia-infrarrojo-profesional-tel-metro-port-til-colimador-infrarrojo-regla-Digital-dispositivo-de-medida.jpg_640x640Q90.jpg)
I see also about the extra weight
I of course understand you are busy and i told you don't wanna bother
I'll try to learn about it and although it takes me some time, i'll share here if i success
Sorry again mate!
Edit: maybe if a notch is made at both sides of the front of suppressor, it would be enough for the laser clamp
Let me try with Meshmixer if i can do something worthy, adding two triangular prisms and then substracting them
Or maybe i just can add the two notches with a triangular file at the front
-
I am willing to generate the design attached below, as a single iteration. You will need to clean up some aspects with a file, so if it is too tight, file more where it interferes...
I hope it is useful to you, as the weight of the laser is positioned closer to a direct pistol rail mount.
-
I am willing to generate the design attached below, as a single iteration. You will need to clean up some aspects with a file, so if it is too tight, file more where it interferes...
I hope it is useful to you, as the weight of the laser is positioned closer to a direct pistol rail mount.
OH
MY
GOD
Im amazed
Not in a lifetime i could do something like this
Just say thank you would sound ridiculous but THANK YOU! anyway
-
I cut and pasted the rail from another design...
-
Hi subscriber and 3d-printers again
I swear i wasnt going to ask for anything else, dont wanna be annoying, sorry if im being... :(
It's my 1st time printing with support
Before slicing in Cura, i see red bottom which i think it means it needs support because balconys are hanging on the air (pic1)
If i choose support everywhere with 50º default, it fills the baffles inside the suppressor canceling its function (pic2)
If i choose support everywhere with maximum allowed 80º, it still fills inside the suppressor (pic3)
If i choose support only touching buildplate, it only supports the 1st balcony but not the others (pic4)
As i never printed supports before, i cropped a little part of the new rear with meshmixer so that i can see what happens when printing without support (attached .zip with .stl inside and pic6)
Will all the fillament fall down when printing the balconys? Or do the printer know what to do to avoid it? Do i try?
Any advice i'll be thankful
Other choice would be making the rail a full block without gaps like pic5, what i dont know if it is possible...
Thanks beforehand! Sorry if being annoying...
Edit: if anything, it comforts me to think this request might be worthy for other newbies like me...
-
You want external supports only. It may help to rotate the part 45 degrees to minimize the need for supports, but some will be required.
I am not a printer support specialist because I try to only design parts that don't require any.
You may need to glue the rail onto the moderator, after printing them separately.
Else watch some tutorial videos:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4VLDuEyHNE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kuBbAsnNJFM
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=setting+external+supports+in+cura
-
You want external supports only. It may help to rotate the part 45 degrees to minimize the need for supports, but some will be required.
I am not a printer support specialist because I try to only design parts that don't require any.
You may need to glue the rail onto the moderator, after printing them separately.
Else watch some tutorial videos:
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=setting+external+supports+in+cura
Thank you very much subscriber!
You gave me 2 great solutions!
Dividing the piece in 2 and print new rail horizontal and glue them together afterwards
And rotate the piece! For my 10cm3 printer, 30º is maximum allowed and it seems to work, only external supports!
i will try and tell
You are so kind
edit: 30º rotation at 80º overhang angle might fail pic1 although i dont see fill by support inside suppressor
15º at 50º seems working... pic2
30º at 50º fills support inside baffles
-
Mel,
In Cura, on the left side panel , is an option to add a "support blocker" -- a cube that you can resize and reposition to prevent supports in areas where you don't want them.
Also, if leaning the part, I think you'd be better with it leaning back the other way, so the pic rail "stripes" and everything else are printing more up than down.
-
Good morning everyone!
Thank you for your advices!
Thats right, leaning the piece is the best solution, subscriber gave me the idea i wouldnt notice
Subscriber, as i work with your design in Cura, i like it more and more
i made several tests in Cura and leaning 15º right (or left) like pic3 will solve the problem with less used filament and time.
i chose 60º overhang angle instead of 50º by default in Cura because i saw 60º is the default in Easyware, lets see if its works fine. More than 60º up to 80º might not work
Now im gonna start printing and will tell and show pictures
edit: maybe leaning forward like pic1 is better, pic3 seems to have balconys partially unsupported... im trying to decide
edit2: just by selecting 61º instead of 60º, another support disappeared, instead of using support blocker that i also learned to use, thanks torquemaster
im gonna start printing pic4 now
-
Mel,
You asked about a smooth rail to make printing easier. The smoothed rail shown below has a 45 degree curved chamfer that mates with that of the moderator to pistol rail section. This means you can print the moderator rear section without slanting it, and without adding supports.
The new rail 26 mm long along the bottom.
STL attached
-
Mel,
You asked about a smooth rail to make printing easier. The smoothed rail shown below has a 45 degree curved chamfer that mates with that of the moderator to pistol rail section. This means you can print the moderator rear section without slanting it, and without adding supports.
The new rail 26 mm long along the bottom.
STL attached
Great subscriber! Smooth rail, no support needed!
Thank you so much
As i didnt wanna bother, i just printed the last version with support, it took 10 hours and it's true it spends unuseful filament but result is as wished!
Your new version i think is even better because of the no need of support like the previous others, smooth, like it! Energy, time and cost saving!
Im gonna keep it in case i need it.
Now i'll print front part just to complete the suppressor
If you don't mind i will add this smooth version where you posted v6, or maybe you wanna add it yourself
Have a great day!
-
Mel,
My attitude is that if someone is interested in version 6 of this moderator based on seeing my post at the BB gun section of the forum, they will keep reading this thread to the end. But, you are welcome to add the railed version to that thread if you like.
-
Mel,
My attitude is that if someone is interested in version 6 of this moderator based on seeing my post at the BB gun section of the forum, they will keep reading this thread to the end. But, you are welcome to add the railed version to that thread if you like.
Of course you are right, if interested they will read this thread, just wanted to broadcast your great work, i added the link but i can erase the post if requested
Here is how it looks with laser: (it still lacks front part of suppressor)
THANKS
-
Perhaps your post to that thread will spark some interest. I actually don't know how much traffic the BB gun section of the forum gets. Perhaps my impression that traffic is low there is because I am biased, because my interest is in airguns with rifled barrels. :)
I do have a Daisy 880, but have only shot pellets through it.
-
One piece moderator with smooth rail. STL attached.
-
You may have noticed that I reinforced the connection between the rail section and the moderator body in the one piece design (directly above)? I added that reinforcement to the rear section with the smooth rail, in case you prefer the look and the increased strength and stiffness: STL attached
-
You may have noticed that I reinforced the connection between the rail section and the moderator body in the one piece design (directly above)? I added that reinforcement to the rear section with the smooth rail, in case you prefer the look and the increased strength and stiffness: STL attached
WoW it looks great!
Reinforced and smooth for easy printing!
I added both new versions where you posted v6.
https://www.gatewaytoairguns.org/GTA/index.php?topic=216184.0
Great work! Thanks a lot!
-
Finished front part and glued
-
Good morning!
I couldnt resist printing soft reinforced version
Besides, as my last rear part was printed leaned, it is a little misaligned with front
It is always better to print not leaned.
Before printing my last front part again, i ordered some linear bearings for the Easythreed k9 printer in order to avoid wobbling.
Hope you have a great day!
-
Mel,
Your print quality seems to have improved in terms of smoothness and uniformity.
-
Good morning!
I finally received the linear bearings! I had already printed 2 carriages (a little leaned 'cos of too much clearance) that i installed with the bearings in X and Z axis, as they were the most wobbling.
Then i printed a 3rd carriage that was almost perfect, replaced it and printed 2 more. Now printer is working like a pro :) and completely silent.
Very happy i discovered this free stl to make my printer super worthy
Search printables easythreed k9 carriage
Im thinking about reducing a little the rail length with meshmixer so that i can print one-piece version leaned and see quality. I'll let you know!
-
This is the printer itself (see attached pic)
Im thinking about reducing length of the rail so that i can print "soft-reinforced" one-piece version leaned and see final quality. I checked that just a little cut and leaning 45° front and right, it fits the 10cm3 cube the printer can manage.
Edit: i used the printer in the garage as it was noisy because of original carriage clearance, now i can move it anywhere
-
Improvements are better.
-
Good morning!
I managed to print v6 silencer in one piece in 10cm3 printer, just 4 fun.
I reduced z axis only, from 133 to 124mm and then leaned it.
I share stl.
I also cut 2.5mm at the bottom for better adhesion and printed without supports, but meshmixer add some ugly lines at the bottom face no matter whatever i try.
Thanks subscriber!
-
Mel, your print quality has improved. Experimentation is good for learning new things and increased understanding.
-
Thanks for your kind words subscriber!
-
I guess there are bits of that part that don't look as good as the rest. The question is why? My guess is the unsupported overhang is too much.
-
Hi again!
i managed to avoid the ugly lines when cutting 2.5mm botton thanks to prusaslicer cut function
i attach pics and .stl with mentioned cut for better adhesion when printing v6 one-piece in 10cm3 printer
im waiting for self-lubricated 6x8x10mm bearings for carriages for new printer i bought for a present.
I guess there are bits of that part that don't look as good as the rest. The question is why? My guess is the unsupported overhang is too much.
Yes, i printed unsupported just for fun and see what errors would appear.
-
hi subscriber! it's been a long time! so glad to talk to you again! i hope you are so well!!!
some days ago i printed v6 again and know what? rail is completely loose and falls by itself (see attached gif), i understand that the printer is doing it so well now with all axis 90º calibrations and linear bearings... that maybe i shouldn't have asked you for bigger rail gaps from v2 onwards... :-\ sorry
i'm even doing all the prints with 0% infill without breaking and much faster
i've doing a lot of tests (see next pic) and only v2 is very tight enough now, although it has prongs and it was 0.5mm misaligned (v2c might also do but it is not so tight and it's moved by co2 after some shots)
i tried modifying v6 by myself with meshmixer by shortening x-axis of rail only by 1mm from 28 to 27mm wide (see 2 next pics) with partial success as it only grabs suppressor by rail inner 2 lines instead of all its surface
i also wanted front and rear parts without prongs nor dots, so i took "one-piece" half bottom v1 and attached half top v2 and moved rail down only by 0.5mm and also made snout thicker by 0.5mm for better contact with no gas leak, although it looks like frankenstein's monster ;D (see next pic)
i would like to try your first v2 but with correct alignment (rail down 0.5mm), a thicker snout (+0.5mm) and longer rail if possible (+2mm, as it still would had 0.5mm more space until touching the end, see 2 next pics)
i would ask you to add these changes to first v2 at https://www.gatewaytoairguns.org/GTA/index.php?topic=215894.msg156558293#msg156558293 (https://www.gatewaytoairguns.org/GTA/index.php?topic=215894.msg156558293#msg156558293) as i don't know CAD at all, but only if you fancy and have time enough you wouldn't mind to spend at this
or to this second v2 at https://www.gatewaytoairguns.org/GTA/index.php?topic=215894.msg156559543#msg156559543 (https://www.gatewaytoairguns.org/GTA/index.php?topic=215894.msg156559543#msg156559543) just reverting "0.25mm slimming at all contact faces" and then adding thicker snout and longer rail (maybe more easy and faster for you)
so happy to say hello again to all!! no hurry about this, subscriber, in case you agree, so happy with all you did for me, i'm soooooo thankful!!
ps: i attach pic of all the files as i have them in order :D
-
Mel,
A picture with desired dimensions would help a lot. If you want an aspect shited, relative to what reference or plane? If you want something shifted, Please ensure you are driving the change in the right direction. Thanks
-
Hi subscriber!, i took measures (best i could) of my very-tight-rail V2 modified STL (rail lowered 0.5mm from bore center) and real printed piece from that STL. I guess differences are printer's deviation.
Thanks!
-
Thanks, Mel
I am still not sure If you want an STL to match the printed part, or the printed part to match the STL dimensions? In other words, to cancel the difference between the part and the STL by subtracting the difference, and generating a new STL.
-
hi subscriber! it's true i don't know what i want LOL
i would like an stl with the dimensions of the attached ones (but without the "ugly" edges and steps) as they are working as desired with the gun once printed although it is not a clean model as made from chunks and cuts. As i don´t know CAD i made modifications and tests with meshmixer in an unprofessional way. Althouh with some almost-not-visible edges, im satisfied modifing by myself your great stls, so no matter if you won't modify with CAD. Just wanted to have a more pro and beautiful model. I'm right now printing my attached rear part and will let you know if it can be taken as reference for a clean model. Thank you so much! Amazing how you designed this silencer.
-
i attach front and rear, in 2 parts
ps: just fyi, process i did with meshmixer:
i took a rear part stl (v2 longer-rail-two-parts-version) and plane-cut top (from 80mm to top), then i plane-cut from snout base to top and after separate shells, i made snout 0.5mm thicker, separated rail 0.5mm from bore center and made it 2mm longer (1st up 1mm then zoom 2mm), then saved it.
i took one-piece v1 stl and plane-cut bottom (from 80mm to bottom), then appended the previous saved stl and combined both parts as one, so now i have a modified one-piece stl without prongs nor dots and with aligned longer rail and thicker snout
last, i plane-cut one-piece into 2 pieces (bottom to 38mm and 38mm to top), separated shells and combined parts in 2 final attached rear and front stls.
-
Thanks, Mel
I will look at the files tonight.
-
Good morning!
Hi subscriber,i It fits perfect, very right, 0% infill without breaking at all, i attach pics, thanks!
-
Mel,
If the problem you are trying to solve is the ripples on the outside flat surfaces, that should improve if the walls were a little thicker. I made them very thin to reduce weight.
Post the STL for the latest print above, and I will see if I can thicken the walls on the inside in CAD. Leaving the outside the same, so the fit does not change.
I viewed your other STLs in Cura and they look smooth. So, I think you have print artifacts, where the inside baffles are showing through the thin outer walls, due to their effect on cooling and shrinkage.
-
Hi subscriber, it's ok, i didnt mean surface smoothness but step of rail as i moved It down 0.5mm as a whole (see pic).
Im satistied as is, thicker snout and longer rail look good, and i don't mind about rail little step, i just wanted to share my experience and maybe it helps some Daisy's owner :D
Ps: this final print is from v1+v2 mod front+rear.zip
-
Thanks, Mel
-
i attach front and rear, in 2 parts
ps: just fyi, process i did with meshmixer:
i took a rear part stl (v2 longer-rail-two-parts-version) and plane-cut top (from 80mm to top), then i plane-cut from snout base to top and after separate shells, i made snout 0.5mm thicker, separated rail 0.5mm from bore center and made it 2mm longer (1st up 1mm then zoom 2mm), then saved it.
i took one-piece v1 stl and plane-cut bottom (from 80mm to bottom), then appended the previous saved stl and combined both parts as one, so now i have a modified one-piece stl without prongs nor dots and with aligned longer rail and thicker snout
last, i plane-cut one-piece into 2 pieces (bottom to 38mm and 38mm to top), separated shells and combined parts in 2 final attached rear and front stls.
added fixed front part (base was not flat)
-
hi subscriber! it's true i don't know what i want LOL
i would like an stl with the dimensions of the attached ones (but without the "ugly" edges and steps) as they are working as desired with the gun once printed although it is not a clean model as made from chunks and cuts. As i don´t know CAD i made modifications and tests with meshmixer in an unprofessional way. Althouh with some almost-not-visible edges, im satisfied modifing by myself your great stls, so no matter if you won't modify with CAD. Just wanted to have a more pro and beautiful model. I'm right now printing my attached rear part and will let you know if it can be taken as reference for a clean model. Thank you so much! Amazing how you designed this silencer.
also added fixed 1-piece as it was this model which base wasn't flat and error was translated to front part
-
Hi subscriber! Hi everybody!
I found out why ALL my silencer's rails where loose, it wasn't PLA misteriously became bigger as time went by but gun's rail became smaller as it is soft plastic and has been "sanded" with regular use. So as you use tigh rail suppressor it makes the gun's smaller. I've been playing cat and mouse LOL
I checked original measures of rail, 21.35mm wide, and compared to current today, less than 21mm
Best regards!
-
This is how i just solved it preventing rail from moving forward after every shot
Pic rail reinforced version is the right one for this solution
BR