BRIT NERF Forum Index
Join! (free) SearchFAQMemberlistUsergroupsLog in
OMW EAT Stage 1 and 2

Reply to topic    BRIT NERF Forum Index » Modifications -> Chrono Data Forum View previous topic
View next topic
OMW EAT Stage 1 and 2
Author Message
Please Register and Login to this forum to stop seeing this advertising.

The Dealer

Joined: 08 Dec 2012
Posts: 3411
Fav. Blaster: (Modified) Stampede ECS
Location: Bristol, UK

Post OMW EAT Stage 1 and 2  Reply with quote
I've not actually got an S1 or S2 kit for the EAT but I've taken OMW's own data (source: S1 and S2) and Bobo's data from his videos and had a look.

A compilation of the data sets can be found here in this handy spreadsheet.

The first thing to note is that the 90fps velocity claim here is bunk in both cases. The 90fps muzzle velocity claim is made under the 'Specifications' tab of the OMW product listing for the S1 kit.

They do their testing without the AR in and, yes, AR removal will probably nudge that figure over 90fps but they ought to ensure consistency when advertising muzzle velocity claims. Neither data sets show the S1 kit acheives 90FPS. Obviously S2 doesn't have an AR present, for the record.

I'm a little concerned about Bobo's stock EAT results given that OldNoob's larger dataset shows at least 5FPS higher at baseline.

I thought I'd throw together a little meta-analysis to see if a bigger data set revealed anything more interesting. I took Bobo's data and the OMW data (well, the first 5 data points of the OMW S2 data at any rate) and put them into one big table before analysing them. What I got was a generally worse quality data set (not unsurprising given Bobo's undershooting EAT) and a less significant p value (p = 0.25). Just an interesting technical exercise but there you go.1

The most critical aspect of these results is the fact that in both cases, there's little difference between the performance of the two upgrade kits In both cases, p > 0.05 (the generally accepted threshold for a statistically significant difference). Granted, that's to be expected given that you're using the same spring and they've not gone with a sealed breach system as per the Retaliator, however it does beg some interesting questions.

The foremost of which is, why bother? The main known failure point in the current Elite Direct Plunger System (EDPS) is the plunger head where the O-ring seals. In the 2 years since the Elite line was released, I've yet to see a failure anywhere else. All the extra components are wasted when all you need to be able to purchase is replacement POM plungers and perhaps a better designed catch plate. I fail to be convinced of the need of any of the other parts in either the EAT or the Retaliator.

Even with an upgraded 7kg spring (which does make a difference over the 5kg spring), I'd wager a mortgage that the failure point remains at the plunger head and nowhere else. Why do they feel the need to produce all the extra gumpf that isn't needed? Metal triggers are a gimmick, as are metal catch plates. I've seen very little evidence both in my own work and from the reports of others that make any more difference than a better catch plate spring. Indeed, it would have been better to have used the money it cost to cast them to research a better one and had it printed or moulded accordingly. Once you factor in the poor QC and casting marks many people have reported, you've got a problem.

I've yet to see a failure in a plunger tube or bolt assembly, our EATs here have seen hundreds of combat hours and thousands upon thousands of firing cycles without showing fatigue or stress so I'm not convinced of the need for those either.

Again, all this leads me to the inescapable conclusion that OMW ought to sell parts separately to make it worthwhile for the end user. Yes, if you're looking for a nice present for someone, a complete kit is fine but for those of us who actually care about what goes in our blasters and want to save money so we can do other, more useful, things with it.

Anyway, I thought I'd make a post looking at the data and invoke a little bit of positive discussion around the NIC's largest after-market parts supplier rather than sitting in my chair and complaining all the time. I'll probably email Jun with this at some point, too.

Boff: Managing Director, Blastersmiths UK & BUZAN Founder (formerly)
| Blog: | Website: | Legal: |
Sat Dec 06, 2014 11:20 am View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Foam Data Collector

Joined: 07 May 2013
Posts: 4886
Fav. Blaster: Xtreme 180 Rapidstrike
Location: In the Boonies

Post Reply with quote
On bobo's test it's interesting to see a drop on the OMW bolt, just like in the S2 Retaliator, indicating a possible oversize in the bore again.
The only purpose of retal S2 was to get the POM plunger and the bolt required for the S3 sealed (faulty!) breech. Maybe they intend to produce a sealed EAT breech, which if it mated with the stock faux barrel, I would certainly have, as the retal one works great with Koosh. You couldn't have a tight barrel in the EAT.
I have seen one mushroomed bolt on here, but all the other fails have been, as mentioned by Boff, on the plunger head. Toruk had a fix for the plunger involving removing the cross shaped plastic part of the head.
I beleive that AR removal is the sole cause of this plunger failure. I am getting high 80's with mine left in. Anyone who's fought my Rampage this summer can attest to its reliable power, even in rain, once again with the AR in and only a spring mod. I still contend AR removal is not necessary for good performance and is undesirable for high intensity combat users, especially if you rag your primary every week in high volume shoots indoors or in medium to heavy cover outside. If I want 100fps plus, I will hit a RS or 7kg spring with the AR intact.
Un-necessary parts- almost anything except the plunger and springs, agreed on the separate parts, the kits are dumb, I want to pick what I need.
The better catch is needed in the EAT, you have to run a much heavier catch spring to make it reliable as the stock one bends too much. The issue, as Danielson found out, is that their crap casting standard produces a part that doesn't work!

Just to add that here is my 5kg EAT, shooting 85fps average, with the AR in and just a spring mod and lube!
This blaster almost shot a 90fps- BETTER THAN THE S2 EAT!
Also of interest in that comparison was that the stock EAT I used for my test was an early one, well used and abused, that I borrowed from one of my regular players! I would say it was shooting the bottom end of stock EAT if we look at the stock rampage that was new when tested.

Big_Poppa_Nerf wrote:

Boff whats the damage? I have spent over 3 times my Nerf budget this month already. Part of me is trying to be a responsible parent/husband/house owner. The other half is just says 'Ahhhh, Screw it!'.
Sat Dec 06, 2014 5:09 pm View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:    
Reply to topic    BRIT NERF Forum Index » Modifications -> Chrono Data Forum All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

Jump to: 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Card File  Gallery  Forum Archive
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
Design by Freestyle XL / Flowers Online.
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum