Current project on your bench

Great info there, Doc… very much appreciated insights into this really annoying issue… particularly the alloy bolt on threaded retainer. I have a couple of those lying around, might be a good day to get creative tomorrow. :thinking:

Oh, and that scope’s not on backwards, Doc… :joy: it’s a Spina Optics LPVO, low powered variable optic. Used a lot on DMR real steel, not holo or red dot reticule, actual crosshairs with a zoom range that’s a bit more gel blaster friendly. Eye relief’s at the fat end. :+1:

Trust me, my friend… if I mounted it the other way, I wouldn’t be able to see shit. :rofl:

3 Likes

Yeah, I was being a little bit sarcastic about the scope comment, and with my eyesight, it wouldn’t make any difference to me :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

Nice looking bit of gear though :ok_hand:

Just had a quick look in one of the old spare parts boxes and came across these.
Very difficult ordering online as is very hard to tell the specific differences in sizes/details if the product description and photos are lacking :roll_eyes:

This is a classic example that shows the differences in thickness and sizes of the retainer and the lug sizes, also allen keyed units like yours compared with the threaded ones available.

Cheers heaps for providing the direction and advice for this retainer problem, Doc. :+1:

Took your advice and dug up an alloy threaded retainer this morning. It did require a little fettling of the retainer to fit the shell as you predicted and of course the judicious use of Loctite on the front and back screws but matched up with a tensile washer and a stainless M6 screw, it works a treat.

The retainer’s straight, solid and zero spring tilt now… with the added benefit of a bearing on the retainer and a full length M90 spring in there.

One more problem solvered. :wink:

Awesome progress updates, love the pics :+1:

1 Like

Nice work mate, should definitely make a big difference and also makes those tiny lugged style retainers/gearboxes much more reliable :ok_hand:

I see what you mean about that hole in the gearbox behind the bevel axle/bush, which were added to allow to be able to poke a screwdriver through to release spring tension by levering the AR Latch off of the bevel gear……. but was really a useless gimmick, because how hard is it to simply make sure that the gearbox is stopped with the piston all the way forward before disassembling anyways :roll_eyes:

Yeah I got a bit muddled with the problem with that bevel gear bush. Revisiting it again, it’s this that’s the problem…


The tenon grooves moulded into the shell that locate the grip have been moulded right up to the bevel gear bush hole but left open ended so you loose that much hole and the bushes are like a cock in a shirtsleeve… fall out every tear down. :joy:

The other problem to be fixed was the mag release arrangement. Normally, the mag release pin would go through a moulded lug on the gearbox to give it some stability, but not this one… the only thing that locates the latch end is the moulded housing for the ambi, and once activated it can come out too far then it’s just flapping around. :rofl:


I’ve addressed that by bonding a plastic plate inside the receiver behind the ambi lever then drilling a tight tolerance hole to hold the whole assembly in line. The ambi function’s a bit tight now but the normal function’s 100% better.

Oh, and the only thing that secures the box to the receiver shell is the grip… no pin through the box to secure it in the middle, no retention at the nozzle end either. If you don’t shim the grip so that it’s tight to the receiver, when you wiggle the grip hard enough the gearbox moves in the receiver :laughing:

Next one to tackle is whether or not I can do away with the rack setup on the fire selector plate and go to a more efficient cam fitted directly on the lever. It is much better since I disabled the ambi but still not as positive as I’d like it to be. :person_shrugging:

Sooner or later this project will reach critcal mass and then the old saying about polishing a turd will apply. :joy:

1 Like

My favourite saying in life:
“You can’t polish a Turd, but you can always roll it in Glitter.” :joy:

It’s late, but I’ll get around to sharing more of my experience/knowledge/advice on how to fix those niggly little issues that you have mentioned to tackle next. :sunglasses::ok_hand:

2 Likes

Turd polished… looks pretty good with the M203 fitted up, courtesy of DocBob. :+1:


Just waiting on mini Tamiya connectors in the mail, but it’s done. Overall, I would have been better off paying less for a CYMA nylon SCAR L, I wouldn’t have had to fix all the issues I’ve had with this Bing Feng… but then it wouldn’t be a MK17 with that big mag and I wouldn’t have had something to tinker with, so no regrets. :+1: Cheaper than the LDT SCAR H by a country mile too.

4 Likes

Certainly looking the goods and hopefully should be running much better :ok_hand:
That M203 is a perfect fit too!

Got a set of 100:300 gears today, I know ppl have said they’re not as sturdy as standard gears cause of the way they intersect.

Mainly wanted to see if they were actually quiter and how they run, wasn’t going to put them into anything crazy either.

Do want to get a couple more of these tappetless cylinder heads and see how they go. First one I got seems to be doing good, was the cheaper of the 3 at $25, only put a couple mags through it thou.

2 Likes

I never actually ever played around with those types of gears, so will be interesting to see how they work out for you and hear your feedback about the build :+1:

I have several different old type Tappetless Cylinder Heads and a couple of complete Tappetless Alloy Gearboxes packed away somewhere, the older versions prior to the AZTECH first release designs, but only ever got to test out one of them the same, with only a single mags worth of gels, so don’t really know how reliable they would be in the long run :thinking:

I had one of those weird tappetless gearboxes from Renegade that uses that type of head/piston setup thou the head actually threaded onto the cylinder and the upper was all one piece.

Gearbox as a whole was a pain, the trigger switch provided didn’t fit the casting of the lower and needed cutting, gears had nearly 2mm of lateral play.

The terminal plate wouldn’t sit right and barely made contact or it would get in the way of the receiver.

But the biggest issues came from the cylinder head, because of th way it operates it’s inevitably going to fail.

The nozzle goes back into the cylinder with a small tube that has a lip that is caught by an oring in a matching cavity in the piston head and is pulled back along with the piston as it’s getting pulled back by the gears, this cycles the nozzle to let a gel in and when it reaches a point it can’t go back any further so is yanked from the piston head, that is also spring loaded inside the piston I guess to relieve some stress or something. But once the piston is released from the gears it slams back onto the nozzle tube and the cycle repeats.

I’m sure you can see multiple issues with this design.

Oh and they supplied a little unlabled blue tube of what looks like grease but is actually thread lock so a number of ppl fucked the boxes before they even got to use them :sweat:

I remember something about that blue “lube” fiasco!

I don’t know where my couple of those leftover complete gearboxes are packed away, but they certainly came with heaps of bags of parts to assemble the whole units is what I remember.

Not surprised that they didn’t fit together very well and took a lot of work to make them operational, as they were pretty cheap at the time considering the “technology” they were offering.

As for those single unit Tappetless Cylinder heads, the o-ring/spring designs looked pretty fragile for extended use, especially if combined with higher ROF builds.

The airflow characteristics looked pretty woeful for decent FPS outputs as well.

Most likely why I never really bothered with them much and stuck with the tried and trusted old tappet gearboxes instead :+1:

1 Like

I’ve always heard mixed reports about the Apache cylinder heads from Aztec… :person_shrugging:

Are they worth the $70 price of entry and are they a viable option for those builds that need custom nozzles?

1 Like

I honestly don’t think they are worth the money and headaches myself, but that’s an individual choice for people to make depending upon what they are looking to build and achieve out of their blasters :+1:

Like everything else in the aftermarket scene, some people will have the knowledge/skills to have great success, whereas others will struggle.

I honestly just played around with the cheaper already available alternatives for nothing more than curiosity, never really expecting to get any great performance or reliability out of them :joy:

I got an Apache when it was on sale but haven’t put it into anything yet, partly cause of the extra effort of fitment.

But I recently got one from a TL- Toys (or something like that) that’s actually just a LDX nozzle, only problem I’ve had assembling was getting the silicon nozzle tip to stick, it seems to be holding so far and is working like intended, haven’t done a chrono or anything yet though

1 Like

Seems bonding slicone is all.in the prep and primer…


1 Like

Yes that’s the most important part for silicone adhesive.
I thought I posted a similar article elsewhere about using this stuff, but depends upon how strong a bond that you are trying to achieve :+1:

1 Like

Apaches, my short version. Do they work? Yes. Do they blow my skirt up and make me want to convert everything to them over tappet plates? Nope.

They don’t do anything that a tappet plate can’t, except they can’t use less than ultra hard gels. They are no easier to setup than a tappet plate imo. They are basically a trade off, and for best results require the aztech tpiece which really bumps the price to nearly $115!

One hand you can with their extortion priced tpiece adjust it easily til it is consistent feeding and sealing. But where it makes that easy enough, getting the right nozzle length with any other tpiece is a bit of a stuff around. Fine if you do heaps and know how many orings to space the tip forward but they are a bit annoying to setup.

I used one recently on a SLONG gearbox, which is tough af, but it is an A/S box, which just didnt have the nozzle travel to feed and seal, it was one or the other. So, the apache is in it and in this scenario it is perfect. I suspect retroarms boxes would be similar…
I could have dremelled the tappet runners to allow travel and a wells tappet, but that isnt ideal either. The apache was a godsend for that gearbox.

If your setup with a tappet plate needs “x” long barrel, with apache you will need “X minus 20-30mm” So longer barrels get a bit shorter. They are perfect for shorter barrels, with short stroked gears and bigger springs (m120, short 4 teeth, still got 350fps like my tappet setups did just with 20mm shorter barrel). With lesser springs they tend to be less consistent, and can have a bigger effect one volumes, making it a bit more trial and error to get the desired results.

But otherwise, in a gel gearbox, that has the tappet travel to feed and seal, and if you are busting over 25rps, just trim a couple mm off the tappet plate and shorten the return spring by 2 loops… or 30rps or more, trim a few loops off a good tappet spring, and trim the tappet tail to just above the sector gear shaft and boom, 40rps and up feeding and sealing. For most of my work, 25-30rps, this nearly always works.

And if your reason for getting one is my return springs keep breaking, get better quality ones, and put a bit of silicone paste on them. I have return springs that have lasted through hell for nearly four years. And honestly, I rekcon you will have to open the box to lube the apaches internal orings more often than any return spring breakage probability.

I wouldnt put them in something unless it needed it, like my SLONG box did, and my cyma while it worked I ended up changing it back to a tappet plate setup, because it was more consistent on semi and auto, where apaches in full auto tend to have a bit more fps than semi for some reason.

Good on them for attempting innovation, and it has it’s uses, I certainly won’t rag on them for it. I currently own 2 apaches, and only one is in a blaster. The other is a “maybe one day”.

For those wanting to know, the SLONG is an awesome option for a wells If you busted your box, but you will need a apache, and their tpiece ideally, and it was fussy to setup, (bushes had to be glued in, the spring retainer uses 4mm bolt instead of 5mm, and most cylinders need to be filed down to fit properly by a fraction) and you will convert to gen8 style mags. Apart from needing ultra hard gels, it is a great tough af box. Also mine is not in a wells, it is in a “thingy” bitsa that I slapped together. Kublai receiver, with bits from god knows what!

1 Like

Getting an Apache up and running sounds like an interesting process… :thinking: cheers for that info, plenty to think about before dropping bucks on one. :+1:

I was curious about them because one of my recent builds gave me grief with nozzle sealing in a very proprietry t piece. Sorted it with o ring spacing, etc but someone in the industry commented that an Apache would solve all my problems.

Moot now, but I’m sure it’ll come up again. :laughing: