# ANOTHER Z-LOCK rubber attachment big ADVANTAGE - tube to pouch attachment



## WATERLOGIC (Feb 4, 2014)

In my experience rubber fails/wears at the pouch first.

*A new attachment design at this point is required . *

I believe I found a very good solution :










close up:










detail :










As you can see - a clean passage of rubber through the pouch hole.
Dankung tubes (black) and small pieces of thera tube (yellow).

The ends of the tube are now at the fork side (Z-LOCK).

I tested this setup for few days and I notice:

- improvements in precision shooting
- no tangled pouch & tubes after release

But best of all lightning fast tube pouch set up . No rubber strips or string constrictor knots etc - you just push the tube through the pouch hole and attach Z-LOCK at the fork !

Try it out . All comments, criticisms are welcome - because only those boost further development and I feel this is not yet the end of it ...

(I already see some further improvements although as is now works great !)
__________________


----------



## BlackBob (Mar 8, 2013)

Nice idea. Can it be done with bands?


----------



## WATERLOGIC (Feb 4, 2014)

BlackBob said:


> Nice idea. Can it be done with bands?


Have not tried it yet (still awaiting my theraband order to arrive) , but why not &#8230; will try it when my TBG arrives ...


----------



## treefork (Feb 1, 2010)

It's nothing new. I been doing my double flats and tube this way for many years. I take one step further by slipping the band in a thin medical latex sleeve to reduce friction and wear. The fork attachment has been around here also. The friction break technique has been used in rappelling break bar racks for around forty years.

View attachment 54066
View attachment 54067


----------



## WATERLOGIC (Feb 4, 2014)

treefork said:


> It's nothing new. I been doing my double flats and tube this way for many years. I take one step further by slipping the band in a thin medical latex sleeve to reduce friction and wear. The fork attachment has been around here also. The friction break techniue has been used in rappling break bar racks for around forty years.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


" The friction break techniue has been used in rappling break bar racks for around forty years "

Yes, and the holes exist since the beginning of time - and also forks in the trees are around millions of years etc ...

But you have to admit combining things that are around you and in your dreams etc into something new counts big time - it is called creativity.

As to

"I been doing my double flats and tube this way for many years"

yes but you secure them at the forks with strips of rubber, string, bolts etc.

What I present here ia a switch in the concept = no attachment items i.e. making everything dead simple ...

Anyway, thanks for your input.

Be Well.


----------



## treefork (Feb 1, 2010)

UK guys use this:

http://slingshotforum.com/topic/14572-original-tsl-c60s-restoration/


----------



## WATERLOGIC (Feb 4, 2014)

VERSATILITY - ADVANTAGES of my Z-LOCK rubber attachment

1. No attachment items (rubber strips, pins, Flip Clips etc.) just the rubber 
itself (fork material & rubber friction holds the rubber in place)

2. OTT & TTF designs feasible with the same SS frame

3. Possibility to define/change the height of TTF if you have 4 or more holes per fork 
arm.

4. Using single tubes or doubled tubes (Dankung style without modification)

5. Exact centring of the pouch (i.e. the length of each rubber tube(s) side) !
(no other design allows for this - although your tubes set is mismatched .. 
no problem)

6. Possible in every SS design like standard or pickle fork etc

7. Also very important point for people who search the right length of 
rubber for the ammo used (i.e. you do not need to cut the rubber!).

8. At last but not least fast and easy rubber set swap / replacement.

EDIT:

9. See today s post : pouch to tube attachment http://slingshotforum.com/topic/30752-another-z-lock-rubber-attachment-big-advantage-tube-to-pouch-attachment/

Examples :

*RAMBONE-Z :*




























*BOXER-Z :*



















coming &#8230;. Next experiment Z-LOCK RUBBER BANDS !


----------



## WATERLOGIC (Feb 4, 2014)

Milbro classic :

- rubber to fork (using bolt anchors) or

I suppose you mean this one :

- one continuous rubber - looks fancy but in reality is a bad design why ? Because you thread the rubber first and then attach the pouch at each rubber end (akward, unpractical & time consuming &#8230. Band set replacement - forget it ...

Nice try, though ...


----------



## treefork (Feb 1, 2010)

Why don't you post a video of you banding it up and shooting it to show us how good it is? Run a time clock , band it up and put 5 shots on a target. That will take you less time than it took to put these pictures and this thread together. It would really show us the superiority of this. Then someone could try to match your time using one of the inferior banding methods like the old fashion wrap and tuck ,top slots, ect. This could be interesting .


----------



## WATERLOGIC (Feb 4, 2014)

treefork said:


> Why don't you post a video of you banding it up and shooting it to show us how good it is? Run a time clock , band it up and put 5 shots on a target. That will take you less time than it took to put these pictures and this thread together. It would really show us the superiority of this. Then someone could try to match your time using one of the inferior banding methods like the old fashion wrap and tuck ,top slots, flip clips ect. This could be interesting .


I might do what you suggest when winter is over &#8230; I try to consume my outdoors for skiing these days.

On the other hand - I suspect you can not imagine how proficient with comps I am  believe me - it takes me almost no time...

Especially this one (copy paste from the forum I published this first.

I am not here to shake your world . The idea is to show what I have (as other people show ). I try everything out before I post anything ( shooting 12mm lead and 18-20mm clay balls - 16m and 24m targets). So If you do not believe that it works you are welcome to try it out if not you can always walk by ...

And with all due respect - I hate when people are telling me what I should do ( most of the time I do just the opposite  ) unless they come up with a sincere argumented and legit suggestion ... :uhoh:


----------



## treefork (Feb 1, 2010)

That's what I thought. Excuses. All talk .


----------



## Bill Hays (Aug 9, 2010)

Waterlogic,

I agree it's very good to see what's around us and to try to utilize in ways that most might not have thought about....

You might not be aware of this, but up until a little over three years ago nobody was really even _thinking_ about more versatility in their slingshots... you pretty much either shot tubes, solids, rubber bands, or flats on a frame. Then I and Jim Harris had the idea... hey why not just make a frame that can do all the above?!

So I made a few slingshots with a hole in addition to the standard grooved OTT attachment method... and it pretty well caught fire all over the world. After that came many different designs trying to do the same thing or better. Jorg made his Cougar, then the Toucan was made by Irfan... and now it almost seems like that simple hole has been there forever.

Anyway, what I'm trying to say is innovation is very very good... it helps to bring on an avalanche of ideas that only needed a little prompting to get it all started... So what you're doing is interesting...

But what I'm having a hard time seeing is the vast improvement of three holes over the simple one hole that we've all been using for a while now...

Then it occurred to me... this forum was redone and a lot of material and stuff was lost in the update... so maybe you haven't seen how the single hole is actually used.. and why three holes _might_ be considered a lot of overkill.

How tubes are connected and used with a single hole:


----------



## SmilingFury (Jul 2, 2013)

Also the wasp be gone has had a more efficient method with only two holes.









Nothing new or innovative by adding another hole. Good that you are not defensive about trying to re-invent the wheel or seeing a more efficient design that predates yours might bother you. Lucky that isn't the case here...

Be well,
SF


----------



## WATERLOGIC (Feb 4, 2014)

Bill Hays said:


> Waterlogic,
> 
> I agree it's very good to see what's around us and to try to utilize in ways that most might not have thought about....
> 
> ...


"But what I'm having a hard time seeing is the vast improvement of three holes over the simple one hole that we've all been using for a while now&#8230;"

You have the right to see anything as you please. But I am sorry you have a hard time ...

Again, I do not seek a following . I try to see the advantages of a certain solution (mine or somebody else's) .

One, two three four etc. holes &#8230; it comes to practicability (I doubt you invented the one hole attachment for I ve seen that principle in Thailand, Malaysia - Borneo (Sarawak Jungle) and Thailand at least fifteen years ago (slingshot arrow fishing, etc) &#8230; so be sure it was not you ...

So in our case one hole as you show it requires a string to pull the rubber through also akward to make any change after rubber is fixed.

With Z-LOCK you need no string or anything, you can loosen ( shorten , prolong the tube) easily, big advantage is you can use different ammo without replacing the rubber set (just shorten/prolong it) .

"Then it occurred to me... this forum was redone and a lot of material and stuff was lost in the update... so maybe you haven't seen how the single hole is actually used.. and why three holes might be considered a lot of overkill."

Remember I am a structural engineer and I need just a glimpse to understand how the single hole is used or whatever SS matter - so it occurred to you wrongly ...

One hole is acceptable &#8230; if there is no other solution ...

Three holes overkill ? - stay tuned I am just finishing a SS with 9 holes per side anic:

(4 in the fork and 5 in the handle - the rubber in the fork (support) and handle(gripping) are excellent for positive grip) - the ss is lighter and it looks **** high-tech as well.

As already said I aim to solutions which are dead simple, the extra holes are piece of cake if you have a drill stand/station and you know what are you doing (= structurally).

Be Well !


----------



## WATERLOGIC (Feb 4, 2014)

SmilingFury said:


> Also the wasp be gone has had a more efficient method with only two holes.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The wasp uses a pin - not comparable ...

You are not quite friendly, are you ?

But you are in Paris, I am always in a splendid mood when I am in Paris.

Be well !


----------



## Lacumo (Aug 18, 2013)

WATERLOGIC said:


> Remember I am a structural engineer


That's only a partial description.



WATERLOGIC said:


> Again, I do not seek a following .


In view of the ongoing sarcastic condescension and disrespect that you display toward other people, I don't think you need to worry about that happening.


----------



## SmilingFury (Jul 2, 2013)

WATERLOGIC said:


> SmilingFury said:
> 
> 
> > Also the wasp be gone has had a more efficient method with only two holes.
> ...


I am actually in a splendid mood myself. I also happen to be in Paris. I AM actually friendly. I think it is your condescension and wild egotism that clouds your judgement. You lack the ability to be objective and attack those who disagree with you. It is immature and childlike. I truly hope you can find a new release for your frustrations other than picking arguments online. I doubt you will break through your own denial about it given the egotism you have shown since you got here.

Be well my angry, little, brittle friend, :wave: 
SF


----------



## S.S. sLinGeR (Oct 17, 2013)

I personally think this attachment method wether if it works or not to be no better or as no real improvment to anything that is already known on this forum. I think the big ? Here is not can you scientificly work things out and then go on a Forum and argue said points, but can you shoot waterlogic? I'll stick with the ways I use now. There much more pretty and I have yet to have a band/tube setup fail.


----------



## Metropolicity (Aug 22, 2013)

All we have to have to agree on is that it's a different way of doing things.

No better, no worse.


----------



## Clever Moniker (May 12, 2013)

I do like to see different designs on the forum, especially because I have been interested in different attachment methods as of late.

It is interesting.

Cheers,

Clever Moniker


----------



## WATERLOGIC (Feb 4, 2014)

Lacumo said:


> WATERLOGIC said:
> 
> 
> > Remember I am a structural engineer
> ...


Each river has two sides.

From my side it looks exactly as you see it from your side.

OK. To simplify lets just take two points from the whole lot I put forward :

> My method does not require any attachment items (bolts, string rubber stripes) Simplest and fastest set up that anything that was seen so far, and it works in all aspects

True or False ?

> With same set of rubber you can shoot different ammo (quickly shorten and prolong the tubes) plus Z-lock actually allows better pouch attachment - nothing like that seen so far .

True or False ?

I wonder how you & Co define what is new ?

Be Well !


----------



## WATERLOGIC (Feb 4, 2014)

Clever Moniker said:


> I do like to see different designs on the forum, especially because I have been interested in different attachment methods as of late.
> 
> It is interesting.
> 
> ...


Thanks.

I hope my ideas will help a bit that you discover even better solutions.

Be Well !


----------



## WATERLOGIC (Feb 4, 2014)

Metropolicity said:


> All we have to have to agree on is that it's a different way of doing things.
> 
> No better, no worse.


It is better - you have not read what I wrote.

And also this can be improved ...

You may try to explain why is no better - would appreciate it ... :wave:


----------



## Clever Moniker (May 12, 2013)

WATERLOGIC said:


> Lacumo said:
> 
> 
> > WATERLOGIC said:
> ...


Question, you do mention that's it's faster. I'm not trying to be argumentative and I am actually interested.

Bill showed a method using 1 hole and nothing else but a string.

I know you said you wouldn't want to use the string as it wouldn't meet your initial requirement of "no attachment items". Something I like.

However, if the whole was slightly bigger in diameter... we could utilize a similar method to Bill's AND have it be faster as we wouldn't need an additional 2 holes?

If the hole was too big though it may not tighten / constrict?


----------



## WATERLOGIC (Feb 4, 2014)

S.S. sLinGeR said:


> I personally think this attachment method wether if it works or not to be no better or as no real improvment to anything that is already known on this forum. I think the big ? Here is not can you scientificly work things out and then go on a Forum and argue said points, but can you shoot waterlogic? I'll stick with the ways I use now. There much more pretty and I have yet to have a band/tube setup fail.


You also do not read what I write. Everything that I post anywhere I try it out thoroughly i.e. I can shoot it as any other SS and even better.

It is nothing wrong that you like and stay with what you like.

I have been accused of sarcasm - but no one bothers to explain why this is nothing new ? And when I reply their *conclusion* is that I am sarcastic (even offending).

*"A conclusion is the place where you get tired of thinking."*


----------



## Lacumo (Aug 18, 2013)

WATERLOGIC said:


> It is better - you have not read what I wrote.


You won't have proved that your method is superior until you post the video demonstrating how it is better. That was suggested above but you rejected the suggestion.

Until you prove what you're saying with a video, this is all just dogmatic hot air. The burden of proving the superiority of your method through recorded demonstration is on you and we're waiting to see you do that.


----------



## WATERLOGIC (Feb 4, 2014)

SmilingFury said:


> WATERLOGIC said:
> 
> 
> > SmilingFury said:
> ...


To err is human. To forgive for no good reason is plain stupid.

*La musique est le plus beaux de mensonges - *Claude Debussy

(music - most beautiful of all lies)


----------



## WATERLOGIC (Feb 4, 2014)

Lacumo said:


> WATERLOGIC said:
> 
> 
> > It is better - you have not read what I wrote.
> ...


Ugliness is superior to beauty because it lasts ...


----------



## Lacumo (Aug 18, 2013)

WATERLOGIC said:


> Ugliness is superior to beauty because it lasts ...


You should try staying on subject and responding to the points raised instead of responding with asinine, pathetic attempts at wit.

What's the matter? If your method is truly superior, why are you unable to prove it through recorded demonstration?


----------



## WATERLOGIC (Feb 4, 2014)

Clever Moniker said:


> WATERLOGIC said:
> 
> 
> > Lacumo said:
> ...


No thinkering, aiding tools, anchors, knots etc just thread the rubber through three holes - can you make it faster with anything that you use ?

Yes the lead idea is make it dead simple but still working (rubber is fixed , no rubber & pouch tangling, you can easily "untie it, shorten, prolong the rubber etc".)

There is no need for hole tight fit - the rubber brushes the hole when you push it through (this happens effortlessly using the thumb and the pointing finger).

Why would you make too big hole if you are aware what function it will serve !?

Be Well !


----------



## Metropolicity (Aug 22, 2013)

I tried to say it's no better or worse, this is the last thing I am going to write on this topic, since it's your missing to prove every comment to be false.

You want to know why I think it's not better? It's messy, there is tubing everywhere and it would get in the way of my personal gripping methods. Structurally, it maybe safe, but the illusion of a compromised frame with the multiple holes is there (shooting sports being a high percentage of mental game). PERSONALLY (not to say it is the law) I find it aesthetically distracting.

You want to know why I think it's not worse? The tubes are attached safely on the frame, no harm can be done to the user. You can adjust to hearts delight and it's relatively quick.

New or not, thanks for sharing and I hope you continue to explore this further.


----------



## WATERLOGIC (Feb 4, 2014)

Lacumo said:


> WATERLOGIC said:
> 
> 
> > Ugliness is superior to beauty because it lasts ...
> ...


It is winter, I rather use my time for skiing .

VIDEOS ?

Good part of the videos are faked (-because it is very easy to fake them - not my cup of tea...).

It is always best (if you are interested) to try it yourself .

I give you more information than necessary to do that - if you need anything else just ask ...


----------



## S.S. sLinGeR (Oct 17, 2013)

Metropolicity said:


> I tried to say it's no better or worse, this is the last thing I am going to write on this topic, since it's your missing to prove every comment to be false.
> 
> You want to know why I think it's not better? It's messy, there is tubing everywhere and it would get in the way of my personal gripping methods. Structurally, it maybe safe, but the illusion of a compromised frame with the multiple holes is there (shooting sports being a high percentage of mental game). PERSONALLY (not to say it is the law) I find it aesthetically distracting.
> 
> ...


Smart man Eric. Not worth your time.


----------



## Lacumo (Aug 18, 2013)

WATERLOGIC said:


> It is winter, I rather use my time for skiing .
> 
> VIDEOS ? Good part of the videos are faked (-because it is very easy to fake them - not my cup of tea...).
> 
> It is always best (if you are interested) to try it yourself . I give you more information than necessary to do that - if you need anything else just ask ...


1---It's interesting that you hide behind excuses like skiing and your prejudices against videos. This says a great deal about you and how much confidence you have in your method.

2---Nobody suggested that you should fake a video. That was your idea. Doing an authentic, unedited video is what you were challenged to do.

3---I'm not going to waste my time trying uncertain ideas from dubious sources. Proving the quality of your method is your responsibility and not anybody else's.

4---Until you validate the superiority of your method through recorded demonstration, nothing you've said about the superiority of your method has any credibility.

Excuses don't count, but results do. If you can't prove results through demonstration, all you have is excuses.


----------



## SmilingFury (Jul 2, 2013)

WATERLOGIC said:


> SmilingFury said:
> 
> 
> > WATERLOGIC said:
> ...


Oh fun fun!! Now I understand your game!! We are supposed to post quotes from known people that have little to do with anything.

Ok, ok ,ok. Here goes...

" Don't worry, be happy". - Bobby McFerrin

(Wait, am I supposed to cut and paste it from a website full of quotes for insecure people to proclaim their superior intelligence like you did? )

Waterlogic, your insecurities shine through your braggart's veneer. You don't need to be this way all the time. Try and make a friend once in your life. Even online... ... You might even like it. You seem like you have more than an argumentative nature to contribute. Give it a shot. Or has it been too long and you have forgotten how to be amongst people without implying you are better than them.

Or you could just post another quote of someone else's original thought and try to pass it off as partly yours because you found it on google...

Be well sparky!
SF
Ps: and the picture I posted of the more efficient attachment with only two holes uses no pin. It merely pulls the double section of tube through the second hole. It works better and looks better and does everything your "original " idea claims to do. The thing you might think is a pin is the end of the tubing pulled though the last bend. You drill a hole to do the same thing in essence.


----------



## treefork (Feb 1, 2010)

"Videos can be faked." Sounds like the words of somebody that can't back up anything they say. Words and claims are easier to fake. Which you proved.


----------



## Clever Moniker (May 12, 2013)

WATERLOGIC said:


> Clever Moniker said:
> 
> 
> > WATERLOGIC said:
> ...


I don't think we are understanding each other.

I like your approach, Bill also showed another method but it doesn't fit your criteria due to the use of a string.

I think it uses a string because if the hole is too small, the string is used as an aid to pull the tubing through.

I am asking if we were to use the method Bill is purposing, but increase the hole to a diameter which wouldn't need a string, would this not be an acceptable method? It would possibly be faster because there wouldn't need to be 3 holes.

May I ask, what is the diameter of the hole you are drilling out of curiosity, sorry if I missed it in your original post.

Cheers,
Clever Monier


----------



## treefork (Feb 1, 2010)

Truth never damages a cause that is just." 
― Mahatma Gandhi


----------



## Henry the Hermit (Jun 2, 2010)

WATERLOGIC said:


> No thinkering, aiding tools, anchors, knots etc just thread the rubber through three holes - can you make it faster with anything that you use ?


Pretty sure I can. Any Dankun slotted hole frame or one of my Ring Shooters and a set of looped small tubes. 5~10 seconds depending on how much of a hurry I'm in.


----------



## S.S. sLinGeR (Oct 17, 2013)

Henry in Panama said:


> WATERLOGIC said:
> 
> 
> > No thinkering, aiding tools, anchors, knots etc just thread the rubber through three holes - can you make it faster with anything that you use ?
> ...


And it looks nice this way


----------



## Bill Hays (Aug 9, 2010)

WATERLOGIC said:


> In my experience rubber fails/wears at the pouch first.
> 
> *A new attachment design at this point is required . *
> 
> ...


No what you have here is not a better way.

It is easier to attach to the pouch, yes... but once the tube wears out the whole tube is no longer useful.

With the more traditional way, all you have to do is cut off the worn part and retie a little shorter... with your method it halves the length when worn as opposed to taking only a couple of centimeters out.


----------



## treefork (Feb 1, 2010)

"A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush."


----------



## S.S. sLinGeR (Oct 17, 2013)

.


----------



## gbeauvin (Mar 7, 2014)

As amusing as this post has been to read... speaking as a newcomer to the forum... this thread might just need to die.

Just Sayin'.

-GB

P.S. Yes, I recognize the irony of bumping the thread to the top in order to say "let it die, please" lol

P.P.S. In no way am I suggesting that my method of killing threads is better than any other method that might, or might not, use more (or less) holes in the fork. There are, however, lots of holes in my catchbox. Which must needs be remedied.


----------



## Bill Hays (Aug 9, 2010)

Let me see if I can make this a little more clear for you... since you say you have a base in structural engineering and apparently not in good frame or shooting physics.

The slingshot you show is based on the Rambone design... but your version requires longer forks to accommodate the three holes instead of the one hole the actual design calls for.

Now that you know for sure how that one hole is supposed to be used, making three holes redundant and unnecessary.. Your objections to one hole were basically it's difficult to adjust the length and a piece of string is used to pull the tubing through the hole....

Well the fact of the matter is you're wrong on both counts.

It's very easy to flip the loop back over the fork and adjust length of pull, and a string is not required.. it's only a convenience.

What I do see as a problem with your three hole system is you are making the fork longer while at the same time weakening the structure by drilling holes in it... So you now have a longer lever pulling against your holding hand... which increases perceived force and instability.... all stuff a "structural engineer" should have picked up on instantly.

True plywood is generally strong enough to take some extra length and more holes.. but that does not take away from the leverage instability you've accentuated with the longer fork arms.

When people (newcomers) try to copy your idea, if worthwhile, they _might_ not realize that all wood is not created equal and critically weaken a frame they've made... and end up with a face full of broken off fork....

That being said... I can see certain slingshot designs where this technique would be an acceptable method... yet I still don't see how it's better than simply using one or two holes.

Maybe, just maybe.... if you spent 5 minutes making a simple video outlining your idea and it's implementation, instead of spending much more time than that explaining why you're not doing it... some of this could be dealt with in a more efficient manner.


----------



## oldmiser (Jan 22, 2014)

My opinion for what is is worth..too many hole too attach the tubing..If you are happy with this shooter ..good for you

Not my style..You should really go back to basics...Keep it simple & safe..Just saying is all..not to cause any arguements

AKAOldmiser


----------



## BCLuxor (Aug 24, 2010)

http://i1134.photobucket.com/albums/m620/luxor5/Mobile%20Uploads/5c2d9626-d5b6-498c-9e44-371b58bf16d6.jpg


----------



## SmilingFury (Jul 2, 2013)

The ZLOCK SYSTEM!!!! Reminds me of a quote.

"There's a fine line between fishing and just standing on the shore like an idiot."

-Steven Wright


----------



## Mrs. Clever Moniker (Nov 3, 2013)

For a dude that spends so much time outside skiing in the winter instead of *using* slingshots, you certainly spend a lot of time posting stuff on the slingshot forum about slingshots.....and talking about how you would rather being skiing...than *using* slingshots.....










oh and also: random quote :

" All living things eat, so everyone poops." - Everyone Poops -Taro Gomi.


----------



## kobe23 (Jun 28, 2010)

Err... Structural engineer, okay, you win, until I say I am the technical authority. Hahaha


----------



## Henry the Hermit (Jun 2, 2010)

OK folks, we're getting dangerously close to making this thread all about personalities and not about slingshots. How about we all take a beer break, or sumthjin'?


----------



## Mrs. Clever Moniker (Nov 3, 2013)

Henry in Panama said:


> OK folks, we're getting dangerously close to making this thread all about personalities and not about slingshots. How about we all take a beer break, or sumthjin'?


You had me at beer


----------



## AmmoMike (Dec 31, 2013)

I like the shooter, kinda reminds me of my "Knuckle Alien" 
The rest is just plain comical !!! Lmfao


----------



## SmilingFury (Jul 2, 2013)

...ok, so you have heard of two hole attachment systems?...

...THREE HOLE ATTACHMENT SYSTEM!!!

...7minute abs brah!!!

Sorry, my random quote:

"My belt holds my pants up, but the belt loops hold my belt up. I don't really know what's happening down there. Who is the real hero?"
-mitch hedberg


----------



## RHTWIST (Jan 31, 2014)

I made a little pocket shooter (also ks for "kitchen shooter" as we shoot light ammo into a trap in the kitchen)

yesterday for my 10yr old Nephew that was over hanging out with the family and my 13yr old son,

my biggest shooting fan. We collected forks in the morning and then I did this little board cut ps with 3 holes

that zig zag on each fork. The holes were 5/64s and the tubes were 1/8 OD. What a great little shooter!

BBs and other light ammo gave no slap, plenty of zip and attachment was a breeze. the tubes slipped a

wee bit over many shots, giving a tug here and there set everything right. I might try pulling a double

through the bottom hole for a more solid anchor. Great info from all. -CD


----------



## treefork (Feb 1, 2010)

Of course, I can get a hell of a good look at a T-Bone steak by sticking my head up a bull's ass, but I'd rather take the butcher's word for it.

Big Tom Callahan from the movie " Tommy Boy"


----------



## lightgeoduck (Apr 3, 2011)

SmilingFury said:


> ...ok, so you have heard of two hole attachment systems?...
> 
> ...THREE HOLE ATTACHMENT SYSTEM!!!
> 
> ...


That is exactly, what I was thinking.. three holes will only be the best thing until someone smarter than us can think about a clever catchy name for a four hole attachment 

Here is my take on this... It is a nice way to attach tubes.. I like new ways of attaching rubber to slingshots... in fact , I have been fortunate to have created a few methods that work well, for what it is, as have many others.. I am also sure I would have tried this method if I had a slingshot that already had three holes ... I mean why not? there is nothing more tempting than sticking tubes in holes.

I agree with the benefits that the OP listed.. not to the point where I would say it's the best.. or innovating enough to dub it a name .

The negatives I see with it.. too much rubber is needed to be used.. and unless one uses excessive tube length where it ACTUALLY benefits having should a tear occur.. meaning.. if there is a tear, that you can still use the material to make another set... otherwise you just have wasted tube.. or excessive short bits for cuffs.

Some of the other negatives I see, either already have been mentioned, or just out of personal preference.

So in summary..

Great thinking out of the box.. always nice seeing different ideas being shared,,, because we never know who it will benefit.

However, I just don't see any evidence of this being "better" than all other methods..

If you are looking for a quick method.. just use one hole and tie the tube.. I have done tests with single tube where it holds well on para tabs..

http://slingshotforum.com/topic/22054-attaching-single-small-tube-set-to-paracord-tabs/

I have a video too (somewhere) but you can test it for yourself... disclaimer (though I have had no issues doing this, it doesn't mean you won't )

LGD


----------



## Henry the Hermit (Jun 2, 2010)

I merged these two topics because they are essentially the same subject.


----------



## Clever Moniker (May 12, 2013)

Henry in Panama said:


> I merged these two topics because they are essentially the same subject.


Okay, I kept looking for it worried it may have been deleted! I have a genuine interest in different attachment methods.

Thanks Henry.


----------



## BCLuxor (Aug 24, 2010)

Personally after shooting many thousands of rounds from looped tubes over the years I have gravitated to this method. It also allows for much smaller material requirements due to the fact no one point of the frame is weakened to allow the looped tubes into the holes. Band changes take less than 30 seconds and the frames do not require any specific grip method ie hammer grip to avoid messing with the rubber as a shot is drawn.


----------



## RHTWIST (Jan 31, 2014)

It's been too cold too long, I really want spring to come. - CD


----------



## LVO (Sep 25, 2011)

I was really interested in a new method. For me, the real deal killer was all the extra tubing it took. To paraphrase what Henry said, can't beat the speed of swapping tubes on my "Beankung" or my ring shooters.

Hey guys, you all need to PM Beanflip and bother the heck out of him for one of his beankung shooters!! :bowdown:


----------

