Extensive Adventure Force Sportsman reliability testing

This has previously been posted on reddit, here. I'm resposting on this blog primarily for the sake of having an archive with all of my work with this blaster in one easily-searchable place.

The Adventure Force Sportsman does something that conventional wisdom has held for years to be impossible: it feeds darts into a chamber through a hopper. Naturally, this raises concerns about whether this blaster can do so reliably. As a hopper-fed blaster, the Sportsman should be great for scavenging and for lightweight loadouts that avoid the use of magazines - if it is sufficiently reliable. That's a big "if," and that's what I set out to test here.

This is going to be a long, drawn-out post on a single blaster. There's a summary of the results near the start, after the jump.

This testing was performed with a mostly consistent procedure with variations intended to represent different usage conditions. One dart was inserted into the chamber, the hopper was filled with 20 Adventure Force darts (mostly the darts that came with the Sportsman, supplementing as needed with darts that came with a Commandfire), and the handle was pumped at a moderate pace while holding the blaster roughly horizontal. Since the Sportsman has a pusher breech and no double-prime lock, the feeding mechanism could be tested just by pumping the handle - darts that feed successfully displace the chambered dart and push it out of the front. The blaster was tipped forwards between “shots” in order to see whether a dart falls out of the front.

Each test consisted of a number of trials wherein the hopper was filled to capacity, and the action cycled until the hopper was empty, however long that took.

TL;DR Results

While testing the blaster under a range of conditions that simulate normal usage, 77 failures occurred over 2,477 attempted shots. This is a failure rate of 3%.

Under ideal conditions, a much lower failure rate can be expected, of 1%.

This blaster is reasonably tolerant of crushed, wet, and dirty darts. It is reasonably tolerant of rough handling. It seems to work about as well with mixed non-AF darts as with AF darts. All of these are part of the "normal usage" that leads to the aforementioned 3% failure rate.

This blaster's reliability decreases dramatically when held at an excessive angle, when the handle is pumped rapidly, and when loaded improperly. These conditions were not considered to be under normal usage.

More failures occurred when the hopper was nearly full or nearly empty, but no level of filling was perfectly reliable.

This blaster is sensitive to overstuffing, but would be hard to overstuff accidentally as the hopper lid is noticeably harder to close when overstuffed enough to present a problem. 

Failure modes observed

Five distinct failure modes were observed:

• Failure to feed, abbreviated FTF, was the most common. Sometimes, darts just didn’t come out for no discernible reason. This problem usually resolved itself; the next cycle of the action after a failure to feed usually results in a dart feeding.
• Repeated failure to feed, abbreviated as RFTF, means a run of failures to feed. Occasionally this would occur for no discernible reason. These run vary in length from two to at least 10 (before I stopped counting and manually shuffled the darts to resolve the issue). The length of these runs was not recorded; a repeated failure to feed is just as annoying when not under threat and liable to end your game otherwise whether it is two darts in a row that fail to fire or more.
• A parallel clog occurs when two darts lodge themselves under the agitation flaps and occupy the space above the pusher breech. This happened most often when the hopper was overstuffed and was counted as a type of RFTF.
• A jam occurred when a dart was pinched by the pusher breech. This usually crushes the dart, but if the action is worked carefully damage to the dart is minimal. When a jam occurred, the dart was replaced before proceeding.
• Rarely, a chambered dart would fall out of the front of the blaster. This only occurred during rough handling.
  

Since I’m also interested in seeing whether this blaster is more reliable when the hopper is mostly full or empty, I also recorded when each failure occurred.

Testing typical usage conditions

Twenty trials each were conducted under each of these conditions, which totals 400 shots.

Normal conditions

The hopper was filled and emptied 20 times. Only four failures were observed in total:

• A single jam, which occurred when there were 3 darts remaining in the hopper.
• Three failures to feed, which respectively occurred with 1, 2, and 8 darts remaining.
  

Four failures out of 404 shots isn’t great, but is much better than I expected. (404 is 20 x 20 successful shots, plus the four failures themselves). I’ve seen magfed springers that’ve done worse.

I think that many of us are wary of this blaster due to its new feeding mechanism; it has been accepted as conventional wisdom for years that a hopper-fed dart blaster could never work. Yet, this is a hopper-fed dart blaster and it *does* work.

Mixed darts

20 full hoppers were pushed through the breech, each containing four Elite darts and sixteen streamlines. (That’s what I have available right now. I’ve been separated from most of my blasters and ammo due to covid.)

6 failures were observed:

• One RFTF when fully loaded.
• Two jams, both of which occurred with one dart remaining.
• Three FTFs, which occurred with 19, 1, and 1 darts remaining.
  

This is too small of a sample size to draw firm conclusions about the relative reliability with AF and mixed other darts. However, we can say with confidence that there isn’t a large difference in reliability, and reliability in both cases is not bad.

Damaged darts

Ten darts that had previously been mangled in a jam were stomped on with boots on a hard floor and then further crushed by hand. These were mixed with ten new darts. The darts, after mangling, are shown here.

Since this test was conducted with exactly 20 darts, the chamber was not initially loaded. Visual inspection of the chamber through the front of the barrel was used to confirm if the first dart had chambered successfully.

17 failures were observed.

• 6 FTFs with 19, 18, 11, 5, 3, and 1 darts remaining.
• 11 jams with 20, 9, 7, 3, 3, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1, and 1 darts remaining.
  

A high proportion of jams occurred with the drum less than half full, and most of those occurred with 3, 2, or 1 darts remaining. Presumably a full hopper holds the darts straight enough to prevent the tail end of a bent dart from curving upwards out of the path of the bolt.

The mangled darts straightened themselves out over time. AF darts are impressively resilient - and arguably this test reflects better on the darts used than on the blaster. I would repeat this test with damaged Hasbro darts were it not for the fact that I have very few Hasbro darts to hand at the moment.

Rough handling

The blaster was given an end-over-end “terminator flip” immediately before each time the pump was actuated. This was intended to simulate rough handling of the blaster while running around in a game.

Twenty failures were observed in total.

• 14 FTFs occurred, with 13, 10, 10, 10, 8, 6, 4, 3, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, and 1 darts remaining.
• One RFTF occurred on a full hopper.
• 2 jams with 1 and 2 darts remaining.
• Three incidents where a dart fell out of the chamber during a flip.
  

Wet darts

The bucket into which the darts were “fired” was replaced with a bucket of water, and the darts were thoroughly wetted before loading. Water dripped through the blaster in such quantity that this test needed to be performed over a towel.

Thirteen failures were observed.

• Twelve FTFs, with 20, 20, 20, 20, 19, 16, 15, 11, 11, 5, 1, and 1 darts remaining.  
• One jam, which occurred with 16 darts remaining.
  

The large proportion of initial FTFs seems to be due to the darts sticking together.

This was the second-to-last test performed.

Dirty darts

This test was performed immediately after the wet darts test, with the same procedure with the exception of the replacement of the bucket of water with a bucket of moist potting compost. Notably increased friction was felt when feeding darts forwards into the chamber.

Seventeen failures were observed.

• 11 FTFs with 20, 20, 20, 20, 3, 3, 2, 1,1, 1, and 1 darts remaining.
• One RFTF with 19 darts remaining.
• 5 jams with 20, 20, 12, 11, and 2 darts remaining.
  

This was the final test performed; the blaster was disassembled for cleaning immediately afterwards. 

Full vs empty hopper

Collating all of the above (except for failures where a dart fell out of the chamber during rough handling as those have nothing to do with the state of the hopper) gives the following results:

The most failures occurred when the hopper was either nearly full or nearly empty. Ignoring wet and dirty darts, the most failures occurred when the hopper was nearly empty but there was no amount of loading where the hopper functioned perfectly reliably.

Abnormal usage conditions

Angled firing

The hopper was filled and emptied 5 times, while holding the blaster at a roughly 45 degree angle, rotated about the axis of the bore. This was intended to simulate use of the blaster while running and maneuvering.

Over these 5 trials, a total of 26 failures occurred.

• Three jams, which occurred with 3, 12, and 17 darts remaining in the hopper.
• Six RFTF, three of which occurred with 1 dart remaining, one with 6, and one with 2.
• Seventeen FTF, which occurred with 17, 13, 13, 12, 12, 11, 9, 9, 9, 8, 4, 4, 4, 3, 2, 2, and 2 darts remaining.
  

That’s pretty bad. This blaster is one that needs to be held upright in order to function reliable. That’s not necessarily a killer flaw - I knew someone who’d wield his Stampedes upside-down back around 2010 or so so that he could make Raider drums feed reliably. Compared to that, needing to hold a blaster the right way up should be easy!

Rough loading

The blaster was loaded roughly, a some might do when cramming darts in in a hurry. Six trials were conducted.

A total of 13 failures occurred.

• 4 FTFs with 20, 19, 18, and 6 darts
• 4 RFTFs with 20, 19, 7, and 3 darts, including a parallel clog
• 2 jams with 7 and 5 darts
• Burst open three times, twice when full and once with 19 darts
  

Rapid pumping

The pump of the blaster was cranked very rapidly - as fast as I physically could without risk of short-stroking. Only 5 trials were conducted and each was carried out only until a jam occurred, in order to minimize the number of darts destroyed in jams.

The results of each trial were as follows:

• One dart ‘fired’ and three FTFs
• One dart ‘fired’
• 5 darts ‘fired’, 2 FTFs
• 3 darts ‘fired’
• A single dart ‘fired’ again
  

Clearly, this blaster does not serve well when the grip is pumped rapidly!

Overstuffing

21 darts were loaded into the hopper, and the grip was pumped five times, with the trial repeated 10 times. (That’s only five because the purpose of this test is to determine the blaster’s susceptibility to overstuffing.)

Only one failure was observed: an RFTF on the first shot. Other than that, the blaster worked fine. This level of reliability is consistent with what was observed with a hopper loaded to capacity.

This was repeated with the hopper loaded with 22 darts. Over 10 trials, there were:

• 2 FTFs
• 4 RFTFs, including 2 parallel clogs
• Once, the lid popped open
  

The blaster was loaded with 25 darts next. Only five trials were conducted, but each ended in failure with only five darts successfully ‘fired’ in total:

• Once, the slide was locked due to pressure from the darts against the agitation panels.
• A parallel clog occurred, with one shot loaded successfully first.
• Three times, the lid popped open - once after successfully cycling through four darts.
  

This blaster is tolerant of being slightly overfilled, as may happen accidentally. However, it quickly looses reliability when crammed full of darts. As a rule of thumb, if the lid offers resistance on closing the blaster needs fewer darts.

Conclusion

The Adventure Force Sportsman is a surprisingly reliable blaster given that it fires darts from a hopper, but it does not fare well compared to a well-functioning magazine-fed blaster.

This blaster is tantalizingly almost suitable for a number of roles, but it just isn’t quite reliable or robust enough for each. It would make a good loaner blaster due to the lack of need for magazines and ease of use with bulk-loaded and scavenged darts were it not for the fact that it takes some care and finesse to use effectively. It would be good for long games such as HvZ where the ability to scavenge darts is useful and the lack of need for magazines could make for an overall high-ammo yet lightweight loadout, except for the fact that reliability is paramount in HvZ and this just isn’t quite perfectly reliable even under optimal conditions.

I'll admit that I'm a little biased in favor of this blaster because it's nifty. I'm looking for roles that this blaster could fill well. Perhaps I'm taking a backwards approach - looking for problems for a solution - but nonetheless that's my current thought process.

The main role that comes to my mind where this blaster could excel is as part of an integration. This blaster could be used to plink at distant targets and provide deterrent fire while not under threat, while the other component of the integration would be relied on for defense. It may be worthwhile to convert this blaster to lever of bolt action, as that would naturally slow cycling while leaving the pump-grip area free for use by the other component of the integration.

In this role, the closest point of comparison would be a Commandfire or Swarmfire. Both blasters require batteries and overall higher weight but offer automatic fire, which while not necessary is still nice to have for a suppressive role. The Swarmfire is slower to load but much more reliable; Swarmfires are often used as the defensive component of an integration. (The Commandfire has a larger hopper by default, but hoppers are relatively easy to expand so I do not consider this to be a major factor). Importantly, neither blaster is strictly superior to this one; so there *is* a narrow role in which this blaster could excel.

Maybe there's more ways to put this blaster to good use - and identifying this blaster's capabilities is the first step to finding them. Hence, this testing.