General thoughts between Rob Allen Roller 100 and 110?

[goncaloMI]

Hey guys,

I am currently using a Picasso Cobra 90 which works perfectly for the rocky/shallow bottom of Madeira. However I want to get a second gun to have more range for those deeper dives and waits with 20-30 m visibility. I am inclined to Rob Allen roller guns, but don't know the size. Should I go for a 100 or 110?

Cheers

 

[musubi]

Go for the 110. It's been good to me all around and for getting a bit more reach.

 

[Mr. X]

I seem to recall RA saying the 110 roller is as long as a roller needs to be(?). Surpassing the power of their powerful double band 120, 130 (& 140?), conventional railguns.

That said, I believe they offer 150 and 160 railguns too. Perhaps as custom specials? And possibly double rollers too now ( or perhaps that is just a third-party offering (see YouTube for more on that ).

That said, both 100 and 110 RA rollerguns will likely be very powerful and robust enough for big fish.

The distance you can see will usually dictate the most appropriate length(s). Longer spearguns tend to be more cumbersome in the water but typically offer more power and range.

Perhaps worth considering a lighter carbon- barrel? To help offset the extra mass of the muzzle? (Although I think sometimes RA add muzzle weights to counter excessive buoyancy for some of their longer railguns). [But my relatively short RA 90 Sparid was distinctly muzzle heavy]

 

[Sorcerer]

Based on the Jesse Spillers simulations and research there is a lot to it. Basicly a gun needs couple of things to be balanced.
- Proper own mass to control recoil
- Proper shaft diam and lenght to have enough penetration power and not bend/flex too much at certain power levels. A higher diam shaft will have less flex and lower penetration but higher momentum to keep up with penetration. It allows to add power too.
- Proper propulsion - different systems have different recoil / power ratios and lighter or longer guns will limit what you can use.
The gun design is a VERY dynamic system. Lots of factors affecting each other and how they correlate with each other.

Based on Jesse simulations and paper I do regret a bit going for carbon cuttle barrel for 140cm blue water guns that I build for myself and my buddy currently but I think I am gonna make it work.
I had to adjust my plan and due to low mass I decided to add one of the biggest reels (but with as much buoyancy possible) instead of break away in order to add mass to the gun system to lower recoil.
I also totally had to move away from 2 hot rubbers due to insufficient power and too big recoil for 7.5x180-190cm shaft in favor for double roller and inverted.

So from very simple and relatively cheap gun idea the cost went up twice per gun.
140cm Barrels 80euro, Ermes handle 75euro with muzzle. 70euro RA drop barbs. 2x14mm 12euro. But boy I was so wrong
+70-200euro muzzle (Invert + double roller)
+70euro reel
+70euro 100m dyneema.
+20euro for bands over standard.

HIgher maintanance in future aswell. It would probably been a cheaper solution overall to get someone make me a wood barrel locally.
I can't imagine myself doing it again if I had no access to majdq8 and Jesse from Technicaspearguns work and many others.

I just wish spanish suppliers and postal service didnt screw around on every step and I might finish whole build process after wahoo season is over...
The reality living in 3rd world country, yes I consider Spain as it.




-

 

[goncaloMI]

I seem to recall RA saying the 110 roller is as long as a roller needs to be(?). Surpassing the power of their powerful double band 120, 130 (& 140?), conventional railguns.

That said, I believe they offer 150 and 160 railguns too. Perhaps as custom specials? And possibly double rollers too now ( or perhaps that is just a third-party offering (see YouTube for more on that ).

That said, both 100 and 110 RA rollerguns will likely be very powerful and robust enough for big fish.

The distance you can see will usually dictate the most appropriate length(s). Longer spearguns tend to be more cumbersome in the water but typically offer more power and range.

Perhaps worth considering a lighter carbon- barrel? To help offset the extra mass of the muzzle? (Although I think sometimes RA add muzzle weights to counter excessive buoyancy for some of their longer railguns). [But my relatively short RA 90 Sparid was distinctly muzzle heavy]

Thanks for the input! I also think that Rob Allen recommends the RA roller at 110cm. I will consider it between the 100 and 110. Moving to a carbon barrel makes significantly more expensive and I recall that in terms of, for instance, reduced recoil there's no much gain from aluminum. I believe this is not the case however for railguns.

Regarding the weight of RA guns, that's something that makes me a little concern since I am used to lighter guns. At the moment I have got my hands on a Pathos Sniper Roller 105, did not test it but I am hoping that will be lighter that RA roller. I know that there are some pros and cons with these guns
but I will give it a try.

 

[Mr. X]

I wasn't thinking about carbon for recoil, in fact, being lighter than aluminium, I would think carbon would experience more rather than less recoil.

Rollerguns have very little recoil, so it was not a concern to me. I was thinking more about reduced mass and reduced inertia. E.g I find my slim, light, carbon-barrel Omer XXV spearguns easier to carry, move and swing, both in and out of the water, compared to my aluminium spearguns, railgun and rollergun.

Re. Cost, yes, While I appreciate lighter carbon- barrels I probably would not pay a lot more for that option. My last carbon fishing rod cost, I think, less than £20 - so apparently carbon tubes need not be expensive.

Yes, I too would expect the Pathos to be lighter