Posted 06 July 2016 - 11:38 AM

The "original intent" was to achieve similar (or better) performance than a stage 3 modified Crossbow. And for it to not simply be a replica, but rather a war-serviceable and dependable primary. That was something only a few people modifying Crossbows could claim at the time Because that blaster had the ergonomics in spades, but was very lacking in structure and durability. A perfectly made "Stage 3" Crossbow goes so far beyond a modification that it borders on being a homemade. So the thought was to just start from scratch.

Every other criteria added or removed are things that are ancillary to that core premise of providing wider access to what an ever-increasingly rare primary afforded in terms of function. What the plusbow REALLY offered was a ridiculously overpowered spring that was widely available and the basic platform of the plusbow took advantage of that spring. It's much easier to dial performance back or compromise it than it is to edge it a little further forward. The plusbow would not have a reputation without the K26 spring, though AR-15 recoil buffer springs were an alternative that I used to develop the prototypes. They proved to be just a tad too heavy.

Rev.3 marries everything learned from Rev.1 and Rev.2 with a few things learned from the 2-11.

Rev.3 shares the same plunger, plunger tube, spring, draw length, and control layout dimensions of the prior two versions. The stronger plunger tube negates the need for the side plates, which offered some advantages (namely an integration rail) but had plenty of draw backs as well (fussiest parts to make, easiest parts to break).

Rev.3 isn't the only fish in the sea as there are plenty of other platforms available now. Homemades have come a very long way in the past 10 years.