# compound applicator on the mudrunner



## sdrdrywall (Sep 4, 2010)

Does anyone use the mudrunner with the compound applicator tips I usually use the cornerbox .just thinking about other ways


----------



## JustMe (Apr 17, 2009)

sdrdrywall said:


> Does anyone use the mudrunner with the compound applicator tips I usually use the cornerbox .just thinking about other ways


Compound tube. Columbia's 42" works well for me. Smooth, easy to push.

If you do use a MudRunner, I don't know how much psi force yours might give, and I've never used mine that way. Some pistons in them might be stronger than others, or the walls of the Runner tube might create more drag than others.
So I don't know what mud thickness you could get away with, before it got too slow to use that way. But I'd want the openings in any applicators I was using to be large, so less flow restriction when the angle of the Runner to the applicator tips was such that it would partially close off the opening at the tip.


----------



## Square Foot (Jul 1, 2012)

sdrdrywall said:


> Does anyone use the mudrunner with the compound applicator tips I usually use the cornerbox .just thinking about other ways


I have had the Advanced taping tools 90 degree bead head for a while and just bought the L-bead head to try as an alternative to the 135 degree ( these are too specific ) inside and outside off-angle heads. 

Mud runner works fine. just find the consistency of the mud and the amount of twist that works for you.


----------



## 2buckcanuck (Jul 9, 2010)

Just get one of these, you know you want to buy more tools:thumbup::thumbup:
Picture compliments of "Cazna the tool whore":yes:


----------



## JustMe (Apr 17, 2009)

Square Foot said:


> Mud runner works fine. just find the consistency of the mud and the amount of twist that works for you.


Capt Sheetrock would argue that, I think. He said he can't get thicker mud to work well enough beyond thin angle finish coating mud thickness, even after discussing it with TapeTech's design team.



2buckcanuck said:


> Just get one of these, you know you want to buy more tools:thumbup::thumbup:
> Picture compliments of "Cazna the tool whore":yes:


I'd like to compare one of those to the Columbia tubes. See which worked nicer. Anyone had a chance to do that yet?


----------



## 2buckcanuck (Jul 9, 2010)

JustMe said:


> I'd like to compare one of those to the Columbia tubes. See which worked nicer. Anyone had a chance to do that yet?


Columbia should make one the same diameter , then compare:whistling2:

Bottom line, tapepro holds more, so you get more distance (more production:yes. There's no majour difference in feel neither, and 2bjr has not broke it yet either:whistling2:

I would even get one that was 60" long too, if someone made them


----------



## JustMe (Apr 17, 2009)

2buckcanuck said:


> Columbia should make one the same diameter , then compare:whistling2:
> 
> Bottom line, tapepro holds more, so you get more distance (more production:yes. There's no majour difference in feel neither, and 2bjr has not broke it yet either:whistling2:


I wonder what the amount difference is. I'll measure mine, if you'll measure yours. 



2buckcanuck said:


> I would even get one that was 60" long too, if someone made them


To refresh your memory, I told you before that Can-Am does, and to pull out the handle and remove the screw in it that prevents you from pulling the plunger all the way back.

Only ran a 60" once, though. A bit awkward feeling, but maybe could've gotten used to it. Never tried running it with the screw removed, although I pulled it apart to see why the plunger wouldn't go all the way back.

http://www.canamtool.com/products/applicator-tubes/#A400_60

Can-Ams I've used never pushed as easily as my Columbia does.


----------



## 2buckcanuck (Jul 9, 2010)

JustMe said:


> I wonder what the amount difference is. I'll measure mine, if you'll measure yours.


Mine will be much bigger:whistling2:

Think it got 5.5 eight foot beads or 6. That's with the screw off the handle also, using a can-am bead applicator. Think the BTE tube did 4 beads. And if I remember right, if you fill the cp tube with a pump, it gets more distance (less air sucked up)

Will check on corner flushing too, using a can-am head. 2bjr said he noticed a big difference there. may be the better yard stick to compare to for distance (angles).

Guessing you will want 2 measures, one with screw in handle and one with out:whistling2:


----------



## gazman (Apr 29, 2011)

Why not just suck it full of water then empty it into a bucket and measure how many liters or pints that you have.

My money is on the tape-pro.:yes:


----------



## 2buckcanuck (Jul 9, 2010)

gazman said:


> Why not just suck it full of water then empty it into a bucket and measure how many liters or pints that you have.
> 
> My money is on the tape-pro.:yes:


smart arse

We shall fill Timmy cups then:whistling2:


----------



## gazman (Apr 29, 2011)

Sorry 2Bucky, was that too simple for you?


----------



## 2buckcanuck (Jul 9, 2010)

gazman said:


> Sorry 2Bucky, was too simple for you?


Yes
But on the other hand, I think justme is looking for distance, how much more farther will it travel

So we still get to play in the mud:whistling2::thumbup:


----------



## gazman (Apr 29, 2011)

sdrdrywall said:


> Does anyone use the mudrunner with the compound applicator tips I usually use the cornerbox .just thinking about other ways



I have used My Tape tech internal and advance external applicators with my mudrunner, both very successful.:thumbsup:


----------



## Square Foot (Jul 1, 2012)

JustMe said:


> Capt Sheetrock would argue that, I think. He said he can't get thicker mud to work well enough beyond thin angle finish coating mud thickness, even after discussing it with TapeTech's design team.
> 
> I'd like to compare one of those to the Columbia tubes. See which worked nicer. Anyone had a chance to do that yet?


Not sure what the problem is with Captains sample ( maybe a weak charged piston? ), but I've been using two for the past 9 years and both are able to push mud that was thicker than what could be used in angle boxes.

Now, too thick of mud, it slows down to a crawl. Too thin and you've got a mess, but as I said earlier....you need twist control for flow as well.

I did have to take one apart about 2 yrs ago due to a dry mud build up in the rod sleeve which was causing a problem pushing the mud out.


----------



## JustMe (Apr 17, 2009)

2buckcanuck said:


> Yes
> But on the other hand, I think justme is looking for distance, how much more farther will it travel
> 
> So we still get to play in the mud:whistling2::thumbup:


:no:

I was thinking just sucking water up and putting it into a measuring container. I have a l liter glass one I could use.

As for distance, that could vary, depending on how well the tube works, the operator, job conditions. Eg. On my jobs, chances are Very likely I'll have more gap in the corners, and so those could use up more mud - although I try to not pump them full of mud any more than necessary/possible, especially bead that's out of the way, like bulkheads.

One thing I consider is useability, and control. Example: With my Columbia, I can fairly easily coat a 10' high bulkhead for bead using one hand on the handle only, to get enough reach from the floor, and still leave a nice enough strip of mud. Or coat a 9-10' high column for bead, using one hand the closer I get to the top, while standing on the ground. That adds to production.
Harder to do with the Can-Ams of the same length that I've used, as the Can-Ams are just that much tighter built.

Not saying that such isn't possible with the TapePro as with my Columbia. But if yours is a bigger piston diameter, which from the pics I'd say it is, it will likely require more push than mine will. More wear on the shoulders, for one thing.

As for the 60" Can-Am I mentioned, I'd think a little hard - think things through as best as possible - before buying one.


----------



## JustMe (Apr 17, 2009)

....


----------



## Square Foot (Jul 1, 2012)

JustMe said:


> :no:
> 
> I was thinking just sucking water up and putting it into a measuring container. I have a l liter glass one I could use.
> 
> ...


Does the mud have to be super thin in order to run comfortably ? Years in the field and injuries ( linked to stupidity ) are catching up with me, so the less strain the better.

The Columbia looks nice, but the push handle on the TapePro looks like it might be more comfortable.


----------



## tomg (Dec 16, 2009)

Should be about 2.22 litres with the stop screw at 6" from the piston.

Cheers,
Tom.


----------



## 2buckcanuck (Jul 9, 2010)

tomg said:


> Should be about 2.22 litres with the stop screw at 6" from the piston.
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom.


UUUHHHMMMMM:whistling2: I must be bored.

I checked how much a large tim Horton's cup of coffee holds. It holds 450 liters. So 222 liters divided by 450 is 4.93 liters, which didn't sound right. So I filled the tube with coffee cup counts.

I was 5 cups, going past the 6" stop screw, about half a inch from where the black end cap would go on, so somebody is wrong then:whistling2:

Justme, if your bored, go get yourself a Timmies. Then play with your can-am cp tube


----------



## JustMe (Apr 17, 2009)

tomg said:


> Should be about 2.22 litres with the stop screw at 6" from the piston.
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom.


Thanks, Tom. My 42" Columbia is measuring 1.8L.

Wonder what one might get if the stop screw was removed from the TapePro - if it runs okay without it, and doesn't create problems for things like the seals at some point.
Is it 42" long? That would then give about another .37L, with the screw gone(?) That would make it around 2.6L. Not too shabby. 



Square Foot said:


> Does the mud have to be super thin in order to run comfortably ? Years in the field and injuries ( linked to stupidity ) are catching up with me, so the less strain the better.
> 
> The Columbia looks nice, but the push handle on the TapePro looks like it might be more comfortable.


I hear you. Body parts on me aren't prime, either.

The Tapepro ball handle could be alright to use. But my fingers might start to lock up pretty quickly if they had to be wrapped around it for anything more than short stretches.
But if I could get the palm behind the ball some soon enough, often enough, maybe it could then be okay enough.

I don't know how the ball might affect any reaching of higher spots using one hand only - if the handling would still be okay, like I find it to be with the Columbia as it now is. I think I'd find it easier to use a regular shaped handle for control, when doing the higher stuff that I do with one hand.
But if the Tapepro was smooth enough operating, maybe its ball design would be good as well.

I've run the mud as thick as I've wanted with the Columbia, and it always pushes smooth. This might be a master of the obvious statement to most, but something to keep in mind is that the longer the tube, &/or the wider the tube (if the tube is of a similar length to what you're comparing to), the more mud you have creating resistance by it dragging on the walls while you're trying to push it out.

That's not to say that whatever the TapePro is made of isn't a good material when it comes to reducing drag resistance of mud on the walls. Maybe it does a good job of that.
It would be nice to have someone who was in a position to compare the 2 compound tubes.


----------



## 2buckcanuck (Jul 9, 2010)

Justme

about a week ago, 2bjr started going on out of no where, about the tapepro cp tube. He was all negative to it, when he first seen it, especially to the round ball. Now he loves it.

we have both ran BTE and can-am over the years, but not the columbia. We both like the tapepro better, just half to see how well it holds up in 2bjr's hands.

Bottom line, the round ball is better, better grip to pull back on, and more easy to push on. The back end pops off very easy for cleaning. The front end has 2 screws that may be twisted off by hand too, if you needed to. It's has a bit more of a slope/angle to it, so you can pump out the back of closets more easy. Plus as the seal wears out, looks like you can add more tension by turning on the bolt. (will half to further investigate on that though).

My only negative point to it would be the rod in it is more slender, have a fear it could break. But a few more weeks of the tool in 2bjr's hands, will let us know if that is it's weakest link:whistling2:

I might even write a review on it, we like it that much:thumbup:


----------



## JustMe (Apr 17, 2009)

2buckcanuck said:


> *we have both ran BTE and can-am over the years, but not the columbia.* We both like the tapepro better, just half to see how well it holds up in 2bjr's hands.
> 
> Bottom line, the round ball is better, better grip to pull back on, and more easy to push on. The back end pops off very easy for cleaning. The front end has 2 screws that may be twisted off by hand too, if you needed to. It's has a bit more of a slope/angle to it, so you can pump out the back of closets more easy. Plus as the seal wears out, looks like you can add more tension by turning on the bolt. (will half to further investigate on that though).


On the Columbia, anyone who's used mine has never said anything bad. Those familiar a bit with it have grabbed it when it was available, rather than the Can-Ams we also have.

But the TapePro sounds like it's above Can-Ams as well. So it would take a direct comparison to find out which makes more sense.

And that could depend on the jobs one's doing as well. Example: Doing backsides of closets isn't something I do much, in my commercial work.

TapePro's design does sound like it has some interesting features. I don't know how much I might really need to do things like pull my tube apart, though. My Columbia has somewhere around 2 years on it, and still seems fine. Never pulled it apart.

But those haven't been hard years on it, as others have used their tubes as well on some of the bigger jobs I've been on.

My concern about the ball, especially when doing higher mudding with one hand, is especially that it might 'skate' on me, when I was pushing the tube along at an angle.
But if it had a nice balance in how it operated, things might work out fine enough.

And my right hand fingers do lock up pretty easy, which can be annoying, and a little painful at times. I don't know what the ball might do to them, if used for a time. I do know they don't like wrapping themselves around things with larger diameters for too long.


----------



## 2buckcanuck (Jul 9, 2010)

JustMe said:


> On the Columbia, anyone who's used mine has never said anything bad. Those familiar a bit with it have grabbed it when it was available, rather than the Can-Ams we also have.
> 
> But the TapePro sounds like it's above Can-Ams as well. So it would take a direct comparison to find out which makes more sense.
> 
> ...


So should we exchange cp tubes for 2 months, see whose is better.

Or better yet, Tomg can send you a tapepro to try, and Aaron can send me a Columbia to try:jester:

Or maybe:whistling2:...... I will bet you 2 bucks that everyone who has bought the tapepro, will say they like the ball end better than ever

In some ways, not too much to rate on a cp tube. For the money you invest in them, and if you get 4 or 5 years out of one, it has more than paid for it's self. Some times you can replace the seals in them, but I find sometimes you just replace them b/c they can get too many dings in them. (2bjr) or you just want new.

Main thing, is you don't want them to break down within the first year of purchase, which is what happened with the last one we bought. The rubber handle would never stay on, even after many attempts to glue it on our selves. The tube stopped sucking up mud after 6 months, so we had to fill it with our pump for filling boxes/bazooka. Then the rod broke after 8 months, up near the seal.

I won't say who that company was, but if you read the last words of my third sentence, it will give all a hint:whistling2:


----------



## JustMe (Apr 17, 2009)

2buckcanuck said:


> UUUHHHMMMMM:whistling2: I must be bored.
> 
> I checked how much a large tim Horton's cup of coffee holds. It holds 450 liters. So 222 liters divided by 450 is 4.93 liters, which didn't sound right. So I filled the tube with coffee cup counts.
> 
> ...


Just saw this.

Your math seems a wonder. Because it's got me wondering.


----------



## 2buckcanuck (Jul 9, 2010)

JustMe said:


> Just saw this.
> 
> Your math seems a wonder. Because it's got me wondering.


Not my math, tomg's math got me to wondering.

When I read his post, I was wondering how many liters were in a large Tim Hortons cup. So I checked with a measuring cup, it was 450 liters.

Then I did the math,,,,2.22 divided by 450 (move decimal point) 222 by 45, I got 4.93

Then I went to my van, got my tube, and filled it up with a coffee cup, it took 5 cups..... so....... what it is.....

Tomg said 2.22 liters to bottom of 6"set screw, but it would actually be the full tube.
so


----------



## gazman (Apr 29, 2011)

Ok, I got my Tape Pro CP Tube with the screw in place and got a bucket of water and sucked up a tube full. (I pumped it a few times to prime it up and fill the nose cone. Even though I know that is not usable space with mud) I then measured the amount of water using a measuring jug from the kitchen ( Thanks honey) the result was 2 Liters. So that means 4.44 Timmy cups ( 2.00 divided by .450).


----------



## JustMe (Apr 17, 2009)

2buckcanuck said:


> Not my math, tomg's math got me to wondering.


The way you were playing with decimals especially had me wondering. I mean, an over 100 (U.S.) gallon coffee cup? 

In tomg's defense, he did say "about".

As for my 1.8L with the Columbia, that should be the useable amount of mud. No nose cone filling in advance. So if gaz got 2L with nose cone filled and screw in place, then the 2 tubes are close in volume. Unless one pulls the screw in the TapePro.

The TapePro's screw does put the mud's weight out further from the user, which was noticeable in the 60" Can-Am I once tried. Although it held less mud than a 42" Can-Am, because of where the stop screw was in it, it felt a decent amount heavier to use, and not just because of the extra tube length's weight.
But a 20" stop screw is a lot more than 6", when it comes to something like that. So maybe the 6" doesn't make a big difference(?) But there's also the longer piston length in the TapePro to add to that. 1"? 2"?

My 42" Columbia is also noticeably lighter than the 42" Can-Ams. Maybe another example of Columbia using higher quality metals? &/or maybe not wanting to overbuild the tube, to keep the weight down? The TapePro looks like it could be lighter than the Can-Ams as well.

I'm wondering how much life you'll get out of the piston/piston seals, with the stop screw out. Or if it'll make it easier for 2bjr to maybe tweak the handle.
Maybe it'll handle it well enough. Time will tell.

As for the ball on the end, you've got me thinking/wondering. Maybe I'll have to get a wooden or plastic one, and stick it on the end and try it. The rubber handle on my Columbia isn't as solidly attached as are the ones on the Can-Ams.


----------



## 2buckcanuck (Jul 9, 2010)

JustMe said:


> In tomg's defense, he did say "about".


So Tomg's a typical male then, he don't even know his own tool size, yet states it is bigger than it truly is:whistling2:


----------



## JustMe (Apr 17, 2009)

2buckcanuck said:


> So Tomg's a typical male then, he don't even know his own tool size, yet states it is bigger than it truly is:whistling2:


Well, if you didn't know the actual size, would You err on the size of under? Or over? 

But it can be good to get out an actual measuring stick sometimes. If nothing else, one should probably try to know the actual tool volume sizes, when volume can be important enough to influence buying decisions.

Maybe I'll list some other tools/tool sizes I've done measuring on previously, using water. If I can find the paper I wrote them down on.


----------



## DLSdrywall (May 22, 2012)

My BTE cp tube has bit the dust had it 7 years and it has this ungodly air pocket in top end of it. I've grown used to it but i just think of all the loss of production due to loosing a tube full of mud in a house maybe more lol every drop counts


----------



## tomg (Dec 16, 2009)

*Compound Tubes*

I looked at the displacement:

Tube - ID - Length/Stroke - Vol mm3 - Litres - Quarts
36" - 63.37 - 706 - 2226701.474 - 2.23 - 2.35
24" - 63.37 - 520 - 1640063.409 - 1.64 - 1.73

Theoretical - in practice it will always vary a little.
We did move the stop screw from 8" to 6" in the 36" tube. It needs a little overlap to keep the rod aligned to the bore.
The piston rod tube is thick wall anodised aluminium (aluminum) tube - 3/4" x 1/2". You could bend it if you jumped on it - but it's pretty strong.
We used to use it in our pump handle.


----------



## 2buckcanuck (Jul 9, 2010)

tomg said:


> I looked at the displacement:
> 
> Tube - ID - Length/Stroke - Vol mm3 - Litres - Quarts
> 36" - 63.37 - 706 - 2226701.474 - 2.23 - 2.35
> ...


Any plans to make a longer tube:yes::yes::yes:


----------



## JustMe (Apr 17, 2009)

tomg said:


> I looked at the displacement:
> 
> Tube - ID - Length/Stroke - Vol mm3 - Litres - Quarts
> 36" - 63.37 - 706 - 2226701.474 - 2.23 - 2.35


Just to make sure: From the volume displacement amounts you're quoting, that 36" is total tube length, which includes the 6" screw stop length and stop length ID area(?)


As half-promised earlier, found my volume sheet of the tools I'd previously measured, using water, to find out how much they carry. They should be fairly accurate, but not necessarily totally accurate. Eg. When I previously measured my Columbia compound tube, I see I wrote down 1.6 L, instead of the 1.8L I got when I tripled checked it this last time. I think I got more accurate readings on the boxes, as I had double checked them: 

5.5" DM box = .7L
7" (older) TT box = .8L
8" Columbia FatBoy box = 1.6L

10" (older) TT box = 1.2L
10" Power Assist TT box = 1.6L
10" Columbia FatBoy box = 2L

12" (older) TT box = 1.5L
12 Columbia std. size box = 1.6L

Columbia 7" angle box = .9L

Note on the angle box: That likely included water in the nose cone area, which wouldn't be available to use if it was mud being pushed out after being filled. So that # should be less, if one was measuring with mud and not water.


----------



## tomg (Dec 16, 2009)

JustMe said:


> Just to make sure: From the volume displacement amounts you're quoting, that 36" is total tube length, which includes the 6" screw stop length and stop length ID area(?)


36" is the nominal length of the tube. The stroke is measured from where the piston contacts the nozzle to where the stop screw contacts the end cap.
ID is the inside diameter. Volume is pi x r x r x stroke.

Other Tapepro capacities for reference:

AT-2000 - 2.7 l
Mud boxes (both) - 2.5 l (you usually don't fill it this full)
200mm Flat Box - 1.34 l
250mm Flat Box - 1.68 l
300mm Flat Box - 2.01 l
55mm Nail Spotter - .26 l
75mm Nail Spotter - .35 l
Corner Box - .98 l

There abouts ...

Cheers,
Tom.


----------



## JustMe (Apr 17, 2009)

tomg said:


> 36" is the nominal length of the tube.


So overall length is 42", without counting nose cone?

Something else I've been wondering about - do your bead boxing guides work on TapePro/Blueline boxes only, or do they fit up to other boxes like TT and Columbia? Or can they be made to fit well enough with a little modification?


----------



## tomg (Dec 16, 2009)

The blue outer tube is 35" without end ring. The piston rod is 36". Outer tube with end cap is about 36.5"

The Flat Box Bead Guides are designed to fit Tapepro and Blue Line boxes, also old blue Premier if you drill a hole next to the skid for the spring (instructions included in the pack).

We use the skid retaining screw positions for the bead guides, which are different on the other brands.

You could conceivably drill and tap new holes - but would be a bit of work.

Cheers,
Tom.

http://www.tapepro.com/?p=tools&t=fbbg


----------

