Paintball

[brycelarson]

CockerPunk and I did a new backspin bolt test on our new test rig last night. With the excellent donation of an indoor test location by Chris Nathan I think that our rig should hold up to even the scrutiny of the MCB crowd.

Here's a link to the data. I'm not going to post any conclusions at this point - CP will chime in later with some Confidence Interval stuff - which will help with the analysis of the data.

We've also got a video coming up with a quick walk through of the test rig used for this and future experiments.

Google Docs - backspin

Chuck questions our way!

[MondoMor]

Well it certainly looks like backspin is more than just a function of the bolt. It's like the .687 freak amplified the differences between the bolts, but the ratios are similar to the .695 back.

It would be nice to see things like samples of paint size used in the test.


Minnesotans > *

[fasteddy]

Looks like you actually got some supportive evidence that they make a difference. I'd like to see the test rig as well. I typically don't think there is anything precise about paintball tests, too much physical difference. If someone created a paintball gun that shot with the precision of a firearm, these tests would be more valid to me.

[russc]

Looks like the convention of large bore with a backspin bolt doesn't work as well as a tighter bore? What size was the paint?

[cockerpunk]

the .687 insert was the "blow test ideal" for the paint we were using. that puts its at or around .686ish, which with the overbore means we have .009 overbore. also, take a look and you will notice that my backspin bolt did nearly identical to cooperT's.

keep in mind we have more math, and some more intersting stuff here that bryce FAILED to wait for me to do before we posted it. its all good.

lets keep in mind the statsitical relivence of the difference in means.

the rig - YouTube - The New Testing Rig

[fasteddy]

Originally Posted by cockerpunk

also, take a look and you will notice that my backspin bolt did nearly identical to cooperT's.

keep in mind we have more math, and some more intersting stuff here that bryce FAILED to wait for me to do before we posted it. its all good.

lets keep in mind the statsitical relivence of the difference in means.

the rig - YouTube - The New Testing Rig

The cooperT was 100% more effective than yours in creating higher (Y) values from a stock venturi. If this is your total collected data, then the "interesting stuff" you were going to add isn't really needed. Don't get mad at Bryce for posting the information without bias ad-lib.

[fasteddy]

The rig you did for this one is much better than before. Did you track the red-dot's movement after the progression of shots to see if it had changed the barrel's orientation?

[Painthappy]

Very interesting results.... Good job guys!

[brycelarson]

Originally Posted by fasteddy

The rig you did for this one is much better than before. Did you track the red-dot's movement after the progression of shots to see if it had changed the barrel's orientation?

yup, the marked spot stayed through all testing - so we knew alignment stayed similar for every shot.

[Clearush]

Originally Posted by cockerpunk

the .687 insert was the "blow test ideal" for the paint we were using. that puts its at or around .686ish, which with the overbore means we have .009 overbore. also, take a look and you will notice that my backspin bolt did nearly identical to cooperT's.

keep in mind we have more math, and some more intersting stuff here that bryce FAILED to wait for me to do before we posted it. its all good.

lets keep in mind the statsitical relivence of the difference in means.

the rig - YouTube - The New Testing Rig

Much better, the only thing I was really hoping to see was variance at different ranges. 50,75 and 100 if possible, but still a considerable improvement over shooting at a fence.