Paintball

[CCMachinist]

Originally Posted by Deuce

The consistency I saw in my SR1 mirrored what was shown in the video. I actually thought it was a fluke and repeated my test and confirmed. Super consistent, the thing that baffled me was not seeing the wide FPS gap between paint and FS like some have reported from other platforms.

I have chronoed with paint just to see where I'm at but never was serious about shooting paint other than just playing around with it.And I have shot a lot of paintballs with it.

I class the rifle as a FS gun only in game play.

Anything less puts you at a disadvantage and you may as well shoot a paintball gun. The rifle is just a slow loading paintball gun with paintballs.

Just my thoughts

[Deuce]

Originally Posted by CCMachinist

I have chronoed with paint just to see where I'm at but never was serious about shooting paint other than just playing around with it.And I have shot a lot of paintballs with it.

I class the rifle as a FS gun only in game play.

Anything less puts you at a disadvantage and you may as well shoot a paintball gun. The rifle is just a slow loading paintball gun with paintballs.

Just my thoughts

I agree 100%. Unfortunately due to lame FPO rules if I want to use it this weekend I'll be using paint. No biggie, I'll have FS on hand though to let some of the other guys play around with it off field.

[CCMachinist]

They rifle shoots paint very well like any other gun and you would probably do well for a few shots.

[casper]

Why 335 ??Couldn't you have done 280?Just asking most fields are below 300.

[Penarol10]

my mind is actually blown

[Trinity]

Originally Posted by casper

Why 335 ??Couldn't you have done 280?Just asking most fields are below 300.

I did my testing at 295 FPS and the results were the virtually the same. With that kind of consistency, I think you're going to get good results regardless of where you benchmark it.

[CCMachinist]

Originally Posted by casper

Why 335 ??Couldn't you have done 280?Just asking most fields are below 300.

We just didn't adjust it. Its usually at 300FPS.

[Keebler]

It doesn't get any better than that. The fs rounds are more than perfect than paintballs butI they are 100% pperfect I imagine the small variations in fps you see there are due to the round. That and or radar chronys not be the very best you could use.

[DSA]

Originally Posted by Trinity

I did my testing at 295 FPS and the results were the virtually the same. With that kind of consistency, I think you're going to get good results regardless of where you benchmark it.

Trinity, this is a great subject for your December blog, of whicbh I am quickly becoming a fan of. Particularly weight comparisons between FS rounds, white vs blue fill, white vs white, blue vs blue etc.

Bill, this is marvelous, as a stock class player I have known the advantage that sizing paint to bore has given me for quite some time. But your test eliminated the variables which showcased the consistantcy of the SR-1 regulator.

Lastly this question is for the First Strike community: has anyone sized FS rounds to determine circumference consistantcy? I am now wondering if all FS are created equal.
If not this is really where the true would be sniper might want to place some consideration when selecting rounds.
Thanks guys.

[Trinity]

Originally Posted by DSA

Trinity, this is a great subject for your December blog, of whicbh I am quickly becoming a fan of. Particularly weight comparisons between FS rounds, white vs blue fill, white vs white, blue vs blue etc.

Bill, this is marvelous, as a stock class player I have known the advantage that sizing paint to bore has given me for quite some time. But your test eliminated the variables which showcased the consistantcy of the SR-1 regulator.

Lastly this question is for the First Strike community: has anyone sized FS rounds to determine circumference consistantcy? I am now wondering if all FS are created equal.
If not this is really where the true would be sniper might want to place some consideration when selecting rounds.
Thanks guys.

I could not agree more that this makes a good Blog entry and I am working on it now.

I size every first strike that goes through my gun. The difference in rounds seems to vary a bit by box. Generally I find that about 65 - 70%% of the rounds are best shot through a .686 sizer or shell. Nearly all the rest will are best matched to a .685 sizer. I size the rounds when I get them and keep them in separate containers.

With some, it's a close call between the .686 and the .685 sizer, but after you have shot a few of the close calls you just get a feel for whether a round is better being loose in the .686 or just a little tight in a .685. Then, every once in a while, you get the real oddball rounds that seems to be about .684 or even bigger than the .686 sizer. There are so few rounds like that, that I just discard them rather than try to carry a third or fourth sizer around. Oddball sized rounds can be used to just plink, but they are useless when it comes to shooting for accuracy and will appear to give you a velocity swing because they are so much bigger or smaller.

Glad you're a fan of the blog. There is a whole other discussion taking place in certain circles (like what is happening here) on real accuracy with first strike rounds that most of those playing the game aren't even aware is going on. They only get introduced to it when the paint hits their vest from 75 yards downfield.