Paintball

[one.man.band]

Hmm, so something has to change in the shell between .68 and .50 right? Otherwise it will be bounces all round? This can only mean a more expensive ball for your average player, because the shell will have to be thinner or a different design?

[HP_Lovecraft]

Originally Posted by one.man.band

Hmm, so something has to change in the shell between .68 and .50 right?

More specifically, something has to change from the .50 we used 20 years ago, as it was worthless garbage, as far as ballistics and usability.

The 3357 was designed for target shooting, not paintball, so we can't really fault it for that. But you end up with lots of corkscrews, shorter range, and bouncers.

THis is why the push for bringing .50 back seems.... dishonest. I will not improve the game, but only make guns cheaper to produce, as well as get players to buy new guns.

Fortunetly, .50 conversion kits would be trivial for most guns. Special barrel, bolt, and maybe breech sleave, like with the old SNipers.

[heinous]

Originally Posted by HP_Lovecraft

More specifically, something has to change from the .50 we used 20 years ago, as it was worthless garbage, as far as ballistics and usability.

The 3357 was designed for target shooting, not paintball, so we can't really fault it for that. But you end up with lots of corkscrews, shorter range, and bouncers.

THis is why the push for bringing .50 back seems.... dishonest. I will not improve the game, but only make guns cheaper to produce, as well as get players to buy new guns.

Fortunetly, .50 conversion kits would be trivial for most guns. Special barrel, bolt, and maybe breech sleave, like with the old SNipers.

how about 1 piece sleeve barrel?

my question is though, will conversions be made at all? because the industry is obviously doing this to sell more guns.

[brycelarson]

Originally Posted by HP_Lovecraft

The 3357 was designed for target shooting, not paintball, so we can't really fault it for that. But you end up with lots of corkscrews, shorter range, and bouncers.

THis is why the push for bringing .50 back seems.... dishonest. I will not improve the game, but only make guns cheaper to produce, as well as get players to buy new guns.

I dunno - look at UV's math. it's entirely possible that these will be better than .68 as far as projectiles go. I don't know why the guns would be cheaper - all of the expensive parts will remain the same.

[Jaan]

3 years ago I asked the question over at the AO forums, whether you could shoot a .55 cal paintball at a higher velocity and still hit with the same impact. There were a couple of interesting responses...

Automags.Org Online Forums - .55 cal paintballs ... new FPS limits?

[HP_Lovecraft]

Originally Posted by brycelarson

I dunno - look at UV's math. it's entirely possible that these will be better than .68 as far as projectiles go.

He leaves out too many variables, and treats them like firearm ballistics.
Paintballs, unliked firearm bullets, suffer from the magnus effect. This is because of the large size, light weight, and variable spin axis.

Boost a .50 to 400-500fps and it will corkscrew, and still not break on the target

I don't know why the guns would be cheaper - all of the expensive parts will remain the same.

Look at all those crappy .40 guns that flooded the market a few years ago. You need far less pressure to push a .40 paintball to 300fps then a .68 paintball.

Less pressure means cheaper, weaker parts. ie more plastic and pot metal, and less machined parts. Though, I'd agree its not a big difference. You still need to function generally the same.

[Dave-D]

As an average player...and one with a room full of guns.... the last thing I want to do is convert all my markers to a new calibre just because it might shoot a couple of yards further.

Like wise the last thing I want to do is buy 2 cases of paint instead of one when I go to play.

Also if the new calibre of paint is just that much better and gives the .xx guns a superior advantage over .xx then fields might have to separate the different guns. especially if the velocity's are vastly different. If my local field allows different size paint and one size starts to dominate the field to the disadvantage of the other (and my markers are the other) I'm simply not going to play there. I will go back to outlaw ball which in the long run is more affordable any ways.

No Pun intended but the industry has the very real possibility of shooting itself in the foot here.

[uv_halo]

Hey all, please accept my apologies for the delay. Here is the data for each of the three projectiles, fired at 300FPS

.683 Paintball:

Maximum Energy (ME): 9.255ftlb

Maximum Range (MR): 97yds

Angle for Max Range (AMR): 26deg

Terminal energy (TE): .478ftlb

Mini Me:

ME: 4.134

MR: 86yds

AMR: 25deg

TE: .178ftlb

Slug:

ME: 9.255

MR: 142yds

AMR: 30deg

TE: .876ftlb

Compromise:

ME: 6.694

MR: 117yds

AMR: 28deg

TE: .461ftlb

So, looking at the data, the slug round and the compromise round should still have an edge in ballistic performance- Just not as much.

Originally Posted by alpha434

What's the weight of a "vintage" .50 round? Just out of curiosity.

Edit:

Consider reasonable densities... Your "compromise" ball still has a higher average density than wet gravel.

I don't have a 'vintage' round so, I can't tell you. My guess is that it was most likely similar to the mini-me since, manufacturers didn't have any incentive in the past to mess with the fill- they were still trying to get the shell right...

Please post your numbers for, and define "wet gravel" (i.e., how wet, size of gravel stones, etc). Anyways, just how well do you think 'wet gravel' scales down to 1/2 of an inch? how much water, and how many 'gravel' pieces are you going to get into a .50 sphere. Oh, and please be aware that I'm talking grains (7000grains per pound) over cubic inches.

Originally Posted by HP_Lovecraft

He leaves out too many variables, and treats them like firearm ballistics.
Paintballs, unliked firearm bullets, suffer from the magnus effect. This is because of the large size, light weight, and variable spin axis.

Boost a .50 to 400-500fps and it will corkscrew, and still not break on the target....

Please add some meat to this comment. Just what variables did I leave out? Please keep in mind that these same variables have accurately described the flight of a normal .68 paintball and on August 6th, I predicted that the max range for a First Strike to be 519ft. Two weeks later, Mike @ TechPB hit Willie on the shoulder at about 517ft. The point is, I'm not using "Firearm Ballistics" I'm using "External Ballistics":

Further, for the flight modeling, I'm using software (Chairgun Pro) optimized for the velocity ranges of airguns. Which are very similar to paintball guns, no? I mean, you can even model a .177 BB if you wanted to.

The Magnus Effect is not a significant contributing factor to the performance I am describing. A paintball fired from a normal (and clean) paintball barrel will not generate enough spin to do anything significant to the ball's trajectory. For perspective, consider that the apex barrel puts over 10K RPM on the ball.

[Siress]

Anyone checked on the difference in point force upon impact?

[alpha434]

Just calculate density for your balls and then look in a book to find things with comparable densities.

Getting stuck on the words "wet gravel" are detrimental to this conversation. It's changing the topic.

You said "Here are three possible samples that I will crunch numbers on."

I said "Two of those are impossible."

The numbers for the slug might be beneficial, but the compromise isn't compromising enough to be feasible. It's not something that we could possibly expect from a .50 round.