![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
|
| The Dead Zone Paintball Related Chat |
![]() |
| | LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| | #31 (permalink) |
| . | Automags.Org Online Forums - View Single Post - Smaller Balls are you ready? Making a denser fill is also a difficult issue to overcome...as relayed by Tom Kaye.
__________________ Avratech R7 review | DSP frame review Brand new R7 for sale http://<br /> http://www.mcarterbro...ml#post2473819 |
| | |
| | #32 (permalink) | |||
| MCB Member Join Date: Mar 2008 | I'm not sure what you're referring to here but, if you're talking about how much force is transfered to the target at.50 vs .683, this is difficult to determine due to not knowing how much they push in / collapse before shattering and transferring the energy out to the sides, instead of further into the target. I do think they will 'sting more' than a normal 68 but, will they present a higher risk? I'm not sure. Quote:
First off, saying I'm wrong, without providing any data to back up your assertion is pretty lame. Secondly, I was pointing out how bad of an example you gave when I hit on "wet gravel". Third, You must've edited the "...impossible..."-bit out of your post on 11-sep, since, I quoted what I saw in full. Finally, I asked you to provide numbers. Telling someone - "Go look in a book" isn't particularly helpful, nor does it contribute to the thread. You could have simply give me the density for "wet gravel" or any other material and I could've made a comparison. In light of your failure to contribute, I've gone ahead and converted my numbers to metric Grams over Cubic Centimeters (g/cc) and I've generated a list of these rounds, and other assorted materials that I had to research myself, to see if I could back up your assertion. .92g/cc - Cooking oilLooking at these numbers, I absolutely do not see how any of these rounds could be "impossible". Especially if you consider mixing bismuth powder into the fill. Quote:
Just to be clear, I have no dogs in this race. Personally, I could care very little about .50 rounds because they don't match the performance of the First Strike rounds I'm currently using. They might be useful for me, sometime in the future as a backup/sidearm round but, for now, I'm content with .68s.
__________________ 1989 Line SI Bushmaster SI Deluxe | SP 'Woodstalker' Ion | T9.1SD Totmacher First Strike Round Field Listing | External Ballistics, FSRs and PBs Quote:
| |||
| | |
| | #35 (permalink) | |
| MCB Member Join Date: Mar 2008 | Glad to help! Done- without the retorts.
__________________ 1989 Line SI Bushmaster SI Deluxe | SP 'Woodstalker' Ion | T9.1SD Totmacher First Strike Round Field Listing | External Ballistics, FSRs and PBs Quote:
| |
| | |
| | #36 (permalink) |
| Banned |
Gravel * Loose, dry - 1.520 * With sand , natural- 1.920 * Dry, 1/4 to 2 inch - 1.682 * Wet, 1/4 to 2 inch - 2.002 Thanks for finally addressing my issue. Wet gravel seams to be fairly accurate as far as density when described in my Engineer's Black Book. Wet gravel would also be an accurate description to being hit with a paintball containing 20% bismuth and some paint. |
| | |
![]() |
|
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|