Paintball

[etherfall]

Fair enough. Just looked at the article in "the ultimate faq" sticky. I just read the part about the "retardation of velocity coefficient" and thats made the argument plenty fine to me.

It was however, the nature of the charts which made me question this. The charts seemed to almost match up at their tail ends, and those were graphed at 450. It did seem that an extra 35fps or so would have matched it up to 68 caliber.

Tug- Does your insurance policy have anything to say about the weight of the paintballs? I am still worried about the idea of simply making a bigger ball which, if compared to the same tests and data, would definitely fly better, but probably hurt more.

I ask that as well just in case the paint companies DO swing in that direction. Whats to stop "pro players" from asking for "better" paint and stopping paint companies from giving them their gargantuan paintballs? I'm sure they wouldnt mind paying that extra 10$ for a game winning edge, and telling other players they're being "non-agg" for crying about it? And worst of all, when rec players begin buying that larger caliber ball and equipment just because the pros do..

Funny note: Italia says paintball is illegal in Japan, but didn't BlackRain play paintball there just this past weekend?

[ComradeBenedict]

Originally Posted by etherfall

Fair enough. Just looked at the article in "the ultimate faq" sticky. I just read the part about the "retardation of velocity coefficient" and thats made the argument plenty fine to me.

It was however, the nature of the charts which made me question this. The charts seemed to almost match up at their tail ends, and those were graphed at 450. It did seem that an extra 35fps or so would have matched it up to 68 caliber.

Tug- Does your insurance policy have anything to say about the weight of the paintballs? I am still worried about the idea of simply making a bigger ball which, if compared to the same tests and data, would definitely fly better, but probably hurt more.

I ask that as well just in case the paint companies DO swing in that direction. Whats to stop "pro players" from asking for "better" paint and stopping paint companies from giving them their gargantuan paintballs? I'm sure they wouldnt mind paying that extra 10$ for a game winning edge, and telling other players they're being "non-agg" for crying about it? And worst of all, when rec players begin buying that larger caliber ball and equipment just because the pros do..

Funny note: Italia says paintball is illegal in Japan, but didn't BlackRain play paintball there just this past weekend?

Fifty caliber probably is, because it goes over 300 FPS. I don't know if the restriction is by joules, or FPS, or what, but the airsoft guns there can't shoot over 300 FPS, so that's probably why there's no .50 cal.

[brycelarson]

Originally Posted by etherfall

So I'm not sure if this has been discussed yet or not.. but is it really fair to judge both forms of paint at their 300fps marks?

As has been stated already - ASTM says 300 fps.

Originally Posted by etherfall

Funny note: Italia says paintball is illegal in Japan, but didn't BlackRain play paintball there just this past weekend?

there may be some laws about paint calibers. I know that some countries don't allow "toy" weapons that use the same calibers as real firearms. this would make .50 illegal in some countries since there are .50 actual firearms.

maybe that's what Italia was talking about. Japan uses a total joules rating like you're suggesting - meaning you could shoot .50 faster than .68 - IF they're allowed.

[Spitlebug]

Confirmed. The last draft I saw from the ASTM was 300fps.

[Tugboater203]

Originally Posted by etherfall

Tug- Does your insurance policy have anything to say about the weight of the paintballs? I am still worried about the idea of simply making a bigger ball which, if compared to the same tests and data, would definitely fly better, but probably hurt more.

I ask that as well just in case the paint companies DO swing in that direction. Whats to stop "pro players" from asking for "better" paint and stopping paint companies from giving them their gargantuan paintballs? I'm sure they wouldnt mind paying that extra 10$ for a game winning edge, and telling other players they're being "non-agg" for crying about it? And worst of all, when rec players begin buying that larger caliber ball and equipment just because the pros do..

When I called and asked them about it they said they didn't care about the caliber just the FPS.

I recall (and someone here can better say than I can) that some pro teams in the 80s-90s used to have custom large paint made for them. IIRC it was in the .70+ range.

The whole push, as far as I can tell, behind .50 was that it's cheaper to make, ship and store. That wouldn't be the case with a larger caliber.
Tug

[Mplanters]

nice review!

[DSA]

Originally Posted by etherfall

So I'm not sure if this has been discussed yet or not.. but is it really fair to judge both forms of paint at their 300fps marks?

If you hold your 300fps to be constant in testing, yes a larger (read: heavier) ball will always break better/fly further. It simply has more mass, and with your constant velocity, will always break at further distances by having more kinetic energy from the start. If you extrapolate this to its logical conclusion, the day someone comes out with 90 caliber paint, they will, with your own tests, prove that 90 caliber is "better" than 68 caliber. (new form of "pro" paint anyone?) However, I think I can predict the future here: you will argue that 90caliber paintball is "unsafe" on account of it being too heavy for that speed. (Reballs are already treated this way, required to shoot at a lower fps due to its higher mass)

Therefore, I propose that in order for 50caliber to really have a legitimate chance, you need to hold a different part of the equation constant: the kinetic energy. Just like you would hold 90 caliber to this particular parameter.

Its to my understanding that (and this is completely unfounded) the ASTM standards are designed to withstand an impact with a certain kinetic energy behind it? If this is true, then according to my math, 50cal paintballs should be able to be fired at 485fps with no ill effects on the target. You'll have the exact same amount of kinetic energy behind it.

So what exactly prevents us from firing smaller balls at more than 300fps? Why was it 300 from the start, instead of perhaps, 200fps.

I think the idea behind 68caliber and 300fps are linked by account of precedent. 300 fps is in place because of 68 caliber, and 300fps will deem that 68 caliber remains king.

It is not until we use the idea that Kinetic Energy should be the reigning factor that we can even consider other ball formats.
Work:
http://www.mcarterbrown.com/gallery/...68_ke_vs_v.jpg

[custar]

Originally Posted by Tugboater203

I recall (and someone here can better say than I can) that some pro teams in the 80s-90s used to have custom large paint made for them. IIRC it was in the .70+ range.

Confirmed. They had a definite advantage with those . . . until someone checked them and found the oversize balls.

Originally Posted by Aggressive SportShop

Rumor mill has it that CPX is switching to .50 cal paintballs. They'll have to sell .68 cal too but then they won't be able to mix them up, fairly that is.

I seriously - SERIOUSLY - doubt this, but I will check. My team is one of the sponsored teams there, and I think we would have heard about this.


custar

[Spitlebug]

Originally Posted by custar

Confirmed. They had a definite advantage with those . . . until someone checked them and found the oversize balls.

I seriously - SERIOUSLY - doubt this, but I will check. My team is one of the sponsored teams there, and I think we would have heard about this.


custar

Bob Long used to shoot 72 caliber paint.

[Lord Odin]

Originally Posted by etherfall

(Reballs are already treated this way, required to shoot at a lower fps due to its higher mass)

Correction, Reballs weigh less; not more. The slower velocity is required because they don't explode on impact.