Paintball

[etherfall]

Just had an interesting thought:

I know Italia did state they're not trying to change the 300fps standard here. But if it were something that could be changed, would you change it?

Because I was thinking about it again today, and realized, that if you WERE able to turn the fps to 485, it would pretty much perform exactly the same way as .68 at 300fps.

Reasoning: Looking at Schmitti's work, it was found that indeed, drag has little to no discernible effect on two different paintballs when the difference is only 18calibers.

So it stands to reason that if you do match up the energy and launch the paintballs accordingly, they would perform pretty much exactly the same.

So heres the question: if we assume that the fps is variable in ASTM standards, would you do it?

Note: Looking over schmitti's work again - I noticed your equation for drag is incorrect. It's supposed to be V^2 instead of V?. I'm not sure if you put that in when you used excel and it's hidden in the equations?

A lot of you are misunderstanding me. I'm not advocating the change to 50cal by any means! I just want to make sure the math is right and the physics is sound.

[russc]

If it posed no extra safety hazard, I'd want to try it, absolutely. It could be very fun if we were allowed to play with .50 at higher FPS.

[Spitlebug]

Originally Posted by etherfall

Just had an interesting thought:

I know Italia did state they're not trying to change the 300fps standard here. But if it were something that could be changed, would you change it?

Because I was thinking about it again today, and realized, that if you WERE able to turn the fps to 485, it would pretty much perform exactly the same way as .68 at 300fps.

Reasoning: Looking at Schmitti's work, it was found that indeed, drag has little to no discernible effect on two different paintballs when the difference is only 18calibers.

So it stands to reason that if you do match up the energy and launch the paintballs accordingly, they would perform pretty much exactly the same.

So heres the question: if we assume that the fps is variable in ASTM standards, would you do it?

Note: Looking over schmitti's work again - I noticed your equation for drag is incorrect. It's supposed to be V^2 instead of V?. I'm not sure if you put that in when you used excel and it's hidden in the equations?

A lot of you are misunderstanding me. I'm not advocating the change to 50cal by any means! I just want to make sure the math is right and the physics is sound.

The velocity can be changed, ast least on the ASTM side. The insurance companies won't go for it though.

[drg]

Originally Posted by russc

If it posed no extra safety hazard, I'd want to try it, absolutely. It could be very fun if we were allowed to play with .50 at higher FPS.

Wouldn't it probably pose an extra safety hazard due to the higher impact force? At the very least it probably would hurt like a Bitch.

[brycelarson]

Originally Posted by drg

Wouldn't it probably pose an extra safety hazard due to the higher impact force? At the very least it probably would hurt like a Bitch.

that and asking underage, under-trained refs to chrono groups to multiple speeds would be a nightmare.

[LoneWolf]

Anything travelling over 300mph & aimed at a person isn't very safe - regardless of the size of the projectile. I'm definitely not in favor, for a variety of reasons - including the boneheads shooting .68 that won't understand why they can't be shooting at 400+ fps themselves.

I also highly doubt that a paint projectile is stable at those velocities (wicked curving) or would survive traveling down the barrel in one piece.

[Poe]

etherfall,

I completely understand what you are saying. It's something I was trying to discuss on multiple forums. Although it's understandable that legacy issues will kill any new caliber it's still fun to discuss how accuracy, efficiency, etc might be improved. Unfortunately no one can break the 50cal/SP link so discussions never evolve past reasons fields and insurance companies wouldn't accept it... or why it will never replace 68cal.

Truth of the matter is no one has done the testing to determine:
1. at what velocity does a 50 cal become unsafe? .. to be fair they never did it with 68cal either.. so maybe that should read: at what velocity does a 50 cal point blank shot equate to a 68cal 300fps point blank shot for damage?
2. at this maximum safe velocity how does range, accuracy, ball breaks and impact feel compare?
3. theoretically efficiency should be the same if shot energy is equal, but in the real world can you make a 50cal shoot at that higher speed efficiently?

I've seen many guesses, but understandably no data. It takes time, money and some poor sucker to get shot multiple times. That's something the general paintball community, paintball companies and especially ASTM doesn't care to invest.

[Harbinger[TG]]

Originally Posted by Poe

etherfall,

I completely understand what you are saying. It's something I was trying to discuss on multiple forums. Although it's understandable that legacy issues will kill any new caliber it's still fun to discuss how accuracy, efficiency, etc might be improved. Unfortunately no one can break the 50cal/SP link so discussions never evolve past reasons fields and insurance companies wouldn't accept it... or why it will never replace 68cal.

Truth of the matter is no one has done the testing to determine:
1. at what velocity does a 50 cal become unsafe? .. to be fair they never did it with 68cal either.. so maybe that should read: at what velocity does a 50 cal point blank shot equate to a 68cal 300fps point blank shot for damage?
2. at this maximum safe velocity how does range, accuracy, ball breaks and impact feel compare?
3. theoretically efficiency should be the same if shot energy is equal, but in the real world can you make a 50cal shoot at that higher speed efficiently?

I've seen many guesses, but understandably no data. It takes time, money and some poor sucker to get shot multiple times. That's something the general paintball community, paintball companies and especially ASTM doesn't care to invest.

IIRC .50cal was going through the netting at world cup at their alleged 275 FPS, although an independent chrono showed 315 or so.

[Poe]

Good to know Harb.

Originally Posted by Poe

etherfall,
...
Unfortunately no one can break the 50cal/SP link so discussions never evolve past reasons fields and insurance companies wouldn't accept it...
...

[Mayvik]

Originally Posted by etherfall

So heres the question: if we assume that the fps is variable in ASTM standards, would you do it?

It's not really a question. Low caliber markers have been around for a long time, and have been a big fat failure for a long time, even when they were allowed to shoot "hot".

Ask RAP and Kingman Training how successful .43/.40/11mm has been at changing mindsets in recreational paintball.

As a recreational sport/hobby, there's nothing inherently wrong with .68 @ 300fps. Why not just shoot .22 caliber paint at 1000 fps and make everyone wear Class IV armor?