Paintball

[Schmitti]

Horizon.. It has been said before (and Tom Kaye wrote something about this too)... but it will be very hard for them to make a paint that is significantly more dense, in order to perform the same or better than .68 cal, that isn't 1. a hazardous chemical (from TOm Kaye's previous research) and 2. doesn't make the pain so thick that it doesn't splat or doesn't break all together.

E

[Lohman446]

TK noted a third problem - those thickened by adding things like Bismuth were so thick they could not get them to inject during manufacturing.

[Painthappy]

We have concluded that this is pretty much the final product as was intended. I'm just guessing of course, but I have facts to back me up now. I didn't have much to argue with, but now I do.

While anything can be tweaked and made better, and I would imagine they will constantly continue to do so via research and development.

But here's where and why my results shown are accurate.

...

All the 50 caliber advertising talks about 5.1 Joules.
In this video at 3:33 into it YouTube - Richmond Italia on .50 Cal
even Richmond himself says 5.1 Joules of force.

What is 5.1 Joules?

5.1 Joules is 1.22 grams of weight at 300 FPS

Our weight showed it to be 1.21 grams. .01 grams off. That's close enough for my mathmatics and graphs to still remain accurate.

[uv_halo]

Great work on the testing. However, I'm holding out for Dual Chrono testing to get a really solid perception of how these rounds perform.

I too have been sorely disappointed by the leading names in the paintball industry (to include magazines particularly). Why is it that a relatively small number of unfunded players, are providing the most objective assessments of paintball products (i.e. Punkworks, etc)? Why are magazines still doing reviews with nothing but adjectives describing how much they liked a product and no serious performance numbers?

Personally, I was a bit ticked when I read Face-Full's October Feature Article "Sub-Caliber Revolution?". Enough so, I sent a letter to the editor:

Dear Editor,

The article titled "Sub Caliber Revolution?" has several problems in regards to the history of sub .68 caliber paintballs. In the introductory section of the article that briefly discusses the history of the .68 paintball it leaves out any discussion of other projectiles that were common in the early days of paintball before .68 caliber became the standard. Most notably, it fails to mention .62 caliber paintballs which very nearly became the standard, and even the original .50 caliber paintballs (for which the Crossman 3357, was designed to shoot, in 1987).

Another problem is that the article further leads a reader to believe that .50 caliber paintballs never existed prior to G.I. Milsim bringing them to market with statements such as these:

"Now though, we're seeing the introduction of a new size (.50), from a new company (G.I. Milsim), steered by some old names in the industry."

"The newest sub caliber paintball comes from the Gardners of Smart Parts, and Richmond Italia and his brother."

These .50 caliber paintballs, quite simply are not new. A new company yes, but not a new size. I'm hoping that future articles within Face-Full address these errors, and provide unbiased reviews of how these rounds compare in performance (velocity retention/drop, accuracy, and how well they break) to the standard .68 caliber paintballs.

It'll probably jsut go to the round file...

[Harbinger[TG]]

Originally Posted by uv_halo

Great work on the testing. However, I'm holding out for Dual Chrono testing to get a really solid perception of how these rounds perform.

I too have been sorely disappointed by the leading names in the paintball industry (to include magazines particularly). Why is it that a relatively small number of unfunded players, are providing the most objective assessments of paintball products (i.e. Punkworks, etc)? Why are magazines still doing reviews with nothing but adjectives describing how much they liked a product and no serious performance numbers?

Personally, I was a bit ticked when I read Face-Full's October Feature Article "Sub-Caliber Revolution?". Enough so, I sent a letter to the editor:

Dear Editor,

The article titled "Sub Caliber Revolution?" has several problems in regards to the history of sub .68 caliber paintballs. In the introductory section of the article that briefly discusses the history of the .68 paintball it leaves out any discussion of other projectiles that were common in the early days of paintball before .68 caliber became the standard. Most notably, it fails to mention .62 caliber paintballs which very nearly became the standard, and even the original .50 caliber paintballs (for which the Crossman 3357, was designed to shoot, in 1987).

Another problem is that the article further leads a reader to believe that .50 caliber paintballs never existed prior to G.I. Milsim bringing them to market with statements such as these:

"Now though, we're seeing the introduction of a new size (.50), from a new company (G.I. Milsim), steered by some old names in the industry."

"The newest sub caliber paintball comes from the Gardners of Smart Parts, and Richmond Italia and his brother."

These .50 caliber paintballs, quite simply are not new. A new company yes, but not a new size. I'm hoping that future articles within Face-Full address these errors, and provide unbiased reviews of how these rounds compare in performance (velocity retention/drop, accuracy, and how well they break) to the standard .68 caliber paintballs.

It'll probably jsut go to the round file...

I agree. However, I have been holding off writing to any of the media outlets because I am going to give them the benefit of doubt and a little more time to see if any one of them mans up and actually writes a real review. I am not holding my breath.

[Horizon]

Originally Posted by Harbinger[TG]

I agree. However, I have been holding off writing to any of the media outlets because I am going to give them the benefit of doubt and a little more time to see if any one of them mans up and actually writes a real review. I am not holding my breath.

Media sources that depend on advertising revenue rarely step on th etoes of advertisers.

[Spokkazulu]

Originally Posted by Horizon

There is probably some truth in that. I'm sure they will continue to try to improve it and assuming they do, a "better" ball might be available in the future. There is certainly no law that says they can't try to improve upon what they have and they would be foolish not to do so.

Will improvements be major? Probably not.

That may be, but the way I read their comments on Facebook, they make it sound like the "new" paint is almost ready.

Here's what I'm talking about:

And this:

GI MilSim Paintball:
There are 5 different brands in the GI Milsim line, 4-Star (which will be the top pro tourney level ball), 3-Star, 2-Star, 1-Star and a Winter Formula.

Depending on the brand, the weights will be different.

They are made to provide players with the same flight attributes of .68 Caliber. They are tested at 300 fps and less, just like .68 Caliber.
October 12 at 6:49pm

[Painthappy]

So when Italia himself says the paint weighs 1.2 grams in an interview, and our weights confirm that as true, we shouldn't believe him?

Richmond Italia’s Revolution | Catshack Reports


Sure, they can change it, but the paint is already so thick... I can't imagine them doing much to it. But I'm open to seeing new stuff and running all the tests again.

[Harbinger[TG]]

Nothing screams "buy me" like a "1 star" label.

I would love to know what idiots are getting paid to come up with all of this marketing garbage...

[alpha434]

Originally Posted by Grendel

So who in their right mind would debut a product that is supposed to be a revolution in paintball and not have a working, ready for the public product. Makes no sense. Good Luck with that marketing ploy

It means that one of there spies reported back to the gardners that we are already hip to their bull**** this time.

They now know that we know that they have to make a denser paint before we'll buy into any of this crap.

The solution is simple, really. You have your thick paint fill mixed statically with some thin stuff that is insoluable to the thick stuff, so upon breaking, the thin stuff will throw the thick stuff everywhere. And do the whole thing in a vacuum, so that the balls are negatively pressurized at atmosphere. Or do it under high pressure. That'll fix the breaking problems. As far as injecting the dual mixtures, they'll have to have Stolle (or whoever makes encapsulation machines) make them an assembly with larger passages that will allow them to fill this. They'd have to run the heavy stuff next to the light stuff, premixing it won't be accurate enough to get consistent weights. There are plenty of companies ready to build the machines if a customer desires a certain product.

If SP was actually imaginative enough to come up with my solution on their own, I could get behind them on this. But they aren't. If they use my solution, they'd better be paying me to keep my mouth shut.