Paintball

[alarmguy]

I personally run a %100 stock gun for 1 simple fact. The company will not warranty it with any after market parts on it, but if left stock they just warranteed my 06 with over 3 million shots on it and charged me $4.13 for return shipping.

[Grendel]

Richmond Italias Revolution report on Catchackreports:
Richmond Italia’s Revolution | Catshack Reports

I supposes theses are all the data points we are going to get from "them"

• <10 joules
• 0.50 caliber
• "G.I Milsim ribbon allows them to make a shell that is 40% thinner than the .68 Caliber"
• "The .50 Caliber paintball is lighter, weighing in at only 1.2 grams"
• "Richmond explains and is supported by preliminary tests by Mike Phillips of TechPB that less wind resistance on the smaller .50 Cal allows it to keep distance and range capability."

Edit: Just a note for my own protection I am not in anyway supporting the claims of self proclaimed paintball god Richmond Italia or an other paintball celeb that may try to put words into my mouth. I am just passing on information from another site's report.

[Schmitti]

Fail.

E

[Phantom Power]

At 40% of the shell thickness, that means based on Carter's measurements they should have a shell thickness of 0.0056". I guess we won't have the "final formula" until they hit that, huh ?

[Painthappy]

Originally Posted by Grendel

"Richmond explains and is supported by preliminary tests by Mike Phillips of TechPB that less wind resistance on the smaller .50 Cal allows it to keep distance and range capability."

Mike at TechPB has tests that show that less wind resistance allows it to keep distance and range OVER .68? Or just in general?

Where are these tests that Mike has done? I haven't been informed of any.

When we ran a wind test program we got this:
http://www.mcarterbrown.com/50ballistics/wind.html

I'd like to know where I went wrong with my math...

It's nice to finally see someone say 1.2 grams, with our 1.21 gram test paint. So maybe this will also put to rest the "final fill"?

A thinner shell would make it better, but you can only get so thin before it breaks in the breach of the gun. I'd be interested to test a thinner shell than .010

[PoisonMarket]

Not related to just the immediate debate, but my opinion of the paintball industry, from manufacturers and major distributor all the way down to park owners and weekend warriors, is that it's comprised of clowns and other loose forms of the jackass shape. It's absolutely the least organized or serious commercial industry I have ever been a direct part of.

So it does not surprise me that members of this industry would think it a good idea to introduce a brand new format incompatible with markers designed for what has been the format for nearing two decades.

[Lohman446]

Originally Posted by Painthappy

Mike at TechPB has tests that show that less wind resistance allows it to keep distance and range OVER .68? Or just in general?

Where are these tests that Mike has done? I haven't been informed of any.

When we ran a wind test program we got this:
http://www.mcarterbrown.com/50ballistics/wind.html

I'd like to know where I went wrong with my math...

I don't know a lot of the things you guys do. So I tend to beleive the people who will show be the data, show me the tests, and show me the formulas over people who use words. Its pretty hard to "slant" math. I know it can be done but when I see one person saying one thing with the supporting formulas, data, and testing and another saying the opposite with none of the above I tend to lean towards the people showing me the data. If Mike would show me where your data is wrong or your formulas are mistaken I might listen, when he choses to ignore "my character choses to disbelieve" I question if he knows what he is talking about.

[Schmitti]

If you need me to put everything into a easily readable formula it can be done.

A lot of what we used were very simple ballistic calculators. Pure physics that takes into account the diameter of the ball, it's mass, the affect of gravity, the velocity that the projectile is fired at. Not crazy complex stuff... just a standard formula.

The formula that Carter used in his 2nd video to come up with the Foot-pounds (energy) (FPE) needed to break a paintball comes from the equation/calculation to determine the work performed as an object falls from some height. This equation uses mass, gravity, and height.

W=mgh

It's derived from the equations on this page...
Solve problem related to impact force from falling object

W= 1/2(mvf^2) - 1/2(mvi^2)

Where vf is final velocity (impact velocity), vi is initial velocity.

Vf is calculated from: vf = square root (2gh)

Basically because there is no initial velocity (the ball is being dropped), that portion of the W equation is zero .. so you are left with 1/2(mvf^2)... substitute square root (2gh) into the equation for vf

You now have W = 1/2(m2gh) = mgh

That's where that math came from.

Any questions?

E

[Harbinger[TG]]

Originally Posted by Lohman446

I don't know a lot of the things you guys do. So I tend to beleive the people who will show be the data, show me the tests, and show me the formulas over people who use words. Its pretty hard to "slant" math. I know it can be done but when I see one person saying one thing with the supporting formulas, data, and testing and another saying the opposite with none of the above I tend to lean towards the people showing me the data. If Mike would show me where your data is wrong or your formulas are mistaken I might listen, when he choses to ignore "my character choses to disbelieve" I question if he knows what he is talking about.

I don't think this really has anything to do with Mike, so much as someone taking the video out of context. I mean, I was right there with Mike the entire time, and nowhere did he claim anything or do any tests. All we have is that one videoclip. To the best of my knowledge Mike has not released any tests, or any official statements regarding .50cal.

[OldGadget]

Originally Posted by PoisonMarket

Not related to just the immediate debate, but my opinion of the paintball industry, from manufacturers and major distributor all the way down to park owners and weekend warriors, is that it's comprised of clowns and other loose forms of the jackass shape. It's absolutely the least organized or serious commercial industry I have ever been a direct part of.

So it does not surprise me that members of this industry would think it a good idea to introduce a brand new format incompatible with markers designed for what has been the format for nearing two decades.

painting with an awfully broad brush there ... you just called most paintballers jackasses ..