Paintball

[Bonesjackson]

Nice video. I got a little worried when the .68 wasn't making a splat. At first I thought it was somehow bouncing, which seemed totally illogical. Anyone have the Mythbusters MYTH BUSTED graphic?

edit- found it

[B-17]

well...
That was a bit more fail then I thought it would be on the .50 cal test...
would be good for an SMG maybe...





No. it wouldn't.

[PistolRogue]

Well now wait a minute--- I'd hate to actually defend .50 here, but isn't putting a regged spoolie against an unregged inline blowback somewhat comparing apples to oranges? I'd say the test would be a somewhat more fair comparison if it were between a Tippmann 98/A5/X7 and the FM50. Frankly, I don't think the results would be much different personally, but you know how many people are going to nitpick the same point I'm making.

[Painthappy]

I made a good (I think) post about it:

In all fairness, our test is probably spot on...

According to the GIMilsim's own site:



They had a 20 inch spread at 70 feet.

Our test showed a 17 1/2 inch spread at 75 feet, with dropping out the worst 3 outliers.

They shot 5 - ten round groupings. We just shot 1 - thirty round grouping.
Basically our test showed the 50 cal in a better light with a better grouping. So for all the complainers, our test was technically better than their own comparing apples to apples.

Now their high end impulse:



Had a 15 inch grouping... We haven't tested it...

Now, back to our results. Our 10 year old gun had a better grouping with an overbored barrel, than todays ego at 5 more feet out?

So does a new Ego suck that bad that a 10 year old shocker has a better grouping? If so, then you better tell all those Elipse fan boys how crappy their guns are, because dropping off the 3 outliers, we only had a 12 1/2 inch spread!! Without dropping out the 3 outliers, the 10 year old shocker still performed better than an ego.

Either that, or the GIMilsim tests are off too. We already know their "trajectory" charts are off. We've shown that already.

Looking at their own data, and looking at ours, I'd say the tests were pretty darn good...

[splattttttt]

Originally Posted by Painthappy

No and no... heh...

We used a similar paint to barrel match... Meaning no match at all. The ultra evil could roll right down the barrel, and the gimilsim paint would roll right down the stock barrel too. We kept it even and no cheating involved.

We were not aiming for the X. It was just a point of reference for us.

Longer ranges? No. This will probably be one of our last tests for the 50 paint.

Will there be an efficiency test somewhere down the road? Might be an issue with smaller paint also.

[Robertsr]

Were the guns secured? That was the only question on my end. If they were just held on a rest and fired, I'll bet you'll get complaints that you've intentionally thrown the test.

[Painthappy]

They were on a rest, but not bolted down secured. Anyhow, we show the gun shooting and you can see it's not being moved.

I actually don't like overly knocking out every variable. I prefer a more "real world" result. When your our playing on the field and running around, things like balance in the gun, ability to hold it and shoot it come into play.

Bad paint is still bad paint. If you use bad paint in a high end gun, you're going to get bad results.


People want to see the same gun used. Fine... If that made so much of a difference then why didn't the makers who own the guns, use the same gun to show how much more "accurate" the 50 is?

They didn't.... And they even own the guns in question. So maybe folks should talk to them into doing the tests.

They didn't tell us the paint brand, the paint size, barrel size, chono each shot, blah blah blah...

Yet folks want my results to be that way. Go figure.

To me... This is enough, and the ball is back in their court.

[mikeds80]

I think you guys did a good job. Even with all the nit-picky things,I believe that these results can still be used to get a general idea of how .50 cal will perform.

[brycelarson]

Originally Posted by ITSPB-Rogue

Well now wait a minute--- I'd hate to actually defend .50 here, but isn't putting a regged spoolie against an unregged inline blowback somewhat comparing apples to oranges? I'd say the test would be a somewhat more fair comparison if it were between a Tippmann 98/A5/X7 and the FM50. Frankly, I don't think the results would be much different personally, but you know how many people are going to nitpick the same point I'm making.

I've done a ton of accuracy tests - and the gun's just don't matter. In a clamped / bench rested situation the only thing we've found able to effect accuracy other than truly crappy barrels (patches of no honing and overspray on the interior) is paint.

In a game situation then gun feel can obviously effect how well a player can interact - therefore game accuracy but bench accuracy doesn't change. a ball leaving the barrel at 280 out of ANY gun will impact in exactly the same pattern.

For this kind of test - this is a very fair way to check them.

That said, I've got an ego insert kit for .50 - so in the near future PunkWorks will be shooting a .50 ego and a .68 ego for accuracy. We'll prob do 50, 100 and 150 feet.

I'm certain that when extrapolated - Carter and Paul's test will land right in line with our work.

Over the huge number of accuracy tests we've done I would expect exactly the results they got with the .68. We normally see an aproximtly 18" widest spread at 75' and 68% of shots inside a circle about 10-12" across. That's what they got.

[oldschool]

C5tek needing a haircut does not make up for the lack of chicks in this video.