mcarterbrown.com  

First Strike Everything first strike related

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 01-24-2013, 02:13 PM   #21 (permalink)
Post Whore
 
240SX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Newfoundland, Canada

CCM Fan
Anyways, since this thread has spiraled out of control I'll let you guys continue your conversation and I'll just use a 16" freak barrel. Thanks guys. I'm out.
__________________
Quote:
"Move swift as the Wind and closely-formed as the Wood. Attack like the Fire and be still as the Mountain."
Sun Tzu
Feedback:
eBay
username: bacreman, 100+, 100% positive
Tdotballers.com
http://www.tdotballers.com/forums/in...&#entry1062159
Mcarterbrown.com Feedback
http://www.mcarterbrown.com/forums/f...-feedback.html
240SX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2013, 05:15 PM   #22 (permalink)
all work
 
Join Date: Jan 2011

Quote:
Originally Posted by brycelarson View Post
Now, that said, I think that FS rounds accelerate more quickly than paint since they have a nice cup at the back to catch the air. I haven't done the testing because FLASC has put tiberius barrels low on the priority list and hasn't built there complete kit yet.
It seems odd that Flasc would offer 5" control bores for Tiberius markers when they have 9" contol bores kits for other markers. I can't imagine the short control bore length has much to do with FSR given that this is a multi bore kit. This is particularly vexing in light of Tiberius magazine's 12g design. A sub-optimal control bore kit isn't an appealing upgrade. I'd really like to buy something made in Canada...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keebler View Post
However since Bryce weighed in I suppose I have to give them the benefit of doubt
Well, if Bryce says it then it must be true right? No offense intended Bryce, but this series of fallacies is killing me. We are after all discussing paintball physics.
Nightstar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2013, 06:30 PM   #23 (permalink)
Post Whore
 
Join Date: Jun 2009

No but he's been right Bout everything else. And the physics of a paintball don't. Necessarily translate to fsr
Keebler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 07:43 AM   #24 (permalink)
MCB Member
 
brycelarson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Minnesota

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightstar View Post
It seems odd that Flasc would offer 5" control bores for Tiberius markers when they have 9" contol bores kits for other markers. I can't imagine the short control bore length has much to do with FSR given that this is a multi bore kit. This is particularly vexing in light of Tiberius magazine's 12g design. A sub-optimal control bore kit isn't an appealing upgrade. I'd really like to buy something made in Canada...
I think the 5" backs are from his early designs before his testing. I know in conversation he intends to rework the tib barrels but it's a low priority for him since he doesn't sell many.
__________________
-Bryce Larson
brycecollinlarson@gmail.com
Feedback
brycelarson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 02:59 PM   #25 (permalink)
Paintball Ballistician :P
 
uv_halo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008

My concern about FLASC's assessment on a given smoothbore barrel size being more consistent with FS rounds than others, is that because he didn't re-chrono between barrel sizes, he's assuming that the velocity range makes no difference.
__________________
FN303SD Totmacher 13 | SP 'Woodstalker' Ion | 1989 Line SI Bushmaster SI Deluxe
First Strike Round Field Listing | External Ballistics, FSRs and PBs | My Feedback
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Kaye -in response to FS price critics
Unfortunately all of you have played the one "speedball" game of paintball for so long you can't conceive of other ways to do this and hence any new ideas seem stupid.
uv_halo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 03:21 PM   #26 (permalink)
all work
 
Join Date: Jan 2011

I hope Dave turns up the flame before I resort to boring and sleeving multiple stock barrels.

I don't think re-chronoing would be practical given the SD of the samples. It'd take a lot of shooting to average the same velocities before actual testing and even then the efficiency penalty would be difficult to justify for a (maybe) slightly lower SD. More so if you use 12ies.
Nightstar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 03:44 PM   #27 (permalink)
Newbie
 
Chicago's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Chicago

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightstar View Post
Too many variables to generalize. FWIW Flasc did some control bore length testing(paintball) that indicated different optimal barrel lengths for different markers Flasc Paintball!

Flasc also conducted some FSR bore diameter testing Flasc Paintball!

So .687ish and 7.5" to 10.5" depending on valve design and pressure.
Agree with those finding esp. for roundies. First Strikes work in that range too! I ran a FLASC smooth Bore kit, 0.687 was my go to. But, riffled came out last year. Now it's the riffled "14" hammerhead 0.688 for me.

Extensive testing conducted.
__________________
Chance favors the prepared mind.
Chicago is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 04:19 PM   #28 (permalink)
Newbie
 
Chicago's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Chicago

Here's some quick measurements for you:

I've heard quite a bit lately about accuracy[/b] And large variances caused by the variance in first strikes. Proponents are saying check everything everything from the weight of the rounds, to the bore size of your first strikes.

So, I plan to use just two markers (a Tiberius 9.1 and a CCM SR1) to test many variations. Is bore size the deciding factor or is it weight? Or, a combination of them. Which is better?

0.686 with 3.1 g
0.686 with 3.2 g
0.688 with 3.1 g
0.688 with 3.2 g


For the above two markers. Which will produce superior patterns and velocity consistency:

So, today I measured 312 first strikes, each one by hand. It's all I had in stock right now. And, That's about a sample I can afford. I've now got 4 different boxes of First Strikes. First, I now have confirmed all first strikes are not equal!

First I measured them for size:

1) 0.686 (and below)
2) 0.688 or above (cause that was my next gauge size up (0. 002 difference )

My next size down in the opposite direction, was 0.683. After measuring about a quarter of the sample I gave up, on 0.683 none where that size or smaller. So I decided to get two batches above 0.686 and 0.686 and smaller. and, that the variance in round size within a hundred count box!

I got 84 out of 302 (dropped the 10 bad I got I'll explain later). So, there were 218 at 0.686 or lower size and the remaining 84 were between 0.686 and 0.688.

That's 28% of the rounds were between 0.686 and 0.688. And the remaining 72% where 0.686 or small But none would go thru the next gauge size down (0.863). My conclusion 0.686 is the size you should consider first strikes unless you want to go thru all the work I did here.

Why is this important. I've been told that the size matters as far as velocity fluctuations (this is all just back ground for how and what we will be testing).

Now, I weighed the entire 0.686 sample (each and every one). And then I measured the weight of the 0.688 sample. Here's the results:

1) 0.688 sample at 3.1 grams = 48
2) 0.688 sample at 3.2 grams = 36

So 57% weighed 3.1 grams
43% weighed 3.2 grams
I guess the average weight if you care is a little over 3.15 grams!


Lets do the same with the 0.686 sample:

1) 0.686 sample at 3.1 grams = 124
2) 0.686 sample at 3.2 grams = 94

So, 54% weighed 3.1 grams
46% weighed 3.2 grams

What am I trying to say? That most first strikes weighed on average being either bore size roughly 3.15 grams 55.5% of the time and therefore 3.2 grams 44.4% for a 0. 005 g variance (i.e negligible difference 0.0%.

So, when I do my testing I plan to do equal testing of 0.686 and 0.688 and then do, repeat, the same testing again with the different weights. I should see not difference in the weight tests.

I've been surprised before, but I'm trying to eliminate the fact that only 0.002 bore size impacts projectile output velocity. And then repeat the tests again to show that 0.1 gram doesn't effect velocity or grouping either!

So, does a 3.1 percent variance impact pattern or velocity for weight! And does a 3% variance in bore size impact pattern or velocity. That's what I want to measure and confirm or debunk!

I really don't know; but, I am skeptical. All testing will probably be at 50 yards (roughly 50 meters). Anything small and one group of sniper will say the distance isn't great enough. any farther and I'm limited in my range for these tests.

I will do the test using the same t9.1 with a 0.688 bore. Then I will switch to a SR1 running a 0.686 fin and then repeat everything using a 0.688 fin.

As discussed there will have to be quite a few tests. I want half the test to be between the t9.1 and the SR1 (so, only 150 rounds possible for each type of marker). But, then there will be four sets of possible sub-tests, using 0.686 rounds and 0.688. So now, trying to divide things as equally as possible, I have only 40 rounds per test (and yes, no 0.686 test is possible with the T9.1) so that means we have 50 tests per group. 8 of each group will be used to chrono the makers to as close to 280 fps as possible leaving the 40 rounds each I mentioned earlier.

That will leave the final four tests important tests: 20 twenty in each weight class and twenty in each bore size. Of course, we'll use spread sheets for mean and deviation and to document all those various combinations I covered above.

I hope this will finally get close to definitive answer. A real measurement of these questions with these tolerances. Oh, all will be done with the same 14 inch hammerhead barrels. I have not preconceived notion.

And remember, the chrono can contribute a 3% error as well as the regs. so, the best we can come to with any certainty is 97% reg, 97%, chron, 97% Fs weight, and 97% fs bore size or 89% overall certainty of pattern and velocity variance. But, I'm welling to live with that.

Did I mention my fingers are cramping from all the counting measuring and typing. Hey, if anyone has already done this please, please say me the measuring and the cost!


Closing:

So, what did all that math say? I have 36 rounds of 0.688 at 3.2g to spread across three possible marker configurations, Like 12 rounds each (won't be chroning with these precious few!) Only 10 rounds will be counted the lowest and highest measurement will be discarded.

In the next test, I have 48 rounds of 0.688 at 3.1 g to spread out across three possible marker configurations. Will use 12 rounds like in the previous and only use 10 in the calculations.

I have 94 rounds of 0.686 at 3.2g to spread across three possible marker configurations, like 12 rounds each. Only 10 rounds will be counted the lowest and highest measurement will be discarded.

I have 124 rounds of 0.686 at 3.1g to spread across three possible marker configurations. Only 10 rounds will be counted the lowest and highest measurement will be discarded.

so, each set will produce 30 rounds, 3 sets of test (four test each) so 120 data points to compare.

I plan on using the highest count that I have, the 124, 0.686, 3.1 to chrone the markers (124 - test cases leaves 88. 88 - 24 rounds to chrono the markers for the various bore sizes leaves 64 round of extra 0.686 3.1 g first strikes to repeat test of if I have problems and a cost of $105 in FS.

Let me know if you have any ideas as well. 36 rounds for each marker configuration should add a 3% margin of error per test again giving us a 97% confidence factor in the final results!

Now my fingers are bleeding I have to stop. Any one else willing to try with a different marker like a Carmatec?

Read more: A.C.E.S. - Login
__________________
Chance favors the prepared mind.
Chicago is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2013, 12:17 AM   #29 (permalink)
MCB Member
 
brycelarson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Minnesota

I dig this.
__________________
-Bryce Larson
brycecollinlarson@gmail.com
Feedback
brycelarson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2013, 11:07 AM   #30 (permalink)
Paintball Ballistician :P
 
uv_halo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008

My first thoughts- yes, heavier, narrower rounds will retain their velocity longer, reducing the impact of incidental air currents. This condition could increase accuracy. However, I don't know if it will be significant enough to notice in outdoor conditions.
__________________
FN303SD Totmacher 13 | SP 'Woodstalker' Ion | 1989 Line SI Bushmaster SI Deluxe
First Strike Round Field Listing | External Ballistics, FSRs and PBs | My Feedback
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Kaye -in response to FS price critics
Unfortunately all of you have played the one "speedball" game of paintball for so long you can't conceive of other ways to do this and hence any new ideas seem stupid.
uv_halo is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

  mcarterbrown.com » Paintball » The Armory » First Strike

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:59 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO
© MCB Network LLC