mcarterbrown.com  

First Strike Everything first strike related

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-15-2013, 09:04 PM   #1 (permalink)
Will work 4 First Strikes
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Seattle, Washington

Lapco .683 FSR Barrel Video

Interesting video from Hustle Paintball.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ky2gRvlXyts

A friend of mine just bought a T9 and was looking at a Hammerhead or this barrel. For players who owns a Lapco .683, you satisfied with it's performance?

I know about the plastic fouling and must be cleaned every box or so. But I just can't help feeling .683 too tight for FSR?
jjron99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2013, 09:58 PM   #2 (permalink)
Paintball Ballistician :P
 
uv_halo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008

yes, it is too tight. The fouling has a good chance of occuring after 80 rounds so, I recommend cleaning after 40-80rnds
__________________
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 05-15-2013, 10:35 PM   #3 (permalink)
Ask me How!
 
GMAN1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Chino, CA

This has been discussed many times over. The bore is not too tight. It's the optimal bore for shooting First Strikes as tested by Lapco, using and comparing multiple bore sizes. If it was to tight they wouldn't have expanded the barrel too other thread platforms and it wouldn't work as well as it does. I have been using the 9.1 Lapco fsr barrel since it came out never having issues (i don't consider the residue build up a flaw/issue).
__________________
For all your tactical gear needs:


Facebook / Twitter
GMAN1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2013, 11:50 PM   #4 (permalink)
DSA
One in the Pipe!
 
DSA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Lubbock TX
Send a message via Skype™ to DSA

I like the video, especially the lapco barrel test. I agree the barrel may cause a decrease in efficiantcy but who cares if distance and accuracy are you priorities. I honestly like this test better than the PW FSR test simply because we could watch the round from marker to target.
__________________


My Feedback Redux Knowledge Base My Email Line SI Knowledge Base
Quote:
Originally Posted by russc View Post

All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to shoot nothing.
DSA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2013, 04:15 AM   #5 (permalink)
Active Member
 
Trinity's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Eureka, California

Here is another point of view. I want to applaud Lapco for trying something new and different. The truth is that Hammerhead barrels were really just in the right place at the right time. Years ago I tried them with round paint and was not impressed. I never thought they improved my accuracy. Then first strikes came along and Hammerhead suddenly was a winner.

Having said all that, I have to agree with UvHalo. I think the bore on the Lapco is just too small. I shot hundreds of first strikes through my T9.1 trying to decide whether to use the Lapco/Tiberius Barrel or the Hammerhead. Both barrels are very good and very accurate. I found the Hammerhead to shoot slightly tighter groups. The fact that they are both good barrels is why I think there are so many threads on the subject of which is the better barrel. In the end, after a lot of side-by-side shooting, I chose the Hammerhead.

Other than being slightly less accurate, I found two other drawbacks to the small-bore Lapco. First, I occasionally got a flier. I'm not talking about a round that was completely off the target; just a round that was a bit out of the group. For example, if I was shooting 6" inch groups, I would get one round out of the Lapco that was off both vertically and elevation wise and took the the group up to 10-12 inches. I didn't see that with the Hammerhead barrel near as often.

Second, I was breaking first strikes. Not all the time, but often enough to frustrate me. Maybe one out of every 100 rounds. I never quite knew why; I just didn't like it. I haven't and don't break paint with the Hammerhead barrel. Back then I didn't size my rounds. There really wasn't much point. First strikes were all I shot and the paint had to go down the barrel whether it was the Hammerhead or the Lapco.

Now that I am using the SR1 and a Hammerhead barrel with fins I handle every round that goes into the breach. When you handle each round like that you feel it slide into the breach and you get to know whether what you just chambered was a large tight round or something smaller and loose. Pulling the trigger gives you immediate feedback on the external ballistics of each of those types of rounds. As a result I now size and sort every first strike right after I get them. I don't get fanatical. I basically break the rounds into two piles: .686 and .688. I have found that the vast majority go through a .686 fin very nicely. There are a few larger ones in every batch that seem to fit best in a .688 sizer. I have also found that the bigger, .688-size rounds don't fly quite as true when pushed through a .686 sizer. They are still accurate but not as accurate. They are also prone to be a flier round depending on just how much bigger they are.

Bill, from CCM, often says that first-strike rifles are only as good as the first strike rounds we put through them. Lately, I have seen more variation in first strike quality than I would like. Many of us who have been shooting the rounds since the very beginning believe that the first strikes initially produced were markedly superior to what came after. Recently I had a first strike round so big that it wouldn't easily fit down inside the plastic tubes that I put them in for storage.

In retrospect, I think back to my days of unknowingly jamming larger-size rounds down a .683 barrel in my T9.1 and I am no longer surprised that I occasionally broke rounds or had an occasional flier. If the first strikes were more consistent in their sizing or there was a way to eliminate the rounds bigger than .686, then maybe a .683 would be more acceptable in my eyes. Until Tiberius can produce first strikes like that then I think the bore is too small.
Trinity is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2013, 05:07 AM   #6 (permalink)
Newbie
 
Join Date: Dec 2012

not to steal the thread but i went through 800fs at eurobiggame last weekend, it was a target rich enviroment i have only been shooting fs since january this year but i can see QA differences.
There was molding excess material between the fins/ridges more or less on every one, some of them looked like the fins were out of round higher ridges on one side.
And a few boxes where covered in leaked fill? they still shot better then normal paint but not as good as i have been used to, have only shot 600 Before this game everyone in HH battlestixx 686 fin.

Cheeserocket is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2013, 05:59 AM   #7 (permalink)
Seasoned Member
 
P4p3Rc1iP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Leeuwarden, The Netherlands

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheeserocket View Post
not to steal the thread but i went through 800fs at eurobiggame last weekend, it was a target rich enviroment i have only been shooting fs since january this year but i can see QA differences.
There was molding excess material between the fins/ridges more or less on every one, some of them looked like the fins were out of round higher ridges on one side.
And a few boxes where covered in leaked fill? they still shot better then normal paint but not as good as i have been used to, have only shot 600 Before this game everyone in HH battlestixx 686 fin.

I noticed that too! I only bought a single 100rd box, and noticed that not all rounds were of equal quality. A lot had odd deformations and residue on the fins. Some even got stuck in my Hammer 7's breach!

Not sure if the EuroBiggame just bought a few old/messed up boxes or if the quality is actually going down completely...
__________________
P4p3Rc1iP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2013, 09:29 AM   #8 (permalink)
Newbie
 
Join Date: Feb 2012

Projectile velocity vs vertical deviation graphs

For any projectile to be accurate at any distance, the muzzle velocity (among many other factors) is critical. I will not give an opinion on the Lapco FSR barrel as it would be biased. Please see attached for added projectile information.

Name:  300 fps.jpg
Views: 1190
Size:  156.8 KB

Name:  300 fps (2).jpg
Views: 1144
Size:  156.8 KB

Name:  300 fps (3).jpg
Views: 1306
Size:  175.6 KB
CarmatechEng is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2013, 11:54 PM   #9 (permalink)
Will work 4 First Strikes
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Seattle, Washington

Someone did their homework.

Thank you for sharing!!
jjron99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2013, 04:13 PM   #10 (permalink)
Paintball Ballistician :P
 
uv_halo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008

Quote:
Originally Posted by GMAN1 View Post
This has been discussed many times over. The bore is not too tight. It's the optimal bore for shooting First Strikes as tested by Lapco, using and comparing multiple bore sizes. If it was to tight they wouldn't have expanded the barrel too other thread platforms and it wouldn't work as well as it does. I have been using the 9.1 Lapco fsr barrel since it came out never having issues (i don't consider the residue build up a flaw/issue).
Can you cite a source who said they tested various sizes and, how they were tested? In any case, I have personally collected data that shows that the rifled .683 barrel on the Tiberius 9.1 is a detractor to an already poorly performing system.

Velocity Consistency Issues (with 20FS shots per barrel, rechronoing for each barrel and a Ninja standard 850PSI output tank):
  • T9.1 with .690 smoothbore 16" Barrel FPS Standard Deviation (SD): 4.68
  • T9.1 with .683 rifled 16" Barrel FPS SD:12.72
As tested by Bryce and Gordon (unspecified tank, probably Ninja) over an optical chrono:
  • T9.1 with .690 smoothbore 16" Barrel FPS SD: 3.67
  • T9.1 with .683 rifled 16" Barrel FPS SD: 7.73

This is in addition to having to turn the gun's reg two full turns up to get the velocity to the field limit when using the rifled barrel.

This is also in addition, to rigorously collected data (indoors, bench locked marker, recorded impact points and velocities) which show that the looser .689 rifled bore performs just as well, in regards to accuracy (the difference is in the noise level of the data) as the LAPCO .683 Rfiled barrel:
LAPCO .683 Rifled Vector*: 2.50"
Hammerhead .689 Rifled Vector*: 2.78"

* Vector = sqrt (SD of Horizontal impact locations x SD of Vertical impact locations) and represents the circular radius 68% of shots fired will land within.
Finally, anecdotal data:

After testing the LAPCO/Tiberius rifled Barrel, Punkworks had to turn the T9.1's velocity down by 100FPS when they switched to the Hammerhead barrel.

I personally experienced barrel jams, after firing 80+ rounds without running a squeegie through the barrel (in those rare cases when I didn't get a breach break). Literally, the round to fail to exit the barrel and would get stuck halfway down the barrel. I sent the gun and the barrel to Tiberius as they thought it might've been a velocity/regulator issue. They found nothing other than they suspected that the o-ring between the ASA and the gun body might've been too small and constricting the airflow and sent the gun back. I would test this but, I'm not going to blow $80 on two cases, and waste the time needed to make it happen.

I'm not slamming LAPCO in this at all. What I do know is that LAPCO makes better barrels than Hammerhead. The Anno finish on the LAPCO (on the bore and the O.D.) is way better than any Hammerhead barrel.


Quote:
Originally Posted by DSA View Post
I like the video, especially the lapco barrel test. I agree the barrel may cause a decrease in efficiantcy but who cares if distance and accuracy are you priorities. I honestly like this test better than the PW FSR test simply because we could watch the round from marker to target.
I will always agree that more documentation is better. However, some key things to consider:

This video was produced by a company with a budget. Punkworks received no funding for their test (and even had to take time off work to do it). I had a case of first strike rounds (and a hammerhead 14" barrel) sent to them from Rockstar Tactical, and I sent them my own:
  • LAPCO .690 Smoothbore 9"
  • LAPCO .690 Smoothbore 16"
  • Tiberius (LAPCO) .683 Rifled 9"
  • Tiberius (LAPCO) .683 Rifled 6"

Hustle paintball did not lock the marker in place- it can be seen moving around from shot to shot (keeping in mind that small movements at the shooters end = big movements at the target's end).

Hustle Paintball did not collect any data- it's hard to gather from the video, just how differently the barrel's performed. Also, they did not chrono each shot (so no clue if there were high or low FPs shots that influenced impact locations).

Hustle Paintball did the test outdoors- slight, un-noticable breezes will impact the trajectory of a first strike round.

Hustle Paintball only tested the LAPCO versus the Stock DAM barrel however, I can't fault them here as Carmatech is the only company that currently has access to factory produced .689 Rifled AC threaded barrels and they're not selling them. My point being is all their test really shows is that there is some improvement in using a rifled barrel over a smoothbore, with First Strike rounds.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trinity View Post
Here is another point of view. I want to applaud Lapco for trying something new and different. The truth is that Hammerhead barrels were really just in the right place at the right time. Years ago I tried them with round paint and was not impressed. I never thought they improved my accuracy. Then first strikes came along and Hammerhead suddenly was a winner.

Having said all that, I have to agree with UvHalo. I think the bore on the Lapco is just too small. I shot hundreds of first strikes through my T9.1 trying to decide whether to use the Lapco/Tiberius Barrel or the Hammerhead. Both barrels are very good and very accurate. I found the Hammerhead to shoot slightly tighter groups. The fact that they are both good barrels is why I think there are so many threads on the subject of which is the better barrel. In the end, after a lot of side-by-side shooting, I chose the Hammerhead.

Other than being slightly less accurate, I found two other drawbacks to the small-bore Lapco. First, I occasionally got a flier. I'm not talking about a round that was completely off the target; just a round that was a bit out of the group. For example, if I was shooting 6" inch groups, I would get one round out of the Lapco that was off both vertically and elevation wise and took the the group up to 10-12 inches. I didn't see that with the Hammerhead barrel near as often.

Second, I was breaking first strikes. Not all the time, but often enough to frustrate me. Maybe one out of every 100 rounds. I never quite knew why; I just didn't like it. I haven't and don't break paint with the Hammerhead barrel. Back then I didn't size my rounds. There really wasn't much point. First strikes were all I shot and the paint had to go down the barrel whether it was the Hammerhead or the Lapco.

Now that I am using the SR1 and a Hammerhead barrel with fins I handle every round that goes into the breach. When you handle each round like that you feel it slide into the breach and you get to know whether what you just chambered was a large tight round or something smaller and loose. Pulling the trigger gives you immediate feedback on the external ballistics of each of those types of rounds. As a result I now size and sort every first strike right after I get them. I don't get fanatical. I basically break the rounds into two piles: .686 and .688. I have found that the vast majority go through a .686 fin very nicely. There are a few larger ones in every batch that seem to fit best in a .688 sizer. I have also found that the bigger, .688-size rounds don't fly quite as true when pushed through a .686 sizer. They are still accurate but not as accurate. They are also prone to be a flier round depending on just how much bigger they are.

Bill, from CCM, often says that first-strike rifles are only as good as the first strike rounds we put through them. Lately, I have seen more variation in first strike quality than I would like. Many of us who have been shooting the rounds since the very beginning believe that the first strikes initially produced were markedly superior to what came after. Recently I had a first strike round so big that it wouldn't easily fit down inside the plastic tubes that I put them in for storage.

In retrospect, I think back to my days of unknowingly jamming larger-size rounds down a .683 barrel in my T9.1 and I am no longer surprised that I occasionally broke rounds or had an occasional flier. If the first strikes were more consistent in their sizing or there was a way to eliminate the rounds bigger than .686, then maybe a .683 would be more acceptable in my eyes. Until Tiberius can produce first strikes like that then I think the bore is too small.
I too think that it was great for LAPCO to do something new and different- given they were one of the early critics of rifled barrels way back when. I personally, hope that they test/retest and come up with a better solution than the .693. I'd jump on a .689 LAPCO rifled just for the better bore anno (which allows for easier cleaning).

Do you think the accuracy performance differences that you saw could be in the statistical noise? I ask because of how close the barrels performed in an indoor environment.

I agree in that I suspect manufacturing differences may be afoot. I feel, but did not directly compare that older FSRs had less 'flash' around and between the fins when compared to more recently produced rounds (i.e. since March April of this year). However, I alos noticed something else. In preps for Living Legends, I bought seven boxes of FSRs. These boxes were new as I had to wait on Rockstar to get them in stock (they were sold out). After loading lots of mags, I noticed something- all of the fill nipples were circular, clean edged and, evenly rounded- and I thought 'Hmmm, I wonder if they improved the fill and seal process / equipment'. I didn't have any old ones on hand so, I had no point of comparison so, I left it alone. Then, at Living Legends, a friend gave me several tubes that were purchased late last year, early this year. Sure enough, there was a night and day difference between the rounds nipples. The old ones were slightly bigger, less circular and unevenly edged.

Personally, I rarely, if ever had what I would call pure barrel breaks in my T9.1, once I started routinely cleaning the barrel. I did continue to have breach breaks- which was confirmed by the presence of paint on the bolt tip, the detents and the magazine. I wrote off fliers as breach breaks that simply broke or cracked the skirt, rather than the payload section. I suspect the cause of these problems to be the mag/breach design.
__________________
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 04:24 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO
© MCB Network LLC