General

[Beaux@TECHT]

Whats up guys?
This is my first post on mcarterbrown, but many of you may know me from the other forums. I must admit; I like this forum already. It's a breath of fresh air to see mature (for the most part) conversations on a forum...amazing.

You guys are correct in that this is a joint venture between Python and TECHT. It really serves both parties well. We were looking into producing barrels that addressed the smaller paint trend and Python was looking for a way to move more kits. It made sense.

Most of our data/testing comes from Josh Zarecky's (second name on the patent, and Vic's son) final project for his mechanical engineering degree (in which the Python kit and, ultimately, iFIT are a result of). We have to clear it with them before posting his thesis, but I would like to make that information available to you guys. Its 36 pages...so we can't really publish it on our website. It is his thesis, so we can't rightfully just throw that up on the good ole internet.But, I'll see what I can do about it next week.

As far as marketing to the "underbore crowd"...it markets itself to those people. I'm not sure what you mean, CockerPunk, about it being wrongly advertised to them or about what our "recommended paint to barrel match" is. I am assuming that you mean our recommendation is the ball should be easily pushed/blown through the barrel as opposed to underbored. Correct? I certainly am not picking a fight. Just asking for clarification. I know that you have done plenty of testing on barrels and I respect your input in the matter.

Just figured I would hop in on the conversation...

-Beau

[Fluid1]

Originally Posted by cjottawa

Uh, yeah. WAY wrong. If that were the case, my DD68 with its 6.25 inch barrel would be more efficient than something with, say, a 12 inch barrel. It is decidedly NOT.

That's assuming that the 12" barrel has no graduation and retains the same interior diameter the whole 12 inches....

[Fluid1]

Originally Posted by Beaux@TECHT

Whats up guys?
This is my first post on mcarterbrown, but many of you may know me from the other forums. I must admit; I like this forum already. It's a breath of fresh air to see mature (for the most part) conversations on a forum...amazing.

You guys are correct in that this is a joint venture between Python and TECHT. It really serves both parties well. We were looking into producing barrels that addressed the smaller paint trend and Python was looking for a way to move more kits. It made sense.

Most of our data/testing comes from Josh Zarecky's (second name on the patent, and Vic's son) final project for his mechanical engineering degree (in which the Python kit and, ultimately, iFIT are a result of). We have to clear it with them before posting his thesis, but I would like to make that information available to you guys. Its 36 pages...so we can't really publish it on our website. It is his thesis, so we can't rightfully just throw that up on the good ole internet.But, I'll see what I can do about it next week.

As far as marketing to the "underbore crowd"...it markets itself to those people. I'm not sure what you mean, CockerPunk, about it being wrongly advertised to them or about what our "recommended paint to barrel match" is. I am assuming that you mean our recommendation is the ball should be easily pushed/blown through the barrel as opposed to underbored. Correct? I certainly am not picking a fight. Just asking for clarification. I know that you have done plenty of testing on barrels and I respect your input in the matter.

Just figured I would hop in on the conversation...

-Beau

Beau,
Most pump players are hardcore underbore fans

[Buck]

The paint keeps getting smaller too, and many people have been asking for this kind of thing because of that.

[brycelarson]

Originally Posted by Beaux@TECHT

As far as marketing to the "underbore crowd"...it markets itself to those people. I'm not sure what you mean, CockerPunk, about it being wrongly advertised to them or about what our "recommended paint to barrel match" is. I am assuming that you mean our recommendation is the ball should be easily pushed/blown through the barrel as opposed to underbored. Correct? I certainly am not picking a fight. Just asking for clarification. I know that you have done plenty of testing on barrels and I respect your input in the matter.

Just figured I would hop in on the conversation...

-Beau

I think he was saying that you're advertising it by describing how to use it to get a paint to bore match - when in fact, this is an underbore shooter's dream.

welcome to the forum.

We would love to see the research. It's one of those things that PunkWorks has been hammering around for a long time - but we don't have the tools to control both bore length and size. CockerPunk is a fan of the Python kit - he owns a few. I already had far too many freak parts to need another insert system - but this certainly piques my interest - with the size available on the inserts.

[Cockerpunk]

yes beaux - i was commenting on a "blow through" fit that we tend to call paint to barrel match, vs underbore, which is smaller then the paintball itself. our research shows that is far superior to paint to barrel match over the chrono, and it does not break any more paint then an overbore. at reasonable levels of underbore mind you.

i am wary of your accuracy claims. we have tested accuracy vs bore size at least 3 times now, and we plan to do it again soon with a custom machined control bore system, and we have yet to see any trend in bore size vs accuracy. it just isn't there.



after the techpb video on the ifit is posted, we will be posting our ongoing testing with this and other underbore options, over on the PunkWorks subforum of techpb. you are very welcome to come over there for a serious discussion.

[CovertRssian]

I would pick one up if they were possible for the Tiberius guns . Now back to the 98 Custom Python kit....

[drg]

Originally Posted by brycelarson

they used the iFIT on a longer and less ported barrel.

Damn, killed the sport

Yes, this is a far cry from saying 1.75" is the optimum back length. Arguably, it's not much of a back at all.

On the other hand, this is is real-world results using a real barrel in a real situation. People probably would use the iFit this way. Though personally, adding 2 inches to a barrel changes whether the length is "right" for me or not.

[Engus]

Originally Posted by brycelarson

they used the iFIT on a longer and less ported barrel.

we also dont know the bore size of that barrel's front or back. ie: is it stepped bore or not, and how much vs. the freak front.

Although, I will say the python looks like a much better option than regular barrel adapters, and great for pumpers trying to stop rollouts.

[brycelarson]

Originally Posted by Engus

we also dont know the bore size of that barrel's front or back. ie: is it stepped bore or not, and how much vs. the freak front.

Although, I will say the python looks like a much better option than regular barrel adapters, and great for pumpers trying to stop rollouts.

yeah, I don't have data telling me that they're not right about the 1.75" being a good bore length when followed up by 12-16" of overbored barrel.

We've got a huge set of custom stuff coming that should help answer some of these configuration questions we haven't been able to get to yet.

We know from previous tests that fronts, ported or not, increase efficiency on control bores of any length. We know that with a given length of control bore the smaller the bore the more efficiency. We also know that a non-step bore design can give very good efficiency - even when not underbored.

So, this is interesting.