General

[LK-13]

i'd kinda like to see that 0.33 shot.
never figured that break counted when you were looking at your ROF.

[sparky]

I'm loving the idea of a lower BPS cap, but I can't help but wonder if this is just a marketing ploy done by the companies to force players to shell out more money to get their boards changed to a lower BPS cap....

[russc]

From what I'm reading, the .33 comes because the BPS is naturally measured in milliseconds between shots rather than just purely in balls per second. That would be on board programming functions and radar measurement. Some others say it's to allow leeway for a +- variation when you set the gun at 13.

[wolf13]

I can't help but think insurance is a big factor coming into play on this

[Ronin]

Originally Posted by wolf13

I can't help but think insurance is a big factor coming into play on this

I'm sure that's part of it, but what's the reasoning behind such a move? The extra two shots don't to my mind make for that much increased danger.

To give you an extreme example, take my case here in Japan. The government clamped a ruling down on us that limits us to 177 fps. (It's a long story involving AirSoft, joules, and the PTA. I've been asked to write a magazine article about it.) Anyway, at that speed we get bounces... off the hopper! To increase the chance of actually getting a break, I implemented new rules which among other things allow for full auto with no BPS limit.

The legal limit in Germany is 240 fps, but most players ignore this.

So is lower bps limit the answer, or is would a lower fps be the safer way to go?

Aftermarket board makers are small potatoes in the grand scheme of things, and I can't see any reason (besides trying to avoid litigation) for big paintball manufacturers to back such a cap. Gary Shows advocated a 17 bps cap, reasoning that the extra two shots made a difference in stopping a guy*from getting into his bunker. I guess the reverse must also hold true.

I remember seeing a video of a guy hitting 13 bps with a Level 7 Automag once. It would be pretty cool to see somebody playing X-ball with a Revvy and a 'mag.

In any case, is this a done deal yet?

[sdawg]

Originally Posted by sparky

I'm loving the idea of a lower BPS cap, but I can't help but wonder if this is just a marketing ploy done by the companies to force players to shell out more money to get their boards changed to a lower BPS cap....

Most boards allow you to mechanically limit the rate of fire. For example, my APE board on my Ion has a "PSP" mode, but I can also set the dwell and fire delay to make it physically impossible for the marker to shoot faster than 13 BPS.

My question is, what is going to be the point of all these loaders that can feed at 20+ BPS if you never need to shoot faster than 13BPS (unless you're a cheater)? 12v VL Revolution FTW.

PS I would agree this cap is to reduce cost of not only competition but also of practice. X-factor supposedly shoots a 1/2 skid per day of practice.

[Party of A-5]

Originally Posted by sdawg

PS I would agree this cap is to reduce cost of not only competition but also of practice. X-factor supposedly shoots a 1/2 skid per day of practice.

I think that over all this is a good idea, always been a fan of accuracy over ROF.
Maybe this will make gun manufacturers realize that they speed is not the most important thing and the quality and reliability come first?

Nah, but one can dream

[The Foo]

.75ms is what 13.33bps converts to. I think they wanted a nice round number to work with when measuring speeds.

This is according to Chris Raehl

[wolf13]

well, to be blunt, i think its less that the 2bps difference thats the problem, its the fact that the rof is being manipulated artificially that would cause insurance companies to balk to my thinking. 13 bps is probably a lot closer to the true average rate that you would naturally see, and so its a heck of a lot easier to defend it in court if you have statistics that show that. once you artificially add to a statistic, then you increase liability.

personally, I have always thought anytime you take control out of the hands of a player and give it to a microchip, you are asking for a disaster. Japan is an extreme example where i could see advocating it, however, when safety gear is rated for use at 300fps and we are pushing that limit; then adding on ultra high rates of repeated impact at short range, I think we need to ask a more serious question. last time i looked, and its been a long time so i may be wrong or out of date, the standard called for replacement of a lens after a single 300fps impact. if that is still true, and the industry has chosen to increase the likely hood of multiple impacts occurring within a second at 300fps, then i can't help but wonder at the liability.

[Surestick]

To give you an extreme example, take my case here in Japan. The government clamped a ruling down on us that limits us to 177 fps.

Am I the only one wondering how you play and have fun at such a low velocity?