Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 43

Thread: A ported barrel/ length question

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Tyndall AFB Florida
    Posts
    165

    A ported barrel/ length question

    I've been reading through alot of posts and for the most part they all seem to agree that barrel porting is pointless except for turbulence issues ie: getting the turbulence from out of in front of the paintball while still inside the barrel.
    Now my question.
    Been thinking about this for a while and have read that at the very first port of the barrel you lose all pressure behind the paintball ( the same as you would at the end of the barrel with out porting). Lets say for arguments sake you have 100 psi released from the bolt.
    1. As the ball begins down the barrel, air pressure builds up in front of it.
    2. As it travels done the barrel as much excess pressure as the porting will allow will be expelled through the ports.
    3. As the ball passes across the ports some pressure is lost, however the full extent of the 100 psiwould not be lost becross 100% of the porting ( to include the end of the barrel once the paint leaves it) has not been passed. 4. Obviously some preesure from the bolt is lost but untill the pressure from the bolt fully reaches the outside of the barrel AND equilizes with the ambient pressure the paint ball will continue to speed up, not slow down as I have read in several posts.
    So even though barrel lengths dont really do anything for increased accuracy( except maybe having less wind hit the ball while it is on its way to the target). With the correct amount of porting and the most functionally correct Paintball ( that a ball shape can be). Perhaps more accuracy can be gained.
    As I have suggested in another post, maybe a teflon based shell with a scored shell (longitude lines on a globe) and a thick latex based paint, we might see something.

    Correct me if I am wrong.


    Official AO FlightLine Ninja

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Halifax, N.S., Canada
    Posts
    7,982
    Actually, porting is just a nice way to make a barrel more quiet. A tiny bit of porting at the very end of a barrel can help relieve uneven pressure from an odd shaped ball, but generally will not help much with the overall accuracy of good quality paintballs.

    There isn't much turbulence built up in front of a paintball moving down a barrel. The low pressure air in front of the ball offers no real resistance and moves out the barrel in front of the ball without building up any significant pressure.

    As for accelerating a ball once it has passed the porting, this varies from barrel to barrel depending on the amount of porting. A heavily ported barrel may allow air to escape very easily and will therefore offer no pressure behind the ball after it reaches the porting. A slightly ported barrel may still have a bit of pressure behind the ball after it reaches the porting. If the pressure results in more force behind the ball than frictional forces acting against the ball, then you will get additional acceleration down the barrel until the acceleration force reduces to an amount less than the frictional forces.

    An easy way to see how much the ports affect the acceleration of the ball is to put a ball in the barrel past the porting. Now blow into the breach end of the barrel. Can you cause the ball to accelerate out the end of the barrel or does the air just vent out the ports?

    Efficiency is the biggest thing that can be gained by having the proper length barrel and the correct amount of porting. Properly utilize the acceleration curve for your bolt setup before venting the excess air pressure.
    Except for the Automag in front, its usually the man behind the equipment that counts.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Montreal, Quebec, Canada
    Posts
    2,940

    Re: A ported barrel/ length question

    Originally posted by Willystyle21
    I've been reading through alot of posts and for the most part they all seem to agree that barrel porting is pointless except for turbulence issues ie: getting the turbulence from out of in front of the paintball while still inside the barrel.
    Sorry but your initial assumption is completely wrong. There’s no way to remove ‘turbulence’ or pressure from in front of the ball while it’s being fired from the barrel. Unless you apply vaccum to the front part of the barrel as the ball is fired.

    The ONLY thing barrel porting does is shorten the effective length of the barrel and make the barrel quieter.

    Originally posted by Willystyle21
    With the correct amount of porting and the most functionally correct Paintball ( that a ball shape can be). Perhaps more accuracy can be gained.

    Correct me if I am wrong.
    You’re wrong. As long as we’re shooting spheres there is absolutely nothing that can increase accuracy of paintballs. Read the very long and indepth thread on paintball spin dynamics. Lots of hard science and proof of Reynolds numbers and vortex shedding.

    AGD does make a better projectile however. There’s the perfect circle balls which at least make all shots and balls consistent. Then there’s the finned ammunition for the FN303.

    But I think we’d have to go back to pump for those as they’re $2 each.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Tyndall AFB Florida
    Posts
    165
    Slartly:
    What I was saying is that I have read often that the main reason for the porting was to remove the turbulence. I realize that in no way does porting affect spin or accuracy of the ball. I meant to remove as much as possible not all of the pressure in front of the ball. And as long as the is a greater amount of air pressure behind the ball than there is in front of it the ball will continue to accelerate no matter where it is (in barrel or not). And I also have a idea to apply negative pressure to the front of the barrel to aid in this.

    By "functionally correct ball" I meant just what I suggested, by adding mass to the ball as well as score lines ( whch was indepthly discussed in the "look ma a dimpled paintball" thread). These would in my idea based upon what I have read, (remember I have no knowledge of fluid dynamics just astrophysics), would help with inaccuracy caused by ambient air, teflon to reduce friction and score lines to reduce turbulence in the wake of the ball flying through the air.

    I also meant by my post is that if you lower the friction coiffiecent ( of the barrel and ball) acceleration will result as well as eficiency. Which is allways wanted.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Montreal, Quebec, Canada
    Posts
    2,940
    Originally posted by Willystyle21
    What I was saying is that I have read often that the main reason for the porting was to remove the turbulence.
    No, that was the original crappy marketing hype from SP. Now all barrels have it because everyone likes a quiet barrel and expects porting.

    Changes to the paintball fabrication process may help with flight dynamics, but why bother. The cost would be too high.

    Paintballs are fairly cheap, and perform adequately for their purpose.

    Unless you want to be a woodsball sniper.

    And you can't remove pressure from in front of the ball. That's just natural aerodynamics. Pressure in front of a moving object in proportion to the objects speed.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Tyndall AFB Florida
    Posts
    165
    Unless you want to be a woodsball sniper.
    Exactly..............

    I am the type of guy that will strive to get every single horsepower out of an engine. If you know what I mean, and besides when it first started wasn't making semi's and then electro's high cost? Just takes time. And anyone know how much difference in price the paint fill is now compared to a latex based one?

  7. #7
    What about putting dimples on a paintball like a golf ball. I know the dimples on a golf ball supposedly help it in flight. I think dimples could easily be added in the manufacturing process.

    More gold ball dimple info.
    http://wings.avkids.com/Book/Sports/...r/golf-01.html

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Tyndall AFB Florida
    Posts
    165
    Uh.............

    Go to the "Look Ma a dimpled paintball" thread first. Then you an find out the answer to the question.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Sacramento, California
    Posts
    158
    Actually, muzzle breaks and venting was originally done to paintball barrels to help get the pressure off the back of the ball before leaving the control of the barrel.
    Any gas/air that is still pushing on the ball as it leaves the barrel can have an adverse effect on the flight path of the ball. Venting give the ball a chance to get away from the following air pressure.
    A long venting pattern is just a long muzzle break that vents slower and thus more quietly.
    The better the gun is tuned so that the air runs out of "push" before the ball gets to the end of the barrel, the less effective a typical muzzle break will be.
    Glenn Palmer aka Paladin
    Do it right or don't bother.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV
    Posts
    7,104
    There are high speed pics somewhere, where the ball exits ahead of the air blast - so I'm not quite understanding how this works. Air molecules collide with other things in an elastic collision. It's the air molecules bouncing around in a container that result in air pressure.

    So, this should be comparable to other elastic collisions. Such as when you hit a baseball with a bat - although the ball leaves the stadium, the bat is always behind the ball and has a short duration of impulse force.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV
    Posts
    7,104

    Re: A ported barrel/ length question

    Originally posted by Willystyle21
    1. As the ball begins down the barrel, air pressure builds up in front of it.
    2. As it travels done the barrel as much excess pressure as the porting will allow will be expelled through the ports.
    3. As the ball passes across the ports some pressure is lost, however the full extent of the 100 psiwould not be lost becross 100% of the porting ( to include the end of the barrel once the paint leaves it) has not been passed. 4. Obviously some preesure from the bolt is lost but untill the pressure from the bolt fully reaches the outside of the barrel AND equilizes with the ambient pressure the paint ball will continue to speed up, not slow down as I have read in several posts.
    The ball gets shot out like a cork. Air pressure doesn't build, it is suddenly released - letting out all the energy really quickly - and then it dies out just as suddenly.

    Put a ball on the end of your barrel and shoot it - an unported barrel if you got one, like a stock mag barrel. VERY big difference from shooting it normally eh? This is because a majority of the energy from the air blast has been spent well before it has a chance to reach the end of the barrel... a barrel which acts as a pressure chamber - and the regulated air that enters this chamber gets reduced in pressure at an exponential rate as the pressure chamber increases in size (ball moving down barrel). Going from 300fps, to lobbing a few feet in front of your feet is a sign of this exponential drop in energy.

    Porting, or no porting... the required energy imparted on the ball to accelerate it to 300fps has already been released before it even gets that far - the porting makes no difference because the job is already done.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Montreal, Quebec, Canada
    Posts
    2,940
    Miscue beat me to it, but ...
    Believe what you want, but that’s BS. It has never been shown that pressure behind the ball has any effect on the paintball once it leaves the barrel. But at least it’s a more sane explanation for the pointless milling and drilling of paintball barrels than the SP claim of relieving pressure in front and vacuum behind ...

    And they adopted that line of BS after paintballers finally started to see the spiral porting marketed as “rifling” and spining the paintball as pure BS.

    Muzzle brakes and flash suppressors serve a “REAL” purpose with firearms and cannon. Muzzle brakes serve to reduce recoil and/or limit muzzle rise. They can also limit noise. Flash suppressors, which may or may not perform some of the function of a muzzle brake, serve to catch and burn unspent powder and gases so that the flash does not give away the shooters position.

    With air guns and paintball markers they serve only two purposes: reduce noise, and look cool.

    At least in the airgun world “muzzle brakes”, which are often only bolt-on cosmetics, make no bogus claims. Indeed the following is from an airgun manufacturer’s website describing a “muzzle brake”:
    - Hides ugly muzzle grooves left when the frontsight is removed.
    - Guards the critical crown area from damage in case the rifle is dropped or banged against a hard object.
    - Serves as a convenient cocking handle.
    - Protects the bluing around the muzzle.
    - Adds muzzle steadiness when firing (weighs four ounces).
    - Directs sound forward.
    - Looks sharp!

    Think about it. If pressure behind the projectile had any noticeable effect on accuracy, don’t you think that cannons and military weapons would be designed with this in mind? How about competition airguns? With them, accuracy really does mean something. Heck, accuracy is the only thing that counts in sport shooting. Yet, you don’t see holes and porting in sport airguns do you?

    If the general paintball playing public had a clue, barrels would have some porting at the end to reduce noise, and nothing more. Then, to increase accuracy, paintballers would learn to shoot using stable positions and hold their markers to create a stable shooting platform.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Sacramento, California
    Posts
    158
    "It has never been shown that pressure behind the ball has any effect on the paintball once it leaves the barrel. "

    But it has been shown, just maybe in not a way that you would/could see it.

    If you shoot a paintgun from a firmly fixed position and establish an average for the size of the shot group that results and then add an apliance the end of the barrel that results in a measurable reduction in the size of the shots groups, what would that show you ?
    Also consider that the averages were/are establized by dozens of shot groupings and the tests performed on dozens of different guns with a broad range of configurations and all showed similar improvements.

    On another point; comparisons of ballistics and propulsion dynamics for rigid and aerodynamic projectiles as a basis to define those elements relating to flexible and not so round projectiles as paintballs dose not prove anything either.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    OH
    Posts
    1,752
    Flash suppressors, which may or may not perform some of the function of a muzzle brake, serve to catch and burn unspent powder and gases so that the flash does not give away the shooters position.
    Not really. It might be a side benefit. It's really obvious where fire is coming from at night, flash supressor or no. Besides the NOISE factor...

    The real purpose of the flash suppressor is to direct the flash away from the sightline so the shooter can see after the first shot, and doesn't get those streaky looking lights in his head and lose night vision.

    My mini 14 spits a beachball sized muzzle flash unsupressed, which totally kills your eyes if it's dark out.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Montreal, Quebec, Canada
    Posts
    2,940
    Originally posted by Paladin
    But it has been shown, just maybe in not a way that you would/could see it.

    If you shoot a paintgun from a firmly fixed position and establish an average for the size of the shot group that results and then add an apliance the end of the barrel that results in a measurable reduction in the size of the shots groups, what would that show you ?
    Sorry Paladin, but that's garbage. If it's true it can be shown.

    If you have such an appliance and test results proving it works, then why don't you sell it?

    If the flash and escaping gases from a firearm balloon out and away from the projectile, whta bizzare deformation of space/time ocurs to make the air escaping at the end of the barrel effect a paintball?

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Sacramento, California
    Posts
    158
    Originally posted by SlartyBartFast

    Sorry Paladin, but that's garbage. If it's true it can be shown.
    OK, I'll ask again: If you shoot a paintgun from a firmly fixed position and establish an average for the size of the shot group that results and then add an appliance to the end of the barrel that results in a measurable reduction in the size of the shots groups,what would that show you ? If you saw similar results in literally dozens of tests, would you be convinced of the cause of any improvements noted ?

    Originally posted by SlartyBartFast

    If you have such an appliance and test results proving it works, then why don't you sell it?
    Fact is, I have both and have been selling such an appliance for over 15 years now. In fact, thousands of them went out with a money back garantee to improve accuracy on unvented barrels. I think it is only four such units that have been returned for the refund.
    As far as "test results proving it works"; I gave you those test results before and you simply ignored them. Just what is it that would prove anything to you ? You may want to try to disprove it before going sideways.

    [QUOTE]Originally posted by SlartyBartFast

    If the flash and escaping gases from a firearm balloon out and away from the projectile, whta bizzare deformation of space/time ocurs to make the air escaping at the end of the barrel effect a paintball?
    [/QUOTE

    Nothing at all bizzar about it other than your failed reasoning. The fact is that when the gasses are released at the muzzle they want to go faster than the projectile and thus briefly do want to push on that projectile. If it is rigid and aerodynamic the escaping gasses will have very little effect on the flight path but if that projectile is flexible and not perfectly round, the effects are quite different. It is all just a matter of controlling the muzzle blast, specific to the projectile being launched. Another way to control or minimize the effect of muzzle blast is to tune the gun so there isn't a bunch of excess air and/or pressure behind the ball when it leaves the barrel.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Montreal, Quebec, Canada
    Posts
    2,940
    Originally posted by Paladin
    I think it is only four such units that have been returned for the refund.
    In the world of paintball I'm not sure that amounts to much proof. What’s the device? How’s it better than taking a drill to the end of my barrel and honing out the burrs?

    Originally posted by Paladin
    As far as "test results proving it works"; I gave you those test results before and you simply ignored them.
    Did you give test results? When? So far you've just asked me to believe you and do all the testing myself.

    Originally posted by Paladin
    Just what is it that would prove anything to you?
    List of equipment used, test set up, number of balls fired with and with out, measurements of impact radius with and without.

    Then if I wanted to validate the test I (or anyone else) could run the test with identical conditions.

    If your proposed test gives the results you claim, I'd believe you. But best guesses and observation don't cut it as proof.

    Originally posted by Paladin
    You may want to try to disprove it before going sideways.
    That's hogwash. You're putting the cart before the horse. Besides the near impossiblity to prove a negative, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim. (The same way the courts work )

    As for my reasoning having failed ... Well, that's your opinion. No matter what you experience and even with the respect I have for your work it's still only your opinion.

    The whole rubbery ball being deformed when it's shot theory is the same as your participation in the open vs. closed bolt debates. You believe only the theories that support your own beliefs and the products you sell. And, you believe those theories with no experimental data, only theoretical musings and personal observation.

    Not saying that you can’t understand what you see or are lieing to us, but most humans tend to interpret observations rather widely. That's why scientists measure.

    If you are convinced that turbulence affect balls after they leave the barrel, YOU should prove it.
    If you are convinced that balls are deformed and unstable, YOU should prove it.
    If you have proven/tested it, provide the data so others can validate or challenge it.

    In fact previous experience has shown that it would be pointless to try and disprove your theories. You have dismissed both the AGD data that disproves that balls are deformed in flight or on firing and the WARPIG open vs. closed bolt. That same AGD data shows vortex shedding would make any effect on the paintball from gun related input to be statistically insignificant. The only real important factor (firing from a stable firing platform) is to consistently fire at the same velocity.

    Some of your complaints versus that other testing may be valid, but you offer nothing comparable that demonstrates your point of view. That alone underlines that testing to disprove your theories is pointless. Even if I was to buy your product, put three cases of paint through both it and a regular barrel and then show that the difference is insignifigant, you wouldn’t accept the results.

    But I do believe you'd give me my money back.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Sacramento, California
    Posts
    158
    One more time.

    If you shoot a paintgun from a firmly fixed position and establish an average for the size of the shot group that results and then add an appliance to the end of the barrel that results in a measurable reduction in the size of the shots groups,what would that show you ? If you saw similar results in literally dozens of tests, would you be convinced of the cause of any improvements noted ?

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Montreal, Quebec, Canada
    Posts
    2,940
    Originally posted by Paladin
    One more time.
    You're not paying attention either. So don't play that game.

    I you can show me. I'd believe.
    But you can't. So I don't.

    Is that so hard to understand?

    You haven't shown or described a test like you are describing. Have you?

    WARPIG DID show their test of closed vs. open bolt and you discredited them.

    Your line of arguiment is completely unreasonable.

    Yes, if your suppositions are correct, and Yes, if your test is performed and shows the results you are claiming, you would be correct.

    But you haven't proved your suppositions, you haven't provided you test or results for scrutiney. Therefor you are far from being proven right.

    I challenge your suppositions and doubt your test will show the results you claim it will.

    AO, and particularily Deep Blue, is about Data. Not suppostions, what-ifs, and "believe me I know" statements. Regardless of who you might be.

    You make the claim, You provide the proof.

    So far the data, and physics, says a paintball travelling 300fps has the same accuracy no matter what marker, barrel, bolt system, or magic pixies were used to get it to that velocity.

    The kiddies with money to burn and the vendors wanting to take it desparately believe otherwise.

    Not to say there aren't many fine products and techniques to ensure consistency from a paint marker: good regulator, paint to barrel match, consistent paint, consistent marker. And I must say PPS does a fine job of filling those criteria.
    Last edited by SlartyBartFast; 03-09-2004 at 12:31 PM.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Sacramento, California
    Posts
    158
    I'm not playing any games.
    I asked a simple question and you toss out all kinds of inuendo to avoid answering it.
    Why?
    I've seen the results of the tests I mentioned and am quite capable of reading a ruler and understanding what I see. If you choose not to believe me, that is just fine with me and you are certainly welcome to do your own testing. However, you make a pretty convincing case that you wouldn't believe it, even if you saw it for yourself because it doesn't fit into your own preconceptions based theory.

    Apparently, there is nothing that I could show you that could convince you of anything.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Montreal, Quebec, Canada
    Posts
    2,940
    Originally posted by Paladin
    Apparently, there is nothing that I could show you that could convince you of anything.

    "People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones."

    Have you shown me anything? Nope.

    Start by showing me something and then we can judge.

    Innuendo? You're the first to start answering questions with questions friend. The pot is calling the kettle black.

    The only allusion to performed tests you've made is: "But it has been shown, just maybe in not a way that you would/could see it."

    If ya can't see it, ya can't measure it, and it don't prove squat.

    Then you say dozens of tests have been performed and that you've performed measurements. But you don't want to give numbers?!?

    Until you can show me something, point to an authorative source that proves your theories, or even give specific numbers from your use of a ruler and your own tests, I rest my case.

    I've already agreed that the test you propose would be a perfect way to test the validity of your claims. But you haven't provided any data from said test. So far TK remains the only person in the paintball industry to post data ...

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Sacramento, California
    Posts
    158
    OK, you win whatever challenge this is and you have proven the point of my origing post quite well; Thank you.

    You want data but I can only post the results and we've already discused how I arrived at those results.

    Numbers, about 9% average improvement with my muzzle break in about 75 direct comparisons, over a period of about 6 months, of shot groups (generally 50 shots) from every kind of gun I could get my hands on at the time. The only variable for comparison in any of the tests was that of with or without the muzzle break.
    Distance to target 100ft
    velocity 280 to 300 fps

    A reduction in shot group dimensions (with muzzle break in place) could be measured in approximatly 88% of comparisons. Thus, in about 12% of my tests, I could find no measurable improvement by installing the muzzle break. Supporting my assertion that proper tuning makes the device less effective.
    I also found that you can accomplish similar results by dilling some holes in your barrel and filing off the burrs, as you suggested, which is why we don't sell so many muzzle breaks these days.


    Now, you can chew on that for bit. I'm sure you'll come up with enough witty changes in direction to keep us entertained for awhile.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Montreal, Quebec, Canada
    Posts
    2,940

    Thumbs up

    Geez Paladin, was it really all that hard to do?

    Now we need someone to second the test data.

    But a 9% increase at 100ft? I assume we're talking about a 9% reduction in the shot grouping size. So it's going from 12 in to 10.9 in. The way paintball is played I'd class that as insignificant. (Except for the paintball snipers with scopes )

    And at least some of what I suspected is proven true. Tuning the marker correctly so it's firing consistently is the best thing you can do for accuracy.

    Now to really show that the escaping gas has a noticable effect, someone should try firing out of two different length barrels. If the air burst removes accuracy the shorter barrel should be less accurate.

    Or, take a barrel you don't like, fire a large number of shots recording impacts, then cut a few inches off the end, re-chrono and then fire some more. Compare groupings. I would suspect that you'd have to use a single bore barrel to make a valid test.
    Last edited by SlartyBartFast; 03-09-2004 at 05:02 PM.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV
    Posts
    7,104
    I'm going to assume that this "device" works.

    Here are 3 deduced situations:

    A. The device accidentally works and the nature of the phenomenon that it defeats is not clearly understood. The claims about turbulence, etc. cannot be taken seriously.

    B. The nature of the phenomenon is understood clearly, which makes possible the design of a device which can defeat it.

    C. The assumption is incorrect, and the device does not work. All claims of its performance are to be disregarded.

    Choice B - is what is being claimed. If B is true, then there should be answers to these questions because the problem is understood - otherwise the device could not be designed to function as it does without it being accidental.

    Questions:

    Do you clearly understand the problem, such that the creation of your device was made possible?

    Do your accuracy tests prove the existence of turbulence, and have you ruled out the possibility of different forces that have not been mentioned?

    What is the nature of this turbulence and what is "turbulence" for that matter?

    Does this turbulence deviate the path of the ball by interfering with spin, velocity, and/or trajectory? These deviations are detectable right out of the barrel and can account for the magnified loss of accuracy down range - how did you detect them out of the barrel - or are you just interpreting the end result?

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Sacramento, California
    Posts
    158
    Originally posted by SlartyBartFast


    And at least some of what I suspected is proven true. Tuning the marker correctly so it's firing consistently is the best thing you can do for accuracy.

    Well, I'm not sure how you arrived at that conclusion based on what I said but since you feel that 9% is insignificant in any aspect of this debate, I guess that allows you to arrive at any conclusions you wish.

    Although, I found the element of efficency to be more relevant to the results of the tests under scrutiny here.
    In that, without regard to small variations in actual velocity, a gun that fired more efficiently generally showed less improvement with a muzzle break in place than a gun that showed lower efficiency numbers. In short, the more efficient the piece the better the accuracy.
    One particular piece that comes to mind was and old PMI-3 (later known as VM68) that demonstrated excellent consistency over the chrono but was lucky to hit any part of "the barn", thus being an excellent test subject. The muzzle break showed an improvement (reductiion in shot group size) well beyond the averages but tuning with a focus on efficiency showed even greater improvements over all, even though the actual consistency of the velocity readings went down.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Sacramento, California
    Posts
    158
    Originally posted by Miscue
    I'm going to assume that this "device" works.

    Here are 3 deduced situations:

    A. The device accidentally works and the nature of the phenomenon that it defeats is not clearly understood.

    Certainly not an accident but there was quite a bit of trial and error involved in getting it right.

    B. The nature of the phenomenon is understood clearly, which makes possible the design of a device which can defeat it.

    Absolutely.


    C. The assumption is incorrect, and the device does not work. All claims of its performance are to be disregarded.

    Well, the results of the tests indicate that it does work so "C" can be disregarded.

    Choice B - is what is being claimed. If B is true, then there should be answers to these questions because the problem is understood - otherwise the device could not be designed to function as it does without it being accidental.

    Questions:

    Do you clearly understand the problem, such that the creation of your device was made possible?

    Yes indeed, I have full understanding of the problem.

    Do your accuracy tests prove the existence of turbulence, and have you ruled out the possibility of different forces that have not been mentioned?

    The only force effect that I sought to control was the muzzle blast that I don't think should be described as "turbulance" since that part of the muzzle blast that can affect the ball is very lineal in motion along the same axis of the barrel and initial flight path of the ball. The results of the accuracy tests could only prove that the device did what it was intended to do.

    What is the nature of this turbulence and what is "turbulence" for that matter?

    I understand turbulance as a movement of air and/or pressure that is contrary to the axis of flight. (higly simplified version)
    I consider the problem to be more like a tail wind, briely pushing on and past a semi-round, spherical projectile . With dimensions that are typically larger at the equator than at the poles, there is usually a planing effect tangent somewhat relative to the orientation of the seem as the ball leaves the barrel. Hence, the ball gets a little kick in the tail and it's rudder is seldom in line.

    Does this turbulence deviate the path of the ball by interfering with spin, velocity, and/or trajectory?

    Trajectory.

    These deviations are detectable right out of the barrel and can account for the magnified loss of accuracy down range - how did you detect them out of the barrel - or are you just interpreting the end result?
    Well I don't have any high speed photography of it, if that is what you mean and I don't have the scientific type background that would enable me to know a way "detect" or measure the variables at the instant that the ball leaves the barrel. Although, I do have a bit over 40 years experience in dealing with getting a projectile to go where I want it to, and I've proven that I'm quite good at it. Which only serves to say that I clearly understand the problem and the steps to take to deal with it, even if I can't write the correct formula to prove it to anyone else.

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Montreal, Quebec, Canada
    Posts
    2,940
    Originally posted by Paladin
    Well, I'm not sure how you arrived at that conclusion based on what I said but since you feel that 9% is insignificant in any aspect of this debate, I guess that allows you to arrive at any conclusions you wish.
    Well, you said that equal or better improvements were to be had by tuning the marker.

    As for 9% being significant, well it would be if paintball was one shot one elimination, but it ain't.

    If you have to shoot serveral times to ensure a break, that 1" improvement overall hardly matters.

    ANd from a stistics viewpoint accuracy improvements are far more dependant on standard deviations than they are in grouping size.

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    OH
    Posts
    1,752
    If you have to shoot serveral times to ensure a break, that 1" improvement overall hardly matters.
    I disagree. Accurcy is always significant, ROF doesn't matter. More hits=more breaks in less time.

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Montreal, Quebec, Canada
    Posts
    2,940
    Originally posted by trains are bad
    I disagree. Accurcy is always significant, ROF doesn't matter. More hits=more breaks in less time.
    1 inch over 100 feet is something like 0.05 degress of deviation of the barrel.

    Degrees(ArcTAN((1/12)/100))

    Practice till you hold and fire your marker with that kind of precision and then you can worry about a 1" group size reduction.

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    OH
    Posts
    1,752
    Practice till you hold and fire your marker with that kind of precision and then you can worry about a 1" group size reduction.
    I realize we our aim is the weakest link. That's why we need all the help we can get.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •