Funny hammerhead conversation

[viper_ssc]

I kept telling people dont buy the hammerhead because its a waste of money and some guy gets mad at me because of it.


Chris <[email protected]> wrote:
Hello, i keep seeing you all over paintball.com forums and i see you keep making fun of the hammerhead barrel and saying its a waste of money, have you even shot a hammerhead barrel? have you compared them to any other barrel? because i have and i have pictures to prove the hammerhead barrel is better then a freak or anything else you want to put it up against. dont take this email in the wrong way, im not trying to insult you or anything in that manner, im just trying to prove to you hammerhead barrels are not the garbage you keep telling people it is! If you would like to see hammerhead vs freak pictures let me know or go to my site www.hammerheadpaintballdirect.com and go to about hammerhead/article reviews


In a message dated 3/17/2004 2:15:06 PM Eastern Standard Time, [email protected] writes:

Im never said that they were junk or making fun of them I just dont want some noob to be lied to about hammerheads being more accurate because they arn't. They are just as accurate as any other barrel with a good paint-barrel match. Yes I have tried the hammerhead barrel and the freak and I came to conclude they were same accuracy as each other.Do you have any data to support your claim. Well I have data to support mine http://www.automags.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=64669&highlight=rifling
Tom Kaye has proven that rifling has no effect on a paintball due to the liquid fill inside. If you still dont believe me then go to automags.org and try to prove that they are more accurate. Like I said before I dont want some noob wasting there money on a barrel that is all hype.


[email protected] wrote: We have tested a hammerhead vs all the barrels out there including the freak. we go to paintball competitions and allow people to test our barrel vs whatever they got and everyone who tries it loves it. i do have an article with pictures detailing hammerhead vs a freak barrel. at 50 100 and 150 yards and hammerhead does better then a freak. the only thing i do admit to you is hammerhead barrels are a bit pricy for what they are, thats why i sell them a lot cheaper then EVERYONE ELSE from barrel and fin kit from $125.00


word document with pictures of hammerhead vs freak
The_HammerHead_Barrel.doc

my website with the article link on it
HAMMERHEAD PAINTBALL DIRECT

if you have shot a hammerhead then you do know how well it shoots, so why do you tell everyone not to get it? it does shoot well and the barrel being a hype is just your opinion. Please understand it took a long time to perfect rifling on a paintball barrel and i know you dont know the specs nor have proof that the rifling doesnt make a difference. i am almost positive you heard this from someone and just took it upon yourself to determine that 9 years of testing and retesting and remodeling the barrel is all a hype.

-Chris
-


[email protected] writes:
Did you even care to click the link and read all the posts
there? You say i have no proof that rifling has doesnt have a effect on a paintball? Heres another thread sorry most of them dont have to do with rifling but some do http://www.automags.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=34429 if you actually care to read them then you'll see that it doesnt have an effect on a paintball. Go to www.automags.org and post there asking them about rifling and the hammerhead. Like i said before I have tested the hammerhead and freak and they about the same. By the pictures that are there there is so little difference in the accuarcy it wont be worth all that extra money. So im done argueing I have given more than enough data to support my claim


do you even play paintball? a little bit more acurate is alot in an actual game, how many times have you shot and you were an inch from hitting someone, lots right? well the hammerhead would of hit that target, so a little difference does count. and just because you may be tight on money and feel 125 dollars is a lot of money, a real paintball enthusiast knows that paintball is an expensive sport and 125 for a barrel that can shoot an 11inch target 100 yards away is a bargain. so stop talking so much garbage about hammerhead because its a multi-million dollar company FOR A REASON!!!!!!! and you are an internet junkie **he said a bad word** that 125 is a lot of money for a reason aswell

I tried to reply to him but he has blocked email from me or something.

[RingOfScale]

personally, i think you were both being stupid :P no reason to fight with someone on whether or not one barrel is better then another, if he wants to believe that hammerheads are all that, by all means, let him.

( i have no experience with ANY barrels cept a stock piranha barrel, and lapco bigshot, so i have no experiance with the barrels in question. all i am saying, is its stupid to argue with someoen over something like that, when alot of it is probably just personal preferance. )

-RingOfScale

[Head knight of Ni]

Barrels are such trivial things. Especially on older bodied Mags. the bottum line is matching. Rifling is not a greatly practicle thing,YET,but we can all agree the best way to get paint on target is a good old fashioned sling shot.:D

[No sKiLLz]

What a tool. I think it's funny when people don't have common sense. If the control bore is smaller than the tip (as they are in all kits) what difference is rifling going to make? The only reason those things would be accurate is the short control bore. The rifling is a waste.

[AGD]

Hummm 11" group at 100 yards..... got to get me one of them....

AGD

[lew]

Originally posted by Head knight of Ni
but we can all agree the best way to get paint on target is a good old fashioned sling shot.:D

case closed!:D

[Lohman446]

Originally posted by AGD
Hummm 11" group at 100 yards..... got to get me one of them....

AGD

Please do... please do the controlled tests on them and see if that is real. PS - if it is, PM me first please so I can buy one before AO buys them out.

[Morally0Confused]

i wonder if my mag even shoots 100 yards?

[Jack & Coke]

Originally posted by No sKiLLz


If the control bore is smaller than the tip (as they are in all kits) what difference is rifling going to make? The only reason those things would be accurate is the short control bore. The rifling is a waste.



I have not shot a hammerhead, but I have held one in my hands and examined it.

Very interesting... the short control bores (the usable ones) are actually larger than the main body rifling section. You can actually feel the difference with your fingers.

For sizing comparison, we took some paintballs which could easily pass through the control bore, and put them into the main rifling section. The got stuck and we had to push them through with a battle swab.

This is kinda strange because, what use is the control bore if it's actually larger than the main body of the barrel?

:confused:

[Lee]

the only thing in my gear bag thats accurate and effective out to 100 yards is my rather large inventory of harsh language.

[Jack & Coke]

lol!http://www.paintmagazine.com/cutecast/emoticons/rofl.gif

[Miscue]

http://www.automags.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=124222&highlight=hammerhead
http://www.automags.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=125676&highlight=hammerhead
http://www.automags.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=126193&highlight=friction

The control bore is bigger than the tip? That's uber-silly! I've never examined one closely... I assumed the tip would be bigger like every other barrel. This boggles the mind.

[No sKiLLz]

Originally posted by Jack &amp; Coke


I have not shot a hammerhead, but I have held one in my hands and examined it.

Very interesting... the short control bores (the usable ones) are actually larger than the main body rifling section. You can actually feel the difference with your fingers.

For sizing comparison, we took some paintballs which could easily pass through the control bore, and put them into the main rifling section. The got stuck and we had to push them through with a battle swab.

This is kinda strange because, what use is the control bore if it's actually larger than the main body of the barrel?

:confused:

OMG even worse! These barrels must be disgustingly inefficient.

[Jack & Coke]

Q, not the "tip" per say, but the main body where the rifling is located.

Since the control bore is so short, you can stick you finger through it and feel the ridges of the rifling. Strange design concept indeed.

http://www.hammerheadpaintball.com/images/gallery/big_24.gif

http://www.hammerheadpaintball.com/images/gallery/big_28.gif

http://www.hammerheadpaintball.com/images/gallery/big_42.jpg

http://www.hammerheadpaintball.com/images/body_history.gif

http://www.hammerheadpaintball.com/images/page1.jpg

[Head knight of Ni]

Thats always gonna have gas efficiency because the reason rifling is doable on real firearms is because the propellant starts as a solid powder and expands through an explosion. But in paintball we use gases so we're basically pushing the paintballs at each other. Rifling however allows space for air to escape around the ball. This means using more air to "push" the ball out making the barrel a gas hog. However it is inovative and intresting I give it a solid 7.1 :D

[Miscue]

Originally posted by Head knight of Ni
However it is inovative

Something is innovative when it has a novel way of doing things better. This is not the case with this barrel.

"Don't believe the hype." -Manike

[Miscue]

Originally posted by Head knight of Ni
Rifling however allows space for air to escape around the ball.

A paintball has an equator, touching the barrel on two sides. The gap that is created, I'd say is substantial enough to not bother mentioning what space the <B>t</B><i>rifling</i> creates.

[Head knight of Ni]

Well I meant that its at least a little different. Still the same old over hyped crap though. But what isnt any more. AGD stuff? badly under hyped. I still think the major selling point is its supposed reverse porting. Why is no one talking about that?:(

[Muzikman]

Originally posted by viper_ssc
...125 for a barrel that can shoot an 11inch target 100 yards away is a bargain.

As Tom pointed out. That right there would make me question anything this guy says. Even if it does work like stated and is good as they say (which I'm sure it doesn't) how fast would a paintball have to travel to reach 100yards.

[Head knight of Ni]

One thing you have to remember though is that the rifled portion is very dependant on good paint to barrel match so rifling has too many flaws just realizing that I now give it a 6.5 :(

[Head knight of Ni]

how fast would a paintball have to travel to reach 100yards.

The exact reason I dont like the flatline idea. Who needs more distance if the shot takes time to get there.:D

I do like the flat trajectory idea though.

[FallNAngel]

Chris <[email protected]> wrote:
do you even play paintball? a little bit more acurate is alot in an actual game, how many times have you shot and you were an inch from hitting someone, lots right? well the hammerhead would of hit that target, so a little difference does count.

Apparently accuracy doesn't matter now. Your aim is off by an inch? Oh well, the hammerhead would compensate and hit the target for you...


Chris <[email protected]> wrote:
so stop talking so much garbage about hammerhead because its a multi-million dollar company FOR A REASON!!!!!!!

Drug dealers make a lot of money too... does that mean I should go out and get drugs? No... just because people buy the crap doesn't make it good.

[GT]

real paintball enthusiast knows that paintball is an expensive sport and 125 for a barrel that can shoot an 11inch target 100 yards away is a bargain.

UHHHH, WTF?



Originally posted by AGD
Hummm 11" group at 100 yards..... got to get me one of them....

AGD

Sorry Tom,
there is a huge difference bewteen an 11 inch grouping and an 11 inch target. ;) I guess you're not an "enthusiast."


enthusiast; makes paintball sound like bird watching.

[azza]

,,,,and 125 for a barrel that can shoot an 11inch target 100 yards away is a bargain.

Do you find it odd that nowhere do they mention how much paint they went through to come to prove that statement?Did they use a hopper? A case? Or maybe was that 3 cases?
I bet anyone could do the same with virtually any other barrel out there with a half decent paint/barrel match. Just dont expect me to pay for the cases of paint. :P

(though i only know about it from what Ive read in this thread)

Cheers
Azza

[yeahthatsme]

they tested the barrels at 50, 100, and 150 yards...last i checked my balls would have to lob like no other to make 100 yards, with wind in my favor, much less 150, this guys nuts.

[lamby]

yea, the 11" at 100 yards thing is pretty funny. I think that was brain fart though... I am sure he meant to say feet. Just FYI if I dail in my 30.06, with the rounds I use, to zero at 100 yards. I will be 3.8" low at 200 yards. and that is a 165grain bullet with a muzzle velocity of 2800 FPS (a little faster and more areodynamic than a pb at 300fps :) ) I wonder with no wind what is the MAXIMUM distance a paintball can travel at 300fps. possible deep blue question... Any physics majors in here?

[rdb123]

lamby, this is from my post over at PBN a few months ago:



That is correct.

Two objects dropped at the same height drop at the exact same rate (9.8 meters per second). Also, after the ball leaves the barrel of the gun, there is no more force acting on it in the X direction.

Therefore, we can surmise this for a paintball shot directly parallel to the horizon from 1.5 meters up:

Using one of the kinematic equations for displacement, Delta(Y) = (acceleration)(time^2)/2 we have -1.5 meters = (-9.8 m/s)(time^2)/2.

-1.5/-9.8 = t^2/2 = .55 Seconds.

Now, we also know the initial velocity of the paintball leaving the barrel is 300fps which equals 91.44 meters per second.

Multiply the time (.55 Seconds) by the velocity (91.44 meters per second) and you end with 55.6 meters traveled by the ball. 55.6m = 165feet.

Why is this relevant? Well, if you think about it, any gun firing 1.5m above the ground at 300fps directly parallel will travel 165feet disregarding air resistance.

Now...

Mass will not make a difference in the simple air-resestance-free physics we are doing; however, in REAL physics with air resistance, mass will have an effect on the decrease in speed.

In addition, if two balls are fired at the same speed like in the example above, but one ball has a greater mass, the ball with the greater mass will travel further because its negative acceleration due to air resistance will be less.

I COULD redo the example equation I wrote above to account for air-resistance, but then that would involve Calculus and I'm sure most of you would NOT like to read through that.

EDIT:

Anyone else see the irony in this???


Just change the values in my initial equation to find what you're looking for. Ironically enough, I wrote that reply to argue why the hammerhead is all hype. :D

http://pbnation.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=326157&perpage=21&pagenumber=1 (Read it, it's pretty funny)

[lamby]

rdb,

Thank you very interesting... Is there a math formulat that would determain maximum distance though? I know that the peak attack angle would have to be figured out, but that is what I have no idea how to figure out

[127.0.0.1]

Originally posted by rdb123

http://pbnation.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=326157&perpage=21&pagenumber=1 (Read it, it's pretty funny)

LOL!!!!! One of the FUNNIEST Thread ever! Newtownian physics = NAZI! LMAO!!!!

[Miscue]

Originally posted by lamby
rdb,

Thank you very interesting... Is there a math formulat that would determain maximum distance though? I know that the peak attack angle would have to be figured out, but that is what I have no idea how to figure out

You can get a good approximation if you calculate for wind resistance. But this requires calculus.

[yeahthatsme]

Originally posted by rdb123
lamby, this is from my post over at PBN a few months ago:



Just change the values in my initial equation to find what you're looking for. Ironically enough, I wrote that reply to argue why the hammerhead is all hype. :D

http://pbnation.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=326157&perpage=21&pagenumber=1 (Read it, it's pretty funny)


that was one of the funniest threads i have ever read, way to stick it to'em guys http://www.automags.org/forums/images/icons/icon14.gif

[rdb123]

Originally posted by lamby
rdb,

Thank you very interesting... Is there a math formulat that would determain maximum distance though? I know that the peak attack angle would have to be figured out, but that is what I have no idea how to figure out

The angle to get the most displacement along the X-axis would have to be a 45 degree angle. I'll do the kinematic equations on paper later tonight and then type them up here on AO. It's Physics 101 really.

Now, my post I quoted and the answer I will give you later do not take into account wind resistence. However, wind affects objects of less mass than those of greater mass, so figuring in wind resistence with Calculus would be moot.

[Miscue]

Originally posted by rdb123


The angle to get the most displacement along the X-axis would have to be a 45 degree angle. I'll do the kinematic equations on paper later tonight and then type them up here on AO. It's Physics 101 really.

Now, my post I quoted and the answer I will give you later do not take into account wind resistence. However, wind affects objects of less mass than those of greater mass, so figuring in wind resistence with Calculus would be moot.

You're joking right? If you do this w/o taking drag into account, your numbers will be severely exaggerated. Also, it does not work out to 45 degrees when you throw in drag... but it's in the area.

[hitech]

Here is a link to a trajectory calculator:

http://home.comcast.net/~dyrgcmn/pball/trajectory.html

[rdb123]

Originally posted by Miscue


You're joking right? If you do this w/o taking drag into account, your numbers will be severely exaggerated. Also, it does not work out to 45 degrees when you throw in drag... but it's in the area.

Yes I know. From what I understood, lamby wanted to know the theoretical distance if fired in a vacuum. That's what I did all this work for, but I'm sure it's probably wrong. I'm just an AP Physics student be hammered by E&M stuff right now. ;)



Now the final answer to how far a paintball could theoretically travel if fired from ground level:

For projectile motion, we must solve simultaneous equations.

Velocity = v
Acceleration = a
Time = t

Velocity{x} = 300fps * cos(45 degrees) = 212.13fps = 64.66m/s

Velocity{y} = 300fps * sin(45 degrees) = 212.13fps = 64.66m/s

Now, concentrating ONLY on the vertical Y-axis motion of the projectile, we must find how long it takes from the time the paintball is fired till when it lands.

v{final} = v{initial} + at

= 0 = 64.66m/s + (-9.8m/s)t
= -64.66m/s = -9.8t

t = 6.60 seconds for the ball to reach it's maximum height if fired at a 45 degree angle from ground level.

The ball's maximum vertical distance is:

Delta(Y) = v{initial}t + .5at^2

= Delta(Y) = (64.66m/s)(6.60 seconds) + .5(-9.8m/s)(6.60 seconds)^2
= Delta(Y) = 426.76 - 213.44
= Delta(Y) = 213.32m

For the time it takes for the paintball to hit the ground from it's highest point, we use:

Delta(Y) = (acceleration)*(time^2)/2

We want the ball to fall 213.32 meters.

= -213.32 meters = (-9.8m/s)*(time^2)]/2
= -426.64 meters = (-9.8m/s)*(time^2)
= 43.53 meters = time^2
= time = 6.60 seconds

It takes a paintball nearly 6.60 seconds for it to fall if dropped at a height of 213.32 meters.


Now, we add the time it takes for the projectile to reach its maximum height, and the time it takes for the projectile to hit the ground.

T = T{1} + T{2}

The total time for a paintball to be fired at 300fps at a 45 degree angle and land is nearly 13.2 seconds.

Since we now know the total time, we plug that into our other equation for the horizontal X-axis motion of the projectile, and we figure:

Displacement/Delta(X) = v{initial}t + .5at^2

= Delta(X) = (64.66 m/s)t + .5(a)t^2

Since acceleration in the horizontal axis is zero (we are neglecting wind resistence), the equation simplifies to:

Delta(X) = (64.66 m/s)t
= Delta(X) = (64.66 m/s)*(13.2 seconds)

The farthest theoretical distance a paintball fired at a 45 degree angle from groundlevel, travelling at 300fps is 853.51 meters.

NOTE: For some reason this seems wrong. I did the equations in a real hurry. I'd appreciate it if Miscue, manike, or some other physics buff could check over my work and see if I did anything wrong. My conclusion should not be set in stone. Hope that helped some.


Like I said, I most likely messed up somewhere in there. Please don't be too harsh. This stuff was the second week of school. Obviously I need to review before my AP Exam. ;)

[lamby]

rbd, thank you for the eqautions.

I think something is greatly wrong though. I dont think that even in a vaccum that a paintball fired at 300fps with an attack angle of 45deg can reach a distance of 853 meters. That sounds WAY to high. I was thinking around a maximum distance of 75 meters. What I wanted included air resistance accross a perfect sphere of .691 inches (I know no paintballs are not perfect, but the drag coeficient would be easier to calculate), but no wind.

I will look at the eqautions and see if I can remember my basic physics from 17 years ago.

[fallout11]

Given a paintball:
fired at 300 fps
from a height of 5 feet (shoulder height)
at an angle of 45 degrees

will reach a maximum height of 141.6 feet (downrange 184.1 feet, time in flight approx 2.15 seconds)

and a final total distance of 291.8 feet (97.3 yards)
striking the ground at a speed of 65.97 feet per second

total time in flight: 5.75 seconds

It's an enormous "lob", as in archery. Think javelin toss. Same physics.

Rdb123's equations are correct, except they neglect air resistance and drag, which makes a big difference on something as lightweight as a paintball.
In a vacuum, but with earth's gravity, a paintball could indeed fly 800 yards.

[hitech]

Guys, run the calculator I linked to. It is specifically for firing a paintball. The huge results of drag caused by air friction will be very apparent (note how "fast" the paintball slows).

The source code is also available, so you can check the calculations if you like. :D

[fallout11]

Nice calculator, Hitech!

Yep, it gives pretty much the same numbers I came up with.
Best of all, you don't have to run all the math! Gah!
Ah, well....it was a trip down memory lane. ;)

[fallout11]

Point is, anyone's claim of hitting small targets at 100 yards is total BS.
And I mean TOTAL BS.
You can't argue with mathematics.

Somebody either made a simple typo, or are really laying it on thick.

[rdb123]

Originally posted by hitech
Guys, run the calculator I linked to. It is specifically for firing a paintball. The huge results of drag caused by air friction will be very apparent (note how "fast" the paintball slows).

The source code is also available, so you can check the calculations if you like. :D

Too bad we couldn't run that calculator using different diameter paintballs. =(

[lamby]

that calculator is very cool (thanks hitech)

That is further than I though a paintball could travel. I never would have though a paintball could travel that far even with a hugh arch. I figured more along the lines of 75-80 yards top.

Very cool discussion, and it goes to prove that there is no way to accurately hit a 11" target at 100 yards with a pb gun.

:) I still think it was a typo :)

Thnaks for all the insight on this subject and for the formulas. I will use these in the future to try to understand what I bearly understood in 9th grade