Hammerhead Barrel: bs or legit?

[sneakyrob828]

Hey I just want a simple answer about the hammerhead barrel really being accurate or being a repeat of the old armson blender. I hear great things and then I hear that that person was just blowing smoke. is the barrel good or not? I read the AGD studies on rifling and its affects on accuracy. Writers in APG, the pb magazine I have a subscrition to, tested the barrel with draxxus blaze and nelson paint and found excellent results.

[personman]

I'm sure the Hammerhead barrel is very accurate and shoots great. Rifleing doesnt work though. Why pay the extra money for the hype when you can buy a cheaper barrel that shoots just as well?

[Lurker27]

I'm about to commit some heresy here. At least, on this forum.

Rifling should work. It should. The 'raw egg' argument is BS. The tippmann flatline's flight pattern is consistent with a sphere that mains a fairly consistant spin throughout its entire flight. Gyroscopic stability will keep the axis of spin consistant, so there's not much to worry about there, either. In addition, it imparts the spin using the surface of the barrel, so we know that that CAN be done.

Now, to whether it's worth doing. Ruling out a 'musket' effect where the ball is not shot on a vector parallel to the zxis of the barrel, the only thing that shoudl determine the flgiht path of the ball from that point on is the magnus effect, a consequence of spin. Obviously you can't norm paint weight, wind, or size, so we'll ignore those factors.

In your traditionally 'accurate' barrel systems, where you match paint to bore, or throw a choke at the end of the barrel, as Glenn Palmer does, what you're really doing is regualrizing the spin of the ball, by attempting to take ALL of the spin out of the ball. this works much better than a loose match, which has some acceptable random spins incurred, which inevitably create a larger spread.

So then we're shooting imperfect, seamed spheres, with no spin. But we don't shoot in a vacuum. Now, the problem with this is that AFTER the ball leaves the barrel, you're going to get spin anyway, because of the vortices created by the seam. These in turn induce random spin that will push the ball off course. Because we do not know where the seam is when the ball is chambered, we can truly call that a random effect, which will effect accuracy both on the horizontal and azimuthal axies. Knuckleball effect promotes inaccuracy.

Guess we should give up on accuracy in paintball and whine about how we could be shooting footballs. Or, we could get rifling involved. When you rifle a barrel, you are regualrizing the spin (assuming a good paint fit) on the ball.

In turn this regularized spin should regularize the vortices around the ball. There would be no (random) push either way along the azimuthal axis. You can be assured that, with constant velocity, every single shot you take should land in the same place, and only external factors are affecting the ball. These would effect even our theoretically vaunted footballs the same way.

[[[Now, some of you may be thinking that Tom tested Rifling, but didn't he test it with his nylon perfect circle paintballs, which had no seam. Knuckleball effect only needs to be defeated once, and a perfct sphere does not exhibit it.]]]

[GoatBoy]

I'm about to commit some heresy here. At least, on this forum.

Rifling should work. It should. The 'raw egg' argument is BS. The tippmann flatline's flight pattern is consistent with a sphere that mains a fairly consistant spin throughout its entire flight. Gyroscopic stability will keep the axis of spin consistant, so there's not much to worry about there, either. In addition, it imparts the spin using the surface of the barrel, so we know that that CAN be done.

Now, to whether it's worth doing. Ruling out a 'musket' effect where the ball is not shot on a vector parallel to the zxis of the barrel, the only thing that shoudl determine the flgiht path of the ball from that point on is the magnus effect, a consequence of spin. Obviously you can't norm paint weight, wind, or size, so we'll ignore those factors.

In your traditionally 'accurate' barrel systems, where you match paint to bore, or throw a choke at the end of the barrel, as Glenn Palmer does, what you're really doing is regualrizing the spin of the ball, by attempting to take ALL of the spin out of the ball. this works much better than a loose match, which has some acceptable random spins incurred, which inevitably create a larger spread.

So then we're shooting imperfect, seamed spheres, with no spin. But we don't shoot in a vacuum. Now, the problem with this is that AFTER the ball leaves the barrel, you're going to get spin anyway, because of the vortices created by the seam. These in turn induce random spin that will push the ball off course. Because we do not know where the seam is when the ball is chambered, we can truly call that a random effect, which will effect accuracy both on the horizontal and azimuthal axies. Knuckleball effect promotes inaccuracy.

Guess we should give up on accuracy in paintball and whine about how we could be shooting footballs. Or, we could get rifling involved. When you rifle a barrel, you are regualrizing the spin (assuming a good paint fit) on the ball.

In turn this regularized spin should regularize the vortices around the ball. There would be no (random) push either way along the azimuthal axis. You can be assured that, with constant velocity, every single shot you take should land in the same place, and only external factors are affecting the ball. These would effect even our theoretically vaunted footballs the same way.

[[[Now, some of you may be thinking that Tom tested Rifling, but didn't he test it with his nylon perfect circle paintballs, which had no seam. Knuckleball effect only needs to be defeated once, and a perfct sphere does not exhibit it.]]]

So what happens when the rifling is stepped out so that it doesn't actually touch the paintball, as I believe I have read elsewhere. Or am I not remembering the thing correctly?

[Lurker27]

Air swirlign aroudn the ball, or sprila porting, is not enough to get a ball to spin. You need definate, consistant points of contact, and you need to ahve those points rotate in such a fashion that the ball stays with them.

I'm waiting to proto a system that have 3 inserted rifled guides in the barrel that link sup to an ACE and clamps when an ball is found to be in the breech. Once it does, samll electro magnets that repel 1/8" rare eath magents cause the guides to clamp down on the ball in the breech, and through the length fo the barrel. This same sysmte allows razorblades to paritally slit paintballs to create stress risers in the shell for better breakge. Bolt modification is need to allow the ball to be sized while in the breech. the guides must be straight there and begin rifling after the breech, where the bolt does not enter.

[GoatBoy]

Air swirlign aroudn the ball, or sprila porting, is not enough to get a ball to spin. You need definate, consistant points of contact, and you need to ahve those points rotate in such a fashion that the ball stays with them.

I'm waiting to proto a system that have 3 inserted rifled guides in the barrel that link sup to an ACE and clamps when an ball is found to be in the breech. Once it does, samll electro magnets that repel 1/8" rare eath magents cause the guides to clamp down on the ball in the breech, and through the length fo the barrel. This same sysmte allows razorblades to paritally slit paintballs to create stress risers in the shell for better breakge. Bolt modification is need to allow the ball to be sized while in the breech. the guides must be straight there and begin rifling after the breech, where the bolt does not enter.

So would you say the whole blurb about spinning paintballs, regardless if it's true or not, is non-applicable to the hammerhead?

[FallNAngel]

I'm waiting to proto a system that have 3 inserted rifled guides in the barrel that link sup to an ACE and clamps when an ball is found to be in the breech. Once it does, samll electro magnets that repel 1/8" rare eath magents cause the guides to clamp down on the ball in the breech, and through the length fo the barrel. This same sysmte allows razorblades to paritally slit paintballs to create stress risers in the shell for better breakge. Bolt modification is need to allow the ball to be sized while in the breech. the guides must be straight there and begin rifling after the breech, where the bolt does not enter.


Maybe it's just me, but the whole idea of a breech that clamps onto the paintball, and cuts the paintball with a razor just doesn't seem like a good one...

[Lurker27]

To me, i looks like the best done rifled barrel yet...however, I doubt it'd be good with a tiny paint like hellfire. my guess is that a paintball expands around a hundredth at the most,and you're going to get very poor results with a loose fit.

Look around for the grouping comparisons against a freak. it's no contest.

[Lurker27]

Clamps is a strong word...the idea is to create definite points of contact, while not inducing so much friction that you won't get the ball to move. at the same time, the guides must be rather tiny to minimize blowby.

As for the razor idea, I don't see a problem with it if you control the exact depth fo the vuts, something quite possibly if you have definite points of contact to use as a reference. It should be noted that a ball hitting on it's seam is 5 times more susceotible to breakage than one hitting at the 'pole'.

[GoatBoy]

To me, i looks like the best done rifled barrel yet...however, I doubt it'd be good with a tiny paint like hellfire. my guess is that a paintball expands around a hundredth at the most,and you're going to get very poor results with a loose fit.

Look around for the grouping comparisons against a freak. it's no contest.

You must be referring to this:

http://www.hammerheadpaintball.com/downloads/The_HammerHead_Barrel.doc

I hope with all the money you're supposedly spending on your research, you'll be more careful, thorough, and detailed than the document you just referenced.

In fact, feel free to come back with your results, lest all of this get thrown into a large pile marked "unsubstantiated".

[Lurker27]

My research is physics. My cost is $5.00 for a stock barrel thusfar.

All I'm saying is that theoretically, it works. Nevermind the Hype.

[Magglerock]

My research is physics.

Then go back to school, because this is nothing but hype. Tom or Butters, if you're out there, please put this one in the grave. Rifling has NO effect on a paintball. Period. The effect produced by a flatline is totally different phenomena. Hammerheads are CLASSIC hype: all claim, no proof. Anyone who buys that barrel is a fool. But then, you know what they say about fools and money...

[shivors]

So has anyone here actually used one of these barrels?

Stopped by to look at these at D-Day. The video seemed impressive..for a video. Then he said that I could take one to shoot if I left my drivers license. I didnt have time but I thought that if it was a PoS that they would want my money first. (I never got a chance to shoot it though)

[Lurker27]

I've never used a Hammerhead, nor would I vouch for it's efficacy, because they haev't proven to em that they're putting a consistent spin on the ball. However, should someone prove to me that they are indeed putting a consistent spin on the ball, I'd not be so quick to dismiss their claims of accuracy, for the reasons above.

[The Spanish Inquisition]

I'm waiting to proto a system that have 3 inserted rifled guides in the barrel that link sup to an ACE and clamps when an ball is found to be in the breech. Once it does, samll electro magnets that repel 1/8" rare eath magents cause the guides to clamp down on the ball in the breech, and through the length fo the barrel.


Isn't this what AGD did with the spinning barrel proto and solid plastic paintballs? < LINK HERE > (http://www.automags.org/resource/tech/tomstech/03_spinning.shtml) Or is your idea different.

From what I've read the vortex effect on light ammo is the main reason why rifleing is so ineffective.

[GoatBoy]

I've never used a Hammerhead, nor would I vouch for it's efficacy,

I'm sorry, it just sounded like you were when you say something like this:


Look around for the grouping comparisons against a freak. it's no contest.

Plus you know, you didn't give a direct answer to whether or not all of theory applies to the hammerhead in the first place.

If the guy who reviewed the hammerhead didn't match the paint up with the freak as well as with the hammerhead, would you still conclude that the different in paint patterns was due to rifling? In fact, can you really conclude anything at all from that document with the grouping comparisons against the freak? If you really are a researcher, you should know better.



because they haev't proven to em that they're putting a consistent spin on the ball. However, should someone prove to me that they are indeed putting a consistent spin on the ball, I'd not be so quick to dismiss their claims of accuracy, for the reasons above.


And nobody's proven it. $100 a barrel, and nobody's proven it. All this research and not a single shred of proof. All we have is some white marks on a barrel from some guy.


Save the theory about spinning paintballs until after it's been proven. Until then, the whole thing is not applicable.

[Lurker27]

My guess is that in some percentage of the cases the Hammerhead works. The PBR scores are a 1, a 2, a 5, a 7, and 21 10s. Not that that means horribly much.

I'm not saying that the Hammerhead barrel in particular is the greatest thing since sliced bread, but I think that the technology is worth looking into.

[desslock]

I was always under the impression that a rifled paintball barrel is as usefull as a one legged man in an *** kicking contest. But if people spend the extra money on a rifled barell that is no more accurate than a stock barell and they THINK there shots are more accurate, whats the harm in a little Dumbo's feathers. The mind is a powerfull thing and if somebaody has conveinced themselves they are more accurate w/their hammerhead let them bask in their ignorance/glory. After all, everybody knows the more money you spend on a paintball gun the better player you will become! :dance: :shooting: :ninja: :dance: :shooting: :sleeping: cough*cough*sarcasm*cough.

[Lohman446]

.

If the guy who reviewed the hammerhead didn't match the paint up with the freak as well as with the hammerhead, would you still conclude that the different in paint patterns was due to rifling? In fact, can you really conclude anything at all from that document with the grouping comparisons against the freak? If you really are a researcher, you should know better.


And nobody's proven it. $100 a barrel, and nobody's proven it. All this research and not a single shred of proof. All we have is some white marks on a barrel from some guy.


My guess is those groupings from the freak to the hammerhead have a logical explanation. I do not expect the results are "faked" though I could be wrong. My explanation for tighter groupings would be a heavier barrel less prone to the recoil of the marker and that the user was shooting offhand. I don't know this, but I expect it is more likely the culprit than rifling.

[Butterfingers]

In short its bulldink. Paintballs are never and probably will never be consistenly round enough to give predictable spin patterns. This is why rifling will not work with a paintball.

Some of the information high speed photography and definitive proof is burried in the deep blue forum.

Also if AGD would chime in Im sure he would give much input on the theory of spin stabalization of paintballs.

To make the whole entire setup as consistent as possible he set up a spinning barrel system in which a barrel was spinning at a preset rpm while the paintball was sitting in there picking up speed. Then he would shoot it.

He found that spinning adversely effected the grouping sizes of the paintball even with consistent spinning. He also varied the rpm of the motor to simulate diffrent rifling rates.

[Lurker27]

Perhaps this has to do with the dated nature of the AGD testing. I recall a thread in which Tom cite paint to barrel match creating 2 points of contact, which glenn palmer rebutted, noting that recently testing from his camp showed that paintballs would leave amore uniform pattern of contact along the inside of a barrel. Maybe paintballs are now sufficiently round to allow us to look at rifling as a reasonable alternative to smoothbore.

[Butterfingers]

Even so it is the only type of scientific testing and documentation we have. Glen although is well respected didnt have much to offer when asked for some documentation. Painball's havent really changed over the years. The technology and machines used to produce them for the most part are the same.

The theory is sound but almost an impossibility given the fact that spin stabalization especially for a spherical object relies heavily on the consistency of the projectile. Sure you could make a perfectly round paintball. But I dont think anybody would be willing to pay $2000 for a case of paint especially given that a smoothbore barrel is more than sufficent given the effective range of a paintball.

The theory of spin stabilization works so well in a bullet because of its enormus mass and its actual ability to be consistent. In a paintball that simply isnt the case. Lead tends to hold its shape and size much better than a liquid filled gelatain ball does.

Rifling at this point does more harm than good. You can get the ball to spin but it wont be benificial. An off axis spin would send a paintball careeming in the wrong direction. This is very likely given the poor consistency of gelatain which is effected by weather, handling, manufacturing, ect...

[Lohman446]

Perhaps this has to do with the dated nature of the AGD testing. I recall a thread in which Tom cite paint to barrel match creating 2 points of contact, which glenn palmer rebutted, noting that recently testing from his camp showed that paintballs would leave amore uniform pattern of contact along the inside of a barrel. Maybe paintballs are now sufficiently round to allow us to look at rifling as a reasonable alternative to smoothbore..

They spun the entire marker at 30K RPMs (if I recall) - which is likely more than you are going to gain from a barrel. What has changed to change the idea that spinning a paintball has little effect on it?

[Butterfingers]

If you are going to rifle a barrel straight rifle a barrel. Nobody has done it yet and i think it would help drasticly in REDUCING spin of malformed paintballs thus making paintball flight itself more consistent.

[rx2]

J+J used to sell straight rifled barrels back around the mid 90s.

[Count Crimson]

I understand all of the skeptisism i'm seeing on this board, I still have my doubts but after actually shooting a Hammerhead barrel on a 2k2 timmy at a local inflatable field my fears have somewhat been calmed.

It seems that about 20% or more of people who have purchased a HH barrel and posted about it online or at least claim to have purchased a HH think that it's pure garbage, among the worst barrels in the history of paintball! The Other 80% seem to think that it is the barrel of the gods sent from mount olympus!

My Hypothesis on this strange trend is that the barrel will either work great on your gun or like crap, if it works like crap i've been assured by Robert Judson through e-mail correspondance that Hammerhead will give you a full refund!

Back to the facts, when I shot about 150 rounds of Hellfire paint though a 2k2 timmy with a Hammerhead it shot GREAT! Comparing it to my friends impulse with a freak kit (both the timmy and impulse were using compressed air) the timmy w/ HH shot about 40 feet further and it was pretty much ball on ball from about 150 feet on this pole about 10 inches thick! My gestimate is that there was about a 3-5 inch ball deviation.

With all of that said I will not be 100% convinced that the hammerhead will work with my gun at least until I purchase one, I will likely place my order tomorrow, I'll make sure to let you know with as much info as I can provide how the barrel works!

One last note, I was told by a local paintball shop owner (BIG SHOT PAINTBALL, Tulsa, OK) that a new version of the Hammerhead barrel was released a few weaks back that fixed some ball chopping problems when firing at high rates of fire. . .

[sneakyrob828]

bump

[hitech]

...the only thing that should determine the flight path of the ball from that point on is the magnus effect, a consequence of spin.

That is not true. Vortex shedding is the major thing that determines the flight path of most paintballs. The Magnus effect does not begin to significantly effect the flight until it exceeds approx. 6k rpms.


In turn this regularized spin should regularize the vortices around the ball. There would be no (random) push either way along the azimuthal axis.

There is no evidence to support this. All the evidence points to the very opposite. However, I don’t believe anyone to date has determined if spin has any effect on vortex shedding. Tom's research suggests that there is not.


Now, some of you may be thinking that Tom tested Rifling, but didn't he test it with his nylon perfect circle paintballs, which had no seam. Knuckleball effect only needs to be defeated once, and a perfect sphere does not exhibit it.

First, Perfect Circle paintballs are NOT nylon. Second, he DID test with nylon balls that are the same size and weight as paintballs. The test results were approx. the same as with paintballs.

If paintballs without seams fired with rifling were dead on accurate (i.e. not affected by vortex shedding) Tom would be selling millions of Perfect Circle paintballs to us paintball players. :D

[Miscue]

First of all, ask yourself why firearms use rifling, particularly with ball ammo, and if paintball markers have the problems of firearms that are addressed by rifling. What problem does rifling fix for paintball?

Second, the rifled tip of the Hammerhead has a larger ID than the control bore - like all 2-piece barrels. To my knowledge, this is the first time anyone brought it up: http://www.automags.org/forums/showthread.php?t=125676&highlight=hammerhead

Luckily for Hammerhead, there's a sucker born every minute.

The belief that Hammerhead barrels are special is from marketing hype, and testimonials from morons who believe that this magic pill does indeed make their pecker look bigger. "It grew, really! It's just like Dr. Ron Jeremy said, and he should know! You guys don't know what you're talking about!"

If it really was better than all other barrels, why don't all the pro-teams use it? Obviously a superior barrel would increase winning chances. If it did what the marketing hype suggests, everybody would use it.

But then again, why do we spend $100+ on metal tubes to begin with? :D I buy barrels because I like how they look - which I suppose isn't much of a better reason as the "psychological advantage" that Hammerheads offer.

[justjoshin590]

armotech is also coming out with a strait rifled barrel for the wg75+ and ws66(which already has a hop-up) id like to see some real testes of these barrels, since from what they say on the forum the hop-up has amazing effects (250'+ kill zone) also hop-ups are used on airsoft guns, which fire even lighter ammunition than paintballs, so look into this

[cledford]

If I remember the deep blue thread clearly - there is an area of random pressure cavitation that takes place in the vacuum created behind the ball as it "shoves" it's way down range. That combined with the relative density of air to a 3 gram PB (vs. that of air to say a lead sphere) causes the ball to "dance" through the air. Unless you've got a 100' long barrel the you've got a problem as I understand it. In other words, once the fatally flawed (in terms of ballistics) paintball is no longer being TOUCHED by the barrel the it can never be accurate – it is a victim of it’s own size, weight and aerodynamic properties.

-Calvin

[Miscue]

Yup...

It's trying to get a spidwad to shoot straighter with a better straw... it doesn't work that way.

[gc82000]

Yup...

It's trying to get a spidwad to shoot straighter with a better straw... it doesn't work that way.

Winchell's have the best straws. :D

[Automaggot68]

Winchell's have the best straws. :D

No no no, JACK IN THE BOX. They have gigantic Milkshake straws.

[AclowN]

as a hammerhead owner personally i would have to for the most part agree on it being a hype barrel, and is not all that much more accurate than any other good barrel.

however... although the accuracy is no greater, the hammerhead DOES put about an extra 20 foot of distance on the ball compared to a nonrifled barrel... this doesnt really matter or make alot of difference in speedball which is why its no real superiority in tournament play.... on the scenario field this barrel has become quite attractive though...

just my two scents on it, smelly ones at that :rofl: flame away at me, yes i like hammerhead, yes i believe in the fact that the rifling does affect it.... make it more accurate? not really, bout the same... but the extra distance is nice on a scenario field..

[Mister Sinister]

however... although the accuracy is no greater, the hammerhead DOES put about an extra 20 foot of distance on the ball compared to a nonrifled barrel...

And exactly how does it add 20 more feet? :cool: Does it back spin it like a flatline? as far as I know thats the only other way to add distance. Once the ball is out of the barrel 300 fps should be 300fps... :confused:

[Mike Smith]

For those of you who think the hammerhead is all hype, you're right....

That's why Hammerhead will let you try one out for a day of paintball, for free. If you see their trailer, take your driver's license with you and "borrow" one of their barrels. They know you will not like it, will see no difference between your barrel and their barrel, and will not buy from them...

For those of you who do have a hammerhead.... Shhhhhhhhhhh..... Be quiet.

[Plaguetk]

I have been using a HammerHead for right at about a year now and I love it. The thing that I have noticed the most since I have been using it is that I will have more consistant breaks at further distances. Did I see improved accuracy? Yes I did, but it wasn't anything major to stand up and shout about. As for more distance..... That one is still up in the air, but I will say that the flight pattern of the paint did improve some.

Overall for my setup and style of play the barrel works great for me, but may not work for the next person. That's what makes them so great though. What other company will let you try their product before you buy it in this day and age?

[Mosfet]

So screw the barrels, lets start working on making these with the softer shells! :D

http://paintballmedia.com/pn/modules/gallery/albums/MuzikmanMarkers/Projectile2.sized.jpg

oh yeah... and no pepper stuff...

[bryceeden]

Back to the facts, when I shot about 150 rounds of Hellfire paint though a 2k2 timmy with a Hammerhead it shot GREAT! Comparing it to my friends impulse with a freak kit (both the timmy and impulse were using compressed air) the timmy w/ HH shot about 40 feet further and it was pretty much ball on ball from about 150 feet on this pole about 10 inches thick! My gestimate is that there was about a 3-5 inch ball deviation.




Typlically I would call BS on this statement, but after testing the Armson Stelth barrel I have found that if you use a small boar paint in a large boar rifeled barrel you get a slopy backspin which does shoot further.

Back on topic I tested a HH barrel, it was OK but definatly not worth what is cost.

[CodeMA]

TAKE THE PEPPER OUT...thats what would make it fun ;) Were is your sence of decency man?


Seriously though... 3 of my teamates use hammerhead kits, are they a mirical barrel? NO...but do they keep up with and exceed say, a Boomstick, yes... a single bore Hammerhead is compeitively priced with a Boombstick... Barrel kit wise, are they the best, mabey not, but Id take one over a freak or Arcadius for sure... just from personal experiance...

[hitech]

It's trying to get a spidwad to shoot straighter with a better straw... it doesn't work that way.

:rofl:

But if you rifled the straw....

:rofl:

BTW, Tom is very unlikely to post in this thread. Why? Because very few people will believe him (that don't already do). Tom has already stated that rifling does NOT improve accuracy. He's tired of talking to a wall. Everyone already has their minds made up. They don't care what his extensive testing showed. Or what all the other research on the aerodynamics of spheres.

To those of you who think this thing works. I assume you have NO idea why? You've shot some paintball through it and it appears to be more accurate. Well, that isn't even worth calling a test. Hammerhead lets you try it out at a field? That's even less worthy a test that owning one and claiming it works. If you want to know if it works you need to TEST it. And it needs to be done such that it produces statistically significant results. Firing 100 paintballs through it and 100 paintballs through a different barrel are not statistically significant enough.

[G3PB]

Physics 101....you cannot spin-stabilize a sphere. There is a reason why early 19th century firearms manufacturers developed conical shaped "bullets" for use in rifled barrels.

[Chris42050]

Also spinning a paintball only spins the shell of the ball not the paint inside. :ninja:

[rabidchihauhau]

Please do not lump Armson barrels in with anyone else's claims of 'spinning paintballs with internal rifling'.

Pro-Team has never claimed that the rifling spins the ball; we have always claimed that the idea was - a, give a better, more uniform seal on the ball (more surface area for imperfectly round 'spheres' to butt up against) and b - presenting the ball flat on when it exits the barrel.

That was always the objective and testing (Tom's among them) have shown those claims and those theories to be the most accurate description to date of what is happening.

Straight rifling has the same effects.

Other than the flatline (backspin, magnus effect), and other than a separate system rotating the ball up to speed, no barrel out there is going to provide fast enough rotation to gain any stability.

[Miscue]

as a hammerhead owner personally i would have to for the most part agree on it being a hype barrel, and is not all that much more accurate than any other good barrel.

however... although the accuracy is no greater, the hammerhead DOES put about an extra 20 foot of distance on the ball compared to a nonrifled barrel... this doesnt really matter or make alot of difference in speedball which is why its no real superiority in tournament play.... on the scenario field this barrel has become quite attractive though...

just my two scents on it, smelly ones at that :rofl: flame away at me, yes i like hammerhead, yes i believe in the fact that the rifling does affect it.... make it more accurate? not really, bout the same... but the extra distance is nice on a scenario field..

So you're saying that because it's "rifled" this results in added distance.

Let's assume "rifling" does this. Now how does the rifling work on a Hammerhead when the rifled tip has a larger ID than the paintball?

[AclowN]

So you're saying that because it's "rifled" this results in added distance.

Let's assume "rifling" does this. Now how does the rifling work on a Hammerhead when the rifled tip has a larger ID than the paintball?


Q, i honestly don't know, i'm no physics major... all i am saying is that i have noticed extra distance, did not say better accuracy. i'm truly not sure how it does what it does, but i do know my own eyes, and have compared this to other barrel kits and it DOES put more distance... more accuracy? no, like i said, its bout the same...

i do believe in tom's studies on how you can not stabilize a liquid filled sphere, so maybe it is like the flatline in a sense.... just a controlled spin, not a stabilizing spin... but i dunno, i'm trying to think out of my knowledge, i don't know alot about physics when it comes to air and projectiles... heh.

EDIT: so there, you tell ME how someone that believes in the studies that have been done, tests out a rifled barrel (they really do let you test them if your at a field when they are) likes it, compares it to others, buys one based off that comparrison.
and don't just say i'm a fool... cause a fool would buy one without testing it out first just because of the hype....

[hitech]

<img src=http://us.f2.yahoofs.com/bc/4161d9d6_207d/bc/FTP/smiley_mini102.gif?BCAiVgBBvyIFMPGQ>

[Trunnion]

there are other variables that could be involved in this. the supposed extra could exist, if i'm not mistaken, if the new barrel provides a better fit for the paint than before. i'm assuming that when you tested it, you didn't rechrono your marker? if it provides a better fit, you'll get a better muzzle velocity and thus greater range. of course, i could be wrong. i'm a history and political science major. i haven't taken math in 3 years, physics in 4 :)

[ojhspyro89]

Even if it does shoot farther, anybody can still shoot a hammer head owner.

[justjoshin590]

like i said HOP-UP barrel, they have them in airsoft guns, basically theres three grooves lined up at the top of the barrel thats lets air pass, creating pressure on the bottom that creates back-spin, unline the flatline system which is flawed since it creates to much, and is very inefficient armotech.us/forum/ has a lot of information, and i would really like to see some real tests made on their claims

[AclowN]

there are other variables that could be involved in this. the supposed extra could exist, if i'm not mistaken, if the new barrel provides a better fit for the paint than before. i'm assuming that when you tested it, you didn't rechrono your marker? if it provides a better fit, you'll get a better muzzle velocity and thus greater range. of course, i could be wrong. i'm a history and political science major. i haven't taken math in 3 years, physics in 4 :)


yes, by all means, deem me incompetent, so it makes sense... theorize that it was my flaw that made it seem to shoot better, thank you for showing how stupid i am. (by the way, yes i did chrono my marker each time. also tried a couple of different types of paint thru each barrel) but whatever, if it makes sense to you that it had to be my flaw that made it shoot farther, keep telling yourself that..



Even if it does shoot farther, anybody can still shoot a hammer head owner.

i never said they couldn't...... does a flatline make someone invincible asside from other flatlines? no... need i say more..

[Trunnion]

jeez man, you don't have to get angry ok? i was posing a POSSIBILITY since you didn't state it. it wasn't meant as a slight on your character. if that's the way it came across, sorry. but you really need to chill out. it's not THAT important.

[Mike Smith]

Actually the micro-cuts that the rifling does to the paintball makes it spin slightly, but, more importantly, the micro-cuts imparted onto the paintball allows it to break easier. Besides, everyone KNOWS that if you spin the outside of a paintball, the inside couldn't possibly start to spin. After all, the inside part of a paintball has a teflon coating so there is no friction.

But all of this is pseudo-science and a huge misperception made by the user of the Hammerhead barrel. What we perceive it doing really doesn't happen.... The shiny-thing syndrome fakes us out.... But we still have a 20 foot advantage on other non-Hammerhead barrels.....

Oh well....

[daviselk]

I have an armesop rifeled... and it works. but if u chop a ball with it, it does not cleen itself and is HORRIBLE!(with LvL X u dont have to care).

[AclowN]

jeez man, you don't have to get angry ok? i was posing a POSSIBILITY since you didn't state it. it wasn't meant as a slight on your character. if that's the way it came across, sorry. but you really need to chill out. it's not THAT important.


heh, sorry, didn't mean to come off so rash, the comments of my own stupidity were made in light... wasnt meaning to seem serious, was trying to seem fakely :mad: with a ;) hidden behind it :dance: :dance:

[GoatBoy]

For those of you who think the hammerhead is all hype, you're right....

That's why Hammerhead will let you try one out for a day of paintball, for free. If you see their trailer, take your driver's license with you and "borrow" one of their barrels. They know you will not like it, will see no difference between your barrel and their barrel, and will not buy from them...

For those of you who do have a hammerhead.... Shhhhhhhhhhh..... Be quiet.

This reasoning is so painfully, spectacularly bad. Like, in a straight-out-of-Tommy-Boy way.

You're saying it's not hype because Hammerhead refuses to provide any data or even any well done, reproducible proof. Instead, they leave it to the wild imaginations of paintballers who can barely shoot straight, much less think straight, to do the proof for them. They're confident in this method because they KNOW (as has been CLEARLY demonstrated in this thread and others) that most paintball players are neither diligent nor smart enough to sit down and perform any real, organized, and documented tests.

Let's face it, real testing isn't much fun. It's more like homework. And last I checked, most players aren't Grade-A students if you catch my drift. If you hand them a barrel, they're not thinking lab notebook, tape measure, and bench rest. They want to go out and play.



As far as incompetence goes... I do think there is incompetence and lack of cognitive (or metacognitive) ability involved in this.


I'll be honest with you; I own both a cocker and a mag. To this day, despite myself, I will still have to admit that the cocker *seems* to have a flatter trajectory/range than the mag.

Obviously, this defies all proof and explanation. I brooded over this for the quite some time. Given the mountain of evidence to the contrary, you have to go back and question the underlying things that you take as a given. My conclusion was simple, if not unnerving to admit to.



My eyes are not infallible.


There is something about the way I hold the gun, play with it, sight down the side of the body and over the barrel, which must change the way my eye tracks the ball, and perhaps how I aim it. Like the goofy trick where you bobble a pencil up and down to make it look like it's made out of rubber, something just isn't right. Either that pencil's made of rubber, or your eyes are playing tricks on you.





A quick visual test is worthless. Controlled testing can at least be measured and reproduced.


Who knows, maybe the Hammerhead really does perform.


But nobody has come up with proof, much less a workable explanation, for any it. This thread is how many months old now? And there have been others. If someone's got some proof that is more impressive than some slapped together Word document with some pictures of white splotches on barrels, I'm sure we'd all like to see it.




http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html

[bryceeden]

This reasoning is so painfully, spectacularly bad. Like, in a straight-out-of-Tommy-Boy way.

You're saying it's not hype because Hammerhead refuses to provide any data or even any well done, reproducible proof. Instead, they leave it to the wild imaginations of paintballers who can barely shoot straight, much less think straight, to do the proof for them. They're confident in this method because they KNOW (as has been CLEARLY demonstrated in this thread and others) that most paintball players are neither diligent nor smart enough to sit down and perform any real, organized, and documented tests.

Let's face it, real testing isn't much fun. It's more like homework. And last I checked, most players aren't Grade-A students if you catch my drift. If you hand them a barrel, they're not thinking lab notebook, tape measure, and bench rest. They want to go out and play.



As far as incompetence goes... I do think there is incompetence and lack of cognitive (or metacognitive) ability involved in this.


I'll be honest with you; I own both a cocker and a mag. To this day, despite myself, I will still have to admit that the cocker *seems* to have a flatter trajectory/range than the mag.

Obviously, this defies all proof and explanation. I brooded over this for the quite some time. Given the mountain of evidence to the contrary, you have to go back and question the underlying things that you take as a given. My conclusion was simple, if not unnerving to admit to.



My eyes are not infallible.



The cocker does shoot farther, the mag has no real recoil, but that that it does have lowers the barrel very slightly, but the cockers recoil raises the barrel slightly(depending on how tight you hold it) so in away it does shoot farther as long as you don't bolt both down to a bench.

Back to the point, I did real extensive actual testing on the Arson Stealth because I like testing and destroying Hype, and alot of my customers where claiming the Armson shot farther when you used small bore paint, so I bolted two A-5's down so they couldn't move and set a long target(so both would hit it) at 50' I chronoed both at exactly the same speed(between 275lowest and 288highest) both where on HPA, one with a stock barrel and one with an Armson. I fired both markers, they both hit easily, I fired 10 shots from each marker at each distacne so I was sure it wasn't just chance. I then moved the target back 2' and repeated until 74' they both hit, but the Armson hit up until 88', I am not sure why it shoots farther, I think it is a slopy back spin(I am looking into it). they both shot within a few feet of each other with a good paint to barrel mach, but the Armson does shoot farther with small bore paint.

[rabidchihauhau]

Bryce,

I appreciate the findings of your test, and I don't want to diminsh your efforts in any way, but, under true laboratory definitions, what you did was not a 'test'.

A 'good' test for scientifically accurate results - ones which can be relied on, ones which others can produce using the same testing methodology, you would have to be testing only a single variable.

You were, in fact, testing multiple variables at the same time, nor does it appear that you gathered data on all of the factors which could affect your results:

first of all, if you are not using a 'test ball', then anyone who wants to can pick holes in your results. A test ball would have a known and constant weight, diameter, shape.

Secondly, ten balls for each test is, as someone said earlier, not a good statistical sample. That's the same as flipping a coin ten times and concluding that the heads side must weigh more because you ended up with 7 tails and 3 heads. Flip that coin a few thousand times and you'll end up with the 50/50 results we all know and love.

Next - environmental factors. Temp, humidity, wind velocity and direction, elevation, barometric pressure...

Followed by measurements; there should be no 'approximately' when it comes to target distance, the hit patterns, etc.

And finally, you're not gathering enough data in order to be able to make further conclusions and suppositions - no one can watch what happened to each ball, there's no accounting for interior barrel conditions, no measuring of the pressure delivered by the valve on each shot, no duration times for length of flight, time the ball was in the barrel until it exited, etc, etc, etc.

Again, I am not criticizing your effort; with what you had available, you actually went out and tried some testing, which is far more than most folks do. Unfortunately, while your results for you are satisfactory (as most ad hoc tests are for each individual), they leave us right back where we all started from - not enough reliable data to do anything with.

Of course, with that all said, Armson barrels do shoot straighter and more accurately throughout their entire range than anything else out there. (LOL)

To add a little fuel to the fire here: One of my older teams was a 'test team' for Armson barrels back in the day. We liked them because they were loud (Pro Series) and had an intimidation factor that was worth the extra trips with the ref to the chrono. They also delivered the kind of accuracy we were used to getting. Several years ago, the SSR was introduced (straight rifling) and, in my personal and unscientific opinion, are just a teensy bit more accurate than the spiral rifled versions. They're certainly at least as accurate. So, if that's the case, the spiral rifling can't be 'doing its thing' through spin, can it?

[bryceeden]

Bryce,

I appreciate the findings of your test, and I don't want to diminsh your efforts in any way, but, under true laboratory definitions, what you did was not a 'test'.

A 'good' test for scientifically accurate results - ones which can be relied on, ones which others can produce using the same testing methodology, you would have to be testing only a single variable.

You were, in fact, testing multiple variables at the same time, nor does it appear that you gathered data on all of the factors which could affect your results:

first of all, if you are not using a 'test ball', then anyone who wants to can pick holes in your results. A test ball would have a known and constant weight, diameter, shape.

Secondly, ten balls for each test is, as someone said earlier, not a good statistical sample. That's the same as flipping a coin ten times and concluding that the heads side must weigh more because you ended up with 7 tails and 3 heads. Flip that coin a few thousand times and you'll end up with the 50/50 results we all know and love.

Next - environmental factors. Temp, humidity, wind velocity and direction, elevation, barometric pressure...

Followed by measurements; there should be no 'approximately' when it comes to target distance, the hit patterns, etc.

And finally, you're not gathering enough data in order to be able to make further conclusions and suppositions - no one can watch what happened to each ball, there's no accounting for interior barrel conditions, no measuring of the pressure delivered by the valve on each shot, no duration times for length of flight, time the ball was in the barrel until it exited, etc, etc, etc.

Again, I am not criticizing your effort; with what you had available, you actually went out and tried some testing, which is far more than most folks do. Unfortunately, while your results for you are satisfactory (as most ad hoc tests are for each individual), they leave us right back where we all started from - not enough reliable data to do anything with.

Of course, with that all said, Armson barrels do shoot straighter and more accurately throughout their entire range than anything else out there. (LOL)

To add a little fuel to the fire here: One of my older teams was a 'test team' for Armson barrels back in the day. We liked them because they were loud (Pro Series) and had an intimidation factor that was worth the extra trips with the ref to the chrono. They also delivered the kind of accuracy we were used to getting. Several years ago, the SSR was introduced (straight rifling) and, in my personal and unscientific opinion, are just a teensy bit more accurate than the spiral rifled versions. They're certainly at least as accurate. So, if that's the case, the spiral rifling can't be 'doing its thing' through spin, can it?


I agree a better test could be done, but mine was better than nothing, and more accurate than you seen to think, the "test ball" was Zap Chronic, and I ran all of my test balls thru a sizer to make sure I didn't have any odd ones. The test was done indoors, so wind isn't a consern, and since both where done side by side not one after another the temp and such are not really a consern because they will be the same on each one. Ten balls from each marker at each distance is a good enough amount to prove the point. If you have an idea for a better test of range not accuracy please let me know and I'll try it. Also yes, the Armson is accurate, but the test was to see if it shoots further, which it does. I am still trying to find out why, the fact that it only works when you don't properly match paint to the barrel makes me think the ball is hitting the rifling such that it causes a backspin effect.

[Mike Smith]

As soon as I start playing paintballl with my marker clamped down to a table, or when I start playing under scientific conditions in a scientific lab, or when there is absolutely no wind, or when everyone is shooting exactly the same speed with exactly the same gun, I'll pay some attention to y'all's findings...

Til then, I'll just be blissfully ignorant...

[Miscue]

I agree a better test could be done, but mine was better than nothing, and more accurate than you seen to think, the "test ball" was Zap Chronic, and I ran all of my test balls thru a sizer to make sure I didn't have any odd ones. The test was done indoors, so wind isn't a consern, and since both where done side by side not one after another the temp and such are not really a consern because they will be the same on each one. Ten balls from each marker at each distance is a good enough amount to prove the point. If you have an idea for a better test of range not accuracy please let me know and I'll try it. Also yes, the Armson is accurate, but the test was to see if it shoots further, which it does. I am still trying to find out why, the fact that it only works when you don't properly match paint to the barrel makes me think the ball is hitting the rifling such that it causes a backspin effect.

I disagree. "Nothing" is better than bad results from bad testing procedures.

[Miscue]

As soon as I start playing paintballl with my marker clamped down to a table, or when I start playing under scientific conditions in a scientific lab, or when there is absolutely no wind, or when everyone is shooting exactly the same speed with exactly the same gun, I'll pay some attention to y'all's findings...

Til then, I'll just be blissfully ignorant...

Reinventing the wheel... people have already tested this extensively - and have shown that there is no difference.

[GoatBoy]

The cocker does shoot farther, the mag has no real recoil, but that that it does have lowers the barrel very slightly, but the cockers recoil raises the barrel slightly(depending on how tight you hold it) so in away it does shoot farther as long as you don't bolt both down to a bench.

Back to the point, I did real extensive actual testing on the Arson Stealth because I like testing and destroying Hype, and alot of my customers where claiming the Armson shot farther when you used small bore paint, so I bolted two A-5's down so they couldn't move and set a long target(so both would hit it) at 50' I chronoed both at exactly the same speed(between 275lowest and 288highest) both where on HPA, one with a stock barrel and one with an Armson. I fired both markers, they both hit easily, I fired 10 shots from each marker at each distacne so I was sure it wasn't just chance. I then moved the target back 2' and repeated until 74' they both hit, but the Armson hit up until 88', I am not sure why it shoots farther, I think it is a slopy back spin(I am looking into it). they both shot within a few feet of each other with a good paint to barrel mach, but the Armson does shoot farther with small bore paint.


I can at least appreciate the attempt. You have to start somewhere.

However, I'm back to questioning things that are accepted as 'given'.

In one hand, you say you chrono'd both guns to the same speed, but in the same sentence you describe the variability to be from 275 to 288. Right there you have contradicted yourself. This test setup is OK, but you need to be able to compensate for this.

I don't have the math in front of me, but I'm betting that's too much variability, especially at 74'-88', to let go, especially without tracking. If you've read the AGD testing, you'll notice in the bore sizing document, "IF YOU ONLY COUNT THE SHOTS AT THE SAME VELOCITY." I think there's a reason why that's in all caps.

From your description, you're not measuring the velocity for EACH shot.

A gun/barrel/paint combination that may exhibit similar variability, yet different average, will produce different results. Which brings me to my second question.

I'd like to know about what you mean by "hit". Was this a statistical thing, as in, out of 10 balls, 1 out of 10 on the armson hit at 88', or are you saying 10 out of 10 hit at 88', whereas 0 out of 10 for the other barrel did not hit at 88'? If you got 0 out of 10 hits, did you discontinue testing for the stock barrel at further lengths, but continue with the Armson?



Anyways, those are my thoughts. Trying to be constructive here; it would be nice if you could re-do the experiment sometime and get some of the data that is unfortunately very critical to the interpretation of the results. I would recommend maybe using the same gun to help reduce gun variability (gun related stuff + possible bench issues), but switching barrels and chrono'ing each shot.


There's also one other thing... but bleh, I'm tired and going to bed.



Oh and by the way, this isn't saying squat about the Hammerhead, which is what this thread is about. :dance:




As soon as I start playing paintballl with my marker clamped down to a table, or when I start playing under scientific conditions in a scientific lab, or when there is absolutely no wind, or when everyone is shooting exactly the same speed with exactly the same gun, I'll pay some attention to y'all's findings...

Til then, I'll just be blissfully ignorant...



Agreed.

[Koosh]

Goatboy you'll also see he was using A-5's with and admittedly small bore paint, so that initself should be reason for the velocity differences...

[bryceeden]

Thanks Koosh, that was what I was about to post, if anyone else can get better numbers with an A-5 with an improper paint to barrel match by all means redo the test and see what happens. And here is the question for all who are doubting , if its just luck than why is it that when I matched the paint size the supposed backspin didn't happen?

Goatboy I did chrono each shot, I did everything possable to make sure it was an accurate test if you people want me to post EVERYTHING about my tests than I will, but since this is semi off topic(people said the HH shot further, I don't know if it does but another rifeld barrel can so it is possable) I don't realy want to clutter the thread too much.

[rabidchihauhau]

Bryce,

not arguing here, but I also can't remain silent on a couple of points:

you said your 'test ball' was chronic and you sampled them for size.

Did you do so for weight?

In the distances you mentioned, I'd venture to say that a very small variation in weight would yeild (relatively) large variations in range...

and, of course, that was not what I meant by a test ball.

Pro-Team had 'test balls' made - seemless, all the same weight and measurements (beyond statistical variation), because we recognized that no test using paintballs was going to resolve enough to get results we could stand behind.

Finally, no matter how you slice it, ten balls from each gun is NOT enough to rely on. I'd venture to guess that I, personally, would not be happy with anything less than 10k shots for each barrel.

I would also not deem any test worthy of the name unless I had data available from the valve and barrel itself (dwell time, pressure, volume, density, etc)

Testing indoors definately makes things easier, but it does not mean that you can avoid gathering that data altogether; a random draft, a slight change in temp can still occur inside.


I guess what I'm really saying here is that paintball is pushing the limits of what is known in certain areas of the physical world; the microcosm we're trying to understand is right at the edge, and, that being the case, any outside influence, no matter how seemingly small, might be the factor that we need to understand. (In all probablity its a host of small, seemingly insignificant factors). Without having the data - and lots of it - any theory anyone advances is not worthy of the name and should be referred to as a 'guess'.

[bryceeden]

I don't have the equipment to test dwell and such so that I am not able to do, and for a test like this I can't afford to shoot 10K balls because its just a curiosity thing and unfortunatly cost is a factor in everything . As for the test balls, I am a proteam dealer so I'll call them Monday and if I can purchase some I'll redo the tests with them to see if they make a difference, but I'll need several different bore sizes so I'm not sure if that'll be doable. As I have said the tests wheren't perfect, but my results where consistant so I am inclined to belive that I found what I was testing for.

[minimag03]

I have a Hammerhead barrel. It is A LOT of bs. It breaks paint like crazy, put a strange curve on balls (with a clean barrel), and a lot more crap. I'd get something else that performed better...like a stock barrel.

[wispaintstyle]

I talked to them at shatnerball. The sales rep reminded me of a used car salesman from GB. Like PT Barnham said, "there's a sucker born every minute." Maybe more in paintball's case. For all of us that have already learned that rifling isn't worth shizzle on a marker, there could be two more that take these men as experts on the sport. Don't get me wrong, I would love to see SP deposed, but this just isn't the barrel.