Hammerhead barrels, and their lies!

[Arson51]

I got by back from D-day yesterday and when i woke up this morning the conversation i had with a co-creator of the hammerhead barrel was fresh on my mind. He was talking to a customer and claimed that the short 8 inch hammerhead was just as accurate as the 12 inch model except that the 8" had less range. I instantly cut in and was like "You are full of it, a ball exiting a 8'' barrel at 300fps will go the exact same distance as one from a 12''!"

he was quick to answer "NO you are wrong i went to engeneering school blah blah....the longer barrel has more distance to accelerate the ball thus it has more inertia! blah blah blah Thats why a tiny bullet can kill some one because of inertia!"

I was confused by his strange use of inertia which I thought was just mass and velocity.... by this time the customer was scared off by the sudden show of nerdyness and I was left saying "Uh Ill get back to you" I tried so hard to get my phone and computer hooked up so i could ask the chat room but it didnt work so i went 3 days not knowing whether Ii or represenative was the true hammerhead.

[p8ntball365]

Inertia is Objects in motion stay in motion unless acted upon by another force. I just finished a commoon assessment in science (yeah last period) about Newton's three laws of motion and using them with a car accident. So maybe there is less friction in an 8 inch barrel, thus making the paintball travel faster. What that has to do with accuracy is beyond me.

[SlartyBartFast]

Doesn't matter how long something accelerates.

Also, it's not inertia. It's kinetic energy that does the damage. That's mass times velocity squared.

Short vs. long barrel is a question of efficiency.

[Korrosion]

I have also had the hammerhead guys try to lie to me. I asked him if he had knowledge that Newton did not, then I walked away. :rofl:

[Archangel Zer0]

The Hammerhead guys are full of it. It's probably the worst barrel I've ever shot. I wrote a review over on pbreview on it and rated it a 1 out of 10. They flat out lie regarding the accuracy, distance increase, and self cleaning abilities of the barrel. The Hammerhead doesn't even compare to any barrel kit I've shot, and their reps are full of it.

What irritates me is the actual lying regarding the abilities of their equipment. The Tippmann flatline may be inaccurate as all hell, but they don't make the claim of being accurate. They hype the distance increase. Most other paintball manufacturers hype their equipment. Hammerhead lies. Simple as that.

I bought one of the kits when they first came out, and it was the worst $300 I've ever spent. In fact, it was probably the worst paintball purchase I've ever made.

[Jack & Coke]

he was quick to answer "NO you are wrong i went to engeneering school blah blah...."



You should have asked him if he stayed at a Holiday Inn. ;)

You are correct.

He is wrong.

Although there are many "non gun related" variables which affect "range", it has to more to do with the angle of trajectory and muzzle velocity.

In a controlled test (i.e. perfect identical balls, no cross wind, same angle, same exit velocity, etc.), the "range" of the shots fired between the 8" and 12" will average out about the same.

The most noticable difference between 8" vs 12" (shooting attribute) will be efficiency (shots per tank). You'll get a little more with the 12".

Too bad you didn't ask him what Newton's First Law of Motion is. :tard:

:cheers:

[Jack & Coke]

So maybe there is less friction in an 8 inch barrel, thus making the paintball travel faster.



"friction"???

That's kinda funny... the only part touching the ball are the control bores (fins), which are all the same length (2 in.), whether you use an 8" or 12". :tard:

[Xadion]

The rifeling of the barrel comes into contact with the paintball- hammerheads have been thrue much R&D about how much spin to put onto the paintball to get it to do what it needs to, to become more accurate and I guess distance. There are certian variables that must be met to have hammerheads proform as they should-

I personaly have had awsome proformance with my set of hammerhead barrels and reccomend them to anyone.

I go into more detail in my review www.teamzt.net/reviews/hhbarrel.htm

[spacedtedybear]

Actually, the rep was right in a way. The 12 inch barrel can shoot 4 inches farther than the 8 inch barrel. ;) Probably the 3 most important things you have to remember about projectiles are

1) A projectile is what it is; a projectile. Once it's in the air, whatever mechanism is used to launch it in the first place has absolutely no bearing on its flight path.

2) Horizontal and vertical components of velocity are independant of one another.

3) The only external forces acting on a projectile is wind resistance, and gravity.

The only exception to this rule would be the flatline barrel. Since my summer vacation just started last week, I don't want to think too much physics right now. :p

BTW: If someone gets in an technical arguement with you, and the first thing they brag about is their educational credentials, they're either lying, full of themselves, or both. Typically it's the latter.

[shartley]

The rifeling of the barrel comes into contact with the paintball- hammerheads have been thrue much R&D about how much spin to put onto the paintball to get it to do what it needs to, to become more accurate and I guess distance. There are certian variables that must be met to have hammerheads proform as they should-

I personaly have had awsome proformance with my set of hammerhead barrels and reccomend them to anyone.

I go into more detail in my review www.teamzt.net/reviews/hhbarrel.htm
You my friend have fallen for hype and hogwash. I would suggest that you actually do a bit of research on how rifling helps (of should I say does NOT help) either accuracy or distance when it comes to paintball.

And from what I can see, if they keep trying to sell the lies, they did virtually no R&D except marketing R&D concerning what the buying public may swallow.

You may have had awesome performance using your Hammerhead barrels, but trust me, it is not because of scientific testing done by them, nor the false information I keep hearing. I read your “review” and almost started laughing. Your testing is pretty much perception, not scientific. In short, worthless as an indicator of anything other than what you personally think, as opposed to what is really happening in a controlled environment.

I truly mean no disrespect, but you are a hype driver’s wet dream.

[Creative Mayhem]

I truly mean no disrespect, but you are a hype driver’s wet dream.

HAHAHAHHAHAA

Sounds like a few SP lovers I know, both here on AO and at the local field.

[Dayspring]

You should see his review on his team site... :rofl:


You my friend have fallen for hype and hogwash. I would suggest that you actually do a bit of research on how rifling helps (of should I say does NOT help) either accuracy or distance when it comes to paintball.

And from what I can see, if they keep trying to sell the lies, they did virtually no R&D except marketing R&D concerning what the buying public may swallow.

You may have had awesome performance using your Hammerhead barrels, but trust me, it is not because of scientific testing done by them, nor the false information I keep hearing. I read your “review” and almost started laughing. Your testing is pretty much perception, not scientific. In short, worthless as an indicator of anything other than what you personally think, as opposed to what is really happening in a controlled environment.

I truly mean no disrespect, but you are a hype driver’s wet dream.

[shartley]

You should see his review on his team site... :rofl:
I did read the review. You may have missed me saying so. ;)

[Meph]

He was talking to a customer and claimed that ...... I instantly cut in and was like "You are full of it...... !"


Wow you are a grade A jerk. Congratulations on interfering with somebody's business. It's one thing of a customer asks for an open opinion, but when you rudly butt in with your opinion that nobody asks for...? Who the hell are you to do that to the vendor? Or any company in general?

My opinion of the barrel's performance aside, if the guy is telling the truth or handing out hype.... that is all besides the point. If you had to discuss his false hype then at least have been polite and with enough RESPECT to after the customer's gone. Then start your discussion with him.


I'll make sure to stop by where you work and drive away your customers, to take money out of your pockets. To see if you like it as much as he did.

[SlartyBartFast]

Wow you are a grade A jerk. Congratulations on interfiering with somebody's business.

So I guess you think that there shouldn't be a better business bureau or a consumer protection office then.. :tard:

Bad business NEED to be interfered with. Snake oil salesmen NEED to be stopped.

If they don't like it, too bad. They have to live with the concequences of the unethical business model they've chosen to persue.

[shartley]

Wow you are a grade A jerk. Congratulations on interfering with somebody's business. It's one thing of a customer asks for an open opinion, but when you rudly butt in with your opinion that nobody asks for...? Who the hell are you to do that to the vendor? Or any company in general?

My opinion of the barrel's performance aside, if the guy is telling the truth or handing out hype.... that is all besides the point. If you had to discuss his false hype then at least have been polite and with enough RESPECT to after the customer's gone. Then start your discussion with him.


I'll make sure to stop by where you work and drive away your customers, to take money out of your pockets. To see if you like it as much as he did.
Isn’t that a bit harsh? If the vendor is telling lies openly at an event, I don’t think it is out of line to call them on it. Good products don’t need lies to sell.

This is not an issue of getting between a business and their customers, it is about pointing out when a business lies about something.

He didn’t drive away customers, he pointed out a lie that a salesman was telling. If the salesman didn’t lie, no comments could have been made. So if they lost any sales it was directly because they lied in the first place.

[Meph]

That's the thing though, EVERYBODY cries "hype" without usually ever shooting it. I've shot it, I love the hammerhead. But I don't think I would say it's superior.

There's no tests to prove it's a lie! There are however tests (or some reviews) that indicate that it indeed does make the promised claims. Can you show me anywhere that proves the hammerhead barrel system is a lie? You automatically roar lie, but where is your data to back that up?

If one is to say it's a lie then you also have to have proof, just as claims of accuracy need proof. They have at least a minimal amount of data. But people saying it's hype/lie have nothing... ever. As usual.


And yes, you are absolutely correct. It's in the right interest to go up and tell somebody in the middle of his sales pitch "YOUR FULL OF IT." Correct you are Shartley. :rolleyes:

[shartley]

That's the thing though, EVERYBODY cries "hype" without usually ever shooting it. I've shot it, I love the hammerhead. But I don't think I would say it's superior.

There's no tests to prove it's a lie! There are however tests (or some reviews) that indicate that it indeed does make the promised claims. Can you show me anywhere that proves the hammerhead barrel system is a lie?


And yes, you are absolutely correct. It's in the right interest to go up and tell somebody in the middle of his sales pitch "YOUR FULL OF IT." Correct you are Shartley.
Hype does not always have to be a lie. It can be a stretch of the truth. But when you look at what is being said:

He was talking to a customer and claimed that the short 8 inch hammerhead was just as accurate as the 12 inch model except that the 8" had less range.
You can darn well see it is a bold face lie. If you have the balls leaving the barrels a the same FPS then you will see no difference in range between two otherwise identical barrels (all but length of barrel). That is paintball 101 and physics 101.

Making the statement that the 12 inch barrel (which is identical to the 8 inch, just longer) gives you greater range is a lie. And you don’t need to shoot the barrels to know it.

Also, nowhere did I see that he “went up to him while he was giving a sales pitch”. To me it looked like he was standing right there while the pitch was being made. And sorry, if I was standing there I would have said something too…. not quite in the manner he did, but I would not have let a lie be told.

This has nothing to do with whether the barrels shoot well or not. It has to do with lies being told. And yes, there are tests to prove lies. I have not, however, seen any tests that prove that the claims made are truthful. But that aside, you don’t need to run tests to prove obvious and bold lies. A brick thrown from a bridge will not suddenly fly to the moon. And if someone states that it will, am I supposed to go out and “prove” it is a lie? No. There are some things that reasonable and educated people know to be truths, and know to be lies.

Here on AO quite a while ago there was a similar conversation about how just because a product may DO something well, it does not mean the reasons given by the manufacturer as the reasons for it are true. It had to do with WAS and claims he made. Folks didn’t argue that his products didn’t work well, only that he lied about how it was happening and why.

And I am not arguing whether Hammerhead barrels work well or not, only that from what I have read, it isn’t for the reasons being claimed. And if indeed the salesman stated what the author said he did, he lied. And I am sure you know that to be the case. You may not like how the lie was exposed, but I have not seen you honestly claim that if you had two barrels being identical (aside from length), that the longer one would make paintballs fly farther than the shorter one… given the same marker at the same velocity. Or are you saying you think that claim is truthful?

[Meph]

I'm saying I really don't care what people say. Everybody talks. Especially from their thoughts and ideas, NOT from tested experience. I actually bought a Hammerhead for this very purpose. I want to make one giant testing to get this all over and done with, so I can stop seeing threads like this. It'll be worth the $$.


Do hammerheads have more range or accuracy? I honestly don't know, but I plan to find out. Compared to a Scepter, Lapco Snapshot, and Freak.

But now, I'll add this to the list. 8" compared to 12" or 14" lengths. Might as well. I don't like how you "just know" it's fact/fiction. I like documented proof. I take nothing but. Because people lie and people get twisted ideas. But documentation is just recordings of what happens, not an opinion.



All of this crap aside I still personally do not condone or agree with telling somebody that they're basically an idiot stick right in front of their customers. Telling truth or marketing hype aside... that does not matter! He's doing business, it's how he makes his money. But hey if you agree with people insulting and arguing with vendors then be my guest. I don't share the same.

[shartley]

I'm saying I really don't care what people say. Everybody talks. Especially from their thoughts and ideas, NOT from tested experience. I actually bought a Hammerhead for this very purpose. I want to make one giant testing to get this all over and done with, so I can stop seeing threads like this. It'll be worth the $$.


Do hammerheads have more range or accuracy? I honestly don't know, but I plan to find out. Compared to a Scepter, Lapco Snapshot, and Freak.

But now, I'll add this to the list. 8" compared to 12" or 14" lengths. Might as well. I don't like how you "just know" it's fact/fiction. I like documented proof. I take nothing but. Because people lie and people get twisted ideas. But documentation is just recordings of what happens, not an opinion.



All of this crap aside I still personally do not condone or agree with telling somebody that they're basically an idiot stick right in front of their customers. Telling truth or marketing hype aside... that does not matter! He's doing business, it's how he makes his money. But hey if you agree with people insulting and arguing with vendors then be my guest. I don't share the same.
Okay, so here we have it. You don’t care if it is a lie or not. All you care about is if someone dares say it is a lie when a salesman may be lying. Fair enough. ;)

And you don’t take anything but documented proof about anything. And if you are not faced with documentation you can not make up your own mind about anything. I understand.

As for me agreeing with people insulting and arguing with vendors, when did I ever say that? When did I even insinuate it? I said I agree with people telling a vendor when they know them to be lying. This is far from “insulting” them, or “arguing” with them. If you read my post, I said I would have done it differently, but still addressed the issue.

Also the “just doing business” does not cut it in my book. If it does in yours, then be prepared to have anyone do anything they want, and stay quiet about it. Because I for one will be right there to show you your own words. Hey, they are just doing business…. ;)

I can’t help but think there is more to your outrage than what you post, because it just does not add up logically. This being the case, I will back out of the discussion. I have said what I felt needed to be said.
:cheers:

[Meph]

That's fine then. I'll make sure if you have vendors at your field that I stand by their booths and argue with them and drive away their customers based on what I think to be fact of products.

Personally I like to do research or test items myself for me to make up my mind. If you prefer to have your somebody's opinion to make up your mind then so be it. I personally just don't trust people's opinions. I like to test stuff and determine it myself.


And you are indeed correct that he didn't drive away the customer.

by this time the customer was scared off ... Indeed, had nothing to do with the situation. Right as always Shartley :rolleyes:

Just curious, where did you test to find out in paintball that 8" has equal range to 12"? I honestly have never seen anything for testing to argue either way. I've seen talk about 12" and 18" barrels, yeah. But not this situation.

I'm curious because you say it's a straight up lie like you have done the research yourself, so I want to see where you're getting that from is all.

*edit*
I'm not saying that there isn't some review or testing or what have you out there. I'm sure there has to be, somebody has to have done this. Just that I haven't seen it, so I'd like to take a read.

[shartley]

Now why did you have to do that? Are you delusional?

That's fine then. I'll make sure if you have vendors at your field that I stand by their booths and argue with them and drive away their customers based on what I think to be fact of products. .
If I had vendors at MY field they would be on private property not open to the public. That being said, you probably would not be there. ;) But that aside, if you saw ANY vendor who was lying and you told them so, I would not be offended. In fact I would probably have a talk with them afterward anyways since I don’t like lying.

There is a huge difference between trying to drive away customers and hearing a vendor LYING and calling them on it. So you can try to paint it any way you want, but if the vendor was not LYING you could not call them on it. And again, I never said it was okay to “argue” with a vendor. But telling them they lied about something is far from arguing with them. I personally would have said my piece and walked away.


Personally I like to do research or test items myself for me to make up my mind. If you prefer to have your somebody's opinion to make up your mind then so be it. I personally just don't trust people's opinions. I like to test stuff and determine it myself.
Yet you seem fully willing to believe an obvious lie from a vendor than an informed truth from a potential customer…. Interesting.


And you are indeed correct that he didn't drive away the customer.
Indeed, had nothing to do with the situation. Right as always Shartley :rolleyes:
You can roll your eyes all you want, but you are correct. I AM right and I am sure that just chaps your rear. Like I said, I think there is something more to your arguments and apparent outrage than the fact that a vendor lied to people and was called on it.


Just curious, where did you test to find out in paintball that 8" has equal range to 12"? I honestly have never seen anything for testing to argue either way. I've seen talk about 12" and 18" barrels, yeah. But not this situation.
It is simple physics. I also know the sun is hot, but I have not run any tests to prove it. And I know that if I drop a lead ball and an aluminum ball of the same size (but obviously different weights) they will both hit the ground at the same time…. Even though I have never done that test specifically.


I'm curious because you say it's a straight up lie like you have done the research yourself, so I want to see where you're getting that from is all.

*edit*
I'm not saying that there isn't some review or testing or what have you out there. I'm sure there has to be, somebody has to have done this. Just that I haven't seen it, so I'd like to take a read.
That is fine. The distance debates have been discussed to death here on AO, and if you did a search I am sure you could find something about it. The simple truth of the matter is, that given things being equal (barrel type, ball size, and velocity) you can take two barrels which are identical except for the length and if you shoot them at the same velocity the ball will go the same distance. The only thing that will change is the amount of air it takes to make the ball reach the given velocity.

Come on Meph, this has been posted so many times on AO by people from EVERY camp, that I find it hard to believe that you don’t seem to get it. Again, there HAS to be another reason for your arguing. More so since I was not the only person who had similar posts here… yet you chose to ONLY address me. hmmmm

We clearly see things differently (or at least that is what you claim), so why not just leave it at that?

[JoshK]

That's fine then. I'll make sure if you have vendors at your field that I stand by their booths and argue with them and drive away their customers based on what I think to be fact of products.

I thought you wouldn't do that? You don't care what people think. And you keep on messing up one thing...they wern't argueing because of opinions...he corrected someone who was blatently lying.



Personally I like to do research or test items myself for me to make up my mind. If you prefer to have your somebody's opinion to make up your mind then so be it. I personally just don't trust people's opinions. I like to test stuff and determine it myself.

Try telling that to Isaac Newton. Why didn't you test the stuff before you call it opinion? You have contradicted yourself more than I care to quote as of now.


And you are indeed correct that he didn't drive away the customer.
Indeed, had nothing to do with the situation. Right as always Shartley :rolleyes:

According to the first post it was a combination of both of them that drove away the custom...have you ever heard "It takes two to tango"?


Just curious, where did you test to find out in paintball that 8" has equal range to 12"? I honestly have never seen anything for testing to argue either way. I've seen talk about 12" and 18" barrels, yeah. But not this situation.

It's basic knowlege that it doesn't matter how long the barrel is. It is what velocity the paintball has when leaving the barrel. You are one of those people that believe the earth is still flat arn't you? ;)


-Josh

P.S. I wouldn't take sides if I were you if "You don't have proof".

[SlartyBartFast]

Just curious, where did you test to find out in paintball that 8" has equal range to 12"? I honestly have never seen anything for testing to argue either way. I've seen talk about 12" and 18" barrels, yeah. But not this situation.

Your position SEEMS admirable, but come on man. :rolleyes: How are YOU going to test everything?

That and it's up to those making the claims to prove they're true. Not up to others to prove them false.

As for somethings, well anyone with half a clue should be able to understand the concepts without any testing. The above is obvious. Once a projectile has left the launching device, the device has no more effect on the projectile.

Whether launched by black powder, slingshot, catapult, trebuchet, rocket, or compressed air, regardless of the time and energy required to accelerate to final velocity, once free of the launch divice, all that matters is the state of the projectile.

So, same velocity, same range. Same projectile, same accuracy.

Read the spin physics thread in deep blue and you'll know that it's IMPOSSIBLE to improve the accuracy of a paintball due to it's shape and weight and the random forces that are exerted on it during flight.

TK's/AGD's experimentation is available in the data thread in deep blue...

If ANYONE claimed they studied engineering or physics and claimed that inertia was somehow affected by length of barrel, I'd have no qualms calling them an idiot.

[TheTramp]

Meph-
I'm confused as to why you keep saying that there is no "proof" that the rifling in Hammerhead barrels improves the distance and accuracy of a paintball. I thought everybody here knew about the extensive testing done in AGD’s labs. Rifling, porting, different bore sizes, you name it they did it.

Edit: You said it again and again so now saying that you didn’t mean it doesn’t really hold up.

[JoshK]

I'm confused as to why you keep saying that there is no "proof" that the rifling in Hammerhead barrels improves the distance and accuracy of a paintball. I thought everybody here knew about the extensive testing done in AGD’s labs. Rifling, porting, different bore sizes, you name it they did it.

Edit: You said it again and again so now saying that you didn’t mean it doesn’t really hold up.

I thought he was saying that there is no proof that the length doesn't affect the range,

-Josh

[hitech]

There's no tests to prove it's a lie!

Yes there are...


http://www.automags.org/forums/showthread.php?t=64669

and...

http://www.automags.org/forums/showthread.php?t=34429

[TheTramp]

I thought he was saying that there is no proof that the length doesn't affect the range,

-Josh


Yes he was. Distance along with other claims made by the Hammerhead mfg including the "benifits" of rifiling. He's wrong. Between AGD, Warpig, and many others tests have been done on distance and every other thing about barrels and paintball flight.

[Paintchucker]

This seems like a funny thread, very amusing...

IMHO, original poster was a jerk for interferring with the sales pitch.

It seems that this barrel has rifling... Now, I am not looking to start a smooth bore projectile in a rifled barrel debate, but again IMHO, it does put a spin on the ball that a smooth bore barrel does not, like an armson. If that is indeed the case, it seems a longer barrel would in effect put more spin on the ball, and perhaps giving more range like a backspinning flatliner barrel...

[Arson51]

Well Im glad Im more right than that guy. Before that day i really liked Hammerhead barrels. I even met the other(Judson) creator down in OKC indoor, he had a box full of prototypes and even let me use the cocker threaded one to play against him and his son! He was such a nice guy the only thing keeping me from buying the barrel on the spot was the 300$ price tag. Now its not the price tag stopping me, it's the LIES!

It may have been a bit impolite to turn around and cut into a reps sales pitch, but its alot more impolite to lie to that said customer! it was the first thing that came into my mind when my mind made the connection. after that argument repeated itself several times (both parties being stubborn and misinformed). He handed me a print out of an AGP article by Robert Judson, called "Flight of the Paintballs" its basicaly a sumary of Judsons test and observations and many barrels and markers, it didnt back any of his claims up, it was basicaly a recap of everything tom kay told us in the last decade baring his study on spining. It starts out exactly how Meph starts out his argument "i dont trust anyones studies i will do my own"

[SlartyBartFast]

but again IMHO, it does put a spin on the ball that a smooth bore barrel does not, like an armson..

Then sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about.

TK tested spinning PBs. It did absolutely NOTHING for accuracy. and that was at thousands of RPM.

Not only have all barrel companies failed to show that they impart any spin what-so-ever, let alone a consistent one, the rifling and lengths would impart a negligeable spin even if one was imparted.

[RRfireblade]

I'll just jump in here real quick and say Armson Rifled Barrels do not create spin nor are they intended too.

Back to your regularly schedule broadcast. ;)

[PumpPlayer]

No offense here, but those archived threads not particularly relevant to the discussion nor is it short enough that anyone could have a hope of reading it in a timely manner.

I've shot hammerheads, I've seen them shot and I've talked with the reps and one of the company owners. From my experience, they were all stand-up people that were simply trying to sell their products. Yes, there's some exaggeration going on, but they are trying to make money and from my experience, they do not do so unethically. I wish I could say the same about all paintball product manufacturers.

On the science side of things, the fin length as well as the ported length is the same for both the 8" and 12" versions of the hammerhead. The extra 4" is all rifling. If spin on the ball breaks down the boundary layer and decreases friction and the length of rifled barrel increases the spin, then a longer barrel WOULD result in a further flight. Question here - did the rep say, "A 12" barrel shoots further than an 8" barrel." or did he say, "OUR 12" barrel shoots further than OUR 8" barrel."? Clearly there's a big difference between the two statements. Regardless, you are a jerk for interrupting someone on their turf talking about their product. Personally I think he let you off easy.

Lastly - to all you flatline/Z-body people. It only works above about 25k rpm. Any less than that it actually hurts. Why? There is an "anti-magnus effect" so to speak. The ball actually moves away from the "fast" side in order to seek the path of least resistance. Until the magnus effect overcomes the additional friction on the "fast" side - backspin actually hurts. Backspin at low rpm pushes the ball down because it "pulls" the air over top of it. In fact, topspin at low rpm (say about 10k) causes the balls to "climb" the air. (Think of spin in ping-pong) Only when you break the barrier at about 25k rpm does backspin have a desirable effect. Obviously, the flatline does work and so does the z-body. But if you'll notice - they don't work below a certain velocity (obviously since it's friction-induced spin, higher velocity equates to higher rate of spin). Spin of less than 3k rpm does almost nothing to a pantball no matter how it is applied. Rifled barrels even with no slip, the twist is so shallow that the spin would be less than 8 rpm regardless of manufacturer - hardly affecting trajectory in the least.

The hammerhead doesn't make paintballs more accurate by applying axial spin - rifling does nothing because it's not fast enough. However, it may be more accurate because a controlled axial spin is generated versus an uncontrollable spin. If you look at the twist (it's very shallow), you'll note that even at high velocity, the most the ball spins is about 6k to 8k rpm. Hardly enough to do anything, but it MAY prevent uncontrolled spin from developing. That's all. I personally think the Hammerheads shoot better than a lot of systems out there (I wouldn't say all) and for the machining involved, it's worth the price. It's expensive for the performance it gives, but it's not expensive for the machining and the quality of product you get.


Incidentally - I had the opportunity to shoot a 12" hammerhead on a z-body just yesterday. VERY interesting. The z-body is great - the balls just "float" well past the range where they should otherwise land (if you have never seen a z-body they really do work). With the hammerhead on it though, the balls corkscrew ever so slightly to the right. It's not enough that you could shoot around a bunker with and it is very consistent and predictable, but it's a good 2' deviation at 150'. Very interesting even if incredibly impractical.


Bottom line - The hammerhead's a good barrel though not necessarily the best and still very expensive. Even still - there was no reason to interrupt a sales rep and tell him he was wrong for making claims about his own product. Take caution the next time you decide to call someone out in front of a customer.

If you're out with your buddies, would you walk over to one of your friends who is speaking with a lady, interrupt him and tell the lady how much of a jerk your friend is? Well, you pretty much did just that...

[Jonno06]

the 12" does go farther.......by 4"s.:)

[Jack & Coke]

the 12" does go farther.......by 4"s.:)

actually it's "shorter"

think tip of barrel to target ;)


:rofl:

[hitech]

No offense here, but those archived threads not particularly relevant to the discussion nor is it short enough that anyone could have a hope of reading it in a timely manner.

Yes they are. And that is the problem with attempting to "prove" the point. You have to be willing to learn...


<img src=http://us.f2.yahoofs.com/bc/4161d9d6_207d/bc/Hosting/smiley_mini102.gif?BCXoKqCBtt.sMPGQ>

[PekngDuk rndCrnz]

hmmm...

from what I know about basic physics...wouldnt spin on the ball make it LESS accurate?
Because of the Magnus Effect, the spin of the ball would create an imbalance on the ball's boundary layer. Due to the spin, one side of the rotating sphere would have a greater static pressure than on the other side. Robin's law dictates that a rapidly spinning projectile will have another force at right angles to it's spin axis.

I dont know ALOT about physics, but if the barrel made the ball spin counterclockwise, for example, wouldn't the ball have a slight curve to the left?

[Eric Of Extreme Measures]

HAMMERHEADS SUCK!

Im selling one on Ebay if any one is interested!!! Good Price!

Eric :rofl:

[Lohman446]

This is good.. lets disect this


No offense here, but those archived threads not particularly relevant to the discussion nor is it short enough that anyone could have a hope of reading it in a timely manner.

I know there are mountains of quantitative data taken in a pretty well controlled way that debunk all the things I am going to say. So lets ignore them.



I've shot hammerheads, I've seen them shot and I've talked with the reps and one of the company owners. From my experience, they were all stand-up people that were simply trying to sell their products. Yes, there's some exaggeration going on, but they are trying to make money and from my experience, they do not do so unethically. I wish I could say the same about all paintball product manufacturers.

Its ok to flat out lie to consumers in order to get there money. This is not fraudulent or anything. Its just business


On the science side of things, the fin length as well as the ported length is the same for both the 8" and 12" versions of the hammerhead. The extra 4" is all rifling. If spin on the ball breaks down the boundary layer and decreases friction and the length of rifled barrel increases the spin, then a longer barrel WOULD result in a further flight. Question here - did the rep say, "A 12" barrel shoots further than an 8" barrel." or did he say, "OUR 12" barrel shoots further than OUR 8" barrel."? Clearly there's a big difference between the two statements. Regardless, you are a jerk for interrupting someone on their turf talking about their product. Personally I think he let you off easy.

Yeh.. because that rifling after the control bore... doesn' touch the ball. What good can it be? And yes.. our barrel takes away all physics, imparts a sphere of anti-gravitational material around your ball, and makes it shoot further..



Lastly - to all you flatline/Z-body people. It only works above about 25k rpm. Any less than that it actually hurts. Why? There is an "anti-magnus effect" so to speak. The ball actually moves away from the "fast" side in order to seek the path of least resistance. Until the magnus effect overcomes the additional friction on the "fast" side - backspin actually hurts. Backspin at low rpm pushes the ball down because it "pulls" the air over top of it. In fact, topspin at low rpm (say about 10k) causes the balls to "climb" the air. (Think of spin in ping-pong) Only when you break the barrier at about 25k rpm does backspin have a desirable effect. Obviously, the flatline does work and so does the z-body. But if you'll notice - they don't work below a certain velocity (obviously since it's friction-induced spin, higher velocity equates to higher rate of spin). Spin of less than 3k rpm does almost nothing to a pantball no matter how it is applied. Rifled barrels even with no slip, the twist is so shallow that the spin would be less than 8 rpm regardless of manufacturer - hardly affecting trajectory in the least.

So the flatline does not shoot further.. or around corners..


Incidentally - I had the opportunity to shoot a 12" hammerhead on a z-body just yesterday. VERY interesting. The z-body is great - the balls just "float" well past the range where they should otherwise land (if you have never seen a z-body they really do work). With the hammerhead on it though, the balls corkscrew ever so slightly to the right. It's not enough that you could shoot around a bunker with and it is very consistent and predictable, but it's a good 2' deviation at 150'. Very interesting even if incredibly impractical.

Ok, teh Z-body and flatline actually do work.. but only when used with our barrel?



Bottom line - The hammerhead's a good barrel though not necessarily the best and still very expensive. Even still - there was no reason to interrupt a sales rep and tell him he was wrong for making claims about his own product. Take caution the next time you decide to call someone out in front of a customer.

If you're out with your buddies, would you walk over to one of your friends who is speaking with a lady, interrupt him and tell the lady how much of a jerk your friend is? Well, you pretty much did just that...

Why... I might do it nicer, by asking how, but theres no reason to get away with crap like that. As to taking caution... please - going to attack me because I called your lie a lie. No big deal. As to the friend analogy... theres a difference - he's trying to commit fraud for physical acts.. not for money.

[Archangel Zer0]

I've shot hammerheads, I've seen them shot and I've talked with the reps and one of the company owners. From my experience, they were all stand-up people that were simply trying to sell their products. Yes, there's some exaggeration going on, but they are trying to make money and from my experience, they do not do so unethically. I wish I could say the same about all paintball product manufacturers.

If you're out with your buddies, would you walk over to one of your friends who is speaking with a lady, interrupt him and tell the lady how much of a jerk your friend is? Well, you pretty much did just that...
Lying isn't the same thing as exaggerating. Hammerhead lies about their product. Unethically and unequivocally. They claim their system is more accurate, has a tighter ball grouping, is quieter, is lighter, and is more tolerant of different quality paints than any other barrel. Look at their website. I see that they took down the "shoots itself clean in 3 shots" lie.

And if one of my buddies is talking to a chick that I caught gonorrhea from, I'll sure go over and tell him that she's unclean before he ends up the same way. Hammerhead is the unclean chick with the clap and I'm just trying to make sure that the guys on AO don't catch it, too.

[overkill8000]

yeah he is full of it i think that its more your preference. personally i like a longer barrel b/c their quiter, more air efficent, wrap bunkers better, and they look nicer to me. but as for accuracy and distance, mmmmmmmmmmmmm i dont think so. oh yeah and if u want a real opion try a website like this 9 out of 10 it'll be a true. of course thell try to sell u a longer barrel they make more money. :shooting: :shooting: :shooting: :shooting: :shooting:

[overkill8000]

HAMMERHEADS SUCK!

Im selling one on Ebay if any one is interested!!! Good Price!

Eric :rofl:



nice sell pitch lol..........

[vonort]

If it wasnt Robert that you were talking who. Who was it? Just curious.

[WARPED1]

So I guess you think that there shouldn't be a better business bureau or a consumer protection office then.. :tard:

Bad business NEED to be interfered with. Snake oil salesmen NEED to be stopped.

If they don't like it, too bad. They have to live with the concequences of the unethical business model they've chosen to persue.
Nice Slarty, and I agree.

[Eric Of Extreme Measures]

nice sell pitch lol..........


LOLOLOL

They do, and I am, if you like them, you can have them....

To Each his own. I am not going to get started...again.

The Stiffi, even worst, selling them off too, good price, LOL :rofl:


http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=7162903472&rd=1&sspagename=STRK

Id like to throw it in the lake, #*^%@^*@**$(#, or give it to the sales person we are talking about, right up his KAZOO, sideways and teach him a thing about inerta! :wow:
Eric

[CodeMA]

...wow... I gotta say yall know how to slam a company and the good name of people you dont even know nor have never met...good job...


Colin, the actual owner of Hammerhead as well as Offical Paintball of Texas and their various lines of products is a standup guy and cool as hell... YOU dont know him YOU damn sure shouldnt be bashing him like you guys are... not cool

NOW... the barrels, I personally prefer kits with a short control barrel, IE hammerheads, stiffis, etc... I will also say I have converted sevral people over the years to my way of thinking, I know yall are set in your ways and are all over Newton and everyone else who has ever done some sort of testings balls and me throwing a couple paragraphs of text that may or may not go against some of this prolly isnt going to change this...but I feel the need to stick up for one of my sponors who is getting bashed for the simple fact his barrels seem to go against what YOU have been told for years online...

So, Ive seen the progression of these barrels over the years, shot on every gun on the market practicly, with just about every brand of paint as well... Im not here to say they add x ammount of range, and always shoot perfect through paint and crap... cuz they dont stright up...

I am here to say they are sweet barrels that are more forgiving on not so great paint, have a constant tragectory at both short and long distances, less down range sound(not that it matters to much, but for those that think it does, and its just plain cool LOL) It DOES shoot ok through breaks, better then most(new gen battle stik expecially)

Specifics: well honed short bore= less distance for warped/dimpled paint to hangup and bust, less chops .... Preformance loss, nothing nominal, it has the seal needed and thats it, very well machined short control bore... If you want to say my above thoughts on that are bs, back it up saying you have PERSONALLY used both with the same paint, same gun, same paint to bore match....if not then DFT

Rifleing: Added physical distance? Not really nominal, but it does look like it... The way the tips are designed with a larger diamater and a very minimal twist with the rifleing DOES seem to stableize the ball at all ranges, but namely across the field. As a backplayers, every edge I can get, Im going to utilize and with the Hammerhead its a fairly decent edge when trying to put balls on someones face from 180esh feet away. I cant even say this is all due to the rifleing, the muzzle break doesnt have rifleing on it with the battle stik, and has an even larger diamiter, which is claimed to recharge the residual pressure behind the ball... Now for the physic minded people here, lets look at the pillow effect of the low pressure guns that the air has behind the ball(this is the stuff that makes your marker still shoot paint and not blow it to hell if your LPR fails, generally puting your FPS in thigh mid 500s, still leaving the ball intact and shooting really really fast(ie through a pod full of paint, a pack, and into someones back) and then logicly(as flawed as you may claim it to be) would stand to say the barrels design utlizes this... I have noticed LP markers getting more out of the hammerhead then high pressure guns, though they still do get some preformance gain here, and deffently from the short control bore/wider inner diamitater of the barrel...

Converting people to the hammerhead:

Ive had the pleasure of promoteing these barrels over the years, and carry a full fin kit and an extra tip in autococker threading and have got a fair share of people to go out and buy a hammerhead kit after getting them to shoot one for the day... I (as I did here) try to stay away from the card carrying Hammerhead point sheet...and let the barrel speak for it self... The guys at Hammerhead or any of there dealers wil do the same...
One of the more recent instances of this:
I work at a field in North Central Texas, PMI based... The owners son is hardcore evil this, evil that... and truely loves his pipe kit... swares its the best barrel out there has for years... Well he didnt have it at the field one day and was asking around for a good barrel and was shooting some really brittle ultra evil that was slightly swollen and warped and was old... So being the nice guy that I am, sized some of his paint and let him use my spare tip and a fin... He went out and put a hopper through his gun with the hammerhead on it, came back in smileing and all excited... without even plugging the barrel, he noticed a diffrence, only thing I told him is that it was a great barrel and had sized the paint for him and to go shoot faces... In the first set of games, his longball game improved dramaticly and he wasnt chopping like he was with his pipe kit (also sized) or a boomstick he had used before I let him barrow the hammerhead (also no fitting issues with the boomstick, I checked for peice of mind) He seriously noticed a big diffrence and it showed both through his actions on the field and reactions to them... I bet I ended up sending 3 people to Offical to buy a hammerhead that day and almost looseing my barrel LOL





For those not wanting to read my long post(most likely riddled with typos)
F* Smacktalk
Hammerhead barrels do most of what they say, there not perfect and it could very well be dependant on marker variables
Unless you shoot a hammerhead kit for the day, properly sized, preferably along side another kit with properly sized paint, and test it in actual play, not over a chrono or whatever, just play.... If you think the barrel sucks after that, and dont notice anything diffrent in the way it appers to effect balls and your game...THEN you can come up and say something, but if you just want to go on what others have said and base your posts and opinions on poor wording from sales reps and such, you have no right to say ANYTHING...

So, go try the kit, if it doesnt preform in a fasion compareable to what they say...you prolly dont know how to size paint/setup your marker or are too stuck up on what youve been told by everyone else...

[frop]

I just don't believe the rifling hype that gets thrown out from time to time. I don't know if it's a quality piece or not, since it IS $300. For $300 it damn well better be quality. I'm more incline to believe that any improvements are because of quality, not necessarily rifling.

To those saying the extra 4" causes the ball the spin faster, it shouldn't. If full effect isn't achieved in 8", then they are selling an inferior product and should berated for that.

[Aliens-8-MyDad]

In the first set of games, his longball game improved dramaticly and he wasnt chopping like he was with his pipe kit (also sized) or a boomstick

how does a barrel prevent chops?

I do remember you shooting the hammer head at our little ao day thingy and it was decently accuarte, not bad, but nothing special IMO on par with my boomy. I just got my lucky 15 kit and jeezus that is the most accuarate barrel Ive used. its better than the boomstick and as light as an ultralight. it shoots well through breaks too.

Lucky15>all other barrels/kits

and if you dont belive me, ask blazestorm or someone else with a lucky 15 kit

[Duzzy]

So here is my random thought...

Let's just pretend they shoot the gun first with an 8 inch barrel on it. Then they only change the barrel and put a 12 inch on it and shoot it.

So here is my question. Assuming that the gun shoots different distances in this scenario, and assuming this is their test, are they really lying if they say one barrel shoots farther than another?

Because if you create the right scenario the 12 inch barrel may actually shoot farther because the velocity won't be as high with the 8 inch barrel. Sure it may be misleading but is it an outright lie?

[RRfireblade]

Hear's the real question....

Anyone yet seen any actual 'proof' that they even spin the paintball at all?

[personman]

Because if you create the right scenario the 12 inch barrel may actually shoot farther because the velocity won't be as high with the 8 inch barrel. Sure it may be misleading but is it an outright lie?
Yes, because unless the 8 inch barrel is full of porting and the 12 inch has no porting at all, when you switch from an 8 inch to a 12 inch, the velocity will go down.

[SpecialBlend2786]

Hear's the real question....

Anyone yet seen any actual 'proof' that they even spin the paintball at all?

nope

[Duzzy]

Yes, because unless the 8 inch barrel is full of porting and the 12 inch has no porting at all, when you switch from an 8 inch to a 12 inch, the velocity will go down.

Well since I never said my example was correct, it was only intended as an example and the question still stands...

However, since you were so kind as to point out my mistake, and since I never gave specifics the 8 inch barrel is so full of porting there is hardly any metal in it and the 12 inch is either a Javelin or a Lapco barrel. :p

[Arson51]

...wow... I gotta say yall know how to slam a company and the good name of people you dont even know nor have never met...good job...


Colin, the actual owner of Hammerhead as well as Offical Paintball of Texas and their various lines of products is a standup guy and cool as hell... YOU dont know him YOU damn sure shouldnt be bashing him like you guys are... not cool

NOW... the barrels, I personally prefer kits with a short control barrel, IE hammerheads, stiffis, etc... I will also say I have converted sevral people over the years to my way of thinking, I know yall are set in your ways and are all over Newton and everyone else who has ever done some sort of testings balls and me throwing a couple paragraphs of text that may or may not go against some of this prolly isnt going to change this...but I feel the need to stick up for one of my sponors who is getting bashed for the simple fact his barrels seem to go against what YOU have been told for years online...

So, Ive seen the progression of these barrels over the years, shot on every gun on the market practicly, with just about every brand of paint as well... Im not here to say they add x ammount of range, and always shoot perfect through paint and crap... cuz they dont stright up...

I am here to say they are sweet barrels that are more forgiving on not so great paint, have a constant tragectory at both short and long distances, less down range sound(not that it matters to much, but for those that think it does, and its just plain cool LOL) It DOES shoot ok through breaks, better then most(new gen battle stik expecially)

Specifics: well honed short bore= less distance for warped/dimpled paint to hangup and bust, less chops .... Preformance loss, nothing nominal, it has the seal needed and thats it, very well machined short control bore... If you want to say my above thoughts on that are bs, back it up saying you have PERSONALLY used both with the same paint, same gun, same paint to bore match....if not then DFT

Rifleing: Added physical distance? Not really nominal, but it does look like it... The way the tips are designed with a larger diamater and a very minimal twist with the rifleing DOES seem to stableize the ball at all ranges, but namely across the field. As a backplayers, every edge I can get, Im going to utilize and with the Hammerhead its a fairly decent edge when trying to put balls on someones face from 180esh feet away. I cant even say this is all due to the rifleing, the muzzle break doesnt have rifleing on it with the battle stik, and has an even larger diamiter, which is claimed to recharge the residual pressure behind the ball... Now for the physic minded people here, lets look at the pillow effect of the low pressure guns that the air has behind the ball(this is the stuff that makes your marker still shoot paint and not blow it to hell if your LPR fails, generally puting your FPS in thigh mid 500s, still leaving the ball intact and shooting really really fast(ie through a pod full of paint, a pack, and into someones back) and then logicly(as flawed as you may claim it to be) would stand to say the barrels design utlizes this... I have noticed LP markers getting more out of the hammerhead then high pressure guns, though they still do get some preformance gain here, and deffently from the short control bore/wider inner diamitater of the barrel...

Converting people to the hammerhead:

Ive had the pleasure of promoteing these barrels over the years, and carry a full fin kit and an extra tip in autococker threading and have got a fair share of people to go out and buy a hammerhead kit after getting them to shoot one for the day... I (as I did here) try to stay away from the card carrying Hammerhead point sheet...and let the barrel speak for it self... The guys at Hammerhead or any of there dealers wil do the same...
One of the more recent instances of this:
I work at a field in North Central Texas, PMI based... The owners son is hardcore evil this, evil that... and truely loves his pipe kit... swares its the best barrel out there has for years... Well he didnt have it at the field one day and was asking around for a good barrel and was shooting some really brittle ultra evil that was slightly swollen and warped and was old... So being the nice guy that I am, sized some of his paint and let him use my spare tip and a fin... He went out and put a hopper through his gun with the hammerhead on it, came back in smileing and all excited... without even plugging the barrel, he noticed a diffrence, only thing I told him is that it was a great barrel and had sized the paint for him and to go shoot faces... In the first set of games, his longball game improved dramaticly and he wasnt chopping like he was with his pipe kit (also sized) or a boomstick he had used before I let him barrow the hammerhead (also no fitting issues with the boomstick, I checked for peice of mind) He seriously noticed a big diffrence and it showed both through his actions on the field and reactions to them... I bet I ended up sending 3 people to Offical to buy a hammerhead that day and almost looseing my barrel LOL





For those not wanting to read my long post(most likely riddled with typos)
F* Smacktalk
Hammerhead barrels do most of what they say, there not perfect and it could very well be dependant on marker variables
Unless you shoot a hammerhead kit for the day, properly sized, preferably along side another kit with properly sized paint, and test it in actual play, not over a chrono or whatever, just play.... If you think the barrel sucks after that, and dont notice anything diffrent in the way it appers to effect balls and your game...THEN you can come up and say something, but if you just want to go on what others have said and base your posts and opinions on poor wording from sales reps and such, you have no right to say ANYTHING...

So, go try the kit, if it doesnt preform in a fasion compareable to what they say...you prolly dont know how to size paint/setup your marker or are too stuck up on what youve been told by everyone else...

Hmm just because you were told it would work, you think it works on the field but you cant prove it in any given sense... its true right?

I did get to use the hammerhead barrel back in 03 when this damned barrel wasnt even on the f'in map and you werent even f'in sponsored by them, it seemed to me the barrel did shoot further but than again he had been telling me his grand plan for an hour before letting me try it. At that very moment i admit for a second i *could* have been bought by the hype for a split second; loving somthing but not being able to say why. But no matter what the hype glamor and glitter make us believe, all things on this world and this part of space are bound by set rules.


So here is my random thought...

Let's just pretend they shoot the gun first with an 8 inch barrel on it. Then they only change the barrel and put a 12 inch on it and shoot it.

So here is my question. Assuming that the gun shoots different distances in this scenario, and assuming this is their test, are they really lying if they say one barrel shoots farther than another?

Because if you create the right scenario the 12 inch barrel may actually shoot farther because the velocity won't be as high with the 8 inch barrel. Sure it may be misleading but is it an outright lie?

Maybe thats what he was refering to, but than again he did blaspheme Newtons teachings....

[Aliens-8-MyDad]

and maybe if you spend $300 on a barrel your brain makes it seem better than it is so you feel better about spending the money on it? ;)

[CodeMA]

Naw, I didnt get a hype speech at anypoint, and again Ive been around hammerhead barrels since before they thought about becomeing mainstream...

Told it works, sure, see it works everytime I step on the field(minus what was mentioned above) wither its on my gun or not...

Aliens, the poll thing that one game when I wasnt even shouldering my gun? heh...balls were still going in the exact same place ball after ball...

as far as proof, I dont think Colin has done any special video/photography yet...

I didnt pay anything for my kit/s... It still shoots quite nicely...shrugs

[WARPED1]

$300 for a barrel?! WTF!? It better be made of gold and studded with gems!

[Paintchucker]

I'll just jump in here real quick and say Armson Rifled Barrels do not create spin nor are they intended too.

Back to your regularly schedule broadcast. ;)



After over a decade and lots of eliminations, it was just my imagination??? ROFLMAO, I guess I could have been using any barrel. I do love my armsons though... They just "seemed" to be more accurate but the testing was hardly scientific...

[Automaggot68]

I thought you wouldn't do that? You don't care what people think. And you keep on messing up one thing...they wern't argueing because of opinions...he corrected someone who was blatently lying.



Try telling that to Isaac Newton. Why didn't you test the stuff before you call it opinion? You have contradicted yourself more than I care to quote as of now.



According to the first post it was a combination of both of them that drove away the custom...have you ever heard "It takes two to tango"?



It's basic knowlege that it doesn't matter how long the barrel is. It is what velocity the paintball has when leaving the barrel. You are one of those people that believe the earth is still flat arn't you? ;)


-Josh

P.S. I wouldn't take sides if I were you if "You don't have proof".
Aren't you taking sides?

[Miscue]

he was quick to answer "NO you are wrong i went to engeneering school blah blah....the longer barrel has more distance to accelerate the ball thus it has more inertia! blah blah blah Thats why a tiny bullet can kill some one because of inertia!"



Hurm. Inertia does not increase nor decrease based on the acceleration or velocity, if you leave relativity out of the picture. For a paintball to gain inertia, it must gain mass... as they are directly related with each other. That's an interesting trick that these Hammerheads can accomplish... there's some people at Los Alamos National Laboratory that might want to take a look at it.

[Miscue]

Rifleing: Added physical distance? Not really nominal, but it does look like it... The way the tips are designed with a larger diamater and a very minimal twist with the rifleing DOES seem to stableize the ball at all ranges, but namely across the field.

How is this even possible? You said yourself that the tips have a larger diameter (Surprise surprise! Just like every other 2-piece!). Last I checked, rifling has to come into physical contact with the projectile to work. I don't even have to bring up whether or not rifling actually improves anything... there is this mentioned problem that precedes the whole issue.

Let's look at this situation: Ball is .689. Rifled tip is... let's guess .695 (I dunno what it is exactly, it's irrelevant anyway...).

How does this work?

What I find absolutely hilarious... or maybe more so... pathetic... is... this thing has like a 2" control bore, or something really short. The rest of it is just a barrel tip. Yet... people still defend it... and have no idea how ridiculous it is to do so.

[Miscue]

The rifeling of the barrel comes into contact with the paintball- hammerheads have been thrue much R&D about how much spin to put onto the paintball to get it to do what it needs to, to become more accurate and I guess distance.

How is this possible if the rifled tip is a larger diameter than the paintball?

What kind of R&D? If they had done any, surely they would have noticed that the hole is bigger than the ball.

[CodeMA]

not nessarily... I didnt say the rifleing is working in the sence that it adds distance... but it does stablize the ball, which is what a tip does in the first place via the use of air...

I just know the barrel shoots great I cant explain all the physics behind it... just logic...

[Jack & Coke]

Q, if a company came out with a quartz crystal embedded barrel, and told people that their balls would hit their target on time, ya think there would be a few people who would "get suckered into it" too...? ;)

[Jaan]

Q, if a company came out with a quartz crystal embedded barrel, and told people that their balls would hit their target on time, ya think there would be a few people who would "get suckered into it" too...? ;)
You wouldn't even have to go that far ... tell people the barrel is magnetic, or just tie a magic red string around it. :rolleyes:

[Miscue]

not nessarily... I didnt say the rifleing is working in the sence that it adds distance... but it does stablize the ball, which is what a tip does in the first place via the use of air...

I just know the barrel shoots great I cant explain all the physics behind it... just logic...

No no no. Geezus. You're completely missing the point.

I want you to think about this for about 10 minutes: Big hole. Little hole. Let's try one more time. Big hole. Little hole.

Ok. Little ball fits in little hole just right (the supposed goal of barrel/paint match). Does the little ball fit just right in the big hole? Nooo. That's why it's the "big" hole.

Now if it doesn't fit right in the "big" hole, and the rifling in the big hole does not come into contact with the little ball, what does this particular "rifling" do exactly?

"Just logic," you say? Wow. I believe we have opposing views on what logic means.

[Target Practice]

Wow, I can't believe that you people are arguing about this crap. Let's not ask "Does it work in paintball?", but rather, "Why doesn't it work in paintball?"

Since I spent my three days of...uh..."forced vacation" out at the range, let's look at this from where the idea rifling comes from: guns.

Okay, for those of you who don't know how rifling works:

The actual caliber of the bullet is the outer diameter of the rifling (which is measured from the bottom of what is called the groove). That means that the inner diameter of the rifling, which is smaller than the bullet,measured by the top of the land, digs into the bullet, which is maleable, and imparts spin.

http://www.firearmsid.com/Galleries/illustrations/rifling/rifling_6R.gif

Now, imagine a rifled paintball barrel. Assuming a perfect paint-to-barrel match, due to the material qualities of the paint, the ball would not touch the grooves, it would only touch the lands. There is nothing to dig into the ball, therefore, there is nothing with which to impart spin.

In this picture, you can clearly see where the rifling has dug into the bullet (shiny part), and where grooves are located (dark part).

http://www.supload.com/thumbs/default/rifling.jpg

So, why can't we have rifling in paintball? For a few reasons.

1) As stated, the material qualities of the paint prohibit true rifling from working. Even if true rifling was present (which it isn't), there would be nothing to grab onto, therefore, there would be no spin imparted.

2) The spheroid isn't a very conducive shape to accept spin. As you can see by putting a ball in your barrel, you will notice that it only touches in two very small points. Even if it were a perfect sphere, it would only touch in a perfect ring that, when extrapolated into a plane, is perpendicular to the barrel axis. This contact area consists of a negligable amount of surface area. This is why bullets are shaped the way they are (among other things). Even though everyone knows what a bullet looks like, I'll include a picture of several anyway.

(Picture to be uploaded)

3) Even if you could get the rifling to dig into the bullet, and you changed the shape of the bullet in order to have more contact with the barrel, the velocities are low enough that any practical amount of rifling/twist would have a negligable difference on performance. True and effective rifling in paintball ain't gonna happen.

Myth: Busted

Edited for more Mythbusting.

[Automaggot68]

Holy Crap. Best post Ev4r.


TP : 1
Morans : 0

[Lohman446]

Miscue, TP... you guys just don't understand the argument that is being made, it requires two things and the people have basically said it.

Ignore the quantitative analysis based on actual controlled and recorded testing shown in deep blue and the base physics that prove paintball spin does not work. They think this system is so much better, so it must be. Its logic after all, there qualitative perceptions are so much more accurate than that testing and of course this thing can defy all base principles of physics. You're reasoning is just illogical apparently... I don't know, I have no clue what they are basing the argument on, but it is getting umm, interesting

[Mike Smith]

Now if it doesn't fit right in the "big" hole, and the rifling in the big hole does not come into contact with the little ball, what does this particular "rifling" do exactly?

All I want to know is how does Miscue get the paintball to levitate through 12" of barrel, without touching the sides of the barrel, after being violently launched from a 2" launch pad? Does his barrel use magnets to achieve that feat?

My experiment with my Hammerhead induced small scratches on the paintball. I'm thinking if the paintball surface is scratched, it would break easier, thus giving the impression that it will travel further. {Or your balls bounce on me, but my balls break on you.} Does my gun shoot farther than your gun? {Yes, I have been cronoed on a few occasions, based on my range. The people seemed surprised that I was around 260-270}

Buit what do I know... I've only been shooting the Hammerhead for the past year, and haven't touched my Lapco, Dye, or original crown point since I bought the Hammerhead. I must be so gullible...

[Lohman446]

Buit what do I know... I've only been shooting the Hammerhead for the past year, and haven't touched my Lapco, Dye, or original crown point since I bought the Hammerhead. I must be so gullible...

You said it...

[Mike Smith]

You said it...

Yep, I'm nobody. I've got no game...
You can safely ignore me on the field.

[billmi]

Myth: Busted

Edited for more Mythbusting.

To be entirely off-topic for a moment....
A couple of months ago, one of the PAs from Mythbusters called and spoke to my wife, researching special effects spark balls. It will be interesting to see what pans out from that.

[Lohman446]

Yep, I'm nobody. I've got no game...
You can safely ignore me on the field.


I don't recall saying or implying that. Your post indicated that you were gullible to the hype of the hammerhead barrel - which I agreed with. I never mentioned your game or anything of that nature. Does the hammerhead barrel shoot well? Probably. Does it shoot better / more accurately / further because of rifling and spinning the paintball? Base physics and previous controlled quantative analysis of spinning paintballs clearly says no.

[RRfireblade]

I think everyone in this entire thread is missing the point,well Target Practice got close...

Instead of arguing the pros and cons of spinning a paintball, let's start at the basics:

Does a Hammerhead Barrel consistanty "Spin" a paintball?

For years people thought Armson barrels applied spin to a paintball, most people still do.The spiraled rifling originally WAS intended to do just that but we learned quickly that it's simply not cabable of applying any practical spin due to the lack of engagement of the ball to the rifling and the max speed of the ball in relationship to the amount of rifling twist in the barrel. And IMO, the Armson has the best rifling you could have to acheive that effect, it's nothing like a Firearms rifling.

The Hammerhead rifling simply can not do what they say it does. It CAN NOT vary the amount of spin down the length of the barrel and IMO it simply can NOT apply any measureable amount of controlled spin to a paintball...period.

Forget the "spinning does this...." arguements and simply show it spins a paintball in any controlled, consistant manner and then we can go from there.

Should be simple right? You can not tell me that all the supposed years of R&D to achieve the 'Magic" number in relation to spin and rifling didn't produce one single string of slow motion pictures or video...can you? ;) But yet Hammerhead appears to have none.

Think about it.

[RRfireblade]

(Had a few extra minutes so I did this....)

Hmmm,

I was pretty impartial on this whole thing but then I made the mistake of reading Hammerheads "study" on the the flight of paintballs. Seems to me that the Salesman in question doesn't even know his own companies reasearch results...



We believe....


We believe....


We believe....


We believe....


We believe....

Stated over and over and over to explain assumed results.There are tons of those in there.


We did not go into depth regarding the rotation and spinning of paintballs, nor into what happens inside a barrel from the ball drop to the muzzle.


We did rotate paintballs at varying speeds from 1,000 RPM to approximately 10,000 RPM.

One has absolutely no connection with the other. Then they say this...


The theory behind our study was based on the assumption that we had a relatively smooth ball that we could rotate.

Another assumption and still not a single sign of evidense it's even possible.


We finalized the rate of ball rotation with the targeted ball velocity of 280 ft/sec

How could you possibly do that after the last few statements.


We can only speculate that by rotating the ball...

More of the same and still don't even know if it's spinning in the first place and then after claiming over 3 years of R&D they say this...


Had we had more time and funding, we could have delved into the Magnus effect of spinning paintballs, discussed Reynolds Numbers, coefficients of drags, dimpled vs. smooth paintballs, Newton's First and Second Laws of Motion, boundary layers, laminar flow, etc. However, that was not the purpose of this paper. We wanted some simple basic answers that would assist us in making decisions regarding markers, tanks, and barrels, so we could have more fun. We believe we have them.

Simple does not even begin to describe it. Try incomplete, inaccurate and full of guess and assumption. Hardly a single fact in the whole paper besides the quotes of physical principals which they openly admit they were unable to apply to thier 'findings'. :D

It's actually quite funny and a lesson to anyone still in high school on how NOT to do a science project if you expect to pass the class.

:)

[hitech]

After over a decade and lots of eliminations, it was just my imagination??? ROFLMAO, I guess I could have been using any barrel.

Yup.

[hitech]

What kind of R&D? If they had done any, surely they would have noticed that the hole is bigger than the ball.

:rofl:
:rofl:
:rofl:
:rofl:
:rofl:
:rofl:

[shartley]

Anyone here see Days of Thunder?

Remember the “staggered and matched” “special” tires that were put on Tom’s car? ;)

Or how about the “magic feather” that was given to Dumbo?

Companies know that if you make customers believe something is happening, they don’t have to prove it IS, or WHY. So they are left to say anything they want, and of course it IS true. Add to that a mix of “nice guy” and “hard working”, and it is hard to convince some customers that anything other than what they want to believe is happening is…. or is not.

I think I am shooting farther, so I AM.

I think I am shooting more accurately, so I AM.

I think I am shooting faster, so I AM.

And the reasons I am given for these things happening (by the manufacturer) are true because obviously if I AM doing it, they must be correct. And after all, they are really great people who work hard and I like them.

I don’t know about anyone else, but I see a huge flaw in that way of thinking.

[hitech]

Remember the “staggered and matched” “special” tires that were put on Tom’s car? ;)



:hail: :hail: :hail:

[Miscue]

I think everyone in this entire thread is missing the point,well Target Practice got close...

Instead of arguing the pros and cons of spinning a paintball, let's start at the basics:

Does a Hammerhead Barrel consistanty "Spin" a paintball?

For years people thought Armson barrels applied spin to a paintball, most people still do.The spiraled rifling originally WAS intended to do just that but we learned quickly that it's simply not cabable of applying any practical spin due to the lack of engagement of the ball to the rifling and the max speed of the ball in relationship to the amount of rifling twist in the barrel. And IMO, the Armson has the best rifling you could have to acheive that effect, it's nothing like a Firearms rifling.

The Hammerhead rifling simply can not do what they say it does. It CAN NOT vary the amount of spin down the length of the barrel and IMO it simply can NOT apply any measureable amount of controlled spin to a paintball...period.

Forget the "spinning does this...." arguements and simply show it spins a paintball in any controlled, consistant manner and then we can go from there.

Should be simple right? You can not tell me that all the supposed years of R&D to achieve the 'Magic" number in relation to spin and rifling didn't produce one single string of slow motion pictures or video...can you? ;) But yet Hammerhead appears to have none.

Think about it.

That's exactly the idea I've been trying to get at as well. I agree! These "No Child Left Behind on the Short Bus Rejects" have no clue.

[Miscue]

Or how about the “magic feather” that was given to Dumbo?


Or the "magic barrel" that was given to Dumbarse. :D

[Lohman446]

Sorry.. I was still stuck on the big hole argument and someone saying the ball floated and someone else saying that was a stupid idea and the ball must bounce back and forth... I'm curious as to that ball wobbling around randomly from side to side, arguably rotating already, occassionaly meeting the "rifling" is having controlled spin applied to it on a single axis...

[SlartyBartFast]

Sorry.. I was still stuck on the big hole argument and someone saying the ball floated and someone else saying that was a stupid idea and the ball must bounce back and forth... I'm curious as to that ball wobbling around randomly from side to side, arguably rotating already, occassionaly meeting the "rifling" is having controlled spin applied to it on a single axis...

But if the ball is "bouncing" how on Earth can it be accurate? Does it magically stabilize and lose all that random movement juct before leaving the barrel? :rofl:

Paintball barrels are sold like shampoo. They're all the same, they all do the same job. Some are just prettier than others. And if you give out the occasional free sample, people a sucked into liking something different, just because they're complacent about their status quo.

[billmi]

But if the ball is "bouncing" how on Earth can it be accurate? Does it magically stabilize and lose all that random movement juct before leaving the barrel? :rofl:


If the ball is bouncing off the barrel walls (which I'm not claiming it does) then yes, it will stop the bouncing back and forth once it gets out of the barrel.

Once the ball no longer has walls to bounce off of, the bouncing caused by impact with those walls will cease.

It's just like a garden hose. Water comes out of it the same way, whether the hose is coiled or straight. It doesn't shoot out in a corkscrew pattern if the hose is coiled.

[Lohman446]

All I want to know is how does Miscue get the paintball to levitate through 12" of barrel, without touching the sides of the barrel, after being violently launched from a 2" launch pad? Does his barrel use magnets to achieve that feat?

My experiment with my Hammerhead induced small scratches on the paintball. I'm thinking if the paintball surface is scratched, it would break easier, thus giving the impression that it will travel further. {Or your balls bounce on me, but my balls break on you.} Does my gun shoot farther than your gun? {Yes, I have been cronoed on a few occasions, based on my range. The people seemed surprised that I was around 260-270}

Buit what do I know... I've only been shooting the Hammerhead for the past year, and haven't touched my Lapco, Dye, or original crown point since I bought the Hammerhead. I must be so gullible...

This is the post I was talking about. Miscue had stated because we went from a little properly sized hole, to a big hole, it made pretty good sense that the rifling on that big hole was not doing anything. Mike Smith argues that it must be, because that ball is not levitating down the barrel. Now I'm wondering how a ball that does not fit tight, and is not flying down the center, is catching rifling consistantly enough as it bounces back and forth from in that barrel to impart a consistent spin. You know, I see "I have been chronoed because of my range" implies without saying my marker shoots farther. BS... base physics says no. Might you like the hammerhead better for other reasons not to do with the rifling? Sure, very possible. But if you buy that this makes your marker so much more accurate or give you longer range then anything else.. then yes you are so gullible. Of course that got a response about playing ability which confused me to no end because I don't recall saying anything about playing ability or lack thereof... we were discussing hammerhead hype.

[SlartyBartFast]

If the ball is bouncing off the barrel walls (which I'm not claiming it does) then yes, it will stop the bouncing back and forth once it gets out of the barrel.

Once the ball no longer has walls to bounce off of, the bouncing caused by impact with those walls will cease.

Yes, but that means the ball is traveling in some random direction after the last bounce when leaving the barrel. Does it not?

[Lohman446]

Yes, but that means the ball is traveling in some random direction after the last bounce when leaving the barrel. Does it not?


But it was the hammerhead supporters that insisted the ball was making contact with the walls of the big hole...

I guess I'll ask the question. In a two pieced barrel (rifled or not) does the ball, not talking an odd ball - normal circumstances, make more than minimal contact with the larger bored section of barrel?

[shartley]

If the ball is bouncing off the barrel walls (which I'm not claiming it does) then yes, it will stop the bouncing back and forth once it gets out of the barrel.

Once the ball no longer has walls to bounce off of, the bouncing caused by impact with those walls will cease.

It's just like a garden hose. Water comes out of it the same way, whether the hose is coiled or straight. It doesn't shoot out in a corkscrew pattern if the hose is coiled.Speaking from someone who knows a thing or two about black powder muskets, that is one of the reasons why muskets are so inaccurate. The musketball bounces down the barrel (to a certain degree) and depending on the last “bounce” it will dictate where it goes after it leaves the barrel. I have seen musketballs actually bounce off of bayonets after leaving the barrel. That is also why warfare using muskets primarily relied upon mass firing in volleys. You don’t actually aim at a particular target, but all point in the direction of your enemy.

This does not mean EVERY shot bounces around, but enough do to make the phenomenon quite well known. It disappeared with the introduction of rifled guns though. But they took MUCH longer to load since you are actually forcing the groves in the ball AS you load it (with the combination of cloth patch around the ball).

But of course paintball barrels are MUCH shorter. And since I have not done testing, I don’t know how much bouncing (if any) happens with paintballs. But I do know that the water coming out of a hose analogy does not apply. Why? Because water FILLS the hose no matter what shape it is in, a ball does not. Water does not “bounce” around inside the hose until it flies out the end.

[Muzikman]

A good test for this would be to take a hammerhead barrel and coat the inside with baby powder. Shoot one ball out of it and then look down the barrel. any place the ball touches the side of the barrel would leave marks in the baby powder.

This can also be used to show how a ball makes contact at only two points in a barrel.

[Arson51]

A good test for this would be to take a hammerhead barrel and coat the inside with baby powder. Shoot one ball out of it and then look down the barrel. any place the ball touches the side of the barrel would leave marks in the baby powder.

This can also be used to show how a ball makes contact at only two points in a barrel.

The baby powder would get blown out, you would need that deodorant Tom Kaye used to test this theory!

[billmi]

Yes, but that means the ball is traveling in some random direction after the last bounce when leaving the barrel. Does it not?

Yep, and that would be the problem with it. I was answering the following question "Does it magically stabilize and lose all that random movement juct before leaving the barrel?"

The stabilization would not be magical, it would be because there were no longer barrel walls for it to keep bouncing off of. It would no longer bounce around randomly, but would continue on the path that was created by the last random bounce it took.

[Muzikman]

The baby powder would get blown out, you would need that deodorant Tom Kaye used to test this theory!

Actually, no it doesn't. I have done it many times before. Give it a shot.

[billmi]

Speaking from someone who knows a thing or two about black powder muskets, that is one of the reasons why muskets are so inaccurate.

Been there, done that, and agree with you.



It disappeared with the introduction of rifled guns though. But they took MUCH longer to load since you are actually forcing the groves in the ball AS you load it (with the combination of cloth patch around the ball).


To be historically nit-picky, it stayed around well after the introduction of rifled guns. Some America Revolutionary militia forces were using rifles in the 1770s, those who supplied their own rifles, usually hunting rifles they owned. In the 1850s Minie invented the minie bullet, which loaded underbore but expanded its base into the rifling when fired, combinging the fast loading benefits of underbore ammo with the accuracy of rifling, and the penetrating power of a conical bullet.



But of course paintball barrels are MUCH shorter. And since I have not done testing, I don’t know how much bouncing (if any) happens with paintballs.


Same here.



But I do know that the water coming out of a hose analogy does not apply. Why? Because water FILLS the hose no matter what shape it is in, a ball does not. Water does not “bounce” around inside the hose until it flies out the end.

I agree it doesn't apply as an example of bounce, but that's not how I was using it. It applies in that once the water is out side of the hose, the hose no longer affects its path. Similarly once a ball that theoretically is bouncing randomly between the walls of a barrel exits the muzzle, it will no longer bounce randomly, it will continue on it its (relatively - considering gravity, air, etc.) straight path, a path that was created by the last bounce it made in the barrel. Just the same as the water that squirts in the direction the nozzle of the hose was pointing.

[Army]

But I do know that the water coming out of a hose analogy does not apply. Why? Because water FILLS the hose no matter what shape it is in, a ball does not. Water does not “bounce” around inside the hose until it flies out the end.

I believe Bill meant that the water will not continue to spray in the coiled/curly-cue shape the hose was in. Each drop of water will go straight away from the last position it was in as it exited.

As a certified ballistician, I will assure you that the Hammerhead barrels BY DESIGN will not, and CAN NOT, induce any appreciable, nor possibly even noticable, spin upon a paintball.

That some players have great success with them is no tribute to their engineering, as most players will have a barrel that works wonders for them, regardless of the hype and out-right lies.

My JJ Ceramics have always performed admirably, does that make them the best, or does it make them the best FOR ME?

[shartley]

To be historically nit-picky, it stayed around well after the introduction of rifled guns. Some America Revolutionary militia forces were using rifles in the 1770s, those who supplied their own rifles, usually hunting rifles they owned. In the 1850s Minie invented the minie bullet, which loaded underbore but expanded its base into the rifling when fired, combinging the fast loading benefits of underbore ammo with the accuracy of rifling, and the penetrating power of a conical bullet.

I think you may have misunderstood me. I didn’t mean warfare changed, but that rifles eliminated the “bouncing” that happened with oversized barrels and round shot of smaller caliber. I also didn’t mean that with the introduction of rifles that the muskets were not used any more.

[WARPED1]

I call upon the power or Bill Mr WARPIG Mills to do a bench test. Say, a Hammerhead, an All American, and a non rifled barrel of some sort.

[Aliens-8-MyDad]

mmm war of the barrels...

-same gun
-matched bore size
-same paint
-same fps

then try alot of diffrent barrels... show everyone that one barrel doesnt shoot further and rifling is a myth. maybe also do a personal short review on each, (weight, sound/loudness, accuaracy)

I think its a good idea. but I guess he would need people do donate barrels

[tsc]

From the Archives here on AO..




Spinning Paintballs Tech Tip #3

It was asked in another post what effect do riffled barrels have on spinning a paintball, not drilled holes, actual rifling like in real guns. This is a good question and one that was explored by our research team.

In theory spinning a projectile on the axis of flight adds gyroscopic stability as well as averages out any imperfections in the surface air flow. Paintballs leave a bad turbulence wake behind them that "walks around" the back of the ball as it flies through the air. This is the main cause of a paintballs inaccuracy as the turbulence tail drags the ball around sideways in flight. Spinning the ball should create a tornado like vortex in the back of the ball thereby evening out all the turbulence so the ball is not pulled any particular way.

So great you say lets do it and get more accuracy!! Well if it was possible it would already have been done. The problem is the liquid fill, when you rotate the shell, the liquid tends to stay where it is. The best example of this is a glass of water with ice floating in it, when you rotate the glass the ice stays in the same place (you have all seen it). So if you can grab the ball hard enough to go from 0 to about 10,000 RPM's in 5 thousands of a second (remember TechTip #1?) Yes the shell is spinning but the fill is not. When the ball leaves the barrel the viscosity of the fill slows the shell down but the fill's rotation is speeding up from the shell too, so you get an almost instant reduction of the RPM's out of the barrel. The balls rotation does not come to a complete stop because the shell does impart some spin to the fill.

In order to test this properly we actually developed a gun that spun the barrel, with the ball in it, up to 30,000 RPM's and then shot the ball out. In this way we knew the ball and the fill were completely up to speed when it left the barrel. We had visions of a spinning barrel paintgun that would make that high speed turbo wine! Unfortunately this didn't improve the accuracy because the ball is still too light.

As a final test we developed a barrel that had three razor edged knife blades running down the length of the bore. Using our plastic paintballs they wedged in the blades perfectly and we spun up the barrel and fired more test rounds. Because the knives would cut the ball we could examine them after the fact to see if they were rotating in the barrel etc. Again unfortunately we saw no improvement in accuracy and gave up.

Based on this data we believe round paintballs are too light and have lousy aerodynamics to expect any more accuracy than what we are currently getting. When the military came to us and wanted a more accurate non lethal system we made a bullet shaped, spin stabilized paintball that far outperformed any equal weight round projectile. Accuracy by volume has been, and will remain, the best way to score eliminations.

Just the facts from,

AGD

http://www.automags.org/forums/archive/index.php/t-8954.html

As you can probably tell, you can also find this in the "Tech Tips" section uptop here on the site. It's a great resource.

http://www.automags.org/resource/tech/tomstech/03_spinning.shtml

here's ANOTHER article debunking (but not in lenght), rifled barrels.

http://www.madpaintballer.com/accuracy.php

And another...

http://www.dyehard.co.za/tech.htm

And the one...ONE article I could find saying rifling worked...

Is from APG. http://apg.cfw2.com/article.asp?content_id=7362 Draw your own conclusions.

We've known you can't spin paintballs effectively for a long time, why does this always come up again? They are not a ballistic projectile, it's a squishy blob you're hurtling through so many variables that anything can change it on the way.

[Target Practice]

I call upon the power or Bill Mr WARPIG Mills to do a bench test. Say, a Hammerhead, an All American, and a non rifled barrel of some sort.

Tom has already done it. I'm pretty sure Mr. Mills has also done a rifling test.

"Rifled" barrels in paintball do not, acutally or theoretically, impart any spin on the ball, nor do they play a part in paintball accuracy with regards to imparting axial spin on the projectile."

One of the pro-rifling people tell me, in plain, bolded English, why I (and the rest of the 10th AAHCR, Armored Anti-Hype Cavalry Regiment) am wrong.

That being said...

Any impact on accuracy by a "rifled" barrel, real or imagined, is purely psychological.

It's just your brain telling you that you really didn't waste your money buying that Hammerhead.

[SlartyBartFast]

My JJ Ceramics have always performed admirably, does that make them the best, or does it make them the best FOR ME?

What variable does “for me” encompass? Seems to me that only covers things that are in the head of the shooter and thus should be eliminated from any calculation of which is “best”.

If comparing the JJ and Hammerhead shows that the Hammerhead has no apreciable advantage over a JJ, then the 250$ more spent on the Hammerhead is wasted. IMO, that would absolutely make the JJ “the best”.

But then again, I want to compare my game on field to others. Not judge my equipment by who has the most money spent on anno, milling, and insignificant ego “upgrades”. :cool:

But then again, paintballers will complain about and and mock plastc/FRP/composites yet clamour for CF. :rofl:

If there’s one thing I completely agree with Glenn Palmer on, it’s that nothing outperforms a simple tube for a paintball barrel.

AGD beleives the same thing. Is the FN303 “rifled”?

The people that REALLY did testing and don’t just “believe”, improved paintball ballistics the only way you can. Heavier, finned, spin-stabilized (seems it’s the in-flight dynamics of the round that cause spin) rounds.


Any impact on accuracy by a "rifled" barrel, real or imagined, is purely psychological.
It's just your brain telling you that you really didn't waste your money buying that Hammerhead.

That’s it! :clap:
But of course psychology CAN have a large affect on sports performance. :p

But if 30,000rpm did nothing for accuracy, you've got to be a grade A moron to believe a few non-contact grooves will do anything for you.

[Hotshot33610]

Reminds me of a quote...

"What we have here, Bob, is an ugly barrel (HammerHead) that costs twice too much and shoots only almost as good as this Trracer barrel that hasn't been squeegied since 1996."
~Doc

[Target Practice]

AGD beleives the same thing. Is the FN303 “rifled”?

I dunno if this is an actual question or not, but I don't think so. As you can see, the rounds themselves are "rifled".

http://www.impactguns.com/store/media/fn_303_projectiles.jpg

[Mike Smith]

This is the post I was talking about. Miscue had stated because we went from a little properly sized hole, to a big hole, it made pretty good sense that the rifling on that big hole was not doing anything. Mike Smith argues that it must be, because that ball is not levitating down the barrel. Now I'm wondering how a ball that does not fit tight, and is not flying down the center, is catching rifling consistantly enough as it bounces back and forth from in that barrel to impart a consistent spin. You know, I see "I have been chronoed because of my range" implies without saying my marker shoots farther. BS... base physics says no. Might you like the hammerhead better for other reasons not to do with the rifling? Sure, very possible. But if you buy that this makes your marker so much more accurate or give you longer range then anything else.. then yes you are so gullible. Of course that got a response about playing ability which confused me to no end because I don't recall saying anything about playing ability or lack thereof... we were discussing hammerhead hype.

To respond:
Miscue totally botched his explanation. He clearly stated that the ball, travelling through the "big hole" didn't touch the sides of the barrel. That is absurd. The ball hits the side of all barrels before it exits. The amount of hits can add spin to the ball and that will affect the ball's travel. If it never happened, then the balls would never curve right, left, up or down, after they left the end of the barrel. Do you want random spin or less than random spin?

As far as my crono experiences, there are numerous witnesses to my statement. It is a simple statement. No need to read more into it than is posted.

As far as the accuracy of the barrel, it is a definite improvement over my 12" Lapco. Does it have a better sight line? Maybe. Can I get on-target quicker? Maybe. Does the rifling impart micro-cuts on the ball, thus making the paint easier to break. Maybe. Can I "break balls' further downrange than players without Hammerhead barrels? Yes. Does it improve my game? Yes.

And, per my statement, I got no game, you can safely ignore me.......
No need to "over-think" that statement. Just accept it.

[hitech]

The amount of hits can add spin to the ball and that will affect the ball's travel.

No.

[Target Practice]

The amount of hits can add spin to the ball and that will affect the ball's travel. If it never happened, then the balls would never curve right, left, up or down, after they left the end of the barrel. Do you want random spin or less than random spin?

The movement of the ball in flight is better attributed to the inhearent instability of a sphere in flight, not the contact of the barrel.


As far as my crono experiences, there are numerous witnesses to my statement. It is a simple statement. No need to read more into it than is posted.

So your saying that Tom and Mr. Mills tests are incorrect, because it works better for you? Again, your success is merely psychological or coincidental.


Can I "break balls' further downrange than players without Hammerhead barrels? Yes. Does it improve my game? Yes.

Again, much of this can be attributed to the psychological improvement that a $250 barrel brings.


"Rifled" barrels in paintball do not, acutally or theoretically, impart any spin on the ball, nor do they play a part in paintball accuracy with regards to imparting axial spin on the projectile."

I'm still waiting for someone to tell my that/why I'm wrong.

[Miscue]

To respond:
Miscue totally botched his explanation. He clearly stated that the ball, travelling through the "big hole" didn't touch the sides of the barrel. That is absurd.

There was no botching of an explanation. What I said was sufficiently clear that reasonable people should be able to understand what I was getting at. Although I could have further clarified, it was unnecessary... and you are incorrect in trying to point this out as a flaw, which it is not.

What's absurd is this idea that a gelatin sphere can bounce around randomly in a "rifled" barrel, and somehow the ball still spins in some uniform, controlled manner (isn't this the goal of rifling?). I didn't mention this because it is S-T-U-P-I-D. It should be self-evident that this is ridiculous, so I had no reason to bring it up.

The only situation that makes any sense at all, that has some shot of plausibility, is if the barrel at least holds the ball in place while fired - taking this bouncing out of the picture. And even this does not hold up well, as has been discussed in this thread. If the rifled tip has a larger diameter than the ball, how can this be?

[Lohman446]

Standing bet - assuming we can get cooperation from Bill or TK to do the testing

I argue that the hammerhead barrel does not shoot further than a premium grade barrel of my choosing made by Dye, Lapco, Armson, or SP.

I'll even define better - with some given quantitative leeway given

I assert that if you fired 100 balls from a controlled marker where the only variable was the barrel (same height, same velocity, same marker, same paint, same paint to barrel match, etc - controlled) using the hammerhead barrel and then using the above barrel of my choice that the average hammerhead would not exceed the average range of the other barrel - for variable purposes I'm throwing in a 10% margin of error here.

I assert further that if you fired 100 balls (under the same controlled environment) at an 8" target placed at 100 feet from the hammerhead barrel and then 100 balls from the above barrel of my choosing that the hammerhead barrel would not prove to be more accurate. Again, for variable purposes that are not foreseen lets throw in a 10% margin of error.

Step up... make the bet, I'll bet $100 now that under the above controlled test, done by either of the mentioned third parties (if they are willing), that the hammerhead - as produced now - does not prove more accurate and to have more range than the barrel of my choosing.

Come on now. You did all the R&D before making your claims... you are sure of them right?

[Miscue]

Tom's already tested this to death. And, it would be hardly worthwhile for either person.

[Mike Smith]

hitech, that is silly-stupid. Have you ever shot a yellow and green ball and watched it? It spins. If the yellow side comes out of the barrel on the left side, it will NOT stay there. They always come out spinning. Where does that "spin" come from? Paintball pixies?


Ok. Little ball fits in little hole just right (the supposed goal of barrel/paint match). Does the little ball fit just right in the big hole? Nooo. That's why it's the "big" hole. Now if it doesn't fit right in the "big" hole, and the rifling in the big hole does not come into contact with the little ball, what does this particular "rifling" do exactly?

So, Miscue, when you stated that the rifling in the big hole does not come into contact with the little ball, you didn't really mean that the rifling in the big hole did not come in contact with the "little ball"... Whatever.

Target Practice, if your impression of what I stated about my crono experiences feeds your delusion about what I stated, well... OK.


Again, much of this can be attributed to the psychological improvement that a $250 barrel brings.

I paid $110 for my Hammerhead.

But the bottom line is..... Believe what you want to believe, shoot whichever barrel makes you happy.... and denegrate everyone else, so you feel good about your opinions and choice of barrel.... Well, you can ignore that last part, if you want to.

[Target Practice]

But the bottom line is..... Believe what you want to believe, shoot whichever barrel makes you happy.... and denegrate everyone else, so you feel good about your opinions and choice of barrel....

You never answered my question.

Do you think that the all the reseach and tests done by Tom and Mr. Mills are wrong?

Edit: Furthermore, since the anti-rifling people have brought forth sources that clearly show the research that supports our views, please substantiate your clames with hard data. You cite no sources that support your view, and you tell us that we blindly believe something?

Sounds stupid when you read it, doesn't it. Maybe you should learn how this whole "proving your point" thing works.

[Mike Smith]

Do you think that the --->all<---- the research and tests done by Tom and Mr. Mills are wrong?

No.

[Eric Of Extreme Measures]

Hey Hammerheads are Great, My Hammerhead is not $300 dollars either, it is only $130 on Ebay...

Come on guys BUY IT NOW and get Free shipping...

Eric :rofl:

[magman007]

ok, so lets ignore all the testing tom has done, which is invariably better than anything you kids tend to believe is true, with true science behind it. Look, the liquid in the ball, doesnt spin, therefore, the shell is the onl ything spinning, ever turn your glass with liquid in it? notice how the liquid doesnt spin? its exactly what you would be doing. the barrels, unless some one can defy physics, dont work. it is hype.

I remember speaking with the hammerhead reps, and i remember laughing my arse off afterwards.

Give up.

[Mike Smith]

ok, so lets ignore all the testing tom has done,

Let's start with a false premise and build on it...


ever turn your glass with liquid in it? notice how the liquid doesnt spin?

Wrong. Put a drop of food coloring into the water and spin it more than one time around in the same direction.

Got anything else, any other "experiments" that you want people to try?

Here's mine:
Shoot contrasting 2 tone paint out of your gun. Watch the paintball. Notice it spinning. Now that we have established that paintballs DO spin when they exit a barrel, is it possible that the rifling would impart a small degree of control on the spinning paintball?

As an alternate, shoot several "dark" paintballs at a sheet suspended in the air, about 30-40 feet away from the gun. Pick up those paintballs from the ground. Get under a bright light with a decent magnifying glass. Notice the scratches. My scratches are on opposite sides of the paintball. Where are your scratches?

[SlartyBartFast]

Shoot contrasting 2 tone paint out of your gun. Watch the paintball.

What absolute nonsense!

Watch the paintballs? So, your eyes are more powerful and accurate than the high speed camera and strobes used by TK?

Your intuition and feeling better than measured flight paths?

Come on. :rolleyes:

Paintballs spin out of every barrel. Rifled or not.

What YOU have to PROOVE with DATA is that whatever spin that is imparted is both:

CONSISTENT
and
EFFECTIVE

It is impossible for you to prove either. It is completely illogical to believe either in light of the available data and tests.

You say that you don't refute ALL of TK's testing. So, what parts do you agree with and which do you disagree with?

[Muzikman]

I dunno if this is an actual question or not, but I don't think so. As you can see, the rounds themselves are "rifled".

http://www.impactguns.com/store/media/fn_303_projectiles.jpg


The Barrel of the FN303 is NOT rifled. As TP shows, the rounds themselves have fins. But, the reason the FN rounds actualy work is because of the nose weight. Manike had made rounds out of nylon (or some similar material) and because of their much lighter nose weight they did not fly.

[TheTramp]

This guy really loves his barrel. Obviously nothing is going to change his mind. I don't see why you guys are still trying to make your point using logic and scientifically conducted testing. Is it really worth putting controlled bench test results up against his crono results and "game" on the field? Don’t you see that he suddenly implies that he’s done some tests?

“As an alternate, shoot several "dark" paintballs at a sheet suspended in the air, about 30-40 feet away from the gun. Pick up those paintballs from the ground. Get under a bright light with a decent magnifying glass. Notice the scratches. My scratches are on opposite sides of the paintball. Where are your scratches?”

DOWN WITH LAB TESTS! They can only lead to arguments and hard feeling. :(

[Muzikman]

Standing bet - assuming we can get cooperation from Bill or TK to do the testing

I argue that the hammerhead barrel does not shoot further than a premium grade barrel of my choosing made by Dye, Lapco, Armson, or SP.

I'll even define better - with some given quantitative leeway given

I assert that if you fired 100 balls from a controlled marker where the only variable was the barrel (same height, same velocity, same marker, same paint, same paint to barrel match, etc - controlled) using the hammerhead barrel and then using the above barrel of my choice that the average hammerhead would not exceed the average range of the other barrel - for variable purposes I'm throwing in a 10% margin of error here.

I assert further that if you fired 100 balls (under the same controlled environment) at an 8" target placed at 100 feet from the hammerhead barrel and then 100 balls from the above barrel of my choosing that the hammerhead barrel would not prove to be more accurate. Again, for variable purposes that are not foreseen lets throw in a 10% margin of error.

Step up... make the bet, I'll bet $100 now that under the above controlled test, done by either of the mentioned third parties (if they are willing), that the hammerhead - as produced now - does not prove more accurate and to have more range than the barrel of my choosing.

Come on now. You did all the R&D before making your claims... you are sure of them right?



Get me the barrels and we can do this at IAO.

[hitech]

hitech, that is silly-stupid. Have you ever shot a yellow and green ball and watched it? It spins. If the yellow side comes out of the barrel on the left side, it will NOT stay there. They always come out spinning. Where does that "spin" come from? Paintball pixies?

Paintballs spin when shot from most (all?) markers/barrels. However, this low speed spin (under 3k rpms) does NOT affect accuracy or distance AT ALL.


Again, much of this can be attributed to the psychological improvement that a $250 barrel brings.


I paid $110 for my Hammerhead.


Remember the “staggered and matched” “special” tires that were put on Tom’s car?

[hitech]

You say that you don't refute ALL of TK's testing. So, what parts do you agree with and which do you disagree with?
Yeah, Inquiring minds want to know...

[Lohman446]

Well the controlled testing done in the lab with equipment designed to take quantitative measurements is obviously inferior to what I "see" on the field.

[hitech]

Damn, just when it was getting fun.....

[Lohman446]

Damn, just when it was getting fun.....

Alright... let me tru for a few.

My mystical barrel that my friend R&D'ed for five years (and he studied engineering somewhere fancy before quitting after a year) is better than any barrel you have.

It magically imparts spin through rifling - unless you prove that rifling is not useful at which point I am going to tell you that the rifling is so sharp that it scores the paintball, but doesn't cause it to break in the barrel.

It uses electromagneticpneumatichydro systems to size the barrel to each ball, and to clean itself out.

It shoots further and straighter and more accurate than any of your barrels, but very few people use them because there just stupid...

And umm um ok.. I just can't do it.

[Automaggot68]

Alright... let me tru for a few.

My mystical barrel that my friend R&D'ed for five years (and he studied engineering somewhere fancy before quitting after a year) is better than any barrel you have.

It magically imparts spin through rifling - unless you prove that rifling is not useful at which point I am going to tell you that the rifling is so sharp that it scores the paintball, but doesn't cause it to break in the barrel.

It uses electromagneticpneumatichydro systems to size the barrel to each ball, and to clean itself out.

It shoots further and straighter and more accurate than any of your barrels, but very few people use them because there just stupid...

And umm um ok.. I just can't do it.


Damn. Five years to design a barrel?
I can't imagine the RD that went into that'
'DAMNIT, ITS STILL BENT'
-'HOW ARE WE GOING TO REMEDY THIS, GENTLEMEN?'
'MAKE IT STRAIGHT'
-' BRILLIANT.'
I'td take ma less time to......
Get a four years Degree...
Build a House....
Design my Own Barrel...

[KRAKMT]

It sounds like what everyone is dancing around is the scientific model.
People are asking for the data to test the hypothesis.
Hypothosis- hamerhead barrels make paintballs fly farther than smooth bore barrels?
Why/how?

The conclusion must be subjected to testing- oft times by the sceptics. Otherwise it is a bare assertion without meaning. The testing must also be repeatable.

Now to say that the prior research is infallible is to overlook potential break thoughs in our world. Many examples of mans narrowmindedness have prolonging suffering and minimizing progress. Just as problematic is the idea of embracing unproven conclusion. Chris C. proved the hypothis that the world was round when he sailed west from Spain. Antithically, carpet baggers post civil war made fortunes on snake oil.

Mr. Smith I believe hammerhead- or yourself as the propounder bears the burden of proof. Otherwise, imho the barrel can stay in the carpet bag.

As for testing- I have been meaning to send off some things to my elder brothers- mechanical and electrical engineers for some independent testing- without product bias because they are not paintballers. Any additional parameters to control for the tests?

[Target Practice]

Now to say that the prior research is infallible is to overlook potential break thoughs in our world. Many examples of mans narrowmindedness have prolonging suffering and minimizing progress.

The impacts of some research are permanent. As you said, the earth is round, and always will be round. There is no need to research this any further, as nothing has changed.

Since the tests done by Tom and Bill, nothing has changed, for the most part. Barrels are still honed pieces of aluminum, and paint is still a water-based substance inside an outer gelitan shell. Nothing is truely and groundbreakingly new.

[Army]

The impacts of some research are permanent. As you said, the earth is round, and always will be round. There is no need to research this any further, as nothing has changed.

Since the tests done by Tom and Bill, nothing has changed, for the most part. Barrels are still honed pieces of aluminum, and paint is still a water-based substance inside an outer gelitan shell. Nothing is truely and groundbreakingly new.

The ultimate bingo! Check and checkmate! He shoots, he scores!

"GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLLL LLLLL!"

[KRAKMT]

Is the world round? I thought it was egg shaped? And what about all the theories regarding gravity, parrallel universes and string theory?
I agree that the tests by Tom and Bill are strong evidence but it is up to the hammerhead folks to show there proof, and subject it to scientific scrutiny. It is as wrong to be blinded by doubt as it is to be blinded by hype. Remember Tom said "no appreciable benefit" not that it couldn't.
But at anyrate this is academic because hammerhead sales are based on- marketing. Funny people have always critized AGD for not selling themselves.

Wouldn't it be nice to have an independent laboratories.



The impacts of some research are permanent. As you said, the earth is round, and always will be round. There is no need to research this any further, as nothing has changed.

Since the tests done by Tom and Bill, nothing has changed, for the most part. Barrels are still honed pieces of aluminum, and paint is still a water-based substance inside an outer gelitan shell. Nothing is truely and groundbreakingly new.

[Target Practice]

Is the world round? I thought it was egg shaped? And what about all the theories regarding gravity, parrallel universes and string theory?
I agree that the tests by Tom and Bill are strong evidence but it is up to the hammerhead folks to show there proof, and subject it to scientific scrutiny. It is as wrong to be blinded by doubt as it is to be blinded by hype. Remember Tom said "no appreciable benefit" not that it couldn't.
But at anyrate this is academic because hammerhead sales are based on- marketing. Funny people have always critized AGD for not selling themselves.

Wouldn't it be nice to have an independent laboratories.

Round != spherical. Round = round. There is a difference.

Also, I don't think that gravity, parrallel universes, and string theory have anything to do with your example.

The point is, the tests and the evidence provided by Tom, Bill, Army, myself, and others prove that it is, for all practical purposes, impossible for rifled barrels to work in the manner that they are designed. I don't have to see "proof" of why they do work.

It's not a matter of doubt, it's a matter of knowing the facts.

[Lohman446]

Round != spherical. Round = round. There is a difference.

Also, I don't think that gravity, parrallel universes, and string theory have anything to do with your example.

The point is, the tests and the evidence provided by Tom, Bill, Army, myself, and others prove that it is, for all practical purposes, impossible for rifled barrels to work in the manner that they are designed. I don't have to see "proof" of why they do work.

It's not a matter of doubt, it's a matter of knowing the facts.


You seem to be ignoring the electromagneticpneumatichydro factor :D

[Target Practice]

You seem to be ignoring the electromagneticpneumatichydro factor :D

*Smacks Head*

Duh.

[Mike Smith]

Geez... Run off to Dallas for a few days...

Let's review:

Miscue posted:

Now if it doesn't fit right in the "big" hole, and the rifling in the big hole does not come into contact with the little ball, what does this particular "rifling" do exactly?

That is clearly false, unless he thinks every barrel has some sort of anti-paintball energy field preventing a paintball from touching the side of a barrel.

Then Target Practice posted:

So your saying that Tom and Mr. Mills tests are incorrect, because it works better for you? Again, your success is merely psychological or coincidental.

Despite clear evidence that I never stated any such thing, Target Practice "thinks" I said their testing was incorrect.

Then Magman007 posted:

Look, the liquid in the ball, doesnt spin, therefore, the shell is the only thing spinning, ever turn your glass with liquid in it? notice how the liquid doesnt spin?

That is easily proven wrong by adding a drop of coloration to the water and spinning the glass more than 1 revolution.

Then Startybartfast posted:

Watch the paintballs? So, your eyes are more powerful and accurate than the high speed camera and strobes used by TK?

That is easily proven wrong by actually firing two tone paint out of your gun and observing the spin on the ball. Besides, I've never seen the video he is referring to, so I have no opinion on that video.

He then posts:

Paintballs spin out of every barrel. Rifled or not.

Which is pretty much what I stated....

Then the Tramp posts:

Is it really worth putting controlled bench test results up against his crono results and "game" on the field? Don’t you see that he suddenly implies that he’s done some tests?

When did I put any bench test up against my crono statement? Did this guy even read my crono statement? Is he consistantly off in left field?

Krakmt posted:

Hypothosis- hamerhead barrels make paintballs fly farther than smooth bore barrels?

I have not made that assertation, nor do I believe that to be true. I do believe I can "break paint" further than a smooth bore barrel.

And, in a lame attempt at humor, Lohman446 posted:

It magically imparts spin through rifling - unless you prove that rifling is not useful at which point I am going to tell you that the rifling is so sharp that it scores the paintball, but doesn't cause it to break in the barrel.

Scoring the paintball does not have to be significant for it to break better than a non-scored paintball. Pulling a number out of thin air, if a paintball shell is 2 millimeters thick and the rifled barrel imparts a bank of scratches that are .2 millimeter thick on the shell, then it will break easier than a non-scored paintball. Also, Apparently, Tom's research states that there is no SIGNIFICANT benefit to rifling. Does that mean there is some minor benefit? Like a less random spin to the paintball as it exits the barrel? Who knows...

The point I'm making is that all of you "scientific" know-it-alls had to intentionally lie or misrepresent your case at various times, as quoted above.

[hitech]

The point I'm making is that all of you "scientific" know-it-alls had to intentionally lie or misrepresent your case at various times, as quoted above.

Hey, I'm one of those "scientifix know-it-alls". I didn't intentionally lie or misrepresent anything. However, I cannot say the same thing for the Hammerhead rep. ;)


And I think that you will find that when Tom said significant he meant noticeable without extensive testing and close measurements. In the less than one percent range.

I take it you haven't read the deep blue thread?

[KRAKMT]

[QUOTE=Arson51]I got by back from D-day yesterday and when i woke up this morning the conversation i had with a co-creator of the hammerhead barrel was fresh on my mind. He was talking to a customer and claimed that the short 8 inch hammerhead was just as accurate as the 12 inch model except that the 8" had less range. ....the longer barrel has more distance to accelerate the ball thus it has more inertia! blah blah blah
QUOTE]

Hammerhead hypothesis was taken from first post. There alleged claims.

As for breaking down field- it was asserted by a respectable agd guy that they would pit a screw in the end of the barrel to score the ball to break easier during play indoors. hmmm?

So is your hypothisis that the hammerhead barrels rifeling scars the ball which causes breakage at farther distances?

Whats with the food color analogy.

[frop]

I guess some people just weren't given as much to work with as the rest of us. :tard:

Why can't Darwin work any faster? :(

[TheTramp]

Then the Tramp posts:

When did I put any bench test up against my crono statement? Did this guy even read my crono statement? Is he consistantly off in left field?

You put your crono statement "up against" the bench test when you continued to argue against the bench test results when your only evidence was your qualitative observations while shooting at the crono and playing on the field.

It's pretty obvious that you were doing that and far from a "left field." Even I don't think you are so stupid that you don't see that. I see that the non-scientific type (just you really :rolleyes: ) needs to pretend that he doesn't see the point of an argument so he doesn’t have to refute it. Not that I even made a real argument. I was mostly just making fun of you and your ridiculous need to cling to a hopeless argument.

[Evil Bob]

That is clearly false, unless he thinks every barrel has some sort of anti-paintball energy field preventing a paintball from touching the side of a barrel.



Yes, there is something that prevents the ball from hitting the larger bore, its called "projectile exit velocity vs barrel transversal velocity". At 300fps, the ball is traveling around 200 miles per hour, how fast would a player need to be moving their arms to snap out and actually have a paintball strike the larger inner bore while firing? At 200 mph, how long is the paintball actually in the barrel and how big of a window of opportunity do we have to move the barrel sufficiently to make contact with the larger bore? Also keep in mind that the player is trying to hit a target with the final movement of the barrel to be aligned to the target, so there isn't going to be a great deal of speed in the transversal movement while the player is actually shooting at the target.

Would be cool to get one of those lexan barrels for testing such a hypothesis.




That is easily proven wrong by actually firing two tone paint out of your gun and observing the spin on the ball. Besides, I've never seen the video he is referring to, so I have no opinion on that video.



Quite correct, the paintballs do spin, but not uniformly, the spinning is random based upon the location of the seams as the ball makes contact with the control bore on its journy through the barrel and its introduction to the outside environment. The only barrel system that has been able to uniformly spin the ball in the same direction is the Tippman "banana barrel" Flatline. The Z frame comes close, but its not been able to spin the balls as consistantly as the flatline does.




Scoring the paintball does not have to be significant for it to break better than a non-scored paintball. Pulling a number out of thin air, if a paintball shell is 2 millimeters thick and the rifled barrel imparts a bank of scratches that are .2 millimeter thick on the shell, then it will break easier than a non-scored paintball. Also, Apparently, Tom's research states that there is no SIGNIFICANT benefit to rifling. Does that mean there is some minor benefit? Like a less random spin to the paintball as it exits the barrel? Who knows...



There very well may be something here worth looking into.

Typically the ball, in a smooth bore barrel, will only contact the barrel at two points, usually where the ball's seam is the widest. This is where actual rifled barrels may present some benefit as there appears to be more points of contact as the ball travels through the control bore. I'd definitely like to see some testing on this theory.

Its very possible that 3 or more points of contact in the control bore will lessen spining like the magnetic top on the dual wire handle that alot of us kids in the 60's had. Its also highly possible that even a minute ammount of spining will help reduce the floating drag points on the rear of the ball as it travels toward the target. A variance of as little of 5 fps can mean a difference of missing by several inches at the intended point of impact, so it would be desireable to reduce/lessen the floating drag variable if possible.

The artical at AGP (the link was posted above) was very interesting to read through, everyone here please take the time to go through it, they present some interesting data regarding rifled barrels that may very well be worth investigating further.

-Evil Bob

[Miscue]

Geez... Run off to Dallas for a few days...

Let's review:

Miscue posted:


That is clearly false, unless he thinks every barrel has some sort of anti-paintball energy field preventing a paintball from touching the side of a barrel.


You keep bringing this up and I do not understand why. Let's pretend that what I said is false. What does it imply? The ball can bounce around the barrel, yet the "rifling" can still achieve consist spin and such (which is questionable regardless)?

I omitted the possibility of the ball touching "a" side because it is ridiculous to acknowledge that the ball bounces around AND the rifling "works..." I'm surprised that you are trying to point out something to be "wrong," when if so implies something that hurts your case.

You can take what I said absolutely literally, and try to poke at something that was not what I had in mind - if you feel you've triumphed in some way by doing so, good for you. However, if you are talking about rifling - it is silly to consider the incidental contact that you are pointing out... as the way it is designed to work. How can that be? What I meant by "contact" was not this, although I agree there was some ambiguity. I was talking about a tongue-in-mouth "kiss," not a peck on the cheek "kiss." What I said was clear enough for a reasonable person to understand what I was getting at.

[Target Practice]

The point I'm making is that all of you "scientific" know-it-alls had to intentionally lie or misrepresent your case at various times, as quoted above.

I never misrepresented anything. It's not my fault you seemingly don't understand straight fact.

[hitech]

The article at AGP (the link was posted above) was very interesting to read through, everyone here please take the time to go through it, they present some interesting data regarding rifled barrels that may very well be worth investigating further.


I'd like to see some of his data. Regardless, 40 shots is hardly statistically significant. And that would invalidate his conclusions. However, IF he could get lots and lots of other people to gather the same data and they all came up with the same results it would begin to be statistically significant. But he is going to need a whole lot of people to even match TKs testing. And that testing had far different results.

[Mike Smith]

You do realize {from the APG article}:

"Robert Judson is a Registered Professional Engineer, with a BS and Masters in Engineering. In his early days as an Engineering Manager with PepsiCo, he conducted R&D testing and wrote technical papers. He has written articles for the AMI, Baking and Snack, Engineering News, etc. He is presently Executive VP with CMT, Inc., in Dallas, Texas, responsible for Food Plant Design and Construction, and --->president of Hammerhead Marketing Group LLC<-----."

Obviously a PE is not qualified to test paintball barrels..., Right boys?

[Vex]

"Robert Judson is a Registered Professional Engineer, with a BS and Masters in Engineering. In his early days as an Engineering Manager with PepsiCo, he conducted R&D testing and wrote technical papers. He has written articles for the AMI, Baking and Snack, Engineering News, etc. He is presently Executive VP with CMT, Inc., in Dallas, Texas, responsible for Food Plant Design and Construction, and --->president of Hammerhead Marketing Group LLC<-----."
It doesn't mean he knows how to make a paintball barrel. He should have studied up on it before comparing them to real guns, where rifiling actually works.
I guess if he were shooting snack crackers out of his barrels, we'd all have to duck for cover because they'd be super accurate and break on target at 75 yards :eek:

I suppose that Tom Kaye's professional credentials in the worlds of engineering and paintball don't mean squat, do they?

[Jack & Coke]

I am a registered Professional Engineer with the State of California.

In my Professional Opinion, he's full of it!

(regarding the idea that his "rifled" paintball barrels = longer distance and more accuracy)

[Target Practice]

You do realize {from the APG article}:

"Robert Judson is a Registered Professional Engineer, with a BS and Masters in Engineering. In his early days as an Engineering Manager with PepsiCo, he conducted R&D testing and wrote technical papers. He has written articles for the AMI, Baking and Snack, Engineering News, etc. He is presently Executive VP with CMT, Inc., in Dallas, Texas, responsible for Food Plant Design and Construction, and --->president of Hammerhead Marketing Group LLC<-----."

Obviously a PE is not qualified to test paintball barrels..., Right boys?

He's the president of the goddamn marketing group. He does technical writing and marketing.

So, no, he is absolutely not qualified to test paintball barrels, boy.

[Miscue]

You do realize {from the APG article}:

"Robert Judson is a Registered Professional Engineer, with a BS and Masters in Engineering. In his early days as an Engineering Manager with PepsiCo, he conducted R&D testing and wrote technical papers. He has written articles for the AMI, Baking and Snack, Engineering News, etc. He is presently Executive VP with CMT, Inc., in Dallas, Texas, responsible for Food Plant Design and Construction, and --->president of Hammerhead Marketing Group LLC<-----."

Obviously a PE is not qualified to test paintball barrels..., Right boys?

What does it matter what his "qualifications" are? It just means he has less of an excuse to be a tool!

[magman007]

mike, give it up, all you are doing is bringing down everyone elses view of what you are trying to create for yourself of a reputation. you are clearly wrong. When some one takes a barrel, revolves it to the same speed as the rifiling would have on the ball, shoots photos throgh the lexan barrel at high speed, and shows the exit of the ball and how it was uniformly not effected, you must realize that you are refutably wrong. If rifiling truely did work, why doesnt everyone own one of these barrels? wouldnt tournament teams be using these to get a larger gain on another team?

Why arent armson barrels flying off the shelves? how about the hammerhead? why arent people using these if they are that much better?

why havnt other companies, who put alot of r&d into their barrels use this technique? why didnt this technique prove to be effective in 2 private tests?

I can tell that you are missinterpreting the words of tom, where he states that it has no major effect on the ball. By this he means, that it has no measurable effect or gain, there fore, no reason to use a rifled barrel.

Tom was one of the great innovators in the sport, if he found it had any gain vs. any thing else on the market, he would have implimented it, look at the marker designs and decide for yourself if he would have implimented the design.

Obviously, this Professional Engineer is making a farce out of his School, and im sure if they heard what he was claiming to be true, they would revoke his diplomas,

How about this fact? a paintball will fly just fine out of a large bore barrel, it will even fly fine out of a piece if pvc piping, with no measurable difference.

Ask simon stevens (aka manike) whom is certifiably a smarter man then the creator of these barrels, whom also designs and works for national paintball supply ( invarably one of the largest companies in the sport, also with the deepest pockets to make their markers have any inconcievable advantage over other markers) has done this pvc barrel test. and concluded that bore size is more of an efficiency issue than it is an accuracy issue.


Your theory to disprove my theory about the glass with water is once again, proven wrong. there are many variables in the reason that the color is displaced, the fact of dropping the liquid color into another liquid automatically causes it to disperse, not to mention the fact that there are imperfections in the glass, and the fact that you cannot rotate the glass perfectly and evenly, especially for one full revolution.

There are imperfections in paint shells, as well, but with the ball traveling at much higher speeds than you can rotate the glass, you must agree that the core of the liquid is not rotating, therefore, only the shell and some minute amount of fill is rotating.

heres an even better example for you. Our earths core. our earth rotates remarkably fast, yet the core, sourrounded by liquid magma, stays for the most part still, it only actually rotates every 120 years or so, relative to the earths spinning. why is that? same reason.

http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/Phys-earth-core.html (berkely information about the earths core)

you may discredit me as another tk nut swinger, this is not the case. I do not use his products any more, i do not claim his word to be the word of god, but i do know when i can reasonably look at the evidence presented, and the testing completed, that i can get the same result through deductive reasoning, that it is correct.


Mike, you just want to believe something, and you have been proven wrong, more times than once in this thread, please conduct the tests, and prove them to us. that is the only way we will even give you a shred of credibility.


any one remember arkfear trying to tell us that cockers shot farther? or were more accurate?
ah the good ol days.


Chalk up your "belief" to be purely psychological. There are people invariably smarter than you, and the creator of this barrel system ( whom worked in food service? how does that make you a certifiable genious on paintball barrels, never the less aerodynamics?) in this industry whom have conducted far more testing then you can even dream of, and proven this to not be the case?

Also, i will have you know, that i am currently a student enrolled at Kansas State University, in the professional pilot program, with 2 physics classes and 3 aerodynamics classes under my belt already, i believe i have a firm stronghold on the properties of projectiles in flight.

thanks, but please, try again.

[Mike Smith]

I find this entire thread hilarious. Each and every one of you nay-sayers have locked minds and will not tolerrate a different point of view. Most of you think TK is god and his "research" is written in stone. This is amusing....

For specific mis-information:

Your theory to disprove my theory about the glass with water is once again, proven wrong.

No it wasn't magman007. In fact, all anyone has to do is put a drop of color in a glass and spin it. The water, aided by the color, clearly rotates in the direction of the spin. So much for your "vaulted" education. And I'll chalk this up as another intentional mis-representation.

And Berkeley? You're quoting Berkeley? The same nuthouse in California that encourages and elevates mindless civil disobedience? The drug-infested lunatic fringe of colleges? That's funny!


So, no, he is absolutely not qualified to test paintball barrels, boy.
Taking your "logic" further, Target Pracice, TK is not qualified to test any barrels cuz he was the President of AGD. Yea... a stupid premise, isn't it...boy.


I suppose that Tom Kaye's professional credentials in the worlds of engineering and paintball don't mean squat, do they?

So phaseshifter, in your world if "A" is correct, then "B" cannot be correct, aye? IOW, If Robert is correct, then Tom MUST be incorrect, in your world....

Whatever.


In my Professional Opinion, he's full of it!
Oddly enough, Jack and Coke has the most coherant response. He didn't "color" his opinion with false or misleading information.

[Lohman446]

Mike, lets say this. If he wanted to, with those credentials, he could release a well written report complete with quantitative analysis on testing as to why his barrel works. He could show us the proof. Anyone seen that report?

[shartley]

“My beliefs are stronger than your facts.”

“Perception is truth, no matter if the facts say otherwise.”

“You can not change the mind that simply does not want to be changed….. without two car batteries and 6 mini-clips.”

ADDED: What really matters though is that if Hammerhead was correct, why do they use “we believe” so often to support their sales pitch? Why don’t they simply state facts?

I will tell you why… because they know they are not correct. And when/if they are confronted about what they post on their own site, they can always fall back on “We didn’t say it WAS that way, only that be BELIEVED it to be. It is up to the customer to determine what they believe.”

[billmi]

Did I really just see "written articles for.... Baking and Snack" used to support the credibility of someone's ability to test a paintball ballistics theory? Doesn't mean the testing wasn't good, just seems like an odd way to support the claim that it is.

I don't believe an engineering degree is necessary to do controlled testing, far more important, IMHO is clear publication of what the test was, so the reader can interpret the significance of the results. Tom Kaye may not have an engineering, or astronomy degree, but if I want to measure the red shift of a star, I'd go to him first before some of the lettered astronomers I've met.

And to bust a myth... I've not done any testing to determine the effects of accuracy, or distance caused by axial spin on a paintball. I'd love to, and sure I will at some point (though I have yet to come up with a method that I am satisfied will accuratly and practically measure distance of paintball flight paths.

[billmi]

Your theory to disprove my theory about the glass with water is once again, proven wrong. there are many variables in the reason that the color is displaced, the fact of dropping the liquid color into another liquid automatically causes it to disperse, not to mention the fact that there are imperfections in the glass, and the fact that you cannot rotate the glass perfectly and evenly, especially for one full revolution.

There are imperfections in paint shells, as well, but with the ball traveling at much higher speeds than you can rotate the glass, you must agree that the core of the liquid is not rotating, therefore, only the shell and some minute amount of fill is rotating.

heres an even better example for you. Our earths core. our earth rotates remarkably fast, yet the core, sourrounded by liquid magma, stays for the most part still, it only actually rotates every 120 years or so, relative to the earths spinning. why is that? same reason.

http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/Phys-earth-core.html (berkely information about the earths core)


Why is it, that whenever fill spin vs shell spin is discussed people so readily jump to examples of eggs, glasses of water, and the earth, all of which are of entirely different scales and made of of entirely different materials with different inertial, fluid and drag properties?

When I spin my head, my brain that is floating in liquid CSF spins with my skull!

So what?

Why not look to paintballs themselves.....

Try this - find clear shelled paint (hard to do these days, I tried this with Nelson in 1987.) Build a centerfuge for it that puts the axis of the ball in the center of the spin. I did this with a motor the size of a Speed 280. At 6v, these motors typically reach about 14K RPM. I did this because the paint had settled, and each ball had a small air bubble. I'd hopped to spin the ball, and cause the fill to settle out to the equator using centripetal force, (hey we paid 20 cents a ball at the field then, saving paint in college was a big deal.) Anyhow, not only did I find that I couldn't develop enough force to redistribute the solid pigment of the fill, but I also found that if I braked the centerfuge with a piece of balsa from full speed to 0 rpm in a fraction of a second, that the fill stopped with the ball, in fact it showed no signs of movement at all. If the "fill spins separately from the ball" theory is true, the fill should have kept on whirling around in the shell. It didn't though - despite iced tea, egg yolks and the earth's core spinning seperately from their shells.

I guess that proves that paintballs are more like brains than iced tea. We're shooting "smart" projectiles after all.

[Lohman446]

I don't believe an engineering degree is necessary to do controlled testing, far more important, IMHO is clear publication of what the test was, so the reader can interpret the significance of the results.

And this is why Hammerheads "years of research and development" appears to be near worthless to me. I think they know things they would rather not publish...

[SlartyBartFast]

I find this entire thread hilarious. Each and every one of you nay-sayers have locked minds and will not tolerrate a different point of view. Most of you think TK is god and his "research" is written in stone. This is amusing....

You sir are a pathetic :tard: .

You are either as closed minded as an ultra-orthodox religious type, or simply trolling and arguing for arguments sake.

If you want to discredit the science and physics facts, do so. Otherwise, concentrate on the one or two largly insignificant grade school tricks you do seem comfortable with.

Beleive what you want. It's your brain cells you're wasting. :rolleyes:

You blame others for beleiving TK testing, but you provide neither testing of your own or from another source. :tard:

So what if the fill spins or doesn't. Spinning paintballs provide NO advantage at 30,000 rpm.

Accurate paint projectiles developed for the military (FN303) rely on fins and shape to stop vortex shedding.

:rolleyes:

Something to add: When a point of view is WRONG, and demonstrably so, it's not a matter of tolerance and closed mindedness on the part of the "nay-sayer". Flat earth society members must love your line of reasoning.

[TheTramp]

simply trolling and arguing for arguments sake.


I think that at this point this is obviously the case.

[Lohman446]

The reason we beleive TKs testing is because he has shown us how he conducted the tests, the hypothesis he was seeking to test, and the data from the tests.

The reason we don't beleive Hammerhead is well... they haven't. They hide behind "we have degrees" or "we have done five years of R&D". Show me what R&D you did, the tests, etc.

Comes back to perfect circle paintballs and why many of us trust TK. TK hypothesised, as did many many of us, that more uniform paintballs would be better. He spent a lot of money, a lot of R&D into developing them... and then showed us the tests - they didn't help. Lets be thankful it was TK, a lot of other people would have talked about years of R&D, talked about things that sounded good but did not actually work, and hid the results, hiding behind vague "we beleives" and customer statements that look good but are of little value in quantitative analysis.

[magman007]

Why is it, that whenever fill spin vs shell spin is discussed people so readily jump to examples of eggs, glasses of water, and the earth, all of which are of entirely different scales and made of of entirely different materials with different inertial, fluid and drag properties?

When I spin my head, my brain that is floating in liquid CSF spins with my skull!

So what?

Why not look to paintballs themselves.....

Try this - find clear shelled paint (hard to do these days, I tried this with Nelson in 1987.) Build a centerfuge for it that puts the axis of the ball in the center of the spin. I did this with a motor the size of a Speed 280. At 6v, these motors typically reach about 14K RPM. I did this because the paint had settled, and each ball had a small air bubble. I'd hopped to spin the ball, and cause the fill to settle out to the equator using centripetal force, (hey we paid 20 cents a ball at the field then, saving paint in college was a big deal.) Anyhow, not only did I find that I couldn't develop enough force to redistribute the solid pigment of the fill, but I also found that if I braked the centerfuge with a piece of balsa from full speed to 0 rpm in a fraction of a second, that the fill stopped with the ball, in fact it showed no signs of movement at all. If the "fill spins separately from the ball" theory is true, the fill should have kept on whirling around in the shell. It didn't though - despite iced tea, egg yolks and the earth's core spinning seperately from their shells.

I guess that proves that paintballs are more like brains than iced tea. We're shooting "smart" projectiles after all.



Bill, its all i had for arguments sake, i realize that the examples are not full proof, or not as full proof as to how you just ended this thread, but they were the only examples i could think of, that any normalperson would deductively come up with a conclusion that incact, the fill does not move.




Mike, i dont see you enrolled at berkely now do i? one of our nations greatest schools. Didnt think so.... Care to share your community college degree with us?


Mike, give up. we might believe you if you read what we are telling you. give us a shred of proof to work on. but you cant furnish any thing, hammerhead barrel inc hasnt furnished any thing, and no one else in the industry has proven this to work, therefore you are wrong, hammer head barrels do not work as advertised. Period.

For the record, i have spoken to the hammerhead reps, i have shot the barrel before at a demonstration, vs a boomstick, and while they were proclaiming that their barrel was god, the boomstick performed just as well, if not better than the hammerhead.

[Lohman446]

And Berkeley? You're quoting Berkeley? The same nuthouse in California that encourages and elevates mindless civil disobedience? The drug-infested lunatic fringe of colleges? That's funny!

And Berkleys politcal leanings have what exactly to do with there knowledge and abilities to analyze balistics, fluid dynamics, and aerodynamics? Or for that matter anything that has anything to do with the discussion on hand.

Normal people: This is red
Mike: Is not
Normal people: This is red, it reflects the suns rays in the area of the spectrum known.....
Mike: Its a square
Rest of us? What? What does that have to do with red :tard: :tard:

[p8ntball72]

This may help those seeking truth..
http://home.comcast.net/~dyrgcmn/pball/pballphys1.html

[hitech]

This may help those seeking truth..
http://home.comcast.net/~dyrgcmn/pball/pballphys1.html
BTW, the author posted in the deep blue thread as 5X5. :D

[Target Practice]

Taking your "logic" further, Target Pracice, TK is not qualified to test any barrels cuz he was the President of AGD. Yea... a stupid premise, isn't it...boy.

In case you missed it, Tom wasn't testing his own products.. He was testing other people claims for things he didn't produce. What gain would come of his fudging of the tests?

Would you let your child ride around in a car safety seat that everyone else's tests said was unsafe, but the Marketing Director said that his test (1) shows that it's okay?

Would you use a mask that hadn't been ATSM certified, but the Marketing Director said "Oh, don't worry about it, I did a test and it's okay."

The Marketing Director's job is to sell you things. Looked like it worked.

You don't go to school for 5-6 years to get an Engineering degree to go into marketing.

So here's a question for you: Do you think, that in his capacity as Marketing Director, if his test would have shown that the barrel does not stand up to their claims, and has no noticable effect on the flight of the ball, that he would just come out and say that?

[billmi]

Would you use a mask that hadn't been ATSM certified, but the Marketing Director said "Oh, don't worry about it, I did a test and it's okay."



It's not like we have a choice.

The ASTM doesn't certify anything. All they do is come up with the standards. Manufacturers tell us that they meet the standard. There isn't an outside agency making sure that they do.

[Target Practice]

It's not like we have a choice.

The ASTM doesn't certify anything. All they do is come up with the standards. Manufacturers tell us that they meet the standard. There isn't an outside agency making sure that they do.

I'll rephrase.

"Would you use a mask that does not meet ATSM standards, but the Marketing Director said 'Oh, don't worry about it, I did a test and it's okay.'"

[Vex]

So phaseshifter, in your world if "A" is correct, then "B" cannot be correct, aye? IOW, If Robert is correct, then Tom MUST be incorrect, in your world....

Whatever.
This is a perfect example of how you misrepresent what others say. (along with the other times Miscue has pointed it out...)

You posted Robert Judson's credentials, intending to show that he knows what he is talking about because he is "qualified" by degrees and titles to do so. However, when it was brought to your attention that "Mr. Hammerhead" has no paintball experience, and Tom Kaye does, you thought that I was saying that if "A" is correct, then "B" has to be incorrect.
Not so. I was simply clarifying that Robert Judson has no paintball experience to his credit (that was listed by you) and that Tom Kaye does; and, as Bill Mills stated, I'd take TK's opinion, based on his experiences, over RJ's any day of the week.
Now if it came to picking out which cookies tasted better, then I'd go with RJ's opinion, because he has experience with snacks.

You are fighting a losing battle--and not because "we" are close-minded. You are losing because there is more data to back our claims and "we" have the proof.

[Vex]

I'll rephrase.

"Would you use a mask that does not meet ATSM standards, but the Marketing Director said 'Oh, don't worry about it, I did a test and it's okay.'"
Yeah, if I wanted to win a huge settlement but only have one eye.

["the FitZ"]

When hammerhead first came about it looked pretty shnazzy when you could actually see the rifling down the center of the barrel. Good marketing. I believe I read somewhere that the makers of the this barrel also designed equipment for franchi,benneli, beretta, and maybe winchester. All awesome gun companies. But paintballs are not bullets and markers are not guns. but it still shows they have experience in projectiles. Then I flipped the page.

So now I hear again about them and your argument about hype. I believe it is a matter of perception. They, I think, actually DO believe their product works the way it says it does. The customers love it so, hey guys we did a good job. Then there are always some people who haven't shot it, don't plan to shoot it, and just read it off as hype. Those are the people that drive away customers from a good product. It may be good barrel then you say LIES ITS ALL LIES, but then you follow up with this is a great product? WTF It's great but not for the reasons they say. WTF

So now here is a totally different question. w/ an 8'' barrel shooting 280fps you get x ft. in range/useable range or w/e. Now you use the 12'' barrel. You can't just plug it in. You have to do something first, turn the velocity up. whether it be friction or anything that holds it back. would you still get x ft in range? obviously you get less efficiency. I think there must be something left out in that experiment b/c I just can't make those cross field shots w/ an 8'' barrel. It must be the extra gas you use to get the same fps. and since it is a give and get situation is this what gives you extra range. because after chronoing the 12'' if you put the 8 back in you would be over that 280 fps mark. maybe you could get the same range then, it would just be illegal. Help me find the answer to this question.

[frop]

Hey Mike,

Hooray for jackassery! :tard:

(I love that word :) )

[frop]

So now here is a totally different question. w/ an 8'' barrel shooting 280fps you get x ft. in range/useable range or w/e. Now you use the 12'' barrel. You can't just plug it in. You have to do something first, turn the velocity up. whether it be friction or anything that holds it back. would you still get x ft in range? obviously you get less efficiency. I think there must be something left out in that experiment b/c I just can't make those cross field shots w/ an 8'' barrel. It must be the extra gas you use to get the same fps. and since it is a give and get situation is this what gives you extra range. because after chronoing the 12'' if you put the 8 back in you would be over that 280 fps mark. maybe you could get the same range then, it would just be illegal. Help me find the answer to this question.
The only thing that makes sense here is that it takes more air to shoot a ball out of a longer barrel.

As has been said before in this thread, there's nothing a longer barrel does to increase range more than the four extra inches of the barrel. Simply stated, same velocity + same angle = same range. Barrel has no effect.
Or do you have elves in your gun? ;)

[hitech]

So now here is a totally different question. w/ an 8'' barrel shooting 280fps you get x ft. in range/useable range or w/e. Now you use the 12'' barrel. You can't just plug it in. You have to do something first, turn the velocity up. whether it be friction or anything that holds it back. would you still get x ft in range? obviously you get less efficiency. I think there must be something left out in that experiment b/c I just can't make those cross field shots w/ an 8'' barrel. It must be the extra gas you use to get the same fps. and since it is a give and get situation is this what gives you extra range. because after chronoing the 12'' if you put the 8 back in you would be over that 280 fps mark. maybe you could get the same range then, it would just be illegal. Help me find the answer to this question.


If you want to see how far a paintball will travel, go here. (http://home.comcast.net/%7Edyrgcmn/pball/trajectory.html) You will note that there is NO entry for barrel length. Tom stated that the numbers derived from that are close to his observations from the extensive ballistics testing he did. I don't remember the difference, but the calculator is probably a little long as it doesn't include the extra drag induced from vortex shedding.

["the FitZ"]

okay so I just read a little more and here is something else I don't understand. Once a ball leaves the barrel it is no longer affected by the barrel. Okay I get it. But I'm thinking 'once the damage is done' you know. Can you elaborate on this. b/c I can drill a hole in a rock and shoot a paintball out of it. obviously the rock has no effect after the ball leaves the rock.

and another thing. Why do we believe what tom says? He could be feeding as much bs as the guy from hammerhead. Is it b/c he has tests. I can call shenanigans on that. He just wrote some numbers down and let his minions (thats us) spread them all over the universe. Or is it b/c he's a nice guy. and wouldn't dare tell a lie or hype. I would wait for someone to choose this but won't. I remember a big banner on this forum about the xvalve. capable of shooting 26 bps. yes it does. yes it's been proven. But since you or I cant pull the trigger that fast I guess we'll never know or be able to use it on the field. I love automags. Not being sarcastic about the last comment.

Oh, or do we listen to TK b/c he's...what's that word... 'qualified'. Don't be infected by Tk's lies! listen to the dancing banana :dance: he's qualified

[Lohman446]

okay so I just read a little more and here is something else I don't understand. Once a ball leaves the barrel it is no longer affected by the barrel. Okay I get it. But I'm thinking 'once the damage is done' you know. Can you elaborate on this. b/c I can drill a hole in a rock and shoot a paintball out of it. obviously the rock has no effect after the ball leaves the rock.

and another thing. Why do we believe what tom says? He could be feeding as much bs as the guy from hammerhead. Is it b/c he has tests. I can call shenanigans on that. He just wrote some numbers down and let his minions (thats us) spread them all over the universe. Or is it b/c he's a nice guy. and wouldn't dare tell a lie or hype. I would wait for someone to choose this but won't. I remember a big banner on this forum about the xvalve. capable of shooting 26 bps. yes it does. yes it's been proven. But since you or I cant pull the trigger that fast I guess we'll never know or be able to use it on the field. I love automags. Not being sarcastic about the last comment.

Oh, or do we listen to TK b/c he's...what's that word... 'qualified'. Don't be infected by Tk's lies! listen to the dancing banana :dance: he's qualified

I beleive TK because of the Perfect Circle paintball failure to come to market... he made the better paintball, saw it did not do anything special, and told us...

["the FitZ"]

wow you guys are quick! Thanx for the answers but from MY experience a 12'' doesn't shoot as far as a 14'' I just figured it's the same for 8 to 12. Obviously tom's experience is different. So should I drop my experience and just listen to him?

[frop]

Tom didn't just write numbers down he posted DATA. Pics too.

[hitech]

wow you guys are quick! Thanx for the answers but from MY experience a 12'' doesn't shoot as far as a 14'' I just figured it's the same for 8 to 12. Obviously tom's experience is different. So should I drop my experience and just listen to him?

Your experience doesn't even come close to a scientific test. Do one and change your experience.

I believe Tom because I have talked with him personally about many paintball related questions. While I didn't always get perfectly straight answers, I never discovered one lie. And it's real easy to see when Tom is talking around something. He also posted some of the pictures from his testing. Basically, he has established a level of creditability.

Additionally, I found the vortex shedding phenomenon myself. With someone else doing the calculations with formulas I found "we" derived the lateral force exerted on a paintball due to vortex shedding. It was easy to draw the conclusion that all other known forces exerted on a paintball in flight can't compete with vortex shedding.

I've NEVER found any creditable information that contradicts Tom's claims. That builds creditability.

On the subject of perfect circle paintballs. They do have advantages over gelatin paintballs. They are not affected by moisture. They impart less energy per square inch on impact because of the way they break apart on impact. They just don't fly any straighter. I remember when Tom was trying to market these things (the first time I met him). He went into detail about their advantages, even with slow motion graphics of how they fracture versus a gelatin paintball. When it came to accuracy, he pointed out that they had no seam, and said, with a little grin, "we all know what that means...". He never said they were more accurate. I think he believed they would be, but didn't have any data (yet) to prove it. Much later I asked him why they never sold them to paintballers. He mentioned the fact that they were not any more accurate and that paintball prices dropped significantly around that time and he couldn't compete price wise.

I'm sure that is more than anyone wanted to know... :rofl:

_____________________________________________
<img src="http://www.synreal.net/sig/hitech.gif">

Hey Hitech your starting to sound like me! - AGD
Hitech is the man.... :eek: - Blennidae
The only Hitech Lubricant (http://www.kercon.com)

[AzrealDarkmoonZ]

Testing and Paintball HAHAHAHAHa , the two words put together seem at odds with each other. I have done some testing on regulators but I wouldn't call it concrete, at best just a glimpse of possibilities. Right now its a hype driven market, eventually we will start seeing some testing if nothing else just so manufacturers can put "33% Faster Electronic Reaction Time combined with a 150% flow CPM and 50% reaction time to the industry standard pnuematic regulator"

Az

[Mister Sinister]

I'm still trying to figure out how peoples perceptions count for more than data gained from scientific observation. All these arguements that the hammerheads do have some sort of edge in range or accuracy are bunk. Using them further is tantamount to rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic. At this point what I say is its put up or shut up time. As far as Iam concerned its up to the proponents of the magical hammerhead to prove that it is better.

[vonort]

Why don't you "prove" that it isn't better?

[Lohman446]

Why don't you "prove" that it isn't better?

Proving a negative is nearly impossible. We can attempt to answer these questions

Can it reliably impart spin on a paintball? All indications are no. A) The rifling does not touch the ball consistently, or with enough pressure to induce spin. B) TK tested the idea of spinning paintballs by spinning the entire marker in a machine and was unable to induce spin at much higher "spin" rates than the rifling of this barrel could induce

Can it shoot further? All indications are no. Base physics and all testing done up to this point indicate that a ball leaving a barrel at 300FPS will go as far as a ball leaving another barrel at 300FPS.

Further testing and into ideas such as vortex shedding indicate once outside of the barrel the effect the barrel has on the ball (aside from setting it on the path it was on) is about zero.

When all published data and base physics support that it is not better, I would say it is up to the makers of Hammerhead to show us it is. And not hide behind "years of R&D" that end with statements that begin with "we beleive". Show us statements that say "controlled testing indicates" and then show us the tests and the data.

[oldsoldier]

Actually, the rep was right in a way. The 12 inch barrel can shoot 4 inches farther than the 8 inch barrel.
Technically, you are wrong. A target, say 20' away, fired from a gun with a LONGER barrel, the projectile actually travels LESS distance. :)
This debate has been done a thousand times. A projectile leaving the barrel at 300 FPS will go the SAME DISTANCE as one fired from another barrel, barring a backspin. And, backspins, particularly on paintballs, are unpredicatble at best. They arent perfectly round, dont all load the exact same way, regulators arent consistent...there are just WAY too many variables in the equation. Ones that cant be corrected by the user. Sorry, hammerhead is full of BS. We saw that a couple of years ago...and, its good to see they havent changed their selling tactics.

[Target Practice]

Why don't you "prove" that it isn't better?

Why, you buy one too?

We proved that "rifling" has negligable effects at best. It has "rifling". What more do you want?

[Mister Sinister]

Why don't you "prove" that it isn't better?

I'm not the one trying to sell people on it. If i prove that it isnt I dont really gain anything maybe e-peen points or some other inconsequential status. But the proponents of it have everything to gain by proving that their ideas work. Think about it if they proved their concepts they would essentially overturn everything that was previously thought about paintball barrels. Its not everyday that you get a chance to prove the world is flat.

edit: As a side note even if it was disproven with the thinking and logic in this thread it wouldnt do any good anyways. I'm not in the habit of trying to teach cheese to jump through hoops.

[Mister Sinister]

And not hide behind "years of R&D" that end with statements that begin with "we beleive". Show us statements that say "controlled testing indicates" and then show us the tests and the data.

I agree here. Years of R&D dont necessarily mean its better or mean anything at all. Their research may have been in how it reacts chemical and heat changes while sitting on the beach in aruba being used as a swizel stick in a mai tai. The development may have nothing more than deciding on which colour of anno best matched the curtains in the den. The makers dont quantify this for us. Hiding behind years of supposed R&D and beliefs mean little. One of the best aircraft (P-51 Mustang) built in WW2 took only 120 days to go from idea to flying. Just telling me how long it took means nothing show me what it does and why it does it.

[Miscue]

I agree here. Years of R&D dont necessarily mean its better or mean anything at all. Their research may have been in how it reacts chemical and heat changes while sitting on the beach in aruba being used as a swizel stick in a mai tai. The development may have nothing more than deciding on which colour of anno best matched the curtains in the den. The makers dont quantify this for us. Hiding behind years of supposed R&D and beliefs mean little. One of the best aircraft (P-51 Mustang) built in WW2 took only 120 days to go from idea to flying. Just telling me how long it took means nothing show me what it does and why it does it.

On the flip side... you have to wonder why it took 3 years of R&D to put a hole in a tube, and put some threads on it. :confused:

[Army]

On the flip side... you have to wonder why it took 3 years of R&D to put a hole in a tube, and put some threads on it. :confused:
The confusion came from the fact, that their tube already had a hole:D

[Lohman446]

I agree here. Years of R&D dont necessarily mean its better or mean anything at all. Their research may have been in how it reacts chemical and heat changes while sitting on the beach in aruba being used as a swizel stick in a mai tai. The development may have nothing more than deciding on which colour of anno best matched the curtains in the den. The makers dont quantify this for us. Hiding behind years of supposed R&D and beliefs mean little. One of the best aircraft (P-51 Mustang) built in WW2 took only 120 days to go from idea to flying. Just telling me how long it took means nothing show me what it does and why it does it.


"Hey Rich, these mai tais are really expensive, what can we do to help the costs?"
"You know Bob, I've been thinking about that for five years, rolling over the options, theres this sport called paintball"
"What does that have to do with making money"
"Well.. apparently it is a very hype driven market, couple my degree with something noone else uses since they have proven it doesn't work, hype it, and sell it for 10X what it takes us to make it..."
"Hey.. Rich... I've got something on the shark pole - its a Hammerhead"

[Arson51]

i have emailed hammerhead paintball this


A conversation I had with one of your representatives at d-day is still on my mind. The representative in question was in his 30s-40s with a dark goatee. He was talking to a customer and claimed that the short 8 inch hammerhead was just as accurate as the 12 inch model except that the 8" had less range. I instantly cut in and said "You are wrong, a ball exiting a 8'' barrel at 300fps will go the exact same distance as one from a 12''!"

He was quick to answer "NO you are wrong I went to engineering school ....the longer barrel has more distance to accelerate the ball thus it has more inertia! That’s why a tiny bullet can kill some one because of inertia!"

I was confused by his strange use of inertia which I thought was something different. I said I would refine my argument and get back to him. I never was able to find him the next day so I decide to write you this email.

Inertia it is the tendency of a body to maintain its state of uniform motion unless acted on by an external force. Otherwise known as Newton’s first law of motion, it had nothing to do with the argument, and in fact he was even wrong about his statement about bullets using inertia to kill it’s actually kinetic energy.

I would like you to please tell me how you can allow an engineering graduate to tell customers false information about physics, and how he can advertise that this barrel's rifling actually increases performance when these links of evidence show otherwise.

http://www.automags.org/resource/tech/tomstech/03_spinning.shtml
http://www.automags.org/forums/showthread.php?t=64669

These are controlled test that prove that spinning a paintball wouldn’t work. If you have done testing on the subject please respond with results from controlled testing and experimentation. If you can prove your theory I will be a loyal customer for life, if you fail to, I will have to continue to be a skeptic and attempt to expose this company as a charlatan and a liar.

Thank you,




i will post a response when it comes.

[JoshK]

Aren't you taking sides?

I said "If I were you"...because he said earlier that he doesn't believe anything until he has his own proof. So why would he be taking sides without any?


-Josh

[CodeMA]

This thread should have been dead long ago... honestly...

...but since yall cant leave well enough alone, Ill throw some more out

This weekend, I desided hey, lets waste paint and play with barrels...and mabey fiddle with my lpr and such while Im at it

I grabbed a CP kit, a hammerhead kit, and a ultralight, all barrels 14", a few pods and a set of allen wrenches and obsonded a big ugly red chrono and some bored, trusting field scrub...

So useing some premium paint, I sized the paint for each kit the bore sizes were diffrent for each kit(IE .686 for the hammerhead was larger on the CP(.688)at around 295fps and useing the chrono to bench the marker and table for the tank so its all at the same angle every time... I could shoot across the field with the CP and the paint would hit right at the bottem of the net between actually hitting it and 3 feet away, avreageing by sight and word of kid about a foot away, this due to slight diffrences in shape of paint and velocity... air effecency wasnt really nominal with just a pod through it... flight pattern wasnt as constant as I was used to seeing and down range it was the same as only a handfull of shots hit the pole the CP barrel was lined up with...Noise signatures were also very distanctly diffrent both on my end and on the kids end... Next I took the Hammerhead and screwed it on, chronoed it down to the same 295 range and postioned it in the same fasion, paint hit the base net more constantly, but did hit over all in the same range away, but more often then not, it did hit the net,again air effenecy not taken into account... flight pattern was noteably strighter with around a 2/3rds of the pod actually hitting the pole down field,noise was slightly louder then the CP on my end and MUCH quiter on the kids end... Last but not least, the ultalight, the bore size was slightly off and a little bigger then what I would have liked to use, but as follows, it too hit the same range... about par with the CP kit, but even less constant hitting the net(again due to sizeing?) air effency negated and flight pattern was somewere between the CP and the hammerhead with around a quarter of the pod hitting somewere on the pole, noise signatures were again softer at me and slightly louder then the CP kit on the kids end... I put the hammerhead kit back on, and re chronoed once more for the night and reset my LPR... speaking of... Barrel breaks/chops... 4 with the CP, 2 with the ultralight, and none with Hammerhead...

Take that for what you will...I was against a net to help negate the light wind, and tried to make everything as constant for each barrel as possible...

I will also be spending around a week with the owner behind Hammerhead and will be happy to get what I can from him on the subject...

Enjoy, Hate, flame...whatever... Hammerheads arnt exactly apples to oranges against other barrels, anyone who beleives that prolly is baseing it on the hype, but the barrels shoot constantly for sure and the noise downrange deffently true and quiter... I think constancy is the name of the game here... Due to the rifleing?, machineing, bore, muzzle break, etc, who knows...extra range isnt happening, it might appear to some due to the constancy but not directly from the rifleing making it go farther...shrugs

[Mike Smith]

I have enjoyed this little excursion into the faith some people have in Tom Kaye. It helps me understand the Michael Jackson crowd.

Tom is an extremely innovative person who has contributed greatly to the paintball game, however I do not view him as perfect (like most of the naysayers that have decided to attack me personally, instead of refuting what I posted). For those of you that denegrated me, I understand your ignorance and your blind devotion to Tom Kaye.

For those that wanted to know what I agreed with, it would be most of what Tom did, test-wise (90%-95%).
For the person defending Berzerkly in CA.... OK...... :rollseyes:
For the whiny-babies.... :p
For the Tom Kaye sycophants, explain the twist and lock, the crown point, and the hype about the x-valve not chopping balls. Of course, I can only go on my own personal experiences with these 3 "designs", some going back as far as 1991, so my opinion must be "invalid"...

For the rest of you that don't like the Hammerhead, don't buy the barrel.

[Lohman446]

I have enjoyed this little excursion into the faith some people have in Tom Kaye. It helps me understand the Michael Jackson crowd.

Tom is an extremely innovative person who has contributed greatly to the paintball game, however I do not view him as perfect (like most of the naysayers that have decided to attack me personally, instead of refuting what I posted). For those of you that denegrated me, I understand your ignorance and your blind devotion to Tom Kaye.

For those that wanted to know what I agreed with, it would be most of what Tom did, test-wise (90%-95%).
For the person defending Berzerkly in CA.... OK...... :rollseyes:
For the whiny-babies.... :p
For the Tom Kaye sycophants, explain the twist and lock, the crown point, and the hype about the x-valve not chopping balls. Of course, I can only go on my own personal experiences with these 3 "designs", some going back as far as 1991, so my opinion must be "invalid"...

For the rest of you that don't like the Hammerhead, don't buy the barrel.

Let me sum this up, so the rest of you don't waste your time.

In my defense of the hammerhead barrel I have been asked for quantitative defense as to why it defies logic, physics, and existing date. Despite "five years of R&D" by a "professional engineer" who would understand scientific testing and data recording I cannot come up with it. So I'm going to resort to name calling in an attempt to refute your logic. Because, I'm just that good.

:rolleyes:

And because typing what I think of this argument may result in a ban, I'm just going to leave you with this emoticon to some it all up : :tard:

[Magglerock]

This thread should have been dead long ago... honestly...

...but since yall cant leave well enough alone, Ill throw some more out

This weekend, I desided hey, lets waste paint and play with barrels...and mabey fiddle with my lpr and such while Im at it

I grabbed a CP kit, a hammerhead kit, and a ultralight, all barrels 14", a few pods and a set of allen wrenches and obsonded a big ugly red chrono and some bored, trusting field scrub...

So useing some premium paint, I sized the paint for each kit the bore sizes were diffrent for each kit(IE .686 for the hammerhead was larger on the CP(.688)at around 295fps and useing the chrono to bench the marker and table for the tank so its all at the same angle every time... I could shoot across the field with the CP and the paint would hit right at the bottem of the net between actually hitting it and 3 feet away, avreageing by sight and word of kid about a foot away, this due to slight diffrences in shape of paint and velocity... air effecency wasnt really nominal with just a pod through it... flight pattern wasnt as constant as I was used to seeing and down range it was the same as only a handfull of shots hit the pole the CP barrel was lined up with...Noise signatures were also very distanctly diffrent both on my end and on the kids end... Next I took the Hammerhead and screwed it on, chronoed it down to the same 295 range and postioned it in the same fasion, paint hit the base net more constantly, but did hit over all in the same range away, but more often then not, it did hit the net,again air effenecy not taken into account... flight pattern was noteably strighter with around a 2/3rds of the pod actually hitting the pole down field,noise was slightly louder then the CP on my end and MUCH quiter on the kids end... Last but not least, the ultalight, the bore size was slightly off and a little bigger then what I would have liked to use, but as follows, it too hit the same range... about par with the CP kit, but even less constant hitting the net(again due to sizeing?) air effency negated and flight pattern was somewere between the CP and the hammerhead with around a quarter of the pod hitting somewere on the pole, noise signatures were again softer at me and slightly louder then the CP kit on the kids end... I put the hammerhead kit back on, and re chronoed once more for the night and reset my LPR... speaking of... Barrel breaks/chops... 4 with the CP, 2 with the ultralight, and none with Hammerhead...

Take that for what you will...I was against a net to help negate the light wind, and tried to make everything as constant for each barrel as possible...

I will also be spending around a week with the owner behind Hammerhead and will be happy to get what I can from him on the subject...

Enjoy, Hate, flame...whatever... Hammerheads arnt exactly apples to oranges against other barrels, anyone who beleives that prolly is baseing it on the hype, but the barrels shoot constantly for sure and the noise downrange deffently true and quiter... I think constancy is the name of the game here... Due to the rifleing?, machineing, bore, muzzle break, etc, who knows...extra range isnt happening, it might appear to some due to the constancy but not directly from the rifleing making it go farther...shrugs

Dude...spellcheck.

[Target Practice]

I have enjoyed this little excursion into the faith some people have in Tom Kaye. It helps me understand the Michael Jackson crowd.

Tom is an extremely innovative person who has contributed greatly to the paintball game, however I do not view him as perfect (like most of the naysayers that have decided to attack me personally, instead of refuting what I posted). For those of you that denegrated me, I understand your ignorance and your blind devotion to Tom Kaye.

For those that wanted to know what I agreed with, it would be most of what Tom did, test-wise (90%-95%).
For the person defending Berzerkly in CA.... OK...... :rollseyes:
For the whiny-babies.... :p
For the Tom Kaye sycophants, explain the twist and lock, the crown point, and the hype about the x-valve not chopping balls. Of course, I can only go on my own personal experiences with these 3 "designs", some going back as far as 1991, so my opinion must be "invalid"...

For the rest of you that don't like the Hammerhead, don't buy the barrel.

Jesus, you're quite immature for an old bastard.

[Vex]

For the Tom Kaye sycophants, explain the twist and lock, the crown point, and the hype about the x-valve not chopping balls. Of course, I can only go on my own personal experiences with these 3 "designs", some going back as far as 1991, so my opinion must be "invalid"...
No one ever claimed that the X-Valve would not chop balls--LEVEL 10 is the anti-chop upgrade...
I see how closely you pay attention. When the L10 is tuned properly, it will not chop paint, or fingers, tongues, etc...
What does everyone have against the twist lock barrel? How ingenious is it to not have to unscrew your damn barrel for five minutes? Just because the twist lock never caught on doesn't mean that it was a crappy design or didn't work as described.
It's funny how crown points don't have any rifiling, and they're much older than Hammerheads...

[Target Practice]

How ingenious is it to not have to unscrew your damn barrel for five minutes? Just because the twist lock never caught on doesn't mean that it was a crappy design or didn't work as described.

For it's time, the twist-lock design was freakin' genius. Chops did happen, and the quarter-turn design was a huge improvement over the fine threads that most markers were using (the notable exception to this was the M98, but still).

[Vex]

For it's time, the twist-lock design was freakin' genius. Chops did happen, and the quarter-turn design was a huge improvement over the fine threads that most markers were using (the notable exception to this was the M98, but still).
I realize; I was just trying to prove a point :D
All I know is that it takes me a lot longer to take the barrel off of my RPG Exile body than it does for me to pop off a twist lock. I realize that the twist locks require more material too.

[Target Practice]

I realize; I was just trying to prove a point :D
All I know is that it takes me a lot longer to take the barrel off of my RPG Exile body than it does for me to pop off a twist lock. I realize that the twist locks require more material too.

Oh, no, I understand/agree with you. I was elaborating.

[Mike Smith]

In my defense of the hammerhead barrel I have been asked for quantitative defense as to why it defies logic, physics, and existing date

Start with a false premise and build on it. That looks familiar.

[Mike Smith]

No one ever claimed that the X-Valve would not chop balls--LEVEL 10 is the anti-chop upgrade...

Dude... What comes standard with the x-valve? You're info is defective (as usual).

[Lohman446]

Start with a false premise and build on it. That looks familiar.


What false premise? You defended the statement that Hammerhead barrels were better, we asked for proof of that, after all the makers various degrees and writings have been cited, and then you used comments like well I'll use the quote feature.


I have enjoyed this little excursion into the faith some people have in Tom Kaye. It helps me understand the Michael Jackson crowd.

Tom is an extremely innovative person who has contributed greatly to the paintball game, however I do not view him as perfect (like most of the naysayers that have decided to attack me personally, instead of refuting what I posted). For those of you that denegrated me, I understand your ignorance and your blind devotion to Tom Kaye.

For those that wanted to know what I agreed with, it would be most of what Tom did, test-wise (90%-95%).
For the person defending Berzerkly in CA.... OK...... :rollseyes:
For the whiny-babies....
For the Tom Kaye sycophants, explain the twist and lock, the crown point, and the hype about the x-valve not chopping balls. Of course, I can only go on my own personal experiences with these 3 "designs", some going back as far as 1991, so my opinion must be "invalid"...

[Target Practice]

Dude... What comes standard with the x-valve? You're info is defective (as usual).

You don't get it. Xvalve != Level 10. I have Level 10 on my classic-valved MicroMags.

The Xvalve does not prevent chopping. Level 10 does. Just because they are sold together doesn't mean they are the same thing.

[SlartyBartFast]

Start with a false premise and build on it. That looks familiar.

Alright then smart guy, :rolleyes:

Show us one instance where you've given any data, proof, or scientific reasoning that can stand up to scrutiny instead of simply defending your own blind faith and belief by mocking others with the charge of blind faith. :tard:

You a priest? Last time I ran into such illogical, circular, and evasive argumentation was in the pope thread. :rolleyes:

[Miscue]

Alright then smart guy, :rolleyes:

Show us one instance where you've given any data, proof, or scientific reasoning that can stand up to scrutiny instead of simply defending your own blind faith and belief by mocking others with the charge of blind faith. :tard:

You a priest? Last time I ran into such illogical, circular, and evasive argumentation was in the pope thread. :rolleyes:

Oh wait... I can answer this one on his behalf.

"The logic is quite clear if you would bother reading and comprehending what I said. It is you that has not provided any proof, and instead have only repeated dogmatic hogwash. I have provided everything you need to understand why it works. You are blind followers of Tom Kaye, and it's like arguing with hopeless followers of some religion. You can choose to ignore the facts and be ignorant. I'm done arguing with fools, you are a waste of my time."

Hurm... that's about all I could come up with as far as the standard Internet responses... when no real argument is being made.

[Mike Smith]

OK SlartyBartFast...
I have clearly stated that the Hammerhead-launched paintballs break on players that are bouncing balls off of me. I have clearly stated that the paintballs have scratches on them from being launched at 200 mph out of the hammerhead barrel. I have clearly stated that paintballs spin when they exit the barrel, despite the rantings of one of the sychopants in this thread. I have clearly stated that the level 10 is an intrigal part of the x-valve, therefore my statement about an x-valve chopping balls is, and will continue to be, accurate, despite the rantings of one of the sychopants. I have also clearly stated that water in a glass will spin in the direction of the glass if you spin the glass, despite the rantings of another sychopant.

You can easily find all this out by simply re-reading this thread. Why did you need me to "hold your hand"? Too busy to re-read the thread?



And Lohman446, are you attempting to state that the Hammerhead barrel defies logic, physics, and existing data? That is a false premise, in case you didn't "clue" into it. I used mine all weekend long and it never once defied any form of logic, physics, or any published data about launching paintballs out of Mags...

And Miscue, you're pretty lame about throwing smack. If I was that weak, I'd stay away from the smack talk....

[Lohman446]

I have clearly stated that paintballs spin when they exit the barrel, despite the rantings of one of the sychopants in this thread.

Which defies logic, existing data, and physics.


And Lohman446, are you attempting to state that the Hammerhead barrel defies logic, physics, and existing data? That is a false premise, in case you didn't "clue" into it. I used mine all weekend long and it never once defied any form of logic, physics, or any published data about launching paintballs out of Mags...

You answered that one yourself

If you couldn't put those together all by yourself... well I resort to this emoticon again :tard:

[Jack & Coke]

Mike,

The "X-Valve" is just an Aluminum version of the RT-valve. The Level 10 was a seperate development. It was not developed as "part of" the X-"valve" system. AGD just included it with all new guns that came with the X-Valve.

BTW, it's sycophant, not sychopant. No biggie, but you misspelled it twice in your last post. Not sure if you knew... ;)

[Mike Smith]

So, in your mind Lohman446, a paintball exiting a barrel at 200 mph spinning defies --->your<--- logic, existing data, and physics. I think I'll believe my own eyes, instead of your "logic, existing data, and physics". It is an easily proven fact that paintballs can and do spin as they exit paintball barrels. The most obvious example of that is right after a broken ball in the barrel. The following balls will do loop-the-loops, radical curves, and other forms of unnatural flight paths, due to their spin before they exit the barrel. This is simple, lohman. Get yourself some two color paintballs with some decent contrast, and fire them out of your gun. Do they, or do they NOT spin? Simple test, see if you are capable of eyeballing your balls and get back to us....



Jack & Coke, I rarely ever do a spell check. I knew there was an "h" in there, somewhere.
And the x-valve comes equipped with the level 10, that's why it's called an "X"-valve
( hint... X = roman numeral 10)...

[Target Practice]

And the x-valve comes equipped with the level 10, that's why it's called an "X"-valve
( hint... X = roman numeral 10)...

Again, you are wrong. You should probably check this out before you post. The Xvalve and Level 10 are two completely different things.

They are called "X" valves because they first appeared on the Extreme Emag, which was shortend to "X-mag".

[Lohman446]

So, in your mind Lohman446, a paintball exiting a barrel at 200 mph spinning defies --->your<--- logic, existing data, and physics. I think I'll believe my own eyes, instead of your "logic, existing data, and physics". It is an easily proven fact that paintballs can and do spin as they exit paintball barrels

Your eyes are so much more accurate than the high speed photos we have seen that this is not true :rolleyes: . And recall the big hole little ball thing.. that rifling doesn't have the ability to impart spin. And then you have to take the step that that spin would be useful to make it better.. which base phyiscs and existing data show is not true. So we are depending that our eyes are better than high speed photos and that what "we think" is true even though it defies base physics. Then we are using this logic to say it is better.



Edited to comply with the rules... I'm still stuck using this emoticon :tard:

[Muzikman]

You can put a level 7 bolt on an X-Valve with no problem. So it's not the X-Valve that doesn't chop, it's the Level 10. Also, if tuned incorrectly a level 10 can chop. And the level 10 does not eliminate barrel breaks...no anti-chop device can do that. So it is still possible to break a ball.

As for the spin of a ball. Yes, paintball can spin when they come out of a barrel. It is not a controlled spin, there for it does nothing for the flight of the ball. Also, if you can see two tone paint spin as it leaves your barrel, it is spinning way too slow to make any difference at all. Think of it like a baseball. A fastball spins but not enough to make any real difference, the ball still travels in a relatively straight line. Now, a breaking ball has a lot more spin on it and because of that, it will curve. Paintball is pretty much the same thing.

Now for your idea that the barrel scores marks in the ball making it break easier, please take a picture of a non broken ball shot out of a hammerhead showing these marks. Then take that ball, drop it on a hard surface until it breaks. Then take another picture. I want to see if it breaks at one of these score marks. If it does not, then it would not be the scratch that caused it to break as the ball should break at its weakest point, which you state would be the score mark.

Also, we believe Tom as he has displayed the scientific method he used to collect the data. He did not just (as someone put it) write down numbers. Could Tom be wrong...sure he could, but until someone shows me PROOF that he is, then I trust his findings over marketing.

As Manike says... "Don't believe the hype."

[Target Practice]

Edit: Nevermind, no sense asking for something that won't be given.

[Miscue]

And Lohman446, are you attempting to state that the Hammerhead barrel defies logic, physics, and existing data? That is a false premise, in case you didn't "clue" into it. I used mine all weekend long and it never once defied any form of logic, physics, or any published data about launching paintballs out of Mags...



You know... I was playing poker with space invaders from the Klingon home world all weekend long. And my assertions and personal experience are all that is needed to prove it, or at least explain why it is likely to be true... :rolleyes:

BTW... it's false "conclusion." Premises are what you use to arrive at a conclusion.

[Mike Smith]

Who am I gonna believe? My lying eyes or lohman's "physics"....

Hmmmmm.. tough choice.

[Lohman446]

Who am I gonna believe? My lying eyes or lohman's "physics"....

Hmmmmm.. tough choice.


LMAO.. yeh, because your eyes make physics worthless. On the plus side your arguments get more and more interesting with each post...

Measurements obtained using scientific standards, equipment, and data recording, or your eyes that "see" things that are travelling at 300FPS. Guess where I would place my money.

[Muzikman]

Is it me, or did he just skip over my post?

[Target Practice]

Is it me, or did he just skip over my post?

He skipped it, looks like. That's okay, he skipped over my correction of his stupid "Xvavle" comment.

[Mike Smith]

Yes, I did ignore your post, muzikman. For the past year all X-valves that I have seen or heard of had the level 10 bolt. It's standard equipment, per AGD's web page. But that is a minor point that some people must whine about...

And, if the paintball coming out of the end of my barrel is spinning so slow that it doesn't make any difference, why does it curve? Especially (and most notably) after a ball break?

I have 20 paintballs on the desk behind me that have been shot out of my Hammerhead. All of them are scratched. Too bad I don't have a camera capable of taking the pictures of the scratches. I need a good macro camera. (For you sycophants that will cry about 20 being too few, all I need is 1 to disprove your little theories...)

[Target Practice]

1 to disprove your little theories...)

Again, no, you don't. 1 doesn't mean a damn thing.

[Miscue]

Yes, I did ignore your post, muzikman. For the past year all X-valves that I have seen or heard of had the level 10 bolt. It's standard equipment, per AGD's web page. But that is a minor point that some people must whine about...

And, if the paintball coming out of the end of my barrel is spinning so slow that it doesn't make any difference, why does it curve? Especially (and most notably) after a ball break?

I have 20 paintballs on the desk behind me that have been shot out of my Hammerhead. All of them are scratched. Too bad I don't have a camera capable of taking the pictures of the scratches. I need a good macro camera. (For you sycophants that will cry about 20 being too few, all I need is 1 to disprove your little theories...)

You are talking about spin that changes flight path, versus spin that stabilizes flight path. In the first, Magnus effect comes into play. In the second... gyroscopic stabilization, etc. These are two separate applications of spin - they are not the same issue.

How did you retrieve those balls? Did you inspect the balls before they were shot? What do cuts have to do with proving that the rifling works? All that has been demonstrated (if you can demonstrate it) is that it has scored the ball.

Actually... you have it in reverse. If you are claiming consistency... then you should get the same results all 20 times. One counter-example would bring doubt to the claims of consistency.

[Vex]

Insane Post #1:

For the Tom Kaye sycophants, explain the hype about the x-valve not chopping balls.
Sane Reply:

No one ever claimed that the X-Valve would not chop balls--LEVEL 10 is the anti-chop upgrade...
I see how closely you pay attention. When the L10 is tuned properly, it will not chop paint, or fingers, tongues, etc...
Insane Post #2:

Dude... What comes standard with the x-valve? You're info is defective (as usual).
Sane Reply #1:

You don't get it. Xvalve != Level 10. I have Level 10 on my classic-valved MicroMags.
The Xvalve does not prevent chopping. Level 10 does. Just because they are sold together doesn't mean they are the same thing.
Sane Reply #2:

Mike,
The "X-Valve" is just an Aluminum version of the RT-valve. The Level 10 was a seperate development. It was not developed as "part of" the X-"valve" system. AGD just included it with all new guns that came with the X-Valve.
Insane Post #3:

And the x-valve comes equipped with the level 10, that's why it's called an "X"-valve ( hint... X = roman numeral 10)...
Sane Reply #1:

Again, you are wrong. You should probably check this out before you post. The Xvalve and Level 10 are two completely different things.
They are called "X" valves because they first appeared on the Extreme Emag, which was shortend to "X-mag".
Sane Reply #2:

You can put a level 7 bolt on an X-Valve with no problem. So it's not the X-Valve that doesn't chop, it's the Level 10. Also, if tuned incorrectly a level 10 can chop. And the level 10 does not eliminate barrel breaks...no anti-chop device can do that. So it is still possible to break a ball.
Insane Post #4:

Yes, I did ignore your post, muzikman. For the past year all X-valves that I have seen or heard of had the level 10 bolt. It's standard equipment, per AGD's web page. But that is a minor point that some people must whine about...
Sane Reply (posted by insane poster):

You can easily find all this out by simply re-reading this thread. Why did you need me to "hold your hand"? Too busy to re-read the thread?
;)

[Vex]

Oh, no, I understand/agree with you. I was elaborating.
Rock on! :headbang:

[frop]

Insane Post #1:

Sane Reply:

Insane Post #2:

Sane Reply #1:

Sane Reply #2:

Insane Post #3:

Sane Reply #1:

Sane Reply #2:

Insane Post #4:

Sane Reply (posted by insane poster):

;)
You're insane for doing all those quotes! :)

[Vex]

You're insane for doing all those quotes! :)
Yeah, I know. I wouldn't have had to (re)post those if someone wouldn't argue a moot point... :tard:

[Vex]

Looks like our good neighbors down under even bought the hype: :eek:
http://www.velocitypaintball.com.au/cyborg.html

[Miscue]

You know... I buy Lapco barrels because of the unnecessary high levels of workmanship... and Colin talks about his products as something he is proud of... and about how well it is machined. Now, I can appreciate that. He doesn't hype his stuff with odd claims.

It doesn't shoot any better than a PVC pipe with threads, but I can appreciate the quality regardless... and it makes me feel good... I know full well my stock barrel works the same. :p That's why I put a Lapco Snapshot on my main gun. I'm also glad that he used a long control bore, and did not go crazy with the porting...

I like the way the Hammerhead barrel looks... and like the reverse porting. The vid with the smoke showing that the reverse porting works is cool... and I can appreciate that. And, I like that it's not one of those "mainstream" barrels that all the kiddies get.

My first impression of it was... that's retarded... $100 for a barrel tip... and it comes with a 2" barrel. But I liked the look of it... and the reverse porting was kinda cool. The whole thing had a unique look to it. If they had a longer control bore, I would have been interested in it.

This was... until the guy at the booth opened his mouth and talked about the barrel. Either they really believed it and have their heads up their butts, or they thought their customers were stupid. Regardless, I didn't want to buy from these guys.

If I'm gonna burn $100 on a metal tube... I'd rather it go towards a beer for someone like Colin... than these turd burglars.

[frop]

You know... I buy Lapco barrels because of the unnecessary high levels of workmanship... and Colin talks about his products as something he is proud of... and about how well it is machined. Now, I can appreciate that. He doesn't hype his stuff with odd claims.

It doesn't shoot any better than a PVC pipe with threads, but I can appreciate the quality regardless... and it makes me feel good... I know full well my stock barrel works the same. That's why I put a Lapco Snapshot on my main gun. I'm also glad that he used a long control bore, and did not go crazy with the porting...

I like the way the Hammerhead barrel looks... and like the reverse porting. The vid with the smoke showing that the reverse porting works is cool... and I can appreciate that. And, I like that it's not one of those "mainstream" barrels that all the kiddies get.

My first impression of it was... that's retarded... $100 for a barrel tip... and it comes with a 2" barrel. But I liked the look of it... and the reverse porting was kinda cool. The whole thing had a unique look to it. If they had a longer control bore, I would have been interested in it.

This was... until the guy at the booth opened his mouth and talked about the barrel. Either they really believed it and have their heads up their butts, or they thought their customers were stupid. Regardless, I didn't want to buy from these guys.

If I'm gonna burn $100 on a metal tube... I'd rather it go towards a beer for someone like Colin... than these turd burglars.
$50+ for a back or tip sucks too, but I love how beautiful it is. If someone had the money, they could have more bore sizes than a Freak w/ the SS. I need to save to buy even one back for my SS :(

Lapco quality rocks! If I ever have the funds, I'll buy a Grey Ghost too, whenever he gets them out.

[Miscue]

$50+ for a back or tip sucks too, but I love how beautiful it is. If someone had the money, they could have more bore sizes than a Freak w/ the SS. I need to save to buy even one back for my SS :(

Lapco quality rocks! If I ever have the funds, I'll buy a Grey Ghost too, whenever he gets them out.

Yeah... we pay a lot of freakin' money for stuff that doesn't really do much, eh?

It's kind of funny how high margin certain things are in paintball.

[SlartyBartFast]

Yeah... we pay a lot of freakin' money for stuff that doesn't really do much, eh?

It's kind of funny how high margin certain things are in paintball.


It's more amazing how gullible players are. :p

At least now I know where you PVC dig in my barrel thread comes from. But on that point I have to disagree. My early paintball days were played exclusively with Splatmasters. And when you get that many barrel breaks when you're shooting that low a fps, I think there's enough proof that PVC barrels ARE NOT as good as anything else. ;)

And Mike: I think it's time to adjust the medication. :rolleyes:

[billmi]

And, if the paintball coming out of the end of my barrel is spinning so slow that it doesn't make any difference, why does it curve? Especially (and most notably) after a ball break?


I think a better question would be, if the Hammerhead barrel is putting axial spin on the ball, why would the ball curve? Especially after a ball break, considering that curved flight paths are typically caused by lift generated by the ball spinning in some axis other than the path of flight (like tipping a Flatline to the side to cause a hook shot)?

In all the talk of rifling pros/cons of rifling, that's one thing I don't see mentioned much. If you can create spin on an axis parallel to the flight path consistently, then you won't have random spin causing hook shots.

[Muzikman]

Yes, I did ignore your post, muzikman. For the past year all X-valves that I have seen or heard of had the level 10 bolt. It's standard equipment, per AGD's web page. But that is a minor point that some people must whine about...

And, if the paintball coming out of the end of my barrel is spinning so slow that it doesn't make any difference, why does it curve? Especially (and most notably) after a ball break?

I have 20 paintballs on the desk behind me that have been shot out of my Hammerhead. All of them are scratched. Too bad I don't have a camera capable of taking the pictures of the scratches. I need a good macro camera. (For you sycophants that will cry about 20 being too few, all I need is 1 to disprove your little theories...)

The Level 10 is what prevents "most" chops, not the X-Valve. Simple as that.

A slow spinning paintball will not curve, a fast spinning will. So, now what you are saying is that since the hammerhead causes the ball to spin then it must cause it to curve, which in my mind would not make a good barrel.

Send me 5 of the 20 balls. I would like to see them, I would like to compare the marks. Also, is this feature actually one that the company states? I could not find it on their website as a feature.

I also liked this line.
"The HammerHead barrel is the most technologically advanced paintball <strike>barrel</strike> <i>tube</i> in the industry today."

[billmi]

Looks like our good neighbors down under even bought the hype: :eek:
http://www.velocitypaintball.com.au/cyborg.html

And added some too...



These features are among the reasons that professional players around the world rely upon Cyborgs...


What pro players would those be?

[SlartyBartFast]

(For you sycophants that will cry about 20 being too few, all I need is 1 to disprove your little theories...)

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

1 bad shot out of a hammerhead and all your little theories and beliefs are crap too. Deal? :rolleyes:

And why does a ball curve after a ball break? Get real, that one is OBVIOUS. Because there's a glob of liquid on the surface of the ball that is inducing insane amounts of drag and thus inducing a LARGE and randomly orientated spin.

[SlartyBartFast]

A slow spinning paintball will not curve, a fast spinning will. So, now what you are saying is that since the hammerhead causes the ball to spin then it must cause it to curve, which in my mind would not make a good barrel.

But a curve is caused by rapid spin on an axis that is vertical and perpendicular to the direction of flight.

Spin stabilisation from rifling is from spin on an axis parallel to the direction of flight.

Extra range or lift, as per the tippmann flatline, is on an axis that is horizontal and perpendicular to the diection of flight.

And scratches? the pathetic argumentation/trolling/my beleifs are better than your science has devolved down to a claim that even the manufacturer doesn't make? :rofl:

Ok Mike, do a drop test with your 20 scratched balls and 20 unfired balls from the same case. Tell us the bounce count.

And tell us how you fired and caught the balls to rule out damage to them by impact.

[Vex]

These features are among the reasons that professional players around the world rely upon Cyborgs...

What pro players would those be?
Well, MacDev is an Austrailian company, so I can understand them being proud of that; and the average rec player doesn't know the difference. On the other hand, the Cyborg is pretty fast and it looks nice.

[Vex]

I just watched the Hammerhead video with my 6 year old son (who loves paintball--no, he doesn't play yet). When the video was done, my son calmly said, "That wasn't a very good video." :rofl:
I have to agree...it left a lot to be desired. It just showed pictures of their website and and a few people shooting.
The reverse porting is cool though.

Anyway, if the rifled barrel really works, then why hasn't every other barrel manufacturer figured this out? Hmm...maybe it's because IT'S TOTAL B.S.!!


I vote that this thread be closed.

[hitech]

Who am I gonna believe? My lying eyes or lohman's "physics"....

Hmmmmm.. tough choice.

You've never experienced an optical illusion? The eyes are easy to fool. And it's not Lohman's physics, it's Tom's testing data and results.

[hitech]

I think a better question would be, if the Hammerhead barrel is putting axial spin on the ball, why would the ball curve? Especially after a ball break, considering that curved flight paths are typically caused by lift generated by the ball spinning in some axis other than the path of flight (like tipping a Flatline to the side to cause a hook shot)?

In all the talk of rifling pros/cons of rifling, that's one thing I don't see mentioned much. If you can create spin on an axis parallel to the flight path consistently, then you won't have random spin causing hook shots.

:wow: :hail:

[Hexis]

Yeah... we pay a lot of freakin' money for stuff that doesn't really do much, eh?

I sure did, but I love my longbow. I don't remember any crazy claims about their stuff other than "It's cool because it's titanium". And it's all true. ;)

[SlartyBartFast]

You've never experienced an optical illusion? The eyes are easy to fool. And it's not Lohman's physics, it's Tom's testing data and results.

The physics are neither TK's, not Lohman's.

They're God's universal laws as discovered by Galileo, Newton, Mayevski, and countless others. :cool:

Just noting... :cheers:


project.seas.gwu.edu/~fsagmae/papers/AIAA-99-3806.pdf
www.mae.cornell.edu/fdrl/publications/JGW2001.pdf
http://aerodyn.org/Unsteady/unsteady.html

[Lohman446]

The physics are neither TK's, not Lohman's.

They're God's universal laws as discovered by Galileo, Newton, Mayevski, and countless others. :cool:

Just noting... :cheers:

Hey.. you let that be, I was just now trying to patent them so I could charge all y'all a usary fee

[Target Practice]

I vote that this thread be closed.

To hell with that, man. This is great.

[Mike Smith]

I think a better question would be, if the Hammerhead barrel is putting axial spin on the ball, why would the ball curve?

Bill, I haven't seen any of the balls curve except after a barrel break. And obviously, a break scatters paint randomly in a barrel, causing a random curve. And proving the point that spin can cause a paintball to curve and a paintball barrel is capable of spinning a paintball.

[Lohman446]

Bill, I haven't seen any of the balls curve except after a barrel break. And obviously, a break scatters paint randomly in a barrel, causing a random curve. And proving the point that spin can cause a paintball to curve and a paintball barrel is capable of spinning a paintball.

Those are long long steps. It proves the point that unevenly distributed paint on the outside of the shell can cause a paintball to curve. It does NOT prove that the barrel did it or is capable of it. Nor does it prove the point that a paintball can be spun in such a way to stabilize flight.

[hitech]

Bill, I haven't seen any of the balls curve except after a barrel break.

If the barrel is producing axial spin on the paintball then the paint in the barrel shouldn't matter (as the paintball is spinning about it's axis). Or are "you" claiming that the paint in the barrel interferes with the rifling?

[Army]

Just to quickly get back to your spinning glass trick.

If the Hammerhead barrel could possibly give any spin at all to the ball, in the brief moment the ball is in the rifled area. According to YOURS and Hammerheads unshown, unproven, and no-fact based assumptions, the shell and liquid spin at the same velocity?

OK, now, spin the glass of water 1/4 turn at any speed you want (equates the ball time in the rifled portion of the barrel).....how fast is the water spinning?

I've no engineering degree, but I have been involved in ballistic research for much of my professional life......and your theories have never held up to reality and honest physics.

[Lohman446]

Just to quickly get back to your spinning glass trick.

If the Hammerhead barrel could possibly give any spin at all to the ball, in the brief moment the ball is in the rifled area. According to YOURS and Hammerheads unshown, unproven, and no-fact based assumptions, the shell and liquid spin at the same velocity?

OK, now, spin the glass of water 1/4 turn at any speed you want (equates the ball time in the rifled portion of the barrel).....how fast is the water spinning?

I've no engineering degree, but I have been involved in ballistic research for much of my professional life......and your theories have never held up to reality and honest physics.


Screw you Army... my base unrecorded and uncontrolled observations and unrecorded five years of research and development that I have been told about (but not actually involved in) is worth more than your base principles of physics, years of professional use, and documented scientific and controlled studies. :rolleyes:

[magman007]

BUAHAHAHA


they tried taking the claim for the reverse porting! hahaha the pipe came out with that first if i recall correctly, and i love the whole, it allows for more air to get behind the ball idea... soo funny

[frop]

BUAHAHAHA


they tried taking the claim for the reverse porting! hahaha the pipe came out with that first if i recall correctly, and i love the whole, it allows for more air to get behind the ball idea... soo funny

Don't Pipe kits have forward-angled porting?

[Vex]

To hell with that, man. This is great.
You're right, it does keep getting better. Keep it going, dudes! :headbang:

[magman007]

Don't Pipe kits have forward-angled porting?


i seem to think i remember reading they had rearward porting, for the effect of making it quieter...

[Arson51]

hammerhead never did respond to my emails what should i do?