Why are blowbacks "low end"?

[wjr]

I asked this same question over on MCB, and got some interesting answers.

I figure I'll post it here to get some more educated responses (not saying the guys on MCB are stupid).

So, why are blowback markers considered "Low end"? Is there something inherent in the blowback system that makes markers less accurate or inconsistent? Or is it just because they are cheap to make, and most are made using low quality parts?

[Pneumagger]

They are just older and generally very cheap. Technically, the ION is a newer gun with newer designs than the blowback... but it's simplicity and price renders it "low end" to most people.

With a reg and good spring kit they can be very consistent. But even then they are alot harder on paint than most other guns.

[hs2000]

Blowbacks, to me, will always be low end because of the massive amount of reciprocating mass, which as we all know means way to much kick.

[Pneumagger]

Blowbacks, to me, will always be low end because of the massive amount of reciprocating mass, which as we all know means way to much kick.

So autocockers will always be "low end" :rolleyes:

[Toll]

Generally speaking people view them as inferior because the design is used in "low quality" markers. People just "think" that other markers are superior because of what ever aesthetics/marketing. No one would buy a 900 dollar gun if a 150$ one could pull the same.

Put a good reg/spring kit/barrel/bolt/board...etc on to a 2k spyder and it will shoot fine. Put a spyder on 15bps auto and an ego on 15bps auto and there isn't a terrible bit of difference.Probably some more kick, but outside of that there'd still be largely the same operation.

Spyder
-Tboard with a 50g (or25g, which ever)
-Eyes/milling
-new trigger
-Decent regulator
-"high flow valve" (just drill the damn thing out)
-Real bolt, not this anti-chop stuff

That's maybe 200$. You can find a plethora of spyder bodies to choose from. I'm not entirely sure, but I believe you can even use an intimidator body

[Lenny]

I say it depends on the gun. Just like a Blade is a low end pump, but a Phantom is a high end pump; but both are Nelson based.

I think the older Spyders (with the tan bodies and what not) are almost high end. I have a blowback called the "Top General" that is fantastic. Almost zero kick, easy to maintain, small, light, etc. It has a back bottle and even the positioning of that is comfortable.

But nowadays, anything non EP is low end. Autocockers are considered low end by many, same with Automags.

[hs2000]

So autocockers will always be "low end" :rolleyes:

That's totally different, and you know it, autocockers moving parts move much slower, meaning less kick. The hammer is also MUCH smaller.

But an autococker still has too much reciprocating mass. When I use to play Semi, I liked my mag way better then my autococker just because it has so much less kick.

[punkncat]

So autocockers will always be "low end" :rolleyes:

I was hoping that you were answering more to the reciprocating mass than to say that an autococker is a blowback...





Blowbacks are considered low end because they are available at very low prices. But not only that, they are low tech as well. There is nothing revolutionary about them. Simple to make, simple to operate and repair.

Not all of them are or always have been made cheaply. Even low priced markers (mostly in years past) have passed the test of time. How many old fully functional rental spyders you think are out there still working well after much more than the life cycle that a normal single user would use?

I don't believe that a blowback is less accurate per-se than anything else that is regulated and set up properly. It can be argued into the ground all the things that make X marker better than Y, but it really comes down to good paint and good consistancy. Better markers tend to acheive this more straight out of the box because they come with good regs, barrels, etc, but a blowback can be made to be consistant with a bit of upgrading, and proper part selection.

[MANN]

I liked my mag way better then my autococker just because it has so much less kick.

Does kick really make that much of a difference? IMO the difference is negligable.

I just dont like spyders because I end up fixing 90 percent of the ones that come play with us after someone tries to "sup up" their gun doing whatever mod that they dont understand.

Mags are probally not the fastest, lightest, bestest guns, but they can take one heck of a beating, and never fail.

[punkncat]

autocockers moving parts move much slower, meaning less kick. The hammer is also MUCH smaller.




Um...no.

The hammer inside the cocker is moving just as quickly as it would in a blowback at the same ROF(at slightly different times of course). It weighs nearly the same, if not more in some instances. Consider that the cocking rod is actually a part of the hammers mass......that is leaving the cocking rod, block, ram, etc, out of the equation.

[hs2000]

Um...no. to you.

An autococker hammer is a feather weight compared to a spyder. And like I already said, the back block and ram aren't weighed the same because they move slower.

[punkncat]

Um...no. to you.

An autococker hammer is a feather weight compared to a spyder. And like I already said, the back block and ram aren't weighed the same because they move slower.

Apples and oranges.....light comes on in head....I see what you are saying and can relate to what I think you meant.

[RRfireblade]

Nothing especially low end about the design IMO.

Now the typically available , imported , cast or cheap grade Alu , loose toleranced blow back currently on the market , now that's another story.

[don miguel]

mags have some kick (mine does) i honestly knever knew what makes them high end? they deserve it though. but is it cuz thier closed bolt? blow forward? im really not sure.

[Lohman446]

Umm - are Intimidators not essentially blow backs? I honestly don't know.

[RRfireblade]

Umm - are Intimidators not essentially blow backs? I honestly don't know.

No , not remotely.


High End IMO =

High Quality Materials +
High Quality/Precision Manufacturing Methods +
Precise Quality Control +
Tight Allowable Tolerance =

High End Final Product.

[warbeak2099]

mags have some kick (mine does) i honestly knever knew what makes them high end? they deserve it though. but is it cuz thier closed bolt? blow forward? im really not sure.

Mags are open bolt. And they are high end because of what Jay just posted.

[paintballfiend]

I asked this same question over on MCB, and got some interesting answers.

I figure I'll post it here to get some more educated responses (not saying the guys on MCB are stupid).

So, why are blowback markers considered "Low end"? Is there something inherent in the blowback system that makes markers less accurate or inconsistent? Or is it just because they are cheap to make, and most are made using low quality parts?

Because pros don't use them. :rolleyes:

[chill will]

6 or 7 years ago you had some mags and cockers selling at anywhere from 600 to 1000 dollars. At that price does that still make them high end even though there were elctros on the market then(smart parts, angel, bob long, etc). High end guns are high end because people say they are.

Now the craz is 500 mid range guns. Why, because there only somany times you can repackage a marker and then call it high end.

[punkncat]

No , not remotely.


High End IMO =

High Quality Materials +
High Quality/Precision Manufacturing Methods +
Precise Quality Control +
Tight Allowable Tolerance =

High End Final Product.


So playing devil's advocate....

If you were to take a Kingman Compact 2000, make it of the finest materials, with all tolerances within tight spec then suddenly it becomes high end because it was made well?

I sorry, you can put a bow on a turd and it still smells like crap. Design has to count for something.

[RRfireblade]

So playing devil's advocate....

If you were to take a Kingman Compact 2000, make it of the finest materials, with all tolerances within tight spec then suddenly it becomes high end because it was made well?

I sorry, you can put a bow on a turd and it still smells like crap. Design has to count for something.


Actually you'd be right about the first part. There's nothing at all wrong with the design. Blow backs have been the fastestest cycling marker design since there inception and are capable of consistancy matching any other. If built to the same precision as say a Mag with the same quality of materials and using a quality regulator , they would IMO smoke it for overall performance.

[Swampy]

mags have some kick (mine does) i honestly knever knew what makes them high end? they deserve it though. but is it cuz thier closed bolt? blow forward? im really not sure.

I don't have any on mine. What I kind noticed is depending on your barrels material. I have a Dye SS twistlock and a Smart Parts AA twistlock. I got less "kick" out of the Dye then Smart Parts.

IMO what makes them low end is how they are made and also how costly they are to make. Take your standard Sypder body besides the cosmetic milling. Bore two holes in it, throw it into a CNC machine for a cutting into shape, clean the edges its pretty much done. Well also factor in mass production now. Design something simple your production goes up because of the time it take to produce something.

Personally I don't consider there is a "low end" marker. They are needed like a Ford Escort. People need to start somewhere. If you are considering "low end" by price. From the AGD museum. When the 68 Automag came out it gave players the option to build there own marker which screams custom work. Which I think they should do with the classic again but give a ULE body on it with out a barrel or asa.

[turbo chicken]

Actually you'd be right about the first part. There's nothing at all wrong with the design. Blow backs have been the fastestest cycling marker design since there inception and are capable of consistancy matching any other. If built to the same precision as say a Mag with the same quality of materials and using a quality regulator , they would IMO smoke it for overall performance.

hmmmm ... is this why I want my original spyder back???

Lowend = spyder original

Highend = my old original spyder with LPR mod, Reg, Stock Bolt ... was consistant within +-3 with CO2

Someone said it pretty good when they said highend usually right out of the box has the upgraded you'd put on a lowend gun to get the performance up to par.




low end to me is ... price only ... if it's more than i can afford than it is highend.

[FSU_Paintball]

Why?

Because most blowbacks on the market are made to be crap. That's really it.

Also, they tend to have a sear interface, which is rarely made to last.

Also, they tend to have kick.


Please note, I'm talking about the MAJORITY of blowbacks.

[RRfireblade]

IMO what makes them low end is how they are made and also how costly they are to make. Take your standard Sypder body besides the cosmetic milling. Bore two holes in it, throw it into a CNC machine for a cutting into shape, clean the edges its pretty much done. Well also factor in mass production now. Design something simple your production goes up because of the time it take to produce something.




Pretty much exactly.

For instance , Cockers have always been considered "High End" and the only difference between a cocker and spyder (in function) is a tiny little hole drilled in the valve body. ;)

In fact , the pneu 'system' on a Cocker , much the same issue with a Mags trigger , makes consistency highly dependant on the users ability to learn that trigger.

Consistency of the whole is the PRIMARY determining factor in accuracy over all other.

[RavishingEddie]

I was always under the impression that blowbacks were less consistent, because of the way the air flows through the Bolt and chamber. For instance I had a tippy 98 and a shutter and they shot like poopoo. Even with a good barrel the shots were very inconsistent. When compared to the design of the Nelson valve on my brothers Phantom and the Xvalve on my Emag, the designs just feels superior when I shoot them. I agree with Punkncat.

[Pneumagger]

I was always under the impression that blowbacks were less consistent, because of the way the air flows through the Bolt and chamber. For instance I had a tippy 98 and a shutter and they shot like poopoo. Even with a good barrel the shots were very inconsistent. When compared to the design of the Nelson valve on my brothers Phantom and the Xvalve on my Emag, the designs just feels superior when I shoot them. I agree with Punkncat.

I don't think a tippmann valve would qualify as a spyder type blowback.
As far as the airflow, the spyder poppet valve is almost the same as any other cocker or EP poppet marker. The mail thing that contributes to a spyder's kick is the fact that the hammer needs enough weight/momentum to open an 800 psi valve.

If you put a Low pressure chamber, AKA tornado valve, lighter more consistent springs, decent reg, and a nice delrin bolt on the spyder....

The lower pressure will help the springs be much lighter on the paint and an ACS bolt would stop chops.It will shoot like any other "high end" out there with very little kick. Personally, I want to try one of the new Spyder VS2 guns with their balanced valve and eyes. Runs on very low pressure, has eyes, firing modes, etc... I'd bet with a nice bolt and reg that thing rips.

In the end, you still have $250 electro... but it will be more reliable than most guns.

[minimag03]

I think the answer is very simple. If you would produce a blowback with quality parts, tight tolerences, etc..., it would cost a good bit of money. Let's say you could produce one of these quality blockbacks for $200. That blowback has to compete with with the Ion and a few other markers whose design simply delivers better performence. There for, lowend blowbacks are all that are produced cause I don't believe there is a market for expensive ones.

[jenarelJAM]

Because pros don't use them. :rolleyes:
QFT, minus the " :rolleyes: "

I think alot of what defines "high end" is how much it costs and how many people shoot them/how much they're hyped.

I mean, if they started selling the Mini at $700 instead of $450, it might not be as appealing a purchase to me, but I would suddenly consider it "High end" instead of "Middle range." Logical? no. Human nature? yes.

I believe that people assume that most products will be priced comparably, so they find the most expensive "range" they can afford, and then look between the 3-5 markers in that range for which they'd like best.

I think alot of it is also that those who have "high-end" markers like to feel superior, and if someone buys a marker for half the price, they deny that it's high-end, even if it would outperform their 09Ego, etc.(not bashing egos, for the record...)

[punkncat]

Actually you'd be right about the first part. There's nothing at all wrong with the design. Blow backs have been the fastestest cycling marker design since there inception and are capable of consistancy matching any other. If built to the same precision as say a Mag with the same quality of materials and using a quality regulator , they would IMO smoke it for overall performance.

Its not that I neccesarily disagree with what you are saying, as I said I was playing Devil's Advocate. In spite of being a well designed marker for accomplishing its task, I don't think even a well made "clone" could be considered a high end marker. I can't off the top of my head even think of a company making a high end blowback. Does Palmer make one? What is a Blazer?....anyway...
I spent a great deal of money putting "high end" parts into a Milly years ago, but it still never made the marker high end, just made it perform nearer to it.

[Pneumagger]

Its not that I neccesarily disagree with what you are saying, as I said I was playing Devil's Advocate. In spite of being a well designed marker for accomplishing its task, I don't think even a well made "clone" could be considered a high end marker. I can't off the top of my head even think of a company making a high end blowback. Does Palmer make one? What is a Blazer?....anyway...
I spent a great deal of money putting "high end" parts into a Milly years ago, but it still never made the marker high end, just made it perform nearer to it.

blazer = a beautiful handmade autococker.

"High end" is perception. Consumers often use price, not preformance, to gauge high end. Most would agree that Porches are indeed "High End". What about the 944? It's a very cheap Porche - still fast, and still a "Porshe"... but most people will not consider the Porche 944 a "high end automobile"

What about a Subaru WRX STi vs. a Lamhorghini Countach? Most would agree that one is "high end" and the other is not. However the Subaru is faster, more reliable, tougher, cheaper, etc.

The point is that perception is what determines classification. Had most any gun been introduced with a couple 100 more on the pricetag, then they would be "high end". Heck, look even the proto matrices are $1000 anymore.

[mclaggan123]

it all comes down to marketing. if a sponsor makes a gun and has there pro team use it then all of a sudden everyone and there brother wants the new "high end pro gun". i have guys on my team that have a $200 ion thats rips just as fast and just as accurate as my dark g7 fly. its just like any other product, if you market it the right way and to the right people it can be sold for lots of money and be considered high end goods. yes some markers are made better than others and yes some last longer than others but as long as there's a demand for $1000 markers then there will be a supply. i own mags,angels,cockers and a shocker and i like them all, but the angels,cocker, and the mags i didnt have to change anything to make them efficiant and reliable. i wish i could say the same for the shocker. you can take a talon and find someone who will think its high end and an angel and find someone who thinks its low end. in other words its all in how you look at it.

[wjr]

Its not that I neccesarily disagree with what you are saying, as I said I was playing Devil's Advocate. In spite of being a well designed marker for accomplishing its task, I don't think even a well made "clone" could be considered a high end marker. I can't off the top of my head even think of a company making a high end blowback. Does Palmer make one? What is a Blazer?....anyway...
I spent a great deal of money putting "high end" parts into a Milly years ago, but it still never made the marker high end, just made it perform nearer to it.

There may not be any company's nowadays making "high-end" blowbacks, but there have been some made in the past. Some would consider the air power vector high end.

[minimag03]

There may not be any company's nowadays making "high-end" blowbacks, but there have been some made in the past. Some would consider the air power vector high end.

Or more recently the Sentinals.

[zenderfall]

I asked this same question over on MCB, and got some interesting answers.

I figure I'll post it here to get some more educated responses (not saying the guys on MCB are stupid).

So, why are blowback markers considered "Low end"? Is there something inherent in the blowback system that makes markers less accurate or inconsistent? Or is it just because they are cheap to make, and most are made using low quality parts?

Actually the answer to this lies in physics.

Blowback markers use a hammer to open a valve which diverts air TWO ways:one way to propel the paintball and the other way to slam the hammer back into position, essentially "recocking" it.

The inconsistencies come into play when you ask, how MUCH air is used to propel the ball, and how much is used to direct the hammer-the answer? It varies with every shot. The spring is not perfect, temperature, humidity, barometric pressure, all changes and therefore even if you have regulators, N2 tanks, double, or even triple regulators on a blowback gun each pull of the trigger will divert a different amount of air onto the paintball and the hammer. each slight difference in output air will translate into a ball veering slightly left, right, up, or down, and, compounded with barrel and ball physics, makes the inconsistency worse. No matter how much you try to control the barrel, paintballs, venturi bolts, and even regulators, that simple valve that directs air two ways will be the bane of the blowback gun.

Tom Kaye solved the problem using a "blow forward" design and Bud Orr I believe solved it using a pumpgun with "automatic cocking" mechanism. I've played paintball since the late 80's and have owned over 15 different guns, including relics like the 68-Special and PMI-3, I've always been on a hunt to figure out "why" things are the way they are and blowback guns will always be this way-they were then and are now-inconsistent.

Yet its very simple design can be produced in mass numbers-blowback designs don't need regulators, have a mechanism that was designed in the late 80's and they work well with even liquid CO2-an old gun of mine even has a "syphon tank" (not anti-siphon) and loves liquid CO2. Durable? Yes. Cheap? Yes. Consistent? No.

Put an electronic trigger on the blowback and you get a fast shooting, inconsistent marker with the price tag of an accurate blow-forward marker. While I don't say much about speed, I can say the gun does not shoot any more consistent.

Expensive, accurate guns are expensive because they need regulators and use a more complex design to make each shot consistent. If you ever wondered what accounts for the high cost of the automag, it's mostly the regulator-an industry air regulator modified for paintball guns. The rest is just fabricated aluminum and bolts-essentially what a blowback gun can cost.

[Pneumagger]

Actually the answer to this lies in physics.
No bill nye.

I don't see how the lack of regulator makes it low end. They can be very consistent if you set them up to be and they are a quality blowback. So If I put a reg on a spyder and it's consistent it's now high end? Or better yet, the Spydre VS2 is High end?

[zenderfall]

They can be very consistent if you set them up to be and they are a quality blowback.?

I don't think so. Actually, I know that doesn't work. adding a regulator to a blowback does nothing for the air split. This problem led to gun developments in the 90's like the 68 Automag and Autococker. Ask Tom-I'll bet he can tell you better than I can.


So If I put a reg on a spyder and it's consistent it's now high end?

No, you now have a blowback marker with a reg on it. You still have not solved the inconsistency problem INHERENT in a blowback action marker.

[hs2000]

I disagree, I think blowbacks are low end, but not because their inconsistent.
I started with a few very consistent blowbacks.

This "split air" is bull, does the air get confused? is it like a squirrel trying to cross the road?

[zenderfall]

I disagree, I think blowbacks are low end, but not because their inconsistent.
I started with a few very consistent blowbacks.

This "split air" is bull, does the air get confused? is it like a squirrel trying to cross the road?

Take apart a blowback (if you have one) and observe the path the air travels from the tank to where it hits the paintball. You'll notice some of it is diverted to the hammer to allow the hammer to recock.

Then take apart a blowforward gun (again, if you have one) or an Autococker and look at how it works.

Want to try a real-deal test? Mount all these types of guns in a controlled environment. Hard mount them to a concrete block, then use calipers and gauge 1000 paintballs each. Connect nitrogen tanks on each gun. Match each gun with the proper barrels to the paint, and fire 1000 rounds from each gun at a spot 25, 50, and 100 feet. That will show you inconsistency.

I'm pretty sure you did not do this to find out if your gun was "pretty consistent" My guess is you played some ball out back with your gun maybe a few times out of the week, or month, or year, and said, "Yeah I think it's pretty acc'rate"

If you think your blowback is consistent I'm not going to argue with you-what you said is subjective. Perhaps the air is not the squirrel-I think you are. Find the road yet?

[emumikey]

Actually the answer to this lies in physics.

Blowback markers use a hammer to open a valve which diverts air TWO ways:one way to propel the paintball and the other way to slam the hammer back into position, essentially "recocking" it.

The inconsistencies come into play when you ask, how MUCH air is used to propel the ball, and how much is used to direct the hammer-the answer? It varies with every shot. The spring is not perfect, temperature, humidity, barometric pressure, all changes and therefore even if you have regulators, N2 tanks, double, or even triple regulators on a blowback gun each pull of the trigger will divert a different amount of air onto the paintball and the hammer. each slight difference in output air will translate into a ball veering slightly left, right, up, or down, and, compounded with barrel and ball physics, makes the inconsistency worse. No matter how much you try to control the barrel, paintballs, venturi bolts, and even regulators, that simple valve that directs air two ways will be the bane of the blowback gun.

Tom Kaye solved the problem using a "blow forward" design and Bud Orr I believe solved it using a pumpgun with "automatic cocking" mechanism. I've played paintball since the late 80's and have owned over 15 different guns, including relics like the 68-Special and PMI-3, I've always been on a hunt to figure out "why" things are the way they are and blowback guns will always be this way-they were then and are now-inconsistent.

There is a flaw in your argument here, I believe. If what you claim about air flow is true, than the automag and autococker would have the same problem with consistency.

The amount of air reaching the paintball in an automag would be affected by the bolt spring.

The amount of air reaching the paintball in an autococker would be affected by the valve spring.

Springs are a funny thing. They can be engineered to perform the same with every cycle, regardless of how the variation of airflow may affect them (and all of the other factors you listed, i.e. temperature.

However, I doubt that much engineering goes into any of the springs used in paintball markers. From a cost perspective, its just not feasible.

My $.02

[zenderfall]

The amount of air reaching the paintball in an automag would be affected by the bolt spring.



Not true. The amount of air reaching the paintball in an automag is not affected by the bolt spring because the bolt spring is used to send the bold "backward" to recock the bolt, not forward. The amount of air is consistent because 100% the air coming from the regulator is used to send the paintball forward.

[zenderfall]

The amount of air reaching the paintball in an autococker would be affected by the valve spring.



While this may be true, one thing is certain-there is a consistent, fixed amount of air used to propel the paintball in an autococker. Variances in each shot from the valve spring are nowhere as inconsistent as a blowback system.

[Lenny]

...Tom Kaye solved the problem using a "blow forward" design and Bud Orr I believe solved it using a pumpgun with "automatic cocking" mechanism...
I think you mean Glen Palmer. Bud Orr just kind of copied Palmer's design.

I'm not going to argue any facts or points (simply because I don't have enough to argue with; I'm going off of pure speculation), but my old Spyder Compact Model B was one of the best guns I have ever owned. Seriously. There was a very small amount of kick (comparable to a Lvl. 7 'Mag) and worked wonders off of CO2, and even better when I upgraded to N2 (right after I got my first 'Mag). The consistancy wasn't bad. Somewhere around +/-10fps on un-reg'd CO2, and around +/-4 on reg'd N2. I don't think that's bad. In fact, I still have the gun and an old Spyder Sprint frame. I still use it from time to time, and I still enjoy it.

In my opinion, Tippmanns are also great blowback designs. Though I don't like the length of many of them, I will never insult them.

Anyone remember the Mega Z? I loved those guns. Quite possibly the best shooting blowback to have ever existed (in my opnion).

...Like I said, this is all just my own speculation.

[RRfireblade]

While this may be true, one thing is certain-there is a consistent, fixed amount of air used to propel the paintball in an autococker. Variances in each shot from the valve spring are nowhere as inconsistent as a blowback system.


Eh , nonsence. Your whole percpetion in fact , with all due respect. :)

You can't compare and/or make assumptions on whats happening inside a sloppy built (done so on purpose in most cases for reliablilty and manufacturing ease) low quality , cheap graded parts , inexpensive import VS a US made 'high end' marker.

You have no way of guessing whats causeing anything and no basis to make the claims you have.

Where not talking about a $69 spyder Vs a Mag , we're talking about design Vs designs.

Anyone whose ever had the chance to hand fit and assemble a quality blow back will tell you that they can and will go head to head or exceed most any other design on the market today bases on raw performance.

Recoil can be as low as any other
ROF can easily exceed any other
Operating pressure in the 2-300 if so desired
Size and weight , same story
And efficiency right there and beyond what's acceptable of the average 'high ends' available today.

Beyond that and purely bias perception , what's left ?

[buzzboy]

On Kick
From what I have seen Autocockers have about the least kick of any gun I have shot(EP's, blowbacks and mags included). If you have a well timed autococker the back block moving back will counter act the force of the ball moving forward nullifying almost all kick produced by the gun shooting.

My automag had a little bit of kick. More than the cocker but it was very low. Mainly I think this though because I had a 10 lbs+ mag setup so nothing was felt.

Most EP's like DM's, Ego's and my Viking seem to have about the same kick with my vike at the higher end and the DM's at the low end of kick back. Probably due to the operating pressure of the described guns.

The shocker I shot had the most kick of any high end I ever shot. I admit that it was a stock shocker but that is no excuse. With the way I shoot (left hand on ASA and right shooting) there was very noticible kick back. I noticed that on strings of around 30 balls only the first 15 hit the target and the second half were above the persons head.

A standard blowback on kick wasn't bad at all. And I must say that there is a big difference between stacked tube and inline blow backs. The Single tube has way less kick. My tippmann P/C and all other tippy's and the stingray's I have shot seemed to have way less kick than stacked tube blowbacks. I think this is because on a stack tube the main reciprocating mass is higher up and therefore creates a kind of lever(visualize this) that puts more strain on ones hand. On the inline blowback the movement is all down close to where the gun is held so less if felt.

---------------------------------------------------

On ROF
From what I have seen and shot some guns seem to do better than others in the ROF department. As we all know Mags have a bolt system that allows them to fire up into the mid thirty's without shootdown. That is great but unnessasary. Though it is nice to know that the gun has way more potential that you will ever use.

I really don't know the rate at which autocockers will start having problems. Though from what I have seen they will only really fire balls without shootdown into the upper 20's. Again this is a very reassuring fact.

Your standard spool valve gun such as a newer DM/PM has a bolt system that can sustain fire up into realms that aren't even possbile because of the solinoid that must be used to drive them. At the moment I am pretty sure that agian these guns make it up into the upper 20's.

I have never actually seen a stack tube EP max out but I know that the valve design will start shooting down, like all others, in the upper 20's into the low 30's (33 on a vike tested with paint).

In ROF is where Blowbacks really start to have problems. I have seen both tippy's and spyders that can shoot up to 15. That is the problem. Between about 15 and 20 blowbacks uncock. Some lower end ones uncocke even lower. This is a real hastle. When an EP or high end Mech hits its limit it will continue shooting but not go faster or it will start getting shootdown. The fact that a blowback will actually uncock makes them very annoying. I tryed shooting a rocking trigger spyder and I couldn't get the stupid thing to go past a certain speed without uncocking. That got really annoying.

----------------------------------------------------------

Well built-ness
In this category I have seen that automags do just fine. I have only actually handled one mag in my life but it was great and had no places where I felt that AGD had gyped me.

From what I have seen of WGP products cockers are built to very close guidlines. Everyone I have seen has been flawless.

As of yet the only EP I have seen that seemed a little cheap was the Ion and BKO. Both perform great but seem to me to be a little less quality than the higher models from their manufacturers. The higher end models though have superb build quality.

Again the blowbacks seem to be a little lowly. The build quality so far that I have seen is a little less than that of the others I mentioned. Really I just see stuff like spyders having problems recocking, improperly shaped parts(none of which stopped gun from working) and just feeling cheap in my hands.


Wow, I wrote a lot. I hope what I said helps the argument. I didn't realize how much I had typed.

\if only I could write school stuff like that. ;)

[cyrus-the-virus]

I never bothered to read the thread cus I'm pressed for time :P

Blow backs are "low end" because most manufactures make them out of ****ty materials.

Also do to the nature of the way the gun work's I've never had real good consistancy with blow back's.

As PBN would put it "BECUASE THEY JUST ARE BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THE MEDIA TELL'S US!!!"

[VFX_Fenix]

While this may be true, one thing is certain-there is a consistent, fixed amount of air used to propel the paintball in an autococker. Variances in each shot from the valve spring are nowhere as inconsistent as a blowback system.

What you say?

AC's still use a bolt spring to drive their hammer forward to open an exhaust valve to propel a paintball. This is by no means a "fixed" volume based on your previous claims, and certainly isn't a fixed volume considering that the valve is open to the rest of the air system and is only controlled by the time required for the valve to be slammed shut again by air pressure.

The ammount of air used in a firing cycle of an Automag also is in part dependent on the spring. The only thing driving the bolt forward in an AM is the pressure in the dump chamber behind it. It stands to reason that a stiff enough spring would render the action useless, similarly a standard spring with the valve turned down most of the way would also render this result. So it must follow then that variances in spring response also must alter the ammount of air that is allowed to leave the dump chamber before the bolt seals the system and the chamber is pressurized again. Conversly if there weren't a spring the bolt would remain forward and (assuming the On/Off were still enguaged by the trigger) would remain that way until the trigger was released causing the gun to vent.

Springs are used in both guns and I don't know too many people that would argue that both a Cocker and a Mag are pretty consistant guns.

The fault of the "low-end" blow back then doesn't reasonably lie on the fact that it uses springs.

The only things I can personally point to for an argument for why blow backs are low-end are:
1) Build quality - lots of hits and misses, right?
2) Public opinion - let's face it, BB semi guns haven't been exactly been at the top of the pile since the Automag and Cocker came around.

Build quality is somethign that can be overcome. However Public Opinion is something else entirely.

[skife]

Or more recently the Sentinals.

agreed, sentinal is the best feeling blowback i've ever shot.

[zenderfall]

I think you mean Glen Palmer. Bud Orr just kind of copied Palmer's design.


No, I meant Bud Orr. Taken from "The Complete Guide to Paintball"

Bud: The game loved is hard to find. Whenever you can sit back and just hose paint at somebody, it takes away from the sport.

So at that point, I didn't want to be the semi guy. But Tom (Kay) had brought out the automatic and, from a business perspective, I was forced into it.

I had a bunch of ideas. I ran across a gentleman named Jamell out of Sacramento. We put our ideas together and came up with the Autococker.

Jamell got out of paintball and I continued on with the Autococker. We're talking 1990, because I sponsored the Ironmen team that year. It was one of the teams I ever sponsored, and they used the Autococker.

So yeah, there it is, in an interview with Adam Cohen, on page 104.

http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Guide-Paintball-Third/dp/1578261732/sr=8-1/qid=1166073042/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/105-8446460-2707626?ie=UTF8&s=books

Glen Palmer's name is nowhere on there. The interview does go on to talk about how the Autococker works, where he came up with the ideas, and a particular shop I used to visit (Unique Sporting Goods)

but unless you can find in print something that says differently.....

[zenderfall]

The fault of the "low-end" blow back then doesn't reasonably lie on the fact that it uses springs.


No it doesn't. I never said it did-I said it was inconsistent because the air is split - some propelling the paintball and the other part recocking the hammer.

[zenderfall]

You have no way of guessing whats causeing anything and no basis to make the claims you have.


"causeing?"

Actually I do. And I'm not guessing either.

[RRfireblade]

"causeing?"

Actually I do. And I'm not guessing either.


Cool.

I'd love to see the scratch built blow back you constructed to exacting tolerances and did all this lab testing on ? ;)

I'll try and get some pics of the couple I did a few years ago if I can get over the the shop this weekend.

[hs2000]

zenderfall your theory is lame!

Airflow is predictable, there is absolutely nothing that would cause more air to randomly come out of one port of a blowback valve then the other. It's not like, "well maybe I'll try something different".

Plus we've already proven you wrong by giving you examples of consistent blowbacks.

[warbeak2099]

No, I meant Bud Orr. Taken from "The Complete Guide to Paintball"

Bud: The game loved is hard to find. Whenever you can sit back and just hose paint at somebody, it takes away from the sport.

So at that point, I didn't want to be the semi guy. But Tom (Kay) had brought out the automatic and, from a business perspective, I was forced into it.

I had a bunch of ideas. I ran across a gentleman named Jamell out of Sacramento. We put our ideas together and came up with the Autococker.

Jamell got out of paintball and I continued on with the Autococker. We're talking 1990, because I sponsored the Ironmen team that year. It was one of the teams I ever sponsored, and they used the Autococker.

So yeah, there it is, in an interview with Adam Cohen, on page 104.

http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Guide-Paintball-Third/dp/1578261732/sr=8-1/qid=1166073042/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/105-8446460-2707626?ie=UTF8&s=books

Glen Palmer's name is nowhere on there. The interview does go on to talk about how the Autococker works, where he came up with the ideas, and a particular shop I used to visit (Unique Sporting Goods)

but unless you can find in print something that says differently.....

That passage was taken from an interview with Orr. Everyone knows however that Orr did not invent the idea for the autococker on his own. Glenn Palmer originated the idea and Budd copied it. Of course even after all these years though, Budd has never admitted it. It's very obvious though. Glenn never made a stink about it because unlike the Gardner Bros, Glenn Palmer cares more about the sport than competition to PPS. So do not go by some subjective interview with Budd himself. Of course it will say nothing of the fact that Budd stole a prototype of the Palmers Hurricane and copied the design from that. Of course I'm talking about Camille.

[Pneumagger]

No it doesn't. I never said it did-I said it was inconsistent because the air is split - some propelling the paintball and the other part recocking the hammer.
So your saying pressure gradients don't distibute evenly or predictably?


/Can I get a copy of the thermodynamics book you study?
// I'll bet 5 intarnet tubes it's by Dr. Suess

[spike_ball999]

The inconsistencies come into play when you ask, how MUCH air is used to propel the ball, and how much is used to direct the hammer-the answer? It varies with every shot. The spring is not perfect, temperature, humidity, barometric pressure, all changes and therefore even if you have regulators, N2 tanks, double, or even triple regulators on a blowback gun each pull of the trigger will divert a different amount of air onto the paintball and the hammer. each slight difference in output air will translate into a ball veering slightly left, right, up, or down, and, compounded with barrel and ball physics, makes the inconsistency worse. No matter how much you try to control the barrel, paintballs, venturi bolts, and even regulators, that simple valve that directs air two ways will be the bane of the blowback gun.

The thing is, temperature, humidity, and barometric pressure will not drastically change in a short period of time (one game). All those variables are accounted for when the player originally tunes their gun at the chrono.

Also, the valve design of a blowback should only cause very little variation in amount of air to the hammer and bolt.
So let me see, could I change the valve design of a blow back marker to not allow any flow to the hammer and only the bolt while using a LPR routed to the front of the hammer to start the blow back action? In theory, this should make the blowback more consistant and 'high end' by allowing a more controlable amount of air to the bolt and hammer.

[Lohman446]

The inconsistencies come into play when you ask, how MUCH air is used to propel the ball, and how much is used to direct the hammer-the answer? It varies with every shot. The spring is not perfect, temperature, humidity, barometric pressure, all changes and therefore even if you have regulators, N2 tanks, double, or even triple regulators on a blowback gun each pull of the trigger will divert a different amount of air onto the paintball and the hammer. each slight difference in output air will translate into a ball veering slightly left, right, up, or down, and, compounded with barrel and ball physics, makes the inconsistency worse. No matter how much you try to control the barrel, paintballs, venturi bolts, and even regulators, that simple valve that directs air two ways will be the bane of the blowback gun.

Wow, that almost sounded good, and then fell apart on consideration. IF these changes are enough to cause any noticeable change (which I doubt you are going to find unless you are using CO2) they are going to cause a change on all markers. That being said, there is no way there is that major of a change. I mean, doesn't the "three way" on an autococker divert air to different places? Wouldn't these changes change how the air hit a ball in like an automag, high or low on the bolt? As others have stated, those changes are going to be so miniscule (with the exception of temperature and CO2) that they are, in a normal day, going to cause nearly no difference in how the ball is fired.

As to your "real world" test. It doesn't prove your theory at all. It may prove one marker is more accurate than another, but it surely does not even consider the why. That is one of the most flawed "scientific tests" to illustrate an idea I have come across in a long long time. It wouldn't even disprove the idea that magic gnomes are loading the autococker to make it more accurate (not saying it is).

Sorry, I think RRfireblade is far more accurate and knowledgeable on this one.

[Pneumagger]

Zenderfall, don't worry man. Being the lose isn't so bad, you can always hang out with DM.

[Triangle]

Zenderfall, don't worry man. Being the lose isn't so bad, you can always hang out with DM.

BRB, Gotta call the Fire Dept.

[y0da900]

That passage was taken from an interview with Orr. Everyone knows however that Orr did not invent the idea for the autococker on his own. Glenn Palmer originated the idea and Budd copied it. Of course even after all these years though, Budd has never admitted it. It's very obvious though.

Actually, Glenn didn't come up with the idea, he was just the first to make it work properly.



No it doesn't. I never said it did-I said it was inconsistent because the air is split - some propelling the paintball and the other part recocking the hammer.

I agree with Pneumagger, thermo and fluids would have been a lot easier if I could have used your textbook.


The inconsistencies come into play when you ask, how MUCH air is used to propel the ball, and how much is used to direct the hammer-the answer? It varies with every shot.

Sure, because air just flows how much when and where it wants to, pressure gradients, flow restrictions, all of that is just irrelevant, right? Dang, and I've actually been thinking it does. Overthinking things as always I suppose.

[Pneumagger]

hmmm, if I can convice the air to do what I want it to do, instead of what it wants to do, maybe I can fly. :eek:

/closes eyes
//concentrates real hard
///accidently farts

[PumpPlayer]

Nobody has mentioned this yet, but how about the old ICD blowbacks?

I had a few of them and IMHO they all performed wonderfully. Simple design with fewer moving parts than other blowbacks and great consistency and reliability. I still have my Bobcat and even after 7 years it still works wonderfully. The same can be said for my 'mag, though I've since put a pump kit on that.

The partial steel bolt made for some "heavy" recoil but it's not like it's totally out of control.
Besides, as any shooter can tell you, it's not the recoil that's a problem, it's the uncontrolled recoil that is.

The ICD blowbacks are great guns and I'd consider them "mid-range."
Though, the whole lo/mid/high-end thing is purely subjective anymore. Price has no bearing on quality and what everyone desires in a paintgun is different.



I won't completely write off blowbacks any more than any other design. Some blowback brands/models are pretty poor, however.

[turbo chicken]

Though, the whole lo/mid/high-end thing is purely subjective anymore. Price has no bearing on quality and.....



That says it all ... what make a gun low/mid/high range ... depends who you ask


I think (see the "i think" makes it an opnion) when most people refer to high/low/mid range the are speaking of price.

[Pneumagger]

hmmm, if I can convice the air to do what I want it to do, instead of what it wants to do, maybe I can fly. :eek:

/closes eyes
//concentrates real hard
///accidently farts

http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l72/Haro10bmx00/d34c8507.gif

/yeah, I quoted myself
//get over it

[sniper1rfa]

AKA tried to make a high end blowback, which was going to be the viking/excalibur line. According to Aaron, using high tolerances actually made for abominable reliability.


I like blowbacks - they have one HUGE advantage. At most they have about 4 o-rings...

My favorite blowback was the BE raptor. The things, by the end, were rugged as hell, and shot fairly well.

[nippinout]

AKA tried to make a high end blowback, which was going to be the viking/excalibur line. According to Aaron, using high tolerances actually made for abominable reliability.


I like blowbacks - they have one HUGE advantage. At most they have about 4 o-rings...

My favorite blowback was the BE raptor. The things, by the end, were rugged as hell, and shot fairly well.

There's a fifth one in the volume chamber plug.

/nitpicking. :ninja:

[y0da900]

AKA tried to make a high end blowback, which was going to be the viking/excalibur line. According to Aaron, using high tolerances actually made for abominable reliability.



I think by high tolerances, he meant tight tolerances as far as fitting goes, not accuracy tolerances.

[Pneumagger]

it also had a tornado valve for LP and better efficiency

[warbeak2099]

http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l72/Haro10bmx00/d34c8507.gif

/yeah, I quoted myself
//get over it

Pneumagger wins. I award him 4... no 5 internets.

[tae]

According to Aaron, using high tolerances actually made for abominable reliability.

Does anyone know a bit more about this?

Thanks

[Lohman446]

Does anyone know a bit more about this?

Thanks

There is some truth to that - at least "production reliability" If I am allowed more play in tolerance and still be able to function, it is far easier to manufactur, and manufacture add-ons for.

[tae]

Doh, I should've been more specific. I was curious if tight tollerances affected blowback performance negatively.

[emumikey]

There is a slight misconception about "tight tolerances" in the above posts.

I think when you are referring to a tight tolerance being a bad thing, you are referring to a tight fit. Too tight of a fit will always be a bad thing. Friction can be the enemy of most any engineer. That and thermal expansion!

However, tight tolerance is always a good thing. Engineers actually strive for zero tolerance. Meaning, we aim for zero tolerance within our design. With zero tolerance, there would be no variation from the design existing in production. If you design for 1 mm of free play, and have zero tolerance production, every product you produce will have 1 mm of free play. Assuming 1 mm of free play is the ideal design, then you are manufacturing the perfect product for its application. Make sense?

This is also referred to as "The Toyota Way." There are several books writtin about this. And it all boils down to quality control.

That, or I completely misinterpreted the above posts, and I apologize.

[Lohman446]

There is a slight misconception about "tight tolerances" in the above posts.

I think when you are referring to a tight tolerance being a bad thing, you are referring to a tight fit. Too tight of a fit will always be a bad thing. Friction can be the enemy of most any engineer. That and thermal expansion!

However, tight tolerance is always a good thing. Engineers actually strive for zero tolerance. Meaning, we aim for zero tolerance within our design. With zero tolerance, there would be no variation from the design existing in production. If you design for 1 mm of free play, and have zero tolerance production, every product you produce will have 1 mm of free play. Assuming 1 mm of free play is the ideal design, then you are manufacturing the perfect product for its application. Make sense?

This is also referred to as "The Toyota Way." There are several books writtin about this. And it all boils down to quality control.

That, or I completely misinterpreted the above posts, and I apologize.


But, if the key is to fire an unreliable projectile striving for 0 tolerance only increases production costs with little increase in function. Sure, you could build something to 0 tolerance, but if +/- .010 will function to the end user similarly building to 0 only increases costs associated both in the manufacture of parts and in quality control. 0 tolerance is not always desireable, and can be rather undesireable in reality, especially when trying to compete in a market.

[emumikey]

But, if the key is to fire an unreliable projectile striving for 0 tolerance only increases production costs with little increase in function. Sure, you could build something to 0 tolerance, but if +/- .010 will function to the end user similarly building to 0 only increases costs associated both in the manufacture of parts and in quality control. 0 tolerance is not always desireable, and can be rather undesireable in reality, especially when trying to compete in a market.

I agree completely. While we always strive for zero tolerance, we do accept a standard deviation from design, this is usually within a set specification. This is referred to as the rejection region when performing tests.

Conclusion, while the manufacturer accepts a deviation of +/- .010, they are actually designing and aiming for +/- 0.000. They are willing to sacrifice to amount tooling/material required because the product falls within an acceptable deviation of the spec.

http://www.uwsp.edu/psych/stat/z.htm

The above link is an example of a z-table. The shaded region shows the acceptable outcomes. This is a range of deviation that is determined to be acceptable. If a manufactured product falls outside of the shaded region, it is rejected.

I am now speaking inferrential statistics, ugh. Paintball is supposed to be fun, not technical! Still an enjoyable discussion though.

[paintballfiend]

I agree completely. While we always strive for zero tolerance, we do accept a standard deviation from design, this is usually within a set specification. This is referred to as the rejection region when performing tests.

Conclusion, while the manufacturer accepts a deviation of +/- .010, they are actually designing and aiming for +/- 0.000. They are willing to sacrifice to amount tooling/material required because the product falls within an acceptable deviation of the spec.

http://www.uwsp.edu/psych/stat/z.htm

The above link is an example of a z-table. The shaded region shows the acceptable outcomes. This is a range of deviation that is determined to be acceptable. If a manufactured product falls outside of the shaded region, it is rejected.

I am now speaking inferrential statistics, ugh. Paintball is supposed to be fun, not technical! Still an enjoyable discussion though.

Them internets is hurting my head.

I have a question, how many engineers or guys studying to be engineers are on here? I know it's off topic but I'm undecided right now.

[Lohman446]

I agree completely. While we always strive for zero tolerance, we do accept a standard deviation from design, this is usually within a set specification. This is referred to as the rejection region when performing tests.

Conclusion, while the manufacturer accepts a deviation of +/- .010, they are actually designing and aiming for +/- 0.000. They are willing to sacrifice to amount tooling/material required because the product falls within an acceptable deviation of the spec.

http://www.uwsp.edu/psych/stat/z.htm

The above link is an example of a z-table. The shaded region shows the acceptable outcomes. This is a range of deviation that is determined to be acceptable. If a manufactured product falls outside of the shaded region, it is rejected.

I am now speaking inferrential statistics, ugh. Paintball is supposed to be fun, not technical! Still an enjoyable discussion though.

The unfortunate thing is, that sometimes when it comes to it its better to have something that will work with an allowed deviation - that being said the Spyder design that allows deviation, and works, has some distinct advantages (cost wise, production, etc) over a design that allows minimal (Yeh, Im looking at the Mag). I would hate to think of the amount of scrap AGD had to refuse because of there design and quest for that perfection.

I don't think we are really disagreeing on anything. I just like to sometimes point out that although from a design aspect allowing 0 tolerance sounds like a great thing, tight tolerances are not always an advantage in the manufacturing world - or in the end the retail world.

[tae]

I think I may have confused things a bit. :p How I read things, was designing a better blowback was giving inconsistencies in performance. With the higher tolerances being more precise machining/engineering,(as I would expect from AKA :D )what exactly is this "abnormal reliability" experienced?

[shartley]

I think tolerances and “slop” should be by design, not because of poor manufacturing. I think that is also what they are saying above. Look at the firearms industry and military weapons. Many times the original weapon was designed to be too “perfect” and then any time anything went wrong, the gun would not work. They designed in some slop (for lack of a better term off the top of my head) and it took care of the problem. But they didn’t accomplish this with “sloppy manufacturing”, but with good manufacturing to the new specs.

And I think some people confuse the same things with the paintball world. They think that if the marker appears to be loose in action or not at “tight” concerning what they perceive as “tolerances” they assume it is just sloppy manufacturing or a “cheap” product. Sometimes this may be the case, but not always.

[emumikey]

I think tolerances and “slop” should be by design, not because of poor manufacturing. I think that is also what they are saying above. Look at the firearms industry and military weapons. Many times the original weapon was designed to be too “perfect” and then any time anything went wrong, the gun would not work. They designed in some slop (for lack of a better term off the top of my head) and it took care of the problem. But they didn’t accomplish this with “sloppy manufacturing”, but with good manufacturing to the new specs.

And I think some people confuse the same things with the paintball world. They think that if the marker appears to be loose in action or not at “tight” concerning what they perceive as “tolerances” they assume it is just sloppy manufacturing or a “cheap” product. Sometimes this may be the case, but not always.

Shartley

this is a great example of the point I was trying to make, thank you. You are referring to the AR15 and later the M16 I assume. Another great example is the AK - an incredibly sloppy rattle trap that is indestructible.

[mag_lover05]

i think they are low end because they always work...i mean who wants a gun that always shoots? i sure dont.

[shartley]

Shartley

this is a great example of the point I was trying to make, thank you. You are referring to the AR15 and later the M16 I assume. Another great example is the AK - an incredibly sloppy rattle trap that is indestructible.
You are welcome. Yes, those are two examples, but there are many others as well.
:cheers:

[Lohman446]

I think tolerances and “slop” should be by design, not because of poor manufacturing. I think that is also what they are saying above. Look at the firearms industry and military weapons. Many times the original weapon was designed to be too “perfect” and then any time anything went wrong, the gun would not work. They designed in some slop (for lack of a better term off the top of my head) and it took care of the problem. But they didn’t accomplish this with “sloppy manufacturing”, but with good manufacturing to the new specs.

And I think some people confuse the same things with the paintball world. They think that if the marker appears to be loose in action or not at “tight” concerning what they perceive as “tolerances” they assume it is just sloppy manufacturing or a “cheap” product. Sometimes this may be the case, but not always.


Actually in the discussion of tolerances in relation to blowbacks (low end blowbacks) do you think that is "designed slop" or simply a great allowance of lesser tolerances because the system has "slop" in it.

[Toll]

From what I understand of the system, loose tollerances were worked in because they were low end, rather than vice versa.

Chances are the new player with a spyder will not take care of it very well, they need to give him a bit of leeway as to not make him throw it to the ground in frustration.


I'm very tempted to pick up a merlin body and see what can be done with it in the way of a blow back spring return, but I have no real idea how to manufacture one...which would probably make the test rather poor

[emumikey]

Actually in the discussion of tolerances in relation to blowbacks (low end blowbacks) do you think that is "designed slop" or simply a great allowance of lesser tolerances because the system has "slop" in it.


I would think it would vary from manufacturer to manufacturer. Some design for slop, say exactly .5 mm free play (for the o-rings). Others may just get luck.

I would say designed slop might be found in autocockers in the fittings for the ram and 3-way arms to prevent binding (make sense?)

manufacturing slop (not designed and not within tolerance) would be found in the stingray. believe me I know, I have one!

[Lohman446]

The thing is, if you design something that is designed to allow slop (for function issue) does that not make it more likely to allow looser tolerances as well?

[emumikey]

The thing is, if you design something that is designed to allow slop (for function issue) does that not make it more likely to allow looser tolerances as well?

No. Looser tolerances are an error on the part of the manufacturing side. We are still getting confused between tolerance and "slop."

If you design for 1 mm of slop and get it, that would be ideal.

If you design for 1 mm of slop, and get a range between .5-1.5, that would be a big problem.

Example, an interface between an autococker bolt and body. Assume it is designed to have one mm of slop as opposed to a zero fit. They allow for a .05 tolerance in manufacturing. If all goes well, they end up with a range in fit between .95 and 1.05, this is acceptable because it is negated by the oring effected area.

If the manufacturers produced the same design with a range between .80-1.20, this be unacceptable. The tighter end would cause bolt stick and the looser end of the range would cause air loss. Simply unacceptable.

Make sense? I wish I was better at examples but I think we have covered it pretty well.

[Lohman446]

However, you set tolerances. Some designs by nature will work with +/- .01 (just an example, number has no meaning). Others will not work without tolerances of +/- .001. Obviously the one with the great allowable tolerance should be cheaper to produce.

[emumikey]

However, you set tolerances. Some designs by nature will work with +/- .01 (just an example, number has no meaning). Others will not work without tolerances of +/- .001. Obviously the one with the great allowable tolerance should be cheaper to produce.


Wrong. Sorry to be so blunt. I think we mean the same thing, just speaking a different language. A design will always work better the closer the tolerance is to zero, regardless. Any +/- variation in tolerance is only acceptable as long as it doesnt hinder the design.

You are interpreting tolerance as the gap between parts? This is a misinterpretation. tolerance is the deviation from the designed looseness.

Picture this: You are trying to design a box to hold a ball. The requirements are: the box must hold the egg, and if I shake the box, the ball will not wiggle inside...

Wierd analogy. But, if you design the box so that the surface of the ball touches each side of the box, it will fit, but not wiggle. The tolerance would be the deviation in the size of the ball that allows you to squeeze the ball into the box, yet without any free play. This is your +/- tolerance. Anything too big, and the ball doesn't fit. Anything too small, and the ball will move around inside.

are we getting warm?

[Lohman446]

I understand what you are saying... but take the difference between a ball and an egg

If the outside of the egg fits at 10 and will not break until 9 you might shoot the design to be 9.5 +/- .5.

If you have a ball - ie less likely to break, say to 8 it allows you to design to 9 +/- 1. A great tolerance usually means cheaper to build.

[emumikey]

I understand what you are saying... but take the difference between a ball and an egg

If the outside of the egg fits at 10 and will not break until 9 you might shoot the design to be 9.5 +/- .5.

If you have a ball - ie less likely to break, say to 8 it allows you to design to 9 +/- 1. A great tolerance usually means cheaper to build.

yeah, we were trying to say the same thing!

but you would always design for the zero (9 with the ball, ten with the egg, whatever)
The +/- would be the acceptable deviation for design. If it fell out of that region, it would be rejected.

[RRfireblade]

"Low end" blowbacks are designed with this so called slop :) you all speak of. Even if each part is built precisely to +/- 0 of the given part spec , there is excessive play between matching parts in the manner that allows the marker to fire under almost all conditions. Dirty , poor maintainence , dried geletin etc. They also always very large bore barrels for the same reason , fire any paintball in any condition if at all possible. The added benefit for our discussion here is that the manufacturing process is now allowed greater variance over parts considered to be acceptable but outside the ideal spec for said part. This is manufacturers allowable "tolerance" for any given part or assembly. I won't get into 'stacked' tolerances and it's variables other than it falls under the same guidelines only for a given assembly. The Automag , for example , is ALL about stacked tolerance. :D

The given firearm examples are done precisely for the reason , historically , Military weaponry has been design with that mindset.

So.....

The question and the my response to said question is that 'if' a blowback style marker was built to the overall specs considered to be more or less standard for the average 'high end' marker , using similar materials , components and craftmanship it's performance could and should IMO easily meet and exceed the given acceptable level of performance of more commonly accepted High end marker and thus ( your in for it when that word comes out ) it would most defintely be considered a High End Marker.

Of course to sell it to anyone on PBN you'd have to call it something cool like a. . .

Pneumatically - Automated - Bi linear - Spool Valve. ;)





















/runs off to Patent office . . . in hurry/
// throwing spike strips out the window//
///profits greatly///

[etjoyride]

Oh nozoorzzzz!!! You stole my idea Jay. Now i'm going to jump off of a bridge. :p

You know jay, i've seen at least a decent part of your paintball collection and you have well over 10k in markers alone las time i saw. What's with the huge rush to make more profit??? :D :D :D

[RRfireblade]

Oh nozoorzzzz!!! You stole my idea Jay. Now i'm going to jump off of a bridge. :p

You know jay, i've seen at least a decent part of your paintball collection and you have well over 10k in markers alone las time i saw. What's with the huge rush to make more profit??? :D :D :D

It's a service I provide really , teaching newb e ballers the value , or the lack there of , of an e dollar. ;)

[emumikey]

Of course to sell it to anyone on PBN you'd have to call it something cool like a. . .

Pneumatically - Automated - Bi linear - Spool Valve. ;)


Good point. Has anyone seen the marketing the Proto Matrix Rail? They rant about "dual durometer" materials throughout the gun. All this essentially is is two different types of rubber glued together.