.50 cal accuracy test

[cockerpunk]

can't quite believe this didn't make it over here.

oh well

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtLByh1Isvw

[going_home]

I'm not quite understanding the spreadsheet.
In a nutshell, whats the bottom line ?


:confused:

[MicroB]

I'm not quite understanding the spreadsheet.
In a nutshell, whats the bottom line ?


:confused:


The .68 is more accurate and maintains better FPS (efficiency than the .50), also breaks when it hits the target :);and you can see the breaks. I would hate to ref a tourney with .50!

.50 cal has been tried before and it will will go the way of the "rifled" barrel; be around for a short stint people will realize its a gimmick, and then go away until the next entrepreneur figures out that the industry is ready for more hype.

[going_home]

I would think .50 cal would have a more adverse affect from wind than .68.
Probably be impossible to get a ball to break on a windy day with .50 cal.

;)

[cockerpunk]

actually, the tables show quite clearly that there is little difference in accuracy.

[MicroB]

actually, the tables show quite clearly that there is little difference in accuracy.


Try the test outside with environmental variables.

[cockerpunk]

Try the test outside with environmental variables.

we removed those to find out the accuracy ...

face it, if we went outside and did this test, everyone would be mad because those environmental variables were present.

[MANN]

actually, the tables show quite clearly that there is little difference in accuracy.

which makes since. Physics applies to both. :p

[mostpeople]

looks to me like the .50 is more accurate..

[maniacmechanic]

looks to me like 6 of one 1/2 dozen of the other

[CatoRockwell]

I'd like to see this test done more than once, you can't make a final determination off of one test, there are others out there who have also done this test and come up with different results.

[BiNumber3]

just wondering, were both barrels over-bored/under-bored with the paint used?

[MANN]

I'd like to see this test done more than once, you can't make a final determination off of one test, there are others out there who have also done this test and come up with different results.

yes, but their "results" benefit them financially.

[Frizzle Fry]

we removed those to find out the accuracy ...

face it, if we went outside and did this test, everyone would be mad because those environmental variables were present.

...But paintball isn't played in a bubble. If your goal is to test the efficiency of both paints in a controlled environment and then compare them, you've succeeded, but I fail to see the value of your tests to paintball manufacturers and players if that's true.

Not to demean you personally (I like most of what you've done test-wise) but wouldn't a test be more useful if it illustrated how the two paints worked in various environments and weather conditions in which paintball is played? I guess your findings would be helpful to someone involved in indoor target practice, but I fail to see how these results actually apply to the common use of .50cal and .68cal markers.

I had a mech autococker in 1995 that functioned perfectly in my bedroom the night before a big game, but needed about 20 minutes of tuning once you got to the field! I know that's a stupid example, but really, isn't field testing the only way to determine how something will work on the field?

[Ando]

Frizz they're just testing the accuracy so a indoor area is the most ideal method for a test like this. I'm sure the next few test will be running the same setup in cold and hot climates...

....and come on Frizz old chap. No mater what, you're going to be spending 20-60 min f'en with the cocker anyways :p

Reason I never got one back in the day. Too much work. :rolleyes:

[Frizzle Fry]

....and come on Frizz old chap. No mater what, you're going to be spending 20-60 min f'en with the cocker anyways :p

Reason I never got one back in the day. Too much work. :rolleyes:

...And that's why I've only ever owned that one cocker; the rest of my "sheridan-style aluminum markers" are Snipers. :p

[MANN]

...But paintball isn't played in a bubble. If your goal is to test the efficiency of both paints in a controlled environment and then compare them, you've succeeded, but I fail to see the value of your tests to paintball manufacturers and players if that's true.


Yes, but you have to try to remove as many variables when testing something. The best of the best inside with no variables is going to preform the best of the best outside. No paint/barrel preforms better when hot/cold.

[mostpeople]

The other thing to note during the testing, is that the .50 cal is slower, considerably slower. Thus the reason it probably wont hurt as bad.

Cya .50 cal

http://www.techpb.com/forum/Index.php?showtopic=65591

[Frizzle Fry]

Yes, but you have to try to remove as many variables when testing something. The best of the best inside with no variables is going to preform the best of the best outside. No paint/barrel preforms better when hot/cold.

...Yes, they do. That's why there is "winter" paint, "rain" barrels without porting, and more.

Humidity, wind, temperature, and plenty of other variables effect how different valve systems and different fills, shells, and sizes of paint perform. In removing those elements when testing two different sizes of paint against one another is just silly; it will only show how those paints and marker systems perform in that specific environment. Heat can make paintballs sweat, humidity can make paintballs expand, cold can make them shrink, cold can reduce c02 expansion... Obviously wet paintballs bleed, and even a light wind can effect the velocity and accuracy of a paintball in flight.

While ideally every game of paintball would be played at 74* with no wind and 0 humidity, that just doesn't happen much.



The same issue came up several years ago in Airsoft. 6mm and 8mm bbs were tested at Clarence Lai's shop and it was found that 6mm bbs (proportionately weighted to their 8mm counterpart) performed better in range and accuracy with GBB and NBB guns. Then followup testing in from Tanio Kobayashi and a group of engineers (who were ironically opposed to Marushins 8mm market) found that in even slightly windy conditions the 6mm was greatly outperformed by the 8mm in range, accuracy, and even efficiency when chronographed to the then-industry standard of 450fps.

[Old School 626]

After watching the video and looking for but not finding the supporting spreadsheet I have come to the conclusion that 50 cal does NOT provide a substantial improvement in performance and anticipating that there will be little difference in retail paint prices I will NOT be switching. Good luck with your efforts to create "buzz" to get the agglets to adopt 50 cal.

[Frizzle Fry]

Good luck with your efforts to create "buzz" to get the agglets to adopt 50 cal.

C'mon. That's just stupid

Seriously, this is just the tip of the iceburg (or maybe icecube in the long run) when it comes to testing and comparison of the .50cal and .68cal paintball... Last I checked, CockerPunk and Brycelarson didn't pick up their paychecks from GI Milsim and niether of their last names are "Italia" or "Gardner".

Tossing around the "agglet" phrase and making unfounded accusations doesn't make you "cool" and won't earn you any respect.

[going_home]

I don't think these guys are pushing this stuff any more than Carter or Mike are pushing .50 cal. Its putting the data out there. That's all. The link to the spreadsheet upper rh corner in the video description. Someone posted where they watched a tourney with the Kingman .43 cal pistols and it was bounce heaven. :)

[MANN]

...Yes, they do. That's why there is "winter" paint, "rain" barrels without porting, and more.

Humidity, wind, temperature, and plenty of other variables effect how different valve systems and different fills, shells, and sizes of paint perform. In removing those elements when testing two different sizes of paint against one another is just silly; it will only show how those paints and marker systems perform in that specific environment. Heat can make paintballs sweat, humidity can make paintballs expand, cold can make them shrink, cold can reduce c02 expansion... Obviously wet paintballs bleed, and even a light wind can effect the velocity and accuracy of a paintball in flight.

While ideally every game of paintball would be played at 74* with no wind and 0 humidity, that just doesn't happen much.


Rain barrels are nothing but a gimmick. Second to riffling. A few wraps of electrical tape will keep any water out of your barrel. Porting makes no difference in accuracy. (sorry hammerhead)

As for all the other conditions. They are going to affect both 50cal and 68 cal the same. (to my knowledge they are made out of the same material on the shell) The temp, humidity, etc, etc are going to affect both balls equally.

The only thing that would affect one more than the other is wind. In this I personally dont care. If the wind is blowing then you have to just adjust where you aim to where the paint is going to hit.

Again to test a specific performance in a "system" you have to hold all variables constant to compare one specific constraint. CP is correct in testing the caliber differences indoors. If you feel that this gives one an advantage you are wrong.

[cockerpunk]

Good luck with your efforts to create "buzz" to get the agglets to adopt 50 cal.

now thats just downright disrespectful.

1. you assume we are pro-50 cal.
2. you assume we do this to create buzz
3. agglet? what is this, MCB? (sorry MCBers, its a joke ... )

of course, none of those three things are true. PunkWorks has no dog in the fight. we put the data out there to inform consumers so that they can make an educated choice. we are pro-science, we follow the chain of evidence.

in this case, the assumption that less mass meant less range AND less accuracy was false. range is certainly reduced, but accuracy seems pretty comparable.

[Beemer]

Watching thread closely. Stay on topic. This wont turn into one of those Threads.

Remember where you are posting.

[Beemer]

in this case, the assumption that less mass meant less range AND less accuracy was false. range is certainly reduced, but accuracy seems pretty comparable.

Less mass = Less range. Whats the comparison at a longer range then?

[cockerpunk]

Less mass = Less range. Whats the comparison at a longer range then?

i think you missed where i placed the emphasis. it was on the "and"

with simple high school physics mathematics it is easy to show that less mass means less range, and in this case, 50 cal is also tougher, so less effective range. however, the assumption that less mass meant less accuracy was not sustained. even with the less mass, the 50 cal showed comparable accuracy.

[Lohman446]

:P Gotta love this. Even if the face of testing either side is capable of maintaining an argument that the tests benefit there preheld beleifs.

[Beemer]

Thats my point. 68 will have BETTER range at same FPS.

[cockerpunk]

Thats my point. 68 will have BETTER range at same FPS.

i dont think anyone is disputing this.

[Frizzle Fry]

Rain barrels are nothing but a gimmick. Second to riffling. A few wraps of electrical tape will keep any water out of your barrel.
Actually, taping your porting will insure that any barrel break will leave paint residue in the porting that you're unable to squegee out or clean because there's tape over it :rolleyes: I've used both methods and while I don't have branded "rain barrels" I do have unported barrels for rainy days.


As for all the other conditions. They are going to affect both 50cal and 68 cal the same. (to my knowledge they are made out of the same material on the shell) The temp, humidity, etc, etc are going to affect both balls equally.
Right, so same shell material. What about thickness? You've got a paintball that's smaller, two hemispheres joined along a seam line like .68cal, but it's smaller over all? Even if the fill is the same that will effect how it flies and how it breaks, especially if it's going to be restricted to the same velocity.


The only thing that would affect one more than the other is wind. In this I personally dont care. If the wind is blowing then you have to just adjust where you aim to where the paint is going to hit.
Again, no. It's not "wind blowing the ball off course" that's the main issue (though it is one) it's the wind resistance of the paintball itself. The Mass/Surface area ratio is different than a .68cal ball, because as you said, they have the same shell and fill but different size.


Again to test a specific performance in a "system" you have to hold all variables constant to compare one specific constraint. CP is correct in testing the caliber differences indoors. If you feel that this gives one an advantage you are wrong.

So having identical markers would be good, but it can't be done. What can be done are simultaneous tests in various outdoor conditions. Same environment, same time, two identical chronographs/targets/cameras/etc... Your logic is flawed in that you are assuming that both balls will be effected the same way by temperature, humidity, and other environmental factors purely because they are made of the same materials. By that logic, an .86cal paintball with the same shell and fill as a .68 would be its equal in performance... Which will take longer to fully freeze, an icecube in a tray or a cup of water twice its size? Both are just water. Which is easier to bend? A steel bar 1" thick or a steel bar 1.5" thick? They're both just steel...

Again, the problem is that testing in a "perfect" environment means NOTHING unless there are other tests to compare to. The test holds no real value to players because the conditions of test are unrealistic... It's like testing an automobile in SoCal and then sending it to Seattl to be driven; environmental factors are just that, factors.

This is a good starting point, but it needs more information to get even close to conclusive.. Outdoor tests, and actual field testing are needed.

[Beemer]

Rethink it again. The OBJECT for TESTING is to REMOVE the Variables. ;)

[Lohman446]

It depends. In order for 50 to have a place it has to be able to do something that the 68 won't.

Is it more accurate? Testing shows it is not.

Does it fly further? No - simple physics show this.

Does it break better? Testing of current formulas show no.

Does it allow you to carry more paint? Yes. Is this enough of a reason to buy it? Thats for the market to decide

Is it more efficient? Base physics tell us it should be. Is this enough of a reason to buy it? Thats for the market to decide

Will it allow for smaller equipment? Theoretically yes. Is this enough of a reason to buy it? Thats for the market to decide


Will it be able to fire a .50 paintball at closer to 300 FPS while staying under the 7.5 joule limit of energy required in some countries? Yes. Is this enough of a reason to buy it? Thats for the market to decide


The point is that 50 will do some things 68 will not. 68 will do some things 50 will not. I don't beleive (and testing does not show) that 50 will outperform 68 in accuracy (and testing shows 68 does not have an accuracy advantage either). I do beleive, and am supported, that 68 will outrange 50. I also assume it will leave a bigger mark. One now just has to weigh what advantages are important. Personally I don't care about efficiency to that degree so that is out. I don't care for smaller equipment so that is out, I don't care to carry more paint, so that is out. Cost is not going to be different enough to be a factor. And I don't play where 68 isn't legal. So I'll keep my range.

[MANN]

Your right we should do testing during hurricanes to compare the results.

/leaves thread going back to fluid mechanics class.

[Frizzle Fry]

Rethink it again. The OBJECT for TESTING is to CONTROL the Variables. ;)

Not really. I fixed that for ya.

When "remove" is used it doesn't mean remove them all! It means remove, add, combine, and continue testing. If Cockerpunk were to use humidifiers and dehumidifiers, as well as air conditioning and space heaters, all controlled and regulated in an indoor environment, then there'd be some meaning to the tests.

I'd be more than happy to lend a thermometer and pro-grade hygrometer if need be. I even have a few A/C units.


As it stands all he's done (so far) is measure performance at room temperature and an unknown humidity point with no wind. That is not enough to make a definitive statement of effectiveness for either size in the test, nor is it enough of a basis for comparison.





Your right we should do testing during hurricanes to compare the results.

/leaves thread going back to fluid mechanics class.

I wish there was a smiley guy that shrugged.

[Beemer]

^^^^ you fixed it wrong and should go read up on testing. You just arent getting it. :(

[MicroB]

Controlled conditions are a must in science; this allows us to understand very specific informtaion. "A" has a specific relationship to "B". Which in this case cockerpunks did show and I applaud their efforts. However as a researcher in the medical field I know that real world environment in which we all operate has many variables that impact the relationship of "A" on "B" or "A" vs. "B". We can take it to extremes of playing paintball in a hurricane or adding air conditioners/heaters for every environment in which we may play. However it would be easier to simply play a series of 5 x .68 vs 5 x .50 x 10 matches and have observes take note of bounces, breaks, gas consumed, velocity, etc. Many of these variables are finite. Each player has 500 rounds per say, they all use 68 4500's, if you standardize the test and play it in real time, in the environments in which we all play it would accurately demonstrate the pro's and con's of each. The teams could switch half way through a 10 game set so each could give their feed back of both markers. Don't get wrapped up in the reduction of variables unless you are trying to make a single inference, as this is too finite for applicable use. At best all you can say is this is how "A" reacts to/vs "B" in this particular environment. Which this test does demostrate, its just not really realvent to use as a indicator of which size would be better used in a real application.

[DevilMan]

meh... I don't like what I've seen of the bounces so far, nor of the small splat mark that they barely make when they do break. I will stick with 68. If I wanted to play a sport that didn't hurt as much to get hit I'd take up golf.

DM

[Lohman446]

meh... I don't like what I've seen of the bounces so far, nor of the small splat mark that they barely make when they do break. I will stick with 68. If I wanted to play a sport that didn't hurt as much to get hit I'd take up golf.

DM

While not common (at least if you don't play with me) it hurts to get hit in golf :)

[Smoothice]

If I wanted to play a sport that didn't hurt as much to get hit I'd take up golf.

DM

Every been hit with a golf ball? :p

[Frizzle Fry]

Which this test does demostrate, its just not really realvent to use as a indicator of which size would be better used in a real application.

Thank you for concisely making the point that I failed to articulate.

[BiNumber3]

I doubt adding perfectly controlled variables will do much to the results (which is what some of you want right?):

"wind" - Will blow both balls a set distance from intended target, the lighter balls will get blown further, but should be still be consistent as far as accuracy, i.e. they will all be blown 5 feet to the right. This also will affect the distance the ball can go depending on how the "wind" is positioned.

Same as temperature and humidity, they will affect one ball more than the other, but shouldn't really affect consistency (the balls should still hit where ever they hit with the same consistency as shown in the vid). And isnt paintball "accuracy" more or less the consitency of it?

Testing with as few variables as possibly is and has always been preferable, only adding variables if they are needed and expected to lead to noticably different results, right?
Making things more complicated than needed may sound like it should lead to better results, but has rarely been the case in the past.

Werent pretty much all "accuracy" tests before comparing barrels or comparing different 68 cal balls done pretty much the same way?

[Lohman446]

Accuracy and consistancy are two different things.

The first step to accuracy is consistancy. Whatever I am firing, be it a 50 paintball marker, a 68 paintball marker, or a 300-378 Weatherby I want the shots to first of all be consistant groupings. That is what we are measuring here, and calling it accuracy because its what we mean.

A marker that fires a smaller group is beneficial to being accurate. The ability for the shooter to put the shot on target. However the variables that influence this (how far off from point of aim a marker is, wind drift, drop) are all to be compensated for by the shooter. Is a lighter projectile more prone to be blown off course? Of course it is - but it is predictable. Remember that all the projectiles we are using have large cross sections in comparison to weight and are all going to be influenced heavily by factors such as wind. 50 is going to be blown off course badly is an accurate statement - but so are 68s. Are 50s going to be worse. Probably, but we are using spray and pray tactics. Its not like I have ever witnessed wind measurement equipment and calculations used by a paintball player beyond the point of guesswork for the first shot.

[DevilMan]

*Note to Self* Never play golf with Smooth or Lohman...


And NO I've not been hit by a golf ball... Maybe because I pay attention to what's going on around me and choose to get out of the way, or not put myself in that position...

:P

DM

[Frizzle Fry]

*Note to Self* Never play golf with Smooth or Lohman...


And NO I've not been hit by a golf ball... Maybe because I pay attention to what's going on around me and choose to get out of the way, or not put myself in that position...

:P

DM

Maybe if Tom starts producing paint, we can all be hit with liquid-filled golfballs and like it :p

[thejere]

Thanks to cockerpunk for posting this thread.
My first conclusions:
.68 has better velocity consistency than .50cal, but not by much. If you combine all 66 shots the SD for .68 is 5.9fps with an average velocity of 291fps v SD for .50 of 7.0fps with an average velocity of 288fps
.50 cal had a tighter grouping at 50ft (low SD in x and y direction) but at 100ft and 125ft it is harder to tell. .50cal has all SD in the x-direction but higher SD in the y-direction.

This doesn't agree with TK's tech tips on accuracy/consistency which state a more consistent muzzle velocity will give a tighter shot grouping. So what's the deal?
We are missing the LINEAR distance each shot is from the center of the grouping, how far each shot deviates from the expected location.
If you calculate those values(see bottom of post for method):
SD from center
.68 .50
50ft 1.9 1.2
100ft 3.7 4.1
125ft 5.0 5.9

The .50cal is unquestionably tighter at 50ft but at 100ft and 125ft the .68cal is tighter.
I don't think this closes the door on the .50cal but it does detract from the claim that they are more accurate.

Calculating deviation from center:
Solve for the mean of the all x vaules (mx) and mean of all the y values (my)
solve for the deviation (dx) of each x value (x_n) from the mean of x (mx)
solve for the deviation (dy) of each y value (y_n) from the mean of y (my)
use Pythagorean theory to solve for total deviation (d)
d^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 = (x_n -mx)^2 + (y_n - my)^2
calculate Standard deviation of all deviation values, determine which cal had the tighter grouping.

[cockerpunk]

radial coordinates certainly are interesting, and when we first were deriving out "vector" system i considered them. there are a couple of reasons why we use the vector method which is in rectangular coordinates:

1. paintball guns dont really shoot circles. they almost always shoot ellipses of some type or another. the vector method takes into account this skew and punishes those setups that shoot them. the issue gets worse when you consider collecting a sample mean and SD compared to a true mean and SD.

2. it is computationally easier to stay in rectangular coordinates. not a huge deal.

now, im not saying that radial coordinates are no good, just that i personally feel that rectangular coordinates model the situation. feel free to do the analysis in radial coordinates if you'd like.

as to velocity consistency being directly related to accuracy, i have to disagree with TK's conclusion as well. we have shot easily a couple of hundred different setups and chronoed every single shot from them. we have seen that even consistency in the +/- 15 fps range still will shoot a pattern comparable to a +/-5 setup.

we believe this is a matter of initial conditions vs system characteristics. the gun provides the initial conditions (spin, velocity, and such) and then the system takes over the instant the ball leaves the barrel. so the assumption is that the closer the initial conditions, the more predictable the outcome of the system is.

however, that doesn't really stand up to the data we have collected. this is probably because of the random nature of vortex shedding that TK also worked on. and it turns out that beyond +/- 15 fps, the initial conditions are similar enough that the system of random vortexes is a MUCH larger factor.