Freaks not what they claim to be?

[slushee]

Alright, if i'm not allowed to post here, could you maby move this post to the Tech forums instead of deleting?

Anyhow, on to my curiosities...

I was driving down the road with my coke in my hand and it sort of hit me ....

1- We all know about Tom Kay's barrel tests .. if it's too tight, it scrapes off all of the powder used to test.. if it's too loose, it leaves the 'zebra stripes' as it bounces back and forth down the barrel before ejection ..

2- The best match is when it leaves 2 - 1/8" stripes inside the barrel.

3- The idea of matching the paint to the barrel is a good idea, lets not make this mistake. Being able to have the perfect bore size would make the paint travel more acturatly due to either no compression, nor any bouncing done before leaving the barrel.

I'm sure at this point your thinking .. okay, where is he going with this :) .. well the 3 items i just described are very logical ... but I believe the manufacturer (in this case, Smart Parts) has not completed the logical steps one should take.

Okay, we have a 2 part barrel that is screwed together to make one. in the first half, we slip in a sleeve to perfectly match the paint to the inner bore of the barrel (for this theory, let's pretent it's an exact, perfect fit .. 2 - 1/8" strips as it leaves the sleeve) ... BUT, we then have the front half ... the section that IS NOT sleeved .. and therefore, is now not perfectly matched to the paint. The front half is the final stage before the ball leaves for it's intended target and is thus the most important. Any effects would directly effect (or affect .. damn i don't remember the difference) the balls accuracy as it leaves the marker and is then out of any more control by the player/marker. So anyhow, we now have the paintball entering the front half of the barrel. This section has no sleeve to match it to the paint. It does have a dimention, and I am ASSUMING that it is more towards a large bore size. I have not had the time to confirm what the bore size is manufactured to from Smart parts. BUT, it is very logical to say that there is a VERY GOOD chance that the bore size of this front section is now either too big (that's what i am assuming) or too small.

Okay .. now that we can agree that the paint is no longer matched perfectly to the bore size, let us reiterate the information at the top of this post. If the paint is too small, it will now bounce around a bit decreasing teh accuracy .. and if it's too large, it will now become compressed (leading to problems that i cannot remember from Tom Kaye's barrel testing).

So, in conclusion, I have to wonder if spending the money for a Freak system is worth it, when you end up shooting yoru paint through a barrel that is 'not really' matched to your paint.

I would ask that someone from the crowd (after this novel, i doubt too may ppl have actually made it this far!!) to actually take Tom Kaye's barrel test and, after matching the proper sleeve to the paint, find out what the paintball is doing in the front section of the barrel.

Also testing with more then one type of paint would be benificial ....

So ... dare I ask for any comments??

[SSMercury]

Hmm...not sure if this reply is appropriate. Probably be a better discussion of it in Paintball Talk. Anyways...

(Never bought a Freak kit)

It's a two step barrel design. Why not make it have full length inserts, that make the entire 10-12 inches the same diameter. This could be accomplished by having the barrel have a sort of hook on the muzzle end, with the screw in the middle, as I picture it. Now you basically unscrew the muzzle half, insert the 10 inch long .XXX inch bore thing, and then slide the muzzle half back over it, and then screw it in? This rather than have 6" inserts or however long they are.

[Butterfingers]

I think the primary reason why we match barrels is to increase velocity consistency between shots, which plays a great role in accuracy.

Otherwise I don't think it makes much diffrence.

[nippinout]

Don't worry about the front half of a 2-piece barrel.

The front ends are HUGE! (much larger bore than big bore paint) The front half does no more than quiet the shot and make the barrel look good. :)

[kevdupuis]

Lets take this one step further. Short barrel sizers, how efficient are they really? Because if we take the 8-10 inch unported length that is recomended to properly accelerate a paintball , it makes them look, (shall we say) inconsistent. I wonder what the different manufacturers have to say on this?

[Spaceman613]

short effective barrel length isnt that bad. Didnt Tom change his stanse on the 8-10 inches? If you set the gun up for a short dwell, then the short effective length is fine. i use a freak almost exclusively, and I get great consistancy and efficiency. I use it on 2 different cockers, one running at 350-375psi, the other is 225-250psi. The first does yield better efficency from its shorter dwell.

Short burst of gas for the shorter effective barrel, loner effective barrels (LAPCO) would be beneficial of a longer burst, or at least less detrimental.

Does all of this make any sense?

[DeFAuLt]

i was thinking of this before and i think that the back half should be, say, 10 inches and it should have a lapco style porting on the front half which would be 2 inches making a perfect effecive length and paint to bore match.

[Goldie D Pimp]

My question is....

Which have tighter tolerances? The paint or the Freak tubes?

The freak tubes go down to 3 significant digits, right? Are the tolerances in the paint tight enough to work right with say the .689 spacer?

I've never taken the time to measure batches of paintballs to see how consistent the paint is.

I'm just wondering if they should bother making so many different sized bores, or just go with a small, med, large tube???

[Spaceman613]

Well, dont go by the numbers. Machining tolerances wont make them perfect. If they were, they would be a lot more expensive. I look at mine as sizes 1-6, I have used 2-5 regularly. One batch of X paint will be in th size 4, and the next day it could be in the next size larger. Remember paint changes sizes with a lot of variables.

As for the 8" launch tube, that will only really work for 2 piece barrels, and not inserts. An insert that long with thin walls would be a pain to manufacture and not bend.

I think freaks are great for the money. they work well and do what they are supposed to do. they are modular for different bore sizes, and they have interchangable tips and bases. Perfect if you have an angel and cocker.

What they are NOT is precision. a .686 insert will probably not be perfectly .686 in every one. BUT they are great for sizing paint from one batch to the next, and from day to day.

As you can tell, i like my freak, and do recommend them to other players, especially FPO players.

[paintballerpm]

I thought the effective lenth of a barrel was 5-6 inches not 8 to 10. Also, I don't understand what your saying about the tip being larger (.700 inches I think). The tip is supposed to be larger and not touch the paint, that is the whole point of a step bore barrel. This same thing goes for DYE barrels. Could you get better than a freak? Sure, if your prepared to spend over a grand in barrels. The freak is an excellent choice for all players. Its many features and low cost make it a good choice. The option of buying new backs is great. Cheaper than buying a whole new set of barrels.

[rudy]

actually like they said the general belief is the paint never touches the barrel front. I would like to see some studies to back this up though. could you get better then a freak is the next question. well I think you could, and for alot less then 1000$ I have reason to believe that the freak inserts dont hold thier size very well. I have some inserts that just dont make sense the ball will be hard to get through the .685 and easier to get through the .683 then I go back thinking maybe I wore out some of the shell and it still has a hard time going through the .685. I am not sure if its different batches the inserts are just easily getting distorted with use. tight sgueegees and getting stuck in the barrel. I have seen one insert that was flared at one end from this. I would get the equation system any day if it wasnt so ugly. they should come with ss inserts I think that might help a bit. I dont really care for the freak much but its the only one with enough inserts to fit bigger paint and my .683 nylon balls

[irrific]

Well first off equation barrels arent ugly you just need to know what looks good together, yes ive seen ugly mother's put together they just need to know what colors go to what, ill be putting up a barrel gallery on the equation website to show people how they should look and we are coming with more designs and getting rid of the old cause i know some designs do look nasty but where changing our looks and where in the mist of redesigning so i would be looking out for the them.

equation inserts are stainless steel teflon coated
and the inserts run at .683 .685 .687 .689 .691 .693
need a bigger size request it, well make any size you want
:D

[slushee]

yes I believe Tom Kaye proved that a large bore barrel does not provide an 'air barrier' around the paintball, as the paintball left 'zebra stripes' on the powder inside the barrel meaning that it (the paintball) was bouncing from side to side until it left the barrel ... meaning that 'if' the freak front is larger, it is only bouncing around the paintball before leaving the barrel ...

Personally, i would rather buy 2 separate barrels and match them to the paint i usually use ...

[rudy]

yes I believe Tom Kaye proved that a large bore barrel does not provide an 'air barrier' around the paintball, as the paintball left 'zebra stripes' on the powder inside the barrel meaning that it (the paintball) was bouncing from side to side until it left the barrel ... meaning that 'if' the freak front is larger, it is only bouncing around the paintball before leaving the barrel ...

see you seem to be drawing the conclusion that the ball bounces around the front of the freak which is a larger diameter. but you cant make that conclusion from the information posted. how do you know the freak back doesnt shoot the ball strait so it never touches the sides of the barrel front

Now on to equation. irrific I would assume you work for equation from the content of your post. tell me this how much does it cost to get other sized inserts made? I would be interested int that. also I saw the 14" kit tht dirty bunny recieved and it does look better then the ones I have seen I just might get one. http://www.automags.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=47067 how is that made especailly for the automag? Is that a 3 peice? (tip extender, and back) or a 2 peice (front and back) that barrel is said to be a 14" can I get it in 10" or 12". also can I get the front in stainless steel

[irrific]

Rudy,
yes i work for equation,

Now if you want a different bore size insert there isnt no extra coast.
next...
The barrel (soon to have a name for it) that dirty bunny has is a 2pce and its lenght is 13.5 , but you can also use the Multiple switch parts and make it 3pce barrel all of our parts are universal.

2pce barrel sizes for automag: 13.5 and soon a 11.5 incher.

other marker types well have 3 different sizes if not 2sizes

its mind boggling with all of our designs we do

www.equationusa.com

[TransMan]

I agree that Freaks dont have long enough inserts and after reading this i think i might try to make my own insert barrel system using my RT barrel taking out the muzzle break and putting threads on it then boring out the inside of the barrel and then making some inserts that go all the way to the Muzzel break.

[Skweegi]

Unfortunately, what this whole thread seems to miss on is the relatively unknown fact that a ball does all its accelertation in the first 2-3 inches of the barrel. Thats a fact. I attended the "Paintball Training institute" run by Budd Orr and endorsed by Airgun Designs and it was stated as such in writing.

Take a look at all two piece barrels....go ahead.
Boomsticks=larger 2nd half
Freak=larger 2nd half
All American=larger 2nd half
J&J 2piece=larger 2nd half
Powerlyte=larger 2nd half
JT 2piece=larger 2nd half

I could keep going. They are also the most expensive barrels around. Coincedence? No.

The oft repeated phrase by these companies is that the second half of the barrel has nothing to do with acceleration, SO ITS NOT IMPORTANT THAT THE BALL FITS TIGHT (BUT NOT TOO TIGHT) TO THE SECOND HALF OF THE BARREL. The second half being larger gives the ball a little more chance to pop back to shape and eliminate a little more of the distortion that went on when the ball got slammed with the initial blast.

We are shooting spheres that distort when launched with that air, the more a barrel can do to get the ball back as close to round as possible before it leaves the barrel the more accuracy it will achieve. The less out of round the ball is the better it aerodynamically can fly.

Two piece are much more expensive to produce, the entire industry wouldnt follow the same basic (and expensive) template of high end barrel production if there wasnt a benefit. Producing single piece barrels with only one diameter down the entire length is far less expensive and less complicated, these companies would be content to produce single piece if it really was the best way to make a barrel.

There are other issues to discuss with the freak kit (a barrel system which overall I am highly impressed with) but having a larger second half is NOT a shortcoming.

Matt

[P4ULuk]

Originally posted by Skweegi
Unfortunately, what this whole thread seems to miss on is the relatively unknown fact that a ball does all its accelertation in the first 2-3 inches of the barrel. Thats a fact. I attended the "Paintball Training institute" run by Budd Orr and endorsed by Airgun Designs and it was stated as such in writing.

Take a look at all two piece barrels....go ahead.
Boomsticks=larger 2nd half
Freak=larger 2nd half
All American=larger 2nd half
J&J 2piece=larger 2nd half
Powerlyte=larger 2nd half
JT 2piece=larger 2nd half

I could keep going. They are also the most expensive barrels around. Coincedence? No.

The oft repeated phrase by these companies is that the second half of the barrel has nothing to do with acceleration, SO ITS NOT IMPORTANT THAT THE BALL FITS TIGHT (BUT NOT TOO TIGHT) TO THE SECOND HALF OF THE BARREL. The second half being larger gives the ball a little more chance to pop back to shape and eliminate a little more of the distortion that went on when the ball got slammed with the initial blast.

We are shooting spheres that distort when launched with that air, the more a barrel can do to get the ball back as close to round as possible before it leaves the barrel the more accuracy it will achieve. The less out of round the ball is the better it aerodynamically can fly.

Two piece are much more expensive to produce, the entire industry wouldnt follow the same basic (and expensive) template of high end barrel production if there wasnt a benefit. Producing single piece barrels with only one diameter down the entire length is far less expensive and less complicated, these companies would be content to produce single piece if it really was the best way to make a barrel.

There are other issues to discuss with the freak kit (a barrel system which overall I am highly impressed with) but having a larger second half is NOT a shortcoming.

Matt

I thought Warpig disprooved the ball distortion theory??

Paul.

p.s. I use a freak, love it!

[rudy]

not only that but different guns accelerate the ball at different rates. I have heard all different numbers It would be nice if someone could get a colored gas and a high speed video camera and try to see for sure. If the ball only accelerated int he first 2-3 inches then a 2 peice barrel with only 4 inches or so of tigght bore would be more efficient. Is this true? because in a longer barrel after the first 3 inches of acceleration the barrel would only slow it down. but most people will tell you if you want a more efficient barrel get a 1 piece so which is it? Also several people have claimed to bench test 2 peice barrels with and with out the front and made claims that the accuracy or consistency of shots was the same which would mean that the front does nothing if thier findings are correct

[Skweegi]

Rudy:

If you take a look you'll see that pretty much all the 2pc barrels do end their initial stage after about 4 inches. The only notable exception were some of the 14" and 16" stock all american barrels that came with old shockers, they had a first stage that went on for something like 6-8".

Is one piece or 2pc more efficient? Not totally sure. My guess is the 2pc is more efficient for a couple reasons:
1)If the ball is done accelerating very shortly in its travel down the barrel, then a one piece will continue to exert friction on the ball the whole length of the barrel which slows it down, hence you need to turn up the pressure a bit to achieve the same velocity.
2)Most of the 2pc barrels are the high end offerings from these companies. They tend to benefit from better polishing and materials (Stainless, Titanium, etc) than the lower end 1pc barrels they crank out. This is NOT an inherent efficiency benefit of 2pc barrels, just a coincedence.

As far as chronoing without the second half of the freak barrel or any other barrel....thats a strange one. Again just guessing. I would say you should be able to get the gun to chronograph. Although, I would be interested in seeing the new velocity if they then simply attach the 2nd half of the barrel and didnt touch the velocity.

That said, I cant imagine they would have any accuracy without the second half of the barrel.

[SlartyBartFast]

There is absolutely NO WAY a ball has finished accelerating in 2".

Crono at 300 fps and then chop the berrel shorter. Will the speed go up or down?

Well, the noise will certainly go up. (let's assume an unported barrel to begin with) That increase in noise from shorter unported barrels is because of the larger energy contained in unexpanded gas. If there's still gas expanding behind the ball the ball is still accelerating. If the noise is louder it's because more gas is being 'wasted', hence a less efficient barrel. AND, if the barrel was shortend without adjusting anything else, your velocity will be lower.

[hitech]

Originally posted by Skweegi
Unfortunately, what this whole thread seems to miss on is the relatively unknown fact that a ball does all its accelertation in the first 2-3 inches of the barrel.

That is not correct. Tom has tested various markers on his "gun dyno" and measured the speed at various points along the barrel. To quote Tom's tech tips:


...the pressure drops as the ball moves down the barrel. The next question we need to ask is, how far down the barrel does the ball have to go before the pressure gets to low to do anything useful? That answer is 8-10 inches. We know this from looking at the graphs that our gun dyno puts out. If your peak pressure is higher, say over 100 psi you can get away with a shorter barrel, if it's lower then you need a longer barrel.



Originally posted by Skweegi
The second half being larger gives the ball a little more chance to pop back to shape and eliminate a little more of the distortion that went on when the ball got slammed with the initial blast.

The ball does not distort. Tom made a clear barrel and used high speed cameras to determine how much, if any, distortion occured. None did. I don't know if this is posted anywhere, he told it to me in person.




Originally posted by Skweegi
Two piece are much more expensive to produce, the entire industry wouldnt follow the same basic (and expensive) template of high end barrel production if there wasnt a benefit.

The benefit is that it sells more barrels. That is what they are in business for, after all. ;)

[rudy]

freak = 5 inches
boomstick is 5.5 - 6 cant measure it exactly as easy, so they are definately more then 4


Is one piece or 2pc more efficient? Not totally sure. My guess is the 2pc is more efficient for a couple reasons:

thats what im saying your guess would be right if your conclusion was right but most people report that is no true which is why I dissagree with you. the finding is usually the 2 peice is NOT more efficient untill you get to really long length barrels or really long tight bore lengths




That said, I cant imagine they would have any accuracy without the second half of the barrel.

again i am sayign that people who have tested it report the same accuracy going directly against your guess. with no tip it IS just as accurate according to people who claim to have tested it.

[Skweegi]

January 19-21 1999
Las Vegas Nevada
3day seminar by PTI (Paintball Training Institute)
A short lived association of many manufacturers and industry figures to try and bring a certifications system to the industry that would insure intelligent EDUCATED employees in the paintball industry.

Sponsored and run by:
ACI
ADCO
JT
ZAP
AMERICAN PAINTBALL LEAGUE
AMERICAN PAINTBALL INSURANCE
THE MONDAY REPORT:PAINTBALL MARKETING
PAINTBALL MANIA
NATIONAL PAINTBALL SUPPLY
KINGMAN
SMART PARTS
WORRGAME PRODUCTS
PMI
TIPPMAN
PAINTBALL2XTREMES MAGAZINE
INDIAN CREEK DESIGN

Alright there are the credentials. This was mostly taught by Budd Orr or Worr Game Designs, pretty tough to say that he doesnt have some knowledge and experience in these matters. Smart Parts input was also used on this section of teaching, they've done a few things in the barrel department if you havent noticed.

Page 37
2nd paragraph
"Barrel Theory"

"The ball is almost entirely accelerated in the first 3.7 inches of barrel length"

Keep telling me I'm wrong, but thats whats in print. Obviously, there is some disagreement with that statement out there, perhaps the sport has undergone a revelation in the science of accelerating the ball sometime in the last three years.

Please prove that this coalition of very educated paintball industry people and the companies R&D departments are wrong in what they set out to teach. Please prove it with something other than, "yeah, well I heard".

[SlartyBartFast]

Originally posted by Skweegi
Page 37
2nd paragraph
"Barrel Theory"

"The ball is almost entirely accelerated in the first 3.7 inches of barrel length"

Keep telling me I'm wrong, but thats whats in print. Obviously, there is some disagreement with that statement out there, perhaps the sport has undergone a revelation in the science of accelerating the ball sometime in the last three years.

Wasn't Smart Parts the same company that (still?:D ) claimed that spiral porting spun the PB to increase accuracy like rifling does in a firearm? :p
Or, those claims about porting releasing the pressure in front of and the vacuum behind a paint ball. :rolleyes:

What is meant by "almost entirely accelerated"? It's a crock really. It is meaningless because for a given pressure and desired output speed FAR more than 3.7 inches is required. As the volume behind the ball increases (ball moves down barrel) the pressure drops and the force on the ball drops as well. Concequently less force means less acceleration. But if you haven't reached 280-300 fps yet, you still want to use the diminishing returns of acceleration to attain your desired speed.

Acceleration (expressed in ft/s^2) is meaningless. It is how much time spent and a certain acceleration that counts. The fact that acceleration is greatest at the beginning of the barrel and rates drop off is true and interesting but it is the final velocity that counts. And, once again, to get that finalk velocity you absolutely need the remaining length of barrel.

[Skweegi]

Wrong again.

What Smart Parts claims is that a perfect flight would involve a zero spin trajectory. However, they feel that no one has invented a barrel that can claim zero spin. So they instead made a barrel that would tightly control what spin there is anyways.

They claim that their all american barrels produce about 2 spins per 40 yards of travel.

[SlartyBartFast]

Well, I clearly remember the paintball spin/porting threads back in the early 90's on rec.sport.paintball. Smart Parts may NOW claim no spin is best, but I'd swear that wasn't their initial position.

I'll dig in my old APGs to see what they said if I can. Just cleaned out the basement and lots got thrown out.

But then by all accounts they are still making pathetic claims that their porting induces spin. If you believe that I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.....

Please point out where else I was wrong to merit the "Wrong Again".

[Shirow]

I know my J&J 2 piece shoots a hell of a lot better than my SP Progressive.

Probably paint to barrel match though, I use Blaze.

[hitech]

Originally posted by Skweegi
"The ball is almost entirely accelerated in the first 3.7 inches of barrel length"

Keep telling me I'm wrong, but thats whats in print...Please prove that this coalition of very educated paintball industry people and the companies R&D departments are wrong...

I guess it depends on who you believe is correct, Tom or Bud. I'm sure that Tom has done the testing he claims, I also fairly certain that Bud has not (and has never claimed to).

How may people within the compainies you mentioned do you believe conducted any tests to determine the acceleration rate?

[SlartyBartFast]

Going Back to the original question, I would like to see a repeat of the powder test with a two piece barrel.

Honestly I think the reason for two-piece barrels is cost. It's probably cheaper for the manufacturers to stock a bunch of backs for the different markers and stock common front pieces in different lengths than it is to stock barrels made to diffenet lengths for different markers. The larger imprecise bore on the front-end is probably also cheaper/quicker to produce than an accruately honed one-piece barrel.

Personally I think the hypothesis of the original question is correct. Two-piece barrels are detrimental to accuracy or at least one piece barrels are superior/more accurat/gas efficient.

[rudy]

when they say the ball is almost entirely accelerated they are saying it is not entirely accelerated. I guess the question really is how much are we loosing cutting off our acceleration. OK anyone with a multiple bore barrel system (WE NEED SEVERAL DIFFERENT PEOPLE TO DO THIS) grab that and some paint. try to match the multi bore system to a 1 peice barrel you might have tell all the specs of what you did and dont touch the velocity. but get a reading of about 20 or so balls through each barrel. and record all the velocities and post them here. I am pretty sure you will find on average a 1 peice 14 inches down to 8 inches is going to result in higher velocity IE more acceleration. Of course I could be wrong but I think most people here would agree with that.

[SlartyBartFast]

Originally posted by rudy
I am pretty sure you will find on average a 1 peice 14 inches down to 8 inches is going to result in higher velocity IE more acceleration

That goes completely against logic. As long as there is force against the Paintball, it will accelerate and the velocity will increase.

Now unless the barrel is so long that there is no longer any air pressure behind the ball and the ball is being decelerated by friction with the barrel, shortening the barrel and changing nothing else on the gun will result in a LOWER velocity and much louder BANG.

[Coaster]

Finding the effective barrel length for an automag can be found with mathematics. I will be able to calculate this if somebody can tell me the volume of the airchamber(in cubic inches).

also,what happens first? the PB leaves the barrel or, the bolt moves back into the ready position.

[rudy]

SlartyBartFast you have completely misinterpreted my statement I was saying that anything down to an 8 inch barrel will be more efficient then a 2 peice with 4 - 6 inchest of tight bore back. not that a 8 inch barrel will result in higher velocity then a 14 inch barrel. even though it could depending on where the porting starts, and the friction of the barrel surface. also the only reason I did not say all 1 peice barrels is cause after a point the barrel is slowing the ball down so I woul expect a 20 inch barrel would result in a lower velocity then a 10 inch barrel. Of course all this depending on the gun used barrel surface and porting

[SlartyBartFast]

Originally posted by rudy
SlartyBartFast you have completely misinterpreted my statement I was saying that anything down to an 8 inch barrel will be more efficient then a 2 peice with 4 - 6 inchest of tight bore back. not that a 8 inch barrel will result in higher velocity then a 14 inch barrel. even though it could depending on where the porting starts, and the friction of the barrel surface. also the only reason I did not say all 1 peice barrels is cause after a point the barrel is slowing the ball down so I woul expect a 20 inch barrel would result in a lower velocity then a 10 inch barrel. Of course all this depending on the gun used barrel surface and porting

Okay, I agree with you completely then :D .
The wording wasn't terribly clear so please forgive my misunderstandingof your intentions.

Also, like most Pball discussions we're all starting to change terms and mix the discussion.

For the same overall length of barrel I believe that a 2-piece compared with a one-piece honed barrel (same bore over whole length) will result in:

1- lower accuracy (ball bounce at end of barrel)
2- lower effieciency (when shooting at same velocities)
3- lower velocity (when shooting with the same settings as for one-piece)

So, do we agree rudy?
(looking at your other posts in this thread it's bad that I didn't pay more attention and realise we were on the same wavelength here:p. )

[rudy]

yep I agree with 2 and 3 but I have no idea if 1 is right or not I think I will go try and figure that out now. some people say that ball never touches the front, others say it somehow guides the ball. and some say it bounces around. ill have to figure that onw out.

[rabidchihauhau]

If you want to end the theoretical discussion and put theory to practice - get the Armson SSR - the rear half/breech half is a full EIGHT inches in length and can be (and has been) used as a short (and loud) barrel all by itself.

The SSR system was designed based on all of the best current theories which flow from the best available testing. The breech end is 8 inches in length so that your paint has finished the powered portion of its travel while still in the same tube. The polygonal STRAIGHT rifling provides a better seal on the ball - on average - than smoothbores.

Front ends are ported to reduce sound - not for any other reason. Rifling is present to provide a better chance of a seal - not for creating spin.

[SlartyBartFast]

Originally posted by rabidchihauhau
Front ends are ported to reduce sound

Well, you've certainly got you facts straighter than a number of paintball players.

Any testing available on the Armson straight 'rifling'? I'd still like to see atest that would conclusively show how the ball is affected when it passes from a tight bore back end to a big bore front end.

But, instead of a two-piece why not just get an 11" tight bore one-piece barrel with a minimum of porting so that effective length is within the 10" optimum efficiency for a Mag (I believe that is what Tom Kaye has stated)?

[rabidchihauhau]

the bore in both halves is the same.

you're welcome to test.

I have personal experience with a 10" unported barrel on mags for nearly a decade and I agree that - at least for me and my current (and long time) set up, its the best. I have replsced a J&J 10" brass, striaght rifled, .689 id barrel (that I used for 8 years!!! - and which amazed other players with its - ugliness and accuracy) with an 11" SSR (effectively 10") and would NOT have replaced the J&J with anything not equal to it.

Yes, I work at Pro-Team, but think about that: I WORK at Pro-Team and had a J&J on my tournament gun. NOW I have an SSR.

One gun, one guy, maybe biased (I think not, check the history) but its at least based on reality.

[rabidchihauhau]

Below are excerpts from US Patent #

The complete text and drawings for just about any patent (US) can be found by visiting www.uspto.gov, selecting patent and using the search functions there.



"It is therefore an object of the present invention to stabilize the spin on a paintball for improving the accuracy of the paintball shot. It is a further object to improve long distance accuracy of paintball shots and also to increase the percentage of paintballs which break on impact. It is a still further object of the invention to permit the escape of moisture build-up in the paintball gun barrel and to lower the noise created by the paintball shot."

In developing my invention, I proceeded in the following steps. First, I determined to relieve the air column that precedes the ball during the shot and to relieve the excess CO.sub.2 gas following the ball to ease the entry of the ball from the muzzle 16 into the atmosphere. To do this, I tried drilling apertures in various sizes and patterns along the barrel 12.

there needed to be a length of the barrel from the breech towards the muzzle which had no holes for a minimum of 3 inches and preferably 6 inches or more; and (5) it was most important that the area of all the apertures exceeded the area of the front of the muzzle to quickly relieve the air column in front of the ball. In fact, my best results occurred when the combined area of all the apertures exceeded the area of the muzzle opening by approximately three times


Second, I tried to achieve greater accuracy by putting modestly controlled spin on the paintball. To achieve this I placed the apertures in a helical pattern described later in this application and found that with two helixes at 180.degree. to each other, my results improved. I further angled all the apertures described hereinafter and found that the helical patterns in combination with the angled apertures caused the expelling jets of air and gas to put a controlled spin on the air and gas columns that in turn influence the paintball. I thus further improved the accuracy and distance of the shot.

In the area of the barrel 12 from the choke to the first aperture, I honed the barrel to a first diameter, and from there to the muzzle 16, I honed to a second diameter larger than the first. These three stages of barrel diameters had a dramatic effect. The first stage centered the paintball and started the ball accurately. The second and third stages provided an air cushion, and the third stage provided the gentle spinning air column which was imparted to the paintball. The net results of these various steps were a startling improvement in the accuracy and distance of the paintball.


In theory, when the paintball is accelerated in a closed atmosphere such as a barrel, it pushes the entrapped air ahead of it thereby creating a pressure field higher than the surrounding atmosphere; the ejection process becomes somewhat similar to a jet exhausting against a flat plate normal to the jet stream; a condition that creates great turbulence at the mouth of the jet in this case the muzzle of the barrel.

On the pressure side of the ball, the pressure field is incrementally reduced as the air is forced out through the apertures, thus reducing the resistance to paintball acceleration and also creating a smaller differential pressure between the ball and the atmosphere with less turbulence prevailing. As previously mentioned, the apertures are drilled at an angle and this combined with the double helix pattern causes the gas column to rotate incrementally along the spiral (Volute Action) resulting in some ball rotation. Any rotation of the ball will cause rotation of the fluid (paint) inside the ball thus bringing the center of gravity more in line with the ball's central axis, a condition which would reduce wobbling. Also when the ball enters the atmosphere with some rotation a more quiescent entry occurs.

[rudy]

The SSR system was designed based on all of the best current theories which flow from the best available testing. The breech end is 8 inches in length so that your paint has finished the powered portion of its travel while still in the same tube. The polygonal STRAIGHT rifling provides a better seal on the ball - on average - than smoothbores.


Where are all the tests for this BTW they arent theories if they just flow from test they are just a hypothosis which needs its own test to make it a theory. I am particularly interested in why you have claimed this to be a better seal on a ball then smooth bores. also does this barrel come in more then ne more size?


I thus further improved the accuracy and distance of the shot.


The net results of these various steps were a startling improvement in the accuracy and distance of the paintball.

You claim a increase in accuracy but I would like to see the actual results and how exactly the testing was done. believe it or not just about every barrel company claims the same thing OUR barrel = more ACCURATE. so how is this claim any different then the next company.


Also when the ball enters the atmosphere with some rotation a more quiescent entry occurs.

once again I would like some proof that it is any more quiescent then other common barrels.

actually your should probably break down that whole previous post cause its full of claims but little to none of them are backed by real research that I am aware of. I would like to see some shot paterns with different alterations on a barrel and some high speed video showing the balls consistently spinning for starters.

[SlartyBartFast]

Originally posted by rabidchihauhau
"It is therefore an object of the present invention to stabilize the spin on a paintball for improving the accuracy of the paintball shot. It is a further object to improve long distance accuracy of paintball shots and also to increase the percentage of paintballs which break on impact. It is a still further object of the invention to permit the escape of moisture build-up in the paintball gun barrel and to lower the noise created by the paintball shot."

Without further proof, I will contend that the only the last claim is absolutely true. Looking at Patents remember a few important points, the claims do not have to be true and the patent can claim absolutely anything. Additionally, normally a patent is loosely worded in order to encompass the largest possible exclusion area with regards to similar or competing products.

The rest of the patent text from smart parts is unprovable as no patent agent ever tests whether the 'invention' works and often even whether the invention is really patentable. You can patent perpetual motion machines if you want to pay the approx. 3000 $US filing fees. Even if all the laws of physics say they are impossible. Usually you just prove that you've done a search and nobody else has patented the idea and that nobody currently markets a similar product. It is then up to you to pig headedly defend you patent against all infringements and for others who contest the patent to challenge to defend themselves in court if they believe that the patent is without grounds.

All the claims are unsubstantiated and I would like to see any evidence that any of the claims are true. Venting the pressure before the ball and releasing the excess after is all rubbish, but it does make for a quiet barrel :D.

Believe the claims if you want, but the only person to ever test ball spin and report on it was Tom Kaye and AGD. Tom spun a barrel at thousands of rpm and still didn't come up with improvements in accuracy. Claims of inducing or stabilizing spin are just Marketing Hype until proven with repeated test data. I find it unlikely that differences in pressure for a fraction of a second will induce spin and the other contender ARMSON is unlikely to straighten travel unless the rifling actually digs into the shell. But given a tight bore barrel, I give the ARMSON more chance of actually living up to claims as I would believe that the paintball should experience equal pressure around its circumference which may indeed stop spin.

Smart Parts Patent would have been better filed as an industrial design: "2 helical lines of port holes at the end of a barrel". Seeing as they haven't put any of the numerous other barrel makers with ported/vented barrels out of business by trying to enforce the patent might just say a lot about how the claims would stand up in court.

PS: Rudy, be careful because it looks like you've misquoted and attributed two different posts and sets of claims to the same person.

PPS: This discussion should be moved BACK to Deep Blue or perhaps even better should be proposed in the new Technical Round Table forum.

PPPS: We've certainly strayed from the original question haven't we.

[rabidchihauhau]

Please do not confuse the patent claims from the spiral ported barrel patent with advertising and testing claims made for Armson barrels.

Some asked how the polygonal rifling provides a better seal. The shaping and spacing of the rifling conforms in a greater number of cases to the out-of-round shape of most paintballs.

One test that amply demonstrates a better seal - provided you do your measurements properly, is to use the same paint with a smoothbore of the same length and with an armson. You will find that your velocity averages will increase with the armson. Better seal is not the only reason why this might be, but it is a very good candidate in the vast majority of situations.

IF paint were perfectly spherical, a smoothbore with a perfectly circular cross section would be the ideal shape to seal completely. Since paint is not spherical, a slightly different shape - in the case of Armson barrels a polygonal surface - does the job better.

Once again, someone also seems to be confused and thinks that the rifling in an armson barrel is there to induce spin. It is not.

[rudy]

why bother even posting all that patent junk? I guess im not even sure what your reasoning was for quoting large portions of a patent now.

anyhow you are going to have to explain to me better how a polygon is going to make a tighter fit to a somewhat spherical ball then a barrel with a circular bore. If the fit is tighter to me it only means that you make your barrel bore smaller. Which would explain why I often here people complain of breaking paint as it enters the barrel from the stealth barrel. (correct me if the ssr is totally different I have not reccomended anyone buy an armson barrel after expirence with the stealth) The only possible way I can see the fit as being tighter (I wont say better) on average is if the polygonal rifling allows for some play in the ball size because one that would be to tight for the barrel could be squashed in because of the fact it has some extra space to squeeze into since the barrel is not perfectly round. on the other hand My friend with a armson stealth claims bad efficiency which could be because while the barrel is tight, it still has plenty of space for air to escape around the ball. and just might be a little to tight.


the bore in both halves is the same.

if the bore is the same in both halves why even make a 2 piece barrel? unless i misinterpreted that. Your are refering the the ssr barrel right?

[SSMercury]

The reason this shouldn't be tossed back into the Round Table forum is that this is a debate on the validity of a 2 step bore barrel system affecting accuracy. (Any questions on this?) However, as I make it, Tom created the Round Table forum to have some people independently test marketer's claims and post here, then have other forum people beat the crap out of the findings or agree with them, by doing there OWN testing supporting or not supporting the results. So marketer claims X, person A tests, says marketer is full of it, people B,C,D,...,n argue yay nay and test, and hopefully someone's ideas change.

Anyways, the reason this shouldn't be moved is that this is a debate in theory, as I don't see anyone stepping up to test this as would be done in Round Table forum. (Don't ask me to, a 150-200 dollar BARREL set to use just for TESTING is out of my league financially. BTW, I'm in it for the 1 bore barrels, siding with the "ball bouncing in XXX-large bore step decreases accuracy' people. But that's just me) If you want it moved, start a new thread in Round Table saying you intend to test this, yay or nay, and do so, and post info. (BTW, it's a good idea to read the forum for ideas on making your results stand to a heated debate, and...weeelllll, this is a heated topic, better put on flame retardant suits. ;))

[pballguy17]

Correct me if i'm wrong, i'm not a huge math wiz...Takign a quick step backwards to ball acceleration. The actul distance taht the ball needs to accelerate would HAVE to b diffrent for every gun. Alot of things that would effect accelration. A lowe pressure gun lets say running 100psi, can shoot a softer paintball b/c it gently PUSHES the ball down there barrel, while a gun shooting at say 800psi smack the ball quickly up to speed. so a gun shooting 100 PSI would need mroe accelration sapce to reach 300FPS, while a gun running at 800PSI would only need a few inches. I'm sure there is some kinda of figures u can use to find the accual accelration of PSI to inches. But than again u need to remeber friction of paintball to barrel, if ur shoving a big ball thru a small hole u need more PSI or dweel to push the ball thru, and fi ur putting a really small ball in a big barrel, ur STILL going to nned mroe air/PSI b/c air is escaping around the edges of the ball.


I think a good test would b find a LOW pressure gun that runs at about 200below PSI, and a high pressure blowback like a spyder running at around 800PSI, get the same barrel/paint match and make a somekinda retractble barrel, than u can C hwo long(or short ;) ) a gun can fire at 300PSI, THAN u have found the needed accelration.. i think.


unless of course i'm totally wrong than forget everything i said

[SlartyBartFast]

pballguy17,

High pressure vs. low pressure is mostly a myth. The pressures refer to the pressures required to operate the marker's cocking mechanism not fire the ball.

Tom Kaye has shown in numerous graphs that the pressure used to fire the ball is virually identical for all markers.

[pballguy17]

hey, could u aim me about that? i'm interstead in the facts of it! my spyder when i got the reg and all the LP stuff on it shot at a lower PSI, and the whole point was less pressure on the ball.. did i waste 200$ of upgrades!!! im me!! AIM SN WatEvrAndEvrAmen

[angelKiller16]

I would just like to ad one point. If you look at all of the 2 piece berrals the second piece is heavyly ported. So if the ball is shot out of the 1st peie straight wouldn't the porting, as sp says, reduce or eleimiante the turbulance behind and in from of the ball. In essence making the fron of the berral pretty much useless ecept for looks and possible some reduction of turbulance insuring a straight flight

[SlartyBartFast]

Pballguy 17,

Don't think you wasted your money. All those mods should make a difference to the force with which the bolt affects the paintball (I think). Hopefully they also helped your shot to shot pressure consistency. :D

I'm not familiar with Spyders and how they work, so I don't know what the mods actually do or if they are effective. :(

PS: I'm a complete n00b when it comes to messaging so I'd have no idea how to AIM you. :rolleyes:

[pballguy17]

lol, to AIM me would b to log onto aol instant messager type my name in on ur buddy list and than double click it and sending a message, AIM is short for "Aol Instant Messenger"

[rabidchihauhau]

Once again. ALL the porting does is quiet the barrel. Pressure behind the ball will still be positive (unless the ports are HUGE) for most of the balls' travel throuhg the ported section.

[Slapp]

With a freak system you can size the insert to fit your paint. The insert is 5 inches long. When fired from any marker the rate of acceleration decreases as the paintball moves down the barrel. The Freak therefore provides a good fit for the paintball through the first 5 inches of maximum acceleration for the paintball. Beyond these first 5 inches the freak front is really only a silencer especially with an all american front which is ported to within 2 inches of where it screws into the freak back. Would a longer section of perfect paint to barrel diameter provide greater efficiency and accuracy, most likely. Does the freak's 5 inches of good paint to barrel match provide the ability to match your paint for greater accuracy than any one piece or fixed diameter two piece barrel, yes. The question comes down to: is the ability of a freak to more accurately match a 5 inch section of barrel to the paint typically better than having a longer effective barrel length of say 8 to 10 inches but with perhaps a less precise paint to barrel match with something like a Lapco Bigshot? If you are going to shoot a wide variety of paint under a variety of humidity and temperature conditions the answer is yes. A perfect paint to barrel match should be less critical the farther the ball moves down the barrel. Would there be benefit gained if the Freak inserts provided 8 to 10 inches of matching instead of 5, yes. How critical is it to have that additional 3 to 5 inches of match? I don't think it would outweigh other factors on accuracy.

Keep in mind, the motion of your hand and fingers pulling the trigger and the mechanical action of the bolt firing & marker cycling (such as the back block movement on a cocker)(I just couldn't resist) are factors that will jiggle your marker as you shoot it and therefore contribute to less accuracy. Not even back players stand perfectly still while firing the lanes so there is always some body movement effecting the consistency of your aim, often to a large extent. These movement variables are likely to have far more effect on your accuracy and consistency than an additional couple inches of perfect paint to barrel match.

Discussion of perfect paint to barrel match and effective barrel length is more about air efficiency than accuracy because we tend to be running around and moving while shooting anyway.

Freaks are the best barrel because chicks dig that little one eyed dude emblem.

[rabidchihauhau]

I think it goes without saying that under proper testing conditions, the gun(s) would be chocked down and 'wiggle' would be eliminated.

We ALL agree that 'paint to barrel' issues are still more art than science. I personally believe that there are physical actions going on inside the barrel and inside the ball that affect accuracy which we have not accounted for yet: as evidence for such I present the great amount of variation in 'observed results' (not all of it is due to bad observing technique) and the debate still swirling around such issues as length, porting, backspin, low pressure, high pressure, open and closed and etc.

Those things which have been properly tested (column of air in front of the ball - not, vacuum formed behind the ball, not, bouncing down the barrel, yes, spin induced, not) I accept as fact. Everything else is open to debate.

[Scorch]

Originally posted by Goldie D Pimp
I'm just wondering if they should bother making so many different sized bores, or just go with a small, med, large tube???

EXACTLY!!! Freak owners (new ones) seem to fit paint too tightly. At one point, my whole team had them... It was not a good thing. Our front guys ALWAYS left to field with paint in their porting... I had a 14" Ceramic then (for my Angel) and would always choose it if it was even close to fitting the paint over my freak.

Now I have a cocker thread set of 4 12" J&J Ceramics. .686-.695 They fit every paint I see well enough for near perfect consistency and I never ever have paint breaks. I only carry a squeegie to make my team happy... I'd stopped carrying one for over 8 months until they noticed.

Freaks are evil... costly and are bested by barrels costing a fraction.

Scorch

[hitech]

Originally posted by rabidchihauhau
Pressure behind the ball will still be positive (unless the ports are HUGE) for most of the balls' travel throuhg the ported section.

Tom doesn't agree with you. Here is a quote from his Tech Tip :

The effective length of the barrel is from the balls position before it's fired, to the place in the barrel where the pressure gets released, This is usually at the first porting holes or the step in the barrel. Porting is there to release gas pressure!! You are effectively stopping the acceleration at the ports so your 14" barrel that is half full of holes only has an effective length of 7".

[Richter]

I was told by a once smart parts sponsored player that SP made everyone on their team to play with the largest size insert.( am not saying what team either; i want to be on the guys good side still and not get him into trouble)

Why do you ask?

It is because paint is inconsistent and if you have one large oblong ball it can and will break(murphy's law :) ) in the barrel. One thing that SP doesn't want to see is sponsored teams with paint breaks. This would then advertise that the products they make are not as good as they claim. This would advertise that freaks do break paint.

So that sponsored team would shoot the largest insert. They would lose a little efficiency but the most crucial thing for accuracy is not to break paint in the barrel; especially ported barrels

My suggestion to anyone with a freak find the best insert for the paint and then go one size up just in case of those oblong balls.

ported barrels and paint breaks:mad:

i do the exact opposite with my lapco 8 inch though. If it's a little too it shoots really straight. it aslo shoots through breaks well.

In conclusion my hypoctrical suggestions and opionion is:

highly ported barrels size up
low ported barrels size down

and the old era 95 armson barrel with the muzzel break cut of for out of round junk.

thats my experience with 68 automag since '95.

[rabidchihauhau]

What I said and what Tom contends are only seemingly contradictory. I did not say that the pressure remaining was enough to accelerate the ball further, nor did Tom's statement make things a yes or no only thing.

I merely said that pressure remains 'positive' as in 'something greater than ambient'.