Accuracy Bench Test Results: GZ Timmy vs. M98RT vs. Automag Retro (pics)

[Jack & Coke]

TEST for "ACCURACY"

Here's the skinny...

I hear all the time how "this gun is accurate" or "that gun is not accurate", blah blah blah... So I wanted to know how all three of my markers performed under the same test conditions:

GZ TIMMY
TIPPY M98RT
AUTOMAG RETRO

- SAME shooting conditions (fixed via big vise)
- SAME barrel (3 freak backs, same exact front & insert)
- SAME paint (RPS All-Stars)
- SAME shooting distance (65')
- SAME chronograph (Shooting Chrony)

Since, I did not have a level to adjust the barrel's vertical pitch, I could not test for trajectory drop to address the infamous "my gun has more distance and shoot flatter than yours" arguement.

Instead, I focussed on "accuracy". If the gun is held in a fixed position, how consistant or "accurate" would the shots hit the wall?

Since all 3 guns opperate differently, I was currious to see if indeed it even mattered. The way in which each gun regulates and dispurses the propelling air is different. The only similarity being that they are all open bolt guns.

I pulled the trigger approx. once per 3-4 seconds, and this is what I recorded...

[Jack & Coke]

GZ Timmy

[Jack & Coke]

GZ Timmy Trial 1

[Jack & Coke]

GZ Timmy Trial 2

[Jack & Coke]

M98RT

[Jack & Coke]

M98RT (different view)

[Jack & Coke]

M98RT Trial 1

[Jack & Coke]

M98RT Trial 2

[Jack & Coke]

Automag Retro

[Jack & Coke]

Automag Retro (different view)

[Jack & Coke]

Automag Retro Trial 1

[Jack & Coke]

Automag Retro Trial 2

(Last pic)

Open for discussion...

[yeahthatsme]

looks like if anything you could say that the mag has better accuracy...

[Curly]

WOW! very interesting test. I like the fact that you kept the variables very low. It seems that the mag and GZ had a very similar spread. Though the GZ seems to be a tad bit smaller. It also seems that the Model 98 had a much bigger spread. I also noticed that there one or two instances where the velocity on the Mdl 98 jumped almost 10 fps. I wonder is this inconsistancy could have caused a couple of the balls which seemed to be further out from the spread.

All in all the accuracy of the guns does not seem that different. In a real game situation it is unlikely that you would even be an accurate enough shooter to tell the difference between the guns in terms of accuracy.

I would be interested in seeing the freak kit and evil pipe barrel tested in this same way to see if one is more accurate then another.

P.S I own a GZ so of course it is more accurate. ;)

[Jack & Coke]

Thoughts...

- At 65', the distance is "medium" range. Differences in fps do not affect hit location as much as they would at greater distances. In other words a +/- 10 fps could land in the same spot at this range, whereas at long range, you would probably start to notice more of a scattering pattern.

- I was impressed with the "accuracy" / "consistancy" of the GZ and Automag.... Just about right in the same spot every time!

- The M98 was more difficult to dial in for consistant chronographing (I was trying to get it to 290, but it kept creeping up to 298-302). However, once settled in, it was not too bad.

- I also shot a few balls with my new Boomer Front (freak), not too bad! I was very consistant as well... However, a dropoff in velocity betwee the 10" Boomy and the 13" AA was very noticable.

- I wish I had:

1. more room (longer distance)
2. a leveling device
3. an autococker to for testing (closed bolt)
4. a video camera
5. remembered to test my PGP 2k2 for comparison

[boomerfoxtrot]

well, looks like the GZ won this test.... but not by much... the RT right behind in a close second and then the model98 lagging behind...

about the comment above... at 65' you might not notice that much, but what about 100' ? if at 60' the spread is 6" on two guns and 10" on another .. then at 100' wouldn't the spread be more noticable?


your next test should be three-five shot burst... test the "true nature" of the gun... cause how often do you fire 1 ball every 4 seconds... most shots come in burst...


very nice test though.....

[Jack & Coke]

Originally posted by boomerfoxtrot
well, looks like the GZ won this test.... but not by much... the RT right behind in a close second and then the model98 lagging behind...

IMHO, I think the electronic hair trigger + low kick of the GZ helps to keep it on target. The Automag had the lowest kick, however the trigger is tad more "stiff".

YES... I understand that the guns are clamped into the vise! The sucker is rock solid. However, any slight movement or vibration (i.e. M98!!), would be amplified when anyalizing the results at a distance.

The best solution is to fix a laser pointer to the tip of the barrel to ensure that you are aiming at the same location for each shot. I tried this, but my laser point was not powerful enough (low batteries?) and I could not see the dot on the wall.

I will try this test again when I get my XMAG (hopefully within the next year) to see if the electro trigger does help.


Originally posted by boomerfoxtrot
your next test should be three-five shot burst... test the "true nature" of the gun... cause how often do you fire 1 ball every 4 seconds... most shots come in burst...


YES! I will next time!

thanks for the feedback:)

[nippinout]

Nice test!

One suggestion though...

For the retro, you want to be pulling the trigger like it should be pulled.

Maybe you did. But if you didn't: between shots, keep the trigger pulled back and when you are ready to pull, release and pull very quickly.

[Severe]

Very nice test.

If you do it again, I would suggest two things.
1. Map where each round lands and the velocity for that shot. That way you can see if/how spikes impact accuracy.
2. After the first round is fired, consider that the center mass for the sstring of fire. Give a Top to bottom and a left to right measurement. I've seen one site do this and it gives a nice indication of drift and such.

I guess I would also include other variables.
Temperature, Wind, Dew Point, Air Tank type/fill, etc.

Lastly, the different ranges would be nice.

Again. Nice test.

[battlegroup]

First off Nice test!

suggestion for the next test. Use a level and gun laser that can be fixed to the gun and will not move with vibrations. Fire some rounds to make sure the laser is in the center of the group. Clean the wall. Next place an X on the wall where the laser is pointing with the gun level. Fire one shot and record the FPS and distance from the laser dot on wall. Clean wall. Keep doing this for about 10-20 shots. This way we can find out what velocity fluctuations really have an effect on the accuracy. you can also compare just the shots that were fired at exactly the same fps. you use the distance from center and average it to find a single number for that marker that you can compare to other markers.

I liked the fact that you used the same freak insert and tip for each gun. Do you have any other barrels you can do the test with?

[Jack & Coke]

Originally posted by nippinout
Nice test!

One suggestion though...

For the retro, you want to be pulling the trigger like it should be pulled.

Maybe you did. But if you didn't: between shots, keep the trigger pulled back and when you are ready to pull, release and pull very quickly.

I'll try that...

I thought that the procedure for pulling the trigger, that you described above, was to produce the highest velocity - hence proper chronographing...? Does this procedure also yield more "consistant" air regulation?

As far as barrels go, one of the reasons I selected the freak was because I had 3 different types of guns. The Equation was not available at the time. The CP Kit, Sceptor, Pipe, JT kit, JJ, etc. would have been toooooo expensive to get 3 x 5 => 15 different backs.

Since a lot of people have been dissing the freak, I'll probably get a new barrel set when I pick up an XMAG sometime next year (*crosses fingers and hopes AGD can deliver*) for comparison.

My next test, will compare a Cocker vs. Mag vs. GZ Timmy vs. Tippy regarding the myths of "open bolt vs. closed bolt", "accuracy", "flatter trajectory", and "distance". However, that won't be for a while... I don't own a cocker, and I made one hell of a day-glow green mess in my parents backyard!:D

[Evil Bob]

Jack... I did a similar test between an angel and an Emag for shootdown. 10 rounds fired as fast as possible always shows some interesting results.

Overall good test, only one problem that sticks out in my mind... you need a different target medium. Grab yourself a 2" x 12" x 5' board for the target, it'll lean up nicely against the brick wall you used.

The reason why the bricks are a poor medium is the surface is not uniform, there are bricks sticking out that are getting splattered when the paintballs impact on the surface. It's leaving a deceptively larger impact area and throwing the results off visually.

-Evil Bob

[Jack & Coke]

Originally posted by Evil Bob
Jack...

Good test, only one problem that sticks out in my mind... you need a different target medium. Grab yourself a 2" x 12" x 5' board for the target, it'll lean up nicely against the brick wall you used.

The reason why the bricks are a poor medium is the surface is not uniform, there are bricks sticking out that are getting splattered when the paintballs impact on the surface. It's leaving a deceptively larger impact area and throwing the results off visually.

-Evil Bob

Yeah... I thought about that. I just found it much easier to hose off the paint after each trial. :)

"...always shows some interesting results..." What were your results?

[veteranmag]

That was great. I just wish that the range was 100 ft or more, at 65 ft most guns are pretty effective. It's the long range accuracy that sets some above the rest.

The "this gun has a flatter trajectory" question is one of the great unanswered questions of our time. The idea of using a level and a laser sight are good suggestsions.

Another question that I've always wondered in the whether different guns have different mid-flight velocity characteristics. That is if gun A and gun B both have 300 feet per second muzzle velocity (crono located right by the barrel), do they paintballs shot from the respective guns have the same speed downrange? I would think so, but if somehow that was not the case (ie different valve design, low pressure, expansion properties of co2 vs. nitro, barrel design - see some of Palmer Pursuit Shop's theories), that might explain why some people insist that some guns have better long range performance than others.

One way to possibly investigate this is to put a crono by the barrel and another crono 10 feet or so further down and see if some guns lose less speed over distance.

[dre1919]

Nice job! I liked how you set up the test, and I definitely liked the presentation format. I think the Mag did very well for not being electric. That was one of the first things I noticed when I put my Hyperframe on my RT making it electric...the lessened recoil. I started getting even tighter shot placement with the Hyper on there.

[BeerCitySk8brds]

What did you do with RT? Because of shootup and all. It wouldn't really effect it in this to much though.

Good test.

[Jack & Coke]

Originally posted by veteranmag
That was great. I just wish that the range was 100 ft or more, at 65 ft most guns are pretty effective. It's the long range accuracy that sets some above the rest.

Yeah... I'll have to find another location... or tell my parents that they need a bigger backyard.:)



Originally posted by veteranmag
Another question that I've always wondered in the whether different guns have different mid-flight velocity characteristics. That is if gun A and gun B both have 300 feet per second muzzle velocity (crono located right by the barrel), do they paintballs shot from the respective guns have the same speed downrange? I would think so, but if somehow that was not the case (ie different valve design, low pressure, expansion properties of co2 vs. nitro, barrel design - see some of Palmer Pursuit Shop's theories), that might explain why some people insist that some guns have better long range performance than others.

One way to possibly investigate this is to put a crono by the barrel and another crono 10 feet or so further down and see if some guns lose less speed over distance.

Interesting. I would think that as soon as the ball exits the barrel, it is no longer accelerating. Thus it's velocity can only decrease.

I have a handheld chrono as well and can check it next time for you.

[Evil Bob]

Another thing that needs to be done is the camera needs to be in a fixed location for taking the pictures of the shot groups so that the aspect ratio is not off, which will throw of a visual comparison. I cut and pasted the pictures of the timmy and mag and put them side by side for further comparison and the results are seen in the attached pic, the bricks don't match up.

Unfortunately, you did not shoot at the same brick for proper size reference, the white brick in the timmy pics is not seen in the mag pics. Also, comparing the top and bottom picts on the left (the first mag pic and the first timmy pic), the bricks are larger in the mag pic, meaning the camera was closer to the bricks when the picture was taken, which again throws off the visual comparison. Need to use the same fixed target location to keep the comparison uniform. From the picts it is not possible to declare which marker was the winner since the visual reference is all off and there is alot of collateral splatter making the shot groups artificially larger.

-Evil Bob

[Jack & Coke]

Originally posted by BeerCitySk8brds
What did you do with RT? Because of shootup and all. It wouldn't really effect it in this to much though.

Good test.

I also noticed this... My first guess regarding the mag's numbers are that I forgot to oil up the valve. I have not shot the mag in a few weeks. I'm guessing the valve/bolt could have performed better with proper lubrication. It was my bad. I was trying to wrap things up, and since the MAG was last to be tested, I just plain forgot to add a few drops into the line... next time!

[Jack & Coke]

Originally posted by Evil Bob
...Unfortunately, you did not shoot at the same brick for proper size reference, the white brick in the timmy pics is not seen in the mag pics. Also, in the first mag pict, the bricks are larger, meaning the camera was closer to the bricks when the picture was taken, which again throws off the visual comparison. Need to use the same fixed target location to keep the comparison uniform. From the picts it is not possible to declare which marker was the winner since the visual reference is all off and there is alot of collateral splatter making the shot groups artificially larger.

-Evil Bob

That's why I gave the brick scale. Each brick in about 6.75" long (longside). You can deduce the approximate group sizing by referencing the bricks.

Remeber, these are only two trials for each gun. I was up against the clock (xmas party). I think next time, I'll do 5 trials...

Thanks for the comments and suggestions!

[Evil Bob]

You're on the right path, you just need to refine the test a bit more before you have it right on.

The test I did with my angels (both of them before I sold them off) was for shootdown on long strings of paint (which everyone shoots in tournies, especially the lard butts playing on the back end).

The angel fans were all claiming there was no shootdown in the low pressure nature of the angel, they claimed Tom and that Mag owners were making it all up despite Tom's own test results. I found out through lots of tourny experience with a red dot sight mounted on the angel, I found I was raising my point of aim gradually the faster and longer I fired it to compensate for shootdown. I first noticed it when I was longballing a back player. When I first short 3 round strings, I only needed to put the red dot on the player's head to hit near his waist. When I let the angel rock I had to put the dot over the player's head to hit the same location. This is what led into the below test to satisfy my curiousity. The Angel LCD at the time simply couldn't keep up with the demands I was placing on it. The shootdown was quite real, but since very few angel owners use sights, they didn't readily notice it.

I setup a board (2" x 12" x 5') in the backyard (12 acres of woods to use) against a large oak tree 90' (30 yards) away. I used 10" heavy paper plates that I stapled to the top of the board for the target medium.

The markers (emag and angel LCD) were then setup in a benchrest I use for sighting in my real firearms (both pistols and rifles) on a carpenture's portable work bench that made a very solid testing platform. Both markers were fired at the software limits of 6BPS, 10 BPS, 13 BPS, and then 16 BPS. The emag had a warp feed mounted on it with a modded 12v revy, the same revy was also used on the angel. 100 rounds (1 pod) were loaded into the hopper and fired.

To fire for the test, I used a battery powered dremel tool with a wooden spool with a wooden peg mounted off center in the end, I'd juice the dremel up and bring the rapidly rotating peg carefully into contact with the trigger so that the marker would fire as fast as the software limits would allow.

6BPS: Emag hit the paper plate repeatedly, no visible shootdown. Angel also hit the plate consistantly.

10BPS: Emag hit the paper plate repeatedly, no visible shootdown. Angel hit the paper plate with the first 5 shots then the shots started to drop a bit (visible shoot down) resulting in an oval shot pattern and hitting below the plate.

13BPS (NPPL standard): Emag hit the paper plate repeatedly, no visible shootdown. Angel had a larger of an oval pattern this time and hit further below the paper plate, more visible shootdown.

16BPS: 12v revy had a hard time keeping up, so shot strings were kept intentionally low, I didn't want to chop paint but ended up doing so in the angel several times, which resulted in some crazy curve balls that missed the board completely. The Emag and warp didn't chop paint, and had no problems hitting the plate repeatedly. I threw out the angel results as it couldn't keep up without chopping paint.

If I still had my Angels, I'd love to repeat this test as we now have a loaders that are more then capable of keeping up with 16bps.

-Evil Bob

[Jack & Coke]

Awesome! Sounds like a good test.... no pics??? Shame on you!;)

[Evil Bob]

Yeah, no picts to speak of... the dilemma was "buy an Emag from AGDE or buy a digital camera for the wife" (which would have cost more!!!)... the wife has yet to forgive me for that "lack of proper judgement" on my part, this was also almost 2 years ago :(

-Evil Bob

[mykroft]

Evil Bob: I'm assuming you were using an LED Angel then? I've found the LCD to be noticably more consistant than the LED, with no visible shootdown at 11 bps. I suspect this is just due to some tweaking of the LPR and valve.

[halB]

statistically, every gun shot the same.

[Evil Bob]

I had owned 2 LED's for well over a year before I bought my first LCD, which was about 2 months before I did the shootdown test. I had just picked up a second as a backup when I ran the test.

The problem is not really apparent when you're just eye balling where the paintballs drop (like 99% of the players out there do) and adjusting fire from there. It was really noticiable when you mount a fixed sight such as a red dot sight that provides you with a visual reference point. At the same known distance when hammering on the trigger I would have to raise the point of aim higher then when I was shooting short strings/double tapping/bursting or single shoting. Which of course led to heated debates on here and other boards regarding shootdown. Tom presented his info from testing (he owns several angels, loves them) and I did my own testing just for curiosity sake. I wanted to know how the shoot down affected the trajectory so I could use that info appropriately in game. The team I played required it's members to shoot angels. I bought the Emag from AGDE because I have always loved the hardcore stainless steel construction of the Mag's. The type of marker I'd let my kids play with and not worry about beating up.

-Evil Bob

[Butterfingers]

Very Very Nice UP in the name of science!

I approve!

[Jack & Coke]

For some odd reason, it felt really good tightening the vise up and making sure the barrel was rock solid in it's position. I was affraid I would damage the freak front, so I was very careful. Knowing that the barrel is locked in, it was fun seeing where all the shots actually landed.

Of course, there are many factors which could influence the ball's trajectory. The goal was to focus on the guns themselves and not the barrel/paint.

Next time, I will try harder to have the guns shooting the same velocity. I tried to adjust the velocities this time, but as you know, it takes time and usuage for regulator springs to settle in each time you make adjustments. It would probably be best if I fired each gun a few hundered times after each reg adjustment and before chronoing/testing.

Now and I need another $60 for a case of All-Stars! All in the name of science and the high standards that is AO... :eek:

[BarryTolar]

Might want to no lock the vise to the barrel at all.

Try attaching it to the grip frame if possible.

Barry

[rx2]

Unfortunately, no amount of testing is going to completely dispell any myths, as new myths and lines of reasoning will be created in order to skirt around science. However, any independant endeavour into scientific method is commendable.

BUT, I must say, it seems as though it would be an odd situation to have a grown man painting up his poor parents' back yard with bright green paint.:)
(OF course, you aren't alone!)

[Havoc_online]

Nice Jack! Your right though, you DO need a longer testing range and a better paint/barrel. These tests are always fun.

[Jack & Coke]

thx Havoc,

Which "better" barrel/paint do you recommend? :)

What distance do you guys think I should test at? 75' 100'?

During play, at what distances do you reckon most eliminations occur at?

[Havoc_online]

O' My bad, I forgot you used freaks, I didnt see what paint you used but my first guess when I saw +/-10+ on the markers was that maybe the paint wasnt matched, till I read about the freak and about not oil'ing the RT(shame on you:p ). Even, on the Timmy, the consistency wasnt too hot- is that normal for +/-10(or so)? I would hope that any high end properly tuned marker could do +/-2 at least.

(you should try and do the test at 50ft,100ft,150ft):)

[AGD]

Nice job you guys! Always good to have test data.

AGD

[Brak]

what about the air systems!?CONSISTENCY IS ACCURACY!!

[Jack & Coke]

Good point! However, I think that the secondary reg plays more of a role in this test.

BL Tornado Reg

vs.

Palmer Stabalizer

vs.

Automag (built-in reg)

Although difficult to do, it would probably be best to run the test with the same reg on all guns. Not practical with the Automag, but possible with the Timmy and M98.

[Smokee_2_7]

Sorry im a bit of a latecommer to this thread, While this was going on I was down in the florida keys- - -hehe.

For the most part, i do like the way this test was set up. Yes, a litle more work on the target area would have been nice, but I definitly understand working with what you have.

All that being said, I played around with the numbers from your results. My parameter of interest is not so much accuracy, but consistency. I did not go totally off the deep end with these numbers, but it looks like there may be somthing a bit interesting here. . . Please, others check my work and make sure that i didnt mess somthing up. I did this in about 2 minutes, and have not rigorously checked it.

Here is the copied numbers from my excel sheet:
GZ trial 1 GZ trial 2
285 288
287 291
292 289
295 292
292 292
292 294
290 290
293 292
293 291
292 295
Totals 2911 2914
Mean 291.1 291.4
S.D. 2.998147576 2.118699811
Average of SD 2.558423694

M98 1 M98 2
294 294
292 298
292 298
292 300
290 300
288 302
288 301
297 298
289 298
291 295
Total 2622 2984
Mean 262.2 298.4
SD 2.790858092 2.503331114
AVg. of SD 2.647094603

RT mag 1 RT mag 2
287 292
285 294
284 295
283 292
280 290
282 296
287 293
283 290
281 290
281 294
Total 2833 2926
Mean 283.3 292.6
S.D. 2.45175674 2.170509413
Avg. SD 2.311133076


Everything should be pretty much self-explanatory.
For anyone that dosent know, S.D. is standard deviation - - basicly the average amount that each shot differs from the mean of the string. You can use it as a measure of consistency. The lower the S.D., the more consistent the gun was for the string.

I also took the liberty of averaging the standard deviations for each gun. This shows just another general indication of how consistent each gun was.

For the Automag, notice that the standard deviations are roughly 2.4 and 2.2. For the timmy they were 3 and 2.12 (rounded) when the 2 strings are compared, the timmy's second string was just a little bit more consistent than the mag. However, both of the mags strings were a good bit more consistent than the timmy's first string.

If you average the S.D.'s together, you may come to the conclusion that the mag was overall more consistent than the timmy (mag 2.31 vs timmy 2.56) However, this could be due to some testing error on the timmy's first string- - - it IS a bit off.


In order to come to a more positive conslucion, much more testing needs to be done. There were simply not enough trials run to see any REALLY significant, "Its this way all the time" information. Yes, the mag was a bit more consistent, but many people comented that the timmys groupings LOOKED tighter. Although that could definitly be due to observational error, as well as problems with testing (camera positioning AND using rough cut bricks for reference) Perhaps this information could be cross -applied to the Physics discussion on accuracy from Deep blue - - -



At any rate, its fun to think about

Carl