14" Stifi vs 14" DW Fibur

[KC]

Ive been trading barrels back and forth each game with a friend and we both feel the shot grouping is better on the 689 Stiffi, vs the 689 DW.

Maybe the DW just steps out more as its designed to be used with larger inserts?

Anyone using both of them?

[punkncat]

I have not used the DW barrel yet, but am a huge fan of the Stiffi barrels.

The only thing I don't particularly like about the Stiffi vs the DW is the inability to use a cloth swab with the older ones.

[Ruler_Mark]

I just picked up a 689 MF stiffi so I can speak first hand shortly.

Do you have AL or SS freak inserts? I use to have AL and they shot horribly got SS and the barrel shoots how it should.

[KC]

Even after dye, evil pipe, kaner the stiffi always impresses me the dw is right behind it.

SS inserts ftw you say? interesting...

[Ruler_Mark]

Even after dye, evil pipe, kaner the stiffi always impresses me the dw is right behind it.

SS inserts ftw you say? interesting...

Yeap, I aussme there are expections to everything by my AL inserts were crap.

[Me�iCX]

Had both but stuck with the DW for two reasons. One being you can use a cotton swab in the DW and the DW uses Freak inserts. I've down sized to a 10" now and love it. I did get better ball grouping with the 14". I'll have to test them both with the same paint before I unload the 14".

I have AL inserts for the DW.

[fishmishin]

I emailed site mfg and asked them about the not using cloth sqeegees on thier barrels and they told me it was fine to use them, and they actually recommend the Redz battle swab.
Oh and i haven't tried the Dw, but I love the .689 stiffi I shoot on my A/C ! :shooting:

[Me�iCX]

Stiffi said it was fine to use battle swabs in their barrels?? Maybe you can with their new line but older Stiffis would get ruined if you used a battle swab.

[dark blade]

seen both, shot both... what it really comes down to is quality control.

With most barrels made by anyone other than smart parts there is a usually a great tolerance for the bore. This means if you buy a .689 stiffi its going to be very close to actually being .689. With the AL inserts of the freaks, you have poor quality control and the bores can be off by as much as 2 thousandths... this means a .689 AL insert can be anywhere between .687 and .691. This doesnt seem like much of a problem but if you are shooting paint that is .689 on the dot, the better bore match of the stiffi will shoot straighter than the ".689" of the AL insert


With that being said, i have SS inserts for my freak, the tolerances on these are MUCH closer to what they should be and i believe they are actually closer than the stiffis. The reason behind this is that SS is much harder than AL and it can be MUCH better refined and honed to get the perfect bore.


SS freak and DW combo > Stiffi
AL freak and DW combo < Stiffi
it really just comes down to how much you want to spend.


and as far as accuracy with length of barrel... its kind of true and kind of a myth. If you shoot at a fixed distance target with identical paint and identical bores on identical markers, the longer barrel will shoot a slightly tighter grouping due to having less distance to travel in mid air before the ball hits a target. This means less time for the ball to curve off in any direction. With a shorter barrel you have more distance to travel giving it more time for the wind to affect it more.

However, if you took a 10" barrel on an identical setup with identical paint and bore and a 14" barrel with the same and shot both at two targets at 50' and 50'4" respectively... you will get identical results due to each ball traveling the same distance in mid air.

[Flycatchr]

i dont pretend to know as much about aerodynamics, shock waves and ballistics as i should actually know, but i dont quite agree with you dark blade - my opinion has 2 or 3 other variables i would like to mention:

firstly the operator /trigger squeeze would make a difference no matter the barrel.
secondly - how much of the vortices/expansion of the air behind the ball will have an effect when leave the different lengths of barrel (IE a 10 inch barrel might still have enough air expansion behind the ball when it leaves the barrel to knock it off target to make more of a difference thent the extra 4inches difference in length). having said all that, i really enjoyed playing with my unported 10 inch armson barrel on my armson pump and i found i couldnt complain about accuracy at all. but this is all subjective with out pictures and proof

[dark blade]

you are correct in saying the operator pull would make a difference, however... if you want to compare accuracy of two things you need to do it fully scientifically. Maybe its just because i am a forensic science major that i look at all things with the eyes of science but here are more facts as to why i am "right" (as much as i hate saying that).



with the trigger pull... in order to judge the barrel accuracy you need to put the marker in a vice and not by hand. otherwise the test has nothing to do with the barrel and simply with the user so the test would be flawed from the start.

Secondly, with the air expansion... the barrel gets up to speed to 280fps in every barrel through different amounts of air. In a 10" barrel you need less air to get the ball to 280fps due to the shorter amount of space for the air to "expand"... with the 14" barrel you use more air that has to expand to the exact same pressure behind the ball as the 10" barrel in order to make the ball leave at 280 fps. With the amount of air not mattering behind the ball and the pressure being the only actual scientific factor that counts when it comes to the flight path, the ball will have an identical flight path (when perfectly spherical) when hit with the same amount of pressure from the same direction (behind).

if the amount of air didnt expand in the 10" barrel as much as in the 14" (which is reasonable if using the same amount of air in each barrel) then you would get different velocities which would be an unfair judging of the test. In order to ever get any true scientific data or "proofs" you need to take everything into account. Identical pressures, identical balls, identical operating systems, identical user pull (usually electronically controlled), shot in a vaccum or with no wind AT ALL... and same net distance of air travel due to effects of gravity... even when taking all of this into effect, there is still not absolute garauntee the results are correct. This is why so many studies seem to be repeated over and over again in the world of science.


Sorry for my rant AO and i am sorry if i offended you Flycatchr.... I just like to make sure that facts are facts and myths are false :rofl: because the last thing i want is the revival of the 28" barrel being more accurate than a 10" barrel... and lets not even get me started on rifling haha

[Flycatchr]

you are correct in saying the operator pull would make a difference, however... if you want to compare accuracy of two things you need to do it fully scientifically. Maybe its just because i am a forensic science major that i look at all things with the eyes of science but here are more facts as to why i am "right" (as much as i hate saying that).

yes of course, i was just stating it because it didnt seem to have been mentioned before.
since we are throwing edumacation around , i managed to get myself a (bsc) eng. degree in aeronautics, with my final year projects being A) holographic interferometry and B) the incedence of two untimed shock waves on the trailing edge of a "wing". and i wasnt saying you were wrong, just asking questions that i can think of

with the trigger pull... in order to judge the barrel accuracy you need to put the marker in a vice and not by hand. otherwise the test has nothing to do with the barrel and simply with the user so the test would be flawed from the start.

yes of course. no question.

Secondly, with the air expansion... the barrel gets up to speed to 280fps in every barrel through different amounts of air. In a 10" barrel you need less air to get the ball to 280fps due to the shorter amount of space for the air to "expand"... with the 14" barrel you use more air that has to expand to the exact same pressure behind the ball as the 10" barrel in order to make the ball leave at 280 fps. With the amount of air not mattering behind the ball and the pressure being the only actual scientific factor that counts when it comes to the flight path, the ball will have an identical flight path (when perfectly spherical) when hit with the same amount of pressure from the same direction (behind).

BUT on the other hand the 10 inch barrel has less volume for the ball to reac the same velocity as a 14" which has more volume for the gas to expand and possibly more chance for air efficiency.

if the amount of air didnt expand in the 10" barrel as much as in the 14" (which is reasonable if using the same amount of air in each barrel) then you would get different velocities which would be an unfair judging of the test. In order to ever get any true scientific data or "proofs" you need to take everything into account. Identical pressures, identical balls, identical operating systems, identical user pull (usually electronically controlled), shot in a vaccum or with no wind AT ALL... and same net distance of air travel due to effects of gravity... even when taking all of this into effect, there is still not absolute garauntee the results are correct. This is why so many studies seem to be repeated over and over again in the world of science.

all true (except the vacuum - we need the air for our tests )
my point it that in thinking that there is more momentum required to overcome because of the shorter barrel, there may be more excess air expanding out of the 10 inch, therefore there MAY be more effects on the ball by the air. This might of course depend also on the ball/barrel compatability and the powertube profile.

Sorry for my rant AO and i am sorry if i offended you Flycatchr.... I just like to make sure that facts are facts and myths are false :rofl: because the last thing i want is the revival of the 28" barrel being more accurate than a 10" barrel... and lets not even get me started on rifling haha

no offence ever taken by me but i dont always believe facts that are not proven, thats why i ask questions, and i am not saying that either of us is right or wrong. lets get some answers here.