Freaks not what they claim to be?

[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? ) claimed that spiral porting spun the PB to increase accuracy like rifling does in a firearm?
Or, those claims about porting releasing the pressure in front of and the vacuum behind a paint ball.

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.