byop or fpo

[Maghog]

Three shots does not a working theory make, but for the purposes of discussion we will assume that this is 100% repeatable in all instances.

The data I'd like to see is the variance over an entire case of paint. This will mimic the conditions of requiring FPO. It is a fact that paintballs even from the same case will have variations in ball OD. This is an observable phenomena, but it can also be easily measured with a mic and a couple of hours.

If a change in OD of the ball (or ID of barrel) of no more than 0.016" (the smallest Freak bore to the largest Freak bore) makes a 75 fps change in velocity, then I would bet you will see nearly that inside a single case of paint. I would not be surprised at all to see a standard deviation of 0.004"-0.007" inside of a single case of paint. At 5 fps per 0.001" of OD deviation, that's a swing of -+20 to -+35 fps within the same case of paint, to say nothing of the next or the one after that, even from the same manufacturer and batch.

What I'm saying is that the manufacturing process that creates paintballs is not itself accurate or controllable enough that you can even come close to predicting the relation of ball OD from ball to ball inside the same case, to say nothing of the relation from case to case, even within the same manufacturer.

There may very well be an extreme correlation between barrel size and velocity (though I have not found it to be as stark as your example, let's assume for now that it is). Even if that is true, the risk of hot shots is not greatly (or possibly even significantly enough to measure) reduced by forcing players to only use paint from one manufacturer. The variation in OD will be there regardless of who is making the paint. Regardless if some brands on average are smaller or larger than other brands on average, the risk you seek to eliminate is still present, and going to FPO as a means to reduce said risk is a token step at best.

I'm glad you think about safety, and I'm glad you sell your FP at good prices and take care of it, and I know most fields need to be FPO to make a profit and stay in business. I'm fine with that, and I think most people are too. What kind of irritates me is that you refuse to just come out and say that the reason you need your field to be FPO is monetary. It may seem like it sounds better to say it's for safety, but that is a contrived reason, and regardless of whatever anecdotal data you come up with that you think justifies you to declare "There's the facts folks!", it will still be a contrived reason.

Until you put down some honest to god data, covering paint from two or three manufacturers both against one another, and against the contents of the same case, it's only your opinion.

My opinion is that it doesn't make that much difference. I could test to prove it (just the same as you can), but in the end I just don't care enough to spend the day or two it's going to take to run the tests. I can live with it just being my opinion.

You however, if you're going to try and sell people on the FPO thing as a safety measure, might want to undertake those tests and really see if you're right. At least then you'd have some actual data to put behind your arguments when someone calls you on it. Hell, it may turn out that you're absolutely right, and FPO will be mandated by insurance carriers as a proven risk reducer. I've been wrong before.

But until that happens, I'm gonna go ahead and file that assertion into the same bin as JD's AI Revy board, and Jack Rice's magical Alien trajectories. You bring the claim, you bring the data, simple as that.

Don't get me wrong, I don't dislike you (hell, I don't even know you), I just have a low BS tolerance (which seems to be diminishing rapidly as I age), and I'm an outspoken A-Hole to boot. You can see where I'm going with this . . . . . . .

Beautiful.

[flying Dutchman]

Three shots does not a working theory make, but for the purposes of discussion we will assume that this is 100% repeatable in all instances.

The data I'd like to see is the variance over an entire case of paint. This will mimic the conditions of requiring FPO. It is a fact that paintballs even from the same case will have variations in ball OD. This is an observable phenomena, but it can also be easily measured with a mic and a couple of hours.

If a change in OD of the ball (or ID of barrel) of no more than 0.016" (the smallest Freak bore to the largest Freak bore) makes a 75 fps change in velocity, then I would bet you will see nearly that inside a single case of paint. I would not be surprised at all to see a standard deviation of 0.004"-0.007" inside of a single case of paint. At 5 fps per 0.001" of OD deviation, that's a swing of -+20 to -+35 fps within the same case of paint, to say nothing of the next or the one after that, even from the same manufacturer and batch.

What I'm saying is that the manufacturing process that creates paintballs is not itself accurate or controllable enough that you can even come close to predicting the relation of ball OD from ball to ball inside the same case, to say nothing of the relation from case to case, even within the same manufacturer.

There may very well be an extreme correlation between barrel size and velocity (though I have not found it to be as stark as your example, let's assume for now that it is). Even if that is true, the risk of hot shots is not greatly (or possibly even significantly enough to measure) reduced by forcing players to only use paint from one manufacturer. The variation in OD will be there regardless of who is making the paint. Regardless if some brands on average are smaller or larger than other brands on average, the risk you seek to eliminate is still present, and going to FPO as a means to reduce said risk is a token step at best.

I'm glad you think about safety, and I'm glad you sell your FP at good prices and take care of it, and I know most fields need to be FPO to make a profit and stay in business. I'm fine with that, and I think most people are too. What kind of irritates me is that you refuse to just come out and say that the reason you need your field to be FPO is monetary. It may seem like it sounds better to say it's for safety, but that is a contrived reason, and regardless of whatever anecdotal data you come up with that you think justifies you to declare "There's the facts folks!", it will still be a contrived reason.

Until you put down some honest to god data, covering paint from two or three manufacturers both against one another, and against the contents of the same case, it's only your opinion.

My opinion is that it doesn't make that much difference. I could test to prove it (just the same as you can), but in the end I just don't care enough to spend the day or two it's going to take to run the tests. I can live with it just being my opinion.

You however, if you're going to try and sell people on the FPO thing as a safety measure, might want to undertake those tests and really see if you're right. At least then you'd have some actual data to put behind your arguments when someone calls you on it. Hell, it may turn out that you're absolutely right, and FPO will be mandated by insurance carriers as a proven risk reducer. I've been wrong before.

But until that happens, I'm gonna go ahead and file that assertion into the same bin as JD's AI Revy board, and Jack Rice's magical Alien trajectories. You bring the claim, you bring the data, simple as that.

Don't get me wrong, I don't dislike you (hell, I don't even know you), I just have a low BS tolerance (which seems to be diminishing rapidly as I age), and I'm an outspoken A-Hole to boot. You can see where I'm going with this . . . . . . .

Don't worry about upsetting me, this aia a discussion of fact conducted by intellects which should nbe able to withstand a differance of opinion. Your right that a larget test would offer more data and thus be more accurate. However shooting an entire case to establish it's quality control level seems a mute point when you say each case will vary as there would be no paint left to play with once the test was concluded. But I agree with the concept larger test better accuracey.
Now that said, and building on your concept that each casde contains a varity of diameters doesn't that back the idea that the paint is poorly made. Isn't consistance the key to accuracy. Would you tolerate a barrel or a regulator that couldn't group your speed closer than 40 fps. Of course you wouldn't. How can anyopne expect a freak system to work when you take a mean average out of your sample and try to match the diameter. Don't we deserve paintball that are round and consitant diameter???

The other point to pull out is the hot shot. As a player you may not worry so much. But as a field owner I do. It's my job to look out for my players, reguardless of their level of experiance. To provide the best I can for them in supplies, rentals and enjoyment when they play. I cannot bring myself to accept the idea that a paint cannot be tamed to behave on a chrono. We shoot a string of 3 at the chrono to let you on. All 3 have to be below speed, if not you reset and come back. We don't allow tools on the field and we do spot check. There is no gray, just black and white. I know that makes me a pain to work with once and a while, but I'm not going to let you get hurt on my watch. Since 1987 the worst injury we covered with a band-aid. That's why you use a field. If not there's lots of backyards.

[CoolHand]

I agree that paintballs should be round and of a consistent diameter, but by and large, they are not, and never will be while they are manufactured as they are now. It's the nature of the beast.

Also, don't assume that since I never said I'd owned and run a field, that I haven't. I've owned a field, and I've ran my own and other fields. I can absolutely see this from both sides of the fence. When I had a field, it was FPO, but it didn't make much difference, 'cause my prices were good and there wasn't any place else around to buy paint from anyway.

At any rate, you're heart's in the right place, and I've said my piece.

I hope you have a good year at your field. It's been rough around here for a couple of years now, we don't have many PB fields left.

[flying Dutchman]

I agree that paintballs should be round and of a consistent diameter, but by and large, they are not, and never will be while they are manufactured as they are now. It's the nature of the beast.

Also, don't assume that since I never said I'd owned and run a field, that I haven't. I've owned a field, and I've ran my own and other fields. I can absolutely see this from both sides of the fence. When I had a field, it was FPO, but it didn't make much difference, 'cause my prices were good and there wasn't any place else around to buy paint from anyway.

At any rate, you're heart's in the right place, and I've said my piece.

I hope you have a good year at your field. It's been rough around here for a couple of years now, we don't have many PB fields left.

Coolhand, If I post up some velocity numbers for a test using 4 types of paint out of the same new gun will you look at them and tell me what you think or what conclussions you can draw?

[CoolHand]

Coolhand, If I post up some velocity numbers for a test using 4 types of paint out of the same new gun will you look at them and tell me what you think or what conclussions you can draw?

Sure.

Post up the whole data set though, and all the specifics regarding the paint and the marker, barrel, etc.

If it's a good test and the data shows it, I've got no problem admitting that I'm wrong, lord knows it happens often enough.

I know that bore size varies inside a case of paint by quite a bit. Three or four years ago, I did a comparative accuracy test for a statistics class I was taking at the time. We used three brands of paint, and tested different bore size to ball OD matches for accuracy under controlled conditions.

In order to maintain our bore to ball match, I dug through several cases of each brand of paint with a mic and a bucket to find 150 balls from each brand, all with exactly the same OD along the seam (down to 0.0001"). I did not record each measurement (there were thousands), as I just had a number I was shooting for, so it was a go/nogo kind of deal, but 0.003"-0.005" of variation inside a single case was not uncommon at all. I was rather surprised at the time. The brands were Scorch, Field Blaze, and Heat, in order from most expensive to least expensive. The Field Blaze was the best of what I had, with Heat being second, and the Scorch actually ended up having the worst variation of the bunch. All the paint was bought from NPS at the same time and was stored for a week prior to the testing in the same place.

Talk about a drag. Because we couldn't risk the balls changing size due to humidity or temperature changes, I had to sort all those balls and we had to conduct the testing all in the same 8 hour period. Made for a long day. To rule out external variables we did the testing inside my shop building. Yeah, not doing that again. I am still finding little slivers of gelatin shell, even to this day.

Good luck with your testing, hopefully we'll learn something, even if it's only that I'm FOS.

[flying Dutchman]

Okay guys here's a test using 4 types of paint shot out of a new Tippmann 98 custom on compressed. New stock gun paint seemed to be fresh but I can say how long the distributor has had it. But the paint looked good. Look for the difference between the highs and the lows. I'll give you the avg speed and even the range between high and low. But the gun wasn't reset for speed so the difference you see is just from change of paint,

10 shot test 59 degrees no wind (indoor) radar chronograph.
Gun set at approx 300 FPS using All Star 3 shot test group 3 seconds between shots.

All Star 294 289 292 305 284 294 297 292 288 286 Avg 291.1 Range 21 fps

Premium 288 280 299 292 290 298 300 292 285 290 Avg 291.4 Range 20 fps

Nel Splat 251 293 278 265 301 281 283 286 275 256 Avg 276.9 Range 50 fps

White Box 238 291 292 291 297 254 298 291 294 285 Avg 283.1 Range 60 fps.

Now looking at this my thoughts are that the smaller the range between high and low the easier it is to keep the speed from jumping to unsafe levels.

I also see a drop of almost 17-24 fps by changing paint. So if we had set speed using this slower paint to 300 fps then we can conclude a marker being feed the faster paint would see it's speed increase.

Now all I'm trying to point out is that carry on removes yet another safety check that a field owner has to use. A good field owner cares a bad one may not. But looking at these results I'd have to conclude that the All Star and the Premium are the winners of the test.

Again just pointing out there is more to this than what some people realize. A field owner is there to keep you safe and help you have a good time. That's our jobs.

[SR_matt]

i would like to see the test done with other types of guns and barrels. while i agree that your results are somewhat disturbing i have switched between paints on my markers and had much less variation.

you did keep the air source turned on the whole time right and just swapped paint?
-matt

[CoolHand]

Okay guys here's a test using 4 types of paint shot out of a new Tippmann 98 custom on compressed. New stock gun paint seemed to be fresh but I can say how long the distributor has had it. But the paint looked good. Look for the difference between the highs and the lows. I'll give you the avg speed and even the range between high and low. But the gun wasn't reset for speed so the difference you see is just from change of paint,

10 shot test 59 degrees no wind (indoor) radar chronograph.
Gun set at approx 300 FPS using All Star 3 shot test group 3 seconds between shots.

All Star 294 289 292 305 284 294 297 292 288 286 Avg 291.1 Range 21 fps

Premium 288 280 299 292 290 298 300 292 285 290 Avg 291.4 Range 20 fps

Nel Splat 251 293 278 265 301 281 283 286 275 256 Avg 276.9 Range 50 fps

White Box 238 291 292 291 297 254 298 291 294 285 Avg 283.1 Range 60 fps.

Now looking at this my thoughts are that the smaller the range between high and low the easier it is to keep the speed from jumping to unsafe levels.

I also see a drop of almost 17-24 fps by changing paint. So if we had set speed using this slower paint to 300 fps then we can conclude a marker being feed the faster paint would see it's speed increase.

Now all I'm trying to point out is that carry on removes yet another safety check that a field owner has to use. A good field owner cares a bad one may not. But looking at these results I'd have to conclude that the All Star and the Premium are the winners of the test.

Again just pointing out there is more to this than what some people realize. A field owner is there to keep you safe and help you have a good time. That's our jobs.

This is EXACTLY the result I was expecting.

Look at your high average compared to your low average: Difference = 14.5 fps
Now look at the variance inside the high group: Variance = 20 fps

The data is telling you that on average, there is more variance inside a single case of paint than there is from brand to brand. What I posted the other night is saying exactly this.

My point is that you are just as likely to experience a hot shot from inside a case of paint as you are if you cross cases.

Now, it appears that you would be ~twice as likely to see a hot shot from a low end case than a high end case, but the act of switching between them would not make this risk go up. If you switch from high end to low end, your risk goes up to what it would have been if you'd been shooting low end paint all along. If you switch from low end to high end paint, your risk stays the same. THAT is what I've been trying to say.

Statistically speaking (and really, the size of this test isn't big enough to make the sweeping statement I'm about to ), the risk does not change when crossing brands and cases of paint. The risk will never be any higher than the risk inherent to the brand with the highest variability.

I'm also happy to note that RPS Premium appears to still be a kickass paint. Since NPS and PMI have merged, I bet I can buy that stuff wholesale now. Bwahahahahaha!!!!!

[flying Dutchman]

This is EXACTLY the result I was expecting.

Look at your high average compared to your low average: Difference = 14.5 fps
Now look at the variance inside the high group: Variance = 20 fps

The data is telling you that on average, there is more variance inside a single case of paint than there is from brand to brand. What I posted the other night is saying exactly this.

My point is that you are just as likely to experience a hot shot from inside a case of paint as you are if you cross cases.

Now, it appears that you would be ~twice as likely to see a hot shot from a low end case than a high end case, but the act of switching between them would not make this risk go up. If you switch from high end to low end, your risk goes up to what it would have been if you'd been shooting low end paint all along. If you switch from low end to high end paint, your risk stays the same. THAT is what I've been trying to say.

Statistically speaking (and really, the size of this test isn't big enough to make the sweeping statement I'm about to ), the risk does not change when crossing brands and cases of paint. The risk will never be any higher than the risk inherent to the brand with the highest variability.

I'm also happy to note that RPS Premium appears to still be a kickass paint. Since NPS and PMI have merged, I bet I can buy that stuff wholesale now. Bwahahahahaha!!!!!

Coolhand we are almost of one mind now. I agree that any case can have a few balls that are going to go hot or slow, and it looks like the cheaper you go the more of these you may find in each case. I think your with me to this point?

But here's my last point. I set the speed using All Star at 300 And we say the NelSplat come out the slowest. So if I had of chroneyed two identical guns one at 300 on All Star and one at 300 on Nepsplat which would have required more pressure to get up to 300. If the Nelspalt gun was suddenly feed All Star I will bet you would see it climb to 330 or maybe higher. What do you think?

[flying Dutchman]

i would like to see the test done with other types of guns and barrels. while i agree that your results are somewhat disturbing i have switched between paints on my markers and had much less variation.

you did keep the air source turned on the whole time right and just swapped paint?
-matt

Air Source was on the gun at all times and never dropped below 2500 on the tank pressure.

I tested a mag with a 14 inch Dye stainless, the same mag after switching to a 16 inch all american. No adjustment in velocity I tested a new mini invert with a stock barrel and an Auto Cocker pump from our fleet with an 18 inch empire. If you want to see the results tell me what one you would like.

[SR_matt]

Air Source was on the gun at all times and never dropped below 2500 on the tank pressure.

I tested a mag with a 14 inch Dye stainless, the same mag after switching to a 16 inch all american. No adjustment in velocity I tested a new mini invert with a stock barrel and an Auto Cocker pump from our fleet with an 18 inch empire. If you want to see the results tell me what one you would like.

if possible i would like to see all of the results, not that i dont believe you just am curious

i see these results but i think that everything we have in regards to "marker technology" has so much variation or at least the potential for it so i really would love to see some one break down what affects what (but that is rather complicated and in depth of research that is not realistic to do)

my markers have so much variation from system to system (my mag used to be very consistent then after slight adjustment has been more jumpy, my sniper 2 i pieced together was shooting 285 exactly shot after shot unless i let it sit for a little while and then it would drop to 250s for the first shot in a line but that is due to the co2, my cocoker i think was shooting about +/- 5 and that was consistant brand to brand and size to size) so i really think the variation is affected from so many other factors as well.

just my 2 cents but personally i have more faith in my markers than in the changes of paint

-matt

[CoolHand]

Coolhand we are almost of one mind now. I agree that any case can have a few balls that are going to go hot or slow, and it looks like the cheaper you go the more of these you may find in each case. I think your with me to this point?

But here's my last point. I set the speed using All Star at 300 And we say the NelSplat come out the slowest. So if I had of chroneyed two identical guns one at 300 on All Star and one at 300 on Nepsplat which would have required more pressure to get up to 300. If the Nelspalt gun was suddenly feed All Star I will bet you would see it climb to 330 or maybe higher. What do you think?

I don't think you can infer that just by looking at that set of data.

If that is a question you want an answer to, it would be quite easy to do a test and see what you get.

Set the same marker to 300 fps with the NelSplat, take a baseline to get a low average, then feed it All Star and find the high average. That'll tell the tale.

If I've learned anything at all about statistics, it's this: One test is worth a thousand logical conclusions.

That is doubly true when you're dealing with complex systems like you have inside a PB marker. There are so many interactions that it's difficult to say 100% of the time that "if you do X, the result will be Y, because I have observed W". You're much better off to just control as many variables as you can, test X, see if you get Y, and to hell with W.

Who need W's anyway?

[flying Dutchman]

if possible i would like to see all of the results, not that i dont believe you just am curious

i see these results but i think that everything we have in regards to "marker technology" has so much variation or at least the potential for it so i really would love to see some one break down what affects what (but that is rather complicated and in depth of research that is not realistic to do)

my markers have so much variation from system to system (my mag used to be very consistent then after slight adjustment has been more jumpy, my sniper 2 i pieced together was shooting 285 exactly shot after shot unless i let it sit for a little while and then it would drop to 250s for the first shot in a line but that is due to the co2, my cocoker i think was shooting about +/- 5 and that was consistant brand to brand and size to size) so i really think the variation is affected from so many other factors as well.

just my 2 cents but personally i have more faith in my markers than in the changes of paint

-matt

So a test using the same marker and the only variable is changing the paint in the marker. Doesn't prove to you that different brands of paint can effect the velocity achieved when shot. You sir have a closed mind! I tested 5 different marker configuration, none of them shot the same speed with all brands of paint.

[SR_matt]

just to add onto coldnad, i have seen some markers where if you turned it up more you would not gain any more fps (while on a tippman new out of the box i am betting you would get higher fps but some other markers may give the say result i have seen)

FD i am not saying your results were wrong, false, not proving your point, i am just saying that in my experience i have also seen the opposite of what your tests show. just trying to put out that while it can give different results it can also not give those results (at least in my experiences)

-matt

[flying Dutchman]

I don't think you can infer that just by looking at that set of data.

If that is a question you want an answer to, it would be quite easy to do a test and see what you get.

Set the same marker to 300 fps with the NelSplat, take a baseline to get a low average, then feed it All Star and find the high average. That'll tell the tale.

If I've learned anything at all about statistics, it's this: One test is worth a thousand logical conclusions.

That is doubly true when you're dealing with complex systems like you have inside a PB marker. There are so many interactions that it's difficult to say 100% of the time that "if you do X, the result will be Y, because I have observed W". You're much better off to just control as many variables as you can, test X, see if you get Y, and to hell with W.

Who need W's anyway?

I'll re run that portion of the test tomorrow. But I'll do this for you. I'll set speed with Nelsplat to 300 then test both All Star and nelsplat. Then I'll reset the velocity with Premuim as the base line and retest both Nelsplat and All star to see how they behave in a gun set with a different brand. Now if Set at 300 with Nelsplat and the All Star comes in shooting 20-30 feet above that does that make a point????