AGD's Test are old and outdated?

[Chronobreak]

Well as most of you know AGD did the gun recharge and on ball pressure test quite a while ago.

I know i for one would like to see a rest of todays most popular markers as far as recharge and on ball pressure.

anyone else interested?

[rawbutter]

On ball pressure? Is that how much force is exerted on the paintball during the firing process?

I'd be interested to see that kinda of test done on different markers.

[AGD]

And what do you think will be different? Pressures are still the same, velocity is still 300 fps. Heard of anyone else doing serious research lately? What exactly are you expecting to be NEW?

AGD

[Chronobreak]

nothing,...

but isnt that the point...

[punkncat]

Lol, good point Tom. It seems like the only "research" being done is independant and only to back some wild claim about some new hype. And for some reason the studies aren't public.

[Spider-TW]

nothing,...

but isnt that the point...

No one will pay to find out nothing. However, if you do a 'study' and come up with some outlandish claim that requires work to prove, we will either see a study to disprove it or a new product that takes advantage of it. Most likely the new product ($).

It would be nice to see a book (hint) on the fundamental limitations of marker designs. Something along the lines of basic physics and limitations of machine design and manufacturing. That in itself would show how few unique designs there are and how they operate. Throw in some cartoons and stories and it might even make a profit.

**edit**

A well twisted study should involve math, but no statistics unless they are used to derive further equations. It should be subtle enough to avoid common sense. And of course it must involve performing better than the other guy.

[Tunaman]

You can research it all you want. But you are still going to come up with the same result everytime. The AGD valves are the fastest on the planet and always will be...unless Tom decides to get his tools back out and try to make it go faster...which is not very likely. As always stated...show me the video.

[questionful]

Why not? I don't know how much running these tests costs, but unless they got rid of the equipment, it shouldn't cost much.
The point would be to compare a wider variety of markers. I don't remember which ones AGD tested, but I think it was just mags, angels, and a certain shocker? I would like to see the results of the nelsons, matrixes, spools, all the different poppets, mq valves, and blowbacks of today.
What would be different? Well, not only would it be interesting per se that NOTHING turned out to be different, but I think SOMETHING has to have changed anyway. New valve designs, solenoids and their boards, and regulator designs have to have changed enough to have SOME impact on the results.
And the tests wouldn't be to prove AGD valves are the best (they're the best), it would just be to have some contrast against all the bullcrap companies spew out to claim their product is the best. I'm sure there would be some mock-worthy results.
And I think I know how to make a valve faster than AGD's. I just haven't gotten around to drawing it up real well.


Edit.......Please dont swear here. It was fixed this time.
sorry, I thought if the filter asteriskized it it would be fine

[Tassel Mask]

Instead of a better valve, I would like to start seeing better balls. I give tours at the aberdeen ordinace museum in MD. As a guide, I had to learn a lot about german arty, cannons, their "weaponology" as the mili channel would say. The big german guns did somthing very intresting with their ammo. I dont want to give it away, but why cant we make a higher grade use of ammo, rather than a marker that shoots at a higher rate of fire.

I would take accuracy with RANGE over mass volley any day on the field. If only paintball would look to the germans.

Then again I do not understand the mechanics of a paintball round campared to tungstin steel or hallowshot, but i do understand phys. When i look for tech info on PB design, there just is no good info I can find on detailed research.

My only conclusion is that the paintball round is too fragil for such extreme designs. Also some of my US service buds told me something super hot. they use wax ammo on live cartriges. Using full body amor, they can withstand blowd from wax rounds from live cartriges used from real guns. NOW THATS AWESOME!


AGD, thanks for everything you did for our sport.

[Doc Nickel]

There's about three problems there, Tassel.

First and foremost is cost: People complain about paying anything more than two cents a ball, and any real improvement to paint would double, triple or even quadruple the cost. There's already a "rounder" ball with the plastic-shelled "Perfect Circle" balls. They're not really any more accurate than regular paint, but can cost upwards of ten to fifty cents a ball, with some of the exotic stuff (CS filled) being even more.

Second, the German "innovation" you're referring to is probably either gain-twist rifling or tapered-bore barrels. On the one hand, rifling doesn't do a thing. We've had rifled barrels for years; there's the relatively recent Hammerheads, a guy by name of Mike Rock used to make true land-and-groove rifled barrels (I used one back in '95) and before that Armson made polyagonal-rifled barrels.

The rifling didn't do squat. In most cases, the rifled barrels are actually slightly worse for accuracy than a regular smoothbore. The Mike Rock was horrid, and the dealer, I&I Sports, eventually fire-saled the last of them off at pennies on the dollar (and no longer calling them by name, because by that time everyone knew how bad they were.)

Besides which, gyroscopic spin doesn't help a spherical projectile much, and definitely doesn't help such a light projectile with such a relatively large frontal area. Simply put, drag is greater than gyroscopic forces.

And, even if one could reliably spin the ball, the random orientation of the seam means that you have random aerodynamic effects (well, moreso than we do now) and that tends to reduce accuracy, not improve it.

Last, we already have tapered-bore barrels. Glenn Palmer has been making "elliptically honed" barrels for twenty years. (Tight at the breech, loose in the middle, tapers back to tight at the muzzle again.) They're not bad barrels, but I have yet to see any definitive proof the e-honed barrel is any better than a similarly polished straight bore.

The third general problem is feeding. The only way to improve the aerodynamics of the ball is to alter it's shape rather drastically. And if you alter the shape, you have to completely redesign the feeding system from the ground up.

Any shape other than a ball would have to be controlled and aligned as it's fed. So instead of bulk-fed hoppers and simple tubes to dump in more paint, you'll have to have spring-fed magazines, drums, or at the very least hoppers that can sort and align as well as feed.

People have already tried bomb-shaped balls with fins and football-shaped balls. Neither worked well enough to... well, to be perfectly honest, even be remembered, let alone have any effect on the market.

Doc.

[questionful]

Hey, just to start some gossip, I think the highspeed video of the glass barrel PPS got proved their theory wrong, which is why they never showed it to anyone.

Anyway, if a new shape of paintball WERE made, not only would they cost more because of the new machinery, but also because they would have to compete with the extremely well-established, spherical, .68 caliber ball. But if it were to be changed, I think the best compromise would be an elliptically shaped projectile that is symmetrical on a plane perpendicular to its trajectory (so the same in the front as in the back). That would avoid a few of the problems with feeding, allow less drag (because it would be a smaller caliber to keep the same mass of a normal paintball), and allow rifling to have a positive effect on a paintball's trajectory (I think). Another problem with that would be the fps. If the same 300fps rule is enforced, since the speed is measured at the muzzle, the elliptic paintballs would have a higher velocity farther down range. And the high curvature of the projectile would probably be quite a bit more painful than a .68 sphere, especially when combined with the higher fps @ impact. Then there's the question of splatter, which I guess depends on where the seam is. Whatever. Complicated stuff.

[Tassel Mask]

Its just unplesent we're using smooth bore technology which gos back to the "Your a Gonner" technology of the first gun. Autococker, hoppers, and and all the other gadgets do improve the use of the marker, but not the projectile.

[Steelrat]

Instead of a better valve, I would like to start seeing better balls. I give tours at the aberdeen ordinace museum in MD. As a guide, I had to learn a lot about german arty, cannons, their "weaponology" as the mili channel would say. The big german guns did somthing very intresting with their ammo. I dont want to give it away, but why cant we make a higher grade use of ammo, rather than a marker that shoots at a higher rate of fire.

I would take accuracy with RANGE over mass volley any day on the field. If only paintball would look to the germans.

Then again I do not understand the mechanics of a paintball round campared to tungstin steel or hallowshot, but i do understand phys. When i look for tech info on PB design, there just is no good info I can find on detailed research.

My only conclusion is that the paintball round is too fragil for such extreme designs. Also some of my US service buds told me something super hot. they use wax ammo on live cartriges. Using full body amor, they can withstand blowd from wax rounds from live cartriges used from real guns. NOW THATS AWESOME!


AGD, thanks for everything you did for our sport.

The Germans lost.

[BlueDragonX]

The Germans lost.

True, but it wasn't for lack of technology.

[DarkLynx]

, but i do understand phys.

Well, if you understand physics than you know that you aren't gonna get any extra range without going over 300 fps, which isn't safe or practical, or backspinning the ball like a flatline to take advantage of the aerodynamic forces.