.50 cal accuracy test

[cockerpunk]

can't quite believe this didn't make it over here.

oh well

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtLByh1Isvw

[going_home]

I'm not quite understanding the spreadsheet.
In a nutshell, whats the bottom line ?

[MicroB]

I'm not quite understanding the spreadsheet.
In a nutshell, whats the bottom line ?

The .68 is more accurate and maintains better FPS (efficiency than the .50), also breaks when it hits the target ;and you can see the breaks. I would hate to ref a tourney with .50!

.50 cal has been tried before and it will will go the way of the "rifled" barrel; be around for a short stint people will realize its a gimmick, and then go away until the next entrepreneur figures out that the industry is ready for more hype.

[going_home]

I would think .50 cal would have a more adverse affect from wind than .68.
Probably be impossible to get a ball to break on a windy day with .50 cal.

[cockerpunk]

actually, the tables show quite clearly that there is little difference in accuracy.

[MicroB]

actually, the tables show quite clearly that there is little difference in accuracy.

Try the test outside with environmental variables.

[cockerpunk]

Try the test outside with environmental variables.

we removed those to find out the accuracy ...

face it, if we went outside and did this test, everyone would be mad because those environmental variables were present.

[MANN]

actually, the tables show quite clearly that there is little difference in accuracy.

which makes since. Physics applies to both.

[mostpeople]

looks to me like the .50 is more accurate..

[maniacmechanic]

looks to me like 6 of one 1/2 dozen of the other

[CatoRockwell]

I'd like to see this test done more than once, you can't make a final determination off of one test, there are others out there who have also done this test and come up with different results.

[BiNumber3]

just wondering, were both barrels over-bored/under-bored with the paint used?

[MANN]

I'd like to see this test done more than once, you can't make a final determination off of one test, there are others out there who have also done this test and come up with different results.

yes, but their "results" benefit them financially.

[Frizzle Fry]

we removed those to find out the accuracy ...

face it, if we went outside and did this test, everyone would be mad because those environmental variables were present.

...But paintball isn't played in a bubble. If your goal is to test the efficiency of both paints in a controlled environment and then compare them, you've succeeded, but I fail to see the value of your tests to paintball manufacturers and players if that's true.

Not to demean you personally (I like most of what you've done test-wise) but wouldn't a test be more useful if it illustrated how the two paints worked in various environments and weather conditions in which paintball is played? I guess your findings would be helpful to someone involved in indoor target practice, but I fail to see how these results actually apply to the common use of .50cal and .68cal markers.

I had a mech autococker in 1995 that functioned perfectly in my bedroom the night before a big game, but needed about 20 minutes of tuning once you got to the field! I know that's a stupid example, but really, isn't field testing the only way to determine how something will work on the field?

[Ando]

Frizz they're just testing the accuracy so a indoor area is the most ideal method for a test like this. I'm sure the next few test will be running the same setup in cold and hot climates...

....and come on Frizz old chap. No mater what, you're going to be spending 20-60 min f'en with the cocker anyways

Reason I never got one back in the day. Too much work.