.50 cal accuracy test

[Frizzle Fry]

Rain barrels are nothing but a gimmick. Second to riffling. A few wraps of electrical tape will keep any water out of your barrel.

Actually, taping your porting will insure that any barrel break will leave paint residue in the porting that you're unable to squegee out or clean because there's tape over it I've used both methods and while I don't have branded "rain barrels" I do have unported barrels for rainy days.

As for all the other conditions. They are going to affect both 50cal and 68 cal the same. (to my knowledge they are made out of the same material on the shell) The temp, humidity, etc, etc are going to affect both balls equally.

Right, so same shell material. What about thickness? You've got a paintball that's smaller, two hemispheres joined along a seam line like .68cal, but it's smaller over all? Even if the fill is the same that will effect how it flies and how it breaks, especially if it's going to be restricted to the same velocity.

The only thing that would affect one more than the other is wind. In this I personally dont care. If the wind is blowing then you have to just adjust where you aim to where the paint is going to hit.

Again, no. It's not "wind blowing the ball off course" that's the main issue (though it is one) it's the wind resistance of the paintball itself. The Mass/Surface area ratio is different than a .68cal ball, because as you said, they have the same shell and fill but different size.

Again to test a specific performance in a "system" you have to hold all variables constant to compare one specific constraint. CP is correct in testing the caliber differences indoors. If you feel that this gives one an advantage you are wrong.

So having identical markers would be good, but it can't be done. What can be done are simultaneous tests in various outdoor conditions. Same environment, same time, two identical chronographs/targets/cameras/etc... Your logic is flawed in that you are assuming that both balls will be effected the same way by temperature, humidity, and other environmental factors purely because they are made of the same materials. By that logic, an .86cal paintball with the same shell and fill as a .68 would be its equal in performance... Which will take longer to fully freeze, an icecube in a tray or a cup of water twice its size? Both are just water. Which is easier to bend? A steel bar 1" thick or a steel bar 1.5" thick? They're both just steel...

Again, the problem is that testing in a "perfect" environment means NOTHING unless there are other tests to compare to. The test holds no real value to players because the conditions of test are unrealistic... It's like testing an automobile in SoCal and then sending it to Seattl to be driven; environmental factors are just that, factors.

This is a good starting point, but it needs more information to get even close to conclusive.. Outdoor tests, and actual field testing are needed.

[Beemer]

Rethink it again. The OBJECT for TESTING is to REMOVE the Variables.

[Lohman446]

It depends. In order for 50 to have a place it has to be able to do something that the 68 won't.

Is it more accurate? Testing shows it is not.

Does it fly further? No - simple physics show this.

Does it break better? Testing of current formulas show no.

Does it allow you to carry more paint? Yes. Is this enough of a reason to buy it? Thats for the market to decide

Is it more efficient? Base physics tell us it should be. Is this enough of a reason to buy it? Thats for the market to decide

Will it allow for smaller equipment? Theoretically yes. Is this enough of a reason to buy it? Thats for the market to decide


Will it be able to fire a .50 paintball at closer to 300 FPS while staying under the 7.5 joule limit of energy required in some countries? Yes. Is this enough of a reason to buy it? Thats for the market to decide


The point is that 50 will do some things 68 will not. 68 will do some things 50 will not. I don't beleive (and testing does not show) that 50 will outperform 68 in accuracy (and testing shows 68 does not have an accuracy advantage either). I do beleive, and am supported, that 68 will outrange 50. I also assume it will leave a bigger mark. One now just has to weigh what advantages are important. Personally I don't care about efficiency to that degree so that is out. I don't care for smaller equipment so that is out, I don't care to carry more paint, so that is out. Cost is not going to be different enough to be a factor. And I don't play where 68 isn't legal. So I'll keep my range.

[MANN]

Your right we should do testing during hurricanes to compare the results.

/leaves thread going back to fluid mechanics class.

[Frizzle Fry]

Rethink it again. The OBJECT for TESTING is to CONTROL the Variables.

Not really. I fixed that for ya.

When "remove" is used it doesn't mean remove them all! It means remove, add, combine, and continue testing. If Cockerpunk were to use humidifiers and dehumidifiers, as well as air conditioning and space heaters, all controlled and regulated in an indoor environment, then there'd be some meaning to the tests.

I'd be more than happy to lend a thermometer and pro-grade hygrometer if need be. I even have a few A/C units.


As it stands all he's done (so far) is measure performance at room temperature and an unknown humidity point with no wind. That is not enough to make a definitive statement of effectiveness for either size in the test, nor is it enough of a basis for comparison.

Your right we should do testing during hurricanes to compare the results.

/leaves thread going back to fluid mechanics class.

I wish there was a smiley guy that shrugged.

[Beemer]

^^^^ you fixed it wrong and should go read up on testing. You just arent getting it.

[MicroB]

Controlled conditions are a must in science; this allows us to understand very specific informtaion. "A" has a specific relationship to "B". Which in this case cockerpunks did show and I applaud their efforts. However as a researcher in the medical field I know that real world environment in which we all operate has many variables that impact the relationship of "A" on "B" or "A" vs. "B". We can take it to extremes of playing paintball in a hurricane or adding air conditioners/heaters for every environment in which we may play. However it would be easier to simply play a series of 5 x .68 vs 5 x .50 x 10 matches and have observes take note of bounces, breaks, gas consumed, velocity, etc. Many of these variables are finite. Each player has 500 rounds per say, they all use 68 4500's, if you standardize the test and play it in real time, in the environments in which we all play it would accurately demonstrate the pro's and con's of each. The teams could switch half way through a 10 game set so each could give their feed back of both markers. Don't get wrapped up in the reduction of variables unless you are trying to make a single inference, as this is too finite for applicable use. At best all you can say is this is how "A" reacts to/vs "B" in this particular environment. Which this test does demostrate, its just not really realvent to use as a indicator of which size would be better used in a real application.

[DevilMan]

meh... I don't like what I've seen of the bounces so far, nor of the small splat mark that they barely make when they do break. I will stick with 68. If I wanted to play a sport that didn't hurt as much to get hit I'd take up golf.

DM

[Lohman446]

meh... I don't like what I've seen of the bounces so far, nor of the small splat mark that they barely make when they do break. I will stick with 68. If I wanted to play a sport that didn't hurt as much to get hit I'd take up golf.

DM

While not common (at least if you don't play with me) it hurts to get hit in golf :)

[Smoothice]

If I wanted to play a sport that didn't hurt as much to get hit I'd take up golf.

DM

Every been hit with a golf ball?

[Frizzle Fry]

Which this test does demostrate, its just not really realvent to use as a indicator of which size would be better used in a real application.

Thank you for concisely making the point that I failed to articulate.

[BiNumber3]

I doubt adding perfectly controlled variables will do much to the results (which is what some of you want right?):

"wind" - Will blow both balls a set distance from intended target, the lighter balls will get blown further, but should be still be consistent as far as accuracy, i.e. they will all be blown 5 feet to the right. This also will affect the distance the ball can go depending on how the "wind" is positioned.

Same as temperature and humidity, they will affect one ball more than the other, but shouldn't really affect consistency (the balls should still hit where ever they hit with the same consistency as shown in the vid). And isnt paintball "accuracy" more or less the consitency of it?

Testing with as few variables as possibly is and has always been preferable, only adding variables if they are needed and expected to lead to noticably different results, right?
Making things more complicated than needed may sound like it should lead to better results, but has rarely been the case in the past.

Werent pretty much all "accuracy" tests before comparing barrels or comparing different 68 cal balls done pretty much the same way?

[Lohman446]

Accuracy and consistancy are two different things.

The first step to accuracy is consistancy. Whatever I am firing, be it a 50 paintball marker, a 68 paintball marker, or a 300-378 Weatherby I want the shots to first of all be consistant groupings. That is what we are measuring here, and calling it accuracy because its what we mean.

A marker that fires a smaller group is beneficial to being accurate. The ability for the shooter to put the shot on target. However the variables that influence this (how far off from point of aim a marker is, wind drift, drop) are all to be compensated for by the shooter. Is a lighter projectile more prone to be blown off course? Of course it is - but it is predictable. Remember that all the projectiles we are using have large cross sections in comparison to weight and are all going to be influenced heavily by factors such as wind. 50 is going to be blown off course badly is an accurate statement - but so are 68s. Are 50s going to be worse. Probably, but we are using spray and pray tactics. Its not like I have ever witnessed wind measurement equipment and calculations used by a paintball player beyond the point of guesswork for the first shot.

[DevilMan]

*Note to Self* Never play golf with Smooth or Lohman...


And NO I've not been hit by a golf ball... Maybe because I pay attention to what's going on around me and choose to get out of the way, or not put myself in that position...

:P

DM

[Frizzle Fry]

*Note to Self* Never play golf with Smooth or Lohman...


And NO I've not been hit by a golf ball... Maybe because I pay attention to what's going on around me and choose to get out of the way, or not put myself in that position...

:P

DM

Maybe if Tom starts producing paint, we can all be hit with liquid-filled golfballs and like it