Low pressure = Straighter shots?? hype..?

[Smoking Nun]

More

Ok, I am feeling a bit attacked.

If you all look back at my posts, you will see you are making a number of assumptions about things I never said.

To set a few things straight...


zaqwert6 said

"The gun can have no effect on the flight of the paintball after it leaves the barrel."

Good point. I never said anything to the contrary. So, I'm not sure why you felt the need to point this obvious fact out. Your point has nothing to do with what I am talking about.

"The Paintball is not in the barrel long enough to allow the minute amount of movement that is made primarily after the shot,to effect spin on the ball.This is not jai alai,look at the amount of spin needed in a Flatline or Z body just to have a noticable effect on tragectory."

An interesting idea. However, do you have any proof of this. I don't mean theorizing. I mean proof. All I have is a theory. If you can prove it wrong go ahead. Sounds like all you have is a best guess.

"If" a forward kick were happening as your "guts" were telling you,and enough so to impart spin on the ball,it would be back spin not top spin and only enhance range.

I originally said kick forward. Then said, I am not really sure which way it kicks in my later post, as I have not paid close enough attention. Also, my perception of kick may be skewed by how I am naturally compensating for the kick. Please read more carefully before responding.

"If" your properly matching your barrel with the size of your paint,you would negate any possible spin you "think" may be imparted during the miilisecond that the ball is in the barrel.There's one easy test for you to try.

Good point. An obvious point, but a good one. I never stated matched paint wouldn't have this affect. I just implied that maybe loose paint leaving a barrel under certain conditions might have some spin that may affect trajectory. Again, maybe reading more closely before feeling the need to attack my post on a lack of merit would be a good idea.


cledford said
"Do you know how dumb this statement is? Force(to move the reciprocating mass)/inertia(of bolt at rest) is DIRECTLY related to the WEIGHT of the mass to be moved. Geez, they teach that in 6th grade science."

Wow, pretty mature. Just put me down, call my post dumb, and infer a low grade of intelligence on my part. Pretty big cahones for posting behind the shrouded veil of the Internet. However, if you read back through all the posts you will see that this was a response directly back to another poster. However, it seems clear you didn't read the posts entirely and responded out of emotion. I was simply pointing out that the kick of the gun was related to more than just the bolt weight. Personman stated that the LX bolt was lighter than others and thus implied there would be less kick. So, my point, while perhaps obvious to you, was apparently not obvious to all. Way to encourage open and spirited debate there. Keep up the great attitude and have a nice day


Cledford again...
"Your statement has no merit. You are not even making educated guesses, but just "making up" explanations to validate your feelings"

Wow, another intelligent response - maybe not so much. My statement has plenty of merit. Just stating the obvious, as it appeared that someone misinterpreted what I had already written.

So my information had no merit. However, you then go on to explain and explore some very similar ideas in later posts. Pretty much saying a lot of what I already said about the whole platform and mechanism affecting kick and gun movement. What you are doing is elaborating on information already presented and exploring some slightly alternative theories, which are related to my ideas. Your ideas are similar and my ideas have no merit. Interesting.

Here's what you wrote

"I don't know how much the reciprocating mass in the shocker weighs (guess I could tear mine apart and weigh it all), but is damn sure more than the LX bolt. The cocker, Impy, Timmy, Viking, Excal, and Angel all have more to MANY times more the reciprocating the mass of the LX bolt. (Don't just weigh the ultralight delrin bolt, but the ram, hammer, bolt pins, back blocks, and figure additional energy required to knock open the hammer valve) Your statement has no merit. You are not even making educated guesses, but just "making up" explanations to validate your feelings."

Read back through what I wrote, carefully. You will see that I agree that the kick has to do with many factors. It seems you are responding emotionally, wanting very much to prove the combined affect of kick in the mag is less. Yet, I see no proof. If you are gonna just guess and not have facts, maybe putting down other people's theories with those guesses isn't the best idea. Have a nice day.


All of the points about recoil and firearms are interesting. However, does anyone have any proof about how this affects paintball guns? Oh, no you say. All you have are ideas and hunches. Thories. Kind of like what I am talking about. That's about what I thought. So you want to put me down for presenting some ideas and theories about which I have no proof and just want to put out there for discussion. Then, you feel it appropriate to respond with theories with no proof yourselves. Please gentlemen - how about not responding with emotion and giving some proof to your claims or at least be polite about disagreeing. I thought that is what AO was all about. Seriously.

So, if anyone has any proof - great. I neither have the time nor money to test this theory out. In the meantime, there is no less relevance to my idea about kick affecting which way the ball travels and its trajectory than to any other of your unproven ideas.

Let's keep the hypocrisy, bleeding deaconism, name-calling, and emotionally-driven responses to protect your love for the mag (don't worry, I like my mag too) to a bare minimum.

Nun

[cledford]

Re: More

Originally posted by Smoking Nun
[B]I was simply pointing out that the kick of the gun was related to more than just the bolt weight. Personman stated that the LX bolt was lighter than others and thus implied there would be less kick. So, my point, while perhaps obvious to you, was apparently not obvious to all. Way to encourage open and spirited debate there. Keep up the great attitude and have a nice day

B]

As I understood your statement "It may not be just the weight of the bolt, but maybe the total force/inertia exerted by the cycling mechanism." you seem to offer an illogical assertion. Please explain to me how something with less mass i.e. the LX superbolt (the only moving part of an automag) can produce MORE "kick" the then movement of the reciprocating mass in more (i.e Timmy, ram, bolt, bolt pin) to much more (i.e cocker with bolt, block, rod, hammer) complex systems when such a statement defies basic principals of physics?

Generally speaking most paintguns weigh about the same within small degrees of variance. Therefore they all will (within a rnage) experience a similar degree of "offset" from the aimed firing position during the launch of a paintball. Since the paintball is at rest and wants to stay that way (Newton's first law), and is then propelled violently out the barrel the marker causing force to be transferred into the marker, in the rearward direction (Newton's third law), I first submit that generally all paintgun experience a similar degree of recoil when shooting a 3gram paintball at 300fps. The theory about more mass out front offsetting the result of the applications of Newton's laws during the launch of the ball is interesting but let's assume for a moment that the impact is minimal. The only other movement producing event occurring at the same time during the shooting of a marker is the cycling of the "action" (the functioning of the collective group of parts that make the gun work) So if I understand you correctly you are saying that the a marker such as the autococker with more reciprocating mass (which is going to invoke Newton's laws) can somehow produce less "felt" or perceived "kick" then just the little 'ol superbolt? I don't think so.

-Calvin

[Smoking Nun]

Calvin,

Again, all of your points are good. However, you are making assumptions about my post that are simply not there.

I am not saying the LX bolt on a mag and the combined forces exerted in its firing cycle cause more kick than a cocker and its cycle. I never said that.

I think that something about the firing motion of the Mag, including the kick, leads to either a more arced trajectory or the perception of a more arced trajectory than some other markers I have fired. I think that the way other guns cycle, fire, and kick (including the exerted force of their firing mechanisms) leads to the perception or perhaps fact that the shots have a flatter trajectory. I'm not saying either can shoot a ball farther when launched at the same velocity, etc. I am simply stating that the trajectory seems different.

I don't know if it has to do with the force of the kick, the vector of force of the kick, or how the marker is held (tightly, loosely, etc). I just am theorizing that the kick has an affect on the trajectory. I would love for someone to prove me wrong. If it can be proven wrong, then we will know that it is all perception and perhaps even an optical illusion. If it is proven right, then hey, there may be a solution to that issue.

Nun