Hammerhead Barrel: bs or legit?

[Mike Smith]

As soon as I start playing paintballl with my marker clamped down to a table, or when I start playing under scientific conditions in a scientific lab, or when there is absolutely no wind, or when everyone is shooting exactly the same speed with exactly the same gun, I'll pay some attention to y'all's findings...

Til then, I'll just be blissfully ignorant...

[Miscue]

I agree a better test could be done, but mine was better than nothing, and more accurate than you seen to think, the "test ball" was Zap Chronic, and I ran all of my test balls thru a sizer to make sure I didn't have any odd ones. The test was done indoors, so wind isn't a consern, and since both where done side by side not one after another the temp and such are not really a consern because they will be the same on each one. Ten balls from each marker at each distance is a good enough amount to prove the point. If you have an idea for a better test of range not accuracy please let me know and I'll try it. Also yes, the Armson is accurate, but the test was to see if it shoots further, which it does. I am still trying to find out why, the fact that it only works when you don't properly match paint to the barrel makes me think the ball is hitting the rifling such that it causes a backspin effect.

I disagree. "Nothing" is better than bad results from bad testing procedures.

[Miscue]

As soon as I start playing paintballl with my marker clamped down to a table, or when I start playing under scientific conditions in a scientific lab, or when there is absolutely no wind, or when everyone is shooting exactly the same speed with exactly the same gun, I'll pay some attention to y'all's findings...

Til then, I'll just be blissfully ignorant...

Reinventing the wheel... people have already tested this extensively - and have shown that there is no difference.

[GoatBoy]

The cocker does shoot farther, the mag has no real recoil, but that that it does have lowers the barrel very slightly, but the cockers recoil raises the barrel slightly(depending on how tight you hold it) so in away it does shoot farther as long as you don't bolt both down to a bench.

Back to the point, I did real extensive actual testing on the Arson Stealth because I like testing and destroying Hype, and alot of my customers where claiming the Armson shot farther when you used small bore paint, so I bolted two A-5's down so they couldn't move and set a long target(so both would hit it) at 50' I chronoed both at exactly the same speed(between 275lowest and 288highest) both where on HPA, one with a stock barrel and one with an Armson. I fired both markers, they both hit easily, I fired 10 shots from each marker at each distacne so I was sure it wasn't just chance. I then moved the target back 2' and repeated until 74' they both hit, but the Armson hit up until 88', I am not sure why it shoots farther, I think it is a slopy back spin(I am looking into it). they both shot within a few feet of each other with a good paint to barrel mach, but the Armson does shoot farther with small bore paint.

I can at least appreciate the attempt. You have to start somewhere.

However, I'm back to questioning things that are accepted as 'given'.

In one hand, you say you chrono'd both guns to the same speed, but in the same sentence you describe the variability to be from 275 to 288. Right there you have contradicted yourself. This test setup is OK, but you need to be able to compensate for this.

I don't have the math in front of me, but I'm betting that's too much variability, especially at 74'-88', to let go, especially without tracking. If you've read the AGD testing, you'll notice in the bore sizing document, "IF YOU ONLY COUNT THE SHOTS AT THE SAME VELOCITY." I think there's a reason why that's in all caps.

From your description, you're not measuring the velocity for EACH shot.

A gun/barrel/paint combination that may exhibit similar variability, yet different average, will produce different results. Which brings me to my second question.

I'd like to know about what you mean by "hit". Was this a statistical thing, as in, out of 10 balls, 1 out of 10 on the armson hit at 88', or are you saying 10 out of 10 hit at 88', whereas 0 out of 10 for the other barrel did not hit at 88'? If you got 0 out of 10 hits, did you discontinue testing for the stock barrel at further lengths, but continue with the Armson?



Anyways, those are my thoughts. Trying to be constructive here; it would be nice if you could re-do the experiment sometime and get some of the data that is unfortunately very critical to the interpretation of the results. I would recommend maybe using the same gun to help reduce gun variability (gun related stuff + possible bench issues), but switching barrels and chrono'ing each shot.


There's also one other thing... but bleh, I'm tired and going to bed.



Oh and by the way, this isn't saying squat about the Hammerhead, which is what this thread is about.

As soon as I start playing paintballl with my marker clamped down to a table, or when I start playing under scientific conditions in a scientific lab, or when there is absolutely no wind, or when everyone is shooting exactly the same speed with exactly the same gun, I'll pay some attention to y'all's findings...

Til then, I'll just be blissfully ignorant...

Agreed.

[Koosh]

Goatboy you'll also see he was using A-5's with and admittedly small bore paint, so that initself should be reason for the velocity differences...

[bryceeden]

Thanks Koosh, that was what I was about to post, if anyone else can get better numbers with an A-5 with an improper paint to barrel match by all means redo the test and see what happens. And here is the question for all who are doubting , if its just luck than why is it that when I matched the paint size the supposed backspin didn't happen?

Goatboy I did chrono each shot, I did everything possable to make sure it was an accurate test if you people want me to post EVERYTHING about my tests than I will, but since this is semi off topic(people said the HH shot further, I don't know if it does but another rifeld barrel can so it is possable) I don't realy want to clutter the thread too much.

[rabidchihauhau]

Bryce,

not arguing here, but I also can't remain silent on a couple of points:

you said your 'test ball' was chronic and you sampled them for size.

Did you do so for weight?

In the distances you mentioned, I'd venture to say that a very small variation in weight would yeild (relatively) large variations in range...

and, of course, that was not what I meant by a test ball.

Pro-Team had 'test balls' made - seemless, all the same weight and measurements (beyond statistical variation), because we recognized that no test using paintballs was going to resolve enough to get results we could stand behind.

Finally, no matter how you slice it, ten balls from each gun is NOT enough to rely on. I'd venture to guess that I, personally, would not be happy with anything less than 10k shots for each barrel.

I would also not deem any test worthy of the name unless I had data available from the valve and barrel itself (dwell time, pressure, volume, density, etc)

Testing indoors definately makes things easier, but it does not mean that you can avoid gathering that data altogether; a random draft, a slight change in temp can still occur inside.


I guess what I'm really saying here is that paintball is pushing the limits of what is known in certain areas of the physical world; the microcosm we're trying to understand is right at the edge, and, that being the case, any outside influence, no matter how seemingly small, might be the factor that we need to understand. (In all probablity its a host of small, seemingly insignificant factors). Without having the data - and lots of it - any theory anyone advances is not worthy of the name and should be referred to as a 'guess'.

[bryceeden]

I don't have the equipment to test dwell and such so that I am not able to do, and for a test like this I can't afford to shoot 10K balls because its just a curiosity thing and unfortunatly cost is a factor in everything . As for the test balls, I am a proteam dealer so I'll call them Monday and if I can purchase some I'll redo the tests with them to see if they make a difference, but I'll need several different bore sizes so I'm not sure if that'll be doable. As I have said the tests wheren't perfect, but my results where consistant so I am inclined to belive that I found what I was testing for.

[minimag03]

I have a Hammerhead barrel. It is A LOT of bs. It breaks paint like crazy, put a strange curve on balls (with a clean barrel), and a lot more crap. I'd get something else that performed better...like a stock barrel.

[wispaintstyle]

I talked to them at shatnerball. The sales rep reminded me of a used car salesman from GB. Like PT Barnham said, "there's a sucker born every minute." Maybe more in paintball's case. For all of us that have already learned that rifling isn't worth shizzle on a marker, there could be two more that take these men as experts on the sport. Don't get me wrong, I would love to see SP deposed, but this just isn't the barrel.