Hammerhead Barrel: bs or legit?

[Miscue]

as a hammerhead owner personally i would have to for the most part agree on it being a hype barrel, and is not all that much more accurate than any other good barrel.

however... although the accuracy is no greater, the hammerhead DOES put about an extra 20 foot of distance on the ball compared to a nonrifled barrel... this doesnt really matter or make alot of difference in speedball which is why its no real superiority in tournament play.... on the scenario field this barrel has become quite attractive though...

just my two scents on it, smelly ones at that :rofl: flame away at me, yes i like hammerhead, yes i believe in the fact that the rifling does affect it.... make it more accurate? not really, bout the same... but the extra distance is nice on a scenario field..

So you're saying that because it's "rifled" this results in added distance.

Let's assume "rifling" does this. Now how does the rifling work on a Hammerhead when the rifled tip has a larger ID than the paintball?

[AclowN]

So you're saying that because it's "rifled" this results in added distance.

Let's assume "rifling" does this. Now how does the rifling work on a Hammerhead when the rifled tip has a larger ID than the paintball?

Q, i honestly don't know, i'm no physics major... all i am saying is that i have noticed extra distance, did not say better accuracy. i'm truly not sure how it does what it does, but i do know my own eyes, and have compared this to other barrel kits and it DOES put more distance... more accuracy? no, like i said, its bout the same...

i do believe in tom's studies on how you can not stabilize a liquid filled sphere, so maybe it is like the flatline in a sense.... just a controlled spin, not a stabilizing spin... but i dunno, i'm trying to think out of my knowledge, i don't know alot about physics when it comes to air and projectiles... heh.

EDIT: so there, you tell ME how someone that believes in the studies that have been done, tests out a rifled barrel (they really do let you test them if your at a field when they are) likes it, compares it to others, buys one based off that comparrison.
and don't just say i'm a fool... cause a fool would buy one without testing it out first just because of the hype....

[hitech]

[Trunnion]

there are other variables that could be involved in this. the supposed extra could exist, if i'm not mistaken, if the new barrel provides a better fit for the paint than before. i'm assuming that when you tested it, you didn't rechrono your marker? if it provides a better fit, you'll get a better muzzle velocity and thus greater range. of course, i could be wrong. i'm a history and political science major. i haven't taken math in 3 years, physics in 4

[ojhspyro89]

Even if it does shoot farther, anybody can still shoot a hammer head owner.

[justjoshin590]

like i said HOP-UP barrel, they have them in airsoft guns, basically theres three grooves lined up at the top of the barrel thats lets air pass, creating pressure on the bottom that creates back-spin, unline the flatline system which is flawed since it creates to much, and is very inefficient armotech.us/forum/ has a lot of information, and i would really like to see some real tests made on their claims

[AclowN]

there are other variables that could be involved in this. the supposed extra could exist, if i'm not mistaken, if the new barrel provides a better fit for the paint than before. i'm assuming that when you tested it, you didn't rechrono your marker? if it provides a better fit, you'll get a better muzzle velocity and thus greater range. of course, i could be wrong. i'm a history and political science major. i haven't taken math in 3 years, physics in 4

yes, by all means, deem me incompetent, so it makes sense... theorize that it was my flaw that made it seem to shoot better, thank you for showing how stupid i am. (by the way, yes i did chrono my marker each time. also tried a couple of different types of paint thru each barrel) but whatever, if it makes sense to you that it had to be my flaw that made it shoot farther, keep telling yourself that..

Even if it does shoot farther, anybody can still shoot a hammer head owner.

i never said they couldn't...... does a flatline make someone invincible asside from other flatlines? no... need i say more..

[Trunnion]

jeez man, you don't have to get angry ok? i was posing a POSSIBILITY since you didn't state it. it wasn't meant as a slight on your character. if that's the way it came across, sorry. but you really need to chill out. it's not THAT important.

[Mike Smith]

Actually the micro-cuts that the rifling does to the paintball makes it spin slightly, but, more importantly, the micro-cuts imparted onto the paintball allows it to break easier. Besides, everyone KNOWS that if you spin the outside of a paintball, the inside couldn't possibly start to spin. After all, the inside part of a paintball has a teflon coating so there is no friction.

But all of this is pseudo-science and a huge misperception made by the user of the Hammerhead barrel. What we perceive it doing really doesn't happen.... The shiny-thing syndrome fakes us out.... But we still have a 20 foot advantage on other non-Hammerhead barrels.....

Oh well....

[daviselk]

I have an armesop rifeled... and it works. but if u chop a ball with it, it does not cleen itself and is HORRIBLE!(with LvL X u dont have to care).

[AclowN]

jeez man, you don't have to get angry ok? i was posing a POSSIBILITY since you didn't state it. it wasn't meant as a slight on your character. if that's the way it came across, sorry. but you really need to chill out. it's not THAT important.

heh, sorry, didn't mean to come off so rash, the comments of my own stupidity were made in light... wasnt meaning to seem serious, was trying to seem fakely with a hidden behind it

[GoatBoy]

For those of you who think the hammerhead is all hype, you're right....

That's why Hammerhead will let you try one out for a day of paintball, for free. If you see their trailer, take your driver's license with you and "borrow" one of their barrels. They know you will not like it, will see no difference between your barrel and their barrel, and will not buy from them...

For those of you who do have a hammerhead.... Shhhhhhhhhhh..... Be quiet.

This reasoning is so painfully, spectacularly bad. Like, in a straight-out-of-Tommy-Boy way.

You're saying it's not hype because Hammerhead refuses to provide any data or even any well done, reproducible proof. Instead, they leave it to the wild imaginations of paintballers who can barely shoot straight, much less think straight, to do the proof for them. They're confident in this method because they KNOW (as has been CLEARLY demonstrated in this thread and others) that most paintball players are neither diligent nor smart enough to sit down and perform any real, organized, and documented tests.

Let's face it, real testing isn't much fun. It's more like homework. And last I checked, most players aren't Grade-A students if you catch my drift. If you hand them a barrel, they're not thinking lab notebook, tape measure, and bench rest. They want to go out and play.



As far as incompetence goes... I do think there is incompetence and lack of cognitive (or metacognitive) ability involved in this.


I'll be honest with you; I own both a cocker and a mag. To this day, despite myself, I will still have to admit that the cocker *seems* to have a flatter trajectory/range than the mag.

Obviously, this defies all proof and explanation. I brooded over this for the quite some time. Given the mountain of evidence to the contrary, you have to go back and question the underlying things that you take as a given. My conclusion was simple, if not unnerving to admit to.



My eyes are not infallible.


There is something about the way I hold the gun, play with it, sight down the side of the body and over the barrel, which must change the way my eye tracks the ball, and perhaps how I aim it. Like the goofy trick where you bobble a pencil up and down to make it look like it's made out of rubber, something just isn't right. Either that pencil's made of rubber, or your eyes are playing tricks on you.





A quick visual test is worthless. Controlled testing can at least be measured and reproduced.


Who knows, maybe the Hammerhead really does perform.


But nobody has come up with proof, much less a workable explanation, for any it. This thread is how many months old now? And there have been others. If someone's got some proof that is more impressive than some slapped together Word document with some pictures of white splotches on barrels, I'm sure we'd all like to see it.

http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html

[bryceeden]

This reasoning is so painfully, spectacularly bad. Like, in a straight-out-of-Tommy-Boy way.

You're saying it's not hype because Hammerhead refuses to provide any data or even any well done, reproducible proof. Instead, they leave it to the wild imaginations of paintballers who can barely shoot straight, much less think straight, to do the proof for them. They're confident in this method because they KNOW (as has been CLEARLY demonstrated in this thread and others) that most paintball players are neither diligent nor smart enough to sit down and perform any real, organized, and documented tests.

Let's face it, real testing isn't much fun. It's more like homework. And last I checked, most players aren't Grade-A students if you catch my drift. If you hand them a barrel, they're not thinking lab notebook, tape measure, and bench rest. They want to go out and play.



As far as incompetence goes... I do think there is incompetence and lack of cognitive (or metacognitive) ability involved in this.


I'll be honest with you; I own both a cocker and a mag. To this day, despite myself, I will still have to admit that the cocker *seems* to have a flatter trajectory/range than the mag.

Obviously, this defies all proof and explanation. I brooded over this for the quite some time. Given the mountain of evidence to the contrary, you have to go back and question the underlying things that you take as a given. My conclusion was simple, if not unnerving to admit to.



My eyes are not infallible.

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.

[rabidchihauhau]

Bryce,

I appreciate the findings of your test, and I don't want to diminsh your efforts in any way, but, under true laboratory definitions, what you did was not a 'test'.

A 'good' test for scientifically accurate results - ones which can be relied on, ones which others can produce using the same testing methodology, you would have to be testing only a single variable.

You were, in fact, testing multiple variables at the same time, nor does it appear that you gathered data on all of the factors which could affect your results:

first of all, if you are not using a 'test ball', then anyone who wants to can pick holes in your results. A test ball would have a known and constant weight, diameter, shape.

Secondly, ten balls for each test is, as someone said earlier, not a good statistical sample. That's the same as flipping a coin ten times and concluding that the heads side must weigh more because you ended up with 7 tails and 3 heads. Flip that coin a few thousand times and you'll end up with the 50/50 results we all know and love.

Next - environmental factors. Temp, humidity, wind velocity and direction, elevation, barometric pressure...

Followed by measurements; there should be no 'approximately' when it comes to target distance, the hit patterns, etc.

And finally, you're not gathering enough data in order to be able to make further conclusions and suppositions - no one can watch what happened to each ball, there's no accounting for interior barrel conditions, no measuring of the pressure delivered by the valve on each shot, no duration times for length of flight, time the ball was in the barrel until it exited, etc, etc, etc.

Again, I am not criticizing your effort; with what you had available, you actually went out and tried some testing, which is far more than most folks do. Unfortunately, while your results for you are satisfactory (as most ad hoc tests are for each individual), they leave us right back where we all started from - not enough reliable data to do anything with.

Of course, with that all said, Armson barrels do shoot straighter and more accurately throughout their entire range than anything else out there. (LOL)

To add a little fuel to the fire here: One of my older teams was a 'test team' for Armson barrels back in the day. We liked them because they were loud (Pro Series) and had an intimidation factor that was worth the extra trips with the ref to the chrono. They also delivered the kind of accuracy we were used to getting. Several years ago, the SSR was introduced (straight rifling) and, in my personal and unscientific opinion, are just a teensy bit more accurate than the spiral rifled versions. They're certainly at least as accurate. So, if that's the case, the spiral rifling can't be 'doing its thing' through spin, can it?

[bryceeden]

Bryce,

I appreciate the findings of your test, and I don't want to diminsh your efforts in any way, but, under true laboratory definitions, what you did was not a 'test'.

A 'good' test for scientifically accurate results - ones which can be relied on, ones which others can produce using the same testing methodology, you would have to be testing only a single variable.

You were, in fact, testing multiple variables at the same time, nor does it appear that you gathered data on all of the factors which could affect your results:

first of all, if you are not using a 'test ball', then anyone who wants to can pick holes in your results. A test ball would have a known and constant weight, diameter, shape.

Secondly, ten balls for each test is, as someone said earlier, not a good statistical sample. That's the same as flipping a coin ten times and concluding that the heads side must weigh more because you ended up with 7 tails and 3 heads. Flip that coin a few thousand times and you'll end up with the 50/50 results we all know and love.

Next - environmental factors. Temp, humidity, wind velocity and direction, elevation, barometric pressure...

Followed by measurements; there should be no 'approximately' when it comes to target distance, the hit patterns, etc.

And finally, you're not gathering enough data in order to be able to make further conclusions and suppositions - no one can watch what happened to each ball, there's no accounting for interior barrel conditions, no measuring of the pressure delivered by the valve on each shot, no duration times for length of flight, time the ball was in the barrel until it exited, etc, etc, etc.

Again, I am not criticizing your effort; with what you had available, you actually went out and tried some testing, which is far more than most folks do. Unfortunately, while your results for you are satisfactory (as most ad hoc tests are for each individual), they leave us right back where we all started from - not enough reliable data to do anything with.

Of course, with that all said, Armson barrels do shoot straighter and more accurately throughout their entire range than anything else out there. (LOL)

To add a little fuel to the fire here: One of my older teams was a 'test team' for Armson barrels back in the day. We liked them because they were loud (Pro Series) and had an intimidation factor that was worth the extra trips with the ref to the chrono. They also delivered the kind of accuracy we were used to getting. Several years ago, the SSR was introduced (straight rifling) and, in my personal and unscientific opinion, are just a teensy bit more accurate than the spiral rifled versions. They're certainly at least as accurate. So, if that's the case, the spiral rifling can't be 'doing its thing' through spin, can it?

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.