Confirmed: Shockers available with "rebound" feature

[Tyger]

Just an afterthought.

The original F/A guns were the SMG 60. This paintgun shot a .62 caliber ball at 325 FPS, and left some horrific welts / wounds. It shot at 9 BPS with a 20 round "Stripper clip" feed. It was argued that the ball used the same "thickness" shell as the .68 caliber ball, and even though it was less overall weight, the impact energy was higher.

The whole point became moot becasue the .62 caliber ball was (mercifully) phased out, as was full auto. I think there's a lot of argument based on the past of F/A, but we're not accounting for the smaller ball with the "Thicker" shells. Now we've got, effectively, F/A guns with .68 balls. The .68 ball is heavier than the .62 caliber ball, and we have the ability to ramp them up to 20+ BPS, which is double the SMG-60.

Just more to think about.

-Tyger

[LaW]

It falls within their rules now so it's allowed . The fact that we got there because people were cheating (and sometimes yes manufacturers cheating) that doesn't mean that everyone cheats the rules of breaks the standard when they try to make new products. The NXL was limited to a very small group of people who decided to make their own rules and standards.

When talking about fitting within the rules we were discussing hoppers. I personally have BIG issues with the manufacturers of cheater boards.

I realize not everyone cheats or breaks standards. I guess what it comes down to is the need for one set of standards. Not sure if I am looking at this correctly but basically you have different organizations that have come up with their own standards?

If we are discussing hoppers then thats cool I am with you there, and I too have big problems with cheater boards.

[manike]

From a safety perspective, the limits have to be designed for worst case scenario. That means paintballs hitting and not breaking.

I'd actually question the ASTM standards for goggle testing.

Because if energy is disipated by the paintball breaking, safety is dependant not on the safety equipment, but on the manufacturing of the paintballs.

If we are going to place or safety with the manufacturing of the paintballs, there needs to be a maximum drop test value allowed for paint...

Agreed. That's why there is a standard for goggles and a standard for paintballs.

There is a standard impact test on goggles at 400fps and from under 1.5m.

There is a standard test for paintball breakage.

It's all in the ASTM standards.

[SlartyBartFast]

It's all in the ASTM standards.

The problem is that all the ASTM standards aren't in paintball markers or equipment...

[teufelhunden]

I will grant that my nasty experience may have been due to a hot shot. But that's another failure in paintball. There's no built in safety to avoid dangerously fast paintballs. (not saying that would be easy or practical)

Other than chrono before a game? Albeit, when I ball I'm probably safer than Johnny Sniper, because I play with guys who have markers that aren't going to spike 30 FPS to 330..

[manike]

I realize not everyone cheats or breaks standards. I guess what it comes down to is the need for one set of standards. Not sure if I am looking at this correctly but basically you have different organizations that have come up with their own standards?

There is only 'one' set of standards. I work damn hard to make sure stuff I make is within those standards as far as is possible with my position and responsibilities. It's the ASTM standards. Available to everyone if you want to pay the ASTM for them.

There are different sets of 'rules' depending on your field, the owners, the players the tournament series etc. That's not an issue for manufacturers to be concerned about unless they want they equipment to be allowed in said events or on said fields of play.

[SlartyBartFast]

Other than chrono before a game? Albeit, when I ball I'm probably safer than Johnny Sniper, because I play with guys who have markers that aren't going to spike 30 FPS to 330..

Well, in the current age of HPA, nasty spikes are rare unless the player adjusts their gun on field.

Anything working on CO2 could spike if liquid got through the valve. The old SP magic box was only really marketed for that....

But with electronic guns that can modify velocity, is a pre-game chrono sufficient?

[manike]

The problem is that all the ASTM standards aren't in paintball markers or equipment...

You will find it is in goggles, and in 99.999% of paintballs. Gun's are one area where some manufacturers don't follow the ASTM standards rigorously and take on the liability to a greater extent.

[Tyger]

From a safety perspective, the limits have to be designed for worst case scenario. That means paintballs hitting and not breaking.

I'd actually question the ASTM standards for goggle testing.

Because if energy is disipated by the paintball breaking, safety is dependant not on the safety equipment, but on the manufacturing of the paintballs.

That really doesn't answer my question. "What would, in your opinion, be pushing the limits of safety strictly from an engineering safety perspective?" I won't use it as a basis for testing, but I'd like to know what FPS you would consider as being within safe parameters? You said that the 300 FPS was "designed specifically for bouncers". So, I'm still being serious, what would you consider a "safe" FPS limit?

I do realise that without testing you can't give me a definate answer, but I'd like a ballpark figure to work with for your opinion.

-Tyger

[SlartyBartFast]

That really doesn't answer my question. "What would, in your opinion, be pushing the limits of safety strictly from an engineering safety perspective?" I won't use it as a basis for testing, but I'd like to know what FPS you would consider as being within safe parameters? You said that the 300 FPS was "designed specifically for bouncers". So, I'm still being serious, what would you consider a "safe" FPS limit?

I do realise that without testing you can't give me a definate answer, but I'd like a ballpark figure to work with for your opinion.

-Tyger

Don't know. But the insurance people seem to think that 300fps is the maximum energy a paintball should have. (and actually, the shot that put me unconcious was from a marker that wouldn't crono faster than 230-250ish)

My issue wasn't with the speed. It was with Manike's assertion that somehow the brittle paint being used now made head shots safer.

Can't have safety stadards based on the paint breaking. The standards have to be based on when it goes wrong. Thickest allowed shell, with the heaviest possible ball, travelling at the fasted allowed speed, failing to break on impact.

[manike]

That really doesn't answer my question. "What would, in your opinion, be pushing the limits of safety strictly from an engineering safety perspective?" I won't use it as a basis for testing, but I'd like to know what FPS you would consider as being within safe parameters? You said that the 300 FPS was "designed specifically for bouncers". So, I'm still being serious, what would you consider a "safe" FPS limit?

I do realise that without testing you can't give me a definate answer, but I'd like a ballpark figure to work with for your opinion.

-Tyger

400fps at under 1.5M with current paintballs... is quite a significant impact. Tests are conducted usually at around 1 shot per second, at that velocity.

The energy in a 3.2g paintball at 300fps = approx 10ft lbs. The energy at 400fps = 18ft lbs.

A paintball at 300fps but weighing 3.4g = 10.5ft lbs and at 3.8g = 11.72ft lbs.

With a BPS test how many shots should you count? and over what area? I don't think anyone is going to hold their head in one spot and let a long string all impact it.

Human perception is around 0.1 second, most people will move after the first impact so any string of shots will be over a moving target, not in one specific area.

[manike]

My issue wasn't with the speed. It was with Manike's assertion that somehow the brittle paint being used now made head shots safer.

But it absolutely does. A head shot now with a lighter more brittle ball will put less energy into the target than a head shot 10 years ago with a heavier more robust ball.

Can't have safety stadards based on the paint breaking. The standards have to be based on when it goes wrong. Thickest allowed shell, with the heaviest possible ball, travelling at the fasted allowed speed, failing to break on impact.

You have to be kidding.

The worst case scenario is a gun shooting over 600fps with a solid projetile. It's possible. It's rare, and unlikely and if we had to protect against that people wouldn't be able to play in the gear they are wearing.

Just like with an aeroplane, if you had to protect the fuselage against an engine failure you would never get the plane off the ground. You just have to accept that engine failures are statistically extremely unlikely and protect as best you can for common situations.

There is a standard for paintballs, this standard ball is used in the test for goggles, but at very high velocities which is a 'worst case realistic scenario'.

[SlartyBartFast]

Human perception is around 0.1 second, most people will move after the first impact so any string of shots will be over a moving target, not in one specific area.

Sorry, rubbish.

It would be true if the paintballs were all travelling exactly the same path from a stable shooting platform. But they aren't. Paintballs aren't accurate, and the shooter is following the target.

So when you get bunkered and the twib shoots a string with their legal electro at FA @ 15bps (at least NXL), you might be under the on-slaught for a given time and easily be hit multiple times.

Seems to me that bunkering with even a single headshot should be in the rules as a MAJOR infraction (and automatically assesed, no arguing you weren't used to the trigger like the jerk responsible for the 12 to another players head in a tourney). Multiple hits should also automatically result in stiff penalties.

Really, what it all comes down to. The spine-less haphazard rules and enforcement.

[Tyger]

Human perception is around 0.1 second, most people will move after the first impact so any string of shots will be over a moving target, not in one specific area.

Ok, so logically, if you've got 20 PBS in the air, you could be impacted 2 times in .1 seconds before your body flinches. Depending on how fast you move, it could be argued that there would be a fairly tight grouping of 3-5 impacts within a few inches of each other? This is assuming the player shooting keeps a steady hand as he's moving the trigger.

Also keep in mind a lot of players have "Trained" themselves not to flinch at all, so you could have multiple impacts. I recall seeing video from several tournaments of players being shot 5-10 times before they could get a gun in the air, and usually from point blank range as the guy gets bunkered.

Edit Add : Slarty brings up a good point about taking the onslought. Every paint box has on it "Do not shoot at another person within 20 feet". We regularly break this safety rule on the box!

I'm not the brightest bulb in the box, but it seems to me that it's a little dangerous out there lately.

-Tyger

[manike]

Can't have safety stadards based on the paint breaking. The standards have to be based on when it goes wrong. Thickest allowed shell, with the heaviest possible ball, travelling at the fasted allowed speed, failing to break on impact.

You realise that so far (touch wood) there hasn't been even a SINGLE blinding incident where the person shot was wearing goggles?

Statistically that's huge! There must be an astounding number of incidents of people getting shot in the goggles in paintball every year.

I think that goes to show that the standards are working and safe so far. Touch wood.