Hammerhead barrels, and their lies!

[Mister Sinister]

Why don't you "prove" that it isn't better?

I'm not the one trying to sell people on it. If i prove that it isnt I dont really gain anything maybe e-peen points or some other inconsequential status. But the proponents of it have everything to gain by proving that their ideas work. Think about it if they proved their concepts they would essentially overturn everything that was previously thought about paintball barrels. Its not everyday that you get a chance to prove the world is flat.

edit: As a side note even if it was disproven with the thinking and logic in this thread it wouldnt do any good anyways. I'm not in the habit of trying to teach cheese to jump through hoops.

[Mister Sinister]

And not hide behind "years of R&D" that end with statements that begin with "we beleive". Show us statements that say "controlled testing indicates" and then show us the tests and the data.

I agree here. Years of R&D dont necessarily mean its better or mean anything at all. Their research may have been in how it reacts chemical and heat changes while sitting on the beach in aruba being used as a swizel stick in a mai tai. The development may have nothing more than deciding on which colour of anno best matched the curtains in the den. The makers dont quantify this for us. Hiding behind years of supposed R&D and beliefs mean little. One of the best aircraft (P-51 Mustang) built in WW2 took only 120 days to go from idea to flying. Just telling me how long it took means nothing show me what it does and why it does it.

[Miscue]

I agree here. Years of R&D dont necessarily mean its better or mean anything at all. Their research may have been in how it reacts chemical and heat changes while sitting on the beach in aruba being used as a swizel stick in a mai tai. The development may have nothing more than deciding on which colour of anno best matched the curtains in the den. The makers dont quantify this for us. Hiding behind years of supposed R&D and beliefs mean little. One of the best aircraft (P-51 Mustang) built in WW2 took only 120 days to go from idea to flying. Just telling me how long it took means nothing show me what it does and why it does it.

On the flip side... you have to wonder why it took 3 years of R&D to put a hole in a tube, and put some threads on it.

[Army]

On the flip side... you have to wonder why it took 3 years of R&D to put a hole in a tube, and put some threads on it.

The confusion came from the fact, that their tube already had a hole

[Lohman446]

I agree here. Years of R&D dont necessarily mean its better or mean anything at all. Their research may have been in how it reacts chemical and heat changes while sitting on the beach in aruba being used as a swizel stick in a mai tai. The development may have nothing more than deciding on which colour of anno best matched the curtains in the den. The makers dont quantify this for us. Hiding behind years of supposed R&D and beliefs mean little. One of the best aircraft (P-51 Mustang) built in WW2 took only 120 days to go from idea to flying. Just telling me how long it took means nothing show me what it does and why it does it.

"Hey Rich, these mai tais are really expensive, what can we do to help the costs?"
"You know Bob, I've been thinking about that for five years, rolling over the options, theres this sport called paintball"
"What does that have to do with making money"
"Well.. apparently it is a very hype driven market, couple my degree with something noone else uses since they have proven it doesn't work, hype it, and sell it for 10X what it takes us to make it..."
"Hey.. Rich... I've got something on the shark pole - its a Hammerhead"

[Arson51]

i have emailed hammerhead paintball this

http://www.automags.org/resource/tech/tomstech/03_spinning.shtml

http://www.automags.org/forums/showthread.php?t=64669

i will post a response when it comes.

[JoshK]

Aren't you taking sides?

I said "If I were you"...because he said earlier that he doesn't believe anything until he has his own proof. So why would he be taking sides without any?


-Josh

[CodeMA]

This thread should have been dead long ago... honestly...

...but since yall cant leave well enough alone, Ill throw some more out

This weekend, I desided hey, lets waste paint and play with barrels...and mabey fiddle with my lpr and such while Im at it

I grabbed a CP kit, a hammerhead kit, and a ultralight, all barrels 14", a few pods and a set of allen wrenches and obsonded a big ugly red chrono and some bored, trusting field scrub...

So useing some premium paint, I sized the paint for each kit the bore sizes were diffrent for each kit(IE .686 for the hammerhead was larger on the CP(.688)at around 295fps and useing the chrono to bench the marker and table for the tank so its all at the same angle every time... I could shoot across the field with the CP and the paint would hit right at the bottem of the net between actually hitting it and 3 feet away, avreageing by sight and word of kid about a foot away, this due to slight diffrences in shape of paint and velocity... air effecency wasnt really nominal with just a pod through it... flight pattern wasnt as constant as I was used to seeing and down range it was the same as only a handfull of shots hit the pole the CP barrel was lined up with...Noise signatures were also very distanctly diffrent both on my end and on the kids end... Next I took the Hammerhead and screwed it on, chronoed it down to the same 295 range and postioned it in the same fasion, paint hit the base net more constantly, but did hit over all in the same range away, but more often then not, it did hit the net,again air effenecy not taken into account... flight pattern was noteably strighter with around a 2/3rds of the pod actually hitting the pole down field,noise was slightly louder then the CP on my end and MUCH quiter on the kids end... Last but not least, the ultalight, the bore size was slightly off and a little bigger then what I would have liked to use, but as follows, it too hit the same range... about par with the CP kit, but even less constant hitting the net(again due to sizeing?) air effency negated and flight pattern was somewere between the CP and the hammerhead with around a quarter of the pod hitting somewere on the pole, noise signatures were again softer at me and slightly louder then the CP kit on the kids end... I put the hammerhead kit back on, and re chronoed once more for the night and reset my LPR... speaking of... Barrel breaks/chops... 4 with the CP, 2 with the ultralight, and none with Hammerhead...

Take that for what you will...I was against a net to help negate the light wind, and tried to make everything as constant for each barrel as possible...

I will also be spending around a week with the owner behind Hammerhead and will be happy to get what I can from him on the subject...

Enjoy, Hate, flame...whatever... Hammerheads arnt exactly apples to oranges against other barrels, anyone who beleives that prolly is baseing it on the hype, but the barrels shoot constantly for sure and the noise downrange deffently true and quiter... I think constancy is the name of the game here... Due to the rifleing?, machineing, bore, muzzle break, etc, who knows...extra range isnt happening, it might appear to some due to the constancy but not directly from the rifleing making it go farther...shrugs

[Mike Smith]

I have enjoyed this little excursion into the faith some people have in Tom Kaye. It helps me understand the Michael Jackson crowd.

Tom is an extremely innovative person who has contributed greatly to the paintball game, however I do not view him as perfect (like most of the naysayers that have decided to attack me personally, instead of refuting what I posted). For those of you that denegrated me, I understand your ignorance and your blind devotion to Tom Kaye.

For those that wanted to know what I agreed with, it would be most of what Tom did, test-wise (90%-95%).
For the person defending Berzerkly in CA.... OK...... :rollseyes:
For the whiny-babies....
For the Tom Kaye sycophants, explain the twist and lock, the crown point, and the hype about the x-valve not chopping balls. Of course, I can only go on my own personal experiences with these 3 "designs", some going back as far as 1991, so my opinion must be "invalid"...

For the rest of you that don't like the Hammerhead, don't buy the barrel.

[Lohman446]

I have enjoyed this little excursion into the faith some people have in Tom Kaye. It helps me understand the Michael Jackson crowd.

Tom is an extremely innovative person who has contributed greatly to the paintball game, however I do not view him as perfect (like most of the naysayers that have decided to attack me personally, instead of refuting what I posted). For those of you that denegrated me, I understand your ignorance and your blind devotion to Tom Kaye.

For those that wanted to know what I agreed with, it would be most of what Tom did, test-wise (90%-95%).
For the person defending Berzerkly in CA.... OK...... :rollseyes:
For the whiny-babies....
For the Tom Kaye sycophants, explain the twist and lock, the crown point, and the hype about the x-valve not chopping balls. Of course, I can only go on my own personal experiences with these 3 "designs", some going back as far as 1991, so my opinion must be "invalid"...

For the rest of you that don't like the Hammerhead, don't buy the barrel.

Let me sum this up, so the rest of you don't waste your time.

In my defense of the hammerhead barrel I have been asked for quantitative defense as to why it defies logic, physics, and existing date. Despite "five years of R&D" by a "professional engineer" who would understand scientific testing and data recording I cannot come up with it. So I'm going to resort to name calling in an attempt to refute your logic. Because, I'm just that good.



And because typing what I think of this argument may result in a ban, I'm just going to leave you with this emoticon to some it all up :

[Magglerock]

This thread should have been dead long ago... honestly...

...but since yall cant leave well enough alone, Ill throw some more out

This weekend, I desided hey, lets waste paint and play with barrels...and mabey fiddle with my lpr and such while Im at it

I grabbed a CP kit, a hammerhead kit, and a ultralight, all barrels 14", a few pods and a set of allen wrenches and obsonded a big ugly red chrono and some bored, trusting field scrub...

So useing some premium paint, I sized the paint for each kit the bore sizes were diffrent for each kit(IE .686 for the hammerhead was larger on the CP(.688)at around 295fps and useing the chrono to bench the marker and table for the tank so its all at the same angle every time... I could shoot across the field with the CP and the paint would hit right at the bottem of the net between actually hitting it and 3 feet away, avreageing by sight and word of kid about a foot away, this due to slight diffrences in shape of paint and velocity... air effecency wasnt really nominal with just a pod through it... flight pattern wasnt as constant as I was used to seeing and down range it was the same as only a handfull of shots hit the pole the CP barrel was lined up with...Noise signatures were also very distanctly diffrent both on my end and on the kids end... Next I took the Hammerhead and screwed it on, chronoed it down to the same 295 range and postioned it in the same fasion, paint hit the base net more constantly, but did hit over all in the same range away, but more often then not, it did hit the net,again air effenecy not taken into account... flight pattern was noteably strighter with around a 2/3rds of the pod actually hitting the pole down field,noise was slightly louder then the CP on my end and MUCH quiter on the kids end... Last but not least, the ultalight, the bore size was slightly off and a little bigger then what I would have liked to use, but as follows, it too hit the same range... about par with the CP kit, but even less constant hitting the net(again due to sizeing?) air effency negated and flight pattern was somewere between the CP and the hammerhead with around a quarter of the pod hitting somewere on the pole, noise signatures were again softer at me and slightly louder then the CP kit on the kids end... I put the hammerhead kit back on, and re chronoed once more for the night and reset my LPR... speaking of... Barrel breaks/chops... 4 with the CP, 2 with the ultralight, and none with Hammerhead...

Take that for what you will...I was against a net to help negate the light wind, and tried to make everything as constant for each barrel as possible...

I will also be spending around a week with the owner behind Hammerhead and will be happy to get what I can from him on the subject...

Enjoy, Hate, flame...whatever... Hammerheads arnt exactly apples to oranges against other barrels, anyone who beleives that prolly is baseing it on the hype, but the barrels shoot constantly for sure and the noise downrange deffently true and quiter... I think constancy is the name of the game here... Due to the rifleing?, machineing, bore, muzzle break, etc, who knows...extra range isnt happening, it might appear to some due to the constancy but not directly from the rifleing making it go farther...shrugs

Dude...spellcheck.

[Target Practice]

I have enjoyed this little excursion into the faith some people have in Tom Kaye. It helps me understand the Michael Jackson crowd.

Tom is an extremely innovative person who has contributed greatly to the paintball game, however I do not view him as perfect (like most of the naysayers that have decided to attack me personally, instead of refuting what I posted). For those of you that denegrated me, I understand your ignorance and your blind devotion to Tom Kaye.

For those that wanted to know what I agreed with, it would be most of what Tom did, test-wise (90%-95%).
For the person defending Berzerkly in CA.... OK...... :rollseyes:
For the whiny-babies....
For the Tom Kaye sycophants, explain the twist and lock, the crown point, and the hype about the x-valve not chopping balls. Of course, I can only go on my own personal experiences with these 3 "designs", some going back as far as 1991, so my opinion must be "invalid"...

For the rest of you that don't like the Hammerhead, don't buy the barrel.

Jesus, you're quite immature for an old bastard.

[Vex]

For the Tom Kaye sycophants, explain the twist and lock, the crown point, and the hype about the x-valve not chopping balls. Of course, I can only go on my own personal experiences with these 3 "designs", some going back as far as 1991, so my opinion must be "invalid"...

No one ever claimed that the X-Valve would not chop balls--LEVEL 10 is the anti-chop upgrade...
I see how closely you pay attention. When the L10 is tuned properly, it will not chop paint, or fingers, tongues, etc...
What does everyone have against the twist lock barrel? How ingenious is it to not have to unscrew your damn barrel for five minutes? Just because the twist lock never caught on doesn't mean that it was a crappy design or didn't work as described.
It's funny how crown points don't have any rifiling, and they're much older than Hammerheads...

[Target Practice]

How ingenious is it to not have to unscrew your damn barrel for five minutes? Just because the twist lock never caught on doesn't mean that it was a crappy design or didn't work as described.

For it's time, the twist-lock design was freakin' genius. Chops did happen, and the quarter-turn design was a huge improvement over the fine threads that most markers were using (the notable exception to this was the M98, but still).

[Vex]

For it's time, the twist-lock design was freakin' genius. Chops did happen, and the quarter-turn design was a huge improvement over the fine threads that most markers were using (the notable exception to this was the M98, but still).

I realize; I was just trying to prove a point
All I know is that it takes me a lot longer to take the barrel off of my RPG Exile body than it does for me to pop off a twist lock. I realize that the twist locks require more material too.