Hammerhead barrels, and their lies!

[Miscue]

Pefrect example...take a glass of water and spin it. Then take a glass of motor oil and spin it...you will see the difference. The motor oil will spin closer to the speed of the glass than the water will. It will also stop faster than the water will when the glass is stopped.

Take a shot glass, spin it, and drink it quickly. Repeat process 50 times to get a good statistical sample. Notice that the room spins as well, possibly due to the transference of gyroscopic energy from the spinning alcohol.

[SpecialBlend2786]

Take a shot glass, spin it, and drink it quickly. Repeat process 50 times to get a good statistical sample. Notice that the room spins as well, possibly due to the transference of gyroscopic energy from the spinning alcohol.

heh, that just made my day

[hitech]

Take a shot glass, spin it, and drink it quickly. Repeat process 50 times to get a good statistical sample. Notice that the room spins as well...

My own personal empirical evidence proves this to be true.

[Miscue]

In essence, ANY possible spin that the Hammerhead barrels may erroneously claim, is negated by the ball itself.

Flatline barrels have a MUCH longer spin cycle that gives the shell and fill time to catch up to each other, and spin at the same rate.....but Flatlines are NOT rifled, and do NOT utilize nor induce any axial gyroscopic dynamics for accurate flight.

Eh?

I really don't like this explanation... and I don't understand why this topic is even being brought up in this thread... it's not very relevant... maybe just by a hair... an RCH maybe... but really I don't think it should be brought up.

[gc82000]

Take a shot glass, spin it, and drink it quickly. Repeat process 50 times to get a good statistical sample. Notice that the room spins as well, possibly due to the transference of gyroscopic energy from the spinning alcohol.

Use Patron and you only need 10 sets to rotate the room. Our at least in my previous studies.

[WARPED1]

Just because a witch weighs the same as a duck does not mean she is made of wood.

[off topic]THROW 'ER INTO THE POND![/off topic]

[Army]

Eh?

I really don't like this explanation... and I don't understand why this topic is even being brought up in this thread... it's not very relevant... maybe just by a hair... an RCH maybe... but really I don't think it should be brought up.

That was just in case someone points out that Flatlined balls (and fill) do indeed spin.

[Target Practice]

I left for out of town before I could clarify. All I was saying was that, for our application, it doesn't matter what the fill is because we cannot use "rifling" to impart axial spin on the ball.

Refresher on why we cannot do that:

__________________________________________________ ________

Wow, I can't believe that you people are arguing about this crap. Let's not ask "Does it work in paintball?", but rather, "Why doesn't it work in paintball?"

Since I spent my three days of...uh..."forced vacation" out at the range, let's look at this from where the idea rifling comes from: guns.

Okay, for those of you who don't know how rifling works:

The actual caliber of the bullet is the outer diameter of the rifling (which is measured from the bottom of what is called the groove). That means that the inner diameter of the rifling, which is smaller than the bullet,measured by the top of the land, digs into the bullet, which is maleable, and imparts spin.



Now, imagine a rifled paintball barrel. Assuming a perfect paint-to-barrel match, due to the material qualities of the paint, the ball would not touch the grooves, it would only touch the lands. There is nothing to dig into the ball, therefore, there is nothing with which to impart spin.

In this picture, you can clearly see where the rifling has dug into the bullet (shiny part), and where grooves are located (dark part).



So, why can't we have rifling in paintball? For a few reasons.

1) As stated, the material qualities of the paint prohibit true rifling from working. Even if true rifling was present (which it isn't), there would be nothing to grab onto, therefore, there would be no spin imparted.

2) The spheroid isn't a very conducive shape to accept spin. As you can see by putting a ball in your barrel, you will notice that it only touches in two very small points. Even if it were a perfect sphere, it would only touch in a perfect ring that, when extrapolated into a plane, is perpendicular to the barrel axis. This contact area consists of a negligable amount of surface area. This is why bullets are shaped the way they are (among other things). Even though everyone knows what a bullet looks like, I'll include a picture of several anyway.

(Picture to be uploaded)

3) Even if you could get the rifling to dig into the bullet, and you changed the shape of the bullet in order to have more contact with the barrel, the velocities are low enough that any practical amount of rifling/twist would have a negligable difference on performance. True and effective rifling in paintball ain't gonna happen.

Myth: Busted

_______________________________________________

And after catching up with the rest of the thread, I'd like to quote this to show my total agreement. I think this was also what I was trying to say.

Bill, we are saying the same thing, just differently!

OK, put pudding in the glass and spin fast...does the pudding spin at the same time as the glass, or is it slightly twisted? Yup, slightly twisted, which means that it was not able to accelerate at the same speed/time as the glass.......and it stopped as quick as it started.

The milliseconds that a ball would be in the rifled area of these barrels would act the same way IF the ball actually could engage the rifling, and IF the fill could actually spin to the same twist rate as the shell in that oh-so-tiny amount of time.

Uh-oh. Now friction is going to work backward on the ball. Since the fill is NOT spinning at the same rate as the shell, friction between the slow turning fill, and the fast spinning shell will now reverse the acceleration forcesl, causing the shell to slow, or stop, to the same speed as the slower fill....because the shell is much lighter than the fill. Some of you have forgotten that part.

In essence, ANY possible spin that the Hammerhead barrels may erroneously claim, is negated by the ball itself.

Flatline barrels have a MUCH longer spin cycle that gives the shell and fill time to catch up to each other, and spin at the same rate.....but Flatlines are NOT rifled, and do NOT utilize nor induce any axial gyroscopic dynamics for accurate flight.

[billmi]

In reference to the viscosity of paintball fill spin ratios being affected by its viscocity...

No, it won't. But hey, tell me why.

Yes, it will.

Try this test - instead of spinning glasses - spin paintballs with a flatline.

Shoot a Flatline barrel with a regular paintball.

Shoot a Flatline barrel with a water filled perfect circle paintball.

Do this (I've shot a waterfilled ball out of a Flatline in the hallway behind AGD's research lab) and you'll note that with a waterfilled ball, the flightpath isn't nearly as consistently flat as when shooting a Flatline with a regular paintball.

I believe this is due to the fill not spinning consistently with the shell when using a water filled ball, the fill will have drag on the shell, effecting its spin rate, thus effecting how it interacts with the air.

Plain and simple - paintball fill is not pure water, and thus the two do not have all of the same physical charactaristics.

[billmi]

Very well said.

[SlartyBartFast]

Very well said.

Thank you.

Notice that the thread is now only people who essentially agree with each other arguing inconcequential semantics?

Mike didn't seem to feel like responding this morning.

[Target Practice]

In reference to the viscosity of paintball fill spin ratios being affected by its viscocity...


Yes, it will.

Try this test - instead of spinning glasses - spin paintballs with a flatline.

Shoot a Flatline barrel with a regular paintball.

Shoot a Flatline barrel with a water filled perfect circle paintball.

Do this (I've shot a waterfilled ball out of a Flatline in the hallway behind AGD's research lab) and you'll note that with a waterfilled ball, the flightpath isn't nearly as consistently flat as when shooting a Flatline with a regular paintball.

I believe this is due to the fill not spinning consistently with the shell when using a water filled ball, the fill will have drag on the shell, effecting its spin rate, thus effecting how it interacts with the air.

Plain and simple - paintball fill is not pure water, and thus the two do not have all of the same physical charactaristics.

See above post.

[Target Practice]

Thank you.

Notice that the thread is now only people who essentially agree with each other arguing inconcequential semantics?

Yeah, no kidding.

Mike didn't seem to feel like responding this morning.

:)

[Mike Smith]

Y'all are posting proof that spin will affect paintballs and a barrel can and does impart spin on a paintball. What's to argue?

[WARPED1]

Y'all are posting proof that spin will affect paintballs and a barrel can and does impart spin on a paintball. What's to argue?

Um, no...............







_______________________________________