Why are blowbacks "low end"?

[Pneumagger]

hmmm, if I can convice the air to do what I want it to do, instead of what it wants to do, maybe I can fly.

/closes eyes
//concentrates real hard
///accidently farts

[PumpPlayer]

Nobody has mentioned this yet, but how about the old ICD blowbacks?

I had a few of them and IMHO they all performed wonderfully. Simple design with fewer moving parts than other blowbacks and great consistency and reliability. I still have my Bobcat and even after 7 years it still works wonderfully. The same can be said for my 'mag, though I've since put a pump kit on that.

The partial steel bolt made for some "heavy" recoil but it's not like it's totally out of control.
Besides, as any shooter can tell you, it's not the recoil that's a problem, it's the uncontrolled recoil that is.

The ICD blowbacks are great guns and I'd consider them "mid-range."
Though, the whole lo/mid/high-end thing is purely subjective anymore. Price has no bearing on quality and what everyone desires in a paintgun is different.



I won't completely write off blowbacks any more than any other design. Some blowback brands/models are pretty poor, however.

[turbo chicken]

Though, the whole lo/mid/high-end thing is purely subjective anymore. Price has no bearing on quality and.....

That says it all ... what make a gun low/mid/high range ... depends who you ask


I think (see the "i think" makes it an opnion) when most people refer to high/low/mid range the are speaking of price.

[Pneumagger]

hmmm, if I can convice the air to do what I want it to do, instead of what it wants to do, maybe I can fly.

/closes eyes
//concentrates real hard
///accidently farts

/yeah, I quoted myself
//get over it

[sniper1rfa]

AKA tried to make a high end blowback, which was going to be the viking/excalibur line. According to Aaron, using high tolerances actually made for abominable reliability.


I like blowbacks - they have one HUGE advantage. At most they have about 4 o-rings...

My favorite blowback was the BE raptor. The things, by the end, were rugged as hell, and shot fairly well.

[nippinout]

AKA tried to make a high end blowback, which was going to be the viking/excalibur line. According to Aaron, using high tolerances actually made for abominable reliability.


I like blowbacks - they have one HUGE advantage. At most they have about 4 o-rings...

My favorite blowback was the BE raptor. The things, by the end, were rugged as hell, and shot fairly well.

There's a fifth one in the volume chamber plug.

/nitpicking.

[y0da900]

AKA tried to make a high end blowback, which was going to be the viking/excalibur line. According to Aaron, using high tolerances actually made for abominable reliability.

I think by high tolerances, he meant tight tolerances as far as fitting goes, not accuracy tolerances.

[Pneumagger]

it also had a tornado valve for LP and better efficiency

[warbeak2099]

/yeah, I quoted myself
//get over it

Pneumagger wins. I award him 4... no 5 internets.

[tae]

According to Aaron, using high tolerances actually made for abominable reliability.

Does anyone know a bit more about this?

Thanks

[Lohman446]

Does anyone know a bit more about this?

Thanks

There is some truth to that - at least "production reliability" If I am allowed more play in tolerance and still be able to function, it is far easier to manufactur, and manufacture add-ons for.

[tae]

Doh, I should've been more specific. I was curious if tight tollerances affected blowback performance negatively.

[emumikey]

There is a slight misconception about "tight tolerances" in the above posts.

I think when you are referring to a tight tolerance being a bad thing, you are referring to a tight fit. Too tight of a fit will always be a bad thing. Friction can be the enemy of most any engineer. That and thermal expansion!

However, tight tolerance is always a good thing. Engineers actually strive for zero tolerance. Meaning, we aim for zero tolerance within our design. With zero tolerance, there would be no variation from the design existing in production. If you design for 1 mm of free play, and have zero tolerance production, every product you produce will have 1 mm of free play. Assuming 1 mm of free play is the ideal design, then you are manufacturing the perfect product for its application. Make sense?

This is also referred to as "The Toyota Way." There are several books writtin about this. And it all boils down to quality control.

That, or I completely misinterpreted the above posts, and I apologize.

[Lohman446]

There is a slight misconception about "tight tolerances" in the above posts.

I think when you are referring to a tight tolerance being a bad thing, you are referring to a tight fit. Too tight of a fit will always be a bad thing. Friction can be the enemy of most any engineer. That and thermal expansion!

However, tight tolerance is always a good thing. Engineers actually strive for zero tolerance. Meaning, we aim for zero tolerance within our design. With zero tolerance, there would be no variation from the design existing in production. If you design for 1 mm of free play, and have zero tolerance production, every product you produce will have 1 mm of free play. Assuming 1 mm of free play is the ideal design, then you are manufacturing the perfect product for its application. Make sense?

This is also referred to as "The Toyota Way." There are several books writtin about this. And it all boils down to quality control.

That, or I completely misinterpreted the above posts, and I apologize.

But, if the key is to fire an unreliable projectile striving for 0 tolerance only increases production costs with little increase in function. Sure, you could build something to 0 tolerance, but if +/- .010 will function to the end user similarly building to 0 only increases costs associated both in the manufacture of parts and in quality control. 0 tolerance is not always desireable, and can be rather undesireable in reality, especially when trying to compete in a market.

[emumikey]

But, if the key is to fire an unreliable projectile striving for 0 tolerance only increases production costs with little increase in function. Sure, you could build something to 0 tolerance, but if +/- .010 will function to the end user similarly building to 0 only increases costs associated both in the manufacture of parts and in quality control. 0 tolerance is not always desireable, and can be rather undesireable in reality, especially when trying to compete in a market.

I agree completely. While we always strive for zero tolerance, we do accept a standard deviation from design, this is usually within a set specification. This is referred to as the rejection region when performing tests.

Conclusion, while the manufacturer accepts a deviation of +/- .010, they are actually designing and aiming for +/- 0.000. They are willing to sacrifice to amount tooling/material required because the product falls within an acceptable deviation of the spec.

http://www.uwsp.edu/psych/stat/z.htm

The above link is an example of a z-table. The shaded region shows the acceptable outcomes. This is a range of deviation that is determined to be acceptable. If a manufactured product falls outside of the shaded region, it is rejected.

I am now speaking inferrential statistics, ugh. Paintball is supposed to be fun, not technical! Still an enjoyable discussion though.