A ported barrel/ length question

[SlartyBartFast]

Originally posted by trains are bad
I realize we our aim is the weakest link. That's why we need all the help we can get.

And best help you can buy is another case of paint and some target practice.

Get your aim down to a degree or two before you worry about 0.05 degress. Even then the wind will have far more effect on where your paintball goes than what's being discussed here.

[Willystyle21]

Wow this got fun.

Slarty
1. Not too many ways to hurl a 10 pound object 2 miles, besides a little bit of black powder.That is ALOT of pressure in that barrel. Not very accurate though. Thats is why rifling was invented to spin the cannon ball ( as it was in the 1800's when it was invented) along its axis. Then when bullets as we know them were invented accuracy only increased due to the areodynamic nature of it's shape.
2. Ever heard of a railgun? The Navy has been experimenting with them since the early 80's. Requires way too much power. Uses magnetic force to slingshot an aluminum rail a few miles. Also spins it along an axis to stablize flight.

That is why I started this whole thread to see if there was some way to thicken the paint ( the whole boiled egg / nonboiled egg experiment) which would help in the spinning of the ball and to also decrease the friction coefficient of the barrel to the ball.
Address this before going off on the whole "well porting does nothing but look pretty" arguement.

Paladin- shot a few of your paintball guns. Always liked em, and never heard anything bad. I'm will ing to try out whatever you have (or claim) that improves accuracy. I'll be a beta tester for you anytime.

[SlartyBartFast]

Originally posted by Willystyle21
That is why I started this whole thread to see if there was some way to thicken the paint ( the whole boiled egg / nonboiled egg experiment) which would help in the spinning of the ball and to also decrease the friction coefficient of the barrel to the ball.

Spinning a sphere will NEVER help with accuracy. Backspin as induced by the flatline barrel can help with range, but doesn't really help with effective range as you just seem to get bouncers past the range of regular barrels.

The flatter trajector is interesting, but as soon as the gun is tilted, the paintball veers to one side.

AGD has already addressed the more accurate paintball idea. The result is the ammunition for the FN303.

[billmi]

Originally posted by Willystyle21

That is why I started this whole thread to see if there was some way to thicken the paint ( the whole boiled egg / nonboiled egg experiment)

That could have an effect if the fill did not spin with the shell. However, I've seen no evidence (try spinning paintballs, not eggs - they keep spinning - they also lack the thicker yolk attached to the shell with filaments that wind up and take energy out of the spin like raw eggs) that the fill doesn't spin with the shell.

I've even spun clear shelled paintballs in a centerfuge, and stopping it fast - the fill stops with the shell, it doesn't keep spinning separately.

which would help in the spinning of the ball and to also decrease the friction coefficient of the barrel to the ball.

What would the viscosity of the ball's fill have to do with the friction between the gelatin on the outside of the barrel and the barrel?

Miscue Wrote:
A. The device accidentally works and the nature of the phenomenon that it defeats is not clearly understood. The claims about turbulence, etc. cannot be taken seriously.

Knowing the way scientific theories have advanced over time, I suspect there have been many inventions designed based on incorrect scientific reasoning, but that worked and improved on thier predecessors.


See you on the field,
-Bill Mills

[Miscue]

Originally posted by billmi

Knowing the way scientific theories have advanced over time, I suspect there have been many inventions designed based on incorrect scientific reasoning, but that worked and improved on thier predecessors.

Sure, there've been a lot of accidental discoveries. However, a scientific method must be followed for conclusions to be taken seriously. You can find a procedure that results in improved performance. However, you cannot then use creative license to explain why it results the way it does.

"I turn on the switch, and a light turns on. I have tested this 1,000,000 times and can reproduce the results. Therefore, this shows the existance of invisible gremlins in the light bulb that rub their knees together to create light." Now, even if this was 100% true - how can you take this seriously?

"This process results in X after extensive testing (included is an explanation of the procedure), and I don't know why it results this way" - that I can take more seriously... and it prompts others to do more research. If you can figure out why it is happening, maybe you can make it even better.

[Enemy]

scientific theory

ok all projects start with a theory...now sometimes this theory can be disproved with research or furthered and sometimes it can be inconclusive..testing will help porve or disprove this theory..sometimes you can acheive the desired end result but disprove your theory..this makes your theory wrong but helps prove another theory.. basically your example sucks so be serious and stop trying to disprove everyone else because they think differently than you..now to this subject...our understanding of porting has come along way since sp and dye started things off..most of all we have come to realize that there is an effective lenght in a barrel that will actually have a major influence on the ball anything over this would be useless..porting for the most part at or after this point..the point of porting is just to help stabilize the paintball so that it is in effect flying on its own inside the barrel and as it exits it doesnt see any difference in air pressure... now i shoot an 8 inch minimag barrel it is just as accurate as 10 inch ported barrels..the main factor is in essence paint to barrel match..ie marb seemed to fit very well in my 8 inch but was alittle tight in a boomstick.. now im not a scientist but this is what i have seen so prove me wrong..

[billmi]

Originally posted by Miscue

"I turn on the switch, and a light turns on. I have tested this 1,000,000 times and can reproduce the results. Therefore, this shows the existance of invisible gremlins in the light bulb that rub their knees together to create light." Now, even if this was 100% true - how can you take this seriously?

So for years no one should have marketed or promoted electrical inventions because they were designed and explained with the incorrect belief that they worked because positively charged particles were passing through their wires?

[SlartyBartFast]

Turbulence affecting a ball exiting a barrel?

http://www.automags.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=1344342#post1344342

Doesn't look like it.

[trains are bad]

Spinning a sphere will NEVER help with accuracy.

This is VERY VERY WRONG.

Spinning PAINTBALLS might not improve thier accuracy (not saying either way...) But it's not because they are spheres.

Because I shoot roundballs out of my muzzleoader and they are very accurate with rifling, and extremely innaccurate out of a smoothbore. I can hit a pie plate at 75 yards, my nieghbor with his smoothbore is lucky to hit the whole target butt.

Spinning lead spheres DRAMATICALLY improves thier accuracy.

[billmi]

Because I shoot roundballs out of my muzzleoader and they are very accurate with rifling, and extremely innaccurate out of a smoothbore. I can hit a pie plate at 75 yards, my nieghbor with his smoothbore is lucky to hit the whole target butt.

Same here, at least I could when I was a teenager - not so certain I could do that with ironsights now, but it's been a while since I've had my .50 cal out.

The round lead balls often aren't perfectly spherical. I always load with the molding sprue (the little bump from where the lead was poured into the mold) facing the front. I suspect the spin keeps this aligned, as opposed to what would happen with a random spin in a smoothbore.

I would be interested to theories (hopefully some of which have been proven by testing) as to why a spinning round lead bullet is more stable than one shot from a smoothbore gun.

I agree that's not the same as paintball, but it might put some new light on the paintball theories. It could be that what works for the black powder balls just can't happen at lower velocities and or with the larger projectile.

[SlartyBartFast]

Could very well be my mistake. It is addressed in the paintball pin dynamics thread and the data thread I believe.

It may be the weight that makes the difference. The velocities and spin rates of firearm projectiles are incomparable to the piddling speeds and possible spin rates on paintballs.

TK spun a barrel upto some rediculous speed (thousands of RPM) and fired paintballs from it. Made no difference.

[Willystyle21]

Damn Trains beat me to it. It depends on what you are shooting, and it's size, velocity, and inherent mass.

Slartly-
Did you just decide to forget or skip over the rest of what I had said, and just pick one thing to argue against.

Billmi-
I'm talking about actually making the shell of the ball out of a teflon based product with very thick paint inside.

Trains-
Thanks for the backup. At least someone else has the same knowledge I do so I don't end up looking like a fool for saying something no one has ever heard of.

[SlartyBartFast]

Originally posted by Willystyle21
Slartly-
Did you just decide to forget or skip over the rest of what I had said, and just pick one thing to argue against.

What did I miss?!? Agreed that I could be wrong as I have ZERO experience with round slugs in real firearms.

But TK DID prove that spinning a paintball did nothing for accuracy.

Do you have any links for firearm ballistics information for round shot and rifled barrels? The only stuff I've found so far on riffled cannon all included cylindrical/conical projectiles.