Open-Bolt Myth Testing

[Jaremy Rykker]

I conducted a basic experiment to test the theory that the operation of an open-bolt system applies a forward roll to a paintball, and I have arrived with the result of the experiment in that "No. An open-bolt system does not apply a spin to a paintball prior to the shot."

And here we go.

Hypothesis: Open-Bolt Systems create ball-spin
Materials: Red Sharpie, 15 Good Rounds of Draxxus Rec-Sport, Tippmann Model 98 Custom

Testing Procedure: I used the red sharpie and placed a red line along the seam of the paintball. After this marking had been placed on each of the fifteen paintballs, I placed them carefully in the breech of the Tippmann, certain that the seem was horizontally level. At this point, I would flatten out the gun using clamps, and place my face directly in front of the breech so that I could see any ball movement by noting motion in the red line. I would then place my hand right on the bolt, and pull the trigger, catching the bolt before it could push the ball forward. At this point, I would slowly drag the bolt forward, watching carefully for any motion in the ball, until the bolt had completely come forward and pushed in the pin on the back of the valve.

Testing Results: Of the 15 balls, none had any visible rotation. The ball seemed to recieve its motion completely from the bolt itself pushing the ball, and there was absolutely no visible rotation.

Conclusion: An open-bolt system applies no additional rotation to the ball which a closed-bolt system would not, and the nature of the system does not have an influence on the rotation of the ball.

NOTE: No CO2 or HPA was used in this experiment because the arrival of air is after the supposed roll of the paintball, so this is a mute point, as both closed-bolt and open-bolt have an identical setup for the ball past this point.

[SlartyBartFast]

..is a mute point...

that's a MOOT point.

Good test.

[WenULiVeUdiE]

But isnt this test worthless b/c it is not under real conditions. The bolt is not hitting the ball at the same speed as it would when normally fired. I think a the bolt moving fast would certainly affect the spin of the ball, but maybe not...

[Enos Shenk]

Why not just not look down the barrel, pull the trigger, and let it rip?

If the ball is large enough, it would most likely stick somewhere in the barrel, and you could then peer in with a flashlight and look for your mark.

[Jaremy Rykker]

But isnt this test worthless b/c it is not under real conditions. The bolt is not hitting the ball at the same speed as it would when normally fired. I think a the bolt moving fast would certainly affect the spin of the ball, but maybe not...

In fact, logic would dictate that rotation would actually be highest at a lower speed. This is because the ball is more likely to have friction and roll, rather than at high speeds where the rate that it is being pushed at is likely for that matter to simply cause the ball to slip anyways. So, by the workings of logic, it would in fact state that this test is much more difficult for the ball than a test under real conditions, and as we have dictated, that is simply not the case.

Why not just not look down the barrel, pull the trigger, and let it rip?

If the ball is large enough, it would most likely stick somewhere in the barrel, and you could then peer in with a flashlight and look for your mark.

For that matter, I conducted this test once for similiar result as I had experience before. There was no rotation present on the ball.

[Riaan]

true Test

Will somebody please just go to RedLake high speed camera system and ask them tio do a flight profile test.

This will settle the matter once and for all.

[Jaremy Rykker]

Will somebody please just go to RedLake high speed camera system and ask them tio do a flight profile test.

This will settle the matter once and for all.

No. We are not comparing barrel-created flight profiles, and this will not solve the matter once and for all. The idea of this test is to specifically prove that either open-bolt has an effect on ball flight, or it doesn't. For the matter, it would all be negated by the barrel, but the point is that we are proving whether there is ball rotation because of the bolt movement. If we are to use gas in the testing, the barrel effect will completely negate the bolt action, and any spin is the result of the barrel, not the bolt. However, one of the big claims for closed bolt is that the ball isn't rolling, and I conducted this test to disprove it.

In fact, high-speed camera photography WILL NOT solve this test.

[SlartyBartFast]

However, one of the big claims for closed bolt is that the ball isn't rolling, and I conducted this test to disprove it.

This is one of the most agravating things about paintball hype.

Firstly, it should be the people making the claims who are held accountable to prove that their claims are true.

Secondly, if trying to disprove hype it doesn't matter what test you devise. The general populace of paintball playing sheep continue to beleive the hype.

[warbeak2099]

Wouldn't bolts with different frontal surfaces affect paintballs differently? A bolt with a slanted or concave surface would have a different effect than a flat-faced bolt wouldn't it? I would think that a slanted bolt would in fact put some spin on a ball.

[SlartyBartFast]

Wouldn't bolts with different frontal surfaces affect paintballs differently? A bolt with a slanted or concave surface would have a different effect than a flat-faced bolt wouldn't it? I would think that a slanted bolt would in fact put some spin on a ball.

Rubbish. A slanted bolt would shove the ball against the breech/barrel wall. Probably pinch/break ball more than anything else.

Heck even if any minute spin/roll was imparted to the ball. What's the chance of that effect lasting through the travel down the barrel?

[Dayspring]

If you want more proof that an open bolt won't spin the ball, check out this directory

[WenULiVeUdiE]

Now that is one cool picture or diagram or w/e you wanna call it. I guess I was wrong with my original statement.

[bjjb99]

If you want more proof that an open bolt won't spin the ball, check out this directory

If you look at the image you supplied closely, you will see that the ball is, in fact, spinning. Back when Tom originally posted those pictures, I took the time to measure and calculate the rate of spin for that very image.

This is not to say that the spin was caused by the bolt firing from an open position; it is far more likely that the small amount of spin present is the result of the barrel.

BJJB

[Jaremy Rykker]

If you look at the image you supplied closely, you will see that the ball is, in fact, spinning. Back when Tom originally posted those pictures, I took the time to measure and calculate the rate of spin for that very image.

This is not to say that the spin was caused by the bolt firing from an open position; it is far more likely that the small amount of spin present is the result of the barrel.

BJJB

EXACTLY! Without realizing it, you stated my basic point.

"This is not to say that the spin was caused by the bolt firing from an open position; it is far more likely that the small amount of spin present is the result of the barrel. If anything, the chaos of the barrel would completely nullify any effect of the bolt. However, my point remains from the two earlier tests that closed-bolt is not better than open-bolt.

People are like sheep, and follow whatever they're told.

In fact, there is no real effective differences between a closed-bolt operation than with an open-bolt. That is a myth promoted by the paintball industries, from reputed companies such as WGP, to sell products. It is a lie, and it bugs me that they don't clear misinformation like this up. It shows a lack of class on their part for allowing illusions to exist around their products.

Another big hype factor that bugs me is that of the Samurai and Katana. There is no perfect sword, and there is no perfect technique. A fight between a fully-equipped Samurai, and a fully-equipped Knight is also under the hype that it would be over in a matter of seconds, with the knight dead on the ground. In fact, the Knight has numerous advantages in that fight. The first is that the Katana is very poorly designed to cut through his plate armor, and in all but a few cases would simply slide off of it, often damaging the blade because it was less resistant to nicks and damage than many comparable European blades, which were designed to be hacked through armor. The Katana has a lot wider of a blade, and thus has a much larger surface area, making it much harder to chop through armor, to the point of near impossibility, considering European swords were designed to do it and still had great difficulty. Secondly, the Knight has the advantage that his sword is longer, giving him a reach advantage, and meaning that he can attack and possibly be beyond the reach of the Samurai. Both were equivalently trained. And the Knight boasted a shield, which is an invaluable asset in combat, and far undervalued. Not to mention that the public perception of a Knight as being slow is also far off. The only warriors they were slow compared to were usually the rapier duelers, who practiced a style that relied completely on speed. All in all, the Knight has all the advantages in this fight.

[Dayspring]

You do realize that your point was proven LONG ago right?

EXACTLY! Without realizing it, you stated my basic point.

"This is not to say that the spin was caused by the bolt firing from an open position; it is far more likely that the small amount of spin present is the result of the barrel. If anything, the chaos of the barrel would completely nullify any effect of the bolt. However, my point remains from the two earlier tests that closed-bolt is not better than open-bolt.

People are like sheep, and follow whatever they're told.

In fact, there is no real effective differences between a closed-bolt operation than with an open-bolt. That is a myth promoted by the paintball industries, from reputed companies such as WGP, to sell products. It is a lie, and it bugs me that they don't clear misinformation like this up. It shows a lack of class on their part for allowing illusions to exist around their products.

Another big hype factor that bugs me is that of the Samurai and Katana. There is no perfect sword, and there is no perfect technique. A fight between a fully-equipped Samurai, and a fully-equipped Knight is also under the hype that it would be over in a matter of seconds, with the knight dead on the ground. In fact, the Knight has numerous advantages in that fight. The first is that the Katana is very poorly designed to cut through his plate armor, and in all but a few cases would simply slide off of it, often damaging the blade because it was less resistant to nicks and damage than many comparable European blades, which were designed to be hacked through armor. The Katana has a lot wider of a blade, and thus has a much larger surface area, making it much harder to chop through armor, to the point of near impossibility, considering European swords were designed to do it and still had great difficulty. Secondly, the Knight has the advantage that his sword is longer, giving him a reach advantage, and meaning that he can attack and possibly be beyond the reach of the Samurai. Both were equivalently trained. And the Knight boasted a shield, which is an invaluable asset in combat, and far undervalued. Not to mention that the public perception of a Knight as being slow is also far off. The only warriors they were slow compared to were usually the rapier duelers, who practiced a style that relied completely on speed. All in all, the Knight has all the advantages in this fight.