Hammerhead barrels, and their lies!

[Miscue]

Rifleing: Added physical distance? Not really nominal, but it does look like it... The way the tips are designed with a larger diamater and a very minimal twist with the rifleing DOES seem to stableize the ball at all ranges, but namely across the field.

How is this even possible? You said yourself that the tips have a larger diameter (Surprise surprise! Just like every other 2-piece!). Last I checked, rifling has to come into physical contact with the projectile to work. I don't even have to bring up whether or not rifling actually improves anything... there is this mentioned problem that precedes the whole issue.

Let's look at this situation: Ball is .689. Rifled tip is... let's guess .695 (I dunno what it is exactly, it's irrelevant anyway...).

How does this work?

What I find absolutely hilarious... or maybe more so... pathetic... is... this thing has like a 2" control bore, or something really short. The rest of it is just a barrel tip. Yet... people still defend it... and have no idea how ridiculous it is to do so.

[Miscue]

The rifeling of the barrel comes into contact with the paintball- hammerheads have been thrue much R&D about how much spin to put onto the paintball to get it to do what it needs to, to become more accurate and I guess distance.

How is this possible if the rifled tip is a larger diameter than the paintball?

What kind of R&D? If they had done any, surely they would have noticed that the hole is bigger than the ball.

[CodeMA]

not nessarily... I didnt say the rifleing is working in the sence that it adds distance... but it does stablize the ball, which is what a tip does in the first place via the use of air...

I just know the barrel shoots great I cant explain all the physics behind it... just logic...

[Jack & Coke]

Q, if a company came out with a quartz crystal embedded barrel, and told people that their balls would hit their target on time, ya think there would be a few people who would "get suckered into it" too...?

[Jaan]

Q, if a company came out with a quartz crystal embedded barrel, and told people that their balls would hit their target on time, ya think there would be a few people who would "get suckered into it" too...?

You wouldn't even have to go that far ... tell people the barrel is magnetic, or just tie a magic red string around it.

[Miscue]

not nessarily... I didnt say the rifleing is working in the sence that it adds distance... but it does stablize the ball, which is what a tip does in the first place via the use of air...

I just know the barrel shoots great I cant explain all the physics behind it... just logic...

No no no. Geezus. You're completely missing the point.

I want you to think about this for about 10 minutes: Big hole. Little hole. Let's try one more time. Big hole. Little hole.

Ok. Little ball fits in little hole just right (the supposed goal of barrel/paint match). Does the little ball fit just right in the big hole? Nooo. That's why it's the "big" hole.

Now if it doesn't fit right in the "big" hole, and the rifling in the big hole does not come into contact with the little ball, what does this particular "rifling" do exactly?

"Just logic," you say? Wow. I believe we have opposing views on what logic means.

[Target Practice]

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

Edited for more Mythbusting.

[Automaggot68]

Holy Crap. Best post Ev4r.

TP : 1
Morans : 0

[Lohman446]

Miscue, TP... you guys just don't understand the argument that is being made, it requires two things and the people have basically said it.

Ignore the quantitative analysis based on actual controlled and recorded testing shown in deep blue and the base physics that prove paintball spin does not work. They think this system is so much better, so it must be. Its logic after all, there qualitative perceptions are so much more accurate than that testing and of course this thing can defy all base principles of physics. You're reasoning is just illogical apparently... I don't know, I have no clue what they are basing the argument on, but it is getting umm, interesting

[Mike Smith]

Now if it doesn't fit right in the "big" hole, and the rifling in the big hole does not come into contact with the little ball, what does this particular "rifling" do exactly?

All I want to know is how does Miscue get the paintball to levitate through 12" of barrel, without touching the sides of the barrel, after being violently launched from a 2" launch pad? Does his barrel use magnets to achieve that feat?

My experiment with my Hammerhead induced small scratches on the paintball. I'm thinking if the paintball surface is scratched, it would break easier, thus giving the impression that it will travel further. {Or your balls bounce on me, but my balls break on you.} Does my gun shoot farther than your gun? {Yes, I have been cronoed on a few occasions, based on my range. The people seemed surprised that I was around 260-270}

Buit what do I know... I've only been shooting the Hammerhead for the past year, and haven't touched my Lapco, Dye, or original crown point since I bought the Hammerhead. I must be so gullible...

[Lohman446]

Buit what do I know... I've only been shooting the Hammerhead for the past year, and haven't touched my Lapco, Dye, or original crown point since I bought the Hammerhead. I must be so gullible...

You said it...

[Mike Smith]

You said it...

Yep, I'm nobody. I've got no game...
You can safely ignore me on the field.

[billmi]

Myth: Busted

Edited for more Mythbusting.

To be entirely off-topic for a moment....
A couple of months ago, one of the PAs from Mythbusters called and spoke to my wife, researching special effects spark balls. It will be interesting to see what pans out from that.

[Lohman446]

Yep, I'm nobody. I've got no game...
You can safely ignore me on the field.

I don't recall saying or implying that. Your post indicated that you were gullible to the hype of the hammerhead barrel - which I agreed with. I never mentioned your game or anything of that nature. Does the hammerhead barrel shoot well? Probably. Does it shoot better / more accurately / further because of rifling and spinning the paintball? Base physics and previous controlled quantative analysis of spinning paintballs clearly says no.

[RRfireblade]

I think everyone in this entire thread is missing the point,well Target Practice got close...

Instead of arguing the pros and cons of spinning a paintball, let's start at the basics:

Does a Hammerhead Barrel consistanty "Spin" a paintball?

For years people thought Armson barrels applied spin to a paintball, most people still do.The spiraled rifling originally WAS intended to do just that but we learned quickly that it's simply not cabable of applying any practical spin due to the lack of engagement of the ball to the rifling and the max speed of the ball in relationship to the amount of rifling twist in the barrel. And IMO, the Armson has the best rifling you could have to acheive that effect, it's nothing like a Firearms rifling.

The Hammerhead rifling simply can not do what they say it does. It CAN NOT vary the amount of spin down the length of the barrel and IMO it simply can NOT apply any measureable amount of controlled spin to a paintball...period.

Forget the "spinning does this...." arguements and simply show it spins a paintball in any controlled, consistant manner and then we can go from there.

Should be simple right? You can not tell me that all the supposed years of R&D to achieve the 'Magic" number in relation to spin and rifling didn't produce one single string of slow motion pictures or video...can you? But yet Hammerhead appears to have none.

Think about it.

[RRfireblade]

(Had a few extra minutes so I did this....)

Hmmm,

I was pretty impartial on this whole thing but then I made the mistake of reading Hammerheads "study" on the the flight of paintballs. Seems to me that the Salesman in question doesn't even know his own companies reasearch results...

We believe....

We believe....

We believe....

We believe....

We believe....

Stated over and over and over to explain assumed results.There are tons of those in there.

We did not go into depth regarding the rotation and spinning of paintballs, nor into what happens inside a barrel from the ball drop to the muzzle.

We did rotate paintballs at varying speeds from 1,000 RPM to approximately 10,000 RPM.

One has absolutely no connection with the other. Then they say this...

The theory behind our study was based on the assumption that we had a relatively smooth ball that we could rotate.

Another assumption and still not a single sign of evidense it's even possible.

We finalized the rate of ball rotation with the targeted ball velocity of 280 ft/sec

How could you possibly do that after the last few statements.

We can only speculate that by rotating the ball...

More of the same and still don't even know if it's spinning in the first place and then after claiming over 3 years of R&D they say this...

Had we had more time and funding, we could have delved into the Magnus effect of spinning paintballs, discussed Reynolds Numbers, coefficients of drags, dimpled vs. smooth paintballs, Newton's First and Second Laws of Motion, boundary layers, laminar flow, etc. However, that was not the purpose of this paper. We wanted some simple basic answers that would assist us in making decisions regarding markers, tanks, and barrels, so we could have more fun. We believe we have them.

Simple does not even begin to describe it. Try incomplete, inaccurate and full of guess and assumption. Hardly a single fact in the whole paper besides the quotes of physical principals which they openly admit they were unable to apply to thier 'findings'.

It's actually quite funny and a lesson to anyone still in high school on how NOT to do a science project if you expect to pass the class.

[hitech]

After over a decade and lots of eliminations, it was just my imagination??? ROFLMAO, I guess I could have been using any barrel.

Yup.

[hitech]

What kind of R&D? If they had done any, surely they would have noticed that the hole is bigger than the ball.

[shartley]

Anyone here see Days of Thunder?

Remember the “staggered and matched” “special” tires that were put on Tom’s car?

Or how about the “magic feather” that was given to Dumbo?

Companies know that if you make customers believe something is happening, they don’t have to prove it IS, or WHY. So they are left to say anything they want, and of course it IS true. Add to that a mix of “nice guy” and “hard working”, and it is hard to convince some customers that anything other than what they want to believe is happening is…. or is not.

I think I am shooting farther, so I AM.

I think I am shooting more accurately, so I AM.

I think I am shooting faster, so I AM.

And the reasons I am given for these things happening (by the manufacturer) are true because obviously if I AM doing it, they must be correct. And after all, they are really great people who work hard and I like them.

I don’t know about anyone else, but I see a huge flaw in that way of thinking.

[hitech]

Remember the “staggered and matched” “special” tires that were put on Tom’s car?

[Miscue]

I think everyone in this entire thread is missing the point,well Target Practice got close...

Instead of arguing the pros and cons of spinning a paintball, let's start at the basics:

Does a Hammerhead Barrel consistanty "Spin" a paintball?

For years people thought Armson barrels applied spin to a paintball, most people still do.The spiraled rifling originally WAS intended to do just that but we learned quickly that it's simply not cabable of applying any practical spin due to the lack of engagement of the ball to the rifling and the max speed of the ball in relationship to the amount of rifling twist in the barrel. And IMO, the Armson has the best rifling you could have to acheive that effect, it's nothing like a Firearms rifling.

The Hammerhead rifling simply can not do what they say it does. It CAN NOT vary the amount of spin down the length of the barrel and IMO it simply can NOT apply any measureable amount of controlled spin to a paintball...period.

Forget the "spinning does this...." arguements and simply show it spins a paintball in any controlled, consistant manner and then we can go from there.

Should be simple right? You can not tell me that all the supposed years of R&D to achieve the 'Magic" number in relation to spin and rifling didn't produce one single string of slow motion pictures or video...can you? But yet Hammerhead appears to have none.

Think about it.

That's exactly the idea I've been trying to get at as well. I agree! These "No Child Left Behind on the Short Bus Rejects" have no clue.

[Miscue]

Or how about the “magic feather” that was given to Dumbo?

Or the "magic barrel" that was given to Dumbarse.

[Lohman446]

Sorry.. I was still stuck on the big hole argument and someone saying the ball floated and someone else saying that was a stupid idea and the ball must bounce back and forth... I'm curious as to that ball wobbling around randomly from side to side, arguably rotating already, occassionaly meeting the "rifling" is having controlled spin applied to it on a single axis...

[SlartyBartFast]

Sorry.. I was still stuck on the big hole argument and someone saying the ball floated and someone else saying that was a stupid idea and the ball must bounce back and forth... I'm curious as to that ball wobbling around randomly from side to side, arguably rotating already, occassionaly meeting the "rifling" is having controlled spin applied to it on a single axis...

But if the ball is "bouncing" how on Earth can it be accurate? Does it magically stabilize and lose all that random movement juct before leaving the barrel?

Paintball barrels are sold like shampoo. They're all the same, they all do the same job. Some are just prettier than others. And if you give out the occasional free sample, people a sucked into liking something different, just because they're complacent about their status quo.

[billmi]

But if the ball is "bouncing" how on Earth can it be accurate? Does it magically stabilize and lose all that random movement juct before leaving the barrel?

If the ball is bouncing off the barrel walls (which I'm not claiming it does) then yes, it will stop the bouncing back and forth once it gets out of the barrel.

Once the ball no longer has walls to bounce off of, the bouncing caused by impact with those walls will cease.

It's just like a garden hose. Water comes out of it the same way, whether the hose is coiled or straight. It doesn't shoot out in a corkscrew pattern if the hose is coiled.

[Lohman446]

All I want to know is how does Miscue get the paintball to levitate through 12" of barrel, without touching the sides of the barrel, after being violently launched from a 2" launch pad? Does his barrel use magnets to achieve that feat?

My experiment with my Hammerhead induced small scratches on the paintball. I'm thinking if the paintball surface is scratched, it would break easier, thus giving the impression that it will travel further. {Or your balls bounce on me, but my balls break on you.} Does my gun shoot farther than your gun? {Yes, I have been cronoed on a few occasions, based on my range. The people seemed surprised that I was around 260-270}

Buit what do I know... I've only been shooting the Hammerhead for the past year, and haven't touched my Lapco, Dye, or original crown point since I bought the Hammerhead. I must be so gullible...

This is the post I was talking about. Miscue had stated because we went from a little properly sized hole, to a big hole, it made pretty good sense that the rifling on that big hole was not doing anything. Mike Smith argues that it must be, because that ball is not levitating down the barrel. Now I'm wondering how a ball that does not fit tight, and is not flying down the center, is catching rifling consistantly enough as it bounces back and forth from in that barrel to impart a consistent spin. You know, I see "I have been chronoed because of my range" implies without saying my marker shoots farther. BS... base physics says no. Might you like the hammerhead better for other reasons not to do with the rifling? Sure, very possible. But if you buy that this makes your marker so much more accurate or give you longer range then anything else.. then yes you are so gullible. Of course that got a response about playing ability which confused me to no end because I don't recall saying anything about playing ability or lack thereof... we were discussing hammerhead hype.

[SlartyBartFast]

If the ball is bouncing off the barrel walls (which I'm not claiming it does) then yes, it will stop the bouncing back and forth once it gets out of the barrel.

Once the ball no longer has walls to bounce off of, the bouncing caused by impact with those walls will cease.

Yes, but that means the ball is traveling in some random direction after the last bounce when leaving the barrel. Does it not?

[Lohman446]

Yes, but that means the ball is traveling in some random direction after the last bounce when leaving the barrel. Does it not?

But it was the hammerhead supporters that insisted the ball was making contact with the walls of the big hole...

I guess I'll ask the question. In a two pieced barrel (rifled or not) does the ball, not talking an odd ball - normal circumstances, make more than minimal contact with the larger bored section of barrel?

[shartley]

If the ball is bouncing off the barrel walls (which I'm not claiming it does) then yes, it will stop the bouncing back and forth once it gets out of the barrel.

Once the ball no longer has walls to bounce off of, the bouncing caused by impact with those walls will cease.

It's just like a garden hose. Water comes out of it the same way, whether the hose is coiled or straight. It doesn't shoot out in a corkscrew pattern if the hose is coiled.

Speaking from someone who knows a thing or two about black powder muskets, that is one of the reasons why muskets are so inaccurate. The musketball bounces down the barrel (to a certain degree) and depending on the last “bounce” it will dictate where it goes after it leaves the barrel. I have seen musketballs actually bounce off of bayonets after leaving the barrel. That is also why warfare using muskets primarily relied upon mass firing in volleys. You don’t actually aim at a particular target, but all point in the direction of your enemy.

This does not mean EVERY shot bounces around, but enough do to make the phenomenon quite well known. It disappeared with the introduction of rifled guns though. But they took MUCH longer to load since you are actually forcing the groves in the ball AS you load it (with the combination of cloth patch around the ball).

But of course paintball barrels are MUCH shorter. And since I have not done testing, I don’t know how much bouncing (if any) happens with paintballs. But I do know that the water coming out of a hose analogy does not apply. Why? Because water FILLS the hose no matter what shape it is in, a ball does not. Water does not “bounce” around inside the hose until it flies out the end.

[Muzikman]

A good test for this would be to take a hammerhead barrel and coat the inside with baby powder. Shoot one ball out of it and then look down the barrel. any place the ball touches the side of the barrel would leave marks in the baby powder.

This can also be used to show how a ball makes contact at only two points in a barrel.