[Sixxxer]

Hi all,

I've been searching and scanning the threads on PunkWorks on efficiency gains and such. My question is, how much bore size difference do you really need to get the 10 - 15% gains? I'm asking this because I have a Geo2.1 and wondering if the .685 from the boost kit will really do much improving compared to stock .689. Otherwise, I was thinking of just getting the .681 and calling it good. However, the gun isn't that efficient to begin with, so are we only talking a difference of a pod in gains when it's all said and done?

Thank you in advance for the help.

[cockerpunk]

that 10-15% is going from something like a .003-5 overbore to a .003-5 underbore.

[Sixxxer]

cockerpunk, on 26 March 2012 - 03:10 PM, said:

that 10-15% is going from something like a .003-5 overbore to a .003-5 underbore.

So I could potentially see those gains going down to a .685 from the .689 depending on paint. So the 10-15% going off estimated numbers of 4pods + rotor on 68/3000 fill, since that's what I was using this weekend, would be 740 rounds. Add the 15%, to get 851, so it's not even a pod. Is that the correct estimate?

The only other factor that would be a positive is consistency over the chrono, but haven't you proven that doesn't necessarily contribute to better perceived accuracy?

Just seems like a lot of money for those backs/kits to get minimal results, or am I mistaken?

This post has been edited by Sixxxer: 26 March 2012 - 03:20 PM

[cockerpunk]

Sixxxer, on 26 March 2012 - 03:19 PM, said:

cockerpunk, on 26 March 2012 - 03:10 PM, said:

that 10-15% is going from something like a .003-5 overbore to a .003-5 underbore.

So I could potentially see those gains going down to a .685 from the .689 depending on paint. So the 10-15% going off estimated numbers of 4pods + rotor on 68/3000 fill, since that's what I was using this weekend, would be 740 rounds. Add the 15%, to get 851, so it's not even a pod. Is that the correct estimate?

The only other factor that would be a positive is consistency over the chrono, but haven't you proven that doesn't necessarily contribute to better perceived accuracy?

Just seems like a lot of money for those backs/kits to get minimal results, or am I mistaken?

.685 from .689 is not a large change in barrel bore. most of us underbore folks only get a significant underbore with .679 and smaller. on paint that sized, .689 is massive.

[UV Halo]

Sixxxer, on 26 March 2012 - 03:19 PM, said:

cockerpunk, on 26 March 2012 - 03:10 PM, said:

that 10-15% is going from something like a .003-5 overbore to a .003-5 underbore.

So I could potentially see those gains going down to a .685 from the .689 depending on paint. So the 10-15% going off estimated numbers of 4pods + rotor on 68/3000 fill, since that's what I was using this weekend, would be 740 rounds. Add the 15%, to get 851, so it's not even a pod. Is that the correct estimate?

The only other factor that would be a positive is consistency over the chrono, but haven't you proven that doesn't necessarily contribute to better perceived accuracy?

Just seems like a lot of money for those backs/kits to get minimal results, or am I mistaken?

Cockerpunk or Bryce will correct me if I'm wrong but, the inherent inaccuracy of quality paintballs overshadows any benefit to high consistency. The benefit to high consistency is to allow for a closer match to the field limit which allows for maximum legal range.

[Sixxxer]

Ah, I see... So I should be really looking for backs/kit that have .683 or below. .683 to deal with "larger" paint and then go down from there.

[Sixxxer]

UV Halo, on 26 March 2012 - 03:43 PM, said:

Cockerpunk or Bryce will correct me if I'm wrong but, the inherent inaccuracy of quality paintballs overshadows any benefit to high consistency. The benefit to high consistency is to allow for a closer match to the field limit which allows for maximum legal range.

Okay that makes sense too... Just doing a quick search, Edge kit doesn't look bad, .676, .679, .682, .685, .688 plus 3 fronts. Otherwise I'd probably go Freak kit or something with inserts. The .681 Shaft4 back, from what cockerpunk is saying wouldn't be that much of an advantage either.

[brycelarson]

You're safe down to about .005-.007 underbore. That means that a .684 barrel will let you shoot paint up to somewhere over .690. I like to carry a couple of barrels - something in the 678/679 size and a 682/684 size. That will let me shoot pretty much any paint.

[Sixxxer]

Hmm. Maybe I'll look more into that edge kit, seems to cover the sizes you said and then some.

Thanks all for the input

[drg]

Sixxxer, on 26 March 2012 - 03:51 PM, said:

Okay that makes sense too... Just doing a quick search, Edge kit doesn't look bad, .676, .679, .682, .685, .688 plus 3 fronts. Otherwise I'd probably go Freak kit or something with inserts. The .681 Shaft4 back, from what cockerpunk is saying wouldn't be that much of an advantage either.

.681 will make a large difference relative to your .689 stock bore. Even .685 will be noticeable.

[brycelarson]

drg, on 27 March 2012 - 06:11 AM, said:

.681 will make a large difference relative to your .689 stock bore. Even .685 will be noticeable.

agreed.

and CP -

https://spreadsheets...HdSUAE5ioZ_zbNA

we were getting 25-ish fps change going from .693 - .683 so yeah.

I will also comment that length of control bore does matter -

https://spreadsheets...7xQ&output=html

an ifit is so short that it barely changes the efficiency of the system - in this case only about 5fps

[Sixxxer]

Awesome. Thanks again guys. I'll have to decide between the Edge kit and Shaft4 boost kit and additional .681, if I want to stick with Shaft4 look.

Has anyone here had experience with the Edge kit, or what barrels/systems are commonly used with Punkworks guys?

[TheCondor]

The geek in me would like to see the ANOVA output for table 1 and Regression analysis for table 2. (not that I disagree with your conclusions)

[cockerpunk]

TheCondor, on 04 April 2012 - 10:17 AM, said:

The geek in me would like to see the ANOVA output for table 1 and Regression analysis for table 2. (not that I disagree with your conclusions)

me too

i hate ANOVA

[David A.]

Sixxxer, on 27 March 2012 - 09:25 AM, said:

Awesome. Thanks again guys. I'll have to decide between the Edge kit and Shaft4 boost kit and additional .681, if I want to stick with Shaft4 look.

Has anyone here had experience with the Edge kit, or what barrels/systems are commonly used with Punkworks guys?

For the price of the J&J EDGE kit, you could purchase 2 Lurker Barrels, one in .678 the other in .684 – They are interesting since they are stepped like a 2 piece barrel. These barrels also have a long un-ported section and have a great reputation for efficiency and quiet. If you go to the PUNKWOKS website, this barrel in .678 out performed all the other barrels tested in efficiency and amoung the best in consistency as well. See the data for yourself: https://spreadsheets...=en&output=html

This post has been edited by David A.: 06 April 2012 - 05:11 PM