[UV Halo]

I call the data "Bad" because it's a small sample size, and scattered all over the place. We don't know if they were hitting the chrono, the chrono wasn't working, missing the chrono's sensing zone, etc, or maybe they did the 100ft Chrono first and ran out of paint for the 50ft (as they have indicated that the 100' was harder than they thought it would be).

What I must note though is that I have not received any info to indicate that these guys had problems collecting 50ft data for regular paintballs (maybe they did, and just fired more paint?)

You're theory may have some truth to it but, until PW answers up to what really happened, it's just speculation (I'm hating the suspense ).

[cockerpunk]

we call it bad cause its bad data. no idea what was going, time was short, we were running low on rounds, so i just said to kick it out to 100 feet and use everything we have there.

i would for the most part simply throw out the 50 foot stuff. the 100 foot stuff i am however very confident about.

[Spitlebug]

I would suggest removing any misleading data from the end study if you feel it may be innapropriate for the study.

[Lord Odin]

brycelarson, on Aug 12 2009, 04:04 PM, said:

do you remember what bore size you ended up using on the paint? I know it's in that video - but I can't remember. Do you know what size the paint was?

I didn't remember either, I had to double check the video.

The balls, at the time, barrel matched with the .687 insert. For the max velocity test, I used the .682 insert, which was the smallest insert I had (stainless steel kit). The FS matched at .689 but I underbored with a .687. If I tried .684, I would have broken the round trying to get it in. They max chronoed at approx 350 fps and 370 fps respectively. Even their slower shots had a difference of around 20 fps.

[UV Halo]

Okay. Time for more data:
All charts made with the same assumptions as before (altitude, temp, humidity)


300FPS Energy vs Distance Chart:

This depicts how much energy is behind each projectile at a given distance. At three yards, there's only a .6ftlb difference in force (is this difference perceivable?).

300FPS Drop Chart:

This chart shows how much each projectile drops if fired at 300FPS. The red line is set at -60 inches. Where the line intersects with each trajectory indicates how far downrange each round traveled if an individual held the gun level, 60" off the ground.

First Strike fired at 280FPS Energy vs Distance Chart:

This shows the difference in forces. At three yards, the FS round is only hitting with .475ftlbs less of force (is this perceptable?). Note that beyond 5yds, the FS is hitting harder than the paintball.

First Strike fired at 280FPS Drop Chart:

This chart shows the cost of a 280FPS FS shot in comparison to a 300FPS paintball. It would impact 3yds sooner than the 300FPS FS shot and only five yards beyond a 300FPS paintball.

First Strike fired at 260FPS Energy vs Distance Chart:

At three yards, the FS shot at 260 hits with only 1.535ftlbs less than a normal paintball. But again, at distances beyond 11yds, the FS is hitting harder than the paintball.

First Strike fired at 260FPS Drop Chart:

So, reducing the speed 20FPS and saving 1.5ftlbs of force, cuts the max range to where the FS round is only landing about 2.5yds beyond the normal paintball and a full five yards behind a 300FPS FS round.

Big Unknowns:

Just how much force does each projectile successfully transfer into a target? The paintball is more flexible which, most likely translates to greater bruising/welting/bleeding welts as evidenced (at the extreme end) by the super flexible Monsterballs. The FS round is more brittle so, it will more quickly translate the impact forces outwards, reducing the force into the target. Whatever the case, the FS round does not seem to do more damage than a paintball fired at close range, onto clothed skin. This leads to the second big unknown:

While the FS is more brittle, the edges formed may be more likely to cut exposed skin. That being said, can this be prevented by a minimum distance or, reduced velocity?

My conclusion:

In light of the above, I do not advocate reducing velocities or enlargening minimum shoot distances for FS rounds since, there is no proof to date that this will translate to increased safety, and, would only reduce the performance advantage of the First Strike round. Even the thought of reducing impact pain doesn't make that much sense since, at some point in the trajectory, the paintball will drop below the FS round and the FS round will be perceived as being 'hotly shot'.

[Lord Odin]

[quote name='UV Halo' post='593746' date='Aug 12 2009, 09:16 PM']My conclusion:

In light of the above, I do not advocate reducing velocities or enlargening minimum shoot distances for FS rounds since, there is no proof to date that this will translate to increased safety, and, would only reduce the performance advantage of the First Strike round. Even the thought of reducing impact pain doesn't make that much sense since, at some point in the trajectory, the paintball will drop below the FS round and the FS round will be perceived as being 'hotly shot'.[/quote]

Very cool info, Halo, but I'm not sure that I agree with the conclusion. Performance should never supercede safety. The FS has already demonstrated many times that it can cause more damage than a PB, given the right circumstances. Reducing its range a little to make field owners, insurance companies, and walk-on players happy would be worth it. And judging by the graphs, the range isn't affected very much by dropping the velocity considerable amounts. As long as it matches the 10 ft rule, I think any player would be fine with the reduction. They still get greater range and accuracy over PB's.

[Deadpool]

Thanks for all your hard work/charts Halo!

[RealtorTommy]

My conclusion:

In light of the above, I do not advocate reducing velocities or enlargening minimum shoot distances for FS rounds since, there is no proof to date that this will translate to increased safety, and, would only reduce the performance advantage of the First Strike round. Even the thought of reducing impact pain doesn't make that much sense since, at some point in the trajectory, the paintball will drop below the FS round and the FS round will be perceived as being 'hotly shot'.


Well a conclusion in this case I believe is a biased opinion and disregard for safety as gelatin tests have shown more damage with a FS round.

This post has been edited by RealtorTommy: 12 August 2009 - 10:58 PM

[Spitlebug]

UV Halo, on Aug 12 2009, 03:05 PM, said:

So, it would say, 'paintballs must fracture with no more than XXft/lbs of force'?

I believe the units are probably SI. That means metric...

But if memory serves me and I have used this number in my calcs for the various anti-chop devises that I have tested, 6 lbs of impact force is typically what will pop a mid grade paintball.

We will see in due time though.

RealtorTommy, on Aug 12 2009, 08:54 PM, said:

Well a conclusion in this case I believe is a biased opinion and disregard for safety as gelatin tests have shown more damage with a FS round.

I have to agree with RealtorTommy on this one though. Safety should be the number one priority here. While it isn't what I would call a scientific study, it should be just as important. If collecting this data helps in that endeavor then I am all for it.

[brycelarson]

Lord Odin, on Aug 12 2009, 07:19 PM, said:

The balls, at the time, barrel matched with the .687 insert. For the max velocity test, I used the .682 insert, which was the smallest insert I had (stainless steel kit). The FS matched at .689 but I underbored with a .687. If I tried .684, I would have broken the round trying to get it in. They max chronoed at approx 350 fps and 370 fps respectively. Even their slower shots had a difference of around 20 fps.

so, what I'm saying is that it's possible that the maximum velocity the first strike would attain was at 687, while the paint might have been able to attain the same speed with a 679 or smaller. It's not certain - of course, and it might be one of those things where it's outside of how we play - so might not matter, but I would love to see the same test performed with some super-giant paint.

And I would have to agree - based on that ballistics calculation - reduction in FS velocity doesn't seem like it would help. The FS is always going to hit harder at range - while it will never hit harder at the muzzle. The peak impact force for either projectile is what we're concerned with - right? That happens right at the muzzle - where the FS and paintball are equal.

This post has been edited by brycelarson: 13 August 2009 - 08:20 AM

[DaveL]

Yes this has been enlightening discussion, thanks to you all !

It confirms the conclusion I reached back at the beginning, which is that the FS rounds will change the game in a way that provides personal gratification for a few, and fear and discomfort for most everyone else. This is not good for mainstream paintball.

To give a concrete example, I'll show my own situation.
I take my youngest son out, armoured up with vest throat protector, thick bdu jacket, full coverage mask. We play back some, so that he doesn't get whacked hard and have a bad day.
If it looks like we'll be overrun and we won't be able to fall back successfully, we both call ourselves out to avoid short range hits and bunkering. Plenty of time for that when he's older.
I want him to want to go out next time, so we choose to play at longer engagement ranges, because we know that paintballs slow down enough. But not enough with FS rounds. If FS rounds are allowed at our field, we will not play there anymore.

[Deadpool]

DaveL, on Aug 13 2009, 11:08 AM, said:

Yes this has been enlightening discussion, thanks to you all !

It confirms the conclusion I reached back at the beginning, which is that the FS rounds will change the game in a way that provides personal gratification for a few, and fear and discomfort for most everyone else. This is not good for mainstream paintball.

To give a concrete example, I'll show my own situation.
I take my youngest son out, armoured up with vest throat protector, thick bdu jacket, full coverage mask. We play back some, so that he doesn't get whacked hard and have a bad day.
If it looks like we'll be overrun and we won't be able to fall back successfully, we both call ourselves out to avoid short range hits and bunkering. Plenty of time for that when he's older.
I want him to want to go out next time, so we choose to play at longer engagement ranges, because we know that paintballs slow down enough. But not enough with FS rounds. If FS rounds are allowed at our field, we will not play there anymore.

How old is your youngest son?

[DaveL]

He's ten. But I don't want to go further off-topic than I already may have. Purpose of my post was to comment on the significance to me of this data. How it is useful and relevant.

[brycelarson]

DaveL, on Aug 13 2009, 10:52 AM, said:

He's ten. But I don't want to go further off-topic than I already may have. Purpose of my post was to comment on the significance to me of this data. How it is useful and relevant.

yeah, this is good data. I can see your concern - having been shot with them - they certainly do sting - even and longer ranges. That said, I think that in rec play they're going to remain very, very rare.

[UV Halo]

RealtorTommy, on Aug 12 2009, 11:54 PM, said:

Well a conclusion in this case I believe is a biased opinion and disregard for safety as gelatin tests have shown more damage with a FS round.

I'll admit that I'm a little biased in my opinion on what should be allowable- i.e. "I do not care if this round stings more on impact- we're not supposed to want to get shot". Provided that these new rounds do not increase my chances of getting a concussion, needing stitches or defeating my goggles/mask. But, before you go around accusing me of disregarding safety, you better have your facts straight. For example, Are you refering to the gelatin tests that Odin has conducted? If so, consider the following points about his tests (discuss them in his thread if you feel the need):

• He shot the gelatin at each round's maximum attainable speed to compare the two rounds rather than each round at similar speeds. Odin was testing for absolute worst case scenarios.
  
• The only time this test will match to reality is if you are playing in a game with people who turn their guns up to maximum, and one guy (or more guys) has first strike rounds.
  
• Ballistics Gelatin, while similar in determining inner tissue damage (which is why it's used in Firearms), it doesn't simulate skin accurately, therefore the damage assessment is skewed.

Further, beyond the Gelatin tests, just how are these rounds inherently less safe? The idea that the FS round doesn't slow down as much doesn't make it less safe- it makes it more comfortable. Same thing for minimum shoot distances. The only possible basis of "less-safe" that I can see is that the shell fragments can produce very small cuts/scrapes (I have personally observed 1-2mm, tops) IF, the round hits bare skin at close range. However, regular paintballs at close range, on bare skin can also cause bleeding so, the end risk from these types of wounds- infection is the same (and presently mitigated by cleaning the wound- whether it was from a paintball, a FS round, a twig, etc).

[RealtorTommy]

Experience tells me to always look at the worst case scenario...


I can't count how many times I've seen or been part of (the bad end) of accidents....
Either close friendly fire to the back of the head or neck during fire fights by friendly fire or a player pops one off by accident while we are all lined up for a start of a big battle...Then there's the close encounters when both players are surprised.
Crap happens...prepare for it.


First Strike rounds cut like a cookie cutter at close range in most cases....Pics of hits have proven it ....nuff said...
I'm not biased...I think this round is better then sliced bread but I'm open to the pros and cons of it.

This post has been edited by RealtorTommy: 13 August 2009 - 11:54 AM

[DaveL]

brycelarson, on Aug 13 2009, 11:58 AM, said:

yeah, this is good data. I can see your concern - having been shot with them - they certainly do sting - even and longer ranges. That said, I think that in rec play they're going to remain very, very rare.

Agreed.

It's fantastic to have this analysis and I think it will help define the role of FS in the sport.
Like nerf launchers they can be awesome for special events & scenarios as long as folks know they'll be a component of the game, so that they can choose whether or not to bring along younger players and newbies.

[brycelarson]

DaveL, on Aug 13 2009, 12:02 PM, said:

Agreed.

It's fantastic to have this analysis and I think it will help define the role of FS in the sport.
Like nerf launchers they can be awesome for special events & scenarios as long as folks know they'll be a component of the game, so that they can choose whether or not to bring along younger players and newbies.

exactly - a local field does the last sunday of each month as a "Jungle Rumble" full auto, multi-barrel guns etc allowed. They specifically do that to have games that are high intensity - that way the rest of their open play can be a bit more - well, open play. The guys who want to shoot two cases in 5 hours go to the jungle rumble - and parents know that they shouldn't bring little johnny and suzy to those games - unless they are ready for it.

I think that some thought to First Strike rounds should be undertaken. Their place in the game isn't defined yet - but in big games, scenarios and high intensity games - I think they're great. In walk-on rec play - they certainly seem like overkill.

[Lord Odin]

UV Halo, on Aug 13 2009, 11:39 AM, said:

I'll admit that I'm a little biased in my opinion on what should be allowable- i.e. "I do not care if this round stings more on impact- we're not supposed to want to get shot". Provided that these new rounds do not increase my chances of getting a concussion, needing stitches or defeating my goggles/mask. But, before you go around accusing me of disregarding safety, you better have your facts straight. For example, Are you refering to the gelatin tests that Odin has conducted? If so, consider the following points about his tests (discuss them in his thread if you feel the need):

• He shot the gelatin at each round's maximum attainable speed to compare the two rounds rather than each round at similar speeds. Odin was testing for absolute worst case scenarios.
  
• The only time this test will match to reality is if you are playing in a game with people who turn their guns up to maximum, and one guy (or more guys) has first strike rounds.
  
• Ballistics Gelatin, while similar in determining inner tissue damage (which is why it's used in Firearms), it doesn't simulate skin accurately, therefore the damage assessment is skewed.

Further, beyond the Gelatin tests, just how are these rounds inherently less safe? The idea that the FS round doesn't slow down as much doesn't make it less safe- it makes it more comfortable. Same thing for minimum shoot distances. The only possible basis of "less-safe" that I can see is that the shell fragments can produce very small cuts/scrapes (I have personally observed 1-2mm, tops) IF, the round hits bare skin at close range. However, regular paintballs at close range, on bare skin can also cause bleeding so, the end risk from these types of wounds- infection is the same (and presently mitigated by cleaning the wound- whether it was from a paintball, a FS round, a twig, etc).

Actually I did multiple Ballistics Gelatin hits:

• Low, medium, and max velocity
  
• Glancing/direct shots at field velocity w/ PB comparisons
  
• Reverse loading

From what I saw, the FS always had a deeper tearing in the gel when compared with a PB. Although it doesn't simulate surface skin very well, it does show something. It should show what our tissues are feeling below the surface of the skin. The bruising we get are from broken blood vessels under the skin and I think the Ballistics Gelatin can illustrate that. This probably gives a look at why the FS hurts more.

This post has been edited by Lord Odin: 13 August 2009 - 12:13 PM