[Troy]

cockerpunk, on 24 September 2012 - 04:10 PM, said:

Troy, on 24 September 2012 - 03:58 PM, said:

^^^That's funny.

Btw, I wanted to throw out some random speculation...

If we think that barrel induced spin is a cause of inaccuracy, do you think this could be the reason that I saw an INCREASE in accuracy in paint that was slightly oblong in my test? I'm thinking if the paint "found a home" in the barrel with the minor axis perpendicular to the barrel, the underbore could have prevented it from spinning in the barrel.

yeah, that is my thoughts as well.

but as an increase in useable accuracy, i don't think we have seen that in any testing.

At 30 feet I was able to observe significant correlation between the accuracy of a paintball and it's off axis diameter... so, I've seen that in testing (and with poor-mid grade paint ). I have no reason to believe that this effect will be anything but more pronounced at longer ranges.

[rntlee]

Snipez4664, on 24 September 2012 - 01:04 PM, said:

...rntlee, were the sabots folded around sides of balls to prevent bore contact?...

Yes, the balls are intentionally isolated from the barrel sides.
You can see my method in this video:

[drg]

I know it's another can of worms, and you may have discussed this before, but would reballs be a more consistent projectile for this kind of testing?
How does a reball seam compared to a high end paintball seam?

[brycelarson]

drg, on 25 September 2012 - 04:20 PM, said:

I know it's another can of worms, and you may have discussed this before, but would reballs be a more consistent projectile for this kind of testing?
How does a reball seam compared to a high end paintball seam?

Reballs are an odd beast. The major problem I have with them is the surface finish. They're not slippery like paint.

Some batches are quite round and have great seams - some don't. Some are consistent in mass, some are all over the place.

We have considered it in the past on numerous occasions but just couldn't find a way to make it relevant to paintball shooting. It's a good thought - and it's possible that with the right product it would be viable, but up to this point we haven't found a way to make it work.

[Troy]

brycelarson, on 25 September 2012 - 05:42 PM, said:

Reballs are an odd beast. The major problem I have with them is the surface finish. They're not slippery like paint.

Some batches are quite round and have great seams - some don't. Some are consistent in mass, some are all over the place.

We have considered it in the past on numerous occasions but just couldn't find a way to make it relevant to paintball shooting. It's a good thought - and it's possible that with the right product it would be viable, but up to this point we haven't found a way to make it work.

I think that recording their final impact positions would be harder then a paintball as well... not impossible, but more complicated.

Didn't either Lurker or Spittlebug try out nylon ball bearings as well? I remember thinking that it was genius, but it being a spectacular fail.

[rntlee]

I tried them and they shot like boomerangs. Figured it was the surface finish so I polished them...still went every way but straight. Even patched they were awful. Made no sense, .6875" dia., within .001" round, weighed 3g...should shoot like a paintball, right? Still have some.

[cockerpunk]

brycelarson, on 25 September 2012 - 05:42 PM, said:

drg, on 25 September 2012 - 04:20 PM, said:

I know it's another can of worms, and you may have discussed this before, but would reballs be a more consistent projectile for this kind of testing?
How does a reball seam compared to a high end paintball seam?

Reballs are an odd beast. The major problem I have with them is the surface finish. They're not slippery like paint.

Some batches are quite round and have great seams - some don't. Some are consistent in mass, some are all over the place.

We have considered it in the past on numerous occasions but just couldn't find a way to make it relevant to paintball shooting. It's a good thought - and it's possible that with the right product it would be viable, but up to this point we haven't found a way to make it work.

they worked great for just putting cycles on a gun. the however don't interact with the loader/breach/bolt/barrel in the same way paint tends to because they have an odd coating, and they rub off, and erode away.

[upriver]

I've shot nylon balls before and found them to work extremely well. Just make sure you don't mix them up with real paint. The problem I had with mine is that I had to put them through my largest bore barrel, something like a .692. I bought mine to setup an auto reloading efficiency test rig.... but then got side tracked with other projects.

rntlee, on 25 September 2012 - 08:55 PM, said:

I tried them and they shot like boomerangs. Figured it was the surface finish so I polished them...still went every way but straight. Even patched they were awful. Made no sense, .6875" dia., within .001" round, weighed 3g...should shoot like a paintball, right? Still have some.

[rntlee]

upriver, on 25 September 2012 - 11:49 PM, said:

I've shot nylon balls before and found them to work extremely well. Just make sure you don't mix them up with real paint. The problem I had with mine is that I had to put them through my largest bore barrel, something like a .692. I bought mine to setup an auto reloading efficiency test rig.... but then got side tracked with other projects.

I suppose that depends on your definition of extremely well.
At 80', they perform on par with white box paint. That's the best i could get out of them.

[Troy]

rntlee, on 26 September 2012 - 06:04 AM, said:

I suppose that depends on your definition of extremely well.
At 80', they perform on par with white box paint. That's the best i could get out of them.

I wonder if you could coat them with plastic dip if you could get better results.

[rntlee]

Thought about trying to coat them with lacquer, but it just seemed like too much trouble when marbs already completely outperform them aerodynamically.
I had hoped they could demonstrate what a "perfect" paintball was capable of. I think TK had similar luck with them.

[Troy]

rntlee, on 26 September 2012 - 11:03 AM, said:

Thought about trying to coat them with lacquer, but it just seemed like too much trouble when marbs already completely outperform them aerodynamically.
I had hoped they could demonstrate what a "perfect" paintball was capable of. I think TK had similar luck with them.

I, already, have my suspicions that the durometer of the shell, probably, effects how well the ball seals and how much spin is imposed on it coming out of the barrel... this may be an interesting test, especially, if I can come up with different materials to coat them with.

[Snipez4664]

Nylon shoots bad is another data point... Makes sense to me from a spin mitigation standpoint at least with underbore... Not sure why they'd shoot as poorly with over bore, but maybe they rattle harder

[rntlee]

I think it's more to do with the surface finish...patching doesn't help them either.

[Rotozip2]

brycelarson, on 24 September 2012 - 07:07 AM, said:

We actually had a certain manufacturer tell us that in order to really see how well their product worked we needed to hand measure and sort the paint then only use balls that were +/- .002 and as round as possible. We simply refused. Until I can buy that paint by the bag then the product has no effective benefit to me.

That is laughable that they asked you to do that.

[TheGuy]

Rotozip2, on 26 September 2012 - 08:33 PM, said:

brycelarson, on 24 September 2012 - 07:07 AM, said:

We actually had a certain manufacturer tell us that in order to really see how well their product worked we needed to hand measure and sort the paint then only use balls that were +/- .002 and as round as possible. We simply refused. Until I can buy that paint by the bag then the product has no effective benefit to me.

That is laughable that they asked you to do that.

That is just sad actually. They obviously know their paint isn't great when they are telling you to sort out only the good ones for testing.

[brycelarson]

TheGuy, on 26 September 2012 - 09:49 PM, said:

That is just sad actually. They obviously know their paint isn't great when they are telling you to sort out only the good ones for testing.

It wasn't a paint manufacturer. It was a product manufacturer. It was the reason they gave for us not being able to match their claims.

[rntlee]

rntlee, on 26 September 2012 - 06:35 PM, said:

I think it's more to do with the surface finish...patching doesn't help them either.

Found an old pic I took of the surface of the nylon bearings, you can see what I mean:

[Snipez4664]

Whoa, interesting...thanks for that!

[2thdoc]

brycelarson, on 21 September 2012 - 08:54 AM, said:

https://docs.google....cW1yWlVpRDVKMnc

once again we shoot multiple bore sizes - and yes, underboring too much makes things shoot crappy.

Bryce, I have read the accuracy data regarding hammerhead (rifled) barrels. It seems that rifling had little effect on accuracy. It seems underboring which you have stated produces spin also reduces accuracy. Would it be a logical consequence to test for consistancy in the x and y axis rather than accuracy in the x and y axis... for all variables...( underboring vs rifling vs overboring) or has this already been done.