[itsme123]

I always here people saying boring doesnt effect the accuracy, but it does with the consistency. Isnt something more accurate if it is more consistent?

[andrewthewookie]

Yes and no. The problem is that paint itself is just not a good projectile, so the spread caused by the paint will tend to mask any inconsistency up to a significant ammount. The reason we value consistency is that with a consistent gun, you are able to chrono closer to the limit, so more of your shots will be at a higher FPS than if you had to chrono lower to account for an inconsistent gun. This gives you a greater effective range than someone who's got a more inconsistent gun.

[drg]

Consistency is a component of accuracy but not the only one.

[itsme123]

andrewthewookie, on 01 August 2012 - 09:12 PM, said:

Yes and no. The problem is that paint itself is just not a good projectile, so the spread caused by the paint will tend to mask any inconsistency up to a significant ammount. The reason we value consistency is that with a consistent gun, you are able to chrono closer to the limit, so more of your shots will be at a higher FPS than if you had to chrono lower to account for an inconsistent gun. This gives you a greater effective range than someone who's got a more inconsistent gun.

OOOOHHHHHHH!! So underboring or overboring just allows you to up your fps a bit. Ok that makes total sense. I was just way confused, but you cleared it up thanks man. I have one more question though. Would I be better off going with a one piece barrel or two piece or does it really effect the guns performance at all?

[Troy]

itsme123, on 02 August 2012 - 11:42 AM, said:

andrewthewookie, on 01 August 2012 - 09:12 PM, said:

Yes and no. The problem is that paint itself is just not a good projectile, so the spread caused by the paint will tend to mask any inconsistency up to a significant ammount. The reason we value consistency is that with a consistent gun, you are able to chrono closer to the limit, so more of your shots will be at a higher FPS than if you had to chrono lower to account for an inconsistent gun. This gives you a greater effective range than someone who's got a more inconsistent gun.

OOOOHHHHHHH!! So underboring or overboring just allows you to up your fps a bit. Ok that makes total sense. I was just way confused, but you cleared it up thanks man. I have one more question though. Would I be better off going with a one piece barrel or two piece or does it really effect the guns performance at all?

IMO, it's better to go with one piece barrels... not for any performance reasons, but because they are easier to clean and easier to keep up with (it's much easier to find a 1 piece barrel in my gearbag then a matching front and back). I've got 3 total barrels a .678 and .685 Lurker Eigenbarrels, and a .692 stiffi. Between all of those I can shoot whatever the hell paint I want.

[itsme123]

where did you find a low bore one piece?

[cockerpunk]

one would think that the more consistent the setup, the more accurate. the same mass, flying through the same air .... and if they were all imparted with the exact same energy, would land in the same place.

the issue is that the air turbulence created by the paintball as it flies screws up the flight path so much, that small inconsistencies in initial velocity tend to be masked by it. from our testing we have not noticed a problem with accuracy until you are up in the +/- 10 fps kind of range, which most gun/barrel setups should be able to provide you.

[Troy]

itsme123, on 02 August 2012 - 12:11 PM, said:

where did you find a low bore one piece?

Our very own Snipez4664 (aka Lurker) makes and sells some excellent low caliber one piece paintball barrels for ~$40. He's used all the testing data that we've come up with to make them. I've bought two off him. He's easy to deal with and ships quickly (and responds to PM's on the message board )... I highly recommend them.

[itsme123]

Troy, on 02 August 2012 - 03:42 PM, said:

itsme123, on 02 August 2012 - 12:11 PM, said:

where did you find a low bore one piece?

Our very own Snipez4664 (aka Lurker) makes and sells some excellent low caliber one piece paintball barrels for ~$40. He's used all the testing data that we've come up with to make them. I've bought two off him. He's easy to deal with and ships quickly (and responds to PM's on the message board )... I highly recommend them.

do they only come in autococker threading?

cockerpunk, on 02 August 2012 - 02:00 PM, said:

one would think that the more consistent the setup, the more accurate. the same mass, flying through the same air .... and if they were all imparted with the exact same energy, would land in the same place.

the issue is that the air turbulence created by the paintball as it flies screws up the flight path so much, that small inconsistencies in initial velocity tend to be masked by it. from our testing we have not noticed a problem with accuracy until you are up in the +/- 10 fps kind of range, which most gun/barrel setups should be able to provide you.

You lost me after the word "one"

[brycelarson]

itsme123, on 02 August 2012 - 04:06 PM, said:

You lost me after the word "one"

funny guy.

basically paint sucks so anything that's +/- 15 fps or better will be fine.

[drg]

brycelarson, on 02 August 2012 - 05:13 PM, said:

itsme123, on 02 August 2012 - 04:06 PM, said:

You lost me after the word "one"

funny guy.

basically paint sucks so anything that's +/- 15 fps or better will be fine.

Gotta take a bit of an issue with this. Though generalized accuracy at the ranges tested has shown no conclusive evidence, I don't think a 30 fps fluctuation is "fine" and if I was seeing that I would consider there to be something wrong with my setup. Let's also not forget another benefit of a tighter velocity grouping and being able to raise fps is impact energy, which affects breakage on target.

There absolutely is a base trajectory difference between a ball traveling 30 fps higher than another, and IMO why introduce that difference rather than eliminate it?

This post has been edited by drg: 02 August 2012 - 06:14 PM

[Troy]

drg, on 02 August 2012 - 06:13 PM, said:

Gotta take a bit of an issue with this. Though generalized accuracy at the ranges tested has shown no conclusive evidence, I don't think a 30 fps fluctuation is "fine" and if I was seeing that I would consider there to be something wrong with my setup.

I guess this is true, of course, there isn't any conclusive counter evidence of Santa Clause either...

[drg]

Troy, on 02 August 2012 - 06:18 PM, said:

I guess this is true, of course, there isn't any conclusive counter evidence of Santa Clause either...

Well there's at least mathematical evidence of trajectory difference, so that's far more evidence than Santa Claus has. Which is my point, though it's difficult to pick out in testing, the math tells us it is there, so we should probably eliminate it.

[itsme123]

again I have no idea what you guys are talking about<br>

[cockerpunk]

drg, on 02 August 2012 - 06:13 PM, said:

brycelarson, on 02 August 2012 - 05:13 PM, said:

itsme123, on 02 August 2012 - 04:06 PM, said:

You lost me after the word "one"

funny guy.

basically paint sucks so anything that's +/- 15 fps or better will be fine.

Gotta take a bit of an issue with this. Though generalized accuracy at the ranges tested has shown no conclusive evidence, I don't think a 30 fps fluctuation is "fine" and if I was seeing that I would consider there to be something wrong with my setup. Let's also not forget another benefit of a tighter velocity grouping and being able to raise fps is impact energy, which affects breakage on target.

There absolutely is a base trajectory difference between a ball traveling 30 fps higher than another, and IMO why introduce that difference rather than eliminate it?

i dont disagree, the point is arguing about a +/- 3 fps setup as more accurate then a +/- 5 fps setup is not worthwhile.

almost any setup should be able to provide you good enough consistency to not see any difference in accuracy. i think the lesson is not so much, stop chasing good consistency, but chase consistency for the right reasons, namely, range by being able to adjust your velocity higher etc.

[itsme123]

ok so really there is no point in worrying about boring and one piece vs two piece barrels?

[Troy]

drg, on 02 August 2012 - 06:24 PM, said:

Troy, on 02 August 2012 - 06:18 PM, said:

I guess this is true, of course, there isn't any conclusive counter evidence of Santa Clause either...

Well there's at least mathematical evidence of trajectory difference, so that's far more evidence than Santa Claus has. Which is my point, though it's difficult to pick out in testing, the math tells us it is there, so we should probably eliminate it.

Exaggerations aside, we ran an anova on my last test, and it showed no significant correlation between speed and accuracy. It also showed no significant correlation between shot speed and Y height. Anyone that disagrees with my stats doesn't realize the significance of the statistical test that we used. So, in other words, I deny your above premise. The math says there is no significant endpoint location variation correlated to shot speed.

Like I alluded to earlier, I can't PROVE there isn't a correlation between speed and endpoint final location, but again... I can't PROVE that Santa Claus doesn't exist either. How many tests showing no significant correlation does it take to prove that you might be working under an unreasonable hypothesis?

[drg]

Troy, on 02 August 2012 - 09:26 PM, said:

The math says there is no significant endpoint location variation correlated to shot speed.

No, the math shows it exists. Your observations didn't find it, but that doesn't mean the math says it doesn't exist.

cockerpunk, on 02 August 2012 - 08:33 PM, said:

i dont disagree, the point is arguing about a +/- 3 fps setup as more accurate then a +/- 5 fps setup is not worthwhile.

almost any setup should be able to provide you good enough consistency to not see any difference in accuracy. i think the lesson is not so much, stop chasing good consistency, but chase consistency for the right reasons, namely, range by being able to adjust your velocity higher etc.

The ironic thing about this is that by accepting this as a reason, you are also explicitly accepting that a higher velocity has a different trajectory than a lower velocity (and arguably far less than 30 fps lower).

This post has been edited by drg: 03 August 2012 - 12:02 AM

[brycelarson]

drg - I would never go on the field with a system giving me +/- 15 fps - but not for accuracy concerns. Even the cheapest modern gun is capable of much better than that. If you're getting +/- 15 fps there is most likely something wrong with your system - and it should be corrected. In play however, you won't be at an accuracy disadvantage.

[Molybdenum]

itsme123, on 02 August 2012 - 09:00 PM, said:

ok so really there is no point in worrying about boring and one piece vs two piece barrels?

Not from an accuracy standpoint, no.