[Lord Odin]

Here are the links to the higher resolution videos.

Introduction - http://www.mediafire.com/?nmfwvi3ajg2
Mask Test - http://www.mediafire.com/?0jymfyuqoml
Ballistics Gelatin Test - http://www.mediafire.com/?0jmgmja0lzx
Human Test - http://www.mediafire.com/?zgcxmcmicnj
Conclusions - http://www.mediafire.com/?w2idjyztyow


All subsequent videos are posted as responses.

Here's the How-To on making ballistics gelatin.
http://www.techpb.co...showtopic=33315

This post has been edited by Lord Odin: 07 June 2009 - 09:54 PM

[RealtorTommy]

Thank you..........

[cockerpunk]

great test man.

sad i didn't get to chat with you to much at LL. i was really looking forward to it.

[Lord Odin]

cockerpunk, on Jun 4 2009, 10:42 PM, said:

great test man.

sad i didn't get to chat with you to much at LL. i was really looking forward to it.

Thanks.

Yeah, I wish I had more time to see everyone. Just so many people to see there. I'll catch you guys at the next one.

[snowboarder202]

cool test, Any chance of doing more testing but with a velocity around 280 fps ?

[RatDragon]

Nice to see some actual testing done on this. To me these don't seem that much more dangerous than normal paintballs, just some additional surface cuts and nothing to get seriously worried about. However I do think that some pre-scoring would be nice if they managed to do it in a way that didn't degrade performance too severely.

[Leftystrikesback]

Great vids! A definitive First Strike test!
Seeing those tests, I would have no problem playing a game against someone using the rounds. And I wear a T-shirt most of the time. That's just me though.

Those sharp edges do look nasty, and given the right conditions could result in a cut that you wouldn't see with a paintball. Most fields I've played at only allow 280 fps max velocity, that should reduce the risk even more.

[RealtorTommy]

300 fps is a good test platform because markers use co2 and hpa and can spike to different levels. 300 fps is what is considered a safe level and the fields lower the rate to 280 fps for a measure of safety.

I see a big difference in the comparison. Like the comment that you didn't feel safe shooting at a person closer then fifty feet....I still believe that damage/injury will happen at close ranges depending on where shot and what angles.

They would have to re-package the rounds if pre-scoring as the rounds are breaking/splitting during shipment already...


These are good tests and but more has to be done.

This post has been edited by RealtorTommy: 05 June 2009 - 08:00 AM

[Special Ed]

I agree w/ your conclusion that FS rounds should be regulated to a lower max velocity. Good for safety, minimal impact on performance.

Also The mask test, while representative, is not valid. As you pointed out it has inconsistent velocity problems as well as an old lens will have inconsistencies. There may have been a small crack started after the very first shot but didn't propagate until that specific shot. A better way would be a pressure plate that would record a max force, of course that will be difficult and expensive to get one to work on small "quick" forces.

Overall a good report and thank you.

[RealtorTommy]

I think the mask test represents what you will find on the field from time to time including rental masks that get abused more the the everyday player....

I have only shot three FSRs at a brand new mask from thirty feet....It scratches the mask when shot at a glancing hit...The paintballs didn't...When I get more rounds I'll do a two to five foot test on a new mask...


These are excellent tests.....

This post has been edited by RealtorTommy: 05 June 2009 - 10:31 AM

[Lucas]

Good work Lord Odin
I watched your videos and I can't but say I agree 100% with your conclusions.

This post has been edited by Lucas: 05 June 2009 - 10:49 AM

[brycelarson]

great work man. I hadn't thought of the strong point at the intersection of the fins and back "plate" of the fill section - but that makes sense.

I shot the FS against plywood and all but one of the 8 had intact skirts.

[Leftystrikesback]

First strike round on bare skin at 50 feet showed slightly worse damage than a paintball. But that's obviously going to be the case since the FS round is going faster at 50 ft than a paintball, and doesn't show that the round is inherently more dangerous.

[RealtorTommy]

Leftystrikesback, on Jun 5 2009, 03:46 PM, said:

First strike round on bare skin at 50 feet showed slightly worse damage than a paintball. But that's obviously going to be the case since the FS round is going faster at 50 ft than a paintball, and doesn't show that the round is inherently more dangerous.

Try it a 10 feet ....let me know how it feels....


Honestly....show me some tests...I'm not going to do it...No one on my team will...They all think it's dangerous at close ranges.

This post has been edited by RealtorTommy: 05 June 2009 - 02:58 PM

[Lord Odin]

Once we get a ranged chrono test of the FS rounds, we'll have an idea of what velocity they're going at compared to paintballs. Then they could be adjusted accordingly to strike at the same speed at a distance. I wouldn't jump right in to a point blank shot with these without doing that first.

Maybe even shooting at point blank on bare skin at increasing velocities. Say start with a 300 fps paintball shot. Then start at 150 fps with the FS and work up in 30 fps increments until damage looks similar. That may show the max safe velocity to compare them to paintballs. Velocity drop at point blank should minimal and they should be similar. We would just have to find someone willing to go through a potential 7 shots at point blank.

I do think there is more to be done with the safety testing but at least we're headed in the right direction.

EDIT: Let's not forget the point blank ballistics gel shots. From what we saw at 300 fps, the FS had deeper craters than paintballs. So that may imply they are slightly more dangerous at equivalent speeds and may necessitate a lower field velocity.

This post has been edited by Lord Odin: 05 June 2009 - 03:58 PM

[Leftystrikesback]

Yeah I was thinking about the ballistics gelatin tests, but it's hard to tell how they correlate to a flesh wound. I understand it has the same consistency as flesh on average, but it seems obvious that skin is much tougher, since even the paintball penetrated some ammount and I've never seen anything like that from a point blank paintball shot.

[Lord Odin]

Even if flesh is tougher, the gel tests should give an indication of which is going to hit harder and/or dig deeper. I would expect to see a similar correlation with flesh at a point blank shot, too. But we won't know for certain until we can see those shots on a person.

[HeroForADay]

Thanks Odin, your tests should calm a few nerves on those afraid to be shot with first strike rounds.

[brycelarson]

Lord Odin, on Jun 5 2009, 03:09 PM, said:

Once we get a ranged chrono test of the FS rounds, we'll have an idea of what velocity they're going at compared to paintballs. Then they could be adjusted accordingly to strike at the same speed at a distance. I wouldn't jump right in to a point blank shot with these without doing that first.

yeah, I think this is important to keep in mind - it's entirely possible that the first strike round was traveling 30-50% faster at 50 feet than the paintball. It could effectively move the damage done in a bunkering type situation out to 25, 50 or even 75 feet.

We know the deceleration rate of a paintball - once we have the same information for the first strike round we can make a good comparison.

[RatDragon]

Quote

yeah, I think this is important to keep in mind - it's entirely possible that the first strike round was traveling 30-50% faster at 50 feet than the paintball. It could effectively move the damage done in a bunkering type situation out to 25, 50 or even 75 feet.

That seems like a reasonable conclusion to me. But I still don't think these things are necessarily dangerous so much as not quite as safe. Sure these things can leave some nasty looking surface wounds but even at close range I'd be more worried about getting overshot by somebody who's ramp happy. Not to mention the potential injuries we already deal with on the field, like turning an ankle while you're running, impaling yourself on branches, losing an eye because your mask falls off mid firefight, stepping in a hole while running full tilt, really the list goes on.

That being said, one good solution to this might be limiting the distance in which you can use FS rounds. An old roommate of mine was a big airsofter and they did something like this at his home field with the crazy ass sniper rifles the were using. Basically, you'd have to use something aside from your sniper rifle if you were shooting at somebody less than 100 feet away. Something like a 50-75 foot minimum engagement distance with the FS rounds might be wise.