Jump to content


Photo

barrel test part 2


  • Please log in to reply
124 replies to this topic

#101 euanrod

euanrod

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 3 posts

Posted 17 January 2009 - 11:52 AM

I think everybody agrees one of the most important and obvious conclusions is that with good paint and a good barrel you have great accuracy.



But in my case and I suppose with allot of people you don’t always have good paint. If you bought too much paint last time and you haven’t played lately, you’re not just going to throw out a box of paint because it’s dimpled and deformed.



I only use one barrel, a one piece CP 693 14”, when I shoot good paint I have good accuracy, when I shoot old/deformed paint it goes all over the place, and when I say all over the place, I mean you can see balls curving right out of the barrel, sometimes hitting more than a 3ft area over a 50ft distance. As it is a 693 I don’t have many breaks.



You could mix a combination of different quality/brand bad paint, old paint, dimpled and deformed and shoot it through the same barrels to see which would be more accurate.

#102 brycelarson

brycelarson

    Show me the Data!

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,590 posts
  • Gender:Male


Posted 17 January 2009 - 12:03 PM

I only use one barrel, a one piece CP 693 14”, when I shoot good paint I have good accuracy, when I shoot old/deformed paint it goes all over the place, and when I say all over the place, I mean you can see balls curving right out of the barrel, sometimes hitting more than a 3ft area over a 50ft distance. As it is a 693 I don’t have many breaks.


We have tested barrel breaks - there seems to be no correlation between bore size and number of breaks. As I shoot a 679 / 782 I also don't have many breaks. :) But yes, the larger point about paint effecting things more than the barrel is basically the same conclusion that I'm drawing from this test. I think that the outlier data points on our test were due to paint deformations - NOT the barrel's performance.

You could mix a combination of different quality/brand bad paint, old paint, dimpled and deformed and shoot it through the same barrels to see which would be more accurate.


That would negate our test - it would introduce so many variables that we couldn't compare shot to shot - or barrel to barrel. Unless you were able to control exactly the mix of paint brands, ages, dimples etc so that it was the same on every barrel - then you couldn't compare their performance. We chose to use the best paint we could in order to limit the variables. This way if a barrel was capable of performing better or worse that another - we would be able to see it in it's results on our test.

#103 euanrod

euanrod

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 3 posts

Posted 17 January 2009 - 03:54 PM

I only use one barrel, a one piece CP 693 14", when I shoot good paint I have good accuracy, when I shoot old/deformed paint it goes all over the place, and when I say all over the place, I mean you can see balls curving right out of the barrel, sometimes hitting more than a 3ft area over a 50ft distance. As it is a 693 I don't have many breaks.


We have tested barrel breaks - there seems to be no correlation between bore size and number of breaks. As I shoot a 679 / 782 I also don't have many breaks. :) But yes, the larger point about paint effecting things more than the barrel is basically the same conclusion that I'm drawing from this test. I think that the outlier data points on our test were due to paint deformations - NOT the barrel's performance.

You could mix a combination of different quality/brand bad paint, old paint, dimpled and deformed and shoot it through the same barrels to see which would be more accurate.


That would negate our test - it would introduce so many variables that we couldn't compare shot to shot - or barrel to barrel. Unless you were able to control exactly the mix of paint brands, ages, dimples etc so that it was the same on every barrel - then you couldn't compare their performance. We chose to use the best paint we could in order to limit the variables. This way if a barrel was capable of performing better or worse that another - we would be able to see it in it's results on our test.



I have seen all your videos, and I understand and agree with the conclusions that bore doesn't affect barrel breaks (with good paint), my unproven and unscientific opinion is that with very irregular and deformed paint the “circular pressure resistance theory” (egg video) will probably not apply, and thus a larger bore would create less stress on the balls, or perhaps it would be the same with a smaller bore, we will probably never know.



In relation to mixing a lot of different paint, I know that a basic statistics principle is to maintain all constant except the one variable you want to study.



What if you let some boxes of paint all the same brand and fabrication date, age the same time in the same environmental conditions? When you compare individually each ball they will be different, but so are new paintballs in a smaller scale. Won’t there be a pattern in all the “chaos”, and if you shoot a larger sample trough each barrel will it have some validity.



I don’t know if I’m just thinking a lot of nonsense. I was trying to adapt a test to a frequent on field reality

#104 brycelarson

brycelarson

    Show me the Data!

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,590 posts
  • Gender:Male


Posted 17 January 2009 - 06:15 PM

I have seen all your videos, and I understand and agree with the conclusions that bore doesn't affect barrel breaks (with good paint), my unproven and unscientific opinion is that with very irregular and deformed paint the “circular pressure resistance theory” (egg video) will probably not apply, and thus a larger bore would create less stress on the balls, or perhaps it would be the same with a smaller bore, we will probably never know.

In relation to mixing a lot of different paint, I know that a basic statistics principle is to maintain all constant except the one variable you want to study.

What if you let some boxes of paint all the same brand and fabrication date, age the same time in the same environmental conditions? When you compare individually each ball they will be different, but so are new paintballs in a smaller scale. Won’t there be a pattern in all the “chaos”, and if you shoot a larger sample trough each barrel will it have some validity.


It's also possible that a large overbore actually creates some "bouncing" as the ball travels along inside the tube - which may actually create a more concentrated force than an underbore situation. Still up in the air. We only know through our large test that there was no statistical difference between bore sizes in creating breaks.

yup, less variables = better science

we have some aged paint stuff in the works - keep tuned - what we've got so far is interesting.

#105 euanrod

euanrod

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 3 posts

Posted 17 January 2009 - 06:36 PM

It's also possible that a large overbore actually creates some "bouncing" as the ball travels along inside the tube - which may actually create a more concentrated force than an underbore situation. Still up in the air. We only know through our large test that there was no statistical difference between bore sizes in creating breaks.

yup, less variables = better science

we have some aged paint stuff in the works - keep tuned - what we've got so far is interesting.
[/quote]

Yes, the bounce effect also went trough my mind, but I am sad to say I hadn’t thought it could create a more concentrated force (I’m also a mechanical engineering student).



Anyhow, you have done a great job, thank you very much Bryce and Gordon, I’ll stay tuned.

#106 Leafy

Leafy

    Uses the Man Pedal

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,836 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NH/MA

Posted 06 February 2009 - 05:43 PM

Yes, the bounce effect also went trough my mind, but I am sad to say I hadn’t thought it could create a more concentrated force (I’m also a mechanical engineering student).



Anyhow, you have done a great job, thank you very much Bryce and Gordon, I’ll stay tuned.


it should also have some other effects, like an unbalanced tangent force, causing a spin or shearing force.

#107 paintballpdh19

paintballpdh19

    Playa Member :P

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 801 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 13 February 2009 - 10:20 PM

so which barel is the most accurate???

#108 Iram

Iram

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,215 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Acton, MA

Posted 14 February 2009 - 06:11 AM

so which barel is the most accurate???


They're all about the same.

#109 brycelarson

brycelarson

    Show me the Data!

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,590 posts
  • Gender:Male


Posted 14 February 2009 - 10:24 AM

I'll re-state that. We tested high quality one piece barrels of lengths from 10 to 16" and bore sizes from .685 to .693 and high quality two piece barrels in lengths from 10 to 21" and bore sizes from .682 to .696 as well as rifled barrels.

There was no discernible difference based on the design of the barrel. This doesn't mean that a high quality barrel doesn't shoot better than a crappy one - but it means that amongst barrels of equal quality - the length, bore and design doesn't significantly effect accuracy.

#110 UV Halo

UV Halo

    Bringing the Big Guns to LLVI

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,631 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fairfax, VA

Posted 14 April 2009 - 01:25 PM

I'm taking another look at the Two-Piece Barrel tests and I'm going to run some calculations on it to check some things out. Before I do, I want to make sure I understand the processing of the data first. Is this the process applied to the data for each barrel?

1. Log FPS, X, and Y values for each of 22 shots (why 22?)
2. Calculate Mean for all FPS, X, and Y ranges.
3. Calculate SD values for all FPS, X, Y ranges
4. Calculate the vector by determining the hypotenuse of SD:X, SD:Y

That leaves one number remaining, what does the bottom number in each barrel data represent? For example, under the .682/12” beneath the vector of 2.96, there is an entry of “18” . What does this number represent?

Thanks!

#111 brycelarson

brycelarson

    Show me the Data!

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,590 posts
  • Gender:Male


Posted 14 April 2009 - 03:00 PM

I'm taking another look at the Two-Piece Barrel tests and I'm going to run some calculations on it to check some things out. Before I do, I want to make sure I understand the processing of the data first. Is this the process applied to the data for each barrel?

1. Log FPS, X, and Y values for each of 22 shots (why 22?)
2. Calculate Mean for all FPS, X, and Y ranges.
3. Calculate SD values for all FPS, X, Y ranges
4. Calculate the vector by determining the hypotenuse of SD:X, SD:Y

That leaves one number remaining, what does the bottom number in each barrel data represent? For example, under the .682/12” beneath the vector of 2.96, there is an entry of “18” . What does this number represent?

Thanks!


1. yes, 22 because that way if we throw out the high and low we still get 20 samples.
2. yes
3. yes
4. yes

looks to me like high - low fps - so the range of the fps values.

#112 UV Halo

UV Halo

    Bringing the Big Guns to LLVI

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,631 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fairfax, VA

Posted 14 April 2009 - 06:14 PM

Looking at the numbers, I just noticed something. In the barrel vs accuracy data it's stated that the paint size was .685 (correct to assume blow-tested?). Additionally, there is no testing data for varying length fronts with a .685 back. Did you guys test it? If not, why not?

#113 cockerpunk

cockerpunk

    All the Dudes

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,119 posts
  • Gender:Male


Posted 14 April 2009 - 07:26 PM

Looking at the numbers, I just noticed something. In the barrel vs accuracy data it's stated that the paint size was .685 (correct to assume blow-tested?). Additionally, there is no testing data for varying length fronts with a .685 back. Did you guys test it? If not, why not?


we had already more or less ruled out length as a factor with the 1 pieces and the .683 two pieces.
The ultimate truth in paintball is that the interaction between the gun and the player is far and away the largest factor in accuracy, consistency, and reliability.

And yes, Gordon is the sexiest manifestation of "to the front."


#114 UV Halo

UV Halo

    Bringing the Big Guns to LLVI

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,631 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fairfax, VA

Posted 14 April 2009 - 08:06 PM

Unless you're seeing something I am not, In regards to two piece barrels, I only see the following:

In "barrel_test_12_27_08" (with .683 paint @50ft), you test bore-matched back with varying lengths but, there is no accuracy data there. Was it measured? If so, can you share the data?

In "Barrel vs Accuracy Test" (with .685 paint @50ft) there are two data sets for two piece barrels.
  • Varying back sizes with a 12" tip
  • a .683 back (underbored) with varying front sizes.
In the "125foot accuracy test", I see the following setups:
  • Various backs with 12" front
  • Bore-matched back with 10, 14, 21" fronts, no 12"


#115 cockerpunk

cockerpunk

    All the Dudes

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,119 posts
  • Gender:Male


Posted 14 April 2009 - 08:18 PM

check out the .685 one pieces we shot 10-16.
on the .683 two pieces we shot everything from just the back to 21 inch front.
The ultimate truth in paintball is that the interaction between the gun and the player is far and away the largest factor in accuracy, consistency, and reliability.

And yes, Gordon is the sexiest manifestation of "to the front."


#116 Frozenmedic

Frozenmedic

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 21 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Concord NH

Posted 03 June 2009 - 02:08 PM

The carbon firber barrels only have something like a 2" aluminum back and then balloon out to an insanely large bore size. I'm not sure about the sly barrels, but I know that the stiffi's have a 2" aluminum sizer and then a 0.695" carbon fiber front.

Next time you're at the field, can you try chronographing with your normal carbon fiber barrel, and then switching to the stock barrel and see if you see a velocity jump?


I'm guessing that the CF front is WAY bigger than .695 - all of the two piece kits we've measured have been .700+ on the fronts.

and we did shoot CP's CCM carbon fiber kit - which has the aprox 1.5-2" back then big front. They were terrible on efficiency. We were shooting just the freak backs to see how much slower they were - we could get them up to the 280-ish fps we were looking for. The sniper we were using couldn't get the CCM back above about 160 fps before we had the velocity up so far it was leaking out the valve.



I tried a carbon fiber with stainless back barrel way back when I got my Automag RT, and it was more of a paint sprayer than anything else. With the .700+ possibility it would explain why I broke so much with it and your break test also had more with the overbore barrels, my old cf barrel may have been taking overbore to the way extreme . . . (and you thought I was going to say overboard)

#117 Tcheno

Tcheno

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 103 posts

Posted 06 July 2009 - 08:33 AM

What about Un1tec barrels? They have the same control bore from one end to the other.
have you tested a similar barrel? Some say this sort of design is great for overboring but I'm more interested on underboring results

#118 cockerpunk

cockerpunk

    All the Dudes

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,119 posts
  • Gender:Male


Posted 06 July 2009 - 08:40 AM

it would be functionally equivalent to any of the one piece barrels we used.
The ultimate truth in paintball is that the interaction between the gun and the player is far and away the largest factor in accuracy, consistency, and reliability.

And yes, Gordon is the sexiest manifestation of "to the front."


#119 Tcheno

Tcheno

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 103 posts

Posted 07 July 2009 - 07:47 AM

So, given that accuracy wise all quality barrels shoot about the same, in terms of efficiency, a good barrel = smooth bore (low friction) and low porting, right??

#120 cockerpunk

cockerpunk

    All the Dudes

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,119 posts
  • Gender:Male


Posted 07 July 2009 - 08:04 AM

in terms of efficiency a small bore barrel with low porting 12-14 inches.
The ultimate truth in paintball is that the interaction between the gun and the player is far and away the largest factor in accuracy, consistency, and reliability.

And yes, Gordon is the sexiest manifestation of "to the front."


#121 Tcheno

Tcheno

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 103 posts

Posted 10 July 2009 - 05:04 PM

Have you though on testing out the Furious barrels?
Test their efficiency in overbore, bore match and underbore, or the fps gain in either of these bore "settings"?

#122 brycelarson

brycelarson

    Show me the Data!

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,590 posts
  • Gender:Male


Posted 10 July 2009 - 07:24 PM

Have you though on testing out the Furious barrels?
Test their efficiency in overbore, bore match and underbore, or the fps gain in either of these bore "settings"?


yup, I think we have one on the way.

the claims on the website are very close to making claims of something - but not really.

After testing all the stuff we have - I have little faith that they'll be more accurate - but maybe on the efficiency.

#123 venezuelan paintball

venezuelan paintball

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 69 posts

Posted 21 March 2011 - 05:36 PM

no one can say wich bore size is better because most paintballs are different size they can only say if overboring is better than underboring or the other way around.

#124 DaveL

DaveL

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 90 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toronto

Posted 22 March 2011 - 08:48 AM

The great takeaway from this seems to be that you can go buy any good quality barrel that looks cool to you, has features and options that you want, and there's no accuracy penalty, because the small (tiny) differences between barrels get swamped by paint variables.
aka 'Pops'

#125 brycelarson

brycelarson

    Show me the Data!

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,590 posts
  • Gender:Male


Posted 04 April 2011 - 07:42 PM

The great takeaway from this seems to be that you can go buy any good quality barrel that looks cool to you, has features and options that you want, and there's no accuracy penalty, because the small (tiny) differences between barrels get swamped by paint variables.


yup. looks, weight etc are totally valid reasons to choose a barrel. As long as it offers a quality under or overbore size. (preferably under)




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users