Jump to content


Photo

125 foot accuracy test


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
74 replies to this topic

#1 cockerpunk

cockerpunk

    All the Dudes

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,115 posts
  • Gender:Male


Posted 22 March 2009 - 09:39 PM

video -

data - http://spreadsheets....HdSX0LBnpNExabQ
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."


#2 Texas Cheezburgr

Texas Cheezburgr

    :D :O :S

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,924 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth, TX

Posted 22 March 2009 - 09:47 PM

It's alive. :D
This user has been banned for repeated trolling and breaking the rules here at TechPB. Sorry Texas, you are no longer welcome here at TechPB

#3 Leafy

Leafy

    Uses the Man Pedal

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

Posted 22 March 2009 - 10:16 PM

i cant be reading that right 21 inch under bore was the best?

#4 ChrisB

ChrisB

    Original Dancing Bean Man

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 690 posts
  • Location:Ontario, Canada

Posted 22 March 2009 - 10:25 PM

So the 21'' was the best? Can someone explain this or something.

I'm really confused, so what are the conclusions?

Edited by ChrisB, 22 March 2009 - 10:25 PM.

27.5% of statistics are made up.
If you don't care if a 14 year old pays for his gear or his parents do, put this in your signature


#5 t.fekete

t.fekete

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 29 posts

Posted 22 March 2009 - 10:41 PM

on the one-piece page of the data sheet, it reads, "target at 50 feet, all measurements in inches." I'm guessing this is just a typo and that you may have reused the data chart from a previous test, but I want to make sure.

and very nice test. interesting data, I'll be thinking about this during class tomorrow

Edited by t.fekete, 22 March 2009 - 10:42 PM.

UConn Engineering 2012

Visit oringmonkey for all your o-ring needs

#6 Leafy

Leafy

    Uses the Man Pedal

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

Posted 22 March 2009 - 10:42 PM

cp help us we're confused!

#7 Toriphilewill

Toriphilewill

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 69 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rockland County, NY

Posted 22 March 2009 - 11:03 PM

Is 0.001" considered underboring? I know the .682 barrels are smaller than the paint size listed as .683, but is this the underboring effect being discussed? How many different DXS balls did you measure to come up with a .683 size? Why not underbore the .685 frostbite with a .682 one-piece? What kind of two-piece barrels did you use and what is the back length?

Do you wanna give a bit more info on why and how the experiment was conducted?

Edit: deleted edit question.

  • From what I can see from the data, the two-piece barrel has two distinct experiments in the data. The first tested the same barrel length on 3 barrels, but changed the bore size. The second set, bore-matched all 3 barrels, but the length changed.
  • The one-piece data set has a bore-match on all 3 barrels, but different lengths (same experiment as two-piece). The second set of data has an overbore on all 3 barrels by 0.008"with a small variation in barrel length (not the same experiment at the two-piece)

Here is a suggestion, why not keep the same barrel length on 3 one-piece barrels and change the bore sizes, to make a comparison to the two-piece data set? Edit: deleted statement.

Also correct the mean for two-piece barrels .686/12" is 0.0 in google docs.

Edited by Toriphilewill, 22 March 2009 - 11:23 PM.


#8 wgp2002

wgp2002

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,413 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:westwood NJ

Posted 22 March 2009 - 11:11 PM

i am a little unsure of the question. Pardon the ignorance. Is it which barrel is the most accurate at 125 feet or is underboring overboring better at that range?
The lesson here is love your gun dont give a shit about what people say about it.. if it fits you keep it if not move on. I get enough crap from kids who think autocockers are shit when most have never shot one. Every angel I ever shot was smooth but they were out of my range so i went with an autococker instead. Now I have a couple and they are my babies. Love the sport Love your gun whatever it may be and Love yourself .. maybe not in that order. CockerOwnerClub

#9 cockerpunk

cockerpunk

    All the Dudes

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,115 posts
  • Gender:Male


Posted 22 March 2009 - 11:19 PM

sorry, fixed the data tables.

all barrels were shot with DXS silver at .683ish, and at 125 feet.

i was using the old 50 foot data tables with new data, sorry for the confusion.

Edited by cockerpunk, 22 March 2009 - 11:20 PM.

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."


#10 Texas Cheezburgr

Texas Cheezburgr

    :D :O :S

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,924 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth, TX

Posted 22 March 2009 - 11:22 PM

sorry, fixed the data tables.

all barrels were shot with DXS silver at .683ish, and at 125 feet.

i was using the old 50 foot data tables with new data, sorry for the confusion.


I think what people want is a statement saying "______ is the most accurate". Seems the chart is a little hard to understand.
This user has been banned for repeated trolling and breaking the rules here at TechPB. Sorry Texas, you are no longer welcome here at TechPB

#11 cockerpunk

cockerpunk

    All the Dudes

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,115 posts
  • Gender:Male


Posted 22 March 2009 - 11:23 PM

sorry, fixed the data tables.

all barrels were shot with DXS silver at .683ish, and at 125 feet.

i was using the old 50 foot data tables with new data, sorry for the confusion.


I think what people want is a statement saying "______ is the most accurate". Seems the chart is a little hard to understand.


if thats what people want then they came to the wrong place. ;)
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."


#12 wgp2002

wgp2002

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,413 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:westwood NJ

Posted 22 March 2009 - 11:25 PM

i wasnt looking for that but im not that great with the charts and stuff and i had gotten confused what the question of the test was.

i dont care what winds up to be the answer its more to just satisfy the curiosity of the game.
The lesson here is love your gun dont give a shit about what people say about it.. if it fits you keep it if not move on. I get enough crap from kids who think autocockers are shit when most have never shot one. Every angel I ever shot was smooth but they were out of my range so i went with an autococker instead. Now I have a couple and they are my babies. Love the sport Love your gun whatever it may be and Love yourself .. maybe not in that order. CockerOwnerClub

#13 Toriphilewill

Toriphilewill

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 69 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rockland County, NY

Posted 22 March 2009 - 11:26 PM

if thats what people want then they came to the wrong place. ;)


lol. I want the truth, and I can handle it! I just have some concerns regarding the data that are in my above post.

#14 Leafy

Leafy

    Uses the Man Pedal

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

Posted 22 March 2009 - 11:28 PM

I'm just confused that it looks to me that the 21 inch barrel was the most accurate and that goes against everyother test i've ever seen.

#15 cockerpunk

cockerpunk

    All the Dudes

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,115 posts
  • Gender:Male


Posted 22 March 2009 - 11:28 PM

I'm just confused that it looks to me that the 21 inch barrel was the most accurate and that goes against everyother test i've ever seen.


you taken stats yet leafy?
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."


#16 Leafy

Leafy

    Uses the Man Pedal

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

Posted 22 March 2009 - 11:35 PM

I'm just confused that it looks to me that the 21 inch barrel was the most accurate and that goes against everyother test i've ever seen.


you taken stats yet leafy?


no next year. I'm in the joke of a class called linear algebra right now.

#17 Xcessive

Xcessive

    Sophomore Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 341 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bakersfield, CA

Posted 22 March 2009 - 11:37 PM

Hmm, what I'm seeing is that bore matching/slight overbore looks more consistent than underboring. Which is contrary to what we were thinking

And 21" barrel seems to be the most accurate, despite it being the least consistent!!!???

This is interesting, maybe I'm reading the data wrong...

Edited by Xcessive, 22 March 2009 - 11:37 PM.


#18 wgp2002

wgp2002

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,413 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:westwood NJ

Posted 22 March 2009 - 11:45 PM

haha im retarded... PsychStats just came back to me... (sorry its been a while)

just dont ask me to do ANOVAs..

anyway what barrels were these again?
The lesson here is love your gun dont give a shit about what people say about it.. if it fits you keep it if not move on. I get enough crap from kids who think autocockers are shit when most have never shot one. Every angel I ever shot was smooth but they were out of my range so i went with an autococker instead. Now I have a couple and they are my babies. Love the sport Love your gun whatever it may be and Love yourself .. maybe not in that order. CockerOwnerClub

#19 CrazyLittle

CrazyLittle

    That's 65% more bullet, per bullet.

  • Root Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,117 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 23 March 2009 - 12:34 AM

I think the one SAFE conclusion we can draw from this data is: if your PAINT is consistant you'll get good results.

Feedback | Everything you need to know about Loctite | I have too many guns to list. Click here to see them.
Posted Image
PrometheanFlame - If I had to pick one of us to survive the rapture/nuclear apocalypse, I'd choose you.


#20 wgp2002

wgp2002

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,413 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:westwood NJ

Posted 23 March 2009 - 12:39 AM

I thought the SAFE conclusion comes from CP's sig "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. "

but i am curious to know what barrels are used so i can find out what tolerances they use in their QA for their barrels.
The lesson here is love your gun dont give a shit about what people say about it.. if it fits you keep it if not move on. I get enough crap from kids who think autocockers are shit when most have never shot one. Every angel I ever shot was smooth but they were out of my range so i went with an autococker instead. Now I have a couple and they are my babies. Love the sport Love your gun whatever it may be and Love yourself .. maybe not in that order. CockerOwnerClub

#21 Dr. Isotope

Dr. Isotope

    Rangers... mount up.

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 414 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chillin' in the Compound.

Posted 23 March 2009 - 01:54 AM

I like these tests. They're strong in spirit, but in the end they're essentially modern art: interesting, but generally indicative of nothing. Due to the nature of the paintball as a projectile (an imperfect, flexible, seamed-sphere filled with a viscous fluid) barrel accuracy tests are impossible. The Punkworks fellas are doing paint tests. Change the paint, and every single data point will likely change along with it. I feel bad for the folks that put any stock in (or money spent as a result of) the results, unless they happen to use those particular brands of paint.
"A good man can be stupid and still be good. But a bad man must have brains." --Maxim Gorky

#22 Leftystrikesback

Leftystrikesback

    Mech Master

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 529 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pasadena, CA

Posted 23 March 2009 - 02:20 AM

I'm just confused that it looks to me that the 21 inch barrel was the most accurate and that goes against everyother test i've ever seen.


you taken stats yet leafy?


no next year. I'm in the joke of a class called linear algebra right now.


Take that seriously... Linear algebras is one of the most important things to know if you're going to do any kind of data manipulation on a computer. You won't learn this for a while but most math problems can be represented using matrices.

Both the 21 inch 2 piece and th 10 inch 1 piece have the smallest vector, which would imply they are the most accurate, however if you look at the "Calcs" page you can see they have the highest residuals, which is basically an indicator of how random the samples are, and how well the statistics can be matched with reality.

Above the residual values it says "lower is better" which is incorrect, he means "closer to zero is better" because it implies a more random sample of the population.

The things I take from this are the trends:

Large overbore and small underbore are both better than bore matching or slight overbore

Longer barrel seems to show less accuracy. A couple inconsistencies in that trend though (the aforementioned 21" barrel)

I like these tests. They're strong in spirit, but in the end they're essentially modern art: interesting, but generally indicative of nothing. Due to the nature of the paintball as a projectile (an imperfect, flexible, seamed-sphere filled with a viscous fluid) barrel accuracy tests are impossible. The Punkworks fellas are doing paint tests. Change the paint, and every single data point will likely change along with it. I feel bad for the folks that put any stock in (or money spent as a result of) the results, unless they happen to use those particular brands of paint.


Data points will always change between tests whether the paint is changed or not. Trends are much less likely to.

Edited by Leftystrikesback, 23 March 2009 - 02:23 AM.

<img src="http://img.photobuck...tball/Sig4.jpg" border="0" class="linked-sig-image" />
<!--sizeo:1--><span style="font-size:8pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo-->"do the math, save the world"<!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec-->

#23 Leafy

Leafy

    Uses the Man Pedal

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

Posted 23 March 2009 - 06:42 AM

I thought it was supposed to say lowest absolute value was better on that. Thanks for clearing that up.

#24 brycelarson

brycelarson

    Show me the Data!

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,588 posts
  • Gender:Male


Posted 23 March 2009 - 08:48 AM

Above the residual values it says "lower is better" which is incorrect, he means "closer to zero is better" because it implies a more random sample of the population.



I thought it was supposed to say lowest absolute value was better on that. Thanks for clearing that up.



no, we really mean "lower is better" - a negative number shows that the vector for that particular barrel was better (lower) than the mean vector. Now, the columns on the right are the 99 and 90% confidence interval. All of the vector residuals are inside the 99% AND the 90% CI.

This means to me that any attempt to try to say ______ is better than ______ on this test are potentially dangerous. I think that we've shown again that a tube is a tube.

#25 cockerpunk

cockerpunk

    All the Dudes

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,115 posts
  • Gender:Male


Posted 23 March 2009 - 09:20 AM

I like these tests. They're strong in spirit, but in the end they're essentially modern art: interesting, but generally indicative of nothing. Due to the nature of the paintball as a projectile (an imperfect, flexible, seamed-sphere filled with a viscous fluid) barrel accuracy tests are impossible. The Punkworks fellas are doing paint tests. Change the paint, and every single data point will likely change along with it. I feel bad for the folks that put any stock in (or money spent as a result of) the results, unless they happen to use those particular brands of paint.


i like where you were going, but then your ended up some place bad.

what does the bolded sentence tell us about what is most important to paintball accuracy ...
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."


#26 Toriphilewill

Toriphilewill

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 69 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rockland County, NY

Posted 23 March 2009 - 10:33 AM

Has PunkWorks thought of expressing these experiments in a formal paper format? That would remove some of the repeat questions this thread already has regarding what the purpose of this experiment was, and the materials used. If you spend a great deal of time making sure the experiment is controlled as best as possible, then just as much time should be spent explaining them. This should not be taken as an insult or criticism, just a suggestion.

I shoot most of my targets at the 125' and beyond range, so this topic is very interesting to me. I've also calculated the SD, mean, and p-values myself, and can agree with your mathematical results. When I get home I will make a scatter plot to help me visualize the data in another way.

#27 Leftystrikesback

Leftystrikesback

    Mech Master

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 529 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pasadena, CA

Posted 23 March 2009 - 01:00 PM

no, we really mean "lower is better" - a negative number shows that the vector for that particular barrel was better (lower) than the mean vector. Now, the columns on the right are the 99 and 90% confidence interval. All of the vector residuals are inside the 99% AND the 90% CI.

This means to me that any attempt to try to say ______ is better than ______ on this test are potentially dangerous. I think that we've shown again that a tube is a tube.


I see, for some reason I thought you were comparing the individual data points from the barrel to the barrel's own vector (this is what I think of as residuals)... and if they didn't add up to zero that would not be good heh. Should probably stop trying to do math late at night.

I'm going to play devil's advocate and say a spread of 9 inches at 125 feet is significantly better than a spread of 13 inches. The area covered by a circle with diameter of 13 inches is more than twice that of a circle with a diameter of 9 inches. So why this significant difference in some barrels (with the same bore size!)?

Edited by Leftystrikesback, 23 March 2009 - 01:01 PM.

<img src="http://img.photobuck...tball/Sig4.jpg" border="0" class="linked-sig-image" />
<!--sizeo:1--><span style="font-size:8pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo-->"do the math, save the world"<!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec-->

#28 Spitlebug

Spitlebug

    Canadian Cross Dressing, Bull ball Toucher.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,044 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Campbell River, B.C.

Posted 23 March 2009 - 02:59 PM

Here is what I interpret from the 21" barrel being somewhat of a red herring (I can't watch the video because I am at work).

1.) It has everything to do with the spatial length of the barrel to the target. A 12" barrel will be 9" shorter from the target.

2.) If you look at this in terms of exit trajectory a shorter barrel will have a trajectory deflection farther back than the 21" barrel.

3.) A shorter deflection point translates into greater travel on an angular path than the longer barrel. Looking at pure vectors, it is understandable that a ball travelling at the same vector from a shorter barrel will produce a larger scatter pattern.

Edited by Spitlebug, 23 March 2009 - 02:59 PM.

So tempted to suspend Kitty just so I can say I have....
Okay, fuck it....I just banned Kitty, that's going in the sig.

Administrator - ICD Owner's Group

Posted Image


#29 cockerpunk

cockerpunk

    All the Dudes

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,115 posts
  • Gender:Male


Posted 23 March 2009 - 03:01 PM

no, we really mean "lower is better" - a negative number shows that the vector for that particular barrel was better (lower) than the mean vector. Now, the columns on the right are the 99 and 90% confidence interval. All of the vector residuals are inside the 99% AND the 90% CI.

This means to me that any attempt to try to say ______ is better than ______ on this test are potentially dangerous. I think that we've shown again that a tube is a tube.


I see, for some reason I thought you were comparing the individual data points from the barrel to the barrel's own vector (this is what I think of as residuals)... and if they didn't add up to zero that would not be good heh. Should probably stop trying to do math late at night.

I'm going to play devil's advocate and say a spread of 9 inches at 125 feet is significantly better than a spread of 13 inches. The area covered by a circle with diameter of 13 inches is more than twice that of a circle with a diameter of 9 inches. So why this significant difference in some barrels (with the same bore size!)?


if that is true lefty we should be able to find a trend. is there a pure length trend? a bore size trend? a one piece or two piece trend? a chrono trend?

have you guys by any chance flipped the page and looked at the one pieces?

Edited by cockerpunk, 23 March 2009 - 03:03 PM.

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."


#30 Leftystrikesback

Leftystrikesback

    Mech Master

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 529 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pasadena, CA

Posted 23 March 2009 - 03:23 PM

I already posted the trends that I saw.
The 21" was a notable exception to the trend, which is interesting because then it's accuracy can't be explained by the trends, hence my previous post.

You can't compare the one pieces to the two pieces because different bores and lengths were used. You can't know if trends due to those are skewing your comparison.
<img src="http://img.photobuck...tball/Sig4.jpg" border="0" class="linked-sig-image" />
<!--sizeo:1--><span style="font-size:8pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo-->"do the math, save the world"<!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec-->

#31 cockerpunk

cockerpunk

    All the Dudes

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,115 posts
  • Gender:Male


Posted 23 March 2009 - 03:26 PM

I already posted the trends that I saw.
The 21" was a notable exception to the trend, which is interesting because then it's accuracy can't be explained by the trends, hence my previous post.

You can't compare the one pieces to the two pieces because different bores and lengths were used. You can't know if trends due to those are skewing your comparison.


right, what are those trends? thats the question im asking.

if length is a trend then we should be able to say that all the long barrels shot better, or that the longer the barrel, the better the vector. same with everything else. do you notice any of those?

Edited by cockerpunk, 23 March 2009 - 03:29 PM.

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."


#32 Leftystrikesback

Leftystrikesback

    Mech Master

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 529 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pasadena, CA

Posted 23 March 2009 - 03:50 PM

Every barrel shorter than 12 inches shot better than the corresponding barrel longer than 12 inches, in both 1 and 2 pieces. I'm not counting the tribal/ stock cocker barrels since they are different brands. The notable exception is the 21 inch barrel.

Spittlebug is attempting to explain that by saying that the ball exits the barrel closer to the target in the 21 inch barrel, and this means shorter distance and flatter travel overall. However I have a hard time believing that over 125 feet, a 6 inch difference in distance is going to make a noticeable difference in spread. Maybe I'll look at the math more later.
<img src="http://img.photobuck...tball/Sig4.jpg" border="0" class="linked-sig-image" />
<!--sizeo:1--><span style="font-size:8pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo-->"do the math, save the world"<!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec-->

#33 brycelarson

brycelarson

    Show me the Data!

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,588 posts
  • Gender:Male


Posted 23 March 2009 - 03:52 PM

we have had a conversation about laying out a standardized report form - it's in the works, but doesn't exist yet.

#34 Lord Odin

Lord Odin

    3 may keep a secret if 2 of them are dead

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,129 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oak Lawn, IL


Posted 23 March 2009 - 04:28 PM

Here is what I interpret from the 21" barrel being somewhat of a red herring (I can't watch the video because I am at work).

1.) It has everything to do with the spatial length of the barrel to the target. A 12" barrel will be 9" shorter from the target.

2.) If you look at this in terms of exit trajectory a shorter barrel will have a trajectory deflection farther back than the 21" barrel.

3.) A shorter deflection point translates into greater travel on an angular path than the longer barrel. Looking at pure vectors, it is understandable that a ball travelling at the same vector from a shorter barrel will produce a larger scatter pattern.


You are correct in that the ball's exiting the barrel closer to the target (assuming the gun position remains constant) and it should equate to better accuracy. However, according to this data, that's not the case. If it were, then there should have been a trend of longer barrels getting more accurate.

#35 Timmy

Timmy

    Sophomore Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 334 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ontario, Canada

Posted 23 March 2009 - 04:53 PM

i've been sitting here, trying to do the math. my numbers just aren't working out. Maybe it my level of eductaion(grade10) maybe my fatigue. But i just can't get these numbers sraight....
If you are under 18 and your parents have no idea you are involved in paintball, yet you have had 10+ guns. put this in your sig.
If you think pumps shouldnt have to mercy people, put this in your sig.
If you think Rap is for posers and wanna bees, put this in your sig.
if your under 18 and pay for your own gear, put this in ur sigPosted Image

#36 cockerpunk

cockerpunk

    All the Dudes

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,115 posts
  • Gender:Male


Posted 23 March 2009 - 05:03 PM

Here is what I interpret from the 21" barrel being somewhat of a red herring (I can't watch the video because I am at work).

1.) It has everything to do with the spatial length of the barrel to the target. A 12" barrel will be 9" shorter from the target.

2.) If you look at this in terms of exit trajectory a shorter barrel will have a trajectory deflection farther back than the 21" barrel.

3.) A shorter deflection point translates into greater travel on an angular path than the longer barrel. Looking at pure vectors, it is understandable that a ball travelling at the same vector from a shorter barrel will produce a larger scatter pattern.


You are correct in that the ball's exiting the barrel closer to the target (assuming the gun position remains constant) and it should equate to better accuracy. However, according to this data, that's not the case. If it were, then there should have been a trend of longer barrels getting more accurate.


right, which we dont see.
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."


#37 CrazyLittle

CrazyLittle

    That's 65% more bullet, per bullet.

  • Root Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,117 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 23 March 2009 - 05:11 PM

if length is a trend then we should be able to say that all the long barrels shot better, or that the longer the barrel, the better the vector. same with everything else. do you notice any of those?


Well, as length approaches infinity, yes, the longer barrel will be more accurate... Somewhere right around 124'

Edited by CrazyLittle, 23 March 2009 - 05:11 PM.

Feedback | Everything you need to know about Loctite | I have too many guns to list. Click here to see them.
Posted Image
PrometheanFlame - If I had to pick one of us to survive the rapture/nuclear apocalypse, I'd choose you.


#38 Leafy

Leafy

    Uses the Man Pedal

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

Posted 23 March 2009 - 05:12 PM

if length is a trend then we should be able to say that all the long barrels shot better, or that the longer the barrel, the better the vector. same with everything else. do you notice any of those?


Well, as length approaches infinity, yes, the longer barrel will be more accurate... Somewhere right around 124'


but what makes the best effective length on that?

#39 cockerpunk

cockerpunk

    All the Dudes

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,115 posts
  • Gender:Male


Posted 23 March 2009 - 05:13 PM

if length is a trend then we should be able to say that all the long barrels shot better, or that the longer the barrel, the better the vector. same with everything else. do you notice any of those?


Well, as length approaches infinity, yes, the longer barrel will be more accurate... Somewhere right around 124'


but what makes the best effective length on that?


haha, well for accuracy we should use barrels more then 100 feet long.

ill have to add that to my quote book which already includes "why even have a barrel at all, it just causes barrel breaks!"
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."


#40 Chris Logan

Chris Logan

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 30 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Denver, CO

Posted 23 March 2009 - 05:53 PM

Something that cockerpunk has been trying to point out is that a 10" one piece barrel had almost the same vector as the 21". Too little of a difference, in fact, to consider it different at all with the scope of the test.

Cockerpunk: Did you test using DXS frostbite on the one piece and DXS Silver on the two piece? Or is that a typo?

I firmly believe that there needs to be a testing standard, and this isn't it. By using paintballs at all, you are introducing far too many variables into a BARREL test. And then what about a the gun? The gun itself has it's own set of inconsistencies.

:blink:

If barrel testing was done with a standard tool, at some point you can estimate how inconsistent the tool is. Same with projectiles. Remember the hard plastic target rounds that were available before all manners of foam balls? Those may be a good candidate. Extremely consistent in size. There is a seam. I'm not sure about how close in weight they are to the standard for paintballs.

Punkworks does an amazing job at testing these things. But the tests need to be totally repeatable. So that someone in Canada can set up the same test with a new barrel, and add to a large dataset. So that a new manufacturer can advertise and verify on this scale.

Here was the original question: What makes one paintball gun barrel better than the next?

And we still don't know.
The slipperiest fish in the barrel.

#41 Spitlebug

Spitlebug

    Canadian Cross Dressing, Bull ball Toucher.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,044 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Campbell River, B.C.

Posted 23 March 2009 - 06:29 PM

Here's what I was getting at:

Comparison of just the Y vectors (as those are the only ones that are comparable in this case) reveals that indeed the additional 9" of length over a standard barrel does make a difference. The reason why we cannot look at the X is due to gravity and velocity changes. Does it mean it's practical or efficient to use a 21" barrel? Probably not. This doesn't really have anything to do with a flatter trajectory if you discount the X axis.

So tempted to suspend Kitty just so I can say I have....
Okay, fuck it....I just banned Kitty, that's going in the sig.

Administrator - ICD Owner's Group

Posted Image


#42 Millertime

Millertime

    Just try and get close to that baby

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,674 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Georgetown, Kentucky

Posted 23 March 2009 - 06:30 PM

Something that cockerpunk has been trying to point out is that a 10" one piece barrel had almost the same vector as the 21". Too little of a difference, in fact, to consider it different at all with the scope of the test.

Cockerpunk: Did you test using DXS frostbite on the one piece and DXS Silver on the two piece? Or is that a typo?

I firmly believe that there needs to be a testing standard, and this isn't it. By using paintballs at all, you are introducing far too many variables into a BARREL test. And then what about a the gun? The gun itself has it's own set of inconsistencies.

:blink:

If barrel testing was done with a standard tool, at some point you can estimate how inconsistent the tool is. Same with projectiles. Remember the hard plastic target rounds that were available before all manners of foam balls? Those may be a good candidate. Extremely consistent in size. There is a seam. I'm not sure about how close in weight they are to the standard for paintballs.

Punkworks does an amazing job at testing these things. But the tests need to be totally repeatable. So that someone in Canada can set up the same test with a new barrel, and add to a large dataset. So that a new manufacturer can advertise and verify on this scale.

Here was the original question: What makes one paintball gun barrel better than the next?

And we still don't know.


I will agree and disagree with you Chris. I think that using plastic rounds to figure out the most accurate barrel would be irrelavant in this situation seeing as how that is not what is used on the fields. I think what all this testing has shown us is that we need not to worry what the most accurate barrel is, but we need to find a way to make paintballs more consistent in size, shape, and weight because those are what really affect accuracy. After figuring out a way to standardize those variables, is only when we can really start testing which barrel is the most accurate. That is my take from this experiment.

I don't play against enemies, I play with my friends.


Crazy people don't have to have logic.

TechPB Feedback


#43 brycelarson

brycelarson

    Show me the Data!

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,588 posts
  • Gender:Male


Posted 23 March 2009 - 06:35 PM

Something that cockerpunk has been trying to point out is that a 10" one piece barrel had almost the same vector as the 21". Too little of a difference, in fact, to consider it different at all with the scope of the test.

Cockerpunk: Did you test using DXS frostbite on the one piece and DXS Silver on the two piece? Or is that a typo?

I firmly believe that there needs to be a testing standard, and this isn't it. By using paintballs at all, you are introducing far too many variables into a BARREL test. And then what about a the gun? The gun itself has it's own set of inconsistencies.

:blink:

If barrel testing was done with a standard tool, at some point you can estimate how inconsistent the tool is. Same with projectiles. Remember the hard plastic target rounds that were available before all manners of foam balls? Those may be a good candidate. Extremely consistent in size. There is a seam. I'm not sure about how close in weight they are to the standard for paintballs.

Punkworks does an amazing job at testing these things. But the tests need to be totally repeatable. So that someone in Canada can set up the same test with a new barrel, and add to a large dataset. So that a new manufacturer can advertise and verify on this scale.

Here was the original question: What makes one paintball gun barrel better than the next?

And we still don't know.


Our theory on this is that by using fresh, constant paint on the barrels we're locking down the paint variable better than pretty much any other situation in paintball. yes, the paint has a huge impact (maybe the largest) on many of our tests - but we're controlling better than most people do during play. If we had to go so far as to sort the paint by size, weight etc then shoot paint only in a slot - then we would be getting better barrel information - BUT, and this is a big BUT, what we find wouldn't really be any use for playing paintball - would it?

We use paint only a few days out of the factory by a good manufacturer.

you bring up a great point - we've done a ton of testing on a bunch of stuff - and all we can say about barrels is the following: underbore is more consistant and more efficient, blow through test is least consisteny, overbore is less efficient and good on consistency.

We CANT really say anything about accuracy or what the best barrel is. I'll say it again - the fact that we DONT see anything significant here is really the most interesting. If there were going to be a better barrel we would ahve seen it here. We shot at a significant distance, we shot in a controlled environment, we shot with a really good shooting gun clamped into a shooting bench. We shot really fresh paint from a good manufacturer. Yes, there were slight differences between barrels - but no significant trend (to my eye at this point).

#44 cockerpunk

cockerpunk

    All the Dudes

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,115 posts
  • Gender:Male


Posted 23 March 2009 - 07:15 PM

Something that cockerpunk has been trying to point out is that a 10" one piece barrel had almost the same vector as the 21". Too little of a difference, in fact, to consider it different at all with the scope of the test.

Cockerpunk: Did you test using DXS frostbite on the one piece and DXS Silver on the two piece? Or is that a typo?

I firmly believe that there needs to be a testing standard, and this isn't it. By using paintballs at all, you are introducing far too many variables into a BARREL test. And then what about a the gun? The gun itself has it's own set of inconsistencies.

:blink:

If barrel testing was done with a standard tool, at some point you can estimate how inconsistent the tool is. Same with projectiles. Remember the hard plastic target rounds that were available before all manners of foam balls? Those may be a good candidate. Extremely consistent in size. There is a seam. I'm not sure about how close in weight they are to the standard for paintballs.

Punkworks does an amazing job at testing these things. But the tests need to be totally repeatable. So that someone in Canada can set up the same test with a new barrel, and add to a large dataset. So that a new manufacturer can advertise and verify on this scale.

Here was the original question: What makes one paintball gun barrel better than the next?

And we still don't know.


your dancing around the point i was trying to make before when someone posted a similar statement.

if we control the paintballs themselves to a higher degree then anyone ever does when they play paintball (which due to our connections and sponsorship deals we can), and it looks like the paintballs are still the number one source of error, what does that tell us about barrels?

it tells us the effect of barrels (size, length, bore, porting pattern, cost ...) has a smaller effect then the paintballs themselves.

put a different way, if under controlled conditions the largest effect we can see is error due to paintballs, then what difference does the barrel make when your in the heat of a gunfight, or running and gunning with all those associated errors?



as for standardizing tests, this test is repeatable, just make sure that to confirm out findings you do a benchmark test with your gun and your paint with a barrel we used in our testing. that should give you a correction factor for all the other errors with which you can modify your own collected data.

and, as i stated before, that is a typo which i have fixed but for some reason google docs has not updated.

Edited by cockerpunk, 23 March 2009 - 07:17 PM.

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."


#45 cockerpunk

cockerpunk

    All the Dudes

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,115 posts
  • Gender:Male


Posted 25 March 2009 - 07:06 PM

conclusions video up -
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."


#46 wgp2002

wgp2002

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,413 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:westwood NJ

Posted 25 March 2009 - 07:16 PM

i wonder if the first strike rounds will show more of a difference in barrels than regular paintballs. the polishing on the inside of the barrel would seem to be more in contact with the round than a standard paintball
The lesson here is love your gun dont give a shit about what people say about it.. if it fits you keep it if not move on. I get enough crap from kids who think autocockers are shit when most have never shot one. Every angel I ever shot was smooth but they were out of my range so i went with an autococker instead. Now I have a couple and they are my babies. Love the sport Love your gun whatever it may be and Love yourself .. maybe not in that order. CockerOwnerClub

#47 Leafy

Leafy

    Uses the Man Pedal

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

Posted 25 March 2009 - 07:22 PM

i have a feeling that you could shoot the first strike rounds through pvc pipe of fairly close bore match and still have it shoot mint, in other words I'd hypothesize that the barrel has no effect on the fs rounds (ie even the triable barrel would shoot them nice)

#48 wgp2002

wgp2002

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,413 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:westwood NJ

Posted 25 March 2009 - 07:41 PM

well pvc pipes are damn smooth but i get what you are saying.
The lesson here is love your gun dont give a shit about what people say about it.. if it fits you keep it if not move on. I get enough crap from kids who think autocockers are shit when most have never shot one. Every angel I ever shot was smooth but they were out of my range so i went with an autococker instead. Now I have a couple and they are my babies. Love the sport Love your gun whatever it may be and Love yourself .. maybe not in that order. CockerOwnerClub

#49 Leafy

Leafy

    Uses the Man Pedal

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

Posted 25 March 2009 - 07:42 PM

well pvc pipes are damn smooth but i get what you are saying.


where do you get your pipe? all the pipe I have for my air launchers have crazy dimples on the inside.

#50 wgp2002

wgp2002

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,413 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:westwood NJ

Posted 25 March 2009 - 08:12 PM

um the local hardware store.. ive never noticed any real major dimples in mine.
The lesson here is love your gun dont give a shit about what people say about it.. if it fits you keep it if not move on. I get enough crap from kids who think autocockers are shit when most have never shot one. Every angel I ever shot was smooth but they were out of my range so i went with an autococker instead. Now I have a couple and they are my babies. Love the sport Love your gun whatever it may be and Love yourself .. maybe not in that order. CockerOwnerClub




2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users