Jump to content

UV Halo

Member Since 15 Feb 2009
Offline Last Active Dec 16 2016 09:57 PM

Posts I've Made

In Topic: Advice Needed on Magfed

05 May 2014 - 11:29 PM

Very true Gordon, however if I was shooting 40 cent rounds I wouldn't want the chance of one hitting the rubber of the apex ramp.  The FSRs can be brittle and I'd rather not have a barrel break at the tip or the chance of one being thrown off course.


Another thing I forgot to mention is an underbore is pretty much required to get the rifling to work to its full extent.  I know when I had my t9.1 I used a .684 Flasc unrifled barrel and it worked ok, but I believe UV Halo swears by his .683 and that is shown on the chart from Bryce.




So the rifled barrel wouldn't hurt normal paint, but would help FS rounds.  That definitely helps the situation.  The one downside to a rifled barrel that I have not forgotten from when I had that old Armson is that if you break a ball in the barrel/breach, just walk off the field.  Because you need to fully rinse that paint out otherwise you'll never get 2 balls to hit within a foot of each other. 


I do have to agree with Cheevo on this one, if there's a chance that the bumper will hit I wouldn't want him to risk it.  FS rounds are too expensive for that risk.  I've only seen a few Apex's where the bumper is fully out of the way to where I would feel comfortable.


Cheevo, are you talking about an underbored rifled barrel or just an underbored barrel with the rifled FS rounds? 


What I've been considering telling him is to go with the backs in the link below.  That way hes got some underbore and he can just install it inline with the stock barrel.




The .683 rifled barrel is underbored, and the FS rounds themselves have rifling on the skirt.  But yes the barrel itself needs to be underbored AND rifled for full effect.



Actually no, I don't swear by the .683 rifled barrel.  I used one until Bryce and Cockerpunk found that the Hammerhead performed nearly as well (at the very least to within statistical noise), and without the complications of the barrel fouling/jamming/inconsistency.

In Topic: Accuracy, Never Enough to Go Around

09 April 2014 - 09:58 PM

Very Cool, Thanks for the HSV!  At first glance, it's clear that the barrel does shake but, it appears to happen very little if at all before the round leaves.  How many Frames/sec was that?


I believe that your barrel, or more specifically, the adapter and fin combo, reduced the performance of the rifling.  In a couple months we can discuss me sending you my T9.1 (and multiple barrels) for testing.


As for rifling, I believe the fins have a higher rate of twist relative to the barrel because, air slips over the fins.  It'd be interesting to see how barrels with different rifling rates would affect FS rounds.


Given what Cockerpunk and you said in regards to 'signal to noise', and my own observations, it may be worth moving FS round testing to further distances.  Maybe 100ft?  But, I still believe that it needs to be done indoors, things certainly don't get easier :-/


I respectfully disagree with the X value mattering more :P

In Topic: Accuracy, Never Enough to Go Around

08 April 2014 - 08:58 PM

Okay, So, I've given the data a once over and I've calculated the vector values for all of the groups.  Thank you very much for the excellent data, and taking the time and resources to do the test.


The Vector Values for most of them are in the ballpark for the LAPCO/Tiberius 9" (4.8") so, that covers all of them except the:

  • Baseline 2, Sorted, Large (6.20)
  • Round 2 Rigid (uncorrected)*

and maybe Baseline 2 (5.63) and the Highspeed (5.64) datasets if someone stronger in statistics can confirm that those are in or out of line with the 4.8" values.


I'm not sure what's up with the Baseline 2, Sorted, Large data.  The larger rounds were also slightly heavier so, I wouldn't expect a significant change there froma drag perspective.


* As for the Rigid (uncorrected) data, it came in at 3.69 which would be the best however, I suspect that the smaller (4 shot) sample size may have skewed the group, like you and Cockerpunk mentioned for the initial (pre-rifled) FS test data.


So, my questions going forward are:


What was the Test barrel?  You mentioned Hammerhead but to the best of my knowledge, Hammerhead doesn't make a spyder threaded one piece barrel.  If you were using one with a fin, and the Spyder adapter, that adds up toa several inches of un-rifled length in which the ball is allowed to get to a high speed before engaging the relatively loose hammerhead rifling.


Was the barrel cleaned between any of the test sets?  In the Punkworks rifled barrel test, they were using completely different barrels from set to set so, there was never an opportunity for buildup to occur.


Was the "Highspeed" test labled such because of the average velocity or, because you also recorded HSV of it as well?


Can you share the HSV showing the barrel movement?

In Topic: Accuracy, Never Enough to Go Around

08 April 2014 - 02:01 PM

i would recommend and comment that any kind of sorting, or such to the paint before firing, while interesting scientifically, isn't really how these things are used, so do not reflect real world performance. even things like the bracing of the barrel you talk about, again, thats not the way these markers are used either, so again, its not really showing real world effects then.


While it's certainly not mainstream to sort FS rounds, I've run into several and know of more folks via the internet that do things like store the rounds upright, and pre-sort them, in the hopes of attaining maximum accuracy.  Unfortunately, up until now, there was no published data to prove whether or not these things make a difference.  If it proves to be effective, even more folks will adopt the practice.  That being said, there's more data to be collected.  For example, if it turns out that storing the paint nose down makes them more accurate, then it follows to investigate how long must they be stored nose down and, how long in another position before you lose the benefit?  If it turns out that the benefit is lost in as few as five minutes, I personally would find it pointless.

In Topic: Accuracy, Never Enough to Go Around

08 April 2014 - 12:56 PM

Thanks for sharing!


I can't really read it too well now (crappy browser) but, I'll give it a thorough once over (to include crunching the vectors) later tonight.


Also, to be clear, the rifled barrel test conducted by Punkworks used paint from the bulk 100rd box and not the tubes.  It was an all in one test, that included my T9.1, Stock, and LAPCO Smoothbore barrels, as well as the LAPCO/Tiberius Rifled Barrels and the Hammerhead.  They were also able to shoot all of the shots n one go without recentering the rounds.


As for now, I suspect a barrel difference between the T9.1 Punkworks test and your gun.  Am I correct in understanding that you're using a clamped down MR5 with a spyder threaded hammerheaded barrel connected to the MR5 by a barrel adapter?  If so, which hammerhead barrel?