well guys we all have the best barrel....I like dye ultralite .691-2...paint is so bad these days I would rather use a ;little more air and not have to clean barrels....don't forget for you new guys who like the ( perfect fit) use rain-x in your barrel it cleans out with 2-4 shots to 98%. <jabario@backpacker.com> wrote in message news:1109930916.628327.30820@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...> CMI tru fight thunder pig is the BESTbarrel. Better accuracy distance> and intimidating soung>
Are you kidding me? Lets look at the facts;the 1st place team of both of the major national tournament leagues (NPPL-Dynasty and NXL-Philadelphia Americans) are all shooting the Freak barrel system.True,it is just an aftermarket barrel.But,I'm sure you know(if you are as experienced as you claim to be) how important the barrel to paint match is.And with the Freak kit,you have all the possible bore sizes you would need to match up with any paint. What barrel would you suggest? Seeing as you are ready to put down other's suggestions so quickly.By the way,how long have you been playing for? And what type of paintball do you play?What marker(s) do you play with? I simply ask because you seem to be quite the all-knowing Nazi overlord of this group,with the way you attack others posts and suggestions at will.I would expect one with an attitude such as yours to have been around both the rec-ball and tournament scene,aswell as the professional industry, for quite a few years.However you appear to be just a loud mouthed blowhard who thinks he is a paintball genius.
you realize SP sponsored Dynasty so hence the freak "that guy" <Norradthegreat@webtv.net> wrote in message news:13164-42296E47-508@storefull-3212.bay.webtv.net...> Are you kidding me? Lets look at the facts;the 1st place team of both of> the major national tournament leagues (NPPL-Dynasty and NXL-Philadelphia> Americans) are all shooting the Freak barrel system.True,it is just an> aftermarket barrel.But,I'm sure you know(if you are as experienced as> you claim to be) how important the barrel to paint match is.And with the> Freak kit,you have all the possible bore sizes you would need to match> up with any paint.> What barrel would you suggest? Seeing as you are ready to put down> other's suggestions so quickly.By the way,how long have you been> playing for? And what type of paintball do you play?What marker(s) do> you play with?> I simply ask because you seem to be quite the all-knowing Nazi> overlord of this group,with the way you attack others posts and> suggestions at will.I would expect one with an attitude such as yours to> have been around both the rec-ball and tournament scene,aswell as the> professional industry, for quite a few years.However you appear to be> just a loud mouthed blowhard who thinks he is a paintball genius.>
That was a lot shorter than it usually takes . . .
"that guy" <Norradthegreat@webtv.net> wrote in message news:13164-42296E47-508@storefull-3212.bay.webtv.net...> Are you kidding me? Lets look at the facts;the 1st place team of both of> the major national tournament leagues (NPPL-Dynasty and NXL-Philadelphia> Americans) are all shooting the Freak barrel system.True,it is just an> aftermarket barrel.But,I'm sure you know(if you are as experienced as> you claim to be) how important the barrel to paint match is.And with the> Freak kit,you have all the possible bore sizes you would need to match> up with any paint.> What barrel would you suggest? Seeing as you are ready to put down> other's suggestions so quickly.By the way,how long have you been> playing for? And what type of paintball do you play?What marker(s) do> you play with?> I simply ask because you seem to be quite the all-knowing Nazi> overlord of this group,with the way you attack others posts and> suggestions at will.I would expect one with an attitude such as yours to> have been around both the rec-ball and tournament scene,aswell as the> professional industry, for quite a few years.However you appear to be> just a loud mouthed blowhard who thinks he is a paintball genius.>
both Philly and Dynasty have won there respective leage championships back to back 2003 and 2004.and Dynasty tied with the SC Ironmen for the NPPL series title in 2002,and they won it in 2001.the NXL has only had two seasons,and Philly has won it both years.and as a matter of fact,the captain and owner of the Philly Americans is co-owner of SP.(Adam Gardner) i thought everyone knew that.but the freak is still awsome,despite what others say.
"Mike Smith" <mws@wt.net> wrote in message news:qh0m2159m67rs40ochekt3m4dfer5n194o@4ax.com...> On 5 Mar 2005 23:07:26 -0800, "Gryphyn" <paintwiz@gmail.com> wrote:>
Whats good about the hammerhead? I'm not the most knowlegeble here.>>been playing 2 years.>
It will break paint on your opponents about 25 feet further than other> barrels.>
On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 18:02:48 GMT, "Lee Drake" <verysexymanNO@SPAMhotmail.com> wrote:
"Mike Smith" <mws@wt.net> wrote in message >news:qh0m2159m67rs40ochekt3m4dfer5n194o@4ax.com...>> On 5 Mar 2005 23:07:26 -0800, "Gryphyn" <paintwiz@gmail.com> wrote:>>
Whats good about the hammerhead? I'm not the most knowlegeble here.>>>been playing 2 years.>>
It will break paint on your opponents about 25 feet further than other>> barrels.>>
"op4_camper" <op4_camper@hotmail.com> wrote in message news%KWd.1401$dj.237000@news1.epix.net...>
Hey don't say old armson barrel I still have and use one of those on my
tipp> 98. To be honest I don't know if it does anything more. But it better then> the stock barrel.>
No offense intended. I said "old" Armson because I thought it possible there may be something "newer" from then other than their original rifled barrels.
On Mon, 7 Mar 2005 06:27:13 -0500, "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote:
"Mike Smith" <mws@wt.net> wrote in message>news:4t4n21d0alv4cmp23jm204lplucb1kkjm6@4ax.com...>> Hammerhead pumps their engineering, but I have actual field use of the>> barrel.>
I think you'd find that if you independently tested their barrel against>some other quality barrels that the differences between them would be>negligeble, despite your having been sucked in by their marketing hype.>
Shooting a paintball through a regular barrel gets it downrange in>> about the same shape as when it was loaded. Shooting a paintball>> through a rifled barrel imparts some spin on the ball, creating some>> slight improvement in accuracy...>
Oh my. It's worse than I thought.
You? Thinking? Good one....
Ok, smart guy, explain to me how air ESCAPING from a barrel at specific>points will impart spin on a ball that has already past the hole in the>barrel that the air escapes from. I'm listening...
Ummm... You are in your own little fantasy world, aren't you....
Yeah, I thought thats what you were going to say.
Of course.
And, not to relish in poking fun at you mercilessly(and it really is fun to>do, honest!),
Of course its fun when you just make up wildassed, unsubstantiated claims... Hell, anyone can do that....
but even if spin WAS somehow imparted to the ball by rifling,>please explain how this spin could POSSIBLY tighten up the path of a>relatively spherical object like a paintball? Spin on a bullet or football>gives it stability by rotating the bullet/ball on it's longitudinal axis.
Email hammerhead and ask them.
Even if you could guarantee that a paintball would spin in a predictable>direction(that's a laugh),
Ummmm... I'm not "guaranteeing" anything...
you'd be spinning an object without so much of a>hint of a longitudinal axis around which to spin. That means that, at best,>it would have NO impact. At worst, the ball HAS somewhat of an axis, and>the ball is rotating so much that it puts the ball off course by way of>rotational momentum, so much so that accuracy is actually NEGATIVELY>impacted.
As opposed to random spin as imparted by a smooth paintball being launched out of a smooth barrel. Or are you stating that a normal barrel will not impart any spin on a paintball?
It also puts little microcuts in the gelcoat of the paintball as it>> gets launched through the rifled barrel, giving you an effective range>> advantage. The shell is weaker, so it breaks easier.>
Did I mention I have a bridge for sale? Quite inexpensive, it's in New>York, Brooklyn to be precise.
So, a paintball being shot out of a rifled barrel will not nick the gelcoat of the paintball... You obviously believe that the shell is tougher than the rifling in the barrel, right?
"Mike Smith" <mws@wt.net> wrote in message news:rvlo21pcop7d5l9h35ciqbnvhneoj80pfa@4ax.com...> >Oh my. It's worse than I thought.>
You? Thinking? Good one....
Yeah, almost as much as you thought about what Hammerhead said about their barrels.
Ok, smart guy, explain to me how air ESCAPING from a barrel at specific> >points will impart spin on a ball that has already past the hole in the> >barrel that the air escapes from. I'm listening...>
Ummm... You are in your own little fantasy world, aren't you....
That was an absolutely excellently articulated and reasoned response! Kudos! *thumbsup*
Think about it. Air would only escape from porting holes after the ball had already past the point where the hole was in the barrel, right? If the ball has already past the hole when the air escapes, how can the air escaping affect the ball in any appreciable way?
And, not to relish in poking fun at you mercilessly(and it really is fun
do, honest!),>
Of course its fun when you just make up wildassed, unsubstantiated> claims... Hell, anyone can do that....
Actually, *I* am not the one making claims. I'm the one explaining why the claims YOU spoke aren't going to work.
but even if spin WAS somehow imparted to the ball by rifling,> >please explain how this spin could POSSIBLY tighten up the path of a> >relatively spherical object like a paintball? Spin on a bullet or
football> >gives it stability by rotating the bullet/ball on it's longitudinal axis.>
Email hammerhead and ask them.
I don't own a barrel like this, so honestly, I don't care that much. However, I would highly recommend that YOU ask them, and then post what they come up with. Bear in mind that anyone who has truly valid scientific data would be happy to share it with you, because it would only serve to bolster their position. It's the ones who don't have real support for their conclusions that would work NOT to have it out there("Oh, we don't share our test data with anyone, our competitors might see it!" Sure barrelcompanyguy, whatever). Not entirely uncoincidentally, I couldn't actually find any real data on their site.
Even if you could guarantee that a paintball would spin in a predictable> >direction(that's a laugh),>
Ummmm... I'm not "guaranteeing" anything...
The "you" in this case is the ubiquitous you, not the specific you.
you'd be spinning an object without so much of a> >hint of a longitudinal axis around which to spin. That means that, at
best,> >it would have NO impact. At worst, the ball HAS somewhat of an axis, and> >the ball is rotating so much that it puts the ball off course by way of> >rotational momentum, so much so that accuracy is actually NEGATIVELY> >impacted.>
As opposed to random spin as imparted by a smooth paintball being> launched out of a smooth barrel. Or are you stating that a normal> barrel will not impart any spin on a paintball?
Well, that's the idea. Most quality barrels try their hardest not to impart ANY spin on the ball before it leaves the barrel. There pretty much is zero random spin. Any spin that you might experience from a quality barrel is often the result of flaws in the paint rather than any other factor.
Spin on a sphere of non-uniform density will only serve a single purpose: to throw that object off a predictable flight path, a result of rotational inertia. The accuracy would be further impacted if the paint is defective in pretty much any way, resulting in drag/air friction. Sometimes, as in the case of the flatline, this is intentionally done, with predictably inaccurate paintball flight as a result(even if the range is dramatically increased, in the case of the flatline).
So, a paintball being shot out of a rifled barrel will not nick the> gelcoat of the paintball... You obviously believe that the shell is> tougher than the rifling in the barrel, right?
It *might* nick the gelatin that makes up the shell, but that's hardly the point, now is it? The point is that TRUE rifling(grooves in a barrel), when used in a paintball gun, only serves to rotate a physically unstable liquid filled sphere in unpredictable ways. This has been tested over and over again, and people don't do it because it doesn't work.
Now, what people refer to as "rifled barrels" in paintball tend to be the spiral ported barrels, and NO, there will NOT be any modification of the paintball from spiral porting.
And yes, I think it's fairly obvious that a hardened metal or ceramic barrel designed for years of use and abuse OBVIOUSLY pales in comparison to the toughness of the shell of a paintball, designed to break on it's first and only use. I mean, that's obvious, isn't it? ;)
-- Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info It's not a god complex when you're always right
On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 00:26:35 GMT, "Tom Greening" <tgreen@yohmama.com> wrote:
"Mike Smith" <mws@wt.net> wrote in message>news:o9cn211rj3h5m9n6l83qhrb9slp1nviqks@4ax.com...>> On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 00:21:19 GMT, "Tom Greening" <tgreen@yohmama.com>>>
Ummm.. You do know that I was allowed to try it {for free} before I>> bought it, right? It is definitely more accurate than my Lapco, Dye,>> or original Mag barrel, according to me.>>
Yes I know that. More accurate? I'll take your word for it. The doubt>arrises as to WHY that may be the case.>
Why? I don't know.... I didn't spend $1000's of dollars trying to find>> out.>>
What do you mean you don't know? Didn't you just get done telling us all>it's because of rifling and such?
Hello.... I was discussing it with Jeff..... You know he has to have all of the scientific data furnished to him for whatever he's ranting against....
Ummm.... Are you attempting to state that the balls are not sliced, or>> they do not break easier when they are sliced or because they are>> sliced, they break in the barrel? Or are you stating that the metal in>> a rifled barrel will not "scratch" the paintball's gelcoat?>>
If I HAD to pick one of the above I'd say that any barrel tight enough for>rifling to have any serious and significant grip on the ball would be>detrimental to the structural integrity of said ball. IOW, it's odds of>busting inside increase. Besides, have you ever by chance looked down your>barrel when there is a ball in it? If it's like just about every other>barrel in the free world your ball only touches in 2, maybe 3 places at the>most and at that only BARELY touches.>
Oh, and up above where you said "you do know that I was allowed to try it>{for free}" (how is that relevant?) all I can say to you is, you do know>that I used to manufacture these things don't you?>
Nope, didn't know that...... So, what's the theory behind it?
But then why can you balance a basket ball on your finger tip if it's rotating, but not if it 's not rotating. Does the centifigul )or is it centripital) force give it its stability? If so, why wouldn;t that same effect work horizontally?
Dan
direction(that's a laugh), you'd be spinning an object without so much of
hint of a longitudinal axis around which to spin. That means that, at
best,> it would have NO impact. At worst, the ball HAS somewhat of an axis, and> the ball is rotating so much that it puts the ball off course by way of> rotational momentum, so much so that accuracy is actually NEGATIVELY> impacted.
There goes the hook, and now from a wee it of line, and finally to top off this meal, some lead based sinker. Isn't this the same guy that had you going a month ago Jeff?
Anyways, air woul;d escape throught the porting to some degree ahead of the ball as the ball would be pushing out air before it left the barrel, ( the air that was in the barrel) Now, how much would go through the porting, very little, but some would.I *MAY* just try to examine how much air, but it won't be until I build that replaica of the Taj Mahal in my back yard.
cheers Dan
Think about it. Air would only escape from porting holes after the ball
already past the point where the hole was in the barrel, right? If the
ball> has already past the hole when the air escapes, how can the air escaping> affect the ball in any appreciable way?>
"dan martin" <nospamdwmartin@idirect.com> wrote in message news:HKSdnblMdf2ujbDfRVn-rA@look.ca...> But then why can you balance a basket ball on your finger tip if it's> rotating, but not if it 's not rotating. Does the centifigul )or is it> centripital) force give it its stability?> If so, why wouldn;t that same effect work horizontally?
A basketball spins reliably on a finger because of rotational inertia.
A basketball is a (more or less) solid sphere filled with gas of uniform density. There are few density fluctuations that might throw it off it's rotation. A paintball is a (more or less) solid sphere filled with liquid that has a tendancy to settle, and because of it's small size and manufacturing, is susceptible to manufacturing imperfections that (in terms of size ratio) are much larger than the imperfections on a basketball. These density fluctuations make it much more susceptible to the rotational inertia doing wacky things. It's much more like spinning a water balloon than it is like spinning a basketball.
All that said, the force of air to propel a paintball is applied more or less equally on the back side of the ball. When you spin a basketball on your finger, you have to expend (relatively) tremendous energy on a specifically directional force, the act of spinning the ball. If you were to simply smack a basketball from the center rather than the side, it would be HIGHLY unlikely that it would spin on your finger. It's more likely to simply fly across the room with no spin at all. Same thing with a paintball. You'd have to apply a very disproportionate amount of force to a single side of the paintball to reliably get it spinning.
-- Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info It's not a god complex when you're always right
"dan martin" <nospamdwmartin@idirect.com> wrote in message news:BZOdnQQ9Rqy1j7DfRVn-hQ@look.ca...> Anyways, air woul;d escape throught the porting to some degree ahead of
ball as the ball would be pushing out air before it left the barrel, ( the> air that was in the barrel) Now, how much would go through the porting,
very> little, but some would.
I agree that "some" would escape. But we're talking about modifications that are miniscule in comparison to the amount of energy already expended. Porting only exists after the ball has reached it's maximum acceleration, at least for most barrels.
-- Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info It's not a god complex when you're always right
On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 00:09:59 -0500, "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote:
"Mike Smith" <mws@wt.net> wrote in message>news:no0q21dvb1juqpk7l3j48h2hhe5h9hfi2m@4ax.com...>> >What do you mean you don't know? Didn't you just get done telling us>all>> >it's because of rifling and such?>>
Hello.... I was discussing it with Jeff..... You know he has to have>> all of the scientific data furnished to him for whatever he's ranting>> against....>
I'm not a science nut, in general, when it comes to having friendly>discussions like this one. I don't demand perfect logic when discussing>things in general terms, but without resorting to the science(or lack>thereof) regarding barrel accuracy, people will continue to believe these>things are gospel simply because nobody has bothered to point out that there>is NOTHING behind the claims that are being made. Quite literally, there>was almost NOBODY naysaying the paint to barrel matching theory until I>started raising a stink about this.
Yes... right... That "try it before you but it" marketing strategy is doomed to failure, right?
I use the science argument because it's basically an unbreachable point>because NOBODY has actually done the science and statistical analysis>required to make the claims that are being made. I've searched and searched>and searched for what I would consider to be reliable data to either support>or disprove the claims being made, and I can't find EITHER. That means that>it simply hasn't been done. If it had been done, SOMEONE would have data on>it, the barrel manufacturers or people like me. Where is it? Point it out>to me and I'll eat my humble pie, but simply put, there's nothing out there.
So the "I tried it and I liked it" is just not adequate enough to buy a product, according to you?
If you are interested, email Robert at sales at hammerheadpaintball dot com and ask all the questions you want. He says he's done all kinds of testing, but none of that mattered to me. I was able to use the barrel in a 24 hour scenario game, before I bought it. I liked it.
Not even close. If that was true, we'd be trying everything before we> buy it, cars, lawyers, deer rifles, etc. In fact, try it before you> buy it is relatively rare.
You didn't really say that did you?
Hey Mike. Send me your mag barrel. I'll set it up in a vise with my mag, and run some paint through it at 100 feet inside my shop. I'd like to see how it does. Oh, wait, mines a Tach One. I think it might have cocker threads.
Take a look at some clear shelled Wal-Mart paint sometime. Notice the large bubble of air that resides at the top at any given time. Then try to spin a hammer. The weight imbalance is noticeable.
Man. You can tell that I'm bored when I've actually started replying to threads on this group . . .
"dan martin" <nospamdwmartin@idirect.com> wrote in message news:HKSdnblMdf2ujbDfRVn-rA@look.ca...> But then why can you balance a basket ball on your finger tip if it's> rotating, but not if it 's not rotating. Does the centifigul )or is it> centripital) force give it its stability?> If so, why wouldn;t that same effect work horizontally?>
direction(that's a laugh), you'd be spinning an object without so much of> a>> hint of a longitudinal axis around which to spin. That means that, at> best,>> it would have NO impact. At worst, the ball HAS somewhat of an axis, and>> the ball is rotating so much that it puts the ball off course by way of>> rotational momentum, so much so that accuracy is actually NEGATIVELY>> impacted.>
On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 12:45:28 GMT, "LCT Paintball" <nospampleasemnotlyon@mchsi.com> wrote:
Not even close. If that was true, we'd be trying everything before we>> buy it, cars, lawyers, deer rifles, etc. In fact, try it before you>> buy it is relatively rare.>
You didn't really say that did you?
No... but I did type and post it....
Hey Mike. Send me your mag barrel. I'll set it up in a vise with my mag, and >run some paint through it at 100 feet inside my shop. I'd like to see how it >does. Oh, wait, mines a Tach One. I think it might have cocker threads. >
Yea... What's your point? My Mag has cocker threads, too.... but why would I want to send you "MY" barrel?
On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 07:48:00 -0500, "Aaron Reimer" <strongwilledchild@hotmail.com> wrote:
Sorry, but I've been reading this thread for a while now. I hear you >calling Jeff a moron,
No, Jeff is not in the "moron" catagory. In fact he's not even close to that catagory. You're watching me "tweak" him, not call him a moron.
but I don't hear you actually answering his main >question, which seems to be how you think rifling will make the barrel more >accurate, when the spin throws accuracy off.
I don't know. I do know I can hit small bits of arms or hoppers or toes better than I could with my Lapco, Dye, or Automag barrels.
I used to have an armson >rifled barrel (yes, the one with internal rifling, not spiral porting, >which, I'm sorry Jeff, I've never heard referred to as rifling), and it shot >pretty much identical to the rest of my barrels but was notably less >efficient. The only time I've seen a noticeable accuracy difference in a >rifled barrel was when there's broken paint in it, and the paint fills up >the grooves against the ball. Then you can actually watch the paint >corkscrew instead of just arc . . . still doesn't hit anything though.
OK.... Practice, practice, practice... or dump that barrel....You're choice...
Seeing as how this argument spans days I think I should simply ask the question ,again I know, from every one who's been following this topic. After hearing all of Mike's preserverence and Jeff's unbiased scienced it is time for everyone to say which barrel rocks (apart from flatline and freak since I've already heard tons of stuff on those). Pick away!
I used to have an armson>>rifled barrel (yes, the one with internal rifling, not spiral porting,>>which, I'm sorry Jeff, I've never heard referred to as rifling), and it >>shot>>pretty much identical to the rest of my barrels but was notably less>>efficient. The only time I've seen a noticeable accuracy difference in a>>rifled barrel was when there's broken paint in it, and the paint fills up>>the grooves against the ball. Then you can actually watch the paint>>corkscrew instead of just arc . . . still doesn't hit anything though.>
OK.... Practice, practice, practice... or dump that barrel....You're> choice...
Read "used to" the barrel was dumped long ago, in favour of a BOA SS snakebite, which, I must say, outperformed the stealth with every paint I shot through. Later sold my whole setup, bought a new one, and went with a LongShot, which is also a wonderful barrel, and at least on par with the stealth. All I'm saying, is that (since we're speaking about experiencial evidence) the rifling did nothing to improve accuracy during a time when I was playing 4 days a week, and was asked by the owner not to shoot at anyone using rental gear (easily recognizable with field camo jackets) because I was frustrating the hell out of them with elbow and hopper shots.
Granted, I couldn't do it now without practice, practice, practice, but even with practice, practice, practice, a wet barrel isn't going to let me hit anything. You'll notice that that is what I was talking about. We might also want to point out the difficulty of cleaning a rifled barrel, since you basically have to remove it and run it under water if you want to get rid of a break. No chance of shooting that one clean...
Man! You two just can't stop arguing over that freekin barrel. I've heard of enthusiasim but really. *sigh* Mike, Jeff, no chance you guys could get over your issues and let up already?
"Gryphyn" <paintwiz@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1110329184.198522.132180@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...> Man! You two just can't stop arguing over that freekin barrel. I've> heard of enthusiasim but really. *sigh* Mike, Jeff, no chance you guys> could get over your issues and let up already?
It's like you're begging me to start poking YOU with a stick, geez...
You're new here, so I'll let you in on a little clue. Every person in a newsgroup that contributes fills a role, and there are many roles to fill. My role is "cantankerously amusing oldtimer knowitall". My job in this little social order is to run in, start waving my hands and slamming people's heads into desks and whatnot and tell them to snap into a slimjim or something. My job is to argue with people until they see the light(err *MY* light), not that my job ever ends. ;)
You are "Rodney King newbie". Your job is to stand around, make a few token efforts at posting, and then when things get heated up (like they do), your WHOLE JOB is to say "Can't we all just get along?" That's your job. If you're around long enough, one day you'll get a new job. Perhaps we could advance you from Rodney King Newbie to TWiB Poseur, maybe you'll get some technical knowledge making you "Enough Knowledge To Be Dangerous Tinkerer", maybe you'll become "Rabid Renegade Baller", who knows. But for now, you're Rodney King Newbie.
*grin* I'm jess fuckin witja...
-- Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info It's not a god complex when you're always right
"Gryphyn" <paintwiz@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1110339014.540567.132320@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...> > Every person fills a role>
Yeah you got me on that and the "get along" thing. I pretty much am a> RKN but hopefully I'll get better. Kiddin or not you got me there.>
By the way, any positions open for Young PB Apprentice?
Oh boy, just what I need, my very own personal sycophant! ;)
"Come hither and fill my pods, young apprentice! And try to remember to wipe your mouth, lest your awestruck slackjawed drool gets into said pods and ruins the paint!!"
OK, if you want to be a young PB apprentice, here's what you have to do. Whenever I say something, you have to stand behind me, point at them over my shoulder as vigorously as possible and yell at the person I was talking to loud enough that their hair is moved by the sheer volume of your voice: "YEAH!!! WHAT *HE* SAID!!!!" That's a good start. Here endeth the lesson for today.
-- Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info It's not a god complex when you're always right
On 8 Mar 2005 16:46:24 -0800, "Gryphyn" <paintwiz@gmail.com> wrote:
Man! You two just can't stop arguing over that freekin barrel. I've>heard of enthusiasim but really. *sigh* Mike, Jeff, no chance you guys>could get over your issues and let up already?
On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 19:38:54 -0500, "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote:
"Mike Smith" <mws@wt.net> wrote in message
What? Go back and re-read my posts...>
In your first post, you gave the pseudo-pscientific reasoning that is the>cause of this backlash. There's nothing you can say to change that fact.>Furthermore, and more specifically, you haven't mentioned that your primary>reason was simply "liking it", ever. If that truly WAS your primary reason,>you should have said so. I'm smart, but I'm not a mind reader.
Perhaps I could have been clearer when I posted {on March 6}:
<begin quote> Hammerhead pumps their engineering, but I have actual field use of the barrel.
Shooting a paintball through a regular barrel gets it downrange in about the same shape as when it was loaded. Shooting a paintball through a rifled barrel imparts some spin on the ball, creating some slight improvement in accuracy...
However
It also puts little microcuts in the gelcoat of the paintball as it gets launched through the rifled barrel, giving you an effective range advantage. The shell is weaker, so it breaks easier. <end quote>
The "however" is where my opinion and Hammerhead's opinion separated.
How about: Hammerhead says... {yadda, yadda, yadda} --->HOWEVER<--- I think..... {yadda, yadda, yadda}
"Mike Smith" <mws@wt.net> wrote in message news:h8rt215sps41sdr021bupc54v5etnquah8@4ax.com...> Perhaps I could have been clearer when I posted {on March 6}:>
<begin quote>> Hammerhead pumps their engineering, but I have actual field use of the> barrel.>
Shooting a paintball through a regular barrel gets it downrange in> about the same shape as when it was loaded. Shooting a paintball> through a rifled barrel imparts some spin on the ball, creating some> slight improvement in accuracy...>
However>
It also puts little microcuts in the gelcoat of the paintball as it> gets launched through the rifled barrel, giving you an effective range> advantage. The shell is weaker, so it breaks easier.> <end quote>>
The "however" is where my opinion and Hammerhead's opinion separated.
In other words, it's our fault for not realizing that something without quotation marks or some attribution denoting who wrote what was not written by you. Ok then. I've had about enough of you. It's been fun talking to you, but I think I'll go talk to someone with a brain now.
-- Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info It's not a god complex when you're always right
It also puts little microcuts in the gelcoat of the paintball as it> gets launched through the rifled barrel, giving you an effective range> advantage. The shell is weaker, so it breaks easier.> <end quote>
That's an interesting theory. I'd be curious to know if you've ever shot a series into a net so that they didn't break and examined these "micro cuts". If the barrel was creating a consistent rifling effect, I would expect the pattern of the "micro cuts" to be identical. I would also expect a larger than normal amount of barrel breaks.
On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 12:26:55 -0500, "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote:
"Mike Smith" <mws@wt.net> wrote in message>news:h8rt215sps41sdr021bupc54v5etnquah8@4ax.com...>> Perhaps I could have been clearer when I posted {on March 6}:>>
<begin quote>>> Hammerhead pumps their engineering, but I have actual field use of the>> barrel.>>
Shooting a paintball through a regular barrel gets it downrange in>> about the same shape as when it was loaded. Shooting a paintball>> through a rifled barrel imparts some spin on the ball, creating some>> slight improvement in accuracy...>>
However>>
It also puts little microcuts in the gelcoat of the paintball as it>> gets launched through the rifled barrel, giving you an effective range>> advantage. The shell is weaker, so it breaks easier.>> <end quote>>>
The "however" is where my opinion and Hammerhead's opinion separated.>
In other words, it's our fault for not realizing that something without>quotation marks or some attribution denoting who wrote what was not written>by you. Ok then. I've had about enough of you. It's been fun talking to>you, but I think I'll go talk to someone with a brain now.
Great.... Jeff's going to discuss politics with his PGP, again....
"Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in message news:svudnVS3MPxlHbLfRVn-> It was a terrible tragedy, but he was quite cushy, truth be told. We> actually used him instead of the bean bag chair until he became too messed> up to sit on any longer. ;)> Jeff,
many people make this mistake. once the body starts decomposing, there is a bloating phase. This of course LOOKS like ( to the untrained eye) the body is in the perfect "bean Bag" state. Unfortunately, if one sits on the corpse in this state, you will only get ONE "slightly more" comfortable sitting. With the gasses at an all time high pressure in the organs, once you sit, you are bursting said organs WAY too early. Wait until the bloating starts to recede and there is less pressure in the body. the organs start to harden (like a football skin) and you may get an extra week or 2 out of your dead body before your dogs take an interest.
just a FYI from someone who has been there.
..and of course Dye manufactures the best corpses, if you don't want to do the corpse-making yourself.
"Matt" <MathU41@aol.com> wrote in message news:399glbF604u5cU2@individual.net...> Just my two cents here. The field I go to sells Hammerheads, and I've had> the opportunity to use one. It is a DAMNED good barrel. Why, I dunno. I
I'm not doubting that the Hammerhead is a decent barrel. Most aftermarket barrels are just fine. All I'm saying is that it can't be THAT much better than any other barrel out there. We've taken the accuracy of a gelatin coated glob of liquid about as far as we can take it. The big leap forward at THIS point in paintball technology is making a commercially viable rotatable and orientable oddly shaped paintball that is something OTHER than a sphere that is able to achieve the benefits of rotational inertia(football shape is the one most often thrown around). Get THAT bad boy rotating, and you've got yourself an accurate projectile! The problem is the mass production and delivery of these to the breech in a manner that we can work with.
-- Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info It's not a god complex when you're always right
"EDTHEWARD" <BLARG@BLARG.NET> wrote in message news:5JMXd.1828$gS.1470@fe1.columbus.rr.com...> ..and of course Dye manufactures the best corpses, if you don't want to do> the corpse-making yourself.
He's here all week, folks! Tip the waitstaff, and try the veal!
good one, LOL ;)
-- Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info It's not a god complex when you're always right
I'm not doubting that the Hammerhead is a decent barrel. Most aftermarket> barrels are just fine. All I'm saying is that it can't be THAT much
better> than any other barrel out there. We've taken the accuracy of a gelatin> coated glob of liquid about as far as we can take it. The big leap forward> at THIS point in paintball technology is making a commercially viable> rotatable and orientable oddly shaped paintball that is something OTHER than> a sphere that is able to achieve the benefits of rotational inertia(football> shape is the one most often thrown around). Get THAT bad boy rotating,
you've got yourself an accurate projectile! The problem is the mass> production and delivery of these to the breech in a manner that we can
work> with.
Doesn't seem like it'd be too hard. Make a football or bullet-shaped paintball, put it in a spring-fed or gravity-fed clip just like a standard gun. Heck, even a drum clip would work. Might take a little longer to load, but if you standardize the connections, put a detachable belt clip on one side of the clip like a 2-way, it wouldn't be too hard.
"Matt" <MathU41@aol.com> wrote in message news:39chbvF606ce0U2@individual.net...> Doesn't seem like it'd be too hard. Make a football or bullet-shaped> paintball, put it in a spring-fed or gravity-fed clip just like a standard> gun. Heck, even a drum clip would work. Might take a little longer to load,> but if you standardize the connections, put a detachable belt clip on one> side of the clip like a 2-way, it wouldn't be too hard.
Here's the thing. If it wasn't too hard to do, someone would already be rich because of it. The problem is that accomplishing the goal as described would run directly in the face of standards and practices.
To know what I'm talking about, look at the Q-Pod loading system. The problem with it is that it is PROPRIETARY. You can't just "use a pod", you have to use a Q-Pod pod. It also doesn't hold nearly as much paint, but I suppose anything could be made bigger.
Bottom line, if the new system is not just as fast, both in terms of speed of loading and rate of fire capacity, as the old system, it doesn't even stand a CHANCE of being accepted. If it somehow meets or exceeds loadability and rate of fire expectations, that's the ONLY chance it would have. We're already pretty fast at continuous delivery of paint to the breech. No new system has a chance unless it is at least that fast.
After that, you have to worry about the necessarily proprietary nature of the hopper and loading system. In order to work with oblong paintballs, there would have to be some modifications to the standard of delivery of paint to the breech. If those modifications are not backwards compatible(ie if they don't work with round paintballs as well), you can forget about selling these things. What happens if you run out of oblong paint, and have to go with regular paint?
Finally, in order to actually gain the benefits, you need a rifled barrel that actually DOES rotate these oblong paintballs without breaking them, another proprietary device.
Making the paintballs oblong is easy, just change a mold in the paint making machine. It's the tech surrounding the oblong paintballs that is difficult to create.
People would not be in favor of belts of ammo, because you'd need to modify your gun to have the belt go through the gun, or at least you'd have to eject the "belt part" somehow(like with real guns, out come the spent shell casing and the bits that form the "belt", made out of metal).
So, in order to be successful, you have to have a feed system that accepts both oblong and regular paintballs, that WON'T get in the way of regular paintballs(ie will fire them without spin), and WILL fire and spin the oblong ones. You also need to make it so that reloading is just as fast, and it holds at LEAST 150 paintballs on a single load.
Then all you need to do is market a brand new product that will require a person to buy hundreds of dollars in new hardware just to see if they like it, AND you have to overcome the marketing that will undoubtedly be released to tear your new invention down so that Smart Parts etal does not lose it's market share that you will be nosing in on. That's all... Nope, not hard at all.
I wish you luck, chief, because I would *NEVER* want to try to overcome all of those obstacles just to have a paintball that flies a few inches more accurately..
-- Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info It's not a god complex when you're always right
well Aaron that tells me what you know....sorry "Aaron Reimer" <strongwilledchild@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:%HqXd.6603$If1.1385854@read2.cgocable.net...> My bad . . . the snakebite without the stupid patterning on it then.>
"Tom Greening" <tgreen@yohmama.com> wrote in message> news:%vqXd.1542$gS.1435@fe1.columbus.rr.com...> >
"Aaron Reimer" <strongwilledchild@hotmail.com> wrote in message> > news:tXpXd.9478$RM2.5063@read1.cgocable.net...> >> >
OK.... Practice, practice, practice... or dump that barrel....You're> >> > choice...> >>
Read "used to" the barrel was dumped long ago, in favour of a BOA SS> >> snakebite, which, I must say, outperformed the stealth with every paint
Doesn't make much difference but, BOA never made a SS barrel. Common> > misconception.> >
stay at K-Mart...wow what can you get at that store that is any good for paintball ?? "Aaron Reimer" <strongwilledchild@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:vbhXd.9391$RM2.4603@read1.cgocable.net...> Take a look at some clear shelled Wal-Mart paint sometime. Notice the large> bubble of air that resides at the top at any given time. Then try to spin
hammer. The weight imbalance is noticeable.>
Man. You can tell that I'm bored when I've actually started replying to> threads on this group . . .>
"dan martin" <nospamdwmartin@idirect.com> wrote in message> news:HKSdnblMdf2ujbDfRVn-rA@look.ca...> > But then why can you balance a basket ball on your finger tip if it's> > rotating, but not if it 's not rotating. Does the centifigul )or is it> > centripital) force give it its stability?> > If so, why wouldn;t that same effect work horizontally?> >
direction(that's a laugh), you'd be spinning an object without so much
hint of a longitudinal axis around which to spin. That means that, at> > best,> >> it would have NO impact. At worst, the ball HAS somewhat of an axis,
the ball is rotating so much that it puts the ball off course by way of> >> rotational momentum, so much so that accuracy is actually NEGATIVELY> >> impacted.> >
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 00:27:05 -0500, "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote:
"Matt" <MathU41@aol.com> wrote in message>news:39chbvF606ce0U2@individual.net...>> Doesn't seem like it'd be too hard. Make a football or bullet-shaped>> paintball, put it in a spring-fed or gravity-fed clip just like a standard>> gun. Heck, even a drum clip would work. Might take a little longer to>load,>> but if you standardize the connections, put a detachable belt clip on one>> side of the clip like a 2-way, it wouldn't be too hard.>
Here's the thing. If it wasn't too hard to do, someone would already be>rich because of it. The problem is that accomplishing the goal as described>would run directly in the face of standards and practices.>
<snipped the long-winded response>
Let's keep this simple.
Everyone has been hit with a paintball that stung/hurt pretty good....
"Mike Smith" <mws@wt.net> wrote in message news:im2331t1dincgvb6mhj1dtbfqp1olngbfs@4ax.com...> On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 00:27:05 -0500, "Jeff Goslin"> <autockr@comcast.net> wrote:>
"Matt" <MathU41@aol.com> wrote in message> >news:39chbvF606ce0U2@individual.net...> >> Doesn't seem like it'd be too hard. Make a football or bullet-shaped> >> paintball, put it in a spring-fed or gravity-fed clip just like a
standard> >> gun. Heck, even a drum clip would work. Might take a little longer to> >load,> >> but if you standardize the connections, put a detachable belt clip on
side of the clip like a 2-way, it wouldn't be too hard.> >
Here's the thing. If it wasn't too hard to do, someone would already be> >rich because of it. The problem is that accomplishing the goal as
described> >would run directly in the face of standards and practices.> >
<snipped the long-winded response>>
Let's keep this simple.>
Everyone has been hit with a paintball that stung/hurt pretty good....>
I wish you luck, chief, because I would *NEVER* want to try to overcome > all> of those obstacles just to have a paintball that flies a few inches more> accurately..>
I think you're marketing wrong. It is true that it would require a complete new system. It's also true that it would be difficult to keep up with today's rate of fire, and the ability to shoot 200 rounds without reloading. If that's what you're after, I agree there are major obstacles.
OTOH, a bullet shaped paintball would have much better accuracy, and better range at the same speed. Woodsballers WOULD buy that, and they would pay big bucks for it too. You're looking at a large investment to get something like that started though.
<snipped for length>> I wish you luck, chief, because I would *NEVER* want to try to overcome
of those obstacles just to have a paintball that flies a few inches more> accurately..>
-- > Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info> It's not a god complex when you're always right
I didn't mention anything about marketing it. Just the technical aspects.
First, indeed, it wouldn't be hard to make them a different shape. And if you went with a thick gel or foam-type fill, it may actually spin right. Second, I did mention the clip. In fact, if the balls were just a different shape, and not longer, a clip should hold standard paintballs perfectly fine, with no modifications. With your mention of the belt, it 1) could be sold pre-belted, so just open the box, plug it, and go 2) could have some sort of hopper adapter to feed in standard, 3) could have reusable belts that standard balls could be put it, or any number of other adaptations or methods. Suggestions, anyone?
As for making it compatible with standard paintballs, it would be simple to use the same interchangable system we do now. 'cocker threads, maybe. Likewise, bullet-shaped paintballs could be just slightly larger, just like large-bore paint, and maybe with a thicker, softer shell to allow them to grip rifled ridges. Anyway, shooting a standard paintball would be just like shooting a ball down a loose barrel. Hell, with the shell I mentioned, you could use a Hammerhead system and not have to change the ball size, and it would work well with either.
And like Mike mentioned, it wouldn't have to have a pointy shape. Could be more-or-less round-tipped.
"LCT Paintball" <nospampleasemnotlyon@mchsi.com> wrote in message news:1LqYd.57802$Ze3.20697@attbi_s51...> OTOH, a bullet shaped paintball would have much better accuracy, and better> range at the same speed. Woodsballers WOULD buy that, and they would pay
bucks for it too. You're looking at a large investment to get something
like> that started though.
I dunno, dude. Very few people have pinpoint accuracy in their game, and even fewer actually utilize it. Even in the woods, spray and pray is standard practice, even if they do fire less. The only reason they fire less is because they can't get open lanes as easily, so there's not much point. But put a woodsballer on a field in position to fire a lane of ANY sort, and they probably will.
Back in the pump days, the new paint/system MIGHT have stood a chance, but these days, people rely on volume of fire, rather than accurate shooting. It works, I suppose, probably mainly because any tard can do it, but it's certainly not elegant.
-- Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info It's not a god complex when you're always right
"Gryphyn" <paintwiz@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1110588974.778539.130360@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...> Actually, if you made it into a clip or snail drum ( I think someone> else said that to) and gave it a bullet shape it could have a great> effect. you might have to make the fill heavier and maybe change bore> size and without rifling it could make it really unnacurate but apart> from that distance would probly increase by about 25-50 ft and> accuaracy would definetly increase.
Distance MIGHT be improved, accuracy would probably only be improved by 50% at best(maybe from a 12" spread to a 6" spread?). You'd need a new barrel, a new or radically modified gun, a new hopper device, new paint. Basically, you'd need a whole new set of paintball technology from the ground up. Not exactly viable.
The problem ISN'T that it can't be done, it can and has been done. The problem is the acc
