.50 cal ballistics data

[Devrij]

Point taken, I was a bit glib with the "rubbish" remark. What I should have said was that without increased velocity 50 cal balls won't fly as far or maintain velocity as well, as shown in the flight predictions above (I did query the accuracy of those predictions so am not taking them as read btw). As regards to bar room physics, I did study engineering at uni so have some basic knowledge of projectiles, though I obviously don't have the experience Richmond has. I'm just flagging up some doubts/worries I have with the concept. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on the flight predictions and what implications they have with regards to significantly raised fps. As for condemning it out of hand, certainly I have given a cynical view, but I've always said in other threads that if they address these problems (and I'm sure they will) that I'll support it. I just don't like the idea of getting nailed in the back of the head at 450fps.

 

[Swampthing]

Does anyone know what velocity the new 50 cal paintball is designed to be fired at ?

Ive read a few reports on the ball weight's, around 1.2g but mixed reports on what the firing velocity will be. There must be some specs that the marker manufactures are working to.

Robbo ?

 

[Padrao]

Just another interesting information.

.50 cal Shell thickness of the paint is .014 to .0145 according to digital caliper reading

.68 cal Shell thickness of the paint is .014 aswell... so it does look like the shell was not changed that much.

Obviously the materials used to make the shell can change, making it easier to break, but it is interesting to find out that the thickness pretty much stayed the same. it would be very interesting to find out the composition of the shells... but that might be nearly impossible to achieve.

So blinket what you just said makes perfect sense. But this is till not enough... we need actual testing on the field. That is what will really give the final input. Until then I guess its a matter of scientific conviction or faith...

Also Swampthing, the .50 paintball bag showed "To be used at no more then 300 fps" so... i guess that pretty much answers your question.

http://www.mcarterbrown.com/50ballistics/images/Back2.jpg <--- here

 

[John C]

Does anyone know what velocity the new 50 cal paintball is designed to be fired at ?

Ive read a few reports on the ball weight's, around 1.2g but mixed reports on what the firing velocity will be. There must be some specs that the marker manufactures are working to.

Robbo ?

At first they said 300fps. Thats what they did the lab test videos at.

But the demonstrations they were doing at the cup were at 315 + fps.
There was talk that it would end up being 350 to get adequate range.

In short I dont think they know yet.

 

[Lump]

i thought you could not shoot over 300fps in this country ? and will tourneys allow us to shoot at 350fps ?

 

[John C]

i thought you could not shoot over 300fps in this country ? and will tourneys allow us to shoot at 350fps ?

You cant shoot a .68 cal at over ~300fps.

You can shoot a .50 cal at ~450fps and its within the law because its less than half the weight.
Its about energy rather than velocity.


Not sure about tourneys as thats a matter of insurance.

 

[Padrao]

*Humor on*

Funny drop test...

Just joking folks lets wait for the real drop test, this home made one means nothing, still funny though

 

[Minibaker]

i can see this being something that enters paintball and then dies out such as pro line mister twister barrel and volumizers but on a slightly bigger scale....
and the firing distance reached by a .50 ball at the current fps rules would need to be changed.

for example.
put two guys at a start gate. both with dm9's same air bottle, hopper and barrel
one guys shooting 68cal and the other shooting .50cal and both guns chonro at 290 +/- 3 the 50cal wont even get passed the 50!

 

[Bolter]

Hello Everyone,

Well I don't come to the forum for a few days while I am chasing dinos and look what pops up.

First of all, I have actually PLAYED with 50 cal back in the day using Budd's Sniper. In the 80's 50 cal held the same hope it does today, a way to sell cheaper paint and get more of it in the gun. Back then it was a double bonus since a 12 gram would fire a whole lot more 50's than 68's. As you can imagine, the 50 had piss poor accuracy and didn't break. It was quickly given up on along with 62 cal. promoted by Tippmann.

My read of the story tells me something different that I will SPECULATE on. Richmond sold his company from what I understand, and likely has a specific non-compete. The 50 cal ball probably gets around this and this could be the major motivation. I know personally because we have the same thing between Pepper Ball and FN, in our case the weight of the ball makes the difference.

I have to think that as you have already speculated, they took the ability to make fragile paint and mixed in a heavy fill to get a small 3.3 gram paintball. This should in fact be more accurate and fly farther at the same velocity. The reduction in frontal area is a big plus and the issues with a smaller ball and vortex shedding should not negate all of those gains.

The big trick will be to see if they break well. With a 50 you are distributing the energy no matter what over a smaller area. The smaller shape of the ball makes it inherently harder to break all things being equal. I don't think you can go much thinner in the paint shell and still be able to seal it together so they are probably making the shell tensile strength weaker. By my estimations they will hurt more with 3.3 grams at 300 fps.

The fill will absolutely be the most challenging part hands down. I calculated that a 50 has .07 cu inch of fill against the 68 at .16. So a bit better than 2-1. In order to make a heavier 50, you have to come up with a NON-TOXIC fill that's TWICE as heavy. This is no easy task. Most liquids hover around a specific gravity of 1-1.5 ish. There are liquids that get up to 2.0 but they are all toxic that I know of. We used liquids to 3.0 in the early 90's when we were investigating paintball accuracy and I still have the stuff today because you can't throw it away.

So here is the specific problem the way I see it. In order to up the weight of the fill you have to put some type of particle in it. Ground rock, powdered metal (bismuth) etc. We went down this road, the problem was that we could never inject a slurry through a needle without the needle plugging up no matter what we did. Eventually we gave up and put the powder in first and the fluid in after. Today's gelatin machines absolutely depend on a needle injecting the fluid into the ball as it pinches off the seam. I am dying to see how they accomplish this but Richmond has some pretty smart people around him.

Other problems you don't think about are things like the size of the holes in the mask. A 50 can squeeze through a pretty small hole in a rubber mask guard. My question is who is going to build a motorized hopper for these guns???

The can fit way more holes in the drum of the gelatin machine so the output per hour per machine will probably be more than double having an impact on cost. The fill has to add to the price so we will see how it shakes out. Remember to calculate the price per POUND of 50 vs 68 paintballs to see if there was really an economic advantage.

In the final equation my personal opinion is that its a bad idea for paintball only because it puts us that much closer to airsoft. If cheaper smaller balls are a good idea, why not get the cheapest smallest balls you can find (airsoft)? We already made the guns look mil-sim and hands down the airsoft guns look cooler and go full auto. So I don't personally understand it but hey, Richmond made WAY more money in paintball than I ever did so he must see things I don't.

My final comment. Everyone seems to agree that the paintball industry has been in trouble for some time. If I was god-of-paintball and wanted to get the industry going. I would get all the existing manufacturers together and force them to agree to licensing anyone their patents for 5 years for a dollar. This would bring a flurry of new businesses back into the market and you would have a flood of new products and cool ideas. In my opinion, that would help paintball more than anything.

AGD

I've always appreciated Tom's outlook on things. Gadget mentioned this post earlier.

 

[Padrao]

And so real life testing confirms the theoretical results.

Quoting painthappy in PBnation:

Our drop test results were different, but not by much. Our parameters were different too.

We dropped paint on a 3/8 inch smooth steel plate. It was also pretty cold outside, and probably making the paint a bit more brittle.

Regardless, we ran with the results.

First the .50 caliber paint.

From 8 Feet high, weighing 1.21 grams, we had 95% of them break.
From 7 Feet high, weighing 1.21 grams, we had 95% of them bounce.
That gives us an FPE (Energy) of .0213

.0187 on the chart means it will break at 90 feet out and closer, and anything beyond 90 feet should bounce.


The .68 caliber paint.

From 7' high, weighing 3.2 grams, we had 95% of them break.
From 6' high, weighing 3.2 grams, we had 50% of them break.
That gives us an FPE (Energy) of .042

.042 on the chart means it will break at 120 feet out and closer, and anything beyond 120 feet should bounce (again throwing out some of our 50% breakage data).


We threw out the 6' height marks for the sake of arguing a near 100% paint break point.

Here's the chart:

Real world testing...

I decided to get shot with the .50 caliber for science.
At 100 feet, they all bounced. At 90 feet, they all broke. This matches up with our theoretical data perfectly.

I did not like getting hit with this paint for the record. It hurt more than everyone was making it out to be.

Basically through data and live testing, you have a 30 foot (33% more) greater breaking distance by using .68 over .50

Video where you can watch it happen live to be posted when I finish editing it.

I guess this adds some more info regarding this new paint... it definitely bounces more, and needs more energy to break, and it will not be able to hit someone at longer distance like the .68 call ball does.

The fact are pilling up and its not going the .50 cal way it seems....

Just wanted to add, that these are scientific and unbiased tests, Im tired of all the "I think this and that" kind of talk, so i really appreciate what painthappy is doing, thanks carter for showing us some data and some real testing. Its obvious GI Milsim reveals what they think will make their paint sell more... I personally dont trust their data. Theres a vid aswell so people can check it first hand.
BTW... is that a mark? Where in hell is that close to a .68 mark? so easy to wipe for sure :S if it keeps this way...

Others made this type of testing and the results were pretty much the same...