[NYCBaller95]

Credit goes to incynr8 over on MCB

http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?k...CA&output=html

Good stuff.

A 1.5g .50 paintball has pretty much the same properties as our .68 paint. So you get the same exact results with a smaller round (allowing you to get better effieciency and hold more in a pod/hopper) anything 1.6g or higher proforms better than out .68 round.

[brettniles]

Yes! This is the kind of data I have been looking for. Now, are the new balls supposed to weigh 1.5g?

[captainspaulding]

I just fired up solidworks
a .500 diameter ball has
.07 cubic inches of volume and 0.79 inches^2 surface area

I made it out of several material to check mass

if it was made from
solid nylon it would come in at 1.23 grams
solid furniture grade acrylic GP comes in at 1.29 grams
UHMW(ultra high molecular weight plastic) 2.49 grams
6061-T6 aluminum 2.90 grams

so as long as the 50 cal ball is more dense then acrylic it should perform like a champ

[NYCBaller95]

Originally Posted by brettniles

Yes! This is the kind of data I have been looking for. Now, are the new balls supposed to weigh 1.5g?

we wont know until the paint is produced.

Originally Posted by captainspaulding

I just fired up solidworks
a .500 diameter ball has
.07 cubic inches of volume and 0.79 inches^2 surface area

I made it out of several material to check mass

if it was made from
solid nylon it would come in at 1.23 grams
solid furniture grade acrylic GP comes in at 1.29 grams
UHMW(ultra high molecular weight plastic) 2.49 grams
6061-T6 aluminum 2.90 grams

so as long as the 50 cal ball is more dense then acrylic it should perform like a champ

absoulutely.

[07TippmannOwner]

thats dense. How?

[bigge360]

if it performs the same y change??? guns an get over 1500+ rnds a fill easily, we dont need much more

[jake55]

Originally Posted by bigge360

if it performs the same y change??? guns an get over 1500+ rnds a fill easily, we dont need much more

Cheaper...

[NYCBaller95]

just a note, i dont want this to turn into a bashing thread for the .50 paintballs, I myself have a nuetral standpoint on this whole thing, i just posted the information to inform people.

[R3L]

Assuming same density as the 3.0 g .68 ball; same fill gives a .50 ball of 1.2 g.

Which sucks.

So lots of potential for companies to cut costs and to screw this up.

[Lohman446]

Wait a moment, how is something that dense going to splatter at 300FPS? I mean, we are past density of acrylic. Isn't it going to break about as well as say... a reball?

[Lohman446]

The other killer I see on this. If target weight is 1.5 and you have a 10% variance you are going to have from 1.35 to 1.65 - there is going to be a massive difference from ball to ball in trajectory. Look at how much difference a gram or two makes on that spreadsheet. You generally cannot manufacture cheaply and to great tolerances. Take a handful of standard paintballs today and weigh them - you will notice some variance.

[NYCBaller95]

There are pros and cons to everything. Read the data and draw ur conclusion. Honestly IMO i will never discredit a marker (or paint in this case) until I shoot it.

[brycelarson]

just as a note - I made those graphs from incynr8's data. we have since determined that the software he used is only moderately accurate. The discussion is still valid - and the comparison is most likely good - but we need a few more pieces of data to really dial the math in.

[SpeedballTrix]

Originally Posted by Lohman446

The other killer I see on this. If target weight is 1.5 and you have a 10% variance you are going to have from 1.35 to 1.65 - there is going to be a massive difference from ball to ball in trajectory. Look at how much difference a gram or two makes on that spreadsheet. You generally cannot manufacture cheaply and to great tolerances. Take a handful of standard paintballs today and weigh them - you will notice some variance.

That's a really good point.
A .2g difference in a 3g .68" paintball is a small difference which would probably result in a few inches of spread at any realistic playing distance. Enough to still hit your mask/gun which is the only target you should be presenting to me.
A .2g difference in a 1.5g .50" paintball is going to cause the trajectory to deviate enough to completely miss the target (unless you are shooting at an entire standing body and you aim for center mass instead of the mask like you do now).

Which brings up an interesting possibility: You are playing a tournament. If the change in mass from ball to ball allows for a change in trajectory of, lets just say, 12 inches at 70 feet you could literally end up shooting endlessly at someone without a single ball ending up hitting you target.

Granted that would be awfully bad luck, and could technically happen now, but I see the probably of this happening with a projectile of 1/3rd the mass being 3 times as likely.

As it is you'll see plenty of times when a player will snap out at someone and get a sizable spread just from the movement of his hands. Imagine adding to that a 3fold flightpath deviation due to changes in mass from ball to ball.

If I had a more accurate scale at home or I were at work I would do as he suggested and weigh some regular paint I have here. Given the deviation observed we can assume a similar deviation on produced mass in .50" paint, but naturally there would be a significantly greater feat effect of any deviation in mass on a projectile with nearly 1/3rd the total mass.
If the mass deviation in current production paint is only something like .01g, and .50" paint can be produced to the same tolerance then this isn't an issue. But if the deviation really is up there at .2g...

[plushdragon]

anyone think of the less surface area might cause a whole instead of a welt at close range??

[cockerman dan]

Originally Posted by SpeedballTrix

That's a really good point.
A .2g difference in a 3g .68" paintball is a small difference which would probably result in a few inches of spread at any realistic playing distance. Enough to still hit your mask/gun which is the only target you should be presenting to me.
A .2g difference in a 1.5g .50" paintball is going to cause the trajectory to deviate enough to completely miss the target (unless you are shooting at an entire standing body and you aim for center mass instead of the mask like you do now).

Which brings up an interesting possibility: You are playing a tournament. If the change in mass from ball to ball allows for a change in trajectory of, lets just say, 12 inches at 70 feet you could literally end up shooting endlessly at someone without a single ball ending up hitting you target.

Granted that would be awfully bad luck, and could technically happen now, but I see the probably of this happening with a projectile of 1/3rd the mass being 3 times as likely.

As it is you'll see plenty of times when a player will snap out at someone and get a sizable spread just from the movement of his hands. Imagine adding to that a 3fold flightpath deviation due to changes in mass from ball to ball.

If I had a more accurate scale at home or I were at work I would do as he suggested and weigh some regular paint I have here. Given the deviation observed we can assume a similar deviation on produced mass in .50" paint, but naturally there would be a significantly greater feat effect of any deviation in mass on a projectile with nearly 1/3rd the total mass.
If the mass deviation in current production paint is only something like .01g, and .50" paint can be produced to the same tolerance then this isn't an issue. But if the deviation really is up there at .2g...

If they can't get the tolerances to be what they need to be for the lighter ball, I am guessing they will make them denser, and push the weight closer to that of .68 balls. That way, they should shoot more consistently and have all around better performance anyway. Of course, I would prefer having the 2.0g ball, so it performs better than the .68s, but imparts about 1/3 less force, which would make getting stabbed 3 times in the head at an event much less painful. But, if that can't be done, making the balls a bit heavier should cut back on tolerance problems, and they shouldn't hurt any more than a normal .68.

These charts are very helpful. It gives a much better idea of what to expect. Judging by the ballistics of .50 cal, you'd have to be an idiot to say .68 is still better, but it really does hinge on the density and overall weight of the new paint- that will make all the difference.

[Lohman446]

As I read it it carries less energy - it likely imparts closer to the same force as it distributes over a smaller area. We are also "used" to how a ball of current density hits. A ball with great density might hurt more. A lot of the force of a paintball hitting today is lost in the distribution of the fill and the shattering of the ball (think how much worse a bounce or a reball hurts). A denser fill may not distribute as readily and may cause your body to absorb more energy from the ball.

Of secondary concern on that, and I am no medical doctor, is the concern of smaller balls being able to more readily impart more energy into a smaller area and the danger of hitting a "soft" spot that could do more damage. I am guessing its likely not that realistic of a concern but I am also betting noone has bothered to study it either.

[brycelarson]

Originally Posted by Lohman446

As I read it it carries less energy - it likely imparts closer to the same force as it distributes over a smaller area. We are also "used" to how a ball of current density hits. A ball with great density might hurt more. A lot of the force of a paintball hitting today is lost in the distribution of the fill and the shattering of the ball (think how much worse a bounce or a reball hurts). A denser fill may not distribute as readily and may cause your body to absorb more energy from the ball.

Of secondary concern on that, and I am no medical doctor, is the concern of smaller balls being able to more readily impart more energy into a smaller area and the danger of hitting a "soft" spot that could do more damage. I am guessing its likely not that realistic of a concern but I am also betting noone has bothered to study it either.

yes, this is all something to consider - but is largely based on the brittleness of the shell. I've been hit with .68 paint that hurt like a mofo and bounced - and some that I barely noticed. it's all about the shell. Until we know how brittle or hard the .50 is - then we won't know how much it'll hurt.

[Lohman446]

Originally Posted by brycelarson

yes, this is all something to consider - but is largely based on the brittleness of the shell. I've been hit with .68 paint that hurt like a mofo and bounced - and some that I barely noticed. it's all about the shell. Until we know how brittle or hard the .50 is - then we won't know how much it'll hurt.

True to a point, but density is also going to matter to a degree. Taking it to the extreme edge - ever been hit with a semi-frozen paintball? Same weight as a regular one but too dense to splatter - you feel more of the impact.

[brycelarson]

Originally Posted by Lohman446

True to a point, but density is also going to matter to a degree. Taking it to the extreme edge - ever been hit with a semi-frozen paintball? Same weight as a regular one but too dense to splatter - you feel more of the impact.

I have, and I've tested it. paint doesn't freeze - it gets more brittle

my theory on that is that you feel it more because you're cold. but that's a different test.

yes, if the fill is really thick it'll be different - but I see no reason that a formula can't be made that's more dense and the same viscosity.

[Lohman446]

I've always gone with... wow that really hurt, but your right there are a lot of variables there too.