[bigman1416]

There is a solution to improving range and accuracy, again it's the First Strike Round, it flies farther and more accurately then a round object and the shell breaks easier at stupid ranges, it's made to cause it uses a new/different process (frankly I'd love to see it being made). The only issue is it's expensive (about as expensive as paint used to be back in 86 maybe more, please no inflation numbers, my head can't take that) and it requires a pump marker or one specifically made for it (T-9/T-15) which holds it back. If you really want to improve and change paintball, figure out how to get FSR into the mass market, we'd never play paintball the same again.

I don't think .50 would kill the sport, there's too much demand, serious damage though? Maybe. The only company to put serious amounts of money into this is SP/GI, they're the big loosers, DYE, PE, DP and BL have put effort and some R&D money into but nothing near the scale that SP has. Kingman group is in their own world and has the market, money and material for this not to hurt them, they may actually succeed since they're in markets where .50 would only work (OutLaw). GI is too over priced for that market. If this works and people for some reason invest companies will make a little bit of money, but it won't be new money, that money would have gone else where. GI/SP may make some money but again I don't see this as gripping and creating a huge level in demand, business just doesn't work like that, markets drive the industry, not the industry driving the market.

[SouthernStyle]

The first strike rounds are really exspensive, and you can not shoot them fast. They would be nice if you could hopper feed them. But because of their design they have to be clip fed. I'm not trying to encourage anyone but here is a link for the .50cal marker and paintball and barrel ect....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSartDzKqOk

TAKE A LOOK ^

[A4C]

Originally Posted by SouthernStyle

.68 is the industry standard for a reason
If you are worried about range and accuracy. Seriously hasent this issue been pounded to death with a .68cal. If your not getting the range, turn the velocity up, if your not getting accuracy, match the paint to the correct bore size. I emailed GI and wating on a case price. Posting soon.

There are more issues that you aren't taking into consideration like shell thickness, mass differences and break size.

.68 cal is already has enough issues with cheating a smaller mark size is just going to increase that. Just smaller and harder to see makes the refs jobs harder. Shell thickness is an issue and surface area. The pain difference between the two is noticable, you have a shell thickness of the same size you increase the amount of force needed to break the ball, along with more force in a smaller surface area equaling more pain. Is it tolerable, personally being shot with .50 cal isnt fun, but we don't play the sport because it "feels good".

That also brings the question can the shell be made brittle enough to be an effective tournament grade ball and can you decrease the shell thickness and keep a decent enough mass in the ball to make it shoot across the field. It isn't just a "turn up the velocity" thing, velocity regulations are there to protect players.

As far as accuracy goes you have a lighter mass which is affected by outside forces, i.e. gravity, wind, etc easier than a .68 cal ball. Making the accuracy issue more than just a paint bore match the issue. On top of that you hav ea smaller ball which is harder to see at 100 feet versus a .68 cal, I personally sight the paint to aim, so its important for me to be able to see where the ball is actually going.

Those are some of the cons however, Im all for making playing as cheap as possible. In order for me to purchase new gear or a conversion kit, a new loader and barrel, the cost difference from 68 to 50 must be significant enough for me to see my continual cost go down.

Driving the cost of playing down is what is going to bring new players into the sport, and keep the ones already in playing.

the reality of the sport suffering has more to do with other variables than cost, it is a part, but its not the whole pie.

[bigman1416]

But A4C the price of playing has dropping steadily for 10 years, markers paint everything, stores and fields still closed before the recession, players still left before the recession. If cost was a true driving factor in the current loss of players then we would have atleast seen a more leveling trend the last 3 years and some drop off this last year but we've seen steady declines. Even if you make a case of paint $30 a case players are still going to say it's too much cause that's what they're doing now when paint is 70% less then what it was 10 years ago. Cost savings does not generate real growth, real growth is generated by demand and paintball is not in demand.

[eforcegtid00d]

The cost of playing may have steadily dropped for years, but it's still high relative to other activities. I can play football all day for free, all I need is a ball - a one time purchase. If I were to play paintball all day, I'd need equipment, upwards of $50 in paint, and a car with gas to drive the distance to a 'local' field. Until we get the cost down to an acceptable level (when I say acceptable, I mean low enough that an outsider won't think you're crazy for spending that much on a few hours of entertainment), paintball will not become mainstream. Demand is there, it's just not high enough to draw people in at current prices. Every time someone asks me about a welt and I tell them it's from paintball, they say they've wanted to try it for a long time. They ask me how much it costs, and that's where the discussion ends.

[SouthernStyle]

To answer your Q:
can the shell be made brittle enough to be an effective tournament grade ball and can you decrease the shell thickness and keep a decent enough mass in the ball to make it shoot across the field.

Yes the material can be made or already is. All GI has done is they are still using the same materials to make they shells. I did however notice that the fill is thick. Probrobly makes up from weight and flight. I take the whole physics of paintballs into consideration. I like seeing the paintballs fly when I shoot is important to me also. Brittleness ect ect... But GI is shaving a mear .18 off the original caliber. Do you think this is going to make things much worse.

[bigman1416]

Originally Posted by eforcegtid00d

The cost of playing may have steadily dropped for years, but it's still high relative to other activities. I can play football all day for free, all I need is a ball - a one time purchase. If I were to play paintball all day, I'd need equipment, upwards of $50 in paint, and a car with gas to drive the distance to a 'local' field. Until we get the cost down to an acceptable level (when I say acceptable, I mean low enough that an outsider won't think you're crazy for spending that much on a few hours of entertainment), paintball will not become mainstream. Demand is there, it's just not high enough to draw people in at current prices. Every time someone asks me about a welt and I tell them it's from paintball, they say they've wanted to try it for a long time. They ask me how much it costs, and that's where the discussion ends.

Then how did we reach our highest numbers when costs where atleast 15% to 25% higher? Why have other sports that require the purchase of equipment remained stable over the years? Yeah you can play a game of flag football for afew bucks, how about a low end volleyball leauge? What about BMX or skating, parks are miles apart. What about hockey or lacross? What about non-sporting activities, ever drive 200 miles and spend several thousands on a muscial instrument just to get a chance to get a leason from an acclaimed musician? How about video games, people spend hundreds and thousands on games, rigs, consoles and subscriptions every year. What about photographers how many drop several thousand dollars in gear, hundreds in classes and tools and never get published?

We do the things we love not because of the dollar value or what we get out of it. People don't look at something they're interested in and are turned away by the price tag, which frankly paintball is very cheap for the recreational player compared to the 90's. To think that the price tag is what's wrong with paintball is a lack of thought, if price was ever an issue for paintball it would have been 20 or 15 years ago, but with the insanely high price back then, the sport grew. Now that's for frankly $50 any body can go to a field and play for a day and have fun where it used to be closer to $100. People don't look at you wierd cause how much you spend, they don't understand just like you wouldn't understand an art collector, low circut racer, video game competitor or writer, we do the things we do not for reward or understanding but because it's our passion.

20 years of growth stopped, prices decreased, numbers slipped, coverage increased, numbers slipped, ways to play increased, numbers slipped. So the sure fire fix, make it cheaper? May be make it faster passed by forcing for smaller fields for a lack of range? I mean all that has worked in the past hasn't it?

[washington]

I wouldn't be so against .50 cal if they made it in .68

i make myself giggle

[excessiveego]

just my 2c

i would HATE to see tourney ball go .50

the only thing i could see .50 being good for is scenario, because a .50 first strike round is about as close to a real bullet the paintball world is going to get, and they make real hand held guns in .50 so you could have some pretty realistic guns........ back when i was a woods baller i always wanted to have a nice realistic clip fed pistol, now they have managed to pulll it off with .68 but i still think it would be nice for die hard players to have that feature and have .50 paint available

But i still dont support it becoming the new standard or even becoming an option in mainstream paintball

[Vogar34]

I kind of laughed when I heard about the environmental benefits of the 50 cal. Yes maybe it is better for the environment on the part of the paintballs, but what about all the barrels and possibly markers that everyone will have to discard of that would be a disaster for the environment in itself!

[A4C]

Originally Posted by bigman1416

But A4C the price of playing has dropping steadily for 10 years, markers paint everything, stores and fields still closed before the recession, players still left before the recession. If cost was a true driving factor in the current loss of players then we would have atleast seen a more leveling trend the last 3 years and some drop off this last year but we've seen steady declines. Even if you make a case of paint $30 a case players are still going to say it's too much cause that's what they're doing now when paint is 70% less then what it was 10 years ago. Cost savings does not generate real growth, real growth is generated by demand and paintball is not in demand.

Originally Posted by bigman1416

Then how did we reach our highest numbers when costs where atleast 15% to 25% higher? Why have other sports that require the purchase of equipment remained stable over the years? Yeah you can play a game of flag football for afew bucks, how about a low end volleyball leauge? What about BMX or skating, parks are miles apart. What about hockey or lacross? What about non-sporting activities, ever drive 200 miles and spend several thousands on a muscial instrument just to get a chance to get a leason from an acclaimed musician? How about video games, people spend hundreds and thousands on games, rigs, consoles and subscriptions every year. What about photographers how many drop several thousand dollars in gear, hundreds in classes and tools and never get published?

We do the things we love not because of the dollar value or what we get out of it. People don't look at something they're interested in and are turned away by the price tag, which frankly paintball is very cheap for the recreational player compared to the 90's. To think that the price tag is what's wrong with paintball is a lack of thought, if price was ever an issue for paintball it would have been 20 or 15 years ago, but with the insanely high price back then, the sport grew. Now that's for frankly $50 any body can go to a field and play for a day and have fun where it used to be closer to $100. People don't look at you wierd cause how much you spend, they don't understand just like you wouldn't understand an art collector, low circut racer, video game competitor or writer, we do the things we do not for reward or understanding but because it's our passion.

20 years of growth stopped, prices decreased, numbers slipped, coverage increased, numbers slipped, ways to play increased, numbers slipped. So the sure fire fix, make it cheaper? May be make it faster passed by forcing for smaller fields for a lack of range? I mean all that has worked in the past hasn't it?

To address price:

Originally Posted by A4C

Driving the cost of playing down is what is going to bring new players into the sport, and keep the ones already in playing.

the reality of the sport suffering has more to do with other variables than cost, it is a part, but its not the whole pie

Never said it was the main cause, personally the main cause of paintball decline OUTSIDE of the recession is fields and players. You have a bunch of fields that dont cater to new and experienced players and you have alot of players that dont know how to turn it down when playing new or less experienced players. I think we've all seen a new player go out on the field get smashed/bunkered by a experienced player with a bad attitude, and that new player never plays again. Its a partially the players fault for having a bad attitude and the fields fault for not either taken action to make sure it doent happen again or not caring. The fields that cater to the players tend to be the fields that stay around.

As far as all of your hobby examples most of them have a bit different demographic then paintball and a whole different world of cost. As a torunament player, my issue is cost, and for bringing people into the tournament scene cost is almost always the issue. The sustainable cost for a hardcore nationally competing player is astronomical.

That being said before you jump the gun, paintball is like any hobby it can be as expensive or as cheap as you want. If you want to play pump and spend 20$ a week you can. For a while I was practicing 2-3 times a week, tournaments every month and attending psp events. I have a career and an income that can support that. Most players (16-25 according the stats and I can get source if you want me to find it again) do not have that same kind of income to sustain a heavy tournament style play. If their parents are paying for it you better believe that cost is a major factor in it and if they are paying out of there pocket for it same goes.

I have skateboarded, played football, baseball, basketball, been an artist, done electronics, brewed beer, you name it as a hobby. None of which put as large of a financial commitment as paintball does. Are there exceptions to those hobbies that are expensive like paintball is? absolutely, but the majority of them are not existing in the same demographic to the same degree. BMX is expensive, but the sustainable cost at the same type of competetive level is no where near the same as paintball.

As far as sponsorship stuff goes, it is much much easier to get support money or gear wise outside in other sports outside of paintball, than paintball is.

[bigman1416]

Actually this seems more like a money pull from some one who can't make products for .68 paintball anymore...

http://www.faqs.org/patents/inv/676031

[A4C]

Originally Posted by SouthernStyle

To answer your Q:
can the shell be made brittle enough to be an effective tournament grade ball and can you decrease the shell thickness and keep a decent enough mass in the ball to make it shoot across the field.

Yes the material can be made or already is. All GI has done is they are still using the same materials to make they shells. I did however notice that the fill is thick. Probrobly makes up from weight and flight. I take the whole physics of paintballs into consideration. I like seeing the paintballs fly when I shoot is important to me also. Brittleness ect ect... But GI is shaving a mear .18 off the original caliber. Do you think this is going to make things much worse.

The matter is not can it be made its can it be made still work correctly in a marker that is shooting 10+ bps and not blend it all. Paint now good tournament paint is incredibly brittle so now you expect to make something just as brittle and give it a 40% less surface area to spread the forces of the bolt and air acting on it not to mention hopper pressure and expect it to come out of the gun in a solid fashion?

.18 off the original caliber is not a mear .18, its more like a 40% percent reduction in mass, volume and surface area. If you wanna get picky its 39.7%. So my question remains, can they produce a ball that has similar break, pain, accuracy and range as a .68, the answer currently no. It cannot be done without increasing the velocity at which its being shot at or the mass of the liquid inside both of which as far as I can tell have negative affects.

[SouthernStyle]

Well apparently it is made to shoot 10 bps or more. Is everyone paying attention.... Their are a few videos out here I posted one earlier. I know for a fact that their is a video where Mike from ****** shoots himself point blank in the arm with the .50 and he comments on how low impact and less pain is involved durring breaking. So that tells me hummmm... maybe this paint is really brittle. Since it breaks effortlessly. Can it be made to perform like a tournement grade paintball, thickness of shell, fill ect. Yes it can, it may not be the same exsact chemicals and messurements but it can be done.

As far as has similar break, pain. No because the size if different. It would be signifigantly less. Well untill they started making marbleizer or zap again.

Quote: It cannot be done without increasing the velocity at which its being shot at or the mass of the liquid inside both of which as far as I can tell have negative affects.

So you agree with me on increasing range to get the desired range compaired to a .68

So obviously no one right now in the general public can get their hands on a case of these paintballs. Maybe they are taking little more time to produce to get the product just right for everyone. Wishful thinkin. Bottomline is everyone is gonna think what they want to think and use what they want to use. I can tell you that I wont be the first person in line to jump at this, let the pawns go first.

[x0MrGrinch0x]

Originally Posted by chnk

that list of things is a bit different, those are actually improvements

50 caliber seems almost like a downgrade

exactly what i was thinking. Nevekd128's argument is garbage because most of those things are worlds better than their predecessors. .50 is a DOWNGRADE from .68... also hybrid cars are not upgrades from regular ones... they are more expensive and less powerful.

[A4C]

Originally Posted by SouthernStyle

Well apparently it is made to shoot 10 bps or more. Is everyone paying attention.... Their are a few videos out here I posted one earlier. I know for a fact that their is a video where Mike from Tech PB shoots himself point blank in the arm with the .50 and he comments on how low impact and less pain is involved durring breaking. So that tells me hummmm... maybe this paint is really brittle. Since it breaks effortlessly. Can it be made to perform like a tournement grade paintball, thickness of shell, fill ect. Yes it can, it may not be the same exsact chemicals and messurements but it can be done.

As far as has similar break, pain. No because the size if different. It would be signifigantly less. Well untill they started making marbleizer or zap again.

Quote: It cannot be done without increasing the velocity at which its being shot at or the mass of the liquid inside both of which as far as I can tell have negative affects.

So you agree with me on increasing range to get the desired range compaired to a .68

So obviously no one right now in the general public can get their hands on a case of these paintballs. Maybe they are taking little more time to produce to get the product just right for everyone. Wishful thinkin.

Just because someone shoots himself point blank and says it doesn't hurt doesn't prove anything. Have you ever been shot with 50 cal? I have it does hurt more.

I don't agree with you on increasing range, because as stated there are two ways to increase range in this case:

A: Increase velocity w/ current mass, higher velocity more impact force more pain and more force on the ball which will increase the instablity of flight and ingun ball breakage.

B:Increase mass maintain velocity, higher mass mass with smaller surface area again increases impact force. May solve any ball breakage issue and flight stability, but still increases pain.

You can't have a person's personal pain tolerance be a guideline for whether or not there will be an increase in the pain. Personaly I think they hurt like hell, and mike things they don't. Mike is a great guy don't assume this has anything to do with him. It has to do with the baseline physics, the numbers don't lie, untill an actual number can be posted up to prove me wrong then the numbers still stand.

J=(m*a)/t

J=Impact Force
m= mass
a = Acceleration
t = time how long impact occurs
v = velocity

t=A/v

A=area of impact

If mass is increased the force increases, if the area of impact increases the force increases in an area that decreases and mass and velocity remains the same.

So case and point is that you cannot change the velocity, mass, or surface area without affecting the force.

Therefor if you increase the velocity to compensate for a similar range as a 68 cal the force increases. If the mass increases to compensate for similar range based on a similar velocity the force increases.

The pain is a result of the force that it takes to break a ball, if the thickness of the shell remains the same and the surface area decreases the force to create a break increases. If the shell is made thinner, the force could be made comparable to a 68 or less. That being the case can it survive all those modifications to create a similar enviroment and still remain strong enough to come out of the gun, be shot at high rates of fire, and just withstand the outside pressures in general?

it's just plain science, the numbers are fact, someones perception of pain isn't fact or a benchmark for anything.

[SouthernStyle]

Your thinking too much, paintballs are not rocket science. After all Tom is the one that said "the best way to eliminate someone in paintball is accuracy by volume". Because not even .68 is accurate hints ramping ect ect. Pain is a great test example for paintball after all its part of the sport. So you are telling me their is absolutely no way to manufacture a paintball in a .50 cal size to perform like its big brother .68 cal. I'm sure there are engineers or someone behind the doors at GI that are working out all possibilties. I dont think they will hurt an more or less than the current size. Of course everyones pain tolerance is different from person to person. Either that or your a nancy pants.

[eforcegtid00d]

Originally Posted by SouthernStyle

Your thinking too much, paintballs are not rocket science. After all Tom is the one that said "the best way to eliminate someone in paintball is accuracy by volume". Because not even .68 is accurate hints ramping ect ect. Pain is a great test example for paintball after all its part of the sport. So you are telling me their is absolutely no way to manufacture a paintball in a .50 cal size to perform like its big brother .68 cal. I'm sure there are engineers or someone behind the doors at GI that are working out all possibilties. I dont think they will hurt an more or less than the current size. Of course everyones pain tolerance is different from person to person. Either that or your a nancy pants.

He's not thinking too much. You're just not thinking enough. It's simple physics. There's less surface area, meaning more force is applied relative to the impact zone. Why do you think airsoft rounds at 300fps sting more than a paintball at 300fps despite the huge difference in mass? They have far less surface area and the force is concentrated on a smaller section of your skin upon impact.

Engineers cannot defy physics. Engineers just identify solutions to make things work within certain parameters. Sometimes there isn't a practical solution to meet all the customer's requirements. Don't even bother pursuing this argument, I'm typing this very post from a dorm at engineering school.

[eatafetus]

Everyone keeps making refrences to the pain issue. Its probably the most un-related variable in this whole train****.

1. Most people who are that adverse to pain that they think paintball is a bad idea are not probably going to come around just because we now shoot smaller "less painfull" balls. That is, assuming they are actually less painful. Most of these people will not even realize that we now have a smaller calliber. They aren't interested in it now, and they are not going to get any additional info about it.

2. Pain is probably the most avoidable thing in paintball. For those who actually play that dont like the pain, various companies sell pads that can literally almost cover you from toe to balls to head. For those players who are new or first timers, these items are easily repeatable at home, with regular clothes and the like. A towel around the neck, a hood up, mechanics gloves...hell, lots of fields even rent the stuff if you cant MacGyver something up on your own.

[A4C]

Originally Posted by SouthernStyle

Your thinking too much, paintballs are not rocket science. After all Tom is the one that said "the best way to eliminate someone in paintball is accuracy by volume". Because not even .68 is accurate hints ramping ect ect. Pain is a great test example for paintball after all its part of the sport. So you are telling me their is absolutely no way to manufacture a paintball in a .50 cal size to perform like its big brother .68 cal. I'm sure there are engineers or someone behind the doors at GI that are working out all possibilties. I dont think they will hurt an more or less than the current size. Of course everyones pain tolerance is different from person to person. Either that or your a nancy pants.

Apparantly you don't read.

I'm not saying it can't be manufactured to be similar, Im saying that in order to obtain the same qualities as a 68 cal ball there is a lot more to it than your oh so scientific, if it doesnt shoot far enough turn it up, and your it doenst hurt that bad because someone shot him self methods.

Im just saying that these are the hard facts, that are not things that can just be wished out of existence that have to be thought out in order to make 50 cal workable.

Originally Posted by eatafetus

Everyone keeps making refrences to the pain issue. Its probably the most un-related variable in this whole train****.

1. Most people who are that adverse to pain that they think paintball is a bad idea are not probably going to come around just because we now shoot smaller "less painfull" balls. That is, assuming they are actually less painful. Most of these people will not even realize that we now have a smaller calliber. They aren't interested in it now, and they are not going to get any additional info about it.

2. Pain is probably the most avoidable thing in paintball. For those who actually play that dont like the pain, various companies sell pads that can literally almost cover you from toe to balls to head. For those players who are new or first timers, these items are easily repeatable at home, with regular clothes and the like. A towel around the neck, a hood up, mechanics gloves...hell, lots of fields even rent the stuff if you cant MacGyver something up on your own.

First of all I am not a nancy pants I handle the pain just fine, having been shot with them and plenty of other paint, including some of the other varaious calibers. There is a noticable pain difference, I could care less if you or "those who actually play paintball", think it hurts or not. The issue is not whether you think it hurts its whether the 10-12 year old kid who comes out for the first time thinks it hurts, being that they are the future of paintball and they decide if it stays around or not.

We want more people into our sports because we all love it not less people.

As stated earlier those are my take on it and as said earlier if they can create a 50 cal ball with similar qualities as 68 cal ball and make it half the cost, Im all for it. I want paintball to be cheaper, as much as people don't want to believe it isn't cost that will be a big influence then I dunno what to tell you. If it cost the same or its a minimal monetary change, what the point in switching? to buy some new gear to play with a less than ideal ball size when I can pay out 0$ for new gear and continue to play.

[eatafetus]

Originally Posted by A4C

First of all I am not a nancy pants I handle the pain just fine, having been shot with them and plenty of other paint, including some of the other varaious calibers. There is a noticable pain difference, I could care less if you or "those who actually play paintball", think it hurts or not. The issue is not whether you think it hurts its whether the 10-12 year old kid who comes out for the first time thinks it hurts, being that they are the future of paintball and they decide if it stays around or not.

Right. The 10-11 year old kid that is afraid of pain probably wont have much of a future in paintball, same as the 11 year old kid who hates math probably wont grow up to teach it. My argument was that the people who think less pain from 50 cal will attract more people, are probably wrong. I think we are agruing the same side of the same point. You say that it hurts more, I say even if it hurts less, it still wont matter.