[spydereclipse]

I dont understand how people can say .50 cal sucks, or its "wack"? Its probably people who haven't shot it, or played with a .50 cal marker. With saying that I own a .50 cal marker, I was very impressed with the light weight, size, air efficiency, and just over all feel of it. Plus 4000 .50 cal balls cost as much as 2000 .68 cal. So your doubling the amout of time you can play. So to all the haters out there DON'T KNOCK IT TIL YOU TRY IT!

[Bigjoe11]

It does have decreased range, but i wonder if that would be made up by the increased mobility?

[CM Armada]

Originally Posted by TheHef

How does 65 cal stack up?

Just as good as 45 cal lol

[CM Armada]

Originally Posted by spydereclipse

I dont understand how people can say .50 cal sucks, or its "wack"? Its probably people who haven't shot it, or played with a .50 cal marker. With saying that I own a .50 cal marker, I was very impressed with the light weight, size, air efficiency, and just over all feel of it. Plus 4000 .50 cal balls cost as much as 2000 .68 cal. So your doubling the amout of time you can play. So to all the haters out there DON'T KNOCK IT TIL YOU TRY IT!

Are they going to let you use that in PSP or NPPL? Noooo...

[DB-1071]

Originally Posted by spydereclipse

I dont understand how people can say .50 cal sucks, or its "wack"? Its probably people who haven't shot it, or played with a .50 cal marker. With saying that I own a .50 cal marker, I was very impressed with the light weight, size, air efficiency, and just over all feel of it. Plus 4000 .50 cal balls cost as much as 2000 .68 cal. So your doubling the amout of time you can play. So to all the haters out there DON'T KNOCK IT TIL YOU TRY IT!

Sorry shot both of them, 68cal. wins. Less bounces, more kills and that's why I play paintball.

[2pipes]

Originally Posted by spydereclipse

I dont understand how people can say .50 cal sucks, or its "wack"? Its probably people who haven't shot it, or played with a .50 cal marker. With saying that I own a .50 cal marker, I was very impressed with the light weight, size, air efficiency, and just over all feel of it. Plus 4000 .50 cal balls cost as much as 2000 .68 cal. So your doubling the amout of time you can play. So to all the haters out there DON'T KNOCK IT TIL YOU TRY IT!

Not a hater, but when it's FIELD PAINT ONLY and they don't have and won't get 50 cal I hit the brakes hard after that. That is the major issue with the minor one is the added cost of the equipment. So I am supposed to dump more of my PB $ to try it? Well I would rather play 68 cal and keep my eyes open for a 50 cal stealth movement than be on the leading edge of said movement. This keeps more $ in my pocket IMO.

[Oedipus]

All .50 cal was designed to do was spur sales of new hardware. Didn't work. End of story.

[Apoco 310]

I have owned a 50 cal for 5 months and still haven't used it. It seems like it is made for young kids to me, Ill stick to the .68

[licence23]

I wanna get my hands on a 50 cal

[Xdanisx]

Why is the biggest argument that 50 cal doesn't travel as far? Why not just turn up the fps.

[SKI008]

I heard it had something to do with insurance being regulated in the US by velocity rather than energy so you cannot have your field limit be over 300 fps for paintball or your insurance provider will get mad at you even though at 300 fps the .50 ball has much less energy.

Not sure how true that is, just what I heard.

[aresfiend]

Originally Posted by SKI008

I heard it had something to do with insurance being regulated in the US by velocity rather than energy so you cannot have your field limit be over 300 fps for paintball or your insurance provider will get mad at you even though at 300 fps the .50 ball has much less energy.

Not sure how true that is, just what I heard.

Insurance is regulated by the standards of the lens and the output force in joules of the paintball, but 300fps is easier to regulate than 15 joules.

[die.another.day]

Haha 63...

[They Call Me Rain]

Originally Posted by what the heck?

I've never heard of 50 or 68 caliber paintballs before.

l2paintball

Originally Posted by tyronejk

if you're using 50 cal, are you allowed to go over 300 fps? since its smaller and lighter and everything

No? you're still shooting objects, just because they're smaller doesn't mean they're less potent, necessarily. Your skin will still react when hit. (welt, blood, discoloration, etc.)

[aresfiend]

Originally Posted by They Call Me Rain

No? you're still shooting objects, just because they're smaller doesn't mean they're less potent, necessarily. Your skin will still react when hit. (welt, blood, discoloration, etc.)

But the output force of a .50 paintball is much less than that of a .68 at the same velocity, and since lenses are rated to a certain impact force the .50 could theoretically be brought up in velocity to have the same effect as .68 except with more distance.

The only issue would be the research required and then the documentation to prove to your insurance company why you're allowing .50 cal markers to shoot past 300fps.

[Horizon]

Originally Posted by aresfiend

But the output force of a .50 paintball is much less than that of a .68 at the same velocity, and since lenses are rated to a certain impact force the .50 could theoretically be brought up in velocity to have the same effect as .68 except with more distance.

The only issue would be the research required and then the documentation to prove to your insurance company why you're allowing .50 cal markers to shoot past 300fps.

Insurance companies use ASTM standards. ASTM has concluded that 300 fps should be the maximum, no matter what caliber. Unless you can get the ASTM committee on paintball to change their opinion, chances are your insurance company won't allow a higher velocity.

What would be interesting to see is how the ASTM committee would handle a larger caliber paintball, like .75 for instance. Are they still going to allow 300 fps max.? I would hope not.

[aresfiend]

Originally Posted by Horizon

Insurance companies use ASTM standards. ASTM has concluded that 300 fps should be the maximum, no matter what caliber. Unless you can get the ASTM committee on paintball to change their opinion, chances are your insurance company won't allow a higher velocity.

What would be interesting to see is how the ASTM committee would handle a larger caliber paintball, like .75 for instance. Are they still going to allow 300 fps max.? I would hope not.

They didn't conclude that 300fps should be the maximum no matter what, they created standards what the lenses have to meet in terms of impact force. Although, the safe impact force of a .68 paintball is directly related to the velocity of 300fps or less.

Now, you don't have to convince the ASTM committee about the velocity since they rate lenses on impact force, you just have to convince your insurance company that the impact force at those higher velocities with .50 is the same or less than .68.

[Horizon]

Originally Posted by aresfiend

They didn't conclude that 300fps should be the maximum no matter what, they created standards what the lenses have to meet in terms of impact force. Although, the safe impact force of a .68 paintball is directly related to the velocity of 300fps or less.

Now, you don't have to convince the ASTM committee about the velocity since they rate lenses on impact force, you just have to convince your insurance company that the impact force at those higher velocities with .50 is the same or less than .68.

We're not talking about lense strength, we're talking about paintball velocity. ASTM has standards for both and paintball velocity is not based solely on lenses.

[aresfiend]

Originally Posted by Horizon

We're not talking about lense strength, we're talking about paintball velocity. ASTM has standards for both and paintball velocity is not based solely on lenses.

No, what I'm saying is that the insurance is based off of ASTM standards on the lens impact force. Also, the velocity limit is put in place because lenses are only rated to the average impact force at 300 fps, and why let your players shoot a ball that's hitting harder than the lens can handle?

[axhi]

F=ma

[Horizon]

Originally Posted by aresfiend

No, what I'm saying is that the insurance is based off of ASTM standards on the lens impact force.

Who told you that? Why would an insurance company base their policy on one ASTM standard and ignore another ASTM standard?