Find fields & stores near you!
Find fields and stores
Zipcode
PbNation News
PbNation News
Community Focus
Community Focus

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 10-09-2009, 04:17 PM #22
$h@key J0nEZ
Southern By The
 
$h@key J0nEZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Grace Of GOD
According to that chart the heaviest .50 cal is 2.6 grams vs the .68 weighing 3.0 grams. Once you factor in the increased feet per second needed to keep the .50 cal traveling the same distance as a .68 cal you realize that the .50 with it's smaller size and higher muzzle velocity will be more painful when you get hit and not as safe as a normal .68 cal round due to the energy of the paintball being transferred into a smaller area on the body. That's not exactly a good way to attract new or younger players imo and it's not as safe as a .68 cal round which could lead to masks and safety gear having to be retested and re-certified to compensate for the smaller size. One more expense the industry doesn't need during a slumping economy.
__________________

The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant. It's just that they know so much that isn't so.” - Ronald Reagan

"A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one." - Alexander Hamilton
$h@key J0nEZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sponsored Links Remove Advertisement
Advertisement
Old 10-09-2009, 04:26 PM #23
Lohman446
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
A lot is dependent on weight. At 1.1 grams you can see it is going to suck. At 1.5 it could be close to what we have. At 2.8 it would be very good (according to the charts). The thing is none of us beleive 2.8 is obtainable safely (we could if it were made of... I don't know lead). Few of us think that 1.5 is going to be obtainable. And think of the wind effect on a 1.5 vs a 2.8 projectile (even with more surface area on the 2.8).
Lohman446 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2009, 04:46 PM #24
orionz06
Turtle Wrangler
 
orionz06's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Pittsburgh,PA
Annual Supporting Member
orionz06 is a Supporting Member
 has been a member for 10 years
orionz06 donated to help Peyton Trent
orionz06 is an NCPA player
orionz06 is Immortal
orionz06 supports DLX Technology
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lohman446 View Post
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by brycelarson View Post
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.

the impact pain will depend on too many other things to be able to equate it, atleast with everything I have... the explosion of the ball need to be accounted for, as that consumes energy that is not applied to the impact...

traditionally, bounces hurt the worst, as there is no energy used to break the ball, and the body absorbs most of the kinetic energy.... make a ball that breaks and i think its a moot point
__________________
Penn State Paintball, Alumni #38
☆☆☆ The Departed© #38 ☆☆☆
Erie Fusion (original) #38

"Should you covet what you cannot afford. Maketh more money."
orionz06 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2009, 09:18 AM #25
brycelarson
 
 
brycelarson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Minnesota
Quote:
Originally Posted by $h@key J0nEZ View Post
According to that chart the heaviest .50 cal is 2.6 grams vs the .68 weighing 3.0 grams. Once you factor in the increased feet per second needed to keep the .50 cal traveling the same distance as a .68 cal you realize that the .50 with it's smaller size and higher muzzle velocity will be more painful when you get hit and not as safe as a normal .68 cal round due to the energy of the paintball being transferred into a smaller area on the body. That's not exactly a good way to attract new or younger players imo and it's not as safe as a .68 cal round which could lead to masks and safety gear having to be retested and re-certified to compensate for the smaller size. One more expense the industry doesn't need during a slumping economy.

no one is talking about shooting these faster than 300 fps. look at the chart. anything heavier than 1.5g will go FURTHER at the same speed than .68.
__________________
-Bryce Larson
b_teeth@yahoo.com
brycelarson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2009, 10:14 AM #26
loneassassin
A Grim and...
 
loneassassin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: ..Frostbitten Kingdom
If they can make .50 cal paintballs more dense, they can also make .68 cal paintballs more dense. I'm going to buy those when they make them...

I'll believe it when I see a .50 cal paintball achieve the same distance as a .68 at the same velocity...
__________________
Death Before Dishonor
My favorite instrument of death:
http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/b...6/P2220160.jpg

My halfblocked Trilogy pump:
http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/b...6/P3250486.jpg
loneassassin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2009, 03:01 PM #27
handyandy
Dyslexic
 
handyandy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Arkansas
As for as quality control and weight deviation goes, A decrease in overall material of say 50% should lead to a 50% tighter tolerance deviation.

so If you take the same shell material and the same fill and make a 50 cal PB then the percentage overall deviation will be the same but that percentage will be closer to the desired weight.

So if a 68 cal Pb weighs between 2.9 and 3.1 grams +-.1g then 50 cal PB at a 50% decrease in material, using the same materials should lead to a product that weighs in at between 1.45 and 1.55 grams +- .05g

makes sense to me. the problem being that the 50 cal is actually 60% smaller then a 68 cal (or something like that) so we have to make the shell or fill something like 20% denser to create a product that has the weight characteristics necessary to perform properly... from what i have been reading the companies are claiming to have been able to do this.

Thick fill plus a good shell should create a smaller mark that is harder to wipe.
if the fill is denser then the shell may be able to be more brittle without causing an increase in breach brakes. which could create a ball that brakes more reliably... this may force the manufacturer to make sure their kitchen is using the right recipe and measures twice and cuts once... so to speak.
handyandy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2009, 09:08 PM #28
NYCBaller95
Caige
 
NYCBaller95's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Queens, NY
NYCBaller95 plays in the PSP
NYCBaller95 owns a Planet Eclipse Ego
NYCBaller95 plays in the APPA D3 division
NYCBaller95 supports Empire
sounds good sofar, I like the imput.
NYCBaller95 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2009, 09:24 PM #29
Lohman446
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
The shell is going to have to be more brittle is it not? I mean even at the mythical 1.5 grams (which may or may not be safely obtainable) that allows it to have similar trajectory to a 68 it is not carrying anywhere near the energy. Lighter ball = less energy to propel to 300 FPS should equal less pressure on the ball in the marker. Less energy = less chance to break (if the shell were the same thickness). Since it theoretically takes less energy to propel it should be able to be thinner, and it will need to be to break with less energy carried.

I still wish they would simply tell us the weight, and how much deviation is allowed in the manufacturing process.
Lohman446 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2009, 09:55 PM #30
iboomalot
 
 
iboomalot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: OKC , Okla
iboomalot is a founding member
 has been a member for 10 years
making the shell too thin = production losses and Iam sure the encapsulator(sp) has to have certain tolerances and if the .50cal is too thin or thick you have a problem. This is a balancing act and just upping the mass if it can be done isn't enough.
__________________
Play under the name Panther on the field,
Been playing PB since late 1980s off and on.

VISIT www.expandinghealthcare.com for 30%-50% off dental costs with Aetna for $9.95/month which includes entire family
iboomalot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2010, 12:36 AM #31
Maniac_87
 
 
Maniac_87's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by captainspaulding View Post
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
Nice data captainspaulding and painthappy. By my calculations a 0.07ci paintball with a density of 1307.6kg/m^3 would weigh about 1.5g. This is quite dense. corn syrup is about 1380kg/m^3. Imagine a little paintball full of corn syrup on a cold day.

I highly doubt that the formula would ever be water based. Unfortunately, most oils are less than 1000kg/m^3.
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/li...ies-d_743.html
Maniac_87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2010, 01:15 AM #32
Maniac_87
 
 
Maniac_87's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
I should have done some more research before posting. Polyethylene glycol is a standard fill with a density around 1300kg/m^3. Molecular mass range from 200 to 400 g/mol. Fine tuning the formula is no problem. From what I've see around the inter-tubes is that GI Milsim paintballs are around 1.21g.

Why would they make them so light? I'm going out on a limb here: they probably did some math too, I'm going to trust that the product performs reasonably well and if it doesn't I'll shoot .68 -- no problem either way.
Maniac_87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2010, 11:10 AM #33
rzhukov
 
 
rzhukov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: USA
rzhukov is playing at Living Legends III
rzhukov owns a Planet Eclipse Etek
rzhukov supports Bob Gurnsey
rzhukov has achieved Level 1 in PbNation Pursuit
another thought, wouldn't heavier paintball require more energy to push, thus negating the air efficiency of .50 cal??????

Last edited by rzhukov : 06-01-2010 at 11:14 AM.
rzhukov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2010, 03:21 PM #34
heysueskreesto2
____________
 
heysueskreesto2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Frederick, MD
Quote:
Originally Posted by rzhukov View Post
another thought, wouldn't heavier paintball require more energy to push, thus negating the air efficiency of .50 cal??????
It will, but if it were to weigh 1.5 grams, it still take a lot less energy to push than the standard .68 caliber paintball. Issue is...
heysueskreesto2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2010, 11:13 PM #35
rzhukov
 
 
rzhukov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: USA
rzhukov is playing at Living Legends III
rzhukov owns a Planet Eclipse Etek
rzhukov supports Bob Gurnsey
rzhukov has achieved Level 1 in PbNation Pursuit
Quote:
It will, but if it were to weigh 1.5 grams, it still take a lot less energy to push than the standard .68 caliber paintball. Issue is.
but to match .68 numbers shouldn't it be more like 2.0g or 2.5g, witch is almost twice the weight????
rzhukov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2010, 08:22 PM #36
Snidely70448
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Mandeville, LA
Some musings on .50 caliber vs .68 caliber paintball

Before I had ever heard of .50 cal paintball, I had been experimenting with using markers modified with inserts to shoot smaller projectiles - .490 and .495 caliber lead balls and .22 caliber pellets. It is fortuitous that 3/8" steel water pipe has an Outside Diameter (OD) of about .675" and so slides easily into a standard .68 marker barrel. Further, the Inside Diameter (ID) of the Schedule 40 and 80 3/8" water pipe is .493" and .423", respectively. Thus I have had some experience modding a marker for small diameter projectiles. I've also been fooling with guns since I was a kid, well over 50 years.

In the discussion about .50 vs .68 paintball, there has been some discussion of the relative density of the filler, but no one seems to be aware that the mass (weight) of a round ball increases much faster than the diameter increases. The diameter increase from .50 to .68 is just 1.36 times, the increase in surface area is 1.8496 times, but the weight increase is from 1.2 grams to 3 grams, or 2.5 times. The upshot of all this is that the larger diameter round ball will travel farther, and retain much more energy, at the same velocity, than the smaller ball will. If you don't believe me, Google "round ball ballistic coefficient".

I can also tell you that, at least in the area around South Louisiana, .50 caliber paintball isn't going anywhere. None of the paintball shops, and the paintball field, Paintball Command will have anything to do with them. I had to go to Academy Sports to find any .50 caliber balls, and Charley at Paintball Command was angry at just the mention of them. He said it was a plot by the people behind Smart Parts - which has gone out of business and is not honoring warranties - to get back in business.
Snidely70448 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2010, 10:12 PM #37
DRock
Resident Rocket Scientist
 
DRock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Mass
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by captainspaulding View Post
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
Dude you fired up Solidworks for THAT!?

Fail.

__________________
Originally posted by Blues Clues Opie:"Your constant grammatical and spelling errors do not bode positively in your direction against the forever looming power of ‘shens’."

ST:Almost Serious
DRock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2010, 02:52 PM #38
grub
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Wow that is some solid info I can use. Still undecided if I'm for this or not
grub is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2010, 07:59 PM #39
andocommando10
mow faces
 
andocommando10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Texas
Good read, but I'm still on the fence. Theres no way to tell until you shoot it.
__________________
Air Force Falcons Alum 10'
Texas/Florida Free Agent
andocommando10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2010, 09:21 PM #40
Seksey
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
koool
Seksey is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
Forum Jump