Here is a complete ballistics report comparing .50 to .68 caliber.
Most .68 caliber weigh roughly 3.0 grams to 3.2 grams. We used the 3.0 for these calculations shooting at 300 FPS
After weighing .50 caliber paint from Cup, the average weight was 1.21 grams. This also jives with the number from a .50 caliber beta tester that posted weight numbers on his blog.
From the link, you can see I have posted the ballistics program used, the data input, etc. Don't just blindly trust folks, or even me... Run the data for yourself.
Images for the truly lazy:
I want to make sure credit is given to Incynr8 for starting the data and creating most of the data, my inside man for weighing the paint, and Bryce for giving me the online excel and graphing idea. Thanks!
Next is real world testing... Which we'll do and the video is coming in the next week or so, so keep an eye on my youtube channel for more on that (link is in the sig...)
Someone asked me how fast does a .50 caliber ball need to be traveling to have the same performance... So I also ran the numbers shooting a .50 ball at 400 FPS and 450 FPS.
I wonder how it flies at 450FPS. I wonder if the slight reduction in energy carried is overcome by the smaller area when it hits or if it hurts about the same. I wonder if anyone would let me shoot it at 450FPS. Will the ball still travel straight or will lack of mass and wind resistance throw it wildly off course?
If I'm reading it right, shooting .50 cal paint at 400 fps should get you fairly close to .68 cal, except that it still doesn't "hit" as hard. Maybe if they get the shell right, it would be useable? Of course, that all assumes they fly straight and are not affected too badly by wind, etc.
Jack Woods also posted on that "other forum" that he weighed several brands from several batches and got an average weight of 1.2 grams. This matches the the weight listed above. Good to see some numbers finally out.
You should be able to determine the distance at which .50 cal ball stops breaking on a particular object at a particular speed (e.g. 450 fps), and compare it to .68 cal. Of course, the quality/type of paint (in both .68 and .50) would matter and it might be tough to know whether you are getting "tournament" style .50 cal paint or not, etc... A plain ol' drop test would be nice to see too.
main problem I see isn't just distance but will the paint break.
Also if you turn the FPS up too fast balls tend to fly funny. I could be wrong if someone would do a test with .68 at 270 fps 300 and 350 and 400 be interesting to know the flight results.
Your data omits the denser rounds that are capable of exceeding .68 at 300fps. Once it is confirmed that the "final bs" they told me is done, and we have information on that, then we should exclude the rest of the data.
Your data omits the denser rounds that are capable of exceeding .68 at 300fps. Once it is confirmed that the "final bs" they told me is done, and we have information on that, then we should exclude the rest of the data.
You just exclude anything that isnt promoting .50 cal.......thats the problem.
No the chart has actually purposes cause it contains real numbers, not numbers pulled out of the air. This gives us an idea of what we'll see from a .50 round and create a baseline. It would actually be more irrisponisble to create a false chart with mythical numbers and weights simply because we don't know the end result. This chart shows a logical path of thinking and analysis based on data we can actually assertain. To think a standard liquid can suddenly gain 25% mass because we want it to inorder to make the numbers friendlier is pretty short sighted, I don't have an issue with creating a theoretical chart with a real weight of 1.3 and 1.32.
No the chart has actually purposes cause it contains real numbers, not numbers pulled out of the air. This gives us an idea of what we'll see from a .50 round and create a baseline. It would actually be more irrisponisble to create a false chart with mythical numbers and weights simply because we don't know the end result. This chart shows a logical path of thinking and analysis based on data we can actually assertain. To think a standard liquid can suddenly gain 25% mass because we want it to inorder to make the numbers friendlier is pretty short sighted, I don't have an issue with creating a theoretical chart with a real weight of 1.3 and 1.32, but that would begin to resemle a solid state.
not gonna argue with that, but i suppose i would have posted more (including more for .68) and qualified the charts by explaining more...
Showing more for .68 doesn't add much to the argument beyond manufacturing tolerance, the only reason .68 at an even 3g is listed to provide a common baseline and control. With the smaller object, tolerances would have to be considerable narrower due to a lack of forgiveness in smaller volumes and areas, so if they even match that of a .68 (tolerance) then the whole debate of .50 has a major hole in it if it can't be made consistantly at Mm (Mm=Mythical Mass).
That's a 2 fold thing, first it would make the fill gewy and possibly unsafe (remember current trend in fill is cheaper, better mark and enviormentally sound) and to keep the wieghts well within the ASTM force yields with tolerances. I don't think a company would risk adding a half gram to their baseline if it put the highest tolerance near that mark.
