50 Caliber Revolution

[GiMilsim]

Press Release

Every now and then, rarely in fact, a wind of change blows across the face of paintball and we are witness to a new horizon, now is just such a time.
Richmond Italia has once again cranked the wheels of evolution around one more time, and focussed his attention on one of our sport’s prevailing problems.
He knew a lot of players were being deterred from continuing in our sport because of the cost, and more importantly, the life-blood of our sport, new tournament players migrating from the rec-ball and scenario scenes, were not even beginning to play for the same reason.
The enduring expense for all players is paint; it’s a consumable, and its prolific use means we have a prolific requirement as players, and this expense was becoming a real problem for our sport.

Richmond soon realised his next evolution was going to have to tick not only the expected boxes of innovation but he also needed to tick the box of cheaper paintball .... and that is exactly what he has achieved ...... engineered a cheaper paintball.

But it’s a bit more sophisticated than just charging less for paintballs; he has engineered a new paintball with an improved flight trajectory that means they fly farther and more accurately.
The historic problem with 50 calibre paintballs was getting them to break consistently; Richmond was obviously aware of this problem and set about engineering a ball that not only broke convention but also broke consistently.
How did he do this?
He headed up a think tank that’s brief was, ‘Engineer a paintball that’s inexpensive, accurate, flies further and breaks on contact’.
His team spent many months tackling their brief and after extensive testing and prototyping, they have produced a ball that finally satisfied the entire spectrum of Richmond’s vision.
The results are an evolutionary step forward; A new 50 caliber paintball has been born, and that paintball is now being shot right into the heart of our sport.


Richmond has long since believed you need the right people around you to succeed in anything and if there’s one thing he excels at, it’s recognising intelligent and motivated people.
Joanne Wheeler has long since been a believer, her loyalty and hard working ethos has already served Richmond well over the years and she was the first to be recruited.
In the past he has worked closely with Billy and Adam Gardner at Smart Parts and within a few short hours of explaining his new vision to them, they were signed up and had agreed to adapt a selected range of their own markers to be engineered so they can fire this new caliber ball.
After all, this is the first time the paintball was dictating how the markers should be designed instead of the other way around.
It was imperative Richmond aligned himself with marker manufacturers who could do the job and who better than the people who bought us the Shocker and Ion and so many more of our sport’s great markers, Billy and Adam Gardner of Smart Parts stepped up to the 50 caliber plate with no hesitation whatsoever.

With those guys on board, Richmond then turned his attention to headhunting a few people who he could trust and would help his cause, Robbo was approached, and as soon as he understood what Richmond was trying to do, he jumped on board faster than a jack-rabbit with its ass on fire.
Robbo hasn’t really been anybody’s man other than his own but when asked to comment on Richmond’s request to join the team, he said, ‘Richmond made me an offer I just couldn’t refuse, my acceptance had nothing to do with money and everything to do with what he was trying to do; Richmond is one of our sport’s true visionaries, I’d have been a mug to turn this opportunity down of working with him and I ain’t no mug’.

The new era of 50 calibre paintball means cheaper paint for the paintballer, it means hundreds more paintballs in the loader, it means thousands more balls in your pots, it means a more accurate flight path, it means it shoots further and all this with the same marking characteristics as the original 68 caliber balls.
Never before in the history of our sport have so many of its problems been so positively affected; after all, you ask any baller what he wants and they would answer, ‘I want a cheaper and a more accurate paintball’, it seems in one fell swoop Richmond has revolutionised our sport once again.

He did it with XBall, and he’s done it again with his new 50 caliber ball.
The wind of change is upon us all and will sweep right across the face of paintball, ignore it at your peril !

More news will become available as time goes by but rest assured people, this revolution is here to stay, and it’s here to play.

[Bambulus]

Wow.

Is there a link to the original press release?

[joe6969]

so what dose this mean for our markers? are they all useless now?

[John C]

so what dose this mean for our markers? are they all useless now?

Yep.
Ill buy all your playing gear for 2 quid.

Hurry though, if someone offers me their gear for 1 quid you might lose the sale.

[joe6969]

Yep.
Ill buy all your playing gear for 2 quid.

Hurry though, if someone offers me their gear for 1 quid you might lose the sale.

lol

[NSKlad]

so what dose this mean for our markers? are they all useless now?

Exactly. What is this supposed to mean? How does that effect us?

[Bambulus]

http://www.p8ntballer-forums.com/vb/showthread.php?t=121101

There's been a discussion about this before
:)

[Leezo]

How much cheaper? Whats a box of 2000 or possibly 3000 balls going to cost?

[paintball_scots]

so is this going to be done by procaps seeing as richmond used to have something to do with them.

[Bon]

Cost wise, will we not essentially buy the same ammount of paint, 3000 vs 2000 for example, so unless theyve found a way to massively reduce the overheads on production dont we all end up getting essentially what we had before just on a smaller scale?

[sumo89]

But whos going to own the patent?

[Bon]

smart parts owned it 20 years ago duh

[Tom Allen]

http://www.p8ntballer-forums.com/vb/showthread.php?t=121101

There's been a discussion about this before
:)and about 5 years ago:)

[Syd (NSPL)]

New markers, new loaders, new barrels... the list goes on. I wouldn't worry about it too much right now guys. If this ever happens, it will happen over quite a period of time and will be led by consumer demand, nothing more.

[Dusty]

I'd say it is quite categorically stated it will happen. Whether or not people embrace it is a different story but I'm looking forward to it personally. Different doesn't mean bad I say.

[Robbo]

Wow.

Is there a link to the original press release?

This is the original press release-we got the exclusive.

..and I can't believe what some of you guys in this thread concern yourselves with, it's truly amazing.

[karseras69]

anyone got pics to compare the size difference of the 2 balls (haha) ?
could current loaders accept them ?
barrels i would imagine not but then again inserts (like the freak inserts) could be introduced. Same goes for the breech i suppose, each company makes a .5 breech sleeve for any pre 2011 markers say and from then on they make them .5

[outkastmike]

anyone got pics to compare the size difference of the 2 balls (haha) ?
could current loaders accept them ?
barrels i would imagine not but then again inserts (like the freak inserts) could be introduced. Same goes for the breech i suppose, each company makes a .5 breech sleeve for any pre 2011 markers say and from then on they make them .5

Dont know if this would be good business sense but maybe marker manufacturers could just design a new main body for there particular marker and it would just a case of removing the old and fitting the new sized main body....:confused:

Personally i'm in favour of the change,its about time the paintballs got smaller and more accurate

[Sid Sidgwick]

Sounds expensive, unless there is some kind of breech sleeve idea to fix the markers, otherwise its new kit time :)

[Bambulus]

This is the original press release-we got the exclusive.

Another wow.

This is good news.

[Furby]

And so the cram-down begins.

http://thefordreport.com/2009/05/27/lean-times-small-balls my opinion, if anyone cares.

[Missy-Q]

smart parts owned it 20 years ago duh

Probably the most insightful thing I've seen you say. No doubt an accident...

[DrunkZombie]

.50 Caliber Revolution.. errr no thanks.
Lets think of the costs to change to the new 50 caliber paintballs? New marker, new barrels, new hoppers... .68 caliber will always be around because everyone will have the markers ect. Why would a site want to change if they have to replace 100+ markers.

[Pmr Man]

is it a way of kickstarting the gear market again?

[Exile]

.50 Caliber Revolution.. errr no thanks.
Lets think of the costs to change to the new 50 caliber paintballs? New marker, new barrels, new hoppers... .68 caliber will always be around because everyone will have the markers ect. Why would a site want to change if they have to replace 100+ markers.

What if the paint costed (for arguments sake) 30% less? Then the cost of re-equipping would quickly be offset.

Guns etc. need replacing every couple of years or so on a lot of sites anyway, and this would just mean the change is gradual.

Funniest thing is - this company aren't even launching until late Q4, yet people are acting like it will kill paintball in 2 weeks!

I for one welcome our new, smaller calibre, overlords.

[Robbo]

Why would a site want to change if they have to replace 100+ markers.

I take it you're not in business then?

I think you might need to ponder the difference between paint and hardware when it comes to owning a site and when you finally discern the significance I am referring to, the penny might drop for you ... I won't hold my breath :)

[DrunkZombie]

so your saying that they would just use their old markers rather than replacing them? Fair enough i can see that happening in some sites. But then they just prove how much they care about their customers... Unless there is no difference between shooting a 50 through a marker designed to fire 68, if this is the case then I would see the new size in a new light.

[Missy-Q]

I follow the whole 'making it cheaper' argument, and it has some legs. problem is, 50cal hurts like fxck and bounces like crazy, and I don't think anyone has fixed that problem yet.

[jagerpirate]

..and I can't believe what some of you guys in this thread concern yourselves with, it's truly amazing.


How so? Surely for existing players the biggest issue is going to be whether or not they have to replace their kit? What if it goes belly up? will there be conversion its? etc etc...

[Bolter]

so your saying that they would just use their old markers rather than replacing them? Fair enough i can see that happening in some sites. But then they just prove how much they care about their customers... Unless there is no difference between shooting a 50 through a marker designed to fire 68, if this is the case then I would see the new size in a new light.

I'll help you out. Markers are not the biggest outlay of money for a site, paint is and by a long way. If paint was alot cheaper, the money saved would easily offset the cost of buying 100 new guns.

[DrunkZombie]

I'll help you out. Markers are not the biggest outlay of money for a site, paint is and by a long way. If paint was alot cheaper, the money saved would easily offset the cost of buying 100 new guns.

Thanks for the help :)

Saying that though, I used to work for a site who thought that they would stick with Co2 because upgrading to Air would cost too much, I know its not really the same kind of figures but its still along the same kind of line.

I suppose it offers a new view. Say sites use 50 cal for punters, making that extra money OR reducing the cost for the customers and thus making paintball more affordable in the eyes of the general public.

[Dusty]

Thanks for the help :)

Saying that though, I used to work for a site who thought that they would stick with Co2 because upgrading to Air would cost too much, I know its not really the same kind of figures but its still along the same kind of line.

I suppose it offers a new view. Say sites use 50 cal for punters, making that extra money OR reducing the cost for the customers and thus making paintball more affordable in the eyes of the general public.

Or they could keep their prices the same and increase profit margins.

To me thats a bit short sighted though, I'd rather see reduced prices and returning customers. At the end of the day Joe the Punter doesn't know the difference in what is popping out of the barrel, it is a ball full of paint to them......

[Hawkins]

Thanks for the translation bloter, sometimes the over exaggeration mixed with the flaming normally confusses my simple mind..

If the sites are more inclined to keep the price the same and make a bigger profit then will the companys selling to us stay the same ? If so would all of us want to buy new gear to buy paint at the same price ?

[Robbo]

so your saying that they would just use their old markers rather than replacing them? Fair enough i can see that happening in some sites. But then they just prove how much they care about their customers... Unless there is no difference between shooting a 50 through a marker designed to fire 68, if this is the case then I would see the new size in a new light.

I am not saying anything like you suggest, Bolter nudges you closer to the truth ... let's hope you can see it.

[DrunkZombie]

Yes Bolter was good enough to point me in the right direction rather than just pointing out that I was wrong. He was helpful. Because you were not so helpful I had to guess as to what you thought, and as you have again pointed out, I was wrong, im not a mind reader.
Have you seen my last post? Do you now think that I have grasped the concept? Or am I wrong... again?

If a site were to make a bigger profit then im sure they wouldn't think twice about changing their markers. But if they made the same profit by selling the paint at a cheaper rate then it would still sting a little, in this business climate, a sting can mean a lot.
Or mix it up, make more profit to pay off the cost of the new markers then reduce the cost to the customer, best of both worlds.

[sumo89]

If they go further, does this not mean we will have to shoot at a lower velocity to keep under the 12lbs limit?

[Robbo]

Yes Bolter was good enough to point me in the right direction rather than just pointing out that I was wrong. He was helpful. Because you were not so helpful I had to guess as to what you thought, and as you have again pointed out, I was wrong, im not a mind reader.
Have you seen my last post? Do you now think that I have grasped the concept? Or am I wrong... again?

If a site were to make a bigger profit then im sure they wouldn't think twice about changing their markers. But if they made the same profit by selling the paint at a cheaper rate then it would still sting a little, in this business climate, a sting can mean a lot.
Or mix it up, make more profit to pay off the cost of the new markers then reduce the cost to the customer, best of both worlds.

DZ, I think the tone was set by your initial post, it was soo negative and that negativity was because you hadn't thought about it enough.
You basically knee-jerked your way to writing what I thought was a rather dismissive post about something that could revolutionize our game, I could be wrong of course.

Anyway, I didn't mean to jerk your chain, I suppose I just wanted you to think a little more before condemning something that could prove to be a god send to paintballers everywhere.

[spangley_special]

If they go further, does this not mean we will have to shoot at a lower velocity to keep under the 12lbs limit?

no, they will have a lower mass so we can raise the the limit haha

[Shlomo]

Well, I'm old and stubborn and usually I don't like changes, but this story sounds exiting to me. It's going to be a complete relaunch of paintball eqipment and this will for sure bring some interesting innovations with it. Performancewise it should be a big improvement. Can't wait to give it a try!

Also, I'm sure there will be some .68 caliber available in the future, so I won't have to put my Phantom on the wall.


Why am I not astonished to see Robbo involved :D

[DrunkZombie]

DZ, I think the tone was set by your initial post, it was soo negative and that negativity was because you hadn't thought about it enough.
You basically knee-jerked your way to writing what I thought was a rather dismissive post about something that could revolutionize our game, I could be wrong of course.

Anyway, I didn't mean to jerk your chain, I suppose I just wanted you to think a little more before condemning something that could prove to be a god send to paintballers everywhere.

I was a tad negative i do admit, sorry :o and yes I hadn't really thought about it enough. I was set in seeing it from a walkon/torni point of view and not from a paintball site's point of view.

I suppose im stubborn :) I dont like to see change, and it is a big change, you have to admit. However there is a part of me that thinks it would be interesting to see if there are any changes to the way the smaller paintballs are loaded in via the hopper and if the paintballs themselves perform any differently. Im not sure how they could cost less, apart from the obvious fact of using less materials. I cant see this adding up to much of a saving per case.

Would they be sold in cases of 2000 or 3000 :rolleyes:

[Exile]

Im not sure how they could cost less, apart from the obvious fact of using less materials. I cant see this adding up to much of a saving per case.


Smaller and lighter paintballs means smaller and lighter boxes = massive savings when shipping them by the pallet-load/container.

[Chicago]

.50 caliber performs in every way worse than .68 caliber. Field owners are not going to switch to cheaper paint if it's also ****ty paint - they don't' want players shooting paint that is not accurate, bounces all over the place, etc, etc, even if it might save them money.

Second, it won't save any money. The MATERIAL costs of the paintball are tiny in comparison to the total costs of selling paintballs.

Even if there were significant cost savings, cheaper paintballs DO NOT make for cheaper paint bills! Paintball costs have been going down for almost 30 years, and the cost of paint has stayed the same, because cheaper paint just means people shoot more of it.


This change does nothing to help field owners. It does nothing to help players. It might make the milsim guys get a bit more realistic looking guns, but that's not enough to drive the other 90% of the industry.


And, if field owners really did want to make more money, the answer is simple: Limit bps to 1 or 2 bps, charge the same $40-$50 per player per day they're already charging, and only give out 100 paintballs instead of 1000 or 2000. That actually cuts the cost of paint, and the customer is having MORE fun, which is what the customer is actually paying the field for in the first place.

[Robbo]

Well, I'm old and stubborn and usually I don't like changes, but this story sounds exiting to me. It's going to be a complete relaunch of paintball eqipment and this will for sure bring some interesting innovations with it. Performancewise it should be a big improvement. Can't wait to give it a try!

Also, I'm sure there will be some .68 caliber available in the future, so I won't have to put my Phantom on the wall.


Why am I not astonished to see Robbo involved :D



Schlomo, my German friend, how are you mate?
Have you settled down to just ONE woman yet??????

Good to hear from you, hope all is well in the land of 'no laughing' and 'horrible black sausages' :)

Let me know (robbo@aceville.com) what events you are going to this year (Millenniums) and it would be cool to hook up if I go....but as for not being astonished seeing me involved in this 50 cal project?...Well you know what it's like, Richmond has always been one for revolutions and getting his old friends involved, he made me an offer I couldn't refuse and there was no gun or horse's head in sight, I'm on board because I want to be involved, pure and simple :)

I couldn't resist it mate, it seemed as though paintball needed something and nobody else was really doing anything other than bemoaning the state of the industry, I'm looking forward to it all and to see how it pans out.
I'm just as$hole lucky enough to be part of it.
Make sure you email me mate to let me know what you been up to.

Pete

[Robbo]

I was a tad negative i do admit, sorry :o and yes I hadn't really thought about it enough. I was set in seeing it from a walkon/torni point of view and not from a paintball site's point of view.

I suppose im stubborn :) I dont like to see change, and it is a big change, you have to admit. However there is a part of me that thinks it would be interesting to see if there are any changes to the way the smaller paintballs are loaded in via the hopper and if the paintballs themselves perform any differently. Im not sure how they could cost less, apart from the obvious fact of using less materials. I cant see this adding up to much of a saving per case.

Would they be sold in cases of 2000 or 3000 :rolleyes:

DZ, I think people are gonna knee jerk mainly because they might think it's going to come in quick or be forced upon people, neither is true mate.

People will have the option of shooting smaller bore paint and any transition, and here I am talking about the paintball market as a whole, will take years.
In that time, people will have generally had the best use of their markers and equipment and maybe looking around to replace it, it will be at this time they maybe consider changing and so it's not as if they will be losing out because they have .68 gear.

I also think, the fact that it's different will stimulate the market place and hopefully put paintball back on a better financial footing because at the moment, it's a precarious position for an awful lot of companies, and I am talking about the majority of companies not just a few.
Still, sorry if I came across a bit heavy, that wasn't my intention.

Peace !

[Robbo]

.50 caliber performs in every way worse than .68 caliber. Field owners are not going to switch to cheaper paint if it's also ****ty paint - they don't' want players shooting paint that is not accurate, bounces all over the place, etc, etc, even if it might save them money.

Second, it won't save any money. The MATERIAL costs of the paintball are tiny in comparison to the total costs of selling paintballs.

Even if there were significant cost savings, cheaper paintballs DO NOT make for cheaper paint bills! Paintball costs have been going down for almost 30 years, and the cost of paint has stayed the same, because cheaper paint just means people shoot more of it.


This change does nothing to help field owners. It does nothing to help players. It might make the milsim guys get a bit more realistic looking guns, but that's not enough to drive the other 90% of the industry.


And, if field owners really did want to make more money, the answer is simple: Limit bps to 1 or 2 bps, charge the same $40-$50 per player per day they're already charging, and only give out 100 paintballs instead of 1000 or 2000. That actually cuts the cost of paint, and the customer is having MORE fun, which is what the customer is actually paying the field for in the first place.



Chris, try getting out the other side of bed mate ... does wonders for the state of mind :)

Mind you, I have to admit, of late, it's kinda hard to get outa bed any other side after what the paintball industry has been thru of late.

And Chris, if what you are saying is right, then Richmond is wrong.. and if I look at both your track records in paintball, I think I am gonna put my money on a town called Richmond (we have such a town in London) and not a city called Chicago ...no disrespect intended mate.

[Markie C]

This is the original press release-we got the exclusive.

..and I can't believe what some of you guys in this thread concern yourselves with, it's truly amazing.

It might be truly amazing Pete but i think to just align your self with one gun maker is a bit, well dodgy cause it gives them the rights to it all,

Might be wrong they all might be on the 50cal wagon but if it is a "New Start" then surly it should of been opened up to every one?

[Robbo]

It might be truly amazing Pete but i think to just align your self with one gun maker is a bit, well dodgy cause it gives them the rights to it all,

Might be wrong they all might be on the 50cal wagon but if it is a "New Start" then surly it should of been opened up to every one?

Markie, I wasn't referring to doubts concerning this aspect mate, but to answer your question, I think when Richmond had this idea, he realised markers would have to be manufactured at one point and so he HAD to go somewhere mate and so why not SP?

He's hardly gonna start this project and go to every single marker manufacturer and say, 'hi' I'm doing this new project and can you ALL make a marker for me to keep Markie C happy in the UK'.... :)

Ain't gonna happen mate, and I think you'll find there is no 'rights' involved when it comes to 50 cal, anybody can make a marker to shoot it.

50 Cal was used years ago when I first started Markie but back then, the chemistry wasn't as sophisticated as it is now and the problem with breakage stopped it from taking over as the preferred usage paint ... times change.

Don't worry Markie, as far as I know, nobody owns 50 Cal per se, well if they do, it ain't Richmond or SP.

[Markie C]

Cool,

It sounds like a cool idea,

How will it work in the tournament side of things?

Will it be you will have to shoot all the same thing or would it have to be one or the other ?

Just thinking about performance they say they go further and faster.

[Robbo]

Cool,

It sounds like a cool idea,

How will it work in the tournament side of things?

Will it be you will have to shoot all the same thing or would it have to be one or the other ?

Just thinking about performance they say they go further and faster.

Markie, I think you'll find that will be down to the respective promoters and federations; I can't really see any problem in principle unless politics rears its ugly head.
We have already witnessed this to some respect but for the life of me, I can't see any fundamental problems getting in the way; just as the XBall format was assimilated in its due time, this will hopefully follow the same route but only if players think it appropriate in terms of usage.
If the paint lives up to its claims in terms of performance and cost then I think most ballers will at least want to try it.

Some people who will voice doubts will be donning their 'company' uniforms and claim they are posting from a position of genuine doubt but it's kinda obvious when they surface what they are up to.
Still, I could be wrong and they are genuine but I been in this game long enough to know what's what.

[Chicago]

And Chris, if what you are saying is right, then Richmond is wrong.. and if I look at both your track records in paintball, I think I am gonna put my money on a town called Richmond (we have such a town in London) and not a city called Chicago ...no disrespect intended mate.

You can't beat physics. You might temporarily obscure physics with some very nice press releases, but physics will ultimately win. That should be pretty obvious from even a casual glance at the history of paintball products.

Edit: I suppose I really should have read the release in more detail, as I just discovered this gem:


he has engineered a new paintball with an improved flight trajectory that means they fly farther and more accurately

There must be some pretty darned revolutionary technology that is going to change how a sphere travels through air...

[jitsuwarrior]

Personally I will be intrigued to see how the mechanics and air flow work together.

I know the British army adapt their 5.56mm rifle to shoot .22 for cadets, however it increases the wear and tear on the weapon.

I am wondering will this be the same? I know the techs will have already looked into this, after all you are only looking at a few inserts to reduce barrel size and hopper feed neck, but it is the air flow that intrigues me, will it be a simple change of a regulator or is the whole technology changing?

I will watch and shoot.:D

[Mactoshdog]

Dont know if this would be good business sense but maybe marker manufacturers could just design a new main body for there particular marker and it would just a case of removing the old and fitting the new sized main body....:confused:

Personally i'm in favour of the change,its about time the paintballs got smaller and more accurate

it makes perfect sens, if there trying to reduce the cost, they arnt going to be doing a very good job if they force everyone to buy new equipment. i simply dont have the cash to replace my stuff.

[Biscuit]

the people that will make or break this, are the site owners ,not you or i,as we are only small fry in the market,if the rental sites see facts and figures that help them improve there profit margins then they will switch if they don,t they won,t:)so guys no matter what we say it,s the likes of delta force and skirmish that will push this forward,so all you can do is wait and see:D

[Robbo]

You can't beat physics. You might temporarily obscure physics with some very nice press releases, but physics will ultimately win. That should be pretty obvious from even a casual glance at the history of paintball products.

Edit: I suppose I really should have read the release in more detail, as I just discovered this gem:



There must be some pretty darned revolutionary technology that is going to change how a sphere travels through air...



Chris, it's no good applying traditional ballistic functions to a paintball because those equations, as you know, apply to a solid, homogeneous fill and not a liquid fill.

If you have a set of functions that accurately describe the effect of a liquid fill on its ballistic function then I'm all ears mate...problem is, you ain't and I know you ain't ...and until you do, you can't quote physics at anyone.

PS Chris, try and develop the mathematics to describe the effect of a non-solid, non-homogeneous fill for a paintball on its ballistic properties ....that should keep you happy for a few years.
And when you done that, all you gotta do then is develop the mathematics to accurately describe and predict the 'wobble' a paintball experiences and how that affects its ballistic properties.

There is an obvious function that will no doubt describe the interaction between the two (Wobble and non-solid/non-homogeneous fill) but I'd hate to even begin trying to imagine the list of variables in that function.

But that's not even the worst of it..... you may have identified the list of all variables but then to get an accurate prediction in ballistic terms, you will have had to apply appropriate values to those variables otherwise you might as well go pi$s on yer shoes coz you ain't gonna be able to predict sh!te otherwise.

[SJS]

So Robbo, how will this be brought in?
Would just the big major tournaments start using .50 Cal straight off (when the development gets finished of course).
Also, do you think that some feilds may allow one team (who can't afford the new markers) to be shooting .68 Cal whilst the other team (who is loaded and can afford new markers) shoots the new 0.50 Cal paint to their advantage.
I can see some problems with this, but hopefully it will work out good.

Like others have said I hope that the manufacturers(SP?) bring out some form of sleve system to make older markers compatable with 0.50 Cal.

P.S Sorry for any grammer/spelling mistakes, I'm no good with english.

Cheers,

Sj

[Chicago]

Also, do you think that some feilds may allow one team (who can't afford the new markers) to be shooting .68 Cal whilst the other team (who is loaded and can afford new markers) shoots the new 0.50 Cal paint to their advantage.

What advantage?

If I have the choice of shooting .68 paint or .50 paint, and I feel like winning, I'll be shooting .68. Four times the mass of .50 paint at only double the cross-sectional area means it slows down half as fast, is more resistant to changes in direction (read: more accurate), is fired at a speed closer to the impact speed (less bounces), has a more fragile shell (less bounces), etc, etc.

In a competitive environment, no one is going to switch to .50 cal unless they are forcefully prohibited from using .68 paint.

[nickphillipps]

Dude, instead of just completly flaming this, why dont we all just wait and see?
You could be right, in which case good for you.
But if somehow they have improved it then your just gonna look a tad stupid.

No disrespect to you, i just think its wise to either keep quiet and let it fail or keep quiet and not look stupid when the replace .68 with .50

[Andygoth]

Different calibres have been around for ages. I used to have a revolver in .50 cal.

It only makes a difference really for woodball and big games, especially Milsim as magazines work better with smaller calibres. The calibre change will not make any difference to the performance on supair as you don't shoot far enough and will make it even less watchable as a spectator sport.

As has been mentioned .68 became popular because old school .50 balls didn't break and hurt like hell. They weren't really anymore accurate because they were restricted to the same FPS as other guns, if you think you will be able to dial up your guns with smaller balls then you are mistaken. There are several guns available at .50 and .43 calibres already but the over 300fps versions are not available for sale to the public even in the US.

The most accurate out there are the .43 guns like the Rap4 METS running at 400fps, as used for military and police training. You can actually target shoot with those things but they won't sell you one.

The .50 will only take off if the players buy into it, just say 'I'm not buying one' and the whole idea will fail.

Oh and don't forget you'll need a new hopper (rotors won't deal with .50) and a new mask lense to go with your new gun.

[Buddha 3]

Chicago is 100% right!

Unless ofcourse they have developed a new type of shell and a new type of (heavier) fill, then he is 100% wrong.

I love how people flame new things without even having seen the items being discussed.

Come on Chris, for somebody that has shown to be able to think out of the box, you are very rigid in your thinking here. There's just too much you don't know to be able to jump to conclusions like you do here. Like I said, assuming that the only thing they do is shrink the ball, you are absolutely right. If they managed to make a smaller ball which has more or less the same weight as a .68, you are absolutely wrong. That ball would suffer less drag with the same momentum (assuming it's fired at the same speed) and thus would travel further.

I'm not saying they have cracked this, I'm not saying they haven't. I'm just saying that some people look like they are potentially putting a foot in their mouths.

[Robbo]

Chris is a shining example of appearing stupid when in reality he's an extremely smart guy who says stupid things, or to be more accurate, he says ignorant things as Jay suggested ...contingent upon a couple of things such as a heavier fill etc

Richmond has overseen the development and production of these paintballs, which by the way, are being manufactured by Procaps.
A heavy fill has already been developed which will satisfy the claims for an increased flight distance.

The fact there are claims of a more accurate ball can be easily understood when we look at the ball's ballistic properties.
It has a significantly reduced surface area (which of course is the property of a squared function) and as such, will be less prone to wind turbulence.

There is of course a reduced mass (which is the property of a cubed function) and thereby this ball will exhibit a reduced inertial value; now, I haven't personally done the mathematics associated with this inertial reduction but I would guess the reduced surface area has more of an effect than the reduced inertial property in terms of resisting a deflective force (wind).

The reduced inertia obviously means the ball is more prone to turbulence but because the ball has a diameter of .5 as against .68 which is a 26% reduction in diameter but when it comes to surface area, (my maths is rusty but I think this is OK) the smaller bore paint has a surface area of .78 sq inch whereas the .68 has nearly double that at 1.45 sq inch.

And so, even though we have a 26% reduction in diameter, this actually gives us half the surface area of a .68 caliber ball with a .5 dia ball because the surface area is determined by a squared function (4.pi.r squared).

I hope this explains some of the things that are being mentioned in this, and other threads.

And one other thing; because Richmond has increased the density of the paint, thus giving us a heavier ball, this also increases the inertial value which has a two fold effect, it increases the ball's accuracy and distance shot when compared to a .5 calibre ball of a lesser weighted (less dense) fill.

[Dusty]

And one other thing; because Richmond has increased the density of the paint, thus giving us a heavier ball, this also increases the inertial value which has a two fold effect, it increases the ball's accuracy and distance shot when compared to a .5 calibre ball of a lesser weighted (less dense) fill.


Also negating the requirement for a much higher exit velocity, and increasing the likelihood of a break on target at distance due to a higher relative impact force which in actual fact should be much like being shot by a regular .68 paintball.......


In summary, no more or less painful, no more or less likely to break, but cheaper all round and more accurate over longer distances.

Tell me again why thats bad?

[SJS]

What advantage?

If I have the choice of shooting .68 paint or .50 paint, and I feel like winning, I'll be shooting .68. Four times the mass of .50 paint at only double the cross-sectional area means it slows down half as fast, is more resistant to changes in direction (read: more accurate), is fired at a speed closer to the impact speed (less bounces), has a more fragile shell (less bounces), etc, etc.

In a competitive environment, no one is going to switch to .50 cal unless they are forcefully prohibited from using .68 paint.

What!? Did you actually read the thread?



The new era of 50 calibre paintball means cheaper paint for the paintballer, it means hundreds more paintballs in the loader, it means thousands more balls in your pots, it means a more accurate flight path, it means it shoots further and all this with the same marking characteristics as the original 68 caliber balls.

So, more balls in your pots, more balls in your hoppers, more acurate flight path are all advantages. Given a choice and if money was no problem, I think I would be shooting .50 Cal paint.

[Shlomo]

What!? Did you actually read the thread?
So, more balls in your pots, more balls in your hoppers, more acurate flight path are all advantages. Given a choice and if money was no problem, I think I would be shooting .50 Cal paint.

Yeah, me too. And if it came to maths, I'd always go with Robbo ;)


There's one thing I'd like to know. Sorry if I missed something :)

I understand that the .50 caliber balls will be made with a higher density and therefore heavier. But does that mean relatively or absolutely heavier than a .68 caliber ball?

In Germany, paintball guns are limited to a certain muzzle energy. Energy is determined by weight and speed of the ball. So a lighter ball would allow a higher velocity.




Schlomo, my German friend, how are you mate?
Have you settled down to just ONE woman yet??????
Not yet my friend. Beeing so attractive brings obligations; doesn't it? :D
I'll drop you a mail. Would be great to see you soon!

[Rider]

as the volume is so much smaller i guess its heavier than if it was a standard fill in a .50 ball - rather than heavier than a .68 i think it will still be lighter, but from what is said, not much lighter.

the UK is also restricted in terms of muzzle energy by the way.

[Chicago]

Chicago is 100% right!

Unless ofcourse they have developed a new type of shell and a new type of (heavier) fill, then he is 100% wrong.

I love how people flame new things without even having seen the items being discussed.

Come on Chris, for somebody that has shown to be able to think out of the box, you are very rigid in your thinking here. There's just too much you don't know to be able to jump to conclusions like you do here. Like I said, assuming that the only thing they do is shrink the ball, you are absolutely right. If they managed to make a smaller ball which has more or less the same weight as a .68, you are absolutely wrong. That ball would suffer less drag with the same momentum (assuming it's fired at the same speed) and thus would travel further.

I'm not saying they have cracked this, I'm not saying they haven't. I'm just saying that some people look like they are potentially putting a foot in their mouths.

And you don't see the natural consequence of putting the same mass, velocity and energy in an object that breaks over half the area?

You're right, I made the assumption that we were going to have the same density in the new paintball, because that seemed to be the only reasonable assumption. But if the plan is to put MORE density in a smaller paintball, that plan is even worse!

If it's less mass in less volume, then the performance characteristics will stink and it won't be effective and will make paintball less fun.

If it's the same mass in less volume, then it is going to be tearing clothing and breaking skin, and it's going to make paintball less fun.

Hell, screw .50 cal. Let's go all the way! We don't even have to come up with new guns! All we have to do is switch to airsoft guns with metal BBs. Weighs the same, smaller cross-sectional area for more accuracy, and won't even need paint, because you can just check for blood!

I'm not poo-pooing the idea because it's new. I'm poo-pooing the idea because it is going to cause damage to the sport.

And I really don't get it. Smart Parts Billy Ball mode is the best thing ever. Then they follow with this. I'm completely confused.

[Chicago]

What!? Did you actually read the thread?



So, more balls in your pots, more balls in your hoppers, more acurate flight path are all advantages. Given a choice and if money was no problem, I think I would be shooting .50 Cal paint.

Do you believe everything someone writes in a press release? If so, PM me your email address, as I have some press releases to send you.

[Buddha 3]

And you don't see the natural consequence of putting the same mass, velocity and energy in an object that breaks over half the area?

You're right, I made the assumption that we were going to have the same density in the new paintball, because that seemed to be the only reasonable assumption. But if the plan is to put MORE density in a smaller paintball, that plan is even worse!

If it's less mass in less volume, then the performance characteristics will stink and it won't be effective and will make paintball less fun.

If it's the same mass in less volume, then it is going to be tearing clothing and breaking skin, and it's going to make paintball less fun.

Hell, screw .50 cal. Let's go all the way! We don't even have to come up with new guns! All we have to do is switch to airsoft guns with metal BBs. Weighs the same, smaller cross-sectional area for more accuracy, and won't even need paint, because you can just check for blood!

I'm not poo-pooing the idea because it's new. I'm poo-pooing the idea because it is going to cause damage to the sport.

And I really don't get it. Smart Parts Billy Ball mode is the best thing ever. Then they follow with this. I'm completely confused.

Again, you have a point. But only if Richmond and his posse haven't developed a new shell that for all we know breaks a lot easier. And since you don't know he has or hasn't, you are just being negative without knowing sweet FA about what you are talking about.
Usually when I don't know sweet FA about what I'm talking about, I tend to reserve judgment, like I do now. Don't know if it's gonna be good or bad until I see it.

Seems like you're just being argumentative.

[Buddha 3]

Do you believe everything someone writes in a press release? If so, PM me your email address, as I have some press releases to send you.

That did make me laugh. :D

[Chicago]

Again, you have a point. But only if Richmond and his posse haven't developed a new shell that for all we know breaks a lot easier.

And that would make a difference how? You don't want a shell that breaks easier! If it breaks easier, that means less of the paintball's energy is used breaking the shell, and even MORE of it impacts the player!

Not to mention, if it breaks easier on the player, it breaks easier coming out of the gun.

Paintballs have a sweet spot - you want them to be sturdy enough to get out of the gun, but no sturdier than that, otherwise they're more likely to bounce. Bouncing is bad for performance reasons, and also bad because it hurts more since the paintball not only has to be stopped, but also must be accelerated in a different direction.


What really matters is the mass of the paintball, the area over which the paintball impacts, and the time over which the paintball impacts. And that totals for a CUBIC change - if you reduce the caliber by half, you increase the impact force by EIGHT - twice for the width, twice for the height, and twice for halving the impact time.

[Matski]

I think it's pretty naive to believe that this ball can be SO damn good, the all problem solving, golden goose for paintball. The devil is in the details, there is nearly always a catch....possibly players bleeding out before they can leave the field. I hope it's amazing, but time will tell.

[Cook$]

So these new balls will be the same weight but smaller. I would imagine that makes the fill thicker? Does that mean the fluid dynamics of a ball in flight would be affected more, or less? I'm no physicist....

Also, if these balls are the same weight, what will that do to shipping costs?

[Chicago]

Also, if these balls are the same weight, what will that do to shipping costs?

They'll be pretty much the same, since the cost to ship paint is weight-limited, not volume-limited.

So good point - if the solution is smaller balls that weigh the same, they're not likely to ALSO be cheaper.

[JNR-XV]

Im not jumping on the 'being negative', as like buddah i am reserving judgement until i have seen/used these new paintballs. I also am quite interested in how it will all work out for paintball.

I do however, have a question about the above 2 posts.. (Cook$ and Chicagos posts).

If you have a smaller ball at nearly the same weight, you are going to fit more in hoppers and pots. How much is that going to affect "your" gameplay as you are carrying extra weight..

[Buddha 3]

And that would make a difference how? You don't want a shell that breaks easier! If it breaks easier, that means less of the paintball's energy is used breaking the shell, and even MORE of it impacts the player!

No. You even contradict this later on in your post... A breaking ball is basically a dissipation of it's energy. A ball bouncing is a large transferral of energy into the player, hence more painful (like you said).

As far as softer shells breaking easier, this is true, but I think we already agreed that a smaller ball also breaks harder. The end result could be the same.

You just don't know anything about these balls, Chris. Neither do I. All the reasons why they could be worse are true, as are all the reasons why they could be better. Determining beforehand that it must suck just makes people look like an argumentative fool. Only politicians make up their mind without knowing the full facts.

[Buddha 3]

So these new balls will be the same weight but smaller. I would imagine that makes the fill thicker? Does that mean the fluid dynamics of a ball in flight would be affected more, or less?

We don't know if the ball will be the same weight or that the fill will be thicker*, but less fluids means less influence caused by the fluids.

* Fill doesn't have to be thicker to be heavier. For all we know they could be loaded with mercury. I hope not though. :D

[Buddha 3]

They'll be pretty much the same, since the cost to ship paint is weight-limited, not volume-limited.

So good point - if the solution is smaller balls that weigh the same, they're not likely to ALSO be cheaper.

Only as far as shipping by mail is concerned. Having done international shipping in the past, the cost of shipping pallets across the world is paid for in volume when done by plane or truck (the amount of space it takes up in a container), and also mostly volume (with a minor extra charge if very heavy) when shipping by plane.
Although I must admit that the "rules" can differ per carrier, but the above is what I dealt with mostly.

So ordering a box of paint, assuming the weight is pretty much the same, will save the consumer nothing on shipping costs, but the wholesaler does save money.

[Gadget]

<Checks calendar>.....not April? Interesting ploy by an industry who are obviously in a lot of trouble and looking for a radical shift to revitalise sales.

I can see all of the major companies supporting it - why wouldn't they, as they'll be able to replace all of the equipment out there at a time when sales are slow.

However I don't see the benefits for the consumer. Even if they've addressed the design issue and it performs as well as .68, are we really going to see any of the financial benefits? Perhaps a marginal drop in the cost of paint, however you know that it'll be the supplier creaming off most of that additional profit and when you balance it against the cost of new equipment, it's going to take a long time to get a return on that investment.

Sadly I can easily see it happening - they'll release new markers surrounded by a lot of hype, sponsored teams will say how awesome they are and adoption will be slow initially and then snowball.

Personally, I think they can go screw themselves, I'm not forking out to replace perfectly functional equipment in order to support an industry. Call me selfish, but I'd rather see more companies go under and the industry slim down and transform.

[Robbo]

However I don't see the benefits for the consumer. .


....er...then don't buy it !




Personally, I think they can go screw themselves.

...er, then don't buy it !

[DJForbes]

if this did happen it owouldnt just happen over night.
it would take years to implement something like that.

i say let it play out see how it goes

[Chicago]

No. You even contradict this later on in your post... A breaking ball is basically a dissipation of it's energy. A ball bouncing is a large transferral of energy into the player, hence more painful (like you said).

As far as softer shells breaking easier, this is true, but I think we already agreed that a smaller ball also breaks harder. The end result could be the same.

I respectfully submit that you don't understand physics. Nobody can violate physics, not even Richmond.

If you make the shell break easier, that means LESS energy is spent breaking the ball, and more impacts the player. If you make the shell harder to break, then you spend more energy breaking the shell, so less energy impacts the player, unless the shell has gotten too hard to break, in which case it will bounce and put even MORE energy into the player.

Regardless, there is pretty much nothing you can do with regards to the shell to make it break with less energy on the player, because the only way to do that is spend more of the energy breaking the ball, but if it takes more energy to break the ball, it's going to start bouncing. And who is going to choose to shoot a paintball that doesn't hurt as much if it's bouncing more? Nobody!

Nobody chooses paint based on how much it hurts. People want the most fragile paint that they can still get out of their gun.


You just don't know anything about these balls, Chris. Neither do I. All the reasons why they could be worse are true, as are all the reasons why they could be better. Determining beforehand that it must suck just makes people look like an argumentative fool. Only politicians make up their mind without knowing the full facts.

Like hell I don't! Do I know the details about them? No. Do I know enough about physics and paintballs to know, in advance, what the limits on performance will be? Absolutely. It's no different than if someone issued a press release stating they had invented a perpetual motion machine. I don't need to know anything about it to know that it's not true.

If you make the paintball smaller with the same density, it will perform much worse. If you make it smaller with the same weight, it will impact with a force that increases 4 times the amount that the caliber is reduced. You can't have it both ways - if you're going to have similar performance, it's going to draw blood. And if you're not going to draw blood, it's not going to have similar performance. Anything else is simply not possible - and that's not even factoring in the 'cheaper' claim.

Now, they may be very cool for certain applications - perhaps milsim guys who are playing close-quarters or don't mind bleeding when hit. But if we put cheaper paintballs that either perform worse or hurt more (or both) in the hands of the general rec player, we are going to damage participation. A lot.

If this is meant to be a paintball off-shoot for a particular variety of player, great, no harm, no foul. The existence of .50 cal paintballs doesn't need to be any different than the existence of airsoft. But if .50 cal starts showing up at the rec field, we're in trouble.


And if you believe someone has created a paintball that is smaller, performs just as good or better, doesn't cause more damage on impact, AND is cheaper, well.... I have some press releases to send to you too.

[musefrog]

Hrm... surely, if it turns out these new .50 cal balls perform as badly as you're saying, Chicago, they'll fail? Once players start trying them out and find out they suck, the word will go out, and people won't buy them.

So why stress out about it, posting repeatedly, and arguing the point? Just to look good when in a year or so, you're proved right (if you are)?



...oh wait. It's the internet. What am I saying? Nothing to see here, carry on :D

[Chicago]

Before same-weight was on the table, I agreed with you - performance would have killed it. It has since been suggested that performance will be the same/better, because the paintballs will weigh the same as the old ones. That creates a whole new problem: The new paintballs appear to be better for the people shooting them, but are worse for the people being shot by them. So the person deciding what paintballs to shoot will pick the .50 cal, not caring that the person being shot is having less fun. But the person being shot, and having less fun, quits. It took the industry years to figure out that high volumes of paint (due to tech and cheap paintballs) were killing the rec business. And now it appears we're poised to do the same error all over again!

We only get one shot at a new player. If that player comes out, and gets twice as much paint shot at them because the paintballs are cheaper, and the paint that hits them hurts 4 times as much because it's the same weight and smaller, they are not going to like paintball. They are not going to realize that they would like .68 caliber paintball, because they don't know the difference. All they know is they played paintball, they did not have fun, and they don't want to spend their money to play again.

If .50 cal uses weight to keep performance the same, and those .50 cal performs-better but rips clothing and draws blood paintballs start showing up at rec fields, we are going to cause significant damage to participation.

Over the long term, just like rec fields with high-volume, cheap-paint environments are going out of business, rec fields with higher-volume, cheaper, hurts more .50 cal paintballs will go out of business. But how many players will they have driven away from paintball in the process? How about we just learn from our mistakes in the past and just not do it?


So I'm hoping this is a side-product targeted towards a different set of players than rec players, just like Airsoft is sort of a tangentially-related but not really offshoot of paintball. If people primarily interested in milsim want and use these products, great. Maybe it'll even pull some airsoft people and business away from Airsoft companies to paintball companies. Also great. But if .50 cal is marketed as a rec field paintball, that is a huge problem.

[Dusty]

Nobody said it was the same weight, only that it would be a heavier than normal fill.

[Robinsucks]

I am trying to withhold judgement until I see this new paint. PMI did .55 cal with Sportshot as recently as a couple years ago and that certainly did not travel further or more accurately. It did however bounce more.

I have a lot of respect for Robbo so I can't imagine he's so fully on board with this without having see these in action. So, did the paint perform as well in person? Did it meet or exceed the claims in the press release? Was it more accurate and flew further? Did it hurt less?

[Lucky.One]

I am not going to get into the mertis, mostly because I believe even the promoters of this - some of whom I actually like - are talking out their ass.

1. I bet they haven't fully tested this. I have.

2. IF these PB guys Italia and G -bros were half as smart as they think they are they would hire outside consultants. They have all made too much money are live in lala land. This is NOT how you launch a revolutionary product. You should be forced to walk around for a year w/ a helmet and a bib on if you thought this press release was a good idea.

3. When we kicked this around at PMI 5 years ago we were at least smart enough that the paint was going to be a side effect. The plan in theory was to launch milsim clipfed (at least 4 different guns to start) plus a 'sport gun' that shot about 40-50bps just to make the Markers sO cool the odd and new and cheaper paintball was a tolerable "drawback". The problem was that was going to take **** loads of cash and we had a pb plant to buy...

Well, there are some plenty intelligent guys making really ****ing stupid post. And now I have added my two cents.

For you TLDR, Dumbest ****ing Press Release of the Decade By people who should know better.

Back to the real world.
A.

[Dark Warrior]

Interesting
If the paintball weights the same then the size of the paintball does not affect the velocity we can legally shoot at.

I'm just thinking about being hit a .5 paintball fired at 300 ft/s with a denser fill to keep weight same
So you are being hit at the same force except on a smaller surface area, therefore higher chance of bruising

If they just make the paintball smaller and materials remain the same, then legal velocity would increase by approx 20%

[Chicago]

Only as far as shipping by mail is concerned. Having done international shipping in the past, the cost of shipping pallets across the world is paid for in volume when done by plane or truck (the amount of space it takes up in a container), and also mostly volume (with a minor extra charge if very heavy) when shipping by plane.
Although I must admit that the "rules" can differ per carrier, but the above is what I dealt with mostly.

So ordering a box of paint, assuming the weight is pretty much the same, will save the consumer nothing on shipping costs, but the wholesaler does save money.

What were you shipping?

When shipping by ship, pretty much only volume matters.

When shipping by plane, pretty much only weight matters.

When shipping by truck, it depends on the product. A truck has volume and mass limits - how much stuff you can fit in the trailer, and how much weight you can put on the truck before you start getting tickets or need special permits. For paint, you'll exceed the weight limit before you exceed the volume limit, so for truck shipping, it's the weight of the paintball that determines shipping cost, not the volume.

So for paint produced and sold in North America, there will not be any shipping savings unless the weight per ball goes down.

[Chicago]

Nobody said it was the same weight, only that it would be a heavier than normal fill.

So it won't be the same weight, and the performance will stink?

If you keep the same density and velocity, then the paint should hurt about the same - volume goes down by 8x the caliber decrease, impact area * impact time goes down by 8x the caliber decrease.

But, if you keep the same density and velocity, you will have a paintball that is drastically less accurate, flies a much shorter distance, and bounces a lot more.

You can reduce these problems by increasing either velocity or density. But, if you increase velocity or density, then the paintball is going to cause more damage.


So, do we know that it's going to perform worse? No. Do we know that it's going to hurt more? No. Do we know that it has to be at least one or the other if not both? Yes.

[Buddha 3]

I respectfully submit that you don't understand physics. Nobody can violate physics, not even Richmond.

If you make the shell break easier, that means LESS energy is spent breaking the ball, and more impacts the player. If you make the shell harder to break, then you spend more energy breaking the shell, so less energy impacts the player, unless the shell has gotten too hard to break, in which case it will bounce and put even MORE energy into the player.

Regardless, there is pretty much nothing you can do with regards to the shell to make it break with less energy on the player, because the only way to do that is spend more of the energy breaking the ball, but if it takes more energy to break the ball, it's going to start bouncing. And who is going to choose to shoot a paintball that doesn't hurt as much if it's bouncing more? Nobody!

Nobody chooses paint based on how much it hurts. People want the most fragile paint that they can still get out of their gun.



Like hell I don't! Do I know the details about them? No. Do I know enough about physics and paintballs to know, in advance, what the limits on performance will be? Absolutely. It's no different than if someone issued a press release stating they had invented a perpetual motion machine. I don't need to know anything about it to know that it's not true.

If you make the paintball smaller with the same density, it will perform much worse. If you make it smaller with the same weight, it will impact with a force that increases 4 times the amount that the caliber is reduced. You can't have it both ways - if you're going to have similar performance, it's going to draw blood. And if you're not going to draw blood, it's not going to have similar performance. Anything else is simply not possible - and that's not even factoring in the 'cheaper' claim.

Now, they may be very cool for certain applications - perhaps milsim guys who are playing close-quarters or don't mind bleeding when hit. But if we put cheaper paintballs that either perform worse or hurt more (or both) in the hands of the general rec player, we are going to damage participation. A lot.

If this is meant to be a paintball off-shoot for a particular variety of player, great, no harm, no foul. The existence of .50 cal paintballs doesn't need to be any different than the existence of airsoft. But if .50 cal starts showing up at the rec field, we're in trouble.


And if you believe someone has created a paintball that is smaller, performs just as good or better, doesn't cause more damage on impact, AND is cheaper, well.... I have some press releases to send to you too.

Thanks for posting this. This confirms that you have A) your head so far up your own ass that you refuse to admit you know nothing about the product you are discussing, and B) you know FA about physics. I'll send you my diplomas if I thought you mattered, then you could grovel at my feet in apology. This discussion ends here. Watch your mouth from here on.

As far as that last bit about the press releases, watch your talk son. I told you I reserve judgment because I don't know anything about those paintballs, so f*ck your press releases. Watch who you insult with such remarks. I don't believe press releases. I don't believe nay sayers who base their opinions on nothing but assumptions. I believe reality, not arrogance.

[Buddha 3]

What were you shipping?

When shipping by ship, pretty much only volume matters.

When shipping by plane, pretty much only weight matters.

When shipping by truck, it depends on the product. A truck has volume and mass limits - how much stuff you can fit in the trailer, and how much weight you can put on the truck before you start getting tickets or need special permits. For paint, you'll exceed the weight limit before you exceed the volume limit, so for truck shipping, it's the weight of the paintball that determines shipping cost, not the volume.

So for paint produced and sold in North America, there will not be any shipping savings unless the weight per ball goes down.

Paintballs.

I win, you lose.

[Chicago]

So, for the record, you believe these new paintballs perform as well as .68 caliber paintballs, will not hurt more than .68 caliber paintballs, and will be cheaper than .68 caliber paintballs?

Do you also believe that selling paint for less is better for the rec paintball business?


If somehow these paintballs do perform as well as .68 paintballs, and don't hurt significantly more than .68 paintballs, and are cheaper, I will be incredibly impressed. I just don't see how such an outcome is reasonable, and I have yet to see any explanation whatsoever as to how such a thing might be possible.

[Dark Warrior]

There is no way that a 0.5 ball fired @ 300 ft/s of smaller diameter and same mass will hurt the same or less than a standard 0.68. That is just a physical impossibility.
Yes the smaller paintball will impact with less of the skins surface area and therefore less nerve endings, but what you need to realise is that it will still impact at the same force and this is dissipated over this whole contact area. So the smaller the area then the more force on each nerve ending therefore greater pain. Just by reducing the size of the paintball from .68 to .5 means the contact area reduces by 45% so each nerve ending is impacted by 1.8x as much force.
Note this does not even take into account that to keep the mass the same the fillings has got to be denser. A denser liquid tends to holds its form more and will not spread or spray far from the point of impact.

[Robbo]

Chris....when are you ever gonna learn mate???

This world you inhabit, I'm afraid there are others who reside in it who are able to reason as well as you, and in some cases, better than yourself.

I know this irks you to even consider there are more intelligent people around but it is the fact of the matter.

You, like brockdorff, default into this peculiar mode of thinking and posting that is best described as 'ever decreasing circles', and those circles describe the room you leave yourself, in terms of escape.

The outcome for you is predictable because ostensibly we are witness to a bright guy assuming less and less rationale as desperation becomes the main determinant in your debate.

I'm not sure if you have the same phrase over there in the US but we have one here that best describes your next course of advised action, 'Wind your neck in Chris' ..... it makes sense to ...

[Chicago]

The only circles here are the ones I'm running around the complete lack of any opposing argument other than "But you just don't know anything!"

If a .50 cal paintball is created that performs as well as a .68 cal paintball and doesn't hurt any more and is cheaper, well, you can say "I told you so". But I personally don't expect the laws of physics to be violated in the near future.

By the way, you never answered the question as to whether you had actually seen and used these newfangled paintballs yet. So have you seen any of these new paintballs? Shot any of them?

Because if not, it seems pretty silly to say I can't be skeptical of all the claims because "I don't know anything" about these new paintballs when, well, it doesn't appear anyone else does either. And while I have some pretty solid reasons why a paintball can't be smaller AND perform the same AND not hurt more AND be cheaper, I have not seen even one explanation as to how it might be remotely possible for a paintball to achieve all of those things.


Here, because I'm an incredibly nice guy, I'll even make the opposing argument for you, since you guys seem to be having trouble coming up with one on your own.


Here's the best case scenario.

.50 cal instead of .68 cal reduces the surface area by 46%. So to keep roughly the same flight characteristics, we'd need 54% of the mass, or 1.6 grams. That will up the density, since you only have 40% of the volume to work with. Now have 54% of the mass, but only 40% of the impact time*area, so your "hurt" is up 35%. And that's assuming you don't get more viscosity with the denser fill, and also assuming nothing is done to make the .50 cal paintballs perform ANY better than the .68 cal paintballs. If you put more mass in the paintball to make it perform better, or raise the velocity to make it perform better, then then you have even more hurt.

[Chicago]

Paintballs.

I win, you lose.

You can fit 30 skids on a 53' semi-trailer. 30 skids of 100 cases of 2000 3.2 gram paintballs = 42,329 lbs. GVW limit on US highways is 80,000 lbs, and your garden variety refrigerated trailer is going to weigh at least 35,000 lbs. So you've got a truck at the weight limit at 100 cases per skid. Put 130 cases per skid and you can't fill the floor of the truck. The limiting factor is the weight, not the volume.

Ergo, reducing the volume isn't going to save you any money on full loads, and won't save you much money on LTL since the freight company will have to pair your shipment with something less dense.

[Buddha 3]

1)So, for the record, you believe these new paintballs perform as well as .68 caliber paintballs, will not hurt more than .68 caliber paintballs, and will be cheaper than .68 caliber paintballs?

2)Do you also believe that selling paint for less is better for the rec paintball business?


3)If somehow these paintballs do perform as well as .68 paintballs, and don't hurt significantly more than .68 paintballs, and are cheaper, I will be incredibly impressed. I just don't see how such an outcome is reasonable, and I have yet to see any explanation whatsoever as to how such a thing might be possible.

1) C'mon now Chris. I know you can read, so stop trying to put words in my mouth. There has been no moment that I have said that they will perform as well as the current paintballs, there has been no moment that I have said they won't perform as well as the current paintballs. So for the record, I'm not commenting on how they will perform, because there are simply to many "known unknowns" (if I may quote your former secretary of defense) to be able to say anything meaningful about them. I'm not for or against, I'm just curious to see them in action.

Truth be told, I think it's gonna be damn hard to come up with a paintball that's smaller than .68, but will still perform like a .68 or better. But unlinke you, I'm not saying it's impossible.

2) Selling for less to who? The sites, the customers, or both?

3) I have yet to see an explanation as to why it would be impossible. Hard, yes. Impossible, no. All I see is people using the current state of the art as an example. We just don't know what's being cooked in "Dexter's lab".

[Buddha 3]

There is no way that a 0.5 ball fired @ 300 ft/s of smaller diameter and same mass will hurt the same or less than a standard 0.68. That is just a physical impossibility.
Yes the smaller paintball will impact with less of the skins surface area and therefore less nerve endings, but what you need to realise is that it will still impact at the same force and this is dissipated over this whole contact area. So the smaller the area then the more force on each nerve ending therefore greater pain. Just by reducing the size of the paintball from .68 to .5 means the contact area reduces by 45% so each nerve ending is impacted by 1.8x as much force.
Note this does not even take into account that to keep the mass the same the fillings has got to be denser. A denser liquid tends to holds its form more and will not spread or spray far from the point of impact.

It can if it's lighter. But that would have an adverse effect on it's ballistic properties.

So yes, it might hurt more, but I doubt it will be as big a bloodbath as people claim it to be. It'll go from stinging a little to stinging a tad.

Besides, anybody claiming that paintball hurts is a girly man.

[Buddha 3]

You can fit 30 skids on a 53' semi-trailer. 30 skids of 100 cases of 2000 3.2 gram paintballs = 42,329 lbs. GVW limit on US highways is 80,000 lbs, and your garden variety refrigerated trailer is going to weigh at least 35,000 lbs. So you've got a truck at the weight limit at 100 cases per skid. Put 130 cases per skid and you can't fill the floor of the truck. The limiting factor is the weight, not the volume.

Ergo, reducing the volume isn't going to save you any money on full loads, and won't save you much money on LTL since the freight company will have to pair your shipment with something less dense.

Perhaps differing "rules" in the US compared to Europe?

I still win, you lose a little less... ;)

[Buddha 3]

it seems pretty silly to say I can't be skeptical

Ah, now we're getting somewhere!
Amazing how a choice of words can make such a difference. Nobody at all has said (well, not me anyway) that you can't be skeptical. Sh*t, I'm probably one of the most cynical and skeptical people on this planet! Be skeptical all you want man. But if it's skepticism you claim, it would make more sense to say "I have major doubts that they're gonna succeed", rather than just flat out stating it's impossible. Because it ain't. It might cost a lot to get it fixed, it might not. But smarter people than you and I get to try that out.

Had you just flat out stated that you are skeptical, rather than screaming it can't be done, you would not have ended up looking like this guy (http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/Mohammed-Saeed-al-Sahaf_iraqi-information-propaganda-minister.jpg). :D (just messing with you...)

PS Your ''scientific" explanation at the end....very much flawed....

[Reiner]

Leaving the scientific stuff aside, my concern is this (from the Paintball Business Journal):

``We've been talking to several people involved (but unnamed for now) that are saying a move to 50 caliber could almost double the number of balls you'll get in a case of paint, with only a $1 or $2 increase in price.``

Twice the balls at basically the same price. If this were aimed at field and store owners and field and store owners actually used that extra margin to create healthier businesses and better facilities, then no problem. Unfortunately, field and store owners, as a whole, are not that smart. Field and store owners WILL pass these cost reductins onto thier customers (they always have in the past). From an individual player`s point of view, that may seem like a good thing. But from an industry perspactive, it sucks.

Cheaper paint WILL mean less, not more players in the future. Cheaper paint will keep new players from returning to the field after having experience high volume playing on their first visit. Less new players today means less regulars and less tourney players tomorrow. This trend has been happening over the last few years (started long before the recession started) as paintball prices have been dropping. One cent paintball (which is basically what this will amount to) will do much more harm to the industry than it will do good.

Yes we can wait to see what happens, but then it may be too late. It`s very difficult to reverse the trend of dropping prices.

[Dark Warrior]

It can if it's lighter. But that would have an adverse effect on it's ballistic properties.

So yes, it might hurt more, but I doubt it will be as big a bloodbath as people claim it to be. It'll go from stinging a little to stinging a tad.

Besides, anybody claiming that paintball hurts is a girly man.

According to UK regulations

If the paintball is lighter then the max velocity can be increased
.68 roughly .32g - 330ft/s
.50 roughly .24g - 380ft/s

[Reiner]

According to UK regulations

If the paintball is lighter then the max velocity can be increased
.68 roughly .32g - 330ft/s
.50 roughly .24g - 380ft/s
I'm wondering how the mass of the .50 calibre paintball was calculated.

The surface area of a .5 to .68 sphere is almost exactly half. If this accounts for the shell and assuming the same material type and thickness, then the shell should weigh roughly half.

The volume of a .5 to .68 sphere is approximately 40%. Again, assuming the same type of fill material, then the weight would be roughly 40% of the .68 fill.

This would mean the .5 ball would weigh somewhere between 40 to 50% of that of a .68 paintball.

24 grams is 75% of the weight of the 32 gram .68 caliber ball. Now I realize this is based on the same material types, which I assume with this new engineering that has supposedly taken place, is not the case.

I assume these balls have been seen by some as they have been tested in disguise thoughout North America, so maybe the 24 grams is an actual measurement.

I am not a mathematician so my math might be wrong (actually I used those handy on-line calculators), so I am wondering if the 24 grams is an actual measurement and not just some guess.

[Chicago]

Quick nit-pick: .68 caliber paintballs generally range from 2.8-3.2 grams. Not 28 to 32, and not .28 to .32.

[Devrij]

Okay bro, calm down. There is a way the ball could maintain the same velocity (increase in mass through denser fill), and if the shell is made fragile enough to break easily then where's the problem? The energy from the fill will be easily dispersed on contact as it's a liquid(contrary to your rant above), so the only real issue is the frangibility of the shell. It IS a significant issue though, and I understand your skepticism. I also find it hard to imagine a .5 calibre ball that will break consistently, BUT I'm not denying that possibility until I see these things in person. I recommend you do the same.

[Reiner]

Quick nit-pick: .68 caliber paintballs generally range from 2.8-3.2 grams. Not 28 to 32, and not .28 to .32.Thank you. The percentages still apply though. :)

[Reiner]

Okay bro, calm down. There is a way the ball could maintain the same velocity (increase in mass through denser fill), and if the shell is made fragile enough to break easily then where's the problem? The energy from the fill will be easily dispersed on contact as it's a liquid(contrary to your rant above), so the only real issue is the frangibility of the shell. It IS a significant issue though, and I understand your skepticism. I also find it hard to imagine a .5 calibre ball that will break consistently, BUT I'm not denying that possibility until I see these things in person. I recommend you do the same.But even a denser liquid will not disperse as quickly as a less dense liquid. Place a teaspoon of honey on a table and a teaspoon of water and observe.

Common sense tells me that a smaller object weighing the same and therefore traveling at the close to the same speed, when it hits me will hurt more. Take it to extremes and take a .1" diameter, liquid filled gelatin ball that is so dense it weighs the same as our .68 caliber paintballs and shoot it at your arm at 300 fps from 3' away. I know I'd opt out of that experimment. You might want to have a doctor stand by to surgically remove the remnants from your arm afterwards.

[Chicago]

Well, I don't think it needs to weigh the same, since the paintball is smaller. But it does need to be denser, and denser is going to hurt more, at the same velocity.

[Devrij]

But even a denser liquid will not disperse as quickly as a less dense liquid. Place a teaspoon of honey on a table and a teaspoon of water and observe.

Common sense tells me that a smaller object weighing the same and therefore traveling at the close to the same speed, when it hits me will hurt more. Take it to extremes and take a .1" diameter, liquid filled gelatin ball that is so dense it weighs the same as our .68 caliber paintballs and shoot it at your arm at 300 fps from 3' away. I know I'd opt out of that experimment. You might want to have a doctor stand by to surgically remove the remnants from your arm afterwards.

I disagree, the consistency of the fill need not be significantly different. if you take the shell out of the equation (assuming they make a shell that breaks very easily), the fill shouldn't change things enough to make it hurt noticeably more. The only issue I see is how they make the shell fragile enough to break easily on contact. I'm unsure as to whether they'll achieve that, but I'm not going to nay-say it until I've seen it. If it's rubbish and hurts like a b@stard then I'll be pissed, if not, hooray. Simple as.

[tshaka zulu]

Now I know it is human nature to want to inquire, and analyze and assess and speculate but this thread and many like it I find quite amusing. Much like tech products, this hasn't dropped yet so we don't really know for a fact what it will be like.....except those who are field testing it currently but I'm sure GI MILSIM was smart enough to have them sign NDAs first.

Bottomline.....when it drops, if it doesn't fill a need or create one it will lose. It may even create it's own niche for a time then fall by the wayside once the novelty wears off. We won't know anything until the community at large gets a chance to see product in the store and hold/play with product on the field. Italia's whole notion of a revolution will either prove to be brilliant or a load of festering marketing hype.

As a businessman myself, I hope it's a brilliant success because I don't wish failure on anyone....we all have families to feed and dreams to fulfill. As a gadget junkie and gear hound I hope it delivers. It will be fun to play with something new but if it doesn't live up to the hype none of us will have to poo poo it because consumer demand will do that for us. Until then, best of luck....we'll see what happens when the rubber meets the road.

[Gee Tee]

****Stop Press****

Kit manufacturers have completed some early R&D into revised pads and playing gear, specifically designed to cope with .50 cal play. Early test results on the "Rhino Scenario gear" look promising, and it should be on sale in time for worldwide launch of the smaller ball.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2136/3622844751_0c58d7b857.jpg?v=0

They even have a lighter version under developement specifically for X-ball

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3645/3623664618_b6eee3839f.jpg?v=0

Form an orderly queue ;)

[Reiner]

As a businessman myself, I hope it's a brilliant success because I don't wish failure on anyone....we all have families to feed and dreams to fulfill.And as a businessman, I agree. But if half price paintballs provide success for one business, selling to extremists, but ends up leaving an industry in shambles, I'll be just a bit p'd.

[tshaka zulu]

And as a businessman, I agree. But if half price paintballs provide success for one business, selling to extremists, but ends up leaving an industry in shambles, I'll be just a bit p'd.

Fair enough. I'm not on the hard goods or consumables side of things, but that scenario could definitely be reason enough for being quite peeved. :tup:

[Vegard]

I won't buy any of the .50 stuff, period.
A change will also have to start from the bottom, not top down like the industry is trying to do.

[Reiner]

I won't buy any of the .50 stuff, period.
A change will also have to start from the bottom, not top down like the industry is trying to do.How do you start something like this from the bottom? One guy in his basement designing his own .50 calibre marker and manufacturing his own .50 calibre paintballs? No. Changes like this are almost always started by big money and lots of marketing.

The marketing is a little easier these days. One press release on one forum and the whole industry is buzzing within a few hours.

[Devrij]

I won't buy any of the .50 stuff, period.
A change will also have to start from the bottom, not top down like the industry is trying to do.

Surely that's just obstination? So, even if it turns out the .50 cal is more accurate, cheaper, and all the other magical things they say it will be, you won't buy it? I'm with Tshaka Zulu on this one. The only way it could possibly be forced on us is if the major tourneys enforce its use, and they aren't stupid enough to make they're customers use a substandard ball (or else they'll go elsewhere). If it's good: great, if it isn't: no big deal.

[Buddha 3]

Quick nit-pick: .68 caliber paintballs generally range from 2.8-3.2 grams. Not 28 to 32, and not .28 to .32.

Imagine the hurt a 32 grams paintball would inflict! :eek:

[Buddha 3]

I'm getting the feeling some people are confusing density and viscosity on this thread...

[Reiner]

I'm getting the feeling some people are confusing density and viscosity on this thread...Probably. Can you make a really dense liquid also stay very viscous? Can you give me an example, so I can wrap my head around it better?

[stongle]

Probably. Can you make a really dense liquid also stay very viscous? Can you give me an example, so I can wrap my head around it better?

"Polymimetic liquid metal alloy", a Termination with every hit?

[Cook$]

Probably. Can you make a really dense liquid also stay very viscous? Can you give me an example, so I can wrap my head around it better?

guiness

[Buddha 3]

Probably. Can you make a really dense liquid also stay very viscous? Can you give me an example, so I can wrap my head around it better?

Yes. Mercury is very "liquid", so has a very low viscosity. But you'll have trouble finding something with higher density. (density is mass per volume, in layman's terms, mercury is incredibly heavy)

[Rider]

Jay is right - viscosity (thickness) and density (heaviness) do not need to be linked in the way a lot of people assume.

the mercury example is spot on.

on the other side, hardened vegetable fat is solid (incredibly viscous) but will still float on water (low density).

a thick cornflour paste is both very viscous and dense.

[Sid Sidgwick]

a thick cornflour paste is both very viscous and dense.

Ah the old Non-Newtonian fluid experiment :D

[Stark_Cyc]

.50 caliber isnt a revolution. Its just people marketing their own agenda.
So far all we have is estimated 20% lower MAP pricing for paint that dosent perform as well as .68 caliber.

There is a rumor of some magic formula for .50 caliber paint that would make it heavier and have thinner shell makin its perfomance comparable to .68 caliber. But thats just talk nothing more than ifs and buts. Also if you make .50 caliber heavier you will loose alot on possible shipping price gains to customers.

So how about all the pro .50 caliber arguments that pops up? Seems almost like when some of the arguments didnt hold out more are invented.

With .50 caliber pushed largest argument for it was that everyone will get better margins going from retail to rental sites. WTF is that? Incase you somehow enforce MAP pricing with higher margin on retail side that might be possible. Although we all know that nobody pays the map price if they are even the least involved in the sport. For rental and site side you might be able in the start to have littlebit better margin but that goes pretty soon away. The simple laws of competition with others in the same business will take care of that quite quickly. Pretty big issues on rental/site side is also the cost of buying all the new gear with no real idea if its worth it. Going .50 caliber you will have to consider also netting, insurance, goggles and so on. With walkon games there are alot of people using goggles that are not safe to be used with .50 caliber.

Going to the latest pro .50 caliber argument would be that one of the big issues is first timers getting too painful hits with .68 caliber. Even if hits would feel less with .50 caliber then who forces you to have too high fps, rof and sell rocks as paint to your field customers right now?
If I throw a group of new rental players on the field and have them play first with .68 caliber and then .50caliber witch one do you think they pick even .50 caliber is 20% cheaper? They will always pick .68 caliber for the simple reason that with the larger paint size you get alot more feeling to the playing with the paint flying at and from you. Atleast over here rentals dont shoot that much paint either making the price difference next to nothing. This is also assuming the paint is equal in performance.

Cheaper equipment? How would that be possible? You just have smaller bore barrel and feedneck. If you want to get same performance as .68 caliber you wont get a gazillion shots out of your airtank either. Or did I miss something in the laws of physics?

Also remember if someone cant afford now to go out and play paintball with .68 paint they for sure cant afford with .50 either. If you dont have the money then simply you dont and having possibly 20% cheaper paint available wont make any difference.

www.cyclone.ax

[DJForbes]

.50 caliber isnt a revolution. Its just people marketing their own agenda.
So far all we have is estimated 20% lower MAP pricing for paint that dosent perform as well as .68 caliber.

There is a rumor of some magic formula for .50 caliber paint that would make it heavier and have thinner shell makin its perfomance comparable to .68 caliber. But thats just talk nothing more than ifs and buts. Also if you make .50 caliber heavier you will loose alot on possible shipping price gains to customers.

So how about all the pro .50 caliber arguments that pops up? Seems almost like when some of the arguments didnt hold out more are invented.

With .50 caliber pushed largest argument for it was that everyone will get better margins going from retail to rental sites. WTF is that? Incase you somehow enforce MAP pricing with higher margin on retail side that might be possible. Although we all know that nobody pays the map price if they are even the least involved in the sport. For rental and site side you might be able in the start to have littlebit better margin but that goes pretty soon away. The simple laws of competition with others in the same business will take care of that quite quickly. Pretty big issues on rental/site side is also the cost of buying all the new gear with no real idea if its worth it. Going .50 caliber you will have to consider also netting, insurance, goggles and so on. With walkon games there are alot of people using goggles that are not safe to be used with .50 caliber.

Going to the latest pro .50 caliber argument would be that one of the big issues is first timers getting too painful hits with .68 caliber. Even if hits would feel less with .50 caliber then who forces you to have too high fps, rof and sell rocks as paint to your field customers right now?
If I throw a group of new rental players on the field and have them play first with .68 caliber and then .50caliber witch one do you think they pick even .50 caliber is 20% cheaper? They will always pick .68 caliber for the simple reason that with the larger paint size you get alot more feeling to the playing with the paint flying at and from you. Atleast over here rentals dont shoot that much paint either making the price difference next to nothing. This is also assuming the paint is equal in performance.

Cheaper equipment? How would that be possible? You just have smaller bore barrel and feedneck. If you want to get same performance as .68 caliber you wont get a gazillion shots out of your airtank either. Or did I miss something in the laws of physics?

Also remember if someone cant afford now to go out and play paintball with .68 paint they for sure cant afford with .50 either. If you dont have the money then simply you dont and having possibly 20% cheaper paint available wont make any difference.

www.cyclone.ax (http://www.cyclone.ax)

hey this is what ive been trying to say for sum time however my poor skills dont allow me to put what i think into writing.

however i will disagree with 20% not making any diffrence. i shoot on average 2 boxes of paint on a walk on day.lets say those cost 30 quid each. thats already going to save me £12

it costs me that to travel (by taxi) so this would help out a great deal.

looking at it in larger scale of say a stag day. 30 people each firing even just 500 rounds will save a huge amount. thats if the site reduce the cost of per 100

[Fisz]

hey this is what ive been trying to say for sum time however my poor skills dont allow me to put what i think into writing.

however i will disagree with 20% not making any diffrence. i shoot on average 2 boxes of paint on a walk on day.lets say those cost 30 quid each. thats already going to save me £12

it costs me that to travel (by taxi) so this would help out a great deal.

looking at it in larger scale of say a stag day. 30 people each firing even just 500 rounds will save a huge amount. thats if the site reduce the cost of per 100

But why should the site lower its' pricing? It's not the paintballs that they provide - they sell you an experience, paintballs are just part of it.

[Tom Allen]

of course they won't lower their prices, do you guys believe the site owners are like tesco and asda. Site owners get deals on paint all the time, and i can just see them saying "we've got a deal on paint this month, so you can have your paint a bit cheaper today" i don't think so.


Wake up guys.


punters won't even notice the difference in the paint, the only comment you're going to get from a punter is "wow new guns, i'm coming back to this site"

[Stark_Cyc]

hey this is what ive been trying to say for sum time however my poor skills dont allow me to put what i think into writing.

however i will disagree with 20% not making any diffrence. i shoot on average 2 boxes of paint on a walk on day.lets say those cost 30 quid each. thats already going to save me £12

it costs me that to travel (by taxi) so this would help out a great deal.

looking at it in larger scale of say a stag day. 30 people each firing even just 500 rounds will save a huge amount. thats if the site reduce the cost of per 100

With the .50 caliber paint shown around atm you would get also paint that dosent perform as well as the regular .68 caliber. Also like I said one of the arguments has been that with .50 caliber it would be smaller step for new players to get into and try the sport. New players and rental players dont use nowhere that amount of paint that you are shooting. Not atleast over here. Thats actually something that drives them off paintball, people hauling buckets of paint at them with electros while they are using rentals.

Remember when we talk in general paintball doing badly its all from the US market view. Even when europe has had good growth and has started to actually meen something, the scale of US market is something compleatly different. Paintball started to go down in US already before the recession hit us.

www.cyclone.ax

[Piper]

With the .50 caliber paint shown around atm you would get also paint that dosent perform as well as the regular .68 caliber

In what way does it not perform as well as .68?
Everything I have here is from the world cup and it is fine breaks on targets marks well. So I am curious as to what your comments are.

[Stark_Cyc]

In what way does it not perform as well as .68?
Everything I have here is from the world cup and it is fine breaks on targets marks well. So I am curious as to what your comments are.

Everything we have at the moment is people commenting on different forums that when they tried/saw the .50 it didnt break as well as you would expect. There isnt yet much to go by with so few able to get their hands on the paint and equipment. With time this will for sure change and we will get better picture on .50 caliber.

[Piper]

Everything we have at the moment is people commenting on different forums that when they tried/saw the .50 it didnt break as well as you would expect. There isnt yet much to go by with so few able to get their hands on the paint and equipment. With time this will for sure change and we will get better picture on .50 caliber.

So you have based your own opinion from what you have read or have you shot the gun/ paint?

[NitroBall]

In what way does it not perform as well as .68?

Piper, to be fair, can you really blame the vast amount of scepticism floating around.

Talks of 50Cal release has been going for a year now, all that has been posted is a bunch of vids consisting of various inconsistent tests. They have a couple of pro players shooting this new size paintballs on a range or down a field, telling everyone how good they are, then you get some billy boy doing random tests which tells everyone how much they suck.

Data sheets that have figures which the mojority of consumers do not understand, how acurate is this data. End of day, these figures are only figures, they are for marketing purposes, and we all know how companies try to make products sound much better than they are.

I can understand if this marketing was purely aimed at field owners, helping them with a bigger profit margin. Like most people say, what does the average punter care, they will still have a good day out for the same price, but using smaller size paintballs.

For a walk-on or tournament player, they would need to see with there own eyes or actually play on field, judge for themselves whether the performance of 50cal lives up to all this hype. Not only that, they would also need to see how much they could save on the cost of 50cal paint compared to 68cal to show what they could benifit in regards to buying new equipment.

We all know 68cal will still be around for a long time yet, what is worrying is if walk-on players turn up at there regular site with there 68cal kit, just to find out the site will only cater 50cal paint in the near future, and you have to buy paint from site.

Same with tournaments, how long till events will say every player needs to shoot 50cal ? It would be hard to imagine having to different size paint on field.

If there would be no advantage or dis-advantage or performance with either apart from costs, then there should'nt be a problem.

Its still early days, just throwing some of my views out.:)

[Piper]

That is my point, most people here and on other forums have formed an opinion based on what they have read, which get's my goat somewhat. The tests I have done and the sites I have seen are open to the idea and the new concept.

I have shot a .50 and a .68 side by side both at around 280 fps and the .50 shot further than the .68. Now when people read that statement they will I am sure think... he is only saying that because he has a hidden agenda who works for a company that sells the goods. What it needs is someone who has zero agenda or has not had their feathers ruffled or is not adversed to change or a new concept, to do the test, or failing that maybe I will arrange an open day and people can show up and try it themselves for free.

[John C]

That is my point, most people here and on other forums have formed an opinion based on what they have read, which get's my goat somewhat. The tests I have done and the sites I have seen are open to the idea and the new concept.

I have shot a .50 and a .68 side by side both at around 280 fps and the .50 shot further than the .68. Now when people read that statement they will I am sure think... he is only saying that because he has a hidden agenda who works for a company that sells the goods. What it needs is someone who has zero agenda or has not had their feathers ruffled or is not adversed to change or a new concept, to do the test, or failing that maybe I will arrange an open day and people can show up and try it themselves for free.

Im not sure if such person exists within paintball.

If you want to make a credible test without your bias spoiling it, do it like Mcarter Brown. It was clear they were happy with a certain result. But they didnt let it interfear with the method.
Show every detail of the test on video. Or as much as you can of the setup and then show the results.

Dont do it in the GI milsim style, like an advert. Showing only edited highlights.
People wont take it seriously.

[depth]

however i will disagree with 20% not making any diffrence. i shoot on average 2 boxes of paint on a walk on day.lets say those cost 30 quid each. thats already going to save me £12

it costs me that to travel (by taxi) so this would help out a great deal.



it wont really save you that much if its 20% cheaper to manufacture. first of all, all the paintball companies that make paint will have to buy expensive new machines to make the balls (i guess you could upgrade, but you'd need new rollers to roll out the shell and new drums to mound the shells in.) and then your going to need to buy all new gear (barrel, hopper, marker) so looking at just shy of £400 for a cheap set up. so that's 34 paintball walkons before the kit pays for its self (through the £12 per 2 boxes per day) + how ever long it takes for the paint companies to make back the money on buying the machines.

i guess after a year if you play every week it might pay off, but thats a year hoping that 50cal is a success. when the whole rec industry runs on .68 with most sites packing over 100 markers. say for example a small paintball site has 100 markers, and they have to upgrade to 50cal. that's 100 markers that are now useless to them as no one will want them as no one is using .68 then there's the whole buying the new ones, and even at £50 for the most basic of basic straight from the factory with no middleman. that's £5k. there not going to lower paint prices after forking out £5k+ for markers and the relevant gear like the whole 100 shot tube thing, they cant be used as they hold more so there's a whole new pod setup to be put in place and packs, then recreational players will complain because they "don't think there getting there monies worth". the list will grow. that and most sites are running more than 100 markers and they don't come that cheap when there built to last.

sorry, just my 2 pence. im probably wrong on some of that but i cant see it folding over in to the rec industry. for tournament probably. a back player carrying a case of paint on the field in just 4 pods will give an advantage to teams using 50cal over .68 teams.

[Stark_Cyc]

So you have based your own opinion from what you have read or have you shot the gun/ paint?

Like prettymuch everyone else here only thing we can go by atm are the comments and tests of those few people that have been able get their hands on the paint and equipment. Other than that we have just performance calculations on how the two calibers perform against each other.

If someone now asks me how .50 caliber performs Its quite simple. With the information thats available for me NOW it dosent seem to match .68 caliber.

When more people are able to get their hands on the gear and paint and specially larger range of paint and equipment we will be alot more informed.

You say that you have been able to get your hands on .50 caliber paint that seems to perform excelent for you. Thats then good news for .50 caliber. If you have the energy please do some sort of test or review. I'm sure lots of people would be interested in it. Either way positive comments and reviews will start comming when those good products are available for people.

www.cyclone.ax

[Vegard]

The latest rumour to hit the mill is that this will never hit the market.

[Piper]

The latest rumour to hit the mill is that this will never hit the market.

I would ignore that and go slap the person who told you.

[gambo47]

No way would suppliers and manufacturers spend a great deal of time visiting site owners promoting .50 cal etc if it wasn't proven hardware and paint.

Given the chance to try it out at sites over the UK I am sure you would have loads of people turning up as there is so much interest. I'm already keen to try and buy!

Hope to see u up here soon Piper!:)

[Chicago]

I have shot a .50 and a .68 side by side both at around 280 fps and the .50 shot further than the .68.

Was that with the same fill as in the paintballs available at World Cup?

How much did the .50 cal paintballs you were using when you were shooting the guns side by side weigh?

[Piper]

Was that with the same fill as in the paintballs available at World Cup?

Nope


How much did the .50 cal paintballs you were using when you were shooting the guns side by side weigh?

Not sure will find out for you

[Chicago]

Any luck on the mass of the paintballs? Just grab 100 and weigh them.

[Piper]

Any luck on the mass of the paintballs? Just grab 100 and weigh them.

Not yet Chris but don't worry as soon as I have I will post it up.

Thanks for the tip on how to weigh them...... I was wondering how I could do it :rolleyes:

[Chicago]

Not yet Chris but don't worry as soon as I have I will post it up.

Thanks for the tip on how to weigh them...... I was wondering how I could do it :rolleyes:

It wasn't a tip, I was just saying I wasn't looking for a weighted average over several cases down to 4 decimal places or anything.

[Buddha 3]

Chris, have you tried any of it, and if yes, how did you think it performed?

[Chicago]

Chris, have you tried any of it, and if yes, how did you think it performed?

I don't know. I have a bag of what they had at Cup, but not sure if that's the 'real' paint or not.

[Piper]

I don't know. I have a bag of what they had at Cup, but not sure if that's the 'real' paint or not.

Just weigh that then.............

[John C]

Just weigh that then.............

Yeah Chicago you lazy get.


Also, FYI regarding the new fill.
Players will be expected to provide their own fill which can be whatever density we choose.... Yey.:)

[Gadget]

I'll be using a solid lead fill and marketing it as 'Musketballz', the paint for real killerz.

[Tom Allen]

I'll be using a solid lead fill and marketing it as 'Musketballz', the paint for real killerz.
you may experience a slight drop in efficiency:)

[Missy-Q]

Just weigh that then.............

That wouldn't help. Chris wants you to weight the 50cal balls you used to out-range 68cal at 280fps. The ones he had from cup won't outdistance 68 at 280, so you must have the much-lauded 'heavier fill' in yours. You know, the crazy-heavy fill that makes the ball heavier than 68cal, and therefore fits within the discipline of physics, allowing it to outrange 68cal...

Now that he has your assurances that your 50cal does actually outrange 68cal (at 280) he just needs to know the weight of the 50cal balls you have there (the heavier fill ones). Once he knows that he can apply physics and no-doubt put 2 & 2 together to discover that GI Milsim were telling the absolute truth all along.
I know it will be a relief to all of us to finally prove once and for all that the GI Milsim crowd are 'not-guilty' of cooking their figures.

[John C]

That wouldn't help. Chris wants you to weight the 50cal balls you used to out-range 68cal at 280fps. The ones he had from cup won't outdistance 68 at 280, so you must have the much-lauded 'heavier fill' in yours. You know, the crazy-heavy fill that makes the ball heavier than 68cal, and therefore fits within the discipline of physics, allowing it to outrange 68cal...

Now that he has your assurances that your 50cal does actually outrange 68cal (at 280) he just needs to know the weight of the 50cal balls you have there (the heavier fill ones). Once he knows that he can apply physics and no-doubt put 2 & 2 together to discover that GI Milsim were telling the absolute truth all along.
I know it will be a relief to all of us to finally prove once and for all that the GI Milsim crowd are 'not-guilty' of cooking their figures.

It wouldnt have to be heavier to out range it.
50 cal would only need to be the same weight to out range the 68, because the smaller ball is slightly more aerodynamic.



I dont think A heavier fill is practical at all.
Apart from the materials side of things it would negate some of the claimed advantages of 50 cal.

The air efficiency tests would need to be re done with the heavier ball.

And putting twice as many balls in your hopper suddenly becomes a lot less practical if the balls are twice as heavy.

[Chicago]

Just weigh that then.............

I did. They weigh 1.21 grams. That's 38% of a standard 3.2 gram .68 cal paintball. A .50 cal paintball has 54% of the cross-sectional area of a .68 cal paintball. This results in three indisputable facts:

1) A 1.21g .50 cal paintball will be significantly out-ranged by a .68 cal paintball.
2) A 1.21g .50 cal paintball will travel a flight path with a higher arc to get to the same target
3) A 1.21g .50 cal paintball will take longer to get to the target - about 25% longer at 100 ft, and worse if more than that.


So, if you have a .50 cal paintball that out-ranges a .68 cal paintball, I can only assume that the .50 cal paintballs you have are significantly denser than the ones I have. So how much do they weigh?

[Missy-Q]

I did. They weigh 1.21 grams. That's 38% of a standard 3.2 gram .68 cal paintball. A .50 cal paintball has 54% of the cross-sectional area of a .68 cal paintball. This results in three indisputable facts:

1) A 1.21g .50 cal paintball will be significantly out-ranged by a .68 cal paintball.
2) A 1.21g .50 cal paintball will travel a flight path with a higher arc to get to the same target
3) A 1.21g .50 cal paintball will take longer to get to the target - about 25% longer at 100 ft, and worse if more than that.


So, if you have a .50 cal paintball that out-ranges a .68 cal paintball, I can only assume that the .50 cal paintballs you have are significantly denser than the ones I have. So how much do they weigh?

Out of interest Chicago - and I don't want to take the heat off Pipes in any way - but have you calculated how heavy a 50cal ball would actually need to be in order to fly equidistant to the 68 round?

[Chicago]

Out of interest Chicago - and I don't want to take the heat off Pipes in any way - but have you calculated how heavy a 50cal ball would actually need to be in order to fly equidistant to the 68 round?

Depends on the velocity, and even then it's not something you calculate so much as something you plug into a ballistics model which is created by actually observing projectiles of a similar shape. Trying to keep mass proportional to cross-sectional area has you at 1.73 grams. People whose expertise I trust more than mine that have run the ballistic models have been saying you get about even performance at 1.5 grams. So at least 1.5, maybe more.

One interesting tidbit is that the density of the 1.21g .50 cal paint is actually lower by 5% than that of a 3.2g .68 cal ball.

[Piper]

Weight of the paint I have here is 1.28g.

[Chicago]

Weight of the paint I have here is 1.28g.

Then it isn't out-ranging .68 caliber, unless you have a .50 cal flatline or apex.

[Piper]

Then it isn't out-ranging .68 caliber, unless you have a .50 cal flatline or apex.

How did I know you would say that........ I was kind of screwed either way, if I post the weight you say it did not happen and if I don't post the weight you say, he is not posting because it won't happen.

That is the weight of the ball I have here, the one's we used we have no more of, I did not weigh those before we used them, we have played around with formula's and fills, so there is a chance those balls were heavier. I have never said it would out perform 68 consistantly and on every shot, just when we did that test at that time it did. Those are the facts, there could have been any number of fator's that made it possible, one being the weight of the ball.

I think my statement could possible be taken as I am stating it wil ALWAYS out perform .68 cal, what I said was I have shot a .50 and a .68 side by side both at around 280 fps and the .50 shot further than the .68 so it was that test and that time that it did.

[gambo47]

I think the .50 cal will be great for sites...I will hopefully have one of these .50 cals soon enough and it has to start somewhere...no one should be afraid of or against .50 cal paint as new folk into the game/sport won't have anything to compare it against and will be "unbiased". Its like an option just like hopper, gun, clothes, goggles and now you can choose calibre!..:)

[John C]

How did I know you would say that........ I was kind of screwed either way, if I post the weight you say it did not happen and if I don't post the weight you say, he is not posting because it won't happen.

That is the weight of the ball I have here, the one's we used we have no more of, I did not weigh those before we used them, we have played around with formula's and fills, so there is a chance those balls were heavier. I have never said it would out perform 68 consistantly and on every shot, just when we did that test at that time it did. Those are the facts, there could have been any number of fator's that made it possible, one being the weight of the ball.

I think my statement could possible be taken as I am stating it wil ALWAYS out perform .68 cal, what I said was I have shot a .50 and a .68 side by side both at around 280 fps and the .50 shot further than the .68 so it was that test and that time that it did.



I think Chigago was trying to determine whether the 50 cal actually did fly further.
Or whether it simply appeared to fly further.

Human perception alone is a far less reliable means of measuring something like this, than physics is at predicting it.

In this instance both interpretations are relevent because 50 cal is ultimately going to be judged by human perception not physics.

[Missy-Q]

I think the .50 cal will be great for sites...I will hopefully have one of these .50 cals soon enough and it has to start somewhere...no one should be afraid of or against .50 cal paint as new folk into the game/sport won't have anything to compare it against and will be "unbiased". Its like an option just like hopper, gun, clothes, goggles and now you can choose calibre!..:)

Great for fields, bad for stores. It paves the way for a 2 tiered industry. I see that as a bad thing.

[Chicago]

I think my statement could possible be taken as I am stating it wil ALWAYS out perform .68 cal, what I said was I have shot a .50 and a .68 side by side both at around 280 fps and the .50 shot further than the .68 so it was that test and that time that it did.

You're splitting hairs. A 1.21g or 1.28g .50 cal paintball will *NEVER* out-range a 3.2g .68 cal paintball when fired at the same velocity. So if you stand by your previous statement, then you MUST have had a .50 cal paintball that weighed 1.5g or more.

I can GUARANTEE that if you take those 1.28g .50 cal paintballs and fire them at 280 fps and take some .68 cal paintballs and fire them at 280 fps, out of straight-cylinder barrels, that the .68 cal paintballs will go further EVERY SINGLE TIME.

So the paint that people will actually get in the cases they buy - will that be the .50 cal paintballs that you don't have any more of that you claim out-range .68 cal paintballs, or will that be the .50 cal paintballs you have now that don't actually out-range .68 cal paintballs?

Addendum: .50 cal paintball needs to weigh about 1.6 grams to have a similar trajectory to a .68 cal paintball at 300 fps, although this is according to calcs by people smarter than I.

[Piper]

That is the weight of the ball I have here, the one's we used we have no more of, I did not weigh those before we used them, we have played around with formula's and fills, so there is a chance those balls were heavier.

Chris I am not splitting hairs I telling you the truth, yes the ball's we used may have been heavier which I why I wrote the above!

[Chicago]

Chris I am not splitting hairs I telling you the truth, yes the ball's we used may have been heavier which I why I wrote the above!

Are the paintballs that people get in the boxes you will be selling them the 1.28g paintballs you have now or the heaver paintballs that you no longer have?

[John C]

So it doesnt fly further at the same velocity.
Nobody with a basic knowledge of physics expected it would.


How about turning the velocity up?
A fiddy cal fired at 350 - 400fps would compete very well with a 68 cal fired at 280.

It would also still be legal (in the UK at least)

[Reiner]

So it doesnt fly further at the same velocity.
Nobody with a basic knowledge of physics expected it would.


How about turning the velocity up?
A fiddy cal fired at 350 - 400fps would compete very well with a 68 cal fired at 280.

It would also still be legal (in the UK at least)How would that feel on a close encounter shout though?

[John C]

How would that feel on a close encounter shout though?

The same as a 'double density' 50 cal fired at 280fps at close range?

Same energy. Same surface area. Same ouch!

[Dexter]

can anyone tell me what weight a .50 ball would have to be to peform as well as a .68 ball travelling at 300fps?

[Swampthing]

I think around 1.5g ( going on round ball balistics calcs )

[Dexter]

cheers dave :D

[vmaxnick]

One interesting point; the .50 cal debate surfaced briefly mid last year on the UK rec-ball, Scenario, Walkon forums and is now largely forgotten.
I cannot see how a different caliber is going to make economic sense to anyone but the suppliers if it divides the market.

I've just done a quick search on the 3 main UK sites catering for "The others" and cannot find a current post.

[Reiner]

One interesting point; the .50 cal debate surfaced briefly mid last year on the UK rec-ball, Scenario, Walkon forums and is now largely forgotten.
I cannot see how a different caliber is going to make economic sense to anyone but the suppliers if it divides the market.

I've just done a quick search on the 3 main UK sites catering for "The others" and cannot find a current post.Yeah, it seems to be dying down everywhere. It's not too far from a year since the first announcements were made, but unless I'm mistaken, nothing is available yet (please enlighten me if it's easily available in Europe). Seems to be a bit of a marketing flop.

[dam-dangerous]

.50 Caliber Revolution.. errr no thanks.
Lets think of the costs to change to the new 50 caliber paintballs? New marker, new barrels, new hoppers... .68 caliber will always be around because everyone will have the markers ect. Why would a site want to change if they have to replace 100+ markers.

betamax to dvd
dvd to blue ray
4 star petrol to unleaded
vinyl records to cd
change happens, no matter how much you've spent in the past or how much you like the current format in any thing.
if the manufacturers of any prodyct want you to change your mindsett then they just have to stop the current format.
your only choice is to accept it or pack in.
if this format takes off i recon it will happen faster than you want.
one question i have is with a smaller therefor lighter ball will it be more seceptable to wind etc?
what are the marking capabilities, cos we all know how easy it can be to hide or lose a mark from a 68 cal ball and that contains double the paint.

[Gadget]

betamax to dvd
dvd to blue ray
4 star petrol to unleaded
vinyl records to cd
change happens, no matter how much you've spent in the past or how much you like the current format in any thing.
if the manufacturers of any prodyct want you to change your mindsett then they just have to stop the current format.
your only choice is to accept it or pack in.
if this format takes off i recon it will happen faster than you want.
one question i have is with a smaller therefor lighter ball will it be more seceptable to wind etc?
what are the marking capabilities, cos we all know how easy it can be to hide or lose a mark from a 68 cal ball and that contains double the paint.

Change normally occurs only when there is a benefit to the consumer - we're yet to see if the benefits of .50 will outweigh the negative aspects. Given that paintball is a competetive environment, people will opt for whichever format gives them the edge - if that's .68, then people will pay the extra to use the best tool for the job.

New does not always equate to better, especially in an industry such as paintball, where we have more than our fair share of snake oil salesmen.

[Reiner]

Change happens if there is a mandated change by virtue of changes in laws or a governing body forces a change or it's a change for economic reasons. Product lines can be added to or even changed if consumers can see value in the new product. Change will not happen just because someone feels it should change. Having said that, value does not have to be real, it can be perceived value. That's where marketing comes into play.

[Robbo]

one question i have is with a smaller therefor lighter ball will it be more seceptable to wind etc?
what are the marking capabilities, cos we all know how easy it can be to hide or lose a mark from a 68 cal ball and that contains double the paint.

There is obvoiusly less inertia in a 50 calibre ball because of its smaller mass but this is somewhat offset by the 50 cal's surface area.
If you think about it, the 50 cal [in terms of surface area] is going to be less affected by wind turbulence because the wind has less surface area to act upon.

I haven't yet done the math to see to what degree this reduction in surface area offsets the inertial mass reduction but I doubt it's gonna be a long way off from parity.

As far as the 'mark' the 50 cal leaves, Piper can probably put me right here but there is little difference between the two from what I have seen.

[John C]

There is obvoiusly less inertia in a 50 calibre ball because of its smaller mass but this is somewhat offset by the 50 cal's surface area.
If you think about it, the 50 cal [in terms of surface area] is going to be less affected by wind turbulence because the wind has less surface area to act upon.

I haven't yet done the math to see to what degree this reduction in surface area offsets the inertial mass reduction but I doubt it's gonna be a long way off from parity.

As far as the 'mark' the 50 cal leaves, Piper can probably put me right here but there is little difference between the two from what I have seen.

Read up in the thread. The maths has already been done.

The .5 cal needs to be either ~1.5g. Or shot at ~400fps to acheive parity with a regular 68 cal.


The marking tests look very similar on hard targets for obvious reasons. Soft targets or ones in motion may be quite different.

[dam-dangerous]

many are talking about the price of kit adaption, replacement and so on.
in the tourney scene especially, we all know the majority of players are gear sluts and change markers quicker than there pants so why are you all commenting on it like its some kind of forced slavery?
a high percentage of the general population of ballers are so obsessed with new and shiney things that the oldest thing in your kit bag is liable to be the batteries in your hopper!
top and bottom of things is that the vast majority of tourney players could be geared up for it within a season and not even notice any change in spending.
think about it, how many barrels, hoppers, markers, packs, pots etc have you got duplicated in your kit bag?whats wrong with the old ones?
quite often nothing, other than a new one came out in another colour or with new shiney bits or so on.
i know this 'cos for more years than i can remember i've spent more on gear than i would care to count up,
some on updating stuff, some on replacing worn out kit and some just on better looking gear but i would say that on average most players replace every bit of the kit we use over the space of a couple of seasons at the most any way.

[Robbo]

Nice post Ian .. just about sums it up mate.

[dam-dangerous]

Nice post Ian .. just about sums it up mate.

thanks
i just think the price issue is getting blown out of proportion.
we will spend a small fortune on having the newest shiney thing, to get another few % more shots per fill and so on, and at no point complain at what were spending and in quite a few cases wasting.
whats more important is will it improve something, accuracy, shots per fill range etc. a saving on price per game can only be a bonus. :-)

[Piper]

I posted some pictures of splats in another thread on here, yes the splat is smaller but not half the size as some have stated.

[Gadget]

many are talking about the price of kit adaption, replacement and so on.
in the tourney scene especially, we all know the majority of players are gear sluts and change markers quicker than there pants so why are you all commenting on it like its some kind of forced slavery?
a high percentage of the general population of ballers are so obsessed with new and shiney things that the oldest thing in your kit bag is liable to be the batteries in your hopper!
top and bottom of things is that the vast majority of tourney players could be geared up for it within a season and not even notice any change in spending.
think about it, how many barrels, hoppers, markers, packs, pots etc have you got duplicated in your kit bag?whats wrong with the old ones?
quite often nothing, other than a new one came out in another colour or with new shiney bits or so on.
i know this 'cos for more years than i can remember i've spent more on gear than i would care to count up,
some on updating stuff, some on replacing worn out kit and some just on better looking gear but i would say that on average most players replace every bit of the kit we use over the space of a couple of seasons at the most any way.

There are loads of tournament players who would love to swap markers every season but can't afford to, that's why people have objections to any enforced migration to new hardware. Making sweeping generalisations that all tourny ballers swap markers reguarly in order to dismiss the capital outlay associated with any move to .50 is inaccurate and unhelpful.

[Piper]

There are loads of tournament players who would love to swap markers every season but can't afford to, that's why people have objections to any enforced migration to new hardware. Making sweeping generalisations that all tourny ballers swap markers reguarly in order to dismiss the capital outlay associated with any move to .50 is inaccurate and unhelpful.

Making sweeping generalisations that you are being forced to swap is inaccurate and unhelpful

[Gadget]

I was responding to the previous poster's comment on 'forced slavery', not making my own generalisation.

[John C]

Im with you Gadget.

At first they were saying rec/scenario players for some reason want less accurate paint.
Now its moved on to the generalisation that tourney players love to re buy new kit every other week.



Honestly whats next? All american people are grossly overweight.
An awful generalisation. But, probably a better foundation to build a business model on than the 2 above.

[Piper]

Im with you Gadget.

At first they were saying rec/scenario players for some reason want less accurate paint.
Now its moved on to the generalisation that tourney players love to re buy new kit every other week.



Honestly whats next? All american people are grossly overweight.
An awful generalisation. But, probably a better foundation to build a business model on than the 2 above.

To be fair though no one says you have to buy it, if you don't want it don't buy it, if you don't want to read the hype or information don't read it......... It's your choice John

[lettucecheesecake]

Andy, will dark sports be a paint sponsor for the Millenium? Obviously with who's involved im guessing it will be and rules added to include 50cal. Hopefully i'll have a go with the new stuff next sunday and ill post up my honest thoughts. I'll have to come and say hello to everyone and give ade some grief!

[Spike]

GI Milsim are indeed a Platinum Sponsor...


Millennium Press Releases (http://www.millennium-series.com/index.php?actualpage=10)

See December 12th and November19th in respect of 50 Cal.

I will most likely be a BW next week with some 50 cal goodies to try.

The more grief you can give Ade the better - saves us a job and allows us to divert our attention back to real work knowing that someone else is taking care of the important things ;)

[kamikaze_chris]

guys u will always get people having a dig, 50cal is there for the consumer to choose and you cant do anymore than that, and allow people to choose for themselves, i for one will try it and pass judgement, i already have ideas on advantages and disadvantages of it, :)

[Furby]

And now the Revolution has Begun:

http://thefordreport.com/2010/07/valken-and-g-i-milsim-the-revolution-has-begun/