.50 cal ballistics data [Archive] - P8ntballer Paintball Forums

Gadget

14-10-2009, 09:31 PM

Blatantly ripped from PBN. "Painthappy" is the owner of the MCarterBrown forums.

100 rounds of sealed production paint was weighed and the average was 1.21 grams.

Lots of talk, little data. Trying to change that.

Here is a complete ballistics report comparing .50 to .68 caliber.

Most .68 caliber weigh roughly 3.0 grams to 3.2 grams. We used the 3.0 for these calculations shooting at 300 FPS

After weighing .50 caliber paint from Cup, the average weight was 1.21 grams. This also jives with the number from a .50 caliber beta tester that posted weight numbers on his blog.

The results in full can be found here:
http://mcarterbrown.com/50ballistics/
and here is the Google spreadsheet version can be see here (it's the same thing):
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AogvJmThiCeZdHFQVklxOXV4aTVBczJ3VlBuQnFfc kE&hl=en

From the link, you can see I have posted the ballistics program used, the data input, etc. Don't just blindly trust folks, or even me... Run the data for yourself.

Images for the truly lazy:
http://mcarterbrown.com/50ballistics/index_files/oimg_002.png

http://mcarterbrown.com/50ballistics/index_files/oimg_004.png

http://mcarterbrown.com/50ballistics/index_files/oimg.png

I want to make sure credit is given to Incynr8 for starting the data and creating most of the data, my inside man for weighing the paint, and Bryce for giving me the online excel and graphing idea. Thanks!

Next is real world testing... Which we'll do and the video is coming in the next week or so, so keep an eye on my youtube channel for more on that (link is in the sig...)

More soon...

Someone asked me how fast does a .50 caliber ball need to be traveling to have the same performance... So I also ran the numbers shooting a .50 ball at 400 FPS and 450 FPS.

http://www.mcarterbrown.com/50ballistics/more.html

http://www.mcarterbrown.com/50ballistics/more_files/oimg_003.png

http://www.mcarterbrown.com/50ballistics/more_files/oimg.png

http://www.mcarterbrown.com/50ballistics/more_files/oimg_002.png

Gadget

14-10-2009, 09:42 PM

I keep seeing people say "it's not the final production fill". And that bothers me somewhat. So we have a company making claims on a paint they haven't created yet?

I mean... What is this paint I have in these sealed plastic bags nicely labeled GIMilsim? The junk stuff?

So let's assume it's the cheaper stuff... Fine.

Paint varies roughly 10% in fill weights. .68 caliber paint I ran numbers at 3.0 grams, the real heavy tournament stuff weighs in at even MORE and is roughly 3.3 grams. That's a 10% increase. You can only make the paint weigh so much and still have it go splat on it's target. Any more and you're just shooting silly putty.

So let's add 10% to the current "production" fill. That brings us to 1.331 grams. Again, we can only go so high without making the cost either really expensive, or any higher and it won't be viscous enough to make a splat.

Here are those numbers:
http://www.mcarterbrown.com/50ballistics/10percentmore.html

http://www.mcarterbrown.com/50ballistics/10percentmore_files/oimg_002.png

http://www.mcarterbrown.com/50ballistics/10percentmore_files/oimg.png

http://www.mcarterbrown.com/50ballistics/10percentmore_files/oimg_003.png

...

Gadget

14-10-2009, 09:45 PM

Figured we also might as well run the numbers on how the paint is affected by wind. The lighter the projectile the more affected it will be.

Throw a golf ball and a ping pong ball in a strong wind. Obviously the lighter ball will drift further off your original target than the golf ball would.

We have the same situation here.

Data:
http://www.mcarterbrown.com/50ballistics/wind.html

Using a 10 MPH wind, I figured the drift for a 3.0 gram .68 caliber ball, the current production 1.21 gram .50 caliber ball, and our theoretical (but not a reality yet if ever) heavier 1.331 gram .50 caliber ball.

http://www.mcarterbrown.com/50ballistics/wind_files/oimg.png

The sooner the curve (at distance) the more affected the paint will be due to wind.

...

Sid Sidgwick

14-10-2009, 09:45 PM

Nice to see some scientific data. Hmmmm does fly in the face of the hype (or drops off early) Nice to see what data is realsed against it.

Gadget

14-10-2009, 09:45 PM

Validation of the paint weights from Jack Wood:

http://www.techpb.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=60518&view=findpost&p=748878

Hi,

Sorry I haven't been around for a while. Just been super-busy.

I have just weighed 2 differerent 0.50 brands of balls, each brand having 2 different batches (so 4 different balls altogether), and they all weigh in at exactly 1.2g

I have some of the "Tournament Grade" GI paint that I picked up at Cup in the truck on the way to RI to forward to me in the UK, and I will weigh that also. That would be Monday next week, I hope.

Jack

blinket

14-10-2009, 09:53 PM

it dosnt look greatly promising for the fact that in speedball and also recball distance is a key factor. If paint isnt traveling as far it will make things different and more chalenging though.

The pros and cons of .50 realy ned to be weighed up:

Pros:

1)More shots in your hopper
2)More shots per fill of air
3)Possible cheapness

Cons:

1)Less Distance
2)Less Power
3)Possibly less visible marks left (debateable)
4)Could change the game in a negative way
5)Cost of conversion kits or new markers (however this could be balanced out with reduced paint prices)

Gadget

14-10-2009, 09:57 PM

Needs to be said that all of these figures (except for the paint weights, which are real-world data) are based on theoretical modelling. Once we have real-world, unbiased test results, then we can start unpicking the hype......or not ;)

Sid Sidgwick

14-10-2009, 10:05 PM

Im looking forward to ssing what response is released to this data, its all theoretical after all.

it dosnt look greatly promising for the fact that in speedball and also recball distance is a key factor. If paint isnt traveling as far it will make things different and more chalenging though.

The pros and cons of .50 realy ned to be weighed up:

Pros:

1)More shots in your hopper-great as long as they reach the other end and have enough power to break
2)More shots per fill of air-Maybe in scenario this is an issue but in speedball ive never ever ran out of air in a game
3)Possible cheapness-now this is the biggy, if the saving outweighs the cost of changing kit then its ok, again only if the ball is any good.

Cons:

1)Less Distance-Mighty big problem, unless of course the ball is going to be changed before release
2)Less Power-If it still breaks this aint an issue
3)Possibly less visible marks left (debateable)-As you say debated already
4)Could change the game in a negative way-May stop movment and slow the game down, was this a point in changing? may also improve the game
5)Cost of conversion kits or new markers (however this could be balanced out with reduced paint prices)-bingo

Gadget

14-10-2009, 10:13 PM

Swampthing

14-10-2009, 10:39 PM

good posts Gadget

blinket

14-10-2009, 10:45 PM

im glad you found my thoughts useful sid haha

although you did expand where i couldnt!

But on the subject of scenario, its easy to run out of air, 20 min-2 hour games its quite easy as you can imagine. The advantage of the 50cal would be you could fire more pellets for the same amount of air in a big scenario game. Saves a treck back to the respawn site to gas up as often.

Devrij

16-10-2009, 12:30 AM

Dude, this is what I was saying the whole time when this came up: the physics don't work out. Consider also that smaller spheres are stronger so lower velocity+stronger shell = bounces. This all depends, however, on the reliability of the ballistics calculator used. Especially considering that a paintball isn't a solid sphere. So basically we're going to be shooting 450fps if we want the game to resemble that of today. Hmmm

blinket

16-10-2009, 02:16 AM

and it seems reasonable to assume the higher the velocity the more air thats used, which could cancel out the point of .50 and being able to shoot more per fill....

so the point of .50 is...what?...

3L1TE hax

16-10-2009, 06:49 AM

MONEY!!!! and nothing else

Robbo

16-10-2009, 09:41 AM

One other (unrelated and quite possibly incorrect) rumor mentioned on a number of other forums is that after Richmond Italia sold his stake in Procaps he was paid off, but part of that package was a 'non-competition' clause, preventing him from producing paint to compete with Procaps (i.e. standard .68 cal).....and now suddenly he's promoting .50.

<Insert conspiracy theory here>.

Gadge, Richmond isn't a silly man and in no way would he compromise his non-compete contract condition in such a blatant way.
He is in negotiation with Procaps regrading this non-compete and they are fully aware of what Richmond is doing and in fact, Richmond would have been given the all-clear by Procaps or his own personal lawyers before he did anything involved in paintball.

Robbo

16-10-2009, 09:44 AM

Consider also that smaller spheres are stronger

Dev, so what you are saying is, the shell properties have no bearing on a paintball's strength???
Are you seriously suggesting that?

Gadget

16-10-2009, 09:54 AM

Gadge, Richmond isn't a silly man and in no way would he compromise his non-compete contract condition in such a blatant way.
He is in negotiation with Procaps regrading this non-compete and they are fully aware of what Richmond is doing and in fact, Richmond would have been given the all-clear by Procaps or his own personal lawyers before he did anything involved in paintball.

Sorry, wasn't trying to imply that he was doing anything dodgy - just wondered if the non-compete was along the lines of "thou shalt not make .68 paint", which may have encouraged him to investigate the use of a different caliber ball?

One comment I saw on another forum made me chuckle - came from Tom Kaye and was along the lines of "I tried that and failed, but Richmond has made a shed-load more money out of paintball than I ever did, so maybe he's right." ;)

Devrij

16-10-2009, 11:45 AM

Dev, so what you are saying is, the shell properties have no bearing on a paintball's strength???
Are you seriously suggesting that?

I'm saying that making a shell fragile enough to break on people and not in breeches will be harder than it already is due to the smaller tolerances needed. This is one of the problems that is actually workable, but the velocity issue is defined by the laws of physics and one which many of us said would be a problem from the start. This flight prediction is just a visual way of saying what a lot of people were saying months ago: we'll need higher velocities or it's going to be rubbish.

Robbo

16-10-2009, 01:05 PM

I'm saying that making a shell fragile enough to break on people and not in breeches will be harder than it already is due to the smaller tolerances needed. This is one of the problems that is actually workable, but the velocity issue is defined by the laws of physics and one which many of us said would be a problem from the start. This flight prediction is just a visual way of saying what a lot of people were saying months ago: we'll need higher velocities or it's going to be rubbish.

Dev, I'm well aware of the laws of physics and how they apply to paintball ballistics; for you to describe .50 cal 'rubbish' is an infantile comment based upon what????
Your understanding of the laws of physics ??

Well, thank god Richmond didn't use you as his technical touchstone.
Personally, I'd like to think I would be a lot more opinionated after I had seen and fired the paint rather than condemning it out of hand as you are.

I know Richmond, I don't know you other than what you post on here and let me tell ya something ... if my money's on anyone, it's on Richmond rather than somebody who indulges in bar-room physics.

I'm afraid Richmond did not become a multi-millionaire by indulging himself in 'rubbish' Dev, I don't think you have rationalised this properly Dev, try looking at it from top down rather than bottom up; and by that I mean, look at the man behind it all and then make your predictions as to whether it's 'rubbish' or not.

From your posts, you like to take contrary positions, much like teenagers when growing up, but to do this, you need to be able to back it up; and so let's hope you can do just that especially, when you begin bandying around the laws of physics.

blinket

16-10-2009, 01:29 PM

Robbo i'l admit, i havnt fired .50 cal, i havn't inspected it, and i am most certainly not a physicist. But, looking at all the evidence provided so far (which i will agree to being preliminary and mostly hypothetical data) you have to think that .50 cal does carry some flaws to it.

I can also understand a point of view that everything when it starts off is to be evolved and redesigned and the flaws worked out. So although Dev may not be a physicist, he has picked up on that there may be a flaw with .50 cal. However i do not think it is with the shell, before i comment here i have to add again, i am not a physicist, but, since .68 tourny grade shells are perfected (arguable opinion i know but humour me), does it not stand to reason that .50 is simply a scaled down version of .68, therefore although the size of the round is smaller, a similar ratio of shell density to fill will bring promising results? And in breeches, yes, the shell thickness will be reduced, but thinking logically, because there is less weigh being proppeled (.50 cal being lighter than .68) would it not stand to reason that not as much force is required to move the pellet and therefore less force will be exerted onto the shell meaning that the redefined tollerances and dimensions of .50 cal shell will allow it to fire without breaking int he breech as you mentioned?

However i cannot comment on the velocity issue, that realy IS for physicists to analyse. The modeld outcomes and performances of .50 cal did not lok promising. But im sure those clever clever boys and girls with big shiny deplomas who are very excentric will solve it!

And Robbo, i will say that as successfull as Richmond has been, and he may well be right again (which is of high possibility) that even the smartest people and the most successful people make mistakes. Stephen Hawkins (arguably the smartest person int he world) has made mistakes before. I am not condemming Richmond or his investment, but people get things wrong. Remember, i am not condemming Richmond, nor am i condemming Dev, but we need to see how everything pans out.

.50 cal needs to be given a fair chance to shine and prove itself before it can be fully judged. Yes, people can look at the pros and cons (as i have done earlier in this thread) but judgement cant be made until it has had a chance to blossom.

I know any number of people could probably flame this entire post, but its only an opinion, id rather be proved wrong and discuss my opinion than have it flamed though guys!

Cheers :)

Devrij

16-10-2009, 01:30 PM

Point taken, I was a bit glib with the "rubbish" remark. What I should have said was that without increased velocity 50 cal balls won't fly as far or maintain velocity as well, as shown in the flight predictions above (I did query the accuracy of those predictions so am not taking them as read btw). As regards to bar room physics, I did study engineering at uni so have some basic knowledge of projectiles, though I obviously don't have the experience Richmond has. I'm just flagging up some doubts/worries I have with the concept. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on the flight predictions and what implications they have with regards to significantly raised fps. As for condemning it out of hand, certainly I have given a cynical view, but I've always said in other threads that if they address these problems (and I'm sure they will) that I'll support it. I just don't like the idea of getting nailed in the back of the head at 450fps.

Swampthing

16-10-2009, 01:58 PM

Padrao

16-10-2009, 02:00 PM

Just another interesting information.

.50 cal Shell thickness of the paint is .014 to .0145 according to digital caliper reading

.68 cal Shell thickness of the paint is .014 aswell... so it does look like the shell was not changed that much.

Obviously the materials used to make the shell can change, making it easier to break, but it is interesting to find out that the thickness pretty much stayed the same. it would be very interesting to find out the composition of the shells... but that might be nearly impossible to achieve.

So blinket what you just said makes perfect sense. But this is till not enough... we need actual testing on the field. That is what will really give the final input. Until then I guess its a matter of scientific conviction or faith...

Also Swampthing, the .50 paintball bag showed "To be used at no more then 300 fps" so... i guess that pretty much answers your question.

http://www.mcarterbrown.com/50ballistics/images/Back2.jpg <--- here

John C

16-10-2009, 02:15 PM

Does anyone know what velocity the new 50 cal paintball is designed to be fired at ?

Ive read a few reports on the ball weight's, around 1.2g but mixed reports on what the firing velocity will be. There must be some specs that the marker manufactures are working to.

Robbo ?

At first they said 300fps. Thats what they did the lab test videos at.

But the demonstrations they were doing at the cup were at 315 + fps.
There was talk that it would end up being 350 to get adequate range.

In short I dont think they know yet.

Lump

16-10-2009, 02:25 PM

i thought you could not shoot over 300fps in this country ? and will tourneys allow us to shoot at 350fps ?

John C

16-10-2009, 02:34 PM

i thought you could not shoot over 300fps in this country ? and will tourneys allow us to shoot at 350fps ?

You cant shoot a .68 cal at over ~300fps.

You can shoot a .50 cal at ~450fps and its within the law because its less than half the weight.
Its about energy rather than velocity.

Not sure about tourneys as thats a matter of insurance.

Padrao

16-10-2009, 05:12 PM

*Humor on*

http://www.gifsoup.com/view/31021/droptest-s.gif

Funny drop test... :p

Just joking folks lets wait for the real drop test, this home made one means nothing, still funny though :rolleyes:

Minibaker

16-10-2009, 06:58 PM

i can see this being something that enters paintball and then dies out such as pro line mister twister barrel and volumizers but on a slightly bigger scale....
and the firing distance reached by a .50 ball at the current fps rules would need to be changed.

for example.
put two guys at a start gate. both with dm9's same air bottle, hopper and barrel
one guys shooting 68cal and the other shooting .50cal and both guns chonro at 290 +/- 3 the 50cal wont even get passed the 50!

Bolter

16-10-2009, 07:20 PM

Hello Everyone,

Well I don't come to the forum for a few days while I am chasing dinos and look what pops up.

First of all, I have actually PLAYED with 50 cal back in the day using Budd's Sniper. In the 80's 50 cal held the same hope it does today, a way to sell cheaper paint and get more of it in the gun. Back then it was a double bonus since a 12 gram would fire a whole lot more 50's than 68's. As you can imagine, the 50 had piss poor accuracy and didn't break. It was quickly given up on along with 62 cal. promoted by Tippmann.

My read of the story tells me something different that I will SPECULATE on. Richmond sold his company from what I understand, and likely has a specific non-compete. The 50 cal ball probably gets around this and this could be the major motivation. I know personally because we have the same thing between Pepper Ball and FN, in our case the weight of the ball makes the difference.

I have to think that as you have already speculated, they took the ability to make fragile paint and mixed in a heavy fill to get a small 3.3 gram paintball. This should in fact be more accurate and fly farther at the same velocity. The reduction in frontal area is a big plus and the issues with a smaller ball and vortex shedding should not negate all of those gains.

The big trick will be to see if they break well. With a 50 you are distributing the energy no matter what over a smaller area. The smaller shape of the ball makes it inherently harder to break all things being equal. I don't think you can go much thinner in the paint shell and still be able to seal it together so they are probably making the shell tensile strength weaker. By my estimations they will hurt more with 3.3 grams at 300 fps.

The fill will absolutely be the most challenging part hands down. I calculated that a 50 has .07 cu inch of fill against the 68 at .16. So a bit better than 2-1. In order to make a heavier 50, you have to come up with a NON-TOXIC fill that's TWICE as heavy. This is no easy task. Most liquids hover around a specific gravity of 1-1.5 ish. There are liquids that get up to 2.0 but they are all toxic that I know of. We used liquids to 3.0 in the early 90's when we were investigating paintball accuracy and I still have the stuff today because you can't throw it away.

So here is the specific problem the way I see it. In order to up the weight of the fill you have to put some type of particle in it. Ground rock, powdered metal (bismuth) etc. We went down this road, the problem was that we could never inject a slurry through a needle without the needle plugging up no matter what we did. Eventually we gave up and put the powder in first and the fluid in after. Today's gelatin machines absolutely depend on a needle injecting the fluid into the ball as it pinches off the seam. I am dying to see how they accomplish this but Richmond has some pretty smart people around him.

Other problems you don't think about are things like the size of the holes in the mask. A 50 can squeeze through a pretty small hole in a rubber mask guard. My question is who is going to build a motorized hopper for these guns???

The can fit way more holes in the drum of the gelatin machine so the output per hour per machine will probably be more than double having an impact on cost. The fill has to add to the price so we will see how it shakes out. Remember to calculate the price per POUND of 50 vs 68 paintballs to see if there was really an economic advantage.

In the final equation my personal opinion is that its a bad idea for paintball only because it puts us that much closer to airsoft. If cheaper smaller balls are a good idea, why not get the cheapest smallest balls you can find (airsoft)? We already made the guns look mil-sim and hands down the airsoft guns look cooler and go full auto. So I don't personally understand it but hey, Richmond made WAY more money in paintball than I ever did so he must see things I don't.

My final comment. Everyone seems to agree that the paintball industry has been in trouble for some time. If I was god-of-paintball and wanted to get the industry going. I would get all the existing manufacturers together and force them to agree to licensing anyone their patents for 5 years for a dollar. This would bring a flurry of new businesses back into the market and you would have a flood of new products and cool ideas. In my opinion, that would help paintball more than anything.

AGD

I've always appreciated Tom's outlook on things. Gadget mentioned this post earlier.

Padrao

18-10-2009, 12:49 PM

And so real life testing confirms the theoretical results.

Quoting painthappy in PBnation:

Our drop test results were different, but not by much. Our parameters were different too.

We dropped paint on a 3/8 inch smooth steel plate. It was also pretty cold outside, and probably making the paint a bit more brittle.

Regardless, we ran with the results.

First the .50 caliber paint.

From 8 Feet high, weighing 1.21 grams, we had 95% of them break.
From 7 Feet high, weighing 1.21 grams, we had 95% of them bounce.
That gives us an FPE (Energy) of .0213

.0187 on the chart means it will break at 90 feet out and closer, and anything beyond 90 feet should bounce.

The .68 caliber paint.

From 7' high, weighing 3.2 grams, we had 95% of them break.
From 6' high, weighing 3.2 grams, we had 50% of them break.
That gives us an FPE (Energy) of .042

.042 on the chart means it will break at 120 feet out and closer, and anything beyond 120 feet should bounce (again throwing out some of our 50% breakage data).

We threw out the 6' height marks for the sake of arguing a near 100% paint break point.

Here's the chart:
http://www.mcarterbrown.com/50ballistics/images/fpe_%28energy%29_50_break_bounce_combined.png

Real world testing...

I decided to get shot with the .50 caliber for science.
At 100 feet, they all bounced. At 90 feet, they all broke. This matches up with our theoretical data perfectly.

I did not like getting hit with this paint for the record. It hurt more than everyone was making it out to be.

Basically through data and live testing, you have a 30 foot (33% more) greater breaking distance by using .68 over .50

Video where you can watch it happen live to be posted when I finish editing it.

I guess this adds some more info regarding this new paint... it definitely bounces more, and needs more energy to break, and it will not be able to hit someone at longer distance like the .68 call ball does.

The fact are pilling up and its not going the .50 cal way it seems....

Just wanted to add, that these are scientific and unbiased tests, Im tired of all the "I think this and that" kind of talk, so i really appreciate what painthappy is doing, thanks carter for showing us some data and some real testing. Its obvious GI Milsim reveals what they think will make their paint sell more... I personally dont trust their data. Theres a vid aswell so people can check it first hand.
BTW... is that a mark? Where in hell is that close to a .68 mark? O_o so easy to wipe for sure :S if it keeps this way...

Others made this type of testing and the results were pretty much the same...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E87Gw3OKxa4

mophead

30-10-2009, 06:47 PM

Pros:

1)More shots in your hopper

do you not think that could be a bad thing ?? .. tournaments, have dropped the bps limit to stop play stagnating and making paintball more spectator friendly.. however a dye rot..... i mean a turbine loader holds 418 balls, now we know because of a ramping gun any fool can hold a lane. so imagine a fool with a ramping gun holdng a lane for twice as long. Surely play is gong to slow down stagnate and become boring to watch

burnzy1989

31-10-2009, 11:35 PM

Hi i found this video on youtube with the comparason with .68 and .50 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0E4GVUI8txM&feature=sdig&et=1256887042.0

darkorb

02-11-2009, 09:30 PM

Accuracy test here too - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZabfFBZ0bQ

(yay my first post xD)

Andygoth

03-11-2009, 03:04 AM

I'm pretty sure you can't shoot .5 cal paintballs at 450fps in this country.

Rap4 do .43 guns and they shoot at 350 to 450fps but they are training weapons, the recreational versions for the public shoot 270 to 300.

I can see a big advantage in a smaller calibre at higher velocity but if they are pegged to 300 then there's no point as mass will win every time.

Gadget

03-11-2009, 08:38 AM

Accuracy test here too - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZabfFBZ0bQ

(yay my first post xD)

Aside from the accuracy, the interesting thing about that test is the lack of penetration of the .50 cal paint. Not really an issue for sup air, but for something that is, initially at least, being targeted at scenario play, I'd have thought that would be a real disadvantage. If you've got two people trying to eliminate each other in woodland, the player with a .68 would seem to have an advantage in being able to shoot through light cover (leaves, bushes etc).

Back in my woodland days I can remember cowering behind the ill advised cover of a small shrubbery while the opposing team shredded it with the effectiveness of a decent hedge trimmer until I got eliminated. Looks like Rhoddies could be as impenetrable as tree trunks for .50 users.

darkorb

03-11-2009, 11:49 PM

Aside from the accuracy, the interesting thing about that test is the lack of penetration of the .50 cal paint.Yea, worse grouping, a bounce and less penetration from the .50 cal... Either way it'll be interesting to see what comes up in their next vid, testing it in a real game - guess that could be a little subjective compared to the testing they have done already.

Piper

04-11-2009, 08:45 AM

The 2 guys in the video are actually Tippman sponsored players......... Always good to have an independent video done!

Richie T

04-11-2009, 09:47 AM

interesting how in some on the 50 cal hits only a tiny amount of paint sticks to the target.

I thought they had come up with a ingenious way to fix that?

Makes wiping easier then :rolleyes:

Piper

04-11-2009, 09:54 AM

interesting how in some on the 50 cal hits only a tiny amount of paint sticks to the target.

I thought they had come up with a ingenious way to fix that?

Makes wiping easier then :rolleyes:

Read my post above your's Richie and it may explain why the data has to be taken with a pinch of salt!

Gadget

04-11-2009, 11:52 AM

The 2 guys in the video are actually Tippman sponsored players......... Always good to have an independent video done!

That's not what the guys on MCB are saying. What makes you think they are?

Piper

04-11-2009, 12:02 PM

That's not what the guys on MCB are saying. What makes you think they are?

Let's just say I know a lot and people tell me things and I have the inside scoop.......... They are hardly going to hold their hands up and say..... Oh you have caught us!

Gadget

04-11-2009, 12:46 PM

Let's just say I know a lot and people tell me things and I have the inside scoop.......... They are hardly going to hold their hands up and say..... Oh you have caught us!

Oooo, who do we trust - you're not exactly an unbiased source yourself are you Pipes! :D

I'll just have to wait until I can get my grubby mitts on one to try myself.

Piper

04-11-2009, 12:47 PM

Oooo, who do we trust - you're not exactly an unbiased source yourself are you Pipes! :D

I'll just have to wait until I can get my grubby mitts on one to try myself.

I agree I am not an unbiased source which you know............. So felt it was only fair that you know the truth about the video.......... As for who to trust that is your choice and only you can make that.

Gadget

04-11-2009, 12:49 PM

Tell you what, there's only one way to settle this.....send me a marker and I'll film an entirely unbiased review for you ;) :D

Piper

04-11-2009, 12:51 PM

Tell you what, there's only one way to settle this.....send me a marker and I'll film an entirely unbiased review for you ;) :D

Tell you what is a better idea......... Let's get someone who has not posted on threads and voiced an opinion, as some of your posts are anti .50 :D:D

Gadget

04-11-2009, 12:54 PM

I'm more pro 'stuff I've already got in my kitbag' than anti 50.

Get phil-boy to do it, he's a marker whore with no allegiance to anything but shiny bits :)

knuckles

04-11-2009, 01:33 PM

I don't get why we have 50 cal out. It should theoretically improve accuracy/distance but it means we have to spend a fortune upgrading all our kits.

My opinion is if it ain't broke don't fix it.

John C

04-11-2009, 01:36 PM

A large factor in these tests is the .68 paint they are comparing. As we all know the quality of a paintball is mainly down to how well its been looked after.

In the GI milsim tests, the .68 paint was obviously a lot worse than the Evil paint these tests used.

You could see that they were quite happy with how poorly the 50 cal paint performed.
But that wasnt a camera trick. It really did bounce, was less accurate and had poor penetration compared to evil .68 paint.

At least they showed a lot of the setup procedure.
The tests by GI Milsim seemed a lot more 'edited'.

If two tests dont agree with eachother, Id side with the one where they show you more of the procedure.

Richie T

04-11-2009, 01:45 PM

Read my post above your's Richie and it may explain why the data has to be taken with a pinch of salt!

Oh, so its like the moon landings?

Piper

04-11-2009, 01:46 PM

Oh, so its like the moon landings?

Only less spaceships..............

spangley_special

04-11-2009, 01:49 PM

Only less spaceships..............

less ...or more?

No video test is gonna convince me either way. Until I get to spend some time with a 50cal on a field, I'm not gonna make my mind for or against.

Rider

04-11-2009, 02:22 PM

i agree with jack.

and a lot of people should have the common sense to realise that:
1) No-one is expecting the world to go 50cal overnight.
2) No-one should expect to like 50cal from a bunch of hype and promo.
3) No-one is expecting you to make the switch - either straight away or at all.

The only way people are going to be convinced or sold on 50cal is when they get to see it in action, for real, themselves. not on a video. in their hands and on the field.

until i have done that, i will remain open minded.

DJForbes

04-11-2009, 04:56 PM

id liek to hope the hype is true. but i think with sum of there points there trying to defy the laws of science.

cant w8 to try it out. altho being stuck in the middle of nowhere with only one good site am sure it will be a while befor i get my hands on it :(

Chrisseal05

04-11-2009, 08:48 PM

Tell you what is a better idea......... Let's get someone who has not posted on threads and voiced an opinion, as some of your posts are anti .50 :D:D

I will have a go :D

Dexter

06-11-2009, 11:27 AM

does anyone know how much a box of .50 is going for?

Piper

06-11-2009, 12:26 PM

does anyone know how much a box of .50 is going for?

Yes

Swampthing

06-11-2009, 01:25 PM

does anyone know how much a box of .50 is going for?

Dex, I read a quote that the costs were comparable to 68 paint of the same quality. Anyone got some real figures ?

Piper

06-11-2009, 02:17 PM

Dex, I read a quote that the costs were comparable to 68 paint of the same quality. Anyone got some real figures ?

I have real figures.

But you have to know something first.......... When comparing the prices you have to bare in mind that the ball has to be made with the same materials. There are 3 different main ingredients......... Peg (most expensive and best all high grade tournamnet paint is made with peg), Starch (cheaper than Peg but will leave chalky marks, almost all other grades are made with starch) and finally Oil (the cheapest of the 3 and the worst for the envioroment and most low end cheap paint is made with oil).

All of the prices I am quoting are for PEG filled balls.

.50 cal RRP
Tournament Class £29.99
Rec Winter Class £25.99
Rec Class £25.50

.68 cal RRP
Hellfire £36.74
Blaze £32.14
Rec Sport £29.90

.68 cal RRP
Evil £36.74
Nightmare £34.95
Formula 13 £29.95

In the .68 I have done like for like on price and quality/ materials used.

Dexter

06-11-2009, 02:55 PM

haha! get in im actually paying less for my .68 than i would for .50 :D

Piper

06-11-2009, 03:01 PM

haha! get in im actually paying less for my .68 than i would for .50 :D

Well done you...... These are all retail prices so if you are paying less it would mean you have a deal.................. So announcing you pay less for .68 cal than you would for .50 cal really says a lot!

NitroBall

06-11-2009, 03:23 PM

How many companies are making .50cal paint at this present moment ?

Piper

06-11-2009, 03:26 PM

How many companies are making .50cal paint at this present moment ?

Kee, Indians and Nelson

NitroBall

06-11-2009, 03:29 PM

Kee, Indians and Nelson
Have you shot them all yet to compare ?

Dexter

06-11-2009, 03:35 PM

.50 cal RRP
Tournament Class £29.99

.68 cal RRP
Formula 13 £29.95

your own words piper. and even if i did have a deal what does that say? :D

Swampthing

06-11-2009, 03:45 PM

Piper

06-11-2009, 03:57 PM

Im sorry Piper but I dont see your argument about materials. I can understand constructing 50 may require better quality materials, but if the end result of that is sort of price i cant see why people would switch from 68. People are going to compare the performance characteristics of the paint, what its made from isnt going to come into it.

It's simple..... A paintball is made of roughly the same materials but the main difference is the MAIN ingredient, so the 3 main ones are Peg Starch and Oil. All the paint I quoted for the .50 cal is made with Peg (the most expensive main ingredient). You maybe right about materials and people not caring, but there are people out there that don't just look at the price. However my point is giving you the facts so you have them all, if you choose to switch that's good if you choose to stay with .68 that is your choice, I am not forcing anyone to do anything just giving you all the info.

Dexter

F13 is not classed as a tournament grade paint........ Evil however is which is why that is top of the .68 cal list!

So you may use it for a tournament but again not all the information is being given out.

Piper

06-11-2009, 04:00 PM

Have you shot them all yet to compare ?

I have some Indian field grade paint which is very good and consistant, I have the main delivery coming in a few weeks, but what I have seen so far is very good from them.

I have shot the KEE tournament paint which has a great fill and is very good.

So all in all so far things are looking good paint wise.

NitroBall

06-11-2009, 04:03 PM

I have some Indian field grade paint which is very good and consistant, I have the main delivery coming in a few weeks, but what I have seen so far is very good from them.

I have shot the KEE tournament paint which has a great fill and is very good.

So all in all so far things are looking good paint wise.
send me the setup to tryout :D

ill gladly pay for the paint ;)

Rider

06-11-2009, 04:03 PM

Im sorry Piper but I dont see your argument about materials. I can understand constructing 50 may require better quality materials, but if the end result of that is sort of price i cant see why people would switch from 68. People are going to compare the performance characteristics of the paint, what its made from isnt going to come into it.

think that pretty much nails it.

however:

.68 cal RRP
Hellfire £36.74
Blaze £32.14
Rec Sport £29.90

who actually pays these? unless they are actually picking up the odd box, i doubt there are many people that will pick up a box at the full RRP.

i'm pretty sure the same thing will apply to 50cal. remember the first R in RRP is "recommended".

if a retailer want to push 50cal over the 68, then they will price it cheaper.

if the prices end up being comparable, then there will need to be an incentive to encourage people over. is that incentive going to be performance? i don't know. how can i? how can you? who's actually spend a day playing properly with 50cal, then gone out and shot the same amount of 68......?

anyone?

thought not.

until i have had the chance to do that, i will keep an open mind. if the paint isn't going to cost me more, and the kit change isn't going to be too pricey (fingers crossed for lots of manufacturer's drop in kits at sensible prices...:rolleyes:) and the stuff actually does what it says on the tin - then i'll be able to make an informed decision on teh stuff.

until then everything is nowt but a pointless, endless, debate.

Bolter

06-11-2009, 04:05 PM

I have some Indian field grade paint which is very good and consistant, I have the main delivery coming in a few weeks, but what I have seen so far is very good from them.

I have shot the KEE tournament paint which has a great fill and is very good.

So all in all so far things are looking good paint wise.

May I ask if the final heavier fill (that ultimately will give us all the benefits quoted by GImilsim) has been made/released rather than the 1.2g ball that was shot/shown at WC?

goldenelite0

06-11-2009, 04:06 PM

The only reason I might get into 50cal is because of the 50impulse, on account of owning an impulse that's £300 cheaper than the 68. version. What I want to know is that aside from the obvious, is the 50impulse exactly the same as the original? I also need to find out is if my Prophecy will work with 50cal and if it doesn't, can it be modified to. I'm gonna get some cheap paint for that toy splat marker because I think they're 50 cal? I can then run them through my loader and see if they work ok.

So I will get a 50 impulse if:
- It's the same impulse (which it should be)
- Good paint is available
- 50cal works in my prophecy

Dexter

06-11-2009, 04:16 PM

has anyone considered that maybe smart parts has seen the tib rounds and thought oh **** we need something new?

Piper

06-11-2009, 04:30 PM

May I ask if the final heavier fill (that ultimately will give us all the benefits quoted by GImilsim) has been made/released rather than the 1.2g ball that was shot/shown at WC?

The heavier ball is not what I have tested, I tested what was at the world cup. The ball has not been released as yet but it will be in due course.

Goldern,

The 50 Impulse is the same as the .68 impulse
The paint will not work in your loader right now but I hear there are companies that are making drop in kits for the loaders that are out, so it won't be long before one is available I am sure.

painthappy

06-11-2009, 05:05 PM

The 2 guys in the video are actually Tippman sponsored players......... Always good to have an independent video done!

For the record, we are not Tippmann sponsored players. Thank you for spreading outright lies.

Am I biased? No more than you.

I've played with the paint in a game, and have footage. The "splatter" on your opponent is no better than a joke.

It's one thing to hit a board or someone straight on, but in a game scenario, if it wasn't for my opponents actually calling themselves out, no ref worth his salt would call it a hit.

There's just not enough paint, and it's too thick actually. It sprays off the person, or the shell just barely breaks leaving this splatter looking mark behind that looks like... well... Splatter.

But next time, try and keep your false inside information to yourself to keep yourself from looking like a fool.

Piper

06-11-2009, 05:07 PM

For the record, we are not Tippmann sponsored players. Thank you for spreading outright lies.

Am I biased? No more than you.

I've played with the paint in a game, and have footage. The "splatter" on your opponent is no better than a joke.

It's one thing to hit a board or someone straight on, but in a game scenario, if it wasn't for my opponents actually calling themselves out, no ref worth his salt would call it a hit.

There's just not enough paint, and it's too thick actually. It sprays off the person, or the shell just barely breaks leaving this splatter looking mark behind that looks like... well... Splatter.

But next time, try and keep your false inside information to yourself to keep yourself from looking like a fool.

Then the information I got was wrong so for that I apologise...............

What paint did you use?

goldenelite0

06-11-2009, 05:30 PM

The paint will not work in your loader right now but I hear there are companies that are making drop in kits for the loaders that are out, so it won't be long before one is available I am sure.

After a quick look on the internet, apparently they do feed. Though a kit would make sure that the Prophecy feeds 50cal like you expect it to with the 68. I'm still going to get some of that Splat 50cal paint just to try out. Will be hitting ToysRus tommorow!

Piper

06-11-2009, 07:00 PM

Painthappy

The reason I ask what paint you used is because all the paint I have marks very well. Have a look at the thread entitled guessing game in the .50 forum, and you will see what I mean. The orange splat is 68 and all the others (2 yellow) is .50 cal.

rich666

10-11-2009, 06:42 PM

What do people make of the new real world testing vdeos?

Not ideal be a long chalk.

Whats the eta on this final final fill formula with a greater density (to improve ballistics?)
-Did GiMilsim produce their data using a different fill to the one being tested by other people thus giving the difference in results?

Im just trying to get my head round the big difference at the moment between the two (So I have a greater understanding) as at the moment, and I appologise if I have not read a lot or actually tested it personally, 1 camp (led by the manufacturer and representatives) say that the stuff they have used/produced is great and outperforms .68 on all levels and the other camp is people who may not have the final product saying that it isnt as good and showing some (if not perfectly scientific) evidence.

So I open it up, Mr Piper (as you seem to be the UK Rep by my reading) is the stuff the gents on MCB have been testing old paint that has been changed (density wise) therefore nullifying their testing or is this the stuff currently (or comming into) production? (if not what will the final fill density be and when will this be ready for testing/use?)

Thank you

R

SteveD

29-11-2009, 01:04 PM

The .50 cal paint used by MCB for their testing came out of a GIMilsim bag (shown in the video). Presumably obtained at World Cup.

For an added dimension on this discussion, check this out: Patent Application (http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=%22gardner+william%22&s2=paintball&OS=%22gardner+william%22+AND+paintball&RS=%22gardner+william%22+AND+paintball)

"My final comment. Everyone seems to agree that the paintball industry has been in trouble for some time. If I was god-of-paintball and wanted to get the industry going. I would get all the existing manufacturers together and force them to agree to licensing anyone their patents for 5 years for a dollar. This would bring a flurry of new businesses back into the market and you would have a flood of new products and cool ideas. In my opinion, that would help paintball more than anything."

AGD (Tom Kaye)

Stee-vo

14-03-2010, 01:37 AM

Looking at .50 and reading this thread I am at a loss as to why we would ever use it.
Speaking as a player firing smaller balls which have less range, less energy, which are less likely to break, if they do break they leave a smaller splat, are less accurate and are less capable of firing through foilage (in woodsball) has no appeal. Sure we can up the FPS which would help address some of the issues but that in itself would raise other issues in how we play the game.

Speaking as a site owner the prices listed are a joke and lets face it its site owners you need to convince to get the volume of sales. If you are selling me a paintball that uses half the materials of a .68 ball you better be talking about half the price.

Robbo

14-03-2010, 10:58 AM

If you are selling me a paintball that uses half the materials of a .68 ball you better be talking about half the price.

Oh.... this explains this pic of you that was recently taken ...... :rolleyes:

http://www.p8ntballer-forums.com/eventimages/images.jpg

Stee-vo

14-03-2010, 08:52 PM

What can I say to Robbo's reply. His wit, his expertly put argument, his ability to clearly undermine and overcome my objections which were so eloquently delivered that it has left me humbled. Truely, I see the light now, .50 must be the way forward.

Perhaps if we answered the questions and dealt with peoples misgivings rather than try to label anyone who has doubts as illinformed or living in the past there might be a more constructive level of debate.

Anyone who has been inpaintball for a while knows the inherent problems with traditional .50. Now if you have got a radical solution to those problems get out and explain your message, engage with the critics and if your product is as good as you say it is it will prove itself.
In terms of price, well as a site owner the prices I have seen quoted on here are ridiculous when you consider that the product must use considerably less material to make and package and is way more expensive than any site paint I buy currently.

There seems a bit of a trend on this .50 forum to attack anyone who has doubts or expresses there concerns over the physics of the properties of paintballs. We seem to be labeling anyone who disagrees or who has a less than favourable opinion or review of .50 as biassed or illinformed while those who are paid to promote and sell the product are portrayed as unbiased and having the correct information.

For your information I am a site owner, Prozone Paintball (look it up), I will spend anything up to £50,000 to £75,000 on paintballs this year and I will be at the UKPSF conference this Wednesday where someone will be giving us a sales pitch on .50. I need to be convinced this is a better product, competitively priced and one which will enhance the playing experience of my paying customers be they joe public or experienced players. I am not the only site owner who thinks this way so piss us off if you want, its your product but our money and our choice.

Lump

14-03-2010, 09:03 PM

have you seen the Bob Long video on 50 cal ?

Stee-vo

14-03-2010, 09:27 PM

Good video and he makes some good points about younger players and the pain thing for punters.
However I would point out that most sites set their site guns to 250fps, we issue body armour, armoured gloves and padded hoods and that all makes a huge difference (he was firing his .68 at 290fps). As for Bob saying about shooting 7 year olds, well no one should be playing that young. It is a physical sport and people need to be robust enough to play it and sites, well those who value their customers, already go to great lengths to minimise the pain and maximise the fun.
Interestingly he also admits that it does not have the range, kinetic energy or accuracy of .68 (which are the biggest points of concern) but he does make a good point that .50 should have a place in paintball and from the thrust of his video he seems to be suggesting it could be a junior ball for younger players.

Lump

14-03-2010, 09:36 PM

its the best video i have seen, and from a good source. see how you get on on Wednesday like you say it needs to be shot. But report back And i am also looking forward to trying it. guess we will see how it unfolds and as people start to use it

Stee-vo

14-03-2010, 09:46 PM

Check out this video on TechPB

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0LiXrraJdE&feature=related

Interesting how he also makes the point how .50 cal attack and insult those who have their doubts. He makes some good points for and against but importantly he points out this needs to be SOLD to us by them engaging with the paintball community.

Biscuit

14-03-2010, 11:09 PM

the guys that need to be convinced

will find out this week at the ukpsf conference

if this is the product that takes their sites forward and gives them an advantage over the opposition

but the problem for sites is the set up costs in this economic down turn

even if they put drop in kits in their site markers they are probably looking at £20-£30 a marker to convert

an average site as in the region of 200 markers,plus new hoppers to go with them

so you are looking at £4000-£6000 to convert

the bigger sites even more

unless these guys convert to .50 it will die off

wether it is a better product or not

Stee-vo

14-03-2010, 11:20 PM

Indeed, its site owners that need to be convinced as we are the big purchasers of paint and as you have already pointed out we all have already invested a lot of cash in .68 equipment. Its the ecconomics of it that will drive it one way or the other and a major part of that is the player experience. The ball will have to perform in terms of range, breakability and reliability and be highly price competitive for sites to even consider it.
A lot is made of the pain thing, and it is a major consideration for punter players, but as I mentioned above there is much we do to minimise that problem already with .68. Those selling .50 need to SELL it and prove to us that it is as good as they say it is.

So some questions.

What weight is a .50 ball (normal weight was 1.1 grams)
What FPS are they to be fired at? (.68 norm for events is 280fps and sites 250fps)
What price is rental paint going to come in at per box?

Would be good to get some simple answers to these simple questions.

Robbo

14-03-2010, 11:53 PM

What can I say to Robbo's reply. His wit, his expertly put argument, his ability to clearly undermine and overcome my objections which were so eloquently delivered that it has left me humbled. Truely, I see the light now, .50 must be the way forward.

I'm not sure what you are trying to achieve with this paragraph because it's self-evident from the use of that pic [and of course from the quoted text], I was focusing on a single comment you made which hardly constituted an 'attempt to undermine and overcome your objections' by the use of wit or eloquence .. I think you maybe attempted a witty rebuttal but I'm afraid it belly-flopped due to a complete lack of wit or substance, nevertheless, I will continue with this post in the hope you can redeem yourself later on.

Perhaps if we answered the questions and dealt with peoples misgivings rather than try to label anyone who has doubts as ill-informed or living in the past there might be a more constructive level of debate.

My post merely illustrated the ambiguity of your statement, and it was done in a hopefully humorous way but you seem to think I have somehow fallen short ... I haven't fallen short at all, I accomplished exactly what I set out to do and any shortfalls seem to have been created by yourself.
I wasn't attempting to engage you in any way, if I had wanted to, I would have, it's as simple as that.
Now before I go any further here, you seem to think I have some connection with 50 cal products ..... I now have no connection, either directly or indirectly and so what the hell are you talking about here????

Stee-vo

15-03-2010, 12:11 AM

Robbo,
thanks for making it clear you are not connected to .50 cal . Your postings on here certainly made it look like you were but its good to know what is actually happening.

Now back to the product.

Weight? FPS? Cost?

Piper

15-03-2010, 09:49 AM

Robbo

15-03-2010, 09:55 AM

Robbo,
thanks for making it clear you are not connected to .50 cal . Your postings on here certainly made it look like you were but its good to know what is actually happening.
?

I was asked by Richmond about 18 months or so ago to work with him on this project but the timing was wrong and things didn't work out but there was an interim period afterwards where I was working as a consultant but that's not the case now and so I'm at a loss as to why you believed I was ...

One thing tho, everything I stated regarding 50 cal was true and my belief still stands, 50 cal is a great thing for paintball because it is one of the few things that can revitalise the marketplace.

We can all sit on our backsides waiting for the recession to end and moan about the situation [like me] but at least Richmond did something positive.
One of the notable things concerning 50 cal was the ability for manufacturers and retailers to jump on the bandwagon thus ensuring if it did take off, the recovery would be distributed around the industry.

All that said, the tone of your post isn't really conducive to anyone responding because it looks as though you seem more interested in scoring points than you are in resolving queries.

I got no idea what the cost for 50 cal is, either paint or hardware but I do know Richmond, and if he has anything to do with anything, then it's generally gonna be a success.
There are many good things about the introduction of a new [lesser] ball size and everybody has to make their own decision ... it seems you have made yours.

Robbo

15-03-2010, 10:01 AM

Weight of the .50 cal ball is 1.25 grams normal .68 ball weighs 3.1 grams

You can shoot them at 300 fps and the joules (energy) is 5.7........ 68 cal guns now are 12.96 joules.

I am not going to post the cost of a case of paint wholesale on a public forum, come and see me at the UKPSF and I will be happy to give you that cost.

Thanks

Andy

Hmmmm........now you have supplied him with the data Pipes, I just wonder what the hell difference, the newly acquired knowledge that 50 cal balls weigh 1.25 grams and possess 5.7 joules of energy at 300fps can make?

......coz if I was considering 50 cal, this info would be top my list too ....... er...... not really tho.

Stee-vo

15-03-2010, 10:47 AM

Robbo

15-03-2010, 11:31 AM

Robbo,
I am far from "sitting on my ass" as you would put it. I have just invested several £1,000's of my own money upgrading my site, we run and promote the England v Scotland scenario game twice a year, we are working with Shoreline to deliver the Wedding day masacre scenario game in June, we have launched this year tactical paintball games for hard core milsim fans and are in the process of building a tourney practice field to accomadate tourney players who want somewhere to train.
We have a extensive marketing campaign targeted at schools and youth groups to encourage them to play more paintball, I sponsor a team based at the site, we are sending out press packs to main stream media (papers, radio and TV) to promote the events and the sport and we run a large and well established walk-on scene to help support players who have their own kit (tourney or woods ball).
Nothing would delight me more than if there is an initiative that will let more people play paintball and maximise my profits but for those of us who make a living at this any decision has to be carefully considered and all the options and contingencies evalluated. Not interested in scoring points, simply interested in seeing paintball and my business flourish.

Piper, thanks for the information, its important to have the data behind the product and I look forward to chatting to you at the conference

Actually Steve, I wasn't inferring you were sitting on your ass but there are a lot of people who seem to surface, solely to have a pop at initiatives like this, and they have done absolutely nothing themselves to help paintball.

I can see there is mileage in you adopting a positive approach in trying to help paintball grow not least because you are a site owner but as you may know, my opinion of some site owners isn't that good.
I don't know you, never heard of you, and so cannot comment but I will take your word and believe what you're telling me regarding your intentions of enquiry, until proven otherwise [hopefully not].

A lot of people attacked 50 cal for many different reasons with a lot of those reasons having little to do with genuine enquiry, and so legitimate questions tended to be lost amid vitriolic, and most certainly, unjust attacks, it was a frikkin mess !!!

Pipes was trying to answer some of these questions but ended up being personally abused by idiots; idiots who had nothing better to do than sit by a PC, compensating for the fact they were bashed up at school or the fact their mothers didn't give them enough toys to play with.

In your position as a site owner, you are the ones 50 cal should be focused upon and I am sure somewhere down the line, Richmond will address the problems he faces when trying to launch new product.
There will always be a certain degree of inertia to overcome when endeavouring to get people to abandon the more traditional 68 calibre in favour of this new upstart and eventually, the marketplace will settle down and embrace 50 cal for what it is.

50 cal is essentially a great idea for several reasons and I am sure Piper's address at this year's UKPSF meeting will go a long way to addressing a lot of people's doubts.
But one other thing, this site is not against anybody who has reasonable questions regarding 50 cal, on the other hand, if I believe, things are getting personal, then I will deal with it; this is not bias, it's throwing out the trash ....

Peace!

Stark_Cyc

15-03-2010, 12:56 PM

One thing tho, everything I stated regarding 50 cal was true and my belief still stands, 50 cal is a great thing for paintball because it is one of the few things that can revitalise the marketplace.

We can all sit on our backsides waiting for the recession to end and moan about the situation [like me] but at least Richmond did something positive.
One of the notable things concerning 50 cal was the ability for manufacturers and retailers to jump on the bandwagon thus ensuring if it did take off, the recovery would be distributed around the industry.

What factors do you see 50 cal having over 68 cal to make a difference on current marketplace? As someone that runs a shop and rental site I havent been able so far to see the benefits of .50 over .68. Largest plus for .50 is its smaller shipping costs for boxes buts thats about it.

To my understanding Richmond/G.I Milsim dosent manufactur their own paint atm but have contracted current manufacturers for production while focusin on produsing hard parts and equipment in Taiwan and possibly mainland China?

Stee-vo

15-03-2010, 04:38 PM

Good answer Robbo,
look forward to talking to Piper at the conference.

john251282

15-03-2010, 06:12 PM

What factors do you see 50 cal having over 68 cal to make a difference on current marketplace? As someone that runs a shop and rental site I havent been able so far to see the benefits of .50 over .68. Largest plus for .50 is its smaller shipping costs for boxes buts thats about it.

To my understanding Richmond/G.I Milsim dosent manufactur their own paint atm but have contracted current manufacturers for production while focusin on produsing hard parts and equipment in Taiwan and possibly mainland China?

I think but could be wrong that the current shift seems to be trying to use .50 as a cheaper and less painful way to introduce people to paintball. I have not seen any prices for .50 paint but I would guess that it is cheaper than 0.68. Then site owners can pick whatever is a suitable price to use it. I think the reduced pain in particular is probably the thing most likely to increase repeat business from women and children in particular.

So hopefully more people at rental level means that more will progress into either supair or scen paintball. At this level I think people would be happier to accept that it could hurt more to get hit i.e. by using 0.68, which seems to be better for us at the moment. A bit like going from casual go-kart racing to F1.

At the end of the day it is all theory until a few sites have tried it for a few months and measured if there have been any changes in customer levels.