.50 cal ballistics data

[Gadget]

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?k...uQnFfckE&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:






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

[Gadget]

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/50ballis...rcentmore.html

...

[Gadget]

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.



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

...

[Sid Sidgwick]

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]

Validation of the paint weights from Jack Wood:

http://www.techpb.com/forum/index.ph...dpost&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]

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]

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]

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]

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>.

[Swampthing]

good posts Gadget

[blinket]

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]

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]

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]

MONEY!!!! and nothing else

[Robbo]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 ?

[Padrao]

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/50ballis...ages/Back2.jpg <--- here

[John C]

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]

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

[John C]

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]

*Humor on*



Funny drop test...

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

[Minibaker]

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]

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]

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:


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