Special Ops Paintball: .50 Caliber - Special Ops Paintball

Jump to content


  • (11 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

.50 Caliber The new standard?

#1 User is offline   Tim Burton 

  • Forum Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 192
  • Joined: 01-July 08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Phoenix, AZ - USA

Posted 21 July 2009 - 01:07 AM

http://gimilsim.com/wind-of-change-the-rev...ion-starts-here

http://viewfromthede...earch?q=caliber

http://www.p8ntballer-forums.com/vb/showpo...mp;postcount=93

Now, I know after reading a number of posts on other sites that they claim the physics fail. Either it won't be as accurate or it will not break correctly. Others say it will be too painful. It seems the guys saying this is the revolution have a well respected reputation.

Honestly, at this point I don't think we can do physics calculations, because there are too many unkowns. Is the fill heavier? Is the shell able to crack better?

This will need to be answered. I'm sure word will get out quickly in October if this development is worthy of being revolutionary. People will review these guns and people will ultimately tell us if this is something that will be a must have upgrade or just a gimmick.

I for one would happily support a paintball that is just as safe, no more painful, flies farther and is much more accurate, especially if it is milsim. I don't want a REMF (Rear Echelon Major Fool) add-ons, like so many have. I just want something that feels more like a rifle than a space gun and something that shoots better than present balls do.

I'd love to be able to expand accurate fire out another 50% or more.

I look forward to October to hear what is being developed.

This post has been edited by Tim Burton: 21 July 2009 - 01:21 AM

0

#2 User is offline   Legato 

  • AKA reapermen - AKA Legaqua - Resident Brass Whore
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Retired/Inactive Moderator
  • Posts: 8,771
  • Joined: 02-February 05
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Milford, Massachusetts

Posted 21 July 2009 - 01:36 AM

having shot a .50 cal pistol my Crossmann 3357, and having heard similar reports from everyone else who has used them and .50 cal paint. It will not break. Expect to get a rediculous amount of bounces. WHich will hurt far more then a solid break on you. It doesn't carry enough kinetic energy at that wieght and size. So it just bounces when it hits the target, unless you hit the mask or marker. So yeah, this is a gimmick. This is why they moved on from .50 to .62 to .68. To get consistent flight and breaks. Who wants to get bounces on every shot, or get shots bounced off you all the time, that hurts like a female doggie. I'd much prefer to be shot with heavier paint that should break readily.
"I think wearing camo is dishonorable. No honorable player would pretend to be a tree or bush."Posted Image My Gallery - Ninja/Pirate Alliance - Marker Animations Posted ImageSpec Ops Posted Image Pump CrewSig Rules - Gen Rules & Regs - Avatar Rules - Warn Level/Reduction - Forum FAQs - Ultimate Pump Sticky - PDT
0

#3 User is offline   SFC. Connell 

  • *Extreme Strategist*
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1,433
  • Joined: 23-April 07
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mass
  • Brigade Name:SFC. Connell

Posted 21 July 2009 - 04:12 AM

You know I always wanted to know why the paint is at .68 caliber (give or take) and now I know...so it breaks properly.
Feedback

She faked a funeral so people would come visit?
ROFLMAO That's both terrible and hilarious at the same time.-Pirate
0

#4 User is offline   Flippy the Wonder Bunny 

  • My E-MAN PART is bigger than yours
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2,984
  • Joined: 04-December 05
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Abilene, KS

Posted 21 July 2009 - 08:39 AM

Plus, why move to .50 if we already have all the gear to hold .68? That'd just make paint prices go up because paint companies would have to buy new machines. Then everyone would have to buy a new marker to shoot the new paint.
0

#5 User is offline   Tim Burton 

  • Forum Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 192
  • Joined: 01-July 08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Phoenix, AZ - USA

Posted 21 July 2009 - 08:40 AM

View PostLegato, on Jul 21 2009, 01:36 AM, said:

having shot a .50 cal pistol my Crossmann 3357, and having heard similar reports from everyone else who has used them and .50 cal paint. It will not break. Expect to get a rediculous amount of bounces. WHich will hurt far more then a solid break on you. It doesn't carry enough kinetic energy at that wieght and size. So it just bounces when it hits the target, unless you hit the mask or marker. So yeah, this is a gimmick. This is why they moved on from .50 to .62 to .68. To get consistent flight and breaks. Who wants to get bounces on every shot, or get shots bounced off you all the time, that hurts like a female doggie. I'd much prefer to be shot with heavier paint that should break readily.



True, but you are assuming that they didn't over come the hurdles that past issues caused people to discourage use at .50 cal. Presently, it is too early to tell. Looking online, it seems that Gardner and Italia both have good reputations. While it is too early to know for certain, it seems that there are people who are saying, "I know them, if they say they did it (when it comes to paintball), they probably have.

The whole point of the press release is that they have fixed the previous issues that existed for the paintballs at .50 caliber.

Now, we don't know much, but I do look forward to seeing what the technology jump is.
0

#6 User is offline   Tim Burton 

  • Forum Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 192
  • Joined: 01-July 08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Phoenix, AZ - USA

Posted 21 July 2009 - 08:49 AM

View Postghost93, on Jul 21 2009, 08:39 AM, said:

Plus, why move to .50 if we already have all the gear to hold .68? That'd just make paint prices go up because paint companies would have to buy new machines. Then everyone would have to buy a new marker to shoot the new paint.



No, all they would need is to change the rollers to .50. If you look at some of the forums (which I didn't link to because of over use of vulgarities), while the physics calculations are poor assumptions, there are a few posts that people confirm that the paint companies that have worked with G&I have bought new rollers. Roller dies are not all that expensive compared to the entire machines. We aren't talking the $700K investment for total machines. We are probably talking in the range of 10-20K. Very reasonable for a major technology upgrade.

Assuming no physics issues with the paint, the savings in variable costs would considerably lower. Also, there would be savings in shipping, because assuming they keep cases at 2000 balls, they would weight less.

If the companies are willing to lower the price of paint which from field owners I know is usually $20-28 a case shipped, they can easily re-coup the costs. Say each paint costs $4 less. Well, basic math says that even if they only pass $2 of the savings onto the end user, $2 earned for every case doesn't take that long to re-coup costs of upgrading guns.

Also, if the gun shoots farther and more accurate, it will put people shooting at .68 at a very real disadvantage.

This post has been edited by Tim Burton: 21 July 2009 - 10:39 AM

0

#7 User is offline   HYPESNIPE 

  • your daymare
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 173
  • Joined: 13-August 05
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:CP, WI
  • Brigade Name:HYPESNIPE

Posted 21 July 2009 - 09:39 AM

Why would we want to de-evolve back to the small ammo of our airsoft brethren?

Also, with a smaller ball and less paint, the hit will be smaller. And we already know how hard it is to spot hits already :semidodgy:




98c Surgeon
0

#8 User is offline   Tim Burton 

  • Forum Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 192
  • Joined: 01-July 08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Phoenix, AZ - USA

Posted 21 July 2009 - 12:02 PM

View PostHYPESNIPE, on Jul 21 2009, 09:39 AM, said:

Why would we want to de-evolve back to the small ammo of our airsoft brethren?

Also, with a smaller ball and less paint, the hit will be smaller. And we already know how hard it is to spot hits already :semidodgy:


Let's be honest, even at this size of ball it is pretty easy to wipe. I don't think it will change it that much.
0

#9 User is offline   HYPESNIPE 

  • your daymare
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 173
  • Joined: 13-August 05
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:CP, WI
  • Brigade Name:HYPESNIPE

Posted 21 July 2009 - 12:22 PM

But if you're going from a blob to a fleck, then how would you determine what's splatter?

Plus their small size means that wind becomes a larger factor than it would for regular paintballs. And they would heat up faster due to a larger surface area to volume ratio, causing them to dimple much faster.




98c Surgeon
0

#10 User is offline   Flippy the Wonder Bunny 

  • My E-MAN PART is bigger than yours
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2,984
  • Joined: 04-December 05
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Abilene, KS

Posted 21 July 2009 - 12:37 PM

View PostTim Burton, on Jul 21 2009, 02:02 PM, said:

View PostHYPESNIPE, on Jul 21 2009, 09:39 AM, said:

Why would we want to de-evolve back to the small ammo of our airsoft brethren?

Also, with a smaller ball and less paint, the hit will be smaller. And we already know how hard it is to spot hits already :semidodgy:


Let's be honest, even at this size of ball it is pretty easy to wipe. I don't think it will change it that much.

It's not just about wiping. What if you actually don't know the hit is there, it's on a place thats hard to see unless you really pay attention like the hopper or feedneck. With less paint the hit is even harder to see both for the player and the ref.
0

#11 User is offline   Tim Burton 

  • Forum Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 192
  • Joined: 01-July 08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Phoenix, AZ - USA

Posted 21 July 2009 - 12:47 PM

View PostHYPESNIPE, on Jul 21 2009, 12:22 PM, said:

But if you're going from a blob to a fleck, then how would you determine what's splatter?


This is an unknown, because we don't know how they break yet.

Quote

Plus their small size means that wind becomes a larger factor than it would for regular paintballs.


That depends on the weight and the velocity of the shot to get under the max joules limit.

Personally, I wonder why we haven't had companies look at golf ball type dimples.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/...81123190508.htm

Quote

And they would heat up faster due to a larger surface area to volume ratio, causing them to dimple much faster.


True, unless they have changed the formula. So this might be a mute issue. They are saying that they have brought in engineers to help solve the issues.

Either way, they can't swell worse than last year's D-Day ball.s :o
0

#12 User is offline   HYPESNIPE 

  • your daymare
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 173
  • Joined: 13-August 05
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:CP, WI
  • Brigade Name:HYPESNIPE

Posted 21 July 2009 - 01:12 PM

View PostTim Burton, on Jul 21 2009, 12:47 PM, said:

View PostHYPESNIPE, on Jul 21 2009, 12:22 PM, said:

But if you're going from a blob to a fleck, then how would you determine what's splatter?


This is an unknown, because we don't know how they break yet.
The point is there's less paint in them, so the size of hit is directly affected by the volume of the paintball thus reducing the volume of paint inside one shell creating a smaller hit.

Quote

Plus their small size means that wind becomes a larger factor than it would for regular paintballs.


That depends on the weight and the velocity of the shot to get under the max joules limit.

Personally, I wonder why we haven't had companies look at golf ball type dimples.
1. Paintballs are already affected by wind so making them smaller with inheritly less mass means wind affects them more.
2. Paintballs don't have dimples because the shell is too malleable in heat.


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/...81123190508.htm

Quote

And they would heat up faster due to a larger surface area to volume ratio, causing them to dimple much faster.


True, unless they have changed the formula. So this might be a mute issue. They are saying that they have brought in engineers to help solve the issues.
Changing the formula won't affect whether or not they'll dimple. They will always dimple under heat. If they were to create a paintball that never dimpled, the material and/or technology would make it crazy expensive.
Either way, they can't swell worse than last year's D-Day ball.s :o





98c Surgeon
0

#13 User is offline   Pyrate Jim 

  • Sophomore Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 601
  • Joined: 18-February 05
  • Location:the group W bench

Posted 21 July 2009 - 02:11 PM

I thought the issue was resolved back around 1984.

I do have 50 cal markers, and buy 50 cal paint made for blowguns.
(the 3357 is my daughters favorite)
I can say I've seen them bounce off the side of the house from twenty feet away and leave dents in the wood siding, with no appreciable difference in accuracy.
CT co-ordinator, Paintball Marshals
http://www.pbmarshals.com/
PTI #2691 ~ C1, C2, C5, C5a, C6
0

#14 User is offline   Tim Burton 

  • Forum Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 192
  • Joined: 01-July 08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Phoenix, AZ - USA

Posted 21 July 2009 - 10:17 PM

Quote

The point is there's less paint in them, so the size of hit is directly affected by the volume of the paintball thus reducing the volume of paint inside one shell creating a smaller hit.


No, your objection was how do we know if it is splatter. It is an unknown, because we don't know how it would splatter.

It is obvious a hit would be a smaller blob.

Quote

1. Paintballs are already affected by wind so making them smaller with inheritly less mass means wind affects them more.
2. Paintballs don't have dimples because the shell is too malleable in heat.



Quote

Changing the formula won't affect whether or not they'll dimple. They will always dimple under heat. If they were to create a paintball that never dimpled, the material and/or technology would make it crazy expensive.


Again, this is an assumption that can't be presently proved. You are assuming they are using the same formula.

If I told you that a company was coming out with what is a low calorie chocolate that tastes like chocolate that doesn't melt at regular tempertures and you responded, "Chocolate melts at 86 degrees and to make it otherwise would make it too expensive."

You'd be wrong: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/ju...-melt-chocolate

They don't plan on driving up the price, they plan on marketing it and using volume to keep the price lower. Same thing can happen with this

There are ways to address #1, including higher velocity and different mass. It will have smaller size, but weight may address that as long as it is under the max joules limit.
0

#15 User is offline   Tim Burton 

  • Forum Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 192
  • Joined: 01-July 08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Phoenix, AZ - USA

Posted 21 July 2009 - 11:05 PM

View PostPyrate Jim, on Jul 21 2009, 02:11 PM, said:

I thought the issue was resolved back around 1984.

I do have 50 cal markers, and buy 50 cal paint made for blowguns.
(the 3357 is my daughters favorite)
I can say I've seen them bounce off the side of the house from twenty feet away and leave dents in the wood siding, with no appreciable difference in accuracy.



I'm sorry, but did you actually read the links or did you just see the title and decide to comment?

While I'm not saying his claims are true, you wouldn't make that statement outright if you actually read the press release. I'll quote:

Quote

But itís 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 caliber paintballs was getting them to break consistently; Richmond was obviously aware of this problem and set about engineering a ball that not only broke conventionbut also broke consistently. How did he do this?

He headed up a think tank thatís brief was, ĎEngineer a paintball thatís inexpensive, accurate, flies further and breaks on contactí. 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 Richmondís vision.


So your objection shows that you did not even read the claims. You just used your pass experience to reject the possibility of it working.

The press release stated the problem and claims to have solved it.

Saying that the mark will be too small is valid criticism, but saying that the balls won't break shows you didn't even read the links.

Basically, while we can't know anything for certain, we know the following:

1. G&I have well respected reputations in the sport.
2. They claim that the ball flies more accurate, farther and breaks as good if not better than present .68 balls.
3. They state they are going to give a public demonstration at the PB World Cup.
4. They state that they will be at least letting the teams at the WC use it to give their views of its performance.

While, I do not know enough to outright say this is the Holy Grail of paintball, I can say that it is too early to poo-poo it. It is also interesting that they are going to using a very public venue to bring it to market.

Now, I'm not opposed to objections. I just am disappointed that virtually all the objections have all been placed on the performance of the ball, when they claim that hurdle have been overcome.

-It is a very valid objection to the paint mark and how we will know if we are hit.


Another objection I just thought of is:

If they are looking to change paintball, why are they seemingly going toward the milsim and recball market? I'd think that the speedball would be the bigger market, maybe not in the long run, but definitely in the short term. This is because of the following reasons:

1. They are more willing than recballers and milsim guys to upgrade at the slightest performance increase. Let's face it, they go for every little performance increase.
2. They shoot a heck of a lot more paint than milsim guys, but overall the total recball numbers probably beat the speedballers.
3. More people getting into paintball, specifically recball and scenario play tend to buy used. I bought myself and my brother's equipment all used. The total bill was a bit over a grand for at least $2500 worth of equipment.

Now, it is possible that they are going to release speedball guns at the same time. I know GI is named after their names and Milsim is named such because that is their passion. I also know that Richard states that his son plays PB and seemingly plays speedball. So it is possible they are going for both markets and are just capitalizing on the name.

My point is that if they deliver on this, this can definitely improve the game in certain areas. The main improvement in scenario play is that engagement distances will increase (and hopefully accuracy will improve out to greater distances). This will mean that those at .68 will be at a marked disadvantage.

This issue will require either the sport to totally embrace .50 or totally reject it. Scenario games would have a huge issue on their hands if both groups were playing on the same field. .68 would really be upset if they were getting shot at distances that their guns couldn't reach.

It is like the War of Northern Aggression. Some Southern units refused to go to fight with smooth bore rifles. They demanded rifled bores. This is because with smooth bore, they were forced to get within 50 yards to place accurate fire, when a rifled bore would allow for accurate fire out to 200 yards.
0

Share this topic:


  • (11 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

2 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users