Special Ops Paintball: Python (iFit) Barrel Kits vs Freak - Special Ops Paintball

Jump to content


Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Python (iFit) Barrel Kits vs Freak Has there been any actual research?

#1 User is offline   cdrinkh20 

  • The Dragon Reborn
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1,296
  • Joined: 23-January 10
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:St. Albert, AB
  • Brigade Name:cdrinkh20

Posted 11 August 2010 - 11:12 PM

Hey guys,

I've been looking into a kit for my Phantom and the iFit caught my eye because I won't need an undercocking kit (though I've heard it's a nice investment, I have limited funds and I do not feel it will greatly increase my performance - I am comfortable with the stock pump for now).

However, after searching various forums, I find people cannot agree.

Many say that the Freak inserts are providing greater stability than the iFit inserts because they are LONGER (and therefore have more time/distance to stabilize the flight path). I have also read, however, that the greater length will only increase air EFFICIENCY rather than ACCURACY (which is what I am looking for).

I have also read that increased stability in air use, flight path, and consistency of the marker will lead to you being able to better learn where your marker will shoot - obviously, that is true in many respects; this person, however could not say which would lead to greater stability and efficiency.

Now that Smart Parts is liquidating, it will be a much bigger PITA to get a set of Stainless Steel (I've heard they work better/are more durable) Freak inserts...plus I will either need to get my stock barrel honed or get another barrel ($$$). Frankly, the stock CCI barrel is great, it's just the paint I am forced to use at my field can be quite inconsistently sized and is at best medium grade (Draxxus) so a bit more consistency would be excellent.

The iFit seems like a cheap alternative that with the purchase of an adaptor, I can use on my other markers - however, I came across the reasons previously stated. ALTHOUGH people said these things, many of the comparisons between the original Python inserts vs Freaks have led me to reviews where users claim that the Python inserts performed very nearly the same or even better - their only downfall was having only 4 insert sizes. The iFit has up to 9!

Thoughts? (This is for a CCI Phantom, so there aren't too many barrels to choose from compared to others).
0

#2 User is offline   Eskimo 

  • Igloo Member #1
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2,319
  • Joined: 05-August 07
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Whitby Canada.
  • Brigade Name:Mime

Posted 12 August 2010 - 08:30 AM

The iFit kit is much newer, but The iFit is made by the same people who make another kit,
Whether is the freak guys or the python guys I'm not sure.

the python has 4 inserts at
0.679
0.682
0.685
0.688

which the smallest two will underbore most paint so you'll be fine, you may be like me and search out for the 0.679 because the smaller the better IMO,

aha with extra searching, "Tech T ifit kit"
thus old Python is new Ifit. Both made by the same guys.

I would rock the iFit for the wide range of insterts.
eh its up to you though.
0

#3 User is offline   cdrinkh20 

  • The Dragon Reborn
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1,296
  • Joined: 23-January 10
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:St. Albert, AB
  • Brigade Name:cdrinkh20

Posted 12 August 2010 - 08:54 AM

View PostEskimo, on 12 August 2010 - 09:30 AM, said:

The iFit kit is much newer, but The iFit is made by the same people who make another kit,
Whether is the freak guys or the python guys I'm not sure.

the python has 4 inserts at
0.679
0.682
0.685
0.688

which the smallest two will underbore most paint so you'll be fine, you may be like me and search out for the 0.679 because the smaller the better IMO,

aha with extra searching, "Tech T ifit kit"
thus old Python is new Ifit. Both made by the same guys.


I would rock the iFit for the wide range of insterts.
eh its up to you though.


Yeah that's why I was eyeing it - I mean, I had the set of 4 Phantom detent rings (Mike emailed me back and said now they come with 5, the new smallest being 0.670 I believe) and I had some winter paint from my field that was too small for it! I managed to shoot 8/35 or so shots, the rest rolled out.

Plus I've been reading from so many people about increased accuracy, etc - it's just lots of people swear the longer Freaks will perform better because of length. However, I have also read the Freak inserts were often not the size they were supposed to be (mismeasured, or just bad honing). Not to mention Smart Parts liquidated just recently and no guarantee the inserts will be produced again (though I'm pretty sure they will as they are pretty standard).

But as you said, the iFit does go to a much smaller bore size for underboring.
0

#4 User is offline   Krazy8 

  • User Defined
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Retired/Inactive Moderator
  • Posts: 2,555
  • Joined: 30-January 05
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rathdrum , ID
  • Brigade Name:Krazy8

Posted 12 August 2010 - 09:03 AM

Every company that makes barrels is going to tell you that theirs is the best and then proceed to tell you why.

Freak kits are fine. Stainless kits are simply harder to bend out of shape. But to be perfectly honest I have had an aluminum kit for over five years now...none of them are bend out of round. Why? I keep them in the bloody storage case!
I have also had a huge number of people complian about the inconsistancy of the bore sizes. Some simply did not match the number printed on them. So what!? If it works on the paint I am shooting they can call it frankinbore for all I care! The print bore size is pointless...I just need to know whick is bigger and smaller. The colored inserts of the aluminum kit really help with that.

Hammer Head has done extensive testing on the subject and they swear that the 2" control bore they use is simply the most efficent and pridicatble size they tested. The company comes from a true firearms background and tends to put just a bit more testing into their gear than others.
Whatever they think it does work and work well. I have a 12" Pro Series, 12" MoFo and had an original Shark Tooth. The performance of these barrels with their short control bore works great.

The MatchStik and the Shift Kits both use a longer control bore. Of course through testing this was found to be the optimum lenght for great performance with a variety of paint. They work great.

Palmer's Pursuit Shop uses eliptical honing in their brass barrels. the thought is it allows the shell of the paint to expand after the force of the air hits the ball in the breech then forces the ball back to a nice round shape just prior to leaving the controled enviroment of the barrel.
Whatever...anyone who has shot a Palmers barrel will tell you they are very good at put paint where you want it.

CCI, well he has been working on makingthe best possible barrel for all paint types. And I venture to say he has more experience doing it than any other company out there right now. Yes yes. Someone else may have had their name as long....but none of them can claim individual ownership and continued development of their product like CCI can.

Barrels work. That is all there is to it. Kits make the paint fit better, but in the end you are still shooting a flexible sack of liquid at random moving ranges under ever changing enviromental conditions while hoping one barrel will be the golden ticket to end your search.
There is no right answer.

Personally I have tested every Phantom barrel in game and on a target range that I could get my hands on.
Frantom
CCM CF with 2" control bores
Lapco
Stock barrel honed for Freak inserts
And the stock barrel with detent rings

Not one of the barrel kits out performed the stock barrel. Frantom was not even close. the honed barrel was fine until it broke a ball that was to large for the bore and needed to be tore completely apart and cleaned to get shooting straight again.
The CCM was great. Shot just like the stock barrel...at a $180 price tag. Oh and they don't make them any longer.
Lapco worked, but it was a one piece and to keep paint from rolling ut we used...the detent rings from CCI. So the stock barrel again wins.
Quite simply the Stock Phantom barrel is amazing. Coupled with the detent rings you can shoot a tremendous range of paint and trust the accuracy to be what you need more often than not.

Save your money on buying a barrel for the Phantom and buy paint, or some agg gear....



You have paint rolling past your smallest ring....then a kit will not help you at all. There is no detent system in the Phantom...hence the rings. So if paint is smaller than your bore it is going to roll out. No way to stop it.

This post has been edited by Krazy8: 12 August 2010 - 09:08 AM

1

#5 User is offline   cdrinkh20 

  • The Dragon Reborn
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1,296
  • Joined: 23-January 10
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:St. Albert, AB
  • Brigade Name:cdrinkh20

Posted 12 August 2010 - 10:25 AM

Solid reply :) I think Mike Cassidy may actually be sending me his new ring that I described, which is quite small as I said (0.670) - he asked for my address ;) great customer service!

Wouldn't a control bore also serve to keep my paint in until I shoot it though? :P Hence, a kit would help (if for some reason this ring didn't, though it should). In any case, accuracy was my main concern.
0

Share this topic:


Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users