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!
.50 cal ballistics data
- Thread starter Gadget
- Start date
Oooo, who do we trust - you're not exactly an unbiased source yourself are you Pipes!
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.Oooo, who do we trust - you're not exactly an unbiased source yourself are you Pipes!
I'll just have to wait until I can get my grubby mitts on one to try myself.
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 .50Tell you what, there's only one way to settle this.....send me a marker and I'll film an entirely unbiased review for you
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.
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.