Barrels

[Robbo]

Re: Re: Disagree bro

Originally posted by Hotpoint


Ye canna change the laws of physics Captain

To be fair perhaps he meant "effective range" (ie accuracy)

Hotpoint, and you wanna tell me that a 16 inch barrrel is more accurate than 12 or 14 ?
Robbo

 

[Hotpoint]

Re: Re: Re: Disagree bro

Originally posted by Robbo

Hotpoint, and you wanna tell me that a 16 inch barrrel is more accurate than 12 or 14 ?
Robbo

Please note my use of the word "Effective". I for one personally find I place shots better sighting along a longer barrel which I why I don't like sub 14 inch tubes. Lots of people find the same which is why I think not everybody uses a short barrel

BTW my background was originally in target-shooting so I don't mind handling a drain-pipe...

Of course I read all your articles... you're my role-model, right down to the hairstyle


Edited to Add:

Whilst we're on the subject of aiming... Pumps tend to be more accurate than Semi's because people tend to aim pumps!

 

[Robbo]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Disagree bro

Originally posted by Hotpoint
Please note my use of the word "Effective". I for one personally find I place shots better sighting along a longer barrel which I why I don't like sub 14 inch tubes. Lots of people find the same which is why I think not everybody uses a short barrel
BTW my background was originally in target-shooting so I don't mind handling a drain-pipe...
Of course I read all your articles... you're my role-model, right down to the hairstyle
Edited to Add:
Whilst we're on the subject of aiming... Pumps tend to be more accurate than Semi's because people tend to aim pumps!

I think the point I wanted you to make was that a 16 inch barrel is intinsically no more accurate than a 12 or 14 inch one.
What seems to be the differential is how people 'feel' about it which as you know is well outside the realms of Newton and well inside the realms of subjection.
Barrel length might have a significant effect in traditional target shooting, but this is paintball and the ballistics are vastly different as you well know.
As for the pump thing, I agree 100% with that and once again it is not that the pump gun is intrinsically more accurate than a semi, it's just that people use it differently and hence is more accurate.
As for me being your role model, that's cool, but if you wanna go the whole way mate, drop the double barrel name or are you thinking it's a more accurate model

Robbo

 

[Duncster]

In all honesty, I've never really seen much difference when it comes to different barrels. One highly polished bit of Stainless steel is pretty much the same as any other. At least in terms of the modern 5/7 man airball game. I think the main difference comes down to how the gun itself treats the ball.

I've used a cocker, a shocker, an impulse and an Angel. The best I found was the Cocker. Worst was the Angel. Shocker and Impy pretty much the same as eachother. It seems that it's all to do with how much air and at what pressure you're using to get rid of every ball. Angels snap the ball out, Shockers and Cockers push the ball out. Or something...

Incidentally, I still favour the Angel, as it quite simply rocks. And it's British!!

So in answer to the first post, the barrel is rediculous. But I have to agree with Al....... that bloke is playing well tight!! A good example of how to play tighter if ever I saw one.

Got there in the end.

D.

ps.: I don't usually join in conversations about accuracy and which gun is better, mainly coz I haven't got a clue what I'm talking about....

 

[Duncster]

Oh, and high-rises look stoopid and are unnecesary. Will the advent of the gated feed-neck kill the need for hi-rises?

The Ricochet is butt ugly too. Why not stick with the Revvy? As if the Riccy actually deflects more shots. It may not show up on Radar quite as much, but I don't think we have to worry about that too much........yet........

Dammit.

d.

 

[Al Woods]

Personally I found that a 12 adds a bit too much wing to the balls whereas a 14 seems to be slightly straighter. I used to use a 16 which was awesome and seemed a little more consistently straight. I don't give a **** about 'official facts and figures' I just go for the old see for yourself method, seems to work. If there aint any so called difference then why should barrel manufacturers even bother with anything over a 12 then????

As for physics and all that crap you think Evel Knievel used a shorter or a longer ramp to gain more distance??

 

[Hotpoint]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Disagree bro

Originally posted by Robbo

What seems to be the differential is how people 'feel' about it which as you know is well outside the realms of Newton and well inside the realms of subjection.

As for me being your role model, that's cool, but if you wanna go the whole way mate, drop the double barrel name or are you thinking it's a more accurate model

Okay but it's not really just "feel". Try this experiment: When you aim you are actually lining up three dots (A,B & C) A and B are the beginning and end of the barrel and C is the target

Put two dots on a piece of paper 10cm apart. Now sight along them at another point a few metres away (the further the better)

Now try it again with the two dots 15cm apart

There is always a slight error when you line up A & B which determines how much you would miss C by. However the further away A & B are from each other the better the line will be to C

If you in the audience don't believe me now try with A & B 1cm apart

As for the name... it's not double-barrelled (no hyphen) I just use my middle name because there are lots of other Jon Hayes's about... and it does make it easier to line up the J with the S at the far end

 

[Robbo]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Disagree bro

Originally posted by Hotpoint
Okay but it's not really just "feel". Try this experiment: When you aim you are actually lining up three dots (A,B & C) A and B are the beginning and end of the barrel and C is the target
Put two dots on a piece of paper 10cm apart. Now sight along them at another point a few metres away (the further the better)
Now try it again with the two dots 15cm apart
There is always a slight error when you line up A & B which determines how much you would miss C by. However the further away A & B are from each other the better the line will be to C
If you in the audience don't believe me now try with A & B 1cm apart
As for the name... it's not double-barrelled (no hyphen) I just use my middle name because there are lots of other Jon Hayes's about... and it does make it easier to line up the J with the S at the far end

Since you are quoting an experimental set-up, you must be telling me that a 16 inch barrel is more accurate than a 12 or 14 inch.
Now in my experience (16 years) shooting every type of barrel, I have never and I mean never found this to be the case.
Theoretically, it doesn’t take much to work out that the main determinant in accuracy is the paint.
Now we all know the variances we get with paintball accuracy and I find it almost impossible to consider that you could determine the relative accuracies / inaccuracies of any barrels with this massive anomaly of the paintballs themselves.
If you have a large (comparatively) error factor of ball manufacture (and therefore accuracy), how the hell can u determine relatively much smaller differences in barrel length accuracies ?
In fact, I will ask you this, if you look at the pro teams, historically, these guys will use anything that gives them the edge and I mean anything.
If 16 in barrels were more accurate than 12 or 14's, don't you think the pros would all be using them ?
Well, they don't coz they aren't.
And I would much prefer to rely on all the accumulated experience of all the pro players from all over the world in the last 16 years than some tin-pot experiment !
Just my opinion u understand
Robbo

 

[Collier]

Originally posted by Duncster
Oh, and high-rises look stoopid and are unnecesary. Will the advent of the gated feed-neck kill the need for hi-rises?

You calling my hi-rise ugly??? but its lovely and chrome!! As for being unnecesary I think a high rise still feeds better but have yet to try one on my new, and this brings me to my next point..

Originally posted by Duncster
The Ricochet is butt ugly too. Why not stick with the Revvy? As if the Riccy actually deflects more shots. It may not show up on Radar quite as much, but I don't think we have to worry about that too much........yet........
d.

'Halo B', you want fast feeding? check these puppies out!
yep thats 20+ BPS, how quicks your finger?? lol

Paul.

 

[Jones the Paint Magnet]

Aren't we confusing two separate issues on accuracy here? One is the technical aspect - quality and shape of the paint, marker consistency, length of barrel and material, etc, - and the other is shooting technique.

I think the physics for the former are pretty cut 'n' dried and have been discussed ad nauseaum on the boards already, but the issue about lining up the dots (IMHO) is about firing technique: It's easier to align (and therefore fire accurately) a longer barrel, but with time and practice you learn to adjust to a shorter length as your aim improves. This is why the "subjectivity" part still holds sway, because people who feel comfortable with their marker and how it points and balances will probably fire more accurately with it provided their basic principles are sound.

Granted though, a lot of the inaccuracies caused by technique are dwarfed by the technical limitations of the paint.