Having gone out (and won £60 at poker so I'm in a happy mood
) I've come back and re-read things and I still find his
second post the problem.
As I tried to point out, I agree with him to a degree and think he does wrap up together some salient points in a simplistic arguement.
But I really have an issue with the tone of the article which is peppered with absolutes, not opinions or presented evidence upon which the arguements are based.
For instance:
The purpose of this article is to inform the masses that the latter is most certainly not true
hmm
The most important involves the match in barrel and paintball bore sizes. Even a slight disparity in this match can allow for a severe decrease in accuracy
some disagree, and have said why
Scientifically this is not the case, as any claim of one marker having a different trajectory than another is physically impossible
as Manike said - Tippman flatline anyone?
No matter what the situation, this assertion is always false, regardless of how much the instigator of this idea tries to explain science away. There really isn’t a great deal else to say about this fallacy. Simply know that any declaration of a marker having a different trajectory than another is invariably fictitious.
So it's wrong why? ....oh because it is
One myth that has stood the test of time is that longer barrels give a marker more distance and more accuracy. This is far from the truth, and the laws of physics state this in numerous places. One object emitted from a source at the same velocity and angle as another object, barring drag in the trajectory and elements such as wind and temperature, will go the same distance and have the same flight path (accuracy). Now, introducing drag into the equation, one can imply that the opposite of the idea abovementioned is true: the longer a barrel is, the less accuracy and the less distance can be expected. Through my own tests and the tests of such paintball greats as Tom Kaye, creator of the Automag, the findings are self-evident: the barrel only uses the first six to eight inches to accelerate, and the next two to four to correct itself before falling victim to drag, which in turn results in deceleration, which produces a larger arc, and finally results in less distance and accuracy at longer ranges.
This one is great - he contradicts himself with his own arguement.
If the ball is going at 300fps as it leaves the barrel will go the same distance as any other. The fact that it *may* have got up to 350fps then decelerated down to 300fps by the end of the barrel is irrelevant, if it leaves the barrel at 300fps it's the same.
Plus the second bit of the arguement ignores the fact that most barrels are stepped bore and the second part of the barrel (basically) doesn't touch the ball hence not creating any drag.
Blowback is essentially the leading origin of kick, or the lack thereof. Consequently, closed bolt markers will always have less kick than most open bolt markers
Again, we have politely pointed out some don't agree and provide examples of this.
I would like Mike to continue posting, but in a more relaxed attitude that is open to the debate he invited:
I (PaintballerX) am the one who wrote this, so I didn't just copy it off of a website; therefore, if you have any questions, feel free to ask.
We have been more than polite, up to the point that he resorted to losing his nut and making assumptions on the relative experience and knowledge of the posters here.
