BARKY
|
.50 Cal paintballsAnyone got any opinions
|
Bulldog
|
Tried it in the '80s; didn't work. Balls are too light to fly far unless you really crank up the FPS- and if you take the higher FPS and impact it with the smaller surface area, it hurts a lot more. Might be nice for small airball fields or indoor CQB stuff, but it's not going to work in the woods.
|
BARKY
|
saw a big thing during world cup almost all of the major companies are making .50 cal markers conversion kits and are starting to make .50 cal paint
|
Bulldog
|
Actually, it's a couple of the big ones- Smart Parts being the ringleader- trying to make it seem like this is the inevitable future of paintball. All they are giving is some marketing hype and some clearly faked videos that are supposed to show how accurate they are. Get someone to let you shoot one of these across a chrono at a 100 ft target.
They claim that .50 will reduce the costs for the consumer- but how much of the price of paint is the actual materials? A 30% reduction in material will not equal any where near the same price drop- and if fields need to stock more paint to cover .50 and .68, prices will go UP.
The only good thing about .50 is that it would mean smaller hoppers, marginally lighter guns, and the ability to fit a decent number of balls into a mag-fed marker.
|
Bulldog
|
| markes wrote: | Ok
So, i found in youtube this video about the new GI Milsim .50 Paint , from there i got pictures of the paint bags ( 500 .50 balls in each bag ) and the graphics below.
http://www.youtube.com/v/LoB-5V-FENQ
You can found more information about this graphics at http://www.mcarterbrown.com/50ballistics/
Comments please ..... because i don't have words after that final drop test.... |
| medic67 wrote: | OK, it is early and I have not had my daily allotment of stimulating beverage this morning, but what I am seeing is,
The .50 cal paint is inferior to the .68 cal paint.
Drop in distance is basically equal in the normal paintball engagement ranges,
that is if you consider 25 yards to be normal engagement distances.
At 30-40 yards the drop is quite significant compared to the .68 caliber round.
Distance is less than that of the .68 cal paint.
Speed is 50 - 100 FPS slower starting at 30' (10 yards)
Foot pounds of energy is nearly 0 at 75' (25 yards)
Taking the range of 90' (30 yards) as the farthest engagement range
The .50 caliber paintball will be:
1.) dropping farther than the .68 caliber round.
2.) have have 50% less velocity than the .68 caliber round. (FPS)
3.) having FPE of zero, while be it the .68 is only about 1 FPE it is more than Zero.
Like I said it's early, but I am just not seeing the "Revolution"
This paint seems to me to be engineered for dare I say "Speedball".
Most 5 man fields are 150' x 180' (50 yards x 60 yards) See the correlation?
The FPE at 30' (10 yards) is barely 1.2 FP.
The .50 paint will have to be brittle to break at anything past 10 yards.
From the "drop test" in the video, they do not appear to be brittle.
Looks alot like the .43 caliber paint that bounces more than it breaks.
So I am back to my original thought on the .50 caliber paint,
Smaller diameter = more rounds in hopper and pods = more rounds shot = more cases of paint sold +
new markers/conversion kits sold= $$$
Zero "MILSIM" Revolution,
one (1) Milsim'ish marker, (1) SP1 marker and the rest are Space Guns.
Marketing push to "Revolutionize" the paintball industry.
You will see these markers and paint in all the box mart stores, sporting goods stores and every online shop.
They will market them at prices that will be tempting to those who already own .68 caliber markers and equipment,
trying to lure them away into the "Revolution". Novice players, newcomers will see the .50 at the store and buy because they do not know the difference in the two.
Where will this "Revolution" lead? How many years will it be before they decide, "We are not making any money with the .50 caliber, what if we "Revolutionize" the sport into .62 caliber? Because you know it has to be better. Doesn't it ? " |
|
|
|
|
