View Single Post
Old March 10th, 2010, 13:07   #55
Flatlander's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Edmonton
Send a message via MSN to Flatlander
If we actually want to resolve this issue, people need to stop posting their theories and their understandings of "energy" and how things just gets muddied up and confuses people. I see lots of incorrect statements/theories and I don't have time to correct them all and explain things. Post hard facts and evidence, like Kokanee did, and let the right people comment on the results. There's gotta be a dozen threads like this on ASC already and all leading nowhere.

Also, pick some definitive points to argue and not just "which is more dangerous"...dangerous to what? People? Equipment? Eyewear failure? Then proceed with specific tests to prove/disprove the specific concerns.

Kokanee, can you shoot the same lens with a heavy weight BB (around .40) and show us the results. The results will shed some good light on the weight issue.

Originally Posted by Scarecrow View Post
You've articulated exactly what I don't want to be accused of. I'm pretty much convinced that if your host allows .30g, .36g, or .40g shot on the field, then not allowing the silica product is kinda silly as those products definitely impart more kinetic energy on impact than .28g product. Its a mathematical fact. I don't think you're at any greater risk - thats my personal opinion. YMMV.
You cannot conclusively say they impart more energy (if you can, please explain). I cannot say either way myself based on my knowledge alone. If you remember Donp's weight testing where he fired point blank into foam, the heavier weight BB's penetrated deeper. So if you take those test restults you would realize:

a) All BB's had (roughly) the same kinetic energy when they hit the foam.

b) All of the kinetic energy was transfered into the foam...proof of this fact -> BB's penetrated and stopped in the foam. (energy lost to noise variation and heat would be negligible).

c) The heavier weight BB's had more MOMENTUM. This is what I believe is the kicker in terms of PENETRATION potential.

So there might be an argumentment to be made that heavier BB's might have more potential to penetrate skin. Is there proof of this fact? Nope. Skin and foam are very different materials and may interact with BB impacts completely different.

Now I did write a theoretical program in 4th year that would calculate: Evergy vs Distance; Velocity vs Distance; Momentum vs Distance. It was a pretty complicated forumula that would iterate the instantious Reynolds numbers and friction factors as the BB slowed this thing was fairly accurate in my mind. With this program I could plug in different muzzle velocities and BB weights and screw around with the numbers. From what I remember, at about ~50 feet is where heavier BB's will have more velocity than lighter ones. Heavier BB's have more kinetic energy than lighter ones throughout the entire flight path (except at the muzzle = even). So the argument that heavy weight BB's POSSESS more energy is legitimate, but we should be doing all of our tests based on worst case scenario - point blank - and then at that point all the BB weights have (roughly) the same kinetic energy.

I have personally conducted some "pain tests" with some team mates to see if heavy weight BB's hurt more. We shot various weights from .20's to .40's at ranges around 100-150". Our results (opinions), were that the pain wasn't a noticable difference, however a few us felt that heavier weights were definately more noticable when they struck your gear...they gave a louder, more distinct "TWACK". Nothing really scientific there are all but I am not concerned in the least of using heavy weight BB's because they're "more dangerous".

Originally Posted by Azathoth View Post
I agree. Your .30 and up VS liquor bottles in my backyard testing yields basically the same results as the silica BB. I've found that KSC .30 are more destructive than the MAX on a shot to shot basis against the glass.

What really surprised me is my shooting at non field limit velocities 500+. I'll do the shoot again when the snow melts lexan RC shell vs standard .30 BB and silicas. The standard BB's punch through the lexan shell, but the silica's bounce off.

Anywhere that allows those other BB's that weigh 0.30 and up should allow the silica BB's but silica's have such a bad reputation just like bio's do in Canada.

I really want to get some of those new Bioval Hardball weight BB's and shoot them at our field limit energy levels.
Unless you provide more details, your results prove nothing of use.

- Did you shoot the bottles with lighter weights and it didn't break? Just heavier weights? What ranges were you firing from...this is the big kicker because heavier weights will have higher velocities than lighter BB's at ~50'+.

- What does shooting lexan prove? How does this help prove how "dangerous" these are or are not? All it proves is that if you have a lexan gun it'll turn to swiss-cheese. Were your weights the same between the plastic and silicon BB's? At what range were they fired from?
Ronin 49 Team Member

Last edited by Flatlander; March 10th, 2010 at 15:16.. Reason: Goofed on my theoretical experimental results explanation - corrected
Flatlander is offline   Reply With Quote