View Single Post
Old March 10th, 2010, 16:46   #64
A Total Bastard
Scarecrow's Avatar
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Tottenham
Send a message via Skype™ to Scarecrow
Originally Posted by Flatlander View Post
You cannot conclusively say they impart more energy (if you can, please explain).
I'm simply going by what the MSED calculator says:

0.28g at 400fps = 2.08 joules
0.30g at 400fps = 2.23 joules

I can't really speak to impact energy - you'd have to account for what part of the trajectory the impact occurred at as the projectile loses velocity and energy as it travels to it terminal destination. Keeping in mind all these discussions are energies calculated at point blank range.

The math is beyond me, I'll leave that to you guys.

Originally Posted by shinobii View Post
Top it off with the Golf ball bb Dimplex, and this is the most well rounded product line available. Can't wait to get the samples in the hands of the people who filled out their names at TAC10 at the Adrenaline or Big Shark booths.
Lets stick to the topic please. I'm trying to keep this thread marketing neutral.

Originally Posted by The Saint View Post
AFAIK, all companies label Basic (and maybe the occasional High Impact) as safety/shooting glasses, and only use the term "ballistic" if they exceed the High Impact. For obvious liability reasons.
With the 407fps-500fps ranges coming in, and heavier weights with hard BB materials, perhaps we should be revisiting our assumptions about eye protection? Just a thought.

One thing I'd like to mention is I use eye protection at my workplace, and if our eyewear sustains, *any* visible damage, the eyewear is considered compromised and we get a new pair of glasses. That's Occupational Health and Safety (OHSA) talking. The assumptions of post-damage eye protections continued capability to protect post impact I think should also be revisited.
LIKE us on Facebook!!

Last edited by Scarecrow; March 10th, 2010 at 17:04..
Scarecrow is offline   Reply With Quote