|
|
Post by casper on Jun 28, 2013 1:58:49 GMT -5
Got a new box today sized and weighed.Looking good .686 across the board no leakers majority weighed in at 3.1 grams and as you can see a few 3.0 grams.The last few boxes had leakers and size was ok weight varied 3.2-3.0 grams.I just got this box in from hustle paintball.Looking better now to shoot these sorted rnds and see how they preform.  Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
nessy
Member
I'm watching you from afar. Don't worry, though. I'm not one of those creepy stalker types. :D
Posts: 132
|
Post by nessy on Jun 28, 2013 7:14:33 GMT -5
This is promising info. I can't wait to order More when I get back from deployment so I can do my own tests and measurements.
|
|
|
|
Post by casper on Jun 28, 2013 12:54:33 GMT -5
should I save the 3.2 gram ones ??They should fly further.Sizing and weight is what I think for general purpose works.If you are shooting for a contest I would worry about sanding the tips.I will be doing a test on the match grade fsr and if it makes a diffrence compared to outta the box.Plus storage options tips down does it matter??Remember the rnd sits sideways in your magazine so wont the fill settle?
|
|
|
|
Post by White Feather on Jun 28, 2013 23:11:28 GMT -5
It doesn't matter about storage. Seriously! The moment you launch them out of the marker the paint is forced by the pulled Gs that it settles to the back of the round. The only way to affect the flow of the fill from moving would be to chill them and thicken the fill. But, by the time you shoot most of them they will have likely warmed up and put you right back where you started. Don't worry about storage position. Rather, worry about the consistency of the fins. Burrs, chips, and cracks will throw your shot way off.
|
|
|
|
Post by casper on Jun 29, 2013 0:14:29 GMT -5
My thoughts exactly!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Allu on Jun 29, 2013 19:37:57 GMT -5
This gave me an idea, while I think the external properties of the round might impact the most, the storing might be helpful in long time storage when fall out deposits might form, but why not store them tip up, to eliminate that too however shaking the rounds before use might eliminate that too?
|
|
|
|
Post by Wolfen on Jun 30, 2013 19:50:50 GMT -5
Actually i disagree there, i've done alot of extensive testing over several years and the way you store them DOES affect how they fly. Is it by a huge amount? No it's not but the difference is big enough to notice. for this reason i always store my First strikes standing up in 10 round tubes in a cooling bag to keep temperatures constant.
The difference is this, if you have them laying on the side for a long period of time (for instance bulk boxes) the paint will stick to the bottom side, and while your right that the force will move the liquid inside. it won't do this fast enough thus making it heavier on one side. last year i did 14 different test sessions where i compared this as well as accuracy in general and the affect of wind on FS and so on.... In every single case i had between 5-9 cm (about 2-3 inches) bigger spread at 50 m with the ones who had laid on their side as opposed to the way i normally store them. To be fair this ain't a lot, and would probably not make miss your target (i have around 3 inch spread normal on 60m). However this effect does increase if you shoot at longer ranges and then it can definitely make a shot miss that would otherwise hit.
|
|
|
|
Post by trinity on Jun 30, 2013 23:34:12 GMT -5
Actually I have to agree with Wolfen on this one. I did the same kind of testing almost two years ago and came away convinced that correct storage makes a slight difference in accuracy. Once you reach a certain point in your shooting the big leaps in improved accuracy stop happening. To keep tightening those groups, all you have left are the little thing like careful paint storage and sizing your rounds. The little bits of improvement you do get, however do add up though. I'll leave it to others to figure out why storage makes a slight difference, all I am sure of is that it does and the additional storage step takes very little extra time.
I store my paint exactly as Wolfen suggests, but I take the extra step of sizing my paint for the .686 and .688 fins and I keep those two sizes separately boxed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wolfen on Jul 1, 2013 15:57:58 GMT -5
i size mine as well, even though i generally use same bore all the time. i like all rounds i shoot during a day to be same size to minimize the difference between each shot.
|
|
|
|
Post by trinity on Jul 1, 2013 23:12:37 GMT -5
Because I hand feed every round that goes in the breach (fin) I have gotten a pretty good feel for what a round will do downrange. I have found that rounds that are even a little tight in the fin end up being off a little (or a lot depending on just big the rounds actually are). I have gotten pretty picky about what I put through a .686 fin. If I get the slightest bit of a bind between round and fins, it goes in the .688 pile. About 60% of my rounds end up in the .686 pile, but I getting more finicky the more I shoot.
I do run across really large rounds from time to time and I am now starting to keep them. I have one round out of a recent box that will not fit through a .693 sizer. It 's important to remember that these rounds don't look any different to the naked eye. If they are loaded in a magazine you won't know why you got a paint break (when shot out of a .683-bore barrel for example) or had a round that went wildly off course.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wolfen on Jul 2, 2013 15:57:03 GMT -5
wow you've had that big? that is really good to know, so far i don't think i've had a single one over .687, these goes through a .683 without any problem but i think your right, any bigger then that and it would definitely be a risk of breakage. Thanks for the heads up!
|
|
|
|
Post by ghost0302 on Mar 13, 2014 6:07:28 GMT -5
Because I hand feed every round that goes in the breach (fin) I have gotten a pretty good feel for what a round will do downrange. I have found that rounds that are even a little tight in the fin end up being off a little (or a lot depending on just big the rounds actually are). I have gotten pretty picky about what I put through a .686 fin. If I get the slightest bit of a bind between round and fins, it goes in the .688 pile. About 60% of my rounds end up in the .686 pile, but I getting more finicky the more I shoot. I do run across really large rounds from time to time and I am now starting to keep them. I have one round out of a recent box that will not fit through a .693 sizer. It 's important to remember that these rounds don't look any different to the naked eye. If they are loaded in a magazine you won't know why you got a paint break (when shot out of a .683-bore barrel for example) or had a round that went wildly off course. My most recent case of FS rounds included 5x0.690 or larger (I threw these out), 10x0.688s (which I retained), and the remainder were 0.686 or smaller. There were no leakers. Once I started taking out the larger rounds, my chamber breaks went away completely. I am currently slightly overboring with a 0.688 fin but want to go to a 0.686 fin and see if I experience any gain in accuracy/consistency. Trinity, based on your feedback above I may already be at more of an optimum setup - do you have any additional thoughts in recent months? I am picking up an additional two cases this Saturday and will size and weigh them out. I will post up the results of this activity late next week! |
|
|
|
Post by trinity on Mar 14, 2014 15:56:29 GMT -5
Because I hand feed every round that goes in the breach (fin) I have gotten a pretty good feel for what a round will do downrange. I have found that rounds that are even a little tight in the fin end up being off a little (or a lot depending on just big the rounds actually are). I have gotten pretty picky about what I put through a .686 fin. If I get the slightest bit of a bind between round and fins, it goes in the .688 pile. About 60% of my rounds end up in the .686 pile, but I getting more finicky the more I shoot. I do run across really large rounds from time to time and I am now starting to keep them. I have one round out of a recent box that will not fit through a .693 sizer. It 's important to remember that these rounds don't look any different to the naked eye. If they are loaded in a magazine you won't know why you got a paint break (when shot out of a .683-bore barrel for example) or had a round that went wildly off course. My most recent case of FS rounds included 5x0.690 or larger (I threw these out), 10x0.688s (which I retained), and the remainder were 0.686 or smaller. There were no leakers. Once I started taking out the larger rounds, my chamber breaks went away completely. I am currently slightly overboring with a 0.688 fin but want to go to a 0.686 fin and see if I experience any gain in accuracy/consistency. Trinity, based on your feedback above I may already be at more of an optimum setup - do you have any additional thoughts in recent months? I am picking up an additional two cases this Saturday and will size and weigh them out. I will post up the results of this activity late next week! While we are seeing new guns coming out, including some really nice stuff from Milsig, not much in the first strike world has changed. I have just been concentrating on my shooting and watching how first strikes perform at various ranges and conditions (wind, cold, etc.) I think that what I wrote in the quote above is still accurate. For players who don't sort rounds according to size, I believe the .688 fin is still the safest way to go. For players who do sort by size, I think shooting the smaller size paint through the smaller fin improves accuracy by a bit. Unfortunately, accuracy suffers in my SR1 when I try shooting the larger size paint through the .686 fin. Your breakdown on the sizes of rounds is pretty much right in line with what I am seeing. Just keep shooting |
|
|
|
Post by ghost0302 on Mar 23, 2014 19:19:45 GMT -5
I finished my sizing and weighing of my two latest cases of FSRs. Results are as follows:
Case 1:
102 total rounds.
0x0.690
3x0.688
99x0.686 (or slightly smaller)
0x0.683
1x2.97g fill (low)
2x3.19g fill (high)
Case 2:
104 total rounds
0x0.690
1x0.688
103x0.686 (or slightly smaller)
0x0.683
1x2.94g fill (low)
2x3.19g fill (high)
The vast majority of fills were between 3.05-3.15 grams. I suspect if I would have plotted them out it would have been a standard bell curve.
I already have a 0.686 fin for my Hammerhead inbound and will save up the 0.688 rounds until I have fifty for a full load out, then run my 0.688 fin for a few games.
Overall much better, and I am glad to see it!
|
|
|
|
Post by ruraldawgs on Mar 24, 2014 16:01:11 GMT -5
I also have bought 2 boxes recently... 103 rds each box, skirt was uniform. I dont have a scale.
|
|
|
|
Post by ruraldawgs on Mar 24, 2014 16:29:16 GMT -5
OK I see a shift of sizing the rounds. I shoot a Lapco 683 on my T9.1 and d have breaks. So what sizer are you guys using. Be nice to use the same sizer as other for consistency's sake. R-Dawg I finished my sizing and weighing of my two latest cases of FSRs. Results are as follows: Case 1: 102 total rounds. 0x0.690 3x0.688 99x0.686 (or slightly smaller) 0x0.683 1x2.97g fill (low) 2x3.19g fill (high) Case 2: 104 total rounds 0x0.690 1x0.688 103x0.686 (or slightly smaller) 0x0.683 1x2.94g fill (low) 2x3.19g fill (high) The vast majority of fills were between 3.05-3.15 grams. I suspect if I would have plotted them out it would have been a standard bell curve. I already have a 0.686 fin for my Hammerhead inbound and will save up the 0.688 rounds until I have fifty for a full load out, then run my 0.688 fin for a few games. Overall much better, and I am glad to see it! |
|
|
|
Post by ghost0302 on Mar 24, 2014 18:20:44 GMT -5
OK I see a shift of sizing the rounds. I shoot a Lapco 683 on my T9.1 and d have breaks. So what sizer are you guys using. Be nice to use the same sizer as other for consistency's sake. R-Dawg I am using a Hammerhead sizer. A good scale, if interested, costs $10-$15 on Amazon. Am not seeing a huge difference in fill weights based on volume, but would group by weights and sizes if I did. |
|
