Comments on: Lean Times, Small Balls?

By: splattttttt

splattttttt — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 10:29:54 +0000

The idea of shifting to a smaller caliber paintball comes up rather often through out the www paintball communities and local groups. And the the most common and typical acknowledgment is that a smaller than a 68cal. paintball would react inferior to the accepted, and more widely used available stock at the moment.
Smaller bore paint has been available for a long time already and is nothing new to people who use blow guns where paint size is restricted to a 43cal. The latter has not inspired purists of the sport wanting to go and have a custom paintgun manufacturer design them a specific design paintgun to accommodate for this except for law enforcement institutions and the like.
Up until now, small paint manufacturing facilities have probably made a decent profit with it. But yes… “Lean Times”. Lean times has probably hurt sales substantially due to the many organizations requiring cut backs, and now the manufacturers want to try and sell this stuff to us? LOL
I ain’t buying it. I like my big balls TY

By: shutts67

shutts67 — Sat, 30 May 2009 07:07:19 +0000

My thoughts are that the smaller paintballs would hurt more. With the smaller mass, the speed would need to be increased to make sure the shell breaks on contact. If the same force is delivered in a smaller cross-section, the deceleration will be greater, causing more pain. With that decreased cross-section, the PSI of the impact will rise, possibly forcing the need for new masks, making all current equipment obsolete…

By: Fubarius

Fubarius — Fri, 29 May 2009 22:15:17 +0000

Where are people getting the uninformed idea that smaller paint performs BETTER? I’ve used the RAP .43 cal stuff, performed worse in every way except efficiency.

Any gains in range from reduced cross section are countered by a loss of range due to even greater reduced mass.

Ratio of shell thickness to mass is also a factor. The mass decreases faster than the surface area, so the same shell would have less force in impact to break it.

Now some of these can be counteracted by going to a much faster velocity (last time I did the math, a .43 cal ball would need a velocity of over 500fps to have the same impact force as a .68), but you’d have to change the way we aim the guns. You can barely see a .43 or .50 cal ball fly in the air at 300fps, it would be impossible at 500.

By: 1NOnly

1NOnly — Thu, 28 May 2009 13:36:55 +0000

I’m all for it to be quite frank. From the limited research I have done, it’s obvious that the smaller bore paint is superior in performance. If that means updating my gear or buying completely new geear, then so be it. After all, don’t we buy new gear all the time that offers better performance?

By: FUna

FUna — Wed, 27 May 2009 19:48:40 +0000

Excellent article and observations Dale.

This is one of those things that has popped up occasionally, if only a few times, in paintball since I started playing back in ’88.

I agree with what Dale has said: mixed feelings.

.68 caliber paint really is a low-tech throwback to the beginnings of paintball being played using airguns designed for marking trees and livestock. Its time has come and gone.

However is this the time to change?

If so, how?

A smaller paintball, in my opinion, would be great. They would be more accurate (like BBs or pellets), less prone to deviation because of crosswinds, fly faster, and possibly have more range due to less wind resistance.

But lets say a change to a .34 caliber ball (1/2 of .68) was made and the balls were significantly more accurate and outranged the .68s? Current paintguns would be instantly obsolete. We couldn’t mix .68 and .34 caliber players on the same field when one player has a huge advantage over the others.

(Don’t bring up the “its the player not the gun” argument…that only works on a level playing field…a smaller ball would unbalance everything on a fundamental level.)

Like Dale alluded to, it would be a really painful transition for paintball as a whole from manufacturers, to players, to field owners.

Would it be worth it? Yes if the change was feasible for a number of reasons some of which Dale touched on: cheaper paint. Smaller, lighter, cheaper paintballs. Paintball guns that can be made more compact and lighter. New, innovative loading systems that aren’t conducive to .68 caliber paint. Paintball guns that can have more of a mil-sim look and feel making paintball look more attractive than airsoft. More range. Better accuracy. Less PAIN (young kids and even some adults won’t be as scared to try).

Can it be done? Sure, but the transition itself could destroy paintball as a recreational sport as it is currently and it would take years to recover from the lost players, fields and manufacturers that go out of business, and lost revenue to and restructuring of tournaments and scenario events.

Would the end justify the means though?