There's a thread over at Punkworks on TechPB's forums discussing polishing internals but unfortunately, no one has a new gun to get data from the before and after polish job. If someone has a gun that hasn't been polished yet, we would be most obliged over there to get some more user data. Here's what would be needed.

1. Chrono gun close enough to 280 fps.
2. Record 30 shots worth of paintballs with each ball's velocity written down.
3. Disassemble marker keeping all settings the same.
4. Take a picture of the receiver halves before the polish job.
5. Do the polish job and explain what method you used.
6. Take a picture of the receiver halves showing how it looks after the polish job.
7. Reassemble gun with original settings.
8. Record 30 more shots with each ball's velocity recorded.
(9, 10, 11. For those with a regulator, turn down PSI to get velocity close to 280 and record data again.)

Basically, we're just looking for hard data that shows how a polish job can change a marker's consistency through both the ball's velocity change and the pressure difference.

If you have access to programs like Excel, you can also show the mean velocity and the standard deviations with the AVERAGE and STDEV functions. If not, we can do it for you if you show the velocity data.

Once you're done, I would suggest posting the data and pics in both here and in the Punkworks' thread.

__________________

My Buddy Just bought a Spanking New A5. I will let him use my setup so I can get the data. Give me a few days to get it all dialed in. Keep you posted...

thanks for doing this Odin.

-jester, X7OG and Tech PB

subscribed

__________________
Ryan

Odin,

The only problem I see with this is the isolated results. With one marker's beginning and ending results, the overall data could be skewed. Now, granted, scientific tests should isolate all possible other variables save the one you're testing, it sounds like you need a more general approach to what other users can expect when/if they polish their markers. This re-introduces the variable of different markers.

It's well known that different markers (even of the same model) can have wildly different performance statistics. Different operating PSI, gas consumption, consistency, etc. This is due to hundreds of different variables that are not controlled by the end users (i.e., US).

My suggestion is to gather as many test subjects and each have the same questions answered and photographed. Given the wide base of players this sort of thing is aimed at, you'd need a more general/averaged result group.

__________________
JackRock

Whether helping my team take a hill, a new player with equipment failure, or helping you to the dead zone.
I hear the call to service and I answer: I am an Operator.
Check out my paintball YouTube Videos.

The point of the data is to give a generalized conclusion of whether or not polishing the internals will help a marker's efficiency, regardless of configuration. Using each person's individual gun and only changing the variable of the polish job should give an indicator of whether or not the gun is behaving differently and its significance. There is still a debate on whether or not polishing the internals even does anything for a marker. By giving hard evidence, people can see what affect it has on a gun's performance.

Now I don't believe all the data collected can be used for all guns. For example, lets say that the polish job gives an increase in 30 fps or a drop in 100 psi (random guesses) for all the data given. Like you said, with so many different variables, such as paint used, chrono used, gun mods, receiver half tolerances, etc, in addition to different guns (a5, x7, t8, etc) that there is no way that the numbers can be used to apply towards everybody. That's why I would like everyone to do their own personal test so that they can only compare the before and after effect with themselves.

However, a general rule of thumb can given and proven based on the results rather than just going by people's word of mouth. The results can be binomial in that they either do or do not give a signficant change/improvement to the marker.

__________________

I would be more than happy to participate, but unfortunately I do not have access to a chronograph, so I am unable to. If circumstances change, i'll get some numbers for you.

__________________

New members please read this first and use this as required. Thank you.

I would assume that effeciancy would be more easily detectable if using HPA instead of C02.

I have another A-5 on the way and I will give my results as well, although I only have C02 at my disposal.

__________________

Yes, HPA would give better numbers but if you increase the number of shots (your sample size), it should still show a trend with Co2.

__________________

Any updates on the polish job? Were you able to do some testing?

__________________