"It was asked in another post what effect do riffled barrels have on spinning a paintball, not drilled holes, actual rifling like in real guns. This is a good question and one that was explored by our research team.

In theory spinning a projectile on the axis of flight adds gyroscopic stability as well as averages out any imperfections in the surface air flow. Paintballs leave a bad turbulence wake behind them that "walks around" the back of the ball as it flies through the air. This is the main cause of a paintballs inaccuracy as the turbulence tail drags the ball around sideways in flight. Spinning the ball should create a tornado like vortex in the back of the ball thereby evening out all the turbulence so the ball is not pulled any particular way.

So great you say lets do it and get more accuracy!! Well if it was possible it would already have been done. The problem is the liquid fill, when you rotate the shell, the liquid tends to stay where it is. The best example of this is a glass of water with ice floating in it, when you rotate the glass the ice stays in the same place (you have all seen it). So if you can grab the ball hard enough to go from 0 to about 10,000 RPM's in 5 thousands of a second (remember TechTip #1?) Yes the shell is spinning but the fill is not. When the ball leaves the barrel the viscosity of the fill slows the shell down but the fill's rotation is speeding up from the shell too, so you get an almost instant reduction of the RPM's out of the barrel. The balls rotation does not come to a complete stop because the shell does impart some spin to the fill. In order to test this properly we actually developed a gun that spun the barrel, with the ball in it, up to 30,000 RPM's ( UM HMMM I KNOW HAMMERHEAD IS NOWHERE NEAR THIS) and then shot the ball out.

In this way we knew the ball and the fill were completely up to speed when it left the barrel. We had visions of a spinning barrel paintgun that would make that high speed turbo whine! Unfortunately this didn't improve the accuracy because the ball is still too light.

As a final test we developed a barrel that had three razor edged knife blades running down the length of the bore. Using our plastic paintballs they wedged in the blades perfectly and we spun up the barrel and fired more test rounds. Because the knives would cut the ball we could examine them after the fact to see if they were rotating in the barrel etc. Again unfortunately we saw no improvement in accuracy and gave up.

Based on this data we believe round paintballs are too light and have lousy aerodynamics to expect any more accuracy than what we are currently getting. When the military came to us and wanted a more accurate non lethal system we made a bullet shaped, spin stabilized paintball that far outperformed any equal weight round projectile. Accuracy by volume has been, and will remain, the best way to score eliminations."



This came from TOM KAYE himself...... maybe hammerhead and him should have a discussion..

The HH may very well work, but I still can't even wrap my head around spending 100 for a barrel.... I only spent 79 shipped for my flatline.

__________________
You got a war face?!?LEMME SEE YOUR WAR FACE!!!

"So great you say lets do it and get more accuracy!! Well if it was possible it would already have been done. The problem is the liquid fill, when you rotate the shell, the liquid tends to stay where it is. The best example of this is a glass of water with ice floating in it, when you rotate the glass the ice stays in the same place (you have all seen it). So if you can grab the ball hard enough to go from 0 to about 10,000 RPM's in 5 thousands of a second (remember TechTip #1?) Yes the shell is spinning but the fill is not. When the ball leaves the barrel the viscosity of the fill slows the shell down but the fill's rotation is speeding up from the shell too, so you get an almost instant reduction of the RPM's out of the barrel. The balls rotation does not come to a complete stop because the shell does impart some spin to the fill. In order to test this properly we actually developed a gun that spun the barrel, with the ball in it, up to 30,000 RPM's ( UM HMMM I KNOW HAMMERHEAD IS NOWHERE NEAR THIS) and then shot the ball"

What a load of crap! At least this part is:

The problem is the liquid fill, when you rotate the shell, the liquid tends to stay where it is. The best example of this is a glass of water with ice floating in it, when you rotate the glass the ice stays in the same place (you have all seen it). So if you can grab the ball hard enough to go from 0 to about 10,000 RPM's in 5 thousands of a second (remember TechTip #1?) Yes the shell is spinning but the fill is not.

A paintball is nothing like an egg, glass of water, or any other asinine example. Even if those were exaggerated examples they would still be incorrect. Flatlines spin the paintball easily at ludicrous RPM's and if you take a paintball and spin it on a hard surface it spins very easily and for as long as you would suspect a object its size to spin. It spins easily for five seconds or more. What shot has your paintball in flight to the target for five seconds?

Thats not to say that the rifled barrel works. I don't know what to say about the HH. I do know that Tom Kaye used some SILLY examples. Paintball fill is thick.

well no offense.... but I respect TOM KAYE'S opinion... as should most..... He's basically the founding father of all that is scientific in paintball... and HE is the one that did all of the research of anything air related that involves a paintball... but you do bring up good points...... and fill HAS changed DRAMATICALLY AND I MEAN DRAMATICALLY within the past 5 years.... this could have a part of it too! Thanks for the post lothaen!

__________________
You got a war face?!?LEMME SEE YOUR WAR FACE!!!

I know his influence. I was into paintball many years ago and the markers I idolized were automags. Still do today, though it seems like I will never own an automag since I find Phantoms to be the butter on my bread.

I am just really adamant about paintballs being able to spin. What if anything it does I don't know... but they easily spin.

When spinning them on the ground, the particular brand that I spin always re-orients itself so that the seams spin horizontally to the ground... indicating that the heaviest part (the seams) likes to move itself into a position of balance.

This makes me question what goes on in flight when a backspin is applied. I wish I had a high speed.

I don't think we're quite getting the picture here. The rifling does not cause the paintball to spin - at least not significantly, I would think. What it does do is promote an even distribution of air around the shot as it is inside the barrel, thereby making the friction felt by the ball more evenly distributed. The ball feels friction on the lands, while air escapes around the grooves. Think of the Palmer's Brass. That barrel reduces friction by using a naturally slick alloy in its construction. A rifled barrel does the same by having less of the inner surface touch the shot.

Lothaen, I'm sorry to say that you're wrong. Backspin and rifled rotation obey two completely different principles, you cannot compare the two. Backspin relies on the Magnus Effect which is dependent only on SURFACE spin - the inside fill could not matter less. Rifling is reliant on gyroscopic rotation which takes into account the INSIDE of the projectile as well.

I will grant, though, that the fill may be viscous enough to impart an internal spin. If this is the case, more power to Hammerhead, then!

I think what would solve this debate once and for all is if we got Hammerhead to manufacture a smoothbore barrel, exactly as they would a rifled barrel, but without the rifling. Compare then the deviation in shot consistency of both.

I respect Tom Kaye just as much if not more than the next man. He's done more for the sport than any other industry leader. Although I do have to disagree on accuracy by volume.

__________________

The paintball that is shot from a flatline imparts spin to the fill too. If only the surface were spinning then it wouldn't spin for very long. The shell and fill spin at high rpms. I don't agree with your argument at all. I could care less that we are arguing about the hammerhead here. Regardless of which direction we spin the paintball, it *is* capable of spinning.

I really don't understand what you are trying to argue here in relation to my posts.

I think we are talking about two different things. Im not arguing that spinning the paintball will make it more accurate. I could really care less about hammerheads claims. Really. I'm not hyping their product.

What I am arguing against are the people that say a paintball cannot spin in the air because the fill doesn't spin with the shell. If that were the case, then the magnus effect would be moot because it the paintball shot out of a flatline simply wouldn't spin very long... much like the fabled spinning egg argument.

So what am I wrong about? What do the magnus effect and gyroscopic rotation have to do with my argument that paintballs can be spun?

as most know, I am a HH kit owner myself, and the 3 bore sizes provided are the only ones I have ever used out of my full kit, well the 2 smallest ones.

I have used and owned other barrel kits, JJ edge elite, stiffi switch, HH out shot them all, the HH even out shot my flatline in distance

dont listen to the haters

__________________

Where you're wrong is that you're comparing the spin from a flatline, the Magnus effect, to the spin from a rifled barrel, which is gyroscopic.

See, as I understood your post, you said that is is possible to spin the fill of the paintball, and you used the flatline as your reasoning. What I'm saying is that you cannot apply the same concept that the flatline uses to any type of spin. The flatline works on the Magnus effect which only accounts for surface rotation. Rifling is based on gyroscopic rotation which depends on the entire projectile spinning.

Perhaps paintballs can be spun, I don't know. I'm not Tom Kaye nor do I have his kind of resources. But as I understand it, you're saying paintballs can be spun, and I'm saying not all spin is the same.

__________________

but I dont understand what you are trying to say.


I am aware that they are two different operations. I know the flatline shoots farther than other barrels because it imparts a spin on the ball that causes a area of low pressure to propagate above the ball and the spinning orb is given lift. All because of backspin.

Still, for the ball to spin when shot from a flatline, the FILL must be spinning with the shell of the paint.

I am also aware of gyroscopic spin and the stabilization it is supposed to create. I know the hammerhead wont shoot farther than a normal barrel and it wont outshoot a flatline over distance. What I am arguing is that I believe that *if* a HH can induce some spin on the ball... then the fill inside that ball is also spinning in the same direction as the shell.

For good or ill? I don't know. Does the hammerhead spin the ball? I don't know. If it does, the fill will spin the direction the paint was spun just as the fill of the paint shot out of a flat line will also follow the direction of rotation.

For me, personally, I think the paintball fill spins for either one. The paint is thick enough that the shell imparts a spin on it. He uses a glass of water to make the example. Well paint is thicker than water. Try taking some orange juice and do the same experiment. A more extreme example would be to use some spaghetti sauce or pudding and try it again. The fluid will spin more the thicker it is. What effect either barrel has on the ball's accuracy, I don't know, but it seems like common sense that something that thick would not spin inside the shell.

__________________