| |
![]() |
Email This Page |
|
Re: Question about relative accuracy
In Reply to: Question about relative accuracy posted by Clayphoto on December 24, 2003 at 13:27:03:
|
|
Posted by: K Keaty on December 29, 2003 at 11:58:34
|
It may help to offer a slightly different comparison. If all else is equal, we can assume that identical paintballs traveling at the same velocity will hit the same mark every time. So, it may help to discuss consistency of muzzle velocity. If I'm shooting plus or minus 15 fps, the trajectory of my paint (assuming good quality paint is as close to identical as reasonable) will be worse than the paint that belongs to the guy shooting plus or minus 3 fps. So, ask what range of velocity these markers achieve in order to determine how consistent the accuracy should be. I have seen standard automags HPA systems and Palmer's Stabilizers shoot plus or minus 3. So, I argue that those extra hundreds mostly get you rate of fire and shiny goodness. But, since paint to barrel match is part of consistent velocity, do spend the extra dough on good quality paint. Hope this helps. Kevin
: Make the assumption that you are using N2 air sources, maintaining your gun per service manual recommendations, timed your gun properly, using good paint and bore match, and playing with stock internals for your gun. : Is it fair to say that in terms of accuracy a WGP Vertical Autococker, Rat Impulse Jr, and Automag RT Pros are all guns that approach the physical limits of what a modern paintball projectile can achieve? In other words, if an Autococker gets a shot cluster of 18" at x range , will the other two get similar results? And will other guns costing hundreds of dollars more see only marginal increases in accuracy? : This is asked with accuracy being the only variable. Ignoring rate of fire, comfort, ease of maintenance, ect. : Thanks in advance!
|
|
Follow Ups:
|
|
Copyright © 1992-2011
Corinthian Media Services. WARPIG's webmasters can be reached through our feedback form. |