Required: Bright minds.

I owned a 98 custom in the day and had a flatline, I was able to reach insane distances with dam good accuracy. Now I see the A-5 has a flatline as well. Has anyone used both the A-5 flatline, AND the 98 Customs flatline. If so did you notice one could shoot farther than the other, or one was more accurate? If you were to be using the EXACT SAME low pressure system on both guns would there be a difference? I would > ASSUME < you would get more distance from the 98's flatline because of the added length and more gradual curve. I want to know what you think people... This is the NUMBER ONE selling point for me and I don't think I will let this post die unless I see some good hard evidence. Thank you for your time.

warbeak2099 wrote: LiveInFear wrote: I would > ASSUME < you would get more distance from the 98's flatline because of the added length More length does not equate to better range. Could I get exact measurements of the distances and shot groupings you got with the flatline. I'm trying to figure out why people get better results from the barrel than are actually possible under ideal conditions.

really, i think that sounds right, in theroy it should. but thats a guess, they might have come up with a solution.

warbeak2099 wrote: No, especially in theory it isn't feasible. Added length just doesn't give you more range or accuracy. A 10" barrel will shoot as far and as accurately as a 14" barrel of the same quality.

Guys, listen to Warbeak. If we were allowed unlimited velocity a longer barrel might utilize more gas to allow balls to exit the barrel at a higher velocity. But, we are all limited to an absolute max of 300 fps out the end of the barrel. A ball leaving a short barrel at 300 fps will go exactly as far as a ball exiting a long barrel at 300 fps.

I think that the problem with these personal accounts of flatline performance is that they are just that, personal accounts. Annecdotes, personal opinions, or subjective observations never lead to accurat conclusions. What will give you a real, factual answer to the question is putting the barrels to empirical testing. Test the different flatlines and how far they shoot. Collect data and analyze it to see if there is any difference. My hypothesis as I've stated before is that there will be little to no difference in range or accuracy between the 98 flatline, the a-5 flatline, or the apex barrel. If someone would run the test who has all 3 barrels, I think it would finally solve the problem that causes all of these arguments. I don't care if I'm right or wrong, I just want the answer.     

Rambino wrote: I read LIF's guess to mean that because the 98 Flatline is longer it may impart more backspin, which would result in greater distance.  This is entirely different from the 21" sniper barrel theory. It may be true that the 98 Flatline imparts more backspin - there have certainly been plenty of accounts of greater distance from 98 Flatlines.  But as pointed out by Warbeak, these are strictly anecdotal in nature, and we should be careful jumping to any conclusions. There are other factors that impact the backspin-generation, such as surface texture and curve steepness.  The Apex is quite short but can generate impressive amounts of spin on max curve. But my suggestion is that it is irrelevant.  It may be that the 98 Flatline has longer range than an A-5 Flatline.  But at that range you will most likely never get a break.  At the outer reaches of my A-5 Flatline range I never get breaks, and I would wager that any barrel that can shoot another 30-40 feet beyond that will get even fewer breaks.

More or less backspin may make a difference in total distance traveled before the ball hits the ground. And certainly can be investigated with a barrel like the Apex that has adjustable back spin, but some of the discussion here is accuracy, in general, and in relationship to the length of the 98 Flatline vs. the A-5 Flatline.

I have done some significant accuracy testing on the 98 Flatline. I will speculate on its reported better accuracy than the A-5 barrel. A paintball traveling down any barrel wobbles around, skidding and bouncing off the sides. Even though the ball in the Flatline is forced against the curve, there is still movement in the barrel other than a smooth spin up while accelerating to velocity. The longer path through the 98 barrel may allow some stabilization of those other movements better than the shorter dwell time in the A-5 barrel allows. Thus when the ball exits the barrel most extraneous movement has been damped leaving only the stabilizing spin to do its job.

If you participate in such things, note that when a bowling ball goes in the gutter, in the first few feet it wobbles back and forth. As it continues down the gutter that side to side wobble damps out so that by the time it reaches the end it's doing nothing but rolling straight.

As for accuracy in general of the Flatline design, I am probably going to step into controversy again with these next comments. Imparting spin on any projectile, whether bullet shaped or round, improves its stability, due to gyroscopic forces, as it travels through the air. Though there are differences in the flight path as to whether that spin is axial to flight direction or is backspin, stability is still improved.

To use a baseball analogy, I am pointing out the differences between a knuckle ball and a curve ball. The ball with no spin tends to dance and weave on the micro air movements between the mound and the catchers mitt. The unknown quality of the knuckle ball flight may require the catcher to use an over-size mitt. Whereas catching a curve ball time after time requires no special equipment because the flight path is repeatable and predictable due to that stability imparted by the spin. We are not debating that spinning interacts with the air and imparts a curving path...if we use a Flatline or have pitched a baseball we know this to be true. We are debating whether a back-spinning ball is more stable and thus more accurate (repeatable hits) that a ball with no spin.

When shooting outside, the beautiful flat trajectory, when held for long distances, may seem to move left, right, up or down near the limit of that flight. I have had access to indoor facilities where there are no telltale air currents and had the opportunity to use both Flatlines, several smooth bore and one riffled paintball barrel.

I know with ever so slight cross winds all of you have noted that at the near limit of your range, whether using a smooth bore or a Flatline, that you will miss shots that you are sure, actually saw, that they were, dead on. But that little wisp of air out across the field was just enough enough to cause that miss.

In indoor  shooting I found with two different Flatline barrels both would place 10 out of 10 shots in a 9 inch circle at 175 feet. This was with the 98C sand bagged and clamped in place with no responsibility on my part to aim it.

The several smooth bores, a Stone Cold II, a J&J Ceramic and a Stiffi, would hold ten shots in a 14," or smaller, circle at that extended distance. I also had (still have) a new Hammerhead Pro kit which, for those who don't know, is a full fledged riffled barrel.

The Hammerhead performed no better than the smooth bores, which wasn't bad, until I switched to a paint that was actually tight in the bore...engaging the rifling. At that point the axial spin imparted by that barrel  brought about a significant jump in accuracy, producing a 80 shot string all inside 9". (I actually got several 10 shot strings inside 7 inches, which the Flatline did not do)

My conclusion was that spinning, whether back or axial, imparted accuracy from the gyroscopic stability. I also have to conclude that reported inaccuracy of Flatlines has to be attributed to something other than a defect in the concept or implementation of the theory of backspin.

After watching many games where many players are using Flatlines my theory, and it's just a theory, is that with such long nearly level flight, the winds along the ball's flight path impart movement to the ball no differently than they do to paintballs on an arching trajectory. But, that flat trajectory lets us more readily observe the missed shots. Also, typically, shots are taken at further away targets with the Flatline than with arching trajectory barrels with full expectation that the long flat shot is going to connect. No such extreme range accuracy is expected by the arching trajectory barrels.

At 50 foot distances, I could detect virtually NO differences in accuracy with Flatlines, smooth-bores or rifled. Quality of paint produced more inaccuracy at this distance than from which barrel the shot came.

Edited by Bruce A. Frank - 11 January 2006 at 7:33pm

warbeak2099 wrote: I think that the problem with these personal accounts of flatline performance is that they are just that, personal accounts. Annecdotes, personal opinions, or subjective observations never lead to accurat conclusions. What will give you a real, factual answer to the question is putting the barrels to empirical testing. Test the different flatlines and how far they shoot. Collect data and analyze it to see if there is any difference. My hypothesis as I've stated before is that there will be little to no difference in range or accuracy between the 98 flatline, the a-5 flatline, or the apex barrel. If someone would run the test who has all 3 barrels, I think it would finally solve the problem that causes all of these arguments. I don't care if I'm right or wrong, I just want the answer.

somebody wrote a review who owned both the flatline and apex for his a-5, and he did tests, managed to fire 80 feet farther with the apex on setting 8.

That would be great. Pictures displaying the distances and groupings would help a ton. Someone finally needs to unmask the truth. I vote that the barrels tested are a 98 Flatline, A5 Flatline, APEX, 12" J&J Ceramic, and 14" J&J Ceramic. Maybe even a 16" J&J Ceramic. If done with a vice or clamp and under controlled conditions with each gun at the same velocity, this would be really accurate.