Extended-Range, Improved-Accuracy PBs

Message Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version Translate Topic

   The best idea I've seen for achieving an extended range, and an
improved accuracy paintball is patented.  I'll give some
explanation as to why I think it would work, and I'll follow with some
possible reason we don't see it in use.

The product in question was called the Safety Paintball.  It
promised an increased range, increased accuracy, and increased safety
paintball.  It was basically, a pill-shaped paintball (like a
liqui-gel).

Why it would work:

It had an increased Sectional
Density.   So, what is Sectional Density?  SD=
weight/frontal area (diameter^2).  When comparing projectiles with
similar frontal profiles (Conical to Conical, hemispherical to
hemispherical, parabolic to parabolic, etc) the projectile with a
higher SD will have a reduced drag effect.  For example, a .687"
spherical paintball, weighing in at 3.187g has a SD of
3.187g/(.687"x.687")= 6.753.  If it is compared to a paintball
with a caliber of .520 and a length of .602 (and filled with the same
material, giving it the same weight), it's SD would be 11.786; a 75%
decrease in drag.  This 75% decrease in drag would greatly flatten
the trajectory, and would allow the projectile to travel further
downrange before hitting the ground.

There are two issues with this by itself.

1.  An oblong projectile must be
spin stabilized, otherwise it will tumble in flight.  This is
easily fixable- Riflling.  Spin-stabilizing an oblong projectile
would give a greater accuracy improvement because the center of gravity
won't change as much from shot to shot since the length, and width of
the projectile differ much more, and they would always be in the same
orientation.

2.  A smaller diameter projectile, with the same mass, and the
same speed, will have a smaller area to distribute it's impact
force.  As the sectional density increases, so does the pounds per
square Inch(PSI).  a 75% increase in PSI, could increase the
chance of goggle defeat (very bad).  The patent's fix: Put the
seam of the ball along the length of the projectile.  This means
the ball will always impact on it's weakest spot, and, you get the
added benefit of aerodynamically neutralizing the effect of the seam
because it is inline with the direction of flight, every time.

So, what happened?

Ads were run in APG, A patent was applied for, and granted (you can read it here).  A working prototype gun (magazine-fed Semi-Auto) was produced. 
Press reports released in the next couple years labeled it's failure as
a result of trying to get the paintball industry to change it's newly
adopted .68 standard, too late in the game.  Direct feednecks, and
hoppers had just overtaken feed tubes (and magazines, in the case of
the smg-60/68), semi-automatics (automag, Autococker) were just
starting to be used in tourneys.  The rest is speculation.

My own thoughts on the failure and why we still do not see a product today:

Ever since the invention of the
auto-trigger (hold trigger and keep pumping to fire multiple shots),
the industry has focused on increasing the rate of fire (keep in mind
that in 1990, 5bps was good).  The paintball manufacturers (RP
Scherer, for example) benefit greatly from this.

With that being said, what company would want to invest in a business
that's gonna sell fewer paintballs?  I can eaily see this inventor
approaching RPS with a product that could potentially end a 10-man
tournament game with just 10 shots.  They'd tell him to hit the
road.

Or, it could be a fact of the owner of the patent simply asking for too
big of a cut of the profits for the industry to even consider it, or
maybe just the fact of him asking for any of a cut...