BB Bastard Silica .28g bb's

[Azathoth]

Originally Posted by shinobii

The Bioval heavy weights you mentioned will be here later on the Spring by the way.

Will you have available the match grade BBB303 as well and are you going to carry their .43 and the black versions of their BBs?

[shinobii]

Originally Posted by Azathoth

Will you have available the match grade BBB303 as well and are you going to carry their .43 and the black versions of their BBs?

Oh ya...We're bringing them all in.
We brought in a respectable 2 tonnes last year considering they came in part way through the season. We didn't even offer all the available colors and sizes. It's going to be drastically ramped up this year.

Top it off with the Golf ball bb Dimplex, and this is the most well rounded product line available. Can't wait to get the samples in the hands of the people who filled out their names at TAC10 at the Adrenaline or Big Shark booths.

[Huron]

OLD AND WRONG: Just did the math for that ANSI test, and the steel ball should impart a bit under 1.6 joules on the glasses. I used the mass of a 1 inch wide cube of steel though so the energy would be a bit higher than what it actually is. This was assuming the steel was 7.9g/cm^3 and solid. So the energy wasn't much more than a 0.2g BB traveling at around 416ft/s. My math could be way off though.

If I got it right however, I think looking towards a tougher ANSI projectile resistance standard would be advisable.

EDIT: Little late, but just redid the equation on paper today and found out that Google did a really wonky conversion and gave me way too high of a density. I got the same 0.6 joules reported after this post.

[Scarecrow]

Originally Posted by Flatlander

You cannot conclusively say they impart more energy (if you can, please explain).

I'm simply going by what the MSED calculator says:

0.28g at 400fps = 2.08 joules
0.30g at 400fps = 2.23 joules

http://www.bbbastard.com/index.php?o...d=53&Itemid=57

I can't really speak to impact energy - you'd have to account for what part of the trajectory the impact occurred at as the projectile loses velocity and energy as it travels to it terminal destination. Keeping in mind all these discussions are energies calculated at point blank range.

The math is beyond me, I'll leave that to you guys.

Originally Posted by shinobii

Top it off with the Golf ball bb Dimplex, and this is the most well rounded product line available. Can't wait to get the samples in the hands of the people who filled out their names at TAC10 at the Adrenaline or Big Shark booths.

Lets stick to the topic please. I'm trying to keep this thread marketing neutral.

Originally Posted by The Saint

AFAIK, all companies label Basic (and maybe the occasional High Impact) as safety/shooting glasses, and only use the term "ballistic" if they exceed the High Impact. For obvious liability reasons.

With the 407fps-500fps ranges coming in, and heavier weights with hard BB materials, perhaps we should be revisiting our assumptions about eye protection? Just a thought.

One thing I'd like to mention is I use eye protection at my workplace, and if our eyewear sustains, *any* visible damage, the eyewear is considered compromised and we get a new pair of glasses. That's Occupational Health and Safety (OHSA) talking. The assumptions of post-damage eye protections continued capability to protect post impact I think should also be revisited.

[Flatlander]

Wow, someone please confirm my number (I've double checked mine like 4 times)…

I got only 0.823 joules of Kinetic Energy for a 1” steel ball falling 50 inches. My method:

Gravitational Potential Energy = Kinetic Energy ***Losses due to air resistance ignored*** <-- This is a CONSERVATIVE assumption

Mass x Gravity x Height = Gravitational Potential Energy

Explanation: All of the Gravitational Potential Energy at 50 inches is transferred into Kinetic energy at zero inches…hence they are equal.

Inputs:

Gravity = 9.81 m/s
Density of steel = 7700 kg/m3
Height = 1.27 meters (50”)

I won’t completely spoon feed things to see if someone who knows what they’re doing gets the same answer as me.

[Azathoth]

Let me give this a try. Not a science guy and i havent touched physics since high school. Please correct me if i'm wrong.

volume of sphere:
V= 4/3 * pi * radius ^ 3

Variables:
1.27m fall
1" = 0.0254 metres

Volume of sphere is .00007m^3

Mass of sphere is 7700 * .00007 = 0.539kg

Potential energy formula is E=Mass * Gravity * Height

0.539*9.81*1.27 = 6.71 J

EDIT:
error. i measured diameter. Radius is .0254metres / 2 therefore volume is 0.00001m3
mass is 7700 * 0.00001 = 0.077kg

0.077 * 9.81 * 1.27 = .9593 J

Originally Posted by Scarecrow

I can't really speak to impact energy - you'd have to account for what part of the trajectory the impact occurred at as the projectile loses velocity and energy as it travels to it terminal destination. Keeping in mind all these discussions are energies calculated at point blank range.

Lets stick to the topic please. I'm trying to keep this thread marketing neutral.

With the 407fps-500fps ranges coming in, and heavier weights with hard BB materials, perhaps we should be revisiting our assumptions about eye protection? Just a thought.

One thing I'd like to mention is I use eye protection at my workplace, and if our eyewear sustains, *any* visible damage, the eyewear is considered compromised and we get a new pair of glasses. That's Occupational Health and Safety (OHSA) talking. The assumptions of post-damage eye protections continued capability to protect post impact I think should also be revisited.

Sorry about digressing off topic, Yes eye protection should be revisited. I have never shattered the lenses of safety or shooting glasses, but the frames, arms easily break at 1j and backyard distances. At 30ft 1j impacts can push the eye pieces out of the WileyX framed SG-1 "goggle". Not enough to damage the lense but enough force to dislocate the fit of the frame to lenses.

Calculating impact energy is a huge headache, it would be great if everyone had a impact chrono but that's not going to happen. If we assume that muzzle velocity is constant to the travel time then we can make some good safe assumptions about safety.

A thought about safety. FPS limits in Alberta to my knowledge go like this

Edmonton ~400 limit AEG
Red Deer 430 limit AEG
Calgary 420 limit AEG.

[Flatlander]

Az, you plugged in the diameter cubed, not the radius cubed, so your volume is much bigger.

EDIT: Your volume is still slightly larger...looks like roundoff error. But we're close.

[Schwag]

I like them for certain applications but...

T.W.A.T. has decided that only snipers with Sha Do's cert can use them on our fields.

3 reasons

1. I did a basic test last weekend on the mesh goggles that most of us use. Kinda scary.

From around 15 feet at approx 385 fps, a single shot left a 1/4 cm dent. I fired from several angles.
A short auto burst left a 3/4cm dent and pulled the mesh out of the bottom of the frame(3 cm down from the impact)
Our goggles are good. Not the best or strongest but they have never been dented before. I was shocked.
Our goggles will take them but anyone wearing any type of glasses instead of goggles should be scared. I did the same test with a longer burst of .25 regular white and no damage at all.

2. We don't have a set mercy rule and we've had instances of very close panic fire. We host alot of noobs. I'm guilty too. In that position, I would not want to take a facefull of these. Or get a knuckle shot point blank.

3. Our fields are usually near houses or parking. With the ricochet factor and the hardness of these things, it would only be a matter of time before something got busted.
Has anyone shot a shitty plastic receiver at close range yet? Kiss a scope goodbye if this hits.

I think they are a great product and in the right hands on the right fields they will add a cool new dimension to the game. No more matrix dodging the whites yet still trackable.
And the quality is unquestionable. Even after the burst on my goggles, the few I could find were dirty but unmarked.


MADDOG, you don't get to use them because you don't need any more advantages!(pride still stinging)

[wildcard]

Originally Posted by m102404

Jeez...never seen anything so controversial...can't we just....

...shoot someone with them at a game
...film the survivor
...have someone intelligent write it up and post it to ASC
...let some younger guy post it to youtube
...let some kid facebook it
...let some even younger kid twitter it
...and get on with things?

I'll Volunteer to launch some of these off my 204 nades

[-Trooper-]

I did some light testing with the silica 0.28s and regular white 0.28s and on a VFC Scar-L lower receiver which measures about 0.47 cm or 0.30 inches thick. The approximate FPS was 350-360 with 0.20s and was fired at point blank range.

Silica 0.28s




Regular White 0.28s




As you can see, the damage caused by the silica 0.28s wasn't that extensive, but enough to create prominent dents on the receiver and hairline fractures inside the receiver. The regular white 0.28s also caused dents on the receiver, but they were not as deep. They also caused hairline fractures inside the receiver, but that could have been because two of the shots were grouped very close together. Please remember that this test was at point blank range. Further testing is needed at different ranges to see the full effects.

Please Note:
There have been reports of regular white bbs (not sure which brand, weight or distance) penetrating and creating wholes in plastic black receivers on the field. So please take this into consideration.

[c3sk]

/tosses in 2 cents

First off, I like the BB's, and the demo you guys did was outstanding. Thank you Jay(and crew) for the samples.

I and a few of our team members have been using the WETTI AWSS M4 pretty much since its North American debut. Tys is right on the money. Since these bitch's will sometimes chop bastards into powder, the BB deforming or splitting is sometimes the only way you can clear a bad jam. So, I would also recommend not using them on m4/m16 AWSS systems.... I can't say the same for the WE SCAR. I am not sure if jams would be easier to clear due to the rotating bolt mechanism.

I would however recommend them on most BA's, since you can usually just remove the bolt in the event of a jam - and clear out any obstruction without damaging internals.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Egria

I did some light testing with the 0.28s on a VFC Scar-L lower receiver which measures about 0.47 cm or 0.30 inches thick. The approximate FPS was 350-360 and was fired at point blank range.

Was that with regular or silica .28s?

[Gerkraz]

The assumptions of post-damage eye protections continued capability to protect post impact I think should also be revisited.

Abso-friggin-lutely.

I think this is particularly important to stress with these silica BBs. If your eyewear takes damage, you replace it.

[Scarecrow]

Originally Posted by c3sk

Since these bitch's will sometimes chop bastards into powder, the BB deforming or splitting is sometimes the only way you can clear a bad jam. So, I would also recommend not using them on m4/m16 AWSS systems.... I can't say the same for the WE SCAR. I am not sure if jams would be easier to clear due to the rotating bolt mechanism.

This is what I've been talking about since the beginning, and at TAC10 in the "BB Lab" - styrene and the ECOBB formulations are much softer than the silicas. Any feedpath in any gun that chops BBs will likely take damage from a silica simply because while styrene and ECOBB material will self destruct or deform, the silica won't give, so the feedpath component will. This was my only equipment related warning that I've sort of harped on with people in my discussion about silicas.

I think a gun that chops has feeding issues though - putting that kind of stress on a BB isn't conductive to velocity or flightpath - if the BB isn't chopping in a gun like that, its deforming the BB before it leaves the gun, destroying any of the flight characteristics that an AEG benefits from (uniform dimensions and polish to be specific). If your gun chops, it needs to be fixed, and if all of a particular brand or model do that, you should be taking up the problem with the retailer you bought it from or, stay away from that brand if you can't get enduser post-sale support for that product.

[Scarecrow]

Originally Posted by Egria

I did some light testing with the 0.28s on a VFC Scar-L lower receiver which measures about 0.47 cm or 0.30 inches thick. The approximate FPS was 350-360 and was fired at point blank range.



As you can see, the damage wasn't that extensive, but enough to create large dents on the receiver and hair line fractures inside the receiver.

Egria, I think your test illustrates very clearly why impacted safety glasses or goggles should be binned and replaced with new ones. The softer BBs deform on impact, spreading their energy on BB deformation and spreading impact over a wider area. The silicas have pin-point energy transfer - those hairline cracks inside your receiver are absolute proof of the energy transfer risk to goggles and why you should replace them if they've been hit - by styrene, ECO or silica. But it illustrates what's being said about silicas well.

Mesh

People keep mentioning mesh goggles. Guys, I am all for maximizing player choice in this game, but mesh goggles are a BAD IDEA. Please don't use them for eye protection! Along with what Brian said earlier about them, they allow fragments to pass through and reach your eyes and face - that isn't sufficient eye protection for airsoft. There is a risk of any BB shattering, particularly biodegradable materials (I don't care what ANYONE says about their BB, PLA based formulations can and will from time to time break up, as do some styrene products). You've also got airsoft grenades in use now which are an entirely different form of energizing a BB to target with its own risks. And you have just regular gaming risks.

Mesh lower face protection I can accept, but, using mesh to protect your eyes presumes no energized particles below a certain size - its simply playing roulette with your eyes - no game is worth that.