Page 24 of 24 FirstFirst ... 14222324
Results 231 to 236 of 236

Thread: Living Legends 8 bans First Strike Rounds

  1. #231
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Northern, VA
    Posts
    359
    Supports Inception Designs
    Thanks Josh!

    Steve, I don't know of any 'at range' testing. I suspect Tiberius Arms may have provided something along those lines that lead to the creation of the revision working group but, I can't say for sure. As I mentioned previously, Carmatech and others presented data based on short range testing to the group at the last meeting but, this was largely a rebuttal to the claims that FS rounds do more damage. None of the other related-specifications are based on 'at range' with some of them essentially requiring point blank.

    I sat through the chair reading off the negative vote comments (no matter how many or few, they must be addressed) and honestly, none of them provided any merit. No data, nor even any theories, just 'they're different'. One of the major points of contention (I can't say the specifics) highlights the need for the standard to be overhauled completely, even if FS rounds don't get approved. It is really just too simplistic. The same can be said about a lot of the other specifications.

    Someone in the meeting who was effectively representing the broader ASTM (procedural policies, etC) and the chair of the paintball sub-committee both said that it's not the projectile working group's responsibility to test the projectile against all of the other specifications (i.e. netting, goggles, etc) . That's for future working groups assigned to those specs to address if necessary (the netting spec needs overhaul anyways).

  2. #232
    Insider PBSteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    3,084
    Quote Originally Posted by UV Halo View Post
    I sat through the chair reading off the negative vote comments (no matter how many or few, they must be addressed) and honestly, none of them provided any merit. No data, nor even any theories, just 'they're different'.
    The incompetence of the negative voter's comments only demonstrates their incompetence, not anything about the round.

    The testing that was performed certainly left something to be desired to me anyway, but I know I have a fairly high bar for experimental data. I thought it was interesting that at just 55 inches the FSR was showing a nearly 10% advantage in momentum over traditional rounds.

    From a scientific standpoint it was jarring to see the authors of the report push so hard to downplay that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gio24Dude View Post
    Not a problem Brian.

    Basically ASTM ordered further testing of projectiles at a distance. Testing is taking place this month and more data will be presented at the next meeting.

    Unfortunately that is all the information I have at the moment.
    http://www.pbnation.com/showthread.p...5#post90670305

    Quote Originally Posted by Gio24Dude View Post
    Last I spoke to the independent testers, testing was done already. I believe information is being gathered in a presentable format at the moment.

    What I need to find out is, if that data is being presented at the mid November ASTM meeting or at a future date.

    I'll find out.
    Quote Originally Posted by Gio24Dude View Post
    Meeting is tomorrow (11/19/2015) in Tampa Florida.

    ASTM committee will meet to review the new data and implement voting changes to ASTM standards.

    After this meeting, in early 2016 the actual voting will occur.
    http://www.pbnation.com/showthread.p...1#post91788361

    Maybe I misunderstood something, but it seemed they had conducted additional tests at a greater range but hadn't released the results yet.
    Last edited by PBSteve; 05-04-2016 at 11:49 PM.
    Ever so many citizens of this republic think they ought to believe that the Universe is a monarchy, and therefore they are always at odds with the republic. -Alan Watts

    I work for the company building the Paragon

  3. #233
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Northern, VA
    Posts
    359
    Supports Inception Designs
    Quote Originally Posted by PBSteve View Post
    The incompetence of the negative voter's comments only demonstrates their incompetence, not anything about the round.

    The testing that was performed certainly left something to be desired to me anyway, but I know I have a fairly high bar for experimental data. I thought it was interesting that at just 55 inches the FSR was showing a nearly 10% advantage in momentum over traditional rounds.

    From a scientific standpoint it was jarring to see the authors of the report push so hard to downplay that.


    http://www.pbnation.com/showthread.p...5#post90670305




    http://www.pbnation.com/showthread.p...1#post91788361

    Maybe I misunderstood something, but it seemed they had conducted additional tests at a greater range but hadn't released the results yet.
    I agree about the comments- I was pointing out the lack of credible opposition in the meeting, and more significantly, how it seemed that some of the commenters were coached as to how they should respond.

    Interesting about the testing data references. Unfortunately, while I've been a member now for over a year, this was the first meeting I could actually 'attend' because in prior sessions, they never offered teleconferencing. I've reviewed the minutes of the November meeting and, there is no reference to such a presentation. The presentation may have been given only the 'projectile' working group (possibly prior to the meeting?) rather than the subcommittee. Nobody mentioned it at this most recent meeting.

  4. #234
    Insider PBSteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    3,084
    Bummer. Hope we get to see it sometime.
    Ever so many citizens of this republic think they ought to believe that the Universe is a monarchy, and therefore they are always at odds with the republic. -Alan Watts

    I work for the company building the Paragon

  5. #235
    Insider PBSteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    3,084
    Something occurred to me the other day, a pretty solid argument in favor of FSR safety on the field is they reduce paint volume, at least until they get cheaper and someone develops a belt feed.

  6. #236
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Northern, VA
    Posts
    359
    Supports Inception Designs
    Quote Originally Posted by PBSteve View Post
    Something occurred to me the other day, a pretty solid argument in favor of FSR safety on the field is they reduce paint volume, at least until they get cheaper and someone develops a belt feed.
    Very true. However, I'm also against large capacity feed systems of any sort. I want a variety of rounds in play. A single projectile will ultimately lead to the current mainstream of speedball (to include today's 'speedball in the woods' as found at most fields).

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •