Page 8 of 24 FirstFirst ... 67891018 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 236

Thread: Living Legends 8 bans First Strike Rounds

  1. #71
    Insider PBSteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    3,084
    What's the goal?
    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

  2. #72
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,303
    To see the difference in performance from using a ASTM legal round vs. the non-ASTM legal round that is lighter.

    Scenario Dreams had these also:

    http://i.ytimg.com/vi/J06HdaXoGe8/maxresdefault.jpg

    I am not sure how much he has kept up with them, I do remember some work with them in the last couple years.
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

  3. #73
    Insider AndrewTheWookie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Central Coast, CA
    Posts
    374
    I'd be more interested in the characteristics of the shell material and how it breaks and transfers energy upon impact, and how that affects the impact energy rather than just the kinematics of a round in flight.

    Also it's possible for the scenario dreams tails to put the round over the maximum weight limit if you get large paint, with FS (or similar) rounds you know they'll be under the weight limit.
    I don't know, fly casual

  4. #74
    Insider PBSteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    3,084
    Quote Originally Posted by pbjosh View Post
    To see the difference in performance from using a ASTM legal round vs. the non-ASTM legal round that is lighter.
    I think you can get a good enough idea from that projectile calculator that the additional work really isn't worth it.
    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. #75
    Insider AndrewTheWookie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Central Coast, CA
    Posts
    374
    Statement from Tiberius on Facebook:

    https://www.facebook.com/tiberiusarm...90574767633108

    To all of our valued customers,
    Like us, many field operators, promoters, and mag-fed paintball players were taken by surprise this week when an announcement was made that some insurers no longer cover the use of First Strike projectiles.
    Knowing the internet has the strange, unexplainable power to create “facts” we felt it important to provide some background information.

    First Strike has been in use since 2009, with thousands of players and events safely using the product to add a new level of enjoyment to the sport of paintball. Like any manufacturer, the safety of our products is of primary importance and despite statements to the contrary, First Strike has been subject to a multitude of performance and safety tests. In order to put this in context, it is important to first understand what the ASTM is and how their system works.

    First, ASTM standards are created after products are developed and brought to market, not before. Case in point, the sport of paintball was created in 1982 with the first ASTM standard related to an actual paintball not publishing until 1999…over 17 years later.

    Second, the ASTM is not a regulatory agency, and does not offer testing or certification services. More simply, they establish uniform guidelines and testing procedures that manufacturers can use to help create a product that is viewed as generally acceptable (as defined by the peer group assigned to a given product committee).

    Third, despite statements to the contrary, Tiberius Arms has been in contact with the ASTM regarding First Strike since before the product was ever launched (2009). In fact, standards that changed shortly after the product release would have allowed us to bring the product to market about a year sooner! Further, we worked hard to maintain established ASTM standards during our design and consider that effort very successful. In the end, the only First Strike specification that didn’t conform to the ASTM standards was the shape, which is obviously necessary to achieve the performance advantages First Strike provides.

    Fourth, our CEO George Eurick is, and has been an active member of the ASTM paintball committee.

    Finally, like any product that breaks the mold of existing standards it takes time for new standards to be created. In light of the 17 years it took to establish a standard for paintballs it is obviously not a quick process. In truth, for some time now the ASTM has had an active work item on their docket to establish a standard for First Strike and similar future products. This work item was based largely on our request, and the testing data we have supplied.

    Since their inception First Strike have spurred product line growth and innovation in an industry where it is desperately needed.
    KEE, DYE, Tippmann, Kingman, Carmatech, Lapco, Hammerhead, Milsig, and many others I am probably forgetting have released products that feature First Strike. Countless teams, leagues and field owners have based new and exciting games around them.
    It is regrettable that instead of acknowledging the contribution our Company has made to the industry people have chosen to make false and baseless claims that testing hasn’t been performed, or the ASTM has been ignored in an effort to save money or hide something.

    We look forward to the ASTM work item hitting the ballot this summer and putting to rest the significant misinformation that has been exaggerated by so many self-interested parties. In the meantime we stand by our product, player’s, and fields and will make certain First Strike continues to lead the mag-fed paintball revolution!

    I don't know, fly casual

  6. #76
    Insider PBSteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    3,084
    Comparing it to the time for the first paintball standard seems pretty disingenuous, the sport had to get big enough to warrant a committee. If they've been working on it since before 2009 that's... quite a while. Wonder what the holdup is considering they've got their CEO in there.

    At any rate, I'll definitely be looking for the new standard. Those things are fun to shoot
    Last edited by PBSteve; 05-14-2015 at 07:21 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

  7. #77
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Northern, VA
    Posts
    359
    Supports Inception Designs
    Okay, so, I've been away from here for a little bit but, I figured I'd pitch in a bit more.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pump Scout View Post
    I don't know that I'd use goggles standing up in that way as proof of not dangerous.
    I'd cite it as anecdotal, not as the gospel truth.

    Quote Originally Posted by HipboyScott View Post
    Tiberius themselves claim they like to use .683 as its theoretically a perfect bore match... but that's rubbish. It uses a lot of energy, has a great chance of barrel breaks, and many rounds are coming in at .684-.685

    .686 is the ideal that many have come to find that will consistently work. .688 is the largest you would go and expect efficient FS Performance, but you obviously could use a .690 or whatever in a pinch...

    ...I've spent 40 FSR over the chrono before and if I was paying retail on em I'd be PISSED.

    As-is we just gotta remember TANSTAAFL, but making better standards for dealing with these projectiles on a field logitstics level is probably the most important part now.
    Tiberius never said to use a .683 rifled barrel to me. Back before there were guns capable of shooting FS and having a rifled barrel, LAPCO recommended .690 barrels for dedicated FS shooters and the .686 for mixed paint shooters (with the intent of using the barrel to slow the FS down). As best I can tell, I was one of the earliest adopters of the LAPCO/Tiberius Rifled Barrel on the Tiberius platform. I was the first to talk to Tiberius and LAPCO about the barrel fouling and, I talked to each of them and Ray from Ninja about trying to improve the consistency of the rifled barrel T9.1 (the increase in PSI required drives the reg outside it's optimal adjustment range and requires either a low, or high output tank reg to compensate). Those conversations left me with the impression that Sergey (or LAPCO in general) decided on the .683 bore size as being necessary to bite into/grab the round for twisting. Before there was a Rifled hammerhead for the T9.1, he didn't believe that a larger bore would work. I aplogize for giving anyone the impression that .683 is an actual bore match. With the FS shell, I believe you need a couple thousandths.

    I've spent over $120 (retail) on solving that velocity consistancy problem (Standard Dev of 12.72FPS), after it cost me 1st and 2nd place in the first U.S. Top Paintball Sniper competition. I spent some more on the testing that proved rifled barrels really work (conducted by Cockerpunk and Bryce Larson).

    I agree about field logistics standards (i.e. standardized chrono range operation). But, I didn't notice a spec like that when I was cruising through the ASTM.

    Quote Originally Posted by pbjosh View Post
    A couple bits:
    ...Insurance agencies are not worried about whither the round is slightly different or how. ALL they will want is an ASTM stamp on it. It could be .90cal going at 400fps. They are not going to test it. They don't care.

    Does it meet ASTM? Then you are set. If not, Insurance won't cover it....

    ...For any paintball product to be allowed on an insured field it will need to be ASTM approved. Simple as that.
    I just purchased the current ASTM for regular paintballs (I got tired of hearsay). For those who haven't seen it, here's my summary of how it relates to FS rounds:

    As most know already, it defines a paintball as spherical, with a shell and a fill. It specifies diameters (yes, as in all of the round ball sizes I've ever seen or heard of on the market, even one I haven't heard of) and weights of paintballs.

    For the shell it does not specify gelatin. It mentions it but, doesn't require it. I'd quote it exactly but, I don't want to get sued for copyright.

    It does not specify what the fill shall, or shall not be other than how it may react with other materials (i.e. you don't want it eating up the lens of your goggle). It does have an entry for the environment but, it's all references. I've perused the references and they all seem to be focused on hazardous (as in toxic chemicals vice, failure to break down).

    There is a criteria for breakage. It's not a 'how does it break?' test, rather it's a test of whether the paintballs break. First Strikes would fly through this test. In my opinion, scaling this distance to give the same terminal energy at impact would be a tougher test for FS rounds but, fair.

    Quote Originally Posted by Davros View Post
    They stopped using polystyrene for FSR after a short while. For several years now they have been made of a PLA bio plastic. These rounds take a long time to do it but they do biodegrade safely now.

    Love the idea of FSR. Hope one of you very knowledgeable paintball engineers figures out how to improve them so everyone feels comfortable and safe with them.
    What's your source for this information? I can't do the chemical analysis to verify (unless someone can tell me that burning one or the other will produce a different color of smoke) but, the rounds I have look the same as they always have, they shear the same way, and they break the same way (I've been using them since 2009).

    Quote Originally Posted by PBSteve View Post
    Agreed, through various testing I've come to believe that paint is currently the largest barrier to improving accuracy. Although tbh, I'd be pretty happy if we just got good spheres.
    Tom Kaye tried that with this shell material originally. It didn't perform better enough to justify the cost. Interestingly, the flatline barrel was originally tested with these rounds.

    Quote Originally Posted by PBSteve View Post
    Comparing it to the time for the first paintball standard seems pretty disingenuous, the sport had to get big enough to warrant a committee. If they've been working on it since before 2009 that's... quite a while. Wonder what the holdup is considering they've got their CEO in there.

    At any rate, I'll definitely be looking for the new standard. Those things are fun to shoot
    I also wonder what has been happening inside the ASTM Paintball Sub-Committee. I would not be surprised to learn that given the current specification, that Tiberius Arms' original approach was to simply change the "spherical" to say something like "generally spherical, non-ogive, non-conical" get rebuffed by the other members (after how long?) and now, the final option is to draft a new spec for non-spherical projectiles. Larry Cossio really comes across as really disliking the rounds and, being really active with the ASTM (but, I wonder who's lying when Tiberius says they've had their CEO there and, Larry saying there's been no participation). I worry that CIA's (and it's underwriters) approach is to drive the First Strike into a new spec, and then charging field operators more money to allow them (one field I talked to today said that the increased cost of insurance is why they currently do not allow FS rounds). If this happens, it may actually strangle the FS round from the commercial fields.
    Last edited by UV Halo; 05-15-2015 at 02:37 AM. Reason: clarity on consitency issue and Polystyrene Vs PLA

  8. #78
    Insider
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Youngstown, Ohio
    Posts
    103
    this is from Cossio's office this morning...in a email blast.

    Recently an issue came up regarding First Strike Rounds. So for clarity we are issuing this email blast to clarify. FSR’s are not covered in our insurance programs, and never have been. It might be in the future but not today.
    Bottom line is this is not anything new, FSR hasn't been allowed since inception in any insurance program that I have represented, the manufacturer has NOT gone thru the steps to get the definition included in the ASTM guidelines; it would cost them $75 to join. They would spend a lot of time, unpaid as members are volunteers, spend their money to have the goggles tested to ASTM standards when passed, pay to have the various netting manufacturers products tested to ASTM standards to see if it passes, get the goggle manufacturers to include them in their documentation as approved projectiles.
    So issues are:
    • What are the ASTM standards? The ASTM standards are used as a basis of guidelines for manufacturers, distributors, insurance companies, and attorneys.
    • If they are not defined as a "paintball" per ASTM standards what are they? They are not currently defined as anything.
    • Will it pass the ASTM paintball netting test? I am not aware of anyone testing this.
    • Will it pass the ASTM goggle test? I am not aware of anyone testing the goggle systems. And yes all goggle manufacturers would have to be tested. Ophthalmologists, when first presented with this product info were concerned about an increased damage to eye vs a paintball since the polystyrene shell could fragment differently when it impacted. They were not happy with it and would argue against it until testing was done to show what affect would it have on an eye, how many Jules, etc.
    I have seen several different types of “devices” for the scenario industry, speedball industry, and recreational industry and have been involved in providing information, my opinions, submitting to the insurance companies, getting some of them approved. I AM pro paintball, to the bone. I have owned a field, I have played the sport for 20 years, I am involved in ASTM helping to set standards and fight to protect you the player, the field owner, the insurance company, AND my business and 20 employees that rely on me to make their paychecks good. Our customers, who trust me to provide them with the best insurance company, the best coverage’s, the best loss control, and the best pricing that we can find. Sometimes we cannot include ALL the exposures for what the public would like to see.

    Field owner’s get sued for things that you would not believe, someone slipped on ice in a parking lot when the snowstorm was still going on, someone lifted their mask, was warned twice, was shot in the eye before the ref could remove him. Two people talking in staging and one buddy shot his other buddy in the eye, barrel condom was not on. Father is suing a field because his son and himself were shot 6 times and feels that it was overshooting, but he wouldn’t put his gun up and leave the bunker during a big game, 1000 people playing...duh. So while the FSR players are saying that it is safe and that they want to use it, I understand their position. But it does not fit the definition of a paintball, it is made from a different material that breaks differently, it has not been tested to my knowledge to ASTM standards from anyone. Yes players have shot a mask, and they state that it is safe and just a paintball. B.S. it’s not just a paintball.
    In closing, we cannot just add coverage for this product at this time. If Tiberius goes through the process to get this product under some definition, and gets the masks tested to ASTM standards with their product, and gets the mask manufacturers to approve its use with their masks, and get the different netting manufacturers to submit and have the netting tested to ASTM standards, it COULD become approved for recreational paintball fields.

  9. #79
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,303
    Well, there it is.
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

  10. #80
    Insider PBSteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    3,084
    I forgot to consider the netting.

    I always forget to consider the netting. It's obvious why there's a standard for it, I just always forget about it.
    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

Posting Permissions

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