Harder BBs damages materials more.

[-Angel-]

Hiro - Those don't actually mean anything without regular BB strikes to compare them to.

[Hiro]

It seems that I need to quote myself here:

 

KSC 0,30 BB from 1 meter, fullauto, no damage.

 

Unknown brand, 0,42 BB, 170m/s from 1 meter, no damage.

 

With "no damage" I mean no visible change at all of the windshield. So what do you need to compare with?

[demoncase]

Less deformation on the frozen balls,

 

Fnaar. Fnarr.

 

Finbarr Saunders aside- nail>head.

[expvideo]

Thank you Hiro for the comparative tests.

 

Now, Jenkem, I'm sorry, I wasn't prepared for a speach, but here it goes.

 

*clears throat*

 

I told you so.

[w733commando]

I just read through this thread and a lot of people's grasp of basic physics is very poor. Some people are on the right track though.

[Reborn]

There seems to be a lot of unnecessary fear-mongering in this thread. What are we, the Brady Campaign?

 

These BBs did do significant damage, but only to hardened surfaces such as glass and when fired at relatively high velocities. Therefore, they may be hazardous in a CQB venue - they could do a lot of damage to other players' weapons and equipments. In a woodland setting with adequate face protection, I fail to see how these would pose much of a problem without glass.

 

Just my $0.02.

[liquidflorian]

There seems to be a lot of unnecessary fear-mongering in this thread. What are we, the Brady Campaign?

 

These BBs did do significant damage, but only to hardened surfaces such as glass and when fired at relatively high velocities. Therefore, they may be hazardous in a CQB venue - they could do a lot of damage to other players' weapons and equipments. In a woodland setting with adequate face protection, I fail to see how these would pose much of a problem without glass.

 

Just my $0.02.

 

....but can it cause greater then normal bruising?

[Reborn]

Most sites have muzzle velocity limits anyway. For example, Sequoia Airsoft imposes an absolute limit of 400 FPS for all types of weapons and engagement distance at that site is usually 40-60 feet. The players all wear full-face paintball masks (as required by the rules) and there aren't anything fragile on the field (except for the players' weapons and equipment, if you want to count them). Under these condition, I can't see these BBs being much of a problem. They may even provide an advantage, as they can probably go through a bit more foliage than your average BB round.

 

However, I can foresee this type of ammunition being a problem in CQB venues. The severely shortened engagement distance brings more possibilities of damages and injuries.

[Hiro]

Do you call 80m/s a relatively high velocity? Though I agree, a lot of unnecessary scaremongering AND poor grasps of physics in this thread.

 

[Harmless]

OK. As far as whether these bbs do more or the same about of damage to flesh, one has to decide/establish/guess whether the bb has distorted on impact. If you believe the bb has distorted then the bb has not transferred all the energy to the target as some will be used to cause the distortion, usually exhibited by a flat facet or fracturing. A harder, non distorting bb will transfer more energy causing more damage.

 

If the bbs are the same except for hardness, then they will "carry" the same amount of energy, the real issue is the elasticity of what they hit, as this translates in to the amount of energy transferred back to the bb on impact. More elastic, less energy transferred back. Skin is quite elastic, so for my part I don't think it will be worse as a skin strike, as there have already been claims that a standard bb can penetrate skin showing that elastic limit of skin is lower than a normal bb (This statement isn't strictly true, and is simplification of the ductile fracturing of the normal bb). This can probably be tested by shooting someone with the each type of bb and seeing if there is any distortion to them, if the normal bb is distorted after hit then it has transferred less energy ie less damage (I am however an utter coward and volunteer anyone else for this experiment).

 

However this is not true of much of our equipment and I wouldn't be happy with even more broken optics and I would have thought injuries to finger nails would be worse.

 

I hope this make some sort of sense, it seems easier in my head than written down.

 

[expvideo]

If anyone in WA state wants to get a bag of these bbs and do a comparison test on flesh, I am game. I'll post pictures. I just don't want to spend $35 on a bag of BBs that I would not feel comfortable shooting at people. But if it helps the thread and someone is willing to buy a bag, I'll let you shoot me with both to show the negative effects, if any.

[Jenkem]

Thank you Hiro for the comparative tests.

 

Now, Jenkem, I'm sorry, I wasn't prepared for a speach, but here it goes.

 

*clears throat*

 

I told you so.

 

god you are naive kid.

shoot something thats soft like skin then we'll talk.

when the plastic BB and the Bioval BB do the same amount of damage then we'll see who says I told you so.

In the meantime you want daddy to check under your bed incase the big scary Bioval Monster is hiding under there?

[expvideo]

god you are naive kid.

shoot something thats soft like skin then we'll talk.

when the plastic BB and the Bioval BB do the same amount of damage then we'll see who says I told you so.

In the meantime you want daddy to check under your bed incase the big scary Bioval Monster is hiding under there?

You haven't been paying much attention have you? I told you that skin will not make a big difference. Teeth, scopes, plastic parts, etc are what will be the problem. God, you're dense.

[Pablo]

Knock off the personal attacks folks, it's getting stale and I'm not in the mood.

[Panzergraf]

While I agree with most people here that these glass BB's won't hurt more than similarly weighted plastic BB's at the same velocity if they hit something soft, as plastic BB's won't break or deform in that case either, what if they hit something hard, like your forehead?

 

Or the knuckles of your fingers?

Granted, that always hurt, even with plastic and at low velocities, but would a high energy hit be able to cause actual damage to your fingers?

 

 

you want daddy to check under your bed incase the big scary Bioval Monster is hiding under there?

 

Nah, my mum would just be mad at me if she found BB's there too

[Punkypink]

lolololol.

 

harmless u should encourage the use of such BBs. might bring u even more business

 

shoot something thats soft like skin then we'll talk.

Jenkem: put up or shut up. Back your claim up. Everyone else understands the meaning of ERRING on the side of safety even IF they don't agree with it. If I remind you of someone who wouldn't use deodorant for fear of the aluminium inside, you remind me of someone who would test an untested ballastic vest by wearing it and asking someone to fire a few 7.62 x 39s at you.

[Jenkem]

if a surface like skin, a forehead, knuckles etc. wouldn't normally break a plastic BB why do you think it would be worse off with a Bioval?

wouldn't all the "energy" thats held in an unbroken plastic BB transfer just as much into the surface as the "energy" thats in a Bioval?

you guys are wrong comparing plastic BB's to something like a rubber ball when it hits its target vs. Biovals when they hit their target.

plastic BB's are hard and Biovals are just a little harder so the damage to skin would be just about equal. seems like a no brainer to me.

[Punkypink]

Actually, erring on the side of safety IS the basic no-brainer every airsofter should have, but it's ok, some people's minds just work differently. If safety isn't your 1st and foremost priority, I really can't be arsed to win an internet argument.

 

[Jenkem]

Safety glasses were shot with Biovals and nothing happened.

I'm satisfied.

[Hiro]

Jenkem, you are right, glasses where shot at, without problem.

 

But what about the non-standardized part of the glasses, the frame? Will they be able to withstand the punishment.

 

Do YOU want your Guarder shooting-glasses to fall off in the middle of a game because the only thing that keep them together, the upper frame is shot to pieces.

 

I think we will do some more tests while we are at it.

[Punkypink]

Safety glasses were shot with Biovals and nothing happened.

I'm satisfied.

lol silliest "evidence" ever.

 

As quoted:

Meh. I'm not impressed. I tested the ESS ICE glasses with a .22rf rifle. Yes, a real rifle. Beat that.

Someone shot a pair of ESS ICE safety glasses with .22 rounds from a rifle and nothing happened.

 

So, because nothing happened to them glasses means theres no chance of serious injury to human flesh. Hey Jenkem, why don't you try getting shot at with .22 rounds? By your "logic", because glasses can handle it, its proof that so can you! ROFL

 

Are you married to that crazy sprinkler lady?

[expvideo]

Jenkem, you all of a sudden want to turn this into a skin arguement. Let's just ignore the fact that I've been agreeing with you that skin will not see much of a difference either way, and that the problem is other hard items, such as teeth, scopes, mesh goggles, plastic parts, etc. Let's forget all about that, right? I really *fruitcage*-ing hate it when I am right and someone else can't admit to being wrong, so instead they act as if there was some kind of misunderstanding. We've been arguing about this for the last 5 pages, and I haven't once said anything about skin being negatively affected. Don't try to change the subject just because you are losing. You can either admit that hard items stand a higher chance of being damaged with harder bbs, provide proof otherwise (since Hero has already provided proof to support my arguement), or butt out of this conversation. Name calling and trying to act like you and I were arguing about skin is a pretty low arguement. I see that you also have resorted to ignoring my responses to you. Play nice or don't play. Part of being a good debater is the ability to know when you have been beaten instead of lowering yourself to name calling and ignorance.

 

I said nothing about skin, and you were arguing with me about hard objects. Don't act like that didn't happen; you're not getting out of this arguement that easily. At this point you need to pick one:

 

a. You were right about hard objects.

b. Here is some proof or at least good theory as to why you are wrong about hard objects.

c. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

[GuzziHero]

Jenkem, you are right, glasses where shot at, without problem.

 

But what about the non-standardized part of the glasses, the frame? Will they be able to withstand the punishment.

 

Do YOU want your Guarder shooting-glasses to fall off in the middle of a game because the only thing that keep them together, the upper frame is shot to pieces.

 

I think we will do some more tests while we are at it.

 

Truth.

 

I have seen many glasses where the lens is rated at EN166 F (.87J) and the frame at EN166 B (6.something). The lenses are tough, the plastic hinges are less so.

[Aitch]

if a surface like skin, a forehead, knuckles etc. wouldn't normally break a plastic BB why do you think it would be worse off with a Bioval?

 

 

Thank you, you just proved our point, If I word the above slightly differently............

 

If a surface like a windscreen wouldn't normally be penetrated by a plastic BB why would these glass like BB break one at the same velocity.............

[eel one [COE]]

Because the BBBmax is harder and won't shatter on impact and absorbing a part of the energy on self disintegration like the regular plastic BB does. Haven't your read the thread?

 

There is a huge difference in elasticity between human skin and a car windshield. You can't compare their properties with each other like you do. It all comes down to how the kinetic energy is utilized on impact between the BB and what ever it hits.