|
|
Post by Medina on Nov 30, 2005 15:12:05 GMT -5
I got a chance to compare both of my barrels last night. It could just be all the hype I got from the PPS site but before going to the field I knew what to expect.
If you need to know my marker setup just check out my sig.
I used PMI Stinger field paint. The balls were very dimpled. There were 3-6 dimples on EACH ball.
I took aim at a standup air bunker about 60ft away with the brass barrel. I fired 5 shots, one shot at a time. Results: 6 inch grouping.
I switched to the 14" Snapshot with .689 back. I fired the same 5 shots one at a time. I had a 10 inch grouping and noticed the balls curved more--meaning I had to arc the gun ever so slightly higher.
Now for the heat. My e-grip is set to turbo mode with the highest speed setting. I also have a PPS QEV kit. I've already broken one ratchet and have learned to have 10 in my bag.
Switching back to the brass barrel I ripped 6 shots. The grouping stayed about the same! One out of the 6 was a zinger and strayed 3 inches from the 6" grouping.
Switched to the Snapshot and took the same 6 shots in rapid fire. Results: about the same 10" grouping with 2 zingers outside.
I then kept switching barrels every 10 shots just to see if there was a difference in the sound signature. Sorry guys, but I could not tell the difference.
Maybe it was the poor paint but the PPS brass barrel clearly wins this bout hands down. Sure its heavy as... well brass, but it works! Looking down the barrel you can see why it performs so well. I thought the Snapshot was smooth and had the best mirror finish, that's before I owned the brass barrel. Put it up to any light and you will see why PPS picked brass. It is the smoothest surface I've ever seen! You can see the different stages in the barrel too where it goes from tight, to loose, to tight again. Why didn't they make it snug all the way thru? Beats the heck out of me but trust me it works!
I want to take a video to prove just how good this barrel is but I didn't have a camera around me. Guess everybody will have to wait until afer Christmas.
Final Notes:
-I went thru 2000 rds and did not have one break.
-I attached the Apex tip to the brass barrel but found it to be too long (15" overall length!). The performance of the "brass Apex" was significantly better than a stock Apex. The flatline effect still held true. But still... its way too long.
-The Snapshot is being sold immediately.
|
|
|
|
Post by LilBigMan on Nov 30, 2005 15:27:07 GMT -5
Great Review! Very detailed and in depth. Good job! I hope to put together something similar to this soon, 12" All American One Piece vs. 14" Custom Products One Piece.
|
|
d
Private
Posts: 27
|
Post by d on Dec 3, 2005 9:40:01 GMT -5
How was the fit of the paint you were using to the SnapShot? I'd also be curious to see how they would compare using quality paint. Another very important factor to consider is velocity. If the fit of the ball varies from barrel to barrel, then velocity will vary and affect accuracy. You mentioned that you had to arc your SnapShot slightly to hit the target. This may be due to some velocity loss, which may also explain the loss in accuracy.
|
|
|
|
Post by ferkjace on Dec 3, 2005 10:15:31 GMT -5
Another very important factor to consider is velocity. If the fit of the ball varies from barrel to barrel, then velocity will vary and affect accuracy. You mentioned that you had to arc your SnapShot slightly to hit the target. This may be due to some velocity loss, which may also explain the loss in accuracy. I thought the same thing. I donno what length PPS barrel he had, or if it was vented, but even double vented PPS barrels have way less porting than 14" Snapshot. I like Snapshots, but the Lapco one pieces are better  |
|
|
|
Post by MNewman15 on Dec 4, 2005 21:44:00 GMT -5
Yea well thanks to you, i dont want a snap shot and am getting the PPS instead(As i have informed you)....you and your comparison...lol thanks for this K4U
|
|
|
|
Post by Medina on Dec 5, 2005 18:12:49 GMT -5
I was running 260 fps (RVA and Palmers reg).
The PPS brass barrel is 12" long and had no porting.
The bore of the PPS brass barrel is .689.
|
|
|
|
Post by MNewman15 on Dec 5, 2005 20:21:05 GMT -5
What would the difference be is it did have porting?
|
|
d
Private
Posts: 27
|
Post by d on Dec 6, 2005 9:12:22 GMT -5
porting reduces sound signature, but requires a little more air to fire the ball. basically, every barrel model has little variations when it comes to velocity. different lengths, different bores, different material/bore finish, barrel length, and different porting. what this means is that it's very tricky to compare barrels. provided that gun set-up and paint is unchanged, every time a barrel is changed, it has to be rechronoed to make sure that it is shooting at the same tight velocity range.
Palmer barrels are brass and slightly elliptical ( little tighter at the breech and muzzle than in the center). Lapco barrels are either aluminum or stainless steel. The are honed to a single bore size. They will act differently, so doing a proper comparison will require careful measurement of velocity for each shot group taken, if not each shot.
Medina stated that his velocity was 260fps. Is that 260 for each shot, or is that the average of all the shots, or is that the average of each group, or is that what he chronoed at the last time he played, or anything in between? Was velocity checked every time the barrel was changed or was it just checked once in a while, or just once, or what? I don't know. The test sounds good, but without further information, I wouldn't call it conclusive. It's informal. There's nothing wrong with that, but too many people read these things as the final word (even if it's not intended as such).
I've read somewhere before that Palmer barrels handle crap paint better than usual. I used to shoot a Blazer and i know a person who still mainly shoots them and our experience seems to support these anecdotal findings. However, it is not an absolute answer.
Medina: just to make it clear, my comments are nothing personal. i like and appreciate when people do these tests. i'm just pointing out variables that may have thrown things off a little.
|
|
|
|
Post by MNewman15 on Dec 6, 2005 21:33:24 GMT -5
Thanks d that was very helpful ;D
K4U
|
|
|
|
Post by Medina on Dec 9, 2005 9:53:34 GMT -5
D, you brought up some good points.
My velocity of 260 was an average of my shots taken at the chrono with the PPS barel ONLY. I didn't chrono with the Snapshot at all. That could explain why the shots with the Snapshot were dropping sooner than the brass--it had lower velocity.
A good test would involve me sitting at a chrono with the A-5 in a vice grip of some sort, shooting at a target 50yds away, recording the velocity of each shot, and then rechrono-ing at 260fps before switching barrels. Alas, I don't have such a setup. Moreover, I'm selling my A-5 so I'll never get to test these two barrels again...
[Anybody want to buy these two barrels off me for $110 shipped? Check the B/S/T forum soon.]
I realize that my test wasn't scientific. I just thought I'd post my findings of both barrels. There was one time when I used the Snapshot all day, also another outing where I used the brass barrel exclusively. If I compare those two days as wholes I can comfortably recommend the brass barrel over the Snapshot. I just flat out like it better because of the tighter grouping, and that I didn't have a ball break in 2000rds. To knock out some variables I went to the same indoor field, and used the same field paint the two separate days.
|
|
d
Private
Posts: 27
|
Post by d on Dec 9, 2005 14:03:04 GMT -5
Yeah, really scientific test would take an involved set-up, lots of time and quite a bit of money.
What you did was good, it gave an unbiased observations of performance under certain conditions.
You shouldn't have any trouble getting good money for the barrels you're selling, especially the Palmer barrel. Everyone i know who's ever had one, loves these things.
|
|
|
|
Post by ferkjace on Dec 9, 2005 14:49:08 GMT -5
What you did was good, it gave an unbiased observations of performance under certain conditions. It could just be all the hype I got from the PPS site but before going to the field I knew what to expect. Erm, it was biased. Judging by the change in velocity (like 30 fps) between a 12" bigshot and a 14" Snapshot (both .689)...you were probably shooting like 230-240 fps with the Snapshot. |
|
d
Private
Posts: 27
|
Post by d on Dec 9, 2005 19:32:00 GMT -5
Don't know how anyone can guess the velocity difference like you just did. Seems presumptuous.
I suppose that it could be argued that he was pre-programmed to like his new Palmer barrel by reading the "hype". However, it didn't come across that way at all. He based his opinion on his actual experience (super scientific or not). Some people out there actually recommend or dismiss things without actual experience with them, simply based on opinions of others.
Useful review, Medina. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
Post by ferkjace on Dec 9, 2005 19:56:49 GMT -5
Don't know how anyone can guess the velocity difference like you just did. Seems presumptuous. I shot with a Bigshot over a red chronograph and got 275ish fps, later with the same set up and paint shot with the 14" Snapshot in the same bore over a red chronograph and got like 250 fps. Was it heavily controled, no, but I experienced around a 25 fps drop. |
|
Jackson
Corporal
Dewaholic
Shut up with that filthy pig latin.
Posts: 62
|
Post by Jackson on Dec 15, 2005 17:23:06 GMT -5
Nice little test Medina. Some people will never understand the beauty and accuracy of a Palmers brass barrel. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions on barrels. I'm a Palmers guy all the way. I didn't do a side by side test like you but comparing a Tippmann Sniper Barrel on a 98 Custom, a SP Progressive on an A-5, a 32° Quiet Riot on a spyder, and a PPS Brass barrel on a PPS combo wins hands down. From approximately 60 feet, I was able to hit a 3 inch pole with my Blazer about 50% of the time. With all the other guns I've shot, I've never been able to hit that pole. And in response to why PPS uses ellptical honing: The idea is that when a ball is fired, the gas pushes from behind, flattening it slightly and making the ball bulge from the sides. The bore widens in the middle to accomodate this bulging then narrows again because the pressure decreases at the end of the barrel and the ball goes back to its original shape. Don't know how anyone can guess the velocity difference like you just did. Seems presumptuous. I shot with a Bigshot over a red chronograph and got 275ish fps, later with the same set up and paint shot with the 14" Snapshot in the same bore over a red chronograph and got like 250 fps. Was it heavily controled, no, but I experienced around a 25 fps drop. I have to agree with d on this one. Sure on your specific day switching from a Bigshot to Snapshot using a specific paint may have yielded a 25 fps loss. But how can you expect to guess the FPS loss between different barrels, different days, different guns, and different paint? The simple answer is you can't. There are too many variables. |
|
