BB weight vs distance - comparison proof?

S

SinisterWeasel

Members
Joined
Nov 2, 2015
Messages
21
Reaction score
5
Very often people will say using a heavier bb increases range which I am not disputing, but does anyone know of a decent comparison test for this (vid/review)? There are quite a few accuracy comparisons at the same distance but I haven't seen anything showing a comparison for max range so I am just curious how much difference it can make outside of anecdotal estimates.

 
I only go from personal experience from having tried various weights, I run all my AEGs on 0.3g BBs now, I have 2 DMRs which one runs on the 0.3g BBs and the other I use 0.43g BBs, I have 2 snipers as well which I run on the 0.43g weights too. Only thing I use lighter BBs in is my pistols.

What I have found is I get far better straight line accuracy which is the way I shoot, I know people can lob BBs but to me the straight line accuracy is the useful usable accuracy. I also get better penetration through shrubs which is a mega bonus.

 
[SIZE=12pt]Same as PT I only run .30s now, from personal experience I’ve found running heavier BBs is better. Don’t know about range but accuracy seems to be more consistent which is all I’m looking for. Range to me isn’t a massive deal like it is to other people as long as I think it’s reasonable then it’s good. you can have all the range in the world but if the accuracy is shite then what's the point. [/SIZE]

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Qlimax said:
[SIZE=12pt]Same as PT I only run .30s now, from personal experience I’ve found running heavier BBs is better. Don’t know about range but accuracy seems to be more consistent which is all I’m looking for. Range to me isn’t a massive deal like it is to other people as long as I think it’s reasonable then it’s good. you can have all the range in the world but if the accuracy is shite then what's the point. [/SIZE]
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
^^^^^This.

A thousand times this.

 
proffrink said:
This is the section you will want from Mack's link: http://mackila.com/airsoft/atp/04-a-01.htm
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I would say the most useful part of the ATP for this discussion is the weight comparison at a given velocity. 1.14j (350fps with a 0.2g BB) is what most of us are using as our power setting outside and this section covers that:

http://mackila.com/airsoft/atp/07-b-07.htm

The short answer is that it could be about 10 feet from a 0.2g BB to a 0.3g BB for the absolute maximum range, effective maximum range (straight line) isn't effected.

There are other qualities to make you want a heavier BB, it deflects less with the wind and it tends to produce smaller groupings and I can see that on paper at just 10m. It also maintains more energy and speed so at range gets there faster (counter intuitively).

Reasons to not want a higher weight BB are that its harder to get the hop to lift it and you often need an R hop or a flat hop to lift anything above a 0.25G BB well.

 
Yup, your last sentence sums it up for me: If you have a good hop setup and don't mind having a lower 'time to target' then heavier is always better.

That said, CQB and sidearms heavier isn't always better because of that second point. I run .28s in my pistols for woodland, but I know most run .25s or even .20s just because they're faster at those closer ranges and that can mean the difference between a kill or a trade.

 
'time to target' is a myth too, sure, at 10' distances the .20g BB will get there 3ms quicker... but at distance heavier BBs actually end up going faster.

For me the 'range' of my gun is the distance at which I can reliably hit a target, being able to float BBs beyond that is irrelevant, so I use the heaviest ammo my hopup can lift.

 
But heavier BB gets there faster too.

Edit: jcheeseright ninja'd me

If the gun can't lift heavy bbs, try softer nub before changing the bucking. My sub 350 boltie could only lift 0.28 barely until I changed the nub to a piece of silicone. Now it can lift 0.43 without changing anything else. 0.43 was the heaviest BB I have.

 
here's all the evidence you need for 'time to target':

07-b-04.gif


at 170' (51 metres!) the difference in time of travel between 0.2g and 0.3g is nearly half a second... in favour of the HEAVIER BB.

 
Yep, that's why I was careful to mention CQB and sidearms but probably should have made it more obvious. I am fully aware that the heavier weights overtake lighter ones at the 25-30m mark because of that energy that they shed so early on.

Below those distances there's an argument to be made for the lighter weights even if that time is getting close to negligible.

Samurai said:
If the gun can't lift heavy bbs, try softer nub before changing the bucking. My sub 350 boltie could only lift 0.28 barely until I changed the nub to a piece of silicone. Now it can lift 0.43 without changing anything else. 0.43 was the heaviest BB I have.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Aye, R-hopping is insane too. Even a 6-7mm patch can lift a .43 with ease - it's ludicrous. Far more consistently too, I've found.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
the time difference at close distances is so short it's definitely a negligible difference. If you can tell the difference between the shot landing after 20 or 25 milliseconds you're a better man than me!

 
I'm a hardcore speedsofter. Hicap, no optics and paintball mask all shaving off those valuable milliseconds.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Even in CQB I have a preference for 0.25g BBs because they are quite a bit more accurate. I posted about this a while ago about the difference I saw with a combat machine and I described the grouping size halving or such. It was a substantial difference and well worth the slightly slower travel time because you are quite often shooting at an elbow or half a head in CQB so the grouping size matters quite a bit.

 
BrightCandle said:
Even in CQB I have a preference for 0.25g BBs because they are quite a bit more accurate. I posted about this a while ago about the difference I saw with a combat machine and I described the grouping size halving or such. It was a substantial difference and well worth the slightly slower travel time because you are quite often shooting at an elbow or half a head in CQB so the grouping size matters quite a bit.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

THERE IS NO SLOWER TRAVEL TIME, IT IS A MYTH!!!!

 
Cheers for all the helpful replies. I will look at testing some heavier bbs I think as I have mostly been using 0.25's as they are always available where I play, but I also did an accuracy comparison between 0.28 bb bastards and 0.25 blasters and got a noticeable better grouping with the blasters at just 12 metres or so. I will give some 0.30-0.40's a whirl and maybe write up a review, although my hunch is that brand differences are going to make as bigger difference so I will make sure they are all the same.

(p.s. I cut some of the bb bastards in half and they have quite large air bubbles which are mostly centralised - but not quite - whereas the blasters had very tiny holes at random)

 
Bastards are a pretty premium brand compared to Blasters. Strange results - I'm especially surprised that you found bubbles in them. How recently did you buy them? They've been upping their prices world-wide so maybe they're not making the margin on their product that they want. I hope that hasn't meant that they've shifted manufacturing too or anything.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
probably means they have seen the failure of Nuprols and are trying to cash in

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top