Just get your own opinion. I’m done with cleaning my barrel after every game from Bio residue. Bio bbs also suck in humid weather, during a 48hrs milsim it’s a pain when they swell and get soft.
Last edited by a moderator:
-
Hi Guest. Welcome to the new forums. All of your posts and personal messages have been migrated. Attachments (i.e. images) and The (Old) Classifieds have been wiped.
The old forums will be available for a couple of weeks should you wish to grab old images or classifieds listings content. Go Here
If you have any issues please post about them in the Forum Feedback thread: Go Here
What Bio BBs should I be buying?
- Thread starter ChristianHalley
- Start date
Ad_
Members
- Apr 16, 2020
- 112
- 16
I've used 3 kinds of bio BBs (BioSphere, Nuprol RZR Bio, ASG Open Blaster; Open Blasters seem to be the best of the 3 in my experience) and did not find any of them to leave behind any crap in my guns' barrels. I always inspect and clean my guns after they've seen any significant use so I would definitely have noticed if they did.
Last edited by a moderator:
Maybe they got better these days, I got very bad experience using bio bbs few years ago and I decided to leave it until some convinced me. I remember bio bbs swelled so much on me I could not get them out from a midcap mag. Maybe it’s time to do some testing again
Last edited by a moderator:
Ropeyshep
Members
- Apr 14, 2020
- 93
- 33
Just to give a little data to this thread/topic and to see for myself if there is a significant difference in the behaviour of Bios in wet conditions or a difference between the behaviour of Bios versus Non-Bios, I put a small sample of whatever I had in the house into ziploc bags of water following my last post so these are figures based on the sample BBs being completely submerged in tap water for 18 days (it was night time so I'm counting only whole days).
Following the submersion, I measured five BBs from each wet sample and five BBs from the original dry source bottle/bag. I don't have a massive selection and most of those are Bio so I don't have a great control group of non-bio BBs to select from.
So, the hypothesis tested is that Biodegradable BBs swell out of spec on absorption of moisture.
The attached table is a summary of the results and I think the conclusion I first draw is that there is no absorption or swelling of BBs after nearly 3 weeks underwater.
The variation within samples appears greater than that between wet and dry in most cases. Also, I am pretty happy with my standard choice of Nuprol RZR 0.28g Bio ?
There are obvious limitations to the test, primarily in that the sample sizes are small, I can't be fussed expanding the test but I'd be more than happy to applaud anyone who wanted to, I am happy to email the full data table with individual measurements, if anyone is that bored on lockdown. Another possible source of error is the measurement equipment, I used my general garage micrometer to do the measuring, it doesn't have a valid certificate of calibration and it has a stated precision of 0.01mm so the variation seen in most samples falls inside the possible error of the test equipment.
Thirdly, this isn't a blind test, I knew what each sample was and so there may be subconscious bias but I doubt it.
I really hope this lockdown ends soon, I clearly have too much time on my hands.
View attachment 57556
Following the submersion, I measured five BBs from each wet sample and five BBs from the original dry source bottle/bag. I don't have a massive selection and most of those are Bio so I don't have a great control group of non-bio BBs to select from.
So, the hypothesis tested is that Biodegradable BBs swell out of spec on absorption of moisture.
The attached table is a summary of the results and I think the conclusion I first draw is that there is no absorption or swelling of BBs after nearly 3 weeks underwater.
The variation within samples appears greater than that between wet and dry in most cases. Also, I am pretty happy with my standard choice of Nuprol RZR 0.28g Bio ?
There are obvious limitations to the test, primarily in that the sample sizes are small, I can't be fussed expanding the test but I'd be more than happy to applaud anyone who wanted to, I am happy to email the full data table with individual measurements, if anyone is that bored on lockdown. Another possible source of error is the measurement equipment, I used my general garage micrometer to do the measuring, it doesn't have a valid certificate of calibration and it has a stated precision of 0.01mm so the variation seen in most samples falls inside the possible error of the test equipment.
Thirdly, this isn't a blind test, I knew what each sample was and so there may be subconscious bias but I doubt it.
I really hope this lockdown ends soon, I clearly have too much time on my hands.
View attachment 57556
EDcase
AF-UK patch owner
- Jun 24, 2017
- 3,598
- 1,589
Thanks for that.
It makes me wonder how biodegradable these Bio BBs really are.
I suspect that manufacturers realised that true bios had swelling problems from absorbing moisture in the air etc so they changed the formula to be higher percentage plastic or whatever the composition is.
So now they're probably no more degradable than normal BBs
Next test would be to bury 10 or each for a year and then compare them
It makes me wonder how biodegradable these Bio BBs really are.
I suspect that manufacturers realised that true bios had swelling problems from absorbing moisture in the air etc so they changed the formula to be higher percentage plastic or whatever the composition is.
So now they're probably no more degradable than normal BBs
Next test would be to bury 10 or each for a year and then compare them
Last edited by a moderator:
Ropeyshep
Members
- Apr 14, 2020
- 93
- 33
That would be a much longer study ? But I do wonder myself, has the tech improved or have manufacturers found the formula that gets them as close as possible to being able to claim biodegradability while being as shape retaining as possible?
I heard a podcast discussing the subject a wee while ago and I think that almost all BBs, whether Bio or not, are made in the same factory, the podcast mentioned HPA BBs as being particularly good and made in a different way but that's a nightmare of a search term so I can't find any sources for them in the UK to have a blat with.
The one trend that is fairly visible on the measurements is that the measured diameter has consistently reduced (though within the error of the measuring system), this could indicate a softening of the BB shell and, if that is the case, there could be some increase in the deposits left in barrels? This is a ridiculously extended test though, if anyone had BBs they'd left in a bottle of water for three weeks and put them through a mag, I doubt barrel cleanliness is high on their concerns.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ad_
Members
- Apr 16, 2020
- 112
- 16
I've been doing some comparisons of the bio BBs I have over the past week or so as well - ASG Open Blasters, BioSphere, Nuprol RZR Bio, all in 0.2 & 0.25g.
On paper these should be identical - they're all supposed to be 5.95mm with 0.01mm tolerance either way - and while they all perform adequately enough at 0.2g in my experience from shooting them prior to the lockdown the ASG Open Blasters seemed to the best of the three, and the Nuprols had a habit of double-feeding sometimes. I haven't used the .25g BBs enough to have any idea which of those three shoots the best though.
20 of each BB were weighed and measured and they were broken apart to check for air bubbles. When measuring a BB's diameter I rotated it and re-measured to check the variation in diameter around it & get an idea of its "roundness", noting the min, max and average diameter.
Some were measured then soaked some in water for >24h (was generally around 40h-ish) and then re-measured to check for any swelling due to water absorption.
There are some caveats to keep in mind:
Nuprol RZR Bio 0.20g:
Weight: Typically 0.20g, 3 measured 0.21g
Size range: 5.92 - 5.95mm; 11 measured within tolerance.
Roundness: 13 measured with max variation of up to 0.01mm, 4 with 0.02mm, 3 with 0.03mm
There was no sign of swelling after soaking in water.
Nuprol's BBs have a consistent weight but their measured size was outside of specification on almost half of the BBs tested - minimum measurements of 5.93mm were not uncommon and a few were even as low as 5.92mm. None measured above 5.95mm.
They are relatively soft though - I had to be very careful when measuring their size & shape as it was very easy to read lower measurements even with the small amount of force applied by the calipers.
I did not see any bubbles inside any of the BBs tested.
BioSphere 0.20g:
Weight: Typically 0.20g, 6 measured 0.19g
Size range: 5.94 - 5.96mm; all measured within tolerance.
Roundness: All measured with max variation of up to 0.01mm (15 did not vary to an extent I could measure with my calipers)
There was no sign of swelling after soaking in water.
BioSphere's BBs are quite consistent in weight (trending more towards the lighter side) and impressively consistent in size/shape, measuring 5.94-5.96mm with no more than 0.01mm variation in diameter around any given BB - all within the specified 5.95 +/- 0.01mm tolerance.
They readily split into fragments when crushed, and unfortunately I found a bubble in every BB I tested. Here's a photo of one that I managed to crack open more or less cleanly showing the air bubble:
View attachment 57565
ASG Open Blaster 0.20g:
Weight: All measured 0.20g
Size range: 5.90 - 5.96mm; 6 measured within tolerance.
Roundness: 9 measured with max variation of up to 0.01mm, 7 with 0.02mm, 3 with 0.03mm, 1 with 0.04mm
There was no sign of swelling after soaking in water.
The Open Blasters had a very consistent weight with all of them measuring 0.2g, but their size and shape varied to a greater extent than the Nuprols, from 5.90mm to 5.96mm. One of the BBs tested varied between 5.92 and 5.96mm!
They seem to be of a similar material as the Nuprol BBs but a lot harder. I did not see any bubbles in any of the BBs tested.
Nuprol RZR Bio 0.25g:
Weight: All measured 0.25g
Size range: 5.91 - 5.95mm; 3 measured within tolerance.
Roundness: 15 measured with max variation of up to 0.01mm, 3 with 0.02mm, 2 with 0.03mm
There was no sign of swelling after soaking in water.
Unsurprisingly these are much like the 0.2g version - their weight is quite consistent while their size and shape is about as variable, though they seem to be a bit smaller on average and a couple measured as low as 5.91mm.
The 0.25g Nuprol RZR Bio BBs are significantly harder than the 0.20g version and didn't deform so readily. I did not see any bubbles inside any of the BBs tested.
BioSphere 0.25g:
Weight: Typically 0.25g, 9 measured 0.24g
Size range: 5.93 - 5.94mm; 16 measured within tolerance.
Roundness: All measured with max variation of up to 0.01mm (17 did not vary to an extent I could measure with my calipers)
There was no sign of swelling after soaking in water.
These varied a bit more in weight than their 0.2g version, and like their 0.2g version trended towards the lighter side. Their size and shape was very consistent too with none varying by more than 0.01mm, although they were slightly smaller than the 0.2g version with all of them measuring between 5.93mm and 5.94mm.
Unfortunately, just like the 0.2g version I found an air bubble in every one of these I inspected too. These were also much harder than the 0.2g version and they had a tendency to shatter suddenly once they started to crack but I did manage to break open cleanly for a photo:
View attachment 57566
ASG Open Blaster 0.25g:
Weight: Typically 0.25g, 6 measured 0.26g
Size range: 5.90 - 5.95mm; 1 measured within tolerance.
Roundness: 13 measured with max variation of up to 0.01mm, 4 with 0.02mm, 2 with 0.03mm, 1 with 0.05mm
There was no sign of swelling after soaking in water.
These seem to be slightly less consistent in weight than their 0.20g version, trending slightly towards the heavier side. Their size & shape is about as variable, ranging from 5.90 to 5.95mm and like the others these also trend slightly towards the smaller side.
I did not see any bubbles inside any of the BBs tested.
As I posted earlier in this thread, AFAIK most are made from PLA & as such I wouldn't expect them to biodegrade very quickly in the environment.
On paper these should be identical - they're all supposed to be 5.95mm with 0.01mm tolerance either way - and while they all perform adequately enough at 0.2g in my experience from shooting them prior to the lockdown the ASG Open Blasters seemed to the best of the three, and the Nuprols had a habit of double-feeding sometimes. I haven't used the .25g BBs enough to have any idea which of those three shoots the best though.
20 of each BB were weighed and measured and they were broken apart to check for air bubbles. When measuring a BB's diameter I rotated it and re-measured to check the variation in diameter around it & get an idea of its "roundness", noting the min, max and average diameter.
Some were measured then soaked some in water for >24h (was generally around 40h-ish) and then re-measured to check for any swelling due to water absorption.
There are some caveats to keep in mind:
- The scales I used only have a 0.01g resolution which isn't really precise enough (and they're cheap, so they're not exactly top quality either) however they should at least be sufficient to show up any significant discrepancies between the specified weight and actual weight. They're also sensitive enough that things like airflow around them can skew the result. To attempt to compensate for these to some extent I weighed each BB repeatedly and used the most frequent result.
- Similarly, my digital calipers (Facom 1300EA) have a resolution of 0.01mm so borderline values might read either way, but again this should be enough to show any significant variation at least.
- Just because I didn't find any air bubbles in a BB doesn't necessarily mean that there weren't any; there could have been some in the parts of the BB that were not exposed or they may have been too small to see with the naked eye.
- Also, 20 BBs is a small sample size
Nuprol RZR Bio 0.20g:
Weight: Typically 0.20g, 3 measured 0.21g
Size range: 5.92 - 5.95mm; 11 measured within tolerance.
Roundness: 13 measured with max variation of up to 0.01mm, 4 with 0.02mm, 3 with 0.03mm
There was no sign of swelling after soaking in water.
Nuprol's BBs have a consistent weight but their measured size was outside of specification on almost half of the BBs tested - minimum measurements of 5.93mm were not uncommon and a few were even as low as 5.92mm. None measured above 5.95mm.
They are relatively soft though - I had to be very careful when measuring their size & shape as it was very easy to read lower measurements even with the small amount of force applied by the calipers.
I did not see any bubbles inside any of the BBs tested.
BioSphere 0.20g:
Weight: Typically 0.20g, 6 measured 0.19g
Size range: 5.94 - 5.96mm; all measured within tolerance.
Roundness: All measured with max variation of up to 0.01mm (15 did not vary to an extent I could measure with my calipers)
There was no sign of swelling after soaking in water.
BioSphere's BBs are quite consistent in weight (trending more towards the lighter side) and impressively consistent in size/shape, measuring 5.94-5.96mm with no more than 0.01mm variation in diameter around any given BB - all within the specified 5.95 +/- 0.01mm tolerance.
They readily split into fragments when crushed, and unfortunately I found a bubble in every BB I tested. Here's a photo of one that I managed to crack open more or less cleanly showing the air bubble:
View attachment 57565
ASG Open Blaster 0.20g:
Weight: All measured 0.20g
Size range: 5.90 - 5.96mm; 6 measured within tolerance.
Roundness: 9 measured with max variation of up to 0.01mm, 7 with 0.02mm, 3 with 0.03mm, 1 with 0.04mm
There was no sign of swelling after soaking in water.
The Open Blasters had a very consistent weight with all of them measuring 0.2g, but their size and shape varied to a greater extent than the Nuprols, from 5.90mm to 5.96mm. One of the BBs tested varied between 5.92 and 5.96mm!
They seem to be of a similar material as the Nuprol BBs but a lot harder. I did not see any bubbles in any of the BBs tested.
Nuprol RZR Bio 0.25g:
Weight: All measured 0.25g
Size range: 5.91 - 5.95mm; 3 measured within tolerance.
Roundness: 15 measured with max variation of up to 0.01mm, 3 with 0.02mm, 2 with 0.03mm
There was no sign of swelling after soaking in water.
Unsurprisingly these are much like the 0.2g version - their weight is quite consistent while their size and shape is about as variable, though they seem to be a bit smaller on average and a couple measured as low as 5.91mm.
The 0.25g Nuprol RZR Bio BBs are significantly harder than the 0.20g version and didn't deform so readily. I did not see any bubbles inside any of the BBs tested.
BioSphere 0.25g:
Weight: Typically 0.25g, 9 measured 0.24g
Size range: 5.93 - 5.94mm; 16 measured within tolerance.
Roundness: All measured with max variation of up to 0.01mm (17 did not vary to an extent I could measure with my calipers)
There was no sign of swelling after soaking in water.
These varied a bit more in weight than their 0.2g version, and like their 0.2g version trended towards the lighter side. Their size and shape was very consistent too with none varying by more than 0.01mm, although they were slightly smaller than the 0.2g version with all of them measuring between 5.93mm and 5.94mm.
Unfortunately, just like the 0.2g version I found an air bubble in every one of these I inspected too. These were also much harder than the 0.2g version and they had a tendency to shatter suddenly once they started to crack but I did manage to break open cleanly for a photo:
View attachment 57566
ASG Open Blaster 0.25g:
Weight: Typically 0.25g, 6 measured 0.26g
Size range: 5.90 - 5.95mm; 1 measured within tolerance.
Roundness: 13 measured with max variation of up to 0.01mm, 4 with 0.02mm, 2 with 0.03mm, 1 with 0.05mm
There was no sign of swelling after soaking in water.
These seem to be slightly less consistent in weight than their 0.20g version, trending slightly towards the heavier side. Their size & shape is about as variable, ranging from 5.90 to 5.95mm and like the others these also trend slightly towards the smaller side.
I did not see any bubbles inside any of the BBs tested.
It makes me wonder how biodegradable these Bio BBs really are.
I suspect that manufacturers realised that true bios had swelling problems from absorbing moisture in the air etc so they changed the formula to be higher percentage plastic or whatever the composition is.
So now they're probably no more degradable than normal BBs
Next test would be to bury 10 or each for a year and then compare them
As I posted earlier in this thread, AFAIK most are made from PLA & as such I wouldn't expect them to biodegrade very quickly in the environment.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ad_
Members
- Apr 16, 2020
- 112
- 16
I tested a few more brands of bio BB recently. Same caveats with limitations in equipment & methods apply as before:
Tokyo Marui 'Perfect Hit' Bio 0.20g:
These are quite pricey at £6 for 1600. The .25s weren't in stock when I ordered these so I didn't get any to test, but those are way more expensive at £11 for only 1300 BBs! They come in a sealed, vacuum-packed bag with some silica gel thrown in to protect them from humidity.
Unfortunately I found a few in the pack with some surface defects. They weren't very big or deep & probably aren't rough enough to cause any damage, but they would most likely affect performance.
I tested 20 BBs that did not have any visible defects.
Weight: All measured 0.20g
Size range: 5.93 - 5.96mm; 18 were within tolerance
Roundness: 6 measured 0.00mm variation, 14 measured with max variation of 0.01mm
There was no sign of swelling after soaking in water.
Easily the most consistent so far, and I didn't find any air bubbles, although not all of them were within the 5.95 +/- 0.01mm tolerance (however readings of 5.93 could be borderline 5.94). Just a shame about their high price and the QC fails with some of them.
Ares Amoeba "Diamond Precision" / "Match Grade" Bio BBs 0.25g:
Before even opening the bag I could see these were off to a great start:
View attachment 64230
I found a number of other BBs in the pack with surface defects, most of those merely had one or more slightly dented and/or scratched surfaces but some were spectacularly bad - especially this one:
View attachment 64231
(it's even worse than it looks here but my crappy phone camera can't capture it well enough)
They almost look like they've already been fired once then picked up and repackaged. Using BBs with surface defects like these have will cause increased wear on the gun's hop rubber or may even damage it and/or cause jams. It's possible these were simply from a "bad batch", but IMO there's no excuse for any BBs with such glaring external defects as these to go unnoticed.
The bag was "sealed", but it has some air holes punched into it so ingress of humidity and/or dust/dirt is likely and could result in magazines, hop units and/or barrels getting fouled with whatever the BBs have picked up in storage, transit etc. - I did find some particles of dust/general debris floating about inside the bag with the BBs.
I picked out 20 to measure and made sure that they didn't have any visible surface defects.
Weight: Typically 0.25g, 5 measured 0.26g
Size range: 5.92 - 5.96mm; 11 were within tolerance
Roundness: 11 measured with max variation of up to 0.01mm, 6 with 0.02mm, 2 with 0.03mm, 1 with 0.04mm
I didn't bother soaking any of these in water
In addition to the massive QC fails in the pack, the consistency of these isn't all that great either. I did not find air bubbles in any of the BBs I crushed open.
G&G 'Competition Grade' Bio BBs 0.25g:
These come in a fully sealed bag similar to the one the Tokyo Marui BBs come in (and also includes a pack of silica gel like Marui's BBs), except larger & not vacuum packed. On the back is information about the BB indicating that they are made from PLA, and claims about decomposition times in different environments.
I shook the bag & checked for any BBs with obvious defects a few times after opening the pack and as I took BBs out to test as I did for the others but couldn't see any.
Weight: All measured 0.25g
Size range: 5.92 - 5.96mm; 12 were within tolerance
Roundness: 10 measured with max variation of up to 0.01mm, 10 with 0.02mm
There was no sign of swelling after soaking in water.
These BBs are reasonably consistent in terms of roundness; unfortunately a fair few were outside of the specified 5.95 +/- 0.01mm tolerance and I found air bubbles of varying sizes in 8 of the 20 BBs I broke apart.
Tokyo Marui 'Perfect Hit' Bio 0.20g:
These are quite pricey at £6 for 1600. The .25s weren't in stock when I ordered these so I didn't get any to test, but those are way more expensive at £11 for only 1300 BBs! They come in a sealed, vacuum-packed bag with some silica gel thrown in to protect them from humidity.
Unfortunately I found a few in the pack with some surface defects. They weren't very big or deep & probably aren't rough enough to cause any damage, but they would most likely affect performance.
I tested 20 BBs that did not have any visible defects.
Weight: All measured 0.20g
Size range: 5.93 - 5.96mm; 18 were within tolerance
Roundness: 6 measured 0.00mm variation, 14 measured with max variation of 0.01mm
There was no sign of swelling after soaking in water.
Easily the most consistent so far, and I didn't find any air bubbles, although not all of them were within the 5.95 +/- 0.01mm tolerance (however readings of 5.93 could be borderline 5.94). Just a shame about their high price and the QC fails with some of them.
Ares Amoeba "Diamond Precision" / "Match Grade" Bio BBs 0.25g:
Before even opening the bag I could see these were off to a great start:
View attachment 64230
I found a number of other BBs in the pack with surface defects, most of those merely had one or more slightly dented and/or scratched surfaces but some were spectacularly bad - especially this one:
View attachment 64231
(it's even worse than it looks here but my crappy phone camera can't capture it well enough)
They almost look like they've already been fired once then picked up and repackaged. Using BBs with surface defects like these have will cause increased wear on the gun's hop rubber or may even damage it and/or cause jams. It's possible these were simply from a "bad batch", but IMO there's no excuse for any BBs with such glaring external defects as these to go unnoticed.
The bag was "sealed", but it has some air holes punched into it so ingress of humidity and/or dust/dirt is likely and could result in magazines, hop units and/or barrels getting fouled with whatever the BBs have picked up in storage, transit etc. - I did find some particles of dust/general debris floating about inside the bag with the BBs.
I picked out 20 to measure and made sure that they didn't have any visible surface defects.
Weight: Typically 0.25g, 5 measured 0.26g
Size range: 5.92 - 5.96mm; 11 were within tolerance
Roundness: 11 measured with max variation of up to 0.01mm, 6 with 0.02mm, 2 with 0.03mm, 1 with 0.04mm
I didn't bother soaking any of these in water
In addition to the massive QC fails in the pack, the consistency of these isn't all that great either. I did not find air bubbles in any of the BBs I crushed open.
G&G 'Competition Grade' Bio BBs 0.25g:
These come in a fully sealed bag similar to the one the Tokyo Marui BBs come in (and also includes a pack of silica gel like Marui's BBs), except larger & not vacuum packed. On the back is information about the BB indicating that they are made from PLA, and claims about decomposition times in different environments.
I shook the bag & checked for any BBs with obvious defects a few times after opening the pack and as I took BBs out to test as I did for the others but couldn't see any.
Weight: All measured 0.25g
Size range: 5.92 - 5.96mm; 12 were within tolerance
Roundness: 10 measured with max variation of up to 0.01mm, 10 with 0.02mm
There was no sign of swelling after soaking in water.
These BBs are reasonably consistent in terms of roundness; unfortunately a fair few were outside of the specified 5.95 +/- 0.01mm tolerance and I found air bubbles of varying sizes in 8 of the 20 BBs I broke apart.
Lollingsgrad
AF-UK patch owner
- Nov 23, 2017
- 269
- 23
I've been using Geoffs Bio BBs more or less since I started airsoft which has included long breaks and using BBs that were several months old and I've never had this problem. In fact I've never had a jam on Geoffs, period.
EDcase
AF-UK patch owner
- Jun 24, 2017
- 3,598
- 1,589
Last edited by a moderator:
Nick G
Members
- Mar 18, 2018
- 1,307
- 903
Ad_
Members
- Apr 16, 2020
- 112
- 16
Done some more tests, same caveats as before, didn't bother soaking any in water this time:
'Xtreme Precision' 0.25g Bio BBs:
Interestingly, these are supposed to be slightly larger and with tighter tolerances than standard - 5.96 +/- 0.005mm as opposed to the usual 5.95 +/- 0.01mm.
These come in a bag with some air holes punched in to it near the top so clearly they're not worried about humidity causing problems. This could result in dust or so finding its way into the bag though and then into your gun's hop unit/barrel.
I didn't see any BBs with any obvious defects.
Weight: 17 measured 0.25g, 3 measured 0.26g
Size range: 5.92 - 5.95mm; none were within 5.96 +/- 0.005mm tolerance, 3 were within the standard 5.95 +/- 0.01mm tolerance
Roundness: 1 measured 0mm variation all around, 6 measured with max variation of up to 0.01mm, 12 with 0.02mm, 1 with 0.03mm
The advertised 5.96 +/- 0.005mm tolerance is beyond the ability of my calipers to measure, but I'd at least expect to see much tighter results than I did for other BBs; however none of them even met 5.96 +/- 0.01mm and only 3 of them measured within the standard 5.95 +/- 0.01mm tolerance.
These were also quite soft and easily deformed/easy to crush compared to the other 0.25g BBs I've tested which raises concerns about their performance if used in midcap magazines - especially higher capacity mags with stronger springs.
Most of the BBs tested appeared to be free of air bubbles, but I did find a small air bubble in one of them.
Geoffs 'Super Natural Precision' 0.25g Bio BBs:
I've seen Geoffs BBs being recommended by a lot of people and had been meaning to buy some for a while, but since I wasn't going to place an order just for a single bag of BBs it had to wait until there were some other things I wanted to order.
These also come in a bag with some air holes punched in it near the top to potentially allow crap to get inside. The BBs themselves all looked fine, with no visible defects. Like most other brands of BB these are supposed to be 5.95 +/- 0.01mm.
Weight: All measured 0.25g (leaning towards the heavier side as my scales wavered a bit between 0.25 and 0.26 for most of them before settling on 0.25)
Size range: 5.91 - 5.95mm; 1 measured within the 5.95 +/- 0.01mm tolerance (most were 5.93mm+ at least)
Roundness: 2 measured 0mm variation, 10 measured with max variation up to 0.01mm, 7 with 0.02mm, 1 with 0.03mm
These generally didn't measure within the specified 5.95 +/- 0.01mm range on my calipers - trending towards the smaller side - but their weight and roundness seems quite consistent with only one varying by more than 0.02mm, and I didn't find any air bubbles in the ones I broke open.
'Xtreme Precision' 0.25g Bio BBs:
Interestingly, these are supposed to be slightly larger and with tighter tolerances than standard - 5.96 +/- 0.005mm as opposed to the usual 5.95 +/- 0.01mm.
These come in a bag with some air holes punched in to it near the top so clearly they're not worried about humidity causing problems. This could result in dust or so finding its way into the bag though and then into your gun's hop unit/barrel.
I didn't see any BBs with any obvious defects.
Weight: 17 measured 0.25g, 3 measured 0.26g
Size range: 5.92 - 5.95mm; none were within 5.96 +/- 0.005mm tolerance, 3 were within the standard 5.95 +/- 0.01mm tolerance
Roundness: 1 measured 0mm variation all around, 6 measured with max variation of up to 0.01mm, 12 with 0.02mm, 1 with 0.03mm
The advertised 5.96 +/- 0.005mm tolerance is beyond the ability of my calipers to measure, but I'd at least expect to see much tighter results than I did for other BBs; however none of them even met 5.96 +/- 0.01mm and only 3 of them measured within the standard 5.95 +/- 0.01mm tolerance.
These were also quite soft and easily deformed/easy to crush compared to the other 0.25g BBs I've tested which raises concerns about their performance if used in midcap magazines - especially higher capacity mags with stronger springs.
Most of the BBs tested appeared to be free of air bubbles, but I did find a small air bubble in one of them.
Geoffs 'Super Natural Precision' 0.25g Bio BBs:
I've seen Geoffs BBs being recommended by a lot of people and had been meaning to buy some for a while, but since I wasn't going to place an order just for a single bag of BBs it had to wait until there were some other things I wanted to order.
These also come in a bag with some air holes punched in it near the top to potentially allow crap to get inside. The BBs themselves all looked fine, with no visible defects. Like most other brands of BB these are supposed to be 5.95 +/- 0.01mm.
Weight: All measured 0.25g (leaning towards the heavier side as my scales wavered a bit between 0.25 and 0.26 for most of them before settling on 0.25)
Size range: 5.91 - 5.95mm; 1 measured within the 5.95 +/- 0.01mm tolerance (most were 5.93mm+ at least)
Roundness: 2 measured 0mm variation, 10 measured with max variation up to 0.01mm, 7 with 0.02mm, 1 with 0.03mm
These generally didn't measure within the specified 5.95 +/- 0.01mm range on my calipers - trending towards the smaller side - but their weight and roundness seems quite consistent with only one varying by more than 0.02mm, and I didn't find any air bubbles in the ones I broke open.
Ad_
Members
- Apr 16, 2020
- 112
- 16
Summary of 0.25g results, sorted by average variation/roundness:
None of the BBs tested are perfect, but Geoffs and (surprisingly) Nuprol seem to be the better choices in 0.25g, followed by ASG Open Blasters. The Ares Amoeba BBs are easily the worst purely due to the shockingly bad & potentially damaging defects I found, although their consistency otherwise isn't too impressive either.
Code:
Brand Avg. weight | # 5.94mm+ | # 5.93mm+ | avg. variation | # varying > 0.02mm | Notes
BioSphere 0.2455g | 16 | 20 | 0.0015mm | 0 | Air bubbles found in all
Nuprol 0.2505g | 3 | 13 | 0.011mm | 2 |
Geoffs 0.25g | 1 | 16 | 0.0135mm | 1 |
G&G 0.25g | 12 | 19 | 0.015mm | 0 | Air bubbles found in some
ASG Open Blaster 0.253g | 1 | 10 | 0.016mm | 3 |
Xtreme Precision 0.2515g | 3 | 19 | 0.0165mm | 1 | Air bubbles found in some, soft/easy to deform
Ares Amoeba 0.2525g | 11 | 18 | 0.0165mm | 3 | Found a bunch of fucked up BBs in the pack that could potentially cause damageNone of the BBs tested are perfect, but Geoffs and (surprisingly) Nuprol seem to be the better choices in 0.25g, followed by ASG Open Blasters. The Ares Amoeba BBs are easily the worst purely due to the shockingly bad & potentially damaging defects I found, although their consistency otherwise isn't too impressive either.
Ad_
Members
- Apr 16, 2020
- 112
- 16
I bought some more Geoffs bio BBs, this time in 0.28g. These are 'Super Natural Precision' in white and black and 'Natural Precision' tracer BBs (they don't do tracer versions of the former - I'm not entirely sure what the difference is supposed to be between 'Super Natural Precision' and 'Natural Precision' as it doesn't seem to be stated anywhere; both are supposed to be 5.95 +/- 0.01mm).
The packaging for these is just like the 0.25g BBs I bought before - self-seal bags with air holes punched into them near the top (I only bought small bags of the black & tracer version). They all looked fine except for a single tracer BB that had some kind of scuff mark on it.
Of these three, only the white ones seem decent enough - about on par with the 0.25g version I tested before. The black and tracer versions seem like they're best avoided.
Geoffs 'Super Natural Precision' 0.28g Bio BBs:
Weight: All measured 0.28g except for one measuring 0.29g. Like the 0.25g version these seem to lean towards the heavier side.
Size range: 5.93 - 5.96mm; 4 measured within the 5.95 +/- 0.01mm tolerance, the rest were 5.93mm minimum
Roundness: 1 measured 0mm variation all around, 9 measured with max variation up to 0.01mm, 8 with 0.02mm, 2 with 0.03mm
These are pretty similar to the 0.25g version, generally not being within the specified 5.95 +/- 0.01mm range (trending towards the smaller side).
They're a little softer than their 0.25g counterparts but more difficult to break apart as they had a tendency to flatten out & I had to twist them apart after initially splitting them. I didn't see any signs of air bubbles.
Geoffs 'Super Natural Precision' 0.28g Bio BBs (black):
Weight: All measured 0.28g, again seeming to trend more towards the heavier side.
Size range: 5.92 - 5.97mm; 15 measured within the 5.95 +/- 0.01mm tolerance. 3 were 5.93mm minimum, 1 was 5.92mm minimum, 1 was 5.96mm minimum (and that one had an upper measurement of 5.97mm)
Roundness: 13 measured 0.01mm variation all around, 6 measured with max variation up to 0.02mm, 1 with 0.03mm
These have similar consistency to the white BBs but with a larger size range (although this could just be down to the small sample sizes).
However they are also much softer and easier to break apart than the white version so it would probably be best not to use these in midcap mags or GBBRs, as their softness will make them prone to getting deformed/flattened or chewed up. In addition to this I found an air bubble in one of the 20 BBs I broke apart.
Geoffs 'Natural Precision' 0.28g Bio BBs (tracer):
Weight: All measured 0.28g except for one weighing 0.29g.
Size range: 5.87 - 5.95mm; None measured within the 5.95 +/- 0.01mm tolerance. 1 was 5.87mm minimum, 3 were 5.88mm minimum, 4 were 5.89mm minimum, 6 were 5.90mm minimum, 5 were 5.91mm minimum, 1 was 5.92mm minimum
Roundness: 6 measured 0.02mm variation all around, 7 measured with max variation up to 0.03mm, 4 with 0.04mm, 3 with 0.05mm
Surprisingly these are far less consistent than the others, and a fair bit undersized. Despite their smaller size they're still around 0.28g though, even leaning towards the heavier side.
These are about as soft as the black ones but a lot more brittle; it didn't take much force to crack them open and they readily split into multiple fragments. I really wouldn't recommend trying to use these in midcap mags or GBBRs (or at all; loading a few into my HK416A5 AEG resulted in some double feeds/misfeeds and pre-shattered rounds exiting the barrel on firing). On the plus side I didn't find any air bubbles in the ones I broke apart.
The packaging for these is just like the 0.25g BBs I bought before - self-seal bags with air holes punched into them near the top (I only bought small bags of the black & tracer version). They all looked fine except for a single tracer BB that had some kind of scuff mark on it.
Of these three, only the white ones seem decent enough - about on par with the 0.25g version I tested before. The black and tracer versions seem like they're best avoided.
Geoffs 'Super Natural Precision' 0.28g Bio BBs:
Weight: All measured 0.28g except for one measuring 0.29g. Like the 0.25g version these seem to lean towards the heavier side.
Size range: 5.93 - 5.96mm; 4 measured within the 5.95 +/- 0.01mm tolerance, the rest were 5.93mm minimum
Roundness: 1 measured 0mm variation all around, 9 measured with max variation up to 0.01mm, 8 with 0.02mm, 2 with 0.03mm
These are pretty similar to the 0.25g version, generally not being within the specified 5.95 +/- 0.01mm range (trending towards the smaller side).
They're a little softer than their 0.25g counterparts but more difficult to break apart as they had a tendency to flatten out & I had to twist them apart after initially splitting them. I didn't see any signs of air bubbles.
Geoffs 'Super Natural Precision' 0.28g Bio BBs (black):
Weight: All measured 0.28g, again seeming to trend more towards the heavier side.
Size range: 5.92 - 5.97mm; 15 measured within the 5.95 +/- 0.01mm tolerance. 3 were 5.93mm minimum, 1 was 5.92mm minimum, 1 was 5.96mm minimum (and that one had an upper measurement of 5.97mm)
Roundness: 13 measured 0.01mm variation all around, 6 measured with max variation up to 0.02mm, 1 with 0.03mm
These have similar consistency to the white BBs but with a larger size range (although this could just be down to the small sample sizes).
However they are also much softer and easier to break apart than the white version so it would probably be best not to use these in midcap mags or GBBRs, as their softness will make them prone to getting deformed/flattened or chewed up. In addition to this I found an air bubble in one of the 20 BBs I broke apart.
Geoffs 'Natural Precision' 0.28g Bio BBs (tracer):
Weight: All measured 0.28g except for one weighing 0.29g.
Size range: 5.87 - 5.95mm; None measured within the 5.95 +/- 0.01mm tolerance. 1 was 5.87mm minimum, 3 were 5.88mm minimum, 4 were 5.89mm minimum, 6 were 5.90mm minimum, 5 were 5.91mm minimum, 1 was 5.92mm minimum
Roundness: 6 measured 0.02mm variation all around, 7 measured with max variation up to 0.03mm, 4 with 0.04mm, 3 with 0.05mm
Surprisingly these are far less consistent than the others, and a fair bit undersized. Despite their smaller size they're still around 0.28g though, even leaning towards the heavier side.
These are about as soft as the black ones but a lot more brittle; it didn't take much force to crack them open and they readily split into multiple fragments. I really wouldn't recommend trying to use these in midcap mags or GBBRs (or at all; loading a few into my HK416A5 AEG resulted in some double feeds/misfeeds and pre-shattered rounds exiting the barrel on firing). On the plus side I didn't find any air bubbles in the ones I broke apart.
Lollingsgrad
AF-UK patch owner
- Nov 23, 2017
- 269
- 23
Just as a counter point I've been using Geoffs natural (and super) BBs in my midcaps and gas guns since I started playing. I've never had one shatter or jam inside either. This isn't to discount your testing, I could believe they're more fragile than other brands, but perhaps not enough to cause actual issues.
Cannonfodder
Members
- Aug 10, 2020
- 3,441
- 5,359
I've been using the Tippmann bio bbs sold at my regular site for a few months now and haven't had any problems
Ad_
Members
- Apr 16, 2020
- 112
- 16
The regular white versions do seem to be pretty decent (in both 0.25g and 0.28g at least) and I've not had any issues shooting with them so far & intend to continue buying them.
It's just the black and tracer versions that seem to be be a bit dodgy for whatever reason - perhaps the addition of black dye/GITD material compromises the strength of the BB making them softer/more brittle, maybe there's poorer QC standards applied on those specific kinds of BB, or perhaps I was just unlucky & got sent some from bad batches. Given how far out of spec the tracer BBs were I'm pretty shocked that those made it through QC though, given that they're supposed to be 5.95 +/- 0.01mm.
Last edited by a moderator:
Lollingsgrad
AF-UK patch owner
- Nov 23, 2017
- 269
- 23
Ad_
Members
- Apr 16, 2020
- 112
- 16
More Geoffs bio BBs, this time in 0.30g. Only white + tracer versions this time.
Geoffs 'Super Natural Precision' 0.30g Bio BBs
Weight: All measured 0.30g
Size range: 5.91 - 5.95mm; 0 measured within the 5.95 +/- 0.01mm tolerance. 1 was 5.91mm minimum, 7 were 5.92mm minimum, 12 were 5.93mm minimum.
Roundness: 12 measured 0.01mm variation all around, 7 measured with max variation up to 0.02mm, 1 with 0.03mm
These trend slightly more towards the smaller side like the other versions - they're especially similar to the 0.25g version. None measured within tolerance, but many were at least 5.93mm minimum which could be borderline/within measurement error due to the limitations of my calipers. Like most of the other Geoffs BBs I've tested they do seem to have good consistency though.
These are very similar in softness to the 0.28g version, flattening out rather than fragmenting & needing to be twisted apart. I found air bubbles in one of the BBs.
Geoffs 'Natural Precision' 0.30g Bio BBs (tracer)
Weight: All measured 0.30g except for one weighing 0.31g.
Size range: 5.90 - 5.95mm; 2 measured within the 5.95 +/- 0.01mm tolerance. 1 was 5.90mm minimum, 1 was 5.91mm minimum, 8 were 5.92mm minimum, 8 were 5.93mm minimum, 2 were 5.94mm minimum
Roundness: 3 measured 0.01mm variation all around, 15 measured with max variation up to 0.02mm, 1 with 0.03mm, 1 with 0.05mm
These seem much better than the 0.28g version, being closer to the specified tolerances and having greater consistency (although still not quite as good as the white versions, but at least these aren't too far off).
These felt a bit harder to break apart than the 0.28g version but were slightly more brittle. I found air bubbles in one of them.
Forgot to reply to this before - they are available from https://outdoorandtactical.co.uk
Geoffs 'Super Natural Precision' 0.30g Bio BBs
Weight: All measured 0.30g
Size range: 5.91 - 5.95mm; 0 measured within the 5.95 +/- 0.01mm tolerance. 1 was 5.91mm minimum, 7 were 5.92mm minimum, 12 were 5.93mm minimum.
Roundness: 12 measured 0.01mm variation all around, 7 measured with max variation up to 0.02mm, 1 with 0.03mm
These trend slightly more towards the smaller side like the other versions - they're especially similar to the 0.25g version. None measured within tolerance, but many were at least 5.93mm minimum which could be borderline/within measurement error due to the limitations of my calipers. Like most of the other Geoffs BBs I've tested they do seem to have good consistency though.
These are very similar in softness to the 0.28g version, flattening out rather than fragmenting & needing to be twisted apart. I found air bubbles in one of the BBs.
Geoffs 'Natural Precision' 0.30g Bio BBs (tracer)
Weight: All measured 0.30g except for one weighing 0.31g.
Size range: 5.90 - 5.95mm; 2 measured within the 5.95 +/- 0.01mm tolerance. 1 was 5.90mm minimum, 1 was 5.91mm minimum, 8 were 5.92mm minimum, 8 were 5.93mm minimum, 2 were 5.94mm minimum
Roundness: 3 measured 0.01mm variation all around, 15 measured with max variation up to 0.02mm, 1 with 0.03mm, 1 with 0.05mm
These seem much better than the 0.28g version, being closer to the specified tolerances and having greater consistency (although still not quite as good as the white versions, but at least these aren't too far off).
These felt a bit harder to break apart than the 0.28g version but were slightly more brittle. I found air bubbles in one of them.
Forgot to reply to this before - they are available from https://outdoorandtactical.co.uk
Similar threads
