BB Bastard Silica .28g bb's

[Kokanee]

I'm glad that my post was able to start such a lively debate.

@Scarecrow: The test was straight on, no deflection angle. Well, I was straight on before the shot...

@pusangani: I think your post was the most well worded, concise summary out of the whole thread.

I agree that this was a very "quick and dirty" test, and I hesitate to call it even that as a more thorough examination is called for. We've already had one field in Ottawa ban them, and personally I will refrain from using them as (and yes, bumps and bruises happen, I've been hospitalized playing this game... and was right back for more once my broken ribs healed) I don't want to increase the risk for injury more just to give myself some perceived advantage.

Perhaps a full line of BB Bastard black bb's in all weights would provide the edge players are looking for with these, while not needlessly increasing the risk to players.

[deep in the bush]

Originally Posted by m102404

Jeez...never seen anything so controversial...can't we just....

...shoot someone with them at a game
...film the survivor
...have someone intelligent write it up and post it to ASC
...let some younger guy post it to youtube
...let some kid facebook it
...let some even younger kid twitter it
...and get on with things?

I'll do it man.

[Huron]

Originally Posted by Kokanee

Perhaps a full line of BB Bastard black bb's in all weights would provide the edge players are looking for with these, while not needlessly increasing the risk to players.

This. Preeeetty pleaaaaaaaase Scarecrow?

[Renegade)]

Originally Posted by CDN_Stalker

Renegade did a bit of testing and said you can see them well enough to track for a distance, but not sure how far that'd be. I wondered the same thing when I started using the Bastard green 0.36g, but I can track them just fine.

Like Sha Do said, for sniper use, they are too light, so unlikely I'll use them in place of the 0.36g, but I'll fire some off for distance when I get a chance to.......... like after the snow disappears. Lol

Correct, my rifle shoots aprox 200+ feet accurately, I can track them pretty much to target with my 6x scope. Naked eye, you can track them enough to adjust shots. With the blacks, I can not see them as well, if at all.

I like the round, but I wont use them unless they are given the approval of players, the scare factor is there yes, I understand that, but dont let this overscare you, regular bb's can do damage as well depending on where they strike and from what distance, is everyone forgetting what we do here? Shoot projectiles at eachother..

The risk could be a bit higher, but as I said, they will require extra discression of the shooter. This should always be done however, dont take a shot you would not want to receive. They may not be in the same class of extra risk as a BA opperator shooting 500+ FPS, but they are a step up to plastic bb's for extra risk to your target, but also a greater advantage to you the shooter. Onus is on you to be responsible.

[MADDOG]

Originally Posted by Kokanee

Perhaps a full line of BB Bastard black bb's in all weights would provide the edge players are looking for with these, while not needlessly increasing the risk to players.

The black BB's are immpossible to see, the clear ones are a great middle ground. They can be seen by the shooter but not by the target under most light conditions. This cannot be said about the black BB's which is why I never use them.

The shot to shot consistency (Size of each BB, I think we measured 5.96 consistently at TAC) on each BB is also superb compared to any other manufactured product. If you want consistently round spheres with consistent weight this is the BB. It allows you to tune an airsoft gun to its most accurate level. On the field they have been more accurate for me. Being able to consistently control where my shots land and shoot the smallest part of a targets body behind cover is exactly what I want to be able to do.

[Azathoth]

I have now had a chance to shoot the silica bastards.

I have been a supporter of the BBBmax since I heard about them over 16 months ago and had a chance to shoot them. My complaint with the Max is the cost, and for CQB shooting you get incredible ricochets which gets aggravating.

It's all in the material. 99% silica in the bastards is still 99% silica in the branded product. The material lends itself to the shape, strength and properties that make it such an excellent airsoft projectile. I will buy the silica bastards so long as the price, and quality remains competitive with the HK no name brand silica's. I will use and have used silica BB's everywhere that event organizers will allow them.

Originally Posted by Brian McIlmoyle

All BBs are harder than skin..

All bbs will break teeth

Yes, ALL BB's will break bottles, teeth, shatter optics etc.

Originally Posted by Brian McIlmoyle

Getting shot with a glass BB is no different than getting shot with a plastic one of the same size and weight shot at the same speed.

I am not so sure. been shot with .87 gram copper BB's and Max (hopefully will have some of the new bioval .80g standard BB), regular BBs etc. Heavier BB's shot from the same gun hurt more. I think there is a difference in soft tissue damage but nothing that is measurable or even relevant at the velocities that are gamed.

Originally Posted by Brian McIlmoyle

From a physics standpoint all the "issues" with these bbs are unfounded.

my only issue with them are they are a bitch to clean up

Really? I guess it's harder to see them under some conditions

Originally Posted by Brian McIlmoyle

upside is for a home plinker shooting into a proper trap.. they are very likely re-usable

YES and YES AND YES!!!! I've been re shooting my 'indoor' bag for for months now, just washing the dust and silicon oil off them.

[cbcsteve]

Originally Posted by Azathoth

YES and YES AND YES!!!! I've been re shooting my 'indoor' bag for for months now, just washing the dust and silicon oil off them.

Plinkers Delight I know I am one of those people who waste BBs by just plinking at home but seeing how you used yours for months now, I think I'll get them too, more plinking less worrying.

[Rookie Ab]

Originally Posted by Brian McIlmoyle

no I don't think so ... 2 different forearms .. and no certainty if the angle of incidence of the shot was the same .. this was at best an informal test with anecdotal results.

these are facts.

the size of the projectile is the same
the mass of the projectile is the same
the velocity of the projectile is the same

therefore the kinetic energy of the object in motion would be identical.

the question is .. what is the energy transfered to the target upon impact?

I'll concede that plastic to hard surface some energy is dissipated to the deformation of the plastic bb that would not be dissipated in the silica bb

but on a plastic or glass to soft surface ( such as skin ) the fact that the material is harder than the impact surface indicates that no energy would be dissipated to the deforming of the BB .. because it does not deform.

Deceleration and energy transference to the soft surface would be the same for either projectile.

Therefore these bbs are no more or less safe than their plastic counterpart.

Except in the impact to teeth.. where I expect they will shoot out more teeth than plastic bbs


Ballistic Jelly would be a good way to illustrate this

+1

Finally someone said it, that bb's don't deform on skin to dissipate energy.

[dutchydoc]

Touched them, used them, like them and will continue to purchase them as long as they are available. Keep up the good work ya bunch of "Bastards"!

[Scarecrow]

Originally Posted by pusangani

everyone needs to understand the results and draw their own conclusions, not go on paranoia. Even if you still don't feel comfortable with their use, at least you made an informed decision and not one based on hearsay and conjecture.

Quoted for truth.

Originally Posted by pusangani

The thing is, until everyone agrees that they are safe to use, you risk looking like you don't care about other players' safety and that you are only concerned with gaining an advantage.

You've articulated exactly what I don't want to be accused of. I'm pretty much convinced that if your host allows .30g, .36g, or .40g shot on the field, then not allowing the silica product is kinda silly as those products definitely impart more kinetic energy on impact than .28g product. Its a mathematical fact. I don't think you're at any greater risk - thats my personal opinion. YMMV.

But again, player consensus has to emerge and those who DON'T want it on their fields or in their games have to be respected in the same manner that those who want strictly ECO product on their fields and I am sure there will be fields that will allow it. So you just choose your venues and games according to what you want to use. Also those who don't want to be targetted by this round can make a similar decision in the opposite direction.

I like what I am seeing in this thread though, its a good discussion with decent arguments but people are also being respectful of one another's viewpoints. I think this thread helps people who are looking to make a decision about it. As it stands now, I think if the demand keeps up, I'll supply it and supply it at the same cost as the .28g styrene product. I don't see a need for a premium, manufacturing and shipping costs are almost identical.

I never thought of the reusability of the product as a sales point - but thats cool, Plinker's Delight indeed.

[cbcsteve]

Hehe a new coined term "Plinker's Delight" good marketing use for that one

[Flatlander]

I'm just gonna copy/paste a few of my own comments on another forum discussion surrounding these silicon BB's:

Although I have not shot or tested these BB's myself, I do not allow them at my games based on the bit of online research I've done. My concern is that it is reported that these BB's can shatter/break glass much easier than regular BB's. The theory makes sense to me - image throwing a steel bearing and a rubber bouncy ball at a plate of glass and guess which one you assume to break the glass easier.

Here's the nerdy explanation for those curious:

It's claimed that ceramic BB's transfer LESS energy on impact because they do not deform as much as plastic ones - this is their argument as being MORE safe than plastic BB's. I don't fully understand the physics here but they may have a legit argument. I believe this is a moot point on soft objects (such as people) and the energy transfer would be similar.

The problem I see is that because ceramic BB's do not deform, on impact with glass the force is concentrated (like using a ballpeen hammer). Brittle materials, like glass, have virtually no "give" to them so when they reach their yield stress they fail/break. Unlike ductile materials like steel where they will deform and bend after they have reached their yield strength but may not necessarily fail/break.

Conclusion: Even though (arguably) ceramic BB's may transfer less energy than plastic BB's, the concentrated stress they apply will be greater than plastic BB's, which is why I believe they have the greater potential to break glass over plastic BB's.

My other concern would be I believe they would be more likely to shatter/chip teeth, but that's strictly a guess.

My conclusion (I'm a mechanical engineer):

- Soft tissue damage is probably a negligible issue
- Damage to hard surfaces such as windows and teeth should be be the focus of concern.

Kokanees pictures of the lense in the OP verify a couple very important points:

- We cannot conclusively say that regular BB's transfered more or less energy than the silicon BB's. People need to stop thinking about "energy"; it's too complicated for most people to understand fully - including myself - and it varies between different interacting materials.

- We CAN conclusively say that the harder silicon BB's caused a much higher stress on the lens - this is PROVEN by the permanent deformation of the lense. To get get permanent deformation on a material (assuming it's a ductile material), the material needs to be stressed PASSED the yield strength of the material, which is what did NOT occur with the regular BB's and DID occur with the silicon BB's. Note that brittle materials, such as glass, generally won't have permanent deformation...they just fail/break once the yield strength is reached.



Hope that helps. I recently was given some BBmax samples so I'll be doing my own indipendant testing on them to see how they interact with impacting different surfaces. I don't allow them to be used at games I host based on my knowledge currently...I'd rather error on the side of caution for now.


EDIT: Someone should pull the ASME Z28.1 (IIRC) standard. I remember reading it a while back and I believe the testing was done using a steel projectile and XXX velocity. So I don't suspect eyewear to be a concern if they meet the proper standard certification.

[pusangani]

Originally Posted by cbcsteve

Hehe a new coined term "Plinker's Delight" good marketing use for that one

It's true, the ones on the floor of my room look the same as the ones fresh from the bag, if you have a nice backstop with a good trap you can stretch one bag a long ways hehe

@ Scarecrow, at the same price as plastic .28's I can see these becoming very popular; your brand loyalty, distribution network and better price over bioval's bbmaxx will ensure that

[Scarecrow]

Originally Posted by Flatlander

EDIT: Someone should pull the ASME Z28.1 (IIRC) standard. I remember reading it a while back and I believe the testing was done using a steel projectile and XXX velocity. So I don't suspect eyewear to be a concern if they meet the proper standard certification.

I typed ASME Z28.1 into google and this thread came up but no review you speak of - do you know where it was?

You sound knowledgeable about how to frame the issue here and your input is most welcome. It would be good to have someone with some credentials and materials science understanding weighing in.

[Flatlander]

I was way off on the standard...it's ANSI Z87.1. You have to pay for standards (unless you own it yourself or your company does) but here's a bit of an outline on Z87.1:

http://www.safetyglassesusa.com/ansiz8712003.html

So only the basic rating is a 1" steel ball dropped from 50 inches, it would appear. This doesn't seem like much energy or momentum at impact to me but I'll crunch the numbers later and compare it with BB's.

There's also a Milspec and CSA standard related to safety eyewear also (I don't remember the standard numbers) if people wanted to look those up as well.