BB Bastard Silica .28g bb's

[Scarecrow]

Is there a difference between glasses called "ballistic eyewear" and "safety glasses"? I am wondering if this is the only available standard for this class of application. I know when I shoot on the range, pretty much all my eye protection is Z87.1, but that protects you from hot powder when cartridges eject or other minor airborne debris.

I think the whole tooth argument is specious. You need to protect your teeth regardless. Those of us who have been playing for years don't run through a game smiling and with our mouths open. I wrap my lips around my teeth, instinctively, when I'm engaged. Watch any veteran player and they generally do that. Others vets who don't bother with that wear a mouthguard or mask. Your teeth are at risk no matter what round you use, so to say something has a higher 'danger' level is plain misleading. ANY contact between a bb of any kind and teeth is to be avoided 100% of the time and there is no acceptable safe level of contact for that.

[Scarecrow]

Kokanee - could you do another test for us, just shoot beside that last shot you did with the clears on the ballistic goggle, but do a deflective shot, save 45 degrees as opposed to a full on shot - do it the same way, 5 feet, and lets compare - that way its the same gun, same person, same material...

[Schlyder]

Yup +1 on teeth protection at all times with all rounds.
I just ordered this mouthguard, looks very good.

http://www.protechguard.com/adult-mouth-guards-s/5.htm

[CDN_Stalker]

Am pretty sure that ballistic eyewear is rated higher, and uses bird shot at a higher velocity during the testing.

[The Saint]

As Flatlander posted, there are 2 ANSI z87.1 levels: Basic and High Impact (+).

AFAIK, all companies label Basic (and maybe the occasional High Impact) as safety/shooting glasses, and only use the term "ballistic" if they exceed the High Impact. For obvious liability reasons.

I don't think ANSI really deals with surface damage around the impact area, if no failure that threatens the wearer occurred. Slight surface deformation is acceptable, since the lens did in fact protect the eye fully. ANSI isn't a standard for whether the lens can shrug off a hit without losing optical quality, since the expectation is that the glasses will be replaced after such a trauma (like in paintball, theoretically).

[Azathoth]

Originally Posted by Scarecrow

Quoted for truth.
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.

I agree. Your .30 and up VS liquor bottles in my backyard testing yields basically the same results as the silica BB. I've found that KSC .30 are more destructive than the MAX on a shot to shot basis against the glass.

What really surprised me is my shooting at non field limit velocities 500+. I'll do the shoot again when the snow melts lexan RC shell vs standard .30 BB and silicas. The standard BB's punch through the lexan shell, but the silica's bounce off.

Anywhere that allows those other BB's that weigh 0.30 and up should allow the silica BB's but silica's have such a bad reputation just like bio's do in Canada.

I really want to get some of those new Bioval Hardball weight BB's and shoot them at our field limit energy levels.

[Danke]

Who's going to run these through a PTW and see what happens to the nozzle?

[shinobii]

Originally Posted by Azathoth

I agree. Your .30 and up VS liquor bottles in my backyard testing yields basically the same results as the silica BB. I've found that KSC .30 are more destructive than the MAX on a shot to shot basis against the glass.

What really surprised me is my shooting at non field limit velocities 500+. I'll do the shoot again when the snow melts lexan RC shell vs standard .30 BB and silicas. The standard BB's punch through the lexan shell, but the silica's bounce off.

Anywhere that allows those other BB's that weigh 0.30 and up should allow the silica BB's but silica's have such a bad reputation just like bio's do in Canada.

I really want to get some of those new Bioval Hardball weight BB's and shoot them at our field limit energy levels.

Sorry to chime in so late, but very valid points indeed. It's true the BBBmax and other clears should have the same acceptable consideration as standard currently accepted .30's or heavier in fields. It's really a mindset, and it seems through the apparent rational discussion taking place, that this mindset is changing.

The bad rap in Canada about bio's is all but eliminated based on what we're seeing on the sales front. Less than stellar product was distributed in the past, but that has changed since the Bioval product was introduced including the BBBmax.
This is evidenced by other importers following our lead, so we must be on the right track.

What it comes down to now is price, availability and most importantly performance. The new ammunition products available have some significant differences whether it be polish, weight, and diameter. All of which affect ASG performance. As long as the options are there, people will find the what works best for them.

The Bioval heavy weights you mentioned will be here later on the Spring by the way.

[mcguyver]

Originally Posted by Danke

Who's going to run these through a PTW and see what happens to the nozzle?

The BBBMax is not PTW friendly. They are widely known to misfeed, and will destroy the nozzle and sometimes the chamber. This requires a replacement cylinder head and chamber at a cost of about $150 at a minimum.

The effect is noted to be worse during colder or humid weather, as water vapur increases the surface tension on thses BBs, and in a double-stack situation (as PTW mags are) with BBs rolling pat each other, misfeeds are worse.

The Bioval are not recommended for PTWs, and if the Bastards ones are the same, I would say the same for them.

If you fire semi-auto, slow single shot where mag feeding is not an issue, eother may be fine (but still iffy). The problem was noted primarily in full auto, and users with problems spanned the globe.

[Flatlander]

If we actually want to resolve this issue, people need to stop posting their theories and their understandings of "energy" and how things work...it just gets muddied up and confuses people. I see lots of incorrect statements/theories and I don't have time to correct them all and explain things. Post hard facts and evidence, like Kokanee did, and let the right people comment on the results. There's gotta be a dozen threads like this on ASC already and all leading nowhere.

Also, pick some definitive points to argue and not just "which is more dangerous"...dangerous to what? People? Equipment? Eyewear failure? Then proceed with specific tests to prove/disprove the specific concerns.

Kokanee, can you shoot the same lens with a heavy weight BB (around .40) and show us the results. The results will shed some good light on the weight issue.

Originally Posted by Scarecrow

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.

You cannot conclusively say they impart more energy (if you can, please explain). I cannot say either way myself based on my knowledge alone. If you remember Donp's weight testing where he fired point blank into foam, the heavier weight BB's penetrated deeper. So if you take those test restults you would realize:

a) All BB's had (roughly) the same kinetic energy when they hit the foam.

b) All of the kinetic energy was transfered into the foam...proof of this fact -> BB's penetrated and stopped in the foam. (energy lost to noise variation and heat would be negligible).

c) The heavier weight BB's had more MOMENTUM. This is what I believe is the kicker in terms of PENETRATION potential.

So there might be an argumentment to be made that heavier BB's might have more potential to penetrate skin. Is there proof of this fact? Nope. Skin and foam are very different materials and may interact with BB impacts completely different.


Now I did write a theoretical program in 4th year that would calculate: Evergy vs Distance; Velocity vs Distance; Momentum vs Distance. It was a pretty complicated forumula that would iterate the instantious Reynolds numbers and friction factors as the BB slowed down...so this thing was fairly accurate in my mind. With this program I could plug in different muzzle velocities and BB weights and screw around with the numbers. From what I remember, at about ~50 feet is where heavier BB's will have more velocity than lighter ones. Heavier BB's have more kinetic energy than lighter ones throughout the entire flight path (except at the muzzle = even). So the argument that heavy weight BB's POSSESS more energy is legitimate, but we should be doing all of our tests based on worst case scenario - point blank - and then at that point all the BB weights have (roughly) the same kinetic energy.

I have personally conducted some "pain tests" with some team mates to see if heavy weight BB's hurt more. We shot various weights from .20's to .40's at ranges around 100-150". Our results (opinions), were that the pain wasn't a noticable difference, however a few us felt that heavier weights were definately more noticable when they struck your gear...they gave a louder, more distinct "TWACK". Nothing really scientific there are all but I am not concerned in the least of using heavy weight BB's because they're "more dangerous".

Originally Posted by Azathoth

I agree. Your .30 and up VS liquor bottles in my backyard testing yields basically the same results as the silica BB. I've found that KSC .30 are more destructive than the MAX on a shot to shot basis against the glass.

What really surprised me is my shooting at non field limit velocities 500+. I'll do the shoot again when the snow melts lexan RC shell vs standard .30 BB and silicas. The standard BB's punch through the lexan shell, but the silica's bounce off.

Anywhere that allows those other BB's that weigh 0.30 and up should allow the silica BB's but silica's have such a bad reputation just like bio's do in Canada.

I really want to get some of those new Bioval Hardball weight BB's and shoot them at our field limit energy levels.

Unless you provide more details, your results prove nothing of use.

- Did you shoot the bottles with lighter weights and it didn't break? Just heavier weights? What ranges were you firing from...this is the big kicker because heavier weights will have higher velocities than lighter BB's at ~50'+.

- What does shooting lexan prove? How does this help prove how "dangerous" these are or are not? All it proves is that if you have a lexan gun it'll turn to swiss-cheese. Were your weights the same between the plastic and silicon BB's? At what range were they fired from?

[Flatlander]

In my opinion the main focuses should be:

1) Will silicon BB's cause more damage to hard(er) surfaces? Such as glass, guns, eyewear, teeth?

I'm very confident they do, but plan to do my own testing. Kokanee's lens results already leads me to confirm this is true.

2) Do heavy weight BB's cause more damage to hard surfaces? (hopefully Kokanee does a test on his lense).

3) Do silicon or heavy weight BB's cause more damage to soft tissue?

I'm fairly confident that both are NOT a concern. Perhaps knuckles and teeth in the case of silicon BB's.

4) Are the current ANSI, CSA and Milspec standards sufficient for silicon BB use?

[ujiro]

Originally Posted by Flatlander

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.

Just for everyone's knowledge, didn't see you post it here, but that equals out to (assuming roughly a density of steel to be 7.8-7.9g/cm^3):

Energy upon impact = 6.7 Joules or higher.

[shinobii]

Originally Posted by mcguyver

The BBBMax is not PTW friendly. They are widely known to misfeed, and will destroy the nozzle and sometimes the chamber. This requires a replacement cylinder head and chamber at a cost of about $150 at a minimum.

The effect is noted to be worse during colder or humid weather, as water vapur increases the surface tension on thses BBs, and in a double-stack situation (as PTW mags are) with BBs rolling pat each other, misfeeds are worse.

The Bioval are not recommended for PTWs, and if the Bastards ones are the same, I would say the same for them.

If you fire semi-auto, slow single shot where mag feeding is not an issue, eother may be fine (but still iffy). The problem was noted primarily in full auto, and users with problems spanned the globe.

This is the key reason why Biovals differ from standard Clears. Standard clears are not ideal for PTW for the very reason that they cause a great deal of friction, since "glass" like materials have a bonding characteristic to them.

The finishing process on BBBmax is much much smoother and offers considerably less friction. Smaller diameter provides less surface area for friction to occur and eliminates misfeeds. This is where the secondary finishing process takes place in Switzerland, which sets these bb's apart from the generic .28 clears found everywhere.

BBBmax are in fact designed to handle PTW's, and is why U.S military use the MAX for their PTW training. This is clearly a case of generic .28 with standard surface finish and larger diameter being mistaken for MAX.

European companies like Begadi, can't get rid of their glass bb's quick enough for this very reason. They've converted to BBBmax as their primary clear round.

It's a process as I've said in the past. People will figure out what works best.

[mcguyver]

Originally Posted by shinobii

This is the key reason why Biovals differ from standard Clears. Standard clears are not ideal for PTW for the very reason that they cause a great deal of friction, since "glass" like materials have a bonding characteristic to them.

The finishing process on BBBmax is much much smoother and offers considerably less friction. Smaller diameter provides less surface area for friction to occur and eliminates misfeeds. This is where the secondary finishing process takes place in Switzerland, which sets these bb's apart from the generic .28 clears found everywhere.

BBBmax are in fact designed to handle PTW's, and is why U.S military use the MAX for their PTW training. This is clearly a case of generic .28 with standard surface finish and larger diameter being mistaken for MAX.

European companies like Begadi, can't get rid of their glass bb's quick enough for this very reason. They've converted to BBBmax as their primary clear round.

It's a process as I've said in the past. People will figure out what works best.

Actually, this issue was noted with the Bioval brand, as I noted above. I have no info on other brands. This was noted amongst American users (one of the earliest reports was from Arizona) as well as British, Dutch and Danish users.

I case anyone is wondering, this is from Tackleberry, and dated today. He is the first and last word on the PTW. I know who I will trust with advice on what to use in a PTW:

Originally Posted by Tackleberry

They won't chop but they will completely f**k up your PTW if there are any feed issues.

DO NOT use these under any circumstances as they will ruin your day.

The problem is their surface texture. rather than slide over one another (BB's need to do this in a double stacked mag) they grip, stick and jump.

This means that they do not feed properly (especialy in cold weather) and istead of chopping the BB the hop unit and the hardened steel airseal nozzel are damaged.

This is beacsuse the BB becomes trapped between the nozzel and hop unit and when the piston comes flying back it hammers on into the other.

Result: Replacement hop body and airseal nozzel required.

I had 5 PTW's go down in the space of 10 minutes using these, including one of my own.

They are the roundest most straight shooting BB out there, but do not use them in your PTW.

[m102404]

I'd add that I'll not use them in gas rifles either for very much the same reason.

On the WE, the nozzle is subject to taking the brunt of misfeeds...and will collapse. Not nearly as expensive as PTW parts...but a PITA none the less.

On a WA system gun, misfeeds occur...and will break the plastic nozzle/bolt, and perhaps the plastic hopup if it hasn't been swapped out. At $60-90 a plastic bolt...that ain't cheap either.

With high impact guns like these...somethings got to give. It come down to what do you want to sacrifice if something's going to break. In this order I'd rather it be:
1. BB
2. Nozzle (although ouch on a PTW)
3. Piston/bolt/gears

When these guns slam forward so hard to chop a bb clean in half when simply loading one into the chamber...I'd rather the $0.005 part break.