.50 cal Future

[Jackson]

Say it's after next year's season, January 2013.  Where do you see .50 cal paintball ending up after a year?

[Varnel]

.50 will fail hard.

[Hudd]

Intresting review

http://www.techpb.com/forum/Index.php?showtopic=60773

[BLACK MAMBA]

hmmm, its skeptical as to what will happen.

[Hudd]

Im not saying that it will suceed nor do I really care. BUT! I dont think it will just fizel out. I do think it would be sweet if the could fit about 20 or so paitballs into the grip of a tac 8.

[Jackson]

Im not saying that it will suceed nor do I really care. BUT! I dont think it will just fizel out. I do think it would be sweet if the could fit about 20 or so paitballs into the grip of a tac 8.

You bring up a good point.  From a pure sidearm standpoint, .50 cal would be nice.  To have a smaller, lighter backup with a higher capacity, definitely something to look at.  But for primary use, the limitations of the .50 cal round vs .68... the disadvantages would set you back way to much.  Not only would you have lower capacity but also less range compared to .68.  I think you would be handicapped beyond effectiveness.  But to use it as a pure sidearm, last-ditch/CQB kind of thing, it would shine.  As a last ditch, you want it as small and light as possible.  For CQB, you aren't at the ranges where .68 is effective while .50 is not.

[BLACK MAMBA]

it might be coming sooner than you think when you look at stuff like this.
http://www.pbnation.com/showthread.php?t=3228848

but id still shoot my new ego over that

[Jackson]

it might be coming sooner than you think when you look at stuff like this.
http://www.pbnation.com/showthread.php?t=3228848

but id still shoot my new ego over that

Ok couple points to bring up:

1. Am I the only one that really isn't interested in owning a smaller marker?  I like some weight, some sense of durability.  These .50 cal markers look like little toys in your hands.  Then again, it's the 10% tournament scene trying to dictate where paintball should go to the 90% woodsball players.  Why don't manufacturers realize that most players play woods and scenario?  That's where the user base is.  They want to make profit, go after that crowd.  But no, they fight to convert the 90 to the 10.

2. Faster is a moot point with most tournaments enforcing a BPS cap.  What good is +30 bps when everything is capped?  "I took the speed governor out of my car, so instead of being capped at 90mph, I can go 120mph.  That makes my car better for cruising on the highway."  No?  You can't even legally take advantage of the speed so why tout it?  My e-penis is bigger than your e-penis!

3. Still love it when companies try to argue that their generic spool valve or poppit is more accurate than any other marker out there.  Paint and barrel have a bigger impact on accuracy than the marker.  And even the marker only plays marginally into accuracy via consistency.  And you'd be surprised how consistent you can get even a low-end marker.  My tricked out Pro/Carbine as evidence.

.50 cal is NOT the future of paintball.  It's been done before and was phased out before.



Story time!

I read this on another forum.

Back in the early tournament days, back when the Iron Men were a new team, they came up with a way to "cheat" to gain an advantage over their opponents.  It involved changing the paint size.  With their new paint size, they were able to gain a distinct advantage in range and accuracy.  IIRC, the new round was dubbed the "Iron Ball."

It was a .70 cal ball.  A BIGGER ball gave them an advantage.  Now how could that be true when G.I Milsim, I mean Smart Parts, is claiming the same thing for a smaller ball?  Could it be that .68 cal is just a magical size such that anything smaller or bigger is better?  Nope.  It's Smart Parts.  It's a desperate grab for cash by desperate men.  And I use the term men loosely.

[BLACK MAMBA]

love the article and i agree, but when people see what they might call as "innovative" they will throw the money down.
maybe we wont throw it down but, someone who has money to waste will.

[Juicy]

The dirty snake is right about those with the money...dang kids with rich parents!

[Hollywood]

I see both sides of this story. I'm not voting because I don't know enough about the differences beyond what I'm reading. But Mike's TechPB blog about .50 cal was pretty good and surprisingly unbiased. Less recoil, seemingly the same performance on an X-ball field, etc. But Jackson, I believe, is right on with his seemingly cynical statements about marketing to the 10% of 'ballers rather than the other 90%. A smaller, lighter round for pistols is a huge selling point for the woodsball crowd.

By and large, I think it's a marketing and money issue. And in a sport as volatile and shifty as paintball, the dollar drives the decisions. It's basic capitalism. Speedballers mow through a colossal amount of paint during a tournament than any two or possibly to up five woodsballers. Sure, Mamba has an Ego...the ultimate speedball marker if ever there was one...for woodsball, but even then I doubt if he's chewing up paint like he would be if he were on the speedball field. Market a new type of ball to the tournament scene where most sponsors make their appearances? Sure, why not? From a business standpoint, the tournament market is prime beef for testing new products...it's simple mathematics. Speedball tournaments are in big cities, draw the kids whose parents buy them whatever they want, draw huge crowds of people, INCLUDING non-paintball players (i.e. spectators...sorry folks, woodsball isn't a spectator-friendly crowd, so that ENTIRE slew of people are left out of the marketing coverage). In my view, that's a critical decision for any company trying to market and sell a new thing. .50 cal was tried before, so I'm not sure what I'm saying applies fully, but it's valid nonetheless.

Speedballers may be the 10%, but unfortunately, I think this 10% drives much of the industry for a variety of reasons that we may not like, but are reality. Just my $.02.

[Jackson]

But Mike's TechPB blog about .50 cal was pretty good and surprisingly unbiased. Less recoil, seemingly the same performance on an X-ball field, etc.

Link?  I'd like to see his take.

An X-Ball field though is somewhat smaller than a woodsball field.  At closer ranges, yeah, the differences are less pronounced.

I'm staunchly anti-.50 cal for two reasons: 1. The marketing hype they are using is 95% lies.  2. The people behind it are scum bags.  Right now I don't think the industry needs the split being caused by .50 cal.  It's hurting EVERYONE.  People are holding off on marker purchases because they are unsure which format will come out on top.  That means gun manufacturers aren't getting as much business in an already tight economy.  The longer this is drawn out, the worse it is for everyone.

[Hudd]

in the NFL you have  committee that governs rules and regulations so when some one comes up with a new idea the committee decides if it is good for the sport. IE will it make the sport better to watch, games flow smoother, keep with the tradition of the sport. Paintball has no such thing. Paintball follows the golden rule: He who has the gold makes the rules. This whole change has nothing to do with whats best for the player or the industry. Its clear that a few guys are trying o make a whole bunch of money off of a new format and they have the marketing dollars to do it with.

Some one should do a marketing thesis paper on paintball. Marketing is the only thing that controls what happens in paintball. There's no check and balance. A company can make any claim they want and if they put enough marketing dollars behind it, it becomes the Gods honest truth. I.E. people can pay $1300 for a DM9 or 300 for a mini. Whats the difference? They both can shoot the same BPS, the both weigh about the same, they both have all the modern paintball technology, but for what ever reason the dm9 is considered a better gun than the mini, or the PRM, or the SLG. Sure the DM9 may shoot a little smoother because of the LPR but $1000 better? No. But because of DYE's marketing people will pay that for one.

[Hollywood]

But Mike's TechPB blog about .50 cal was pretty good and surprisingly unbiased. Less recoil, seemingly the same performance on an X-ball field, etc.

Link?  I'd like to see his take.

An X-Ball field though is somewhat smaller than a woodsball field.  At closer ranges, yeah, the differences are less pronounced.

I'm staunchly anti-.50 cal for two reasons: 1. The marketing hype they are using is 95% lies.  2. The people behind it are scum bags.  Right now I don't think the industry needs the split being caused by .50 cal.  It's hurting EVERYONE.  People are holding off on marker purchases because they are unsure which format will come out on top.  That means gun manufacturers aren't getting as much business in an already tight economy.  The longer this is drawn out, the worse it is for everyone.

The link to that article was posted by someone else in this thread. I just read it. Your points are valid, Jackson, I just haven't read too much about it to make up my own mind. I do see that it would hurt the entire sport. That's a shame.

[Jackson]

The link to that article was posted by someone else in this thread. I just read it. Your points are valid, Jackson, I just haven't read too much about it to make up my own mind. I do see that it would hurt the entire sport. That's a shame.

Missed that...

Now that I read it, doesn't change much of my views.  Nothing scientific in that article at all.  Nothing but observations and opinions.  I wouldn't base much on it.