Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 31 to 40 of 40

Thread: Vertical feed / PF question?

  1. #31
    Pretty certain that paintballs don't much care how or by what path they are loaded into a breech. Assuming the same force from the loader, right, center, left, vertical, diagonal, etc. makes little difference. Force is force, and the number of turns, bends, etc. prior to breech should have minimal impact on performance.

    Concerning the offset feedneck and paintball bounce theory as indicated in the PE video, that is positively dubious. In fact, the video itself completely refutes that notion. After ball #1 fires and the bolt retracts, ball #2 falls into the breech under its own weight, bounces, falls again under its own weight, bounces again, and then balls 3 & 4 (damaged in the loader) are pushed down on top of it. Notice that they come down together, unlike ball #2. You can clearly see (though the paint) that after the damaged balls are shot (both #3 and #4 are eliminated in a single cycle), all the subsequent balls in the stack fall directly under pressure, and bouncing is insignificant. So #5 (covered in paint) drops with #6 directly on top of it, and almost zero bounce/dribble. #5 is fired, clearing things up a bit, then # 6 drops with #7 directly on top of it, and again, essentially no bounce/dribble.

    This of course fits with the principle of force vs. gravity feeding. Having continuous even pressure on a stack of soft spheroids will pretty well eliminate the possibility of breech-dribbling, regardless of how the feedneck is oriented to the breech.

    Honestly, after watching that video closely, I'm not entirely certain whether and to what extent it is actually instructive.

    To the original issue, so long as you run a parabolic feed plug to eliminate undue stresses on the balls, there should be no meaningful difference in fed cyclic rate from this to a vert feed, or side feed, or whatever.

    For me the only disadvantages a powerfeed has are (a) that the feed tube is open to the elements, to dirt, and most especially, to incoming fire, and (b) the need for an elbow if not running a warp/Q setup.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Gainesville FL, SoCal, CA
    Posts
    1,944
    Quote Originally Posted by nak81783 View Post
    Vertical feed being remnant from agitated hopper days seems reasonable, but given the existing bps caps, is there need for change? My guess is you'll have players complaining about the .250" or whatever offset from a symmetric marker. "Aw, man! I got hit on my hopper on the offset side. If only this thing were a vertical feed!"
    True, true

    However, I'm a righty and usually played right tape or at least was shooting from the right side of the bunker or obstacle I was behind, so my left feed cocker managed to keep the hopper a little more out of the way. Shooting out the left side provided a different situation though

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Inception Designs HQ
    Posts
    3,066
    I believe that vert feed has more to do with:

    1) easier manufacturing, in both singular body designs & overall design of the body
    2) better center of gravity
    3) ease of shooting, i.e. it doesn't matter if you shoot right or left handed
    4) easier loader usage, i.e. what we have now as opposed to better or more practical loaders

    To expand on the loaders, i believe many people just crank them up to go as fast & and as hard as possible. If you are playing in a sub 13bps league/field, you do not need a loader that can feed 20bps+, yet you will never see anyone play with a revy, even though the gun is capped in RoF or the eyes will prevent a misfire on a half feed.

    I will over feed a blind gun, but a gun with eyes or a mag with a L10 does not need the loader spitting paint as fast as it can. Yes, paint across the board is poor; from inconsistent shell, flight path, breakage and accuracy, but to not look at the whole of the feed system is an injustice & blaming something that each player could correct.

    So tailor the loader to how or what you are playing with. And with closed bolt vs open, cocker vs mag, spool vs poppit; there is no one best way, one setup to go with. The emperical data is limited as the keystone is a inconsistent gelatin ball that shoved around in pallets, thrown around in warehouses, dropped into a tube, thrust into a loader, pushed into the breech, shot out of a barrel, then told to break at a specific moment.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    3,555
    Quote Originally Posted by blackdeath1k View Post
    I find when I play with my old revolution that I chop a ball or 2 when I outshoot the hopper. Kinda a given. Otherwise no issues at all.
    With a revvy and the old power feed plug, I would almost always chop the third ball in the stack (first around the corner) on a classic mag, if I tried to go fast (which was probably an ambush).

    I wanted a level 10 bolt, so I went with the x-valve upgrade program and got a new PF plug at the same time. My chops went away, but I knew the L10 was working on occasion. Upgrading the loader and bottle regulators and fiddling around, the x-valve loosened up (started getting more reactive) one day during a scenario. I got card-punched by a ref for shooting 19bps (15 limit). I got him to keep checking me until I got my max-flo adjusted down to 14-15. There was a little flat spot at high pressure where it didn't change until it got below 1000 psi (from 1100). After that, it was very linear. That body fed just fine.

    Not really blaming the PF plug for lack of evidence, I didn't think too much about it. It was years before I got back to a simple power feed minimag body. It had a new plug in it, but was a bare marker. For the "final battle" of a rec ball day, I threw a full 12 oz CO2 bottle on the front and 200 round gravity hopper on top to see what it would do. We played a small field, instant respawn game for 10 minutes. I went through the whole bottle and iced it over with out a single break (>500 rounds). After that, I decided I liked the new plugs.

    New revvys aren't much smaller or lighter than a halo or newer loader. They are so tall that they hang off an elbow just as poorly. With a good PF plug and/or a level 10 bolt, I prefer a plain hopper. I still have my smaller, original revvy with exposed electronics (150 round?), but I don't see it as worth the battery for play.

  5. #35
    I second the recommendation to turn the force feed loaders down. Whenever I get new q-loader pods, the first thing I do is turn down the factory tension because I obviously don't need 30bps worth of force, and as with everything, force goes nonlinear with speed/acceleration.



    That's a *9v* Revvy, on CO2, on a Classic mag with a stock ULE body (not a high rise). I get about 6-7 shots before a chuff breaks my cadence; never any broken paint though.

    The real trick is to get the intellifeed switch wired up if you're using an electronic loader.

    If you get a longer neck, or a force feed loader, you should be able to do better than this, easily.
    "Accuracy by aiming."


    Definitely not on the A-Team.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    southern IL
    Posts
    2,436
    When I use my OLD first run revvy. Ya know. The model that took the place of the old VL shreader. I only would outshoot the stack hit and miss. 4-5 ball strings were safe. 6-7 was pushing it. 8-9 was a guaranteed chop. Even after buying the halo I'd play with the revvy quite a bit. Since weight was a big difference. And for the most part I didn't have any issues with the revvy. But now that I have a rotor I love that thing. So easy to just open and wype out at the end of the day. And it just works. No tuning or adjustments. It just works.

    As for my pf plugs pushing out. Neither of my other 2 mags have any issues at all with the plugs staying put. They are pretty stout inside the feed tubes. This could be why my wife has never had an issue with my old halo on her gun. However It has always been super easy for me to remove the pf plug from my automagrt. And the halo would push it out sometimes. Since switching to the rotor though the plug has never been actually pushed out. So that hadn't crossed my mind. But NAK commenting about it moving at all and causing an issue. It just stands to reason that could be the case still. Just instead of pushing it way back. It just pushes enough to be an issue for perfect feeding.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Essex, UK
    Posts
    472
    I've been playing limited loader events pretty much exclusively this year (max 50 ball gravity loader) and have found that the powerfeed body is brilliant for these, with the longer ball stack making misfeeds far less likely.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    St Paul
    Posts
    1,383
    actually vert feed, and SHORT vert feeds are better for force feed loaders. powerfeed died shortly there-after because of this.

    powerfeed, is like a high rise feedneck. the argument being that you stack a lot of balls on top of the gun, after the loader, this gives the loader a long time to respond for the first firing, to fill the stack, and thus you should come closer to the ~13bps theoretical speed gravity can feed. powerfeed plays a trick on this, by using blowback up the feedtube to rather than slow down the loading process, to give the ball something to bounce off of and bounce back into the gun. so between the anti-blowback feature, and the long ball stack, on a revy fed gun, you will have the best loading.

    but this all changes with force feed and constant tension ball stacks.

    force feed loaders actually feed faster with a shorter ball stack. this is because simple f=mA. you have a constant force being applied to the mass of the ball stack. so the shorter the ball stack (less mass), the faster the acceleration can be. this is why the first generation of low rise and super low rises came into popularity with the halo. blowback is much less of a problem as well, because you hold the ball stack in tension anyway.

    and with a force feed loader, you NEED to use the parabolic plug.
    "because every vengeful cop with a lesbian daughter, is having a bad day, and looking for someone to blame"

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    St Paul
    Posts
    1,383
    Quote Originally Posted by Menace_AO View Post
    Pretty certain that paintballs don't much care how or by what path they are loaded into a breech. Assuming the same force from the loader, right, center, left, vertical, diagonal, etc. makes little difference. Force is force, and the number of turns, bends, etc. prior to breech should have minimal impact on performance.

    Concerning the offset feedneck and paintball bounce theory as indicated in the PE video, that is positively dubious. In fact, the video itself completely refutes that notion. After ball #1 fires and the bolt retracts, ball #2 falls into the breech under its own weight, bounces, falls again under its own weight, bounces again, and then balls 3 & 4 (damaged in the loader) are pushed down on top of it. Notice that they come down together, unlike ball #2. You can clearly see (though the paint) that after the damaged balls are shot (both #3 and #4 are eliminated in a single cycle), all the subsequent balls in the stack fall directly under pressure, and bouncing is insignificant. So #5 (covered in paint) drops with #6 directly on top of it, and almost zero bounce/dribble. #5 is fired, clearing things up a bit, then # 6 drops with #7 directly on top of it, and again, essentially no bounce/dribble.

    This of course fits with the principle of force vs. gravity feeding. Having continuous even pressure on a stack of soft spheroids will pretty well eliminate the possibility of breech-dribbling, regardless of how the feedneck is oriented to the breech.

    Honestly, after watching that video closely, I'm not entirely certain whether and to what extent it is actually instructive.

    To the original issue, so long as you run a parabolic feed plug to eliminate undue stresses on the balls, there should be no meaningful difference in fed cyclic rate from this to a vert feed, or side feed, or whatever.

    For me the only disadvantages a powerfeed has are (a) that the feed tube is open to the elements, to dirt, and most especially, to incoming fire, and (b) the need for an elbow if not running a warp/Q setup.
    PEs offset feedneck is designed to stop last ball bouncing mostly. and that is a real phenomena for sure. that is when a nice force feed loader is running low on paint, it tends to run pretty dry, and throws balls into the breach with a large gap between them, which bounce off the bottom of the breach, trigger the eyes, start back up the feedneck, and are promptly chopped the closing bolt.

    im not really sure how well it works. but the theory seems sound enough.

  10. #40
    I concur on low/last ball bounce phenomenon, and should have clarified in my post that I was not accounting for that. Good catch.

    Also concur that the offset principle has some merit. Just not sure any of it was demonstrated in the video.

    In any case, your post does inspire me to do some breech testing to see if it actually does make a meaningful difference with respect to bounce.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •