BB Ballistic test by independant lab
Posted 21 January 2009 - 05:34 PM
Now taking everything with a grain of salt, and having learned long ago to not believe everything I read on the internet, I have to say the 50 page report appears to be quite competent and objective. And other than the fact that this Bioval company's BB scored highest or nearly highest in several categories, I found it interesting to see that the study came up with results that completely contradicted what I thought I knew about my favorite brands. Let's just say, I may not be buying anymore airsoft elites...
The density comparison chart is on page 22 and the spherical consistency chart a few pages down from that.
Levante Labs BB Ballistic Lab Report
I will be picking up a bag of the Bioval BBBMAX rounds in a week or so. They are VERY expensive, though they are imported from Europe. At $35 for a bag of 3700, I can't imagine these will become my primary BB. The MAX BB's come in .27 and, if you can believe it, are clear; totally transparent, as well as biodegradable. I'll also pick up a bag of the standard white .25's, which also scored in the top tier of the test and are more reasonable priced at about $22 for a bag of 4000 (also biodegradable). These, if they perform as advertised, may be a candidate for replacing my normal BB for skirmishing. You can buy them at airsoft extreme: here
I let you guys know what I think of them when they arrive.
Posted 21 January 2009 - 07:14 PM
talk about robbery
Yeah that's insanely expensive. I thought bbs cost enough as it is.
What ever happened to those bbs that looked like golf balls?
Posted 21 January 2009 - 08:22 PM
Posted 22 January 2009 - 06:55 AM
Posted 22 January 2009 - 08:53 AM
I would have to disagree. The source of air, whether it be spring pneumatic or compressed air has no effect on the ballistic trajectories of a BB. That's like saying the brand of fire pin on a center fire rifle effects the ballistic properties of a .223, when in fact the only necessary consistency is to strike the primer with enough force to ignite the cartridge.
Now, I would agree the 500mm Teflon coated 6.01 barrel they used, along with the measured gas system is something more precise than many of us use, but think about the experiment for a second. The barrel was the control. The only variable to account for discrepancies in test results was simply the BB itself. It's the only thing that changed. Therefore, the ballistic characteristics of the BB are mutually exclusive to the conditions of the test environment; which means the result you get is entirely attributable to the BB used.
Also, citing who got what "batch" of BB is rather irrelevant simply because either tester could have gotten a particularly bad or particularly good "batch." And seeing as there is no way of substantiating such an occurrence for either test, I would discount the notion.
And finally, because Bioval initiated the test and scored so well, I'm most skeptic about their BB. So, like I said, I'm going to get some and conduct my own tests. If the Bioval's are crap or if I notice no improvement whatsoever, then I may consider this test BS. And as far as the validity of the test, assuming the report accurately describes everything done, read it... you tell me.
Posted 16 February 2009 - 06:58 PM
Posted 17 February 2009 - 06:01 AM
Another interesting thing to note is despite my efforts to stabilize the Biovals with hop-up, it was almost totally ineffective. The hop up never appeared to have a direct effect on the BB's trajectory, maxed or otherwise. So I'll explore that as well.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users