Whichever it was, please shoot the other side with the other kind of BB (silica or plastic) from the same gun and range. Thanks for sacrificing the lower, but we need direct comparison tests or it's not nearly as helpful!

see, that is exactly why i dont want people to use those BBs. I dont my my guns to be damaged. Its simple as that. I dont care about the pain.

Its my guns and goggles that i worry about.

I spent a lot of money to make my guns awesome, but internally and externally. I dont want a bb to crack my gun.

The problem is, because i have no status at my field (me still being relatively new to the sport) id be VERY apprehensive about calling a veteran on using them.

seriously though, how often do you allow other players to shoot your guns at point blank?

if these results can be replicated at say 5 and 10 feet, then I'll agree with you.

It was offered up last year to do a comparative test between silica and plastic BBs...including different power levels, different ranges and different BBs (focus on silica bbs vs plastic bbs). Shooting at different materials (i.e. shooting glasses, goggles, plastic receivers, etc...). Documented, photographed and witnessed by a variety of persons (well known ASC people).

For whatever personal/business reasons...participation was declined and the tests canceled.

Too bad really....in hindsight doing that back then might have gone a long way to save pages and pages of repetitive posts.

Perhaps times have changed and someone else will resurect an attempt to organize such a set of tests again.

i understand your point, but in my mind, it is the fact that it CAN happen that worries me.

You can fall down and break a reciever, you can surprise someone and they smash you with a rifle (I saw this) there are a million and 1 ways of breaking your gun. Are you going to stop gaming? The concern over these things is moot any heavy weight bb can do damage its just how they carry energy better. I am sorry to pick on you Donster but I often read your posts and they are semi misleading due to it always being your oppinion and never really based on anything.

I was invited to that, but, I declined participating. But not because I was being evasive or an ass about it.

I don't participate in the testing of my product within the community because I don't want to be accused of influencing the tests or conditions in any way. I don't mind respectable members doing it in a proper, scientific fashion or even an informal manner and posting their methods and results, but whenever I see a star chamber come together to do that sort of thing, if the vendor is involved other than supplying samples, I call bullshit - it becomes marketing. I've provided samples for a lot of people to try out personally because I believe consensus will occur once everyone is familiar with the properties of the products in question.

I don't think a 5 page discussion about it is a bad thing, even if we are rehashing old ground. We're trying to form consensus, not performing CSA approval testing. Everyone needs an opportunity to discuss it, and vendors like me and Emilio need to participate in a non-partisan non-marketing manner to simply support and facilitate that discussion and put our two cents in. This is an educational and familiarity process. In that respect, threads like this are a good thing, even if a little redundant. But its little gems of info that come out of discussions like this that eventually formulate FAQs and player points of reference. It also spawns other good threads, like one I am about to start about player PPE issues (personal protective equipment).

You can always unsubscribe if it gets too taxing or annoying for you.

You know, airsoft is very dangerous...:rolleyes:
Shit happens, prepare for the worst.
If not, don't play with the big boys. lol
I'll be buying a bag this weekend. :D

EDIT. We can't use them yet, waiting on the final word. :p

I thought that the clears are not for sale yet? Or am I wrong please tell me I'm wrong I want to try them for my self( got some old glasses I need to shot :D)

http://www.airsoftcanada.com/showthread.php?t=96508

clear WE SCAR lower, silica on one side, plastic on the other.

New information has been added to my post

Yes they are with silica 0.28s

Further testing at different ranges is definitely needed to see the full effects, however, I do not have the proper tools I need to create an accurate range test at this time; will have to wait until the summer.

In the case of the PTW, the misfeeding/chopping is almost always a maintenance issue. Just like a real AR, the mag needs to be clean, both along the BB path as well as the feed lips. For nozzle-based misfeeding, that is an o-ring problem (worn out Viton in the older cylinders and dried out polyurethane in the newer ones).

The problem with feeding I noted above is not a gun or mag problem. The guys in the UK seem to have some trouble with them, and presumably this is born out of humidity. I think of it this way, in order to make a crystal glass resonate, your finger needs to be slightly damp, and the water creates a surface tension on the glass. Too wet, and the water acts as a lubricant. Too dry, and no go either.

If the silica BBs do in fact have greater surface tension with minute traces of water, then the misfeeding is not a gun issue, but rather an incompatibility between the BB and the design of the gun. Neither can really be modified or fixed, there is nothing to be done but use a different BB or a different gun.

I believe Mach1Airsoft has their BBBMax product in stock now. The BBBMax and Clears are the same formulation, I think there are just some weight and finishing differences between them (BBBMax are .27, mine Bastard Clears are .28, BBBMax has some sort of secondary Swiss finishing process, mine are a tempered glass polish, not sure which is better, don't really care, you guys decide).

I am waiting for my shipment of Clears which is due to come in first week of April. I brought 30 bags to TAC10 (at great expense - flown in) to have samples and to get product out to testers, reviewers, hosts and field owners. I will have some samples at the game though, but as pointed out there probably will be a vote on them.

Hard to do it on a adding machine only 4 sig figs no 1/x button or Y^X. I should have gone into engineering instead of finance / accounting.

Where did you find the testing protocol for the 1" sphere dropped 50". That energy level requirement for the z87.1 rating is rather low considering that most field limits are ~1.7j. This makes me VERY leary of shooting glasses that only meet this standard. I found this: http://www.labsafety.com/refinfo/ezfacts/ezf251.htm

Perhaps we should be requiring people to have the high impact z87.1 rated lenses over the basic? If the testing protocols calls for ~0.9j impact to be resisted (and the lenses supposedly tossed after an impact), are standard shooting glasses insufficient?

:) not too taxing or annoying...hardly so

Otherwise good points. I can see that coming to a general concensus one group/person at a time is one way to reach a conclusion.