BB Bastard Silica .28g bb's
 

I sat down and did some testing on the new BB Bastard .28g silica rounds that Jay was kind enough to give me a bag of. Two tests, with more to come once I can hit up the LZ;

Ballistic Eyewear test;

http://i45.tinypic.com/2cqmwjq.jpg

BA rifle @440fps from 10 feet. ESS NVG Profile smoke lense.

The silica rounds did not break, and did not deform leaving a small crater in the surface of the lense. The regular rounds did break against the lense, leaving an oily residue. You can really see just how much the stock bb deformed, the oily residue it left behind shows that a much larger area made surface contact than the silica round.

Wound test;

http://i45.tinypic.com/116ni8h.jpg

Someone had to do it, for science! So ow.... GBB Pistol @ 330 fps from 5 feet. The regular bb left a mark, no broken skin. The silica round left quite a mark and developed into a blood blister, did not break skin.

Initial conclusions;

So far based off these two tests, the concerns over the silica rounds not deforming and henceforth transferring more energy to whatever they hit seems to be quite valid. There is enough of a difference between the two types of rounds that I would not ever use the silica rounds for a person-on-person game, only a CAPS session or target shooting.

Took one for the team, eh? Lol

I've mixed views on the silica BBs, since the type came up I never really saw much point in them, except maybe being 'environmentally neutral'. Apparently Testie got a bag to test, so in upcoming months when I'm actually at home and able to I'll do some more accuracy/chrony testing.

Re: BB Bastard Silica .28g bb's
 

For a sport still striving for broader acceptance and growth, I greaty question any move that may increase risk or harm. Some of the same arguments about using these are equally applied to a steel bb hypothetical, why don't we use those? (Yes, that's sarcasm)

As someone new to the sport, I will want to know up front which hosts are allowing these rounds - so I know not to attend...

Pffft...that's just the entry wound from the silica BB....now photograph the other side of your body and show the exit wound! :) just kidding.

And using them for CAPS? I do NOT like them. They ricochet like crazy where as regular BBs tend to break up. We often have wall partitions angled behind the targets to deflect shoot throughs...but with a whole range in use there are bounce backs on occasion. With hard BBs that won't shatter...the incoming rounds are going almost as fast as they are outgoing.

definitely dont want silica's used at a game. the lens test is proof enough of that.

Honestly I can say that I like them. Not in AEGs, where in the hands of an unskilled player, they could do some damage.
....... but for the BA's, where we already have an established MED (which would continue to reduce the chance for stupid mistakes related to range issues with the silica BBS). However, I'm gonna have to wait for Stalker to do his review on the silica's as 0.28s are just too light for style of sniping.

SHA DO

I could see these being implimented if we played at say 200fps-250fps... But at the current FPS of AEGS and BAs yah, no way. 800Rounds per minute from an AEG at 350fps with those will be enough to go through a lense in I would guess 5-8 well placed rounds?


would you be able to test?


I thought most snipers liked to be able to trace there rounds would a clear round not make that impossible?

Renegade did a bit of testing and said you can see them well enough to track for a distance, but not sure how far that'd be. I wondered the same thing when I started using the Bastard green 0.36g, but I can track them just fine.

Like Sha Do said, for sniper use, they are too light, so unlikely I'll use them in place of the 0.36g, but I'll fire some off for distance when I get a chance to.......... like after the snow disappears. Lol

Is there any way to test the impact force? Many have said we should start judging how hot a gun is based on the joules, not the FPS given the fact that varying weights offer varying speeds but still producing similar impact forces. Would it be feasible to use some device that measures the impact force for these rounds (or any rounds for that matter) akin to how a chrony measures velocity? The "pain" test shown here does have the idea in mind but without actual readouts the whole "this one hurts more" doesn't really carry much in terms of concrete evidence.

Since talks of silica BBs came about with Bioval Ive had apprehensions about these being used in games. The more I read the more mixed reviews I have found. Now that we have a local supplier and manufacturer interest locally is growing, and more tests are being done. Thankfully our manufacturer and supplier is allot more willing to disclose any and all information regarding the round so there is less clouding in the information.

I still will reserve judgement on these until I see their effects first hand but so far it doesn't sound like something I'd like to have incoming when at a game. My understanding of the lenses we use is that every time there is a direct hit, the lifespan is dropped and the chances or breaking or cracking the lens grows. Personally as soon as I get a direct hit on the lens I take a careful examination and determine if I still feel comfortable using it. I have not had a lens last more than 3 direct hits before I had them replaced. Once we get more definitive results in terms of impact force (point blank, 5 feet, 10 feet, 20 feet, etc...) instead of purely muzzle velocity, and when I am able to see how these rounds react then I would make my own judgement call on whether or not I feel comfortable having these used in games I participate in.

For the time being, and from second hand information from various credible people I feel these should remain for those utilizing them for target shooting since they have been getting stellar reviews as far as ballistics is concerned.

Some chrony's come equipped to measure joules, I know the Fidragon ones I used to sell did.

People have been gaming them and we haven't heard of anyone dying or their lenses being shot out, but yes with the increased hardness there can be a risk.

And for the last time, we cannot use them at CAPS as any clear bb's are not allowed at TTAC3 due to the difficulty of cleaning them up.

Time will tell if these things will become accepted, people need to read and understand the testing results before making their decisions.

I used them for caps for a bit before I got informed that they are a no no... They weren't hard to track at all. Blacks are much harder. You still get the refraction of the light as they travel down range.

I do believe maddog uses the clears, and I've never had a problem. (correct me if I'm wrong.)

I've got more concerns with Bios compared to clears...

Can you imagine getting one in the teeth!!!

Never mind not using them... dont play against them

can you say.... Dental work !!!

Cheers

Why is everyone so quick to dismiss new airsoft technology available for use. I admit I am an early adopter of any technology that can help improve my game. (BB Bastard Clear, Madbull LifePO, etc.) My guns are workhorses not show pieces and my money goes into functional upgrades for performance not looks. These BB's fall squarely into the performance upgrade area.

We have already proven these do not go through any type of mask at point blank range that is rated to withstand ballistic hits. This includes shooting glasses, PB goggles and mesh goggles.

Any .25 BB shot at any goggles, at point blank range, at over 400 FPS will deform the goggle in some fashion. As long as it defeats the threat, what are people concerned about. I have yet to see a game where someone puts the barrel to your goggles and pulls the trigger. And even if they did, you would still be ok.

Lets move on to teeth, if you get shot at a range close enough to crack teeth, any .25 BB weight of higher will do the job, silica would not be the only culprit. Those that are concerned about this wear mouth guards for the amount of time it happens.

Now the "ouch" factor. To me this is a non-issue. When did we become worried about pain. To me the silica may sting more buts leaves less of a bruise. It does not mash and disperse causing a bigger bruise. (FMJ vs. hollow point??????) People wear so much gear and shrug hits now, I welcome any BB that hits "slightly" harder (if at all) and gives more felt impact. I am sick of hearing "I did not feel it". Those individuals have less of a leg to stand on now.

The ballistic properties are great, they shoot consistent and so far the 3 times I have used them have been great with no complaints (And I shoot alot of people:cool: There is a downside and that is they cannot be seen when you are shooting in bright sunlight in the open without a dark backdrop like a tree line. You need to have your hop up dialed in, and trust it, if you are out in the open in a grassfield)

Embrace the new, this is what people were saying about LIPO a year and half ago, you don't hear much about that anymore.

MD

Thank you. Wear a mouth guard and quit being pansies.

Thanks for the testing Kokanee, your skin test was brave (gulp) but very very interesting - so is your conclusion that the impact of silicas creates greater damage against bare skin versis styrene validates what I thought would be the case - but you did do a 5 foot test (virtually point blank) - was it straight on or did you use a deflection angle?

sounds like more complete bare skin testing is required...:D

Yes, muwahahahaha and tooth testing, who volunteers??? :D someone with good dental insurance, come on, do it for science. You will be internets famous. :D

The thing is, until everyone agrees that they are safe to use, you risk looking like you don't care about other players' safety and that you are only concerned with gaining an advantage.

I've used these things myself, and I know they are safe, but others have not and may take a little more convincing.

The lense thing is true, ANY bb; whether it be Styrene, BIO, Graphite Coated, Silica or Aluminium will scuff or otherwise make a mark on a goggle at 400fps up close, so it's a moot point. We know the rated goggles can take it, it's a good piece of information to have "just in case" someone gets shot from within obvious mercy range.

Like I said before, everyone needs to understand the results and draw their own conclusions, not go on paranoia. Even if you still don't feel comfortable with their use, at least you made an informed decision and not one based on hearsay and conjecture.

I really don't get it
 

All BBs are harder than skin..

All bbs will break teeth

The energy carried by the projectile is constant over Mass x Velocity regardless of the material. Particularly considering dimensions are also constant.

Getting shot with a glass BB is no different than getting shot with a plastic one of the same size and weight shot at the same speed.

From a physics standpoint all the "issues" with these bbs are unfounded.

my only issue with them are they are a bitch to clean up

upside is for a home plinker shooting into a proper trap.. they are very likely re-usable

While 'force' from a pure physics perspective may be equal -- the test/pictures posted would seem to indicate the clear rounds act like "FMJ penetrators" :), compared to the std rounds which spread the force on impact across a wider area?

If all things were truly equal - the impact pictures & wounds would tell an identical story no?

As stated, we need a much bigger sample space.

no I don't think so ... 2 different forearms .. and no certainty if the angle of incidence of the shot was the same .. this was at best an informal test with anecdotal results.

these are facts.

the size of the projectile is the same
the mass of the projectile is the same
the velocity of the projectile is the same

therefore the kinetic energy of the object in motion would be identical.

the question is .. what is the energy transfered to the target upon impact?

I'll concede that plastic to hard surface some energy is dissipated to the deformation of the plastic bb that would not be dissipated in the silica bb

but on a plastic or glass to soft surface ( such as skin ) the fact that the material is harder than the impact surface indicates that no energy would be dissipated to the deforming of the BB .. because it does not deform.

Deceleration and energy transference to the soft surface would be the same for either projectile.

Therefore these bbs are no more or less safe than their plastic counterpart.

Except in the impact to teeth.. where I expect they will shoot out more teeth than plastic bbs


Ballistic Jelly would be a good way to illustrate this

EDIT: Response got addressed.. whoopsies

Agreed. A tree branch snapping back and hitting you carries and transfers more energy than either type of bb... People wanna play war but don't wanna get a boo-boo? Head back to the Xbox.

On the other hand, stepping on them could possibly be even more unpleasant than with a white BB because you're not expecting it. :p

I believe
 

NURF guns may fill the niche that some are looking for.

I copied this from the other thread, I thought it would interest those here.

Jeez...never seen anything so controversial...can't we just....

...shoot someone with them at a game
...film the survivor
...have someone intelligent write it up and post it to ASC
...let some younger guy post it to youtube
...let some kid facebook it
...let some even younger kid twitter it
...and get on with things?

;)

And they come in ultra-cool colours like "Lego Brick Orange - LBO", and "Toy Box Blue - TBB". Look for them in your April Magpul catalogue. :D

All I can really say is cover one can cover their mouth or wear a mouth guard if they want. I personally wouldn't enjoy losing a tooth either, but just taking a bit of extra care to keep your face out of the line of fire when speaking, keeping your mouth shut when it is, or covering it with your hand if you're really worried would probably help a fair bit.

My name is MADDOG, I am a clear silica bastaholic. It has been 3 days since my last silica usage. Its a struggle, not to use, everyday.

You are correct bro. I have seen him use them on at least two of the three occasions, and not a peep from his any of his victims....and yes, there is a lot of them. LOL

In terms of the ballistics, they are clear, and so you can see that there are no air pockets within them....they fly true and consistent from shot to shot every time.

SHA DO

perhaps you should volunteer at FR this Sunday maybe? 130 players is a good audience.

Lanny can bring his camera :)

I'm glad that my post was able to start such a lively debate.

@Scarecrow: The test was straight on, no deflection angle. Well, I was straight on before the shot... ;)

@pusangani: I think your post was the most well worded, concise summary out of the whole thread.

I agree that this was a very "quick and dirty" test, and I hesitate to call it even that as a more thorough examination is called for. We've already had one field in Ottawa ban them, and personally I will refrain from using them as (and yes, bumps and bruises happen, I've been hospitalized playing this game... and was right back for more once my broken ribs healed) I don't want to increase the risk for injury more just to give myself some perceived advantage.

Perhaps a full line of BB Bastard black bb's in all weights would provide the edge players are looking for with these, while not needlessly increasing the risk to players.

I'll do it man.

This. Preeeetty pleaaaaaaaase Scarecrow?

Correct, my rifle shoots aprox 200+ feet accurately, I can track them pretty much to target with my 6x scope. Naked eye, you can track them enough to adjust shots. With the blacks, I can not see them as well, if at all.

I like the round, but I wont use them unless they are given the approval of players, the scare factor is there yes, I understand that, but dont let this overscare you, regular bb's can do damage as well depending on where they strike and from what distance, is everyone forgetting what we do here? Shoot projectiles at eachother..

The risk could be a bit higher, but as I said, they will require extra discression of the shooter. This should always be done however, dont take a shot you would not want to receive. They may not be in the same class of extra risk as a BA opperator shooting 500+ FPS, but they are a step up to plastic bb's for extra risk to your target, but also a greater advantage to you the shooter. Onus is on you to be responsible.

The black BB's are immpossible to see, the clear ones are a great middle ground. They can be seen by the shooter but not by the target under most light conditions. This cannot be said about the black BB's which is why I never use them.

The shot to shot consistency (Size of each BB, I think we measured 5.96 consistently at TAC) on each BB is also superb compared to any other manufactured product. If you want consistently round spheres with consistent weight this is the BB. It allows you to tune an airsoft gun to its most accurate level. On the field they have been more accurate for me. Being able to consistently control where my shots land and shoot the smallest part of a targets body behind cover is exactly what I want to be able to do.

I have now had a chance to shoot the silica bastards.

I have been a supporter of the BBBmax since I heard about them over 16 months ago and had a chance to shoot them. My complaint with the Max is the cost, and for CQB shooting you get incredible ricochets which gets aggravating.

It's all in the material. 99% silica in the bastards is still 99% silica in the branded product. The material lends itself to the shape, strength and properties that make it such an excellent airsoft projectile. I will buy the silica bastards so long as the price, and quality remains competitive with the HK no name brand silica's. I will use and have used silica BB's everywhere that event organizers will allow them.


Yes, ALL BB's will break bottles, teeth, shatter optics etc.

I am not so sure. been shot with .87 gram copper BB's and Max (hopefully will have some of the new bioval .80g standard BB), regular BBs etc. Heavier BB's shot from the same gun hurt more. I think there is a difference in soft tissue damage but nothing that is measurable or even relevant at the velocities that are gamed.

Really? I guess it's harder to see them under some conditions

YES and YES AND YES!!!! I've been re shooting my 'indoor' bag for for months now, just washing the dust and silicon oil off them.

Plinkers Delight I know I am one of those people who waste BBs by just plinking at home but seeing how you used yours for months now, I think I'll get them too, more plinking less worrying.

+1

Finally someone said it, that bb's don't deform on skin to dissipate energy.

Touched them, used them, like them and will continue to purchase them as long as they are available. Keep up the good work ya bunch of "Bastards"!

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.

But again, player consensus has to emerge and those who DON'T want it on their fields or in their games have to be respected in the same manner that those who want strictly ECO product on their fields and I am sure there will be fields that will allow it. So you just choose your venues and games according to what you want to use. Also those who don't want to be targetted by this round can make a similar decision in the opposite direction.

I like what I am seeing in this thread though, its a good discussion with decent arguments but people are also being respectful of one another's viewpoints. I think this thread helps people who are looking to make a decision about it. As it stands now, I think if the demand keeps up, I'll supply it and supply it at the same cost as the .28g styrene product. I don't see a need for a premium, manufacturing and shipping costs are almost identical.

I never thought of the reusability of the product as a sales point - but thats cool, Plinker's Delight indeed.

Hehe a new coined term "Plinker's Delight" good marketing use for that one :D

I'm just gonna copy/paste a few of my own comments on another forum discussion surrounding these silicon BB's:

My conclusion (I'm a mechanical engineer):

- Soft tissue damage is probably a negligible issue
- Damage to hard surfaces such as windows and teeth should be be the focus of concern.

Kokanees pictures of the lense in the OP verify a couple very important points:

- We cannot conclusively say that regular BB's transfered more or less energy than the silicon BB's. People need to stop thinking about "energy"; it's too complicated for most people to understand fully - including myself - and it varies between different interacting materials.

- We CAN conclusively say that the harder silicon BB's caused a much higher stress on the lens - this is PROVEN by the permanent deformation of the lense. To get get permanent deformation on a material (assuming it's a ductile material), the material needs to be stressed PASSED the yield strength of the material, which is what did NOT occur with the regular BB's and DID occur with the silicon BB's. Note that brittle materials, such as glass, generally won't have permanent deformation...they just fail/break once the yield strength is reached.



Hope that helps. I recently was given some BBmax samples so I'll be doing my own indipendant testing on them to see how they interact with impacting different surfaces. I don't allow them to be used at games I host based on my knowledge currently...I'd rather error on the side of caution for now.


EDIT: Someone should pull the ASME Z28.1 (IIRC) standard. I remember reading it a while back and I believe the testing was done using a steel projectile and XXX velocity. So I don't suspect eyewear to be a concern if they meet the proper standard certification.

It's true, the ones on the floor of my room look the same as the ones fresh from the bag, if you have a nice backstop with a good trap you can stretch one bag a long ways hehe

@ Scarecrow, at the same price as plastic .28's I can see these becoming very popular; your brand loyalty, distribution network and better price over bioval's bbmaxx will ensure that :)

I typed ASME Z28.1 into google and this thread came up but no review you speak of - do you know where it was?

You sound knowledgeable about how to frame the issue here and your input is most welcome. It would be good to have someone with some credentials and materials science understanding weighing in.

I was way off on the standard...it's ANSI Z87.1. You have to pay for standards (unless you own it yourself or your company does) but here's a bit of an outline on Z87.1:

http://www.safetyglassesusa.com/ansiz8712003.html

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.

There's also a Milspec and CSA standard related to safety eyewear also (I don't remember the standard numbers) if people wanted to look those up as well.

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.

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...

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

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

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).

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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".

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?

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?

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.

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:

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.

Will you have available the match grade BBB303 as well and are you going to carry their .43 and the black versions of their BBs?

Oh ya...We're bringing them all in.
We brought in a respectable 2 tonnes last year considering they came in part way through the season. We didn't even offer all the available colors and sizes. It's going to be drastically ramped up this year.

Top it off with the Golf ball bb Dimplex, and this is the most well rounded product line available. Can't wait to get the samples in the hands of the people who filled out their names at TAC10 at the Adrenaline or Big Shark booths.

OLD AND WRONG: Just did the math for that ANSI test, and the steel ball should impart a bit under 1.6 joules on the glasses. I used the mass of a 1 inch wide cube of steel though so the energy would be a bit higher than what it actually is. This was assuming the steel was 7.9g/cm^3 and solid. So the energy wasn't much more than a 0.2g BB traveling at around 416ft/s. My math could be way off though. :p

If I got it right however, I think looking towards a tougher ANSI projectile resistance standard would be advisable.

EDIT: Little late, but just redid the equation on paper today and found out that Google did a really wonky conversion and gave me way too high of a density. I got the same 0.6 joules reported after this post.

I'm simply going by what the MSED calculator says:

0.28g at 400fps = 2.08 joules
0.30g at 400fps = 2.23 joules

http://www.bbbastard.com/index.php?o...d=53&Itemid=57

I can't really speak to impact energy - you'd have to account for what part of the trajectory the impact occurred at as the projectile loses velocity and energy as it travels to it terminal destination. Keeping in mind all these discussions are energies calculated at point blank range.

The math is beyond me, I'll leave that to you guys.

Lets stick to the topic please. I'm trying to keep this thread marketing neutral.

With the 407fps-500fps ranges coming in, and heavier weights with hard BB materials, perhaps we should be revisiting our assumptions about eye protection? Just a thought.

One thing I'd like to mention is I use eye protection at my workplace, and if our eyewear sustains, *any* visible damage, the eyewear is considered compromised and we get a new pair of glasses. That's Occupational Health and Safety (OHSA) talking. The assumptions of post-damage eye protections continued capability to protect post impact I think should also be revisited.

Wow, someone please confirm my number (I've double checked mine like 4 times)…

I got only 0.823 joules of Kinetic Energy for a 1” steel ball falling 50 inches. My method:

Gravitational Potential Energy = Kinetic Energy ***Losses due to air resistance ignored*** <-- This is a CONSERVATIVE assumption

Mass x Gravity x Height = Gravitational Potential Energy

Explanation: All of the Gravitational Potential Energy at 50 inches is transferred into Kinetic energy at zero inches…hence they are equal.

Inputs:

Gravity = 9.81 m/s
Density of steel = 7700 kg/m3
Height = 1.27 meters (50”)

I won’t completely spoon feed things to see if someone who knows what they’re doing gets the same answer as me.

Let me give this a try. Not a science guy and i havent touched physics since high school. Please correct me if i'm wrong.

volume of sphere:
V= 4/3 * pi * radius ^ 3

Variables:
1.27m fall
1" = 0.0254 metres

Volume of sphere is .00007m^3

Mass of sphere is 7700 * .00007 = 0.539kg

Potential energy formula is E=Mass * Gravity * Height

0.539*9.81*1.27 = 6.71 J

EDIT:
error. i measured diameter. Radius is .0254metres / 2 therefore volume is 0.00001m3
mass is 7700 * 0.00001 = 0.077kg

0.077 * 9.81 * 1.27 = .9593 J

Sorry about digressing off topic, Yes eye protection should be revisited. I have never shattered the lenses of safety or shooting glasses, but the frames, arms easily break at 1j and backyard distances. At 30ft 1j impacts can push the eye pieces out of the WileyX framed SG-1 "goggle". Not enough to damage the lense but enough force to dislocate the fit of the frame to lenses.

Calculating impact energy is a huge headache, it would be great if everyone had a impact chrono but that's not going to happen. If we assume that muzzle velocity is constant to the travel time then we can make some good safe assumptions about safety.

A thought about safety. FPS limits in Alberta to my knowledge go like this

Edmonton ~400 limit AEG
Red Deer 430 limit AEG
Calgary 420 limit AEG.

Az, you plugged in the diameter cubed, not the radius cubed, so your volume is much bigger.

EDIT: Your volume is still slightly larger...looks like roundoff error. But we're close.

I like them for certain applications but...

T.W.A.T. has decided that only snipers with Sha Do's cert can use them on our fields.

3 reasons

1. I did a basic test last weekend on the mesh goggles that most of us use. Kinda scary.

From around 15 feet at approx 385 fps, a single shot left a 1/4 cm dent. I fired from several angles.
A short auto burst left a 3/4cm dent and pulled the mesh out of the bottom of the frame(3 cm down from the impact)
Our goggles are good. Not the best or strongest but they have never been dented before. I was shocked.
Our goggles will take them but anyone wearing any type of glasses instead of goggles should be scared. I did the same test with a longer burst of .25 regular white and no damage at all.

2. We don't have a set mercy rule and we've had instances of very close panic fire. We host alot of noobs. I'm guilty too. In that position, I would not want to take a facefull of these. Or get a knuckle shot point blank.

3. Our fields are usually near houses or parking. With the ricochet factor and the hardness of these things, it would only be a matter of time before something got busted.
Has anyone shot a shitty plastic receiver at close range yet? Kiss a scope goodbye if this hits.

I think they are a great product and in the right hands on the right fields they will add a cool new dimension to the game. No more matrix dodging the whites yet still trackable.
And the quality is unquestionable. Even after the burst on my goggles, the few I could find were dirty but unmarked.


MADDOG, you don't get to use them because you don't need any more advantages!(pride still stinging)

I'll Volunteer to launch some of these off my 204 nades

I did some light testing with the silica 0.28s and regular white 0.28s and on a VFC Scar-L lower receiver which measures about 0.47 cm or 0.30 inches thick. The approximate FPS was 350-360 with 0.20s and was fired at point blank range.

Silica 0.28s
http://i154.photobucket.com/albums/s...o/IMG_5925.jpg

http://i154.photobucket.com/albums/s...o/IMG_5928.jpg

Regular White 0.28s
http://i154.photobucket.com/albums/s.../IMG_59335.jpg

http://i154.photobucket.com/albums/s...o/IMG_5945.jpg

As you can see, the damage caused by the silica 0.28s wasn't that extensive, but enough to create prominent dents on the receiver and hairline fractures inside the receiver. The regular white 0.28s also caused dents on the receiver, but they were not as deep. They also caused hairline fractures inside the receiver, but that could have been because two of the shots were grouped very close together. Please remember that this test was at point blank range. Further testing is needed at different ranges to see the full effects.

Please Note:
There have been reports of regular white bbs (not sure which brand, weight or distance) penetrating and creating wholes in plastic black receivers on the field. So please take this into consideration.

/tosses in 2 cents

First off, I like the BB's, and the demo you guys did was outstanding. Thank you Jay(and crew) for the samples.

I and a few of our team members have been using the WETTI AWSS M4 pretty much since its North American debut. Tys is right on the money. Since these bitch's will sometimes chop bastards into powder, the BB deforming or splitting is sometimes the only way you can clear a bad jam. So, I would also recommend not using them on m4/m16 AWSS systems.... I can't say the same for the WE SCAR. I am not sure if jams would be easier to clear due to the rotating bolt mechanism.

I would however recommend them on most BA's, since you can usually just remove the bolt in the event of a jam - and clear out any obstruction without damaging internals.

Was that with regular or silica .28s?

Abso-friggin-lutely.

I think this is particularly important to stress with these silica BBs. If your eyewear takes damage, you replace it.

This is what I've been talking about since the beginning, and at TAC10 in the "BB Lab" - styrene and the ECOBB formulations are much softer than the silicas. Any feedpath in any gun that chops BBs will likely take damage from a silica simply because while styrene and ECOBB material will self destruct or deform, the silica won't give, so the feedpath component will. This was my only equipment related warning that I've sort of harped on with people in my discussion about silicas.

I think a gun that chops has feeding issues though - putting that kind of stress on a BB isn't conductive to velocity or flightpath - if the BB isn't chopping in a gun like that, its deforming the BB before it leaves the gun, destroying any of the flight characteristics that an AEG benefits from (uniform dimensions and polish to be specific). If your gun chops, it needs to be fixed, and if all of a particular brand or model do that, you should be taking up the problem with the retailer you bought it from or, stay away from that brand if you can't get enduser post-sale support for that product.

Egria, I think your test illustrates very clearly why impacted safety glasses or goggles should be binned and replaced with new ones. The softer BBs deform on impact, spreading their energy on BB deformation and spreading impact over a wider area. The silicas have pin-point energy transfer - those hairline cracks inside your receiver are absolute proof of the energy transfer risk to goggles and why you should replace them if they've been hit - by styrene, ECO or silica. But it illustrates what's being said about silicas well.

Mesh

People keep mentioning mesh goggles. Guys, I am all for maximizing player choice in this game, but mesh goggles are a BAD IDEA. Please don't use them for eye protection! Along with what Brian said earlier about them, they allow fragments to pass through and reach your eyes and face - that isn't sufficient eye protection for airsoft. There is a risk of any BB shattering, particularly biodegradable materials (I don't care what ANYONE says about their BB, PLA based formulations can and will from time to time break up, as do some styrene products). You've also got airsoft grenades in use now which are an entirely different form of energizing a BB to target with its own risks. And you have just regular gaming risks.

Mesh lower face protection I can accept, but, using mesh to protect your eyes presumes no energized particles below a certain size - its simply playing roulette with your eyes - no game is worth that.

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.

Didnt' see this because some posts where deleted from the thread and this was bumped up,

Yes I did shoot the bottles with lighter BB's. .12, .20. .23, .25 from Bastard, Excel, Madbull, daisy or crossman. Never did they break the bottle at any range <30ft. Only when you brought the muzzle directly against the bottle and emptied a hicap mag in a single burst, did you get some compression in the glass or spiderwebbing but never did a bottle just shatter. Shooting at bottles is not scientific either we just had many of them and their were wild stories on the internet about windshields being exploded.

Lexan RC shells can be ~0.01mm in thickness and they are stronger per weight than glass. This was more of a what else do we have to shoot other than metals & nylon. We where looking for something to shoot that was a soft surface and we could measure deformation. We didnt have foam but we had sheets of lexan. We fired at the lexan at point blank and up to 30ft. This had nothing to do with how dangerous the BB's where but how they behaved at various weights, materials, & against different materials.

The Max BB's never penetrated lexan at velocities 350-700 (w0.2) at ranges from point blank up to 30ft fired from both AEG and Gas rifle for FPS >420. (gas rifle is important since we cannot chrono the MAX but used a .20 to chrono)

Styrene BB's at point blank would shoot clean through the lexan at velocities > 500FPS. At ranges >30ft would just barely be stopped (lexan has a hole in is but the BB doesnt penetrate, or shoot through.

although not relevant or a big surprise we turned the plastic handguards on a G&G M16 into small chunks of plastic at point blank @ 400 FPS.

This was all done to see if the internet rumours where true about glass/windshields/plastic components on guns and RC. Never was this originally intended to be a "are these BB's dangerous". After seeing all of the damage that was done I concluded that the BB's where safe for use if you where not concerned about the possibility of breaking anything on the field. If your local paintball field has tonnes of cars with the glass on the windshields, or your indoor place has lots lighting that can be shot out don't use em.

However...

What I apparently completely missed until reminded when reading this was that heavy styrene BB's do the same damage to the same items that we shot the MAX against. I recall sending scarecrow several PM's and trading emails about this and his reply was that he was not surprised at all, and if his BB's where not performing that well then that would be bad.

My team and I have done some tests on are side also.

We tested with a 390 fps M4. The results gave us some concern but interesting discussion about energy transfer vs fps came from it.

I would think that playing with this type of ammo could be good for 350 fps sniping or 300 fps AEG or 250 hand guns considering the transfer of energy.

Playing with this type of ammo could bring lower fps and "maybe" more safety to the game. But more testing would be need to confirm my theory. Would people be willing to loose range for accuracy? The concept of not seeing your bullet when you shoot is more milsim spirit?

I'm not looking to change anything but just take a minute and think what changes could be done for a more positive playing experience with this new type of ammo.

Then again sometimes change is not good...

I just want to mention I used clears on my sig 552 plastic body (cyma) with a grouping of 3 bbs at 10 meters with an m120 spring and they cracked the he'll out of it. I've taken to many bbs to count at or near the same range with whites with no poblems *edit(besides the odd dent)*. I would support these bbs for snipers only right now as I don't mind having the odd bb hitting my gun. I see a major issue with spray and prayers hurting my equipment and forcing me to make costly repairs. I am all for stealth and I know I am not a tester but rules need to be officially accepted as a community to use these things in my opinion.

@ etd and Moogy,

Do the same tests but shoot 0.30 - 0.36 BB's (different brands if possible) at the same materials and targets.

If a styrene .30 - .36 does the same damage to your gun should be ban these BB's as well?

The damage will be considerably less. Again this is because styrene BBs deform or crack upon impact with something solid whereby it will loss considerable amounts of kinetic energy that is not lost by the silica BBs upon impact.

SHA DO

Wow, you maintained a 3 round burst at 33 feet and hit a 552 receiver all three times? Thats great grouping!

As you increase the weight the density goes up, and you will end up with similar results as to the silica's.

I will gladly text you my pictures I took from my phone. Instead of coming off as a smart ass maybe you should focus of something constructive. It's very Easy to do with a tightbore and an indoor environment with no wind directional factors.

As for the constructive remarks in the weight and energy transfer info was explained to me clearly in a friendly pm. Much appreciated. That pretty much solves my concerns. Thank you.

Etd, that is not a test. Unless you performed the same thing with plastic bb's your results aren't valid. Just sayin "I've been hit many times with plastic" is not a substitute for duplicating the test conditions with Plastic bb's


That kind of thing is what holds back progress and encourages rumours and paranoia.

Understood.