Paintball Specification - ASTM F1979

[nak81783]

Summary for .68 Caliber from ASTM F1979-17

Note: Additional information is given in specification, but not within this summary, for .43, .50, .55, and .62 caliber paintballs.

1. Diameter: 0.65 - 0.709 inches

a. Measured at polar axis and seam

b. Both measurement can vary within the aforementioned range, paintball by paintball

2. Weight: 3.5 grams maximum

3. Fill Material

a. pH 4.0 - 8.0
b. A test is later defined to ensure the fill does not excessively degrade polycarbonate. Essentially, polycarbonate tensile bars are exposed to the fill for 7 days while
held in a bent position at a given temperature. The test specimens are then inspected for cracks. There are also control specimens, ceteris paribus, except exposed
to water.
c. Fill shall not mimic color of human blood

4. Impact Breakage Test

a. Paintballs manufactured within last 8 months
b. Storage and non-test handling at 66 - 80 degree Fahrenheit, 65% maximum relative humidity
c. Test at aforementioned temperature and humidity within 10 minutes of removal from original sealed container
d. Shoot at plywood nominally normal to surface at 260 - 300 fps (measured within 3.3 ft of muzzle) at 79-81 ft from target
e. Ten out of ten paintballs shot within aforementioned parameters must break on target

5. Product Marking - warnings, instructions, caliber, quantity, name/address of manufacturer, lot number (container of 500 or more), etc.

[nak81783]

Comments/Opinions:

1. Expect paint to continue shrinking and being out of round. I've measured paintballs with calipers that were ~0.040" different between polar axis and seam. It's not uncommon for a 0.020" difference. I've seen paintballs that look like peanut M&Ms (ovoid), although only a small number in the entire case, and only 2-3 times in my 21+ years of paintball.

2. I currently have a box of GI 3-Star and GI Custom (which I'm told is equivalent to 3-Star), both manufactured in Canada. They have some of the product markings from the ASTM spec, but the box does not state they are manufactured in accordance with ASTM F1979. The recommended storage is 50-86 degrees Fahrenheit (which is looser than the ASTM spec) and 50% relative humidity (which is more conservative than the ASTM spec). Obviously, there is no way of knowing if they were manufactured, shipped, or stored within these parameters.

3. I'm curious if paintballs are great coming off the manufacturing line, but they degrade during shipment and storage.

[Siress]

For those so inclined, see the "Paintball selection and storage" link in my signature for a deeper dive on this topic.

[nak81783]

I purchased some .68", 3.6 gram, nylon Riot Balls to determine my markers' consistencies with today's less than ideal paintballs taken out of the equation. The diameters were .6785-.6795" anywhere I checked on the same ball and from ball to ball. I was quite surprised at their consistency. I do not have a means to weigh them. Link below from manufacturer's website, but I purchased them on Amazon.

https://www.riotballs.com/collections/68-cal-pvc-nylon/products/less-lethal-68-cal-3-5-grams-white-100-count?variant=31678920622151

An Automag Classic valve, X-Valve, Emek, and Etha 2 all had +/- 2 fps spreads or less the great majority of the time (different nominals, just leaving the velocity set wherever it was last time I used each marker), with an occasional shot spreading to +/- 5 fps. This was using the same ball (to take weight variation out of the equation) shooting at a rubber car floor mat backed by a moving blanket, both hanging from a clothes line. This was with a one piece 14" CP .685" Advantage barrel. Switching to a .693" of the same barrel lowered the average fps about 12 fps.

Anyway, I'm glad the markers are consistent. Wish there was paint to suit. I had one case recently that varied from .635-.686" (most below .660"). With my Etha 2 reg maxed out, the velocity varied from 245-285 fps-ish. It was mostly around 255 fps, one would think corresponding to the mostly sub-.660" paintballs, out of the aforementioned .685" CP barrel.

[Euphie]

I picked a few paintballs out of my case last week and checked them with the freak barrel insert and it was snug enough not to roll out on .689 but I wanted to underbore to be safe from rollouts so I used the .682 which I couldn’t blow them out of even it was so tight.

reviewing GoPro footage tons of balls do indeed roll out of the barrel I thought I was skipping shots due to low batteries in my loader but it was in fact the barrel. So balls less than .682 and larger than .689 in the very same bag. People try and tell me paint hasn’t got worse but this variation is clearly much more extreme than it used to be.

[latches109]

3. I'm curious if paintballs are great coming off the manufacturing line, but they degrade during shipment and storage.

I have some marblier I found in 10rd tubes from the late 90s and it seems just fine. fill was consistent and the shell broke like a nice paint today.

the weight should be fairly precise, I was told .xxxg accurate - the machines are adapted from pharma lines where weight of a drug would be critical. A lot of shell variation is if its a virgin batch or a second or 3rd run.

[Siress]

Eh... pretty sure paintballs are made by the same machines that make bath beads, neither of which are using system controls for the accuracy and precision of a pharama run. Besides, pharama runs are almost always distributing powder instead of liquid fill because powder is far more stable over time; liquid capsules being the exclusion, but those degrade within months rather than years. Which brings me to a point I think I covered in the link in my signature: the use case between pharama and paintball is very different. Pharama priorities are based on chemical stability and marking integrity. Paintball priorities are quite different, since they're based on mechanical integrity of the shell, exterior geometric shape, and having a void-free fill. There really isn't a lot of overlap between pharama and paintball manufacturing, aside from the obvious. The real technical challenges are much different.

[nak81783]

I have some marblier I found in 10rd tubes from the late 90s and it seems just fine. fill was consistent and the shell broke like a nice paint today.

the weight should be fairly precise, I was told .xxxg accurate - the machines are adapted from pharma lines where weight of a drug would be critical. A lot of shell variation is if its a virgin batch or a second or 3rd run.

Wasn't late-90s paint still oil-based? I believe the eco-friendly/PEG switch happened in the early 2000s. I was referring to the latter stuff, which degrades faster.