I'm sorry if some of you saw this over on Reddit when I posted it a few years ago. I'm posting it here because this is foundational information adults need to understand when they play on a field, open a field, get into manufacturing, modify paintball equipment, etc., and it should be discoverable and referenceable.
I started playing in 89 and, I was ignorant for the most part until 2016. Sure I saw ASTM markings on things like paintball cases, paintball gun manuals or boxes or, even paintball mask and lens packaging but, I didn’t understand how they are all related.
So, what is the ASTM? It used to be known as the “American Society for Testing and Materials” but it’s just “ASTM” now and it’s international. The ASTM defines standards for materials, products, systems and services. For paintball the game, there are many standards. Everything from how your commercial field operates and the safety measures they have in place, the guns we shoot, the masks and lenses we use and even the projectiles themselves. It’s a framework of interdependencies. The field netting standard works (when used as directed) because it is only meant to stop projectiles under the paintball standard and, fired from velocities that are enforced by a field operator (i.e. the 280 or 300FPS rule) by a paintball gun that conforms to the gun standard.
Fields should only be allowing products that are sold as being compliant to the applicable ASTM standards. This is why you can’t bring your homemade mask onto the field. The insurance won’t cover the field operator if you get hurt while wearing your homemade mask. Likewise, if a product claims to be ASTM compliant and someone gets seriously injured, you can bet that the lawyers will look to have the product tested by a third party and guess what happens if it fails… The whole minimum number of pulls before ramp or burst, or full auto is activated- that’s in the ASTM standard for guns. You know how every field gives a safety brief? That’s covered under the field operations standard.
[2026 Note: The following was written IRT First Strike Rounds however, it shows how an emerging product relates to the standards.]
So what’s the deal with First Strike Rounds? In 2009 Tiberius Arms released First Strike Rounds. When they were released, Tiberius Arms claimed that they were compliant with the ASTM standard for paintballs. This was mostly true. To understand, here’s are the key points in the specification for paintballs:
A paintball was defined as “Spherical ball, with a specific size and weight, comprised of a shell and a fill meant to be fired from a paintball marker”. It described the projectiles in different calibers and different weights for each caliber (no making a .40 ball that weights as much as a .68). It later went on to specify that the fill material cannot have the consistency and color of blood, and even going so far as specifying an acceptable PH range. The shell was defined as “rigid to semirigid material ("generally of gelatin") that encapsulates the fill of a paintball.” The specification even included tests that paintballs must meet in order to be ASTM compliant:
Sniperballs, you know the paintball mod that has you glue a tail fin section to a .68 paintball? Those were never covered under the standard due the length and weight specifications.
As you can probably gather, FS rounds met this standard, aside from the word “Spherical”. In 2009, they started petitioning the ASTM to revise the standard. This is standard practice- products have to exist before the ASTM can create standards for them. Just like electronic markers had to be on the market and in use before there could be changes to the standard to address them. The paintball committee finally agreed to discuss a new paintball (projectile) standard in 2016.
In 2016-2017, meetings, presentations, etc. were conducted and negotiations took place on wording the proposed standard. The major difference that I can remember to the standard was that the draft included non-pointy, fin stabilized projectiles that are no longer than their diameter. Fill requirements, shell requirements, weights and calibers didn’t change. The tests didn’t change. During the hearings on the proposed changes, consumers (like myself), field operators, manufacturers, (Tippmann, Kee, Tiberius Arms, etc.) were allowed to give presentations and present evidence as to why they should allow or disallow the changes. David Williams (the owner of the newly formed Carmatech) conducted, documented, and submitted a series of five different tests out of his own (pocket) that showed that First Strike rounds presented no greater risk of damage among other things.
Several members provided statements (no evidence) as to why the changes should be allowed or disallowed. I can’t recall for certain (sorry this was back in 2016-201) but, I don’t believe there was any actual documented tests and data that showed that shaped projectiles, and First Strikes more specifically, should not be included in the standard. Certainly nothing as thoroughly documented as David Williams’ stuff. There was a fair bit of opposition (Cossio insurance), Kee (owners of JT and several other companies at the time), Tippmann (when still owned by Dennis Sr.), the Inventor of Low Impact Paintball, and others but, again, no evidence.
The ASTM doesn't publish their standards for free. You have to sign up and pay to be a member, and membership gives you access to the standards. You request to join a subcommittee and, this gives you a vote.
I started playing in 89 and, I was ignorant for the most part until 2016. Sure I saw ASTM markings on things like paintball cases, paintball gun manuals or boxes or, even paintball mask and lens packaging but, I didn’t understand how they are all related.
So, what is the ASTM? It used to be known as the “American Society for Testing and Materials” but it’s just “ASTM” now and it’s international. The ASTM defines standards for materials, products, systems and services. For paintball the game, there are many standards. Everything from how your commercial field operates and the safety measures they have in place, the guns we shoot, the masks and lenses we use and even the projectiles themselves. It’s a framework of interdependencies. The field netting standard works (when used as directed) because it is only meant to stop projectiles under the paintball standard and, fired from velocities that are enforced by a field operator (i.e. the 280 or 300FPS rule) by a paintball gun that conforms to the gun standard.
Fields should only be allowing products that are sold as being compliant to the applicable ASTM standards. This is why you can’t bring your homemade mask onto the field. The insurance won’t cover the field operator if you get hurt while wearing your homemade mask. Likewise, if a product claims to be ASTM compliant and someone gets seriously injured, you can bet that the lawyers will look to have the product tested by a third party and guess what happens if it fails… The whole minimum number of pulls before ramp or burst, or full auto is activated- that’s in the ASTM standard for guns. You know how every field gives a safety brief? That’s covered under the field operations standard.
[2026 Note: The following was written IRT First Strike Rounds however, it shows how an emerging product relates to the standards.]
So what’s the deal with First Strike Rounds? In 2009 Tiberius Arms released First Strike Rounds. When they were released, Tiberius Arms claimed that they were compliant with the ASTM standard for paintballs. This was mostly true. To understand, here’s are the key points in the specification for paintballs:
A paintball was defined as “Spherical ball, with a specific size and weight, comprised of a shell and a fill meant to be fired from a paintball marker”. It described the projectiles in different calibers and different weights for each caliber (no making a .40 ball that weights as much as a .68). It later went on to specify that the fill material cannot have the consistency and color of blood, and even going so far as specifying an acceptable PH range. The shell was defined as “rigid to semirigid material ("generally of gelatin") that encapsulates the fill of a paintball.” The specification even included tests that paintballs must meet in order to be ASTM compliant:
- Placing the fill on a flexed (stressed) piece of lens material to see if the fill causes the lens to degrade or fail.
- 10 randomly selected balls (from a lot) kept in proper storage and in controlled environmental conditions (i.e. no testing balls outside, when it’s freezing and the balls are more brittle). Fire the 10 balls at a 10mm thick plywood target from a distance of 80ft at approx. 280 FPS. All 10 balls must break.
Sniperballs, you know the paintball mod that has you glue a tail fin section to a .68 paintball? Those were never covered under the standard due the length and weight specifications.
As you can probably gather, FS rounds met this standard, aside from the word “Spherical”. In 2009, they started petitioning the ASTM to revise the standard. This is standard practice- products have to exist before the ASTM can create standards for them. Just like electronic markers had to be on the market and in use before there could be changes to the standard to address them. The paintball committee finally agreed to discuss a new paintball (projectile) standard in 2016.
In 2016-2017, meetings, presentations, etc. were conducted and negotiations took place on wording the proposed standard. The major difference that I can remember to the standard was that the draft included non-pointy, fin stabilized projectiles that are no longer than their diameter. Fill requirements, shell requirements, weights and calibers didn’t change. The tests didn’t change. During the hearings on the proposed changes, consumers (like myself), field operators, manufacturers, (Tippmann, Kee, Tiberius Arms, etc.) were allowed to give presentations and present evidence as to why they should allow or disallow the changes. David Williams (the owner of the newly formed Carmatech) conducted, documented, and submitted a series of five different tests out of his own (pocket) that showed that First Strike rounds presented no greater risk of damage among other things.
Several members provided statements (no evidence) as to why the changes should be allowed or disallowed. I can’t recall for certain (sorry this was back in 2016-201) but, I don’t believe there was any actual documented tests and data that showed that shaped projectiles, and First Strikes more specifically, should not be included in the standard. Certainly nothing as thoroughly documented as David Williams’ stuff. There was a fair bit of opposition (Cossio insurance), Kee (owners of JT and several other companies at the time), Tippmann (when still owned by Dennis Sr.), the Inventor of Low Impact Paintball, and others but, again, no evidence.
The ASTM doesn't publish their standards for free. You have to sign up and pay to be a member, and membership gives you access to the standards. You request to join a subcommittee and, this gives you a vote.