Do freak barrel inserts make a difference when it comes to accuracy?

[$L!mBo]

i have not changed out my .677 insert for 4 years in my barrels that use them.
i put a detent in my non removables for rollouts

dont notice any difference really

[gabe]

I had a really good experience using a CVO with the XL inserts. Gun shot extremely accurate with a wide range of paint. Just anecdotal but the longer control bore seemed to help.

[RPP]

I had a really good experience using a CVO with the XL inserts. Gun shot extremely accurate with a wide range of paint. Just anecdotal but the longer control bore seemed to help.

Simon Stevens and I believe tom Kaye both did studies on the most "effective" control bore length and its around that freak xl, stella length. That was the length that provided the greatest consistancy for velocity, but was not an indicator for accuracy as that is determined by paint quality. Any longer than that length and the bore starts to slow down the velocity of the paint before it leaves the barrel.

[cockerpunk]

Simon Stevens and I believe tom Kaye both did studies on the most "effective" control bore length and its around that freak xl, stella length. That was the length that provided the greatest consistancy for velocity, but was not an indicator for accuracy as that is determined by paint quality. Any longer than that length and the bore starts to slow down the velocity of the paint before it leaves the barrel.

this depends on a lot of variables. including the function of the gun, and the relative bore size.

generally we found 8-9 inches with a 3-5 thou underbore was ideal, little shorter for poppits, little longer for spoolies. without an underbore, back length matters much less.

[TF_Aloha]

As far as I know, no one has ever been able to demonstrate that any clean barrel or bore-sizing system improves accuracy over any other barrel or system (except for the Flatline and Apex, which decrease accuracy to achieve backspin for more range).

Bore-sizing kits can improve efficiency, reduce barrel breaks (severe underboring with brittle paint crushes paint), and prevent roll-outs with closed-bolt markers.

If any manufacturer manages to make a barrel that actually produces smaller groupings, they'd never stop showing a video of a marker in a benchrest shooting a wall against other barrels. Proving a barrel is more accurate is easy, but there's a reason that there are no videos anywhere doing it.

Edit: Length of the control bore can also let you decrease firing pressure. This is likely marker dependant, but it's the reason most people are going for 8-ish inches instead of the old 5.

[gabe]

3-5 thousandths underbore with modern brittle paint is a recipe for barrel breaks. I'm 100% overbore these days typically 5 thou.

Lot of talk about consistency being better but not equating to accuracy. Seems like if the shot is more consistent that would be more accurate, no? The paint will always be a variable but if you're removing the variable of velocity consistency then you'll net better accuracy.

[cockerpunk]

well, you are wrong, we tested it and proved it. sorry.

and if you dont understand the basic physics of a ball flying through the air, then you probably arnt qualified to be talking in this conversation.

[gabe]

Are you still standing on some accuracy study you did back in 2008? A lot of things have changed since then in regards to paint quality, consistency, and sizing. Don't talk down like you're a paintball physicist because of a youtube series almost 20 years ago.

[cockerpunk]

no, they havn't. the laws of physics dont change every 10 years.

[dutchcommando]

Accuracy, no. Velocity consistency, and efficiency yes. Accuracy just comes down to having a decent barrel in general and the paint.

[Trbo323]

I went from 5 to 8 and I think they do make a small difference but it's small. Like in order to prove it I would have to bench test multiple cases of paint tracking accuracy which I'm not willing to do. They make a much larger difference in efficiency over anything.