Airsoft Sniper Forum banner
Cancel
Create thread New Forums

Magic Marker's BB Analysis

Tags
analysis bb analysis best bb heavyweight
Jump to Latest
44K views 98 replies 28 participants last post by  Leo Greer  
#1 · (Edited)
NOTE: The Google Document linked below will always be up-to-date, whereas this initial forum publication - including all data visualization images below - will not include the latest BBs tested! Just click this link unless you're interested in details/context below:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1M-VOqZXhZXZcgws-oZ3tJ4nuVvILusp5eDowwkZc9bk/edit?usp=sharing

Project Updates (details in individual comments):
[06-16-2019] Novritsch .49g added
[06-16-2019] Size takes into account BB compression
[06-16-2019] Softness takes into account inherent device compression
[05-02-2019] BLS (non-BIO) .45g added
[05-02-2019] BLS (non-BIO) .43g added
[05-02-2019] BLS (BIO) .40g added
[05-02-2019] BLS (BIO) .36g added
[05-02-2019] Inclusion metric added for all BBs
[05-02-2019] Color metric added for all BBs
[...]

Original publication --------------------------------------------------

WHEW, sorry guys- this is well overdue.
...and a continuous project...

Let's get on with what we have so far!

32 different types of BBs evaluated in various fashions. All actual hard data can be found here:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1M-VOqZXhZXZcgws-oZ3tJ4nuVvILusp5eDowwkZc9bk/edit?usp=sharing

You can use the previous link to look further into the details (sample sizes, devices used, etc.) of how I gathered data on the following properties of given BB types:

  • Size: Average BB size in the sample.
  • Weight: Average BB weight in the sample.
  • Weight Inaccuracy: Actual [average] BB weight compared to advertised BB weight (actual - advertised).
  • Weight Inconsistency: Standard deviation of BB weights in sample.
  • Size Inconsistency: Standard deviation of BB sizes in sample.
  • Shape Inconsistency: Average of BB diameter standard deviations in sample.
  • Softness: Average BB compression distance in sample.
  • Hygroscopic Size Change: Change in BB size after water soak.
  • Hygroscopic Softness Change: Change in BB compression after water soak.

Legend:
blue, cyan, green = potentially neutral observation
orange = medium priority
red = high priority
violet = BB weight (metric)
saturation = magnitude

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image


Considerations to take into account:

  • Scale used was very high quality (accessed via my university's chemistry department), whereas micrometer used was relatively inexpensive.
  • Micrometer device indicated metal bearing compression similar to that of ceramics- it's within reason that the device itself may be susceptible to a certain amount of compression. I may look further into this to improve the data (taking into account a constant device compression amount?). Theoretically I could have measured each individual BB without imparting the devices maximal compression, but realistically this would take far too much time to be within reason.
  • Hygroscopicity (the propensity for a material to absorb water) metrics (size, softness change) should logically correlate 1:1 with regard to relative severity, but appear not to correlate well at all- this suggests these metrics may not be informative/valuable.
  • Regarding the legend: Color and saturation begin to enter the realm of subjectivity; we all know that BB weight, size, and shape should all ideally be perfectly consistent, but the actual average weight of a BB type may not be such an important metric. Furthermore, the saturation within a given metric is relevant only within that metric; for example, bright red may indicate a horrendous inconsistency for a certain BB in that metric because the range of consistency within the metric is great, but bright red within another metric may indicate a less significant inconsistency for a certain BB in that metric because all BBs in that metric were very consistent- bright red may not mean 'very bad' even though it ideally conveys that.
  • I'm human! I'd already caught one data entry error during preliminary data evaluation...pray it was the only one- and feel free to give a hard look at the data entered in the Google document for anything that looks odd.

Now for the fun part- throwing opinions around!

The results really are something- it honestly looks like Maruzen Super Grand Master .29g BBs are king. As far as really heavyweight plastic BBs go (>=.4g), it's pretty tough to say which performed the best, but I might have to go with BLS .43g (BIO) BBs- really though, none of the heavyweights stood out, other than the obvious top-tier ceramics.

What do you guys think? This is a long time coming, and I know could use a lot of improvement, so I'd love to hear any input.

Big 'thank you' to the donors!
  • BB Bastard
  • Bioshot
  • Geoff
  • mitra88 (BLS / Infantry Shop USA)
  • bmr3
  • fb6_marcin
  • Christoph (Novritsch)
  • [raw data] Dávid Szulimán
  • Graham Hicks / HickSniper


EDIT: Note that this is an ongoing project. I will not completely rewrite the initial post here- just updating the donor list. As of the time of this edit, the visualizations are technically already outdated, as more data has been gathered on more BBs not listed in the initial visualizations.
 
#2 ·
Awesome data man!

Interesting how all the heavyweights everybody loves seem to score only average. Seems good quality heavy bb's are still tricky to do. Even though the old heavyweights (such as madbull .4 and bioval .4) scored the worst, so there is some improvement over time.

Oh, quick question, which batch of valken .36 did you test? The old Taiwan batch, the china batch or the new Taiwan batch?
 
#5 ·
Thanks!
I'm not sure I'll be able to answer that :/ They were donated by Tactical Advantage Airsoft Supplies (Geoff..?) in a plastic bag. I could ask, but I know they are white (I think some were grey at one point, correct?).

Jeppe said:
Great job, thanks.

The colour strength representation is very nice to read.
Fun to see how great quality the .69 are :D
Probably very expensive. I tested with .89, but i could not lift them. .69 would be perfect.

Suggestion for additional BB's:
G&G .25 and .28.
Click to expand...
Thank you!
I know, right? >:D it's a bit painful knowing how expensive they are, but very comforting knowing this next-level quality is available.
Suggestion noted!

Falken said:
And I just bough some more Geoff's thinking they were top tier hahaha

Jokes aside, great data. Of course there can be numerous factors affecting your results, but some data is better than nothing. It would be great if you could add other brands and weight in the future.
Click to expand...
:p well aside from the likely partial-over-hype, people seem to love them; and more importantly, none of the testing evaluated for surface finish properties, which are likely very important- Geoffs may indeed be a cut above in that realm, who knows!
I intend to evaluate BBs and publicize the data until I die :shot:
 
J
#3 ·
Great job, thanks.

The colour strength representation is very nice to read.
Fun to see how great quality the .69 are :D
Probably very expensive. I tested with .89, but i could not lift them. .69 would be perfect.


Suggestion for additional BB's:
G&G .25 and .28.
 
F
#4 ·
And I just bough some more Geoff's thinking they were top tier hahaha

Jokes aside, great data. Of course there can be numerous factors affecting your results, but some data is better than nothing. It would be great if you could add other brands and weight in the future.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MagicMarker
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#6 ·
This is great. Specially the raw data.

Just to make it clear, which kind are those Madbull? The old tan ones, the white bloating ones, the dark grey, light grey, or the newest whites?

------------------

Now that it think about it, here's the only problem I see with this... Most brands are probably still being manufactured at the very same factory (my chips are GEOFF = HPA = Madbull (if the newest) = BLS, all of them manufactured by the latter), and the good and bad things we see about some brand might actually be just differences between batches of the "same" bb.
 
#8 ·
Dimitri MdP said:
This is great. Specially the raw data.

Just to make it clear, which kind are those Madbull? The old tan ones, the white bloating ones, the dark grey, light grey, or the newest whites?

------------------

Now that it think about it, here's the only problem I see with this... Most brands are probably still being manufactured at the very same factory (my chips are GEOFF = HPA = Madbull (if the newest) = BLS, all of them manufactured by the latter), and the good and bad things we see about some brand might actually be just differences between batches of the "same" bb.
Click to expand...
Old tan ones- note added in the doc.
I agree (and would add Novritsch- seen the same machines doing quality control on Nov's and BLS)- wish I had access to that information :'/

Plazmaburn said:
Whelp, guess USPS strikes again. (I also kinda forgot to check back to see if you got them, so...)

Interesting results none the less.
Click to expand...
Oh snap, forgot about that! Yeah that's too bad...but I'll still take anything if you want (new address by the way). Unfortunately I won't have access to the extremely high quality scales anymore, but I have basic scales, and may myself invest in some serious ones down the road.
 
#7 ·
Whelp, guess USPS strikes again. (I also kinda forgot to check back to see if you got them, so...)

Interesting results none the less.
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#11 ·
With how well the ZrO2 ceramics did, I am now curious how other types of ceramics would compare. There are 6mm Si3N4 and Al2O3 balls as well. Based on size/density calculations, they should be approximately .4g and .45g respectively. This could be an option for very very high quality and equally expensive BB's that aren't as heavy as ZrO2. I believe these other ceramics are available in higher grades as well. According to AXK who sells them, 6mm grade 20 Al2O3 balls have a surface finish of .05 Ra! Thats crazy smooth.

If I ever cough up the 40 bucks for 100 of them, I will let you know how it goes.
 
R
#13 ·
I'm trying to figure out this test. Low standard deviation is what we want, right? Looking in the .36g to .4g weight range, it looks like the BBBastard .36g is more consistent than most any other brand in every category? Does anyone have real experience with this?

to OP, you should get your hands on Bioval BBMax, they're .27g and transparent. Pretty sweet. Last I played (5 ish years ago), they were comparable to Maruzen Grandmasters, and pretty nice.

...And after a google search apparently banned at a lot of fields.
 
#14 ·
RkBoss said:
I'm trying to figure out this test. Low standard deviation is what we want, right? Looking in the .36g to .4g weight range, it looks like the BBBastard .36g is more consistent than most any other brand in every category? Does anyone have real experience with this?

to OP, you should get your hands on Bioval BBMax, they're .27g and transparent. Pretty sweet. Last I played (5 ish years ago), they were comparable to Maruzen Grandmasters, and pretty nice.

...And after a google search apparently banned at a lot of fields.
Click to expand...
Yes, low standard deviation is better. Values closer to zero are ideal when comparing 'inconsistency' metrics; zero would indicate zero standard deviation units from what we expect out of the BB- a flawless sample of BBs.
*Using weight as an example: A BB having value 0 for 'weight inconsistency' would mean, on average, a given BB deviates from the average weight by 0g.
*This is a bit of an over-simplification, using 'average' because it's a more commonly-understood metric; in reality, my explanation used 'average deviation', while the actual evaluation used 'standard deviation'. I honestly can't tell you why standard deviation is used more often than average deviation - believe me, I tried to find the answer - but that is the case...
They absolutely are. Those .36g BBBastard BBs are made of ceramic (Si3N4)- simply better than plastic. And on that note: I totally blanked,
JustASimpleSniper said:
<WORDS>
Click to expand...
, we did evaluate some Si3N4 BBs... :doh:

Back to RkBoss,
Recorded the recommendation.
Yes, unfortunately it seems many fields have problems with harder BBs- silica (clear BBs, like BB Bastard SIL .28g) and of course ceramics. I'd really like to know if harder BBs are significantly more dangerous, because it appears the harder options tend to be better...
 
#17 ·
I'm...partially in contact with a/the(?) US BLS representative, and may receive more weights for testing- so certainly possible! They are of my personal interest as well.

Plazmaburn said:
I can share a little bit of info on that. "Supposedly" according to some field owners I have talked to, that regular bbs shatter on impact and bios deform.

I on the other hand, I say the inverse is true. Bios shatter, normals deform. 90% of all the games I attend are all Bio only. Every single time I get shot in the face, the bb shatters. I know this to be true, as I have to dust out my facial hair afterwards. I have never seen a normal bb shatter on impact. Not saying it does not happen, I have just not experienced it enough to give a better comment on which is less dangerous.

In my experience, bios are more dangerous. I have had more debris from bbs in my ESS gogs then dirt, dust, sand, sticks, leaves, ants, spiders, a wasp at one point, and rain, combined. (I have since changed eye pro, and I do greatly miss my bronze tinted lenses >: )
Click to expand...
This was my suspicion :/ I've only ever heard of bios shattering from friends / other players, never standards. I've also personally met more than one person who has had their tooth chipped from standard BBs, so I'm not even sure how you could argue any other BB is somehow significantly more dangerous...pretty sure ceramics aren't going to shatter against metal that's softer than it (regarding mesh goggles) so I'm not sure why hard BBs became the boogie man...
 
#18 ·
You can break a tooth with any bb.

I believe it is a mix of misinformation, a lack of understanding, and fear mongering, that is to blame for all the ceramic hate. Then there is the financial side of shooting ceramics. They are super expensive. (Compared to regular bbs.) I could go on, but I am not going to.

Looking back on your data, you have quite a bit of BBBastard on there. I can not find any in-stock and from what I have seen, heard, and read, BBBastard is no longer in business. (If I am wrong, correct me!) With that in mind, it makes a bit of your data kind of useless, hate to say.
 
#20 ·
Plazmaburn said:
Looking back on your data, you have quite a bit of BBBastard on there. I can not find any in-stock and from what I have seen, heard, and read, BBBastard is no longer in business. (If I am wrong, correct me!) With that in mind, it makes a bit of your data kind of useless, hate to say.
Click to expand...
I was pretty sure that was / has been the case for a while during this project, unfortunately :/ but I figured why not include all data I had.
 
F
#21 ·
Even if they aren't available now the information is still useful for people that have used them in the past to see how other brands compare to them.
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#22 ·
Plazmaburn, I agree completely. Bio's can be really dangerous. Any round that splinters or shatters can do alot of damage. Sure I get a big welt from the BB that stays together, but I've gotten some cuts from the BB that doesn't.
 
T
#23 ·
Just a suggestion for further testing: Longbow bbs. They're a small UK brand but I have read some good things about them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kazuchan and MagicMarker
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
R
#24 ·
Whoa... Nice data, couldn't found any better compared to yours. Kudos :tup:.

So all of the heavy hitter bbs were "ordinary" even though they sells like crazy, but in that regard what would you recommend getting one? Madbulls were very expensive but after seeing those numbers.. ehh gonna spend some more time to choose another brand then :shrug:

Still, thanks a lot for those measurements. Cheers.
 
#26 ·
:tup:
Well I mean, we need heavy ammo for its weight (range) a lot of the time, and are willing to sacrifice quality, I suppose. But if you don't need more than .29g-worth of range, definitely go with SGMs :p
The answer for which heavy weight comes from looking at the purple graphs for the darker-colored bars (heavier BBs) and finding one that's consistently low across multiple metrics...seems to me that BLS .43g and Bioshot .40g and .43g are pretty solid; but then, maybe the differences are insignificant enough to warrant simply buying what's cheapest or easiest to acquire out of the appropriate options.
 
#29 · (Edited)
In the process of gathering data on the following BBs:
BLS (BIO) .45g
BLS (non-BIO) .50g

Stay away from BLS .50g BBs! Their weight inconsistency is showing to be ~10 times worse than all others. Very curious to test these against a magnet, as the rumor I've heard of grey BBs being a plastic mixed with metal powder could certainly help explain this immense outlier of weight inconsistency...

Note: Further weight data gathered will now be via the AWS Gemini-20- a MUCH cheaper scale than the super fancy Mettler AE 100 I had access to through my university.
The good news? Check out the doc's 'Notes' tab; the Gemini-20 may only reach out to .001g, but its accuracy still appears sufficient for our uses.
Using a 20 BB sample of the Grade 10 ZrO2 6.00mm .69g BBs, the fancy AE 100 saw an average weight of .6880g, while this cheaper Gemini-20 saw .688g ("Hey, that's pretty good."). Regarding standard deviation, the AE 100 saw .0001276g, while the Gemini-20 saw .000825g. Unfortunately the lack of that extra significant figure seems to be making the Gemini-20 suffer more regarding standard deviation accuracy, but a less-fine scale also means gathering data is easier/faster, so I'm doubling the sample size using this scale (will update this post with the results of the doubled sample size of ceramic weight measurements later).
The samples were different, but I believe we can logically assume Grade 10 6.00mm ZrO2 BBs are perfectly .69g within the tolerances of both scales (either way, meh- point is that the two scales would ideally see the same average and standard deviation for the two separate samples of the same population at least on a finer level than the error present between the two scales).

Doc link:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1M-VOqZXhZXZcgws-oZ3tJ4nuVvILusp5eDowwkZc9bk/edit?usp=sharing
 
#32 · (Edited)
I think the diameter readings on the grey BLS (non-BIO) .50g deserve an update here- especially give my absolutely WRONG predictions for how they would perform.

As it turns out, their less-than stellar weight inconsistency is the only [measured] concern, because the size and shape consistency of these BBs is actually wonderful!
Take a look at the original graphs and compare these BBs' numbers:
Weight inconsistency: .002567
Size inconsistency: .002978
Shape inconsistency: .002881
With regards to size and shape inconsistency, these BBs were almost as good as the objective winner (SGM .29g), while being the heaviest plastic* on the market- and the weight inconsistency is still better than the beloved Geoffs .40g BB (with a less precise measuring device).

When you consider that a human target is taller than they are wide (usually:lmao:), these become the absolute top pick in my opinion (I'd rather the shot be more consistent horizontally than vertically)- if you can accept the lower-visibility color (difficult...).

Nothing beats actually firing different rounds to see which works for you, but in my opinion, the data so far suggests that these are the best plastic* sniper weight BBs available.

There are of course caveats here. For example the weight may be less consistent due to density inconsistency (bubbles); if this is the case, it could effect horizontal consistency even more than shape.

*If you count them as plastic, given the incorporation of metal into their composition

EDIT:
Image

It's actually very common for BBs to have bubbles, but not a single bubble has been found in these.

EDIT EDIT:
Went and fired some. Range was limited at 67.5m max (LRF), but they never missed the torso.
Just a shame how incredibly difficult it was to dial in at first. Partially the fault of the sun being more in front of me than behind, and the color of the backdrop...but jeez. It makes the decision to purchase them for long term use a bit difficult.
Bonus lulz: I had a passerby tell me what I was doing was a bad idea because of the street 183m away (uphill) :p "you could hit a car" I wish brother...
 
#35 · (Edited)
AccurateDMD said:
The only issue(s) I see with these are the limited range unless you're running 550fps+.

The other being the color, which some like and some won't.

Are BLS .43 BIO still your (second) top pick for heavyweights?
Click to expand...
Limited range? You know, all else equal, heavier rounds go further, right? Although technically complicated, in most cases, just dropping heavier BBs into your rifle will increase range.
Assuming your rifle puts out equal power regardless of BB weight, your rifle's ability to reap the increased-range benefit from these BBs would come down to whether your hop up system can over-hop them; also, in many of the cases where the previous assumption is wrong, rifles actually gain power via heavier BBs rather than lose it, and if yours does lose power, I doubt it would be significant enough to counteract the increase in range that comes with the weight increase...though hard to say.
'How to increase range' in a nutshell:
#1: Heavier BBs
#2: More power

Unfortunately I haven't gotten to compare hardly any of the BBs in an actual reliable downrange test, so I wouldn't be able to confidently say. I'm actually just realizing that I don't think I've even fired the BIO .43s- no clue why, I'll do it soon!
On that note, I just finished more analysis on Novritsch's .46g (BIO) BB, which showed respectable numbers- more importantly I used them in today's game, and I was really happy with them! Unfortunately shooting JUST slow enough that one guy dodged it as it was barreling towards his face though :lmao:

Leetworld said:
I'm thinking about them, but how difficult are they to see? Is it playable?
Click to expand...
The BLS .5gs were donated by a fellow airsofter, and I don't have many. I think I'll buy some to give them a fair shot in actual games, but...man they really are tough to see. If your scope is zero'd and you can fire some white BBs to get your hop up close before straining to tune for the greys, I do think they're usable in a precision system where, theoretically, you can just trust your cross-hairs are where the BB is landing...as long as you have a system that reliable and don't tilt your rifle off axis :p
 
Airsoft Sniper Forum
posts
245K
members
25K
Since
2006
A forum community dedicated to Airsoft Sniper firearm owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about optics, gunsmithing, styles, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
General Sniper Talk VSR Rifles The Lounge New Member Introductions & Tips Longrange AEGs