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:
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:
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.
blue, cyan, green = potentially neutral observation
orange = medium priority
red = high priority
violet = BB weight (metric)
saturation = magnitude
Considerations to take into account:
Now for the fun part- throwing opinions around!
- 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.
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
- mitra88 (BLS / Infantry Shop USA)
- 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.