The 6.01 or 6.03 test

[CSM]

Hi there everyone
I recently have been researching myself which barrel bore was the best. So in this thread i'll straighten things out and actually do a test between the two

6.01:
So what would this be used for ? Well the theory is the tighter the bore the more power the bb will have as there is less of a gap between the barrel and bb. BUT you lose accuracy over a distance which is why PDI makes 6.08 barrels for accuracy. I think 6.01 are best for short range as the groupings are tighter at 120 feet or so.

6.03:
Mainly used for longer range groupings and accuracy. I found this was more consistent over a long range with better groupings. There is more room for the air so power is lost slightly but the cushion around it means it won't be affected so much by specs of dirt in the barrel (which you shouldn't have anyway)

So the test !
I used Madbull barrels for the test. 6.03 black python v2 and Madbull's ultimate 6.01 barrel
The gun was a 520fps L96 with all ASPUK upgrades and a PDI chamber with ASG hard rubber.
BB's were 0.4 madbull
The target was 60m- (196 feet) away

6.01: Achieved a spread of 12 inches on a 2ft by 2ft box

6.03: Achieved a spread of 8.5 inches on a 2ft by 2ft box

So i'll be using a 6.03 now on !

Hope this helps or i may have wasted my time, but i found it interesting

CSM

[jonny lovegrove]

Re: The 6.01 or 6.03 test

try a 6.04, should be even better, as thats what i was directed to for my L96. (500fps) and it did better than the 6,03 madbull i tried. (was a g&g toptech gen 1 barrel)

[seansamurai1]

Re: The 6.01 or 6.03 test

Yeah, my M16 uses an 04 barrel and its groupings are noticeably tighter over range.

[North West Outpost]

Re: The 6.01 or 6.03 test

Glad you mentioned the 6.08.

One thing you forgot to mention was which bb's you used. What brand, size and consistency. Both external size and shape with internal voids. Obviously external is not so difficult to find out... Voids tricky without being able to cut them open and take a close peek in.

I have this theory. Untested as of yet but at sometime I will get round to it.

BUT reading your test makes me think I am on the right track.

So on to my theory.

In a normal set up you will have a standard size cut out in your barrel with a hop rubber having a standard ish size nub, all be it fingers, v, hump...ect. The nub may be standard hollow soft barrel, stiffer biro tube, H nub. I am sure you can see 'smallish' contact between hop rubber, nib and bb.

The smaller the contact patch the more pressure you have to exert on the top of the bb to give it back spin, fairly obvious. I wrote about this a year or so ago before the newer patches were developed. As you can imagine when the bb is sitting up against the nub, there is enough pressure to stop the bb rolling down the barrel and as the piston starts it's forward journey the O ring seals and pressure forces the bb under the nub. The nub compresses acting like a tidily wink. In theory the top of the bb stays put and the pressure forces the bottom of the bb forward down the channel of the barrel and under the top and with the compressed air this is what gives back spin. The amount of hop applied materials ect means how much slippage/ hop effect is actually applied.

The higher the pressure applied if you think of your tidly wink the harder you flick it the higher and faster they jump, the same applies to the bb. After the bb has been forced passed the nub, the pressure makes the bb jump into the crown of the barrel and then rattles it's way down the barrel until it reaches the end. The more it rattles ie hits the crown and then the invert of the barrel the more the true flight path is disrupted. There was a drawing on one of the forums showing the typical flight path but without my thoughts... It follows that the more times the bb hits the top then the bottom of the barrel befor leaving it, the more any imperfections will impart any further deviation to the bb in flight. You may not be able to see this by eye and it may seem insignificant but I don't think it is. It may well look like it is travelling straight but it may be having tiny circular motions as well as the back spin. I hope you can see what I mean without me being able to draw it out. This will effect both distance and accuracy and may explain why your tighter barrel seems to be less accurate and why others are suggesting 6.04.

I have had further thoughts on why the new longer patches are so effective and may add to this but not tonight.

[dave38x]

Re: The 6.01 or 6.03 test

Nice to see some actual science for once, very informative OP

One day I'll do a CFD/FE analysis of an airsoft barrel assembly to establish what the actual factors are...