View Full Version : paintball bps vs. real gun rpm
07-31-2006, 10:38 PM
I was just watching the History Channel, and in a documentary about WWI, I learned that the Vickers machine gun, which was so insanely deadly, only fired 10 rounds per second! What was more shocking, was that the narrator mentioned this in a tone of voice that made this out to be an unthinkably high rate of fire.
There are paintball guns out there capable of much, much higher rates of fire than this. The Spyder Electra with eyes and MR3 are supposed to be able to reach up to 25bps. This got me thinking, and I ended up pulling out my copy of The Complete Encyclopedia of Modern Military Weapons (I'm a war history nut, what can I say?). Check out some sample rates of fire from real life weapons:
-Heckler and Koch MP5: just over 13 rps (rounds per second)
-Ingram Model 10: 19 rps
-M60 Machine gun: 9.16 rps (actually est. 550rpm, usually armed with a 50rnd belt)
-AK-74: 10.8 rps with a 30rnd magazine
-AR-18 (the modern day M-16?): 13 rps, with magazines with only 20-40 rnds
-The 7 barrel gatling gun of a A-10 Thunderbolt attack aircraft: 2 modes of 35 rps or 70rps, with 1,174rnd capacity
So when someone starts mocking your "mere" 14bps hopper, try mentioning that an M-60 machine gun (the gun made famous by Rambo, and door gunners of Huey helicopters in Vietnam) can only do just over 9 rounds per second, and they seemed lethal enough. ;)
07-31-2006, 11:55 PM
Do you mean the original M60? Those slow firing issues have been ironed out... lol. Got two vids for ya.
M60 E4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Af3NxxpekU&mode=related&search=)
Kentucky Machine Gun Shoot. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UtosDFNNP8) (Massive, 30min video... don't watch unless you got some time.)
For a 7.62 round, they don't need to shoot much faster through the M60. As for the rest, it's the same. A bullet does a ****load more damage than a paintball; you don't need more than 3 to neutralize a subject.
08-01-2006, 02:21 AM
it wasn't so much that the lower rps (rounds per second) made it more accurate (that's a side effect of less recoil)...it was to save ammo in a combat situation. 10 rds in one spot is better than 30 purely for the reason of saving ammo. This, however, makes it more accurate because it's not bouncing around as bad as one that does...say...30 rps.
Don't forget....the machine gun is a support weapon...not the sole winner of a war. It's purpose is to supress an invading force and/or get our troops farther up the field...hence the term "supression fire."
An AK47 (<450 rps) and AR15 (<600 rps) [I believe those numbers are fairly accurate, if not close] are capable of much faster ROF. They were governed down to those numbers posted above because 1. the weapon was too difficult to control at higher rof; 2. Expends less ammo; 3. less wear and tear on the gun.
Liken it to a backman...his/her job is to lane and keep heads down so that fronts and mids can do their job....win the flag.
08-01-2006, 04:32 AM
[QUOTE=bigred76]Do you mean the original M60? Those slow firing issues have been ironed out... lol. Got two vids for ya.
M60 E4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Af3NxxpekU&mode=related&search=)
Ok...maybe I missed the point here. I watched this video (the short one) and they said that he fired 850 rounds in 1 min 45 sec. So here is where I get lost. 850/105 = 8.09523 and so on. So how is that faster than the original M60? If the first post is correct than the older M60 is a faster firing gun. Now this new gun maybe better and not have to cleaned/worked on/more accurate than the older one but it does fire slower. :dodgy:
Any way you look at it though...That is one heck of a long time to hold the trigger there. That is pretty intense. :D
08-01-2006, 05:20 AM
Im sure it was also more logical to slow the rate of fire so that there was a delay in case the round hit a wall or some other kind of bunker so that it could do its damage and have enough time for some of the debris to get out of the way before the next round further increased the damage so you could blow out some kinds of enemy cover(i.e. crumbling concrete). But if you watch most paintball players that spray at a max rate, lets say 22, especially in woodsball, the person they are shooting at sees the first round come out and just covers until the stream is done before taking a few shots back and the aggressor just pissed away a quarter plus of a hopper without doing much real damage.
08-01-2006, 06:22 AM
i second that.. i expend about 3-5 rounds then cover and expend again 3-5 rounds. Guys that just "Nape" the area never really get a kill. They burn through that hopper and thats when you pick them off..(pertaining to woodsball)
08-01-2006, 09:16 AM
Man after my own heart rogue. I just recently got a quest but was out playing woodsball the other day and benched it in favor of my first ever marker, the ak-47 of paintball, my TL-R with lp system, evo hopper and freak barrel and ill tell you my shot to kill ratio was much nicer as i wasnt tempted to throw paint because of the large trigger pull and it was a 2-3 shot controlled fire than duck cover and move.
08-01-2006, 09:20 AM
Druid, you might want to double check your sources on those rps numbers. I think you mean rpm, or rounds per minute. Usually rates of fire are measured in rounds per minute for conventional weapons, not per second. I had to whip out my trusty calculator and divide by 60 to get the per second rate of fire in order to better compare them to paintball, which uses ball per second as their measure.
In terms of paintball vs real life, I agree that paintball considerations are different. If we had the same kind of range as a M60 or a Vickers machine gun, a single player with an electric gun and hopper could cover a huge area... just like machine guns did over no-man's-land in WWI trench warfare. Also, paintballs are much lighter and smaller than real ammo, which allows us to carry 200-300 rounds in a hopper, instead of 20-40 rounds in a standard assault rifle magazine.
However, I used this example to prove a point. I'm not quite sure what the fascination some people have regarding rates of fire is. I mean, there are some people who consider one marker better than another based off a 2-3 bps difference, even when the markers they're talking about do 18 to 25 bps. It seems to me that even for suppressive fire, if you can do over 15bps, you are firing 50% faster than even the M60 machine gun, which did pretty well as a suppressive fire platform from a Huey door gunner. I don't know about you, but it seems like really expensive overkill.
And as far as paintballs not doing as much damage as a bullet, well that's only true in terms of real life physics. In game terms however, one paintball should be sufficient for a "kill", right? By that reasoning, a paintball is more lethal than most bullets ;)
Soooo... if you are firing a Spyder capable of more than 20bps, you have yourself a marker with the firing rate of 2 M60 machine guns, with more ammo in your hopper than bullets on the belt. Hoo-ah!
08-01-2006, 09:53 AM
I just recently got a quest pics including disassembly plz!:D
08-01-2006, 02:22 PM
Druid, you might want to double check your sources on those rps numbers. I think you mean rpm, or rounds per minute.
oops....yep, that's what I meant. Sorry for the confusion but in my defense...it was 5:21AM ..
08-01-2006, 04:31 PM
I have been to the Kentucky Machine Gun Shoot several times...awesome!
Remember guys....all these guns are blowbacks!!!!