In May 2015 we all learned that First Strike (FSR) rounds would not be permitted at the very popular and high profile event, Living Legends 8. This announcement caused quite a stir in the paintball community and since then has driven a lot of heated discussion across the country and the globe.
In this article we present some background, fact based data and Q&A with the three hardcore MagFed ballers… David Williams, Lou Arthur and David Cady, who took it on themselves to try and help the situation by developing some scientifically derived information to help accelerate the ASTM F08-24 Paintball subcommittee’s decision making process on how to include shaped paintball projectiles in standard F1979-10.
The data contained here is the same data that was presented to the ASTM subcommittee on 24 June 2015. All resources for this testing were supplied by these three people with no support from any paintball manufacturer, distributor or reseller.
First Some Background:
At the core of the issue is that the industry accepted, ASTM Standard F1979-10, currently defines a paintball as “spherical” or round. Since a FSR is not a sphere, it is not considered by some to be a legitimate paintball. This has caused at least one paintball insurance company to state that they will not honor claims from fields allowing the use of FSR.
Q: What happened and what is being done about it?
A: The fact is that the insurance company that insured the Living Legends event clarified it’s position to state that First Strike rounds were not covered by the current policy that covered the field / event. The insurance company felt clarification was needed because FSR are not included in the definition of a paintball as the current standard is written today. This decision affected the LL8 event and happens to affect a large number of fields around the country who are also inured by this company.
In fact, since May many (not all) field owners, on the advice of the insurance company, have made the decision to disallow FSR to be used until the ASTM standards are revised and certain insurance policies can be updated.
This is having a frustrating effect on thousands of players who have been using FSR for years.
It should also noted that there are insurance companies that will insure a field for FSR. So the fact is that FSRs themselves are not banned. It simply depends on the filed operator’s insurance and whether they will permit FSR to be used.
Prior to the LL8 announcement, the ASTM subcommittee has been discussing how to best revise the standard in a way that satisfies most of the opinions of the ASTM subcommittee members and gain consensus. As a result of the LL8 announcement and the resulting outcry on social media by concerned players the ASTM has accelerated the process of requesting input in order to try and come to a decision this year.
NOTE: ASTM is not a government regulatory agency and has no power to force compliance or enforce any standards. ASTM standards are normally developed after products have been on market for years, have been proven in the marketplace as viable and desirable by consumers, distributers, retailers etc. The ASTM standards are voluntarily adopted by industry participants and consumers.
The facts are that consumer demand and advances in technology are constantly evolving (and improving) the sport of paintball. First Strike rounds have been around since 2009, and they were a major breakthrough for the industry when they were introduced. They were an answer to what many paintball consumers wanted: a projectile that was more consistent and predictable than a round ball. The introduction of this projectile was also important because it gave manufacturers a reason to advance their marker and barrel technology and develop new platforms capable of firing this new projectile. Now, there are many new manufacturers producing markers and accessories that are specifically designed for this type of projectile and that is great for the sport! The recent hype around First Strike rounds has given way to misconceptions, opinions, and frankly, wrong information being disseminated. The fact that First Strikes have been on the market since 2009, have been used extensively, and demand for the product has grown year over year is proof that they are still filling a need from a growing number of consumers. Demand for FSR tuned and specific guns, barrels and other accessories is at an all-time high, and have created an entire niche industry of manufacturing to further enhance the players experience.
Q: If FSR have been on the market so long, what have they not yet been included in the standard?
A: ASTM standards take time to develop. Committee members are volunteers, and they try to create/revise standards in a methodical way. Sometimes, an industry and/or consumer demand for creation or clarification of a standard needs to drive the change, and people need to draft, negotiate and vote on final language. This all can take a great deal of time. There are lots of opinions from the committee members and they are all trying to ensure that the consumers are protected to the greatest degree possible.
PRESENTATION DATA
The power of the individual. On hearing of the LL8 announcement, Facebook and other social media outlets lit up like a Christmas tree. Players on both sides of the argument established their positions, sharpened their keyboard warrior skills and waded into battle. The outcome was a certain amount of noise that helped encourage ASTM to take swifter action.
In parallel there were three guys who decided that they would take tangible action to try and help the ASTM come to a decision. These ballers all have very technical professional backgrounds in various disciplines. They agreed to pool their talents and resources to try and answer one simple and foundational question.
KEY QUESTION: Does a First Strike round impart any more or any less force into a target than commonly used roundball paint of similar mass when shot at the same velocity?
Why this question? The team believes that this is the “bottom line” performance attribute that all other follow-on ASTM tests are subsequently stacked on top of.
There have been many claims by lots of people that FSR “hit harder than regular round paintballs” and as a result cause more damage.
The team searched, but could not find any publicly available, hard data, to base a recommendation on. So they developed their own test methodology and protocol, paid for the gear and invested their own time to run the tests, analyze the results and present the information to the ASTM subcommittee. They are also making all of their data freely available, open source, to help anyone else who wants to replicate or extend their testing. In fact this validation work, performed by others, is encouraged!
Bottom line: Scientifically gathered impact force data, captured with calibrated sensors, will help us all understand if an FSR should be treated the same or differently than a round ball. If the impact forces are similar at similar mass and velocity, then we can logically conclude that a FSR (or other shaped projectile) is similar to a round ball, and their shape should be added to the definition of a paintball. Once the definition includes non-spherical projectiles, the door will be opened to the acceptance of these projectiles as long as they meet all of the other testing protocols prescribed for round ball in F1979 and other standards. This would also apply to future suppliers of non-spherical paintballs.
On the other hand, if the impact force data indicates that FSR are imparting significantly more force than typical round paintballs when comparing shots at equal mass an velocity, that would possibly indicate that the FSR round should be handled differently.
THE DATA (you decide)
FSR TESTING BACKGROUND
I encourage you to read this fully before looking at the data