Please note, this review was conducted and constructed entirely by Hunterseeker5. I take absolutely no credit for anything mentioned here. Please contact him for questions regarding his findings.

"BB Ammo Review


Pearls/Nites (.66 and .36g respectively)


(Note the lack of surface imperfections at the edge of light and dark. This is the only way I've yet found to show finish quality, especially on very low contrast rounds.)
I had intended to do these as separate sections, but aside from mass and color they are effectively identical. BB claims them to be “reusable” and I was highly skeptical. After testing however I was unable to damage them either by firing them into hard surfaces like fiberglass reinforced concrete,


crushing them in a vice, or by hitting them against an anvil with a sledge hammer.

Suffice to say then that under normal use these bbs will not change tolerances and will be technically reusable. Its worth noting that all this abuse had rubbed visible streaks of metal on the surface of the rounds, and some concrete had adhered to the bb, but once it was removed with a WC microfile, my own invention, dimensions hadn't changed down to the hundredth of a millimeter. These rounds, while expensive, were truly gorgeous. Each was round beyond any measurable difference, exactly 5.94mm. Surface lubricity was also excellent allowing them to feed and fire well. The zirconium oxide Pearls are listed at .66g while the silicone oxide Nites were listed at .36g. No testing has yet been done to confirm mass accuracy.

Silica “Clears”

These bbs are essentially glass. They're not nearly as resilient as the ceramic rounds, but won't shatter under what most people would consider “normal” use in my testing. (1.5J against goggles) Surface lubricity is low, much lower than other rounds, meaning feeding is not as smooth as with other rounds. Double stack midcaps, in particular King Arms mags, had some column jamming issues. (further testing in mid and hicaps at various ROFs necessary) This also presented itself in another way. Minor barrel obstructions, which other rounds could just slide past will case a jam with these rounds. This suggests a clean barrel, while a good idea in general, is especially important with these rounds. It is important to note that these bbs are smaller than other brand silica bbs, averaging 5.945mm with a standard deviation of .006, making them less likely to jam and improving accuracy. Surface finish was imperfect, not because they were produced this way necessarily, but what appeared to be minor scuffing from being in a bag with other rounds. As the image shows these scuffs are very minor, but worth noting. Also these rounds, like most airsoft bbs, aren't perfectly spherical. Average spherical aberration was .015mm with a standard deviation of .0053. By comparison Evike's “Matrix” brand bbs exceeded 7mm in some dimensions, although averaging 5.98mm excluding outliers, appearing to have been poorly or totally unfiltered. Comparisons also showed a higher surface finish on the brand bbs, as well as FAR fewer inclusions.

Needless to say not a single brand bb which would have caused a jam in and of itself was found in testing. I recommend a further diameter reduction of .02mm, to 5.92mm, to improve accuracy and reduce jamming potential especially given the prevalence of so called “tightbore” barrels.

.3g

(Note surface imperfections at the edge of light and dark. This is the only way I've yet found to show finish quality, especially on very low contrast rounds.)
Superficially these appear as relatively normal white styrene bbs. Average diameter was 5.938mm with a standard deviation of .0075mm. Average deviation from roundness was .017mm with a standard deviation of .0095. Surface lubricity appeared average for such rounds, and surface finish and polish seemed good.
The boiling test produced an oily film on the water surface. When the bbs were removed their dimensions hadn't changed significantly, but their surface finish was now closer to matte than their previous satin.


In the bisection test, in which bb orientation is randomly determined, samples showed very small bubbles and internal imperfections. It appeared to be almost foam-like in nature.




The fracture test tends to better reveal faults than the bisection test because failures tent to coincide with internal flaws. This again revealed nothing more than minor bubbles formed in this almost foam like manner.
"

Also as a side note its really annoying that it keeps censoring the bb brand.

This post has been edited by airborne101: Oct 3 2011, 05:24 PM