Cannonfodder
Members
- Aug 10, 2020
- 3,447
- 5,369
I've only used them once, but the disposable pyros by TAG are definitely more spicy than the average mk5
-
Hi Guest. Welcome to the new forums. All of your posts and personal messages have been migrated. Attachments (i.e. images) and The (Old) Classifieds have been wiped.
The old forums will be available for a couple of weeks should you wish to grab old images or classifieds listings content. Go Here
If you have any issues please post about them in the Forum Feedback thread: Go Here
Using tag rounds
- Thread starter Sneaky
- Start date
Sneaky
AF-UK patch owner
- Sep 1, 2012
- 659
- 127
- Thread starter
- #42
I get your point, but there is risk with everything. I do not wear a full face mask and I have scars on my face. That is my choice. The real solution for me would be not to play airsoft- that’s not going to happen.I should be clear that I'm not having a "Ban ALL the things rant" since I know it's futile, but I consider Mk5s and even 9mm blanks too loud for indoors given the likelihood of them going off close to ears in an enclosed space.
There are a lot of fun things that are bad for you, but when bad means irreversible hearing loss, and when you can have fun with merely naughty things instead, I'm struggling to find a justification for them. My core problem with the fun-but-hazardous things in airsoft is that they're a risk not to the owner but to other people, including, well...
As any guardian knows, the emperor protects and provides HIS guiding light.
Rogerborg
Supporters
- Aug 22, 2017
- 9,190
- 6,048
Which is rather the point that I'm beleaguering. What gets sent downrange is the choice of the finger behind the trigger rather than the face at the other end.
Eh, never mind me, mild tinnitus makes me kind of grumpy about pretty much anything that goes bang.
I wish His standard armour covered a little more of my vulnerables, I took a lot of deaths in His name from rib-shots.
Rogerborg
Supporters
- Aug 22, 2017
- 9,190
- 6,048
I can old-man-yells-at-cloud about them too, it's just that we hadn't got there yet. I've seen a few pyro-lobbing-things described as "mortars" and "airsoft", but they seem even more niche than TAGs, and mostly just talked about for, well, this.
View attachment 92489
I’m with @Rogerborgon mitigating the less common potential problem
If it’s foreseeable then it needs to be balanced
Back in the day it was mk9s for everything, then mk5s, mk3s, and onto thermobarics and different recipes & card/paper roll pattern for various combinations of fast/slow detonation, volume/flash etc
In paintball the rules have always been that goggles are to be worn as designed with no modification, with chin strap fitted etc. But players put in a second head strap and cut off or don’t fit the chin strap.
The extra head strap if fitted properly tightens the goggle. But if fitted improperly tensions the back of the head, and causing the goggles to fly away if making a superman dive into a tournament snake or running and tripping on a tree root.
Rare and unlikely - but as photographer I’ve watched too many marshals jumping onto a mask less player - and failed to take the photo worrying about if they will land before balls hit
But it took the freak accident of two players to pop around an inflatable, poke barrel into face and flick goggles off. The damage was ‘only’ a circular cut below the eye
This then prompted enforcement of chin straps - for a couple of seasons
It’s been noted that the discussion is about tag rounds but not mortars. The relevant point is the projectile.
What is the risk of that projectile, on its potential flight?
The same stands for a mortar - which isn’t directed, so you can argue that if it’s unobstructed on the way up then it’s ‘fine’ on the way down …… but that’s good to depend on it’s mass …
does it carry a payload?
what could it do to head/face protection?
If it’s foreseeable then it needs to be balanced
Back in the day it was mk9s for everything, then mk5s, mk3s, and onto thermobarics and different recipes & card/paper roll pattern for various combinations of fast/slow detonation, volume/flash etc
In paintball the rules have always been that goggles are to be worn as designed with no modification, with chin strap fitted etc. But players put in a second head strap and cut off or don’t fit the chin strap.
The extra head strap if fitted properly tightens the goggle. But if fitted improperly tensions the back of the head, and causing the goggles to fly away if making a superman dive into a tournament snake or running and tripping on a tree root.
Rare and unlikely - but as photographer I’ve watched too many marshals jumping onto a mask less player - and failed to take the photo worrying about if they will land before balls hit
But it took the freak accident of two players to pop around an inflatable, poke barrel into face and flick goggles off. The damage was ‘only’ a circular cut below the eye
This then prompted enforcement of chin straps - for a couple of seasons
It’s been noted that the discussion is about tag rounds but not mortars. The relevant point is the projectile.
What is the risk of that projectile, on its potential flight?
The same stands for a mortar - which isn’t directed, so you can argue that if it’s unobstructed on the way up then it’s ‘fine’ on the way down …… but that’s good to depend on it’s mass …
does it carry a payload?
what could it do to head/face protection?
Tactical Pith Helmet
AF-UK patch owner
- Jul 5, 2016
- 1,040
- 2,576
Bloody silly things to use in a game. They must have been loud enough to cause hearing damage.
I forget to tell a mate that my garage was fitted with a 12g alarm mine once. Was fitted...
Lozart
Supporters
- Jun 24, 2013
- 8,493
- 4,941
The point that's being missed by some is that it isn't about what YOU are happy with as a personal risk level, but what the sites insurance will or won't cover. If the insurance says "nothing over MK5 due to risk of hearing damage" then you start lobbing TAGs about, if someone does get hearing damage it'll be YOU that gets the bill, not the site.
Some of us will remember the strict "below the knee" rule for BFGs at The Mall. Lots of whingeing about how they should always stay on the same floor and never be sent down the stairs. Not everyone knew why though - it was because before those rules were enforced and it was up to people to be sensible, someone dropped a BFG over the balcony from the upper level and it hit someone in the head on the ground level. That ended up with the recipient being in hospital in a coma for two months and the person that dropped the grenade being sued for damages.
These days, that's the sort of thing that will get a site shut down.
Some of us will remember the strict "below the knee" rule for BFGs at The Mall. Lots of whingeing about how they should always stay on the same floor and never be sent down the stairs. Not everyone knew why though - it was because before those rules were enforced and it was up to people to be sensible, someone dropped a BFG over the balcony from the upper level and it hit someone in the head on the ground level. That ended up with the recipient being in hospital in a coma for two months and the person that dropped the grenade being sued for damages.
These days, that's the sort of thing that will get a site shut down.
Rogerborg
Supporters
- Aug 22, 2017
- 9,190
- 6,048
Eh, maybe. The site won't want to admit liability and their insurer won't want to indemnify them, but in the event where someone gets rekt, courts like to make awards against the deepest pockets to ensure that the rekee isn't left hanging. For example, motor insurance that doesn't cover the type of use at the time, or even when vehicles are stolen and crashed, or are sold on without cancelling the policy. The underwriter is generally obliged to pay out, and can then come after the policyholder to try and recoup their losses if they made a fraudulent declaration or neglected to tell them something material.
There's nothing to stop you naming the individual and the site in the suit though. Vowles vs Evans and the Welsh Rugby Union is the precedent that keeps coming back to mind, where an unpaid volunteer referee was held to have a duty of care to ensure players' safety (and had failed it). In that case, the WRU's insurers paid out.
I'm generally agreeing with the point though. I'm there to get shot with low energy plastic BBs, and accept that there will be loud but not deafening bangs, and that I might catch a metal BFG in the shins. If I suffer a life changing injury due to a higher energy projectile, or an earball bursting explosion, I'm not just going to shrug it off and say "Well, who could possibly have foreseen that?"
Last edited by a moderator:
@Lozart
@Rogerborg
Without going into a quote edit session …. What these guys just said
A site manages to run under the criteria within their risk assessment, associated mitigations and the insurance premium that comes with them
The disclaimers signed state that players understand what’s happening and agree to comply
In the event of an accident the liability is not offset by any content signed up to in the disclaimer, but it’s factored in
If John Smiths actions injure Fred Bloggs then Fred’s first point of call is the site
The NHS will pick out the start of it, then Fred will be seeking private follow up treatment.
Ideally the sites insurance will pay out, and the NHS could pursue costs as well
(I even received a bill once from the Highways agency for clearing the road following an accident - handed it to my solicitor and I could forget about it)
John Smith could be pursued by the sites insurers - which flags the potential need for personal insurance in case you’re found liable
@Rogerborg
Without going into a quote edit session …. What these guys just said
A site manages to run under the criteria within their risk assessment, associated mitigations and the insurance premium that comes with them
The disclaimers signed state that players understand what’s happening and agree to comply
In the event of an accident the liability is not offset by any content signed up to in the disclaimer, but it’s factored in
If John Smiths actions injure Fred Bloggs then Fred’s first point of call is the site
The NHS will pick out the start of it, then Fred will be seeking private follow up treatment.
Ideally the sites insurance will pay out, and the NHS could pursue costs as well
(I even received a bill once from the Highways agency for clearing the road following an accident - handed it to my solicitor and I could forget about it)
John Smith could be pursued by the sites insurers - which flags the potential need for personal insurance in case you’re found liable
Similar threads
