• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Kastrioti

  • Rank
    AF-UK Starter

Profile Information

  • Guns
    VFC Umarex GBB HK417 with steel buffer
    TM AWS PDI upgrades
    Socom Gear M9A1
    KWA M92F
  • Loadouts
    Sniper: TM AWS and M9A1
    DMR: HK417 and M9A1
    Stupid: Dual wielding M9s
  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

760 profile views
  1. bump
  2. Yep
  3. bump, post edited and eotech clone is no longer inlcuded unless wanted, P&P option added
  4. bump
  5. Update, Smart Charger no longer included, and price reduced to £100
  6. Make: G&G Gun/Model: GR15 Raider L Accessories: G&G 79rd midcap mag, 9.6V nimh vapextech battery, original box and manual/parts list included. Condition: Good - some scratches (Used at one game and some plinking at home), see images. FPS: 345 (tested at field) Splits/Swaps/Part Exchange: no/VFC Forging GBBR or a GHK Keymod GBBR and I would pay more cash obviously/ Tm AWS upgrade kit or WE gas or CO2 M4 mags Price/Payment: £100 (Collection from West London or buyer pays £15 for P&P) Pictures: Selling it because I want yet another GBBR, and I have no room in my life for AEGs. So I haven't really used it apart from the one game. Solid gun, metal rail, buffer tube and outer barrel, polymer upper and lower and stock, the butt pad has a nice rubberised texture so it won't slip when shouldered. The battery compartment is still a bit stiff to open as I haven't used it much (but the battery hasn't been left inside the gun of course.) I don't have the Hi-cap that was included, I managed to lose it at the game so I am selling it with one 79 round mid-cap (which feeds very well and has a follower) Evidently it is two tone so No UKARA required, but if you come to collect it and you look like you're under 18 I will have to ask for ID. The blowback is functional and adds a bit of fun to the replica, it doesn't affect how well the gun functions and doesn't make the fps inconsistent, unlike what some people think. A very very good beginner's gun, again, it's what got me into the sport. Total value was £250 when bought, I will accept payment by paypal, direct bank transfer, or cash in hand Note: I can provide the eotech clone pictured, but it is cracked (still working though.) I also have a 3x magnifier with a QD and side adjustable mount (in good condition) that I can provide with the gun for an extra £10.
  7. I have a combat machine gr15 raider-L that I've been meaning to sell. PM me for details EDIT: Pm me but I'll actually make a post in the for sale section maybe later today or tomorrow anyway
  8. It could be the notches on the front sight post end of the outer barrel catching on to the inner portion of the slide. I had a similar issue with a 1911 before, and I'm pretty sure if you strip the gun down, there will be some wear on the barrel or the gun at this point. This could be due to slight differences in compatibility and design. Personally, I ground down a bit from my outer barrel and that worked for me, but you have to be careful because it's not likely to be metal of the highest quality, and you could risk the integrity of the barrel. Once again, check to see if this is indeed your problem before taking any drastic actions, I've just had similar issues with 1911s in the past when switching slides around and the like. If it sticks in the fully open position, it could be that the slide is too light (due to being skeletonised), and the recoil spring is throwing it too far backwards, so the notches on the outer barrel get caught on the slide. In the photos attached, the points I've drawn arrows to usually get caught if the notch on the inner portion of the slide catches on the notches of the outer barrel when the slide is thrown too far back/compatibility is an issue. This might not be your issue, but I've seen it before.
  9. Very well put. I guess this is something else that needs to be brought up along with the GBB/HPA issues, if they'll bother to listen at all.
  10. Oh now I get it. Sorry, it looks like I was interpreting it one way, and not in the literal sense of what it said "only a small plastic missile." I don't see anywhere where it says "per pull of the trigger" though. I know I'm asking a lot here but can you explain this to me? Otherwise all auto firing replicas would be banned as well (or am I wrong here again?) Yet they've made it clear that auto firing replicas can fire up to 1.3J, so they clearly don't mean to say that a replica that fires more than one plastic projectile per trigger pull is not an airsoft gun. Regardless, this thread is starting to veer off course, but the short answer is that Sacarthe is right, whether or not the gun was considered as an airsoft replica before, it definitely isn't now. Whether it falls in the category of air rifle or section 5, I don't know, but it's not worth the risk, especially when the general public and or jury will not differentiate between an airsoft gun and a real gun.
  11. I was asking you which part of the replica infringes this statement, please read that sentence again and answer it properly, don't just reiterate the same point. I realised that you were saying there's an issue, I want to know what exactly that is. What evidence is there to show that it wasn't designed to discharge only a small plastic missile? Enlightening response there. Care to explain why? I have clearly said that if the replica is not intended to fire only small plastic missiles, then it is a section 5 firearm, as the law says. Now you're saying no. No to what? The precursor or the statement that followed? I'm not trying to take the mick here, I just want a genuine, explanatory response so that I can evaluate the situation better.
  12. Are you talking about the fact that the Wad is not a small plastic missile, or the fact that multiple plastic missiles leave the barrel instead of only one? In regards to it being able to fire other things, I think that depends on whether the manufacturer has clearly stated whether only 6mm bbs should be fired from the replica. This should be visible on the box/ in the manual, and it should suffice as it is the manufacturer's disclaimer and intended use for the product "whether or not it is also capable of discharging any other kind of missile" If anyone has the manual/ information sheet, it'd help if we could know whether or not the manufacturer has stated the intended use for the product. If they haven't said that only 6mm bbs should be used (or any small, spherical plastic projectile up to 8mm), then this replica is certainly classified as a section 5 firearm under the new legislation.
  13. Right, so you're saying it isn't classified as an airsoft gun because it fires more than one bb per pull of trigger, and each bb flying at even 200fps would mean that the total joule output is over 1.3J for multi shot, or even 2.5J for single shot (if it were classified as such.) The only thing I have an issue with, is the fact that these are multiple shots of (as you said) .65J each. So while the total energy output is (much likely more than 12x.65J as a lot of the air is simply wasted/pushing the wad) more than 1.3J, each shot is less than 1.3J, pretty much the same as having a 300fps (on .2g) m4 with a crazy ROF. It's essentially the same thing: loads of bbs with one pull of the trigger each travelling below the limit. Therefore I think it should fall under the same classification/ be even safer, since these bbs are flying slower anyway. Unless they want to go and ban high ROF AEGs as well just for the sake of it at this point. Moreover, the bbs don't even arrive at the target in the same spot/ at the same time. It's likely that a high ROF AEG can probably get more bbs to hit a target in the same amount of time it takes for the shot to travel from the shotgun to the target. I'm not saying that's how the government sees it, but that's what makes sense to me from a logical standpoint, using their guidelines, and perhaps could be argued in court (assuming my logic is correct), if it ever got that bad in the first place. See below: Exception for airsoft guns (1)An “airsoft gun” is not to be regarded as a firearm for the purposes of this Act. (2)An “airsoft gun” is a barrelled weapon of any description which— (a)is designed to discharge only a small plastic missile (whether or not it is also capable of discharging any other kind of missile), and <---this is true for the CAM 870, it's designed to use plastic bbs, even if you can use other projectiles, e.g. wax slug (b)is not capable of discharging a missile (of any kind) with kinetic energy at the muzzle of the weapon that exceeds the permitted level. <----this might be a problem, since it is capable of firing slugs, which will almost definitely pass the joule limit : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ah8K7b4QQd0 skip to 4 minutes in (3)“Small plastic missile” means a missile that— (a)is made wholly or partly from plastics, <---yep (b)is spherical, and <---yep (c)does not exceed 8 millimetres in diameter. <---yep (4)The permitted kinetic energy level is— (a)in the case of a weapon which is capable of discharging two or more missiles successively without repeated pressure on the trigger, 1.3 joules; <---already gave my opinion on this, the shots are successive since they don't reach the target at the same time, and all go in one trigger pull, each one is less than 1.3J so should be ok. (b)in any other case, 2.5 joules.” <--- is not meant to fire only one projectile, but depending on size/seal with shell and barrel, it can potentially pass this. Reviewing all this information it looks to me like the only issue with the gun is that it is capable of firing well above the joule limit. However, this is only possible with projectiles it wasn't designed to fire, in which case the legality is shady, because the GOV have this whole thing about replicas being readily convertible to firearms being illegal. Now, whilst it would not be possible to convert this into a M870, the problem arises due to the fact that the GOV classify any successive shot gun capable of over 1.3J as a firearm, so it would be readily convertible. But, there is a silver lining (I think.) The above statement may not be cause for concern, because; when firing a slug (which you wouldn't do in public/at a game anyway), you are only discharging one round, even if it isn't a sub 8mm plastic bb, so it is capable of shooting a single shot of any kind above 2.5J (as it now falls into this category.) The silver lining is here. I'm almost certain that if a single shot airsoft gun fires above 2.5J, then it is classified as an air rifle, just as with paintball guns, not a section 5 firearm, unless it is more powerful than 16.25J - which may still be a problem for this gun , but you can get around that potentially by messing with the seals in the shells or the mass of the slugs themselves if you were that way inclined. However, I still don't see this being a problem, because it is highly unlikely that - in the unlikely event of a trial, the gun would be tested with perfectly fitting wax slugs. More likely it would be tried with bbs, maybe some other larger ammo, idk. It's difficult to say with this gun, and I'm surprised it wasn't banned anyway under the Brocock ban anyway, maybe because it doesn't fire lead pellet, even though it can - if anyone knows, please do tell, because the aps m40 wasn't exempted from this ban, yet you see many retailers selling this gun. If anyone can find flaws in my thinking, please do point them out, because I'm looking to get the Salient Arms version, and I don't want to spend any money on something illegal , let alone £600. Reviewing the evidence, it looks like the gun should be ok, depending on how the GOV would test it if taken in for whatever reason (travelling to and from games etc.) However, where it could fail is in the legal grey areas of: A)If it is classified as an airgun, due to its ability to fire single shots above 2.5J, then you're shooting people in the woods/CQB with it (even though you're shooting plastic bbs below this limit), and that might be a problem. B)If it meets their stupid "readily convertible" qualification that all gas gun users have to be worried about, as a HPA set up could be cranked up, although the shells have a limited capacity for CO2, so maybe not. C)If they for whatever illogical reason, consider the combined energy of all the shot coming out as the muzzle energy, which would make no sense, but then again they've not shown us that this whole thing has been handled with a whole lot of sense, then this would definitely fall into the S5 firearm category. It's sad that AEG users (not quick change spring) and bolt action springers are not as worried about this thing as GBB users, we should really stick closer together as a community if we are to survive. Reminds me of that "First they came for the Jews" poem you always seem to hear in scenarios like this. Bit dramatic, I know, but I'd hate to lose whatever is left of my right to go pew pew in the forest because some politician wants to look good. D)Again with the testing, would firing a single shot of wax or a bigger rubber ball even be able to stand against you? I say this because the energy requirements are for "missiles", in which case, more than 2.5J makes the gun fall into airgun territory, like paintball, unless it fires more than 16.25J. TLDR: legal stuff is confusing, we have legal clarification for most airsoft guns to be safe under the new bill, but it's not clear enough by any stretch of the imagination. Please do read tediously long post to identify any issues with my thinking. If you made it through that, well done.
  14. Damn, well I've never seen something like that before. That paintball must've been frozen or something, but I agree with you. I think it's also got something to do with the public awareness surrounding paintball, and the lack of awareness surrounding airsoft. They can mess around with airsoft all they like, but if paintball were banned, it'd be all over the news, and people would be upset. Then again, the health and safety parade are trying to "encourage children to header the ball less" in football because players who've headed the ball a lot have brain damage nowadays so god knows what will come next. No more running because it causes bad knees in old age? No more standing around? Reminds me of George Carlin.