Colonel Kurtz

Not tried 'robinhood' brand, but the T8/SP Systems full steel high speed complete steel bolt is most excellent, and cheaper to order one of them from JK Army than buy that one from Eagle6

It's an annoying as I've rebuilt the trigger box with a good clean and relubed it. No visible wear/tear. All I can tell is the ramp on the bolt carrier resets the sear fine when racking the bolt, but not after firing. I've tried putting a harder trigger reset spring in with no luck, as I thought perhaps if that's not resetting quick enough it might not allow the sear to reset properly I've tried a couple different bolts and charging handles... I'm tempted to get a GP or SP hammer assist for a bolt and see if that sorts it but I'd rather get to the bottom of it than work around it

Looking for advice, on semi my MWS only fires if I manually rack the bolt, the sear doesn't seem to reset from the bolt itself. Full auto is fine. So I guessing it's the sear not clicking down when it fires, is there anything I can do to resolve it?

Did it increase it at all compared to stock nozzle? I'm guessing it's got screw you can put into the nozzle end to restrict flow, but otherwise uses a standard rocket valve not a npas? If it gives any kind of increase and is compatible with a dp enhanced rocket valve i might be tempted, i could do with another 10-20 fps

^ 2nd that, also neglect to mention any the troubleshooting you tried, as heard plenty stories of people being denied replacement due to breaking the warranty by opening it up.

Yeah if similar happens again, i'm just handing over my phone and avoiding violence in any manner, i'd also leave a burglar to rinse out my living room, perhaps shout down the stairs at them to try hurry them off to their dealer. So that's what i'd advise, back to the OP - I'd certainly say using an airsoft gun or air-rifle for 'home-defense' is totally pointless/insane.

Agree good point, it doesn't have to be an actual threat, it could be you 'feeling' threatened, but unfortunately in these cases it's very easy to argue your interpretation as incorrect or biased by fear/panic/prejudice, and your response as disproportionate. I know in america you have to issue a verbal warning before performing any act of defence if you havent actually been attacked, not sure about uk, have watched more CSI than episodes of The Bill recently... A lot of what i mentioned you might not get charged for something yourself, but any such detail being a question can easily force the case against your thieving crackhead to be dropped. I have a similar situation of personal experience relating to the using a weapon side of things, not quite home defense as it was on the street, but location made no difference so close enough; I was walking home from a friends house in the early hours over a decade ago, and got set on by a couple of crack yoot after my phone etc. I took a bit of an initial kickin, then I got a massive adrenaline dump and got to my feet and 'defended myself'. I had a video box in my hands (that i'd been watching round said friends), and without really thinking about it used this to defend myself. I left them on the floor and called the police from my mobile. In the end, no charges were brought against them for a couple reasons; - Firstly because i had inflicted far far more damage. I had a split lip & eye brow and few bruises/swell, but it turns out the corner of a plastic box can carve massive gouges out someones face. Legally, my use of this video box as a weapon was disproportionate as they had no weapon (i escaped being charged with assault/ using a weapon on this basis as i said i was in a total daze and didn't realize it was still in my hands). If i had struck them once, i'd been ok, but a battering doesn't count. - Apparently would have been too easy for their defense to argue they had stopped giving me a kickin when i got up (one had started walking away, which enabled me to smash his mate in before he noticed and turned round. i'm no kungfu master who can take on 2 people paying attention at the same time), therefor making my actions an act of immediate revenge/assault not defense. Couldn't prove it either way, but enough a question to make it pointless bringing charges The police aren't cunts and know what reality is better than anyone, unfortunately the tool they have (law) can leave a bit to be desired. I was given the impression the police's priority had been getting the crackheads to confess to details that would stop me being charged, i was lucky for this to have been a success, and there would have been almost no chance they'd get charged unless one had fully church-confessed. In the end, i certainly felt that i'd not received justice from UK law, but the policemen themselves had done their duty and best to keep me getting charged. Apparently If my assailants hadn't been very well known to them, and been sensible enough to make 'no comment', I'd been charged with gbh or abh or assault with a weapon or all the above. So in summary, me taking a kicking isn't enough justification to use a weapon on someone, so being afraid of violence that hasn't occurred or been directly threatened probably won't cut it as a justification in court, you might get away with punching someone, once, but anything with a weapon, probably not.

Had a chat with a drunken ex-copper once on the topic and got the following 'advice' If someone is burgling you, and you run downstairs and jump in with a weapon and threaten/attack them, you're getting done. You can only respond in self defense, if you have not been actually attacked, then you have to have been directly threatened with violence, them breaking into your home isn't enough to infer that threat like it is in the US If you choose to use any kind of weapon to 'defend' yourself, you are likely to get done, as you probably chose to select that weapon before you knew exactly how much danger you are in, and it infers premeditation to a degree. Of course there's scenario's where it'd still be valid, but if you pick up a weapon and then move towards the burglar, for any reason other than there being other family members you do not know the state of and are seeking to verify, then you are effectively picking the fight and will get done. If you end up in a fight with the burglar, you can only 'defend' yourself in a blow for blow manner. E.G. If they punch you and you punch them back it's fine, if you punch them several times then you get done. Same with a weapon, crack-head pulls a knife, you smack him with a bat - fine. You keep smacking him and you get done. So what can you do? This drunk copper advised that essentially you barricade yourself in a room and call the cops. I second this, especially here, as I've not met many airsofters that i'd back in a fight vs a feral crackhead fueled by adrenaline & gear. Even if you got in a fight with them and won, you've not gained anything other than it being more likely you'll get a brick through your window / car set on fire later. If you end up being attacked or threatened to the extent where you fear for your life, you should use a tool or other implement that is not a weapon, (but you want it to be capable of inflicting enough serious injury to well and truly disable the attacker with one hit). The one hit is key, so when they pull a knife on you, you smack them with the hammer once and once only, you have to wait for them to attack you again before hitting them again. Then you don't get done. When the cops turn up you say they attacked you, you grabbed this object as it was the closest thing to hand, and hit them when they lunged at you. The most important thing here is not arming yourself before you know what the situation is exactly, and not using more force than necessary to prevent immediate injury to yourself or family. Property is irrelevant, you can't 'put down' a burglar to defend the honor of your Xbox One. Anyone talking about what they'd 'put down' a burglar with is talking pointless bravado bullshit with no basis in reality (e.g. it's never happened so how do you know you wont just act like most people and sh*t your pants and shake in a corner) or you are dangerous sociopath, or at the very lest someone who enjoys indulging the idea of being one in the safety of the internet

Santa offered me peace on earth for all mankind, but i decided to trade it in for my Devtac Ronin.

In my experience, The Mall can indeed suffer from rare 'bad-days' where hit-taking and more importantly; the general attitude, suffers a bit of a cascade failure. (I do mean rare, I've been there a lot over past 2 years, prob average of every other week, and only 3 times had such a day) It'll start with one group of fuckers really taking the piss (sounds like you had one and they got kicked out). People then use this as an excuse to not take hits themselves, or are then very much on the look-out for any further reason to valid their ranting about the topic. This will usually be people giving themselves a cheeky mulligan or assuming "I hit that guy" every time (whereas otherwise they might be more open to the idea that they missed, which half the time is the case in CQB). The vibe ends up perpetuating and you end up with lots of grumpy people winding themselves up or/and lowering themselves to the same level. One thing i will say is the marshaling is very discrete. There's no public floggings, they rarely even announce when people have been kicked off the site, they just vanish and out of 120 people you might not even notice (maybe there's a locked room full of skeletons on the 3rd floor). This is good as it stops public arguments, and doesn't spread the vibe to people who hadn't noticed. But it can be bad as people actively pissed off by it can be left feeling they haven't had justice and might not notice the quality of honesty has improved; if they're still looking for reasons why it's bad, rather than why it might now be better. I often think The Mall needs a bit of a disclaimer; You have to remember it's a dark shopping mall with 100+ people in it, most of whom are used to slow paced hiding behind trees in perfect visibility. You're never going to get the same kind of team/objective immersion you'll get at a woodland site with half the numbers. And you will get a reasonable amount of chaos. So I find with The Mall you're kind of forced to take what you can/want from it, and also forced to adopt a sense of cheerful humor/indifference, not serious operator (you wont enjoy it, it'll never live up to that embassy siege fantasy in ones mind). Every game i play there I'll experience someone who doesn't take a hit, but you have to cut people some slack and assume their just out their woodland airsofting comfort zone and too panicked with adrenaline to notice, not evil and deliberately cheating. Report it all to marshals regardless, don't be shy about it, they know better than anyone that most people aren't trying to cheat, just shitting their pants too much to notice the bb hit the ridiculous amount of military costume they're wearing. Don't feel like you're slagging someone off, feel like your indirectly helping them to play the game better, as most airsofters are kind-hearted enough to only need a friendly word from a marshal to pay more attention to themselves. In summary; It does sound like you had a bit of a worse-case scenario for a first time there. All I can say is if you felt the layout of the site and the game scenarios has the potential to offer you the chance to be airsoft awesome, then go again, as every week it's a different 100 people, and usually all good eggs, rarely a rotten dozen.

I've seen far to many milsimmers bitching about 'damn CoD kids' to find this anything other than totally hilarious

It should be; The proposal is divided into 2 halves; the first half explaining the purpose/aims and justification for the amendments, the second half being the amendments themselves. I get my interpretation more from this first section rather than my own mind or the actual wording of the directive itself; In the first half it states one of the aims as being; "Establishing common technical guidelines on the convertibility of alarm/signal weapons and replicas, by detailing the criteria which qualify alarm weapons and replicas as convertible and, thus, bringing them within the scope of the Firearms Directive" So effectively they'll have to come up with a set of standards, and as long as airsoft guns aren't considered convertible, then we'll all be untouched. In my mind an absolute worse case scenario is an element or two of some airsoft guns being considered borderline and having to be adjusted; like not being allowed a steel outer barrel and us having to have plastic ones or similar. But i seriously doubt that'll happen, none of the internals of an airsoft gun can be modified to fire a bullet, infact thanks to Tokyo Marui the general design of AEG gearbox is such that it isn't possible to make one with enough FPS to stand a chance of killing someone with a metal bb etc, nowhere near even the power of an air-rifle (10-12x the power of an airsoft gun). So essentially all we have is a metal/plastic object of the same dimensions. If you're going to have to make all the internals of a gun anyways, it'd be easier to build a bespoke casing for it, rather than use an airsoft one. Personally i don't care, we'll always be able to have something that shoots a plastic BB. I've already got a Thundermall (permitted in various countries where RIF are banned). So for me my only issue would be if so many people rage-quit i've no-one to shoot anymore, and perhaps feeling abit shafted if i wasn't compensated for the RIFs i have to hand in. I'm sure the TA could benefit from absorbing all the milsimmers, and airsoft in general could benefit by loosing people with delusions of 'pro operator' and the attitude that seems to come with it (these are the two archetypes of airsofter i'm certain would quit on the spot)

Fortunately not; This does indeed add 'replicas' to the list of weapons that can be defined as Cat C, however; there is still the clause at the end of the definition section in the original Annex I to Directive 91/477/EC part II stating; For the purposes of this Annex objects which correspond to the definition of a 'firearm' shall not be included in that definition if they : (a ) have been rendered permanently unfit for use by the application of technical procedures which are guaranteed by an official body or recognized by such a body ; (b ) are designed for alarm, signalling, life-saving, animal slaughter or harpoon fishing or for industrial or technical purposes provided that they can be used for the stated purpose only ; (c ) are regarded as antique weapons or reproductions of such where these have not been included in the previous categories and are subject to national laws. So essentially this means that if you have a gun that can be defined under this section, as long as you can verify or have it verified that it cannot be modified/adapted into an actual bullet firing firearm, it's all good. The only point of this intended change is to make sure you can't get something that is capable of being adapted into an actual firearm outside of the procedures in place for attaining such a firearm. So for airsoft guns, the government would query the manufacturers, or perform their own independent verification that airsoft guns can't be modified into an actual firearm, and then they would be considered exempt. America has already considered this, and airsoft guns are deemed not modifiable into an actual firearm.

I also read through that whole damn document just to be sure, and also found nothing affecting RIF whatsoever, the closest being what they call 'alarm weapons' that can be modified to be an actual firearm. So another case of righteous hysteria... Just like all the muppets on facebook going on about the government taking their RIF from their dead-fingers after the police announced a voluntary amnesty for people to hand in guns and RIF... If anything this means that all the fools leaving messages to this proposal about banning RIF being a bad idea, are just reminding them about RIF, and the only effect this could have is them realizing 'oh yeah we forgot RIF' and adding something against them...

I appreciate the detailed response, think we'll have to agree to disagree on most of it, but at least we've both put enough time and thought into it to both be valid opinions! The function of a gun is simply to throw a projectile with massive energy accurately as far as possible. A gun is a weapon more than a tool, unless you define a weapon as a tool for imparting death/injury and that's round in a circle to the same point - it being a killing tool. There are sporting applications for most weapons, but they are still weapons and their primary function is still to kill/injure living things (mostly people). People who are happy to kill someone are going to kill them regardless of access to firearms. Indeed they might, but few people are killed out of a pre-meditated logical decision, they are killed in frenzied moments of emotion where logic has no reach. For those that do want to kill people in a pre-meditated way; school massacres in the US a the best example here; a crazy kid could probably knife a couple of people before they got tackled, or murder dozens with a gun because it's simply that much more efficient killing-tool. For those that suffer an emotional breakdown to the degree where they become violent, guns only provide them with the opportunity to make more grave a mistake (good example here a certain south-african athlete, whether you think he went nuts and shot his gf deliberately, or mistakenly out of fear, without a gun he wouldn't have killed anyone) I would hazard a guess that they would have liked more but 7 is the maximum number of people willing to commit such an atrocity at that time. I don't think we can really argue our own 'whatif' guesses against each other, but i remain confident that no amount of armed civilians will deter or reduce the number of people killed by foreign terrorists, and more guns in circulation can only increase the potential for native terrorism (school massacres etc) As for creating more opportunities, I don't think so. Again goes back to people wanting a quiet life free from oppression. You COULD smack everyone you meet around the face, but you don't. Why? because of the consequences that happen, assault charges, potentially serious injuries to someone you don't know deserve it. Yes, someone cut you up in traffic, you COULD ram their car with yours, but why don't you? because you, and everyone else who doesn't ram their car into someone who cuts them up is a rational human being with thoughts and feelings. It's very, very, very easy to assume everyone is thick as sh*t, but EVERYONE thinks they have common sense, most will demonstrate that they do. Indeed you have to be a total retard to not at least appreciate the logic of act vs consequence and what is good or bad. However; every single one of those bad actions you give as an example is done by someone every day, in an act of emotion not logic. Therefore if we had guns in general circulation, I am certain someone would get killed by one in an act of emotion not logic everyday/week like in the US. Most of this crime/killings relate to gangs in very few areas of the country. Gangs etc are the extreme of gun crime, just as middle-class gated communities are the extreme of safety. These areas are both a minority, although there being far far far more areas of impoverished crime than safe suburbia. However there's plenty of gun-crime and deaths/injuries in between. You certainly have it the wrong way round and there are very few areas of the US which don't have gun related deaths, injuries or crime on a regular basis. Looking at their national statistics, it just seems to be the middle-class are more likely to shoot themselves or their family, rather than someone elses. For the closing summary; I also agree that killing and war has provided the main motivation for mankind to enter the modern age of anthropy. I just think now we're here, we should really find better motivation and not waste so much time and resources on it. Space is a perfect example; without the cold-war they'd never bothered making rockets powerful enough to drop a continent busting nuke on the other-side of the world, let alone strapped a few together and fired them at the moon with some astronauts on top for a good PR stunt... I guess it's a matter or priorities, and i think mankind could progress so much further if we got ours right, rather than just reaping the occasional side-effect/benefit of otherwise entirely foolish endeavors.