Rogerborg

It can be worth re-asking, as we're capricious, and the accepted wisdom changes over time. iMax B6 chargers used to be the go-tos, now we're into the SkyRC R65 and T100. CYMAs used to be considered robust but very basic budget guns, now they're doing some pretty decent stuff as well. There are no stupid questions, only sardonic answers.

Yes, it is. The thing is, at UK power levels, it's not that big a deal. Even if you're shooting at 1.3 or even higher, you're still not anywhere near the level of what we should be planning for, which is a negligent point blank shot of a 2.3J 0.5g sniper BB into someone's earball. We can now delight @Druid799 by segueing into a rant about how EN 166F glasses shouldn't be allowed on sites.

Long overdue, really. Especially considering how much of Hollywood seems determined to not learn anything about the murder-irons that they hate so much. It's fascinating to watch the very few exceptions on screen, like Adam Baldwin (no relation, 2nd Amendment advocate), or Tricia Helfer (farmgirl, once her strict trigger discipline has been seen, it cannot be unseen). Urgh, the stuff that's coming out now. Filming being halted on the armourer's previous film when she was waving guns around, loading them unsafely, then handing them to an 11 year old kid. And the murder-iron in question being used by the crew to fuck around shooting live rounds, on-set out of hours. Whoever brought those rounds on set should probably be getting the short drop and sudden stop, alongside the armourer.

Mea culpa, I have a habit of doing that. When I'm tempted, I try to think "What would colinjallen do?", then I do the opposite. In this case, I do try to remember that sites are primarily responsible for educating players, and if they only talk in terms of fps, then what else are folk mean to think?

The new issue is sites asking people to let them review video before it's published, because of the profusion of "CHEETAR PUNASHED" Licking Mustard clickbait trash that bigs up (or fakes up) the issue while giving sites a bad name. In practice a site can't prevent you publishing whatever you want, but they don't have to let you play again either if you're more interested in a career as a WuTuber than in helping them identify the problem players.

It's the exact same problem as that which spawned this thread: an ingrained habit of thinking in terms of 0.2g because that's what used to be common in the dawn of airsoft time. The law says nothing about BB mass. It actually says "a missile (of any kind)". The intent is clearly to limit what non-firearm airsoft guns could do in the hands of the malicious, rather than what us law abiding types intend to do with them. The State could drop 0.86g steel BBs in there for testing. We'd gasp in horror and say "you'll ruin the hop and barrel", but that's not a concern for Charlie Chav or the State. On the issue of sites chronoing with 0.2g because it's quick and gives you some estimate of what the gun might be doing with the ammo that's actually in it, well, that's true enough. It would be equally quick to use 0.4g though, and it would be more likely to catch hotter guns. It's not a panacea, but if you pick just one mass of BB to use, I'd advocate heavier rather than lighter.

Honestly, I don't blame you. It's up to sites to explain what they mean, and far too many don't bother. They're stuck still thinking in terms of everyone using 0.2g BBs, to the point of not even specifying that, when essentially nobody is using BBs that light in woodland any more. At least they had a Joules figure up there, which is still better than some places. But it makes the fps irrelevant, because what they really mean is 1.14J with whatever ammo you're using, and that happens to be 350fps if you're using 0.2g (but you almost certainly won't be, so it's a pointless number). There's an argument that it's simpler to communicate one big round number than one small one, but it's facile since you have to convert the big number to the small one for it to be any use. Then they'll argue that it's quicker to chrono with site 0.2g BBs (if they bother chronoing, or checking for it), which is great until you see just how much even AEGs can Joule creep with heavier ammo. I had a bit of a surprise yesterday when my AEG jumped from 1.1J up to 1.2J just by going from 0.25g to 0.32g with no other changes. Fortunately that was bang on the site limit. And I honestly couldn't tell you what fps it was seeing with either weight, because it's an irrelevant number. You set the chrono to the BB mass, and you look at the Joules figure, done. Alternatively you can use a chart to convert from fps to Joules, but why bother when it's a few presses on the chrono for most common ammo weights? And credit to this site (Area-66), they even announced that if anyone changed BB weight during the day that they should get re-chronoed. That's the way that sites should be thinking and communicating now.

Ahoy and welcome to both. Yes, we're one of the holdouts from Facebook. I'm still keeping an eye on it, because of sites insisting on using it for communication and organisation. There are also some UK airsoft groups but I'm questioning why I'm even in them, as they're mostly "Wat am best gnu?" posts (where everyone replies with their most recent purchase, irrespective of any criteria given), or worse, "Halp gnu no wurk", where you get drip-fed the actual problem one painful leading question and reply at a time. You will see the occasional "Read the stickies" reply here, but it's generally good natured and constructive.

This is the chap who was asking, in essence, whether he'd get caught if he tried to smuggle RIFs through the Chunnel. He's a wrong 'un.

I'd say primarily. Why not? Is a question that a prosecutor might be asking very soon. Actors have hours of idle time. I can't think of any good reason to not train them, beyond them not wanting to learn anything about icky, scary guns. I understand that you're correct that they're not given sufficient training. What I'm saying is that this needn't be so, and that it might have to change because of this incident. Safety regulations are written in blood. Hot young mother blood in this case. We'll see. I guess it comes down to whether you consider actors to be adult human beings with self agency. What I am 100% confident about predicting is that Baldwin will turn this into an anti-gun crusade. "See, even your botoxed gods aren't safe with murder-irons, so nobody should get to have murder irons. Except actors, of course, because you can trust us now."

It's a tough one. It certainly wasn't intentional, and there shouldn't have been a live round anywhere on set. However, actors are not a special category of human being, and they have culpability for their own actions. "Just following orders" is not a defence, and ignorance shouldn't be either. How long does it take to show-and-tell basic gun safety, and the difference between an inert dummy round, and (a picture of) a live round? It could be done while they're in make-up. It certainly should be. If he knows nothing about guns, then he's in a poor position to be making pronouncements about them. And if he's so anti-gun that he refused to learn the basics, then should have refused to use one. It's hard not to conclude that he's a virtue signaller who dropped his principles at the first sniff of a pay cheque. It's an 1880s Western, so it would have been a revolver. It seems to have been an actual live round. It is unfathomable why there would be one anywhere on set, and the armourer is primarily to blame for that. "The person in charge of overseeing the gun props, known as the armorer, Hannah Gutierrez Reed, could not be reached for comment. The 24-year-old is the daughter of veteran armorer Thell Reed" And a big round of applause for nepotism. Wamxn's lib, take a bow too. Seems that it was a live round that went right through Ms Hutchins, and into the man standing behind her. From the LA times article above, it seems that he wasn't even supposed to be firing it, it was just a draw scene. And they'd already had multiple NDs from their prop live guns, although how you'd cause a revolver to fire without pulling the trigger escapes me. To be as charitable as I can to Baldwin, if the hammer had somehow become cocked (they'd already filmed the scene once), and the trigger was defective (see previous NDs), it might have gone off without being pulled. I do feel considerable sympathy for him, and I'd primarily blame the armourer. It won't have been in any way intentional, and he is going to have to live with the knowledge that he could have prevented it by checking those rounds. But he could have checked those rounds, and I believe that he should have checked those rounds.

I understand that old old squaddie boots were awful, but the two pairs of black assault boots with GoreTex lining that I've bought in the past decade have been just fine. Granted, "grade 1" is always a gamble but I've been lucky enough to get boots with almost unworn soles.

I fully agree that airsoft sites should only have airsoft toys at them. Even if you know what you've brought, the skip licker who thinks it's funny to pick it up and "pew" it at someone won't. I include metal pellet air guns in that, I've seen folk shooting them on airsoft ranges. In this case it seems like actual live rounds were loaded (why were there even any on site?) and they'd already had this happen on set, to big shrugs. https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/story/2021-10-22/alec-baldwin-rust-camera-crew-walked-off-set Somebody should be going to jail for that, either the armourer, the AD who said "cold gun", or Baldwin. I hope we'd agree with the basic principle that you should always assume that a gun (airsoft or otherwise) is loaded until you've personally verified otherwise. Even - and especially - if you're an anti-gun activist like Baldwin. That wasn't an "accident", it was negligence.

It also implies a guilty mind as you'd only do it if you know you're up to something sneaky. Not an issue in this case though, there's no receiver/frame.

I feel compelled to point out that you can stretch leather slightly by soaking and heating it, but you need a form (wooden last or adjustable stretcher) and it's a last resort with boots that you really need to make fit so that the prince will marry you, it's not anything you'd want to attempt by choice.

I agree. The State might not, but what do they know?

I have to agree. If it was "fully upgraded" then I'm not sure what you expect to happen differently next time. It's be all the same parts internally, and it's not like the shell makes much of a difference. I do have to wonder, are the results that you want based on watching YouTube sniper channels?

Nope. Only for a thing that "has an appearance that is so realistic as to make it indistinguishable, for all practical purposes, from a real firearm". Components short of that are just fine.

Perhaps they heard that people were having fun there, and it hurt them in the place where human would have a soul?

I was thinking of that fact that airsoft involves a fair bit of crouching and wriggling through damp shrubbery that comes a lot higher than knee height, especially when that knee is on the ground. It just seems curious to use half a solution rather than a full one.

But will it reach the balls of my feet before the balls of my balls?

Hmm, I've never tried gaiters. I'm struggling to see the point, as they seem like a fussy way to wear half of a pair of waterproof over-trousers, that will leave you getting damp from the knees up. What am I missing?

If we're talking looking down the barrel, I'd put "shotgun" right up there. And curiously they remain shall-issue in the UK, a situation which surely can't last forever.

I'm more curious about what he's expecting to see in there than concerned about the consequences.