Rogerborg

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.

Sorry to hear that, and I think that was the right response. I honestly don't care that much what site rules are, so long as whatever rules they do have are enforced from the top down, without exceptions. As soon as one rule doesn't matter, none of them do. See the successes of zero tolerance policing, as grudgingly admitted by this Marxist cope.

Eh. You can still score a very occasional real bargain, but mostly by buying winter gear in spring, and summer gear in autumn. I did once bag a pair of new and apparently genuine GoreTextm lined motorcycle gloves for the princely sum of £23.98, and they were great until I managed to drop them while walking to my bike, turned around 30 seconds later when I realised, and some Weegie ned had already had them away.

If headshots didn't count at a site, folk would just stick their mask and the muzzle of an HPA drum fed pistol above a barrel and play in God Mode. Gun hits seem to be about an even split between: ignore; takes the gun out of commission; counts as a kill. See rant upthread, site marshals don't always know the site rules. I like to play a little sub-game of test quizzing marshals by asking them about gun hits, and seeing how many different answers I get over the course of a day. Oh, marshals who misapply or don't apply site rules, or who prefer to spend the day chatting or on Facebook: please, no. I very much appreciate good marshalling, especially as it's often done for peanuts or less. But a disinterested or conflict-shy marshal is just hoarding a hi-vis from someone who could do a better job of it.

The known-brand stuff they sell will be no worse than the same items sold anywhere else, but the problem is that they also sell some plastic gearboxed plinker trash that will be lucky to survive the shipping process, or wacky brands that even if they work out of the box are likely to take proprietary parts. I've bought from BBguns4less before, but when I knew exactly what I wanted, and why, and had checked that I was making a small saving. But for someone who doesn't know where to buy or why, the answer isn't likely to be found on sites that flog a lot of "Professional Grade Airsoft Gun in ORANGE!"

Predators only evolve when their prey forces them too. He's identified a community based on trust, and is ruthlessly farming it.

Yup. Base layers, I go either synthetic, or merino wool. Merino is great stuff, it's soft, wicks sweat, insulates, it's warm even when wet. Sheep don't grow cotton fleeces. Yup, you can find surplus gear (mis)listed as goretex, or under the generic term MVP (Moisture Vapour Permeable). I've just had cause to test a pair of surplus MVP over-trousers by cycling in torrential rain, and they did a decent job for much less than the cost of GoreTextm branded civvy stuff, and without the sweatiness of my previous rubberised vinyl trousers. I'm currently watching some MVP jackets/liners on eBay since the buy-it-nows tend to be £30+ upwards. In the meantime, I agree that cheap ponchos do a decent job, although they will leak and seep around the gaps once you start moving. Dubbin or copious globs of polish on your boots, or pick up some waterproof socks aka boot liners. Sealskinz or surplus both work. I'm always sceptical about waterproof gloves, as it's almost impossible to get all the seams full sealed. At that price though, they're worth a punt.