Rogerborg

Aw, chap, no. I guess this is a salient lesson that once you reach the point of initiating a dispute, the only acceptable resolution is a refund.

Nice one, that's why I got mine. It's been rebuilt more than a Cuban taxi by now.

I thought Canuckistan was planning to ban all transactions involving assault-style toys and essentially kill airsoft? It does seem to be somewhat of a lottery regarding importation, and something to bear in mind that is UKARA (and similar schemes) provide a defence to the offence of trying to import. They are not a licence to do so, although Border Farce have historically chosen to treat them as one - but are under no obligation to do so. Another fun twist is that Border Force do not even hold figures on how often they check defences for importation of RIFs! So I'd follow @Mr. No_Face's advice and declare, declare, declare. If you can adduce evidence that you are an active airsofter in Canada, that can't hurt, and if you can book ahead at an airsoft site in the UK for soon after your arrival, I'd go ahead and do that too. But there's always going to be a risk that you run into a jobsworth who (sadly but correctly) knows that a defence is not a licence and that they're under no obligation to let the killer death toys in.

An over-volumed AEG can do a bit of snap, crackle, and pop, but we're talking PDW length barrels, 110mm or thereabouts. I'd hazard that in most cases you'd be better off just running a longer barrel inside the silencer.

That's ackchyually as intended. Silencers work by diverting the gasses off the to side. You're better with a series of thin baffles with spaces between than filling the whole thing with foam.

Who does though? I mean, airsoft and all.

"They were build from junk bins at the time" is a pretty clever gambit though, I have to give him credit for the chutzpah.

They seem to have a lot of... "opportunities"... https://www.youtube.com/c/NegativeAirsoftTech/search?query=ares

Yup, that's what I'd expect it to cost. Anyone charging less is risking being out of pocket. Although there used to be a £100 limit listed on either the ParcelFarce or RoyalFail sites, but that seems to have gone now. Or at least I can't find it, which isn't necessarily the same thing. It might be quite the bun fight if they dug up and revealed a secret limit later, after taking your money for providing extra cover. [EDIT] Found it here: https://www.parcelforce.com/help-and-advice/sending/prohibitions-and-restrictions This the wording that contradicts other pages, as it says that they won't send any firearms, components, RIFs or any sort of toy gun, except for low powered air weapons. We've had a handbag fight over this before, but seems clear that the Post Office will accept honestly described RIFs, and if they take the money, they create a contract. Arms and Ammunition - low powered air weapons Low-powered air weapons (air rifles, air guns and air pistols), together with lead pellets and other airgun and airsoft projectiles, can be sent but are subject to the following conditions: These items must be sent on an express48 service only These items must be sent via the Post Office only, and presented at the counter Enhanced compensation cover is not available I reckon if you declare it honestly (and can prove that) and if they take the money for extra cover, you should be OK. Although there's some danger that they might say "Here's your £100 plus what you paid for extra cover, go whistle for the rest." about 6 months down the line.

Monster Energy from the site shop, then malingering after lunch, and going home at 2pm with a thumping headache, is I believe SOP.

Handy, given that their prices appear to be about 10% above PatrolBase to begin with.

Their SSL/TLS security certificate is scrawled in crayon on a Blockbuster's loyalty card from 1992. Sane browsers just laugh it off, although some might give you the option to continue anyway by clicking "Yes", "Yes", "Yes, I really, really do understand the risks" about half a dozen times.

That was about 21 for me, sadly. The struggle has been real since then, I sorted myself out in my 30s with restricted hours eating, lots of cycling, and some weights, but then I made the mistake of buying a motorised bicycle, and, oops, that was that. But as God is my witness, I will see my toes again. Absolutely, which is why it's so important to find a diet that you can stick to. I'm amazed how easy it's been to drop the bad carbs, after the first week. Hunger pangs and cravings have plummeted and restricted hours eating is a doddle. There's some evidence that just 3 x 10 minutes of interval sprints a week can have most of the health benefits of regular daily exercise, although that's not for me, I prefer moderate daily cycling. I would highlight the benefits of an indoor option like an exercise bike so that you don't have an excuse to skip it in bad weather.

Sort-of related, but Patrol Base seem to be getting a bit fruity in their Boneyard descriptions. I'm guessing that they're getting tired of punters whinging "but i fort it wud wurk" over and over.

Er, sugars are carbohydrates. If we're talking complex carbs, why load your bloodstream with sugars before you have to? There does seem to be a fair case building that insulin resistance is the slippery slope to a whole raft of common Western health woes. I'd suggest that you can tolerate more carbs, if you're burning them off. The Tsimane people are the prime example of that, doing very well on a high-fibre, complex-carb diet, but a key factor is that they're constantly active so will be using the simple sugars as fast as they're being broken down. As above, when I'm doing a day airsofting (thread relevance) I do have some carbs at breakfast, although I can also get by perfectly fine without them on my disgustang excess body fat and plenty of water. Day-to-day, I'm sitting at a keyboard, with periods of cycling. Blood sugars begone, I'll have no truck with thee. I guess anyone lucky enough to have next to no body fat does need to carb load before exertion, but how many AFUKers does that describe? Airsoft day is also bacon day. It's got electrolytes, right? That's the Big Spud lobby talking. He really doesn't, he's not looked into this all that much, and it's hard to tell the science from the propaganda or woo. I mean, pretty much anyone can set themselves up as a nutritionist and make sweeping statements without either evidence or consequence. I guess the key thing is that if you're fat or lethargic, then whatever you're eating or doing needs to change. You won't know until you try. I tried some tortilla chips tonight, as an experiment, and now I feel bloated and bleurgh. Untry, untry.

Ah, but the difference is that you have to collect the expensive one. The optic and torch really add something though, like one of these vroom-vroom "exhausts" on a bicycle.

Well, I'm taking them out of an abundance of caution, but the only thing I've really cut out is sugars, rice, wheat, sugary fruits, and the carbiest of root vegetables (but I'm eating moderate amounts of carrot, onion, radishes and so on). Low carb does not have to mean butter and bacon. I'm now eating more green vegetables: cabbage, kale, broccoli, cauliflower, courgettes, celery, tomatoes, olives and green beans. What am I missing out on? Evolved, not designed. We may be having a labelling squabble here. If I said "Cooked Palaeolithic plus some non-lactose dairy" rather than keto, how are we looking? Why requires? I have more sustainable endurance now than I did 3 months ago. But what are the answers? In my case it's a moderate fat, moderate protein, low carb diet. I've reduced my food intake, it's just that I've lowered carbs much more than fat or protein, both of which provide essentials acids. I think I've said several times that I wouldn't necessarily suggest high fat, minimal carbs as a maintenance diet, but dropping carbs has certainly working for losing body fat, particularly visceral fat, and I hope we can agree on the health benefits of that. It's practically impossible to do so, and nowhere in here am I advocating it. I'm happy to call it very low carb, Paleolithic, or whatever doesn't imply 90%/6%/4% full keto. Fruits, maybe, but those are seasonal. Potatoes, possibly, but we didn't evolve to eat those, nor wheat, nor rice. And see the veg list above, plus a multivitamin a day. What am I missing out on? I'm still unclear on what's unhealthy about a diet based around loads of fresh veg, nuts, some dairy, fish and chicken. I've looked, but all I can find is woo-science handwaving, and unsourced assertions. I'm happy to follow the science, but I have to actually see it.

Why, exactly? I've seen it often asserted, but never explained. This NHS page, for example, asserts that "Carbohydrates are important to your health for several reasons." and then goes on to explain glucose -> glycogen -> fat, but provides zero (I counted them twice) reasons why this is necessary, specifically in the context of tubbies needing to get rid of fat rather than storing it. There's no fatty or amino acids in carbs - those are essential. Body fat gets turned into ketones, which we're able to use quite handily as an energy source, including for our brains. So, really, I'm fascinated to see some clinical evidence of what we actually need carbs for, or what negative things happen when we go into ketosis. Aside, it's essentially impossible to eat zero carbs, I wouldn't advocate trying that. For one thing, we do need fibre for digestive health, and that always comes with some digestible carbs as well. But I've never felt better than when keeping carbs to a minimum. What's not working?

We'll, it's at their risk, and it seems to be a purely theoretical one. And indeed, once one does it, the rest will say "Hey! Those are dodgy sales that we could be making!" It's commendable that PatrolBase haven't budged, and it's one reason why I'd tend to point people at them by default. I just hope that when one of the hooky ones does get stung by Trading Standards or tugged by the fuzz that it doesn't result in the legislation being reviewed. I know that's very unlikely too, but I'm particularly concerned about the Scotch situation - Holyrood hates anything remotely projectile related.

How else do you lose weight though? Eat less, or stuff your face and then dancercise it off. I'd certainly advocate vitamin and maybe some mineral supplements if you're reducing your food intake. Eh? Weight loss only happens if you're unbalanced, and burning more than you're eating. All good points, although what works for Alice might not work for Bob. I find it easier to stick to hard rules than a sliding scale which can result in backsliding. Truth to tell though, when I'm airsofting, I still allow myself a bacon and egg sammich breakfast, with multi-seeded wholemeal bread and lashings of brown sauce.

Well, you shouldn't, but we have to hoe the row that we've been dealt wait what? In my case, I find it a lot easier to buy and eat none of something than a little of something. Ideally, smaller portions is probably the way to go. Google sorted their developer bloat just by putting out smaller plates in their free canteens. Why on earth would you shove them up your bum? ? OK, I've read that ten times now, and I still can't unsee it. Depends how you do it. It doesn't have to be steak, salmon and organic avocado, I'm doing fine on chicken, sardines and cabbage. I'm actually eating a lot more greens now than I used to, which is another benefit. At its core, low carb is just about having a salad instead of chips.

Site hidden as I wouldn't want to send anyone that way. Hmm, I guess they're operating on the basis that if they don't advertise it, they won't get caught at it. And they are at it because that reduces it to the level of "Our defence is that the customer was prepared to pay another £25 or so". As always, it'll be fine until it's not.

Have you tried going very-low-carb in order to test that hypothesis? I mean, for a week or more, not a day or two. For me, it's quite the opposite. A bit of Brie keeps me going for far longer than a packet of crisps or a piece of toast ever did. Protein is key though, a tin of sardines can do me half the day. I'm coming round to believing that carbs cause hunger. All the plz-no-bullying in here depressed me so much that I cheated and had some slivers of melon, and now I've got hunger pangs. My faith crumbled, and lo, I am being punished for it. ?

Fair point, and I'm talking about a diet for removing excess fat by keeping you in ketosis through consuming fewer calories than you burn, which is most easily done by reducing carbs. But that's a bit of a mouthful. That's as distinct from the original keto diet for maintaining weight while controlling epilepsy which was more like 90% fat, 6% proteins, and 4% carbs (calorie-wise). That seems extreme, but it's worth noting that people can survive and thrive on it long term, and I'm experiencing only good things so far from binning the bread. I'm going more protein though and less fat (sardines, not sausages), and slipping in a sneaky carrot here and there, but the key is to rethink carb addiction. Bread is cake, as far as our bodies are concerned.