Lozart

Most airbrush stencils are made in the US so that doesn't surprise me at all. The other way would be to buy yourself a vinyl cutter and get decent at converting images to vector files (that's what I did).

Joined!

Ferro DO make nice gear. As for me? I have WAS gear (901 chest rig and back plate) and it's great. Probably heavier than things like the Slickster or the WAS CPC but it works for me.

The one you linked is as per the video posted above, I have this one http://ferroconcepts.com/collections/slings/products/lw-mops-molle-one-point-sling-1 (which is longer and has a clip to attach to the weapon).

That's designed to work with a MOLLE vest (like the Osprey). You put the T shaped end through the webbing over your shoulder and loop it over to the rifle. I use something similar myself.

They'll be flapping around your ankles before you know it anyway...

Ah but...yeah...well..... What I meant was, maybe he's chronoing using 0.25g instead of 0.2g. Or something.

The positioning of the catch doesn't make a difference as it's the little wedge shaped bit that protrudes that is released by the feed tube on the bottom of the hop unit. It's possible that the two high cap mags aren't feeding because that catch doesn't stick out very far. The mag feeding or not shouldn't affect the FPS though so it sounds like you may have more than one issue (or the chrono isn't set for the weight of BB you're using).

Fair point, plus this has already been done to death elsewhere!

The simple fact is that EN 166 F is not high enough for airsoft use (it equates to 0.87 Joule impact energy). Regardless of what margins the manufacturer may or may not build in, physics is physics. Now granted the tests are for proof against penetration and under a higher impact MIGHT only crack but they might also shatter or just not stop the BB puncturing your eye. Is that a chance you're willing to take, because I'm certainly not. The other thing to bear in mind is that in terms of industrial safety use, most companies provide EN 166 F glasses for free because they're cheap and they're legally obliged to provide some sort of PPE. If they're letting you use them for grinding, cutting or drilling then they're at risk of being open to prosecution if you get hurt because those activities require EN 166 B or better to provide correct protection (ie goggles).

Specs can only achieve F in the CE marking scheme for industrial eyewear, however there ARE ballistic rated glasses that have a far higher impact resistance (Bolle Tactical have some for starters).

EN166F isn't actually high enough for protection in airsoft.

Bit of luck you bought decent ones then! Seriously though way too many people spend too little time making sure the ONE PIECE of critical safety gear for the game is up to scratch. I'll never understand that. You've only got one pair of eyes.

The goggles you've bought have been designed to meet the test criteria for CE EN166 which governs the standards for mechanical impact protection and clarity of view for protective eyewear. These tests are designed for repeatable results and as such are standardised in lab conditions. Manufacturers have to regularly provide test samples to be able to continue to put the CE mark on their products. These tests are far more scientific and accurate than you firing at them with your gun. If the goggles are certified to EN166 B (medium impact) then they will be absolutely fine and do not need you to "test" them first. If they are only certified to EN 166F then you've bought the wrong thing and "testing" them with your gun will again prove nothing more than your own lack of knowledge. "Testing" them with a springer will be about as much use as a one legged man at an arse kicking contest considering you may be exposed to someone with a 500FPS sniper rifle when you take them out in anger. It's like testing a cars impact protection by kicking the bumper.

Why do people insist on doing this? As if your AEG is a better test than the CE marking or something?

Maybe you could try these:

I think you're confusing "legal" and "defence against prosecution". The offence is still there, having a defence means you won't be prosecuted.

Yes.

http://www.patrolbase.co.uk/airsoft-silencer-suppressor/big-dragon-aac-style-qd-suppressor-long-170mm-x-35mm-tan.htm#.VwGyPPkrKHs

Spend a bit more and get a set of these: http://www.ukmcpro.co.uk/Bolle-Tactical-X1000-Goggles-RX-Model-Gear/p/4/2/6236/

Welcome to airsoft. Say goodbye to your fingertips.

Maybe you should read the article and understand what your condemning peoples reactions to then. As for picking out the word "little" - I picked out the entire phrase that you used which to me at least implied that you thought the matter to be insignificant. And there we have the answer to your other thread...

“He who is cruel to animals becomes hard also in his dealings with men. We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals.” - Immanuel Kant Now, I realise it's very easy to grab a glib quote from the internet but this one is all too true. While you (possibly) rightly say that there is worse going on in the world we should not stand by and allow people like the perpetrators of this particularly vile and unspeakable act to get away with what they've done. The sentences handed to them are laughably lenient considering what they did and the manner in which they behaved while they did it. Granted it would be a better response to sign the change.org petition for harsher sentences for animal abusers but to dismiss it as "a little violent animal cruelty" gives us as much of an insight into your thinking as you say a violent response gives you into others. It IS very true that many people (myself included at times) are wont to respond in an overtly violent manner while protected by the anonymity provided by the internet, but I honestly and truly hope that someone in whatever prison these pondscum end up in is a dog lover and beats the living shit out of them. This world has no more need of them than tits on a boar.

I'm assuming that you think that violent repercussions wrought upon these people would make "us" no better than "them". While in principle I agree, there would be a long way to go before any person that has an understandable desire to beat the living shit out of oxygen thieves like this would drop so far down the social ladder as to be considered "worse" or at least "as bad as" someone that would carry out wanton acts of abuse on an innocent animal.