Airsoft Howitzer.

[Zak Da Mack]

I don't believe they explode on impact. looks like there is a slight timed fuse. What if you used a tornado impact grenade as they are not pyro but are powered by gas

 

[two_zero]

prob repeating what someone already said, but shame it doesnt go boom or scatter bbs..

 

[Zak Da Mack]

i thought that Impact grenades can hold about 30 bbs inside them?

 

[sp00n]

i thought that Impact grenades can hold about 30 bbs inside them?

if its the tornado ones i thought they had 200?

 

[two_zero]

launching tornados is a bit dangerous, same reason you're not allowed overhand throw with bfgs.

 

[Ian_Gere]

Ian, from my reading, those would fall under Section 5 of the firearms act (simple possession without lawful authority wins you a five year holiday at the taxpayers expense with all the nice drug dealers!) Anything that fires a projectile that is designed to explode on impact, and the projectiles themselves, comes under S5 (prohibited weapons)!

Yeah mate, I suspected it would be something like that. There's always a whining cnut with a gob big enough and psyche twisted enough to keep banging on and on about how anything fun needs to be controlled, until in the end politicians will vote such arseholery into law just so they can stop having to listen to it!

If I wasn't so trashed right now I'd find/start a thread on UKAPU. We need to push for an exemption to the law. Those ICS grenades don't do anything which a thrown pyro doesn't already do, it's just that a launcher can do it more accurately. I wonder if there's a specified defence for placing bonfire night rockets into tubes/bottles...

It does go bang, two_zero. Yeah, a 12 gauge blank !BOOM! would be better, or even a 9mm, but I'll take anything we can get. For me the main problem with thrown pyros is inaccuracy and them bouncing back at you; to be able to consistently place a bang or smoke pretty much where you want it would be a major step forward.

 

[two_zero]

It does go bang, two_zero. Yeah, a 12 gauge blank !BOOM! would be better, or even a 9mm, but I'll take anything we can get. For me the main problem with thrown pyros is inaccuracy and them bouncing back at you; to be able to consistently place a bang or smoke pretty much where you want it would be a major step forward.

the one in the youtube clip doesn't seem to go bang? or are we talking about the GLM? the main problem with throwing BFGs is that they are heavy and if they land on someones head they likely to cause real injure.

 

[SheriffHD]

Yeah, as much as I would love to see one of these in the field (and knowing me id be the first to get shot in the head....by my self) But there is always going to be that one health and safety guy in the corner making a list of all the "what ifs"

Maybe if they could throw in a alteration to allow the use in "adult military training simulation" where during an adult only game where each individual has signed a no libality disclaimer could they then use more of these fun toys, grenade launchers and howitzers included.

 

[Ian_Gere]

@two_zero: are we watching the same vid? When the grenades go off you can hear the bang over the music... Do you mean the howitzer? Yeah, that would be better if the projectile exploded but even I, and I'm happy to take risks others shy away from, wouldn't want to be down range of something heavy enough to make an impressive bang fired from 200+m away. I'm not sure that BFG's need to be as heavy as they are, but there has to be a minimum weight in them so that the blank cannot impart sufficient recoil to them that they fly off in some random direction.

@Da_sheriff: I have no problem with noting down the "what ifs", it's the whinging about them that pisses me off. The point of a risk assessment, to my mind at least, is not to find reasons why you can't do something, it's to put reasonable precautions in place to prevent accidents and a comprehensive plan of action to deal with those scenarios which are possible but so unlikely that it isn't reasonable to go out of your way to prevent them, basically so that you can do it!

 

[SheriffHD]

Trust me Ian I know what you mean. Its just those blasted What ifs are all they want to consider. Most of the time its a case of them not wanting a case of an injured kid, which never looks good (which is why I said about maybe if they allowed it for over 18 events)

 

[Ian_Gere]

I get you, but in my experience the "kid" argument is what people resort to when they realise that if the discussion goes much further they'll be left without a leg to stand on. In rhetoric it's called "argument to emotion" and is considered an automatic fail. You know, like the truth is that somebody doesn't like the idea of anything to do with guns but they know that many people either do or don't care either way, so they go with the safety argument to say airsoft should be banned. So the counter argument goes 'mandatory eyepro; muzzle energy limits'... [cue whining nasal voice] but what about the kiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiids? In rebuttal you may think, "you illogical, namby-pandy peddling, bollockless bastard!", but because many people are swayed more by emotion than logic, we have to go with 'no pyros and mandatory full face protection for u18's'.

The truth of the matter however is that if being shot at with a particular projectile is dangerous for kids, it's dangerous for adults. The risk is exactly the same. The difference is that an adult can choose to take that risk for themselves and sign the liability waiver, but it is up to a kid's legal guardian to assess the risk and either sign or refuse on the kid's behalf. The logical implication of saying that something which has a degree of risk involved is ok for adults but must have greater mandatory protection for kids, or that kids cannot be allowed to do it purely on safety grounds, is that adults cannot be trusted to make decisions about the safety of the kids for whom they are the legal guardians - a situation which would require a total re-evaluation of the way British Law works...

 

[remus]

next week on airsoft forums.co.uk, how to make an airsoft taser....(not for actually airsofting with but for use when people try to ruin airsoft so thanks to logic of law nerf propelled by water is as far as we can currently realisticly take this?

 

[Ian_Gere]

I dunno remus. I think there may be something worth looking into in this definition of a weapon that fires a projectile that explodes on impact. If that is the letter of the law, then if it's a timed fuse then it may be ok. But then again it may be impossible under the muzzle energy regs, because it wouldn't take much projectile weight for the muzzle velocity to have to be so low it would be pointless. I think it depends again on the letter of the law, because there may be a usable legal difference between something the law defines as a firearm and something which is merely a passive launcher. I say this because any of those water rocket type thingies are actually propelled by compressed air. Water doesn't compress, it just slows down the escape of the air compressed behind it in the container so it doesn't pop out all in one go. I mean, what do they do on Scrapheap Challenge? Get a licence to manufacture firearms? Somehow I just don't think so... Even the episodes where they built actual real steel canons; i'll bet that just one armourer person had the necessary licence and everybody else was considered legally under their supervision.