TAG rounds; safety and legality?

Wo1f said:
@Adolf Hamster don’t all under 18’s have to wear full face anyway? 

Pretty sure it it was a grown man and it was done as a test to stop people whining about them. Isn’t there a vid of that American you tuber catching one midair and throwing it back too? It’s literally just foam. It’s not spraying off red hot ‘sparks’ like most pyro we throw are so to me they’re inherently less dangerous. Can they be abused? Of course, but so can anything in airsoft. 
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...


I've seen some folk not going for full face on the younger side, although mesh full face is a thing at some sites. I suppose you could expand "kid" to "someone who's new enough to the sport to not understand the danger".

I'm not worried about the impact itself, assuming it's from extended range, It's the whole exploding immediately bit makes me uneasy, i suppose a similar argument can be made for any impact grenade.

Of course i may be falling victim to appearances here, i'm just going off what i've seen of them going off, been fortunate not to have been hit with one yet. I'd much rather the timed ones were used, at least that swings the odds to it going off at your feet.

 
Wo1f said:
@Adolf Hamster don’t all under 18’s have to wear full face anyway? 

Pretty sure it it was a grown man and it was done as a test to stop people whining about them. Isn’t there a vid of that American you tuber catching one midair and throwing it back too? It’s literally just foam. It’s not spraying off red hot ‘sparks’ like most pyro we throw are so to me they’re inherently less dangerous. Can they be abused? Of course, but so can anything in airsoft. 
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It depends on which shell.

Basic shells are just foam, there are also ones that contain powder and the reaper is a pyrotechnic that explodes after launching 

 
Tommikka said:
It depends on which shell.

Basic shells are just foam, there are also ones that contain powder and the reaper is a pyrotechnic that explodes after launching 
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...


It’s still made of foam though, and the fuse on reapers are concealed internally. Unlike a mk5 which has open flame 

 
Tommikka said:
It depends on which shell.

Basic shells are just foam, there are also ones that contain powder and the reaper is a pyrotechnic that explodes after launching 
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...


Yeah, the ones I'm specifically thinking of are the impact detonation, just an immediate boom. I don't mind the idea of timed/smoke/lump o foam.

Maybe even if the impact detonation ones had a second delay it would be better.

 
Adolf Hamster said:
i wonder what plod's reaction to an airgun that fires explosive ammunition is going to be.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...


Hmm.  Let's read it through together.

Section 5 prohibits: "any rocket launcher, or any mortar, for projecting a stabilised missile, other than a launcher or mortar designed for line-throwing or pyrotechnic purposes or as signalling apparatus"

"if capable of being used with a firearm of any description, any grenade, bomb (or other like missile), or rocket or shell designed to explode"

"any rocket or ammunition not falling within paragraph (c) of subsection (1) of this section which consists in or incorporates a missile designed to explode on or immediately before impact and is for military use"

[Hmmmmmmm intensifies]

Air weapons are still considered as firearms for the purposes of FA 1968, just a special class of them that doesn't require a FAC and which have different rule regarding ammunition, possession and use.  This is distinct from airsoft guns, which are explicitly exempted from being defined as firearms for the purposes of the act iff their energy is low enough.

So on a strict reading by a prosecutor with some firearms targets to hit, the exploding rounds might be a no-no, even if the system itself is considered an air weapon.

 
Rogerborg said:
Hmm.  Let's read it through together.

Section 5 prohibits: "any rocket launcher, or any mortar, for projecting a stabilised missile, other than a launcher or mortar designed for line-throwing or pyrotechnic purposes or as signalling apparatus"

"if capable of being used with a firearm of any description, any grenade, bomb (or other like missile), or rocket or shell designed to explode"

"any rocket or ammunition not falling within paragraph (c) of subsection (1) of this section which consists in or incorporates a missile designed to explode on or immediately before impact and is for military use"

[Hmmmmmmm intensifies]

Air weapons are still considered as firearms for the purposes of FA 1968, just a special class of them that doesn't require a FAC and which have different rule regarding ammunition, possession and use.  This is distinct from airsoft guns, which are explicitly exempted from being defined as firearms for the purposes of the act iff their energy is low enough.

So on a strict reading by a prosecutor with some firearms targets to hit, the exploding rounds might be a no-no, even if the system itself is considered an air weapon.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...


Sooooo, ?

View attachment 51705

 
Rogerborg said:
Hmm.  Let's read it through together.

Section 5 prohibits: "any rocket launcher, or any mortar, for projecting a stabilised missile, other than a launcher or mortar designed for line-throwing or pyrotechnic purposes or as signalling apparatus"

"if capable of being used with a firearm of any description, any grenade, bomb (or other like missile), or rocket or shell designed to explode"

"any rocket or ammunition not falling within paragraph (c) of subsection (1) of this section which consists in or incorporates a missile designed to explode on or immediately before impact and is for military use"

[Hmmmmmmm intensifies]

Air weapons are still considered as firearms for the purposes of FA 1968, just a special class of them that doesn't require a FAC and which have different rule regarding ammunition, possession and use.  This is distinct from airsoft guns, which are explicitly exempted from being defined as firearms for the purposes of the act iff their energy is low enough.

So on a strict reading by a prosecutor with some firearms targets to hit, the exploding rounds might be a no-no, even if the system itself is considered an air weapon.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...


so the tl:dr is it's a bit of a grey area but possibly very bad if someone's got an axe to grind.

 
Adolf Hamster said:
so the tl:dr is it's a bit of a grey area but possibly very bad if someone's got an axe to grind.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...


Bear in mind that a shooty enough spud gun could be considered a lethal barrelled firearm by a prosecutor with a hard on for Stopping The Scourge Of Etc Etc Etc.  You don't generally find common sense coming into the justice system until you reach Appeals.

 
Rogerborg said:
Bear in mind that a shooty enough spud gun could be considered a lethal barrelled firearm by a prosecutor with a hard on for Stopping The Scourge Of Etc Etc Etc.  You don't generally find common sense coming into the justice system until you reach Appeals.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...


And that is a terrifying thought, I sure don't want to be the poor sod on the receiving end of a grumpy lawyers crusade

 
Adolf Hamster said:
And that is a terrifying thought, I sure don't want to be the poor sod on the receiving end of a grumpy lawyers crusade
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...


It sounds crazy until you recall the case in Falkirk where ScotPlod and the Fiscal bagged, tagged and prosecuted an airsofter for posting pictures of his toys on an Facebook airsoft forum: armed response, helicopters, the lot.  Say "firearms" and the whole machinery of state grinds into action - it's got a lot of momentum once it gets going.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top