Vitalis
New Member
I want to shoot somebody, airsoft style...
Posts: 320
|
Post by Vitalis on Sept 26, 2002 21:49:08 GMT -5
Why does it seem like we always go in a circle and end up back at AO rules, I have nothing else to say. Because the FPS rules are really well thought out?
|
|
|
Post by Motown on Sept 26, 2002 21:51:42 GMT -5
Because we dont really have a set of rules?
|
|
Rane
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by Rane on Sept 26, 2002 21:55:00 GMT -5
I agree with changing the rules to Vitalis' rules for gun speeds.
If not that, then AO rules.
As for face masks, It is recommended that people wear them. If they don't thats thier choice.
|
|
|
Post by DevilDog on Sept 27, 2002 11:30:32 GMT -5
Although I like the idea of having personal choice in wearing the eye protection, I think that there needs to be a standard. I think most Airsoft Clubs all have the same rule... Full sealing face protection.
|
|
|
Post by frostee on Sept 27, 2002 12:08:36 GMT -5
I'm still in favor of trying out the proposed changes before we discard them. *Read some interesting posts at AO about only allowing AEG's to shoot around 500fps if the full-auto function is "hard" disabled. *
This is slightly off topic, but since face protection was mentioned in the previous posts I will post here. I think that the eye protection rule should be rewritten to include ASTM F1776-01 STANDARD FOR EYE PROTECTIVE DEVICES FOR PAINTBALL SPORTS as acceptable eyewear. Most of the better paintball masks will be rated to this ASTM specification which is similar in intent to the ANSI rating for ballistic eyewear. Both specs are meant for eye protection under high velocity, high impact conditions.
Lastly, I think that we might want to include something about not making head shots unless that is the only accessible area of an opponent. AO uses that rule and I think it might be beneficial since we are trialing our FPS/range at slightly higher/closer limits. Head shots should only be allowed if the individual's head is the only target available.
|
|
Fionn
New Member
There is a fine line between a distinguised man and a crackhead - Chris Miller fellow GD employee
Posts: 22
|
Post by Fionn on Sept 27, 2002 13:09:52 GMT -5
<<Lastly, I think that we might want to include something about not making head shots unless that is the only accessible area of an opponent. AO uses that rule and I think it might be beneficial since we are trialing our FPS/range at slightly higher/closer limits. Head shots should only be allowed if the individual's head is the only target available. >>
IMO this is sort of not really needed. The only time I aim for the head is if it is the only shot. I hardly ever aim for the head in other cases. I go for the center of mass (ie body) it is the largest target and therefore the easiest to hit. Any hit to the head is incidental for me. I would think that most share the same mentality.
As for the 1-400 fps arms length or 1-400 fps 25' when our team talked about it I had mentioned th 25' rule (actually was 20') but it really was meant to stop the chipped tooth thing. Basically I use discretion but in rules you need set standards. Basically I don't shot at some one if I wouldn't want to get shot at that distance. What goes around comes around. Sorta like the saying.. Do unto your brothers as you would like them to do unto you.
|
|
|
Post by DevilDog on Sept 27, 2002 13:31:06 GMT -5
I like Fionn says.. You gotta use the Common Sense Test. If you won't like it, then don't do it. Like Vitalis has said, you have to some sort of guidlines. Let's change them, try them and if they don't work, adjust them.
On the eye thing, ATSM or ANSI rating should be used... Just like Frostee siad! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Newman on Sept 27, 2002 14:41:40 GMT -5
I'll clarify for Minky's sake: #1: I don't care about MiA rules, I'm never going to upgrade past 150%. I didn't mind the incident with Viking's M120 AK...the hurting part. It was the general attitude towards it (the getting close with it) that made me mad. #2: I have tried to stay out of this discussion as much as possible because of the "incident"... #3: I would rather everyone adopt the FLAG rules...I have nothing else to say...that's the biggest reason. I love the 150% cap on regular guns, and the M130 cap on sniper rifles...I think FLAG members enjoy it, too, since we don't *need* 9.6V...don't get bloody welts (we gotta look good for school!)...etc. Enough about that, because I'm NOT suggesting those rules for MiA...since nobody would like them. #4: I respect Vitalis in his take on the rules...if he wants something changed, it's for the betterment of Airsoft in Michigan.
|
|
|
Post by DevilDog on Sept 27, 2002 15:23:45 GMT -5
Right on Newman!! Can't have to many welts for the Ladies...
|
|
|
Post by frostee on Sept 27, 2002 16:26:11 GMT -5
The addition of the "no head shots unless that's the only body part available" is really for the newbies. I understand that most people posting in this thread understand that, but we have to consider that not everyone attending the games or visiting the boards is a seasoned airsoft veteran, therefore the more we can spell out in understandable terms, the easier (theoretically) it will be for a beginner to get up to speed. Hopefully the more we cover with the rules the less questions and possibly arguments we will have on the playing field.
|
|
|
Post by DevilDog on Sept 27, 2002 19:05:04 GMT -5
The easier we can make it for the new guys, the better it will be!!
|
|
Vitalis
New Member
I want to shoot somebody, airsoft style...
Posts: 320
|
Post by Vitalis on Sept 27, 2002 19:07:22 GMT -5
I like the dual rating for the goggles. That works for me. In addition, Newman's usage of the 150% spring is right on!!!
The problem with that though, with the current rules of MiA is that with my 150% spring, I have a MINIMUM 50 foot engagement limit.
Why? Because a new and shiny 150% spring has my MC-51 shooting at 375. And that is in the no-no range.
Everyone is making good points, but M120 upgraded guns are no big deal. I generalized in my proposed rules because it is easyer, we can make them as detailed as we want, it is our Michigan Association.
What about squad automatic weapons? There is a guy on the west side of the state with a M249. It is stock now, but prolly wont remain so. There is Resnick and Viking with RPKs that shoot just above 400.
I fully agree that the 150% spring is pretty much the cool limit for assault rifles, maybe an M120 if someone is feeling frisky. That puts us at the 400fps or lower. And anything greater than fifteen to twenty feet limit is just impractical for any type of airsoft play.
Now squad guns should be able to go to 120 or 130 (they should have some type of performance difference from assault rifles) but anything greater than a 25' limit is again, in my opinion only, unnecessary.
Anything past that in fps, semi-auto sniper guns only.
I know that I am muddying the water here, and I am sorry, but we need to try something.
-Vitalis
|
|
|
Post by DevilDog on Sept 27, 2002 19:23:56 GMT -5
I hear ya...
Sniper weapons are just that... Long Distance. If you need to get close to your target, find a new profession.
I agree with assault weapons at 150%. That sounds pretty fair
Now the SAW poses an interesting dilema. It is a support weapon with a cyclic rate.... I think anything greater than 25' or 30' is unacceptable.
|
|
|
Post by Knief on Sept 27, 2002 20:06:49 GMT -5
well, back to flag rules again, we have our support weapons limited to the same FPS as our assault weapons, 150%/M100. They are mostly going to be firing full auto, so large amounts off bbs will be coming your way. getting shot once or twice with an M120 may not be much, but getting shot 30 times with an M120 within a few seconds is a lot, and not something most people would want to deal with. I'm very satisfied with FLAG's rules. I eould like to see the sniper limit set a little higher. what we have now offers only a slight advantage over asault and support weapons. Not, though, the 360+ fule on sniper rifles is based on the estimated FPS listed here; www.ucalgary.ca/~airsoft/UCAC_New/articles/aegSpringChart.htmlBut we really base it on anything higher than a 150%/M100 spring. here's the link, for those still in question of who we are; newman.proboards4.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&n=1&thread=1025041691These are the rules that we will be going by.
|
|
Echo
New Member
Posts: 18
|
Post by Echo on Sept 27, 2002 20:49:23 GMT -5
I'm all for safety. Plain and simple I'm out to have fun not hurt anyone. I think most people with common sense would agree to some limitations. As for the goggles or full mask question... It depends on the game type. Out door games tend to have longer engagement ranges while indoors its obviously going to be close. I personally feel that goggles are enough protection when you are in an outdoors setting. Inside... well last spring I did see some shots that drew blood. Not to mention I had a guy decide to do some blind firing around a corner. He pretty much planted the tip of his gun into my shoulder and went full auto. After 20 rounds and some choice words he let off the trigger. Ofcorse I started thinking " What if that had been my mouth?" After seeing these incidents I'm going with a full mask for CQB games.
|
|