amateurstuntman Posted July 18, 2014 Report Share Posted July 18, 2014 I'm pretty handy at throwing pyro but a MK5 is rubbish to throw. They lack density so they slow down quickly, they are a horrible shape to throw too. This launcher seems like a great idea if you are into that sort of thing. I built a MK5 launcher back in 2001ish that was a modified toy crossbow with a bit of angle iron and some bungees. I glued arrow flights to the MK5s, they went well but launching but was a 2 man job. One to shoulder it and the other to light it. Hilarious. Link to post Share on other sites
gisburn20 Posted July 18, 2014 Report Share Posted July 18, 2014 I'd love to see a spring version of a 2 inch mortar for deploying smokes, UCAP's vehicles can be "killed" by hitting them (within 5m not dead on) with smoke from their mortar, but a spring mortar particularly modelled on the 2 inch would be very portable. The more modern (as in urgent operational requirement) is for this version in 61mm http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirtenberger_M6C-210 Now that would look cool lobbing "30 sec" cardboard smokes out 50m or so Jim Link to post Share on other sites
gisburn20 Posted July 18, 2014 Report Share Posted July 18, 2014 The boss man at UCAP has replied to my Facebook question about using these at their site, "Less time cocking around and more time playing IMO. Game changer? What making it ?" So its not a "No" from them but... Jim Link to post Share on other sites
Stuey Posted July 18, 2014 Report Share Posted July 18, 2014 What? What does he mean cocking around? God I hate airsofters on Facebook. Link to post Share on other sites
bankz5152 Posted July 18, 2014 Author Report Share Posted July 18, 2014 *beep*. Link to post Share on other sites
RWJP Posted July 21, 2014 Report Share Posted July 21, 2014 What? What does he mean cocking around? God I hate airsofters on Facebook. I would assume he is referring to how long it takes and how "difficult" it is to reload and use in comparison to just lighting a Mk5 a lobbing it. The whole thing looks like a bit of a faff to reload to be honest, if you need a hard flat surface to reload it like in the video then it will essentially be useless in anywhere but an urban site. If you can reload it by hand, then ok, it might see wider usage. Link to post Share on other sites
gisburn20 Posted July 21, 2014 Report Share Posted July 21, 2014 I dont see a problem with the reload, if you are setting it up ready to assault a bunker/building you should be in cover as with any admin reload, strike it, pop up, fire into doorway, follow it in. I dont see any "cocking about" in that sequence. Unless you were trying to do it inside a building to clear rooms which would be pointless and I'd just use my dynatech impact for that. But you cant get a bfg into a building from a distance without the risk of knocking someone out! Jim Link to post Share on other sites
TheFull9 Posted July 21, 2014 Report Share Posted July 21, 2014 There's been a few exclamations online of how "omg.. teh dangerous" this supposedly is, which baffles me. So many people labour under this mystical impression that the human arm is somehow an intrinsically safe and consistently accurate slinger of missiles, which is oh so far from the truth. I can't throw for *suitcase*, I'm really glad I'll 99.99999% never have to use a frag grenade in anger. I know I'm far from the only airsofter who got laughed at playing cricket/softball/rugby/basketball in school either. Launch something from a mechanical device built to decent tolerances and you instantly take away a huge amount of the potential error margin. If this device spat out cardboard pyros at the speed of sound then yes you've created a very dangerous device given the muzzle energy, but it doesn't. If you apply the same logic posted up in the 40mm tag thread regards energy density, then given the light weight and cardboard construction of a Mk5 the whole concept is just as safe as the universally accepted and deemed-acceptable human method of pyro propulsion. Personally if I were running a site I'd allow these long before allowing heavy, metallic reusable BFGs given the known and documented ways that those things have been thrown in moronic ways to the serious detriment of others. As per usual, it'd be great if everyone were allowed loads of potentially dangerous toys it's just a shame some idiots ruin them for everybody. As mentioned previously, I'd really have liked to have seen the launcher strike the fuse upon firing somehow, though I'm not sure if that could be done reliably. It's also a damn ugly thing, even if they just put a fake trigger housing/trigger/guard on the back there it would've looked far nicer. I get it's a Mk1 and any aesthetic improvements would cause price increases and lord knows airsofters love to whinge about prices more than anything else, but I'd like to see a more realistic version 2 that mounts in the way most real 203s are mounted. Link to post Share on other sites
cazboab Posted July 21, 2014 Report Share Posted July 21, 2014 I'd go for modeling it on the 37MM flare guns, that way you;d have a cocking handle on the side rather than pushing the pyro in from the front, or maybe have a push forward cocking mechanism so it compresses the spring when you "open" the launcher, plus both of those open up the possibility of putting BBs in the barrel to use it as a blunderbuss. Link to post Share on other sites
PMO Gordo Posted July 21, 2014 Report Share Posted July 21, 2014 Launch something from a mechanical device built to decent tolerances and you instantly take away a huge amount of the potential error margin. If this device spat out cardboard pyros at the speed of sound then yes you've created a very dangerous device given the muzzle energy, but it doesn't. If you apply the same logic posted up in the 40mm tag thread regards energy density, then given the light weight and cardboard construction of a Mk5 the whole concept is just as safe as the universally accepted and deemed-acceptable human method of pyro propulsion. Personally if I were running a site I'd allow these long before allowing heavy, metallic reusable BFGs given the known and documented ways that those things have been thrown in moronic ways to the serious detriment of others. As per usual, it'd be great if everyone were allowed loads of potentially dangerous toys it's just a shame some idiots ruin them for everybody. I think you are right about the F&Q system's kinetic injury potential. The F&Q system is likely to be safer or not different than plastic BB shot at typical skirmish velocity. Given a plastic BB of 0.25 gm fired at 400 fps (common velocity limitation for outdoor games in US), the energy produced is 1.86 J and the energy density is 1.86 / (pi * (0.3^2)) = 6.65 J/cm^2. A plastic BB can probably produced a 19 mm cavity on a ballistic clay. In comparison, given a MK5 of 30 gm fired at 100 fps (estimated based on my experience with shooting P.M.O.G. at different velocity), the energy produced is 13.9 J and the energy density is 13.9 / (pi * (0.9^2)) = 5.5 J/cm^2. An MK5 shot from the F&Q system can probably produced a 13 mm cavity on a ballistic clay. To present it visually, the graph below depicts the depth of impact on ballistic clay as a function of energy density (adapted from Lyon, 1999). 44 mm failure criterion is usually used for ballistic clay. Link to post Share on other sites
gisburn20 Posted July 21, 2014 Report Share Posted July 21, 2014 You know what? I almost understood some of that! Almost. Jim. Link to post Share on other sites
faramon Posted July 22, 2014 Report Share Posted July 22, 2014 You showed me a Graph in conjunction with airsoft .. and I applaud you literally just for that even if I am not going to go through the maths. They don't look that dangerous to be honest ... sure I wouldn't want to take one to the face, but I don't particularly want to be shot in the face either and my mind seems to put them on the same level. Link to post Share on other sites
John H Posted July 22, 2014 Report Share Posted July 22, 2014 two slight problems that no one has mentioned.... 1, what happens when TLSFX change there packaging for whatever reason, and MK5's no longer fit? 2. can any site owner state whether there site insurance would allow the use of such an item..... I highly doubt that any insurance company would allow the use of this, so therefore any injuries sustained by a player would then place the full liability down to the site owner for allowing such an item, also does the data sheet of the MK5's allow them to be fired using such a device? as far as i am aware the instructions state drop at arms length and retreat, again opens up site owners to be liable for allowing such devices on site misss using the MK5's. God forbid, but if serious injury occurs to little Johnny. His parents and there no win no fee solicitors, would have a field day if he got injured with such an item being 'fired' at him... Link to post Share on other sites
Stuey Posted July 22, 2014 Report Share Posted July 22, 2014 two slight problems that no one has mentioned.... 1, what happens when TLSFX change there packaging for whatever reason, and MK5's no longer fit? 2. can any site owner state whether there site insurance would allow the use of such an item..... I highly doubt that any insurance company would allow the use of this, so therefore any injuries sustained by a player would then place the full liability down to the site owner for allowing such an item, also does the data sheet of the MK5's allow them to be fired using such a device? as far as i am aware the instructions state drop at arms length and retreat, again opens up site owners to be liable for allowing such devices on site misss using the MK5's. God forbid, but if serious injury occurs to little Johnny. His parents and there no win no fee solicitors, would have a field day if he got injured with such an item being 'fired' at him... 1. Legit problem, if bigger: new 'barrel' required. If smaller, padding out. 2. I know the directions say that they must be dropped and then run away etc., but insurers must know that never happens, if they ever found out pretty much all pyro use would be uninsured which is a dangerous game to play. If they do know (which I assume they do), then the potential consequences, injuries sustained etc. are no different from hand thrown pyros. Link to post Share on other sites
Aitch Posted July 22, 2014 Report Share Posted July 22, 2014 Insurers wont pay out on any pyro claims, iirc each pyro is covered by their makers insurance if used in accordance with the instructions, I am still of the opinion that launching them (even throwing) would void that opening F&O the site and launchee up to legal/criminal proceedings? Link to post Share on other sites
Azubi Posted July 22, 2014 Report Share Posted July 22, 2014 Personally if I were running a site I'd allow these long before allowing heavy, metallic reusable BFGs given the known and documented ways that those things have been thrown in moronic ways to the serious detriment of others. As per usual, it'd be great if everyone were allowed loads of potentially dangerous toys it's just a shame some idiots ruin them for everybody. Having taken an impact BFG to the face thrown up a stairwell at the last game I was at, I'd still not want to see them banned. The vast majority are sensible users. I've also been shot point blank in the balls by a moscart when going round a corner, but I wouldn't want them banned either. Likewise, I've had one bellend line up his shot and then shoot me in the balls with his pistol when I was 'dead' on the ground at a zombie game one Halloween, but I wouldn't want to see pistols banned. You will always get idiots, but they are a minority and it only ruins things for others if there is a blanket ban on kit when most people are sensible. Link to post Share on other sites
TheFull9 Posted July 22, 2014 Report Share Posted July 22, 2014 Did I come across as saying I wanted stuff banned? Honestly, if I did that's not the intention. As with a bazillion things in life the small minority ruin them for the group and my attitude is very much opposed to banning stuff because of small numbers of idiots. Link to post Share on other sites
Azubi Posted July 23, 2014 Report Share Posted July 23, 2014 Did I come across as saying I wanted stuff banned? Honestly, if I did that's not the intention. As with a bazillion things in life the small minority ruin them for the group and my attitude is very much opposed to banning stuff because of small numbers of idiots. I must have misunderstood, apologies good sir! Link to post Share on other sites
John H Posted July 23, 2014 Report Share Posted July 23, 2014 I agree Aitch, the issue here is an insurance one, it's ok for players to say allow them, it's just like throwing pyro... However, if a site is miss using a pyro by allowing the use of a third party device to launch it, that isn't part of the pyro suppliers Data Sheets on safe use etc it is leaving itself open to LOTS of potential problems... When all said and done, it's the sites around the country that will or won't allow the use of these, ask a P* player how many issues they have getting a Urban site to allow them to use it, same goes for Co2 guns.. I have contacted 2 of my local sites ref these and not heard anything back. So we shall see if it's mainly going to be allowed at F&O sites. Seems strange that no site owners have yet responded? Link to post Share on other sites
Stuey Posted July 23, 2014 Report Share Posted July 23, 2014 However, if a site is miss using a pyro by allowing the use of a third party device to launch it, that isn't part of the pyro suppliers Data Sheets on safe use etc it is leaving itself open to LOTS of potential problems... This is my question though - aren't we all misusing pyros every time we throw them at each other rather than dropping them (in a safe place) and running away? Link to post Share on other sites
gisburn20 Posted July 23, 2014 Report Share Posted July 23, 2014 Exactly, in the same way all airsoft guns state in the instructions not to shoot at people. They have to put that in there to cover themselves. Jim Link to post Share on other sites
Stuey Posted July 23, 2014 Report Share Posted July 23, 2014 Yeah but airsoft insurers know that we shoot at each other, that's the whole point after all. Do they know about the true use of pyros/does it matter? Link to post Share on other sites
CapnNukem Posted July 26, 2014 Report Share Posted July 26, 2014 A clip in this video shows one going off inside the launcher, seems to cope fine and not shower everyone in plastic. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbNd4UuFzfs#t=79 To be fair there isn't a huge amount of power in mk5s. I saw one go off in someone's hand a few years ago and although it hurt the lad there was no damage as such, even though he was holding it at the fuse end. Link to post Share on other sites
Smoke Posted July 26, 2014 Report Share Posted July 26, 2014 I'd like to see a video of a pyro going off in the launcher, before being 100% ok with them. Edit - facepalm.... Didn't see the above post for some reason. Meh, yeah... Unless there's specific insurance issues (I'll check) well... Anymore than we'd get throwing them... I'm in agreement with Aitch. If there's an issue, I suspect it could cover throwing too. But I really couldn't say for sure. Edited again... Too many reading fails today. I'm going to stop now, lol. Trouble is, anyone turning up with one, isn't going to be keen to potentially damage their unit just showing me they're fine (I know I wouldn't). Saying that, I was dubious about the Tag rounds. Having seen them, we allow them for general use. The original idea was to keep them for scenario purpose only - but hell... They're too much fun Link to post Share on other sites
Cannonfodder80 Posted July 26, 2014 Report Share Posted July 26, 2014 Would it be possible to use something like a piece of dowel or plastic tube to ready the launcher and then remove and insert the pyro when required? Or have I missed something? Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.