bangs

[Catman]

The bang rule is used for sportsmanlike conduct and safety at the site I play at. [...] If a site allows the bang rule except it, there are many different reasons why it may be in use.

Nicely said

 

We use it at our site, our AEG limits are 350fps. We use the bang rule, within about 1 to 2meters depending, the idea being the shooter has the target cold and couldn't possibly miss the shot - it's just not nice to blat someone at that close range. I don't think there's been an instance where someone at the site has ignored being "banged" (lol), if they do then the shooter is entitled to open fire and give them abuse.

 

 

Though the funniest application of this rule is where happyal run out of ammo in both his primary and pistol but continued to point his pistol around the corner shouting "bang" at people well out of bang range. What made it so funny was watching the newbie players ducking and dodging the "bangs"

[raggedyman]

The bang rule is most blatantly broken, obviously by rental n00bs.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

that's a bit harsh, I know a number of seasoned regulars who abuse it with great ghusto

[heroshark]

cheat? its not against the rules... ergo, not cheating.

and if you get bbs in your mouth, stop wailing about how you dont like bang kills, and close your mouth, or take a few bangs

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I don't think you got my point .I'm not complaining(I wear a mask since that episode )and I'm not saying I don't like bang kills .If I'm at a site where its used I'll adhere to it .I have never had an arguement on the field with anyone,I'm a very affable person.If I ever do hurt someone I apologise and make sure their ok n everythings cool.All I was saying is thats the way we play .Many of the airsofters I play with started in 1990's when there wasn't such rules .It was kill or be killed .I also think banging someone with an empty gun is most definitely cheating . I'm sure many others would concur with that .If anyone I knew ran out of ammo they would gracefully bow out .The clue is in the name "bang kill"you cannot kill someone with an empty gun. As far as your taking prisoners excuse goes .You should take a prisoner they don't just disappear.You disarm them ,secure them ,torture/interorgate them and after that you then shoot them (if you have bullets in your gun that is ).Please accept my pigeon of peace as a good will jesture

[stewpidbear]

I don't think you got my point .I'm not complaining(I wear a mask since that episode )and I'm not saying I don't like bang kills .If I'm at a site where its used I'll adhere to it .I have never had an arguement on the field with anyone,I'm a very affable person.If I ever do hurt someone I apologise and make sure their ok n everythings cool.All I was saying is thats the way we play .Many of the airsofters I play with started in 1990's when there wasn't such rules .It was kill or be killed .I also think banging someone with an empty gun is most definitely cheating . I'm sure many others would concur with that .If anyone I knew ran out of ammo they would gracefully bow out .The clue is in the name "bang kill"you cannot kill someone with an empty gun. As far as your taking prisoners excuse goes .You should take a prisoner they don't just disappear.You disarm them ,secure them ,torture/interorgate them and after that you then shoot them (if you have bullets in your gun that is ).Please accept my pigeon of peace as a good will jesture

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Bears like pigeon KFC'd! Accepted in the spirit it was given, now where's the BBQ sauce!

[ECRRRainman]

How many of you people arguing about whether or not the bang rule is an acceptable/good/whatever rule or not actually have the capability to revise the rules at your play site? If you have such said capability, choose whatever rule (or lack of rule) you prefer, otherwise, if you dont have the capability to modify rules where you play, suck it up and abide by THEIR rules or go ###### your ammo elsewhere.

 

People like/dislike the bang rule for many different reasons and everybody raises good points as to why. Yes it was designed with the purpose of safety, yes people can/do/will abuse the rule, yes players should take the necessary precautions to protect themselves beyond the minimum requirements (eye/face protection) to prevent pain or injury, yes you will got shot in airsoft, yes it will hurt, yes you should be aware of this BEFORE you enter a game, yes you are a jackass if you use your weapon and half a mag of ammo to "educate" others and yes you can never win an arguement over the internet, goodnight.

[kerberos_]

Spend less on pointless tat. An AEP clone will set you back £40. There are people paying more than that for gear they'll never use.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I won't disagree, but then you're semi-forcing players to possibly buy what they dont wan't etc. I don't agree with forcing players to do anything other than follow the rules laid out.

 

Wear what you want and use what you want (within the rules) and that's about it.

 

Like I said, I've twatted someone at half a metre in the stomach with my 333Fps mp5k and although they said "arrrrrgh - it's fine, I'm ok" I don't really think they meant it and I felt a little bad. Wouldn't surprise me if the guy walked away thinking "I'll get that c*** back later" - which is another reason not to rattle people unnecessarily.

 

Call me old fashioned, but if I want to administer pain, I'd rather not use airsoft as a medium to do it. I'd prefer the square-go option

[minimiman]

I would add to the whole debate, debate is important.

 

As a site operator I have nicked ideas from other sites, given other sites ideas and everything as far as rules go is constantly under review as airsoft and attitudes change so quickly.

 

We used to use the bang rule and leave it to players to interpret, but that caused problems so modified it so there are very clear parameters where you can and can't use it. We also added the silent knife kill as well.

 

Seeing the discussion here I believe we have the rule right for our site and conditions, but in other places that may vary. If your unhappy with a rule at a site or believe it can be changed for the better, don't *badgeress* about it to others, have a chat with your site operator with a cler argument for your rule change and I am reasonably confident the operator will change it if appropriate. Hey guy's, if you don't ask you won't get!

[heroshark]

How many of you people arguing about whether or not the bang rule is an acceptable/good/whatever rule or not actually have the capability to revise the rules at your play site?  If you have such said capability, choose whatever rule (or lack of rule) you prefer, otherwise, if you dont have the capability to modify rules where you play, suck it up and abide by THEIR rules or go ###### your ammo elsewhere. 

 

People like/dislike the bang rule for many different reasons and everybody raises good points as to why.  Yes it was designed with the purpose of safety, yes people can/do/will abuse the rule, yes players should take the necessary precautions to protect themselves beyond the minimum requirements (eye/face protection) to prevent pain or injury, yes you will got shot in airsoft, yes it will hurt, yes you should be aware of this BEFORE you enter a game, yes you are a jackass if you use your weapon and half a mag of ammo to "educate" others and yes you can never win an arguement over the internet, goodnight.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

well said

[heroshark]

Bears like pigeon KFC'd! Accepted in the spirit it was given, now where's the BBQ sauce!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

yay BBQ:D

[Sale]

kerberos: My opposition to the bang-rule is not much about getting a higher chance of survival when someone sneaks up on me. I prefer to be shot partially because the other player might miss me, yes, but there also is the chance that I'm the one who misses or has the gun jam or run out of BBs in the critical moment. You see, that's fair for all parties. I'm really not competitive in skirmishes. I shoot practical to race.

I could also turn the table around by claiming, that people who are desperate enough to make rules (bang-rule) to get a frag even when they are within the MED are too competitive for my taste. What really makes me laugh is people who upgrade their AEG to shoot hot, and then complain when they are not able to use it at close ranges, but also refuse to get a backup.

 

The logic about the safety is still flawed: You say that "bang" increases safety. I may not have been clear before, so I'll say again:

 

If you don't want to shoot people at close ranges because you think it's unsafe, then you don't. That's the part where you increase safety, if you do. Shouting something to score the frag does not increase the safety beyond this. It only gives the player the possibility to score the frag even when they are within the MED.

 

There are sites with minimum engagement distances, but no bang-rule. Are they less safe than sites with a bang-rule? No.

 

It doesn't bother me what others do at their sites, and like I said before I don't whine about it: I play by the site rules or I stay home. You can have the bang-rule if you like it, and I can agree to disagree whether it's a good thing or not. But please don't back it up with safety, because the real and only reason for having a bang-rule is to be able to eliminate the opponent when you are too close to shoot them.

 

-Sale

 

P.S. By ECRRRainmans logic, people should only discuss and speculate over things they can change. Well, I don't know how much power you have, but I'd end up speaking very little if I followed that idea. Similarly I could say: You are no admin or mod, you don't have the ability to stop us from discussing this matter, so join the discussion or leave.

 

-same

[kerberos_]

No offence Sale, I found it hard to understand your points. Not sure what you mean by "get a frag". Sorry man, but I'll try based on what I think you're saying.

 

But even to call it 'the' BANG rule sounds like the rule is absolute, when each site will run it differently. you're assuming people use it to bend rules or something.

 

I also believe (only because you named me) you are probably reading what I've typed, but not absorbing it through your own choice I've repeatedly said the reasons why I use it and the foundations of the rule itself.

 

- BANG rule at our site is based on safety

- their is NO advantage I know of due to the way I use it (5 metres max; HIT player should/ask the player to fire a round to ensure they are loaded, if not then they lose the life, not the HIT player; missing from 5 metres is unlikely and we'd rather not try that out to avoid upsetting people) then again, our players know it's all about fun and not all about winning

- shoot 'hot'? I understand what you're suggesting, but then the BANG rule is really for in huts or sneaking up on someone, more so by accident. what is 'hot' anyway? Hot here means its above the site limits - so they wouldn't even cross the skirmish line anyway.

 

The fact you say "I prefer to be shot partially because the other player might miss me, yes, but there also is the chance that I'm the one who misses or has the gun jam or run out of BBs in the critical moment." confirms (for me anyway) you are more interested in a "a higher chance of survival". You'd rather someone shoot you then accept someone saying BANG incase their/your gun jams etc.

 

I've had the rule done to me at our site and I just laughed and applauded the person for their stealth. Why can't we all be more ...'appreciative' (?) when someone has done so well and looked out for your interest?

 

IF I ever saw or heard one of our site players running around going BANG ...BANG... with their fingers, I think they'd be quickly dealt with. Perhaps other sites/people come across these more... 'competitive types' than I have.

 

I still don't see how anything put in place to aid safety and decrease the chances of someone wanting to pan your face in for shooting them so close, is flawed?

 

If you can't take a 'BANG' because of some pride-esque notion, then I think that says it about an individuals character.

 

" But please don't back it up with safety, because the real and only reason for having a bang-rule is to be able to eliminate the opponent when you are too close to shoot them."

Well, we will agree to disagree. I get no advantage from a BANG rule and you are right.

"eliminate the opponent when you are too close to shoot them" yes because of safety - I mean why else wouldnt I want to shoot them so close??

 

This all reminds me of Cartman and FINGERBANG

[amateurstuntman]

Well I say that if you are good enough to sneak up on someone and you don't want to shoot them with a hot gun you should knock them out cold with the butt of your rifle, put their uniform on and try to sneak into the enemy's HQ using a poor german accent.

[Azubi]

Well, not one for getting hot and sweaty I generally play with nothing covering my arms and prefer just a t-shirt. My arms are generally dotted with little bloody spots at the end of the day where I have been hit at close quarters with bbs. Last game I played I had one guy shoot me from less that a metre away as I walked out a door. It stung and bled but at the end of the day we are playing a game where you fire fast little plastic bbs at people which do hurt when you get hit. I didn't scream like a wuss or complain, I just took the hit.

 

I also ran out of a door into 3 other (enemy) players to avoid a grenade. I just called myself out.

 

What is all this talk about aiming for the head at close quarters? If you are that close, just aim for the bloody body, why aim for the head?

[kerberos_]

Oh yea, I've seen players who knew better to just take it rather than get hosed

 

Again our site runs up to 370fps and it makes a difference to the state of your arm at 5 metres

 

amateurstuntman - "don't want to shoot them with a hot gun" now who said I didn't

[Sale]

No offence Sale, I found it hard to understand your points. Not sure what you mean by "get a frag". Sorry man, but I'll try based on what I think you're saying.

 

None taken. I'll try to be more clear and explain my points better.

 

I talk about scoring or getting "frags" to make fun of competitive tightbutts who take airsoft too seriously, and brag about how many "kills" or "frags" they got in the last round. Someone with a relaxed attitude would accept that he can't shoot when he's too close, full stop.

 

But even to call it 'the' BANG rule sounds like the rule is absolute, when each site will run it differently. you're assuming people use it to bend rules or something.

I don't like the rule even when it's used correctly, so I don't need to assume things to criticize it. The different variations are similar enough to be generalized under the term "The Bang-rule". It means eliminating an opponent in an Airsoft skirmish by a vocal announcement that the player is out, in a situation when the shooter is too close to actually shoot.

 

I also believe (only because you named me) you are probably reading what I've typed, but not absorbing it through your own choice I've repeatedly said the reasons why I use it and the foundations of the rule itself.

A German would say: "Danke gleichfalls."

 

- BANG rule at our site is based on safety

It is not necessary to say "BANG" to increase safety. Not shooting at a close range is based on safety. "BANG" is a deliberate loophole so you can still eliminate the other player, even though you can't shoot within the MED. This is not a matter of opinion, and frankly speaking I'm amazed how such a simple fact doesn't seem to get through.

 

- their is NO advantage I know of due to the way I use it (5 metres max; HIT player should/ask the player to fire a round to ensure they are loaded, if not then they lose the life, not the HIT player; missing from 5 metres is unlikely and we'd rather not try that out to avoid upsetting people) then again, our players know it's all about fun and not all about winning

That's a step in a better direction: It eliminates bluffing with an empty or jammed weapon. Still, there's a possibility of missing, and people seem to have a very optimistic idea of their shooting skills. If we get into probabilities, we might as well roll dice in the off-game area and calculate who would have most likely reached their objectives.

 

Still, Airsoft to me is a game where you shoot the opponents with a 6 mm plastic BB to eliminate them. It takes skill to hit them, especially in a hectic game, so saying "I would have hit you." is fundamentally wrong. Generally in CQB environments the wise thing to do is enforce an energy limit and have certain requirements regarding protective gear, so you can simply shoot in any situation. When more powerful weapons are involved in outdoor games, it is advisable to use a minimum engagement distance. In these cases players need to accept that they can't always shoot, and one option is to use a lower powered backup, as many snipers do.

 

I would like you to explain how the above is unsafe, and how vocal elimination helps that.

 

- shoot 'hot'? I understand what you're suggesting, but then the BANG rule is really for in huts or sneaking up on someone, more so by accident. what is 'hot' anyway? Hot here means its above the site limits - so they wouldn't even cross the skirmish line anyway.

I may have used this term incorrectly. In any case, some people upgrade their only weapon and then complain because they have nothing for close encounters. There's a number of solutions to this:

 

-Don't upgrade in the first place

-Get a backup

-Accept the fact that sometimes you may not be able to eliminate the opponent

 

The fact you say "I prefer to be shot partially because the other player might miss me, yes, but there also is the chance that I'm the one who misses or has the gun jam or run out of BBs in the critical moment." confirms (for me anyway) you are more interested in a "a higher chance of survival". You'd rather someone shoot you then accept someone saying BANG incase their/your gun jams etc.

I'm man enough to admit that I don't like the thought in the back of my head: "Would he have hit me?", but it's still fair play for all, so I'm not going for an advantage. In turn I would expect you to admit that you use "bang" to be able to eliminate players from a close distance, and stop talking about safety. MEDs provide the safety. Adding "bang" does not.

 

I've had the rule done to me at our site and I just laughed and applauded the person for their stealth. Why can't we all be more ...'appreciative' (?) when someone has done so well and looked out for your interest?

I do compliment my opponents when they get me. "Nice sneaking, I never heard you coming!"

 

IF I ever saw or heard one of our site players running around going BANG ...BANG... with their fingers, I think they'd be quickly dealt with. Perhaps other sites/people come across these more... 'competitive types' than I have.

I've had the misfortune to play with rather competitive players and downright cheaters as well. I don't think people cheat by default, I'm not a pessimist. I just like it when the rules are simple with as little as possible room for interpretation. And since the game is about shooting each other, I think it makes sense to stick to that.

 

Maybe my ramblings make it sound like this is a big problem for me: It isn't. I've been to countless skirmishes where I never heard of situations where these things would have been an issue. I've also played with people and at sites who use the bang-rule, and I've been on both sides when someone said "Bang". I'm only in this thread for the debate.

 

I still don't see how anything put in place to aid safety and decrease the chances of someone wanting to pan your face in for shooting them so close, is flawed?

 

If you can't take a 'BANG' because of some pride-esque notion, then I think that says it about an individuals character.

It's flawed because the "BANG" is not what stops people from shooting each other in the face from PB, but it's the MED. MED and BANG don't necessarily go hand in hand. If you have a 5 m MED, that's safe. Adding the BANG doesn't change this.

 

It also tells something about the character when someone can't handle the fact that you can't shoot closer than X meters. As you can see, there are different points of views to this, and I already said my way is simply my preference, and I comply with local rules wherever I am.

 

But please don't back it up with safety' date=' because the real and only reason for having a bang-rule is to be able to eliminate the opponent when you are too close to shoot them.[/quote']

Well, we will agree to disagree. I get no advantage from a BANG rule and you are right.

"eliminate the opponent when you are too close to shoot them" yes because of safety - I mean why else wouldnt I want to shoot them so close??

For possibly the tenth time: If you have an MED for safety, stick to that. Ditching the bang-rule doesn't mean you can suddenly forget the MED as well.

 

Cheers,

Sale

[ECRRRainman]

P.S. By ECRRRainmans logic, people should only discuss and speculate over things they can change. Well, I don't know how much power you have, but I'd end up speaking very little if I followed that idea. Similarly I could say: You are no admin or mod, you don't have the ability to stop us from discussing this matter, so join the discussion or leave.

 

-same

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Sale, my comments were in no way directly pointed towards you, I merely made the first statement after reading this thread and noticing people bickering about the way things "should" be, thus I commented that the way things "should" be are decided by those who can make such decisions. I am all for debate of rules, regulations and other airsoft related topics, especially on such a large forum with a wide variety of players as Arnies.

 

The CONCEPT of the bang rule IS safety minded, ie the rule is meant for players to use a pain free method of killing an opponet they clearly can shoot and eliminate within certain parameters. I have no doubt the rule has been abused (unknowingly or deliberately) by players but it is a stretch to say site owners/coordinators place a bang rule to give players a competitive edge over others. Personally I dont really care for the bang rule and our team has recently amended our policy getting rid of the bang rule entirely, which we replace with different safety measures. I completely understand why you are not a fan of the rule even though our reasons for such feelings are completely different

[Xaccers]

Bang kills also keep the realism in a way.

Think about it, if you were using RS, and spotted your target 3m away looking out the window not seeing you, you'd still get the kill.

Thing is with airsoft, doing that even with 300fps guns can still lead to issues, a shot going high and hitting someone in the side of the head, a real stinger in the bum etc, so the bang rule enables the kill to be completed without the risk of inflicting unecessary pain in another human being.

That to me demonstrates how it is a safety tool.

[Belladonna]

yes, its also just nice, and the person will apreciate not being shot so close... which at the end of the day, makes us more friends at a game than running around hosing everyone...

[Nitemare1]

Just to add my 2p here...

 

I've played games where there's been no bang rule, it works fine..

 

If you get the drop on someone, you could go for a bang kill if you wanted to but your oppo' had no obligation to take the hit. If you knew the player would take a bang kill you did that. If you were unsure as to wether your target would take the hit, you simply put one round into their back..

 

Having the drop on your target gave you the time to select semi and aim properly, point blank hosings were dealt with by the marshals..

[heroshark]

Well I say that if you are good enough to sneak up on someone and you don't want to shoot them with a hot gun you should knock them out cold with the butt of your rifle, put their uniform on and try to sneak into the enemy's HQ using a poor german accent.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

haha ,this man has the right idea

[mr eagle]

Again our site runs up to 370fps and it makes a difference to the state of your arm at 5 metres

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well easy thing to do is just to lower the limit to 328fps on that case.

 

My primary AEG and pistol all fire just under 1j and i have no problems firing witin 5 ms (on semi and into chest). My other AEG fires hotter and i would'nt engauge the opfor within 10ms using it, thats the reason i carry a pistol.

As for the snipers using 500fps rifles who *badgeress* about not being able to take the shots within the 20m MED tough cookies, get an AEP, GBB etc for that distance.

[Sledge]

You're telling people to lower their fps limits because you can't be responsible? How does that work?

 

[mr eagle]

I can be responsable it was just a suggestion as he mentioned that 370fps guns can leave your arms in a state.

[Stealthbomber]

Bang kills also keep the realism in a way.

Think about it, if you were using RS, and spotted your target 3m away looking out the window not seeing you, you'd still get the kill.

Thing is with airsoft, doing that even with 300fps guns can still lead to issues, a shot going high and hitting someone in the side of the head, a real stinger in the bum etc, so the bang rule enables the kill to be completed without the risk of inflicting unecessary pain in another human being.

That to me demonstrates how it is a safety tool.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wahay, back to common sense.

 

This is the key issue IMO.

 

On the one hand you've got skirmishing where you're going for "realism" in which case a bang-kill is acceptable.

On the other hand you've got people who are treating airsoft as a stand-alone sport, in which case you simply don't take the shot if it isn't safe to.

 

To look at it from a different POV for a minute, if you were to set yourself up to defend a base with a huge, open, approach and you were using an MP5k then people might suggest you didn't exactly have the right tool for the job.

 

I reckon going into a CQB environment with a weapon you are concerned might cause injury is similarly flawed thinking.

 

As another example, would it be OK for me to wander around a CQB environment with my L96, just pointing it at anybody I see and going "Bang!"?

Of course not.

 

I also find it odd the way people are trying to sensationalise the situation; talking about people suggesting it's better to get shot in the face or emptying half a mag into other people.

 

What a load of nonsense.

 

If you have the presence of mind, and opportunity, to aim at somebody and say "bang"then you also have the ability to fire a single shot or short burst into their chest.

 

Basically, I'd probably be more than happy to accept a "surrender" rule in CQB.

I just think that it's a bid sad that so few people are willing to consider there are other alternatives which COULD provide more fun and variety in games.

[ruchik]

the way i look at it is, if someone has a real gun pointed at you, and says give it up, you don't argue. maybe unless you're sledge. how would you kno whether or not it's loaded? the common sense that would be present in that kind of situation carries over into airsoft. if you facing the business end of the gun, and you have a chance to walk away, i would imagine most of us would walk away. you could hedge a bet that the gun is unloaded, and try to fire. it's up to you. the person doing the "banging" can choose to bluff someone out with an unloaded weapon. but then you take the chance of him trying to shoot you. i think the surrender rule makes perfect sense. both people are taking a risk, and the better liar wins.