harborne blue Posted June 16, 2008 Report Share Posted June 16, 2008 Apologies if this has been posted elsewhere but I couldn't see it so... At the last meeting with the Home Office, the Minister confirmed the govt's concern that airsoft guns couls be easily modified to fire at a higher power, sufficient to inflict a penetrating wound in the same way as an air rifle. The UKARA reps confirmed that site limits in the UK were 328 FPS =/- 10% and that guns in excess of this could and would not be allowed on UK Airsoft sites. The Minister confirmed that the exception for Airsoft remained in place so long as this was adhered to and that anything in excess of this was an Air Weapon and not Airsoft. Also that shooting someone with an Airsoft weapon at > 328 + 10% = assault and that insurance waivers did not cover this as you cannot agree to be assaulted. Now... don't all shoot the messenger but the last three sites I have played at are very strict about this now. Link to post Share on other sites
AirRage Posted June 16, 2008 Report Share Posted June 16, 2008 Pretty soon you wont beable to tell if you got shot by a airsoft BB or if a fly landed on your shoulder. Id say 400 FPS and do more ducking! Link to post Share on other sites
Inq Eisenhorn Posted June 16, 2008 Report Share Posted June 16, 2008 Unfortunately what we say or think doesn't matter fly squat....its 328 fps....end of story. Link to post Share on other sites
imp1864 Posted June 16, 2008 Report Share Posted June 16, 2008 Apologies if this has been posted elsewhere but I couldn't see it so... At the last meeting with the Home Office, the Minister confirmed the govt's concern that airsoft guns couls be easily modified to fire at a higher power, sufficient to inflict a penetrating wound in the same way as an air rifle. The UKARA reps confirmed that site limits in the UK were 328 FPS =/- 10% and that guns in excess of this could and would not be allowed on UK Airsoft sites. The Minister confirmed that the exception for Airsoft remained in place so long as this was adhered to and that anything in excess of this was an Air Weapon and not Airsoft. Also that shooting someone with an Airsoft weapon at > 328 + 10% = assault and that insurance waivers did not cover this as you cannot agree to be assaulted. Now... don't all shoot the messenger but the last three sites I have played at are very strict about this now. The home office should read their own legislation. a defence to any assault is that the assault was allowed. Ie boxing. a stated case in question was of a couple who in their act of loving making carved his initals into the buttocks of the female. this was found to have had the females consent and the GBH wounding with intent was dropped. He recieved an unconditional discharge. Consent to assault has always been part of the violence against the person act. This is another prime example of the government complete lack of touch with reality. to apply taht criteria all contact sport is now an assault, as mearliy touching another individual is common assault. Pat. Link to post Share on other sites
Inq Eisenhorn Posted June 16, 2008 Report Share Posted June 16, 2008 @ IMP1864 However, as always, we slip into the legalities of the whole thing...and thats where all defence seems to fall down. You'd need a test case, surely, and who wants to be the first to be had up on this kind of charge.....the other problem is that the airsoft sites are not interested in challenging this new twist to the VCRA defence...and without the backing of the sites, you're on your own. Most sites have operated with 328 +/- 10% for a long time, in fact a lot of sites don't even allow for 10%, its 328 flat! A few sites allow for 350...but considering the top end of the 328 tolerance band gives you 345 fps...these sites are pretty much near enough to what the Home Office is asking for anyway. In short, the Home Office doesn't seem to be asking for anything we haven't had imposed on us from the word go, so whats the point in complaining? If they were asking for us to use rifles with 128fps..then yeah, I'd be pretty upset....but that isn't the case. edit: my percentage maths is soooo bad.....my 345fp is for a 5% margin, not 10....sorry Link to post Share on other sites
Pablo Posted June 16, 2008 Report Share Posted June 16, 2008 The home office should read their own legislation. a defence to any assault is that the assault was allowed. Ie boxing. a stated case in question was of a couple who in their act of loving making carved his initals into the buttocks of the female. this was found to have had the females consent and the GBH wounding with intent was dropped. He recieved an unconditional discharge. Consent to assault has always been part of the violence against the person act. This is another prime example of the government complete lack of touch with reality. to apply taht criteria all contact sport is now an assault, as mearliy touching another individual is common assault. Pat. In which case that would depend on the site's insurance and the format of the waiver form, I should imagine. I'm no expert on these matters of course. I did mention it in a sniper thread previously, but I've been waiting for a copy of the minutes of the meeting before I comment properly. If anyone has a copy (or a link) I'd love to have a looky. Not strictly speaking a VCRA topic, and I think this would benefit from a wider audience so if it's all the same I'm gonna move this to General Discussion (leaving a link in the VCRA section for good measure). EDIT: Strictly speaking, I believe this was a re-affirmation of their previous letter to UKASGB from 2003. Whoops! it was 2004: http://www.ukasgb.org.uk/home_office_letter.pdf Link to post Share on other sites
imp1864 Posted June 16, 2008 Report Share Posted June 16, 2008 My arguement isn't over FPS. Thats been set for as long as I can remember. It's the fact the home office are giving false information to those who attended the meeting. The assault laws have always had defences to them and to start stating false information has broader implications for us. As I said the FPS is not the reason for me being angered over this. Regarding insurance Pablo, as you know you go to a site you agree to abide by their rule and regs, fine by me. As usual the home office have take something that suits them, not researched it and sent a minister to trot out a party line. You should hear some of the bull they talk when we get stuck with them. I frequently wonder what law they have read, cos it sure isn't the one I enforce. Link to post Share on other sites
AJB2K3-P90 Posted June 16, 2008 Report Share Posted June 16, 2008 Typical gov ######, ruining everything that's fun. It would be better to bring in gun licences then kill the hobbie. Link to post Share on other sites
QQexDERA Posted June 16, 2008 Report Share Posted June 16, 2008 Apologies if this has been posted elsewhere but I couldn't see it so... At the last meeting with the Home Office, the Minister confirmed the govt's concern that airsoft guns couls be easily modified to fire at a higher power, sufficient to inflict a penetrating wound in the same way as an air rifle. The UKARA reps confirmed that site limits in the UK were 328 FPS =/- 10% and that guns in excess of this could and would not be allowed on UK Airsoft sites. The Minister confirmed that the exception for Airsoft remained in place so long as this was adhered to and that anything in excess of this was an Air Weapon and not Airsoft. Also that shooting someone with an Airsoft weapon at > 328 + 10% = assault and that insurance waivers did not cover this as you cannot agree to be assaulted. Now... don't all shoot the messenger but the last three sites I have played at are very strict about this now. I take it you mean UKASGB reps, not UKARA reps? How a site runs its affairs has sod all to do with UKARA.... I didn't think that there were any Ministers at the meeting at all, just Civil Servants? Link to post Share on other sites
imp1864 Posted June 16, 2008 Report Share Posted June 16, 2008 That would make more sense then. Civil servants would have been given a brief and with no legal knowledge, make this sweeping statement.P Link to post Share on other sites
Stealthbomber Posted June 16, 2008 Report Share Posted June 16, 2008 So, nothing's changed since 2004? Right ho. Fair enough then. Link to post Share on other sites
Marlowe Posted June 16, 2008 Report Share Posted June 16, 2008 Can we have some clarification on whether it was UKARA or UKASGB who confirmed site limits, please? And also confirmation on the source / accuracy of this news? I'd be rather keen to know whether UKARA made such a comment with the approval of UKASGB, if it was they who were consulted. Even so, as has already been commented, there's nothing new here. A few sites have slackened their velocity limits (no doubt out of the downright apathy the VCRA has inflicted), but generally this has been the rule of thumb for most sites. Link to post Share on other sites
Hedganian Posted June 16, 2008 Report Share Posted June 16, 2008 I've been mentioning this every chance it seemed to be vagule relevant, for years. A few years back there was a big panic about 500 fps sniper rifles being "air rifles" and "illegal" to use for airsoft, and all the sites banned them. But nothing happened and gradually sniper rifle limits crept back up to 500fps again. But the law wasn't changed, and it's still as illegal now as it was then (which I'm not convinced that it is, but plenty of people were at the time). So it's nice to see someone else finally noticing this. I'm concerned, however, that (to quote from the OP) "The UKARA reps confirmed that site limits in the UK were 328 FPS =/- 10% and that guns in excess of this could and would not be allowed on UK Airsoft sites" when this is nothing to do with UKARA, and isn't technically correct - or at least is incomplete. This should have been a UKASGB point to clarify, and the limits stated should have been "328 fps approx for fully-automatic fire and 500 fps for single-shot only, subject to a minimum engagement range". Which is what pretty much every site actually practises. Having said that, if an airsoft weapon goes above the air rifle power limit, then the VCRA no longer applies to it, because it's now an air rifle not a replica. Link to post Share on other sites
msx361 Posted June 16, 2008 Report Share Posted June 16, 2008 So 328 +10% is 360.8 right? So this doesnt effect AEG's at all as most site are 328 or 350fps. Am I right in guessing then that this will only really effect bolt action snipers? Or am I completely wrong on both counts? Link to post Share on other sites
Delfi Posted June 16, 2008 Report Share Posted June 16, 2008 I can confirm that I attended the same site as Pablo (as did Ing and others) - Fireball - when Ken, the owner, briefed everyone on what was said at the HO meeting ... he read out the portion which mentioned 328 +10% and it sounded pretty unequivocal to me. The bottom line seems to be that NO airsoft gun (single shot included) can exceed this limit. I remember this part particularly well as my 2 sniper rifles add up to over a grand of 'investment' and I wasn't very pleased! It has always been Fireball's philosophy to treat all guns the same and that effectively makes sniper rifles pointless on their site. Those are the rules and so no complaints from me ... if this applies across the board though I won't be pleased. In fairness to Pablo, he asked for a copy of the minutes (principally for reproduction here) and was told he could read them and that they would appear on the UKASGB website soon. D Link to post Share on other sites
zard Posted June 16, 2008 Report Share Posted June 16, 2008 So, nothing's changed since 2004? Right ho. Fair enough then. Nothings changed but single action guns. My under standing was that there has previously been a greater muzzle energy limit for single action guns, usually coupled with a minimum engagement distance. This news would appear to do away with that, making sniping (at least in the role of a long ranged attack on a target) obsolete. I'm hoping that I've misread something somewhere. Most sites have operated with 328 +/- 10% for a long time, in fact a lot of sites don't even allow for 10%, its 328 flat! A few sites allow for 350...but considering the top end of the 328 tolerance band gives you 345 fps...these sites are pretty much near enough to what the Home Office is asking for anyway. 328 x 1.1 = 360.8 Curious as to where you got 345fps from. Link to post Share on other sites
Delfi Posted June 16, 2008 Report Share Posted June 16, 2008 Curious as to where you got 345fps from. looks like +5% to me Link to post Share on other sites
Inq Eisenhorn Posted June 16, 2008 Report Share Posted June 16, 2008 As I mentioned in my edit...I'm a plebion ...now lets move on....please Link to post Share on other sites
Pablo Posted June 16, 2008 Report Share Posted June 16, 2008 I can confirm that I attended the same site as Pablo (as did Ing and others) - Fireball - when Ken, the owner, briefed everyone on what was said at the HO meeting ... he read out the portion which mentioned 328 +10% and it sounded pretty unequivocal to me. ............................... In fairness to Pablo, he asked for a copy of the minutes (principally for reproduction here) and was told he could read them and that they would appear on the UKASGB website soon. D Ken being Ken Elston, Chairman of UKASGB. Still waiting for the minutes to appear by the way, so if anyone has a copy feel free to send me a copy or link. EDIT: Technically they said 1J +10% (i.e. 1.1J tops), not 328fps +10%. Does that still work out to 360.8fps with 0.2g BB? My maths isn't what it was, just wondered if there was any difference whatsoever Link to post Share on other sites
Delfi Posted June 16, 2008 Report Share Posted June 16, 2008 If it is the case it also begs questions of the purchase and sale of goods that exceed this limit. Such guns can only count as air weapons and should only be sold face to face by a registered dealer. The rifling argument was countered by one word ... 'shotgun'. Now, if I was a cynic I'd say this is a totally planned move ... unlike the handgun ban (which involved compensation) what we have is a whole load of useless 'air rifles' which are legal to own. They also can't be sold to collectors who aren't skirmishers. D (p.s. Pablo ... yep 1J=328fps with a .2 ... same thing) ... HOWEVER ... if you apply 10% to the velocity it will give a different result to adding 10% to the energy. Link to post Share on other sites
Pablo Posted June 16, 2008 Report Share Posted June 16, 2008 (p.s. Pablo ... yep 1J=328fps with a .2 ... same thing) (I know - I was aking if 1.1J was still 360.8fps) Link to post Share on other sites
Cannonfodder80 Posted June 16, 2008 Report Share Posted June 16, 2008 Righty, as I understand it fron whats posted above, any airsoft gun doing over 328 + 10% Will be unusable for airsoft and technically cause you to end up on a firearms charge. However due to consent being given playing at a site you can't be charged. Typical government laws contradicting each other. Anyway, I see it like this, will it really make any difference? I mean as far as I get it moscart shells have been a grey area since the Anti Social Behavior Act 2003 and has anyone stopped using them? If I'm talking *beep* please feel free to correct me Link to post Share on other sites
Pablo Posted June 16, 2008 Report Share Posted June 16, 2008 I suppose one question is whether allowing the use of airsoft guns over 1J on a site invalidates their insurance? Don't know whether it does, though Ken alluded to a reference in the insurance documents about muzzle velocity. Considering we all have to play at sites with valid PLI these days, it's a relevant question I reckon. Link to post Share on other sites
Hedganian Posted June 16, 2008 Report Share Posted June 16, 2008 How could this be a planned move, when it's not a move at all? Nothing has changed. Why doesn't anyone listen to me? This hasn't been news since 2002 or whenever the hoo-hah was. 500fps has always been illegal. It's not more illegal today than it was last week, or last year, or 10 years ago. No one who has a 500fps sniper rifle and used it at an airsoft game has ever been prosecuted, to the best of my knowledge, and I doubt that anyone will be. The fact of the matter is that when a person shoots another person in a non-lethal, non-injuring way with an airsoft sniper rifle while both parties were engaged in a consenual game of airsoft at an approved site and were within the rules of that site, gaiing a conviction for that "crime" is going to be very difficult. This can be likened to the fact that the government changed various laws on domestic violence and things, and it's now technically illegal for two consenting adults to do anything to each other that leaves "marks visible after 2 hours" or some such rubbish (the exact wording escapes me) but has anyone been prosecuted because they like to handcuff and flog their partner? No, I don't beleive so. As I've said before - the government could outlaw breathing next week, but unless they enforce it it means nothing. Go back to sleep and stop panicking about everything the government say or do. There is no vast conspiracy. Link to post Share on other sites
HeartBreaker1317 Posted June 16, 2008 Report Share Posted June 16, 2008 (I know - I was aking if 1.1J was still 360.8fps) By my calculations: 1.1j with .2g bbs is approximately 104 m/s, or about 344 fps. 104.88088481701516 (meters / second) = 344.097391 feet / second Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.