Trasher Posted October 16, 2008 Report Share Posted October 16, 2008 So simply put, you don't have proof the study is coming from a credible, unbiased source. Thank you. "Merda taurorum animas conturbit" Link to post Share on other sites
Chimpy Posted October 16, 2008 Report Share Posted October 16, 2008 So simply put, you don't have proof the study is coming from a credible, unbiased source. Thank you. "Merda taurorum animas conturbit" I'm bullpooping nothing it is you that is full of rhetorical bluster. I've made no statement to date on the credibility of the source. I'm asking you to make an argument based on evidence and you are unable to do anything but asking me to disprove your own assertion! I'm not going to do your work for you. As I said in my previous post the burden of proof rests with you to prove your assertion. You have offered no proof that the study isn't credible but are the one making the assertion that the source is biased or non-credible now based on the argument that I haven't provided any evidence that they are credible. Which is yet another logical fallacy this time an argument from ignorance. So again, where is your evidence that the source is biased? Link to post Share on other sites
Pablo Posted October 16, 2008 Report Share Posted October 16, 2008 Trasher, arguing that your assertion (without evidence) is justifiable simply because someone who has nowt to do with the organisation cannot produce evidence to the contrary is absolute nonsense, and insulting them for it is laughable - especially when the insult would be more applicable to your own argument. Are they biased or not? I have no way of knowing, and furthermore I ain't bothered. On the other hand, the whole debate seems pretty meaningless - people will choose to believe whatever they want, and site owners will make up their own damn minds based on their own interpretation of the evidence. Arguing about it here will not make the slightest bit of difference. It will pretty much come down to this: 1. Do I have any windows or any glass at all knocking about on site? 2. Do I want BB's to damage it? 3. Will these BB's damage the glass? 4. Do I, personally - taking into consideration the opinions of my players, perhaps - want to take the risk of allowing people to use 'em? Decision made. End of. EDIT: Just to re-iterate my personal opinion - I couldn't give a monkeys chuff either way. Link to post Share on other sites
Habakure Posted October 16, 2008 Report Share Posted October 16, 2008 There seem to be a lot of threads recently that just cry out hand bags at dawn. Some times it would be nice if some one posted "look here they say this, if you want to question them try here" etc. Link to post Share on other sites
Chimpy Posted October 16, 2008 Report Share Posted October 16, 2008 There seem to be a lot of threads recently that just cry out hand bags at dawn. Some times it would be nice if some one posted "look here they say this, if you want to question them try here" etc. Welcome to the Internet where anyone can make themselves look retarded by holding forth on subjects about which they know little! Link to post Share on other sites
Habakure Posted October 16, 2008 Report Share Posted October 16, 2008 It truely is a wonderous place of knowledge and...wikipedia They only thing I normally trust on the interenet are that its cheaper to buy off it. But saying that certain people on here do cracking reviews which can help you decide which AEG to buy for which your mates can go "How much". I wouldn't want BB's used that could hurt more than others, the level they are at now is just fine thanks. This type of thing would make MAG members go "look they can $%^&", didn't want to say the word they would use, it just basically means the end of something. And nothing to do with the Henry Rollins song Edit:- Spelling. My grammar will always be bad, its in the jeans Link to post Share on other sites
trecam Posted October 16, 2008 Report Share Posted October 16, 2008 As a player who has converted to these bbbmax transparent bbs i am worried they will be banned on certain fields based soley on unfounded claims, conclusions and "manufactured" fears. If we are to believe nothing we read anymore then i guess the only thing to do is to buy a bag and try them. Since the bbbmax are 0.27g i guess the market for them would be specific to those who need this class of bb. Having said that i find the bbbmax to be the best bb on the market. They are better than digicons in my sniper rifle and since they don't chop they have solved all my ptw issues. All my team mates have also converted. We have never had any damage caused to our equipment. We have finally found a bb that actually allows all those expensive performance kits to perform to spec. High performance kits are of no use if the bbs used are not up to the job. IMO. I have recently been told that all bb weight classes over 0.20g have been banned in japan. They can only use 0.20g and got to be bio. That's fun ... not. Flame away Link to post Share on other sites
Chimpy Posted October 16, 2008 Report Share Posted October 16, 2008 Well I for one am definitely buying a bag just to see what they are like. I expect them to be rather like all my other BBs though based on that study since I run a totally stock AEG. Link to post Share on other sites
Pablo Posted October 16, 2008 Report Share Posted October 16, 2008 i am worried they will be banned on certain fields based soley on unfounded claims, conclusions and "manufactured" fears. I'd put money on that happening, no matter what anyone says to convince people otherwise. It's called "life". Link to post Share on other sites
Chimpy Posted October 16, 2008 Report Share Posted October 16, 2008 The corollary is probably also true. This bit of controversy has definitely put the brand out there! Link to post Share on other sites
Brick Posted October 16, 2008 Report Share Posted October 16, 2008 One thing that can be garunteed is as the use of these BB's increases so will the number of teeth being shot out. Link to post Share on other sites
Pablo Posted October 16, 2008 Report Share Posted October 16, 2008 Guaranteed? EDIT: Dammit, we're on 28 pages of this cobblers now - look what you made me do! Link to post Share on other sites
Chimpy Posted October 16, 2008 Report Share Posted October 16, 2008 Best stop smiling then! Link to post Share on other sites
trecam Posted October 16, 2008 Report Share Posted October 16, 2008 One thing that can be garunteed is as the use of these BB's increases so will the number of teeth being shot out. That happens with plastic bbs too. Plenty of stories there. Regardless of bb perhaps full face protection would be a good solution? Link to post Share on other sites
Chimpy Posted October 16, 2008 Report Share Posted October 16, 2008 Pillows fore and aft too. We don't want any bruised botties. Link to post Share on other sites
Habakure Posted October 16, 2008 Report Share Posted October 16, 2008 Cod piece is always a good idea. Link to post Share on other sites
Jenkem Posted October 16, 2008 Report Share Posted October 16, 2008 Bioval BB's = Break glass End of story, put it to bed. There's absolutely nothing else to be said about them that you can't say about any other BB. Link to post Share on other sites
trecam Posted October 16, 2008 Report Share Posted October 16, 2008 Guaranteed? EDIT: Dammit, we're on 28 pages of this cobblers now - look what you made me do! Fair warning would be appreciated ... Link to post Share on other sites
Elliot Posted October 16, 2008 Report Share Posted October 16, 2008 OK Lets review what IS now known about what the BBMAX bbs can and can’t do. BBMAX bbs won’t penetrate full-face polycarbonate lensed facemasks. BBMAX bbs will break / penetrate glass at sub 1j velocities. Are we all in agreement about those 2 facts? It has been advised by both the manufactures of the BBMAX and the lab that was commissioned to conduct the test that the BBMAX should only be used against players wearing full face / head protection. The lab also stated that safety glasses that were not sealed above and below the eyes, and mesh masks should not be used to prevent injury from the BBMAX, so no Okleys or Sensi mesh masks should be used in games with people using the BBMAX. The BBMAX will break car windows at sub 1j velocities, so it is probably not a good idea to use them if the skirmish game involves the use of cars who’s owners do not wish to have their windows broken, or places where there are glass windows that should not be broken. Is that a fair assessment of where we are? Elliot. Link to post Share on other sites
Chimpy Posted October 16, 2008 Report Share Posted October 16, 2008 Holy *suitcase* someone can read! Yeah mate, dead on. I can't see any sensible European manufacturer recommending anything less than full face. Even with 'normal' BBs and stock guns teeth come out. Link to post Share on other sites
.:ExtraMedium:. Posted October 16, 2008 Report Share Posted October 16, 2008 BBMAX bbs won’t penetrate full-face polycarbonate lensed facemasks. BBMAX bbs will break / penetrate glass at sub 1j velocities. I guess the question is now: what damage will it do to gear such as radios. Most people keep radios in pouches so that should disperse the impact like your clothed skin does. But underneath the fabric of the pouch is the hard plastic radio so it may still take a beating (I guess the safest idea is to put some thin foam padding on your expesive gear). Also mebe those who have plastic guns may find their M4's handgrip getting cracked underfire. Personally I would rather not encounter these BBMAX bbs when there are many other alternatives. Link to post Share on other sites
Harmless Posted October 16, 2008 Report Share Posted October 16, 2008 It has been advised by both the manufactures of the BBMAX and the lab that was commissioned to conduct the test that the BBMAX should only be used against players wearing full face / head protection. Well most woodland sites I've seen, don't have mandatory full face so they can't be used there and most CQB sites, where compulsory full face may be a requirement, are at such close range that they don't need superior ballistic properties, but at least the option is there. In fact the guidelines say they must only be used against those with full face protection. So confound your BBBmax enemy, by wearing a visible smile Link to post Share on other sites
Chimpy Posted October 16, 2008 Report Share Posted October 16, 2008 I guess the question is now: what damage will it do to gear such as radios. Most people keep radios in pouches so that should disperse the impact like your clothed skin does. But underneath the fabric of the pouch is the hard plastic radio so it may still take a beating (I guess the safest idea is to put some thin foam padding on your expesive gear). Also mebe those who have plastic guns may find their M4's handgrip getting cracked underfire. Personally I would rather not encounter these BBMAX bbs when there are many other alternatives. How do you know those are safe!? Shock, horror they haven't been tested independently either. Honestly people. Get a grip. These are slightly harder BBs not Satan's sperm injected through the furnaces of hell. Link to post Share on other sites
Jenkem Posted October 16, 2008 Report Share Posted October 16, 2008 Well most woodland sites I've seen, don't have mandatory full face so they can't be used there and most CQB sites, where compulsory full face may be a requirement, are at such close range that they don't need superior ballistic properties, but at least the option is there. In fact the guidelines say they must only be used against those with full face protection. So confound your BBBmax enemy, by wearing a visible smile there is absolutely NO evidence showing these BB's are more dangerous than plastic BB's so there is no reason why they "can't be used" anywhere except fields where they are banned by the owners because there is glass present. How do you know those are safe!? Shock, horror they haven't been tested independently either. Honestly people. Get a grip. These are slightly harder BBs not Satan's sperm injected through the furnaces of hell. THANK YOU. GET A GRIP YOU NUMBSKULLS Link to post Share on other sites
Pablo Posted October 16, 2008 Report Share Posted October 16, 2008 Okay, enough. Anyone has a good reason to reopen this thread (and it'll have to be good), just let me know. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.