Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

greg

TLD GR20 Aggressor.

Recommended Posts

I'm pretty sure an insurer would be incredibly concerned about what level of low grade explosives people are throwing at each other ¬.¬

Why?

 

 

Greg.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you serious? They are insuring the health of the participants and the public. They're not going to want people throwing film grade pyro at each other, because people will *fruitcage* die. They'll want to know the levels of sound produced or people can go deaf.

Bear in mind that even with regular pyro you can cause some fairly unpleasant burns, and I've blown hats and comms gear off people with regular ball grenades.

 

Pyro is probably one of the things that they're most concerned about, because they're *fruitcage* EXPLOSIVES.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you serious? They are insuring the health of the participants and the public.

Ah, but they aren't are they.

 

They (PL insurer) are insuring any loss to a non participant caused as a direct neglect of the event organiser.

 

So, if the organiser was proved to chuck a pyro at a member of the public who strayed onto the site, there could be a payout.

 

Probably not, as this would not be covered as part of the organisers job description,,,,,,, 'Event Organiser', not 'chucker of pyro'.

 

Anything the participants do is down to them. They are liable, not the organiser.

 

The organiser's PL insurance covers them, not the participants.

 

It is the participant's responsibility to underwrite themselves & their actions, or insure this themselves. It would be impossible for an event organiser to get an insurance company to provide PL cover for a player, as it is illegal for you to insure anything other than your own interests.

 

The health of the participants would likewise be the responsibility of the participant & would typically come in the form of a Personal Accident policy. Which would have to be taken out by the participant.

 

Greg.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It could be argued that allowing people to use powerful pyro is direct neglect, which is probably why the PL insurers do (I believe) set a Db limit on pyro.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It could be argued that allowing people to use powerful pyro is direct neglect, which is probably why the PL insurers do (I believe) set a Db limit on pyro.

No argument here: Throwing a firework of any type, including 'pyro' in the direction of a person is illegal. A criminal offense, lets any insurer off the hook.

 

They are not covering players ears, or any loss caused by anything a player does.

 

So again, what do they care? ;)

 

 

Greg.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because event organisers DO use pyro, either as set pieces, or for atmospherics: See just about any milsim game for details.

I've seen plenty of guys lob a bit of pyro about to make it sound cool, or to get a game moving properly, say when a fight simply turns into a range match or a "who runs out of ammo first" game.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because event organisers DO use pyro, either as set pieces, or for atmospherics: See just about any milsim game for details.

I've seen plenty of guys lob a bit of pyro about to make it sound cool, or to get a game moving properly, say when a fight simply turns into a range match or a "who runs out of ammo first" game.

Agreed, in this case, the PL insurers could impose exclusions as to what they are prepared to cover.

 

It would not restrict what the organisers choose to do. Only what their insurers are prepared to pay out on. At the events you mention, I bet the organisers use maroons etc, which are way more powerful than a mk5. ;)

 

& again, this would have absolutely no bearing on what, 'players', can or are allowed to do.

 

Other than the general exclusion of all illegal activities, I'm not convinced that any limitations on pyro use by players, are set down by, an event organiser's PL Insurance company. They would simply have no interest in this, as it has no relationship to the chance they would have to pay out.

 

 

Greg.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Other than the general exclusion of all illegal activities, I'm not convinced that any limitations on pyro use by players, are set down by, an event organiser's PL Insurance company. They would simply have no interest in this, as it has no relationship to the chance they would have to pay out.

 

 

Speak to Leisuresure then. You seem convinced that I'm lying for some reason, perhaps to justify your purchase?

 

The insurer is providing liability cover within a specific set of boundaries. They are explicit about what risks are covered by them and what are not. Currently the GR20 falls into the latter category. It is an uninsured risk. It is entirely up to the site to make a decision based on that. If they are unhappy to have the albeit slim possibility of a claim on them related to the use of gr20 grenades at their site, they may well decide to mitigate that risk by banning their use. More likely for some sites is that they simply can't be bothered to check so will err on the 'safe' side and not allow them. Unfortunate if you have purchased them, but thems the breaks.

 

As for the PLI covering the site not the player, yes you are correct. They are covering our Liability to whomever in case of claim against us. That claim could come from anyone who has reason to beleive that the action or inaction of the site or it's staff has caused them to suffer loss, be it physical or other.

 

On a side note, we checked a TLSFX MK5 (Thick tube) against a gr20 'Mk5' charge with a dB meter, in a large (15'x50') chalk walled chamber in our bunker. The reading was taken at approximately 6 to 8'. The std Mk5 gave a peak reading of 67 dB. The gr20 gave a peak reading of 84dB. Both way under the 'official' peak dB of both, but the GR20 was louder. There was considerable hot exhaust venting from the holes in the body of the GR20, whereas a Mk5 'stick' pyro can be let of in the hand as long as the fingers do not cover the ends, with no damage. This is more concerning to us than the sound level, the risk of one landing in a players lap and causing burns to clothing or body parst is much greater with the GR20.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Speak to Leisuresure then. You seem convinced that I'm lying for some reason, perhaps to justify your purchase?

 

The insurer is providing liability cover within a specific set of boundaries. They are explicit about what risks are covered by them and what are not. Currently the GR20 falls into the latter category. It is an uninsured risk. It is entirely up to the site to make a decision based on that. If they are unhappy to have the albeit slim possibility of a claim on them related to the use of gr20 grenades at their site, they may well decide to mitigate that risk by banning their use. More likely for some sites is that they simply can't be bothered to check so will err on the 'safe' side and not allow them. Unfortunate if you have purchased them, but thems the breaks.

 

As for the PLI covering the site not the player, yes you are correct. They are covering our Liability to whomever in case of claim against us. That claim could come from anyone who has reason to beleive that the action or inaction of the site or it's staff has caused them to suffer loss, be it physical or other.

 

On a side note, we checked a TLSFX MK5 (Thick tube) against a gr20 'Mk5' charge with a dB meter, in a large (15'x50') chalk walled chamber in our bunker. The reading was taken at approximately 6 to 8'. The std Mk5 gave a peak reading of 67 dB. The gr20 gave a peak reading of 84dB. Both way under the 'official' peak dB of both, but the GR20 was louder. There was considerable hot exhaust venting from the holes in the body of the GR20, whereas a Mk5 'stick' pyro can be let of in the hand as long as the fingers do not cover the ends, with no damage. This is more concerning to us than the sound level, the risk of one landing in a players lap and causing burns to clothing or body parst is much greater with the GR20.

 

Matt,

 

Firstly, may I appologies. My intention was not to call any one a lier. Far from it. I can see how you may feel insulted & I am sorry.

 

I am attempting to understand the situation. I come from an insurance back ground & have a full understanding of most insurance policies. I have an inquisitive nature & was puzzled about the perception, that a PL insurer was dictating opperational policy. It has nothing to do with purchasing anything. :D

 

Last night I took the time to consult with an old friend who is still in the industry. He is an executive at Aviva & like me, is CII qualified. Unlike me, his qualification is still current & he works with these products (Insurance policies) on a daily basis.

 

He has confirmed everything I have said. I would hate to hae misled anybody, so thought it prudent to check.

 

TBH, your latest post also confirms what I have stated: The insurer has opted to specificaly exclude this item. This, as you say, does not exclude it's use. 'It' is simply not covered.

 

As a consequence of this, I think we can agree, that it is the site opperators who have chosen to ban the use of the GR20.

 

This is possibly prudent or possibly nieve but either way, it is their decision & we have to respect that.

 

However, I'm still not sure why the insurer, would take such a specific interest. As the use of any pyro, by players would not be covered by the event organiser's PL. This exclusion means, that the event organiser's would not be covered, should a loss occure (to a passing, non-participant), if they were found, to have neglectfully used, one of these devices.

 

I think it is important to understand this distingtion & suspect that the insured in this case, does not.

 

There is a common misconception that when a site opperator/event organiser says we are insured, everything is covered. I think it is important to set the record straight: If you trip & fall; you ain't covered. If somemone trips & falls over you or your gun; you ain't covered, they ain't covered. If you get shot in the eye, or shoot anyone else in the eye; you ain't covered, they aint covered. If you shoot passer buy in the eye & his/her dog goes mad & mauls your kid to death, causing another passer buy to faint, fall & die, onto the roof of a car, putting a dent into it; you ain't covered, they ain't covered, the dog ain't covered, your kid's not coverd, the faller ain't coverd,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,the car roof,,,,,,,,, ain't covered. :unsure:

 

Again, I'm sorry if it came accross that I thought any one was lying. The point I am trying to make, is that, I think extent of insurance cover, has been missundertood. Along with the extent to which an insurer, has influence on operational policy, within an organisation. ;)

 

On a side note, DB is usualy measured at 1m from source, which is possibly why your readings at 6 feet were a little low.

 

Back on topic: :D

 

You are right, the GR20 does vent it's energy through the side holes instead of at the ends, you don't want to be holding it when it goes off. Having said that, I think it would ne prudent, to ensure that you ain't holding any pyro in your hand, when it goes off ;) .

 

Venting that kind of energy (side or ends) could quite rightly cause damage to a surface. This should of course be considered, during any serious risk assesment. It is why care should be taken when any pyro is used. The person deploying it should be responsible & any recipeints should be aware. As said, it is illegal to chuck fireworks (pyro) & therefore no insurance company can cover this kind of use. No matter what the type or manufacturer.

 

 

Greg.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cool beans, I understand where you're coming from.

 

I have only a 'working' understanding of insurance and specifically PLI, I'll accede to your experience. :)

 

As I said above as well, I reckon it's laziness on most site's parts. They will not allow something new in case 'it goes wrong' rather than taking the time to examine the issues.

 

We'll redo the dB tests at 1m too, thanks for the heads up on that.

 

I just wish they could get the 'flash' down a little bit, perhaps by playing around with the placement of the vents?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just wish they could get the 'flash' down a little bit, perhaps by playing around with the placement of the vents?

I believe there is this new GR20 in the pipeline that handles that. The design doesn't have the same holes. Possibly called the GSR-10 or GR-40. I saw the design a while ago & have forgotten. :rolleyes:

 

Having said that, the blast has to vent somewhere. In a way, it produces less pressure, venting radially, rather than being directed to each end???????????

 

A lower pressure & volume, noise unit would sort it out. :D

 

 

Greg.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is what actually happened.

 

A few people asked if they could use the GR-20

I asked what it was and hey showed me.

I thought it was too loud for normal games and didnt like the flash it gave off

I incidentally called my insurance company and asked if they had heard of the GR-20

They hadn't

I asked it it would be covered, they said until they knew what it was, NO

I gave them the details of the product and they said they would look into it.

I have no been able to get through to JD Airsoft on the phone once.

I am still waiting to hear.

I personally thing they are too loud indoor and when i bought one to test didnt like the flash they gave off, so being my football i said no to them, to cover my *albartroth*.

 

I am happy to allow Dynatecs even though they have never been inspected although after discussion with LI, they said they wouldn't have a problem with them.

 

If My insurance company were happy with them and so was I with the noise, i would allow them, until then, I'm not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
if you're doing dB SPL readings, make sure to note the weighting (a or c) and whether the meter was fast or slow. You'll need fast. Without those facts, the reading is pretty useless.

Did ya have any luck with 'the sheet'?

 

 

Greg.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What ever floats your boat. :huh:

 

I just used a 3" length of 70lbs breaking strain dynema I had knocking about in my fishing kit.

 

Drilled a 1mm hole in the spoon by the top & tied it to the plastic top piece. It hasn't failed in over 60 throws.

 

I can thoroughly recommend the GR20, having used it for over 75 chucks, in all conditions over the last few months.

 

I have had one percussion cap failure & 1 'noise unit' fail to detonate. Both were replaced free of charge.

 

Loading time is now super quick & second nature, less than 30 seconds, tool less, in the field. Running (not initial purchase) cost is £1 a chuck, which is very affordable for what is basically a 'disposable, reusable', pull pin, ultra realistic looking, device.

 

Wherever I go, there are a que of admiring folk, asking questions about how it works. It amazes me that these ain't selling like hot cakes.

 

I am disappointed that features like the spoon retainer (pointless for me), triple bangs, & smokes are still not available.

 

Indications were, that these would be on line before Christmas, but still no signs.

 

I think this must be down to lack of sales. JD airsoft & Pyromad are still the only UK dealers & like I say, there are very few GR20's in airsoft use.

 

Dynotechs may be cheaper to run but look like poo & still have that, 'Blanks may become hard to get due to changes in the law' thing, hanging over their heads.

 

Get one quick. Generate some hype, get your team mates to buy in & help to guarantee, that this amazing product, doesn't become an overlooked, discontinued line.

 

I'm starting to think that lack of uptake may kill this product, in the airsoft market. A real shame because it is just soooooooooo good. Rumor has it, that it is replacing the Nicho in the 'training' arena & there is another model soon to be available, which will be 'more suited to airsofters needs'. :huh: Who knows what the truth holds, for what should have been 'product of the year'.

 

 

Greg.

 

compared to a dynatex blank firing grenade the gr20 is rather expensive to use long term, yes they do look nice.

 

i have never had a dynatex fail to detonate after several years of ownership

 

please do stop scaremongaring about changes in the law regarding the sale of blanks, if you have any facts then of course post them for us all to discuss. however without reference to any such facts your own personal "OMG ! THEY'RE CHANGING THE LAWS!!!" scenario is clearly not enough motivation for others to get on the GR-20 bandwagon, sorry... they do look nice though

 

and, most of this has already been addressed here (you participated i recall)

 

http://www.arniesairsoft.co.uk/forums/inde...75265&st=20

 

http://www.arniesairsoft.co.uk/forums/inde...t&p=2209734

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
compared to a dynatex blank firing grenade the gr20 is rather expensive to use long term, yes they do look nice.

 

i have never had a dynatex fail to detonate after several years of ownership

 

please do stop scaremongaring about changes in the law regarding the sale of blanks, if you have any facts then of course post them for us all to discuss. however without reference to any such facts your own personal "OMG ! THEY'RE CHANGING THE LAWS!!!" scenario is clearly not enough motivation for others to get on the GR-20 bandwagon, sorry... they do look nice though

 

and, most of this has already been addressed here (you participated i recall)

 

http://www.arniesairsoft.co.uk/forums/inde...75265&st=20

 

http://www.arniesairsoft.co.uk/forums/inde...t&p=2209734

You are dead right. We banged it to death last time & proved nothing.

 

There is little point in opening up this debate again, as nothing has changed, there is no new information. If you have some, please share it.

 

However, I'm still hearing the same speculation from the same sources.

 

 

I'm very happy to open a debate about the meaning of the expression, 'scaremongering'.

 

I hardly think that typing; " & still have that, 'blanks MAY become HARD to get due to changes in the law' thing, hanging over their heads",,,,,,,,,,,, is,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, SCAREMONGERING!

 

Please note, I typed 'may', not 'will' & 'hard', not 'impossible'. You are correct; it is just my oppinion. It is not my intention to 'scare' any one to or from, anything.

 

Maybe we just have different definitions of 'Scaremongering'? In my book, 'Scaremongering' would have been something like: "Head for the hills, blanks will definitely be banned, you will go to prison just for looking at one & you will be lumped with a useless piece of plastic, get out quick, while you still have a chance!"

 

But I didn't type that did I? Did I? :rolleyes:

 

& I never typed 'OMG', or 'they ARE changing the laws'. Did I? Did I? <_<

 

No, I didn't...................... You did. :rolleyes:

 

So stop scaremongering will ya. :D

 

 

Greg.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dynotechs may be cheaper to run but look like poo & still have that, 'Blanks may become hard to get due to changes in the law' thing, hanging over their heads.

 

the only reason dynatex bfg's still have that "....." hanging over their heads is because you keep bringing it up.

 

we certainly did discuss it at length last time and i remember you agreeing that any proposed change in the law was more than likely just posturing on the part of a failing and outgoing government.

 

as far as i can work out there is no reason other than looks or mode of operating to buy this gr20 over a bfg. in terms of long-term usage the bfg is a well proven device and the costs are clearly lower.

 

it is in that context that i find your remarks to be akin to causing unnecessary alarm.

 

as for gr20 vs dynatex, well they're both nice... for different reasons - of course the GR20 would be even nicer were it accepted at more sites ;)

 

11-11-08_2156.jpg

 

edited to add a picture of some poo and its original box

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
we certainly did discuss it at length last time and i remember you agreeing that any proposed change in the law was more than likely just posturing on the part of a failing and outgoing government.

 

as far as i can work out there is no reason other than looks or mode of operating to buy this gr20 over a bfg. in terms of long-term usage the bfg is a well proven device and the costs are clearly lower.

 

as for gr20 vs dynatex, well they're both nice... for different reasons - of course the GR20 would be even nicer were it accepted at more sites ;)

Agreed. ;)

 

 

Greg.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And the charges were a load cheaper, Id rather lob a mk5 and not spend half and hour looking for the bits and putting it back together!

That's the great thing about freedom of choice. ;)

 

I'd rather hold the spoon, pull the pin & bowl a realistic looking item.

 

Agreed, it does limit, WHERE I chuck it. :D

 

It may not be as practical as a disposable but it's great fun. :)

 

 

Greg.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the use of session cookies.