P.M.O.G Airsoft 40MM Projectile

[PMO Gordo]

Troops, it is with excitement that I present to you my first batch of Airsoft 40mm projectile prototypes as shown in the video link below. The reason why I'm doing this was discussed in my previous thread titled "The Art of the Precision Airsoft Grenade Launcher"(http://www.wpairsoft.com/f9/art-precision-airsoft-grenade-launcher-5068.html). In summary, I think Airsoft grenade launcher is under-utilized as an area effect weapon, and the ICS / TAG 40mm grenade system seems to be the answer to that problem. However, ICS is taking their time to put them on the market, and I have doubt about whether or not their projectiles can work without their specialty grenade shells.

The production of my projectiles is rather simple, and anyone can do it in their homes. I used an inert M781 practice round as the template, and utilized Alumilite's products to mold and cast the round. For the the tip, I used Alumilite's Super Foam 320 to cast it so that it would break apart upon impact to prevent injuries in case of hitting a player. Another function for the foam tip was to release its content upon impact. The inside of the tip was filled with food color powder, so that it would be safe if inhaled. The bottom of the round / pusher was cast with Alumilite's regular resins, so that it would bite the rifling of my grenade launcher upon release. Although I'm planning to use Alumilite's Alumifoam for the bottom in the next batch to further decrease the safety risks. The total weight of the round was 32 gm, which is comparable to a Nerf rocket.

These prototypes were made to test their effectiveness, precision, and range. The next step would be to improve the production method and test their safeness with ballistic gel and kinetic analyses. Afterward, I'm planning to send some samples to local players and event organizers to get their opinions.  

I forgot to mention at the end of the video that I appreciate Mercer Airsoft Center for allowing me to test fire my projectiles.

[video=youtube_share;FTvrhj_jZvo]

[DarkLite]

Very interesting. What's the cost per shell looking like it will be?

[Hopewell]

Very nice concept, I like!

 

Are these solid moulds, or are they hollow to an extent? I ask, as that could make incorporating a small bang a tad easier, making it more obvious of it goes off close by.

[BIn]

Over 2 j? Banned!

[Tom Andrews]

Over 2 j? Banned!

   The guy is in the States, 2J hardly applies.

[PMO Gordo]

Very interesting. What's the cost per shell looking like it will be?

 

I haven't looked into that yet, but the material cost could be pretty cheap:

1. Projectile tip: 5 c.c of Alumilite's Superfoam 320

2. Projectile base: 20 c.c. of Alumilite's regular resin

3. Projectile content: 1tbsp of flour or food color powder

4. Snap bang: 1 unit - US$ 0.30

 

I'm not quite sure about the price estimate of #1 - 3.

[PMO Gordo]

Very nice concept, I like!

 

Are these solid moulds, or are they hollow to an extent? I ask, as that could make incorporating a small bang a tad easier, making it more obvious of it goes off close by.

 

The projectile tip is hallow and filled with food color powder / flour. There is a snap bang at the tip of the projectile and should create a fairly loud noise upon impact. I tried to avoid pyrotechnics because most US fields don't allow them, but the snap bang may be an exception because the amount of pyrotechnics in it is so trivial that I could set it off on my skin without hurting myself (see the video below @ 8:06).

 

[video=youtube_share;7eJhs5I0U0c]

[PMO Gordo]

   The guy is in the States, 2J hardly applies.

 

The safety limit of launching a 32 gm Nerf rocket is 245 FPS in the US. I haven't got the chance to chrono my projectiles yet, but I'm planning to do so in my next batch of prototypes. I'm also going to use ballistic gel to test their safeness.

[MadDog]

I like the Idea, intrested to see how this progresses.  

Also as nerf rockets are tangible rounds would they be covered by paintball rules not airsoft rules, meaning the power limit is 16J for the UK?

[renegadecow]

I'd test out that snap bang a lot if I were you. Since you said the powder mix is flour, all it takes is the right air mix and you get a fireball.

[notrabies]

I'd test out that snap bang a lot if I were you. Since you said the powder mix is flour, all it takes is the right air mix and you get a fireball.

This grenade idea just keeps getting better and better!

[PMO Gordo]

Update: P.M.O.G safety assessment video

[video=youtube_share;FocXStzGLA4]

Ref:
1. Floroff, 2003:  Engineering the nonlethal artillery projectile. - Free Online Library
2. Katz, 2002: http://www.chymist.com/Toystore%20part3.pdf
3. Lyon, 1999: http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA351529

 

[Mazuran]

First off, congrats on actually making the effort to put these through some testing. Bonus points for having references as well! This is an awesome project which I hope you can get working right

 

Playing devil's advocate - 

Unfortunately all your test proves is that your projectiles won't break through skin, which is quite a small factor regarding safety, and your emphasis on the lethality of the grenade doesn't take into account other injuries. What about internal damage/bruising? What about someone catching one with their face or taking one to the back of the head? They're both situations which are potentially quite serious, but your testing hasn't really covered that as far as I can see. 

Another potential issue is people getting powder in their eyes - yeah, it's quite unlikely to happen (especially if people are wearing paintball masks), but given most people prefer safety specs it's still something to consider.

RC's point about flammability of flour is also a good point - yeah, the snap bang might not damage people (as you demonstrated), but the fireball might...

[Jas]

Update: P.M.O.G safety assessment video

 

[video=youtube_share;FocXStzGLA4]

 

Ref:

1. Floroff, 2003: Engineering the nonlethal artillery projectile. - Free Online Library

2. Katz, 2002: http://www.chymist.com/Toystore%20part3.pdf

3. Lyon, 1999: http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA351529

 

 

If your going to put text in a video please leave it up for longer than 1/1000th of a second.

[PMO Gordo]

First off, congrats on actually making the effort to put these through some testing. Bonus points for having references as well! This is an awesome project which I hope you can get working right

 

Playing devil's advocate - 

Unfortunately all your test proves is that your projectiles won't break through skin, which is quite a small factor regarding safety, and your emphasis on the lethality of the grenade doesn't take into account other injuries. What about internal damage/bruising? What about someone catching one with their face or taking one to the back of the head? They're both situations which are potentially quite serious, but your testing hasn't really covered that as far as I can see. 

Another potential issue is people getting powder in their eyes - yeah, it's quite unlikely to happen (especially if people are wearing paintball masks), but given most people prefer safety specs it's still something to consider.

RC's point about flammability of flour is also a good point - yeah, the snap bang might not damage people (as you demonstrated), but the fireball might...

 

Thank you for your comments. I will attempt to address each point.

 

1. To assess internal injuries at home, ballistic clay is probably the way to go. It's also possible to do so using a very high speed camera to capture the deformation of the ballistic gel. But neither methods are within my budget. However, if you look at Floroff and Lyon's standards in the video, the P.M.O.G is 53% lower the Floroff's standard, and 16% lower than the Lyon's low lethality standard. It is very likely it won't cause serious internal injuries. To prove the point, I made a supplement video below.

 

2. There are very few studies on the safety standards for kinetic non-lethal weapon, probably due to difficulties on assessing head injuries. I could only find O'Driscoll's standard of 70 J. The highest observed energy of P.M.O.G was 40 J, which is 43% lower than the standard. In addition, the materials used in P.M.O.G are mostly frangible and light weight, which further decrease the chance of causing serious injuries. I accidentally got shot in the head in the video, and although I was wearing a helmet, I estimate the concussion would be similar to bumping into a tree with bare head.

 

3. The required goggles (at least in US) during skirmishes should minimize the chance of getting chalk in players' eyes.

 

4. I was using the chalk, which is not flammable, in this test and future models.

 

 

REF:  O'Driscoll G et al, "An Assessment of the Accuracy of the Baton Round", CDE Tech Note 299, cited in Warren GR, Proposals to Investigate Projectiles for Riot Control, Procurement Executive -- Ministry of Defence Atomic Weapons Research Establishment, 1978

[Mazuran]

Thank you for your comments. I will attempt to address each point.

 

1. To assess internal injuries at home, ballistic clay is probably the way to go. It's also possible to do so using a very high speed camera to capture the deformation of the ballistic gel. But neither methods are within my budget. However, if you look at Floroff and Lyon's standards in the video, the P.M.O.G is 53% lower the Floroff's standard, and 16% lower than the Lyon's low lethality standard. It is very likely it won't cause serious internal injuries. To prove the point, I made a supplement video below.

 

 

At least you didn't volunteer anyone else for the testing

Body shots seem ok safety wise. Little bit like being caught with a shotgun in CQB from your description. 

 

 

2. There are very few studies on the safety standards for kinetic non-lethal weapon, probably due to difficulties on assessing head injuries. I could only find O'Driscoll's standard of 70 J. The highest observed energy of P.M.O.G was 40 J, which is 43% lower than the standard. In addition, the materials used in P.M.O.G are mostly frangible and light weight, which further decrease the chance of causing serious injuries. I accidentally got shot in the head in the video, and although I was wearing a helmet, I estimate the concussion would be similar to bumping into a tree with bare head.

 

The headshots are my main concern. 40J of energy is still quite a lot - if people lose teeth from a 2J sniper rifle, I'd rather not see what 40J does to someone's mouth.

The hit to your head in the video doesn't really say much apart from "wear a helmet if someone's using these". Even a seemingly minor hit to the head can have serious effects, which I'm reasonably sure 40J is capable of doing. 

 

In your video, you make the point that it's not designed to be fired directly at people at ranges shorter than 30m. That's fine, makes sense, and under those circumstances the device is most likely safe. But can you always count on people sticking to those rules? Can you always count on them being used properly, with no accidents? People have difficulty telling how far 5m is for the bang rule, nevermind telling how far 30m is.

 

I know I'm over-dramatising it, but when it comes to safety you have to plan for that eejit who will fire it in someone's face at 5m. Or that one time that you fire it into a room and someone catches with their teeth. Unless your site makes it mandatory for people to wear helmets and full-face protection, I'd have real difficulty trusting someone to use these safely.

 

 

3. The required goggles (at least in US) during skirmishes should minimize the chance of getting chalk in players' eyes.

 

4. I was using the chalk, which is not flammable, in this test and future models.

 

Fair enough, that's not an issue then. UK has different rules on eyewear it seems.

 

TL;DR: They're good (and look really fun! ), apart from I wouldn't trust people to use them properly and everyone would have to wear full-face protection, paintball goggles and a helmet. 

[Lancaster]

as a person being shot with much more powerful gun (cannon) I can say that this type of projectile is relatively safe and isn't more harmful than highly upgraded aegs

 

[Tom Andrews]

Personally I think I would prefer getting hit by a POM  grenade rather than a tennis ball.   Seeing the speed Wimbledon players can manage to propel a ball makes the grenade seem almost friendly.....

[Avenger96]

First off, congrats on actually making the effort to put these through some testing. Bonus points for having references as well! This is an awesome project which I hope you can get working right

 

Playing devil's advocate -

Unfortunately all your test proves is that your projectiles won't break through skin, which is quite a small factor regarding safety, and your emphasis on the lethality of the grenade doesn't take into account other injuries. What about internal damage/bruising? What about someone catching one with their face or taking one to the back of the head? They're both situations which are potentially quite serious, but your testing hasn't really covered that as far as I can see.

Another potential issue is people getting powder in their eyes - yeah, it's quite unlikely to happen (especially if people are wearing paintball masks), but given most people prefer safety specs it's still something to consider.

RC's point about flammability of flour is also a good point - yeah, the snap bang might not damage people (as you demonstrated), but the fireball might...

Wait a second, by "internal damage/bruising" you mean organ damage on a human? I a person is that fragile they should probably take up a different sport.

 

On another thing, if you're stupid enough to wear safety glasses on the field then you deserve what you get. As for most of your other points(except for the one about the back of the head-how freaking hard do you think this hits?), they seem mostly valid.

[Jas]

Thank you for your comments. I will attempt to address each point.

 

1. To assess internal injuries at home, ballistic clay is probably the way to go. It's also possible to do so using a very high speed camera to capture the deformation of the ballistic gel. But neither methods are within my budget. However, if you look at Floroff and Lyon's standards in the video, the P.M.O.G is 53% lower the Floroff's standard, and 16% lower than the Lyon's low lethality standard. It is very likely it won't cause serious internal injuries. To prove the point, I made a supplement video below.

 

2. There are very few studies on the safety standards for kinetic non-lethal weapon, probably due to difficulties on assessing head injuries. I could only find O'Driscoll's standard of 70 J. The highest observed energy of P.M.O.G was 40 J, which is 43% lower than the standard. In addition, the materials used in P.M.O.G are mostly frangible and light weight, which further decrease the chance of causing serious injuries. I accidentally got shot in the head in the video, and although I was wearing a helmet, I estimate the concussion would be similar to bumping into a tree with bare head.

 

3. The required goggles (at least in US) during skirmishes should minimize the chance of getting chalk in players' eyes.

 

4. I was using the chalk, which is not flammable, in this test and future models.

 

 

REF:  O'Driscoll G et al, "An Assessment of the Accuracy of the Baton Round", CDE Tech Note 299, cited in Warren GR, Proposals to Investigate Projectiles for Riot Control, Procurement Executive -- Ministry of Defence Atomic Weapons Research Establishment, 1978

 

 

The grenade seems cool but I would seriously be ###### off if I got covered in chalk. Is the chalk really necessary? Also full seal goggles are not required in the US.

[Mazuran]

Wait a second, by "internal damage/bruising" you mean organ damage on a human? I a person is that fragile they should probably take up a different sport.

 

On another thing, if you're stupid enough to wear safety glasses on the field then you deserve what you get. As for most of your other points(except for the one about the back of the head-how freaking hard do you think this hits?), they seem mostly valid.

 

I've already covered the first part of that. 

 

As for head injuries... It takes less than you might expect to concuss someone, especially if they're not expecting it. It's something I'd rather not risk happening. My concern isn't so much about the people who will use it properly (30m MED, indirect fire, etc), but the people who will tit around with it, or "that one time" where an accident happens. 

 

Most people wear safety specs in airsoft from what I've seen. Full seal goggles are definitely in the minority. 

[PMO Gordo]

At least you didn't volunteer anyone else for the testing

Body shots seem ok safety wise. Little bit like being caught with a shotgun in CQB from your description. 

 

The headshots are my main concern. 40J of energy is still quite a lot - if people lose teeth from a 2J sniper rifle, I'd rather not see what 40J does to someone's mouth.

The hit to your head in the video doesn't really say much apart from "wear a helmet if someone's using these". Even a seemingly minor hit to the head can have serious effects, which I'm reasonably sure 40J is capable of doing. 

 

In your video, you make the point that it's not designed to be fired directly at people at ranges shorter than 30m. That's fine, makes sense, and under those circumstances the device is most likely safe. But can you always count on people sticking to those rules? Can you always count on them being used properly, with no accidents? People have difficulty telling how far 5m is for the bang rule, nevermind telling how far 30m is.

 

I know I'm over-dramatising it, but when it comes to safety you have to plan for that eejit who will fire it in someone's face at 5m. Or that one time that you fire it into a room and someone catches with their teeth. Unless your site makes it mandatory for people to wear helmets and full-face protection, I'd have real difficulty trusting someone to use these safely.

 

Fair enough, that's not an issue then. UK has different rules on eyewear it seems.

 

TL;DR: They're good (and look really fun! ), apart from I wouldn't trust people to use them properly and everyone would have to wear full-face protection, paintball goggles and a helmet. 

 

40 J may seem a lot compare with BBs  fired from an Airsoft gun, but this is not a fair comparison. In non-lethal communities, comparing energy density (energy per impact area; J/cm^2) is considered the appropriate approach.[Lyon, 1999] 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. On the other hand, given a P.M.O.G of 20 gm fired at 210 fps, the energy produced is 40 J and the energy density is 40 / (pi * (2^2) ) = 3.10 J/cm^2. 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. You can see that the P.M.O.G is actually safer than plastic BBs.

 

Yes, it is possible that P.M.O.G would still knock off some teeth if fired at unprotected faces at close range, but judging from the graph above, it wouldn't be worse than plastic BBs. If players are willing to go without facial protection and take the risks of getting their teeth chipped by plastic BBs, I don't see why they won't accept the safer P.M.O.G. And if we are banning P.M.O.G from using in skirmishes, we might as well ban plastic BBs and play Nerf wars instead.

 

REF: Lyon, 1999: http://www.arl.army.mil/arlreports/1999/ARL-TR-1868.pdf

[PMO Gordo]

The grenade seems cool but I would seriously be ###### off if I got covered in chalk. Is the chalk really necessary? Also full seal goggles are not required in the US.

 

You shouldn't be covered by chalk unless getting a direct hit. And as I mentioned before, it was not intended for direct fire at personnel. As for why filling it with chalk, please watch my previous video: "The Art of the Precision Airsoft Grenade Launcher". In order to simulate the use of grenade launcher in urban warfare, a projectile that gives out visual and audio effect seems warranted.

 

[ninja master of coffee]

as a person being shot with much more powerful gun (cannon) I can say that this type of projectile is relatively safe and isn't more harmful than highly upgraded aegs

 

 

It actually says at the end of the video that he was briefly unconscious due to being winded so hard from getting hit in the neck with the cannon round... what upgraded AEGs are you using?! I can see the utility and added immersion of using the PMOG rounds but you'd have to restrict use to games where people only have fill sealing eye protection. In the UK that is not a lot of games, most people use shooting glasses, simply saying "You didn't use the protection against this thing I just introduced, GOT WHAT YOU DESERVED!!" is a pretty stupid and irresponsible attitude if you know that most people are using that level of protection. It'd be like going martial arts sparring in a class where no one had proper head protection, punching someone in the jaw and then claiming that it was their fault for getting concussed. Don't get me wrong, I'm really intrigued by this project but it would have to be brought in with an appreciation of the different risks around it, you will never remove risk completely from airsoft, the equipment we us it inherently risky but you can educate people and control how and what equipment is used. Solid state grenades got banned from the mall in the UK because some people just didn't learn that dropping a heavy piece of metal from a balcony onto someone's head was a deeply stupid idea, now in those circumstances clearly a helmet would have protected that person but considering very few people wear kevlar helmets and that the risks of seriously injuring someone with a solid state grenade had been explained, the things just got banned as they couldn't be controlled in game. I can see these PMOG rounds being using in well organized milsim games, on the other hand, put them in the hands of a sunday skirmisher who thinks CoD style close range grenade kills are great lulz and they'll get banned from that site fairly swiftly.

[Mazuran]

@ ninja master of coffee

Well, it'd be more like turning up at a martial arts class with a pair of knuckle dusters... They might have safety gear, but it's built and designed for a completely different set of safety specifications to cope with what you're using.  

I hadn't realised they'd had to ban solid state grenades at the mall. Just shows the levels of herp derpery around. 

 

@ PMO Gordo

Props for the amount of thought you've put into this. You've answered the questions put to you well, and evidenced everything properly. You've proved (to me at least) that these grenades are safe when used correctly, with the right safety gear. 

The next question is, how do you deal with a situation where people don't have that safety gear, or there are people you don't know at a walk-on who may or may not be trusted to use these things?

Remember all it takes is one serious accident, lawyers will get involved (because how dare you shoot something at little Jonny at an airsoft game), and the whole thing is FUBAR'ed. This is why I'm being really pernickety about the safety.