October 2014 new gun laws / directive for uk

[heroshark]

Or a paintball gun with one of those solid slugs in.

[Skarclaw]

Or a paintball gun with one of those solid slugs in.

 

I assume that joule creep would make this a definite no-no

[jal3]

As if 12J (paintball at 295fps) wasn't already enough.

 

There was a semi-finals match recently (NPPL i think?) where they chronoed all the markers. Like half of them were hot, one was up at 355FPS. That's 18J.

 

Actually, since paintball markers shoot 12J, wouldn't that mean that the recommendation of "any barreled weapon shooting over 1,3/2,5J is considered lethal" is a total halfassed conclusion?

[heroshark]

PB has always got away with it though, being the original and most commonly recognised form of skirmishing the restrictions against they're guns has always been more leniant due to the publics opinion of it. It's not about doing the right thing ,it's about being seen to be doing the right thing whether it makes sense to the people that understand it or not.

[FireKnife]

Eh, silly looking guns and appeals to stag parties while costing 3x that of airsoft. I guess that is their punishment for lenient laws .

 

Still it is probably due to a myriad of things with the public opinion of one over the other not helping matters. I wouldn't say it is the be all and end all but it is not totally unrelated.

 

'FireKnife'

[Stuey]

I believe it's also because paintballs are frangible (i.e. break on impact).

 

Well if lethal is taking an eye out surely many guns are already lethal. What always gets me is its only the power that's considered to distinguish a weapons lethality completely disregarding the weight of the rnd .

 

Well in theory the projectile's mass doesn't matter, it's how much energy it has that determines its ability to damage stuff.

[FireKnife]

I believe it's also because paintballs are frangible (i.e. break on impact).

 

Well they are meant to be though from what I recall in the few times I played paintball about one in twenty human target impacts didn't break. However this was usually lessened by the fact that the blow is partly absorbed by the softer and more flexible skin of the paintball over the solid body of a BB. However I suppose accounting for such things is perhaps overlooked as some people would say 'should be frangible' and 'tested to be frangible' means 'frangible' even if that isn't always the case 100%.

 

'FireKnife'

[heroshark]

Well in theory the projectile's mass doesn't matter, it's how much energy it has that determines its ability to damage stuff.

 

I does in the case of the solid PB slugs or the weight of a lead .22 pellet compaired to 0.2 bb , yet PB and air guns have far more potential for injury and have less stringent owning/buying laws and many are essentially RIFs .Thinking about it is the official legal AS measurment done with 0.2's also?

[FireKnife]

One would assume 0.2s as that seems to be the standard. However do I not recall that using heavier ammo in a gas or spring gun is not the same as using heavier ammo in an electric gun making it harder to judge?

 

Well as for PB guns that is probably because they are not seen as 'guns'. No matter how hard people try paintball will always look like paintball in some way. Airsoft on the other hand is where all the RIFs are and gun shaped things are 'bad' so we will always get the short end of the stick.

 

Either that or pop on that tin foil hat and so that PB isn't restricted as all proceeds in tax go the 'guvrnmen' dude! .

 

'FireKnife'

[Stuey]

I does in the case of the solid PB slugs or the weight of a lead .22 pellet compaired to 0.2 bb , yet PB and air guns have far more potential for injury and have less stringent owning/buying laws and many are essentially RIFs .Thinking about it is the official legal AS measurment done with 0.2's also?

 

I'm not sure I get your point? The reason PB rounds and .22 airguns have more potential for injury is because their muzzle energies are an order of magnitude greater than airsoft guns. The projectile mass simply influences the velocity they need to possess a certain energy and how quickly they slow down.

[heroshark]

I think what I'm saying is the laws created are nonsensicle when you compair the weapons in question and their restrictions .Not to say I think they should limit the muzzel energies of them as it would make them useless/pointless but the laws for obtaing them more of a level playing feild, anyhow I think I've gone a little off topic . Seems a little bit cover all to stop people owning guns because of a conviction , surely the type of conviction should be relivant at least. Not that it's even gonna stop someone wanting a gun of some sort obtaining one it's all *badger*s really.

[PureSilver]

What always gets me is its only the power that's considered to distinguish a weapons lethality completely disregarding the weight of the rnd .

 

The weight of the projectile isn't ignored. The question is what is the maximum amount of muzzle energy the gun can produce. The reason the weight of the projectile isn't defined is that which projectile weight the gun will produce the maximum muzzle energy with changes according to each individual gun. Many guns can produce n joules with 0.20g BBs, but produce xn joules with heavier ammunition. At some point the rounds will become inefficiently heavy and the muzzle energy will decrease. The projectile with which the gun can produce the highest muzzle energy is the one that defines how powerful it is, within reason (i.e., as long as the projectile is reasonably something you could shoot out of the gun).

 

Actually, since paintball markers shoot 12J, wouldn't that mean that the recommendation of "any barreled weapon shooting over 1,3/2,5J is considered lethal" is a total halfassed conclusion?

 

I believe it's also because paintballs are frangible (i.e. break on impact).

 

Correct.

[jal3]

That would still make their simpleton statement a halfassed conclusion, because what is written applies to paintball markers. It's just what those words mean. They don't mention frangible ammo. They mention this: "recommended that any barrelled weapon with a muzzle energy 
of 1 joule or more should be considered lethally barrelled."

That's it and that's all. A paintball marker is a barrelled weapon that shoots over 1J. Frangible ammo isn't mentioned, and therefor doesn't matter for that statement.

We can agree that the statement is wrong, that it's a halfassed conclusion...but hey, that's what i wrote to begin with.

 

 

Also going off on "frangible" ammo is wank. Paintballs hurt like crazy. They do way more damage than airsoft pellets.

And who says you're firing paintballs?

Could be firing reballs.

Or marbles.

 

Have once seen madbull "paintball" grenade fire a CR123 clean cut through a wall and upon hitting the next wall, squeeze the CR123 cell into 1/3 it's normal height.

You better believe that will kill you if you take it to the skull.

 

Brb ran out of cardboard

[Stuey]

UK weapons-related law is poorly written, difficult to interpret, disconnected from reality and full of loopholes?

 

Tell us more!