Minimum Engagment Distances

I have been examining the suggested MEDs suggested by the very well researched and published ATP (Airsoft Trajectory Project)

http://www.bbbastard.com/ATP/

Their premise is the it is the Joules that harms not the FPS, and that accordingly assigning MED by ammo type and FPS of weapon assures both fairness and safety. This premise is something, for the most part, until now, that I have believed in.

But now I am not so sure, and now feel the need ethically to share my concerns. My concerns are based on personal and shared experiences with my local Airsofters, and some technical testing that seems in line with my personal experiences.

I will start off by saying, that of any of us, I am the one sporting the most colorful woundings....all of which while momentarily painful, are survivable/minor and are healing very well.

First off I would like to share excerpts from a scientific document available on the internet if you look about...I got this one from scribd, a document sharing site.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/23914980/BB-comparison-report

It was created to dispel some of the concerns of using the harder BIOVAL BBs...which is not my focus. What I DID find interesting is that this is one of the FEW documentations of bb impact effects on human skin and tissue. (they back it up with pictures)

What they found was the lighter softer bbs distinctly did MORE tissue damage and took far longer to heal, than the heavier bbs (in direct contradiction to the suggested MED of the ATP)

I quote the relevant section below. The speeds mentioned are in meters per second (130 m/s and 170m/s), and the range is 5 meters:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Levante Labs
Std. Fd.U.W.
1 Centro Carvina
6807 Taverne
Switzerland Test b908

8.3 A cross section of plastic, bio, hard and heavy bbs was selected and used for this test: a 0.20g, 0.25g, 0.28, BBBMAX and the 0.43g Digicon. The test gun was set at speed rating 130 and 170 (see 5.3 above) and were fired into the target area selected by the volunteers.

8.4 Two types of damage were noted. The first was in the immediate impact area of the bb and the second was in the tissue surrounding the impact point.

8.5 Digicon 0.43g – the unlucky volunteer that was struck at V5 with this bb at speed rating 130 and 170 presented massive surface wounding and broken skin. The BDU held tight over the skin caused the bb to expand and deform permanently at both 130 and 170. At 170 the bb caused a wound that was 10mm in diameter with an impact area 8mm in diameter.

The wound also caused hardening of tissue in depth and radiating out from the impact area suggesting sub surface damage. The wound was a uneven combination of broken skin and subcutaneous hematoma radiating out from the impact point. At both speed ratings the wound was still evident and actually expanded on the second day after the test. Only on day three was the wound noted to diminish in size. On day 4 the impact zone and the subcutaneous hematoma were still visible. The volunteer complained of pain even on day four.

8.6 0.28g – Same damage as observed in 8.5 above. At 170 the damage area was larger than that of the digicon suggesting much more expansion of the bb due to the faster speed and force of impact. On day 4 the observations were the same as in 8.5 above.

8.7 0.25g – Due to the faster speed of the bb and therefore of the impact force the wound caused by the impact of this bb was larger than that of the Digicon and that of the 0.28g bb.

The wound can be described in the same terms as in 8.5 above and diminished in size only on day 3 and 4.

8.8 BBBMAX – The wound caused by the BBBMAX fired at 170 was fundamentally different from that of the other bbs tested. Immediately no impact point was identified suggesting that it was very small. The total measured size of the wound was 13mm in diameter and can be described as a subcutaneous hematoma. After only 5 hours the wound changed dramatically as the hematoma began to be absorbed and a small impact point 3mm in diameter became apparent. After 24 hours the impact point completely disappeared and only slight bruising was apparent. Day 4 the size of the wound was smaller with obvious signs of healing. This difference can be attributed to the fact that the BBBMAX does not expand on impact and therefore is unable to transfer energy to the target as efficiently as the other bbs tested. This also explains the very focused and small impact point identified after 5 hours from impact.

8.9 0.20g – The most interesting results were observed from the impact of the 0.20g bb fired at the same volunteer that was struck with the BBBMAX (opposite leg). This wound was a massive 15mm in diameter with a very large impact point measuring 7mm in diameter. The image taken immediately after impact shows a barely visible subcutaneous hematoma around the lower part of the open wound suggesting a very deep injury. On day 4 the wound was still 10mm in diameter with an impact point 4mm in diameter. This compelling evidence further
supports the results from previous tests: plastic and bio plastic bbs expand and deform on impact causing damage that is in proportion much larger than their diameter and much larger than their immediate frontal impact areas.

8.10 Conclusion: Impacts on human skin and subcutaneous tissue. The evidence shows that the BBBMAX causes less damage to human targets since the structure of the bb itself does not allow for an efficient transfer of energy upon impact. This test leads us to believe that plastic and bio bbs can potentially cause more damage to skin tissue than harder bbs. Moreover, our evidence allows us to conclude that the softer the bb the more damage it causes to skin tissue."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is inline with personal experiences. Recently I head shot 2 of our local players with my tanaka m700 firing Madbull .36 and .43g BBs. When I heard of this I asked if they were ok. Both commented that while the m700 sounds scary when hitting a building, the hit felt more like a push than a intense sting. Apparently the bark was worse than its bite.

I examined both of them carefully in the bare skin areas they were hit, and could only see very slight redness with very slight puffiness immediately after the match.

This sorta threw off my belief that joules was what hurts and could penetrate...now I am starting to believe it is Velocity combined with soft ammo that damages.

During that same day I got strafed during a charge across both legs from about 10-5 feet away. It was in a transition from a field environment to Urban CQB. It was fine but in comparison, this gun firing standard max FPS firing a mix of .12 and .20g bbs left me with massive bleeding contusions thru heavy cordura leggings....hmmmm

I am considering completely rethinking my philosophy concering MEDs.

I would distinctly appreciate input and discussion on this.

Mikhail, I'm not sure what you're trying to get at in your post. You are comparing your shots from a sniper rifle (which I assume you'd use standard sniping engagement distance rules) to those from an AEG at 5-10 feet? Seems like a flawed comparison. We've known for several years that even stock AEG's can leave very nasty wounds during CQB. The key here is the engagement distance which is why we only permit single shot snipers with minimum engagement distances at higher fps. This is also why we have different fps limits for different weights of bb.

I took a shot in the forehead from a 0.3 TM with a KJW mk 1 shooting >400 fps at around 15-20 feet and it felt like someone had hit me with a rock and it caused a significant bleeder and knocked me on my ass and caused significant cursing and swearing. I've never, even in CQB, been hit by anything that even came close to that force... although I've definitely been hit in more sensitive spots. At the time I seriously believed that someone had thrown a rock at me.

Personally my issue with the hardness of the Silica bb's is due to the increased likelyhood of a broken tooth, scope, RDS, window, etc... not damage to skin or welting. Most of us can take the odd welt, bruise, bleeder and shrug it off but a shattered tooth or a spray of glass from a shattered scope are much more likely to cause permanent damage. You can say "wear a full paintball mask..." but why should we have to when we've been playing for several years with no problems with goggles, mesh masks and little/no mouth covering?

My point is the that the Airsoft Trajectory Project implies that it is the JOULES or Energy apon impact that should be the guiding limitation.

But my experiences and the report I posted the links to suggest otherwise. Specifically they show different damage by ammo hardness...not just FPS or JOULES or bb weight.

And yes...flesh AND teeth AND eye protection should be factored into safety rules... but how? And DOES the current rules (that you refer to) take this into consideration...or are they just there because thats the way its always been done?

And for the record ... I don't trust full face plastic paintball masks ... most of us here have gone stamped steel for eye protection... certainly NOT full face. (BitterEnd Goggles ROCK!)

The light woven mesh half face masks that EBAirsoft is selling lately is also interesting... but most of us here are shrugging off face hits pretty easily... even Chris has moved away from full face wrap.

And I guess my point is that I question whether our current rules truly protect or should we insure their worth by questioning them somewhat...

Our original fps limits with different bb weights were set with certain joule limits in mind and varied depending on engagement distance. For snipers we also restricted minimum engagement distance and limited it to single shot bolt action guns. We didn't factor in bb hardness at the time as it wasn't an issue when everyone was using standard styrene bb's. As far as I know we aren't allowing silica bb's in club games yet so it hasn't been an issue. If we start allowing the silica or Bioval BB's we may have to factor that in as well, but personally I don't think we should be allowing them in games where people have scopes, RDS', etc... and where players don't have full face protection.

https://pgairsoft.forumotion.com/chinese-parliament-f11/fps-chat-t107.htm#603

I DO agree that BioVals are a differant creature and I personally would like a look at them before I agree to be shot with them.

Hmmm, yes good point about biovals vs scopes! Are they silica?... interesting

But right now, I can say that my m700 has face shot 2 people with Madbull .43 and .36 (higher density, harder bb) to exposed flesh (check and forehead) with less damage than .12 and .20s to cordova covered thigh.

If you measure by JUST FPS and bb weight ... it just doesnt add up.

Whether Madbulls are styrene or not I have no idea.

The link you sent points to a thread that covered a lot of ground... which bit were you pointing at?

If you are comparing a sniper rifle at extended range to an AEG at 5-10 feet I think your forgetting about the range. These aren't real guns and air friction has a significant effect on the fps. I'm no physicist but I believe the joules in this case are a function of mass and velocity but the velocity is not a constant. It declines rapidly with range due to air friction and unless you are using the same range you really can't compare the impact of the two guns. While a heavier bb may hold it's trajectory better it is still going to decelerate as quickly as a lighter bb due to air friction. At 50 or 60 feet it is going to have nowhere near the force of a stock AEG at 5-10 feet. If you hit the guy in the head at 50 feet with a 0.43 it would likely have less energy than a 0.12 at 5 feet simply because it has lost too much energy due to air friction. If you shot the same guy at 10 feet with each gun I guarantee he will feel the difference. The numbers we have are for the fps and joules measured at the chrono (a few inches from the barrel) not the fps and joules on impact. That's the entire point of having minimum engagement distances with sniper rifles and for having lower joule limits for CQB.

The part I was referring to was the initial post by Dave which outlines fps limits for CQB and outdoor games and gives different limits for different weight bb's to keep within the joule limits.

I am not forgetting about range. Nor was the report. And the ATP numbers account for air resistance, temperature, humidity, elevation and even bb spin (hop up) and when tested he is bang on. His work is complete and accurate and dependable and reproducible.

I am afraid our use of them is off.

The report I pointed at showed more damage with light bbs at the SAME range at the SAME FPS consistently starting from .43s and working down to .2. And provided photographs to back it up.

My personal experience, with .43 according to ATP my gas m700 would be hitting around 1.25 and 1.75 joules on impact at 60 feet. And left no bruise... only a slight hardening of tissue.

Yesterday one of the guys was saying "You hit me directly. It didn't deflect off of anything. You hit me in the check. And it felt like a slow push. Not a sharp stab like a normal bb"

His m16 running around 1.5j weapon from 10 feet is around 1.25 on impact or just below that....and it left bleeding wounds in both my thighs covered with cordora.

Do you see the discrepancy? Measuring by just Joules leaves us with wildly different results.... thus my concern and my question.

I see what you're saying re. the damage due to relative energy on impact but we factor the sniper rifles for worst possible case (ie. accidental point blank) not for what joules it is going to hit with at 60 feet. We can't guarantee that the shooter is always going to maintain the minimum engagement distance and several of us have been shot in the head errantly at much lower distances.

I've been hit in the head by both and would much rather get hit by a stock gun shooting 0.2's at 5-10 feet than a sniper rifle shooting 0.43's at the same range and fps.

Ya, exactly.

And up until a couple a weekends ago, I and everyone here would agree with that preference inna a heartbeat.

But now we are not as sure. Intuitively I want to agree...but my legs say otherwise.

Have a look at the pics on that report of the skin damage comparison. Its in line with (although my closer range hits were more gory (smile)) what I am seeing here.

Like I said, they shot one guy in the thigh with .43s from 5 meters and the same guy in the other leg with the .20...and the pictures do indicate that the .2 is far nastier.

Hmmm.

edit...whoops..his other leg was the .29 BioVal...my mistake. But the .2 was still worse.

That entire report is pretty skewed in BBBmax' favor.
Seems like the clay tests on energy transfer contradict the human skin tests. I guess it's possible the soft bb's cause larger welts but I'm not sure how the pain factor can be compared empirically. Where do they think the energy goes if it isn't transfered to the skin? They quote the physics and then state that the BBBmax transfer less energy to the skin because they don't deform but they only quote impact area, what about impact depth? I notice impact depth is also missing from the testing on the JT masks.

In addition they appear to have picked and chose what tests they did to avoid making BBBmax look bad. They were firing these bb's at velocities which were shattering bb's on mesh goggles so they decided that nobody should use mesh and they also decided not to test safety glasses. It would also appear that they never bothered testing glass or tooth breakage as "all bb's can do that".

Check out this thread on ASC

http://www.airsoftcanada.com/showthread.php?t=107564&highlight=silica+bbs&page=4


I think the field testing on Airsoft Canada is less biased than this report by Levante Labs which BBBmax commissioned. Has anyone actually found anything else published by Levante Labs?

First off, thank you for taking the time to examine this. I value the time and energy it takes to follow up on this. As I love this sport, personally I know its worth it to put some thought in it.

Reasoned discussions like this encourages active players to come to local forums.

I have read and heard a lot of talk about BioVals on ASC (I watched the fervor start), and frankly I will make my mind up on when I see a bag. (and test the stuffing out of em) Much of it smacks of forming ranks around the chief disturber, the maker of BB Bastards. I guess its cool, that they defend their buddy. But I need something more than that.

And if I have had to choose between a scientific lab vs some of the rabid stuff I have seen on ASC....the scientists are gonna win my vote. ESPECIALLY when they share their data. Cause thats what Airsoft needs. Hard tests, data shared, and preferably confirmed in the field.

But regardless of what the Labs DON'T mention... cause pointing out what they DON'T mention is an argument that can never end, lets look at what test results they DID get. (you have any idea how LITTLE data there IS on this topic?)

Hmmm, why would they need to measure depth of skin damage? They provided pictures of the skin effects and over a reasonable period of time (4 days). If the bruise is noticeably smaller... and heals faster, how much more measuring does anyone need?

And there will always be a test that they didn't do. Limited time, limited budget. But that does NOT invalidate the tests they DID.

(Don't get me wrong, ALL the tests you mention SHOULD be done!)

I am reading the ASC link now (sigh, if I HAVE to.)

hmmm...f bomb this....f tards that....threats galore...real nice way to represent the AS community, sigh. (I thought this link would indicate some tests or something? Did you send me the right one, perhaps?)

Ok, now thats a great example of why I dont read ASC anymore.

(I want that 3 minutes of my life back)

I see just a bunch of chest thumping, mouthing off 15 year old behavior. (my apologies to the mature 15 year olds out there, you guys rock)

What I don't see is a ANY reasoned discussion there. Frankly reading this childish stuff would probably persuade me to an opposing view, but I will judge them for myself. Cause its my and my friends health at risk, right?

I don't care about the BioVal product, its off topic. (thankfully).

Pain empirical comparison. Ya that iIS tough to measure. After your first hit, adrenaline kicks in, and shock. And each persons pain level is different. BUT they DID ask if there was pain on the following days.

But again. I have guys here experiencing similar conclusions. BEFORE I came across this report.

The mesh masks failed their tests, so they didnt go any further on that. I agree it would be nice if they tested more, but at least they tested to THE POINT OF FAILURE which is more than most do (and then claim full testing). Thats a big pet peeve of mine...to test safety equipment you MUST find out WHEN the item DOES fail.

Sorry, I just don't see the claimed bias. I have looked for it before now (when the bioval stuff first came up on ASC) and again now.

Hmm... which clay test are you seeing that conflicts with the skin findings? Forgive me, my eyes are starting to cross (its coffee time).

Yes, more tests should be done and in the same clinical manner as these, against woven mesh, stamped mesh, paintball mask, safety glasses, teeth (maybe false teeth could be used). The whole freaking works.

But the fact remains I have real life results (mentioned above) that are in line with the bb vs skin data results from this report.

MY suspicion is that denser bbs affect HARD objects more, and lighter bbs impact soft objects more. Thats the conclusion I am starting to see.

Hmmm.

The clay results are in the study you provided.

6.25 By examining and measuring the bbs after the impacts it was observed that all plastic and bio bbs and the digicon expanded and deformed on impact as they decelerated into the ballistic clay. Hard bbs (bbbmax) did not deform or expand as they decelerated into the clay. No bb breakage was recorded during testing.
6.26 By observing the indentations caused by the bbs impacting into the ballistic clay we were able to estimate the total energy transfer of the impacting bbs. The remaining energy was expended by the bbs rebounding off the targets.
6.27 Digicon 0.43g - the measured impact area caused by the digicon bbs was 12 times larger than the measured area of the bb. This result is a function of the bbs weight, the amount of deformation and expansion upon impact.
6.28 Plastic & bio 0.28g/0.30g – the average measured impact area caused by these heavy bbs was 11 times larger than the measured area of the bb. This result is a function of the bbs weight, the amount of deformation and expansion upon on impact.
6.29 Plastic & Bio 0.23g/ 0.25g – the average measured impact area caused by these medium bbs was 10.5 times larger than the measured area of the bb. This result is a function of the bbs weight, the amount of deformation and expansion upon impact.
6.30 BBBMAX – the average measured impact area caused by the BBBMAX was 7 times larger than the measured area of the bb. 6.31 Plastic & bio 0.20g – the average measured impact area caused by the light bbs was 6 times larger than the measured area of the bb. This result is a function of the bbs weight, the amount of deformation and expansion upon on impact.
6.32 Conclusion – in proportion to their weight and size, the energy transferred from the bb to the target ballistic clay via the cordura is much greater with all plastic, bio and digicon bbs than with the BBBMAX

The impact area is larger for the heavier bb's in the clay testing meaning they transfer more energy to the target. More energy with less surface damage on skin would suggest its being transferred deeper into the skin so the outside physical welting may appear reduced but the bruising is deeper. Take the 0.46 and the 0.2 and fire them at the same range at the same fps and hit someone in the finger and which one is more likely to break a finger? Which is more likely to damage the lens on your safety goggles?

Regardless I'm not sure what you're suggesting by bringing up these test results. Our fps and joule limits are based on 0.2 bb's, so are you suggesting we increase the fps for heavier bb's because they are harder and appear to do less skin damage? Or do you wish to limit bb's to a single weight and manufacturer to standardize the hardness? This only really becomes a factor in CQB or when the odd skirmish results in a close quarters firefight. At 5-10 feet you are going to get severe welting regardless of what bb's and fps you are using. So the only sure way to prevent this is to enforce the mercy rule for short engagement distances.

Quote :

The impact area is larger for the heavier bb's in the clay testing meaning they transfer more energy to the target. More energy with less surface damage on skin would suggest its being transferred deeper into the skin so the outside physical welting may appear reduced but the bruising is deeper.

That is one possibility. The fact that the test cases reported the lighter bbs taking longer to heal, and longer before they reported pain would seem to contradict that possibility though. I think if the wound was 'deeper' the test cases would not have been already improving in 4 hours as opposed to 4 days.

Here is another possibility. Skin is different than clay. There is a surface tension and layering. Perhaps some energy is lost when the bbs pushes onto the initial layer and deflects back off...ie instead of just embedding and/or dropping straight down after impact. (think trampoline) I suspect as well that the energy of a bb hit would transmit out along the thicker layers before transmitting into the deeper softer areas (think sound hitting drywall/stud then fluffy insulation)

Quote :

Take the 0.46 and the 0.2 and fire them at the same range at the same fps and hit someone in the finger and which one is more likely to break a finger? Which is more likely to damage the lens on your safety goggles?

This is a valid question. See my current working theory of heavier bbs impact hard objects more and light bbs impact soft objects more. That is EXACTLY the questions that now come to mind.

Quote :

Regardless I'm not sure what you're suggesting by bringing up these test results.

You seem to think I am arguing for the sake of arguing. My objective as I have stated from the beginning is to suggest that the ATP premise that it is just joules that damages is faulty.

Quote :

Our fps and joule limits are based on 0.2 bb's, so are you suggesting we increase the fps for heavier bb's because they are harder and appear to do less skin damage?

Huh? No. Where are you getting THAT from

Quote :

Or do you wish to limit bb's to a single weight and manufacturer to standardize the hardness?

Hey, I am not and have not suggested ANYTHING at this point. SLOW DOWN! I am simply pointing out a potential flaw in our perception of safe bb fps rules.

Quote :

This only really becomes a factor in CQB or when the odd skirmish results in a close quarters firefight. At 5-10 feet you are going to get severe welting regardless of what bb's and fps you are using. So the only sure way to prevent this is to enforce the mercy rule for short engagement distances.

Hmm. Not sure I would agree there, you may have made a leap and left me behind in logic, or perhaps have access to info I do not have.

Ok, look. Here is what I see being a result of my very recent 'theory' Lighter bbs like .12s and .20s are ripping us up when hitting soft targets. I can see your point of this happening more at close ranges, but I am not in a hurry to discard further ranges.

But they seem pretty ineffective (good!) vs finger bones safety eye wear and harder objects.

Do we have as many cases of .25s ripping up soft tissue?

And the flip side is that of heavy bbs being on hard targets testing.

Should we test .43s on safety goggles, shooting glasses and paintball masks?

My point is if tests were ONLY done with a light(.20) or heavy (.43) bb on any particular hard or soft target, perhaps a untested potential safety concern exists!

Why would anyone even SUGGEST shortening a sniper range? My friends aren't hurt when face shot....THAT'S A WIN AND IS PERFECT the way it is!

ok, here is an example (bear with me I am working from memory just to provide an example. This is NOT a real story.)

The stamped steel mesh goggle designer BITTEREND tested his lenses at point blank range with a high end sniper rifle. But did he use .43s or just .20s and then use ATP or a just translate that via equivalent joule rating and say that these goggles are proof versus THIS joule rating...Do you see where I am going with this?

But what if they were fine with lighter .20s but collapse under .43 use?

The results I am seeing seems to be entirely dependent on the weight of bb fired. Translating bb weights in testing via joules seems to loose something in translation.

And that 'something' might bite us in the ass, at some point.

Ok, I think I finally see what you're getting at. I wasn't sure where you were going with this thread.

I believe our policy has been to test with the gun and bb's not rely on word of mouth or on joule extrapolation calculations. We tested our early wire mesh masks with KJW mk 1 and m700's shooting heavier bb's a bit beyond our field limits to confirm the mesh could stop them without shattering the bb's or damaging the mesh. One of my mesh masks has a couple significant impact marks due to our earlier testing with my mk 1. I have to admit I haven't tested the new stamped steel goggles at anything beyond a 0.25 but I have more confidence in them than in the early woven mesh masks.

I see what you mean about including bb hardness as a factor in determining the severity of hard or soft tissue damage but I'm not really sure how we can test for that or decide which is safer? Is it safer to use harder and heavier bb's and risk broken bones and increased potential of breaching safety lenses or is it safer to use softer lighter bb's which could possibly increase soft tissue damage?

Quote :

Is it safer to use harder and heavier bb's and risk broken bones and increased potential of breaching safety lenses or is it safer to use softer lighter bb's which could possibly increase soft tissue damage?

I do not know. My first thought, was perhaps something above .2s should be encouraged. We use .2s because we all know .12 SUCK...but perhaps now this is another reason to consider .23 or .25s instead? (And it is certainly another argument for full coverage.) The conservative in me argues for some middle ground. Failing that, in the case of hard equipment vs heavy bbs, direct tests.

What I DO know is that using joule conversions is NOT the same thing as actually testing with all weights of bbs. "That way lieth madness"

I have a couple spare stamped wire meshes coming from EB. I don't mind abusing one of them with .43 and .36s and sharing the results.

I am ALL for getting stamped steel mesh accepted universally. I trust that WAAAAY more than any polycarbonate. I have formed steel by hand cold and hot and 'hand feel' is important when I am considering something that protects something as careful as my eyes. Polycarbonate leaves me .... cold and untrusting.

I talked with a gentleman from 1st sword about bb quality and he pointed me at this article he did testing against stamped mesh.

http://www.1st-sword.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=13

This may lend some insight.

Good article. I think it illustrates that different manufacturers with the same bb weight will display different impact characteristics depending on density, bb quality, and even the finish on the bb's. We've known for years that some bb's are more likely to shatter than others. A lot of us already use 0.25's for the improved accuracy in spite of the drop in fps so I can't see many people complaining if you chose to have 0.25's only on your field.

Very interesting read so far guys.

I still have yet to get my hands on the BBBastard Clears but i still plan to at some point.

In sorta related news:

Oh my god. I can NOT believe the hypocrisy.

The maker of the BB Bastard made such a huge stink about the evil of silica BIOVALS on ASC and rallied the entire forum against anyone who would even consider bringing them to a game, never mind irresponsible enough to allow them at their field that the effect to field rules today can still be seen...and after a years time what do I see?

BB Bastard selling silca bbs.

http://store.bbbastard.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=18&products_id=12&zenid=0rqskv8e3t4mjkqgl22ui586f7

Nice.

Also bbs for a buck twenty five each:
http://store.bbbastard.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=18&products_id=26

:facepalm:

Did I blink and enter Bizarro world?

Yep, funny how someone's opinion can change when they have a financial interest.

Exactly how accurate do people need to be with an airsoft sniper rifle??? If I can hit a man sized target at 100 feet consistantly with a regular 0.30 or .43 then why the f@$# would I need a bb that costs over a buck to do the same thing? Do people actually target shoot competitively with airsoft guns? If they were interested target shooting and greater accuracy they'd be using pellet rifles or .22's or something which are cheaper to shoot than those $1.25 bb's and much more accurate.

Next up the custom engraved gold plated bb for the punk gangsta mofo that has to have everything pimped out... and a steal at $300 per ounce!

ya im with you on that having been a competitive small bore shooter since i was 13 it would make no sense to use an air soft rifle for that. even for IPSC cause there are some places that hold IPSC competitions with air soft pistols.

mind you in IPSC i s'posse a decent quality airsoft pistol would work fine and would be much cheaper than a handgun.

But a regular pellet pistol would likely be cheaper than airsoft or real steel and is still likely more accurate than a GBB.

fair enough though in IPSC where you are timed the pellet pistol would be clumsy and slow cause in IPSC its not just about accuracy.