AP safety/weapon rules

[Chesty_01]

...if a sniper can take a shot at 60ft safely then a saw shooting at 20ft would be the same.

Care to show your math there?

Yes I would. I just bought some ballistic gel for our targets. It's all about the energy upon impact that is the safety concern. Not the energy produced through the barrel. What I am telling you us just because its shooting a certain energy coming out of the barrel, doesn't mean it sustains that same energy upon impact.

Please wait for the results. I am bringing in a physics professor to analyze all of the data collected. Let's use science to prove it.

[ogrejager]

Done, I will add a 330 fps aeg along with a gbb pistol. We will also be testing these with .20 bb's to accurately gauge distance. Also none of these aeg's will have tbb's just to make it fair. I have a stock kwa, an upgraded bolt, and a mk43 shooting at 450.

While you're at it, double or triple your work and end the "which goes further" BB weight argument. Do it .20s, .25s, and .28s. Then the bolt at 550 with .20s and .43s.

Can I help? I love conducting range tests of varying loads.

[Darius137]

Junto, as far as a real barrel not being able to take it:

SAWs and M240's both come with two barrels, so people can change out barrels and keep up the rof

[Transition]

Two barrels on a 240 and a bag with asbestos to switch out after 3 mins of firing...that thing gets hot as hell the scar on my hand to prove it

[Chesty_01]

Done, I will add a 330 fps aeg along with a gbb pistol. We will also be testing these with .20 bb's to accurately gauge distance. Also none of these aeg's will have tbb's just to make it fair. I have a stock kwa, an upgraded bolt, and a mk43 shooting at 450.

While you're at it, double or triple your work and end the "which goes further" BB weight argument. Do it .20s, .25s, and .28s. Then the bolt at 550 with .20s and .43s.

Can I help? I love conducting range tests of varying loads.

Yes you can. I could be totally wrong in all this and I will be the first to admit it, I don't think I am but arguing about it could go on forever, so we'll let science talk and us bullshiting walk.

[Reese]

I guess what I would like to know is what the goal is...

Are those in favor of upping the FPS looking for a longer engagement range?

More accuracy?

Do you want someone to really feel it when you hit them so they'll be more likely to call a hit?

What's the goal?

[Chesty_01]

I guess what I would like to know is what the goal is...

Are those in favor of upping the FPS looking for a longer engagement range?

More accuracy?

Do you want someone to really feel it when you hit them so they'll be more likely to call a hit?

What's the goal?

My original goal was to create a more realistic advantage of packing around a saw all day, via longer distance. And also keep snipers from calling 80ft safety kills on someone.

Now its about proving the safety aspect of increased fps.

So in answer to your question, proving that increasing the saw's fps is not unsafe.

['Skyhawk']

Joules Graph will be helpful in this. Notice the energy level flatten out above 400 FPS...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fps_vs_joules.jpg

[Reese]

I guess what I would like to know is what the goal is...

Are those in favor of upping the FPS looking for a longer engagement range?

More accuracy?

Do you want someone to really feel it when you hit them so they'll be more likely to call a hit?

What's the goal?

My original goal was to create a more realistic advantage of packing around a saw all day, via longer distance. And also keep snipers from calling 80ft safety kills on someone.

Now its about proving the safety aspect of increased fps.

So in answer to your question, proving that increasing the saw's fps is not unsafe.

Well, there isn't any reason for a sniper to be calling safety kills at that range. That's not a safety issue or an FPS issue, that's an operator issue and I personally wouldn't accept the safety kill.

The problem with the "realistic advantage" is that most games aren't about realism anymore. There's very little realism about them. If there were mil-sim games that required mag limits, then the "advantage" of a SAW would become much more "realistic", with or without another 50 fps.

[Ivan Daylovich™]

It's all about the energy upon impact that is the safety concern. Not the energy produced through the barrel.

Yet we measure energy out of the muzzle. I believe that is to account for worst case scenario.

Please wait for the results. I am bringing in a physics professor to analyze all of the data collected. Let's use science to prove it.

Yay! Real science!

[Catch22]

I guess what I would like to know is what the goal is...

Are those in favor of upping the FPS looking for a longer engagement range?

More accuracy?

Do you want someone to really feel it when you hit them so they'll be more likely to call a hit?

What's the goal?

My original goal was to create a more realistic advantage of packing around a saw all day, via longer distance. And also keep snipers from calling 80ft safety kills on someone.

Now its about proving the safety aspect of increased fps.

So in answer to your question, proving that increasing the saw's fps is not unsafe.

Well, there isn't any reason for a sniper to be calling safety kills at that range. That's not a safety issue or an FPS issue, that's an operator issue and I personally wouldn't accept the safety kill.

The problem with the "realistic advantage" is that most games aren't about realism anymore. There's very little realism about them. If there were mil-sim games that required mag limits, then the "advantage" of a SAW would become much more "realistic", with or without another 50 fps.

If you read my earlier post, you'd see that some hosts are moving towards mag limits. I think some people just find it easier up up the FPS.

If SAW limits go up. Would you allow replicas of 762 and 308 rifles to fire at a higher FPS?

[ogrejager]

If SAW limits go up. Would you allow replicas of 762 and 308 rifles to fire at a higher FPS?

Yes.

There's a RC model boat club (national club, but they actually can agree on rules) that puts BB guns in their boats that are made out of thin balsa and try to sink each other. Good fun.

They have a very specific chart based, literally, on the boat's original ship that specifies magazine capacity, number of guns, number of bilge pumps, and SIZE OF THE BB. If they can do it, we can do it for calibers...if we care.

The real question is--how much does it matter? I can't wait for the experiment. Chesty, Wisen--I don't think we should do it in a couple of hours. Let's spend a day. I volunteer my place. I'll even make us a good meal. I'd love to set this up. There's tons of questions a day of experimenting with rifles could answer.

[Ivan Daylovich™]

Remember, the larger the sample size the more scientific the study.

[ogrejager]

Remember, the larger the sample size the more scientific the study.

Yeah, but we don't really care about AK's.

Quick edit: Don't worry, I understand the concept. I was the guy that would run 3 different sets of identical numbers through his statistics courses, only varying the sample size.

Afterwards, I'd say, "See, size matters."

[Catch22]

If SAW limits go up. Would you allow replicas of 762 and 308 rifles to fire at a higher FPS?

Yes.....

So since every new player knows FPS is the most important thing.(Not hop-ups or barrels) We can expect newbs swarming the fields with 450 fps AK's... Rad. It'll really be cool when I come creeping through the bushes and get raked in the face by a startled newb... way rad.

Honestly, no matter what you decide to do at your game. I'll follow the excisting AP rules for mine. It's gonna suck for those players shooting hot guns, when I turn them away, and tell them to go home.