|
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| Home | Forums | Register | Gallery | FAQ | Calendar |
| Retailers | Community | News/Info | International Retailers | IRC | Today's Posts |
 |
|
|
Thread Tools |
October 27th, 2005, 01:34
|
#16 | |
|
Someone should take a chunk of ham and see what the damage would be :P
i mean taking a can or a newspaper will only give you "some" kind of idea about the damage this kind of speed will do...
__________________
My Sig was removed beacuse i'm a moron... Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
October 27th, 2005, 01:36
|
#17 |
|
yeah, maybe a pork quarter skin and all. would make for cool video, but may scare away the new kids.
|
|
|
|
|
October 27th, 2005, 01:47
|
#18 | |
|
|
it would make for a good vid, but i don't know if it would be good publicity, don't want the "GangstaZ" seeing what can be done with the right equipment :S
__________________
My Sig was removed beacuse i'm a moron... Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
October 27th, 2005, 02:11
|
#19 |
|
well I know for a fact that my tanaka M40 will blast out a .25 bb at just over 600fps with propane and the gas flow valve wide open.
....whats the most powerfull spring for a sniper rifle and how many fps with .2 is it?
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
October 27th, 2005, 02:31
|
#20 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
October 27th, 2005, 03:21
|
#21 |
|
just a quick question about the fps. according to the cfc a air gun has to shoot 500fps AND 5.7 jouls of energy. so if you have a gun that shoots 500 fps but lets say 4.6 jouls of energy dose this mean that you could (over exagerating) have a gun that shoots 780 fps with a 5.7 jould muzle energy and it would still legal as an air gun.
__________________
To live is to Die |
|
|
|
|
October 27th, 2005, 08:56
|
#22 |
|
|
that's a question not easily answered. if you used commonly available bb's like .2 or .25 i think the answer would be illegal. but then if you used uncommon bb's like .36 or .43 the answer would be no. this was the problem they ran into when they wrote the law back in 1995. certain ammo for pellet guns when the law read only 500fps would push the gun over the limit while other ammo would not. so they added the energy limit as well as a fix to their oversight. i think it would take a judge to interpret the law and apply it as many people still only go by the fps limit. it makes for difficult enforcement which probably would mean no enforcement. just food for thought.
|
|
|
|
|
October 27th, 2005, 17:36
|
#23 | |
|
Ban-Fu Sifu
|
Quote:
I have a guarder m170 aps-2 spring ( they have up to m210) and i'm getting a constant 680 ish FPS with .2g, needless to say I removed the spring for something a bit safer.
__________________
Vondnik, team Bad Karma, PQAC Murphy's second rule: Nothing is impossible for the man who does not have to do it himself. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
October 27th, 2005, 17:50
|
#24 | |
|
The legislation was really meant to cover high-power, competition end air rifles.
__________________
Quote:
|
||
|
|
|
 |
|
||||||
| Bookmarks |
|
|
 |
|
