View Single Post
Old April 11th, 2008, 01:08   #57
Firewalker's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba
Send a message via ICQ to Firewalker Send a message via AIM to Firewalker Send a message via MSN to Firewalker Send a message via Yahoo to Firewalker
Originally Posted by Cushak View Post
Than you'd be choosing to not play there. Whoop-de-doo. I for one feel that these games are worth being flexible for, so if I had to take my gun down to 280, I'd do it.
So, a person should have to reduce the life expectancy of a perfectly working stock gun by half just to appease a clear minority (based on this poll) of people who are afraid bb's going barely fast enough to break bare skin?

Perhaps what needs to be done is everyone needs to find out what the community at large uses and use that across the board. Set a standard for everyone in the country as far as FPS goes. Standardization is the problem, not "ouch factor" or anything like that. All our CQB places are different. Some have corridors that don't accommodate the lower fps (in that a shot from a pistol doing 280 sometimes even drops off before reaching the end). That's why we have the higher FPS, on top of that, all the gear people wear, some that's going 280-300 when it finally hits someone isn't going to be felt. It's barely going to be heard in the raucous rooms of a CQB arena.

My question is why lower FPS because of some perceived threat that doesn't actually exist? Please, if you can find evidence showing that 350 is significantly more dangerous than 300 when following safety precautions, I'd love to hear it. Is 350 more dangerous than 300? Not if you're wearing the proper protection, so any point on that is moot.

The only way ~350 FPS is going to hurt someone is if they have a T-Shirt and Bermuda Shorts on and aren't wearing safety equipment (eye/face protection). If you show up in that, you're begging to be hurt. The honus is on the player, not the location, to protect themselves adequately from any threat, real or percieved, to their safety and comfort.

Besides, the poll speaks for itself. The community has shown that 350 is an acceptable limit. And that's what it is. A L-i-m-i-t. It's not a target. No one has ever said we're all going to show up with guns shooting 350 on the button. But reducing to 320 or even 300 when a stock gun is shooting 340-345 is just ludicrous. Literally, it's 70 dollars and half the life expectancy (or more if the user is inexperienced) of the gun vs 15 dollars for a face mask and a free pair of testicles should they decide to grown them.
Firewalker is offline   Reply With Quote