Rules on M203 Rubber Grenade Shells

So I was wondering, I am looking to purchase a stand-alone grenade launcher with which to utilize a set of KingArms Rubber Grenade Shells from the M203. Now, what would the rules be in relation to the grenade shells? If I were to hit a bunker with the shell would that count as essentially bunkering it? What would the "blast radius" be ? In reality the blast radius of an M203 fired grenade is around 15-20 meters (60ft), but I can understand if thats just too much power for one weapon on the airsoft field.

Aggressor Dog wrote:In reality the blast radius of an M203 fired grenade is around 15-20 meters (60ft), but I can understand if thats just too much power for one weapon on the airsoft field.

So basically, in most scenarios you would "kill" yourself. I know in somecases you would be in a safe area, but still. That'd be awesome though. And you could probably save some cash by buying one or two normal shells, and fit a nerf ball infront of it, and dryfire.

YOU STOLE MY IDEA PAUL.

Twitch wrote:YOU STOLE MY IDEA PAUL.

Psh, y'all both stole my idea bahaha

EDIT : When I said 60ft blast radius I was incorrect, I meant a 60ft. diameter, as in 30ft in any direction of the M203 is considered in the killzone of the weapon. For airsoft, I think that might be a bit too much power for one person, however, there are HE (HighExplosive) M203 rounds that are made to destroy small fortifications, like sand-bag implacements, small outposts, armoured vehicles, even a certain thickness of concrete wall. I think that these should be the rules on M203 use in terms of a rubber bullet. Let me know if yall agree, or if these rules just cant fly.

The mock M203 round operates in two styles.

Style 1: Anti-personel, this rubber bullet is predesignated as a fragmentation round, firing it at a bunker will not kill its inhabitants, however, when it hits the ground anyone within a 10-15ft radius is rendered dead.

Style 2: HighExplosive, this rubber bullet is predesignated as a HE round, firing it at the ground will score the player no kills in terms of blast radius, however, hitting a bunker with this round will effectively kill the inhabitants of said bunker.

Note that these rubber bullets only have around 50ft of effective range (as in it can shoot out to about 50ft...not sure about accuracy), and can only be used once per game , i.e. you cant pick up the round you just fired and use it again.

Thoughts/comments?

Cannot speak directly for airdog . . . only relay conversations as we have had discussions to this effect. The essence was:
If you don't get directly hit by a BB then you are not out.
A bunker "TAG" is a measure that recognizes that the runner accomplished something difficult BUT the true reason for all "tagged" players being out is intended to prevent close range combat . . . that pesky MED issue that always pops up to protect the field owner.
So . . . while grenades are cool . . . they are ineffective because no "blast radius" is in play . . . either you get hit with a BB or ya don't.

I understand the blast radius portion, as there is no way to measure or tell anyhow, but I don't see a problem with the "tagging" portion of this. This is supposed to be milsim right? In a military situation, as in, reality, if you are in a small building and an HE round impacts, you are going to be rendered into ra pulp of what you previously were. It is extremely easy to measure and keep that fair in airsfot. Simply, if the round hits a bunker that you are on, it has been tagged and therefore your out. The whole only when the BB hits you means your out thing doesnt really hold any water, due to bunker tagging itself, which is why the blast radius rule can be knocked out but the HEround rule could very easily stay intact. I can assure you in reality the purpose of a HE device is to crush your body through concussive force, not through the use of shrapnel, therefore BBs wouldnt play a part in its function in airsoft anyways, rather just that bunker tag to simulate destruction of a bunker.

Aggressor Dog wrote:The whole only when the BB hits you means your out thing doesnt really hold any water, due to bunker tagging itself.

I know I am the official old guy kill joy but most of these issues are a matter of perspective. Think in terms of the perspective of the field owner and ref.
1) Opening the door to non-BB projectiles on the field opens the door to items being used as projectiles which could possibly do harm because of size, volume, or inability to chrono their actual velocity.
2) Reffing a "bunker tag" caused by a projectile is an impossibility. Refs can easily visibly detect when an individual makes it to a bunker but have no way of determining if/when/where a projectile strikes a bunker. AND providing that the projectile is light enough and travelling slow enough that it would not hurt anyone, the ref has no way to know if the person on the other side of the bunker HEARD the projectile strike.

Yes . . . all that is absolutely ANAL but absolute reality. One reason that there are not more fields available for paintball and airsoft is our litigious society . . . a field host/owner has to factor in ALL of this in order to let goobs like us run around and shoot each other. Our concession has to be that, in field play, the only projectiles which are going to be allowed are BBs and they are gonna be chrono'ed to make sure we keep it honest.
That said, I think other projectiles would be awesome and have thought about making a bean bag cannon for that reason but I know it would have to stay at home alongside my two spud cannons!

Well, that is all true, but we could try it out, see if it works, If we run into those problems, as it looks will probably happen, we can just ditch the whole thing, but I say why not give it a try for 2 or 3 games, see how it goes? Who knows, it might end up working out really well, or it might be a total flop, the only way to really know would be to try. The nades might end up making a big thump on the building, or no noise whatsoever , and it might turn out easier to ref than you might think, or it could be as hard as you say, either way, I think its worth the venture of 2 - 3 games to test the waters.

Aggressor Dog wrote:I think its worth the venture of 2 - 3 games to test the waters.

That one is sure not up to me . . . it is a field owner question . . .
I think all of us would agree that we are willing to make certain "compromises" in order to protect the field owners. I know I come across as a killjoy but have just been around WAAAY too many frivolous lawsuits . . . protecting the sport means protecting the field owners, plain and simple.
The launchers ARE kewl tho!!

I know that the question is up to the field owners, thats why I put it up in this topic, its in their Thread, they will be sure to read over all of this in due time. But I also dont see how a lawsuit could pend from using one of these ubber bullets. They are very low powered, their max range is only 50ft anyhow. If someone were on the off chance (and believe me the offchance is an understatement, I doubt you could peg someone with one of these if you really tried) to be hit by one, it would be like getting a Vortex Football thrown at you. The effect of a BB hitting you is drastically more risky and harmful. There can be rules and regulations on these, but in terms of risk of lawsuit, I just can't see that happening with one of these things. Have you seen one fired before?

Also, I don't mind you being the "devil's advocate" here, its a good thing. If you werent here making counterpoints to all my points than I would probably get nowhere with this whole thing.

All very good points we'll set up a private invite game with some vet. players and try this out. Does that sound good to you guy's?

Yeah it sounds great.

Always very cool . . . my fave cannon is Tak's rocket launcher!

Yeah beta testing sounds good.

After the SAAL finishes up and we get back to playing here and there, I was talking to a few guys about trying a variant to the "Air Strike" game we've played at PBO. The teams are tasked with locating a two-way radio and calling in an airstrike that effectively ends the game. In the new variant the field would be sectioned off into quadrants and you would only be able to call in one Air Strike that would effectively take out anyone in the called out quadrant. It will need to be play tested and have the bugs worked out, but we've found that if you approach the field owner (in this case Mr. Wendell) and you go over the mechanics and the F/O is cool with it, it can work out pretty well. I certainly don't want to see anyone end up homeless or anything.

I do like the idea of being able to take out bunkers. If you have the refs in on the play test, which should happen as part of any play test anyway, then they could shadow the person(s) that are going to be putting the new item/game mechanic into effect. Destroyed bunkers could be marked with a kill rag which everyone should be utilzing by now anyway and now you have a whole new level of strategy to either devise or combat as the case may be. Variety is never a bad thing.
Todd / MagisterMortis

All I have to say on the matter is that this sounds like a riot round, and if I take a riot round to the chest because someone wanted to be more milsim...my reaction is going to be less than pleasent. If this type of riot gear is acceptable for airsoft, then the 12gauge bean bag rounds I have should be acceptable as well. Just keep that in mind.

ATLAS wrote:All I have to say on the matter is that this sounds like a riot round, and if I take a riot round to the chest because someone wanted to be more milsim...my reaction is going to be less than pleasent. If this type of riot gear is acceptable for airsoft, then the 12gauge bean bag rounds I have should be acceptable as well. Just keep that in mind.

Wow bean bag war....I too have a shotgun. That would be something.You wouldn't have to worry about people calling there hits.
But i think a Vortex football type object would be a little less impact than a typical riot round.I Wouldn't mind the blow to the chest, But the face could hurt a bit. Might even break your nose?

I believe a drastic overestimation of power has been made here. If you asked a police officer if he used airsoft replica M203 rubber grenade shells to stop a man, he'd give you a cock-eyed look and then give you a breathalizer test. However, if for some reason it is ruled that the "rubber bullet" is indeed to powerful or harmful, the counterpart of the rubber bullet are small nerf like balls, apparently they have better trajectory than the rubber bullet anyways, here is a link to the little foam balls.

http://www.airsoftpost.com/airsoft-neon-grenade-balls-m203-madbull-launchers-p-25048.html

If there is any question as to the harmfulness of those, let it be solved at the test-game.

EDIT: Be advised that the "ruber bullet" mock M203 shells are produced by KingArms and MadBull. I'm not quite sure how far they have ventured into crowd-control with their products, but I'm sure its not too far The worst I have heard of either product was that it felt like someone had punched them. I do realize that for younger people this could present a problem, but also ponder the purpose of these items. The only function they would have would be taking out a bunker. I really dont see anyone aiming it with the intent of directly impacting another player. Even so, the velocity that carry these things is lost so rapidly that anything short of hitting someone within 30ft would be negligable in terms of injury. MED anyone? The MED for AEGs is 15ft, as well as the fact that highpowered weapons have an MED of 30ft. Whats the difference of having, say, a 40-50ft MED for these if it really comes down to that? There isn't a differece.

seems like a pretty good idea to me mite take a few games to work out the bugs but I would be willing to give it a try

Sure you can say that nobody has the intent of shooting somebody, but what's to say it won't happen? How hard is it to imagine a scenario where somebody pokes their head up in time to catch a poorly aimed rubber bullet in the face? Sure, the odds of it causing any real damage aren't much, because I can't imagine the power on it would be too great, but it is enough to hurt a LOT, and possibly cause some damage to people wearing only shooting glasses (going so far as to possibly knock them off, opening a whole other can of worms concerning safety issues). I just don't think it's worth some of the safety risks of allowing such heavy projectiles to be used. I mean, all it would take is one rubber grenade fired at close range at somebody wearing shooting glasses to be a problem.

On top of the safety concerns, I want to bring up the fun factor. I mean, it IS milsim, but it's still a game at heart, and how much fun would it be if you were up against somebody who had such a great advantage over you? It would diminish the need for teamwork, because now you wouldn't need suppressive fire and/or flanking, you could just shoot a rubber bullet. I just don't think it's worth it to strive so much for realism that the fun of solving problems as a team is sacrificed. I, for one, don't like the idea of being at such a great disadvantage because I don't want to invest in a grenade launcher. Sure, you could say it's the same thing as a Crosman springer versus a Tokyo Marui AEG, but it isn't. While a TM does confer an advantage, it isn't the kind of advantage that could hurt teamwork or ruin the fun.

Just think of this: How easy would it be for two people to shut down an entire section of the field if this rule is implemented? A couple rubber grenades would allow players to make bunkers essentially uninhabitable, because as soon as you took cover they could just shoot the bunker and you'd be out.

I just don't think it's worth it to pursue realism so far that the fun and/or safety suffers. There's also already enough of a gap between those who have more money to spare on airsoft and those who don't. This would widen the gap even more, making it even harder on the newcomers. I just don't think it's worth risking the fun or safety. Or the arguments. I don't even want to imagine some of the "discussions" that would ensue about whether or not a hit was legitimate. Just my two cents...

I understand your point about the what if factor of gettin ghit by the bullet, but the same goes for MEDs. For example, what if someone was shot full auto in the face by a gun shooting over 400fps from only 10 ft? This happened to me. There is simply no way that all the rules can be safely administered, its the exact same risk as allowing high FPS weapons to be on the field. The thing is the odds are even more against getting hit in the head by a rubber bullet than a highfps weapon MED mishap. I do take into account the fairness and teamwork factor of the whole thing as well, but thats why we are having this test run. If it works out, than great, if not, oh well, we'll scrap it. I do realize that this sport is more for fun than it is for realistic simulation, but I say lets give this a test run and see how it turns out. Where is the harm in that?

The test would conclude whether its:
A) Safe
B) Fair
C) Fun

There could even be rules that apply to the whole thing, like if the other team doesn't have an M203 to field against their opponents M203, than the M203 must be left out of the game. That would be the purpose of having test games, to see what makes it fair, and to see IF it can be made fair, and IF it can be safe, and IF it can be fun.

The other thing is the fact that most people, especially more inexperianced or jumpier peoples gut reaction can be to turn and shoot, not even thinking what the consequences may be. If someone took one of those point blank I doubt they would just jump back up and continue playing. In the hands of someone who was trusted it would be an excellent tool, but IMHO it just isn't worth the extra baggage that would undoubtedly accompany it.

I saw something pretty cool at PBO one afternoon last fall. Before all three fields were opened up, we used to have to share fields with the Paintballers that scheduled on the same day. There was a handicapped gentleman in a wheelchair, albeit a pretty unique wheelchair. There was a centered mounted gun as well as a sponson gun on each side of the chair. I got out and acted as ref for them while the guys on the team re-ammoed up. I was impressed with how the whole three gun system worked on the wheelchair. It gave the guy a chance to get out and enjoy something that he wouldn't normally get to do. There was no death spike attached to the front of the chair (this thing could move too) and no one really seemed as if they were worried about getting crushed under the tires. Before anyone goes off about the whole apples and oranges thing, I figure at first, when this "War Machine" hit the field, folks were wondering how it would all work. I think on some level that is what this whole discussion started out as. Airsoft is going to evovle on many levels. Safety shouldn't be sacrificed, and I don't think that is being implied here. You could come up with any number of reasons why the MacGyver chair couldn't be used in play, but think of the fun this guy has been able to enjoy because it was allowed to be used. I'd be willing to bet it was tested out before it was used in play the first time. Just putting it out there is all.

Todd / MagisterMortis

are we playing airsoft or nerf, cause if we are switching to nerf, I can play that at home with my cousins.

The idea that you guys have is cool and all, and I know we have a test game coming for it, but a test game will not show you guys how others will react. We are inviting experienced and calm players...but you bring this new rule to a public game, and I see a lot of people getting upset over it. Especially those who don't have one, and instead have to run the 50 feet to kill a bunker instead of shooting a dinky ball at it from 50 feet away. This just seems like another rule that not only players, but refs have to remember, and keep an eye out for.

Now of course, I can see some advantages to this, as in, if there are 7 players in zombie base at area-13, getting a runner there is gonna be difficult as all can be. So yes, shooting a round ball at it and calling them out is a good fix. But then look at it from their point of view. They did a good job surrounding that base, and holding it off, stopping runners from making it to them, etc. and then they lose it all cause someone from 50 feet away shot a rubber ball and got them all out. And it makes it even worse when its single shot elimination.

Basically, and I know I make no decisions what so ever for field owners or airdog, but in my opinion, I think this is just going to end up being a hassle.