Talk:Airsoft/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Opinion vs. Fact

There is a lot of first-person FOV throughout the entire article, especially concerning the "Paintball vs. Airsoft" section. I don't feel it's a Good Article. Schnauf 03:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Already discussed before, the "Paintball vs. Airsoft" section should be erased, anyone who whant's to compare reads Airsoft and Paintball article then makes it's own judgements and comparisons. Does anyone think what would be Airsoft article if we had sections like "LaserTag vs. Airsoft", "Taser vs Airsoft", just pick yours... I vote to erase PaintBall Vs Airsoft section.

Also external links section is questionable, in a few months external links sections will be larger then the rest of the airsoft article. What do we have? An external links airsoft article. Nice! "Hey do you have a business, a forum, a site related with Airsoft just put a link on wikipedia airsoft article. Its free!". WHY NOT? Does all of this makes any sense? One more time: External links are used as a reference or to extend the content detail of the article not to extend comercial or publicity... I vote to erase External Link section as someone already sugested.

I agree, anyone have a difference in opinion? Schnauf 16:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

anon

I have found nothing factually inaccurate about the paintball vs. airsoft section, and I think it should stay. For one, it IS paintball vs. airsoft. These are both projectile sports. LaserTag and Taser aren't. Secondly, its good conveniently placed information. It also houses useful information that wouldn't be appropriate in other sections of the article.

Shaun

I agree it should stay. The issue of "Paintball vs. Airsoft" follows both sports. It simply puts out a few relations between the two sports. Nothing about it badgers either side more than the other. I think many readers have that exact question in their head and it's good to highlight a little about both.

Equipment

As there is no reference to Green Gas anywhere in this article anymore. Propose Deletion of this section of this (much too long) Talk Page as irrelevant. Jonathonbarton 19:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Despite the supposed evidence that green gas is propane, I don't think it's quite proven yet, so I'd like to change this section to reflect the fact that don't quite know the truth of this matter.

You mean the laboratory evidence showing that it is propane, with over a 90% confidence level? Come on. Also, how could it not be known? It's not like the cartridges come out of a hole in the ground. 67.87.115.207 00:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

You mean the laboratory "evidence" that's provided (and bought and paid for) by the very same gentleman who also is in the business of selling you a Propane Adapter? That's like a bit like trusting Big Tobacco's claims that "No, really, our studies show that nicotine isn't *that* addictive..." Nonetheless, I own an adapter and love it. But I'm also very clearly aware of the implicit conflict of interest of the source of the "proof". Propane may or may not be Green Gas or vice versa - that has yet to be proven. What *has* been proven (and therefore what belongs in the encyclopedia) is that, with proper maintenance done to your replica, Green Gas and Propane can be used interchangeably with no perceivable detrimental effects. Jonathonbarton 16:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

My can has a sticker that says that the gas is "Ch2 FCF3 CH3". I suspect the lowercase h is a typo, but even so, I don't quite understand it. Someone said it was Tetrafluoroethane, but that doesn't look right. At the very least, the Fluorine in there makes it a fluorocarbon. Propane is CH3CH2CH3, and is flammable. Green gas is not flammable.

Green gas is propane. However it also has other things in it to let it flow smothly through the gun. For more info on this go to http://www.airsoftcanada.com/showthread.php?t=6335 -mikeh0303

The relationship between the airsoft, air gun and BB gun articles

I think there is too much overlap between these three articles. When one looks for information on a particular aspect of this topic, one sometimes finds it scattered across all three.

Please consider the following propositions:

• 1. Air guns are currently covered by three articles: airsoft, air gun and BB gun.
• 2. Additionally, the same "airsoft" article covers the sport or game known as "airsoft".
• 3. A BB gun is a species of air gun, just like a sporting air pistol or an airsoft pistol.
• 4. There is an international sporting activity known as Airsoft. It employs airsoft pistols (and occasionally rifles) (apparently along similar lines to I.P.S.C.).
• 5. In at least some parts of the world an airsoft pistol is commonly called a "BB gun".

I propose: 1. That the BB gun article be merged with the air gun article. 2. That the portions of the airsoft article relating to the mechanics and operation of airsoft guns be moved to the air gun. 3. That the airsoft article restrict itself to the sport of airsoft (including required equipment not thoroughly canvassed in other Wikipedia articles

So, in essence I propose that we have one article for the sport/game of airsoft and one for air guns (whether designed for the sport of airsoft or not.

I'm posting this on the talk pages of all three articles. Please give us your thoughts. If there's no great opposition to this I'll go ahead and make the edits, but I thought it was only fair to raise the matter with contributors first. Wulfilia 19:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. Airsoft is very different from BB gun and Air gun. Airsoft originated in Japan and is a SPORT. BB gun or Air gun originated in America and is NOT a sport.

We can agree that the sport of Airsoft belongs in a different article from air guns and BB guns. That is part of what I am suggesting. However, at the moment the Airsoft article is not confined to the sport of Airsoft. It also contains material about the mechanics and operation of air guns firing small round projectiles. However, not all the material relating to these Airsoft guns is in the Airsoft article. Some of it is in the BB gun and Air gun articles.

I am suggesting that the guns go in a different article from the sport. That is the case, for example, in the articles on practical shooting and the pistols used in that sport.

Just by the way, it doesn't seem logical to draw a distinction between BB guns and Airsoft guns on the basis of where they are said to have originated. Although the Browning semi-automatic pistol originated in the U.S., and flintlock pistols in Europe, both are of the same class and are therefore dealt with together under pistols.

At the moment the airsoft article apparently has separate sections canvassing Airsoft guns and BB guns (which latter you say are nothing to do with Airsoft anyway).

If contributors can reach a consensus on the idea that Airsoft guns really need to be in a different article from other types of air guns, why not create a new article called "Airsoft guns"? Wulfilia 11:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose merge, BB guns are not Airsoft guns. We should have a seperate article for Airsoft guns. BB guns are a TYPE of airgun and as such that article should link here, but no merging is required.Gateman1997 21:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Strongly oppose, I believe this is someone looking at the sport from an outside perspective. Airsoft guns are not airguns! -b 19:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC) Strongly oppose, I, too, believe this is someone looking in from the outside. The distinction between Airsoft and Airgun/BB gun is one of intended use. Airsoft guns are sporting implements intended to harmlessly shoot at live human targets, much like paintball guns. Airguns/BB guns (in the US, anyway) are MUCH higher velocity, with MUCH more dangerous projectiles, and are often sold for light duty "varmint hunting" (squirrels, oppossums, etc.) in portions of the US. In my home state (Colorado), a person shooting someone with a BB gun can be arrested and tried for assault with a deadly weapon (depending on the severity of the injuries sustained). The same is not true for an airsoft gun, because (unlike a traditional "BB gun") the velocity and projectile density is simply not sufficent to cause significant injury even at the muzzle unless you directly shoot an unprotected eye or ear. Jonathon Barton 12 June 2006

It's worth mentioning that a lot of places (Australia and NZ, for one) make no legal differentiation between standard airguns and "soft air" guns. On that note, I was unaware the game was known as "Airsoft" in the West- when I lived in NZ the guns were almost universally called "Soft Air" guns, as people regarded "Airsoft" as being Engrish and not making much sense- whereas "Soft Air Gun" was a different type of Air Gun to the .177 calibre pellet models most people are familiar with. I've made mention of this in the main article, so hopefully that won't be a problem. --Commander Zulu 03:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose, although all these types (and throw in painbtall guns) are "air powered", they are all very distinct, perhaps a super page can be created for "air powered guns" that simply explains the distinction and points the way to the various articles. Deon Steyn 06:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I am going to delete the entire rules section

...unless somebody can tell me why details of game rules are necessary for this article. I will leave behind a brief general description of how games are played. I'll wait a while for comments as I did with the legal section - Zhyla, 5-24-05

I just stumbled on the page and my first thought was, "uh, what's with all of these rules?" So yeah, I'd certainly support cutting a whole bunch of 'em away. Listing a bunch of individual rules strikes me as fairly ludicrous especially as this isn't football or some other similarly established sport; individual groups and tournaments are likely to use different variants and house rules and whatnot. It's good to explain the basic "you get hit, you're 'dead'" part, obviously, but there's no point in listing, say, velocity limits of about 50 individual groups or specific whistle signals or instructions on how to avoid getting shot after calling out.

Likewise, phrases like "All participants MUST wear eye protection!" and "your group" (which is repeated throughout this section of the article) should really be removed or changed. I mean, I don't think there's an international legal requirement for wearing eye protection while playing, and while you'd have to be a moron to not protect your eyes, I'd bet that in most parts of the world, a bunch of guys who decide to hit the woods and pop some pellets off at each other can do it without wearing eye protection and be completely within their legal rights to be morons. I wouldn't mind seeing a short section on the commonly accepted rules and safety procedures, but it should really be short and informative to give the reader an idea of how the games are conducted and what precautions are usually taken -- now the section reads like some kind of a detailed instruction manual for current and future participants instead of an informative encyclopedia article for the general public. -- Captain Disdain 16:05, 26 May 2005 (UTC)