Quote:
Originally Posted by Scarecrow
And the entire contact on flesh argument IS NOT RELEVANT to penetration of a hardened object! Its not the same transfer of energy. Flesh is elastic, a goggle surface is NOT. The fact that people have scratched GLASS with the stuff indicates to me a hardened material that may have the characteristics necessary to penetrate Z87.1 ANSI eye protection. Without *some* material information about the BB's physical properties its almost impossible to calculate if the BB has the potential to penetrate said standard goggles.
And YES when I finally get a bag of this stuff, I intend to give it the standard Canadian 10 foot/full auto test with a 400fps gun, just like we do when we test a new brand of goggle that has no Z87.1 stamp on it, except in this case, we will be testing the BB, not the goggle.
Fair?
|
Fair.
And it is a good idea to cut this down as you state. An Arnies Part II would be very boring indeed. The main reason i am here is that your original post caught my eye by pure chance and i was hoping of getting more insight into this from a Canadian point of view. So far this thread seems a lot more "constructive" in my humble unqualified opinion.
So would it be safe to assume that and "conclude" that based on the foregoing (and on Flatlander's correct observation) that the flesh impacts caused by the MAX would be no different than plastic bbs at the same velocities? In fact probably not even noticed? (unless we bring the velocities to something like 10 joules then things will probably change a lot).
Though my personal experience is probably not acceptable. In 2 years of use by our team the MAX has not penetrated any mask or goggle. In fact this was the conclusion on the MAX thread over at Arnies [sigh].