General

[MondoMor]

I did some testing of an SA-8 to look for velocity spikes.

[WingMan56]

Used my SA-8 on the Field today, I informed everybody of the controversy before using it and they mainly just laughed and it was the joke for the day, Worked as nice as my T-8 or T-9, always chroned under the 280fps that the field required, Even chroned it more often just to see if there were any spikes..First shot last shot, first shot after it was holstered for a couple of games, Even asked the ref to spot check me through out the day and I am happy to report no spikes, It was shooting as accurate as my T-9 ranger, I was very impressed in fact a few others were also impressed and probably going to purchase, So I say just check with the field your playing on and if there fine with it, which they probably will be because if anyone knows anything about paintball guns it would probably them.

[Schmitti]

Originally Posted by pump

yikes way to make the forum inclusive, maybe you should get the thread locked so only people with those criteria are allowed to post

pump... there has been a lot of bull going back and forth and some folks that seem to be just arguing to argue.. and others responding to try to educate...

Anyways. I don't want to lock this thread yet, but will if it gets our of hand.

E

[Deuce]

Originally Posted by HP_Lovecraft

Its not the end of the world, but it does make me curious to what Eric will say. Specifically if they will offer retrofit kits. This notion that the kits are not viable because there are too many different versions is crap. So far everyone has the same SA8.

Alternatively, it seems like someone here could made a bolt on version. Basically, a cleaner version of the kit you, and others have fabricated.

QFT and bolded the most important part. So far every single SA8 I've seen has the same "engine system". Besides the few different bolts and some anno differences they are the same. There is no reason they couldn't offer up a bolt on kit that would include a T8 backblock, T8 reg goodies, and a T8 bolt spring. This could be done for a half way decent price as well.

Their excuses are nothing more than smoke and mirrors.

[H702K]

Originally Posted by Dirty Deuce

There is no reason they couldn't offer up a bolt on kit that would include a T8 backblock, T8 reg goodies, and a T8 bolt spring. This could be done for a half way decent price as well.
.

Basically what I was about to post. I would toss the ones on the gun now if I had that kit.

[pump]

Originally Posted by Schmitti

pump... there has been a lot of bull going back and forth and some folks that seem to be just arguing to argue.. and others responding to try to educate...

yeah Lohman and Mayvik seems to be the prior while MondoMor is the latter

[Deuce]

Originally Posted by pump

yeah Lohman and Mayvik seems to be the prior while MondoMor is the latter

Unnecessary, stay on topic or GTFO already...

[druid]

Originally Posted by Posey

Druid, I don't exactly see where being a prison guard makes you an expert on liability law, so how about you drop the high minded criticism? Just because you can string together a few non sequitur assumptions you've made based on some other liability cases you heard about and falsely applied to this situation does not make your opinion a valid legal one.

But really, can we stop beating this dead horse at least until the announcement from Tiberius on Monday?

Well considering that we have to constantly train AND pass instruction on liability for our actions, I think that puts me into the "more authoritative" section than you. How about you stop trying to start a flame fest?

Most everything in court has a 'precedent' in which to enact a future course of action. What you consider to be "a few non sequitur assumptions you've made based on some other liability cases you heard about" are those very precedents I speak of. All I'm trying to do is save you [all] from a potential courtroom nightmare. Jail time, fines, punitive damages and any further blemishes on this game should be avoided at all costs.

So I guess your opinion is one that "I don't care that you are trying to help"....that about right?

Originally Posted by pump

but his point doesnt answer my question

I'm sorry...I missed your question....

Originally Posted by MondoMor

The SA-8 may be a little worse (but not much worse than a mis-adjusted T8/T9). UV Halo had a very good post addressing your point several pages back. Punkworks may be doing some testing on this soon.

I'm sorry but Punkworks isn't any legal authority either. In fact, I've spent enough time in court to KNOW that their very name is going to take up about 4 hours of court time alone. And then any attorney worth his weight in salt is going to have visited that forum of Mikes and just - blast - them out of the water.

I really hope this doesn't have a chilling effect on custom gun work. How many of those are "approved" paintball markers?

I too hope this doesn't but when you consider custom builders...they have [or at least SHOULD have] some type of insurance to cover their butts. If they don't...well...that's on them.

Originally Posted by HP_Lovecraft

Note: Pepperball.com does actually sell paintballs. They call them "Marking Projectiles". But they are balls full of paint, thus making them "paint balls". The difference is the shell is thicker.

Also, they are made by Perfect Circle. On the PC website, they are referred to as "Paintballs". Yes, this is an issue of semantics, but according to the website, the gun is designed to shoot its own "Marking Projectiles".
You are correct but they are designed to identify suspects...not play a game. What the website shows the average 'looker' and what's in their printed materials that go out to purchasing agents [like my Captain...and then who shows this documentation to us on SRT for review] is completely different.
I think using websites is unremarkable because there ins't enough information to make judgement calls such as we are discussing.

Its all a legal curiosity. For those of us that started playing in the 80s, nearly all guns were modified in some way. ie We all removed the trigger safety because it drove us nuts.
Sadly to say though...it aint the 80s anymore bud.
As companies have grow to mega size, these small legal issues can have a giant impact. Look at NPS. They were hit with a massive lawsuit a few years ago when a bottle was accidentaly removed from its valve and killed someone. They were not at fault because the tank was modified by its owner, but the lawyers knew who had all the money. The big companies.

Same thing here. The pepperball website simply says "They do not suggest it be used for paintball because the balls might break". This might be because the contract with Tiberius means that Tiberius assumes the liability for accidents? That might explain the sudden change in position.

I'll not speculate over what I said up there ^^ about "marking" suspects with crowd control devices...

Originally Posted by Schmitti

pump... there has been a lot of bull going back and forth and some folks that seem to be just arguing to argue.. and others responding to try to educate...

Anyways. I don't want to lock this thread yet, but will if it gets our of hand.

E

And there is no real reason to. One side says "but if we do this..." and the other is saying "...not to because of this...". A forum is where minds come together to discuss things and in many people's minds, liability HAS to be an issue. The only issue I see in this particular thread is that there are certain people holding onto the mindset that "if they do ___" then everything should be fine. This thread has turned into "Well...we can fix this by doing ____" and some of us just can't sit back and let good people fall into this potential trap. They could be in a lot of trouble and all we're trying to do is keep reminding them they may not be right.

Other than that, there seem to be some thick-headed flame-baters trying to puff some imaginary E-muscle because they don't like people poo-poo'ing their ideas or desires. That in particular is simply uncalled for because there's no reason to get like this. We're trying to help even though they don't see it as such.

I'm done posting in this thread.

[william77stout]

I appreciate that you took the time to look over my post druid, but as you didn't bother to see the relevance that the questions had and only looked to impose what may or may not count towards discussion, your info didn't help very much. I was looking for information with direct responses to get more info from several lawyers who specialize in product laws and tort laws. The info I had wasn't enough to get my questions answered. For anyone else who would like more info from lawyers please refer to my post on page 26.

Also is Eric from Tiberius going to post something on Monday HERE or is someone contacting him?

[Lohman446]

Originally Posted by Dirty Deuce

QFT and bolded the most important part. So far every single SA8 I've seen has the same "engine system". Besides the few different bolts and some anno differences they are the same. There is no reason they couldn't offer up a bolt on kit that would include a T8 backblock, T8 reg goodies, and a T8 bolt spring. This could be done for a half way decent price as well.

Their excuses are nothing more than smoke and mirrors.

In the interest of civilly discussing this aspect of it, and not simply restating my opinion I would as you to go down the liability road for just a moment. Would doing any of this remedy the fact that at best you would still be using a modified LL weapon? Or do you actually believe that liability is a non-issue in this circumstance?

Right now Tiberius should have a pretty clear stance: Do not use an SA-8 for recreational purposes. From a liability point of view the clearer your stance is the better (you can call this speculation all you want, but it doesn't actually address the statements accuracy). If they did come up with a retrofit kit the statement Tiberius could make would start to get muddier. "Do not use an SA-8 for recreational purposes unless it has been modified" starts to be complex. How does one know its been modified correctly? I know the idea of a different color portion has been brought up. Making exceptions (even deserved ones) makes the statement of "do not" less clear though.

The point that I am trying to make is not that the SA-8 cannot be made as safe as any paintball marker out there. I don't know enough about the internals to know that so I'll defer. My point is this. No paintball marker, even when following all manufacturer instructions, is 100% safe. As such there is some liability to using it. Some of us believe that using a modified SA-8 raises that liability to an unacceptable level. Personally I guess thats a choice I make as an individual. Some of those arguing worry about the game as a whole and any negative blemishes on it.

Good luck whatever course of action you decide on. I personally would not feel uncomfortable being on the field with any marker that could consistently chrono at the legal limit (assuming at a glance it did not look like it was going to blow up, I mean a marker made of PVC pipe would probably change that feeling). I would not feel comfortable assuming the risk of using one not intended specifically for the game of paintball.

I do not intend to continue beating the dead horse as it was. I post this only for discussion of this aspect. Besides, this cluttered thread has really turned into just that - there are threads devoted to discussions on the more technical side.