Warning for Bioval BBBMAX 0,27 BBs.

[Hiro]

Want to warn against using the Bioval BBBMAX (http://www.arniesairsoft.co.uk/forums/index.php?showtopic=138947&hl=bioval http://www.begadishop.com/catalog/product_...oducts_id=3061) in games where you want to save on equipment damages.

Prolouge:
At the international event Berget6 this summer a few car-windows where shot to pieces, as discussed in this thread here; http://www.berget-events.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4767 (no need to register, and in english) apparently the incidents have led to a few changes in rules, but no more than that. I didn´t attend Berget6, and didn´t know about the incident until a few days ago.

Present time:
Last weekend I attended a milsim-style game. At the game the side-windows, and front-window of one of the terrain vehicles used was shot to pieces and damaged. Panic and hysteria almost got the better of the participants, with talks about over-trimmed AEGs and suchlike. We tested the window with PTW 150cylinder, and with a sniper-rifle doing over 170m/s with heavy BBs, without managing to get the same result. Normal BBs will just shatter against the windshield.

The we tried the exact set up that was said to have caused the damage, a PTW with 130-cylinder, and Bioval BBBMAX 0,27g. From one meter the BB will get stuck IN the windshield. And it causes large dents in the bodywork of the vehicle.

The BBs are see-through, but not glass, according to Biovals webpage the BBs are made of:
Component Weight Percentage
Starch 66.12%
Protein 8.84%
Oil/Fat 4.24%
Crude Fiber 2.67%
Ash 1.29%
Sugars 1.84%
Moisture 15%
(source; http://www.biovalbbb.eu/)

What we think is the problem is the hardness of the BBs, they are almost impossible to break with a plier unlike "normal" BBs. This hardness combined with hitting a hard target will cause damages. This time against a windshield. But it can also be car-bodywork, AEGs, radios, plastic belt-buckles, teeth (though to be honest, those are quite vulnerable anyway).

We tested quite a few safetyglasses with these BBs without any problems, and they will not make more damage against people (except maybe teeths).

There are a few organizers in Sweden now banning the use of these BBs, at least all the games with vehicles in use.

After some more testing I present the results (as for now, epilogue):

PTW 90-cylinder, chronoed at 80m/s, from 1,5 meter, Bioval BBBMAX 0,27.



PTW 130-cylinder, not chronoed, from 1,5 meter, Bioval BBBMAX 0,27.


Glass-splinters inside the vehicle from the windows after test-shooting.


PTW 90-cylinder, chronoed at 80m/s, full-auto from 1,5 meter at G36-handguard, small crack, Bioval BBBMAX 0,27.


PTW 130-cylinder, not chronoed, from 10 meter, plexi is 6mm thick (lower damage), and dent in car body-work (upper damage), Bioval BBBMAX 0,27.


Also tried on windshield:

KSC 0,30 BB from 1 meter, fullauto, no damage.

Unknown brand, 0,43 BB, 170m/s from 1 meter, no damage.

I let the results talk for themselves, and hope people will take this up with their local skirmish-site. Please do not take me for my word, but do your own tests.

[fallout11]

Thanks for the warning and graphic evidence, Hiro.

[Silenoz]

PTW? Is that the Systema Personal Training Weapon?

[Rexxor]

Silenoz: Yes.

[Taisch]

What I found disgraceful was that the manufacturer in question refuses to stop producing these BBs, fully knowing what they're capable of. Sure, most players are honorable and aren't out to intentionally hurt people or damage property, but there will always be the select few that will abuse every little detail they can.

[waffles]

http://www.arniesairsoft.co.uk/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=152056&view=findpost&p=1887645

Manufacturer explains it here.

[fryxharry]

Those BBs aren't any more dangerous to people than any other BB of the same weight. They're just so hard that they won't shatter upon impact on hard surfaces, meaning more energy is transfered onto it, resulting in more damage. But safety glasses resist them without problem, so the only concern when using these BBs is cars and windows that might get hit by them.

[bombermonk]

what about theeth? and fingers? they don't have alot of skin/fat to take the shock

[czarruskie]

what did you expect? this is airsoft. not nerf.  your still shooting hard solid objects at eachother.  personally im suprised that .30 gram bbs DONT usually shatter sidewindows on cars.

isnt .30 a sniper grade bb wieght? why would you be shooting glass windows at close range with sniper grade ammo? of course it carrys more inertia. its heavier. dont most fields restrict fps and range proximity with the use of sniper ammo to prevent this?

either way, i dont buy bio ammo. i like my bbs not to turn into dust after 5 days of opening my bag or breaking in my magazine.  and over here, if you can get it, its almost 2x as much.

ill just stick to the normal variety, it all sinks into the ground in a few years anways... unless you have a small field thats packed with players all year round.

[bombermonk]

in belgium only bio's are allowed, and my 2 year old bio bb's are still solid and round, not dust or any breaking in my mag and they are cheaper over here then any other bb's.

Difference between normal BB's and these are that normal bb's wont go in the window, but shatter because they are less hard.

[trecam]

Hiro thanks for posting originally on Arnies. Levante did an excellent job of clearing this up. Since aou are an organiser perhaps you should be looking at mask and other protection and not bbs.

Levante Labs published a study on Arnies about all the bbs tested. They are pefectly safe for human use. Instead of worring about windshields perhaps you should read the part in the study that deals with the effects of ALL bbs on human bones.

"8.2.1 - Human Bone Tissue (HBT) – Bone has greater density (specific weight of 1.11) and strength than the surrounding tissue. It is also non-elastic. It goes without saying that volunteers for this test were not forthcoming and, therefore, a suitable simulator was sought. There are a number of sources that manufacture simulated bones used for medical training applications and ballistic tests. These are manufactured from specially formulated polyurethane foam forming a cancellous inner core and a harder outer shell simulating cortical bone. During ballistics testing these products have been shown to fracture in a manner very similar to natural bone providing an excellent reproducible simulation. Simulating a bone impact injury for the sport of airsoft is very difficult since ( A ) the bb velocities involved are very low; ( B ) an accurate simulation requires that a substance simulating skin be placed over the simulated bone target area; ( C ) the most exposed part of the player are the bones is in the hands. To the best of our knowledge, a suitable substance simulating skin has yet to be found. Therefore, any test results would need to take this into account. Nevertheless, since it is our opinion that the great majority of injuries would be restricted to the cortical bone structures in the knuckles and fingers we can assume that the amount of skin and muscle protecting these areas is minimal when compared to other areas of the body. In any case, tests show that all bbs will cause some damage to cortical bone structures and there is ample evidence from the field of broken teeth caused by bbs of all weight classes and types (though teeth are not considered bones). The observed difference in the degree of injury will decrease as ( A ) the simulated target is placed further away from the muzzle of the gas gun; ( B ) the velocity of the bbs fired is lowered; ( C ) a combination of distance and speed thereof. It is beyond the scope of this study to present detailed damage assessment since it is not our intention to mislead the reader into believing that some bbs are more or less safe in this regard. Any damage to bones and teeth is serious and therefore adequate protection must be adopted in order to avoid the risk of injury. Many low cost solutions are readily available. Nevertheless, our evidence points to the same conclusions reached in other areas of this study: soft bbs may cause the same if not greater damage due to their tendency to deform and expand on impact (FIG M)."

[Hiro]

Sir, are you some kind of moron?

I have never said anything about the BBBMAX being MORE DANGEROUS than other brand of BBs. ONLY that they will make more damage-property than other BBs.

And why in hell, if the BBs are so safe, do I need to look at masks and other PAINTBALL paraphernalia.

I don´t say how you should play your game, the majority of the swedish players  do NOT use full-face masks, and I doubt these BBs will change that

I have posted my thoughts over at Arnies, but can repeat them here:

I play airsoft, not paintball.

I do not doubt these tests, BUT I have a few concerns, some of them already stated a few pages back.

1. Bioval states that the best is to play using full face mask, thick clothing and gloves with plastic inserts. This is not how it is played in Sweden, and not because we are masochists, but because in general, playing on woodland sites it is not necessary.

I don´t think Biovals BBBMAX BBs are going to change this, and I don´t see a reason why either.

2. The tests are all nice, but stating that these BBs are the best, because they make less soft tissue damage is like comparing what stings less, a bee or a wasp. The damage done in general, by responsible players, against other people in games is not much. I have played airsoft for 6 years, and so far I have only witnessed one serious accident relating to an overtrimmed AEG and short distance.

We know getting shot at sometimes sting, but it is not dangerous.

3. I have still not got ANY takers for what equation should be used to scale when property damage is deemed less important than a BB that is a bit better than other brands.

It has been known from start that the BBBMAX are more consistent than other brands, with less air-bubbles, better flight-path, etc.

Playing at a CBQ-venue, how many sights and windows is it worth the extra edge? Who will be the one responsible if that expensive Eotech get shot to pieces?

I KNOW that sight and stuff will be damaged, that is part of the game. But what percentage should that risk be? 10% of all hits against my "insert expensive breakable thingie" or 90% of all hits against the same?

Yesterday I discussed responsibility with a friend. Of course you will have to be responsible first for your own safety, that your googles are up to standard, and that you have enough cover if you are afraid to get hit etc. But you have a responsibility as a shooter not to cause that extra pain, like not aiming for the head if you can make a body shot. And in ways ensure that all participants have a good time.

I wouldn´t be happy to use these BBs still, as I don´t want to be the one breaking my friends equipment, the extra edge these BBs can give is not worth it for me.

As an organizer, often organizing games with vehicles, I will ban these as window-replacement is expensive and unnecesarry.

As a player I hope not to get shot with these, to save my NVGs at night time, and my radio at all times (though I usually have it at my back, so I would have to be shot while fleeing the enemy and thus have brought it upon myself).

I hope this make my position clear. Without having anyone stating the obvious that the testresults show.