Simunition/Force on Force non lethal rounds

>>33274407
bump?

We can't talk about paintball here.
>>>/asp/

>>33274407
>simply swap out the bolt.
You'll at least need to swap the bolt and recoil buffer, and spring, most of these, at least simunition, require a new barrel with different headspacing that prevents you from loading live rounds. It also has a different twist rate on the rifling so the bullet stabilizes properly.

A conversion kit will run you around 400 dollars for an AR-15, and ammo is something like 2 dollars a round. I'm sure LE and military get better pricing, but simunition won't directly sell to individuals so you're kind of fucked in that department. There's also some gay safety shit they try to sell to you, but fuck that noise.

Wear a facemask and some padded clothes, maybe a buy a flak jacket for like 80 bucks for that A E S T H E T I C and to reduce the severe pain.

PROTECT THE TESTES

That's pretty much it.

File: conversion kits.jpg (64KB, 985x599px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 985x599px

>>33274809
This isn't paintball, it's the topic of converting live fire weapons for the purpose of nonlethal munitions.

>>33275111
I was looking at getting something like this, the ammo is only like 75cents a round (cheaper than most) and you only need the bolt carrier group and special magazine. That's it.

https://utmworldwide.com/product/civilian-target-ammunition/?removed_item=1

>>33274407
Gonna hijack your thread for a quick question.

My brother is a mechanic for one of the cities near me, and the SWAT team practices with these rounds in a parking lot/building behind one the garage he works out of. Every now and then, they leave a few rounds lying around and he and another guy go out there and pick them up to take home.

He keeps most of what he picks up, but doesn't have a 9mm gun so he gives those to me when he finds them. Is it safe to shoot these through my Beretta 92, loading one at a time, knowing it won't properly cycle or even extract? I just want to try it out but I don't want to fuck my gun up, or worse.

>>33275285
>M4/M16
Would this properly convert a civi AR15?

>>33275352
Are they ftf rounds or unfired rounds from mags that they changed early?

>>33275403
Yeah, an M16 and AR15 internal components are essentially identical.

>>33275352
No, you need a special barrel for pistols to fire those rounds.

I've used all three major brands for training my guys - Simunitions (General Dynamics), ATK/Federal Force on Force, and UTM Man Marker

The ATK product does shoot a bit cleaner overall, is a little less expensive, and generally doesn't seem to jam up the T guns as bad during heavy FOF training. Also, there's not any restriction on individual purchase like there is with Simunition FX (General Dynamics limits sale to LE / Mil through their distributor agreements).

UTM is a viable alternative, and while you may have to convince the sales rep or distributor to sell marker rounds to you, they will.

UTM has proven more reliable than even ATK FOF, and has less safety restrictions (minimum safe distances) vs the General Dynamics or ATK products.

>>33275403
Yes. It's just a bolt carrier swap to shoot the 5.56 variety FX or FOF.

Keep in mind UTM conversions should be used with UTM ammo.

Simunitions Bolts can be used to shoot Simunitions FX or ATK FOF.

>>33274407
We've had the best luck with UTM. I don't know if there's a difference between their LE/MIL kits and their publicly available stuff (I wouldn't think so, but who knows).

People who have used these, what kind of accuracy can I expect?

"Tactically accurate" out to 100m tells me nothing.

What are your groups at 50m? 100m?

I assume dropoff is terrible.

Talking about 5.56

>>33275721
>No, you need a special barrel for pistols to fire those rounds.
Boo. Thanks anon.

>>33275550
Unfired rounds.

>>33276002
I've honestly never shot for groups (referring to the UTM rounds). It's used in FoF, not target practice. Admittedly, your uses may be different.
"Accurate enough" doesn't really tell you what your looking for, but that's it.

>>33276072
My problem is that nobody has ever taken the time to shoot 10 rounds at a piece of paper and post it.

The companies don't do this, reviewers don't do this, nobody does this. It's not critical, as you said, but it's useful information that really shouldn't be as hard to get as it is.

>>33276165
I understand what you're saying, but it's not the intended use of the product. I guess I should say it's not it's main use. I think that's why accuracy information at 100 isn't available.
They do advertise a little under 2 inches at 25, as that's much closer to its intended operating distance.
The round is only moving at like 375fps, so I'd imagine it'd drop off pretty quickly at extended ranges.