GandalfTheImperial

And that's exactly my point, again, as I said, over here, the police say A replica weapon is a reasonable facsimile or copy of a weapon, even if it is not capable of discharging a projectile or substance, or a Category A, B or C weapon that has been rendered permanently inoperable or a hand grenade that is inert. I never said a replica was the real thing, I just said a replica here is an imitation firearm. Thanks for proving my point even further, lol. See what I'm getting at? You explain what a replica is. Which just proves my point, why they're not allowed here... huyhuy

hoo-hoo But you see, I know I'm right. You see, this is a argument between definition, and wording, vs just trying to justify something with things that contradict a poorly worded page ;P

Also, that's 1. on collins dictionary. here's 2 duplicate, facsimile; imitation.

This is turning into a softcore flame war.

Je*** I get what you guys mean, but what you guys say is what contradicts the bl**** page. Contradict is my main point. The Page, again, contradicts what you guys say.

I know what replica means, but if someone says "replica mg-34" I'm going to think of a full, life size replica of the prop, an imitation firearm. Now, defining one word, that makes two, os a bad way to go. Especially if two words can make up one meaning. Replica Firearm here means an imitation firearm, as I've explained. A replica mg-34 is a imitation firearm in my mind, but a replica dlt-19 is a prop in my mind. why? ​A replica weapon is a reasonable facsimile or copy of a weapon, even if it is not capable of discharging a projectile or substance, or a Category A, B or C weapon that has been rendered permanently inoperable or a hand grenade that is inert. This has been imprinted in my mind for years, that's why I say a fully automatic replica firearm isn't legal here. That's why I was confused, you see, we don't share the same definitions alot of the time ( Although I did use the oxford definition of based just earlier)

Are we seriously going over this again. Wording isn't clear, because the commas represent it in a different way, and 'based' is used incorrectly because, AGAIN looks like a real or replica doesn't make sense using the definitions you've provided. based on simply means made from or originating. Not looks like. using the correct definition, it would mean made from a real or replica etc. We've just admitted they've worded it incorrectly. And the scratch built thing came from the e11, if you look back, I was talking about the t-21 and dlt-19 saying based off of a real or replica. AGAIN! using the definitions you;ve tried to explain to me, all said "looks like" which based off doesn't mean, and again, contradicts the whole sentence looks like a real or replica. nope made from a real or replica. Yes that makes sense. Again, the reason I've argued about this was because a replica mg-34 would refer to a metal replica firearm outside of this community. a replica prop is different. sratch-built wasn't meant to come into play. But since you mention it Who can get there hands on a real, or replica prop, without scratch building it? i don't know that many vendors, so again, it wouldn't make sense If scratch built isn't part of "replica" then, again, it only makes the whole real or replica thing harder to get tier 1 approval for the wep.

Yes. Although because I've been reading up too much law, everytime i hear 'replica' in any relation to guns, I automatically assume metal replica or permanently inoperable firearm. That's just how it is in Australia If it's a urethane cast or rubber cast, we just call it a prop.

I don't think we're seeing eye to eye.<br><br> This is what I'm talking about.<br><br> This E-11 requirements says :Based on a real or replica Sterling sub-machine gun, scratch-built, or a modified commercial toy Stormtrooper blaster.<br><br> Now, first of all, a replica sterling smg is always "based" off of a sterling sub machine gun.<br><br> So if it was worded the way you guys think it means or should mean, then it would be typed as such:<br><br> The e-11 can be scratch-built, made from a real, or replica sterling machine gun or created from a modified commericial stormtrooper blaster.<br><br> the original way they worded it was:<br> Based on a real or replica Sterling sub-machine gun, scratch-built, or a modified commercial toy Stormtrooper blaster.<br><br> Nothing differentiating the pauses between items.<br><br> So, using the verb definition of Based<br><br> it would mean Originating from a real or replica sterling smg, or a modified commerical toy blaster.<br><br> Now again, it's the way they typed it, that doesn't make sense to me... And I'm not a straight A student ( Actually, I've just graduated grade 12 on thursday, last week... Yay!)<br><br> Another example.<br><br> DLT-19 : Based on a real or replica MG-34 machine gun<br><br> Based on a real or replica mg-34...<br><br> Again, a replica is already based on the real deal... so what?<br><br> So using the verb definition again, it would make more sense.<br><br> Originating (made) from a real, or replica mg-34.<br><br> I know I'm making alot of commotion, I was just confused by what the requirement meant by 'based'<br><br> hopefully this clears it up.<br><br> If they meant 'looks like' and not has to be made from<br><br> then again, why <br><br> Looks like real or replica mg-34 etc.<br><br> a replica already (should) look like the real thing...<br><br> If they wrote ' Looks based off of MG-34' and removed the real or replica, then it would have made much more sense to me.<br><br> Again, sorry for the commotion, just confused.

Then why is the e-11 worded as: Based on a real or replica Sterling sub-machine gun, scratch-built, or a modified commercial toy Stormtrooper blaster. Who makes a blaster based on a modified toy stormtrooper blaster? Or who makes a blaster based on a scratch built blaster? The way they worded it was very poor, and gives the feel of the definition 'has to be made from'

I don't think that was what I was referring to. Scratch building one is possible yes, But for the blaster to be accepted, it requires it to be based off the real or replica gun (as far as it is worded, it means it has to be made from it)

But that is exactly my point, based is the keyword. Based verb 1. use (something specified) as the foundation or starting point for something. meaning it has to originate from the real or replica firearm for the blaster to be approved.

*deleted*

I know i don't necessarily need a blaster to be approved, im just saying the requiremnts are kinda unnecessary.<br><br> also, based, despite being keyword, when combined with real or replica, means it has to be made from one of those items, Otherwise what's the point of having real or replica, since based on a lewis or mg-34 would be much more simpler and doesn't contradict "based"

tried to edit it to remove th <br>'s ... not working...

So, as everyone knows, the 50st have very strict entry requirements for accuracy. But is it fair for some people? Such as the weapon requirements. DLT-19 : Based on a real or replica MG-34 machine gun. Not everyone in the whole world can obtain a replica, nor the real deal, especially here in Australia. A replica of any Full Automatic firearm is illegal in all but 1 state (which I don't live in)<br><br> Even applies for the T-21 a.k.a the lewis. Based on a real or replica Lewis Mark I machine gun. For this prop the magazine disk and bipod of the original gun are left off. It's just not possible to obtain such things. And this isn't even for centurion. How come scratch built look-alikes aren't accepted? I personally would want to be able to troop in a centurion TD one day, but seeing these strict guidelines is really driving me away from this mob. Sorry if this topic really grinds your gears.

Nope, not without modifications...

I own a hand belt sander... It's a heap of s**t to use on objects, whether it's clamped or not. Table top best way to go.

People say the same thing about power rangers. Like seriously, how could you hog a series that was designed for kids, and cry when it wants to attract mature audiences../ this world is scary... My iPad keeps autocorrecting >.<

That's your opinion, that you're making to sound like everyone else's... A lot of members like it, even I like it... You can sit... Excuse me for my rude behaviour, but seriously, awful? It looks comfortable for stunt actors, and is a much better symmetrical sculpt than eFX. You're post is kinda ignorant

I was sculpting a rogue one helmet, but I ran into problems with my faceplate having thin spaces, when I started filing into the area, it created a stress point, where the slightest pressure took chunks off. Buying more plaster to fix it though ;P

I'm pretty sure you can sit down without cutting the ab plate... Prob depends on strapping... And I don't think it's 501st approved...

Try Tamiya gloss white... Heard it's close... Most people would usually just repaint it since it has scuffs... BTW, that's one disturbing profile pic xD

Received the helmet a few days ago/ Didn't like it at first, ( cause wasn't accurate) but the more I wore it and looked at it, the more I loved it... Beautiful piece... But I had to take the hard hat adjustment strap thingymajig to actually fit snug around my head... The nose piece still sits lower than the bone and hurts...

That's not the problem, you have like a inch of kibble at the back part of the helmet, which reduces how comfortably your face can sit in there... I dont blame em... i personally think it's stronger method than vacuumforming. As everyone knows, or should know, vacuumforming is the cheapest, lightest option out there..