Posted on 03/15/2006 3:52:24 AM PST by Hannah Senesh
An M3 spraying a bunch of 45 ACP around a corner vs a single 9 mm round? Cost of the weapon?
BTW, I have an abacus next to my Dell with XP. ;-)
The Izzies know how to deal with the pestilence Muhammad unleashed. Great weapon. Way to go Israel!
:-) it was an article in a medical journal written by 3 doctors, and is hardly indicative of the opinon of the whole of Britain. In fact, even the writers admitted it wasn't a practical idea - just a device to get people talking about crime.
The French Resistance sapped so much of their strength that the Reich just collapsed! |
"BTW, I have an abacus next to my Dell with XP. ;-)"
That figures.
That means mainly exterior walls, which also likely also means longer range engagements.
A 9mm as supported as that one will have a decent effect range.
The stock will make it a more stable and give more accuracy, but not more range in which the round is effective. This is not a pistol round being used in a carbine.
The round isn't going to have the high muzzle velocity of a rifle, nor do handgun bullets have high ballistic coefficients.
With cover and good sights the shooter can take the time to make those shots count.
This won't give you the ability to sit at long range and pick your shot while hidden. This is going to only be effective at relatively close ranges.
You're not going to be able to adjust to moving targets well. The recoil is also going to be off axis, which will make it hard to get back on target for followup shots.
However, in the case where your dealing with a stationary, unarmored target, who is around the corner of a block wall, but not far away, this would give you a strategic advantage.
However, it seems like it would be a very rare case where this would be more useful than a rifle and a few flash-bangs for military personnel.
I have a 9 mm Glock G34. It's a great gun for shooting IPSC production, however the 9mm is a light round for trying to drop metal poppers well. It's a reasonable backup gun if your rifle breaks or you run out of ammo. It's not a reasonable primary weapon if you have a choice.
"Rifle"??? Bullcrap! That's a ported, full-size frame Glock, in a fancy holder.
It wasn't just barrel wear. The bullets often came out in more than one piece. Useful for defending armoured vehicles against swarming infantry ... not so useful for anything else.
ping
A poster at YNet made a similar point
Another poster replied as follows (various typos corrected):
"It's not a framed glock and there's very little recoil.
The turning frame has a floating bolt system inside, not fixed, so accuracy at max 50 metres is very good.
You're not going to shoot further than that inside a building anyway"
Oh, really? Take a good look ... you can even see the little thumb-rest molded into the side of the handle, the trigger-guard, the base of the magazine just the right distance below the slide, the take-down button, slide release, ...
I own a Glock-17 ... I know what they look like.
He's probably right about the recoil ... between the ported barrel and the weight of that holder, bipod, light, etc. I bet that thing doesn't move much at all.
Take it up with him. I'm merely recounting what he said.
No one is compelling the Brits to buy it. Indeed, given the real hatred for Israel in the UK, I'm amazed that they're going near it. I'm left with the obvious conclusion that the experts in Britain think it must be an excellent weapon. Whether it is not, I'm just pleased that Israel and the American investors are going to make a packet out of this invention.
Anyone who thinks they can do better are welcome to try. That's what capitalism is all about.
And if you believe that there has been a breach of some patent or other, I would advise you to contact the appropriate authorities.
Take it up with him.
If he comes here, I will ... perhaps he's seen some device other than what is depicted on this thread. Meantime, just look at the pictures for yourself. They're fairly obvious.
A 3rd Model Colt Dragoon revolver (c. 1851) with a 3rd pattern shoulder stock. An example of the types of weapons used in the Indian Territory by Confederate cavalry
Yes, the buttstock is detatchable ... pop it off and you have a standard-issue cap and ball revolver.
Wait... Detachable buttstock?!?! AAAAHHHHHH!! ASSAULT WEAPON! ASSAULT WEAPON! BAN IT! BAN IT!!! SOMEONE CALL HILLARY CLINTON OR TED KENNEDY!!
Bugs Bunny did it back in the '30s with a shotgun. In most cases it would be easier just to put the camera on a regular rifle and stick it around the corner.
Detachable buttstock, just what Hillary needs!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.