Gun Porn!

A quick google suggests that the modern-day Army Aviation branch actually hails from the Field Artillery, while the Air Force traces its parentage back to the Signal Corps. So if you want to get into rights of inheritance, they're different family lines pretty much the whole way. Seems the Field Artillery had their own air units that didn't fall under the Air Corps or Army Air Forces. Same sort of little single-engine airplanes the Civil Air Patrol flew at the time.

This is some Britain-tier 'which obscure regiment has the biggest dick' arguing.

Please go on.

Ohio Sheriff's Dept Auctioning Off A Thompson Model 1921.

Anyone got any cash to pool together? We only need about 50k.

For 50K, you could just buy enough AR-15s to make a Metal Storm array.

At least it's not going to be melted down and recycled into bottlecaps.

Seems like the US Army's Shiny New Australia, I mean, shiny new Modular Handgun System has ran into a problem. Or at least the pistol it's based on, the SIG 320, has.

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017/08/09/p320-unsafe-new-failure/

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017/08/11/sig-p320-problems-questions/

"SIG chose to design the P320 as a striker-fired handgun with a relatively high mass metal trigger with no trigger safety – despite the fact that this safety feature has been included on almost every striker-fired handgun since the 1970s. Why? Trigger safeties are ugly, but functional and if designed properly do not interfere with the trigger’s feel. Did SIG leave this off the firearm for aesthetic, or maybe cost reasons? Did they believe the gun would sell better with a trigger that looked more “SIG” than “Glock”? Why was such an obvious safety feature omitted from a firearm that clearly needed it?"

Good questions. No drop safety as standard on a striker-fired pistol? Merde alors.

These ones are better, though.

"What does it say about a company whose CEO not only believes safety features just encourage negligence, but will say that publicly during a media event as part of damage control for a drop safety scandal?"

Well, that the CEO guy is a doofus?

When the CEO is also the founder of the company, he tends to know a thing or two about the product and what's best for the end user. But when the CEO is just some businessman who's only interested in making money for the shareholders, the product tends to be shitty...

Yeah not all that bright. Safeties are for those moments when you have a derp moment. No matter how good you are everyone screws up sooner or later. That little safety device helps reduce the likelihood of said derp moments resulting in a negligent discharge.

Seems the government drop tests aren't what they're cracked up to be. Here's another Firearm Blog post with a video showing what happens when the pistol is dropped on its butt, rather than on the front or side:

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017/08/07/omaha-outdoors-p-320-drop-test-video-failed-dropped-butt-gun/

Tubular AND Box Mag Fed Russian Pump Action Shotgun.

Not one or the other, not a conversion, both at the same time and you can switch between either with the flick of a switch.

4 (mag) plus 5 (tube) capacity sounds nifty. Plus either speedier reloading than higher capacity tube guns, greater versatility in use (say slugs in the tube and buckshot in the mag) and theoretically more compact in all dimensions length and height rather than just length.

I'd take two.

Speaking from experience in dealing with the SAW and what has happened with other weapons like this. I wouldn't be too enthusiastic about it. Mostly because on method with an amazing degree of consistency works better over the other to the point the secondary method has a tendency to jam or malfunction. That and it sounds like unnecessary complication and chances for something to go wrong during operation, reloads, or switching between feeds.

edited 17th Aug '17 5:29:49 PM by TuefelHundenIV

I wouldn't quite base this gun in comparison to a 249. We both know the M16 magwell in the 249 was a complete afterthought.

It isn't the only example though. Built in or after thought secondary load methods have simply never panned out as well as something more direct. Box mags work in general but adding complexity to them rarely works out as well as straight forward box mag only. Switching feeds is excessive complexity. Tubes, same thing.

So a conversation came up elsewhere and well, would a Kolibri even be able to kill some one?

I feel like if you surgically inserted the weapon in the target beforehand...maybe.

Immy: Well pellet rifles the red ryder variety even, have killed people in certain circumstances. All it takes is to penetrate an artery or blood vessel and someone not knowing what to do. It is possible but unlikely.

So same with the Kolibri? Unlikely?

Like, I don't know the force on it, but how likley would it even be to penetrate skin? It seems so..... tiny.

^ It penetrates like 1.5 inches (~4 cm) of pine board. That's more than enough to sever an artery like on the neck or thigh.

The exact circumstances that you would need to arrive at to inflict a lethal wound would be unusual as even pocket pistols can give tens of few of range. This thing I would press it against the spot and shoot.

Stick it under your victim's chin and keep pulling the fucking trigger till the gun goes click.

Kinda like this guy does:

That would work.

Tuffel, you're supposed to aim for the face and fire as fast as possible with Kolibri. It generates negligible recoil.

If anything it might make enough noise to back someone off long enough to get a real weapon like an AK or M1014 or M1911.

It could definitely put an eye out.

Well yeah, but so can a Red Ryder BB gun.

Maybe if you tried to shove it down their throat they might choke on it.

It is a great gun for midgets, small children and toddlers to shoot each other with.

A gun and caliber for every size.