New Weapon for our troops? 4 T.C. and a few others

[joe_pyrat]

Thanks Sam, I've been hunting around trying to figure out the history of this weapon for an hour or so.

[Sam]

Thanks Sam, I've been hunting around trying to figure out the history of this weapon for an hour or so.

Most welkies I have been trying to remember the "real name " or designation of the weapon used in the movie. I do know it was originally a John Moses Browning design and was in 20mm but no idea of the ballistics of it. I am quite sure it was not the conventional 20mm round that the vulcan minigun fires.
I think if the weapon that was originally used in the movie had been made in 40mm instead of 30mm and had a better system than the wind up....it might have actually succeeded.
If I remember or come across any info on it I will post it or PM you.

There is some research being done on weapons/rifles for future soldiers that is really quite interesting with either a 10mm or 20mm "smart" round.
The weapon may also be dual or multi caliber....sort of like an M-203 only capable of multiple shots. The concept if thy can make it work, is like something out of a Sci-fi movie

Also FYI, the minigun weapon system,that was used in "Predator" was not a real weapons system per se. No one could see the power/extension cord going up the actor's leg and also considering it's rate of fire at several thousands rounds per minute........ at best he MIGHT could have carried, maybe 1,000 rounds of .223 ( 5.56mm NATO) at the most, if that, and then one would have to consider the weight of the gun. Even if the barrels were lightweight, and that means they would "burn out" faster....and then there is the weight of the generator and power source to turn the barrels and feed the ammo.

Not really capable of being a single troop carried weapon and it's rate of fire is really not effective for small unit forces on foot because they cannot carry enough ammo to keep it fed among other things....

[joe_pyrat]

Funny you should mention the Predator weapon. That was exactly my reaction when I saw the movie. While Governor Ventura might be strong enough to carry the weapon, he definitely wasn't capable of carrying more then a couple of seconds worth of ammo.

[Sam]

There are all sorts of "Hollywood" weapons and calibers..like in the movie with Arnold S. being a Russian police office and the 9.5mm (whatever name it was) magnum.

Not to mention Steve MaGarette always cracked me up with those shots from his .38 snubbie in Hawaii Five-O among the many other movies and shows.

Or the "Dirty Harry Syndrome" on the .44 magnum.

Have you ever heard of Gunny Carlos Hathcock or read about him? "One Shot, One Kill" He had 93 confirmed kills ( he had others but not confirmed) and the longest confirm kill shot ever made at 2500 yards.
( Gunny is gone to the great shooting range in the sky now. Awesome true story about his life. Read it if you can )

[joe_pyrat]

Yes Sam, I've heard of him. I think it was the History Channel that did a documentary on him recently.

[Sam]

KEWL! I missed that show... maybe it will be reaird on The Military Channel soon.
I know of a few Marines that actually got to meet Gunny Hathcock. All had nothing but compliments to say of him. The man was a true patriot and hero....though no doubt other may not think so.

There is another author on works of fiction that writes about a sniper ( at least two books) that I have read and the main character is named "H-A-T-H-W-A-Y" and pepole in the story do confuse him with Gunny Hathcock.
Books are excellent and well researched and written. I will try to find the titles if you would like.

[tommcat327]

no AR-15 or version of is owned or needed for personal protection.
i own one because i collect guns, like shooting them and enjoy military weapons and freely admit i own mine plus my M-14 for the fun of it. i shoot in competitions with both of them and nobody has any right to tell me that's wrong.

They have every right to tell you it's wrong, if that's how they feel. They just don't have the right to stop you from doing it.

good point larry

[tommcat327]

That's not really true. Ted Kennedy's car didn't kill anybody, he did.

yet that same reasoning isnt used when someone commits a crime with a gun. people want the guns banned and gun makers sued even though the gun didnt do anything wrong, the person who fired it did

[ParrotheadGator]

That's not really true. Ted Kennedy's car didn't kill anybody, he did.

yet that same reasoning isnt used when someone commits a crime with a gun. people want the guns banned and gun makers sued even though the gun didnt do anything wrong, the person who fired it did

I think we should start suing cars makes, car dealers, car salesman, gas companies, and gas station clerks every time somebody gets killed with a car.....or liquor companies and bars every time somebody kills somebody drunk driving.....

same principle.....

[LIPH]

That's not really true. Ted Kennedy's car didn't kill anybody, he did.

yet that same reasoning isnt used when someone commits a crime with a gun. people want the guns banned and gun makers sued even though the gun didnt do anything wrong, the person who fired it did

I think we should start suing cars makes, car dealers, car salesman, gas companies, and gas station clerks every time somebody gets killed with a car.....or liquor companies and bars every time somebody kills somebody drunk driving.....

same principle.....

If a bartender continues to serve an obviously drunk person a drink, he can be held liable if that person drives drunk and kills or injures someone. So can you if you have a party at your house and one of your guests gets hammered and rams his car into somebody.

[tommcat327]

If a bartender continues to serve an obviously drunk person a drink, he can be held liable if that person drives drunk and kills or injures someone. So can you if you have a party at your house and one of your guests gets hammered and rams his car into somebody.

but thats not whats happening with the gun industry. they arent smith and wesson didnt actually go out and sell a handgun to a clearly mentally unstable person. they sell to dealers who in turn sell to a customer that had to pass a background check. if that person then turns his gun on someone in a crime how is it the gun makers fault?
chevy doesnt get sued when a drunk driver kills someone driving one of their cars

[ParrotheadGator]

If a bartender continues to serve an obviously drunk person a drink, he can be held liable if that person drives drunk and kills or injures someone. So can you if you have a party at your house and one of your guests gets hammered and rams his car into somebody.

but thats not whats happening with the gun industry. they arent smith and wesson didnt actually go out and sell a handgun to a clearly mentally unstable person. they sell to dealers who in turn sell to a customer that had to pass a background check. if that person then turns his gun on someone in a crime how is it the gun makers fault?
chevy doesnt get sued when a drunk driver kills someone driving one of their cars

and the majority of crimes committed with firearms are done so by people with no prior record. So with no prior records to show up on a background check, the person who sold the gun shouldn't be held liable either.

[rednekkPH]

If a bartender continues to serve an obviously drunk person a drink, he can be held liable if that person drives drunk and kills or injures someone. So can you if you have a party at your house and one of your guests gets hammered and rams his car into somebody.

but thats not whats happening with the gun industry. they arent smith and wesson didnt actually go out and sell a handgun to a clearly mentally unstable person. they sell to dealers who in turn sell to a customer that had to pass a background check. if that person then turns his gun on someone in a crime how is it the gun makers fault?
chevy doesnt get sued when a drunk driver kills someone driving one of their cars

That may not be an issue too much longer. There is currently a bill in the House and Senate (HR 800, S 397) which would disallow the practice of suing firearms manufacturers for damages resulting from the misuse of their products. The bill has more than enough support to pass both houses, judging by the number of co-sponsors.

[LIPH]

I agree with you Tom. I also don't think fat people should be able to sue McDonald's for making them fat. I've never seen McDonald's employees standing outside dragging people in and forcing them to eat 3 Big Macs. Sometimes bad $h!t happens and it isn't anyone else's fault. People need to start taking responsibility for themselves.

[ParrotheadGator]

I agree with you Tom. I also don't think fat people should be able to sue McDonald's for making them fat. I've never seen McDonald's employees standing outside dragging people in and forcing them to eat 3 Big Macs. Sometimes bad $h!t happens and it isn't anyone else's fault. People need to start taking responsibility for themselves.

That's why I'm a libertarian. Personal freedom, Personal responsibility

[tommcat327]

People need to start taking responsibility for themselves.

thats a pretty crazy concept larry . i dont know where you come up with these wild ideas but you need to settle down.

[LIPH]

People need to start taking responsibility for themselves.

thats a pretty crazy concept larry . i dont know where you come up with these wild ideas but you need to settle down.

Jeez, a NY lawyer thinking like that. Go figure.

[pair8head]

Haven't read all 7 pages so I don't know if anyone has posted this but,
Does anyone else look at the pic and thing "Thompson (Tommy Gun) Sub Machine Gun"?

[tikitatas]

Haven't read all 7 pages so I don't know if anyone has posted this but,
Does anyone else look at the pic and thing "Thompson (Tommy Gun) Sub Machine Gun"?

No, I look at this pic and think . . . death.

[tommcat327]

Haven't read all 7 pages so I don't know if anyone has posted this but,
Does anyone else look at the pic and thing "Thompson (Tommy Gun) Sub Machine Gun"?

NOPE