Re: HIGH TECH WONDER INDIVIDUAL WEAPON

--- Brian Bilderback <bbilderback@hotmail.com> wrote:

> I am SO going to ID myself as a civvie here - what
> is the M-4?

It's a carbine-style version of the M-16.  Much
shorter barrel, little folding stock.  Rather looks
like (and weighs about the same as) the Mattel version
of the M-16 I had when I was 8.

> If it ain't fixed, it must be broken, right?	The
> Gee Whiz syndrome strikes  again.

That's the story of the past 50 years.	What happened
to the innate conservatism of the US Army of the
_last_ century, when we were using rolling-block
Springfields way past the expiration date? 

> Just from casual observation, I had a funny feeling
> that a REDUCTION of 
> launched grenade size was a BAD thing.  I'm glad to
> see I'm not entirely off 
> on that count.

Well, diameter is the main controlling factor in how
much explosive you can stuff into it.  I don't know
the math (OO will probably provide an obligingly
abstruse thesis on the mathematics of the Monroe
effect--I'm just a user, not a scientist) but the
short version is that it works about like you think it
should.  The more explosives you stuff into it, the
more energy gets directed into the jet, and the more
armor it penetrates.

> Shouldn't non-REAL-combat units get at least a
> SMATTERING of Combat arms, in 
> case that "Something deeply wrong" happens?

Yeah, but there aren't enough sloping-forehead
professional killer types to fill the combat arms
units, much less babysitting pogues.

John

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions!