Re: Speaking of. . .

--- Roger Books <books@jumpspace.net> wrote:

> If it really was proven wouldn't more people use it?
>  From
> the impression I took away from the rules gauss
> rifles were
> just barely starting to enter service anywhere.

Not necessarily.  There are a dozen assault rifles out
there better than the M-16, even the rebuilt A4s, but
the US Army doesn't buy them because it would be
incredibly expensive to reequip everyone.
 
> I know that, I thought it odd that someone with your
> credentials would be giving the latest and greatest
> technowidget to the troops.  Again, from my reading
> of the rules guass rifles sturdy enough to be fit
> for military duty hadn't been around for 10 years.

Well, I'm guessing from the designation of FA-75 (and
I could be dead wrong on this) that the French gauss
rifle was type standardized in 2175.  And on page 28,
gauss weapons are lumped in together with the other
slugthrowers as relibable and robust compared to the
fragile, expensive, and unreliable DEW stuff.  And no
one objects to a plasma gun per squad even in lowtech
forces.  :)  And I don't have those (a grenade
launcher is a better investment).
 
John

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs