deficient in... ammo capacity
Surely irrelevant: everybody knows that film weapons *never* run out of ammo unless the plot requires it.
It's the details that embellish James Bond's character: the martini, the Aston Martin, the Walther PPK. A bit of a handbag gun really ... but there's no point telling people We’re talking about an individual from a certain social background, somebody who possesses a deliberate and definite sense of choice and taste. But …
Surely irrelevant: everybody knows that film weapons *never* run out of ammo unless the plot requires it.
A Walther PPK in the right hands can still put a round through the brain of the bad guy. Once shot in this way the bad guy will lose all interest in the things going on around him.
I am curious, is this sort of thing a self generating Media frenzy or do the picture companies drip feed you ideas for stories to promote their films?
Complaints about the PPK being underpowered should be put in the tray ear-marked for complaints that the starboard Nacelle's* on the Enterprise D couldn't fit properly with the collector array - certainly not when it's been modified for time travel at any rate.
It's pretty rare to see a real-looking OS on TV - maybe some nix if they're 'hacking'. Is this due to licensing, or what?
I mean in contemporary TV, not sci-fi set in 2200.
Just give the hackers a really simple version of linux. Mostly console access etc.
But the real question should be why is it some of these fantasy OS's look better than some real OS's?
because something which looks good and fancy often isn't very user friendly
And Windows 8 _is_ user friendly? (Not to mention most Linux variants).
Well touch-based has been a staple of sci-fi for a while. Forget minority-report, Stark's GUI in Iron Man is pretty lovely.
I like these articles.
They are interesting. I know sod all about pistols etc myself, but assume that its all down to stealth.
I trialed a Walther P99 for two days and 400 rounds. It truly is a finely engineered firearm but even with the nifty interchangable grips it just felt odd in my hand.
Also the "silenced" .45 is an insane idea. Even the HK Mark 23 Mod0 that is used by U.S. Navy SEALS & is designed with a protruding threaded barrel requires a "silencer" almost 11" long and 1.5" diameter. Even if ammunition is subsonic the noise generated is directly related to size of the casing & pressure generated.
Even specialty subsonic ammo like the Winchester or Arigula. In .22LR require really large supressors & make the firearm awkward to hold & aim.
At the end of the day firearm supressors are only useful if you have to kill everyone & anyone in the area. It doesn't make you "silent" like in the movies, it may give you a few more seconds to escape.
SMG's, long range rifles, shotguns & explosives are far more effective than sneaking in with a 1m long pistol.
Agree with most of what you said but silencer that is only 1.5" wide is damned slim; only useful for .22LR or short. You can shorten a moderator by increasing the width to provide the volume necessary to adsorb the muzzle gas. Had access to a PAM sub-machine gun 9mm with a 18" x 3.5" tube, with Federal 147grain HP (subsonic, kicks like a .45) the loudest noise was the flying bolt clacking back and forth.
Personally I like Walthers for a carry gun (have had three; one PPK 9mmK and two TPH .22LR) OK for self defense but wouldn't want it as the primary in a firefight situation. Remmington pump 12 gauge with Brenneke solids works best for that (and bush pigs).
My 6" Python .357 was my favorite play gun and good for 100m with accuracy. The best serious carry gun was my H&K P7 M8 9mm, great point and extremely accurate due to fixed barrel. Never jammed; even with some weird hand loads like THVs clocking 2,500 fps. For the aficionados these were turned brass heads at 50 grains (not the standard 115 or 125 for 9mmP) with a compressed fast powder load (11grains shotgun powder) - seriously hot with massive muzzle flash.
Ah the good old days, all gone now though.
I tried the P99 I have to agree, it felt weird along with the HK.
I'll stick with my Sig P226 any day. I have bigger hands so I want a gun that fits my hand. The Sig fits. (I'll skip on the E2 frame)
I've also shot the 220 and some of their 1911 models. Sweet!
With respect to a suppressed 1911, its not insane. Your .45 is a large slower moving slug. You could go sub sonic and the suppressor would help. Note that it won't 'silence' the weapon, but it will reduce its signature to the point where you don't need hearing protection.
Suppressors are very good when you want to reduce your muzzle flash, recoil, and noise.
From a civilian perspective... varmint control. (Coyotes and Deer)
Now that is one seriously shat film.
Manly? The Fort Hood shooting was done with a .22, less than the Beretta .25 and all the others. Any gun becomes lethal once you start shooting.
The Fort Hood shooter used a FN Five Seven which fires 5.7×28mm ammunition. Technically a .22, but then so is an M16 firing 223 ammo. It's the cartridge powering the bullet that makes a difference. In this case 5.7×28mm ammunition can be loaded to penetrate body armor, and in fact that's what it was designed for.
To your point though, any bullet can be deadly, even one fired from an air rifle.
The Ft. Hood shooter used a center-fire cartridge with a lot more power than the much more common .22 rim-fire. Even so, the .22 LR has a muzzle energy of about 100 ft-lbs and the .25, even though a center-fire cartridge, has a muzzle energy of about 73 ft-lbs.
For comparison, the .44 Magnum has a muzzle energy over 1,000 ft-lbs.
And no, I'll not use joules. Do the conversion yourselves.
(Paris because of her muzzle energy.)
You have to look at the bullets themselves. FN makes two rounds. One for civilians, one for military. The military have steel cores. That's what will penetrate body armor.
When we meet Bond in Casino Royale (book*, not film) he is carrying the .25 Beretta (a model 418, made even thinner by having the grip panels removed and the resulting gaps taped over, and with the foresight sawn off). For someone routinely trying to conceal a firearm under formal evening wear, this does not seem an unreasonable choice, and it's worth noting he never fires it during the course of the plot. It's his failure to be able to draw it from its "flat chamois leather holster" at the end of From Russia, with Love that causes its retirement (and a rather painful shin injury) rather than any lack of stopping power.
*Any true Bond fan, should, of course, regard the books as the prime source; a completely lost world where a real man would drink a pint of spirits, smoke 80 high strength cigarettes, consume departmental-issue Benzedrine in champagne to prepare for a night of high-stakes baccarat and then survive an hour of carpet-beater-to-the-genitals questioning. And people call Daniel Craig a tough guy...
Fire him. NOW!
My thought exactly. How did they let this guy anywhere near the franchise?
Yeah that was my thought too. Any person that says Moonraker is their favourite Bond film should not be allowed to work on a Bond film.
Mind you I'd prevent anyone who thinks Bond is English working on it too so I probably wouldn't be able to get the film made.
MR is wonderful. Mainly for Jaws.
... is a Kimber Custom .45 (Model 1911 variation, for those not in the know). We have several S&W Model 19s in .357 scattered about the Ranch, in gun safes, with a couple variants of ammo in speed loaders adjacent. If you need to shoot something, it's best to be serious about it ...
The "Bond pistols" are all but useless, always have been, always will be. If that makes us "gun dorks", we'll accept the label. But at least we have a grasp of the reality of the real world.
 I really feel sorry for you emasculated Brits.
"I really feel sorry for you emasculated Brits."
Because they don't have to carry their genetalia in external, metallic, death-dealing form?
" I really feel sorry for you emasculated Brits."
No need. As long as we aren't involved in the criminal underground then the chances of us coming a cropper from being shot are a *lot* lower than 'masculated' Yanks.
However, we are more likely to be shot by our own police for carrying a white stick.
I feel sorry for Americans that think it is emasculating to have (some of) the world's highest firearm-crime and -accident rates. Dumbass.
<sarcasm>Indeed, masculinity is directly proportional to amount of guns owned and ammo fired.</sarcasm>
But seriously, are you overrun with zombies to need that much armoury? The only person I know with more guns was my grandfather, and he was a hard-core white supremacist with serious paranoia issues (nearly shot my grandmother once, thought she was a gypsie). Not saying you are a white supremacist of course, just wondering about your "need to shoot something".
I've never come a cropper from being shot by the criminal underground (whatever that is). Nor have I ever known anyone getting shot by the police for carrying a white stick.
Methinks the "gun" thingie isn't the real societal problem ... look within.
"Emasculate" is a transitive verb meaning "to weaken". It has nothing to do with genitalia. The British public has been weakened. It's not an individual thing, it's a social thing.
I've never actually been exposed to firearms crime. Or firearms accidents, either. Have you? Are you typing from the "I've been there, and done that" perspective, or from "the politicians TOLD ME SO!!!!" perspective? Seriously, think about it. If you are capable of thinking ...
Are you kidding me? Definition no.1 in the Oxford English Dictionary: "(usually as adjective emasculated) deprive (a man) of his male role or identity". Nothing to do with genitalia, bollocks. And yeah, all thos European societies with fewer guns are sooo much weaker. Come on. I don't care if you like guns (I'm the AC above with the paranoied grandad), I was just wondering what the "need" is.
"Need" as in against infestation (I know people who keep high-power rifles in France because they get regularly invaded by wild boars). Any other "need" for a gun, and a handgun in particular, is either for fun (OK, why not, shooting shit IS fun), or through a misguided sense that it will help protect yourself (it won't), or because you are law enforcement and you need a gun for your job.
::assumes patient mode:: Not zombies, no. Zombies don't actually exist. However, bears, mountain lions, rabid racoons, ground-squirrels, bobcats, feral dogs, rattlesnakes and meth-heads do. (I'll admit that the later do somewhat resemble the mythical zombie ...).
Why does the British public assume use of guns automagically means "racist"? Honestly, the mind boggles. Guns are just tools. They can be used for good, or for evil. They are not inherently one or the other. Nor do they see the race of either the wielder or target.
Learn to spell. Might help you comprehend English.
As a side note, we have wild boar here in California.
Hey Jake (sorry for AC BTW, work and all) I really don't mean to get on your nerves, I was just wondering why you would need so many guns, in particular handguns. The zombie bit was, as we say, a quip, not meant to be taken seriously. Range is shit, hard to shoot accurately, no spread compared to shot, and if they're in safes you won't get to it before the mountain lion gets to you, so in your use case I would carry a shotgun/rifle with me (or in the truck or whatever) if the wildlife is really that dangerous. (See? I'm not that anti-gun am I?)
I did not assume you were racist, far from that, I only mentioned my experience of someone with a lot of guns (specifically, handguns), and even made the point that one did not imply the other, and vice-versa. Finally I am not a Brit, although I live there. Like you said guns are tools, and in the countryside where I come from it can be useful to have a rifle for when the boars decide your house might be a nice place to sleep in. What I do question is to have handguns peppered across your property (albeit in safes, careful user that you are), a handgun is made for one of two things: shooting at things for fun, or shooting at people. I actually enjoyed shooting at a range, but I wouldn't have handguns in my home (personal thing, having kids and all). And come on, if we can't take the piss of Americans whenever guns come up what are we gonna do for fun ;-)
Well, Jake, your wife might not agree but I prefer the 9mm Short as it is a lot less tiring to shoot. The .45 is fun until your wrists start to ache, but then maybe you've built up stronger wrists through a lot of self-abuse? Is Mrs Jake built like the proverbial brick outhouse? I used to shoot such wimpy pistols as .22LR and 9mm Short (and the odd .25 even) all day so maybe I was a bit emasculated before Blair decided I was a Menace To Society.
Yes, Blair took away our pistols. Well, actually he just took them away from us legal UK shooters, the criminals just laughed and carried on as before, meaning that at one point it was more likely that you would be shot in Nottingham than Afghanistan, let alone any US city. Instead, us competition shooters in the UK had to switch to .22LR rifles, which are actually deadlier at a longer range than the little .22 competition pistols we used to shoot, but Blair knows best! Oh, and I can still go on a rampage with my licenced shotgun, but the chances of me plinking at passersby with the much less deadly .22LR Sako Tri Ace has been removed by Knee-Jerk Blair. I still get to range shoot pistols on trips to the States but I'm sure Blair was right.... wasn't he?
Thankfully, us Brits don't have the rates of gun crime that the US does. There are some European countries where there are high levels of gun ownership and yet low levels of gun crime (though they they tend to have less of a wealth gap than the USA, and be more socially homogeneous) so it isn't just a case of more guns = more gun crime.
However, here at the Reg we've heard of people not having the wits to use a sat nav safely... so it seems a bit of stretch to assume that everyone eligible to own a gun in the States has the wits to store and use it safely. I'm not saying all of Jake's compatriots are morons, but rather the US is home to wide spectrum of folk, from the brilliant to the Darwin Award-winning. Alas, it isn't always the idiot who gets hurt by their actions.
I'm not sure why I should be pitied for not being allows to own a gun just to protect myself against idiots with guns. I rather like living in a country where guns are only owned by the police, farmers and rich people in Range Rovers who don't want to rob me. Oh, and I'm free to walk out of my house without carrying ID. Free. Okay, there are some idiots in the inner cities with guns, and some rough drug related violence in more semi-rural areas, but its mostly 'idiot on idiot' and doesn't bother me.
And Jake, some of your posts can read as "You have a black horse? I have a blacker one, and have had since 1977!", which often distracts attention from any of your more valid points.
@jake. Ground-squirrels, yeah, seriously dangerous animals. I usually fight them with the DE .50 </sarcasm>
I do see your reasons for having fire arms around though. But your earlier reasoning why the "Bond pistols" are useless is nothing but warm dung. As you said, guns are tools. But what do you do with tools? You select the most suitable one for any given task. And when the task is to carry a gun concealed and still looking good in a dinner jacket then it will be a small pistol and not what you would choose to fend off large, rampant animals on your farm.
I dont mind being "weakened" or watever word you want to use - as long as everyone else is then we are all the same .
there arnt any bears, mountain lions, rabid racoons, ground-squirrels, bobcats, feral dogs, rattlesnakes and meth-heads in the UK, so we dont need to defend against them.
I'd like to have a gun, but not if that meant everyone else got one because i'd have no advantage , we'd be all 'even' again but with more firepower
Firstly, the guy specifically said he wasn't saying you're racist.
Secondly, can we please stop the DoubleSpeak of "guns are tools". Guns are within a subset of tools called "weapons". You might as well say, "Guns are objects, and nothing more!" It's specious rubbish.
Weapons can be used as tools, recreational objects, murder implements, torture devices, or a combination thereof. If you say something to imply that everyone who owns a gun uses it responsibly as though it were a tool then you're daft, deluded or lying.
Given that it was your stupid crack about we Brits being emasculated that started the mini-flamewar, it ill becomes you to take on a so-called "patient mode".
Guns are indeed just tools. Their primary purpose is to kill or maim. Strangely enough, that's why, in this country, most civilized people do NOT carry them. Even the criminals don't normally carry them - they don't feel they need to, either.
And as a result, we have MASSIVELY fewer people killed with guns, either by accident or design.
If that means, in your eyes, we have a "weakened society" - well, I'd argue with your label, but I am very happy with the society.
Mr. Jake. Your country (I'm assuming you're American since you use the term 'Brits'?) was founded upon the gun. It's law is enforced through the gun. It's foreign policy is to a large extent shaped by the gun. It's people also seem to rate themselves free by their ownership of lots of guns.
I'm happy to take your pity if that's what you feel makes your country a better place.
I'd give it up, if I were you: the US and the UK really are separated by a lot more than just our common language (and a lot of fish).
Here in the UK, the only people supposed to have guns are the police, the armed services, and gamekeepers (maybe sports shooters, also). Anyone else who has a gun has probably got it because they want to (or are about to) go and shoot something or someone up (gang violence, "going postal", etc.).
Over in the USA, you have plenty of people who are not in the law, armed service, or gamekeeping professions, who also own guns. Therefore, extrapolating from experience, you must all be a load of trigger happy loonies, just itching for some meth addict to break down your door and "make your day". What's the alternative - do you all *really* enjoy shooting at paper targets?
Enjoy your hobby - I added the beer icon to show no hard feelings, but beer's another thing that we probably won't agree on!
P.S. guns as tools? Unless the job at hand is killing/wounding, you've probably picked the wrong tool for the job.
Because the majority of the British public didn't grow up with guns. The thought of everyone here having a shed full of guns is odd to _most_ people.
It's a cultural thing, even in the late 80's when we had similiar firearms laws to you lot, eg pistols and semi auto rifles were still legal, ownership was very very low.
"..meaning that at one point it was more likely that you would be shot in Nottingham than Afghanistan, let alone any US city..."
Citation please. I find this one hard to believe.
>>Here in the UK, the only people supposed to have guns are the police, the armed services, and gamekeepers (maybe sports shooters, also). Anyone else who has a gun has probably got it because they want to (or are about to) go and shoot something or someone up (gang violence, "going postal", etc.).
I own several weapons, mainly for sport shooting (and some vermin control), I'm lucky enough to live in a country with a great bunch or sports men and women including european and world champions, this years double trap gold medalist in the olympics (Peter Wilson from Dorset) was only 2 points off a perfect 200, while I do understand the reaction against the idiotic level of untrained, unskilled gun ownership in the US, including assault rifles (and of course in the US most fatal shootings are with a gun that you own), but please don't tar the UK with the same brush as the US.
So how long have you thought of genitals a a weapon?
And you think WE have problems?
Just go Yahoogle for Shottingham", Nottingham's nickname. The stat was from counting gun-crime incidents per thousand population in inner cities, and the worrying bit was a whole host of Western cities (London, Chicago and Detroit were also on the list) came out as more dangerous than Kabul or Baghdad! Just how much of a failure Tony Blair's knee-jerk banning of all handgun ownership was is a matter of record:
Taking handguns away from law-abiding owners was simply windrow-dressing to garner votes and make it look like New Labour was "tough on gun-crime", when the reality was hitting out at the small number of legal gun-owners cost little to do (most of us voted Tory) but had zero impact on actual gun-crime. Legally-owned and licensed handguns were used in a tiny percentage of crimes prior to the ban, and their banning was never going to make a difference to the massive number of illegal weapons wielded by people that had no intention of following laws.
An exact analogy would be if I told you that you couldn't have a car anymore, that I was banning all privately-owned cars, simply because some criminal had brought one over from France and run someone over. Oh, but that ban would affect the majority of voters.....
I feel sorry for you cause you don't have enough balls to own a gun or two, much less use one.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017