From:	Paul J. Adam Paul@********.demon.co.uk
Subject:	Present day tech on guns
Date:	Sun, 4 Jul 1999 22:24:23 +0100

In article <3.0.3.32.19990703225546.0087b3d0@***.softhome.net>,
IronRaven <cyberraven@********.net> writes
> Weapons issued by corporate (don't kid yourself, they exist here and now),
>miliatary and other governmental forces have large numbers of weapons,
>which are signed out of an armour when they are needed. The time to
>personalize the weapons, the book keeping needed to keep track of where
>everything is, and the expense of the technology makes things like
>biometric readouts less than desirable. It also means that if Grunt A
>looses his weapon, and Grunt B is beyond needing the one he still has in
>his hands, Grunt A is unarmed.

You do _not_ want to lose a rifleman because of a broken extractor claw.
I've seen said breakage occur, and it was with an L1A1 (UK FN-FAL - one
of the most fearsomely robust weapons ever made). The breakage was
real. Our section commander had Vicki swap rifles with one of the
'casualties' the Directing Staff had told us we'd suffered. Result? We only
lost one person, not two.

> It also has the issue of someone who has to shoot from cover or is
>wounded
>but still provide defensive fire, but for various reasons must shoot from
>the offside being just as screwed as Grunt A in the first example.

I've had a (off-line) debate with IronRaven about off-hand fire - he buys
into it, I don't - but this point remains valid. I know I can't hit the broad
side of a barn firing left-handed, left-shouldered and left-eyed - but the
enemy doesn't know that. I can at least put down suppressive fire if my
right hand is disabled.

If my rifle will only fire for my undamaged, clean, uncontaminated, right
hand... then too bad. Any of those change, I'm disarmed. Allow tolerance
for any of them, and the Bad Guys can steal my weapon.

Tough choice, ain't it?

--
Paul J. Adam