Real Working M41-A Pulse Rifle - General

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=am76xV8Aubk[/media] The dude modified a MAC-11, modified a shortened 870 and forced it to use a 50 round .380 (9x17) Suomi Coffin mag. I want one. A good friend of my father and I makes replica M41-A props and has his own website up. Check it out if you want, it's got some cool stuff. My dad made some of the grenades. [url]http://www.m41a.com/[/url]

:aaa: Want one.

Holy shit.

Im surprised at the lack of recoil especially when he uses the 870 bit.

That's bloody incredible, I'd love to see some kind of worklog showing the actual process of building it though.

Wow looks like a lot of fun to shoot

The word epic is often misused. This is one of those times when it's usage is proper.

We need to use this in Afghanistan.

You can get conversion kits of these for Thompson airsoft guns, kinda impractical, but cool I guess.

[QUOTE=ScoutKing;17789149]We need to use this in Afghanistan.[/QUOTE] These could be serious CQB power houses. 2 drug crazed insurgents pop out WHAT DO YOU DO The SMG takes out 1, but the other doesn't want to go down. You move your hand and pull the shotgun's trigger, effectively blasting the insurgent's head off, and possibly committing a war crime. Your court martial is in 1 month.

[QUOTE=Leon;17789507]These could be serious CQB power houses. 2 drug crazed insurgents pop out WHAT DO YOU DO The SMG takes out 1, but the other doesn't want to go down. You move your hand and pull the shotgun's trigger, effectively blasting the insurgent's head off, and possibly committing a war crime. Your court martial is in 1 month.[/QUOTE] By your logic using a shotgun in the miltary is a war crime. :cawg:

What? where is this gun from?

[QUOTE=lorden;17789613]By your logic using a shotgun in the miltary is a war crime. :cawg:[/QUOTE] It is. Shotguns are only used for door breaching and other practical uses. Do the research yourself, I'm not your teacher.

[QUOTE=KarlHeinrichMarx;17789863]It is. Shotguns are only used for door breaching and other practical uses. Do the research yourself, I'm not your teacher.[/QUOTE] If it was a warcrime then the US Marine Corps wouldn't use the M1014 or any shotgun that carries more than three rounds. Navy ships use them for shipboard security. They're close-combat devices. They don't kill anyone any harder than a rifle will. By your logic, killing an enemy combatant is a war crime.

That's pretty awesome, I think the real ones (IE the props from the movies) were made out of Thompsons.

Awesome! Although it is just a modified M1 Thompson. [QUOTE=Muscar;17789788]What? where is this gun from?[/QUOTE] I'm surprised you don't know. Aliens. Watch it. Enjoy it.

[QUOTE=Guardian-Angel;17789894]If it was a warcrime then the US Marine Corps wouldn't use the M1014 or any shotgun that carries more than three rounds. Navy ships use them for shipboard security. They're close-combat devices. They don't kill anyone any harder than a rifle will. By your logic, killing an enemy combatant is a war crime.[/QUOTE] No, killing them with a brutally inefficient weapon (a shotgun) is a warcrime. Do I really need to dig up 3 sources? And don't put words in my mouth. That's not my logic.

[QUOTE=KarlHeinrichMarx;17789930]No, killing them with a brutally inefficient weapon (a shotgun) is a warcrime. Do I really need to dig up 3 sources?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Guardian-Angel;17789894]If it was a warcrime then the US Marine Corps wouldn't use the M1014 or any shotgun that carries more than three rounds. Navy ships use them for shipboard security. They're close-combat devices. They don't kill anyone any harder than a rifle will. By your logic, killing an enemy combatant is a war crime.[/QUOTE] afaik the only time this has been brought up was back in WWI when the germans bitched about it

[QUOTE=BricknHead;17789948]afaik the only time this has been brought up was back in WWI when the germans bitched about it[/QUOTE] I just read up on it actually. I was under the impression that the united states was also adhering to "civilized" war standards and limitations. Apparently they are allowed to use shotguns to maim people without punishment. Feel free to rate my previous posts dumb. I just thought that the US military still practiced some civility, as ironic as that sound in the context of war.

[QUOTE=KarlHeinrichMarx;17789979]I just read up on it actually. I was under the impression that the united states was also adhering to "civilized" war standards and limitations. Apparently they are allowed to use shotguns to maim people without punishment.[/QUOTE] yep. [editline]01:47AM[/editline] we shouldn't though imo, yes they're effective but shotguns are pretty goddamn brutal

Damn the camera guy's heavy breathing is annoying.

Throwing these out there for fans of Starship Troopers: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNQgWf5dpmY&feature=related[/media] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrUC4nSf2dI[/media]

I want the Morita(s).... ..... c: !

I don't really see how a shotgun at close range is horrific. If anything, it's better than a rifle, I would think you would die faster from several impacts than a single one.

[QUOTE=lorden;17790423]I don't really see how[B] a shotgun at close range is horrific.[/B] If anything, it's better than a rifle, I would think you would die faster from several impacts than a single one.[/QUOTE] That's the whole argument right there. You shoot someone in the face with a rifle there's a bullet hole sure, but you can still recognize them. If you shoot someone in the face with a shotgun you'll be lucky if they still have a head on their shoulders. I think the whole argument is stupid though. In the end they're meant to kill people so whether one is more gruesome than the other is irrelevant.

[QUOTE=KarlHeinrichMarx;17789863]It is. Shotguns are only used for door breaching and other practical uses. Do the research yourself, I'm not your teacher.[/QUOTE] Specifically, buck-shot in the military is used for door breaching and other practical uses. Otherwise, Military shotguns use slugs because it causes less collateral damage and better penetration.

[QUOTE=thisispain;17790496]Specifically, buck-shot in the military is used for door breaching and other practical uses. Otherwise, Military shotguns use slugs because it causes less collateral damage and better penetration.[/QUOTE] I always thought they used slugs for door breaching.

[QUOTE=KarlHeinrichMarx;17789979]I just read up on it actually. I was under the impression that the united states was also adhering to "civilized" war standards and limitations. Apparently they are allowed to use shotguns to maim people without punishment. Feel free to rate my previous posts dumb. I just thought that the US military still practiced some civility, as ironic as that sound in the context of war.[/QUOTE] you do realise the military uses napalm, bombs, grenades have shrapnel in them that scars your face, machine guns can tear you apart, a 50 calibre weapon can remove a limb etc. I don't really think a shotgun is very brutal and "uncivilized" compared to the above

[QUOTE=Faunz;17790777]I always thought they used slugs for door breaching.[/QUOTE] At that close a range would it make that much of a difference? [editline]01:42AM[/editline] [QUOTE=JLea;17790827]you do realise the military uses napalm, bombs, grenades have shrapnel in them that scars your face, machine guns can tear you apart, a 50 calibre weapon can remove a limb etc. I don't really think a shotgun is very brutal and "uncivilized" compared to the above[/QUOTE] Napalm? The Vietnam War is over. They don't use napalm anymore.

[QUOTE=JLea;17790827]you do realise the military uses napalm, bombs, grenades have shrapnel in them that scars your face, machine guns can tear you apart, a 50 calibre weapon can remove a limb etc. I don't really think a shotgun is very brutal and "uncivilized" compared to the above[/QUOTE] The use of napalm was deemed a war crime after vietnam, just like the atomic bomb was deemed a war crime after WW2. Machine guns, 50 cals, etc are all fine and dandy cause they kill you pretty easily. What I was thinking of was buckshot specifically, it was deemed to "inhumane" to use on people. I know I'd heard this a few years ago from my step-dad, who used to work for an arms testing company, and who was an all-around well-versed guy. Racking up the dumbs ITT.