Ever wonder if a 9 year old girl could fire a fully auto Uzi?

…we only have to worry about them turning up with knives and not guns…

Indeed, turning up for school with knives…

A schoolboy is on the run after a teacher and a 13-year-old girl were attacked at a school in Malvern, Worcestershire.

The pair suffered minor injuries in the attack at Chase Technology College at about 08:45 BST.

Officers said they believed the weapon was a “long-bladed knife”…

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-29110687

I don’t know the circumstance but thank goodness he didn’t have access to a gun.

The 5.56mm rounds are effectively just a scaled down 7.62mm round; with a full-metal-jacket to avoid hollow-point ‘Dum-Dum’ restrictions in the ‘laws’ of war.

As you may know bullets tend to turn round and keep travelling tail-first as they pass through something ‘soft’ (such as a human being) and this effect massively increases the transfer of energy and causes much more serious wounds; all good news so far!

The critical things are the distance that the bullet travels through the ‘medium’ (body) and the momentum (spinning too) of the bullet; a bigger, heavier, bullet, travelling faster, tends to get further through the body before it turns tail-first, and often gets right through still travelling nose-first.

However, a smaller, lighter, 5.56mm bullet turns tail-first sooner plus, because the metal-jacket is proportionally thinner, they tend to disintegrate as they do so leading to several different wound-tracks from bits of jacket and so on.

Anyway, that’s what I’ve read…..thankfully, it is not something I’ve experienced first-hand!

Any truth in the story that the smaller calibre rounds are intended to wound more than kill? The idea being, I was once told that 1 man dead = 1 man out of the unit/patrol/skirmish whereas 1 man wounded = 3+ men out of the unit/patrol/skirmish or patrol abandoned etc. due to getting the wounded man back plus using up enemy transport and medical resources. Is this based on fact or just popular myth?

It changed the thinking of always trying to produce accurate weapons to actually designing some being less accurate and actually providing an advantage. I found it interesting as I had never heard of this before, it may be cr@p but I could see the logic…

Well, the big change in infantry weapons was the move from 30 / 303 / 7.62 / 7.92 calibre to the smaller 5.56mm calibre that is the NATO standard today; the weapons that fire this round are not designed to be inaccurate but because the smaller, lighter, round has less momentum it slows down more quickly and so has a greater ‘spread’ at longer rangers.

The Germans were the first to make this step with the MP44 and a ‘shorter’ less powerful 7.92mm cartridge because they realised that few combats took place at over 400 metres so what was the point of a bullet being accurate to 1000 metres (unless for ‘medium’ machine guns with a decent spread for suppressing fire). The MP44 was the father of the AK-47 and the grandfather of modern infantry rifles. The ultimate aim was to carry more, lighter, ammunition per man (and to provide a shorter weapon for carrying in armoured personnel carriers).

I often find that TV documentaries cannot resist putting a sensationalist spin on some new ‘revelation’ but they often miss the real more mundane reasons behind design decisions.

Talking of ‘experience’ I fired my first bolt-action rifle a few weeks ago and managed to get a decent ‘spread’ from a weapon specifically designed for repeatable accuracy!

.

I’m still not sure why anybody would think that an AK-47 with full auto capability would have reduced the casualty toll during the shooting-spree by Michael Ryan? Anybody?

I’m guessing that barrel climb would be a major factor, if he went all ‘Arnold’ on the day, then the resulting scattering of rounds from this rather ‘clunky’ weapon would reduced accuracy. Where as in single shot, the AK is a more manageable device.

At closer ranges or in a confined space, could be a different matter.

Anyway, the whole rationale is a dubious reason to legalise assualt rifles for the masses. Best leave things as they are.

Precisely what they were saying in the documentary I was referring too. Some weapons need to be accurate, some need to spread the shot or projectiles. The Bren was very accurate and although it could be turned/moved around by the operator this required time/effort etc. depending on position and circumstances when the same could be achieved by having a less accurate weapon. It changed the thinking of always trying to produce accurate weapons to actually designing some being less accurate and actually providing an advantage. I found it interesting as I had never heard of this before, it may be cr@p but I could see the logic. I have no experience of firing/operating these things so obviously value the opinions of John Green and others who have first hand experience.

I don’t know that anybody actually ‘designed’ inaccuracy into a weapon; just realised the design penalties of designing inaccuracy out!

What is (was) wrong with the Bren Gun was that it was heavy and it was difficult for the infantry section to carry enough ammunition for it despite its, relatively, low rate of fire; also changing magazines after only thirty rounds was probably not ideal.

I think the real problem with the Bren Gun was that its opponent on the battlefield was the (belt-fed) MG34 / MG42; weapons that were about the same weight but that had more than double the rate of fire; the Germans had just as much of a problem carrying enough ammunition but the psychological advantage on the battlefield more than outweighed this. In my view the MG34 / MG42 are the, often overlooked, decisive weapon of blitzkrieg.

As for ‘spread’ of fire I think we can rely on variation in ammunition, wind, barrel temperature, barrel wear, recoil and operator skill to give a decent spread of fire at battlefield ranges with hand-held weapons.

I’m still not sure why anybody would think that an AK-47 with full auto capability would have reduced the casualty toll during the shooting-spree by Michael Ryan? Anybody?

Do automatic weapons really have inaccuracy designed in?

Warren, Wasn’t this the trouble with the Bren Gun, it was too good, and fired in a straight line of fire, rather than “Spread” the projectiles?.
Jim.
Lincoln .7

Not that I served in the Falklands but I think there were ceramic plates with padding behind them. Still a lot of Bren guns about even now though in the third world.

Never read anything about body armour for the average squaddie and images of the time fail to show the bulk that was standard for flak jackets and the like, although the Argentines apparently did equip some of their regulars with it.

I wonder where you get your ideas about the United Kingdom (in this case); have you ever been here?

He didn’t really explain himself but, from his description, I assumed he was talking about places like North Korea rather than the UK.

…healthcare; in the UK it is free for everybody for life (although you can pay to go ‘private’ if you want to, and can afford it) whereas in the USA most (all?) healthcare has to be paid for and you have to buy healthcare insurance, if you can afford it.

Americans know about this – there was a bit of an argument not so long ago when the republicans tried to bring down Obama’s plans for cheaper health care. They even slagged off the NHS for reasons I forget at the moment. The current right wing stance is that if you can’t afford it then just die, something else I learned when I worked over there.

In the UK we pay more taxes to fund this but we don’t have to buy insurance and, no matter how old or sick we become, free healthcare will always be provided (with some limits at the extreme ends of the spectrum).

That was it! They don’t want to pay taxes!
Plus no one ever really lost money by investing in medical insurance companies. Especially when the Investor-State Dispute Settlement is introduced: companies will be able to sue the government when things like nationalised industries interfere with their opportunity to make a profit: the NHS would be a prime target, especially if/when privatisation becomes difficult to maintain (rising costs, falling profits) and the government has to step in – the lawsuits would start flying and billions of pounds would seep west across the Atlantic. All part of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership…

Erm, back on topic.

Actually, are you happy with life in the USA, and its government? That is a genuine question!

Previously he has moaned about his president and the fact the democrats are in place, that and the bitchin’ about Leninists above – this should be interesting!

Not that I served in the Falklands but I think there were ceramic plates with padding behind them. Still a lot of Bren guns about even now though in the third world.

I don’t think the British forces took any body-armour to the Falklands…..but they did take some Bren guns!

The statement about our Constitution is a most common one by persons who live with a government, that if it says crap, the populace will drop their pants and squat. That makes them very good citizens I guess but it is still rather sad.

I wonder where you get your ideas about the United Kingdom (in this case); have you ever been here?

Now I know we’re not allowed to own handguns or automatic-weapons in this country but the major restriction on owning other types of firearm are mostly financial; they are expensive and, open-land being limited, firing-ranges are few…

…but as for having more ‘freedom’ from our government I’d say the UK is ahead of the USA.

One of the reasons I’ve heard stated for the ‘right to bear arms’ is so that the population can protect themselves from their own government, and the fact that the USA needs a written constitution at all would seem to support that fear?

‘I love my country, but I fear my government!’ Isn’t that a commonly used statement in the USA? I know lots of people who dislike or disagree with the UK government, of whatever party, but I’ve never, ever, heard anybody say they fear the government.

Now I don’t want to get into a pissing contest; I don’t want to change the USA and sure you are quite happy to live there, but there do seem to be (and correct me if I’m wrong) some major disadvantages to living in the USA. For example, healthcare; in the UK it is free for everybody for life (although you can pay to go ‘private’ if you want to, and can afford it) whereas in the USA most (all?) healthcare has to be paid for and you have to buy healthcare insurance, if you can afford it.

In the UK we pay more taxes to fund this but we don’t have to buy insurance and, no matter how old or sick we become, free healthcare will always be provided (with some limits at the extreme ends of the spectrum).

Anyway I just wanted to ask what was behind your statement about our government and why you feel that you have more ‘freedoms’ from your government in the USA?

Actually, are you happy with life in the USA, and its government? That is a genuine question!

Not that I served in the Falklands but I think there were ceramic plates with padding behind them. Still a lot of Bren guns about even now though in the third world.

I was thinking like an accountant.

Did we have body armour in the age of Bren guns?

How do you know the first bullet has killed the target? They may go down but still be able to fire back and kill you. 20 shots with a Bren would be over the top though thats the American way. Unless their head has exploded like a melon a few more for luck is a good idea. Don’t forget body armour is very good these days as well,want to risk it? Its only a 7.62 or 303 pre war unless my memory has gone.

…though I’m not sure a high IQ is any more a measure of responsibility than anything else! 😉

Would hopefully rule out the kind of dozy idiots who brandish their guns like a proudly-won trophy if they needed to have an IQ of 140+…;o)
If at any time you’ve tried to impress your friends by saying ‘Look, I’ve got a gun!‘ or muttering about them only taking your gun from your cold, dead fingers then you really don’t qualify. Manufacturers t-shirts or caps with gun slogans on, more excellent disqualifiers.

In the interest of equality the same should be said about unnecessary hunting knives; I mean, who really needs a 9 inch, razor sharp blade in a city where they are never going to encounter anything remotely dangerously wild except another loon with a blade-size fixation?

That is a myopic statement at best and paranoid at worst.
If you think they teach how to kill people, you live in a very small sad world.
I guess then also, the Olympic trap shooters are just trained killers out practicing how to kill more efficiently, brilliant.

So you don’t believe that children should be taught how to discuss their feelings, their problems, and how to conduct social intercourse effectively?
Of course he wasn’t talking about teaching kids how to kill each other – is that all you can focus on? Obviously killing each other is a byproduct of such instruction – the handling and familiarisation with such weapons so that they don’t appear so scary to kids is what is happening at those schools, ‘hopefully’ leading to the kids obtaining their own (legally obtained, maybe?) guns afterwards. Let me guess – it is sponsored or has the backing of the NRA?

Which country is this country – Sudan? Somalia?

Just because it is happening doesn’t make it right. — In what manner does this have even a tiny relation with the Sudan or Somalia.
Your narrow minded ignorance is overriding your thought process.

Category: kids and guns. Actually I was trying to work out where you were from, where it is considered acceptable for children to fire guns, since you haven’t filled out your location.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_use_of_children – Just an example of some of the thousands of kids who fire guns every year…

Wonderful. In America that would be a great help to those loner kids, you know, the weird ones who don’t have many friends, who have been bullied for their choice in music or fashion, the ones who are…different. It might mean they get a few more when they go walkabout at school with their daddy’s armoury… — Oh yes the liberal talking point bs about how evil bullying is even though it is no worse now than it was in the past but liberals are quick to start passing laws that will, successfully of course, start forcing mankind to stop being what they are by nature and be what the government considers proper citizens — BRILLIANT!

Maybe the loner kids of today care less about those around them and themselves than their forebears did in the past, and the availability of firearms to them might be easier now than then.
Also…do you really believe that bullying only takes place one on one? Maybe you were the bully and have justified it so, but I was beaten up simply (they said) for being the new boy at school where there were six boys taken before the head teacher and excluded for a term, but others were certainly involved because the whole gang was there to hide the assault from view.

You appear to almost want people to shoot each other, the more the merrier it seems; I really do hope I’m wrong but your attitude positively stinks of it.
Wait until someone close to you gets shot by someone feeling they have nothing to lose by going out and spreading misery in a school, cinema, shopping mall, etc. Not nice, not pleasant.

In the past if confronted by a bully, parents, in the majority, simply told kids to stand up for them selves, but now the parents go whining how there overly protected little brat is special and must be coddled.

And schools just ignore bullying since they have to officially report it and that is not good for their reputations. In Britain, anyway.
So they get a surprise when kids turn up with murderous intent – it happens here too, you know, except we only have to worry about them turning up with knives and not guns.

Oddly there was a bit on this yesterday on NPR that this action by parents is causing children in schools to be depressed, and feel like failures, when they find out that they now must solve problems, far more important than being bullied, by them selves and there is no one there to coddle them.

You know, it deeply depends on the child’s ability to actually negotiate with his/her bully unless they take a more violent route; and if/when it wanders along that route they feel the need to take an equaliser in the shape of something that gets one over on the other party/s.
And would you really tell your own offspring to ‘man up’ when they know the bully never goes to school empty handed? I have seen the damage a craft knife can do, seen weapons made in prisons (sharpened toothbrush handles, razor blades stuck into toothbrush handles, and I’ve been told the blade from a pencil sharpener can be very usefully concealed…) and interviewed a schoolgirl who was stabbed several times by another girl with a screwdriver – in class – over some stupid fashion faux pas: I really don’t want to have to visit my own children in hospital or identify them in a mortuary just because they didn’t want to feel like a failure or I wouldn’t mollycoddle them.

(As a side note, if kids do get into a scuffle, in the past they were sent to the principle who called the parents and the parents dealt with each child.
Now it becomes a crime, police are called and every ones life is ruined except the wannabe lenninists running the school with their no discreation, no exception policy.
Of course this is why kids are expelled for pointing fingers like a gun, or having a trinket on a bracelet that resembles a gun.
That is bullying but it is legal because the school government is doing it.)

You got many Leninists in the land of the free? Or are you just casting aspersions because their politics appear to be to the left of yours?
I am sure you know a few gang signs – you seem that sort – and making that sort of sign in a music video would be frowned upon by ‘polite’ society, but please try and use your brain for once – how many school shootings have there been over the years, yet you call it bullying because the schools don’t want that sort of gesticulation or jewellery? Or is it because you are actually twelve and want to point a ‘gun’ finger at your most disliked teacher without getting into trouble, whilst wearing your Uzi ear rings and your Smith and Wesson sneaker decorations?

1984, only it came about a few years later than predicted.

Have you actually read 1984? Is America really that dystopian now?
It has been a couple of years since I was last there for any length of time, when it certainly wasn’t, and I know Europe isn’t either, so do you really know what you’re talking about?

You can’t talk that way about the American constitution. You just can’t.
Although despite them being so generous with the idea that every American can have a fire arm, they do display a little meanness when it comes to nuclear weapons – why are they not happy with the idea of Iran having them, for example? —-

Oh yes the instant jump from firearms to nuclear weapons.
A too commonly spouted analogy that is ludicrous except to those who cannot address the topic in a reasonable manner .

It used to be that America armed the world, well, that part of the world that agreed with it.
It seemed to me that with a constitution that agrees that all should be able to bear arms but then disagree with other nations who want a similar position for the ‘defence’ of their nationals. Not that I agree with Iran and nuclear weapons… Not that I agree with the scary concept that all should be able to obtain guns and bullets at the drop of a hat without some sort of test for mental health and a really good reason, etc. But that is by the bye.

The statement about our Constitution is a most common one by persons who live with a government, that if it says crap, the populace will drop their pants and squat.
That makes them very good citizens I guess but it is still rather sad.

What on earth are you talking about?
My bit about the constitution was an actual quote from a former colleague of mine, an American, whose wife accidentally shot their new and very expensive LCD (or something) huge screen TV with their home defence gun: she forced him to get rid of the weapon immediately and I commented that it seemed like a good idea, at which point he rattled on about the constitution – whereas I was simply rooting for the TV! Incidentally, at about the same time he and I had the discussion about nuclear weapons (above) although then I think it was about Iraq, not Iran. And he didn’t want to agree with me but, grudgingly, he eventually did see my point.

…the Bren was very accurate and the spread of shot stayed close together…

I’m guessing here that, maybe, what they didn’t want was how ever many bullets a second all going into the same spot as the first. That would sound quite uneconomic – if the first bullet kills the target then the following twenty-odd going into and closely around that wound are just overkill…

No. No action. One of those things. Lots of ‘black’ humour type jokes tho’

Sorry, typo on my part, I meant bipod. As I said just passing on what I saw and found interesting.
That incident you describe could have been disastrous!! Good job No. 2 was alert. Was there any action taken afterwards?

The Bren is mounted on a bipod not tripod and is very easy to move around. I was on live firing exercises on Dartmoor practicing infantry attacks.

The Bren was firing ‘keep their heads down’ live rounds at a distant target which was the ‘enemy’ and the subject of the flanking attack by advancing infantry.

At virtually the last moment, the Bren guner was instructed to switch fire to the right AWAY from the advancing troops. The gunner momentarily forgot his ‘left’ from his ‘right’ and switched fire to the left, whereupon a line of .303 rounds ripped across the grouind ploughing up spurts of black, boggy turf just in from of the advancing soldiers. His No. 2 grabbed the stock of the Bren and dragged it right. Ir could so easily have been ‘curtains’ for about half a dozen nearly trained Marines.

Hi John, that is pretty much what they said on the documentary, the Bren was very accurate and the spread of shot stayed close together. They said that for covering fire, shoot and advance etc. a wider spread of shot is preferred. The natural spread of an automatic weapon is actually designed in to achieve this (they said). The automatic fire is not to try and hit a bull but cover an area making it difficult for the enemy. This sort of makes sense as weapons like a Bren on it’s tripod may be difficult to move around and natural spread would achieve this without the need for much movement of the weapon.
I am not from a military background and have no knowledge of these things, merely passing on the information from what I watched on the history channel a couple of nights ago. It may be complete BS but I found it interesting and surprising, if there is any truth in what they were saying, after all the aircraft documentaries they put on are usually full of mistakes and false truths.

Re 24

I’ve fired thousands of rounds with the weapons you mention. There are other factors involved in the process of ‘spread of shot’.

Distance from target. Wind direction. Skill of the operator. Altho’ by modern standards it now has a slow rate of fire (450 ish rounds per minute) the Bren was, if not the most, then one of the most accurate light machine guns.

There is no inbuilt inaccuracy. Automatic weapons have a natural spread. It would be difficult to impossible to aim a burst of automatic fire into the ‘bull’.

If the operator needs to obtain a spread of fire to ‘keep their heads down’ – he would simply move the weapon using perhaps, raking fire.