"The Most Powerful Weapon In The World" (AA-12)

[LuxLuthor]

I'm not quite sure how to describe this auto-shotgun article or the video link demonstrating it near the bottom of the page. The footage appears to be taken from The Discovery Channel. Brought to your by our friends at the Blackwater Training Center.

 

[Monocrom]

I'm glad they mentioned that the basic design has been around since the '70s. I saw it years ago. The only thing really new is the grenade round. There's a simple way to get the same type of round by modifying a standard shotgun shell, although the poor man's version won't have nearly as much range. Being a family friendly forum, I won't go into detail about that particular mod.

 

[lctorana]

I clicked on this thread, more than half expecting to see something like "a woman's voice".

 

[chmsam]

The article starts out with "Assault rifles are all well and good, but when you really need to tear a person to pieces, nothing fills the air with metal quite like a combat shotgun." That writer needs to up their medication. Yeah, it's a combat weapon but that and similar comments tend to either immediately turn a lot of folks off or overly arouse people who shouldn't be trusted with anything more dangerous than a box of crayons.

 

[binky]

... more dangerous than a box of crayons.

LMAO

 

[Sgt. LED]

Assault rifles are all well and good, but when you really need to tear a person to pieces,

nothing beats the thrill of doing it with your bare hands.

Where's my crayons! :thinking: HA!!

 

[Monocrom]

Where's my crayons! :thinking: HA!!

You get them back only if you promise to stop eating them.

 

[LukeA]

Where's my crayons! :thinking: HA!!

One's here:

:nana:

 

[Benson]

The article starts out with "Assault rifles are all well and good, but when you really need to tear a person to pieces, nothing fills the air with metal quite like a combat shotgun." That writer needs to up their medication. Yeah, it's a combat weapon but that and similar comments tend to either immediately turn a lot of folks off or overly arouse people who shouldn't be trusted with anything more dangerous than a box of crayons.

Definitely.

Although literally true (for small arms) -- 5 rounds/second of 00 buck is about 35 pounds of metal per minute; an Mk 48 or M240 (M80 ball at 700/minute) is only 15 pounds, and even an M2 (M33 ball at 500/minute) is only 45 pounds -- it's a rather useless statistic, as filling the air (right in front of you) with metal does little to tear a person (200 yards out) to pieces. Besides, you have to carry all that metal.

I'm also curious what sustained rates of fire it's good for. Despite being the only weapon designed as a combat shotgun (the CAW presumably disqualified because it was never produced), it still doesn't seem to have interchangeable barrels, so I doubt it makes 300/min sustained... then again, how would you carry enough 12 ga. ammo to feed it, if it could? A little googling turned up no info on this front, beyond a few fanboys making wild assumptions.

 

[Sgt. LED]

You get them back only if you promise to stop eating them.

Awwwwww
But the colors taste so bright!

One's here:

:nana:

AH! I've been looking for the green one, thanks a bunch!

 

[Search]

Our SWAT team only uses shotguns for breaching but even that's rare.

I've read a few articles where there have been soldiers using shotguns in the field as weapons but also as door breaching devices.


The shotguns without butt stocks are regarded as breaching tools and not weapons to engage targets as you lose control at rapid fire when only bracing the rounds with your two hands.


IIRC, the breaching guns use slugs, someone will have to elaborate better.

All in all, I would rather have a carbine. That sucker has to be heavy and as someone pointed out.. that's a lot of rounds to tote around.

 

[LuxLuthor]

The article starts out with "Assault rifles are all well and good, but when you really need to tear a person to pieces, nothing fills the air with metal quite like a combat shotgun." That writer needs to up their medication. Yeah, it's a combat weapon but that and similar comments tend to either immediately turn a lot of folks off or overly arouse people who shouldn't be trusted with anything more dangerous than a box of crayons.

I don't think you quite understand the genuine passion of the hard core gun enthusiasts, and dedicated members of military and police forces. This type of discussion is as normal, healthy, and exciting for them as a car collector drooling over a mint '57 Chevy. They do put their lives at risk for the rest of us who muddle through our days.

However, this article written by Loz Blain for GizMag may have a slight amount of irony, since he is a 32 yr old from Melbourne AUS who also writes for TheBikerGene, and is a self acclaimed singer, drummer, and songwriter.

 

[Benson]

IIRC, the breaching guns use slugs, someone will have to elaborate better.

If I'm not mistaken, they normally use powdered metal breaching rounds, which disintegrate to avoid potential ricochet or passthrough damage from a slug.

 

[chmsam]

I don't think you quite understand the genuine passion of the hard core gun enthusiasts, and dedicated members of military and police forces. This type of discussion is as normal, healthy, and exciting for them as a car collector drooling over a mint '57 Chevy. They do put their lives at risk for the rest of us who muddle through our days.

However, this article written by Loz Blain for GizMag may have a slight amount of irony, since he is a 32 yr old from Melbourne AUS who also writes for TheBikerGene, and is a self acclaimed singer, drummer, and songwriter.

Not quite. Brother of a good friend is on the board of the NRA. I know a lot of collectors and I fully get it. But comments like that tend to be something that appeals more to the rubber gun squad types, and to sell the article and the author.

As for people who put their lives at risk I know a number of those, too. In that crowd there are more than one or two who are a little off kilter as well just as often as there are in other walks of life.

To be real clear, never had an objection to the shotgun, just the phrasing.

 

[Marduke]

Definitely.

Although literally true (for small arms) -- 5 rounds/second of 00 buck is about 35 pounds of metal per minute; an Mk 48 or M240 (M80 ball at 700/minute) is only 15 pounds, and even an M2 (M33 ball at 500/minute) is only 45 pounds -- it's a rather useless statistic, as filling the air (right in front of you) with metal does little to tear a person (200 yards out) to pieces. Besides, you have to carry all that metal.

I'm also curious what sustained rates of fire it's good for. Despite being the only weapon designed as a combat shotgun (the CAW presumably disqualified because it was never produced), it still doesn't seem to have interchangeable barrels, so I doubt it makes 300/min sustained... then again, how would you carry enough 12 ga. ammo to feed it, if it could? A little googling turned up no info on this front, beyond a few fanboys making wild assumptions.

Sustained fire you say?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dKIZauSf5s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqPWKs7_KxY

Just strap it to a vehicle and run an auto-feed system to it.

 

[KD5XB]

I've read a few articles where there have been soldiers using shotguns in the field as weapons but also as door breaching devices.

I'm pretty sure that's not in accordance with the Geneva Conventions, although using a shotgun for internal security is. In other words, a shotgun can't be used in "normal" combat out in the field, but CAN be used to guard, say, an armory or a bank within a base or post.

 

[Search]

I'm pretty sure that's not in accordance with the Geneva Conventions, although using a shotgun for internal security is. In other words, a shotgun can't be used in "normal" combat out in the field, but CAN be used to guard, say, an armory or a bank within a base or post.

I got ya.

It showed a few pictures of soldiers with their issued rifles and then a shotgun on a sling they were using to breach doors.

It's been a while since I've read that article I couldn't remember if they were used in combat or not.

 

[LukeA]

I'm pretty sure that's not in accordance with the Geneva Conventions, although using a shotgun for internal security is. In other words, a shotgun can't be used in "normal" combat out in the field, but CAN be used to guard, say, an armory or a bank within a base or post.

That sounds like "aiming for the radios" with an M2.

 

[LuxLuthor]

I'm pretty sure that's not in accordance with the Geneva Conventions, although using a shotgun for internal security is. In other words, a shotgun can't be used in "normal" combat out in the field, but CAN be used to guard, say, an armory or a bank within a base or post.

I don't have the time or interest to research the answer with the details that would be required, but this poster seems to disagree. I imagine issues like this can get very legalistic and technical, as this book's page exerpts seem to imply.

Of course this would also take us down that familiar slippery slope of fighting terrorists that are considered by many not to be "an engagement of the armed forces of another State," to which the Geneva Convention specifically applies.

I find it "interesting" to see the depths (and directions) of technical developments and man-made creations, whatever their motivations. I find the modern air conditioner to be equally fascinating.

 

[vtunderground]

"Baber says the AA-12'... is self-cleaning and it self-lubricates with carbon from the shells' detonation."


That's funny... "carbon from the shells' detonation" causes MY guns to cycle unreliably.