Re: It's not going to be "pretty" Re: End of the M16

"pyotr filipivich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> And lo, it came about, that on Sun, 23 Nov 2003 16:54:58 -0600 in
> talk.politics.guns , "JHBennett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was inspired to utter:
>
> >
> >"pyotr filipivich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> And lo, it came about, that on 22 Nov 2003 20:10:34 -0700 in
> >talk.politics.guns
> >> , Melissa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was inspired to utter:
> >>
> >> >> http://tinyurl.com/w5r9
> >> >>
> >> >> The good news is they've figured out that the M-16 is too big for
> >> >> mechanized infantry. The bad news is the only currently available
> >> >> alternative is the M4....the same mechanism with a shorter barrel.
> >> >
> >> >They should go to the AK-47. :-)
> >> >
> >> >But they probably won't. Instead they'll spend billions on research
and
> >> >then probably come up with a new rifle that costs $10,000 each, and
> >outfit
> >> >them all with it. And of course then flaws will come up with that.
> >>
> >> It will be designed by a committee and vetted by the "Ofensensitivity
> >> Coalition" to make sure it doesn't look "evil".  I see Day-glo colors,
> >audible
> >> indicators if the gun is not in a safe mode, a bell to warn you when
you
> >have
> >> fired the last bullet in the ten round magazine, a GPS device and a
> >joystick to
> >> select targeting options.  Oh yes, and it doesn't have a loud report
(so
> >as to
> >> not damage the hearing of bystanders.)
> >> It will be safe.
> >>
> >> tschus
> >> pyotr
> >>
> >Hmmmmm........  you forgot to specify that it must not actually injure or
> >harm a targeted enemy, but rather encourage said targeted individual to
> >cease resistance and surrender.  I believe something which would drop
> >$1,000,000 at their feet, with a case of beer and a scantilly clad beach
> >bunny ought to do it.
>
> Brings a whole new meaning to "Msixteen" now don't it.
>
> OTOH, can you imagine the effect on the standard infantry grunt if faced
> with a million dollars cash, a case (a case!) of beer and a beach bunny?
> Better fire that thing twice pal, or you're going to see one hell of a
fight
> break out. :-)
>
> Not to mention what the nannies would do to their panties at the mere
> thought of perpetuating alcoholism and unfortunate gender stereotyping.
>
Of course, you do know I have advocated to our military planners, for many
years, that the first wave of our assault forces be comprized of bikini clad
beach bunnies, carrying coolers of beer, beach unbrellas, etc.  I do believe
the sight of such a regiment, bouncing and squeeling, as they charged toward
the enemy, would cause immediate mutiny/mass desertions, in their ranks.  No
officer would survive an order to open fire and no grunt would dare to raise
his...ah,... rifle, lest he be beaten to death.  Naturally, for the thing to
work, the second wave would have to be made up of crusty old farts, in
wheelchairs, who can't get it up anymore and are pissed at the world because
of it.  OTOH, we might be able to convince the nannies to follow up and put
an end to it all.  I believe the plan failed to be adopted due to the
uncertainty over following up on the initial advantage.  I did try to get a
Federal grant, you know, to do the field trials ;-)  But the economy went
South about the time I finished the proposal.
    Cheers,
Jack B  *USA*