StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Linka

Somone has a really small penis.

A gun that, if it doesn't outright kill it's owner, at least dislodges his shoulder. How useful.

Well, that's one way to make gun owners disarm.

How punny.

what exactly, besides compensation, do you use something like that for? Hunting squirrels and rabbits?

Seriously. Is it another useless super-round? Does it have a role, or a market?

Stark wrote:Seriously. Is it another useless super-round? Does it have a role, or a market?

Naturally; as the second post commented, people with tiny trouser snakes will buy it. Other than that, it looks darned impressive.

No, it looks stupid. And who the fuck buys guns based on what they look like? So if it's impractical, oversized, and provides no needed capabilities...

I like the 'really big .22LR' cartridge design, though.

Stark wrote:No, it looks stupid. And who the fuck buys guns based on what they look like? So if it's impractical, oversized, and provides no needed capabilities...

Presumably, the same people who buy cars and ships for the same reason. Just as a f'rinstance, the new Bugatti Veyron costs 1.3 megabucks, IIRC, and it gets a top speed of 234 mph. Your standard Kidmobile costs low 5 figures and tops out around 100mph. Driving to work, running errands, traveling on a freeway with a 60-70mph speed limit, what advantage can you derive from that higher top speed? For most daily tasks, cooler-looking does not mean better. In that, I agree with you. However, there is one area where cooler does mean better; when you are cruising for chicks, you will get better results in a cooler vehicle. In short, what I am saying is that whoever buys this gun will do so with the express intention of impressing gun-ignorant women with what manly men they are.

Yes, and an awesome car actually provides real, tangible benefits AND is targetted at a tiny market of staggeringly rich people. Your example is irrelevant, for this gun is not aimed at the richest people in the world and it won't get me truckloads of smoking hot women.

PS, that gun is not 'cooler looking', it looks STUPID.

Stark wrote:Yes, and an awesome car actually provides real, tangible benefits AND is targetted at a tiny market of staggeringly rich people. Your example is irrelevant, for this gun is not aimed at the richest people in the world and it won't get me truckloads of smoking hot women.

Hmm, you're probably right about the car being irrelevant. As for the women, a man can dream, can't he? :p

PS, that gun is not 'cooler looking', it looks STUPID.

At the other end of the gun, a .60 inch hole in the barrel would look more like something to hide in than something to shoot with. Regardless of the rest of it, that would be intimidating. Useless in practice, but intimidating.

Yeah, and even 9mm can kill someone. Sometimes.

Actually, I wonder how much they cost? How many could you buy for the price of a nice sportscar?

Stark wrote:Yeah, and even 9mm can kill someone. Sometimes.

I remember hearing something, about why the Army went from .38 to .45 after the Spanish-American war: You shoot a man with a .38, and he'll be a mite put out. You shoot him with a .45, and he'll be on his back.

Actually, I wonder how much they cost? How many could you buy for the price of a nice sportscar?

Dunno, but it's safe to say it's around $1-2000 for a big-bore like that, so between 1300 and 650 .60 cal handguns could be bought for one nice car.

Presumably if you're out hunting small game and run across a bear, this would be your pistol of choice. Its a gun that exists simply because it can, not because of any actual utility.

Stark wrote:Seriously. Is it another useless super-round? Does it have a role, or a market?

.600 Nitro Express was a cartridge designed by British gunmaker Holland & Holland over a century ago to kill elephants. It was originally intended to be used in shoulder arms, not handguns.

Oh, THATS why it looks like .22LR. So this gun is like that russian shutgon revolver then?

Where does one draw the line between pistol and rifle anyway, that thing is big enough to be a small rifle.

CaptainChewbacca wrote:Presumably if you're out hunting small game and run across a bear, this would be your pistol of choice. Its a gun that exists simply because it can, not because of any actual utility.

If I run across a bear a gun that I get one shot off with will not be my choice of weapon. Either a semi-automatic rifle or shotgun that I can actually shoot multiple times before dying would be a far better idea.

For example, a 12 gauge loaded alternately with buckshot and slugs.

Edit: Why did they even bother putting a cylinder on the damn thing?

remember TR used to hunt elephants and rhinos with a nitro express RIFLE. which tended to be highly innaccurate as conservation of momentum even when braced by a massive President was still too much. of course he did kill them with one shot the few times he suceeded in hitting one....

note TR did manage to kill 11,000 animals with such overbored hunting long arms, to make one pistol sized.....

So when do they up the ante to .75 caliber? And make the round an armor-piercing rocket?

Hawkwings wrote:So when do they up the ante to .75 caliber? And make the round an armor-piercing rocket?

And wank out soldiers enough to make the round useful, and invent magic magazines that carry enough ammo for full-auto fire while being way to small to do so?

a) I'm pretty sure this is a repost.
b) Note that there's a big difference between the nonsense pistol in the video, and the Zeliska revolver - the latter makes the recoil more or less manageable by virtue of its enormous weight.
c) You don't need something to compensate for to buy something like that - just a lot of cash and a slightly warped sense of "fun".
Well, maybe more than slightly warped, but anyway.
d) For the record, Zeliska himself stopped at .458 Win. Mag..

LeftWingExtremist wrote:Where does one draw the line between pistol and rifle anyway, that thing is big enough to be a small rifle.

At an overall lenght of 60cm, if you ask our lawmakers.

AMX wrote:a) I'm pretty sure this is a repost.
b) Note that there's a big difference between the nonsense pistol in the video, and the Zeliska revolver - the latter makes the recoil more or less manageable by virtue of its enormous weight.
c) You don't need something to compensate for to buy something like that - just a lot of cash and a slightly warped sense of "fun".
Well, maybe more than slightly warped, but anyway.
d) For the record, Zeliska himself stopped at .458 Win. Mag..

LeftWingExtremist wrote:Where does one draw the line between pistol and rifle anyway, that thing is big enough to be a small rifle.

At an overall lenght of 60cm, if you ask our lawmakers.

A/B) The revolver in the response picture has turned up before. And yes it would be more managable. For that matter, unless I'm mistaken, the revolver in the picture is shooting .45-70 Government, which while it has brisk recoil, it'd be nowhere near as bad as the recoil of shooting something like .500 S&W or .475 Linebaugh.

C) An overwhelming desire to shoot Cape buffalo or Kodiak grizzly with a handgun helps too. Really big-bore handguns are fun to shoot . . . the first time around.

And, in the United States, at least, a barrel length of sixteen inches (~40 cm) distinguishes a rifle from a pistol. You can't, for example, stick a stock on a weapon with a barrel length of fourteen inches without producing a weapon that violates the National Firearms Act (making it illegal for a civilian to own without a lot of paperwork.) Which is why pistol-caliber carbines and short-barrelled civilian rifles in the United States always have a barrel length of at least 16.5 inches.

GrandMasterTerwynn wrote:For that matter, unless I'm mistaken, the revolver in the picture is shooting .45-70 Government...

You are mistanken.
The revolver does, in fact, shoot .600 Nitro Express.
In fact, if you look closely, you can actually read it on the gun itself: The writing under the zylinder says "MOD.ZELISKA CAL .600 NE"