Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Guns at Tech
The reports are that Korean resident alien Seung-Hui Cho or Cho Seung-Hui, whatever, had a Glock pistol in 9 mm and a Walther in .22. If true, from this information, we can narrow down the possibilities to two or three choices and start the counter-offensive arguments to what will surely be the anti-2nd Amendment lobby talking points.
Glock, which is an Austrian firm with a manufacturing plant here in the states in Smyrna, Georgia, I believe, makes four pistols in 9 mm--the model 17, model 18, model 19 and model 26. The model 18 is only sold to law enforcement and military. The model 26 is a compact version with a clip holding 10 rounds (the maximum under the old assault weapon ban legislation).
So, it's either the model 17 (which holds 17 rounds in a long double stack clip) or the slightly smaller model 19 (which holds 15 rounds).
Walther makes only one normal .22 caliber pistol, the P22, in four subtypes (mainly cosmetic differences). If I had to bet, I think the WAP22005 would appeal to a troubled outsider, because it looks pretty cool with a totally unnecessary compensator on the front. (A .22 round doesn't have enough oomph to make necessary or even desirable a compensator, which routes the gas from the fast burning gun powder up to dampen the recoil, or kick, and keep the barrel level).
So the P22 with the built in compensator and the Glock 17 are my predictions.
A .22 is not the usual choice of a mass murderer; it doesn't have a lot of stopping power; although the .22 long rifle round has a lot of penetrating power (and took out Bobbie Kennedy in 1968). The particular gun I predict only holds ten rounds in its clip so the ban on so called high capacity clips, which expired a few years ago, wouldn't have made any difference had it still been around.
I always thought the clip ban was pretty useless. Before it was announced, clip manufacturers went to triple overtime, because clips in existence before the ban went into effect were 'grandfathered' and legal. It was always possible to buy the proper capacity clip for any gun (they just cost more during the ban). And what's magical about ten rounds? I used to say the ban on clips holding more than 10 rounds existed because the government wanted us to reload more. It takes about 3 seconds to drop the empty clip and put a new one in and close the action--ready to shoot more. Kind of silly, really.
But the probable Glocks had the dreaded high capacity magazines--17 or 15. Scary. While firing 50 rounds Seung-Hui Cho, or whatever, would have had to reload 5 times with the old ban and only three or four with the current capacities. It could possibly make a difference, but it is extremely unlikely.
Glock, which is an Austrian firm with a manufacturing plant here in the states in Smyrna, Georgia, I believe, makes four pistols in 9 mm--the model 17, model 18, model 19 and model 26. The model 18 is only sold to law enforcement and military. The model 26 is a compact version with a clip holding 10 rounds (the maximum under the old assault weapon ban legislation).
So, it's either the model 17 (which holds 17 rounds in a long double stack clip) or the slightly smaller model 19 (which holds 15 rounds).
Walther makes only one normal .22 caliber pistol, the P22, in four subtypes (mainly cosmetic differences). If I had to bet, I think the WAP22005 would appeal to a troubled outsider, because it looks pretty cool with a totally unnecessary compensator on the front. (A .22 round doesn't have enough oomph to make necessary or even desirable a compensator, which routes the gas from the fast burning gun powder up to dampen the recoil, or kick, and keep the barrel level).
So the P22 with the built in compensator and the Glock 17 are my predictions.
A .22 is not the usual choice of a mass murderer; it doesn't have a lot of stopping power; although the .22 long rifle round has a lot of penetrating power (and took out Bobbie Kennedy in 1968). The particular gun I predict only holds ten rounds in its clip so the ban on so called high capacity clips, which expired a few years ago, wouldn't have made any difference had it still been around.
I always thought the clip ban was pretty useless. Before it was announced, clip manufacturers went to triple overtime, because clips in existence before the ban went into effect were 'grandfathered' and legal. It was always possible to buy the proper capacity clip for any gun (they just cost more during the ban). And what's magical about ten rounds? I used to say the ban on clips holding more than 10 rounds existed because the government wanted us to reload more. It takes about 3 seconds to drop the empty clip and put a new one in and close the action--ready to shoot more. Kind of silly, really.
But the probable Glocks had the dreaded high capacity magazines--17 or 15. Scary. While firing 50 rounds Seung-Hui Cho, or whatever, would have had to reload 5 times with the old ban and only three or four with the current capacities. It could possibly make a difference, but it is extremely unlikely.
Labels: Glock, Virginia Tech Shootings, Walther
# posted by Roger Fraley @ 5:06 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
The only good thing about the smaller capacity clips is in a VT type situation, those with courage have a few more seconds to attack. The Long Island RR killer was jumped during his second reload. But for personal defense I like and have the larger capacity clips even for my CCW weapon.
R,
W/ all due respect. I thought this posting, though informative, was a tad insensitive.
T
W/ all due respect. I thought this posting, though informative, was a tad insensitive.
T
# posted by 
: 8:21 PM
: 8:21 PM
You are correct, amr, about the Long Island nutcase, whose name I have thankfully forgotten, but it wasn't during a change clip period but during a reload the clip itself period that he was overpowered.
Tony, very insensitive, but my grieving period is very, very short. I have already achieved closure.
Tony, very insensitive, but my grieving period is very, very short. I have already achieved closure.
All this talk about clips is driving me nuts. I know you think you are right about this, but I think you are wrong.
Please see this.
Thanks.
By the way, good post if insensitive. I'm over it already myself. I get over the same kind of tradgety in Iraq on a daily basis. Sometimes two or three times.
Please see this.
Thanks.
By the way, good post if insensitive. I'm over it already myself. I get over the same kind of tradgety in Iraq on a daily basis. Sometimes two or three times.
Mike, everything in your link about clip/magazine is correct, but a little nit-picky. A stripper clip (which I have to use for the broomhandle Mauser (C-96) is not a magazine, the magazine is in the gun. But what I and a lot of people call a clip and you and your guy wants us to call a magazine is just a stripper clip with more steel around the bullets. The single piece of metal which holds the 8 rounds that go into the Gerand is then what? A clip or a magazine? Tough call. I'd say a clip and the magazine is where the bullets go in the gun. So usage has blurred the distinction and you're bucking the trend to insist on magazine over clip. The evil of targeting civilians in Iraq does indeed dwarf the tragedy in Blacksburg.
I'm with praguetwin* on the clip/magazine distinction. (Even though I occasionally use "clip" incorrectly, too.) Technical terms should be used correctly.
I wouldn't tolerate calling these pistols** "automatic weapons" for much the same reason.
* Note the time and date of this historic occasion. 8-)
** In other terminological news, I recently found out that a revolver isn't a pistol. If this surprises you as much as it did me, I recommend that you look up the definition of "pistol". There's not much ambiguity.
I wouldn't tolerate calling these pistols** "automatic weapons" for much the same reason.
* Note the time and date of this historic occasion. 8-)
** In other terminological news, I recently found out that a revolver isn't a pistol. If this surprises you as much as it did me, I recommend that you look up the definition of "pistol". There's not much ambiguity.
Roger,
According to this article, the model of the Glock that Seung-Hui used was a 19. Just thought you might be interested.
According to this article, the model of the Glock that Seung-Hui used was a 19. Just thought you might be interested.
# posted by : 3:40 PM
: 3:40 PM
Doug we are King Canute telling the tide not to come in about clip over magazine. Clip is set deep in the modern usage. Insisting on magazine might make you sound a litte like a pedant. I'll use both terms in the future. Mike in Prague is OK about guns, much to his credit, and I would put him the friends of the second amendment category. So we should always say pistols and revolvers to talk about handguns? Some of the older gun writers used to do just that. Very interesting. I could have sworn a revolver was just a particular type of pistol.
R & D,
Are you referring to the technical definition that requires a pistol to have a chamber integral w/ the barrel?
T
Are you referring to the technical definition that requires a pistol to have a chamber integral w/ the barrel?
T
# posted by : 9:09 AM
: 9:09 AM
Tony: Yes, and that was a distinction beyond my ken until recently.
I wonder where this distinction came from. The original pistols were muzzle-loading, of course, and that particular distinction in the definition makes no sense there.
Roger: There are people who think "verbal" is synonymous with "oral" too, but that doesn't mean we have to ignore the difference. </curmudgeon> 8-)
Post a Comment
I wonder where this distinction came from. The original pistols were muzzle-loading, of course, and that particular distinction in the definition makes no sense there.
Roger: There are people who think "verbal" is synonymous with "oral" too, but that doesn't mean we have to ignore the difference. </curmudgeon> 8-)
<< Home
