Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [SPAM] RE: 1812 rules - Parks Canada (PC) free powder

Expand Messages
  • David Marquis
    Please site some examples of where a Hammerstall or flashguard cause an injury. Obviously, you ve never seen a side blast of powder from the pan burn the
    Message 1 of 16 , Oct 30, 2008
      Please site some examples of where a Hammerstall or flashguard cause
      an injury. Obviously, you've never seen a side blast of powder from
      the pan burn the fellow to your right's face. I have. it happens and
      it's dangerous. some powder entered the guys eye and gave him painfull
      burns.

      I've also seen a musket go off half cocked, hammerstall not in place.
      If it had been in place, the fellow would not have burns to his hand
      (holding musket at 'Order firelocks, hand holding the muzzel end).

      To not use these safety devices is wrong and potentially harmful.

      And some DID use flashguards back in the day, not sure where I saw it,
      but a period military musket was found and it had a crude fashioned
      flashguard in place.

      David

      --- In WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com, BritcomHMP@... wrote:
      >
      >
      > Dear Vic,
      >
      > I hope you beleve that I too am very concerned with safety, however
      I disagree with the premise that flashguards anan hammerstalls are
      safe! I have observed bad practice and potentialy dangerous situations
      caused by these things but the people who were doing this where, in
      their own opinion, safe because they had the attachments.
      >
      > Obviously if the argument is used, "Well, if YOU get them banned
      (which I am not advocating, I am advoatinc choce and good training).
      and anyone gets flashed, its YOUR fault". That tends to end the
      argument as no one wants to?feel responsible?for something that
      results fom someone elses bad practice. However, when someone is
      injured by weapon that has these devices,?whose fault will that be?
      >
      > I would also like to point out that I am NOT speaking for the CFNA,
      the decisions are taken in council by the member units, I am
      expressing my own views formed from over 30 years of re-enacting this
      period, live firing flintlocks and working in the movie and?TV industry.
      >
      > I have stated it many times before and will again, perhaps for the
      last time (though I doubt it) if a musket needs a?hammerstall it
      should not be on the field, the?person carrying it needs a flashguard
      he should not be allowed to fire untill he has been properly trained.
      >
      > If we take as our premise the idea that we must remove all
      posibility of injury from what we do then we might as well mothball
      our?kit, because that is imossible.
      >
      > All the very best,
      >
      > Tim??
      >
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
    • Tom Hurlbut
      Well, one might say that the weapon was unserviceable if it went off at half cock.. And if someone was burned by a pan flash, then it could be an overprime or
      Message 2 of 16 , Oct 30, 2008
        Well, one might say that the weapon was unserviceable if it went off at half cock.. And if someone was burned by a pan flash, then it could be an overprime or a touch hole too large.

        But I'm not here to argue with you as I actually believe they prevent more problems than they create (although if a hammerstall allows someone to think they can bring a musket on the field with a non-functioning half-cock, well..).

        Basically, the sites determine whether we use them or not. (One hopes that they re-examine their rules from time to time.)

        And that is where this argument really ends.

        "Major" Tom
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: David Marquis
        To: WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2008 8:04 AM
        Subject: Re: [SPAM] RE: 1812 rules - Parks Canada (PC) free powder


        Please site some examples of where a Hammerstall or flashguard cause
        an injury. Obviously, you've never seen a side blast of powder from
        the pan burn the fellow to your right's face. I have. it happens and
        it's dangerous. some powder entered the guys eye and gave him painfull
        burns.

        I've also seen a musket go off half cocked, hammerstall not in place.
        If it had been in place, the fellow would not have burns to his hand
        (holding musket at 'Order firelocks, hand holding the muzzel end).

        To not use these safety devices is wrong and potentially harmful.

        And some DID use flashguards back in the day, not sure where I saw it,
        but a period military musket was found and it had a crude fashioned
        flashguard in place.

        David


        .

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • BritcomHMP@aol.com
        Please site some examples of where a Hammerstall or flashguard cause an injury. Obviously, you ve never seen a side blast of powder from the pan burn the
        Message 3 of 16 , Oct 30, 2008
          Please site some examples of where a Hammerstall or flashguard cause
          an injury. Obviously, you've never seen a side blast of powder from
          the pan burn the fellow to your right's face. I have. it happens and
          it's dangerous. some powder entered the guys eye and gave him painfull
          burns.

          -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

          David,

          I is a great help if you actual read the posts you are replying to not just havig a knee jek reaction to what you THINK I am saying.

          No, I have never seen a serious flash burn on any field where I have commanded (after 35 years of re-enacting by the way) because all the troops were properly trained and supervised. The odd powder fleck yes, as I say this is bound to happen in what we do,
          I have seen ramrods fired, people burnt by ground charges because they were where they were specificly told not to go and broken limbs from falling off horses, But NEVER a severe powder burn from a musket without a flsh guard.?

          -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

          I've also seen a musket go off half cocked, hammerstall not in place.
          If it had been in place, the fellow would not have burns to his hand
          (holding musket at 'Order firelocks, hand holding the muzzel end).

          -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

          Then the muske was not inspected correctly (or at all ?) or it suffered a catastopic unpredictable failure. Even so had the soldier been properly trained and holding his muset correctly he would not have suffered any burns from this occurance.?Why was his hand over the muzzle at the 'order firelocks'? It should be below it at all times, check the manual. No safety device can prevent bad practice.??

          -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

          To not use these safety devices is wrong and potentially harmful.
          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

          That is my point, the things are NOT safety devices, they actively PREVENT the proper operation of a flintlock which is dangerous. Even if a unit uses them (which on some fields we all have to) the men should be trained (not in tight formation) without them. At least then they can get a feel for how the weapon should be handled and will be less likely to overprime.

          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

          And some DID use flashguards back in the day, not sure where I saw it,
          but a period military musket was found and it had a crude fashioned
          flashguard in place.

          David
          ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

          That is a specious argument, if you look back at my posts I have already given details on where and when these devices were used and why and the answer is over nearly 200 years of continuous use no army in the world saw a need for them on a properly maintained and correctly used standard?musket, period. As 'weekend warriors' we ave no excuse whatsoever to carry dirty rust encrusted and badly maintained muskets so we realy have no need for these things. It iritates e that everyone now has to conform with a rule that was invented so that poorly trained people with inadiquate knowlege and badly maintained weapons can come on the field and go bang.? At the time unserviceable weapons might have to be used because new suplies were not available at a remote outpost, we have no such excuse.

          -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

          Am I saying that not using flashguards would prevent accidents? Obviously not, but then the use of them don't prevent all flashing incidents and have actualy been known to cause some (close formaion, front rank kneeling and igniting te fur roach on the US 1798 headgear). I think that the danger seems to be roughly the same both with and without but the fact that they interfere with the correct operation of the weapon?convinces me at least that they encourage bad practice and unsafe operation of a firearm.?

          ??? Tim






          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • suthren@magma.ca
          It will be required of all infantry or riflemen entering Naval Establishment boats, at the discretion and concurrence of the boat commander/owner, that their
          Message 4 of 16 , Oct 30, 2008
            It will be required of all infantry or riflemen entering Naval Establishment boats, at the discretion and concurrence of the boat commander/owner, that their edged weapons be sheathed, and not drawn; cartridge boxes closed and having been previously inspected for no loose powder or inappropriate cartridges; and that all flintlock weapons have springs eased, pans open and empty, ramrods 'sprung' beforehand, and the weapons be fitted with both hammerstalls and flashguards. Coxswains shall have the right to refuse carriage to any musketman or rifleman that does not meet these requirements. Firings from boats shall be at under to the total control of, and at the discretion of, the boat commander.

            The continuing argument that fitted safety equipment such as hammerstalls and flashguards prevents safe operation of the weapons is akin to claiming claiming that safety harnesses worn by seamen climbing aloft increase rather than decrease risk. No amount of training, nor rigorous inspection of a firelock's mechanism, can prevent an accidental discharge due to mechanical failure or a momentary human error. The insistence on every possible physical aid to safety as well as careful instruction on weapon use and prudent orders and decisions made by re-enactor leaders combine to provide the broadest possible safety envelope for the re-enactor. Removing any aspect of that envelope is irresponsible, and the urging of such removal on the grounds that safety is thereby increased is equally so. No truly experienced handler of black powder weapons in re-enacted circumstances would hold otherwise.

            Vic Suthren
            Naval Establishments
            ----- Original Message -----
            From: BritcomHMP@...
            To: WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2008 10:29 AM
            Subject: Re: [SPAM] RE: 1812 rules - Parks Canada (PC) free powder




            Please site some examples of where a Hammerstall or flashguard cause
            an injury. Obviously, you've never seen a side blast of powder from
            the pan burn the fellow to your right's face. I have. it happens and
            it's dangerous. some powder entered the guys eye and gave him painfull
            burns.

            ----------------------------------------------------------

            David,

            I is a great help if you actual read the posts you are replying to not just havig a knee jek reaction to what you THINK I am saying.

            No, I have never seen a serious flash burn on any field where I have commanded (after 35 years of re-enacting by the way) because all the troops were properly trained and supervised. The odd powder fleck yes, as I say this is bound to happen in what we do,
            I have seen ramrods fired, people burnt by ground charges because they were where they were specificly told not to go and broken limbs from falling off horses, But NEVER a severe powder burn from a musket without a flsh guard.?

            ----------------------------------------------------------

            I've also seen a musket go off half cocked, hammerstall not in place.
            If it had been in place, the fellow would not have burns to his hand
            (holding musket at 'Order firelocks, hand holding the muzzel end).

            ----------------------------------------------------------

            Then the muske was not inspected correctly (or at all ?) or it suffered a catastopic unpredictable failure. Even so had the soldier been properly trained and holding his muset correctly he would not have suffered any burns from this occurance.?Why was his hand over the muzzle at the 'order firelocks'? It should be below it at all times, check the manual. No safety device can prevent bad practice.??

            ----------------------------------------------------------

            To not use these safety devices is wrong and potentially harmful.
            ----------------------------------------------------------

            That is my point, the things are NOT safety devices, they actively PREVENT the proper operation of a flintlock which is dangerous. Even if a unit uses them (which on some fields we all have to) the men should be trained (not in tight formation) without them. At least then they can get a feel for how the weapon should be handled and will be less likely to overprime.

            ----------------------------------------------------------

            And some DID use flashguards back in the day, not sure where I saw it,
            but a period military musket was found and it had a crude fashioned
            flashguard in place.

            David
            ----------------------------------------------------------

            That is a specious argument, if you look back at my posts I have already given details on where and when these devices were used and why and the answer is over nearly 200 years of continuous use no army in the world saw a need for them on a properly maintained and correctly used standard?musket, period. As 'weekend warriors' we ave no excuse whatsoever to carry dirty rust encrusted and badly maintained muskets so we realy have no need for these things. It iritates e that everyone now has to conform with a rule that was invented so that poorly trained people with inadiquate knowlege and badly maintained weapons can come on the field and go bang.? At the time unserviceable weapons might have to be used because new suplies were not available at a remote outpost, we have no such excuse.

            ----------------------------------------------------------

            Am I saying that not using flashguards would prevent accidents? Obviously not, but then the use of them don't prevent all flashing incidents and have actualy been known to cause some (close formaion, front rank kneeling and igniting te fur roach on the US 1798 headgear). I think that the danger seems to be roughly the same both with and without but the fact that they interfere with the correct operation of the weapon?convinces me at least that they encourage bad practice and unsafe operation of a firearm.?

            ??? Tim

            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • BritcomHMP@aol.com
            The continuing argument that fitted safety equipment such as hammerstalls and flashguards prevents safe operation of the weapons is akin to claiming claiming
            Message 5 of 16 , Oct 30, 2008
              The continuing argument that fitted safety equipment such as hammerstalls and flashguards prevents safe operation of the weapons is akin to claiming claiming that safety harnesses worn by seamen climbing aloft increase rather than decrease risk. No amount of training, nor rigorous inspection of a firelock's mechanism, can prevent an accidental discharge due to mechanical failure or a momentary human error. The insistence on every possible physical aid to safety as well as careful instruction on weapon use and prudent orders and decisions made by re-enactor leaders combine to provide the broadest possible safety envelope for the re-enactor. Removing any aspect of that envelope is irresponsible, and the urging of such removal on the grounds that safety is thereby increased is equally so. No truly experienced handler of black powder weapons in re-enacted circumstances would hold otherwise.
              --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

              Vic,

              I beleve with every fibre of my re-enactment being that you are wrong.
              Your analogy doesn't hold water because the harness you mention does not interfere with the correct running of the ship. I would point out (if we ae in the world of wild improbabilities) that if the half cock were to fail while a musket is being held at the 'make ready' position a flash guard will direct the priming directly into the mans face, I would love to see the comments inm the unlikely event that that tragidy happens.

              The naval department can and should govern all rules while at sea, it is even in the general orders of 1804 that they should. Howevere I would hold that after 35 years I am indeed experienced in the use of flintlock weapons and to sugest that I am not or in some way irresponsible just because you dont agree with my reasoning (nor 200 years of use by the British Army) is not what I expect in a?civilized?discussion.

              The point is moot, in that the rules, and they are in force, however, to virtualy say that those rules cannot be questioned?and to notable to?refute one point that I have made about the CORRECT (rather than re-enactor accepted) usage of a military firearm strikes me as a bit, odd.

              ?
              Just because I happen to be a 're-enactment leader' does not mean I should remain silent when people are espousing falsehoods, quite the opposit in fact.

              Tim



              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • spikeyj
              On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 11:12:17 -0500 ... Is there any reason why these rules have at the discretion of the boat commander or shall have the right to refuse
              Message 6 of 16 , Oct 30, 2008
                On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 11:12:17 -0500
                <suthren@...> wrote:
                > It will be required of all infantry or riflemen entering
                > Naval Establishment boats, at the discretion and
                > concurrence of the boat commander/owner, that their edged
                > weapons be sheathed, and not drawn; cartridge boxes
                > closed and having been previously inspected for no loose
                > powder or inappropriate cartridges; and that all
                > flintlock weapons have springs eased, pans open and
                > empty, ramrods 'sprung' beforehand, and the weapons be
                > fitted with both hammerstalls and flashguards. Coxswains
                > shall have the right to refuse carriage to any musketman
                > or rifleman that does not meet these requirements.

                Is there any reason why these rules have "at the discretion
                of the boat commander" or "shall have the right to refuse
                carriage"? Why aren't these rules definitive: "If you don't
                meet the requirements the commander/boatowner/coxswain
                *will* refuse carriage"?

                Spike Y Jones
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------
                Web mail provided by NuNet, Inc. The Premier National provider.
                http://www.nni.com/
              • Tom Hurlbut
                Hi Spike! The boat commander is, by law, responsible for what happens on the boat. He may have his own ideas about what s safe. However, if I say it s okay to
                Message 7 of 16 , Oct 30, 2008
                  Hi Spike!

                  The boat commander is, by law, responsible for what happens on the boat. He
                  may have his own ideas about what's safe. However, if I say it's okay to
                  enter the boat with something that might be deemed amiss, and there's an
                  accident, then I am held accountable.

                  If accepted practice (read accepted rules) is disregarded and contrary to
                  what happened, then you can see just what boat the CO finds himself (up the
                  creek!) when this goes to court.

                  As I have said, the people who rule the location of the event will make the
                  rules as they are generally the ones who face the biggest legal dangers.
                  This does not mean that the rules can't be challenged, just not broken.

                  Can't we get past this? There is no solution.

                  "Major" Tom

                  >
                  > Is there any reason why these rules have "at the discretion
                  > of the boat commander" or "shall have the right to refuse
                  > carriage"? Why aren't these rules definitive: "If you don't
                  > meet the requirements the commander/boatowner/coxswain
                  > *will* refuse carriage"?
                  >
                  > Spike Y Jones
                • suthren@magma.ca
                  Tim There was no personal intent to my observations, and if you have perceived there were, I sincerely apologize. Certainly you are a re-enactor of long
                  Message 8 of 16 , Oct 30, 2008
                    Tim

                    There was no personal intent to my observations, and if you have perceived there were, I sincerely apologize. Certainly you are a re-enactor of long experience, and you are the senior officer on the field because a great many people feel you deserve to be. In my own experience and familiarity with flintlocks, including participation in the AWI Bicentennial with flashguard-equipped BAR units as both musketman and officer, and in designing and implementing the military animation program of the Fortress of Louisbourg, I never experienced, either in my personal use of the firelock or in witnessing that of others, any evidence that the flashguard made safe handling of the weapon less safe. The last-minute removal of the hammerstall added movement to the Manual of 1764, but did not impede its overall execution, and would have prevented the weapon flashing if human error or mechanical failure caused the frizzen to be struck. So I am afraid we must continue to have a firm---but gentlemanly---disagreement.

                    You might consider why all modern small arms, from the No. 4 Mk 1 Lee-Enfield through the 7.62 FN/FAL to the AK-47, the M-1 Garand, the M-14, the M-1 Carbine, and the current M-16(USA), C7 (Canada) or SA-80 (UK) all have a 'safety'---and why weapons that had no safety devices, like the 9MM Sten Gun, were viewed with such dislike by instructor and recruit alike. Training sometimes just isn't enough....

                    Yours in agreeable disagreement,

                    Vic
                    ----- Original Message -----
                    From: BritcomHMP@...
                    To: WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com
                    Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2008 1:55 PM
                    Subject: Re: [SPAM] RE: 1812 rules - Parks Canada (PC) free powder




                    The continuing argument that fitted safety equipment such as hammerstalls and flashguards prevents safe operation of the weapons is akin to claiming claiming that safety harnesses worn by seamen climbing aloft increase rather than decrease risk. No amount of training, nor rigorous inspection of a firelock's mechanism, can prevent an accidental discharge due to mechanical failure or a momentary human error. The insistence on every possible physical aid to safety as well as careful instruction on weapon use and prudent orders and decisions made by re-enactor leaders combine to provide the broadest possible safety envelope for the re-enactor. Removing any aspect of that envelope is irresponsible, and the urging of such removal on the grounds that safety is thereby increased is equally so. No truly experienced handler of black powder weapons in re-enacted circumstances would hold otherwise.
                    ----------------------------------------------------------

                    Vic,

                    I beleve with every fibre of my re-enactment being that you are wrong.
                    Your analogy doesn't hold water because the harness you mention does not interfere with the correct running of the ship. I would point out (if we ae in the world of wild improbabilities) that if the half cock were to fail while a musket is being held at the 'make ready' position a flash guard will direct the priming directly into the mans face, I would love to see the comments inm the unlikely event that that tragidy happens.

                    The naval department can and should govern all rules while at sea, it is even in the general orders of 1804 that they should. Howevere I would hold that after 35 years I am indeed experienced in the use of flintlock weapons and to sugest that I am not or in some way irresponsible just because you dont agree with my reasoning (nor 200 years of use by the British Army) is not what I expect in a?civilized?discussion.

                    The point is moot, in that the rules, and they are in force, however, to virtualy say that those rules cannot be questioned?and to notable to?refute one point that I have made about the CORRECT (rather than re-enactor accepted) usage of a military firearm strikes me as a bit, odd.

                    ?
                    Just because I happen to be a 're-enactment leader' does not mean I should remain silent when people are espousing falsehoods, quite the opposit in fact.

                    Tim


                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • suthren@magma.ca
                    Spike Referring to the discretion and concurrence of a boat coxswain (who is usually the owner) is a necessary deference to the conviction most such men hold
                    Message 9 of 16 , Oct 30, 2008
                      Spike

                      Referring to the discretion and concurrence of a boat coxswain (who is
                      usually the owner) is a necessary deference to the conviction most such men
                      hold that they and they alone will decide what happens to their boat, and
                      what goes on in it. As they volunteer their boats and their own services for
                      our events, such respect is necessary, as I think you'd agree, but given in
                      the hope that they will in fact uniformly support and carry out all such
                      safety regulations---er---suggestions.

                      Yours aye

                      Vic Suthren


                      ----- Original Message -----
                      From: "spikeyj" <spikeyj@...>
                      To: <WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com>
                      Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2008 2:23 PM
                      Subject: Re: [SPAM] RE: 1812 rules - Parks Canada (PC) free powder


                      > On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 11:12:17 -0500
                      > <suthren@...> wrote:
                      > > It will be required of all infantry or riflemen entering
                      > > Naval Establishment boats, at the discretion and
                      > > concurrence of the boat commander/owner, that their edged
                      > > weapons be sheathed, and not drawn; cartridge boxes
                      > > closed and having been previously inspected for no loose
                      > > powder or inappropriate cartridges; and that all
                      > > flintlock weapons have springs eased, pans open and
                      > > empty, ramrods 'sprung' beforehand, and the weapons be
                      > > fitted with both hammerstalls and flashguards. Coxswains
                      > > shall have the right to refuse carriage to any musketman
                      > > or rifleman that does not meet these requirements.
                      >
                      > Is there any reason why these rules have "at the discretion
                      > of the boat commander" or "shall have the right to refuse
                      > carriage"? Why aren't these rules definitive: "If you don't
                      > meet the requirements the commander/boatowner/coxswain
                      > *will* refuse carriage"?
                      >
                      > Spike Y Jones
                      > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
                      > Web mail provided by NuNet, Inc. The Premier National provider.
                      > http://www.nni.com/
                      >
                      > ------------------------------------
                      >
                      > War of 1812 Living History:
                      > A wide-ranging information exchange
                      > for all participants and supporters
                      >
                      >
                      > Unit Contact information for North America:
                      > Crown Forces Unit Listing:
                      > http://1812crownforces.tripod.com
                      > American Forces Unit Listing
                      > http://usforces1812.tripod.com
                      >
                      > WAR OF 1812 EVENTS LIST:
                      > http://royal.scots.tripod.com/warof1812eventslistYahoo! Groups Links
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                    • BritcomHMP@aol.com
                      Dear Vic, I have to say that, yes, I did rather take your last post a bit personaly in that the way I read it you seemed to be saying that anyone who disagreed
                      Message 10 of 16 , Oct 30, 2008
                        Dear Vic,

                        I have to say that, yes, I did rather take your last post a bit personaly in that the way I read it you seemed to be saying that anyone who disagreed with the necesity of flashguards and hamerstalls was, ipso facto, irresponsible. As I have always considered them worse than useless I did rather take it that implication as aplying to me, particularly as you were replying to one of my posts.
                        As you say we can agree to disagree in a gentlemanly fasion, but I do dislike?the fact that these things sometimes seem to be thought to?cure all ills. The last incident of that type I had in this line was at Mississinewa several years ago when I banned 3 muskets from the field, 2 with very bad locks and one with a completely unservicable half cock. The chaps with them were quite indignant because they had flashguards and hammerstalls so were obviously 'safe'!
                        I have seen many pure accidents on the field and it is my unshakeable belief that nothing that prevents someone from operating a weapon in the correct?manner can, by definition, be a safety feature.
                        I have never heard of nor seen any serious?incident involving a firearm that was not caused by either failure to maintain the weapon or bad practice and for this reason I will always trust the period instuction manuals implicitly.

                        BTW if I may observe on your statement:

                        You might consider why all modern small arms, from the No. 4 Mk 1 Lee-Enfield through the 7.62 FN/FAL to the AK-47, the M-1 Garand, the M-14, the M-1 Carbine, and the current M-16(USA), C7 (Canada) or SA-80 (UK) all have a 'safety'---and why weapons that had no safety devices, like the 9MM Sten Gun, were viewed with such dislike by instructor and recruit alike. Training sometimes just isn't enough....


                        These safety devices are not flicked on and off while one is operating the weapon and were actualy designed as part of the weapon from its inception (like the flashguard on the Prusiian self priming musket). As for the Sten Gun having had the dubious prvilage of firing one of these beasts while in the Sea Cadets I would say a safety is the least of its problems. I rather thought it would be more efective as a club, certainly it struck me that it would be at least as dangerous to the operator and his immediate companions as it was to the enemy. The AK-47 though now there's a combat weapon.

                        Aye

                        Tim





                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.