So what? Do we punish all smart phone owners because one guy does something harmful? No. So why stifle innovation in one area, while rewarding it everywhere else? Oh, right. Because it's guns this time.But, if you have a smart phone, you have more computing power in your hand than the first shuttle combined with the ability to track via GPS, calculate long range ballistic solutions, trigger remote devices, etc. So what was cutting edge 20 years ago is common today.
That finally makes some sense. I'm sure a .22 Short would work about as well.Ricko, I used "9mm training ammo". It is a polymer case and polymer bullet with a small aluminum case head. I used the German stuff, but there is a Swedish version too. I never fired a full powered round through the set-up. I do a lot of testing of firearms and material failure issues, so I knew what the risks were. I can't go into significant detail, but suffice it to say, we were able to dispatch slaughter animals with the set-up with about 95% one shot kills after a few tweaks to the ammo.
I'm sure a .22 Short would work about as well
Any references to this test? I am also skeptical based on my experiences with rapid prototyping materials; at theoretical best they are no stronger than injection-moulded plastics, and those are all far too weak for something Glock-sized (or else Hi-Point would be making them that way ). I won't say "never," though, since this could be super-ninja-science DARPA stuff you were dealing with . I am calling BS on the metal-detector claim however, unless the ability to detect metal by magnetic field monitoring is a hoax. Reliable plastic bullets, cases, and primers are a more shocking (and profitable) development than even plastic firearms.I "made" a Glock magazine, barrel and slide on a 3D printer in 1997. I put it on a Glock frame and shot a complete magazine of 9mm training rounds out of it. A friend who is LEO walked it through a metal detector, fully loaded, to see what happened. It was not detected. Nothing new.