A new series called "Sons of Guns" appeared on Discovery channel earlier this year and is into its second season this summer. It's basically about Red Jacket Firearms and how clients come to them about customizing firearms/the owners thinking of "new and ingenious" contraptions that will "revolutionize" firearms. For reference, here's the wiki page: Sons of Guns - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I've only watched a handful starting this summer and have formulated a rather negative outlook on the show. While the owner probably knows his stuff and a significant portion of the show is a result of making it popular amongst general viewers, I can't help but notice how absurd the show is. While I am by no means a firearms expert, based off the few episodes I watched, I've noticed a few things that I can even call out as absurd:
1: Per "request" from the Baton Rouge sherriff's dept, they take a replica Thompson (which probably costs a hefty amount), replace all the wood components with synthetics, convert it to selective fire and stick a 4 sided rail on it. But why in the hell would you take a 90yr old weapon and try to convert it in this manner when you could just buy a .45 caliber submachine gun like the UMP for probably cheaper? Plus at the end they're pitching the amount of firepower and the high ROF it has. But why would SWAT ever need to empty a full mag of .45ACP into anyone/would the possibly expect to hit anything smaller than the side of a bardyard by using full auto?
2: The owner thinks that if he can merge the "accuracy of a sniper rifle at 1000 yds" and the "reliability of the AK" he'd make the best thing ever next to sliced bread. I didn't finish the episode but they talked about taking an AK(unclear what variant it was), replacing the barrel with a match grade barrel (which also looked to be in a .308, not 7.62mm so I half presume they rechambered it as well. I can't imagine a 7.62 hitting anything at 1000yds) and sticking a match grade trigger assembly on it along with some other stuff. The owner pitched this as being the type of weapon "our troops in small units" would carry around when deployed. Now like I said, I don't know too terribly much about firearms, but wouldn't rechambering/swapping to matchgrade components kill any sense of combat reliability? Plus the fact that there are better semi-automatic sniper rifles available to our troops now?
3: Last point I noticed was an active duty navy gunner requesting a "Dual-mounted m16" for better fire support. Why would you possibly do this? They end up having to make some water cooling system because the barrels would get so hot they'd cause premature detonations. But what's wrong with an m249/m240 for providing sustained fire. Hell, you can even stick two on a mount.
Basically they force firearms into roles they were never designed/shouldn't fill or present a new idea as the next best thing since sliced bread. Anyone have similar opinions of the show?
I've only watched a handful starting this summer and have formulated a rather negative outlook on the show. While the owner probably knows his stuff and a significant portion of the show is a result of making it popular amongst general viewers, I can't help but notice how absurd the show is. While I am by no means a firearms expert, based off the few episodes I watched, I've noticed a few things that I can even call out as absurd:
1: Per "request" from the Baton Rouge sherriff's dept, they take a replica Thompson (which probably costs a hefty amount), replace all the wood components with synthetics, convert it to selective fire and stick a 4 sided rail on it. But why in the hell would you take a 90yr old weapon and try to convert it in this manner when you could just buy a .45 caliber submachine gun like the UMP for probably cheaper? Plus at the end they're pitching the amount of firepower and the high ROF it has. But why would SWAT ever need to empty a full mag of .45ACP into anyone/would the possibly expect to hit anything smaller than the side of a bardyard by using full auto?
2: The owner thinks that if he can merge the "accuracy of a sniper rifle at 1000 yds" and the "reliability of the AK" he'd make the best thing ever next to sliced bread. I didn't finish the episode but they talked about taking an AK(unclear what variant it was), replacing the barrel with a match grade barrel (which also looked to be in a .308, not 7.62mm so I half presume they rechambered it as well. I can't imagine a 7.62 hitting anything at 1000yds) and sticking a match grade trigger assembly on it along with some other stuff. The owner pitched this as being the type of weapon "our troops in small units" would carry around when deployed. Now like I said, I don't know too terribly much about firearms, but wouldn't rechambering/swapping to matchgrade components kill any sense of combat reliability? Plus the fact that there are better semi-automatic sniper rifles available to our troops now?
3: Last point I noticed was an active duty navy gunner requesting a "Dual-mounted m16" for better fire support. Why would you possibly do this? They end up having to make some water cooling system because the barrels would get so hot they'd cause premature detonations. But what's wrong with an m249/m240 for providing sustained fire. Hell, you can even stick two on a mount.
Basically they force firearms into roles they were never designed/shouldn't fill or present a new idea as the next best thing since sliced bread. Anyone have similar opinions of the show?
Comment