I blame myself for paying attention to a Facebook ad and buying a book blind:
And I lost $7.00 to boot on the frigging Kindle book. For those who are wondering why I got a migraine:
And just for added effect, the ammunition they shoot:
And neither come with a walnuts stock nor are designed for them.
I found out the author is a British lawyer who on average are as dumb about guns as your local journalist.
17 thoughts on “This one gave me a migraine.”
Dang, even the most basic of research would have prevented that.
I believe this is what we refer to as being Dan Browned.
The difference between Dan Browned and merely Did Not Do The Research is that, as scrappycrow pointed out, even a moment’s research would be sufficient to show that the facts are wrong in the former, whereas the latter is a bit more forgivable.
I did not know this existed… I am wiser now 😀
TVTropes is an ever more awesome time sink than Wikipedia. Fair warning
The first time I visited the site, nearly a decade ago, I looked at the clock to discover 8 hours had passed.
A Barrett with Walnut stocks. For when you have to bring down an airliner at 5 but have polo at 6.
So what was the title of the book?
Then we can either avoid your mistake or spend seven bucks just for the laughs.
I just read it to my 10yo and he said “Hold on, Barrett’s don’t have wood stocks.
I have a book at home called, “Hunter” (don’t remember the author) that can top that. About halfway through, the incredibly skilled female sniper unscrews the barrel from her .50 sniper rifle to make it more suitable for close quarters combat.
Ever the contrarian, I’m going to (try to) play devil’s advocate a bit here. At first I had the same ‘WTF?’ reaction, but then I went back and re-read the passages, and decided that the most glaring error was one of literary, not technical, ignorance. Try this on for size:
“…a pair of high-powered Zeiss Classic 60mm binoculars and a miniature tracing device. But there was one more item.
The rifle was the most important; he picked it up and examined it carefully.”
On re-reading the passage it occurred to me that he was attempting to convey that there were three guns: the Carbine, the Handgun, and the Rifle. Just a matter of poor editing.
(I’m ignoring the stock bit for now. Who knows? maybe someone with more money than sense *did* add a custom walnut stock to the damned thing. AR platforms generally don’t come with wood furniture…but they *ARE* available.)
I forgot to add in there that he was smart enough to call an M-4 a CARBINE, and the M-82 a RIFLE, which (to me) supports the literary error theory.
The way it reads, he mixed both long guns into one. Besides the items were being smuggled on the floor of a Ferrari Enzo which do not have a lot of space for a Barret.
I’m not sure there’s space in an Enzo for an M-4, either…
Uh, how about the “heavy premium barrel”? You know, the barrel weight is part of the calculated operating mass on a recoil operated gun – you go dinking around with that, and it can change things, and not for the better. AND *why*?!? If you’re using an M82, you already have accepted the accuracy is acceptable, or you’d have chosen something with a fixed barrel… Plus, I’m not sure the extra stiffness would help, seeing as how the *barrel* moves as part of the operating stroke (again, ” recoil operated”).
Comments are closed.
Login or register to comment.