pet peeve

[sr71plt]

Yes, this is the attitude I'd expect from someone who habitually starts a story read with the thought of picking it apart on whatever basis you can rather than seeing what aspects are there that can entertain and give you valuable insights. I've found the anal retentive nitpickers basically to be bitter folks trying to pull the world down to their level rather than looking for what there is in the story that can entertain them and enable them to pull themselves up a notch as a writer. So, no, JBJ, I'm not surprised by your perspective at all.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Yes, this is the attitude I'd expect from someone who habitually starts a story read with the thought of picking it apart on whatever basis you can rather than seeing what aspects are there that can entertain and give you valuable insights. I've found the anal retentive nitpickers basically to be bitter folks trying to pull the world down to their level rather than looking for what there is in the story that can entertain them and enable them to pull themselves up a notch as a writer. So, no, JBJ, I'm not surprised by your perspective at all.

You say this from personal experience with me? I don't think so. Jack Daniels cant say it, either.

I'm not responsible for their self esteem, and I don't do T-ball trophies. They can feel good about themselves when their wares aren't crap.

So, go fuck yourself, over and out.

 

[Tio_Narratore]

So far I have been very pleased with most stories I have read on literotica. I prefer the erotic adventure or erotic action type stories and those with the undead are even more of a plus.

However if you are going to write stories containing firearms do your research PLEASE. AR-15's are not machine guns and do not fire full automatic. Most modern firearms do not use clips they use magazines. Clips are what hold the cartridges until you manually feed them into a magazine. I am a bit of an expert on most modern and some ancient weapons if any authors want to use me as a reference or sounding board to ensure factuality in there stories please feel free to contact me with a pm here or an email to chad.wilson19766@ gmail. Com

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nhv4hMGdQ_g

(How to convert your AR-15 to full auto)

 

[sr71plt]

I guess one of my pet peeves is when a reader latches onto some detail that's nonconsequential in a story and ignores and fails to appreciate the overarching plot, themes, and character studies.

 

[sr71plt]

You say this from personal experience with me?

No, from what you just posted. Which, I guess goes as evidence that you don't half think about what you post to the forum--you just post what pops into your head and might get a rise out of someone.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

The M-16 was single shot or full auto throughout and long after the Vietnam war. When I left the service in 1976 it was still full auto as the post Vietnam era government was not into spending money to replace millions of weapons that wouldn't conceivably be used except in training.

It wasn't until 1983 that the M16A2 was introduced with the semi-auto and three round burst. Full auto wasn't out though, some later models of the M16A2 had all three mode available...including full auto.

During this time we also utilized the GAU-5. A variant of the M-16. It was shorter and lighter with a retractable two position stock. It fired semi-auto and full-auto. It was the predecessor of the M-4 variant. It was also the most inaccurate carbine I have ever handled in the full auto mode. Even in semi-auto it wasn't all that accurate.

All of them fired the .223 caliber/5.56mm round. Deadly as long as there were no obstacles between you and your target. A small leaf could modify the trajectory enough for you to miss.

All in all, by the time I got my hands on an M-16, I thought it was a weapon that was deadly in the right hands at ranges far exceeding other rifles of its time.

 

[Kethandra]

Agreed

True it's good to get the details right, but the anal retentive on small details in a story come prepared to miss what's important in most stories.

It's easy to let our egos soar when we know what is really right, and know the author is wrong.
I let one incorrect detail in a Stephen King book spoil the entire reading experience for me. After finishing the book, I learned that the flaw I had focused on was correct, and I was in error. Even if the flaw had really been a small flaw, the beam was in my eye, though all I could see was the imaginary mote elsewhere.
Now, any mention of that book is a reminder to me to watch my ego, cut others a little slack, and check my facts.

 

[sr71plt]

It's easy to let our egos soar when we know what is really right, and know the author is wrong.

Yep, that's one kicker (shown even here by the yammering back and forth on "detail facts" on this thread). I can't begin to count up the number of times I've seen a detail questioned where there was no reason to think the author had been wrong and the natterer right.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

The M-16 was single shot or full auto throughout and long after the Vietnam war. When I left the service in 1976 it was still full auto as the post Vietnam era government was not into spending money to replace millions of weapons that wouldn't conceivably be used except in training.

It wasn't until 1983 that the M16A2 was introduced with the semi-auto and three round burst. Full auto wasn't out though, some later models of the M16A2 had all three mode available...including full auto.

During this time we also utilized the GAU-5. A variant of the M-16. It was shorter and lighter with a retractable two position stock. It fired semi-auto and full-auto. It was the predecessor of the M-4 variant. It was also the most inaccurate carbine I have ever handled in the full auto mode. Even in semi-auto it wasn't all that accurate.

All of them fired the .223 caliber/5.56mm round. Deadly as long as there were no obstacles between you and your target. A small leaf could modify the trajectory enough for you to miss.

All in all, by the time I got my hands on an M-16, I thought it was a weapon that was deadly in the right hands at ranges far exceeding other rifles of its time.

When I had one you never knew if it would jam, and mine did twice. We operated in a region similar to Arizona and you couldn't keep the weapon clean for 6 hours.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

When I had one you never knew if it would jam, and mine did twice. We operated in a region similar to Arizona and you couldn't keep the weapon clean for 6 hours.

Try is with mud...not a thick gooey mud, but a loose, flowing mud that gets into everything, even if you kept the ejection port cover closed.

 

[redzinger]

Could anyone enlighten me on the handgun law in the UK please?

I 'think' I've got the answer, but I'm not 100% sure.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Could anyone enlighten me on the handgun law in the UK please?

I 'think' I've got the answer, but I'm not 100% sure.

There are no handguns in the UK. Well that's what they want you to believe anyway.

 

[49greg]

Well, technically the M16 is an AR-15 - the army just like to rename stuff. Thanks to our paranoid legislators the AR-15s you buy in your local store will not fire full auto and cannot be easily converted, but that doesn't mean that they don't exist. Just that they are hard to get. You can get a Chinese knock-off AK-47 for a fraction of the price if you just need it for btb.

People use the words "clip" and "mag" frivolously so it is actually not out of character for a vengeful husband to do the same. I get more annoyed when I see a pistol called a revolver or vice versa...

I handled an early M-16 for a while right after I finished training at Ft Ord, in '71 I was a hold over for a few weeks and spent some time as an 'aggressor' against training units taking pot shots with blanks with an M-16 that didn't have a forward assist. It jammed a lot, but that was probably due to the faulty blank adapter.

As for clips and mags I agree. Although in Basic and AIT in '71 we got pushups for calling a magazine a clip (and for calling an M-16 a gun). But then they made us do pushups for just about any reason.

As for miss-identified handguns watch some of the true crime forensic type shows. The re-enactments might use a revolver, then the actual evidence pics use an automatic, sometimes the re-enactments will switch between one and the other during the show, also happens with rifles.

Technically you are correct theoriginal ar built by armalite is the same as an m16a1 whichwould fire on full auto however they realizedduringvietnamthat becauseofitsful auto capability it wasted way to much ammo and they removed the full auto feature and replaced it with three round burst. Withthree roundburst the weapon is much easier to control so shots are more accurate and less ammo is wasted. However what we know as an are 15 will only fire I semi auto with purity being modified.

Even the cheap knock off AK 's are seized only unless you have a class three firearms license or you find one illegally on the black market.

And I agree with the pistol revolver nomenclature screw up as well.

My kid brother has a AK knock off, they're legally imported, or were, if they were semi auto. (auto loading is what the Brits call it I think.) I used to kick his ass either with paper targets or tin cans when I used to have a mini-14.

No one likes the way tv or movies have messed up in the revolver vs Automatic identification.

The M-16 was single shot or full auto throughout and long after the Vietnam war. When I left the service in 1976 it was still full auto as the post Vietnam era government was not into spending money to replace millions of weapons that wouldn't conceivably be used except in training.

It wasn't until 1983 that the M16A2 was introduced with the semi-auto and three round burst. Full auto wasn't out though, some later models of the M16A2 had all three mode available...including full auto.

During this time we also utilized the GAU-5. A variant of the M-16. It was shorter and lighter with a retractable two position stock. It fired semi-auto and full-auto. It was the predecessor of the M-4 variant. It was also the most inaccurate carbine I have ever handled in the full auto mode. Even in semi-auto it wasn't all that accurate.

All of them fired the .223 caliber/5.56mm round. Deadly as long as there were no obstacles between you and your target. A small leaf could modify the trajectory enough for you to miss.

All in all, by the time I got my hands on an M-16, I thought it was a weapon that was deadly in the right hands at ranges far exceeding other rifles of its time.

What I remember about a DoD release in the eighties was that they said it took too much training to teach a GI to keep the '16 down to 3-5 round bursts and they would save money by cutting back on the training and installing the burst feature, but keep some with full auto for the "Automatic Rifleman" in infantry fire teams who would get additional training and/or practice. I couldn't see that part happening but hey.

That GAU-5 sounds a lot like what we called the XM-177, a really really short version of a '16. We were told it got way to hot and wasn't accurate.

I did spent three years in an infantry unit, but in Berlin, so all my shooting was at the range or with a blank adapter. You had to keep the darned thing clean, I was told by some old timers that the first ones in 'Nam had problems.

When I had one you never knew if it would jam, and mine did twice. We operated in a region similar to Arizona and you couldn't keep the weapon clean for 6 hours.

Odd you mentioned a "region similar to Arizona", so I'm thinking sandy and gritty. I once talked to a guy who was with the marines invading Okinawa in WW2. He said it was sandy there and any sand in a M1 Garand would jam it in a second. I guess it got into that slot for the bolt at the end of the raceway - not sure of the nomenclature on that. My Mini-14 had one, and M-14s I've seen had them.

I guess I'll have to add Gun nomenclature to Religion and Politics as subjects not to bring up unless you know everybody very well, and not then either.

 

[redzinger]

There are no handguns in the UK. Well that's what they want you to believe anyway.

Who's 'they'?

I thought handguns were banned after Dunblane, but I was wondering if there were any weird exemptions. Wiki tells me the Police/Army are allowed Glock 17s.

 

[TamLin01]

I guess one of my pet peeves is when a reader latches onto some detail that's nonconsequential in a story and ignores and fails to appreciate the overarching plot, themes, and character studies.

I agree. All this dick measuring is a waste of time.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Who's 'they'?

I thought handguns were banned after Dunblane, but I was wondering if there were any weird exemptions. Wiki tells me the Police/Army are allowed Glock 17s.

They...that ubiquitous they...the government.

Well, if there are no handguns in the UK, why do the police need to have them now? Army should always be armed or be able to get arms quickly.

It is true, as far as I know, most Bobbies don't carry firearms. I know that some do, now.

As far as you a private citizen having a handgun in your home...don't think so. You can own one as long as it's kept at a shooting club, locked up except when you are shooting there or at competition.

Any UK'er, gladly correct me if I'm messed up.

But...like anywhere in the world...if you don't care about the law and want a handgun, you can always find one...for sale, for you to have and use.

 

[49greg]

I guess one of my pet peeves is when a reader latches onto some detail that's nonconsequential in a story and ignores and fails to appreciate the overarching plot, themes, and character studies.

Damn good point.

 

[valntin69]

If you get the time you might want to consider authoring an essay on weapons for use in stories. I don't think we have that in the writers resource, and it could come in handy for btb authors...

I would author an essay in regards to firearms and weapons the problem is I am a crap author. That is why I am happy to assist in reaserching for authors who my have questions. But I myself will probably never write anything.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I handled an early M-16 for a while right after I finished training at Ft Ord, in '71 I was a hold over for a few weeks and spent some time as an 'aggressor' against training units taking pot shots with blanks with an M-16 that didn't have a forward assist. It jammed a lot, but that was probably due to the faulty blank adapter.

As for clips and mags I agree. Although in Basic and AIT in '71 we got pushups for calling a magazine a clip (and for calling an M-16 a gun). But then they made us do pushups for just about any reason.

As for miss-identified handguns watch some of the true crime forensic type shows. The re-enactments might use a revolver, then the actual evidence pics use an automatic, sometimes the re-enactments will switch between one and the other during the show, also happens with rifles.



My kid brother has a AK knock off, they're legally imported, or were, if they were semi auto. (auto loading is what the Brits call it I think.) I used to kick his ass either with paper targets or tin cans when I used to have a mini-14.

No one likes the way tv or movies have messed up in the revolver vs Automatic identification.



What I remember about a DoD release in the eighties was that they said it took too much training to teach a GI to keep the '16 down to 3-5 round bursts and they would save money by cutting back on the training and installing the burst feature, but keep some with full auto for the "Automatic Rifleman" in infantry fire teams who would get additional training and/or practice. I couldn't see that part happening but hey.

That GAU-5 sounds a lot like what we called the XM-177, a really really short version of a '16. We were told it got way to hot and wasn't accurate.

I did spent three years in an infantry unit, but in Berlin, so all my shooting was at the range or with a blank adapter. You had to keep the darned thing clean, I was told by some old timers that the first ones in 'Nam had problems.



Odd you mentioned a "region similar to Arizona", so I'm thinking sandy and gritty. I once talked to a guy who was with the marines invading Okinawa in WW2. He said it was sandy there and any sand in a M1 Garand would jam it in a second. I guess it got into that slot for the bolt at the end of the raceway - not sure of the nomenclature on that. My Mini-14 had one, and M-14s I've seen had them.

I guess I'll have to add Gun nomenclature to Religion and Politics as subjects not to bring up unless you know everybody very well, and not then either.

Phan Rang reminded me of Tombstone AZ as soon as I was off the plane. Sand, cactus, and lizards. I'll post pix of the place.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Phan Rang Vietnam 'happy Valley.'

 

[49greg]

Phan Rang Vietnam 'happy Valley.'

I had a 1SG who talked about a place he had been on in one of his tours, he said it looked like a place where you'd expect to see a troop of Horse Cavalry coming around the hill. I wonder if he was ever there.

 

[oggbashan]

Could anyone enlighten me on the handgun law in the UK please?

I 'think' I've got the answer, but I'm not 100% sure.

UK guidance on Firearm Law:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...le/329845/GuideFirearmsLicensingLawJune14.pdf

Extract:

Small firearms
2.39
The 1997 Act prohibited, for the purposes of section 5 of the 1968 Act, any firearm which either has a barrel less than 30cm in length or is less than 60cm in length overall, other than an air weapon, a muzzle-loading gun or a firearm designed as signalling apparatus.

The intention was to prohibit certain particularly dangerous firearms which were easy to conceal. In general terms, this has meant the prohibition of handguns but it is important to remember that the legislation does not refer explicitly to handguns; instead it refers to small firearms. For exemptions to the requirement to obtain the Secretary of State’s authority to possess prohibited firearms see Chapter 3.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

UK guidance on Firearm Law:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...le/329845/GuideFirearmsLicensingLawJune14.pdf

Extract:

Small firearms
2.39
The 1997 Act prohibited, for the purposes of section 5 of the 1968 Act, any firearm which either has a barrel less than 30cm in length or is less than 60cm in length overall, other than an air weapon, a muzzle-loading gun or a firearm designed as signalling apparatus.

The intention was to prohibit certain particularly dangerous firearms which were easy to conceal. In general terms, this has meant the prohibition of handguns but it is important to remember that the legislation does not refer explicitly to handguns; instead it refers to small firearms. For exemptions to the requirement to obtain the Secretary of State’s authority to possess prohibited firearms see Chapter 3.

And there we have it. Thanks Ogg.

 

[redzinger]

UK guidance on Firearm Law:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...le/329845/GuideFirearmsLicensingLawJune14.pdf

Extract:

Small firearms
2.39
The 1997 Act prohibited, for the purposes of section 5 of the 1968 Act, any firearm which either has a barrel less than 30cm in length or is less than 60cm in length overall, other than an air weapon, a muzzle-loading gun or a firearm designed as signalling apparatus.

The intention was to prohibit certain particularly dangerous firearms which were easy to conceal. In general terms, this has meant the prohibition of handguns but it is important to remember that the legislation does not refer explicitly to handguns; instead it refers to small firearms. For exemptions to the requirement to obtain the Secretary of State’s authority to possess prohibited firearms see Chapter 3.

A-ha! Thanks.

Chapter 3 was the bit I was after, just found this:

Exemptions from the requirement to hold the Secretary of State’s
authority to possess prohibited items
3.36
Under the terms of section 54 of the 1968 Act (as amended) persons in the service of Her Majesty acting in their capacity as such are exempt from the provisions of section 5 of the Act. For the purposes of the Act, persons deemed to be in the service of Her Majesty include members of a police force, civilian officers, members of any foreign force when serving with British forces, members of any approved cadet corps when engaged as members of the corps in drill, or in target practice on service premises, and persons providing instruction to members of a cadet corps.

My guy is ex-Army, and working with someone with a security service-type background, so that's close enough to be legal-ish (and know what he's doing).

 

[StrangeLife]

The intention was to prohibit certain particularly dangerous firearms which were easy to conceal.

No, that was the consequence.

The intention was to siphon power from the British people by refusing you access to certain empowering technologies under the guise of "keeping you safe". Spindoctoring isn't a recent invention - those guys have a long and proud tradition in politics.

But I digress...