"Disruptive technology" is nothing more than a gussied-up way of saying "I have a new idea."
This rant is brought to you by some jerkoffs who are advertising that they have "Disruptive Ammunition Innovation"
Which is what, exactly, you might ask? It's boxer-primed cartridge cases made of something other than brass.
Color me skeptical.
I can buy 9mm brass-cased cartridges for twenty cents a round. Russian lacquered-steel-cased ammunition is in that range. Aluminum-cased ammunition is a tad bit more costly. This stuff is two-pieced. Which, to my untrained eye, would mean that there are going to be more manufacturing steps involved in making the cases. (Need I expound further along that line?)
Two pieces, steel and aluminum. Maybe you're not shooting in rough conditions, but if you might foresee getting drenched from time to time, steel and aluminum plus water can result in a little something known as "bimetallic corrosion".
Brass-cased ammunition is about as mature and proven a technology as there is. The number of centerfire brass cartridges produced and used in wars from the British Expedition to Abyssinia in 1868 to the current wars of today has to number into the many trillions, and that's not counting the trillions of steel cartridges made during World War 2 and thereafter.
The nearly breathless and uncritical regurgitation of SST's press release, as shown here, shows yet again that the dead-tree firearms press is to be regarded with a skeptical, nay, cynical eye.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I refuse to read the dead tree firearms press. The utter lack of credulity and the blatant pandering to advertisers (and potential advertises) render it less credible than the National Enquirer. Luckily the Internet now exists...
That's a problem that is fairly well-known. The reviews of the R51 from 2014 are a case in point.
There is a cost to dissing a product in the trade press. Eclipse Aviation refused to advertise in Flying after they published a critical review of the E-500. As far as I know, Flying was the only magazine which pointed out that the E-500 would never make it.
A good idea is to pay attention to who the heavy advertisers are. I'd never trust a review in the commercial gun press about a Kimber product. There's a reason why no-ad publications such as Gun Tests survive.
Post a Comment