Comments on: The “world’s deadliest gun”

By: Trent Sims

Trent Sims — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 19:53:41 +0000

well i think the most deadliest gun is the .22 long rife because it ricochets off of anything it hits like you shoot a tree at a few yards its gonna bounce off that and travel somewhere else and shot it towards water its gonna skip over the water and travel somewhere else also. Sam reily you dont know jackshit either. fucker.

By: Thomas Rizzo

Thomas Rizzo — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 21:35:51 +0000

It never ceases to amaze me at the stupidity of the Left Wing Press with their constant attempts to raise panic and alarm over simple things that they have absolutely no knowledge of.

They love exercising their freedoms, but don’t stop for a minute to think how those freedoms were attained or defended.

You can stick your head back in the sand now.

By: Sam Reily

Sam Reily — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 01:27:35 +0000

someone silence that asss danno he is really pissing me off. :} wat are u smiling at! get a f***en life

By: Sam Reily

Sam Reily — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 01:24:15 +0000

the 10 most deadliest guns suck! u people are so lame,and i bet u the Ak-47 has a direvt nozzle compared to the m-16. U people don’t know jackshit, my older brother could tell the ranging distance of a m40 comparedto your dumbass experts. Danno doesn’t know anything about guns. He can’t even spell ridiculous.

By: Danno

Danno — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 04:14:56 +0000

you people are rediculas
the only thing wrong with this weapon is it has no silencer
=)

By: Josh

Josh — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 13:39:44 +0000

Has any body seen the terminator movies? Remember how skynet took over the automatic weapons systems the military had similar to this? I’m just saying…shouldn’t we think this over quite a bit? Doesnt this look like it could be a problem for our race as humans?

By: ian

ian — Fri, 02 May 2008 23:37:04 +0000

Can u imagine what the world will be like if this sort of thing is used. we’ll kill off the human race.

By: jared

jared — Tue, 20 Nov 2007 09:46:59 +0000

damn,
the last thing the world needs is a gun that kills poeple faster…

By: Nomen Nescio

Nomen Nescio — Sat, 29 Sep 2007 17:21:58 +0000

MetalStorm is technologically interesting, but…

(1), it’s militarily untried and hasn’t seemed to excite military decisionmakers anywhere so far. great concern and worry might perhaps be better spent on weapons systems that have, you know, ever actually killed somebody?

(2), it’s also hobbled by technological limitations (slow reload speed, great weight and bulk of reloads, expended “ammunition” likely too expensive to discard yet just as bulky as the unused stuff) which will probably consign it to applications that don’t need long-sustained firing and won’t attract much return fire. there are such applications, but most of them don’t involve shooting at actual people (anti-missile batteries, for instance). emotional hysterics do not seem much called for, here.

By: Linoge

Linoge — Sat, 29 Sep 2007 04:14:24 +0000

MetalStorm has to be one of the coolest and most engineeringly-fascinating advances in weapon technology since the original invention of the chemically-propelled projectile. It has applications all the way down to making smaller, more concealable, but more powerful handguns for me, all the way up to making area-denial tools and high-rate-of-fire artillery for the military.

If this thing can be used to better, more quickly, and more safely kill those who would threaten our troops, our families, and our way of life, then more power to it. Thanks for reminding me about it!