April 15, 2009
Uh, No
The Mexican police have captured another cache of weapons from a drug cartel, and their apparent instinct was to hype their find as being something more than what they captured, which the Daily Mail bought into entirely.
The "anti-aircraft gun" in the picture is an old M1919 in what appears to be an A4 configuration, and is mounted on a low-tripod for its designed use, allowing infantry to take on ground targets, not aircraft.
Far from the 800-rounds-per-minute claim in the Daily Mail, the cyclic rate of fire was rate of 400-600 rounds per minute, but because the gun was air-cooled and would overheat if fired continuously, it was fired in short bursts, resulting in a rate of fire that was much less.
This is as much an anti-aircraft gun as Margaret Thatcher is a Victoria's Secret model. Sure, all the basic parts are there, but pressing this configuration into a role it was never designed for is a recipe for disaster, and the over-hyping Mexican Police should be ashamed of themselves.
(Via Instapundit.)
I will grant all your points and thank you for pointing them out. But the most terrible thing I can see from the picture is that the terrorist stands boldly and openly while the government agents are masked. It is far more dangerous in Mexico to be a cop than a criminal.
In both Pakistan and Mexico, the government has lost control and if either of those states fails, it will make Somalia look like Disneyland.
Posted by: Ken Hahn at April 15, 2009 01:24 PMWe need to make it illegal to own an anti-aircraft weapon.
Posted by: david at April 15, 2009 02:09 PMAs a physician I have been on both sides of the thought process of drugs. Now, after over 30 years of observation and treatment I feel we are creating a significant problem with the "war on drugs". We fund terrorist and gangs with making illegal substance people want illegal. They get these wether the law permits or not. If the government just steppecd out of the picture, then people could go to Walgreens and buy what they want without a doctors ok. If they want medical help they could get it. This would reduce the cost of medicine and medical care and substantially save us tax money that we spend on the DEA and prison system. It would even reduce the incidence of AIDS, hep C and bacterial endocarditis for which we spend billions every year. The cost would be addicts who are addicts already.
Posted by: david at April 15, 2009 02:17 PMThe news article doesn't show all the pictures of the arsenal.
Here is the M2 they are referring to.
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showpost.php?p=4062312&postcount=20
Still not an "antiaircraft" gun. That's an M2 .50-caliber heavy machine gun, a general-purpose weapon originally designed for use against unarmored and lightly armored vehicles. True, you can shoot at airplanes with it, but that isn't what it was designed for. Nor, it would appear, is it what this one was meant for. The mounting suggests that somebody used it to turn an SUV into a gun-truck, for use against vehicles and personnel.
Traditionally, antiaircraft identifies a gun that fires explosive shells at least 20mm in diameter and can kill or severely damage an aircraft with one or two hits.
Posted by: wolfwalker at April 15, 2009 08:03 PMMargaret Thatcher as a VS model... Yikes. Anyone got any "brain bleach" handy??
Posted by: S.Logan at April 16, 2009 02:27 AMIn any event, those are not things anyone bought at a gun show in Texas or Arizona or anywhere else in the US. The most likely source of such weapons is the Mexican army or international weapons smugglers.
Posted by: George Bruce at April 16, 2009 05:25 PM
