From booksbikesboomsticks.blogspot.com:
Looking at QC issues with certain brands of pistol, and the needs and expectations of their buyers, I think that you could drive a half-dozen gun companies to the brink of bankruptcy if you sold a sealed, non-reloadable, disposable, 10-shot pistol with an instruction comic book in a blister pack for $29.99.
I’d buy a few. Maybe a six-pack.
A modern rendition of the WWII Liberator pistol?
Hmmm… So long as it isn’t chambered in .410/45LC…
Such pistols have been mentioned in science fiction,
often sold through vending machines in cyberpunk literature.
A novel I read many years ago featured such guns, as well
as an anti gun society called the banjos, who used abstract
mathmatecs to justify their murderous activities as self defense.
Really wickedly funny novel, I wish I could remember the name,
or the authors name.
Aside form the non-reloadable suggestion it is an interesting idea.
You know, the Grendel pistol could be a model for such a weapon,
A friend owned one.
Of course some design changes would need to be made.
It was the only semi automatic pistol you could play russian roulette with.
Every three or four rounds it would eject both an empty casing
and a live round. It would end up chambering empty.
Mabye not such a good idea after all, now that I think about it.
I can see a disposable two-shot .410 derringer or even a four-shot .410 for $50. The engineering is simple: the metal only has to survive a few shots, and the chamber-locking mechanism can be permanent instead of locking and unlocking.
I can’t imagine the ATF tolerating the idea, but I would be tempted to buy it.
Why? I don’t like cheap pistols, and I’d also like to hit what I’m shooting at.
Maybe you should get some better pistols to review.
This would be a perfect project for the people at Metal Storm ltd.
Sealed, single use pistols would moot our extensive rebates about how best to release the slide after a reload. And Michael Bloomberg would sue us for using the phrase ‘New York Reload’ so frequently.
Copying a post in its entirety is bad netiquette.
I apologize for offending your net sensibilities. It is my considered opinion that post length is the key variable for acceptable scrapage. As always we give credit and a link where credit and link are due.
If you’re stuck for a post idea again and want me to generate content for you, just drop me an email.
I don’t have any problems in the ideas department, but TTAG’s always open to new talent and fresh perspectives. I just sent you an email.
Makes sense if you feel your life is only worth $30…
Actually, that’s a great marketing phrase idea! “The Liberator-A2, for when your life is really only worth $30!”
But seriously, what idiot gun store would sell a pre-loaded pistol? What shipper would carry it? There are enough NDs at gunstores and gunshows as it is, why introduce the variable of the always loaded gun?
I get it. Some people can’t afford a real gun. However, there are cheap enough options that this is a horribly bad idea. Sure it’d sell, but people would buy anything. Just because someone buys it, doesn’t mean it’s an ethically good idea.
agreed, i’d got with a kel tec p11 or ruger p95, basically two of the most inexpensive 9mm pistols made in the USA, before i would EVER touch a piece of crap like this, almost as scary as that stapler shotgun you guys posted earlier
Hey, I’ve got a Kel-Tec and a P95 and the pair of them cost less than $600, including spare magazines!
I actually designed one of those back in college. Had a packaging design class, and chose such a concept for a final project. I didn’t actually build a gun(just a clay mock-up). But the concept was the same.
The problem is that such a weapon would be all over the streets almost immediately. They would show up in every crime. Like those Raven .25acps used to. Like High Point’s do now.
Hey, I could make a disposable gun out of plastic and . . . oh, damn, Glock beat me to it.
Pingback: SayUncle » Internet: Serious Business
Pingback: Not Cool | Snowflakes in Hell
As much as I’d like to accomodate criticisms from my fellow bloggers, I consider this post fair use.
“fair use” how?
The proper way to do this would be to say:
Tampa has an interesting idea – please join the discussion!” — with the latter phrase being a link to her post.
You did wrong, and got called on it.
Man up, apologize, and do better in the future!
Fair use is a well-established legal doctrine: http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html.