Many times. He's completely talking out his ass on the firearms info for starters. Reading that section was like reading a guide to sex written by a virgin. Regurgiating old stories about the M-16 from Vietnam as though they are current problems for one thing.
He doesn't realize that most soldiers there were never proved cleaning kits, or information on how to maintain their weapons, and experienced high levels of malfunctions as a result. Plus, the lack of a chrome lined chamber and bore led to rust problems, and a propellant change created a fouling problem that was fixed when the propellant was changed back to the original propellant specified.
That has been changed, and was taken care of in like 1967 or so.
He could have checked out AR-15.com and seen stories of people who've fired several thousand rounds of cheap, dirty Russian ammo like Wolf, and had few if any problems.
Plus he'd have figured out that a jam, misfire or failure to extract is not some end of the world game over event, but an event that happens to any shooter if they shoot enough and that it's a very simple remedy to that situation that is pounded into every soldier, police officer and serious shooter. Slap, rack bang, or shoot, pull, observe, release, tap, shoot.
He does it again in WWZ when talking about the SIR and it having a powerful recoil, despite a wood stock, and being chambered in 5.56mm NATO. Brooks obviously never fired a Ruger Mini-14, a wood stocked semiauto in .223, the civilian equivalent of 5.56mm. The Mini has dick for recoil.
Yeah, I can suspend disbelief, but there's no excuse for sloppy research and hoping your audience is too stupid to know the difference. It pulls people out of the story and ruins the effect you're trying to create.
|
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Trencher
Bookmarks