Re use of blanks

First question that comes to my mind is how would a witness really know the difference ? - one way they might know is if there were no bullet holes anwhere but there were shots fired (inside).

I agree re the point made about recycling the gas pistons of the mentioned weapons but when we (Air Force) used blanks in similar weapons we had to fit a special plug to the barrel that allowed some gas to escape but left enough gas to cycle the piston & reload mechanism. This attachment was clamped over the barrel of the rifle. The excess gas exited through the muzzel flash elimination slots at the tip of the barrel.

Just to add impressions on reporting 'facts'. I had been in Manila just after a major coup there (when Major 'Gringo' Hosnan tried to lead a coup against Cory Aquino's govt). In the Makati district, several weeks later, there were bullet marks in many walls of buildings - very clear evidence of a lot of shooting.

Also was in Tienanmen just after the infamous 'Tienanmen Incident' & whilst walking round the square was completely puzzled at the lack of bullet pit marks allowing that our press had painted a picture of 3000+ dying there. There appeared to be no new brick work on the bulidings but there were some new flagstones at one corner of square. It was later during further research that I learned that the actual shooting and most deaths had not happened in Tienanmen square at all but in the Muxidi district (at the Muxidi overpass) and also several students died outside the university.

The point I am making here is that sometimes events are inaccurately described or portrayed, but that also doesn't mean they didn't happen. It can be difficult filtering the 'noise'. As for debunking the BBC report, the guns story in BLOG does nothing of the sort. It merely raises the issue of were blanks really used and of the problems in firing blanks in gas piston rifles. My military experience was that we had special attachments that allowed us to shoot blanks in them so it could be argued that I have just debunked the BLOG article. Both positions assume the eyewitness knew what he was talking about in saying blanks were used. That in turn is dependant on the reported words of the Iraqi witness being accurate.

But as always, we are likely to believe what we want & the facts don't always play a role in our beliefs. I lean toward the BBC/Iraqi story as being more credible that *anything* that came out of the US on the topic.

Cheers

Doug Marker

How would a witness really know the difference ? - largely if there were no bullet holes but there were shots fired.

I agree re the ability of recycling the gas pistons of the mentioned weapons. We we used similar we had to fit a special plug to the barrel that allowed enough gas to cycle the piston & reload mechanism.

Just to add impressions. I had been in Manila just after a major coup there (when Major 'Gringo' Hosnan tried a coup against Cory Aquino), and in the Makati district, several weeks later, there were bullet marks in many walls of building - very clear evidence of a lot of shooting.

Also was in Tienanmen just after the infamous 'Tienanmen Incident' & whilst walking round the square was completely puzzled at the lack of bullet marks allowing that our press had painted a picture of 1000s dying there. There appeared to be no new brick work on the bulidings but there were some new flagstones at one corner of square. It was later during further research that I learned that the actual shooting and most deaths had not happened in Tienanmen square at all but in the Muxidi district (at the Muxidi overpass) and also several students died outside the university.

The point I am making here is that sometimes events are inaccurately described or portrayed, but that also doesn't mean they didn't happen. It can be difficult filtering the 'noise'. As for debunking the BBC report, the guns story in BLOG does nothing of the sort. It merely raises the issue of were blanks really used and of the problems in firing blanks in gas piston rifles. My military experience was that we had special attachments that allowed us to shoot blanks in them so it could be argued that I have just debunked the BLOG article. Both positions assume the eyewitness knew what he was talking about in saying blanks were used. That in turn is dependant on the reported words of the Iraqi witness being accurate.

But as always, we are likely to believe what we want & the facts don't always play a role in our beliefs. I lean toward the BBC/Iraqi story as being more credible that *anything* that came out of the US on the topic.

Cheers

Doug Marker

Welcome to IWETHEY!