quote:

ORIGINAL: slaveboyforyou

It's very impressive, but like many have said here....I wouldn't want to be the one that totes it and the ammo around.  I can see it having applications for a lot of different jobs.  But, I wouldn't see it as an infantry weapon.  It goes through a lot of ammo pretty quickly, and the U.S. military is historically conservative about ammo usage.  I have doubt that it will get picked up in large numbers anytime soon. 

quote:

But for mounted troops or in place of the 50 cal.that patrols carry,it might work well.

City patrols,house to house fire fights,riding ATVs and standing check points are great places to have one,or two.

The  50 cal.machine gunner usually gets help carring ammo anyway,so carring extra canisters is no big deal.

I`ll say one thing,in a fire fight I wouldn`t want anything less.Whatever is in front of you,dies.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slaveboyforyou

quote:

But for mounted troops or in place of the 50 cal.that patrols carry,it might work well.

City patrols,house to house fire fights,riding ATVs and standing check points are great places to have one,or two.

The  50 cal.machine gunner usually gets help carring ammo anyway,so carring extra canisters is no big deal.

I`ll say one thing,in a fire fight I wouldn`t want anything less.Whatever is in front of you,dies.

Oh I agree.  It would be an unbelievably powerful weapon in close quarters.  I saw a program not to long ago, and a expert said that a great deal of future wars would be fought in urban environments.  Shotguns are ideal for that.  They put out a lot of fire at close distances, and you don't have to worry about them killing some innocent person 10 blocks away.  I think someone else mentioned it; there have been auto shotguns around for awhile now.  The military has experimented with them, but have never bought them up.  Of course, if Blackwater has their hand in the pie; they just may do it.  Speaking of that, I didn't understand that from the video.  Is Blackwater funding the creation of it?   

quote:

ORIGINAL: airborne92

There is one problem with the low recoil claim made in that video, and it was not brought up by anyone that claimed to either be in the business or is serving/has served in the military. All of the ammunition that is shown being fired through the weapon is "low brass" ammunition which is low recoil in its own desiign. I want to see how little recoil there is using "high brass" ammunition, which is what the military would use in it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

quote:

ORIGINAL: slaveboyforyou

It's very impressive, but like many have said here....I wouldn't want to be the one that totes it and the ammo around.  I can see it having applications for a lot of different jobs.  But, I wouldn't see it as an infantry weapon.  It goes through a lot of ammo pretty quickly, and the U.S. military is historically conservative about ammo usage.  I have doubt that it will get picked up in large numbers anytime soon. 

But for mounted troops or in place of the 50 cal.that patrols carry,it might work well.

City patrols,house to house fire fights,riding ATVs and standing check points are great places to have one,or two.

The  50 cal.machine gunner usually gets help carring ammo anyway,so carring extra canisters is no big deal.

I`ll say one thing,in a fire fight I wouldn`t want anything less.Whatever is in front of you,dies.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Muttling

The AA-12 is a tremendously good combat shot gun, but it remains just that.....a combat shotgun.  The M16's and M4s have three times the range along with a FAR superior ammo capacity per soldier.     Then you go to the M-14's and the sniper weapons such as the M-21 or M-24 and you get 5 fold or more increased ranges along with far superior ammo capacity.

It's a good weapon, but a specialists weapon and one that is better suited to military police forces than regular combat units.    The combat shotgun replaces the submachine gun in the Korean War.   It won't be replacing the assault rifle.

quote:

The M16's and M4s have three times the range