Ship of Fools: A Taylor Varga Omake (Complete)

Well adjusted people don't put on a costume and go around fighting crime without a very good reason. In Spidey's case, he has guilt issues combined with an overdeveloped sense of civic responsibility. No, this is not a healthy outlook on life by any means. It's better then some, but still not healthy.

As such, it's unrealistic to expect him to make the sort of decisions a well adjusted, rational person would. He feels his having the power he has comes with the responsibility to use it to benefit others; much like how a professor has a responsibility to teach his students or a police officer has a responsibility to uphold the law.

Notice how the examples I've listed receive payment in exchange for discharging their responsibilities? Somehow, Peter hasn't realized that responsibility should come with compensation. This doesn't mean he doesn't do good things, but that his internal examples are far less altruistic then he seems to think. Heck, the Avengers pull a paycheck, and the FF usually deal with threats that would either destroy the world with them on it or that target them directly, so both major hero groups based in New Your City have selfish motivations for what they do.

(One could argue that Iron Man, who is indirectly paying the other Avengers, is doing what he does without compensation. I would point out that the Iron Man suit is Tony's test bed for all his best tech, and the Avengers deal with things that would cause him and his business issues down the road. Therefor, the Avengers is an investment that often pays major dividends to Tony Stark in one way or another.)
 
I think Nat would have better taste in guns than the overhyped piece of garbage that is the glock. Eh whatever other than that minor gripe this was an excellent chapter.

Uh... Their handguns have become one of Glock's biggest cashcows for a good reason, they're GOOD. As a minimum, they're above average in every way, yet still has a decent pricetag. And while they're not my preferred choice, that's not because they are bad, just that i prefer the grip and balance of other options.
 
From what I understand as an admittedly non-expert non-american, and therefore not someone who has much to do with handguns on a daily basis, the Glock pistols are reliable, accurate, and cost effective. There's a reason they're common in law enforcement circles, after all. True, for any of those specific metrics there may well be something that's higher on the scale, but probably not for all of them at the same time.

If that was the case, you'd probably see this alternative being used instead :)
 
Last edited:
Scottish Castle HQ from Buffy Season 8
By the way, for those of you who were never Buffy the Vampire Slayer fans, or who never read the follow-on comics, the cast ends up at a new headquarters in a castle in Scotland (see the image below). So, when Willow says she doesn't see a Scottish castle in her future...well, that may be true in the new timeline...

Buffy Season 8 Panels with Castle
 
Notice how the examples I've listed receive payment in exchange for discharging their responsibilities? Somehow, Peter hasn't realized that responsibility should come with compensation. This doesn't mean he doesn't do good things, but that his internal examples are far less altruistic then he seems to think. Heck, the Avengers pull a paycheck, and the FF usually deal with threats that would either destroy the world with them on it or that target them directly, so both major hero groups based in New Your City have selfish motivations for what they do.

Notice that in the comics the Avengers don't get paid to be Avengers. Tony Stark offered up one of his mansions as their HQ, and they can live there if desired. But each member of the Avengers is responsible for their own finances. They have paying jobs (fashion designer, scientist, engineer, and so forth) or have other sources of income (Captain America's back pay, poker winnings, and so forth). As for the Fantastic Four. It's interesting to note that for a team of heroes, they often are dealing with problems caused by Reed Richards poking his nose into something. The various villains from the Negative Zone hadn't even been aware of Earth until Reed brought his team to their home dimension and caused trouble. Similarly, the various threats from the subatomic universe wouldn't have been threats if Reed had left well enough alone. This is a common thread. Reed starts on some project and drags the F4 into it. They stumble across a powerful being who hadn't actually been a threat due to having no knowledge of Earth, and Reed manages to make them a threat.

Actually, one of the Avenger's most dangerous foes is also Reed Richard's fault. Kang the Conqueror is a decedent of Reed Richards who uses tech Reed invented and that Kang discovered.
 
Notice that in the comics the Avengers don't get paid to be Avengers.
Actually, they do. In several comics (the second Vision and the Scarlet Witch miniseries comes to mind) make mention of a stipend for both active and reserve members of the Avengers, paid out via the Maria Stark Foundation (which Tony founded to insure the financing of the Avengers independently of his current finances; he is, of course, the first and largest patron to said foundation.)

That said, the usual mention of said reserve stipend was that it alone barely covered Vision and Wanda's bills, and that either they needed an additional source of income or for one of them to return to active duty after she gave birth. (She was pregnant with twins at the time.) So, not a lot for reservists.

As to the FF.... you are quite right; the majority of their problems originate from the team's resident mad scientist pushing boundaries that wiser men would have left alone. Not all, mind you; Doom can, ironically, be blamed on Ben, and Galactus would have shown up regardless; in that case, Reed racing to the moon months earlier ended up giving them a warning they otherwise would not have had.

As for Kang.... Reed didn't invent the Time Travel tech he used; he re-purposed Doom's device instead. So, just because the man who would be Kang found one of Doom's time machines in one of Reed's storage vaults doesn't mean Reed was at fault for locking up a dangerous yet useful piece of tech that a different mad scientist invented....
 
SHIT happens, and sticking his nose into shit is how Gwen Stacey got killed, his aunt threatened. Peter is his own worst enemy. ALL the bad stuff that happened to him was because of his choices, it was fine when he was single he only threatened his safety and May.

He's married now its time to let that crap go.....if all the stuff that happened to him in the past isn't enough to get a new lease on life with the family helping him now nothing is.
Tell you what. Don't read Spider Man comics and pretend in your head that he's done that. But I'm guessing Marvel Comics isn't going to drop one of its profitable properties, and Peter Parker isn't suddenly going to decide that the world's problems aren't his business.
 
Actually, they do. In several comics (the second Vision and the Scarlet Witch miniseries comes to mind) make mention of a stipend for both active and reserve members of the Avengers, paid out via the Maria Stark Foundation (which Tony founded to insure the financing of the Avengers independently of his current finances; he is, of course, the first and largest patron to said foundation.)

That said, the usual mention of said reserve stipend was that it alone barely covered Vision and Wanda's bills, and that either they needed an additional source of income or for one of them to return to active duty after she gave birth. (She was pregnant with twins at the time.) So, not a lot for reservists.

As to the FF.... you are quite right; the majority of their problems originate from the team's resident mad scientist pushing boundaries that wiser men would have left alone. Not all, mind you; Doom can, ironically, be blamed on Ben, and Galactus would have shown up regardless; in that case, Reed racing to the moon months earlier ended up giving them a warning they otherwise would not have had.

As for Kang.... Reed didn't invent the Time Travel tech he used; he re-purposed Doom's device instead. So, just because the man who would be Kang found one of Doom's time machines in one of Reed's storage vaults doesn't mean Reed was at fault for locking up a dangerous yet useful piece of tech that a different mad scientist invented....

The stipend I believe is suppose to barely be enough to cover expenses, if you're staying at Avengers Mansion. I think one of the reasons Steve Rodgers keeps going on missions for Nick Fury despite really disapproving of Fury's usual methods is because the good Captain quite honestly needs the money. Not that this has ever actually been mentioned, but you know that Fury pays heroes for their work. In fact, this is a key plot point at the start of Sensational She-Hulk. Fury hires She-Hulk to help shut down a gamma reactor.

Also, Doc Doom would have been a villain to begin with. That is true. He thinks he's the smartest person on the planet, and can run the world better then everyone currently doing so. And you know what? He might be right about doing a better job running the world. Crime and poverty are virtually non-existent in Latvaria. Then again, so are civil liberties and human rights. But the reason Doctor Doom constantly harasses the Fantastic Four has nothing to do with Ben Grimm. Instead it's because he blames Reed Richards for his horribly disfigured face. They were collage roommates, and Reed pointed out a mistake Victor Von Doom had made in a calculation. But of course Doom doesn't make mistakes, does he? So he ignored the warning, and the experiment blew up in Doom's face. Oh noes! Since Victor Von Doom is clearly the superior intellect and never makes mistakes, Richards obviously sabotaged the experiment. At least that was the original backstory. Not sure if it's been retconed since then.

As to Spider-Man being the cause of his own misfortune, that's actually true to an extent. He struggles to hold down a job because his over developed sense of responsibility causes him to constantly be late for work (due to stopping every crime he comes across). He gets kicked out of apartments because rather then paying the rent, he's buying chemicals to make more web fluid and fighting crime. He struggles with his relationships because he's constantly pulled away to stop some random crime or super villain. Gwen Stacy died because of his being Spider-Man too, but it wasn't actually his fault. Well, not entirely his fault. Green Goblin targeted her because he'd learned Spider-Man's secret identity. She was imperiled because Norman Osborn is a lunatic. If she'd been dating Harry Osborn and thus Norman thought she was getting between him and molding his son into the 'right sort of person' she'd still have been in danger. But her death was actually more due to Parker being a teenager who had never had to do anything like rescue someone falling from a great height before. And in his inexperience, Parker hadn't known how to catch someone falling in a way they wont suffer fatal whiplash.

Yes, I've read every single issue of Spider-Man from Amazing Fantasy #15 through the death of Gwen Stacy. And that was the first time Peter had tried to catch someone who was falling from a great height. Afterwords, I'd imagine he spent a lot of time practicing to avoid such a mistake occurring again. He also developed settings for his web shooters which let him create web-nets to catch people who were falling.

And while you might deride Peter Parker for causing so many of his own problems in life by being obsessed with being Spider-Man, you have to remember why he has such an overwhelming sense of responsibility. When he first got his powers Parker had no intention of being a hero. He just wanted to make money, and maybe be famous as well. After his initial amateur wrestling debut he was doing the talk show circuit. His aunt and uncle were concerned about him without knowing what was really going on. So Uncle Ben sat down to talk with Peter. The last words Peter heard from his uncle was "you have great power, and with great power comes great responsibility". Now granted, Uncle Ben was likely referring to the fact that Peter was on the cusp of adulthood, was very intelligent, and had many potential paths ahead of him. Not that if you have super powers it's your responsibility to use them to help others. And Peter, teenager that he was, completely blew this off to continue his road to fame and fortune.

As we all know, a thief runs past Spider-Man after his latest appearance (in Amazing Fantasy #15 it was a talk show appearance), and a security guard calls for Spider-Man to stop the crook. Instead, he lets the nameless crook run by. Thus the crook manages to get away. And when called out on this callous and uncaring act, Parker's reply is "it's not my job". It's the two fold gut punch of his uncle's last words and the fact that his uncle was killed by the same man Peter allowed to escape because it 'wasn't his job' are why his life motto became "With great power must come great responsibility." These events occurred during a critical time for Peter, he was maybe 14, 15 at most when he became Spider-Man. This was literally a defining moment. And that responsibility does weigh Parker down heavily. He's tried to give up being Spider-Man many times over the years. But each and every time he's pulled back in to stop some super villain who the police are unequipped to handle and the other heroes are too busy to deal with.

And to be honest, without Spider-Man Earth 616 (and it's close analogs) would be a far worse place. After Onslaught the Avengers and Fantastic Four were thought to be dead. Which removed many of New York's heroes. So guess who had to step in to try keeping a lid on the entire city? Yup, you guessed it. Your friendly neighborhood wall crawler was running himself to exhaustion and beyond trying to deal with his own rogues gallery and any other villains that popped up that one of the Avengers would normally have handled.

EDIT: This is actually one of the things I think the newest Spider-Man game on PS4 gets right. The game actively encourages the player to stop every single kidnapping, drug deal, robbery, and mugging. Thus encouraging you to play the game like Peter Parker actually would behave if he had constant access to the police dispatch. And every time he's suppose to show up for work, he's late due to his activities as Spider-Man. In fact, often the game will give story objectives for you to do something as Spider-Man when he's suppose to be going to work.

In fact, the game opens up with Peter waking up, realizing he'll be late for work if he doesn't hurry up and then spys the Past Due notice informing him that if he doesn't pay his rent today he'll be evicted. Only for his police band radio to inform him that the police are about to try arresting Wilson Fisk. You can see him agonizing over paying the rent or helping take down Fisk. Only for his sense of duty to kick in, and he goes off to battle a super villain instead of paying rent or going to work. Which is both a good and bad decision. He saves a lot of lives, but... Well... There's consequences.

In fact, even though he knows he's suppose to be going to work now the game's next few story missions are a lengthy bit of him being a hero. Thus making him late for work and leading to bad repercussions which are felt throughout the rest of the game. Hell, even during a (not)date with Mary Jane he's visibly torn when a police car drives by with the sirens going. Of course MJ sighs and tells him to go do his thing. And of course this makes him late for work yet again. Leading once again to a string of bad events that could have been prevented if he'd just gotten to work on time.

This is a theme that crops up many times so far in the game, and I've not completed it by any stretch of the imagination. Peter does good work, saves lives, but his life is ruined by his obsessive need to stop every crime he comes across.
 
Last edited:
But the reason Doctor Doom constantly harasses the Fantastic Four has nothing to do with Ben Grimm. Instead it's because he blames Reed Richards for his horribly disfigured face. They were collage roommates, and Reed pointed out a mistake Victor Von Doom had made in a calculation. But of course Doom doesn't make mistakes, does he? So he ignored the warning, and the experiment blew up in Doom's face. Oh noes! Since Victor Von Doom is clearly the superior intellect and never makes mistakes, Richards obviously sabotaged the experiment. At least that was the original backstory. Not sure if it's been retconed since then.

It was (relatively) recently revealed that the device of Doom's in college failed explosively because Ben messed with it; otherwise it simply would have failed to function properly (no disfiguring involved.) Had Ben not done so, Doom likely would have double checked his notes, found the error Reed spotted, and fixed the device. This would likely have left him a bit humbler, as it demonstrated the value of working with others, and diverted him from being quite so villainous.

So yes, Doctor Doom did indeed become the man he is today thanks to Ben Grimm.
 
Doc Doom comes pretty high on the list of "clever people who you don't want near the levers of power". Matt Murdock, on the other hand...

And, I'm ignoring any turtling attempts to share origins. :)
 
As to Spider-Man being the cause of his own misfortune, that's actually true to an extent.

If, somehow, Spider-Man was paid and officially sanctioned to do what he does (ie: employed by the city as a super-powered police officer/first responder,) then he would have far fewer problems in his life. However, it has long been acknowledged at Marvel Comics that Spidey's popularity stems from the fact that he does indeed struggle with the same day-to-day issues everyone else does, and being a hero not only doesn't make the problems go away, but adds more problems on top of them.

Now, let's be real here; if a noticeable portion of the population began to gain superhuman abilities, and a major city had the superhuman population density that Marvel's NYC has, then at minimum someone like Spidey (powerful and civic minded enough to help deal with criminal superhumans) would be actively recruited by some law enforcement agency or another as soon as practically possible. Not only to improve the effectiveness of said agency (in this case, most likely the NYPD,) but also because it would look better from a PR perspective for criminals to be brought in by a super powered cop then a loose canon vigilante.

(Also, it would be safer; contrary to what most forms of media would tell you, organized crime rarely targets street level cops and their families for interrupting their business. Largely because if they are sloppy enough to get caught, then it's their own damn fault. Instead, they focus on the DA and Judges to keep convictions from occurring. Far cheaper and more effective that way. As a vigilante not operating under the restrictions of a cop, Spidey has a larger effect on the bottom line, and is more likely to be personally targeted.

The fact that most of the time he would be kept in reserve for dealing with superhuman crimes and not dealing with things the average street cop should be dealing with will also keep him off the Kingpin's radar for the most part....)
 
It was (relatively) recently revealed that the device of Doom's in college failed explosively because Ben messed with it; otherwise it simply would have failed to function properly (no disfiguring involved.) Had Ben not done so, Doom likely would have double checked his notes, found the error Reed spotted, and fixed the device. This would likely have left him a bit humbler, as it demonstrated the value of working with others, and diverted him from being quite so villainous.

So yes, Doctor Doom did indeed become the man he is today thanks to Ben Grimm.

That would be a retcon, since originally Ben is mentioned as having gone to a different collage then Reed and Victor. Thus the first time he ever saw Von Doom was his initial appearance facing the Fantastic Four. It's implied a few times but never confirmed that Ben and Reed met thanks to NASA due to Ben's skill as a pilot.
 
That would be a retcon, since originally Ben is mentioned as having gone to a different collage then Reed and Victor.

A very early retcon if at all; by the early 80's, Ben, Reed and Victor all met in college, and Ben ended up as Reed's roommate when Victor demanded a private room.

In fact, even earlier; in the 1960's Hanna Barbara produced a Fantastic Four cartoon (the first, as it happens,) and in that one when Doom's origins were given, it was explicitly stated the three met when they all enrolled in the same college; the same episode mentioned Ben was an ace combat pilot from "The War", and Reed served as a member of the OSS. Yes, back then the two were highly decorated WWII veterans; Ben more then Reed due to the secretive nature of his work. Then again, for two men in their late 40's to early 50's to have been in the war that ended less then 25 years earlier was not, at the time, unreasonable....

Ben's sabotage is a recent addition. The three meeting in college early on is not.
 
I'll admit I haven't read every single issue of F4. But the comics from the 60's mention that Ben hadn't known who Victor Von Doom is until they first met Dr Doom the villain. It was a throw away line that appeared in one issue, so I can believe later writers didn't remember this. Also may not have seen every single episode of the original F4 cartoon, but I don't remember the episode your talking about.

Then again, Marvel is just as bad as DC when it comes to retconing a characters backstory. They just don't do a complete cosmic reset every ten years. Instead they usually try claiming everything is canon, even the mutually exclusive stuff.
 
Well adjusted people don't put on a costume and go around fighting crime without a very good reason.

There's a BtVS "Dungeon Crawler" (LordsFire has the trope namer) Si where becoming a Super-Hero is sometimes part of therapy.

Found it: Overpowered by Kevin Schultz
SO SAD it's dead.

The TOC is missing some chapters. Some very good chapters that didn't match Kevin's artistic vision.
 
From what I understand as an admittedly non-expert non-american, and therefore not someone who has much to do with handguns on a daily basis, the Glock pistols are reliable, accurate, and cost effective. There's a reason they're common in law enforcement circles, after all. True, for any of those specific metrics there may well be something that's higher on the scale, but probably not for all of them at the same time.

If that was the case, you'd probably see this alternative being used instead :)

Considering that the Glock is an Austrian thing, i doubt your non-american-ness matters much. Aside from that, yes pretty much. It started with the military however when the Austrian army accepted the Glock 17 as their new standard handgun in 1982 after it outperformed every competitor compared to it. Then it drew interest from the US DoD and was unofficially evaluated in relation to the XM9 tests(actually taking official part of the tests would have required illogical redesigns for no really good reasons) and came out of that with the unofficial statement that had it been officially entered it was somewhat of a tossup if it would have been the winner over the Beretta(with the Glock having the advantage as long as you ignored some of the requirement details for the contestants).

Then, to make it short and simple i'll just quote wikipedia:
"Shortly thereafter, the Glock 17 was accepted into service with the Norwegian and Swedish armed forces, surpassing all prior NATO durability standards.[19] As a result, the Glock 17 became a standard NATO-classified sidearm"
After that it's basically just been slowly and gradually updated and improved, currently up to the "5th generation" and even with the relatively small changes over so much time competitors still have a hard time managing the same overall quality to price ratio.

It's not really hard to get an overall better gun, but you're not going to like the pricetag. It's also not really hard to get a cheaper gun, but the quality WILL be worse.
Likewise, it's easy to get a gun that is better in one way or another, but hard to get one without paying through the nose that doesn't also have definite downsides that you would prefer not to have.

And finally, an important part of their quality is that while they're not perfect for handling by most, they're very good at not being BAD for the vast majority of people, so while most folks don't prefer them for competition shooting, if you're going to equip a lot of people with them and want as few as possible to have trouble handling them, they're definitely one of the better choices.
 
And finally, an important part of their quality is that while they're not perfect for handling by most, they're very good at not being BAD for the vast majority of people, so while most folks don't prefer them for competition shooting, if you're going to equip a lot of people with them and want as few as possible to have trouble handling them, they're definitely one of the better choices.
So, basically, Glocks are really good at being a "one size fits all" solution for arming a police force or military.
 
Which is important, of course. You want your daily use equipment to be as reliable and user-agnostic as possible, and if it can be arranged, good value for money. Any specialists will end up paying the price for specialist equipment tailored to their exact requirements, but buying what's essentially competition-grade hardware for general use is a total waste of money. If nothing else without the correct training it may well perform less well in the hands of most people. And it could also end up requiring more maintenance than ideal, which again is more expensive and less efficient.

I can't see that being less true for firearms than for anything else.
 
In other words, the Glock hits a nice "sweet spot" in the quality vs price metric, and is a decent fit for almost all shooters.

I am reminded the M2HB. The design is almost a century old. Yet the weapon is, with minimal improvements, still in common use. There is a reason for this: it does the job it was designed for very well indeed.

The Glock also does it's job well; the job being an inexpensive, high capacity, accurate, effective sidearm. Can you get higher capacity? Better accuracy? Better stopping power? Less expensive? Sure. Pick up to 2; the other categories will be significantly worse then the Glock; how much worse depending on how much and how many "improvements" the other weapon offers.
 
Last edited:
So, basically, Glocks are really good at being a "one size fits all" solution for arming a police force or military.

Pretty much yeah.


In other words, the Glock hits a nice "sweet spot" in the quality vs price metric, and is a decent fit for almost all shooters.

I am reminded the M2HB The design is almost a century old. Yet the weapon is, with minimal improvements, still in common use. There is a reason for this: it does the job it was designed for very well indeed.

The Glock also does it's job well; the job being an inexpensive, high capacity, accurate, effective sidearm. Can you get higher capacity? Better accuracy? Better stopping power? Less expensive? Sure. Pick up to 2; the other categories will be significantly worse then the Glock; how much worse depending on how much and how many "improvements" the other weapon offers.

The M2 has stuck around more through inertia though, it's a very good allrounder for when it was made, but it's become obsolete several times over since then, but due to how it's deployed and used, there has never been any acute requirements to replace it, and some of the attempts at replacing it have been hilariously badly handled, ending up with gear that was right out pisspoor (like the XM806 and XM312 AND the 25mm autocannon XM307 they were based on(this line of development pretty much all fell on the fact that rate of fire was ridiculously low and the action had some issues ), there was another attempt that i can't find the name for that instead was so unreliable it could barely fire 5 shots without locking up, another that was so inaccurate you'd be better off throwing horsehoes blindfolded at a target and so on, i think there's been at least a dozen official and unofficial attempts to replace it since WWII in USA).

So instead it's kept in use and partially replaced by the Mk 19 40mm grenade launcher.

Because if you compare it to what has come around since it was made? The M2 really doesn't look very good no matter how decent it is measured as a system on its own(where it is perfectly acceptable and fine).

Even the old DShK from 1938 is arguably better and if you compare with the STK 50MG, the Rheinmetall RMG.50, the Kord 12.7 etc, it gets almost embarassing.
But you can also see the same inertia in other places, like how France developed the MAC58, which was clearly better than the M2, yet in the end opted to not put it in serial production because the M2s they were already using were still good enough and since you don't expect them to be deployed willynilly anyway, what does it really matter if you can shave over 10kg off of it or get a slight improvement in accuracy or reliability? It's not like the individual improvements are huge.
 
The M2 has stuck around more through inertia though

There have been attempts at replacing the M2 with more modern weapons, yes. However, these attempts have failed mostly due to one key factor: like the Glock, the M2 is the best for it's price. Or, to put it another way, the financial cost of replacing the M2 with something significantly better is high enough that it is considered more cost effective to just keep the M2.

Besides, short of a tank, there are few things an M2 can't shoot through. The only role it ever became obsolete in is antiaircraft due to the raising speed of jets compared to the airplanes the M2 was designed to shoot down. As a light anti-armor or anti-equipment weapon, the M2 is very hard to beat.

If someone ever came up with a weapon that cost no more then an M2, is at least as effective as the M2, but has a noteworthy advantage over the M2, then I'm sure the M2 would be phased out of service. That said, the logistics involved in fielding a new caliber Heavy Machine Gun are significant on their own, and provide an additional reason to keep the M2 in service.

Oh, and keep in mind that, for many purposes, the 600 Round Per Minute rate of fire of the M2 is itself a sweet spot between fast enough to be effective and slow enough to not waste too much ammo. The Bean counters in the Pentagon prefer weapons that don't shoot many more rounds then are needed to do the job, and operators of the weapons like the idea of being able to carry more than a minute's worth of ammo into combat, particularly for a largely fixed position weapon like the 75 pound M2 with it's 150 pound tripod. Technically, it's man portable. Practically, it's team portable and needs to be either installed on a vehicle or set in a (hopefully defensible) position to be used. Then again, that's it's job, to be a squad portable weapon to be fired from a fixed position.

So, no, a higher rate of fire is not an advantage for most of the jobs an M2 performs.

Besides, most attempts at replacing the M2 have focused on it's functionality as a heavy machine gun, and lacked it's somewhat hidden ability to be used as a sniper rifle. (No joke; the M2 has the capability to have a scope attached and to fire a single round from a closed bolt. Yes, there are other .50BMG rifles out there at a fraction the weight. However, most snipers are issued lighter antipersonnel rifles, which the M2 beats in both range and armor penetration. So, if a situation arises where a hard target needs to be sniped, the near ubiquitous M2 can do the job.)

Now, with all that said, the M2 (which has never shown up in this story,) or even the technical merits of the Glock (who's mention started this whole mess because one person thought it was an over-hyped piece of junk) realy have nothing to do with the story, so let's move on before this becomes a derail, Ok?
 
Back
Top