I just got around to reading the print article in the July 2000 issue
of Wired "Welcome to Sealand, Now Bugger Off" By Simson Garfinkel
(pages 230-239). Here is a quote: "The Sealanders are arming
themselves for self-defense: Plans call for "50-caliber heavy machine
guns, 5.56 automatic rifles, and 12-gauge shotguns."
Several points come to mind as I read this. First and foremost,
while the .50 caliber machine guns are fine weapons, I don't think it
is a smart idea to install weaponry that could be perceived to be a
threat to commercial fishing or low flying aircraft. If the UK
needed an excuse to shut down Havenco's operations, the .50s would be
a great one.
Secondly, the twelve gauge shotgun is a top choice for home
protection and police work due to lack of penetration. The shotgun
works great on thin skinned game 35 yards and closer (And yes I know
you can use slugs or sabots, but better choices exist). Shooting
from atop a concrete pad in the North sea with a shotgun is
ridiculous. The 5.56mm is somewhat better, but the round is designed
for anti-personal use in short to medium ranges. Their threat model,
I assume, is some sort of sea borne or light air craft marauder. A
better choice would be scoped .308 (7.62 NATO) rifles with armour
piercing ammo. Surplus black tipped AP with a tungsten carbide core
is still available relatively inexpensively. The US Navy still uses
the 7.62 NATO M-14 for this purpose. The 7.62 NATO has much greater
effective distance and penetration than the 5.56 NATO. If you're
worried about price you could buy the new Russian Saiga 7.62 NATO
"sporting" rifles based on the Kalishnakov action. These rifles
wholesale in the US for around $300 and for $400 you get the rifle
and a Russian military mount and scope.
But really, given the UK's hysteria over guns I'd bet they'd be safer
without advertising the fact that they're armed. But of course the
cat is already out of the bag. It's pretty obvious to me that
Havenco didn't adequately think through their weapons policy at least
from the point of view of providing a context of negative action by a
governmental entity.
Regards, Matt-
**************************************************************************
Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues
Send a blank message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the words subscribe FA
on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per month)
Matthew Gaylor,1933 E. Dublin-Granville Rd., PMB 176, Columbus, OH 43229
Archived at http://www.egroups.com/list/fa/
**************************************************************************
