Matt:
>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."
I'd suggest to them (those that read this anyway) that they
supplement those with Glocks in a .45 for inside work. Why
specifically Glock? Good guns, and pretty resistant to corrosion.
>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
I'd imagine that the .50 is to keep off the
boats/helocopters, and the .223/12 gauges are for more up close and
personal work.
While the .308 is an excellent choice for a full on battle
rifle, the .223 is *much* better close up--you get over penetration
less often (at least according to one of the gents from the
International Wound Ballistics Assoc.), and the rifles based on it
are much lighter and easier to handle in a structure.
>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
That's what (I'd assume) the .50s are for.
Unless you're going to waste a *lot* of time on training and
hiring Mercs who have the experience, those .50s aren't going to do
you a lot of good anyway.
>
>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.
There have been several rulings by the British legal system
to the effect that Sealand is SEP. Not that this matters, but with
what Havenco is doing, I doubt that the Brits will care about the
presence of a few guns.
Besides, if one wants to take the tact that Sealand *isn't*
in fact a "land", it is then (I would think) a boat of some kind, and
authorized under International Maritime Law to have weapons on board
to repel pirates. (No shit, they still exist, tho' they don't often
ply the english channel).
