The “square backed” cartridge casings that Beauchamp described are not entirely false.
His clumsy description is consistent with what a typical PFC in the armed forces knows about weapons and ammunition.
It appears to me that what he ineptly described is actually the indentation on the primer from a spent cartridge, not the brass itself. The Glock is a striker fired pistol that leaves a distinctive rectangular indentation on the primer.
I don’t have any spent brass handy around here or I would take a digital photo to show the difference between the impression from a Glock striker and the firing pin from a pistol like the Beretta M9.
Of course, all that would prove is that the cartridge was fired from a Glock or similar pistol.
PS: I accidentally posted this comment in “TNR Pulls The Eject Handle” when I meant to reply to your podcast. Sorry. |
| |
Written By:
Words Twice
URL:
http://wordstwice.blogspot.com/
|
|
I think you’re missing the point, and Billy made it on the podcast: if they’d taken the basic step of Googling it as Beauchamp wrote it, they’d know that it was a bad description which should have been corrected. But they didn’t. They apparently signed on to the premise that it was unique and something only available to the IP. The fact that the Glock striker leaves a distinct mark is what an editor should have zeroed in on. And that should have led to further research as to whether the Glock was a weapon only available to the IP. The discovery of the fact that the Glock is a weapon commonly used by everyone in Iraq should have raised red flags everywhere. But they never researched it, accepting, on its face, the description Beauchamp gave. |
| |
Written By:
McQ
URL:
http://www.qando.net/blog
|
...the Glock is a weapon commonly used by everyone in Iraq should have raised red flags everywhere. I concur, the weapon/ammo itself proves nothing. I was just being a bit pedantic. |
| |
Written By:
Words Twice
URL:
http://wordstwice.blogspot.com/
|
