Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by mothballed 63 days ago
I'm fascinated by your point on Myanmar/Burma since I'm quite sure you used that point since it's common knowledge that is the most commonly cited example of the use of in situ firearms by militia. Maybe you're inviting a debate on why you think the reports on in situ firearms reported there are false, or maybe you just randomly came upon that, but it doesn't seem a coincedence.
2 comments

Myanmar/Burma the strategy was build-to-capture: make improvised, unreliable firearms that could be used to ambush security forces and take their firearms.

Evidence against the point above that it's trivial to replace professionally manufactured small arms.

There are examples of all the above. Kachine state "army" for instance was making Chinese and AKM clones. Others were making FGC-9 for purpose of taking other firearms. Some were using FGC-9 for driveby without any goal to take firearms. And others were using "professionally" manufactured arms to take other arms.
> it's common knowledge that is the most commonly cited example of the use of in situ firearms by militia

I wasn’t aware of this. Do you have a good source where I might learn more?

There was some model named FGC2000 which was used with short unrifled 9mm tubes, meaning the range was low and could only be used as parent described. Saw this on a YouTube video but can't find it now.