Comments by "geodkyt" (@geodkyt) on "SR3 Vikhr: Russian 9x39mm PDW" video.

  1. ​ @lorddestructive The SR3 is slightly shorter than the MP7 when the stocks are folded or collapsed, so your size claim is mistaken. (Admittedly, the difference is minor.) The SR-3 is slightly longer than the MP7 when both have their stocks deployed... but that is when it doesn't really matter if one gun is an inch or two longer. The MP7 is probably slightly more accurate, but both are more than accurate enough for the requirements of the role. Neither gun is going to take a medal at Camp Perry, and neither one too inaccurate to miss the rib cage at typical engagement ranges for their intended use cases. The MP7 does have a higher magazine capability within the same total height... but the terminal effectiveness of the MP7 is far lower, and reports from.forces who have used the MP7 in combat indicate that multiple hits are essential for taking down most targets, whuch means the magazine capacity argument is voided. If I have to use bursts with 3-4 hits to get the same effect on target and the difference in accuracy is negligible, than having 33% more ammunition means I am at a net loss in terms of how many targets I can engage. The weapons have similar AP capability with their AP ammo, although the 9x39mm can do so at longer range, and the AP ammo has much better effect on the target once it gets past the armor. Terminal effectiveness against unarmored targets with either FMJ or expanding ammunition is likewise in the SR-3's favor. While velocity is awesome, there is only so much one can do with a 2 gram bullet. The MP7 does likely have a more controllable, lighter felt recoil. That's a consequence of it using a round that is basically a handgun cartridge versus a modified rifle cartridge. A better comparison for the 9x39mm cartridge and its weapons would be the .300 Blackout.
    1
  2. The ethics of necromantic laborers doesn't require the mental gymnastics you go through. What matters is, "Is necromancy at all culturally acceptable in your society? Are the bodies of 'good people' entitled to respect, and any unnecessary disturbance of their remains viewed as a horrific crime?" If necromancy is "automatically" evil, fhere is no ethical way to have necromantic laborers. If the remains of "people" are semi-sacred and entitled to be treated with dignity and respect and not used as a commodity, there is no ethicsl way to have necromantic labor other than limiting it to criminals. Given the treatment of criminal corpses in Western society well into the 19th Century, I'd say that even if you limited necromantic servitude to convicted (and presumably executed, or at least died in custody) felons... at which point it is highly unlikely that such convicted felons would be accirded the dignity of having their identities protected by ensuring nonidentifying characteristics remain. Nor would society likely care that the undead laborer only work off the remainder of their sentence - once declared fit for necromancy, they'd almost certainly be worked as long as viable. There is, however, another ethical option, in any society that doesn't treat all necromancy as automatically evil. A person in need of money for their loved ones or a critical interest, could offer somethung akin to a "reverse mortgage" on their physical remains (not their soul), complete with a formal, legal contract - "On the donor's death, provided the body is in a condition to be reanimated, NecroLabor will pay funds [insert payment agreement here] in exchange for unlimited use of the physical remains of the Donor in accordance with rhe following restrictions..." Note that, well into the 19th Century, such contracts willing one's body (particularly with people who had anatomically "interesting" features) to a specific anatomist or the like, were known in Western culture (including both the UK and US).
    1