# Silver Shadow Gilboa Snake Double Barreled AR-15



## jono (Feb 23, 2014)

show more at: -->> Silver Shadow Gilboa Snake Double Barreled AR-15


----------



## Smokin04 (Jan 29, 2014)

can't lie...that's effin cool!


----------



## jimb1972 (Nov 12, 2012)

That is neat looking, but kind of a retarded concept that will not be available in the US. An Ar that weighs twice as much (weight being one of the AR's redeeming qualities) Why not just buy a rifle in a real caliber like .308, 150-168grains per trigger pull vs. 110-124 grains per trigger pull out of two 5.56 bullets. ATF rules only allow one round fired per trigger pull so you won't even be able to get one here.


----------



## Just Sayin' (Dec 5, 2013)

Ok, it's sorta like that french model, she looks really hot, and I can't get one here.

But it doesn't mean I don't want one!


----------



## ekim (Dec 28, 2012)

Why! Most people complain about weight, ease of handling, amount of ammo you can carry, problems with maintenance etc. and now people are praising a weapon system that is probably going to be a complete pain in the ass to shoot and be prone to all kinds of control, accuracy issues not to mention what will become the ultimate "assualt rifle issue". If you can't do it with a single barreled rifle do you really think this weapon will solve your problem at a higher price. IMO, just plain stupid and for the want of good sense.


----------



## paraquack (Mar 1, 2013)

It was probably another Obummer idea to spend money.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

A solution to a non-existant problem.
Really, what is the point?


----------



## Smokin04 (Jan 29, 2014)

It's not an answer to any tactical problem. It's just cool to do. Like a novelty gun. Like a desert eagle. Hugely cool, but not practical to carry or use with any frequency. Reminds me of this:


----------



## Notsoyoung (Dec 2, 2013)

Really not even remotely interested.


----------



## ekim (Dec 28, 2012)

What's wrong with the basic semi auto gun and what purpose does this contraption serve. Machine guns can still be bought legally and are much more reliable and efficient. If it's not broken why try to fix it?


----------



## Smokin04 (Jan 29, 2014)

ekim said:


> What's wrong with the basic semi auto gun and what purpose does this contraption serve. Machine guns can still be bought legally and are much more reliable and efficient. If it's not broken why try to fix it?


As I mentioned earlier, it's not an answer to any problem....it's just cool!


----------



## ekim (Dec 28, 2012)

Smokin04 said:


> As I mentioned earlier, it's not an answer to any problem....it's just cool!


Ok, that's your opinion. I would take it if given to me free so I could sell it and buy some thing I need or could use though.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

Goes against everything an Ar was designed for.
I may well go the way of the Crossfire. That was interesting a .223 and 12Ga over under. Did not last.
You buy that when you just have to much cash laying around just to own it.


----------



## ekim (Dec 28, 2012)

I'll never have that much cash laying around.


----------



## armedbear2006 (Dec 30, 2013)

Thats freaking awesome


----------



## SAR-1L (Mar 13, 2013)

I wish I could say I felt it was cool. But I look at it and think, more parts ='s more maintenance, more breaking, more ammo spent, more pain in my ass. Not cool at all. 
Now a tank, that would be cool, I would like a tank, not sure what in the hell I would actually do with it, but would like to fire one at least once in my life.


----------



## Smokin04 (Jan 29, 2014)

SAR-1L said:


> I wish I could say I felt it was cool. But I look at it and think, more parts ='s more maintenance, more breaking, more ammo spent, more pain in my ass. Not cool at all.
> Now a tank, that would be cool, I would like a tank, not sure what in the hell I would actually do with it, but would like to fire one at least once in my life.


Right....because there are less parts, maintenance, and pain in the ass involved in owning/operating a tank, than this rifle.


----------



## jimb1972 (Nov 12, 2012)

Smokin04 said:


> Right....because there are less parts, maintenance, and pain in the ass involved in owning/operating a tank, than this rifle.


But a tank will do something a regular $600 dollar AR won't do, 120mm's are way more fun than two 5.56mm's!


----------



## Smokin04 (Jan 29, 2014)

And my nukes are more fun than 120's.... because we all know nukes are as available to the public as modern tanks are. LOL


----------



## SAR-1L (Mar 13, 2013)

Smokin04 said:


> And my nukes are more fun than 120's.... because we all know nukes are as available to the public as modern tanks are. LOL


My point is that if you are going with something as silly as a double barrel AR you should just buy a tank if we are all basing it on cool factor vs realistic utility.


----------



## jimb1972 (Nov 12, 2012)

Smokin04 said:


> And my nukes are more fun than 120's.... because we all know nukes are as available to the public as modern tanks are. LOL


They are available, they only cost you four years of your life (with a couple years inactive reserve on the end)


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

I want an 81MM mortar. Plus a bunch of projos. Plus a squad to lug the dang thing around.
Better yet - an M113 mortar track. That would solve the lugging around part. Does today's Army even still have M113 APC's?
M113 armored personnel carrier - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Smokin04 (Jan 29, 2014)

rice paddy daddy said:


> I want an 81MM mortar. Plus a bunch of projos. Plus a squad to lug the dang thing around.
> Better yet - an M113 mortar track. That would solve the lugging around part. Does today's Army even still have M113 APC's?


I'll find out for you...today.


----------



## jimb1972 (Nov 12, 2012)

rice paddy daddy said:


> I want an 81MM mortar. Plus a bunch of projos. Plus a squad to lug the dang thing around.
> Better yet - an M113 mortar track. That would solve the lugging around part. Does today's Army even still have M113 APC's?
> M113 armored personnel carrier - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Still had them in the early 90's, but they were being replaced with the Bradley's. Holy cow, the Army was still buying the things until 2007! Talk about a long service life for a tracked vehicle, they started out gasoline powered.


----------



## dannydefense (Oct 9, 2013)

If I was going to pay for a tax stamp, it wouldn't be for a novelty. It would be for something functional. Like a tank.


----------



## SAR-1L (Mar 13, 2013)

dannydefense said:


> If I was going to pay for a tax stamp, it wouldn't be for a novelty. It would be for something functional. Like a tank.


Relevant to discussion ^^


----------



## ekim (Dec 28, 2012)

Now that's some serious trap shooting! Is there such a thing as hand reloading for tank ammo? :???:


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

jimb1972 said:


> ................. they started out gasoline powered.


And the gasoline plus aluminum armor is why everyone rode on top if possible. An RPG could really ruin your day.


----------

