|
| 26 Jun 2014 12:30 AM |
That looked like a pistol and shot out gasoline, then very shortly after, shot out flames so that whatever you're aiming at would definitely be set on fire?
It would be lighter and easier to conceal than modern flamethrowers, plus whatever you're aiming at would be set on fire due to the gasoline. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Lumez
|
  |
| Joined: 13 May 2011 |
| Total Posts: 15412 |
|
| |
|
|
| 26 Jun 2014 12:31 AM |
maybe a pistol with two canisters; one containing a chemical similar to axe and the other providing the gas that produces the flame
and if you'd said "pretty please naruto-san", i would have stopped 5 hours ago |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Super64
|
  |
| Joined: 29 Dec 2007 |
| Total Posts: 36951 |
|
|
| 26 Jun 2014 12:32 AM |
i don't know how heavy it would be though
because if you want to pressurize so it could shoot far |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
| |
|
|
| 26 Jun 2014 12:36 AM |
@Naruto
So it shoots gas, then lights it? I like your way of thinking.
@Super
Hmm, dunno either. Wouldn't it still be lighter than most modern flamethrowers? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Meteor36
|
  |
| Joined: 27 Aug 2008 |
| Total Posts: 13002 |
|
|
| 26 Jun 2014 12:37 AM |
I made makeshift blueprints for a watergun with a lighter at the end of it Inspired by Dead Rising |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Super64
|
  |
| Joined: 29 Dec 2007 |
| Total Posts: 36951 |
|
|
| 26 Jun 2014 12:38 AM |
botl
yeah no it'd definitely be lighter than a flamethrower
but also cost efficiency would be a thing too |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Super64
|
  |
| Joined: 29 Dec 2007 |
| Total Posts: 36951 |
|
|
| 26 Jun 2014 12:39 AM |
| Also I'm glad you understood my sentence because I forgot what I was typing and sent it about halfway through. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 26 Jun 2014 12:42 AM |
@Super
True, true.
@Meteor
Cool. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|