Dragon's Breath 12ga for shotgun

>>31948694
I am not sure when they were made, but I can verify that they had them in catalogs all through my younger and teenage years.

I first bought them at fun shows in the early 90's

>>31948787
Thanks anon, when firing them would you say they pack as much of a punch as normal ammunition? Or are they less powerful?

>>31948837
It's bits of flammable material

Why do you think the range is so small, it's a toy round

>>31948845
soz m8 i know they're weaker just didn't know how weak

>>31948837
I would say they are a like shooting a lighter, low brass bulk birdshot round.

I did have one explode in the barrel of my mossy 500 when my ex gf was shooting it... That didn't go over too well...

>>31948845
They are definitely a novelty round, but a very fun one.

I did catch my field on fire several times with them.

>>31948694
No info on their origins, but Ive fired a couple boxes of them. I wasn't impressed, not very bright by day (just a brief shower of sparks,) and I failed to light up a bonfire with maybe five shots. They look pretty awesome when snapping photos with a slower shutter speed, though. All in all, regular fireworks should be more effective for anything that you'd employ dragons breath for.

>>31948878
also, I'd say they pack far less punch than even the lightest dove load.

File: 1475783819199.jpg (37KB, 250x323px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 250x323px

>>31948874
>did catch my field on fire

>feelio when they are among few illegal weapon related items in Florida because this would happen all year every year

They look fun though.

It's basically like shooting one of those sparkling fireworks out of your shotgun. Not really useful for anything.

>>31948694
They've been available for purchase in various forms since at least 1988, which is when I first purchased them.

I would consider them not lethal at any distance past 5 feet against a human. They have basically zero penetration even point-blank due to the relatively low mass of the projectile column (around 180gr not including wad), the extremely low mass of individual particles of the projectile column (sub 1gr), and the extremely low velocity at which they're fired (around 500fps). Basically unless you're able to completely engulf whoever you're shooting in flames, which unless they're wearing gas-soaked papier mache is extremely unlikely at any distance, you're just going to singe them.

I don't know when the civilian types came around for sure but I remember seeing them from the early 1980s (83-85 area).

The military type date back in concept to WWI. They wanted to use them for primaraly AA and Balloon busting roles in late war; these came in both shot versions for artillery and feild guns and actual incendiary shells for shotguns with long barrels. The aircraft shotguns were dismissed pretty quickly as a concept since Vickers, Lewis and MG08s were much more effective. They fell by the wayside thereafter.

Their military use is dubious at best but there's at least claims of it being used as signals or for lighting structures ablaze in Vietnam and several South American drug wars. There's also claims they were used in South Africa and Rhodesian Bush wars to create areas of denial for insurgents by simply setting the underbrush ablaze, but this honestly could just be done with the Rhodesians LPO-50s and No. 2 Flamethrowers far more efficiently.

Magnesium burns at 3000°F. It can and it will burn your skin if it comes in contact with it, can set clothing ablaze and even burn structures. Within close range, I have no doubt it's lethal, but I don't think it's going to necessarily be any more lethal than standard shot. You're better off using actual shot than incendiary.