Modacity shooters' thread

I hate traditional rifle stocks, they're uncomfortable no matter what you're doing. Holding the rifle is uncomfortable, aiming is uncomfortable, shooting is uncomfortable... Pistol-grip style rifles all the way.

Most of the world disagrees with you. Pistol grips are, however, cheaper and easier to produce. I find using them in prone position to be awkward.

It really comes down to personal preference. If I were in actual combat I'd want a pistol grip and something light, My AR-15 is precise as balls, it's light and it's damn maneuverable and I would take it to war with me any day..but maybe carrying 6.5 or 6.8. I'd have to agree with you Ross. I'd probably take the FAL as a battle rifle over the M14 any day, but the M14 for marksman. I don't think we even use the M14 outside of being a DMR, or any battle rifle for that matter.

I disagree with your opinion of American "companies". American companies are at the forefront of modern firearms tech. For God's sakes, Colt OWNS H&K! But I will say that the American military is terrible at designing and approving of mass service weapons. The M4/M16 were pretty damn high tech at the time. But the decisions on cartridge designs, the inability to move forward since the 1960s, even dating back to the 1890s when we pick the Krag Jurgenson over the Mauser. Our government does a terrible job with such things.

The 276 Pederson is the EM-2 280 cartridge in just about every way. If we had adopted it in the 1930s we would not be having this discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warsaw

Most of the world disagrees with you. Pistol grips are, however, cheaper and easier to produce. I find using them in prone position to be awkward.

---

Uh, no they don't? The only countries which willingly issue traditionally-stocked rifles to their infantry are so poor they only just upgraded from throwing rocks. I think you'll find that any given developing country uses one of three designs, or a variant thereof: the AK, the G3, or the FAL. Unless you're talking civ market which is utterly irrelevant, civilians hardly need to manouevre a hunting rifle around a confined space while being shot at. I really cannot comprehend why anyone would pick a traditional stock over a pistol grip for a (non-sniper/DMR) military rifle. It's like arming yourself with a flintlock over an automatic, it's stupid and impractical.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TVTyrant

I disagree with your opinion of American "companies". American companies are at the forefront of modern firearms tech. For God's sakes, Colt OWNS H&K! But I will say that the American military is terrible at designing and approving of mass service weapons. The M4/M16 were pretty damn high tech at the time. But the decisions on cartridge designs, the inability to move forward since the 1960s, even dating back to the 1890s when we pick the Krag Jurgenson over the Mauser. Our government does a terrible job with such things.

The 276 Pederson is the EM-2 280 cartridge in just about every way. If we had adopted it in the 1930s we would not be having this discussion.

---

Noooo, American companies are just really really good at taking either the AR-15 or AR-18, repackaging it a bit, maybe changing the layout if they're feeling brave, then plastering it with rails. Prove me wrong. Every noteworthy military rifle design to come out of the US since those two has been built on them.

You could probably argue with some degree of reasoning that that's all any western rifle design has been since then, but at least other countries step outside the comfort zone once in a while and make a bullpup or move the fire selector or something. Every major design by or for the Americans is deliberately kept as similar to the M16 platform as possible just so the US military can skimp on training costs, which is apparently a favourite past time. Not that it matters, since they've had their dicks in their hands so long over a replacement it probably just won't happen until everyone else has lasers or some shit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rossmum

Uh, no they don't? The only countries which willingly issue traditionally-stocked rifles to their infantry are so poor they only just upgraded from throwing rocks. I think you'll find that any given developing country uses one of three designs, or a variant thereof: the AK, the G3, or the FAL. Unless you're talking civ market which is utterly irrelevant, civilians hardly need to manouevre a hunting rifle around a confined space while being shot at. I really cannot comprehend why anyone would pick a traditional stock over a pistol grip for a (non-sniper/DMR) military rifle. It's like arming yourself with a flintlock over an automatic, it's stupid and impractical.

---

I was referring to literally all situations, including hunting and shooting at range for whatever reason (be it: marksman, at the range, competition, whatever). I would much rather have this:


Than this:


The pistol grip is just so superior at everything that I don't know why you wouldn't want it. Well, maybe with the exception of shotguns. Traditional stock isn't so bad with them when you're hunting or shooting skeet/clay. I'd want a tactical shotgun to have a pistol grip though.

But why fix what works. While the 5.56 may lack stopping power at range, the new M4's/16's being produced are some of the finest assault rifles to ever hit the market. You can hit point targets up to 500 meters, and area targets up to 600 meters. It's a pretty light weapon platform, especially if you don't use the heavy barrel. They don't malfunction nearly a fraction of what they used to, especially if you take care of your rifle and most importantly, it's modular. More modular than any other rifle on the market. It's why they call it a grown mans lego set. You need 10, 20, 30 or even 100 rounds, no problem. Pistol grip uncomfortable? no problem buy an after market one. Stock sucks, irons suck, rail sucks? buy after market. No other rifle system in the world has as many after market items or accessory pieces than the AR-15 patterned rifles. It's why it's favored among American special forces (not just the M4 but AR platform rifle, like the HK416). It's versatility allows it to be so easily modified and adapted to any mission. Not just through optics or lights. For shits sake you can convert it to a PDW in a matter of minutes as long as you have the parts on hand.

This isn't like the auto industry where looks NEED to change every like 5 years. As a civilian it's nice to see cool, new innovative rifles coming to the market. But it is a tried and true weapon system so if it can continue to out perform other weapons why is there a need to replace it? We've all already agreed the 5.56 is not the best choice and if we were to replace the M4/16 than it would be best to pick a new caliber and build the new rifle around that chosen caliber.

Also it's not the American military that has such a pull on foreign AR patterned rifles. Did you know that firearm companies have an incredibly hard time succeeding in the market if they don't either produce an AR-15, or AR accessories? It's the most successful genre in the industry. American civilians love their AR-15's, and it's like I said, it's a grown mans lego set. And the damn things perform amazingly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rossmum

Noooo, American companies are just really really good at taking either the AR-15 or AR-18, repackaging it a bit, maybe changing the layout if they're feeling brave, then plastering it with rails. Prove me wrong. Every noteworthy military rifle design to come out of the US since those two has been built on them.

You could probably argue with some degree of reasoning that that's all any western rifle design has been since then, but at least other countries step outside the comfort zone once in a while and make a bullpup or move the fire selector or something. Every major design by or for the Americans is deliberately kept as similar to the M16 platform as possible just so the US military can skimp on training costs, which is apparently a favourite past time. Not that it matters, since they've had their dicks in their hands so long over a replacement it probably just won't happen until everyone else has lasers or some shit.

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_Combat_Rifle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6.8_SPC
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.30_Remington_AR
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CheyTac_Intervention
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.416_Barrett
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kel-Tec_KSG

These are all so behind the times ;)

I'm just saying that there are lots of great American designs that don't get used by the military, so they don't get touched.

KSG is a neat design but Kel-Tec quality control is the best oxymoron in the shooting world, sadly. ACR is really just a modular AR-18/AR-15 flipperbaby, nothing really wrong with that but it's hardly rewriting the book on military rifles. 6.8 is retreading ground covered by .280 and, as you said, .276 before it. .416 and .408 are neat but not especially Earth-shattering either, and .338 already has a pretty serious foothold at any rate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PenGuin1362

But why fix what works. While the 5.56 may lack stopping power at range, the new M4's/16's being produced are some of the finest assault rifles to ever hit the market. You can hit point targets up to 500 meters, and area targets up to 600 meters.

---

The EM-2 was able to accurately engage point targets beyond that range, and do more damage when it got there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PenGuin1362

It's a pretty light weapon platform, especially if you don't use the heavy barrel.

---

I'll give you that, they're remarkably light

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PenGuin1362

They don't malfunction nearly a fraction of what they used to, especially if you take care of your rifle

---

This really shouldn't be listed as if it's a feature, honestly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PenGuin1362

and most importantly, it's modular. More modular than any other rifle on the market. It's why they call it a grown mans lego set. You need 10, 20, 30 or even 100 rounds, no problem. Pistol grip uncomfortable? no problem buy an after market one. Stock sucks, irons suck, rail sucks? buy after market. No other rifle system in the world has as many after market items or accessory pieces than the AR-15 patterned rifles. It's why it's favored among American special forces (not just the M4 but AR platform rifle, like the HK416). It's versatility allows it to be so easily modified and adapted to any mission. Not just through optics or lights. For shits sake you can convert it to a PDW in a matter of minutes as long as you have the parts on hand.

---

Yes, but that doesn't mean it can't be improved, and let's be honest - unless you are SF, you really don't always need a lego gun. We're veering dangerously into SUPER CYBER SOLDIER territory, what with billions being pissed away on goggles with HUDs and rifles with inbuilt computers, when all your infantry need is a rifle, a bayonet, some manner of aiming device and a grenade launcher every here and there. SF genuinely need to change their weapons based on fluid mission parameters, but for guys sitting in muddy holes for several weeks or clearing house after house, you need something simple. The simpler it is, the less chance you have of something getting fucked up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PenGuin1362

This isn't like the auto industry where looks NEED to change every like 5 years. As a civilian it's nice to see cool, new innovative rifles coming to the market. But it is a tried and true weapon system so if it can continue to out perform other weapons why is there a need to replace it? We've all already agreed the 5.56 is not the best choice and if we were to replace the M4/16 than it would be best to pick a new caliber and build the new rifle around that chosen caliber.

---

But it doesn't outperform other weapons? The AR-18 is undisputably a far better rifle than the 15 ever was, for a start...

e/ I have nothing against the platform, hell I want to go for a retro M16A1 type build and a modern utalitarian one at the very least (once I live in a country that doesn't hate fun), it's just not the best choice for military service and it hasn't been for some time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rossmum

KSG is a neat design but Kel-Tec quality control is the best oxymoron in the shooting world, sadly. ACR is really just a modular AR-18/AR-15 flipperbaby, nothing really wrong with that but it's hardly rewriting the book on military rifles. 6.8 is retreading ground covered by .280 and, as you said, .276 before it. .416 and .408 are neat but not especially Earth-shattering either, and .338 already has a pretty serious foothold at any rate.


The EM-2 was able to accurately engage point targets beyond that range, and do more damage when it got there.


I'll give you that, they're remarkably light


This really shouldn't be listed as if it's a feature, honestly.


Yes, but that doesn't mean it can't be improved, and let's be honest - unless you are SF, you really don't always need a lego gun. We're veering dangerously into SUPER CYBER SOLDIER territory, what with billions being pissed away on goggles with HUDs and rifles with inbuilt computers, when all your infantry need is a rifle, a bayonet, some manner of aiming device and a grenade launcher every here and there. SF genuinely need to change their weapons based on fluid mission parameters, but for guys sitting in muddy holes for several weeks or clearing house after house, you need something simple. The simpler it is, the less chance you have of something getting fucked up.


But it doesn't outperform other weapons? The AR-18 is undisputably a far better rifle than the 15 ever was, for a start...

e/ I have nothing against the platform, hell I want to go for a retro M16A1 type build and a modern utalitarian one at the very least (once I live in a country that doesn't hate fun), it's just not the best choice for military service and it hasn't been for some time.

---

Your just being a hater now lol.