Modacity shooters' thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rossmum

.280 brit was ballistically superior and also around in the late 1940s, but america is backwards so it got canned because WE GOTS TA HAVE ARE FULL-SIZE CARTRIDGES THAT WAS OBSO-LEET IN NANTEEN FOTAY FREE

additionally a 20rd mag that is reliable and holds a good round like .280 is no real disadvantage imo. remember that infantry rifles are, especially in western doctrine, meant to be used for aimed fire in semiautomatic or, at most, short bursts. the auto is just there as a panic switch, even in room clearing it doesn't get a whole lot of use. with that said, burst fire is literally the goddamn dumbest thing on the face of the earth in every case except one, being the an-94. either have full auto or have no capacity for automatic fire at all.

re: wood on modern rifles. looks great on an m16, looks great on an ak, can imagine it looking pretty swell on the l85. the modern modern stuff, your acrs and masadas and g36s and shit, yeah it would probably look pretty bad. also wood really isn't that heavy, people have just been conditioned into whinging about weight if their rifle is a hair over the weight of an m16. stupid habit. come back and complain about weight after humping a machine gun across shit terrain, not after carrying a wood-stocked hunting or milsurp rifle slung for a few hundred metres over decent going.

ebr looks gross, like a commercialised, m14 version of what bubba would do to his sks innawoods

---

Please see my other posts for my complaints about the 280. Its not a ballistics thing, I promise. Its about case dimensions.

still silly :eng101:

really outside of things like the old lebel cartridge, it's not much of an issue, and 20 rounds is really not much worse than 30 unless you're spraying bullets for dear life. and that's more the job of a machine gun or pdw than a rifle.

That's why most US forces are issued the M16A4 (occasionally the A2) and the M4 Carbine. From what I understand the M4A1 is primarily a Special Forces weapon and used in the newest Block II (or III?) SOPMOD kits. Both the M16A4 and M4 Carbine are limited to 3 round burst since, like you said Ross, fully auto fire is intended for the squad automatic weapon. Which oddly enough is no longer just LMG's, the M27 is supposed to replace the M249 in some areas due to its superior functioning at sustained automatic fire.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rossmum

still silly :eng101:

really outside of things like the old lebel cartridge, it's not much of an issue, and 20 rounds is really not much worse than 30 unless you're spraying bullets for dear life. and that's more the job of a machine gun or pdw than a rifle.

---

Yes, well I'm looking at it from more of an engineering perspective than a practicality perspective. So sue me.

I agree it would have been much better than the 7.62x51/5.56 bullshit that happened instead of the 280. But then again the .276 Pedersen we almost adopted a decade earlier is the ballistic twin of the .280 Brit and it has the things I like in it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.276_Pedersen

An FAL in either caliber would have made for an excellent fighting rifle. As would have the M14 in .276 or the AR-10.

The M14 not so much. It was still an obsolete design with shit ergonomics. The .280 FAL would've been incredible though

Shit ergonomics for full automatic, sure. But then again, how useful is full automatic fire on a battle rifle designed for aimed shots? If anything had shit ergonomics, I'd say it was the FAL. You don't see them turning the FAL into DMR platforms a la the M21.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rossmum

The M14 not so much. It was still an obsolete design with shit ergonomics. The .280 FAL would've been incredible though

---

ROFL. Have you ever fired an M14? Its so comfortable for semi automatic fire. It was definitely obsolete, I agree. But it was and is an excellent weapon for mid range to long range combat.

I'd actually wager that most traditional layout weapons have better ergonomics than modern designs with pistol grips.

I've never fired an FAL but I've held quite a few and they are super comfortable. I'd still take an M14 over an FAL any day. M1A's are sturdy, precise, and are pretty comfortable to fire. I still like pistol grips but my M1 Garand is 60 years old and that wood stock still feels great.

The FAL is a dream to handle, I don't know what you guys are on about. The controls are laid out sensibly as well.

The M14 is only really good as a DMR, which is obviously all it's really used for these days, because traditional rifle stocks are really shit for actually having to manoeuvre around as much as you would in combat. Really, really shit. Also the FAL is not often adapted into use as a DMR because unlike the M14, it was not built around accuracy (which isn't to say it's inaccurate, it just doesn't compare is all).

End of the day I would take an M14 if I was a marksman, but a FAL in all other cases. A lot of Americans will tell you the M14 is a better battle rifle but there is a very good reason America is the only country that used it in that role, it's shit at it. The FAL and G3 are so far in advance it hurts. Of course, they both would've been even moreso were it not for America shoehorning their shitty obsolete rounds in during NATO standardisation, but whatever. Frankly America might have all the flashy tech but they are so far behind the curve when it comes to the most basic shit the infantry need it's not even funny. Battle rifles were obsolete in 1943, anyone who argues is flat wrong. Especially when you consider that .280 out of the EM-2 was effective to 600m easily and 800 without too much effort. 5.56 out of a modern assault rifle is really struggling at 800, although it can be done (seen just that with a Steyr). If we'd been using EM-2s or .280 FALs, and retained the cartridge through to today, then all else being constant this "fuck we need bigger weapons to reach out and touch the Taliban" problem in Afghanistan would not even exist and we would not have to panic and rush in whole other weapon systems just to cover the eventuality of engagements across large open areas.

Basically what I'm saying is America is pretty much the last country in the world that should have any say at all over NATO standardisations because a) they don't know what they're doing weapon-wise and b) there is too much domestic politics involved, especially with the size and prestige of a lot of American companies. This is probably going to irritate you guys, but sorry, it's true. 7.62x51 as standard was fucking stupid, 5.56 is lacklustre (but does get a worse rap than it deserves, I'll give you that), had the Europeans been in charge then everyone would've had pretty much THE ideal cartridge being fired out of two incredible weapons in the early 50s. The fucking EM-2 was even accepted into service just before it got shitcanned. Ugh.

America is bad at military guns post-WW2. Sorry.

e/ From a soldier's perspective -

FAL - handles better in combat, much easier to strip and reassemble (stupidly so), less uncontrollable on auto for when the shit really hits the fan.
M14 - more accurate. Yeah... I think that's really all I can say in the M14's favour here.

Good battle rifles have to actually be good at, y'know, battles. Can't really guage that by taking the thing down to a range.

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.

No, I'm being practical, which is what people should be when it comes to military weapons

In terms of modularity, for basic infantry the ability to change pistol grips, magazine types, foregrips, handguards, stocks, iron sights, generic part mods so easily and the fact that there are soooo many companies/designs/options to chose from make it a nice system. There are better rifles out there, but there are certainly worse issued rifles out there :p

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.

---

The pistol grip isn't the draw for those weapons, it's the ability for somewhat controllable automatic fire. Automatic fire, by your own admission, is pretty much a gimmick. Therefore, we have to work on the premise that aimed, single-shot or semi-automatic fire is what we are after and there the advantages of the pistol grip disappear almost entirely. In fact, pistol grips jut out and can snag. They have a taller profile and are harder to use in the prone position, the infantry fighting man's shooting position of choice. The use of strangely-shaped "ergonomic" grips is a recent development of the last 10 or so years. Sniper's weapons have usually been traditional. Read the thread. You should have put two-and-two together and see that I've been referring to marksman weapons when comparing traditional grip vs. pistol grip. Oh, and aimed fire = marksmanship.

Your argument has just imploded. I mean, sure, if a pistol grip feels right to you then by all means, use it. For a semi-automatic arm or a bolt-action one, I don't feel any less comfortable with a traditional stock than with a pistol grip, and I find that shooting while lying down or sitting is a superior experience with the former. There is no real argument you can make for practicality that can't be countered by a boon that only traditional stocks have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rossmum

SUPER CYBER SOLDIER territory, what with billions being pissed away on goggles with HUDs and rifles with inbuilt computers,

---

Don't tell me that a practical HUD displaying where your rifle is aiming wouldn't be helpful. Because it would be, a lot.

Though you're still right about it not being needed for absolutely every soldier right now, however it will be eventually, so why not now?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warsaw

The pistol grip isn't the draw for those weapons, it's the ability for somewhat controllable automatic fire. Automatic fire, by your own admission, is pretty much a gimmick.

---

i called burst fire a gimmick, which it is (except in the an-94's case). automatic fire is not as important in the west but it is still something that should not be paid off because of that. if i am in a room full of angry mans i want a fucking panic button. i can only fire so fast in semi, and some rifles have pretty long resets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warsaw

Therefore, we have to work on the premise that aimed, single-shot or semi-automatic fire is what we are after and there the advantages of the pistol grip disappear almost entirely.

---

we are discussing military rifles, not range queens. everything is secondary to actually being functional in close quarters, in choking dust or smoke, in either extreme heat or extreme cold, after anything up to and including three or four days without more than a few hours' disturbed sleep, while under fire. if you cannot use your rifle with at least some vague effect with all those boxes ticked, your rifle is bad and should be left for civilians because that is all it is good for. traditional stocked rifles are awkward to move with at the best of times, they are terrible to try and conduct fire and movement with in actual battlefield conditions. i really don't get how you can argue against that, have you actually ever attempted no-shit fire and movement drills before? they are difficult enough in training ex conditions with a modern rifle, let alone something with a traditional stock on it. let's see you leopard crawl while simultaneously keeping your weapon pointed at the enemy and able to fire in a pinch with ANYTHING that lacks a pistol grip, i guarantee you it is fucking impossible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warsaw

In fact, pistol grips jut out and can snag. They have a taller profile and are harder to use in the prone position, the infantry fighting man's shooting position of choice. The use of strangely-shaped "ergonomic" grips is a recent development of the last 10 or so years. Sniper's weapons have usually been traditional. Read the thread. You should have put two-and-two together and see that I've been referring to marksman weapons when comparing traditional grip vs. pistol grip. Oh, and aimed fire = marksmanship.

---

prone is good in open country but most fighting these days takes place in urban areas or prepared positions, not in fields or rolling hills. even then when it does, it's increasingly as dismounts from vehicles or from prepared pits. in any case, modern rifles have more issues with the magazine lifting them off the ground than the pistol grip. in fact, that is the case in pretty much every example i can think of, so there you go. marksman rifles are still going through the same shit as infantry rifles, so there is no reason for them to be different. sniper weapons are the only exception here and even a lot of them are moving to pistol grips or thumbholes with no negative impact on accuracy, in fact both the current and previous longest sniper kills were made with rifles which do not have traditional stocks. your argument might make sense for a civilian shooting competition but as a solider i am struggling to grasp what manner of weird logic is telling you traditional stocks on military weapons are anything other than obsolete and highly disadvantageous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warsaw

Your argument has just imploded. I mean, sure, if a pistol grip feels right to you then by all means, use it. For a semi-automatic arm or a bolt-action one, I don't feel any less comfortable with a traditional stock than with a pistol grip, and I find that shooting while lying down or sitting is a superior experience with the former. There is no real argument you can make for practicality that can't be countered by a boon that only traditional stocks have.

---

ask any soldier. literally any soldier. see how many think traditional stocks are even on par with pistol grips, let alone better than them. i can give you a spoiler: none, because we don't give a shit which has better accuracy on a calm, controlled range, we give a shit which is easier to carry, easier to manoevure, easier to shoot and easier to correct stoppages with when the environment is anything but controlled and we are tired from several days without proper sleep. even being the clueless reservist i am, i have enough experience running around the bush with steyrs to tell you that doing the shit we do with traditional stocks would just be impossible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cortexian

Don't tell me that a practical HUD displaying where your rifle is aiming wouldn't be helpful. Because it would be, a lot.

Though you're still right about it not being needed for absolutely every soldier right now, however it will be eventually, so why not now?

---

first heavy downpour, mud gets in and bricks it. shrapnel strikes it, bricks it. batteries run out and resupp is impossible. it gets lost. it malfunctions and feeds you the wrong information. there are a million reasons it is and always will be a stupid fucking idea. a rifleman's best friends are his rifle and bayonet because it would take serious neglect or a seriously bad design flaw for either of those to let him down, let's leave the silly glasses to sci fi.

and all that doesn't even account for the fact that bullpup designs are incompatible with traditional stocks, and bullpups are pretty clearly a good thing. more barrel for less length. and no, they are not awkward at all. they are easy to reload in any position, easy to clear stoppages with, the only bad thing is they tend to have awful triggers. any other criticism of bullpup rifles beyond that tends to be some manner of ignorant civilian/"never used anything but my m16 but..." armchair general bullshit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rossmum

first heavy downpour, mud gets in and bricks it. shrapnel strikes it, bricks it. batteries run out and resupp is impossible. it gets lost. it malfunctions and feeds you the wrong information. there are a million reasons it is and always will be a stupid fucking idea. a rifleman's best friends are his rifle and bayonet because it would take serious neglect or a seriously bad design flaw for either of those to let him down, let's leave the silly glasses to sci fi.

---

Completely weatherproofing electronics has been done well for years now. The only thing that would fuck it up in that regard would fuck up a rifle or any other piece of equipment just the same; that being it getting smashed to the point of something breaking (in this case, weathering breaking). Shrapnel striking a gun can "brick" the gun just as much as anything else depending on the shrapnel. Ammunition runs out and resupply is sometimes impossible. Guns get lost. Guns malfunction and put you into shitty situations where you need to take time to clear it.

Literally every negative you pointed out already exists for literally every other piece of equipment in existence today. If something goes wrong with your electronic equipment there's nothing stopping you from reverting to the basics.

Yes there is, which is that over-reliance on electronics is already a problem. A lot of guys can't nav without GPS and training them to rely on a piece of electronics to shoot accurately or be situationally aware is asking for trouble. At any rate, if something DOES render your rifle inoperable, it is still useful; you can still beat the cunts over the head with it. Can't do that with no fancy-pants techno-goggles.

On the other hand, by the time they're everything-proofed enough to survive even light use out field, they are going to weigh a goddamn ton.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rossmum

and all that doesn't even account for the fact that bullpup designs are incompatible with traditional stocks, and bullpups are pretty clearly a good thing. more barrel for less length. and no, they are not awkward at all. they are easy to reload in any position, easy to clear stoppages with, the only bad thing is they tend to have awful triggers. any other criticism of bullpup rifles beyond that tends to be some manner of ignorant civilian/"never used anything but my m16 but..." armchair general bullshit

---

Oh for sure. The bullpup is an amazing idea. The whole idea is genius. If the US ever does get around to upgrading its small arms, I hope they pick a bullpup. Especially in one of the cool new intermediate calibers. Having a 24 inch barrel for the same length as an M4 is simply awesome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rossmum

Yes there is, which is that over-reliance on electronics is already a problem. A lot of guys can't nav without GPS and training them to rely on a piece of electronics to shoot accurately or be situationally aware is asking for trouble. At any rate, if something DOES render your rifle inoperable, it is still useful; you can still beat the cunts over the head with it. Can't do that with no fancy-pants techno-goggles.

On the other hand, by the time they're everything-proofed enough to survive even light use out field, they are going to weigh a goddamn ton.

---

I don't think thats the point. I think what Lancer is saying is that it would be a nice feature, but you'd train soldiers with their sights and for basic shooting skills first. They aren't just going to give them cool goggles and toss them out there into the front.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rossmum

additionally a 20rd mag that is reliable and holds a good round like .280 is no real disadvantage imo. remember that infantry rifles are, especially in western doctrine, meant to be used for aimed fire in semiautomatic or, at most, short bursts. the auto is just there as a panic switch, even in room clearing it doesn't get a whole lot of use. with that said, burst fire is literally the goddamn dumbest thing on the face of the earth in every case except one, being the an-94. either have full auto or have no capacity for automatic fire at all.

---

Well, Ross? I'm not talking about range-queens either. I'm talking about aimed fire by a number of trained fighting men shooting at targets any distance away in a combat zone. That includes inside a house. A pistol grip is no more or less functional than a traditional grip for semi-automatic fire. Period.

I'm not trying to argue that traditional is better, I'm just saying that pistol grips aren't. Most military fighting men (in the US, look at the age range) today grew up with the AR-15 and thinking that modern guns are the coolest shit ever, and so they've not been exposed to much else. It's not about comfort, it's just about what they know. They are also die-hards and think just about any gun that ISN'T the AR-15 is inferior. And I know more than a few fighting men from many branches.

Also, I'd like to know what exactly you're referring to when you say traditional stocks can't do what you do with your AUG in the brush. I've done my share of crawling around in mud during airsoft games (yeah, can't compare to the real thing, but crawling is crawling), and I've done what amounts to the airsoft analogue of urban combat. About the only things I can come up with are one-handed shooting and blind fire.

I think you are forgetting that we've fought myriad wars with traditional stocks, and, for at least two of the major ones, pistol grips were available. It's not that one is that much better, it's just the times. Attaching a plastic grip onto a metal box is easier and cheaper than carving out an entire stock just for the grip.

E: And you may want to have that panic switch, but you don't get to use it. Why? Because collateral, that's why. Mantra of the age is "avoid collateral at all cost."

EE: Also, HUD option is nice, but never leave out the manual/mechanical option. I hate this move towards everything electronics. Stuff these days is not shielded adequately, so all it would take is one EMP and boom, all your shit is nigh useless.

For one you can't keep your rifle pointed towards the enemy while crawling, which might fly over there but doesn't here. You can no longer keep your rifle pointed towards the enemy while carrying a wounded man, while carrying a piece of equipment, while getting up or getting down on your guts, while doing pretty much fucking anything we train for. At all fucking times, the rifle is pointed towards the enemy and ready to fire in a pinch. Having a rifle in one hand while using the other is something that comes up CONSTANTLY as infantry and not being able to keep your weapon ready for action during that time is an immense handicap.

At the end of the day, crawling around in airsoft is not even close to comparable to doing actual legit infantry stuff as trained by a modern army and I find it fucking perplexing at the highest level how you can assume that because you have no issues doing it in an airsoft game, pistol grips are pointless. Automatic fire is and always has been an option, I am not an American and therefore I am trusted with a weapon that can fire more than three rounds in sequence with a single trigger pull. If your military doesn't place the same trust on its soldiers then that's a shame, but ours does, since we are trained in only using it when necessary (which is a situation that does present itself) rather than hosing bullets at everything all the time. Please do not ever presume to know anything about my job when the extent of your CV is "played some airsoft games in the woods". By the way, Australian bush is not nice forest like you have in North America, it is literally a non-stop wall of thick, springy vegetation interspersed with trees. It is difficult enough to traverse on foot, let alone on foot with pack and rifle. Until you have come here and conducted a passable section attack in 40-degree heat and bush so thick you can't see the man in front of you, kindly don't tell me how I only want pistol grips because I've been conditioned to believe that the AR-15 (which we don't even use and haven't since the 80s) is superior to all else.

The depth of your ignorance fucking astounds me. This would be like me coming in and berating you on how you don't need a modern rifle to hunt, you should use a Roman fucking ballista instead.

e/ Seriously please try and perform any kind of room clearance whatsoever with a traditionally stocked rifle and upload the results, I really need a laugh

e2/ Also notice how once pistol grips became a more widely-accepted thing on rifles (because people stopped giving a shit about looks and went for pure practicality), they took over. How you could attribute this to some silly fad, and then bring the AR into it when that 'fad' predated it by over a decade, is beyond me. Do you honestly believe we would not be using traditional stocks if they had not been rendered obsolete along with the full-power rifle cartridge in 1943? When the MkB.42 hit, the writing was on the wall; short, pistol-gripped rifles firing intermediate cartridges were just utterly superior in combat in every way. The only country slow to embrace the pistol grip was, big fucking shock incoming, the US. I could hazard a guess it was probably something to do with crusty old desk jockey officers, maybe even the same batch who resisted gas ports over gas traps.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rossmum

By the way, Australian bush is not nice forest like you have in North America, it is literally a non-stop wall of thick, springy vegetation interspersed with trees. It is difficult enough to traverse on foot, let alone on foot with pack and rifle

---

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You should try doing anything in the Pacific Northwest. Shit takes the cake. Everything is vertical. The ground is pete moss and it comes apart under your feet. The blackberries grow so thick you have to have a machete at all times. The trees are all clumped together. Almost everything has thorns. Its ridiculous, and impossible to hunt.

It sounds almost like here, except it doesn't literally explode when it catches fire and it's not jam packed with the world's most venomous snakes and spiders.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rossmum

It sounds almost like here, except it doesn't literally explode when it catches fire and it's not jam packed with the world's most venomous snakes and spiders.

---

Yeah its a little bit safer than that lol. Sucks for you, living in a warm climate. As a consolation though, its ALWAYS FUCKING RAINING.

FUCKING ALWAYS

LIKE NOAHS FUCKING ARK SHIT

ALL THE FUCKING TIME

It is impossible to enjoy being out in the woods when its always wet. I swear to God I had trench foot during hunting season this year.

Anything is better than here, fuck this place

I thought you were back in Canada? also fuck Australia and your weird mother fucking animals/bugs. Also today was the first time I ever saw this:

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/2528431/WIP/tkb-011_ref.jpg

funky lookin as hell, but still kind of awesome. Russian prototype from 1960 apparently

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PenGuin1362

I thought you were back in Canada? also fuck Australia and your weird mother fucking animals/bugs. Also today was the first time I ever saw this:

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/2528431/WIP/tkb-011_ref.jpg

funky lookin as hell, but still kind of awesome. Russian prototype from 1960 apparently

---

Wooden bullpup :ohboy:

I think it's bakelite

That gun doesn't make sense. If its using AK mags that have to rock into place it would be next to impossible to fit the magazine since the pistol-grip is in the way.

Other than that it's pretty awesome.

@Ross: You should also know that Canada (specifically out around the mountains and mountain rivers) also has some pretty impassable terrain. Being that we have muskeg fucking everywhere that will swallow you, your vehicle, and the rest of the people behind you all the way up and you'll never bee seen from again. Not to mention that its cold, really fucking cold.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PenGuin1362

I think it's bakelite

---

Ew gross.

I'll Bake your lite.

:iamafag:

inorite? Still kind of a cool lookin design though

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PenGuin1362

I thought you were back in Canada? also fuck Australia and your weird mother fucking animals/bugs. Also today was the first time I ever saw this:

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/2528431/WIP/tkb-011_ref.jpg

funky lookin as hell, but still kind of awesome. Russian prototype from 1960 apparently

---

I wish I was, but no. Last time I was home was just before the winter olympics, which was for my grandmother's 90th birthday. But yes, fuck this place, and yes, the TKB prototypes own.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PenGuin1362

I think it's bakelite

---

It is. Most of Korobov's designs used bakelite extensively.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cortexian

That gun doesn't make sense. If its using AK mags that have to rock into place it would be next to impossible to fit the magazine since the pistol-grip is in the way.

Other than that it's pretty awesome.

---

They aren't AK mags :shh: They look similar, but they're not, I'm fairly sure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cortexian

@Ross: You should also know that Canada (specifically out around the mountains and mountain rivers) also has some pretty impassable terrain. Being that we have muskeg fucking everywhere that will swallow you, your vehicle, and the rest of the people behind you all the way up and you'll never bee seen from again. Not to mention that its cold, really fucking cold.

---

Yes, I do. It's just not on the scale of the Australian bush, which is really something that has to be seen to be believed. Basically everything between the desert and the sea is what you would call 'bush', except where it's been cleared for farming; and except for cleared tracks it is almost impassable. The area out the back of Holsworthy is particularly bad, you have to physically smash your way through the shit and really watch your footing, too. Roots and branches and holes fucking everywhere.

AR debates aside, just got some new mags and some rail covers in for my AR-15. Bought mostly 20 round mags, but wanted a 30 round too just for funsies.

That photo is fucked up, only seeing a sliver of it.

that's weird, works fine for me.

e: re-uploaded just in case.

works for me

The Tavor is coming to the US Market, but they say it won't be available till way later this year. Thoughts?
http://militarytimes.com/blogs/gears...vor-is-coming/

Ross: king of twisting words to have new meaning. Your inability to read and not superimpose is dumbfounding.

I also don't know what the hell kind of traditional stock you've been using, because I can keep one pointed at the enemy. It's more an issue of long barrels making that hard, with all the weight up front. That is not really an issue on modern weapons. You must have some seriously weak wrists. That said, I never asked what type of brush you were in, I asked what you could possibly do with it beyond one-handed firing and blind firing. I. Asked. That means I don't know. Of course I'm ignorant on it. You've clearly been in the brush for too long, because you've got a great big log wedged up your rear end. To compound your error, you didn't actually add anything; most of those fall under one-handed firing. One handed firing is as much of a gimmick as full auto; if you're carrying a man, the only thing you are going to be doing is laying down covering fire and your squad should be doing that as well. The probability of you hitting anything very, very small. If you're on your own, you have a greater chance of survival if you sling your gun and run with him over your shoulders.

And fighting men cleared rooms with traditional weapons long before you were born. You know, real men who could shoot accurately without optics, carried 300 rounds of full-powered ammunition, and were capable of shooting through some enemy cover with their guns. There was nothing impractical about the SVT-40 at the time. There wasn't anything impractical about the StG. 44, either, or the BAR. What you're talking about isn't practicality, it's convenience. It's *convenient* to have a gun that weighs half an ounce (But is it really? Recoil). It's *convenient* to have a mid-sized cartridge that weighs less (But is it really? Crap penetration and stopping power). It's *convenient* to have a pistol grip because you get your one-handed firing (But is it really? Your gun can snag on brush and clothing and it has a larger footprint). It's all a trade-off. There is no one gun that is the best for every conceivable scenario.

Even worse, you went off on the airsoft stuff. I already acknowledged it's not the real thing, but the shape of the weapon is the same. That's what is relevant here. We're talking about grips, not actually shooting, dodging fire, crawling around, etc. I know they are related, but that's only after you've figured out how you want to hold your weapon.

Seriously. That was one of your most terrible posts ever. You're letting the fact that you are in the military cloud your ability to stop and weigh the pros and cons of both. I hope you realize this, but the military is not exactly the brightest or most efficient bulb in the box. You of all people should know that. In addition, you completely ignored your how own statement goes against your argument. Honestly, I'm rather disappointed in your ability to have a civil conversation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spartan094

The Tavor is coming to the US Market, but they say it won't be available till way later this year. Thoughts?

---

Meh, hate the Tavor. Mostly because it's Israeli, but it also kind of sucks. Much rather have an AUG.

LMAO the Tavor is so much better than the AUG. I've actually shot both and the Tavor just makes more sense, also its been available here in Canada for years already haha.

Doesn't change the fact it's Israeli.

meaning what?

Meaning that it's well engineered.

Because that's what I associate with Israeli firearms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cortexian

Meaning that it's well engineered.

---

Wasn't the Desert Eagle originally an Israeli design? Because I heard that thing sucked as a sidearm.

Or was it designed elsewhere and adopted by the Israeli army for a while.

Or was it even Israel? Been a while since I even gave half a thought towards the DE.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by p0lar_bear

Wasn't the Desert Eagle originally an Israeli design? Because I heard that thing sucked as a sidearm.

Or was it designed elsewhere and adopted by the Israeli army for a while.

Or was it even Israel? Been a while since I even gave half a thought towards the DE.

---

It was designed to be a replacement for a main implement. You could carry a DE and you'd be set to hit targets a short to moderate distances without having to carry another gun in any form.

Yeah the DE was designed as a "primary pistol". It sucks when placed into the same usage as a sidearm would be used in since the recoil of 50 AE is silly and basically uncontrollable for quick follow-up shots.

The .44 Mag Desert Eagle is less dumb, but still dumb as a sidearm.

Honestly, anything over 45 ACP is pretty silly IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cortexian

Yeah the DE was designed as a "primary pistol". It sucks when placed into the same usage as a sidearm would be used in since the recoil of 50 AE is silly and basically uncontrollable for quick follow-up shots.

The .44 Mag Desert Eagle is less dumb, but still dumb as a sidearm.

Honestly, anything over 45 ACP is pretty silly IMO.

---

I could go for a 357 or 327 just because they are cool.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuro

meaning what?

---

Meaning I don't agree with some of their political views so I just don't buy their weapons or ammo, that's all. Nothing I impose on anyone else, just a personal thing.

Also pretty sure the desert eagle was designed by Magnum Research (an american company) and was then developed by Israeli Weapons Industries. It's a pretty shitty side arm, regardless of how it functions it's rather impractical due to its harsh recoil, weight, and ridiculous size for a side arm.

Hence why it wasn't designed to fill the sidearm role.

Also, Israeli war-tech is usually pretty awesome. It has to be since they're surrounded by countries who want to destroy them as heretics.

I have no doubt the Tavor is a reliable weapon, and it's also the first IWI gun I've seen that I didn't hate the look of. If it comes to the U.S. for a reasonable price (unlikely), I may or may not venture into the IWI market.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PenGuin1362

I have no doubt the Tavor is a reliable weapon, and it's also the first IWI gun I've seen that I didn't hate the look of. If it comes to the U.S. for a reasonable price (unlikely), I may or may not venture into the IWI market.

---

I think its IMI.

Just saying.

Israeli Weapon Industries is a privitized division of Israeli Military Industries. I believe IWI handles all the physical firearms. Such as the Uzi, Desert Eagle, Tavor, etc.

I thought Magnum Research sold the Deagle?

Damn guns and corporations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warsaw

Ross: king of twisting words to have new meaning. Your inability to read and not superimpose is dumbfounding.

I also don't know what the hell kind of traditional stock you've been using, because I can keep one pointed at the enemy.

---

Are you quite certain? It's hard enough with a short pistol-gripped rifle. Grab something with a traditional stock, get on your guts, and crawl as fast as you can while staying as low to the ground as you can. Your rifle is to point straight ahead and be kept parallel to the ground. I don't know how the US Army or USMC teach men to crawl but that is what is done here, and it would be absolutely ridiculous without a pistol grip

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warsaw

It's more an issue of long barrels making that hard, with all the weight up front. That is not really an issue on modern weapons. You must have some seriously weak wrists. That said, I never asked what type of brush you were in, I asked what you could possibly do with it beyond one-handed firing and blind firing. I. Asked. That means I don't know. Of course I'm ignorant on it. You've clearly been in the brush for too long, because you've got a great big log wedged up your rear end.

---

No, I don't like it when civilians assume they know gospel truth when it comes to combat weapons. I am telling you from personal experience, from my friends' personal experiences, and from sheer logic that a pistol grip is far better suited to what infantry need, it is a more natural position for the wrist to be in and therefore is not as awkward or uncomfortable to use when you need to be able to move your rifle in any given direction at a moment's notice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warsaw

To compound your error, you didn't actually add anything; most of those fall under one-handed firing. One handed firing is as much of a gimmick as full auto; if you're carrying a man, the only thing you are going to be doing is laying down covering fire and your squad should be doing that as well.

---

Being able to return fire, even if it doesn't hit anything and merely suppresses the enemy, is never a gimmick. Get your mind off the calm enivronment of the rifle range. Accuracy does not matter. Nobody gives a shit if you hit an enemy and kill him or if you just force him to stay the fuck down or flee, as long as he is not in a position to return fire at you. Auto is not a gimmick, trying to fire professional-looking double taps is not really your priority if someone suddenly jumps out in front of you. This is actually one reason I really like the Steyr's method of full auto - pulling the trigger with the kind of "OH SHIT!" force you would likely use when confronted with that situation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warsaw

The probability of you hitting anything very, very small. If you're on your own, you have a greater chance of survival if you sling your gun and run with him over your shoulders.

---

Do I need to start pulling up statistics of how many rounds are expended for every enemy killed? Accuracy is something that is nice to have, but when the shit hits the fan your priority is to be putting effective (suppressing) fire downrange as rapidly as possible, not trying to ~leet snypa~ individual targets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warsaw

And fighting men cleared rooms with traditional weapons long before you were born. You know, real men who could shoot accurately without optics, carried 300 rounds of full-powered ammunition, and were capable of shooting through some enemy cover with their guns. There was nothing impractical about the SVT-40 at the time. There wasn't anything impractical about the StG. 44, either, or the BAR. What you're talking about isn't practicality, it's convenience.

---

So your argument basically uses the logic that "well they managed it then so obviously you're just whining"? Back in prehistoric times dudes used to hit each other with sticks, does that mean sticks aren't impractical and guns are for pussies? The StG fired an intermediate cartridge and had a pistol grip, so why you brought that up is beyond me, and all the rest worked at the time because their contemporaries were essentially the same. That is no longer the case because those of us who actually have to do this shit realise that there is a better way of doing it, and that way is shorter, intermediate rifles with pistol grips.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warsaw

It's *convenient* to have a gun that weighs half an ounce (But is it really? Recoil). It's *convenient* to have a mid-sized cartridge that weighs less (But is it really? Crap penetration and stopping power). It's *convenient* to have a pistol grip because you get your one-handed firing (But is it really? Your gun can snag on brush and clothing and it has a larger footprint). It's all a trade-off. There is no one gun that is the best for every conceivable scenario.

---

Light rifles that fire intermediate rounds hardly recoil, and even those which do recoil more noticeably recoil far less than their WWII predecessors. Penetration and stopping power? That's America's fault, .280 was an excellent round out to 600+ yards. In any case you do not NEED penetration and stopping power for the general issue infantry weapon at any range greater than that, in most cases even 3-400m is more than enough. The machine gun is your firepower, not the rifles - they are there to protect the gun and exploit its cover by getting in close, where they are effective. Having a pistol grip is absolutely an improvement in every single way, and quite frankly, you would have to be delusional to argue that it is not when it comes to an infantry rifleman's weapon. Having a pistol grip that won't snag because your weapon is in your hands, not slung and that allows you to maneouvre the rifle far more comfortably and efficiently is paramount. The only argument in favour of a traditional stock is that it doesn't risk snagging, which is irrelevant in a military setting because the only time your rifle is slung is when you are on a work party or using your hands to operate another weapon system. Otherwise the rifle never, ever leaves your hands. Your points would be relevant for a civilian hunting or target rifle (though even they are going to pistol grips, and I'm pretty sure target shooters don't follow trends that would hurt their accuracy), but not a standard issue infantry rifle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warsaw

Even worse, you went off on the airsoft stuff. I already acknowledged it's not the real thing, but the shape of the weapon is the same. That's what is relevant here. We're talking about grips, not actually shooting, dodging fire, crawling around, etc. I know they are related, but that's only after you've figured out how you want to hold your weapon.

---

No, we are talking about actually shooting, dodging fire, and crawling. You cannot possibly make a statement about the pistol grip on a military weapon and then justify your stance with "oh but I'm not talking about combat". The sole purpose of the infantry rifle is combat. It is designed specifically for it and nothing else. They are not designed with a mind towards comfort or aesthetics or any other argument you could bring to bear against it, because that is not their purpose.

If you had said "pistol grips are unnecessary on civilian rifles", I would not be arguing, but you didn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warsaw

Seriously. That was one of your most terrible posts ever. You're letting the fact that you are in the military cloud your ability to stop and weigh the pros and cons of both. I hope you realize this, but the military is not exactly the brightest or most efficient bulb in the box. You of all people should know that. In addition, you completely ignored your how own statement goes against your argument. Honestly, I'm rather disappointed in your ability to have a civil conversation.

---

No, you are failing to acknowledge that your opinion is based on nothing other than a misguided nostalgia and a false perception of what actually matters when we are discussing military weapons. I find it difficult to be civil when I am being told by somebody with no experience using said weapons even in a training environment that everything the infantry soldier - not the military itself - has discovered since WWII is wrong because of their arbitrary belief. Do you think I would be extolling the virtues of the pistol grip if I didn't consider it an essential step forwards in the design of our weapons? Whether you like it or not is immaterial, the only thing that matters is that it makes the infantry rifle better at what it needs to do, which is fucking killing people. You might be able to wander around with a slung rifle when you're hunting, but when you are expecting to be shot at, your rifle is in your hands at all times. Out of habit I tend to do this even when hunting, and after a while carrying a traditional stocked rifle, it gets very uncomfortable to keep my master hand in any kind of ready position because it is not a natural position for my wrist to be twisted in.

If you don't want me to be a prick to you, then don't come in trying to explain why an integral design aspect of every successful infantry rifle since 1950 - and I'm not including the M14 since nobody of consequence outside the US used it - is 'pointless' when you have no experience using such weapons yourself. I don't tell you why a piece of equipment vital to your job is fucking stupid without experiencing it myself, don't expect me to smile and nod if you do the same to me.

Just to be a jerk, are we talking about the pistol grips on an AK/AR-15 or a pistol grip like on the M1 or M1903A3?

:iamafag:

So much mad in here it hurts. Can't we all just get along?

Not when there are people Wrong on the Internet.

Ace, seriously, I am trying not to lose my patience but I'm struggling to comprehend how you can't see the advantage a pistol grip confers in modern combat. This isn't the 19th century where dudes line up and shoot at each other on command, nor is it Libya where only squares use their sights. This is 21st century infantry combat, and the rule that trumps all other rules is that whoever seizes and holds the initiative wins. The initiative belongs who whichever side isn't cowering under the sheer volume of incoming fire. Soldiers are trained to have their weapon in their hands and ready to fire at all times, or if it's not in their hands, then within easy hand's reach. Regardless of the inaccuracy of firing one-handed, your weapon never leaves your hand and you do not shirk an opportunity to fire at the enemy. If you are picking something up, helping a buddy, going to ground or pretty much any action at all, your weapon is there ready to defend you. I for one would rather have the ability to fire back, even if I miss, than have my weapon hanging useless in my free hand or slung.

You're trying to argue ergonomics without arguing context. You can't do that with a military rifle. You need to throw everything from the range, hunting, airsoft, reenactment, or anything else out the window because infantry combat has changed and for better or for worse, the pistol grip is essential now. Room clearing in WWII was a damn sight less sophisticated than it is now, and war in general has changed a lot, as it will continue to do. Convenience is practicality and practicality is advantage. You cannot apply civilian logic here. "Convenient" things like optics, pistol grips, adjustable stocks or bullpup weapons confer huge advantages to those using them regardless of how useful you might think they are in and of themselves.

If its any consolation Ross, I totally agree with you. The target shooter's thing isn't true, but for military applications I would say the pistol style grip is far more effective than the shotgun grip that was used for decades before it. Especially in an era where shooting on the fly at close range is what we do.

I still think it comes down to preference. If you find something super comfortable, you're more likely to perform better with it than any other setup. I like both, but definitely prefer pistol grip

Now, back to the good part!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PenGuin1362

I have no doubt the Tavor is a reliable weapon, and it's also the first IWI gun I've seen that I didn't hate the look of. If it comes to the U.S. for a reasonable price (unlikely), I may or may not venture into the IWI market.

---

The Tavor retails for $2,500-$3,000 here in Canada. That makes it one of the more affordable solutions (H&K MR 308 [M417] is like $4,600) here in Canada. I would definitely have one if they came in a caliber that wasn't terrible and I could use it for hunting. Here's hoping that they make a 7.62 NATO version.

I haven't handled the Tavor, but from my time with Steyrs:

- They are fucking heavy. Like, over 8lbs loaded kind of heavy. Over 9 if you're talking the F88SA2.
- The buttpad is not really well thought out, the rifle shoulders really inconsistently because of its shape and angle.
- Trigger, like nearly every bullpup trigger in existence, is absolutely atrocious.
- Mags are shit and crack or deform all the time. I heard they were orginally intended to be disposable and this was why, I cannot c/d this but when we are using mags as old as I am I can certainly tell you that they do have a use-by date. Older mags have cracked or chewed lips or weird bends or gouges which cause them to either not seat or not feed properly. Also they are dumb proprietary mags that are incompatible with everything else ever.
- Whoever thought that making the hammer out of polymer was a good idea needs to be punched in the balls. Over and fucking over. You normally replace them before it becomes an issue, but it shouldn't be an issue in the first place, it's fucking idiotic.
- Weak extractor, or at least they seem to have weak extractors. Being a choco the rifles we get are all quite old and well-worn, so it may be that, but beefing the extractor up anyway can't possibly hurt. Seems every other range day, someone's broken their extractor.
- Cocking handle lockup could be a little more beefy. The corner wears on older rifles and it's not entirely rare for the bolt to release itself if you slam the barrel back into the receiver a little too hard.

Now for good points:

- QD barrel/gas assembly is something all rifles should have these days. Makes clearing the weapon easier and more thorough, makes cleaning a breeze and means that in the event you somehow manage to fuck a barrel, all is not lost.
- Stupidly easy to field strip. No tools required, no pins to be punched out. Clear weapon, cock action, press a button and it just comes apart. Need to do a full strip? Easy. Firing pin turns a quarter-turn to the side and the whole BCG comes apart in your hand. Drive rod punches the gas piston out with its spring. A literal child could do it after only basic instruction.
- Rifle 'feels' good to hold and shoot, weight and inconsistent shouldering notwithstanding.
- Tanky receiver would probably survive being run over by a LAV.
- 'Panic button' trigger is probably one of the cleverest things I've seen done on a Western rifle for some time. Being able to go from nice, precise single shots to all-out "HOLY FUCK GET OFF MY FACE OH GOD" mode just by using retard strength on the trigger is a great thing.
- Reasonably accurate for its size.
- Looks like it's from SPACE (I used to think it was the ugliest thing I'd ever seen, but it really has grown on me).
- Every older rifle has an integrated optic with tritium-dot backup irons on top. Newer rifles have a rail for you to attach whatever the fuck you want to attach.

Overall? It's a neat little rifle, there are some really clever ideas in the design. It could be better though and when push comes to shove, there are better rifles out there. I know I harp on about it like a clingy ex, but the EM-2 would be the #1 choice. It is not a Thing anymore though so I'll say this; the AK-74M is pretty much the best widely-issued infantry rifle today, because it does everything it needs to well enough and it is indestructible and so easy a toddler could use it. The AR-15 family is nice, but over-engineered. The AR-18 is probably the West's best answer to the AK, but it suffers from 'not being an AK'.

e/ Re: Dessert Seagulls.

They are a fucking stupid weapon to use as any kind of arm, let alone a sidearm. As a primary weapon they are still fucking stupid. They are, however, excellent range toys owing to the sheer idiotic fun of a huge controlled explosion in your hands sending a huge hunk of lead and copper hurtling out to shit grandly upon whatever its dumb enough to get in its way. They are also surprisingly accurate (or so I am told by people I consider to not be idiots). As such I will merrily hop aboard the DE hate train when someone advocates using it in any kind of combat, carry or HD role, but when it comes to just shooting for fun, it's probably one of the better pistols you can find. Just get someone else to buy it because the price is driven up by Moron Tax. Kinda similar to how WWII German stuff with any visible Waffenamts at all is subject to Hitler Tax.

Also I still love TFR's rule #9, even though it has been redacted due to the community maturing past the DE fandom stage and into 'let's buy classy AR builds and cool old guns':

Quote:

---

9. THERE WILL BE NO TALK OF/DEBATE OVER/DISCUSSION ABOUT DESERT EAGLES. THERE WILL BE NO PICTURES OF DESERT EAGLES. THERE WILL BE NO SONGS ABOUT THEM, RECIPES INVOLVING THEM, ABSTRACT HAIKU, INTERPRETIVE DANCE, WATER BALLET, ICE SCULPTURES OR GODDAMNED MOTHERFUCKING TIBETAN THROAT CHANTS ABOUT THEM. MY LAWYERS HAVE INFORMED ME THAT AS FAR AS THE DESERT EAGLE IS CONCERNED, IT DOES NOT EXIST IN TFR. IN AS SUCH, ANY REFERENCES TO SAID FIREARM WILL CREATE A QUANTUM ANOMALY AND SOMEHOW IT WILL RESULT IN YOU BEING BANNED. MIGHT I SUGGEST TALKING ABOUT MOSINS? THEY'RE SO MUCH MORE AWESOME! YOU CAN GET LIKE 40 OF THEM FOR A DOLLAR, TAKE THAT MAGNUM RESEARCH, YOU FUCKING FUCKS!

---

Also, calling up an ancient post, but:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICEE

I fell in love with the German mauser rifle. My grandpa brought it to the shooting range for me to play with and it was just amazing. I don't know exactly what model number it was but it looked like this:
http://www.glenbow.org/images/img-co...arms-hig-5.jpg
It was so much fun to shoot, and the action was nice and smooth. In stark contrast to the m38 mosin nagant, which had a really sticky action and far more recoil despite not firing a bigger round. I also fired my grandpa's SKS rifles (he has 6 of them, I only fired 2). One of them is a legit one thats seen its fair share of action. It has graffiti in a couple different languages from all the soldiers its served. Beautiful weapon, wish I had pics of it. I hit a gong at 200 meters with it.

---

Could you grab a few photos of that SKS? I'd be interested in seeing the writing; I could probably tell you what the languages are as well (though maybe not what they say, depends if it's from where I think it is or not).

One of the guys who posts regularly in TFR and is more or less king of milsurp had an old Yugo SKS with all sorts of Serb nationalist slogans all over it. He called it his 'creepy genocide rifle' and flipped it to someone else as soon as he could, because he was just too weirded out by having a rifle that probably executed its fair share of Muslims or Albanians.

The ultimate irony? His big thing is Mausers. A-yup. :ugh:

I thought I read about an AUG stock that let it take STANAG magazines? Was this a concept or something that never happened Ross?

They make them in the US for civ market, there are also versions with an AR-style forward assist and bolt release (the former is fucking stupid, since our Steyrs already have an FBA as a small button on the cocking handle - why they couldn't do that instead I don't know. Trying to keep it simple for the AR crowd I guess). Military Steyrs don't take STANAGS.

On the other hand, the EF88 might. I'm not sure, the whole thing is kind of up in the air at the moment and info is scarce. What's that, you say? Haven't heard of the EF88?

http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/4227/ef88gla.jpg

Article

Don't really give a fuck about the fancy-pants gucci electronic shit, but the part where they say about it being lightened sure caught my attention.

e/ Wait, holy fuck. Where did they move the gas system to?

I do like the idea of having all the buttons you need to push for radios and lights on your weapon. I was just thinking of building a little cheap wireless switch to mount in an NVG weight bag on the back of my helmet, attach it to a weapon-light mounted on the helmet rails, have the wireless switch mounted on the gun. Then I could activate my helmet light from an easily accessible button on my weapon.

I really like the idea of having a forward assist that isn't so ridiculously built. Do you have any pictures of the Steyr one, Ross?

I mean, I don't do enough crawling in sand to need my forward assist, but according to a few people I talked to from Iraq/Afghan, they never used theirs either. Also I've read some reviews of the HAMR sight and apparently it's a pretty awesome sight. Personally I have my eyes set on the Vortex Aimpoint clones. They're pretty cheap compared to Aimpoints, but have a good reputation for being solid, cost effective sights.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TVTyrant

I really like the idea of having a forward assist that isn't so ridiculously built. Do you have any pictures of the Steyr one, Ross?

---

Literally a button about the size of the eraser on the end of a pencil which sits on the end of the cocking handle, when depressed it drops a little wire catch into a slot on the drive rod so you can use the cocking handle to physically ram the rod (and therefore bolt) forwards. The only reason it has it anyway is because the cocking handle is not otherwise physically attached to the BCG, normally it just butts up against it and that's all you need for cocking the rifle.

I'm not sure if other countries' Steyrs have them or if it's one of the features ADI implemented specifically on our variant, but you don't really need to use it much. In fact the only time I have is when I fumbled the bolt with cold hands and it closed out of battery, never had my rifle get dirty enough for it to fail to close and lock itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PenGuin1362

I mean, I don't do enough crawling in sand to need my forward assist, but according to a few people I talked to from Iraq/Afghan, they never used theirs either. Also I've read some reviews of the HAMR sight and apparently it's a pretty awesome sight. Personally I have my eyes set on the Vortex Aimpoint clones. They're pretty cheap compared to Aimpoints, but have a good reputation for being solid, cost effective sights.

---

I'd never heard of the HAMR before I saw the picture; that's good to hear, though. At any rate, I seriously doubt reservists will be seeing the F88SA2, let alone the EF88, for at least another decade. :saddowns:

What version of the AUG are you guys issued anyways?

Also, its funny to me how those are only necessary in the first place because we got rid of the massive bolts that weapons like the M14, FAL, AK, and BAR used. If we hadn't become more "advanced", a forward assist wouldn't even be necessary.

Our F88s aren't Austrian Steyrs, they're Austeyr F88s, modified by Thales ADI and built here under licence. Us reserves get just the base rifle which is basically (as far as I can tell) an A1 with a bayonet lug, auto lockout and FBA. Regs got the F88SA1 previously which was similar to the A2 but with the F88's existing features (also the area between the rail and rifle was solid metal with a few small lightening holes). F88SA2 was that with more rails and a shorter barrel, also tan finish on metal.

Just got a wee question about my G19 gen2 magazine that came with it. The spring, I can't tell if it's a light rust or just copper, did G19 G2 mags that came with the pistol have copper springs or is this just rust? And nothing comes up with original G19 gen2 mags having copper springs.

Fuck Glock, buy a 1911.

The pic looks like Copper, but it's not detailed enough to tell for sure. I'm not sure about the spring composition either.

Also, Glock is pretty awesome. I like them, not sure if I like them more than modern 1911's though (2011 style). I like Glock laser grips though.

Hard to tell in that lighting. It almost looks too red to be copper.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TVTyrant

Fuck Glock, buy a 1911.

---

>_> don't even test me

I shoot this a ton and for this I am supposed to inherit it eventually one of these days, goes along the line of "Oh yeah this is yours but I gotta keep it" it's gonna be worth the wait for the 1911 and the entire gun safe hehe.

Also the glock spring seems to be copper as it doesn't have that reg feel of rust but I'll keep an eye on it.

That 1911 is gorgeous.

That 1911 is amazing. Wow I want one of those.

Like mentioned, looks to red to be rust, also you should be able to tell by the texture. If it's nice and smooth, totally not rust. Nice 1911, lets see that glock :p Not a fan of glocks personally, but I always like looking at guns none the less :)

Obliged




Also whenever I inherit all the firearms the majority will be 12 pistols, 4 rifles, and 3 shotguns if my memory serves me right. All I have right now is a G19, 2nd Mosin Nagant, and a antique 10 gauge DB.

Post the 10G DB. I really love a good DB shotgun. Hammers or hammerless?

Hammers. I figured out it was a 10G because a 12G shell got stuck in it, it wouldn't catch the rims. More pictures in the spoiler. Though I was very surprised to see the 12G shell getting stuck

TG mark on the left

18.6 on the right under-side of the barrel

More marks on the left under-side of the barrel

E over LG I found out is Belgium I think. And not pictured is on the right side of the DB across the TG mark there is a M with a crown over it.

Wow thats gorgeous. Will it fire shells?

I'm not sure, never bothered to fire it and I won't shoot modern shells in it, I don't think the metal can take that pressure. I think I would need to make my own home-made ones and use black powder, I'm really not all that sure.

Should still be able to find BP shells, not sure where but I know people still sell them

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rossmum

Should still be able to find BP shells, not sure where but I know people still sell them

---

The internets usually have such things. Check Goex they will probably have what you are looking for.

HELLO COMRADES. I OBTAIN NEW RIFLE OF GLORIOUS SOVIET UNION. LATER I PUT MORE PICTURE. HERE IS PREVIEW:



IS RIFLE OF IZHEVSK MECHANICAL WORKS, MADE IN 1944. IS OF SNIPER TYPE. SCOPE AND CROOKED BOLT HANDLE IS REMOVE, PROBABLY BECAUSE IS TOO MANY RIFLE OF SNIPER TYPE AFTER WAR. BORE BETTER THAN PUSSY OF YOUR MOTHER.

My Mom gave birth to me at 13 pounds...

So yeah I would imagine its better than her pussy nowadays.

I was a c-sectioned baby. Your argument is invalid.

I also own two of those rifles, many more to come of its different variations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rossmum

IS RIFLE OF IZHEVSK ORDNANCE FACTORY, MADE IN 1944. IS OF SNIPER TYPE.

---

ftfy
,   ▓▓       
_▓▓_  
,   ಠ␣ರೃ

Lol, Ross, I read that post with a Russian accent and now I cannot stop giggling.

Also, no, it's not Izhevsk Ordnance. It was officially a motor or other machine plant, or some such back in the 40s as a cover up. I do know that it wasn't officially labeled as an arms manufacturing plant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warsaw

Also, no, it's not Izhevsk Ordnance. It was officially a motor or other machine plant, or some such back in the 40s as a cover up. I do know that it wasn't officially labeled as an arms manufacturing plant.

---

Oh? That's new to me... Eh the older Izhevsk MN's pre-28 ones had Izhevsk Ordnance Factory stamped on the barrel so I assumed the same for any made after 1928 due to the barrel markings being different.