Modacity shooters' thread

I'm pretty sure it's more expensive here for all the fun stuff (Black/Green/Red Firearms). Ammo still isn't that hard to source though, I think I'm going to sell all my airsoft stuff and get that Robinson Arms XCR-M. Not sure yet though.

Good news though! The Canadian Non-Restricted Firearms (see: long-guns used for hunting) registry has been removed and all the documentation and records will be destroyed. Meaning all you need now is a PAL license and money to go get a gun, no registration and no giving over all your life background to the government just to get a hunting gun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rossmum

Keep in mind that new production anything that isn't .22LR will run you at or over a dollar a round, too. And our dollar is owning the shit out of yours while shitting on its face, so that's more like $275-280 US.

Everything gun-related here is retardedly expensive. It's more to do with our awful laws than anything; they are in short enough supply and hard enough to import that you basically have to pay the fuckers way more than what something is actually worth. It's shit.

---

I can boxes of 30-06 for 16.99 at Dick's sporting goods. Don't make me laugh lol. The gun industry here is bigger than it's ever been, and prices are falling very quickly back to where it was in the early 2000s.

There's no reason it couldn't be the same here. Shipping costs sweet fuck all in bulk, our own industry ammo-wise is very good (ADI do all our military stuff as well as commercial powders, and they are pretty highly regarded and sell powders under another brand in the US), we just get gouged because there is literally nothing else we can do. Everything in this country costs more than it should, but things that are impossible to source from overseas sellers or via the internet? Ohhh boy.

Man I would never pay over $150 for 400 rounds of 7.62x54. Non-corrosive FMJ surplus you can usually find in the states for like $80

no such thing as non-corrosive surplus

If that's the case then people have been lying. It's usually not Russian though.

I could have gotten 440 for $63 (not including shipping) not to long ago, I shoulda ordered 2 cans to have 880 but I didn't and lost the chance, they went by fast. Could have had 880 for roughly $136 with shipping included. Dammit.

But I'll see what the GR gun show has next week, hoping to find a RU SKS thats all matching with a non-blued bolt and bayo for a good price, but that's wishful thinking. If not I'll see what Mosin Nagants are there.


E: Also all milsurp ammunition for the 7.62x54r from any country has been corrosive, either it be Hungarian, Czech, E. Germany, Romanian, Russian, Chinese and so on has been corrosive. Only non-corrosive ammunition is the commercial ammo but then again it isn't milsurp but it's the only ones that aren't corrosive.

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=274470940


$ 150 without shipping. Not $136 but not that much more either.

Also?

Russian SKS

I'm sure if I did try to get it and win, the cost from both shipping and transfer to my FFL would bring it up at or over the 500 point mark and I would rather get something else. Besides last gun show I went too had a $395 RU SKS and he went down no further then $350, I didn't buy it because I was far to picky and the thing was non-matching, re-arsenal Tula 1952 all blued no white.

So I'm going to wait for the gun show, I'm sure something will turn up since a lot of people refereed me to it since it's supposedly huge.

Usually if you're patient most gun stores cycle through a few Russian SKS's. They tend to go quick but both gun stores I go to have each had a few in the past few months. Some were matching original, some were re-arsenal.

Never seen a Russian SKS in person, seen lots and lots of very nice Yugos though.

shameless copy-paste of my post from tfr

Quote:

---

A Thing arrived in the mail about an hour ago while I was attempting to cook dinner!

http://www.project-new-hope.com/uplo...9/BILD0639.jpg

It had weird writing on the label, and more inside...

http://www.project-new-hope.com/uplo...9/BILD0640.jpg

It apparently came from Cherkassy! I was immediately reminded of Good Times on the Red Orchestra map set in the vicinity of that place! I wonder what could be inside?

http://www.project-new-hope.com/uplo...9/BILD0641.jpg

MORE WRAPPING :tinfoil:

http://www.project-new-hope.com/uplo...9/BILD0646.jpg

Hello! :buddy:

http://www.project-new-hope.com/uplo...9/BILD0644.jpg

It's from the same factory as my rifle's original scope, a fact given away by the serial number format (every other factory prefixed theirs with year of production). It was originally attached to a rifle with serial ZhU5977, as this and the scope's serial are both electropencilled onto the mount. For scarcely $50 more than I would've found a modern repro, I'm pretty happy.

There is a slight blemish on the reticle, but it shouldn't interfere with shooting at all - it looks like a little hook coming out of the tip of the post, but the actual point of aim itself is still clear. Not bad for a world war, over half a century in storage, and then a trip across the globe.

e/ Sweet mother of fuck, a friend just got a 1938 Tula from the same guys I did, $375. Infantry rifle. Except it wasn't, so they obviously hadn't checked the markings... it's an ex-PEM sniper. Not sure if I should be happy as hell for him, or furiously jealous. Either way, I think I'm going to be paying regular trips down there to check their rifles out in person in case they slip up like that again <:maddowns:>

---

friend's rifle:





MONEY SHOT :pcgaming:



He had no idea just what he'd bought until I started yelling excitedly and calling him a bastard.

Interesting ex-PEM, I jelly. Also rossmum I didn't know you commented on my deviantArt picture of my 2nd Mosin Nagant that shows both sides of it. I will eventually fix up the flaking shellac.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PenGuin1362

Usually if you're patient most gun stores cycle through a few Russian SKS's. They tend to go quick but both gun stores I go to have each had a few in the past few months. Some were matching original, some were re-arsenal.

---

I'm a very patient person, it's not like it's going to kill me if I don't have it now. Also I do know my LGS has one refurbed Tula 1951 SKS all matching but the price range doesn't sit well with me. It's down to $435 but im waiting for it to go down further and then I'll talk to the owner for an even lower price since it's been sitting there since last year. I'm not interested in buying a refurbed SKS so that's why I haven't jumped on asking him yet.

That price sounds about right for an original SKS, untouched and all matching. But if it's been refurbished or rearsenaled I'd expect to see it at most around $400, especially if the numbers have been electro penciled. Sometimes though people charge more because they see it as it looks better and will function better than an original.

I don't see what the problem would be with a refurb. They are more reliable and nicer looking etc. Are they arsenal or gunsmith?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spartan094

Interesting ex-PEM, I jelly. Also rossmum I didn't know you commented on my deviantArt picture of my 2nd Mosin Nagant that shows both sides of it. I will eventually fix up the flaking shellac.

---

Oh, that was you? :v:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TVTyrant

I don't see what the problem would be with a refurb. They are more reliable and nicer looking etc. Are they arsenal or gunsmith?

---

Like anything, the original, unfucked-with versions will always be worth more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rossmum

Oh, that was you? :v:


Like anything, the original, unfucked-with versions will always be worth more.

---

Not saying it should be worth more, just saying I wouldn't mind having a refurb.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TVTyrant

I don't see what the problem would be with a refurb. They are more reliable and nicer looking etc. Are they arsenal or gunsmith?

---

Nothing wrong with them. The M1 Garand I own was manufactured in 1943 but was rearsenaled in 1955 and had it's barrel replaced. So everything is 1943 but it has a nice shiny bore :) But like Ross said, untouched stuff is always worth more, especially if it's in good condition AND 100% original, golden combo right there. It's just nice to have everything as it was the day it rolled out the factory. For collector rifles at least

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PenGuin1362

Nothing wrong with them. The M1 Garand I own was manufactured in 1943 but was rearsenaled in 1955 and had it's barrel replaced. So everything is 1943 but it has a nice shiny bore :) But like Ross said, untouched stuff is always worth more, especially if it's in good condition AND 100% original, golden combo right there. It's just nice to have everything as it was the day it rolled out the factory. For collector rifles at least

---

I would say that only is fine if the gun is in nice condition. If I went around and picked up some rifles that were just dogs, I would refurbish them and they'd be great.

Some people do that and sometimes gunsmith refurbished collector rifles can be worth a lot of money. Arsenal rifles are just slapped together parts from the warehouse so it can be re-serviced and re-issued. Where as sometimes gunsmiths go through a lot of effort to keep all original S/N's and factory markings but make the gun look and function like brand new

Serious collectors, along with most museums, would actually rather a poor-condition rifle to a refurb (especially if it wasn't an arsenal refurb). Obviously, though, they're more concerned with originality than functionality and ease of maintenance. I don't mind arsenal refurbs, but I have no intention of permanently altering anything on my rifles (with the exception of my 91/30, but even then I'm getting a whole new bolt body and it was a sniper rifle originally). I look for shooters, but in as nice (and as original) of a condition as possible.

By the way I have become something of an overnight authority on PU scopes so if any of you want to know for sure what you're getting is the real deal, ask me and you shall find out!

(also, Peng, post photos of your Mosin to tide me over until I get my bolt body sorted)

Key things to look for on PU's are the screw heads and the prefix to the serial number.

On mine everything is 1943, except the scope base which was post war, and the bent handle. The bolt itself is original but the only bent bolt handle I could find at the time was of new reproduction but the guy was kind enough to stamp my serial number onto it :D So the handle itself is new.

http://pix.pixagogo.com/S56SBDtSVjQhYqyKhKXxiTZZnx6HUB67SsubfYfUn7yLOwZOIe fcrXaoxvw0jN2FDswdSMqd48KE8SJrljSXd9KUw4CFqNJ1yE/DSC_0621.JPG



http://pix.pixagogo.com/S58UTKI1w3i7...o/DSC_0653.JPG

http://pix.pixagogo.com/S58UTKI1w3i7...S/DSC_0651.JPG

http://pix.pixagogo.com/S56SBDtSVjQh...f/DSC_0620.JPG

http://pix.pixagogo.com/S58UTKI1w3i7PCWijggbpe3KlrcvMMO2uBz-oZR7GlgIEh0qlHruFP!8GKOYPOvfygtw-htOMOT8JZvUvfwjIX5VgVyEIg1eI-/DSC_0617.JPG

p.s. I actually sent these, and some extra photos of my Sniper as well as my M44 to the guy Deicide who runs that massive firearm reference image album to help contribute to the mosin nagant images.

So here's some of my M44, which since has had its bore corroded :( Took it to the range one day and totally forgot I was using corrosive ammo and didn't clean it until 2 days later. It's not terrible but it's not shiny anymore either. Leh derp.

http://pix.pixagogo.com/S56SBDtSVjQh...M/DSC_0656.JPG

http://pix.pixagogo.com/S56SBDtSVjQh...S/DSC_0658.JPG

http://pix.pixagogo.com/S56SBDtSVjQh...v/DSC_0670.JPG

Send me your M44, I can clean up that bore good :cwazy: Oh nice war-time m44, I spy the "single ear" piece at the front were the bayo is.


No seriously, I managed to clean up the one I have now, my friend abused it to some extent by not cleaning it thoroughly when I told him to clean it, at least he did it to some degree so the damage wasn't terribly bad.

Now my friends brother on the other hand did NOT clean it after running 5 rounds in it, only 5 and ignored my warning. The result 2 weeks later were bad, and when I mean bad I mean bad. My friend and I scrubbed that thing like no other with the bore brush and over 5 dozen patches, the rust was so bad when we first used the bore brush weird powder shit came out the end of the barrel.

When we used Hoppe's 9 and Windex, black liquid poured out of the front of the barrel into the trash can. Used 40 rounds and cleaned up what was left and the bore was probably about as good as it was going to get, the pitting took it's toll.

The wood on that M44 is absolutely gorgeous.

And not to mention the import mark is not on the receiver, I hate the billboard import mark on receivers looks ugly. I really wish they were like the old import marks.

Heh, import marks. :realsmug:





The camera doesn't do it justice, but...

http://i.imgur.com/OyXrl.jpg

After seeing two arguments between the same two guys over the PU's quality (one a collector with extensive experience with the PU, the other someone who plainly fanboys Germany and refused point-blank to recognise that shitty PUs were a minority and some ZF4s and even Dialythons were shitty as well), I know which I agree with. Beautiful, clear image, no distortion at all (contrary to the latter guy's assertion that the PU had shit lenses and distorted like crazy), and my only complaint is the tiny blemish you can see on the tip of the reticle there - which shouldn't interfere with shooting anyway. The much sharper taper on the tip of the post is also a lot better than the blunt, at times almost flat one on German scopes.

For the 40s they were pretty nice, yep.

I need to make some sort of crazy camera-scope mounting bracket so I can get a perfect photo of it; that photo absolutely does not do the clarity and vibrance of it justice.

:effort:

Don't know what they be talkin 'bout. My scope is clear as day, however mine was serviced in 1965 so could have had its lenses replaced.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PenGuin1362

Don't know what they be talkin 'bout. My scope is clear as day, however mine was serviced in 1965 so could have had its lenses replaced.

---

The only thing I dont like about the PU is the style of reticle it has, which isn't the scopes fault. I'd rather have a Mil-Dot.

Am I the only person here who loves me a good FN P90? That would be my first purchase if I was able to pick and chose.

Have you ever held one? It's rather cramped and there's no way to adjust it. The magazines are a comparative pain next to your traditional box magazine. For the civilian versions, you have to deal with those long barrels which make it look ugly, and then ammo is not the easiest thing to come by. If you were to ask me, the MP7 wins vs. the P90 on all counts as a PDW.


Oh, and before anybody says it: if it's firing 5.56 NATO, it's not a PDW.

I have held the civilian version, but it fits my hands pretty well considering I have a slighter frame than most. Even with the lengthened barrel, its still very compact. Im not sure what issues you are talking about as far as the magazine is concerned. I also don't understand how firing a high velocity round completely negates the obviously compact design when you say it isn't a PDW.

MP7 is better, hands down. I love FN and the P90 is a neat little piece of engineering, but it is not practical and the MP7 utterly outclasses it in its intended role.

I'd rather have a PPSh than both, though, because you guys know how I am with these things :-3

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PenGuin1362

Don't know what they be talkin 'bout. My scope is clear as day, however mine was serviced in 1965 so could have had its lenses replaced.

---

Mine must've been too as the lenses are coated (the Soviets didn't coat lenses in WWII) and the exterior finish is excellent, but any cared-for PU would be just fine without a refurb. Considering mine is 68 years old, and if it was refurbed it would've been in the 60s, that's still a damn good piece of simple, solid optical engineering to hold out so well for so long. New-production they would've been even better - completely shutting down pretty much any argument of them being noticeably inferior to their German counterparts.

At any rate, the only true counterpart the Germans had to the PU was the ZF4, which ranged from excellent to absolutely awful depending on factory and planetary alignment. The other scopes find themselves facing off against the Zeiss-derived PE and PEM... and have even less to brag about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bobblehob

I have held the civilian version, but it fits my hands pretty well considering I have a slighter frame than most. Even with the lengthened barrel, its still very compact. Im not sure what issues you are talking about as far as the magazine is concerned. I also don't understand how firing a high velocity round completely negates the obviously compact design when you say it isn't a PDW.

---

P90 uses a 5.7 Its different... Very different.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TVTyrant

P90 uses a 5.7 Its different... Very different.

---

I know that, it still doesn't keep it from being a PDW...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bobblehob

I know that, it still doesn't keep it from being a PDW...

---

It is a PDW that was my point. Warsaw said guns using 5.56 weren't... PDWs all use high velocity cartridges compared to SMGs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TVTyrant

It is a PDW that was my point. Warsaw said guns using 5.56 weren't... PDWs all use high velocity cartridges compared to SMGs.

---

Ohp, my bad xP

@Bobblehob:

5.56 is a rifle round. It's a medium-powered rifle round, but a rifle round nonetheless. There are some really tiny guns firing 5.56 that are being spun off as PDWs, but the recoil and magazine girth puts them outside of what I would consider (and what should be considered) PDW territory and into carbine/subcompact territory.

PDWs fire special HV cartridges, be they brand new (5.7x28mm or 4.6x30mm) or modified pistol rounds (9x18mm AP comes to mind).

It's like SMGs vs. Assault rifles. Some people call the AKS-74U an SMG because it's small enough to be one. I call these people idiots. SMGs are select-fire and take pistol cartridges, assault rifles are select-fire and fire rifle cartridges. The AKS-74U fires 5.45x39mm, a rifle cartridge.

Now, SMGs and PDWs is a grey area. All PDWs are SMGs, but not all SMGs are PDWs. Hell, PDW itself is misleading. An SMG is a class of firearm, and a PDW is a gun used for a very particular purpose. That means that, technically, anything used for personnel defence is a PDW (MP5, M4, AKS-74U, UMP,etc.). Since we now have specialized guns for this job (MP7, P90, KA PDW, PP-2000, etc.), though, PDW gets treated as a class.

In Short: PDWs are useless, bring back the .45 cal SMGs of yesteryear.

Im fine with something that can is good at short range and has a high rate of fire, but is also accurate long range as well :\

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TVTyrant

In Short: PDWs are useless, bring back the .45 cal SMGs of yesteryear.

---

PDWs are designed to be lighter than a rifle in every way (including recoil) but powerful enough to defeat body armour like a rifle can. A PDW will punch through body armour at a range, a .45 won't.

I'm still waiting on that .50 AE SMG.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warsaw

PDWs are designed to be lighter than a rifle in every way (including recoil) but powerful enough to defeat body armour like a rifle can. A PDW will punch through body armour at a range, a .45 won't.

I'm still waiting on that .50 AE SMG.

---

Mostly the 50 AE SMG. WHo cares if it wont penetrate the vest, three rounds will crush all their organs :iamafag:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TVTyrant

In Short: PDWs are useless, bring back the .45 cal SMGs of yesteryear.

---

http://www.unfinishedman.com/wp-cont...9/Krisssmg.jpg

That's not from yesteryear! It can't hold a candle to a 1928 Thompson with a 100-round drum.

im just imagining the army pulling a bad company and actually issuing tompsons. that is funny.

That would be fucking epic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warsaw

That's not from yesteryear! It can't hold a candle to a 1928 Thompson with a 100-round drum.

---

This was exactly what I meant by yesteryear lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warsaw

That's not from yesteryear! It can't hold a candle to a 1928 Thompson with a 100-round drum.

---

Sure it can, since it has practically no muzzle-climb.

Would literally do better in every kind of comparison you can think of, except for "gun with most wood on it".

But you run out of ammunition faster, and I've seen plenty of people able to control a Thompson without this muzzle climb affecting much. It's a damn SMG, not a rifle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Donut

im just imagining the army pulling a bad company and actually issuing tompsons. that is funny.

---

Better to issue NATO-caompatible M1 Gara--oh wait, we have M14s.

Drum magazines can be made for anything. The standard magazine for a Thompson was a 20 round version IIRC, with 30 round versions introduced later on. The 50 round drum was the standard for the Thompson, and the 100 round was fairly rare.

The Vector takes Glock 21 magazines, with available kits to convert standard Glock 21 mags into 30 round mags. There are also 45 round drum magazines available for Glock 21's as well, meaning they would work just as well in the Vector.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cortexian

Drum magazines can be made for anything. The standard magazine for a Thompson was a 20 round version IIRC, with 30 round versions introduced later on. The 50 round drum was the standard for the Thompson, and the 100 round was fairly rare.

The Vector takes Glock 21 magazines, with available kits to convert standard Glock 21 mags into 30 round mags. There are also 45 round drum magazines available for Glock 21's as well, meaning they would work just as well in the Vector.

---

The 100 was only rare in the Rangers and Commandos. It was the most popular mag here in the states beack when you could go to a hardware store and simply buy a Tommy Gun. Also I like the Vector a lot and wouldn't hate seeing it as a more widely used weapon. Its recoil reduction recoil is fucking brilliant, its rate of fire is incredible, and its accuracy with such a big fat round is unbelievable. Its IMO the ultimate weapon for urban environments.

100 Rounder was rare in the military period, most everyone had stick mags from what I've read. At least for their reloads, some might of carried a drum initially (as their +1, in the gun) but it was mostly sticks.

Plus, drum magazines make all firearms awkward to use/carry/sling.

The Thompson actually predates World War II, and drum magazines were actually the standard. The M1A1, developed specifically for military use, saw the development of box magazines to go with it to facilitate faster reloading of magazines and more reliable feed.

In the end, though, I'm just giving you a hard time with the tacti-cool stuff. The Vector is actually a nice weapon, and I wish that similar recoil reduction systems would be implemented on rifles; then we could use the 7.62 NATO and not give a fuck about finding that perfect mid-sized round.

I dont think hes contending that, Warsaw. But the Military didnt use that many drum mags.

I think I remember reading something saying that with anything larger than pistol rounds the V bolt assembly/recoil reduction system took to much of a beating and broke lots. They're working on it.

It would make a rifle much much more bulky however, since you need all that extra space behind the magazine well for the bolt to slide down into. The larger the caliber the larger that space needs to be. You're looking at practically doubling the length of the magazine well area, and to do that with a longer cartridge like the .308/7.62 NATO would result in a VERY blocky looking gun with an action assembly further forward on the rifle.

Basically you get this:
http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/1991/myweaponsj.jpg

That just seems like a long way between the pistol grip and the front grip. I put an AFG on cause I think it would work well in that situation but any kind of grip up at the front there.

I'm not sure the Army is worried about bulk, seeing as they were seriously considering something like the XM-25 to become a standard-issue service weapon. It's more about weight; if it's constructed of polymers, it should be within tolerances.

And here's your solution to the spacing issue: bullpup configuration. Ta da!

At any rate, we have BARS for rifles, too bad nobody wants to buy AK-108s.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TVTyrant

I dont think hes contending that, Warsaw. But the Military didnt use that many drum mags.

---

Correction: your military didn't. Commonwealth nations used drum mags like they were going out of style.

The Vector is neat, but trying to use the same tech in anything bigger is stupid. The military might like to come up with fancy shit that looks good on paper, but the harsh reality is that 90% of things invented for infantry to use are utter trash and should be kept as far removed from a battlefield as possible. The OICW, AICW, and those stupid fucking HUD goggles are perfect examples of what happen when you put pogues in charge of development; they have no fucking idea how the real world works, and so they make all this wet-dream crap that is worse than the shittiest of Khyber Pass AK knockoffs when it comes to actually fighting.

The newer AKs with their counterweight system, and the AN-94, are about as far as recoil reduction should be taken in rifles until we're using railguns. Fuck, ever looked at a cutaway of the AN-94? I would be fucking amazed if the engineers that designed it know how that thing works. Training soldiers to deal with recoil is a much better investment of money than trying to remove it. In any case, I'd be inclined to distrust any weapon that doesn't recoil; there's something very reassuring about your weapon giving you a firm kick in the shoulder.

Fully automatic fire is only really useful from machine guns or in close quarters panic situations anyway, so really, it's pointless trying to nix recoil when we could instead focus on making lighter, more mechanically reliable weapons, based around a cartridge that doesn't suck.

USMC actually issued drum mags quite often. Army didn't. But we all know that USMC > Army, and the USMC had to deal with massed charge attacks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warsaw

USMC actually issued drum mags quite often. Army didn't. But we all know that USMC > Army, and the USMC had to deal with massed charge attacks.

---

I'd take the army in the WW Deuce. far more organized, better leadership, etc. Not having fucking McArthur as your general will take you far.

Question about modern individual armor...

How come no one makes or uses bullet/fragmentation resistant greaves? I realize that greaves pretty much went out back with the Roman's, but they were actually a fairly good design. A greave acted as armor for the shins, which are prone to taking shrapnel and getting banged around, and also acts as a knee pad.

I think a fragmentation/small arms resistant greave could be useful for certain "shock troop" style units in the current generation. SWAT teams could also benefit (I've actually seen photos of the RCMP ERT wearing some kind of greaves). Weight is the only downside, so issuing them to forces that rely on quick insertions and extractions could be useful.

Oh boy, you should love the soldiers in my story (I've posted 'em around), because they have helmets (wide-brimmed like brodie helms to protect against shrapnel, but also having side pieces to protect the ears and back of the head), greaves (with hinged knee-plates), bracers, shoulder bells, chest plate (actually, two chest plates), back plates, and some segmented stomach armour. Everywhere important.

Granted, they are WWI-styled, but they have it where it counts.

Hinged knee-plates you say?

http://www.ctoms.ca/products/knee-pads?cat=13

Just discovered those when I was ordering my Multicam Crye G3 Combat Pants last December. Thought it was pretty neat and was actually my initial spark into searching around for some modern greaves. I think greaves that are tall enough to extend past the top of the knee when you're standing would be sufficient, no need for a hinged design since when you take a knee the greave itself would act as a knee-pad. When kneeling your knee would be exposed, but it's at ground level so not a HUGE issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cortexian

Question about modern individual armor...

How come no one makes or uses bullet/fragmentation resistant greaves? I realize that greaves pretty much went out back with the Roman's, but they were actually a fairly good design. A greave acted as armor for the shins, which are prone to taking shrapnel and getting banged around, and also acts as a knee pad.

I think a fragmentation/small arms resistant greave could be useful for certain "shock troop" style units in the current generation. SWAT teams could also benefit (I've actually seen photos of the RCMP ERT wearing some kind of greaves). Weight is the only downside, so issuing them to forces that rely on quick insertions and extractions could be useful.

---

Its an interesting idea. Do many guys get shot in the shins though?

Not having been deployed as a medic/medical staff I can't say, I've talked to some friends who have been deployed and heard of people taking shots to pretty much everywhere. Fragmentation doesn't discriminate though.

FYI, those CTOMS guys would know. They're the ex-military/law enforcement civilians that Canada contracts to for military/law enforcement field medical standards and training.

A quote from their site:

Quote:

---

Effective Medical Training = Force Multiplication

Mission Essential Training™ started here. Even before CTOMS existed, it was the initiation and development of the TCCC program by its founders within the Canadian Forces that sparked the beginnings of what has turned into a world class set of programs. Each program is custom tailored for the client agency and their specific requirements providing customized solutions maximizing training efficiency.

Our military programs cover a spectrum of requirements, from individual soldier TCCC training to advanced Special Operations Force medics or Search and Rescue Technicians. These are not cookie cutter courses but rather end user, environment and scope of practice specific training.

---

Lol, not quite what I meant by hinged. It's essentially a part of the greave (well, sits in top-ish), but it can bend inwards just below the knee. It does not bend outwards; furthest it goes outwards is in line with the rest of the leg.

Kevin is the very definition of gear queer, so no surprise he's suggesting something like that; I'm pretty much the opposite. I'm willing to go with less protection if it means I'm faster and able to move more freely. Even if you're wearing the best armour in the world you'll still be killed by concussion from nearby explosions or bullets finding their way through your armour, so I don't put a huge amount of faith in that shit. A light vest and a decent helmet are really all you need, any more than that and you're just miring yourself down in pointless what-ifs.

There's no right or wrong answer I guess, but personally, I know what I'd go with. We spend so much time obsessing over the newest technology that we tend to forget the essentials - which is why infantry in NATO countries are still using a lacklustre cartridge, usually from lacklustre weapons, and don't know how to use some of their most essential pieces of kit. I would consider it a safe estimate that more than half of any given Western nation's infantry don't know how to navigate with a map and compass, let alone without anything at all, because of the advent of the goddamn GPS. Entrenching tools are just tools now, nobody seems to see them as a weapon (and a potent one at that). People are actually arguing that bayonets are obsolete (which will literally never be the case). Fuck fancy armour setups, fuck computerised fire control for infantry weapons. Give soldiers a good, solid rifle they can't break, firing a round which sits in the comfortable zone between 5.56 and 7.62, a bayonet and some light protection.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rossmum

Kevin is the very definition of gear queer, so no surprise he's suggesting something like that; I'm pretty much the opposite. I'm willing to go with less protection if it means I'm faster and able to move more freely. Even if you're wearing the best armour in the world you'll still be killed by concussion from nearby explosions or bullets finding their way through your armour, so I don't put a huge amount of faith in that shit. A light vest and a decent helmet are really all you need, any more than that and you're just miring yourself down in pointless what-ifs.

---

This. Try running with some heavier gear when you've already got a 200 pound-ish ruck plus ammo, a gun, and yourself. Being able to move, relatively quickly and for relatively long distances, is more important for survival at this point than fancy armour. Easy mobility of the appendages is pretty important too, and more gear just fucks it all up.

Here's another good quote from CTOMS:

"What worked yesterday would be fine, if it was yesterday."

Most infantry warfare isn't stretched over long periods of time or distance anymore though, you go in and fuck shit up, and then leave again to go do it somewhere else. You don't deploy 10,000 troops miles outside a city and then have them march to it. So weight really shouldn't be a concern for said "shock troop" units.

I realize that recee units and other units that need to move around on foot a lot wouldn't want more gear, but there are some units that benifit more from front-armor than anything else (ESPECIALLY SWAT teams).

you don't have to march into a city to wind up moving a long distance, moving back and forth adds up, and i don't know if you've never worn a ruck, but 200 extra pounds makes a big fucking difference. having anything extra is just uselessly complicating things. you get trained for a reason, and people getting shot is an inevitability. that's why you take cover. having extra protection might be a nice thought, but it really just isn't needed. i mean, you don't just show up in a city and execute an op for 45 minutes and leave a majority of the time. not to mention you want to be prepared, and having extra shit weighing you down that you don't need is the purposefully being unprepared when you look at the bigger picture.

the fact that you're still arguing tells me you're really just inexperienced with how things actually are. join the army and pick a combat arms position and see if you still want all that extra shit once you've already got everything else loaded up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rossmum

Kevin is the very definition of gear queer

---

I'm seriously getting tired of everyone talking shit about me. I'm about the farthest thing from a 'gear queer'. I'm very much about the old way of equipment. All a trooper should need to carry into battle is his rifle, some protection (condoms mostly), and enough ammo to get the job done. Other stuff is neat, but really unnecessary.

Wait, I thought Ross was talking about Freelancer...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warsaw

Wait, I thought Ross was talking about Freelancer...

---

Freelancer's name is Kevin? So is mine...

Yes I'm the Original Kevin™

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roostervier

you don't have to march into a city to wind up moving a long distance, moving back and forth adds up, and i don't know if you've never worn a ruck, but 200 extra pounds makes a big fucking difference. having anything extra is just uselessly complicating things. you get trained for a reason, and people getting shot is an inevitability. that's why you take cover. having extra protection might be a nice thought, but it really just isn't needed. i mean, you don't just show up in a city and execute an op for 45 minutes and leave a majority of the time. not to mention you want to be prepared, and having extra shit weighing you down that you don't need is the purposefully being unprepared when you look at the bigger picture.

the fact that you're still arguing tells me you're really just inexperienced with how things actually are. join the army and pick a combat arms position and see if you still want all that extra shit once you've already got everything else loaded up.

---

Fuck how many times do I have to say it, I was in the Canadian Forces (Reserves) for a year, completed BMQ (Basic). I know exactly what it's like to be loaded down. Guess what, if you're fighting in your 200 pound ruck you're either A) retarded, or B) some crazy bodybuilding monster who does all his PT with the ruck on "for shits". When the fighting starts you ditch your ruck and come back for it later, you shouldn't have any first line gear in it anyway.

I'm currently re-applying as well.

Having worn all that gear, I think some fragmentation resistant greaves would be a better alternative than the nothing-resistant neoprene knee-pads.

Or you got contacted while on the march and didn't have time to drop packs before going into your contact drills...

You mean dropping prone and returning fire? You realize you should probably ditch your pack once you go prone? IDK about you guys but in the CF our rucks are on QD buckles so when we go prone we can drop them.

It's a lot of vertical target giving away your position when you're prone.

I know from a friend that in the US military they drop their equipment as soon as rounds are fired.

Yeah I thought that dropping non-fighting kit was pretty standard.

Obviously if you have more pressing matters, like shooting a guy running at you or someone you can see shooting at you, you do that first. But ditch the non-fighting gear ASAP. Hauling around 100 pounds of food, medical supplies, clothing, blankets, ammo cans isn't helpful in a firefight.

The contact drill here is conducted before you even consider doing anything else, including dropping packs.

I'm all about light insertion anyways. Unless we're being retarded, we should never be in a conflict where we have to use infantry to haul gear for long distances ever again. Thats what helicopters and trucks are for.

And look where relying on helicopters and trucks all the time gets us. I heard from an ex-US Army friend that they weren't even taught to dig in at basic - what kind of bullshit is this? If your infantry can't march at least 6-7 miles with their gear and then construct a good, solid position, you may as well not have infantry altogether. Just because most combat now takes place in urban environments absolutely does not ever mean the other environments should be ignored, because then should you need to fight in pretty much any given area of southeast Asia (including here), your troops are useless.

And what happens when the terrain or enemy dictate that transports are not viable? Do you just throw your arms up in resignation and go home?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rossmum

And look where relying on helicopters and trucks all the time gets us. I heard from an ex-US Army friend that they weren't even taught to dig in at basic - what kind of bullshit is this? If your infantry can't march at least 6-7 miles with their gear and then construct a good, solid position, you may as well not have infantry altogether. Just because most combat now takes place in urban environments absolutely does not ever mean the other environments should be ignored, because then should you need to fight in pretty much any given area of southeast Asia (including here), your troops are useless.

And what happens when the terrain or enemy dictate that transports are not viable? Do you just throw your arms up in resignation and go home?

---

I agree, and I believe we should train for just about every scenario, but I was citing relevance more than anything.

And yeah, not knowing how to dig in is really, really bad. Thats the Army though. Its pretty much useless when compared to the Marines (modernly speaking, I'd still rather be in the WW2 army than the Marines).

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2...nov-svd-rifle/

Sooo long wood and many other things, this has though intrigued me.

Damn I was JUST about to post that. I dunno I like it, I mean I'd take an authentic wood stock Russian SVD over this first, but I'd definitely want one of these too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rossmum

The contact drill here is conducted before you even consider doing anything else, including dropping packs.

---

To give some reference to what we would do, in order:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdcNWW7sFyk

Skip to 2:50.

As soon as he realizes he's taking fire, into the ditch at 3:02.

Getting a rough idea of where the fire is coming from 3:02 - 3:04.

(If you couldn't figure out where the enemy was, now would be a good time to hit the quick release buckles instead of returning fire)

Returning suppression fire at 3:05 - 3:07.

Moving to better cover 3:07 - 3:12.

Loading and firing an M302 grenade to cover friendly advance 3:12 - 3:17.

Friend starts some cover fire.

In the Canadian Forces, now would be a good time to hit those quick release buckles on your ruck (if you had one, they don't have any in the video).

Proceed with rest of video as more people arrive at that cover, they would shed any kind of non-essential gear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spartan094

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2...nov-svd-rifle/

Sooo long wood and many other things.

---

This is gross. I would not pay money for that poor, bastardised SVD now or ever.

This recent ~TaCtIcAl RiFlE/cArBiNe~ fad is fucking stupid. Maybe a handful of setups are an improvement and they all look samey and ugly.

Actually kinda cool lol. Its like a 7.62mm Barret :iamafag:

It's ugly and it really isn't much of an improvement. Want a shorter, more handy SVD? That's why the SVU exists.

http://i.imgur.com/B5awi.jpg

It looks a little faded because good goddamn pointing a camera down this thing is hard. It's not as vibrant as a brand new scope when you actually look through it yourself, but it's better than that photo shows by quite a bit. Fuck the haters; PUs rule.

The image is a little faded but its not bad. Cant wait to see you sight that thing in :)

And here I was thinking that the lighting contrast in BFBC2 and BF3 was incredibly unrealistic... :v:

I still don't like the crosshairs.

Better photos. The last one was taken with the sun ahead and in front, hence the fade.

http://i.imgur.com/fc59K.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/EwW1B.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/dOOwC.jpg

Almost no fade at all in decent lighting.

Looks like Cali lol. Yeah thats a really nice scope picture actually. really nice.

Lack of focus adjustment or variable power aside, I'd say it's actually comparable to the Bushnell my dad has on his Vanguard. The Soviets knew what they were doing, regardless of what Germany-worshipping sperglords think.

Leupold is still the best scope company. I have never heard of better scopes for the price than what they offer. Bushnell's are nice, but eh...

Other than the Mauser and STG-44, I don't really like German equipment from WW2. All of their weapons are really easily overshadowed by American and Russian guns from the era.

Trijicon makes much nicer glass than Leupold... Swarovski does as well I think.

Lots of clearer/better glass than Leupold. Leupold ain't bad though, still really nice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rossmum

Lack of focus adjustment or variable power aside, I'd say it's actually comparable to the Bushnell my dad has on his Vanguard. The Soviets knew what they were doing, regardless of what Germany-worshipping sperglords think.

---

Germany had sweet engineering but I do believe Germans would often take SVT's over their G-43's if they had the opportunity due to it's superior gas system and some other aspects. Russia definitely knew what that were doing and sometimes get over shadowed by this fascination with German WW2 engineering.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cortexian

Trijicon makes much nicer glass than Leupold... Swarovski does as well I think.

Lots of clearer/better glass than Leupold. Leupold ain't bad though, still really nice.

---

I disagree but that the point of opinions lol. Plus Swarovski is like an average of 1600 bucks.