Printable View
ross, with the ar-15 style platform, the front sight is high. you of all people should know that. it's necessary to mount it above the carry handle to actually have some sort of sight picture, otherwise he would have to get a folding front sight and BUIS in order to not have an obstructed sight picture.
I know it's high, but surely a simple spacer or something would be that much better than that mess of a thing?
Mmmm Ross, that's a nice one. A friend of mine had one of them, though some butcher shortened the stock. It was a fucking blast to shoot.
without the added height, looking through the acog looks as so...
http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/1084/sghty.jpg
Possibly even more blocking, I dont remember exactly how much it did... None the less, it was in the way, thus the added height.
Sporterising or otherwise fucking with milsurp is one of the things that can make me go from liking a person to wanting to strangle them in ten seconds flat. Even things like wartime M91/30s or Yugo Kar98Ks of all things... it's just not something you do. If you want a deer rifle, either buy one designed for the purpose or deal with the extra weight like a man (No.4 unloaded and without bayonet weighs about 9lbs, marginally less than the current-gen F88 Austeyr without any attachments beyond the issued 1.5x sight). Don't take something older than you are and probably with an interesting history, then strip it of its original furniture, lop off the original sights, drill and tap it and then demand five times what you paid for it when you finally decide to sell it. Someone on TFR found a guy selling a sporterised Mosin-Nagant which had serious rust issues (I doubt the guy ever cleaned it, and external rust that bad hints at internal rust far, far worse, particularly if he's been shooting corrosive surplus) and an atrocious weld job on the bolt handle (since it was a straight-bolt rifle, but he mounted a scope). This is bad enough, but words cannot describe the feeling I experienced as I spotted the serrated rear sight ramp and the Latin letters "TON" scrolling across the right side of the barrel shank.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cojafoji
Yes, it was a Remington-made rifle, shipped to Russia around the same time as the Revolution. Only a few hundred were made by Remington from what I recall and they are worth a fucking lot, both sentimentally and monetarily. The guy was demanding $400 for this suicidal-thought-inducing example of Fudd-ism.
If you buy a milsurp rifle, the only acceptable modification? Absolutely fucking nothing.
Oh, so it's one of those ACOGs. Forgive me; the last few years of modern warfare techwank shooters have made me forget they came with anything other than chevron reticles. Either way, it doesn't look too terrible; perhaps not entirely convenient, but if you can still see your target, fuck it. Am I right in assuming this is a range queen and not likely to be used for home defence or similar? If so, I suggest selling off the Docter and using the profits for something more suitable. You don't need it unless you intend on transitioning from mid-range work to room clearance in a life-or-death situation. It has no application outside combat aside from making you look silly to anyone other than MW2 fanboys.Quote:
Originally Posted by paladin
well, believe it or not, the modification looks as if it were done professionally, so it doesn't take away from the general charm of the firearm, and it's also been immaculately maintained. but yeah, for every meh modification you get, you get 10 botched jobs. when i was looking for an m1 tanker, you would not BELIEVE the cock stuffers who were trying to pass off a sawed up m1 as real. i mean, some of these guys just took a grinder and took off 10 inches, without rebluing the fucking barrel.
Professional or not, tampering with milsurp in any way is an abhorrent practice and should be looked down upon with the greatest distaste. If you want to fuck around or 'improve' a rifle, buy an AR and whack shit onto rails. Nobody cares about fucking with guns which are still in mass production and common as shit.
I agree I hate the fact that people sporterize historic firearms. I ruins everything about them. Also I'm torn on what to buy next summer, MG42 that has been de-milled and re-welded to fire semi auto, or a G43 or SVT-40...tough decisions....
Go with the G43, they're considerably rarer than the SVT. Don't get a neutered MG42.
HI WHO WANTS TO SEE MORE PHOTOS OF MY BEAUTIFUL RIFLE
NOBODY? TOO FUCKIN BAD I DO
OH NO SERIALS etc
It's just so beautiful and photogenic, I can't stop :ohdear:
Is that an Enfield between your legs or are you just happy to see us?
That's a gorgeous gun ross.
It, however, is not a Springfield 1903. My dream rifle to own.
I, too, wish to own a 1903. :smith:
guess who can get a ww2 1903 for about $700 whenever he wants......this guy :D
just thought i'd rub in the fact that your gun laws suck. Also Chicago's ban on hand guns was lifted today after 28 years.
Oh I could get one... if I could find one.
I once wrote a WWI report on them.Quote:
Originally Posted by TeeKup
again, i direct you too gunbroker.com Ross. Unless you're not allowed to have firearms mailed in ausfailia. in the US you have to have them shipped to a dealer
I'm fairly sure you can import them but there's some retardedly long, complex, and costly process involved. I know there are 1903s here, I just don't know where. It's hard to find even a 91/30 for Enfields here they're so numerous.
You fucker don't make me jealous.Quote:
Originally Posted by PenGuin1362
Since we're going to play the gloating game,
Guess who just got a volunteer position at the Lithgow Small Arms Factory Museum? Where there are literally hundreds of rare guns, including one of the very fucking few EM-2s, complete with its original bayonet? :realsmug:
You guys and your shitty old rifles. its 2010, my lar15 would annihilate you in any encounter.
Pretty sure the MG42 in there will rape the shit out of you
Or the ADEN gun
Or the M2
Or the Hispano
Or the DShK
The EM-2 looks a lot like the SA-80. Gotta say though, I like EM-2 better. Something about the SA-80 make's it seem "heavy" to me.
Probably all that time from MW2 using the SA-80 LSW....
They're both retardedly accurate and (now HK overhauled the L85A1 to A2 standard and made it actually work) pretty decent rifles, but yeah, I seem to recall the L85 being a bit heavy. That said, the F88SA1 weighs in at 4.3kg unloaded (more than my No.4 and not much different to an SLR), and it's pretty comfy to handle and shoot. It's well-balanced I guess. The weight comes from the fuckoff huge block of solid steel that is the receiver... you could drive a tank over it.
The EM-2 is way better than the L85 though and although they look similar they operate very, very differently. The .280 round was also a shit-ton more potent than the 5.56 and was what the SLR was originally designed around; when America threw a hissy fit and forced NATO to standardise on 7.62x51 (the US military stubbornly sticking to obsolete tech and doctrines? No way!) the SLR could be easily converted, the EM-2 couldn't. It's one of the main reasons I fucking hate the decisionmakers in the US, and it gypped the Poms out of an amazing piece of kit. At least they then adopted the SLR, which went on to become one of the greatest rifles ever designed (as with most FN work). I can only imagine how godlike it would've been if it had stayed .280. Of course, the US was (and to a large extent, still is) a big fucking baby about adopting foreign designs (read: why they never employed Sherman Fireflies on any grand scale like they should have), so they went with the M14... a tarted-up target rifle. It's good at that, but it was a fucking terrible weapon to fight with.
Enough blubbering about past stupidity, here's some content:
http://www.project-new-hope.com/uplo...2/HNI_0018.JPG
An SMLE from every year SAF Lithgow made them except 1937
http://www.project-new-hope.com/uplo...2/HNI_0022.JPG
Yes. That is an MG42.
http://www.project-new-hope.com/uplo...2/HNI_0025.JPG
SO MANY MGS
http://www.project-new-hope.com/uplo...2/HNI_0028.JPG
FG42 Type 2. Are you jealous yet? You should be.
http://www.project-new-hope.com/uplo...2/HNI_0029.JPG
MG34
http://www.project-new-hope.com/uplo...2/HNI_0036.JPG
A fraction of their collection of Enfields
http://www.project-new-hope.com/uplo...2/HNI_0038.JPG
PPSh41, AK-47, EM-2 (:woop:)
http://www.project-new-hope.com/uplo...2/HNI_0063.JPG
FNC, StG44
http://www.project-new-hope.com/uplo...2/HNI_0067.JPG
You can probably tell from how comfy I look holding the Steyr that it's an integral part of my job
http://www.project-new-hope.com/uplo...2/HNI_0070.JPG
The Owen gun, an Australian invention and arguably the single most reliable weapon of WWII. It beat the two main Tommy gun variants, the M55 Riesing (sp?), and the Sten by an order of magnitude in reliability testing. It fired after they filled it with river mud. Never underestimate guns designed in suburban backyards.
http://www.project-new-hope.com/uplo...2/HNI_0077.JPG
The previous generation of digs' best mate, the L1A1 SLR
http://www.project-new-hope.com/uplo...2/HNI_0079.JPG
Miniature of a fuckoff statue we put up in France after WWI. For those who can't tell, it's a digger bayonetting the German eagle. Apparently the Jerries didn't take too kindly to this, and trashed the statue when they invaded in 1940; from what I recall we then put another up after WWII, but this time of a dig carrying his wounded mate. Don't quote me on that though, that may have been another statue entirely.
I WANT TO WORK THERE.
Also I too never understood why adopting foreign weapon designs gave the US such a fucking hissy fit. Honestly I'll never understand. If it works better...fucking use it.
Because everyone knows that AMERICA MAKES THE BEST EVERYTHING :downs:
HEY, we're REALLY good at making messes.Quote:
Originally Posted by rossmum
We use a lot of belgian and italian firearms wtf are you talking about
Also, ross, that's funny. I seem to recall someone tauting browning high-power supremacy also, M2.
It's mainly the US Army that's the problem. While the USAF was gladly taking orders of Spitfires and Mosquitoes (largely for aerial recce), the Army point-blank refused to employ the Sherman Firefly. They couldn't give a shit how many tankers' lives it would save or how many Tigers it would knock out, they absolutely would not allow a foreign gun in their tanks. The 17pdr was essentially a British 88 and it was the closest weapon the Allies had to the aforementioned until the Pershing turned up almost too late for the party. After the war, .280 was looking to be a real winner and what would become the EU were all in for using it. Two phenominal rifles had been designed around it (the EM-2 and what would later become the FAL). American brass, however, was too profoundly dumb to realise that full-size rifles were obsolete and stubbornly refused to standardise on these fuckin' upstart limey moon bullets. Churchill couldn't risk a bitchfight with the US at that point (Britain was in an absolute shit state after the war, and remained so for decades - they were still rationing for quite a while), so he had to cave. NATO standardised on 7.62x51 and while the FAL was easily updated to chamber the larger round, the EM-2 could not be. It was scrapped after only 57 or so examples were made. By the way, before America's hissyfit, it had been accepted into service as the Rifle, Automatic, No.9 Mk.1. So much for that. Nearly everyone in Europe (and many other countries around the world) realise what a remarkable piece of kit the FAL is and adopt it without a second thought. The US refuses once again to adopt a foreign rifle, and after essentially rigging the trials by throwing all kinds of fucking retarded (and obsolete) requirements in, such as the necessity for stripper clip reloading ability, it selected a magazine-fed, slightly modified M1 (which, by the way, had always been touted as AMERICA'S MIRACLE GUN despite Garand being a Canadian). It was heavy, not very ergonomic, and had a rather odd stripping process. The SLR (which I can vouch for personally) handles nicely, is remarkably light for its size and is easy to strip.Quote:
Originally Posted by SnaFuBAR
Fast forward a grand total of one decade, and Vietnam shows the American brass that fuck, full powered rifles should've gone the way of WWII and ended in the 40s. Colt rushes out an updated Armalite design which, while pretty nice in theory, isn't exactly suited to combat yet (much less in the jungle). The Army is still hellbent on being retarded, and deliberately try to sabotage the program so they can keep their M14s. The M16 is extremely unreliable, requires frequent maintenance, and is issued without any of the tools needed for the aforementioned. Scores of US troops are found dead, their M16s broken open over their laps as they were trying to clear obstructions or other jams. Eventually this kicks everyone into gear, and a series of design revisions and the issuing of cleaning kits and handbooks sees the M16 become the fairly reliable and relatively well-liked rifle it is today. The biggest remaining complaint is that 5.56 is underpowered, which would've been a fucking non-issue if the US had just swallowed their goddamned pride and adopted the .280, which had far superior ballistics and terminal effect.
Yes, America does now use foreign equipment, but it's still retarded. The decision to adopt the M9 was political as all fuck, because that thing is huge, easily filled with crap thanks to its open slide, and heavy. As a civvie pistol, it's nice. As a military sidearm, it's a fucking shitstorm. If they had any sense, they'd have adopted the BHP.
Also JMB was a fucking genius okay, you can't blame me for loving everything he ever made. At the same time, America hasn't really produced anything I'd lord over anything else since. The AR is okay but about as over-hyped as anything can be. The ACR is nice but the US military procurement system being what it is, I can't see it entering widespread use any time soon. The British still make the most accurate rifles, the Russians the most reliable gear, and the Belgians the best machine guns (Germany hasn't had a really good one since the MG42/MG3).
M1 garand ftw : D ...m14 as well...and m60...we seemed to do it right prior 1970's....minus the m16
The M1 is the only legitimately good military gun out of that entire list. The M14 should've been relegated to competition target shooting and the FAL should have been adopted over it, but nope, the US issued their troops a full-size target rifle in a jungle war. The M60 was unreliable to start with and even after the problem had been corrected, it was still vastly inferior to both the gun it stole most of its working features from (the MG42) and the immediate competition (the MAG-58).
it still had the stopping power that the modern m249 seriously lacks
Again, MAG.
fuck it, lets just use the mg42, if we cant get them with accuracy, we'll sure as fuck saw their limbs off
Why the fuck not? Various other countries still use it in the form of the MG3 :haw:
(Shit, even we had some back before we replaced our Leos)
FUCK reposting all of this
http://forums.somethingawful.com/sho...readid=3328914
from today's shift at the museum attached to lithgow small arms factory (australia's equivalent of springfield armory or enfield lock basically)
on the subject of guns, just got about 240 M2 Ball rounds from like the 60's >_> still in a spam can. Time to go fuck up more shit.
c/p from my tfr post because :effort:
Guys! Guys! I just got something in the mail! It's from home! http://sae.tweek.us/static/images/em...mot-canada.gif
What? Cleaning tools? I don't remember ordering any cleaning tools...
Maybe I'll open it anyway. It feels pretty big and solid, whatever it is. I guess it's something I could find a use for anyway.
That doesn't look like a cleaning tool... and why does it smell like cosmoline?
FUCK, I BROKE IT! No, wait, I think that's meant to come off. It's some kind of guard. Hey, look. Maybe it's some kind of flashy screwdriver like we were all just talking about?
OH LAWDY :toot:
Now I can give 'em the old cold steel. They do not like it up 'em, no sir, they do not! *stabs ceiling, covers self in plaster*
also have some more pretty pictures
Will get some of the bayonet fixed next time I go down, as well as some warry ones if I can find a sandbag to stab the shit out of. Having a pretty rifle is great, because it also means I get some motivation to improve my photography from 'abysmal' to 'just plain bad'.
This thread makes me want to get my PAL. Like, now.
sure wish i was cool enough to have military weapons but oh well!!
http://i251.photobucket.com/albums/g...20-10_1728.jpg
begin insulting me for my shitty firearms
(right one is .45 left is .50)
black powder = pwnage.
goddamn, son
we got some owners in here
Jesus Ross your pics of the PPSh41, MG42, and FG42 gave me a raging hard on. You are really lucky to get to see this masterpieces.
attention gun lovers. Advanced Armament Company is awesome. And if you need more proof as to why, this is an awesome campaign slogan...so i bought the poster.
https://www.advanced-armament.com/product.aspx?pid=713
Holy fuck, that owns.
kind of bumping the thread here, but i took some pictures of two of the rifles i have
yes, that is a guitar case
im pretty sure this is an ak47 with a cool stock. the stock has a small crack in it though, so thats why theres a rubber band on it. we have 1600 rounds of armor piercing ammo for it. i dont know where it all came from, and im not sure if i want to know. all thats certain is that it kicks ass. i shot a little spinner target (meant for .22) with it. the spinner flew about 50 feet up into the air and landed a few yards away from where it was planted with a perfectly round hole in it
this is a folding stock SKS. sorry for the blur on the barrel. apparently my camera turned itself on macro mode :raise:
i dont know if you guys care about these, but here are some ak mags (with a little revolver too :iamafag:)
theres an 80 round drum magazine for that ak around here somewhere, but i dont know where it is.
it's not that expensive to buy an original stock. you should pick one up. i'd never ever, ever fire a rifle with a damaged stock for fear that the recoil would cause it to splinter. into my body. foreign objects, as any man who has suffered a puncture wound will tell you, do not agree with the human body, unless it's a dildo. and it's in the face, ass, vag, or smookaporra.
donut has all the cool guns. fuck. You should take a day and upload photos of all the guns/explosives/applicable ordinance you find in your house
Some make an anonymous phone call to ATF..
Thumbhole stocks are the best stocks.
hate how that sks looks, though.
those were both birthday presents, so im not going to complain. the little crack in the stock isnt anything that would cause it to splinter. its like a small chip that got cracked off the top.
and icee, it would talk all god damn day to get adequate photos of all the shit we have around here... ill see what i can do
its not like you have shit to do son
Donut please buy original stocks for both and a bayonet for that SKS because while both are a dime a dozen unlike most milsurp, holy fuck are those stocks vomit-inducing :smith:
SKSes in the USA are starting to get rather expensive, not that I much are for them myself.
So, I shot some old-school Enfield 1853Ps this summer while working at a Boy Scout summer camp. I must say that, apart from a ricochet coming within a few inches of my head, black powder weapons are far more pleasant to shoot than firearms employing modern smokeless powders. It doesn't slam your shoulder, is just as accurate if you're using Minié balls, and the smoke cloud is just awesome. Also, I like having something to operate between shots. :)
E:
I dare you Yankee devils to try and take down this flag...
coming out of posting retirement to post this
don't worry, next time i'll yell at dad to point the camera a bit downrange so you can see what i'm actually shooting at
Gorgeous rifle.
oh um yeah and i spent all of the other day reassembling owen guns with their bolts
because everything in the museum except stuff obtained from british collectors is still functional
i'd post photos but :effort:, maybe at a later date when i get more of them
this was just announced a few days ago. I have to say I'm quite drawn to it, not to mention the mag capacity is 14+1. Expected MSRP is $600-$700. Definitely considering picking one of these up soon as it's released, which will hopefully be this summer :)
Kel-Tec KSG
I think that has to be one of the coolest-looking shotguns since the M1897 and the Browning gas-powered.
shame kel-tec build quality is an oxymoron, because they make some cool as fuck stuff
they're also possibly the only manufacturer in the history of ever to make a bullpup trigger that doesn't suck
still gunna buy one, they look so slick, not to mention the 14+1 capacity
I want to add a shotgun to my fledgling gun collection, and this one would make for excellent home defence, something my rifle would be horrible for. Also great fun at the range with slugs.
If it's within reason on the price, I'll buy one. If it costs close to or more than an 1897, I'm buying an 1897. $3000 be damned, no one will fuck with your house if they know your shotgun can also mount a bayonet.
I actually saw an 870 at the gun store yesterday with a bayonet on it, it made me laugh. also for home defense/personal defense/target shooting I'm getting the Beretta 92FS
Eh. Not a bad pistol, but I'd never ever buy one myself. It's similar to how I will never ever buy a Japanese car. I'll take a Glock over a Beretta, and a 1911 above all.
glocks are too heavy, action too slow and heavy too, trigger pull not smooth enough, will probably never buy a glock lol. 1911 is a true story :p however i think it's too bulky for concealed carry so getting 92 first
I respectfully disagree. 1911s are perfect for concealed carry because they have rounded corners, very little greeblies, and they come in compact models. Unless you want PPK-level of concealability, it doesn't get much better. :D
Also, Glock? Slow? Heavy? wat.
ever fired one? they're not very smooth compared to other guns I've fired. Also the trigger pull on the 92fs is fantastic. and your disagreement is noted, in fact agreed with :p but for the time being I prefer the 92. the 1911 I'll get down the line :) I also like the aluminum frame which rules out the glock since it's polymer, but if I were to go with polymer I've heard from numerous shooters that the M&P Smith and Wesson is one of the leading polymer pistols, at a very affordable price.
In terms of 1911's....I want this one O.o http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/Vie...Item=206871796
Ah, styling reminiscent of the old Colt revolvers. I like it. I do prefer the A1-style grip over the original straight one, though. A simple 1911A1 or a quality modern reproduction of it would more than suffice for me.
I've never fired a Glock. I'm just surprised to hear that they are slow. As for heavy...well, the one I did mess with wasn't anything I'd gripe over, but I guess to each his own. Fired an XD-40 though. That is a fine gun, if I do say so myself.
H&K or bust when it comes to pistols. If you have an endless budget of course, because they ain't cheap.
Seriously, MK23 is probably the most amazing handgun you'll ever fire, ever. It's just works so perfectly well, makes its USP little brothers proud. They are double-stack pistols though, so you need pretty big hands to be comfortable with them (both USP's and the MK23). Haven't fired any of H&Ks new handguns like the HK45/P30 models, really want to.
Thats my next one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warsaw
I carry this most of the time
And have a Colt Commander in my glovebox
I've always found Sigmas to be rather plain. I mean, so are Glocks, but Glocks have uniform look to them where Sigmas look like a USP slide fitted onto an FN .22 lower. Since you own it, I assume it feels well enough, though.
All this talk of pistols is getting me excited about my 21st birthday next Christmas.
I have tiny hands. P99 fits my grip the best out of all the pistols I've ever fondled. The USP feels fat, and the Mk. 23 is just unwieldy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Freelancer
when it comes to H&K you end up paying more for the name. I've seen and handled most of H&K's line up, a lot of it is just clones of other guns at twice the price. They're fine pistols but I don't run black ops in my spare time. The mk23 I fired felt almost uncomfortable compared to pistols at a $500 cheaper price. They're certainly nice guns, but others out there do just as well, if not better, with same or bigger mag capacity for more than half the price. One thing I noticed with the two walthers I fired, they had terrible grouping. I was shooting a ruger prior, then my friend gave me his walther and it could barely hit the target.
Eh. I just like the grip on the P99. Never fired one.
As for .45ACP pistols with same mag capacity, lower price, and better performance than the Mk. 23, I have one recommendation: Detonics 1911 double stack. Very fine guns, too bad the company went under. Good luck finding one.
I love how it's apparently easier to get a MK23 here in Canada than in the USA right now due to some kind of Germany/H&K/USA back order or something. At least that's what one of the gun dealers I was talking to recently said.
they have 2 usp's and 3 mk23's at my gun store, no shortage here
Where did you get your info from? They are all over the place. Actually, H&K guns are easy as hell to find. SL9/SL8, G36, USP, Mk. 23, MP5, you name it. Now, what IS hard to get is an AK. God damn I swear, I'm sick of these shitty American, Romanian, and Chinese knockoffs. I want an honest to god Saiga. Those are easy to convert with parts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Freelancer
He said new orders were getting back ordered by H&K to stores in the USA for some reason. Might be over now, heard this a few months ago.
H&K is a little too rich for my blood. I like Kimber (still too rich), who make amazing 1911s. The Colt DAO (new for 2010/11) is really appealing to me. As far as polymer frame goes, I dont like the grips on Glocks. That curve makes me feel like Im shooting a flintlock horse pistol. Rugers SR9 is a handgun that I find interesting as well.
I remember firing a USP Match, Probably one of the most accurate handguns I've ever fired.
I fucking know. Even online they're a bitch to find. They're all over the fucking world but I can't find a legit Russian AK-47Quote:
Originally Posted by Warsaw
I'm blaming Clinton. And before anybody says anything, it's a fact that it is his fault. Look it up. He's a bastard for that one. It's the same reason we can't find any MP-412 Rex revolvers.
MP-412*
Yo Kevin you should stop fanboying HK bro I mean they make functional weapons but holy shit you pay such a ridiculous premium for the name that it's just not worth it. Also fuck roller-delayed blowback in anything except machine guns, and the G3 people blow loads over is just a clone of the CETME except with HK's price premium. Fuck that for a joke.
If I ever move to the US and need a carry piece? BHP, 1911 or CZ-75. Non-negotiable. As far as their rifles go, I will probably never own one and nor do I want to. There are many, many far better things on the market for far less cost.
When you say rifles, are you talking about AR-15s? Shit man, they are dirt cheap over here. As much as I hate the gun, it shoots where you point it and when you want it to. Also, don't hate on the R700.
I mean HK rifles.
Seriously dude, I own a No.4 and am in the infantry. I'm all about rifles, just ones that are worth the time of day (not HK ones). When HK makes a rifle that is both sensible (not roller-locked), practical (not retarded like the XM-8), and affordable (lol good joke ross), I might change my mind.
honestly I love the G3 body style, but I would totally get a CETME or a PTR-91. Preferably the PTR-91 since it's generally better quality. I would NEVER waste the money on a civilian HK G3. So over priced. In terms of rifles, I definitely love the design of AR-15's I don't know why, especially with the A4 upper receiver. And like warsaw said, they are so god damn accurate, only problem is they malfunction like a champ. If you have the money, SCAR's and ACR's are no doubt worth every penny. I've handled both (never fired mind you) they both feel very comfortable, light (especially the ACR), they're durable, very accurate, disassemble very easily, and just look awesome. Again, that's if you have the $2300 to drop on them :/ Also FAL's are baller as fuck
HK416 and 417 meets the first two. Affordability is a joke with H&K's entire lineup, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by rossmum
Just gonna drop this:
The FAL and derivatives are the only full-size battle rifles worth a damn. I mean look at this shit
http://c.ask.nate.com/imgs/qrsi.php/..._l1a1_suit.jpg
The M14 is a glorified target rifle which shouldn't even exist (you Yanks have the dumbest protectionist attitude towards military weapons, you go out of your way to avoid adopting foreign weapons even if the ones you end up using are shit), the G3 is an overpriced knockoff of the CETME and is roller-locked and therefore fucking retarded, and the modern options are all overpriced beauty queens which bring very little in the way of actual practical features to the battlefield. That and you guys have a really fucking unhealthy obsession of trying to make any new rifle as much like the AR as possible.
I wouldn't call any H&K gun good looking except for the MP7 and the G3/G33/etc.
As for us Yanks, that's just the brass. Most of us appreciate a good gun when we see it, irregardless of who made it. The brass is, and always has been, retarded.
The M14 may be a glorified target rifle, but the weapon its based on was one of the finest rifles to ever serve. And as far as the American military having a protectionist attitude, its because we believe in one thing in are firearms designs- accuracy. The American military tradition was founded on it, and if a weapon does not perform to the standard of accuracy we set, we won't adopt. Thats why you see AR-15s, M1As, and M700s winning shooting competitions so often.
I like the FAL, but I was never really sold on it. Maybe its because I've never really liked FN, since half of there stuff is just Browning's designs recycled and the other half are just German designs recycled. Not really much ingenuity in there products, and most of them were overly expensive in my mind.
FN is not just Browning's designs recycled, Browning actively took his designs to FN since they were willing to produce them with such quality. Hell, the HP was completed by Dieudonne Saive after Browning died. To say something is a recycled Browning design is totally redundant anyway since nearly every modern firearm owes its existence, in some way, to Browning. FN obviously believed in the 'if it ain't broke' formula, turning the BAR into the Model D and then the MAG-58 (arguably the best GPMG in the world and leaps and bounds better than the M60).
Meanwhile in 'MERICUH,
.280 British, a promising intermediate calibre that had both range and controllability at the same time, was destroyed totally by America's insistence on a full-size rifle round. Thanks to the US wanting to fight the last war (as usual), the EM-2 was canned and the FAL was upsized to within an inch of its life. Europe was stuck with battle rifles until the late 70s because of this, and when the US finally realised that full-size rifles as standard issue became obsolete in World War fucking Two and developed 5.56, everyone then got stuck with that. Now, of course, America realises that is just as shitty and there's a lot of call for 6.8... which is nearly identical to .280 British in terms of ballistics. Fucking unbelievable.
Even after the FAL was upsized to pander to the whims of the US, the selection process was totally rigged against it. Requiring the ability to load from stripper clips? Just what the fuck use would that be on any post-1945 battlefield? Of course, rather than selecting the rugged, reliable, and sensibly designed FAL, they went with the M14. For all intents and purposes the M14 is a target rifle and is really just a select-fire M1 that feeds from a mag rather than an enbloc, so while the rest of the world was embracing the age of ergonomically designed, rock-solid, and versatile rifles (i.e. the FAL and, much as I hate on it, the G3), America was prancing about with the same weapon they'd been using in the last major war with only a few tweaks here and there.
This is the same country that refused to install British 17pdr. guns in their tanks because they were "foreign". While British armoured regiments were out wrecking shit with the Allied version of the 88, the US was still fiddlefucking around with which of their guns to put on the Sherman, and they didn't really have an adequate tank-killer until the 90mm guns found on some late-war TDs and the Pershing.
Christ, the American military procurement system is the most fucking retarded thing. They are singly responsible for essentially halting all progress in the field of military small arms for three fucking decades. Accuracy doesn't matter a damn in urban combat, jungle combat, or pretty much any fucking place that isn't a desert (so I guess for once their obstinate stupidity has paid off). Reliability, controllability, versatility and efficiency are the hallmarks of a true military weapon. That said, there's no reason they can't be accurate too, it's just that they'll still be rejected by the US because they aren't from 'MERICUH.
The M14 is a beautiful rifle. Have you ever fired one? They're incredibly reliable, and insanely accurate. The recoil is heavy but not as bad as other rifles I've fired. I was at the range one day and my friends grouping with his friends M14 was tighter than the grouping of any FAL I've ever seen. Accuracy is incredibly important in a battle rifle because they are rifles designed to be precise, used mostly on single shot. They're not assault rifles. Honestly I'd take an M14 over an FAL every day having seen both in action (love FAL's though) Keep in mind though we only use the M14 as a Designated Marksmen rifle, in which it does it's job perfectly. And We have begun to adopt the SCAR, as of right now only SOCOM will get it because they don't see the necessity to spend the money on resupplying an entire army...when we don't have the money. Not like that's stopped us before though >_<
The adoption of the 5.56 was the worst idea in the world. It was developed during Vietnam under the principle idea of wounding rather than killing. If you wound your assailant than he's comrades will have to go get him and drag him to safety. At that point you can then take down the two man coming to rescue him. However, this rarely proved to be effective and most of the time where enemies were taken down was behind lines where no one had to expose themselves. The 5.56 is not a round meant for fighting a war, it was designed to wound, not to kill. Stupid fucking idea.
While it's definitely important to have a functioning rifle, Accuracy, ESPECIALLY in urban combat where you're going to be aiming at nothing more than a head 80% of the time is incredibly important. That's why the US hasn't adopted a new rifle. While the M16 jams easily it's not nearly as bad as it used to be (and how the rest of the world still perceives it to be). Unfortunately it does jam at a higher rate than most AR's on the military market, but still their accuracy cannot match that of the m16 (it's a trade off really, tighter tolerances = great grouping but easier malfunctions. Personally I'm so glad to see the military begining to adopt the MK 17 SCAR. It's highly durable, it uses the 7.62, and it's accuracy is quite admirable.
And I've seen countless reports and documentaries comparing firearms (not just from America) The reason we don't adopt certain firearms is because they really just don't compare, nothing to do with being from America. As a matter of fact, a lot of our firearms aren't America. The military side arm is the Beretta M9, Italian, The standard sub-machine gun is the MP5, German, Most of our police forces use either Glock or Sig Sauer, Austrian and German respectively. And SOCOM has the MK23, also German. I'll admit there are certainly some horrendous decisions by Military brass in terms of fire arm adoptions (especially the 5.56) But I wouldn't make the argument we don't adopt anything that's not American cause quite frankly that's just not true.
Wait, Ross, did you just say accuracy doesn't mean a damn in urban combat? Seriously, shame on you.
As a side, I still hate the SCAR. It looks and feels like a rectangle slab of plastic and metal. I'll take a 416 or 417 any day, even with the H&K price premium. Speaking of which, the Marines have adopted a modified 416 under the guise of needing something to replace the M249 SAW. Loophole. Typical Marines.
Sadly in my original post I was going to say something about how much I liked the .280. I should have kept it to avoid your rant lol.
The adoption of the 5.56 made sense in its original form. But FN fucked it up. The original version used a 55 grain bullet that had an extremely thin jacket at the cannelure. The bullet essentially acted as an effective round should, entering the body and completely shredding within tissue. The original M16, while jamming all the time so no one noticed, shredded Vietnamese forces, and had insanely deadly effects on enemy combatants. I asked a family friend one time about it, and he said the exit wounds on the backs of Viet Cong were almost always fist sized, and that bursts would toss people to the ground just as effectively as rounds from a 7.62. In the 1970s NATO adoption trials though, the FN SS109 was the version backed by Americas European peers. They wanted to use a firearm designed to fight third world countries as the standard arm against the Soviets, who were (just as the Americans were) aready beginning to equip body armor to their standard infantry units that could stop submachine gun rounds. The Euro folks were afraid that at distances the original M193 round would not penetrate (it wouldn't tbh) so they actually forced the Americans into the SS109, which is the round that has given the M4 and many other short barreled 5.56 weapons the reputation of not breaking up in tissue, this not imparting any energy, and because of the short barrels they have a hard time even achieving the velocity to fully use the steel penetrator thats inserted into the bullets. Thus, struggle.
Fake E: Totally agree on the procurement thing btw. Our system is totally fucked, and we need to overhaul massively. Hell, 50 years ago the thing needed a massive facelift.
By 'accuracy' I meant something like a FAL is more than enough. You don't need the precision of a DMR for every soldier. The M14's ergonomics might be nice at the range (hell I bet you they're great) but they are RUBBISH for a combat rifle. There's a reason every other country ditched traditional stocks by the mid-50s. It is complicated to strip compared to the FAL which breaks open easily in much the same fashion as an M16, and its layout in general is less than ideal. A fine rifle it may be but I would not be caught dead with one in the field unless I was a marksman, in which case it does become an excellent combat weapon.Quote:
Originally Posted by PenGuin1362
Yes, and now we're all stuck with it thanks to NATO standardisations. I really wish a country that actually knew what the fuck it was doing (looking at the UK here) was the one who got to have the final say on what gets standardised, because the US is the big retarded baby of weapons selection.Quote:
Originally Posted by PenGuin1362
Addressed above. Surgical accuracy is not a worthwhile tradeoff for sheer ruggedness and ease of use in combat, which is why the US remains the only country to have taken the M14 into combat. Everyone else was sensible and took either the FAL or G3, and it never seemed to cause them any problems.Quote:
Originally Posted by PenGuin1362
The M9 is a horrible choice for a military sidearm. It's huge, it's heavy, it has an open-cut slide so it's even easier for dirt and shit to get into the action and gum it up, and despite its nice features like a good trigger and decent controls, those three big points should have killed it. Instead, it was adopted over far superior designs like the HP (or its modern cousin, the CZ-75), the P226, and the USP. The MP5 is a decent choice other than being roller-locked and expensive as fuck for a piece of stamped metal, but if you go HK there's not much else you can do and it's reliable enough. Your police have good sense. The Mk.23 is a brick, personally I can't justify carrying something that big.Quote:
Originally Posted by PenGuin1362
The whole 'IT AIN'T MADE IN 'MERICH' thing isn't much of an issue anymore, but up until the 70s or so it was. Look back at what you guys used pre-1970 and you'll see what I mean. Now the choices are just straight-out political, that or whoever makes them is King Pogue of Pogue Mountain (and also retarded).
I think the rubbish thing depends on where your fighting. Im almost certain that if we ever saw a big conflict in France/Western Germany the M14 would see alot of effective use. And what do you mean its not rugged? The M1 design is one of the most rugged, lasting deigns in the world. Those guns last forever man. I agree the design was outdated for a full service rifle by the 1960s, but there are good points in the design.
As far as using weapons MADE in America I agree with that sentiment. Now, being designed and being made are two very different things however. I would have no problem if a country designed a rifle that fulfilled all the aspects laid before them by the US military and was a significant enough improvement to warrant re-equiption of are armed forces. But having the design physically made in the US is something I think alot of people on our shores agree with. Maybe its just an American thing, but last time I checked the militaries of Germany, Britain, France, Italy, Japan, Russia, China, and Korea predominantly used rifles manufactured in their own countries and I personally don't see anything wrong with that.
The M14 is actually quite rugged. Ergonomic, perhaps not, but rugged it was.
Even though our procurement system is indeed rubbish, I do have to point out one thing: it costs the US a hell of a lot more to re-equip its armed forces compared to ANY European country (save Russia...which is EurAsian at any rate) due to sheer size alone. That makes any proposal require double and triple takes by those in charge.
Also, I don't honestly know why we needed a new pistol. We got along just fine with the 1911, if they really wanted more ammunition capacity they could have saved serious money and had it re-chambered in .40 or 9mm. Optionally, make it double-stack. All servicemen I know have said the issued M9s are pieces of shit with warped barrels, etc.
I can H&K whore all I want bro, I'd pay the premium price for them because I AM a huge self-admitted fanboy.
Why though? Some of their newer designs are nice I guess but you could buy something functionally identical (or superior) for a lot less cost from basically any other manufacturer
