• Tacticlol -- my AFG on my railed AK makes it fire straighter lol
    5,756 replies, posted
[QUOTE=notrabies;34480617]Uhh, that was my point though, you're stealing it. Raised sights are fine, carry handles are lame/not useful.[/QUOTE] The point is, the only difference between the two is a bar of metal between the sights. Said bar of metal can also be used to carry the gun (whether an official practice or not), and provides a raised platform to put optics on, which has ergonomic advantages. There are other more minor things too, like structural integrity and keeping dirt away from the ejection port or charging handle. Part of the P90's design, for example, is the raised rail on which the ironsights are mounted. With a scope or sight, this allows the user to quickly and easily bring the gun to the shoulder, lining up naturally with the sight. It's the same principle as the Thompson's angled stock, but keeps the stock in line with the action, so it doesn't produce off-axis recoil. The point is that the carry handle is there for a reason. Have you ever wondered why issued M4s and M16s retain the carry handle, even though it's removable and could be ditched entirely?
[QUOTE=catbarf;34482329]The point is, the only difference between the two is a bar of metal between the sights. Said bar of metal can also be used to carry the gun (whether an official practice or not), and provides a raised platform to put optics on, which has ergonomic advantages. There are other more minor things too, like structural integrity and keeping dirt away from the ejection port or charging handle. Part of the P90's design, for example, is the raised rail on which the ironsights are mounted. With a scope or sight, this allows the user to quickly and easily bring the gun to the shoulder, lining up naturally with the sight. It's the same principle as the Thompson's angled stock, but keeps the stock in line with the action, so it doesn't produce off-axis recoil. The point is that the carry handle is there for a reason. Have you ever wondered why issued M4s and M16s retain the carry handle, even though it's removable and could be ditched entirely?[/QUOTE] To each his own I guess. I find optics easiest to see through when mounted on a midprofile mount/rings, carry handle optics only seem valuable with a facemask on. Rear raised sight will still keep dirt away from the charging handle, but not so much with the ejection port. Structural integrity went out the window when they made the handle detachable, the RIS does that now. The P90 is a whole other ballpark. Its magazine requires the sights to be the way they are, but they don't have carry handles on them anyways. I think the reason that the carry handle is still on the rifles is because there's no reason to replace them besides the looks, which is completely irrelevant to its purpose. When you add cost of new rear sights into the mix it becomes completely pointless. Once again, my issue is not with raised sights, but with the handle, it accomplishes next to nothing on a modern AR. Only time I'd use a carry handle is in airsoft where I'm actually allowed to grab it. Even still I find a sling with one hand on the handguard/pistol grip preferable.
[QUOTE=catbarf;34479229]Notice how the Tavor's sights are raised, extending upwards from the body to put them in the same sight plane as the optics that are almost always used instead- almost as tall as carry handle ironsights. Almost all bullpups that don't have carry handles have very tall sights, or they're mounted higher (like on the F2000). If the Tavor had AK or AR15 style sights, it'd be near-unusable. Carry handles aren't useless embellishment. Believe it or not, but the actual firearm design firm that created the weapon may know a little bit more about firearm design than random airsofters on the Internet.[/QUOTE] Raised sights, sure. useless piece of metal generating weight inbetween them? nah. It really doesn't help me in any way, and mounting optics is easier with a top rail below the sight plane like on a ar15. This allows generous space for night optics and allows a IR laser to mount on the top rail. If you want a taller optic mount, there are things like the larue QD mounts which raise them up to a cowitness height. [editline]31st January 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=catbarf;34482329]The point is, the only difference between the two is a bar of metal between the sights. Said bar of metal can also be used to carry the gun (whether an official practice or not), and provides a raised platform to put optics on, which has ergonomic advantages. There are other more minor things too, like structural integrity and keeping dirt away from the ejection port or charging handle. Part of the P90's design, for example, is the raised rail on which the ironsights are mounted. With a scope or sight, this allows the user to quickly and easily bring the gun to the shoulder, lining up naturally with the sight. It's the same principle as the Thompson's angled stock, but keeps the stock in line with the action, so it doesn't produce off-axis recoil. The point is that the carry handle is there for a reason. Have you ever wondered why issued M4s and M16s retain the carry handle, even though it's removable and could be ditched entirely?[/QUOTE] Also, recent m4s and m16s aren't using the carry handle, depending on branch they will likely have the TA31RCO or an eotech. In conjunction with these, they use the Matech BUIS, or for SF types they use the Knight's Armament. [editline]31st January 2012[/editline] You act like a carry handle is the only way to get optics mounted higher up. It's not. There are a lot of companies out there that produce QD optics mounts that put them at a good height, while maintaining the cheekweld. [editline]31st January 2012[/editline] Also, Catbarf, I get that you're a cool guy around here, CIA dad and all that shit, but I really don't need any of your fucking condescending tone. "master gunsmith"? You literally don't know anything important about me or where I spend my time. I'm fine with reasoned debate, but I don't appreciate you just coming in and starting up with a "you don't know shit" type remark. You want to question my credibility, then attack my argument, not me.
So now Isreal will lose holy war because of that gun
[QUOTE=wallyroberto_2;34485671]So now Isreal will lose holy war because of that gun[/QUOTE] It's a Croatian gun designed for the Croatian army though. It has nothing to do with Israel.
[QUOTE=iFail;34485000]Also, Catbarf, I get that you're a cool guy around here, CIA dad and all that shit, but I really don't need any of your fucking condescending tone. "master gunsmith"? You literally don't know anything important about me or where I spend my time. I'm fine with reasoned debate, but I don't appreciate you just coming in and starting up with a "you don't know shit" type remark. You want to question my credibility, then attack my argument, not me.[/QUOTE] I actually almost don't notice it anymore, all of catbarf's arguments are in that same tone
I don't get why they revamped it already. It seems like all the changes are just to make it look like a tavor?
[QUOTE=iFail;34485727]I don't get why they revamped it already. It seems like all the changes are just to make it look like a tavor?[/QUOTE] Apparently the one Codemoney posted was a prototype and the current production model is the FAMAS looking version [img]http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/1363/800pxdanosrhaihkovakalo.jpg[/img] I've also seen a version with a G36 optic. [editline]31st January 2012[/editline] Not really a G36 optic, but it still looks like an optic built in to the carrying handle [img]http://i608.photobucket.com/albums/tt163/Rudie_2009/ASDA%20Split/IMAG0119.jpg[/img]
it almost looks like a FAMAS if kel-tec had designed it
Do those take G36 mags? If so, airsoft versions would be cool if they're compatible with existing G36 mags. FAMAS mags over here are hard to come by.
i think they're proprietary.
It uses STANAG compatible mags.
derp you already said that. i'm a fucking idiot [editline]1st February 2012[/editline] those mag linking nubs seem like a pain tho. Having multiple mag linked up probably wouldn't be as comfortable as on a conventional rifle.
I actually really want a famas now for some reason gbb would be pretty rad but I want kwa or something to make a metal aeg one
I actually really want to get a TM FAMAS.
This page is gross.
You're gross.
[QUOTE=cardfan212;34487596]I actually really want to get a TM FAMAS.[/QUOTE] I used to have one, externally they feel really plasticy and creaky but it's a really neat gun. you can upgrade it apparently since some v2 and v3 gearbox parts are compatible with the v1 gearbox it uses (probably with some modification - don't remember where I read about this, check ASC).
[QUOTE=iFail;34485000]Also, recent m4s and m16s aren't using the carry handle, depending on branch they will likely have the TA31RCO or an eotech. In conjunction with these, they use the Matech BUIS, or for SF types they use the Knight's Armament.[/quote] Slowly but surely, optics are becoming the new standard. When they're not used, though, you almost always see the carry handles on the rifles. Having them raised as high as the carry handle provides makes it a lot easier to aim- the handle isn't strictly necessary, and there are alternatives, but that piece of metal is cheap, effective, and hard to damage. It's not intrinsically better, but it's not intrinsically worse. [QUOTE=iFail;34485000]Also, Catbarf, I get that you're a cool guy around here, CIA dad and all that shit, but I really don't need any of your fucking condescending tone. "master gunsmith"? You literally don't know anything important about me or where I spend my time. I'm fine with reasoned debate, but I don't appreciate you just coming in and starting up with a "you don't know shit" type remark. You want to question my credibility, then attack my argument, not me.[/QUOTE] Sorry, I know I can be a bit flippant/sarcastic sometimes and end up coming across as an asshole. It was really just the 'lol carry handle. You don't need a carry handle on an assault rifle, that shit is so 90s' comment that got on my nerves, I see a lot of airsofters make wild claims about real steel firearms and it gets annoying. I'm usually pretty level when it comes to other subjects, it's just guns that get me. I dunno why, probably the number of people in my major (game design) who think they're gun experts thanks to CoD. So, sorry for being a dick about it.
[img]http://i.imgur.com/uXAtE.gif[/img]
2012 resolution: stop getting worked up over rooty tooty point n shootys
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbA9W0eOpbY&list=UUHkCKskfDohW387hcWQDoGA&index=4&feature=plcp[/media] ok. [editline]31st January 2012[/editline] ahhhugugh why are you not embedding
lol figures doublestar would be the one to do this shit. but eotech certainly isn't helping with their stupid zombie and mw3 sights.
I'm all for novelty 'zombie hunter' ammo Maybe even a biohazard symbol on a rifle, why not but a chainsaw, just why
what [editline]1st February 2012[/editline] why
[QUOTE=Fish Muffin;34489782][img]http://i.imgur.com/uXAtE.gif[/img][/QUOTE] someone used it [I]dream come true[/I]
I like how it's tan, for fighting zombies in the desert
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.