Coolest/Ugliest Weapons V5 - Bullpup AKs are the best - General

We should be thankful for the existence of flamethrowers, god forbid the day we encounter parasitic aliens or infectious organic man eating matter, or even Heretics and we have nothing to torch it into oblivion with. we'll look right silly when we're overcome with athlete's foot Xenomorph satanists

brrrrt [img]http://i.imgur.com/C0fSpQQ.jpg[/img]

Lucky girl.

[QUOTE=FoodStuffs;41766913]Incendiary grenade. Weighs a lot less and doesn't make you a red barrel with legs[/QUOTE] Ever seen a flamethrower in action? A military flamethrower makes an incendiary grenade look like a firecracker. I blame videogames for giving people the notion that a flamethrower just spews a little cloud of fire a couple of yards. When a flamethrower goes it is a [i]molten river of death[/i] flying through the air. And if it is directed into a building, the whole building goes up, flames pouring out every door and window. Vehicle? Everyone inside dies. Cover? Toasted. Their limitations are that they're vulnerable to getting shot, a range of up to a hundred meters is still point blank by modern standards, and they can't take prisoners, recover intelligence, or even leave the building in a usable state. But they're really, [i]really[/i] good at what they do. [img]http://www.empowernetwork.com/byron_elijah/files/2012/04/flame-thrower3.jpg?id=byron_elijah[/img]

[QUOTE=catbarf;41767722] [img]http://www.empowernetwork.com/byron_elijah/files/2012/04/flame-thrower3.jpg?id=byron_elijah[/img][/QUOTE] Before I die, I want to do this.

[QUOTE=Skyward;41767750]Before I die, I want to do this.[/QUOTE] That might be pretty soon after if anything goes wrong.

[QUOTE=Rents;41767796]That might be pretty soon after if anything goes wrong.[/QUOTE] I'd be okay with that.

The range of WW2 era Flamethrowers was closer to 30-40 meters, rather than a hundred. Flame Tanks had way better range though, of course.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;41768007]The range of WW2 era Flamethrowers was closer to 30-40 meters, rather than a hundred. Flame Tanks had way better range though, of course.[/QUOTE] What?

[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;41766986]P sure those didn't exist back in 1945. Only way of delivering devices like that was through artillery shells or B-29's.[/QUOTE] I realize this but now we don't use flame throwers because incendiary grenades can serve a the same purpose. I realize that incendiary grenades are nowhere near as powerful as a flame thrower. I'm not even discounting the fact they couldn't serve a purpose well today (even if they are getting fewer as technology advances). Just it doesn't matter really because there are so few practical applications for them, as devistating as they can be, that there isn't much of a reason to deploy. They're fucking awesome yeah, but the incendiary grenade can cause the blowout effect probably better than the flame thrower because the grenade is a burst rather than a stream (which may burst upon the circumstances.) [editline]8th August 2013[/editline] By blowout effect I'm referring to fire rapidly eating up all the oxygen in a confined space, causing an even bigger blast Or simply with the fuel air bomb

we don't use flamethrowers or incendiary grenades because it's a war crime to do so [editline]9th August 2013[/editline] in the off chance we need to burn something (ie. pretty much just disabling machinery) we use thermite

[QUOTE=FoodStuffs;41768238]I realize this but now we don't use flame throwers because incendiary grenades can serve a the same purpose. I realize that incendiary grenades are nowhere near as powerful as a flame thrower. I'm not even discounting the fact they couldn't serve a purpose well today (even if they are getting fewer as technology advances). Just it doesn't matter really because there are so few practical applications for them, as devistating as they can be, that there isn't much of a reason to deploy. They're fucking awesome yeah, but the incendiary grenade can cause the blowout effect probably better than the flame thrower because the grenade is a burst rather than a stream (which may burst upon the circumstances.) [editline]8th August 2013[/editline] By blowout effect I'm referring to fire rapidly eating up all the oxygen in a confined space, causing an even bigger blast Or simply with the fuel air bomb[/QUOTE] lol dood we don't use flame throwers or napalm anymore because it's a war crime. If that wasn't the case, we'd have a very modern twist on a flame thrower and probably more effective napalm weapons. Do you know how easy it is to clear a haji hut or a terror cave with a flame thrower? It's a lot easier than calling in a fuel-air-bomb, a lot cheaper too. We used flamethwoers and napalm throughout the Vietnam war and it worked pretty damn well. Only reason we stopped using it as much was because it made a lot of children orphans and gave plenty of those orphans severe burns.

Yeah it's a war crime too, I forgot that. The main principle here though is that we have weapons that can achieve the same effects while being more humane and easier to deploy [editline]8th August 2013[/editline] Also I'm thinking more of the ww2 deployment which was more widespread. Probably because it was a world war. But it proves effective in confined space. Relatively though it probably saw more use in Vietnam because the war drug on forever and even though there were exponentially less combatants the concentration was greater [editline]8th August 2013[/editline] Of the deployment of fire weapons. [editline]8th August 2013[/editline] But the best way in the end to clear out a bunker or cave etc is a fiery blast [editline]8th August 2013[/editline] Well and to be outside of the bunker cave tunnel whatever when it goes off or you blast fire into it

Like I said, a modern flame thrower wouldn't have many of the downfalls of a 70 year old M2 and would be several hundred times more efficient (see; Thompson, MP5) . Chances are, it would also be a lot cheaper and easier to deploy than a precision munition. Another thing about incendiary weapons like napalm, is that there is nothing more horrifying in war than seeing your best friend and your comrades slowly burn alive, thats something a predator strike or a Mk.82 can't accomplish. Anyways, $1 to anyone who can tell me what the base of this gun is [img]http://pics.gunbroker.com/GB/358430000/358430325/pix096039898.jpg[/img] (Apparently it's in 10mm auto, or .40S&W)

Are you sure it's 10mm? It looks like the ejection port says "9mm" on it. Also the frame at least looks like a Hi-power: [img]http://www.imfdb.org/images/6/67/HiPowerMk3.jpg[/img]

It's a hi power, the posting on gunbroker said it was in 10mm, or that he had one in 10mm. No clue if he meant 10mm auto or .40S&W.

[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;41769104]It's a hi power, the posting on gunbroker said it was in 10mm, or that he had one in 10mm. No clue if he meant 10mm auto or .40S&W.[/QUOTE] That bastardized classic is just trouble waiting to happen. You know what happened when they first chambered 1911s in 10mm? The frames cracked, and thats exactly what that will do.

[QUOTE=MAC21500;41769167]That bastardized classic is just trouble waiting to happen. You know what happened when they first chambered 1911s in 10mm? The frames cracked, and thats exactly what that will do.[/QUOTE] Like Trunk said, he could'ave meant .40SW, which would make sense since there are variants of the HP chambered in that. Still think it looks like the port says "9mm P" though.

[QUOTE=MAC21500;41769167]That bastardized classic is just trouble waiting to happen. You know what happened when they first chambered 1911s in 10mm? The frames cracked, and thats exactly what that will do.[/QUOTE] they're actually like 20 years old [IMG]http://pics.gunbroker.com/GB/358430000/358430325/pix570439200.jpg[/IMG] they were on the cover of a gun magazine back in 1990 [img]http://i.imgur.com/xAS3l.gif[/img] anyway have a gif on how a modern handgun works

it's a kel tec, it doesn't work

[QUOTE=butre;41769322]it's a kel tec, it doesn't work[/QUOTE] lel kel tec weapons don't work didn't we have a homicide case recently where the defendant used a kel tec?

[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;41769565]lel kel tec weapons don't work didn't we have a homicide case recently where the defendant used a kel tec?[/QUOTE] why do you hate jokes

I'm pretty sure that magazine is from 1999, not 1990.

[QUOTE=butre;41769322]it's a kel tec, it doesn't work[/QUOTE] Man, I really like Keltecs - the design, their looks and so on - shame they're so unreliable.

[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;41769565]lel kel tec weapons don't work didn't we have a homicide case recently where the defendant used a kel tec?[/QUOTE]Yeah, blunt trauma.

[QUOTE=Lizzrd;41771381]Yeah, blunt trauma.[/QUOTE] I thought it would've been choking related

[img]http://www.gunlistings.org/uploads/l1_pistols_amt_auto_mag_v_60312.jpg[/img] Automag V. I was bored, so I thought I would post another gun in this thread.

[QUOTE=_Vendetta_;41772362][img]http://www.gunlistings.org/uploads/l1_pistols_amt_auto_mag_v_60312.jpg[/img] Automag V. I was bored, so I thought I would post another gun in this thread.[/QUOTE] I wish more games/movies had the Automag as a "hand cannon" type gun, everyone just goes with the Deagle. It's getting boring, honestly.

[QUOTE=_Vendetta_;41772362][img]http://www.gunlistings.org/uploads/l1_pistols_amt_auto_mag_v_60312.jpg[/img] Automag V. I was bored, so I thought I would post another gun in this thread.[/QUOTE] [img]http://www.guns.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/TDE_marked_automag.jpg[/img] Automag I. Get on my level, bitch. [img]http://www.imfdb.org/images/thumb/1/16/DH4AutoMag-6.jpg/600px-DH4AutoMag-6.jpg[/img] [editline]9th August 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=M.Ciaster;41775123]I wish more games/movies had the Automag as a "hand cannon" type gun, everyone just goes with the Deagle. It's getting boring, honestly.[/QUOTE] GTA IV: TBOGT had the Automag I in it. Much better than the Deagle, IMO.

[QUOTE=Trekintosh;41775283] GTA IV: TBOGT had the Automag I in it. Much better than the Deagle, IMO.[/QUOTE] Yep. Also, Jagged Alliance 2 1.13 has all the Automags, but then again 1.13 has pretty much almost every weapon in existence. :v: