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

2-finger pump?

[QUOTE=Mr. Jelly;41897341]Are we talking shotguns? [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/4rK9T0X.jpg[/IMG] Here's a Spencer 1882[/QUOTE] I think I've fallen in love.

The Marlin lever-action 1889 Rifle. [img]http://www.kirkemmerich.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/guns-for-web-pgs-034.jpg[/img] [editline]19th August 2013[/editline] That's a pretty big image.

[QUOTE=milkandcooki;41889698][img]http://i489.photobucket.com/albums/rr257/toxicag/elysium-movie-trailer-0492013-185740.jpg[/img] haven't seen the movie yet, but this sight and laser getup is pretty fucking cool[/QUOTE] beyond retarded

[QUOTE=Jagur;41897554]beyond retarded[/QUOTE] Hurr hurr fake tings are bad

[QUOTE=Skyward;41897601]Hurr hurr fake tings are bad[/QUOTE] no just that rail system on that AK is ridiculous. also the whole air-fragmenting 7.62 rounds doesn't help it's case either.

Its just that most of the thread doesn't seem to remember this is the coolest/ugliest weapons thread, not the most/least functional weapons thread.

[QUOTE=Jagur;41897554]beyond retarded[/QUOTE] stop

didn't the OICW have a bullet fragmentation system?

[QUOTE=XanaToast.;41897682]didn't the OICW have a bullet fragmentation system?[/QUOTE] OICW encompasses a broad range of weapons, but I'm assuming you mean the XM29, which was a grenade launcher that could fire airburst 20mm grenades in addition to having an underslung assault rifle.

[IMG]http://www.imfdb.org/images/5/5f/EQBeretta.jpg[/IMG] the pistol from equilibrium,

[QUOTE=Skyward;41897642]Its just that most of the thread doesn't seem to remember this is the coolest/ugliest weapons thread, not the most/least functional weapons thread.[/QUOTE] if a weapon doesn't function well or properly it's not very cool, but an ugly weapon isn't necessarily a functional but cool one. thus discussing weapon function is indeed discussing whether or not a weapon is cool or ugly. this isn't the prettiest/not prettiest weapons thread, it's the coolest/ugliest. Properly functioning weapons are cool, and so are pretty ones. Poorly functioning weapons are not cool, but they sometimes are pretty

[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;41897985]if a weapon doesn't function well or properly it's not very cool, but an ugly weapon isn't necessarily a functional but cool one. thus discussing weapon function is indeed discussing whether or not a weapon is cool or ugly. this isn't the prettiest/not prettiest weapons thread, it's the coolest/ugliest. Properly functioning weapons are cool, and so are pretty ones. Poorly functioning weapons are not cool, but they sometimes are pretty[/QUOTE] To be fair that's what the thread [I]turned into[/I]. I can see the logic, but considering the first post in the original thread had fucking Vera from Firefly in it, you can tell functionality wasn't the initial concern.

[QUOTE=Skyward;41898086]To be fair that's what the thread [I]turned into[/I]. I can see the logic, but considering the first post in the original thread had fucking Vera from Firefly in it, you can tell functionality wasn't the initial concern.[/QUOTE] who cares what the initial function was. the shitlords in lamo pics are supposed to post funny things but all they do is post pictures of cross eyed cats

All I am saying is you shouldn't shit on people for posting stuff that looks cool/interesting even if its not functional. Chances are people entirely agree it not functional, all they're saying is it looks cool (and therefore fits the thread). I wouldn't call Deckard's blaster functional, but its a sexy piece of gun.

Oh my god it's called "coolest/ugliest weapons" not "waaah functionality" If you think it's dumb, fine, but don't shitpost.

[QUOTE=Skyward;41898146]All I am saying is you shouldn't shit on people for posting stuff that looks cool/interesting even if its not functional. Chances are people entirely agree it not functional, all they're saying is it looks cool (and therefore fits the thread). I wouldn't call Deckard's blaster functional, but its a sexy piece of gun.[/QUOTE] Nobody is shitting on anybody. When someone says a gun is dumb looking or has the functionality of a dead cat, don't take it as a personal insult because it obviously isn't one. maybe you shouldn't shit on people for discrediting the functionality of a weapon WOH [editline]20th August 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Zillamaster55;41898177]Oh my god it's called "coolest/ugliest weapons" not "waaah functionality" If you think it's dumb, fine, but don't shitpost.[/QUOTE] refer to [URL="http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1259860&p=41897985&viewfull=1#post41897985"]blank[/URL]

[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;41898252]Nobody is shitting on anybody. When someone says a gun is dumb looking or has the functionality of a dead cat, don't take it as a personal insult because it obviously isn't one. maybe you shouldn't shit on people for discrediting the functionality of a weapon WOH[/QUOTE] Chill out, I didn't meant that as an accusation, just as a hypothetical situation- could have worded that better :v: And really the whole thing comes down to semantics. When I think cool I think aesthetics, unless it has a really [I]cool [/I]mechanism to it, IE: G11 (which again, isn't very functional but is in my opinion, very cool). Guess that's just 'cause I'm not a gun-nut.

less nerd tears more guns [img]http://i.imgur.com/fNCJDu3.jpg[/img] spot whats wrong with this SG55* DONT YOU BUT IN JAGUR [img]http://i.imgur.com/jl3SP1u.jpg[/img] 1911 some dood carried through WWII I had a chance of buying.

why didn't you buy it.

[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;41898314]less nerd tears more guns [img]http://i.imgur.com/fNCJDu3.jpg[/img] spot whats wrong with this SG55* DONT YOU BUT IN JAGUR[/QUOTE] The front sight is missing?

[QUOTE=TehAgentGuy;41898329]The front sight is missing?[/QUOTE] That ain't very functional yo

[QUOTE=Jagur;41898319]why didn't you buy it.[/QUOTE] cause the housewife who was selling it wanted 2 grand for it, there was absolutely no finish left on the pistol, it was pitted and rusted to hell, the barrel was in awful condition, the recoil spring had no tension left in it and was rusted away, and pulling the hammer back took several strikes from a sledgehammer. it was an excellent example of why you oil your guns before you store them if you live in Florida. [editline]20th August 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=TehAgentGuy;41898329]The front sight is missing?[/QUOTE] nope. if they didn't remove the frontsight how else would they see out the scope? keep tryin

It's so obvious lol

Do SG-550s usually have that mag-well (if that's the right term)? I'm not a gun person so fucked if I know but that stuck out to me.

yes magazine fed firearms tend to have magwells

[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;41898414]yes magazine fed firearms tend to have magwells[/QUOTE] Harr harr, I meant this bit specifically: [t]http://filesmelt.com/dl/asdwdasdawds.JPG[/t] Compared to [t]http://filesmelt.com/dl/comparison1.JPG[/t]

It's a 5**, not a 550. 556's take AR mags. Same upper as a SG550 but an AR style lower with the same ergo as an AR style rifle. Thats why it's the best .223 rifle on the market.

Ah that makes sense. Misread that bit. Well that's the guess you can expect from a guy who doesn't know which way you point a gun.

[QUOTE=Skyward;41898453]Ah that makes sense. Misread that bit. Well that's the guess you can expect from a guy who doesn't know which way you point a gun.[/QUOTE] its kinda hard to point a gun the wrong way.