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

That swept-back wing design always makes me loin's tingle a bit. I'm kind of surprised American designers/engineers have never tinkered with it extensively. Doesn't it increase maneuverability or something?

From what I'm reading, maneuverability is increased, but stalls are harder to recover from and at super-high speeds, structural integrity is hard to maintain.

[QUOTE=ewitwins;42356148]That swept-back wing design always makes me loin's tingle a bit. I'm kind of surprised American designers/engineers have never tinkered with it extensively. Doesn't it increase maneuverability or something?[/QUOTE] You mean swept-forward? Yes, America did experiment with it, called the X-29: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_X-29[/url] They've also experimented with "tailess flight" [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockwell-MBB_X-31[/url]

is it just me or do shotguns, that have a barrel longer than the tube, somehow look more powerful? [editline]n[/editline] rofl the hate storm

[QUOTE=MAC21500;42356809]You mean swept-forward? Yes, America did experiment with it, called the X-29: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_X-29[/url] They've also experimented with "tailess flight" [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockwell-MBB_X-31[/url][/QUOTE] [quote=X-29]The flight control system was made up of three redundant digital computers backed up by three redundant analog computers; any of the three could fly it on its own, but the redundancy allowed them to check for errors. Each of the three would "vote" on their measurements, so that if any one was malfunctioning it could be detected. It was estimated that a total failure of the system was as unlikely as a mechanical failure in an airplane with a conventional arrangement.[/quote] The overkill here is sexy as fuck. [editline]30th September 2013[/editline] Also, Ruskies tried a forward swept one too. Probably would have become a thing had the USSR not fallen apart and thus froze funding. [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b4/Sukhoi_Su-47_Berkut_%28S-37%29_in_2001.jpg[/img] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-47[/url]

[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;42357962]The overkill here is sexy as fuck. [/QUOTE] Yes, until you realize that a similar system was in the B-2 Spirit to allow its inherently unstable flying wing to fly; there was a crash that occurred because two of the computers conflicted and the third one thew up its hands so the plane crashed. The russkies are building an F-22 clone now anyways, they don't need a radical 80s/90s design. I'm sure they incorporated what they learned into the Su-37 and Su-35BM Thrust Vectoring is great, but compared to forward canards like on the Eurofighter and Su-47 it is quite expensive for similar performance increase. F-15 ACTIVE is a great example of the two working in conjunction. Edit: This is the kind of thing we need to add to fighter jets: Su-47 "The cockpit's design has focused on maintaining a high degree of comfort for the pilot and also on the pilot being able to control the aircraft in extremely high g-load maneuvers. The aircraft is equipped with a new ejection seat and life support system. [b] The variable geometry adaptive ejection seat is inclined at an angle of 60° [/b], which reduces the impact of high g forces on the pilot. The seat allows dogfight and missile avoidance maneuvers with significantly higher g loadings than can normally be tolerable. The Su-47 pilot uses a side-mounted, low-travel control stick and a tensiometric throttle control."

So it's like Minority Report, but with flight computers?

[QUOTE][IMG]http://i.imgur.com/5mNLt7G.png[/IMG][/QUOTE] Remington Model 8

all those fancy smancy flight computers don't do you no good on a stealth jet if you forget to close the bomb bay doors though [img]http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-117-dcp01496.jpg[/img]

[QUOTE][IMG]http://i.imgur.com/wN5jKEw.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE] Steyr HS .50

I really like the stock for some reason, and I can't put my finger on why.

Probably because it's extremely minimal and efficient, nothing unnecessary but everything that needs to be there, is there. Theres beauty in efficiency.

[QUOTE=kaine123;42358790]Steyr HS .50[/QUOTE] Funny you should post that, 'cause me and LT_C made one like slightly over a year ago; [t]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/4888695/steyrHS50.jpg[/t] (it also has a Schmidt & Bender PM II on it, IIRC)

[QUOTE=Ilwrath;42361779]Funny you should post that, 'cause me and LT_C made one like slightly over a year ago; [t]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/4888695/steyrHS50.jpg[/t] (it also has a Schmidt & Bender PM II on it, IIRC)[/QUOTE] Do you just have a stash of weapon models and renders lying in wait for whenever someone here posts about said weapons? And assuming you do: what else ya got?

[QUOTE=asteroidrules;42361829]Do you just have a stash of weapon models and renders lying in wait for whenever someone here posts about said weapons? And assuming you do: what else ya got?[/QUOTE] Nah, not that much sadly. Me and LT just did some somewhat obscure or prototype-stage weapons sometime back, including the G11, a Kampfpistole, and the Steyr HS .50. Some of the more recent are the Welrod and the Second Pattern Fairbairn-Sykes Fighting Knife. Oh and this [t]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/4888695/OSRrenderfinal2.png[/t] Just keep it a secret, okay. I'm currently somewhat busy designing stuff for both OC and a Star Citizen mod that I'm planning out on doing, which can be found [URL=https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/56943/victor-s-armaments-ltd-arms-manufacturing]here.[/url]

I don't know if toy guns count but I love the design of the new "zombie strike" sledge fire from nerf [IMG]http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/18tjkryavt77ejpg/ku-xlarge.jpg[/IMG]

Man those are some next gen graphics, didn't know they were making another mass effect game

Ithaca 37 and Remington 870 FTW

[QUOTE][IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e2/Soldat_fran%C3%A7ais_au_CENZUB_2.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=kaine123;42363357][/QUOTE] FAMAS with French MILES gear.

Looks like he's shouldering it kind of high. The first time I brought my Mosin to the range, I got a bit tired and lazy from holding it so I bent over with my elbows on the table and accidentally shouldered it a bit high. The recoil pushed the rifle into my collarbone and let me tell you, a steel butt-plate to the collarbone doesn't feel very nice. Left a pretty good mark.

[QUOTE=urbanmonkey;42364089]Looks like he's shouldering it kind of high. The first time I brought my Mosin to the range, I got a bit tired and lazy from holding it so I bent over with my elbows on the table and accidentally shouldered it a bit high. The recoil pushed the rifle into my collarbone and let me tell you, a steel butt-plate to the collarbone doesn't feel very nice. Left a pretty good mark.[/QUOTE] When you're wearing an IBA, its hard enough to properly shoulder your rifle where you like it, not to mention it cushions the recoil, but add MILES gear with awkward IR detector bumps and it is a bit difficult. Also, hes got an optic atop his carry handle, unless you want to chin weld, ts easier to move the rifle up higher; this is almost a awkward as mounting an optic atop an M16 carry handle...chin welds galore... [editline]30th September 2013[/editline] Remote control StG44 in Syria [url]http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2013/09/30/mind-blown-remote-control-sturmgewehr-44-syria/[/url] [img]http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/242343-660x398.jpg[/img]

This is what happens when gun legislation written in 1933 is still used in 80 years later [img]http://pics.gunbroker.com/GB/366515000/366515915/pix660844056.jpg[/img] [editline]1st October 2013[/editline] [img]http://pics.gunbroker.com/GB/366515000/366515915/pix280602086.jpg[/img] [img]http://pics.gunbroker.com/GB/366515000/366515915/pix808160444.jpg[/img]

I can't tell, what's wrong with it?

Krinkov [IMG]http://world.guns.ru/userfiles/images/assault/as03/aks74u.jpg[/IMG] non NFA SBR Krinkov [img]http://www.kaneohegs.com/images/arsenal_krinkov_16_b.jpg[/img]

[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;42365651]Krinkov [IMG]http://world.guns.ru/userfiles/images/assault/as03/aks74u.jpg[/IMG] non NFA SBR Krinkov [img]http://www.kaneohegs.com/images/arsenal_krinkov_16_b.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] Okay, I see. The original has a tiny barrel, but to qualify as a "short" barreled rifle, it has to have a fairly long barrel.

[QUOTE=Trekintosh;42365870]Okay, I see. The original has a tiny barrel, but to qualify as a "short" barreled rifle, it has to have a fairly long barrel.[/QUOTE] Nope, you're still off. Top rifle would legally be an SBR (and since it's S-S-A, it would also require a class 3) Bottom rifle is a non NFA rifle NFA regulations require a rifle to have a barrel length of at least 16 inches, and a shotgun 18 inches. Anything lower than that requires you to fill out a metric fuck load of paper work and pay a $200 tax stamp to legally own the firearm and classify it as a short barreled rifle (SBR). It's tougher to sell an SBR because of the paper work, tax stamps, and the stupid amounts of time required for all that to be processed. So when they import krinkovs (which they rarely do), or build them, they build them with those terrible looking 16 inch barrels (like the one above) or fake suppressors; both of which completely defeat the overall point of the firearm.

[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;42365896]Nope, you're still off. Top rifle would legally be an SBR (and since it's S-S-A, it would also require a class 3) Bottom rifle is a non NFA rifle NFA regulations require a rifle to have a barrel length of at least 16 inches, and a shotgun 18 inches. Anything lower than that requires you to fill out a metric fuck load of paper work and pay a $200 tax stamp to legally own the firearm and classify it as a short barreled rifle (SBR). It's tougher to sell an SBR because of the paper work, tax stamps, and the stupid amounts of time required for all that to be processed. So when they import krinkovs (which they rarely do), or build them, they build them with those terrible looking 16 inch barrels (like the one above) or fake suppressors; both of which completely defeat the overall point of the firearm.[/QUOTE] Oh, okay, I get it now. Sorry, I'm not very good at rifles. [editline]1st October 2013[/editline] Also does anyone have any images of thumbhole stocks in a proper grip/being held? I need it for reference. I've never used one before, so I'm not quite sure how they're held.

[QUOTE=Saza;42346422]I'd happily buy this.[/QUOTE] This probably won't be too well taken in a real firearm thread, but my friend bought the airsoft replica of this gun, and it was actually extremely comfortable. It was a very cool gun.

an airsoft replica of a 10/22 in an obscure stock that kinda vaguely looks like a wa2000 or an airsoft replica of an actual wa2000?