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

[QUOTE=fireball397;42526763][IMG]http://24.media.tumblr.com/cbca1c3749e921886c3446ad99fcc9da/tumblr_mtqeicHFaL1rth37fo1_500.jpg[/IMG] What's the furniture on this AK?[/QUOTE] I think that'd look really good with a PK-01 scope on it [t]http://zenphotos.net/file/Online/SVD/Optics/PK01-V_SGL31LeftClose01.jpg[/t]

[QUOTE=fireball397;42526763][img]http://24.media.tumblr.com/cbca1c3749e921886c3446ad99fcc9da/tumblr_mtqeicHFaL1rth37fo1_500.jpg[/img] What's the furniture on this AK?[/QUOTE] I glanced at it quickly and mistook it for an AR15 converted to do AK stuff. lol

[QUOTE=fireball397;42526763][img]http://24.media.tumblr.com/cbca1c3749e921886c3446ad99fcc9da/tumblr_mtqeicHFaL1rth37fo1_500.jpg[/img] What's the furniture on this AK?[/QUOTE] Top part looks like a generic railed gas tube, bottom part looks like a generic AK tri-rail. [editline]15th October 2013[/editline] F-22 butte [img]http://i.imgur.com/R9IRSqK.jpg[/img]

[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;42527320]Top part looks like a generic railed gas tube, bottom part looks like a generic AK tri-rail. [editline]15th October 2013[/editline] F-22 butte [img]http://i.imgur.com/R9IRSqK.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] dat butte is a beaut

[QUOTE=MAC21500;42522886]Too bad the American made ones are low quality: [url]http://www.thebangswitch.com/sig-551a1-american-copy-of-a-classic/[/url] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuBGS6M4oJU[/media][/QUOTE] Maybe it's just more of me being weird, but I kinda prefer the SG-556 aesthetics to the 551's. [img]http://www.thebangswitch.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/sig556.jpg[/img] [editline]14th October 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;42527320]Top part looks like a generic railed gas tube, bottom part looks like a generic AK tri-rail. [/QUOTE] Don't forget the generic AR-15 stock adapter. (And what looks like a Magpul CTR stock)

that's a cool stoner 63 u got there please rate me dumb because i'm obviously not saying that it looks like a stoner 63 but i actually believe it is one even though it is clearly posted as being a sg556

-snip-

The thing I always thought was cool about the Stoner 63 [img]http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m63jdziQjx1rpg0p2o1_1280.jpg[/img] Was that you could have an entire squad running the same rifle, but at the same time running 3 different rifles that all do different things. Pretty rad design, shame it weighed so damn much.

[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;42533611]The thing I always thought was cool about the Stoner 63 [img]http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m63jdziQjx1rpg0p2o1_1280.jpg[/img] Was that you could have an entire squad running the same rifle, but at the same time running 3 different rifles that all do different things. Pretty rad design, shame it weighed so damn much.[/QUOTE] Now the AUG, the L85 and G36 can all do the same thing, except for the belt-fed bit. Carbine, DMR and SAW.

[QUOTE=urbanmonkey;42531866]that's a cool stoner 63 u got there please rate me dumb because i'm obviously not saying that it looks like a stoner 63 but i actually believe it is one even though it is clearly posted as being a sg556[/QUOTE] What exactly about that looks like a Stoner?

[QUOTE=MAC21500;42533818]Now the AUG, the L85 and G36 can all do the same thing, except for the belt-fed bit. Carbine, DMR and SAW.[/QUOTE] Bulpup, broken bulpup, and plastic trunnion. [editline]15th October 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=asteroidrules;42534386]What exactly about that looks like a Stoner?[/QUOTE] Forrend, gas tube, lower.

[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;42534387] Forrend, gas tube, lower.[/QUOTE] [t]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a9/Stoner_63.JPG[/t] Don't really see much of any similarities between any of those. Also we've been over this before: current production G36a2's use metal trunions.

[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;42533611]The thing I always thought was cool about the Stoner 63 [img]http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m63jdziQjx1rpg0p2o1_1280.jpg[/img] Was that you could have an entire squad running the same rifle, but at the same time running 3 different rifles that all do different things. Pretty rad design, shame it weighed so damn much.[/QUOTE] Wasn't the stoner rifle made to weigh less than the M60? I know that during the Viet war or after the viet war special units used a stripped down version of some LMG, I forgot which one. The weapon had no iron sights along other things to reduce weight. I've been trying to find the weapon I'm talking about for ages.

[QUOTE=Recurracy;42534773]Wasn't the stoner rifle made to weigh less than the M60? I know that during the Viet war or after the viet war special units used a stripped down version of some LMG, I forgot which one. The weapon had no iron sights along other things to reduce weight. I've been trying to find the weapon I'm talking about for ages.[/QUOTE] [img]http://mooremilitaria.com/China%20Lake%20M60%20Set%20up.jpg[/img] You mean this thing? It's a chopped down M60. The SEALs used them in situations that required both a lightweight weapon (or the closest thing to it) and copious amounts of 7.62x51, they were meant to be carried with the stock-stump between the arm and torso and exclusively hip-fired with tracer rounds. Although you are right, the Stoner was considerably lighter than standard the M60.

"Hey Ivan, Chechens have taken over the school and have put all the hostages in the gym, what do we do now?" "Fire incendiary rockets into the building." [t]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/62/RPO-A_missile_and_launcher.jpg[/t]

[QUOTE=Recurracy;42534773]Wasn't the stoner rifle made to weigh less than the M60? I know that during the Viet war or after the viet war special units used a stripped down version of some LMG, I forgot which one. The weapon had no iron sights along other things to reduce weight. I've been trying to find the weapon I'm talking about for ages.[/QUOTE] Yea, they stripped an M60 down and just hip fired it with copious amounts of tracers. M60LW [img]http://imageshack.us/a/img145/9133/navysealm60pw6.jpg[/img] [editline]15th October 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Griffster26;42534934]"Hey Ivan, Chechens have taken over the school and have put all the hostages in the gym, what do we do now?" "Fire incendiary rockets into the building." [t]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/62/RPO-A_missile_and_launcher.jpg[/t][/QUOTE] They (kinda) learned: Hey Ivan, chechens have taken an entire movie theater hostage, what do we do? Gas everyone.

[QUOTE=asteroidrules;42534859][img]http://mooremilitaria.com/China%20Lake%20M60%20Set%20up.jpg[/img] You mean this thing? It's a chopped down M60. Although you are right, the Stoner was considerably lighter than standard the M60.[/QUOTE] That ammo feed is sexy.

[QUOTE=Trekintosh;42535077]That ammo feed is sexy.[/QUOTE] Until you have to hump it...

[IMG]http://www.deactivated-guns.co.uk/images/uploads/5STEN/5sten-030044_4.jpg[/IMG] I love the front grip to prevent jams and hand burning

[QUOTE=asteroidrules;42534859]Although you are right, the Stoner was considerably lighter than standard the M60.[/QUOTE] I thought the M60 was developed to replace the Stoner, though.

[QUOTE=DeVotchKa;42536266]I thought the M60 was developed to replace the Stoner, though.[/QUOTE] Development of the M60 technically dates back to World War 2, and the US Military was issuing early models as soon as the late 1950s. The Stoner didn't see deployment until about 5-10 years later and was mostly rejected and dropped within five years.

[QUOTE=DeVotchKa;42536266]I thought the M60 was developed to replace the Stoner, though.[/QUOTE] Stoner 63's were only ever issued to seals, and thats because the only weapons seals got were WWII shit they found in the back of an armory.

Also, wasn't the whole idea of the Stoner-63, a modular weapon system based around a common receiver grouping that could be adapted to a variety of configurations and roles, pretty much achieved in the AR-15?

[QUOTE=asteroidrules;42536414]Also, wasn't the whole idea of the Stoner-63, a modular weapon system based around a common receiver grouping that could be adapted to a variety of configurations and roles, pretty much achieved in the AR-15?[/QUOTE] no not really, not until much after the war.

[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;42536468]no not really, not until much after the war.[/QUOTE] Well yeah, I didn't mean to imply it had done this during the Vietnam war (although the foundation was certainly laid there), I was just pointing out that the AR has pretty much been able to deliver on all of these ideas of a modular, adaptive weapon system. Case in point: [img]http://www.imfdb.org/images/0/09/M16A4withANPEQ%26ACOG.jpg[/img] M16a4 service rifle [t]http://www.imfdb.org/images/d/d2/Mk18.jpg[/t] Mk. 18 carbine [img]http://www.imfdb.org/images/2/29/Colt-9mm--SMG.jpg[/img] R0635 submachine gun [img]http://www.imfdb.org/images/a/a4/Mk12Mod0.jpg[/img] Mk. 12 sniper rifle [img]http://i199.photobucket.com/albums/aa219/faldoc/Ares%20Shrike/IMG_3707.jpg[/img] Shrike LMG And countless more.

Yeah, sorry, i just remember hearing somewhere that it was, didn't know if it was true or not. Thanks for the clarification. Also don't forget shotgun 'cause of the .410 upper.

[QUOTE=DeVotchKa;42536578]Yeah, sorry, i just remember hearing somewhere that it was, didn't know if it was true or not. Thanks for the clarification. Also don't forget shotgun 'cause of the .410 upper.[/QUOTE] But of course: [img]http://world.guns.ru/userfiles/images/shotgun/sh42/t14-3.jpg[/img] T-14 semi-automatic .410 shotgun. (There's also flat-top versions, but I could only find pictures of them without a lower attached)

[QUOTE=asteroidrules;42536544] [img]http://i199.photobucket.com/albums/aa219/faldoc/Ares%20Shrike/IMG_3707.jpg[/img] Shrike LMG And countless more.[/QUOTE] Shrike best belt-fed AR upper; the one slide-fire is coming out with is retarded, requires your receiver to be cut up to mount it. [img]http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/SlideFire-BFR-3.jpg[/img]

[QUOTE=MAC21500;42533818]Now the AUG, the L85 and G36 can all do the same thing, except for the belt-fed bit. Carbine, DMR and SAW.[/QUOTE] Any weapon which doesn't allow for quick barrel changes is trash for the sustained fire required from a SAW. Firing from a closed bolt and not being belt fed make things even worse. Also I think the idea of a 5.56 DMR kinda silly considering the whole reason 5.56 was to allow individual soldiers to put out a greater volume of fire over the 7.62. If you want to hit a target and kill or seriously wound it at ranges past 500 yards, which is kinda the point of the DMR, you're probably going to want to use a round that's going to have the force to do so at that range.

[QUOTE=MegaChalupa;42537874]Any weapon which doesn't allow for quick barrel changes is trash for the sustained fire required from a SAW. Firing from a closed bolt and not being belt fed make things even worse. Also I think the idea of a 5.56 DMR kinda silly considering the whole reason 5.56 was to allow individual soldiers to put out a greater volume of fire over the 7.62. If you want to hit a target and kill or seriously wound it at ranges past 500 yards, which is kinda the point of the DMR, you're probably going to want to use a round that's going to have the force to do so at that range.[/QUOTE] M27 IAR says differently...and the RPK, RPD, and many other SAWs with non quick change barrels or belts. Open bolt makes a big difference, but the RPK seems to do just fine. Would you want to volunteer to stand downrange and intercept some 62gr MK 318 Mod 0 at 600yds? I guarantee it has enough force at that range to ruin your day. is 7.62x51 more effective at range and in general? Yes, but don't think 5.56 isn't accurate enough to kill at 500+ yds. .22lr will kill you farther than you can shoot it accurately.