Coolest/Ugliest Weapons V5 - Bullpup AKs are the best
14,930 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Riller;43606582]It's a toy, not a gun.[/QUOTE]
I'm talking about the model they used for SHOT 2 - 4 years before the airsoft version was released
[QUOTE=Crash155;43606755]I'm talking about the model they used for SHOT 2 - 4 years before the airsoft version was released[/QUOTE]
And that is a toy, not a gun. No more of a weapon than this is:
[IMG]http://i01.i.aliimg.com/wsphoto/v0/1088787119/Toy-electric-gun-toy-gun-sniper-rifle-pistol-laser-gun.jpg[/IMG]
...Except this one actually makes a sound if you load it with four double-A's.
[QUOTE=zupadupazupadude;43581580]And here's the Cromwell equivelant of the Sherman Firefly: the Comet tank
[t]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ef/Comet_tank_1.jpg[/t][/QUOTE]
Well not really, the 77mm was cut down 17-pounder that had a lower muzzle velocity than the 17-pounder but the ammunition was much more compact.
There was a Cromwell Variant with the 17-pounder called the Challenger but did not see much action due to the Sherman firefly conversion being more easier to produce and delays with the production of the Challenger.
[img]http://www.nasenoviny.com/foto_challengertank.jpg[/img]
There was a variant of the Challenger with a open topped turret called the Avenger witch was put into service after the war and were used by the British Army of the Rhine.
[img]http://ww2photo.se/tanks/gb/crus/chall/05629.jpg[/img]
The Cromwell chassis did make it to service in the 1950s as a tank destroyer with a 20-pounder gun as the FV4101 Charioteer.
[img]http://www.davidpride.com/Israeli_Armor/images/IL_Armor191.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=Riller;43606627]Magpul designs accessories, not guns. They probably never though much about the deeper workings of the PDR, just that they wanted a teensy middle-ejecting bullpup.[/QUOTE]
Uhhh not totally correct, remember that the ACR used to be the Magpul Masada.
Since you're all griping about the death of the Magpul PDR, here is the Desert Tech MDR, almost a resurrection of it; this is the compact version of the MDR:
[img]http://cdn.net.outdoorhub.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2014/01/MDR-C-2-800x535.jpg[/img]
[img]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-KcoN0r7rU3k/UtW-l4MBEkI/AAAAAAAAWM8/3tvWzunMXTI/s1600/2014-01-14+15.49.05.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=MAC21500;43608956]Uhhh not totally correct, remember that the ACR used to be the Magpul Masada.[/QUOTE]
Well, A: The Masada was a simple-as-fuck short-stroke conventional-layout rifle. Any idiot with two braincells in his ballsack can design that. B: They had to sell the design to Remington because they do not have the capacity for actual production of firearms.
[QUOTE=Riller;43609231]Well, A: The Masada was a simple-as-fuck short-stroke conventional-layout rifle. Any idiot with two braincells in his ballsack can design that. B: They had to sell the design to Remington because they do not have the capacity for actual production of firearms.[/QUOTE]
Yes, but my point was, they still designed two firearms. :V
Also, the FMG-9 wasn't really a gun, but it did require modification of the G18, so I guess you could say they designed half a gun?
[QUOTE=MAC21500;43609400]Yes, but my point was, they still designed two firearms. :V
Also, the FMG-9 wasn't really a gun, but it did require modification of the G18, so I guess you could say they designed half a gun?[/QUOTE]
They designed one and sold it off to a company that had to remove 50% of it's intended features to make it work, stuck one pre-made one in a shell, and made a non-firing mock-up of one.
[IMG]http://www.rockislandauction.com/blogpics/July2013/SmithWesson-44-Frontier-DA-01.jpg[/IMG]
Smith and Wesson and I are having a good day. :smile:
yeah that sure is an ugly gun
[QUOTE=kimchimafia;43605348]Well while the overuse of wide silly 'dramatic' cuts and spins is true in Modern Hollywood and video games, I wouldn't say outright that the thrust was almost preferred in swordsmanship. Sabers, tulwars, katanas, backswords, broadswords, arming swords, longswords, side-swords/rapiers, falchion, messers, daos and etc... are all suitable and sometimes, are exclusively made for the cut instead of the thrust.
However going by surviving contemporary fencing and fight manuals, many of them stressed the importance of the cut as well as the thrust and sometimes, they focused more on the cut.
Even George Silver, an English swordsman who absolutely hated the rapier, stressed the importance of the cut and the thrust in a fight and then commented about how usually in 'English tradition', the cut was almost predominately preferred and it was a bad line of thinking.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, but remember that fencing and combat are two totally different things. Most swords certainly aren't meant to be used in combat by clutching the blade and beating the enemy to death with the pommel, but in medieval fencing where both combatants were armored [URL="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/31/Augsburg_Cod.I.6.4º.2_(Codex_Wallerstein)_107v.jpg"]it was an effective technique[/URL].
What I meant about Hollywood was more that massed combat is generally depicted in film as being an initial clash of two groups of soldiers that quickly turns into a completely haphazard melee of one-on-one duels. The reality is that with such dense formations, the opportunity for a one-on-one where proper technique comes into play is pretty slim. More likely it's a confused mess of men pushing against one another with shields and stabbing wildly through any opening they can exploit. Less [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgjbj5stgwU&feature=player_detailpage#t=379"]this[/URL], and more [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_v2RgtKLaVU&feature=player_detailpage#t=487"]this[/URL], and even that doesn't compare to the dense (and more importantly large) formations used during the Renaissance. Your chance of being able to use a sword on a pike-dominated battlefield would be pretty slim, let alone being able to apply much in the way of swordfighting technique.
Besides, if a spear could be an effective weapon for thousands of years, both in eras dominated by single combat and by mass combat, I think a sword made for stabbing gets a pass.
To add to the thread and on the subject of Renaissance weaponry, here's a Spanish-style musket from the 16th century:
[img]http://www.pancerni.com/Szabla%20i%20kon/Artykuly/Bron_palna/Zdjecia/muszkiet%20z%20forkietem.JPG[/img]
More difficult to use than the much lighter and more portable arquebus, the musket, originally developed by the Spanish, was developed as a way to defeat armor at longer ranges. While breastplates that could survive being shot from a distance were commonplace for well-equipped noblemen and officers, this weapon, heavy enough to require a stand and sometimes a two-man crew, could put a hole in an armored infantryman from as far as three hundred yards with reasonable accuracy against a massed formation. Armies during the mid to late 1500s often equipped one musketeer for every five or ten arquebusiers, supported by pikemen to form a well-rounded unit.
[QUOTE=_Vendetta_;43605563][t]http://www.forgottenweapons.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/landstad-color.png[/t]
Landstad 1900 Automatic Revolver.
Unsurprisingly, this was on a website called [url]www.forgottenweapons.com[/url].[/QUOTE]
I remember reading about this thing, a pretty interesting affair, the "cylinder" actually only had two chambers:
[img]http://www.forgottenweapons.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/landstad-cylinder.jpg[/img]
When you pull the trigger it rotates the cylinder 180 degrees and drops the firing pin on the upper chamber, then the back piece is flung back from the recoil, extracting the casing and cocking the firing pin again.
[img]http://www.forgottenweapons.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/landstad-large.jpg[/img]
Meanwhile the magazine shoves a new round into the lower chamber.
Of course this design never actually went anywhere, it failed military trials in 1901 and was abandoned shortly thereafter.
[editline]20th January 2014[/editline]
Oh and the magazine was actually inserted from the side, the right-side and bottom of the grip were both parts of the frame, the left was just the magazine
[img]http://www.forgottenweapons.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/landstad-stripped-left.jpg[/img]
[editline]20th January 2014[/editline]
And no, I have no clue how any part of this design seemed like a good idea.
[QUOTE=catbarf;43611771]Yeah, but remember that fencing and combat are two totally different things. Most swords certainly aren't meant to be used in combat by clutching the blade and beating the enemy to death with the pommel, but in medieval fencing where both combatants were armored it was an effective technique.[/quote]
Yes you're right in saying that there's a big difference between dueling and fighting in combat however a lot of the fencing and fight manuals we have today made no such distinction. Of course, there were dedicated dueling manuals but, just speaking in terms of the famous stuff such as the I.33, the Lichtenauer tradition of German Longsword, Fiore's treatises and etc... they haven't said that they should be primarily used for dueling. George Silver again says that his intense dislike of the 'rapier' supposedly comes from the fact that the weapon was primarily designed for dueling and not war or self-defense. And many of those sword masters base their techniques' effectiveness in their use in combat and war.
And the 'grab the sword with the edge and smash the guy's face with the pommel or quillon' aka the Mordhau was not technically used for beating an armoured man to death, although it does sound more 'awesome' that way. With a good helmet and proper padding and suspension, a strike from a Mordhau would most likely not do anything more than a little dent in the helm. There's no way someone's gonna use that to crush proper plate. The fight manuals, apart from Fiore, even talk about the poleweapon having a so-so chance of incapacitating an armoured man with a strong solid hit to the helm. You wouldn't waste your time fighting in armoured combat primarily with the Mordhau but instead you would use it to stun your opponent for awhile for you to find a proper gap to thrust your sword into. In fact that image you linked shows both the Mordhau and the half-sword thrust. Most combat manuals say anyway that usually, armoured combat ended up in wrestling moves (with or without the sword) so they could execute a thrust into the visor or any other suitable opening.
And yeah, you're not going to use the Mordhau or the 'half sword' with a tulwar or a dao but you can very definitely grip the blade of a longsword (that's where those techniques generally come from anyway) and from what the contemporary sources, it was used fine outside of dueling/'fencing'.
To add to the thread, I've always had a soft spot for the Messer.
[IMG]http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2889/10940620176_ce27f094bb.jpg[/IMG]
You're right though, the Hollywood/LOTR style of battles turning into one-on-one dueling between soldiers isn't something that happens on a real battlefield. And true, on a Renaissance era battlefield, you would have very little chance of actually using your sword, hence my previous post saying that the sword by then, was used primarily as a side-arm by most countries' infantry. Of course there were exceptions, such as the famed Spanish Rodeleros who were basically 'sword and larger steel buckler' men.
[QUOTE=kimchimafia;43613533]
To add to the thread, I've always had a soft spot for the Messer.
[IMG]http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2889/10940620176_ce27f094bb.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]
Grosse Messer makes a Grosse Mess
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kj4WRhG5BW0[/media]
Oh Cold Steel, never change.
Those guys are nuts... Blades freak me the fuck out.
[QUOTE=asteroidrules;43612056]I remember reading about this thing, a pretty interesting affair, the "cylinder" actually only had two chambers:
[img]http://www.forgottenweapons.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/landstad-cylinder.jpg[/img]
When you pull the trigger it rotates the cylinder 180 degrees and drops the firing pin on the upper chamber, then the back piece is flung back from the recoil, extracting the casing and cocking the firing pin again.
[img]http://www.forgottenweapons.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/landstad-large.jpg[/img]
Meanwhile the magazine shoves a new round into the lower chamber.
Of course this design never actually went anywhere, it failed military trials in 1901 and was abandoned shortly thereafter.
[editline]20th January 2014[/editline]
Oh and the magazine was actually inserted from the side, the right-side and bottom of the grip were both parts of the frame, the left was just the magazine
[img]http://www.forgottenweapons.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/landstad-stripped-left.jpg[/img]
[editline]20th January 2014[/editline]
And no, I have no idea how any part of this design seemed like a good idea.[/QUOTE]
Even back then, they knew the hilarity and awesomeness of having an automatic revolver. They just fucked up in the process of making it.
[QUOTE=Riller;43601564]Do they make a HK416 in it, though?[/QUOTE]
They still haven't made one in .416 Barrett.
[t]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0a/416barrett.png[/t]
Which is kind of a shame since the AR's in .338 looked pretty nice.
[QUOTE=asteroidrules;43614387]They still haven't made one in .416 Barrett.
[t]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0a/416barrett.png[/t]
Which is kind of a shame since the AR's in .338 looked pretty nice.[/QUOTE]
With all of the gun stores I've visited I've only seen .416 Barret [b]once[/b]. Who even shoots it, let alone owns a gun chambered in it?
I guess if I were to join the .50cal club I'd see people who shit money and own a gun chambered in it.
[QUOTE=Riller;43567070]Uh, excuse me? The Landwasserschlepper hardly even schlepps land und wasser when compared to the DUKW.
[t]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/Aa_edencamp_dukw.jpg[/t]
The Duck has schlepped so much more on both land und wasser that the landwasserschlepper just became a footnote, where the Duck is the legend, still in service as tour-busses around the world.[/QUOTE]
[t]http://i.imgur.com/lUGFkZK.jpg[/t]
Step it up.
Oh hey, boats on wheels.
Saw this one outside a friend's house last year.
[t]http://i.imgur.com/aqvR29l.jpg[/t]
Pimped out with a couch apparently.
Am I the only one who love this shovel?
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhqxkI3xDYY[/media]
It can cut off your head and then open a beer right after
[QUOTE=Riller;43609231]Any idiot with two braincells in his ballsack[/QUOTE]
Hold on what
don't you know that men are only capable of thinking with their dicks you cis scum
[QUOTE=DEMONSKUL;43617131]Am I the only one who love this shovel?
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhqxkI3xDYY[/media]
It can cut off your head and then open a beer right after[/QUOTE]
I have something like that:
[t]http://cdn2.bigcommerce.com/server3500/babad/products/225/images/757/IMG_0158__14737.1361993578.1280.1280.JPG[/t]
The only difference between this one and mine is mine has a different style nail puller on the crowbar part.
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/nnYrihz.jpg[/IMG]
This is the Nydar Shotgun sight. It was released in 1945. It's the grandaddy of all those fancy holographic sights you see nowadays.
That is so incredibly cool
[QUOTE=kaine123;43621448][IMG]http://i.imgur.com/nnYrihz.jpg[/IMG]
This is the Nydar Shotgun sight. It was released in 1945. It's the grandaddy of all those fancy holographic sights you see nowadays.[/QUOTE]
Isn't it in CoD WaW as the "aperture sight"?
[url]http://callofduty.wikia.com/wiki/Aperture_Sight[/url]
[QUOTE=_Kent_;43621295]I have something like that:
[t]http://cdn2.bigcommerce.com/server3500/babad/products/225/images/757/IMG_0158__14737.1361993578.1280.1280.JPG[/t]
The only difference between this one and mine is mine has a different style nail puller on the crowbar part.[/QUOTE]
whats it call
[QUOTE=Turing;43621886]whats it call[/QUOTE]
Crovel Extreme 2, I believe.
