Coolest/Ugliest Weapons V5 - Bullpup AKs are the best

[Notrabies]

[QUOTE=johau;45038221]Berreta 92fs.
[t]http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/images/hiRes/39954.jpg[/t][/QUOTE]

You know, I don't think I could ever call it cool, but there's definitely something I really like about it. Sort of a stylish utilitarian look where all the curves and bumps look purposeful.

[QUOTE=Riller;45038415]Berreta 90two.
[IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/96/Beretta_90TWO_closed.JPG/800px-Beretta_90TWO_closed.JPG[/IMG]
The "Who's on first?" of the firearms world.[/QUOTE]

On the other hand, this is like the exact opposite and makes me want to melt it down.

[Zombini]

[QUOTE=johau;45038221]Berreta 92fs.
[t]http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/images/hiRes/39954.jpg[/t][/QUOTE]

As an owner of one of those, i can attest that i cannot seem to hit shit with mine. On the other hand, with my USP i can hit cans one after the other at 25yds one handed. Otherwise it's a very imposing handgun. Nice look, very heavy, and massive.

[11meister]

Looks better without the stupid rail cover, but still not as good as the 92fs.

[img]http://previewcf.turbosquid.com/Preview/2014/05/25__18_50_33/Beretta_90_two_2.jpg796a0aac-d1e3-4f76-b7f3-251287798bdeLarger.jpg[/img]

[urbanmonkey]

[QUOTE=11meister;45038915]Looks better without the stupid rail cover, but still not as good as the 92fs.

[img]http://previewcf.turbosquid.com/Preview/2014/05/25__18_50_33/Beretta_90_two_2.jpg796a0aac-d1e3-4f76-b7f3-251287798bdeLarger.jpg[/img][/QUOTE]

I don't like that the serrations (or whatever you'd call them) go past the safety on this one, unlike how they stop on the 92fs

[Ermac20]

[QUOTE=johau;45038221]Berreta 92fs.
[t]http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/images/hiRes/39954.jpg[/t][/QUOTE]

I honestly prefer the frame mounted safety of the PT92 though
[img]http://www.imfdb.org/images/8/88/PT92AFRail.jpg[/img]

[asteroidrules]

I never liked the look of the thin slide serrations on the Beretta, I prefer how big thick ones look (all potential jokes and innuendos intended).
[img]http://www.imfdb.org/images/4/4d/ASP_9.jpg[/img]
Like this ASP, the slide serrations are so huge the subcompact frame only has room for two of them.

[Juniez]

[img]http://i880.photobucket.com/albums/ac5/IS3M4/SEAL20HP2002.jpg[/img]

[Sitkero]

What on Earth is going on with those sights holy shit

[Riller]

[QUOTE=Sitkero;45040969]What on Earth is going on with those sights holy shit[/QUOTE]

Raised over the suppressor so you can take aim at dogs more easily. Though that one isn't a true hushpuppy, it doesn't have the slide-lock, far as I can tell.

[Sitkero]

[QUOTE=Riller;45040989]Raised over the suppressor so you can take aim at dogs more easily. Though that one isn't a true hushpuppy, it doesn't have the slide-lock, far as I can tell.[/QUOTE]

Okay yeah now that I actually give it a proper look that makes a lot of sense

The rearsight looks kinda like something off a rifle, but goddamned if I can remember which one

[rebel1324]

Tactical Detach is the best

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLHahifbXwQ[/media]

[Drury]

[QUOTE=urbanmonkey;45038168]I really dig the camo on this Slovak MiG-29

[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7c/Slovak_Air_Force_MiG-29AS.JPG/1024px-Slovak_Air_Force_MiG-29AS.JPG[/img][/QUOTE]

I really dig how we paint half a century old soviet planes to make them look cool if nothing else.

[Riller]

[QUOTE=Drury;45041577]I really dig how we paint half a century old soviet planes to make them look cool if nothing else.[/QUOTE]

Haha yeah, the MiG-29 is [I]so old![/I] Get with the times and get some [I][URL="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/46/67_FS_F-15_Eagle_in_action_at_Red_Flag%E2%80%93Alaska.jpg/800px-67_FS_F-15_Eagle_in_action_at_Red_Flag%E2%80%93Alaska.jpg"]new[/URL], [URL="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c9/F-16_June_2008.jpg/800px-F-16_June_2008.jpg"]modern [/URL][URL="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c6/USMC_FA-18_Hornet.JPEG/800px-USMC_FA-18_Hornet.JPEG"]fighters[/URL][/I], [B]Russia![/B]

[sp]1976, 1978, 1983.[/sp]

[Bat-shit]

[QUOTE=QuickShot;45035735]silenced shotguns
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/TV6aPaN.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Ermac20;45036123]Good luck aiming with that[/QUOTE]

I don't think it's meant for situations where much aim is needed..

[img]http://www.yanksarecoming.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/anton.jpg[/img]

[editline]9th June 2014[/editline]

Are they even the same shotgun..? Hell yea

[joost1120]

Would you even need sights for anything less than 20 meters? With a long gun like that you could just look over the barrel and aim that way.

[Riller]

[QUOTE=joost1120;45042308]Would you even need sights for anything less than 20 meters? With a long gun like that you could just look over the barrel and aim that way.[/QUOTE]

I'd like to think that most people can point-aim out to 20-25 for a man-sized target, yes. At least with long guns; gets a bit more complicated with pistols since you have one more axis you can be off on with those.

[Download]

I feel comfortable point shooting a handgun to 10m

[Trainbike]

[QUOTE=Riller;45042030]Haha yeah, the MiG-29 is [I]so old![/I] Get with the times and get some [I][URL="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/46/67_FS_F-15_Eagle_in_action_at_Red_Flag%E2%80%93Alaska.jpg/800px-67_FS_F-15_Eagle_in_action_at_Red_Flag%E2%80%93Alaska.jpg"]new[/URL], [URL="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c9/F-16_June_2008.jpg/800px-F-16_June_2008.jpg"]modern [/URL][URL="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c6/USMC_FA-18_Hornet.JPEG/800px-USMC_FA-18_Hornet.JPEG"]fighters[/URL][/I], [B]Russia![/B]

[sp]1976, 1978, 1983.[/sp][/QUOTE]

I never understand why people always make fun of old soviet equipment still being used and upgraded when a lot of NATO countries do the exact same thing with their military equipment.

[TheCumScoundrel]

[QUOTE=PrusseLusken;45043973]One of the funniest examples is the M2. Outdated as fuck, old, clunky HMG that has no real use in 2014. Even the Russians have managed to update their 12,7x108mms, why won't NATO do the same with our 12,7x99mms?

[editline]9th June 2014[/editline]

Same applies to the M113, M109, Abrams, Hummers, M24/M40 rifles, Berettas and 1911s, etc..[/QUOTE]

If it ain't broke, and it can't be broke, and does the job well. Don't fix it

[joost1120]

[QUOTE=XanaToast.;45044385]If it ain't broke, and it can't be broke, and does the job well. Don't fix it[/QUOTE]

Swords did the job too. They didn't that much maintenance and they work in every environment. You'd have to do a lot to break a sword.

Just because something does the job and it's not broken doesn't mean you shouldn't upgrade it.

[TheCumScoundrel]

fair enough. You can always give A browning some tassels and clickity clackers

[asteroidrules]

[QUOTE=QuickShot;45035735]Am I the only person that likes the look of the Type 86?

EDIT: and silenced shotguns
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/TV6aPaN.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]

I rather like it, it's one of the better AK bullpup jobs I've seen, it at least moves up things like the charging handle and the safety, although I'd prefer it in a different caliber if only so the magazines were less of a pain to insert/remove.

[Riller]

[QUOTE=XanaToast.;45044385]If it ain't broke, and it can't be broke, and does the job well. Don't fix it[/QUOTE]

Oh boy, implying the 1911 has [I]any[/I] place as a practical handgun in the 21st century, what are you even doing?

The 1911 is a historical curio, like the Mauser K98 and the Bess musket. It belongs in the hands of collectors and museums, not soldiers. Every service-grade pistol produced since 1935 (disregarding the Makarov, which is also a piece of shit) has been superior to the 1911 in every measurable and logical way. The 1911 was great for it's time, really nailing it down that semi autos were the ones to dominate the 20th century over revolvers, but it's time is long gone.

The M2HB still has it's use. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with it or any major improvement made in the field of heavy MGs since it was first thought up to take down tanks in the trenches.

[TheCumScoundrel]

well that's true for the 1911. 7 rounds isn't anywhere near acceptable, however the Abrams is pretty much top dog of tanks at the moment, the only thing you'd need to do is polish it here and there. and the Browning is simple as it is. it's accurate and fires big bullets. just swap out the wood for something more durable and maybe add on some shiny bits.

Make improvements wherever you can. I'm just saying it'd be more cost effective to refine a design.

[Riller]

[QUOTE=XanaToast.;45046171]well that's true for the 1911. 7 rounds isn't anywhere near acceptable, however the Abrams is pretty much top dog of tanks at the moment, the only thing you'd need to do is polish it here and there. and the Browning is simple as it is. it's accurate and fires big bullets. just swap out the wood for something more durable and maybe add on some shiny bits.

Make improvements wherever you can. I'm just saying it'd be more cost effective to refine a design.[/QUOTE]

Oh, of course it is. Most all military hardware is 25 years old or more. Despite what Modern Warfare shows and video games would like you to believe; war isn't always about having the fanciest shit, it's about having the shit that works, the shit that you [I]know[/I] works, and the shit that you know [I]how[/I] it works.Large part of the reason the U.S. haven't changed service rifle for the last fifty five years is that there is nothing wrong with the M16 pattern of rifles, and there's nothing largely improved about any of the so-called modern carbines and rifles. They've dabbled in actual, functional improvements before, with the OICW systems and the SALVO program and the G11 project, but none of them had advantages big enough to overcome their own hurdles. The M16 is good enough. Sure, the FN SCAR is a little better, and so is a lot of other weapons [sp]None of which are the 416 or G36[/sp], but none of them are really that much better, and it's safer to stick with the Sweet Sixteen and her flaws while knowing how to deal with them and compensate for them; instead of taking the plunge with a new system that does the exact same (fire 5.56 rounds at targets in the 50-400 yard range one at a time or in short, controlled bursts) that is sure to have teething problems and it's own slew of flaws. Like my mom always told me, if you can't be with the girl you love, love the one you're with...

At least until G11 shows up on your doorstep again, asking you about the highschool reunion, all mature, with a few grey strands and those wrinkles under her eyes that show life experience without really making her look older than she is; which in turn fits perfectly with when you reach your midlife crisis and just recently bought a Mazda MX5 because you can't afford any better, but fuck it, it's a convertible and it's a nice, warm August night around 7:20, and the sun's about to set by the beach, and M16 is off watching the M4s' soccer game anyway.

[editline]9th June 2014[/editline]

...Sometimes, I reread my posts and think I might be a little crazy.

[Sableye]

[QUOTE=XanaToast.;45046171]well that's true for the 1911. 7 rounds isn't anywhere near acceptable, however the Abrams is pretty much top dog of tanks at the moment, the only thing you'd need to do is polish it here and there. and the Browning is simple as it is. it's accurate and fires big bullets. just swap out the wood for something more durable and maybe add on some shiny bits.

Make improvements wherever you can. I'm just saying it'd be more cost effective to refine a design.[/QUOTE]

abrams takes like a gallon of gas to move 5 feet because of the jet engine....
if it ever was really needed to charge into enemy territory it'd run out of gas before it go there, we should really look into making it either a hybrid or diesel engine

[editline]9th June 2014[/editline]

[QUOTE=Riller;45046498]

...Sometimes, I reread my posts and think I might be a little crazy.[/QUOTE]

dude i've been up 13 hours so far without sleep and that still sounds crazy

[Riller]

[QUOTE=Sableye;45047445]dude i've been up 13 hours so far without sleep and that still sounds crazy[/QUOTE]

Are you literally 5? A regular eight-hour 11 to 7 sleep schedule gives you 16 hours of awake-time a day, so being up 13 hours means it's like, maybe dinner-time, if you're a regular person.

[DeVotchKa]

[QUOTE=Riller;45047753]Are you literally 5? A regular eight-hour 11 to 7 sleep schedule gives you 16 hours of awake-time a day, so being up 13 hours means it's like, maybe dinner-time, if you're a regular person.[/QUOTE]

I sleep pretty much seven hours and i'm up for the rest of those, 13 hours without sleep is peanuts.

[Drury]

[QUOTE=Riller;45042030]Haha yeah, the MiG-29 is [I]so old![/I] Get with the times and get some [I][URL="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/46/67_FS_F-15_Eagle_in_action_at_Red_Flag%E2%80%93Alaska.jpg/800px-67_FS_F-15_Eagle_in_action_at_Red_Flag%E2%80%93Alaska.jpg"]new[/URL], [URL="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c9/F-16_June_2008.jpg/800px-F-16_June_2008.jpg"]modern [/URL][URL="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c6/USMC_FA-18_Hornet.JPEG/800px-USMC_FA-18_Hornet.JPEG"]fighters[/URL][/I], [B]Russia![/B]

[sp]1976, 1978, 1983.[/sp][/QUOTE]

EU's bitching that our jets are outdated compared to Czech and Hungarian Gripens.

They are kinda right.

[Riller]

[QUOTE=Drury;45047889]EU's bitching that our jets are outdated compared to Czech and Hungarian Gripens.

They are kinda right.[/QUOTE]

Bulgaria, Croatia and Romania still fly the friggin' MiG-21, why would EU be pissed about the Slovakian 29s?