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

[QUOTE=Riller;45075662]Pretty clever, lets you keep your head way down, and allows completely free view of the irons. Him resting the rifle on it's magazine made me sad, though.[/QUOTE] seems like it makes more problems by shifting the optics from the gun's y axis to its x axis, just figuring out bullet drop probably would be different

[QUOTE=Riller;45075662]Pretty clever, lets you keep your head way down, and allows completely free view of the irons. Him resting the rifle on it's magazine made me sad, though.[/QUOTE] Solothurn S18/1000 is the only thing I know of that comes close to that besides a rocket launcher. [img]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_xOYsJr0F_tk/S7pSQnloBfI/AAAAAAAAAJ4/yufrcx99n7Y/s1600/Pabu_10-7.jpg[/img]

Would it even be possible to adjust for range without actually redialing the scope with an entirely side mounted scope like that? With a traditionally vertically mounted scope you just have to aim above a target that's farther than your scope's zero to account for gravity, but with a side mounted scope I'd imagine that if a target is far enough away from the zero, it would be useless without recalibrating the zero. [editline]11th June 2014[/editline] Maybe they have horizontal or even diagonal tick marks to help with that. It'd be interesting to see. I'd imagine if it had tick marks it would be a diagonal line going down and left to accommodate for gravity and the scope's x-axis angle? Far enough away, the scope will point right of your target straight in front of the muzzle. Maybe I'm looking too far into this... [editline]11th June 2014[/editline] And I guess the muzzle is only a few inches from the scope horizontally so if both were pointing straight it would only land a bit right of the reticle. Guess it depends on how precise you want to be, and I'm guessing if you were looking for precision you wouldn't use a horizontal mount.

[QUOTE=urbanmonkey;45076217]Would it even be possible to adjust for range without actually redialing the scope with an entirely side mounted scope like that? With a traditionally vertically mounted scope you just have to aim above a target that's farther than your scope's zero to account for gravity, but with a side mounted scope I'd imagine that if a target is far enough away from the zero, it would be useless without recalibrating the zero. [editline]11th June 2014[/editline] Maybe they have horizontal or even diagonal tick marks to help with that. It'd be interesting to see. I'd imagine if it had tick marks it would be a diagonal line going down and left to accommodate for gravity and the scope's x-axis angle? Far enough away, the scope will point right of your target straight in front of the muzzle. Maybe I'm looking too far into this... [editline]11th June 2014[/editline] And I guess the muzzle is only a few inches from the scope horizontally so if both were pointing straight it would only land a bit right of the reticle. Guess it depends on how precise you want to be, and I'm guessing if you were looking for precision you wouldn't use a horizontal mount.[/QUOTE] You could super-easily kentucky-windage the inch or two of offset. If the scope and barrel are completely parallel and not converging to a precise zero at some range, you just aim for the eye if you wanna hit the nose. If they're parallel, two inches at the muzzle are two inches at a mile too. However, if they got a precise zero at some range, you'd have issues at all other ranges.

I don't really think there's any particular problems with the scope by the side that you wouldn't otherwise get from the scope on the top. Obviously stuff like the scope being blocked and stuff, but zeroing should be the same.

[QUOTE=Tinter;45076500]I don't really think there's any particular problems with the scope by the side that you wouldn't otherwise get from the scope on the top. Obviously stuff like the scope being blocked and stuff, but zeroing should be the same.[/QUOTE] The thing is adjusting your aim without adjusting the zero, since if the scope is mounted on the side you have to adjust for the x-axis as well as the y-axis. On a top mount, the scope and barrel are always in line so you don't have to worry about the x-axis. At extreme ranges aiming at a very small target, you would have to do more than just aim above your target if you have your scope zeroed how ever far short of the target itself. Riller pretty much summed up what I was trying to say in a nice little package.

16 shot wheellock with a matchlock backup system. [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/L89kF12.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/E1HRfJC.jpg[/IMG] Full article [url]http://www.nrablog.com/post/2013/09/12/16th-Century-Double-Wheellock-rifle-with-a-matchlock-ignition-backup.aspx[/url]

Full Auto Tec9 Anyone? [img]http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20110324004416/deadliestfiction/images/d/db/TEC9.jpg[/img]

[QUOTE=rebel1324;45077186]Full Auto Tec9 Anyone? [img]http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20110324004416/deadliestfiction/images/d/db/TEC9.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] TEC-9s are cool in like a bank robber/gangster-esque type of way but I can't help but think of Columbine whenever I see one

[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/eIeF8pS.jpg[/IMG]

An LR300 with a crappier stock. Neat! [editline]12th June 2014[/editline] [IMG]http://www.military-today.com/firearms/lr_300.jpg[/IMG] LR300 is still all sorts of hot, though.

[img]http://37.media.tumblr.com/7a7ce6334c5096735ea5d6718396d74a/tumblr_n6l4fvQsK81rlrdk6o1_1280.jpg[/img] I just don't think there's enough machine gun here

Oh my god, that's a fuckin' searchlight-mount, just stuffed with MG34s. And... For some reason, operated by a Russian. Construction seems unusually shoddy, like, some of the guns are visibly misaligned from the others.

[QUOTE=Sitkero;45079848][img]http://37.media.tumblr.com/7a7ce6334c5096735ea5d6718396d74a/tumblr_n6l4fvQsK81rlrdk6o1_1280.jpg[/img] I just don't think there's enough machine gun here[/QUOTE] Have fun reloading that

[QUOTE=Riller;45079865]Oh my god, that's a fuckin' searchlight-mount, just stuffed with MG34s. And... For some reason, operated by a Russian. Construction seems unusually shoddy, like, some of the guns are visibly misaligned from the others.[/QUOTE] My guess is that it was something thrown together during the later stages of the war to compensate for a lack of proper AA gear, and was later captured by Russian forces as the Germans were pushed back, seems more like he's looking it over than actually operating it

[QUOTE=TAU!;45079889]Have fun reloading that[/QUOTE] I'd like to imagine that there's some kind of cord you pull to unload them all, which would be cool, but that doesn't solve the problem of fumbling for a half an hour getting them reloaded while you're being bombed and shelled.

[QUOTE=kaine123;45079698][IMG]http://i.imgur.com/eIeF8pS.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE] I can't tell, is it supposed to be compatible with standard charging handles? It looks like it might be.

[QUOTE=asteroidrules;45079987]I can't tell, is it supposed to be compatible with standard charging handles? It looks like it might be.[/QUOTE] Considering the charging handle is over the foregrip I don't think so.

[QUOTE=Sitkero;45079848][img]http://37.media.tumblr.com/7a7ce6334c5096735ea5d6718396d74a/tumblr_n6l4fvQsK81rlrdk6o1_1280.jpg[/img] I just don't think there's enough machine gun here[/QUOTE] the vintage metal storm

The quad Vickers is also pretty neat looking [img]http://i.imgur.com/YOcZejr.jpg[/img] [img]http://i.imgur.com/LcbokCg.jpg[/img] [img]http://i.imgur.com/T8sz6zD.jpg[/img]

[QUOTE=MegaChalupa;45080079]Considering the charging handle is over the foregrip I don't think so.[/QUOTE] Yeah, but look at the back of the upper, behind the rails there's a separate piece, and a groove that looks like it's meant to catch on a normal charging handle latch.

[QUOTE=asteroidrules;45080359]Yeah, but look at the back of the upper, behind the rails there's a separate piece, and a groove that looks like it's meant to catch on a normal charging handle latch.[/QUOTE] Given that it's a prototype by a smaller company, it might be because it could use normal charging handle in a previous prototype, but they changed it and just covered up the cutout with a piece of folded steel.

[QUOTE=Sitkero;45080105][img]http://i.imgur.com/T8sz6zD.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] it looks like the left guy is blowing air into the thing.

[QUOTE=Sitkero;45079848][img]http://37.media.tumblr.com/7a7ce6334c5096735ea5d6718396d74a/tumblr_n6l4fvQsK81rlrdk6o1_1280.jpg[/img] I just don't think there's enough machine gun here[/QUOTE] Red Jacket???

so today I got my hands on some training AKs from where I live [t]http://i.imgur.com/g2gXqQx.jpg[/t] [t]http://i.imgur.com/5Zn5Qxh.jpg[/t] [t]http://i.imgur.com/CNP2Crm.jpg[/t] [t]http://i.imgur.com/6C33wN3.jpg[/t] [t]http://i.imgur.com/zcKu85j.jpg[/t] [t]http://i.imgur.com/0zO9j7C.jpg[/t] [t]http://i.imgur.com/qxuIAc6.jpg[/t] [t]http://i.imgur.com/ITOSpud.jpg[/t] [t]http://i.imgur.com/TOVisIx.jpg[/t] bonus: [url]http://i.imgur.com/VDqw4fS.jpg[/url] that's all I got before the drill instructor drove me away

What makes a training-AK different from a regular AK? Is it non-firing? .22?

Maybe just really beat up?

Familiarity training?

[QUOTE=rebel1324;45077186]Full Auto Tec9 Anyone? [img]http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20110324004416/deadliestfiction/images/d/db/TEC9.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] This thing got me killed in CS:GO because I held the mouse button down and was very surprised when it only fired once.

[QUOTE=Riller;45082144]What makes a training-AK different from a regular AK? Is it non-firing? .22?[/QUOTE] Looks like a beat-to-fuck Chinese Type 56, which was replaced as the service rifle by locally produced AKMs, so I suppose they use the 56 for training rather than throwing them away or mothballing them.