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

[img]http://www.enemyforces.net/firearms/lr300_1.jpg[/img] Z-M weapons LR-300. I'm surprised we've talked about this one as little as we have.

that is a lot of unnecessary bulk

Agreed, the grenade launcher assembly is a bit oversized, try this newer one: [img]http://world.guns.ru/userfiles/images/assault/as97/z-m_para_ttr_1.jpg[/img]

I prefer this version, personally. [img]http://world.guns.ru/userfiles/images/assault/as97/z-m_lr300-2000.jpg[/img] I really like the handguard. No idea why they mount the rear sight so far forward, though.

its in stalker must be good

[QUOTE=FloaterTWO;40280515]I prefer this version, personally. [img]http://world.guns.ru/userfiles/images/assault/as97/z-m_lr300-2000.jpg[/img] I really like the handguard. No idea why they mount the rear sight so far forward, though.[/QUOTE] I like that version as well, the design on the forward assist is interesting to me, but it's easier to find pictures of the newer models.

[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;40232445]MG-34 is cool but the MG-42 is superior in just about every way.[/QUOTE] How is it? The MG42 chews up ammunition at an unnecessarily high rate. The milled receiver of the 34 is much more durable, too. MG42s aren't meant to last forever.

[QUOTE=nitedal;40281502]How is it? The MG42 chews up ammunition at an unnecessarily high rate. The milled receiver of the 34 is much more durable, too. MG42s aren't meant to last forever.[/QUOTE] That must be why the 42 pretty much phased it out.

[QUOTE=nitedal;40281502]How is it? The MG42 chews up ammunition at an unnecessarily high rate. The milled receiver of the 34 is much more durable, too. MG42s aren't meant to last forever.[/QUOTE] MG-34's milled receiver also weighs more than the MG-42's stamped. Durability of stamped vs milled really doesn't matter. If stamped wasn't strong, the few hundred million AKM's in the world wouldn't be as coveted as they are. The MG-34 was harder to produce, it was harder to change it's barrels when they over heated, and it typically required a crew for just one HMG, compared to the man portable versions of the MG-42. Another thing is it's reputation, yes it chews up ammo but it's an HMG, it's meant to throw lead down range as fast as possible and keep the enemies pissing themselves in their fox holes. The MG-42 performed that [i] spectacularly[/i]. "Hitler's Buzz-saw" was the most distinct sounding weapon of the war. If you were a Russian or an American, when you heard that sound you dropped to the ground and hoped you weren't already dead. Theres a reason the MG-3 is a modernized MG-42, and not a modernized MG-34.

MG42/MG53/MG3s are worn down much faster. MG34s were meant to last a lifetime, MG42s were designed to be manufactured as quickly and simple as possible. There is a huge difference between MG42s and AKMs, the latter is not an [I]GPMG/MMG[/I] with a huge, heavy open bolt firing mechanism. There are much greater forces at work in the 42. The reason the MG3 is an updated MG42 is because there were few MG34s left. They were not being manufactured in such large numbers as the 42. A large amount of 34s were still modernized into e.g. .30-06 Springfield, 7,62x51 and 6,5x55, but they were all phased out because, yes, they were more heavy, and because the MG42 design was much more widely used and thus parts and knowledge was more easy to find. Again, the role of an [I]GPMG/MMG[/I] is suppression, but in [I]an infantry role[/I] an 42 with a light bolt and closed cone is just pants on head retarded. HMGs are usually 12,7mm and stationary/used in vehicles. The "best" MG designs of WW2 will always be the Czechoslovak ZB zv. 26/30/30J, Brengun and MG34.

[QUOTE=nitedal;40282882] A large amount of 34s were still modernized into e.g. .30-06 Springfield, 7,62x51 and 6,5x55, but they were all phased out because, yes, they were more heavy, and because the MG42 design was much more widely used and thus parts and knowledge was more easy to find.[/QUOTE] WOH MG-42's were more widley used after the war? It's almost as if The MG-42 was better?!??!?!?!?!?! And maybe thats why it was modernized and actually put into service instead of the bulky, heavier, lower ROF, and longer build process MG-34?!?!? WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOH You say that the MG-42 wasn't a good infantry GPMG, but there really wasn't a good one during the war. They were all heavy and either had a low ROF with low magazine count, or were belt fead and ate up their ammo too quickly. All things considered the MG-42 kicked ass and it continues to kick ass in the 21st century with it's modern child. Seriously, the Germans are absolutely meticulous when it comes to weapons. Theres a reason K98k's are coveted more than their Yugosloavian clones. They wouldn't phase out the MG-34 in favor of a more poorly designed weapon. And they wouldn't put into service a modernized variant of a poorly designed HMG/LMG/GPMG/WHATTHEFUCKEVER This is borderline "G11 was a flawless weapon" argument.

[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;40283062]Seriously, the Germans are absolutely meticulous when it comes to weapons. Theres a reason K98k's are coveted more than their Yugosloavian clones. They wouldn't phase out the MG-34 in favor of a more poorly designed weapon. And they wouldn't put into service a modernized variant of a poorly designed HMG/LMG/GPMG/WHATTHEFUCKEVER This is borderline "G11 was a flawless weapon" argument.[/QUOTE] A couple things, ease of production and reduced weight at the cost of durability is the logical sacrifice when you have allied forces approaching your homeland from all directions. Additionally, its much easier to provide the rounds for that insane rate of fire when your country hasn't been in a full scale war since the 1940s. The MG3 was adopted in the 1960s, it had undergone multiple improvements over its previous iterations before getting its designation, it is obviously not the same weapon it was in 1942. The Bundeswehr has also been phasing them out since 2011 and replacing them with the HK121 as their new GPMG. Like virtually all weapon designs, MG3/MG42 aren't timeless. Also, don't forget the German army fielded this: [img_thumb]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/04/Domok_g36.JPG[/img_thumb]

Why do we hate G36's now?

[QUOTE=CreativeName;40283399]Why do we hate G36's now?[/QUOTE] [t]http://www.displayfakefoods.com/store/pc/catalog/400_SPILL%20ICE%20CREAM%20CONE.jpg[/t]

[QUOTE=CreativeName;40283399]Why do we hate G36's now?[/QUOTE] The barrel trunnion is made of plastic and cracks under the heat of actual combat. Instead of fixing the problem, HK said to never run more than 5 magazines through it at a time. [sp]Also, please no G36 discussion, I already regret bringing it up.[/sp] [editline]wups[/editline] Have some bananas. [img_thumb]http://horobox.co.uk/u/MegaChalupa_1366045477.jpg[/img_thumb]

Seriously, make up a better argument. Again, 42s were mass produced because they were much cheaper and simpler to produce; another example of this is the MP38/MP40 as well as the PPSh-41/PPSh-43. The Germans were running low on quality steel and man hours, why on earth do you think they designed the 42? Because yes, they were cheaper to make and quicker to pump out for the Wehrmacht. The "best" (or really, better than most,) infantry-level MG of the WW2 era was probably the Bren. It was stupidly simple, didn't have a too high fire rate, was very, very reliable and it had a decent magazine capacity [I]for being a magazine fed MG[/I]. The ZB had a smaller magazine, the Degtyarov was incredibly cumbersome, had an incredibly annoying safety and the magazines were laughably heavy and bulky, the Lewis had an open bottom magazine and a unneeded barrel shroud. The Chauchat was a joke to begin with and the American misbuilt version was possibly the worst firearm ever designed, manufactured and fielded. The MG34HB and MG42 will always be the best vehicle carried and stationary-role GPMGs, that is right, but they were not very suited for infantry level use. MG42s with heavy bolts, patronentrommels and a very heavily opened booster cone are much, much more suited than the regular ones used by the Wehrmacht at the time. Yes, there is a reason Yugo weapons are not nearly as good as German ones; their steel was of very, very poor quality and they used decades to realize chromed barrels is a good idea. I do however own a ZB vz. 30J made at the Kragujevac miltec institute, and while the barrel is not chromed it was still VERY beautifully milled and finished (Kragujevac, Serbia used to be a part of then-Yugoslavia). Modern weapons made by Zastava are quality weapons and denying that is being blind. I am NOT saying that the MG42 is a poor design, I'm saying it's meant to be cheaper, quicker to manufacture, more cost and time efficient. [editline]15th April 2013[/editline] The G36's trunnion problem was fixed in the nineties. The reason it's still being talked about is that there is still loads of early 90s-manufactured G36s still present in Bundeswehr ranks.

[QUOTE=MegaChalupa;40283374]A couple things, ease of production and reduced weight at the cost of durability is the logical sacrifice when you have allied forces approaching your homeland from all directions. Additionally, its much easier to provide the rounds for that insane rate of fire when your country hasn't been in a full scale war since the 1940s. The MG3 was adopted in the 1960s, it had undergone multiple improvements over its previous iterations before getting its designation, it is obviously not the same weapon it was in 1942. The Bundeswehr has also been phasing them out since 2011 and replacing them with the HK121 as their new GPMG. Like virtually all weapon designs, MG3/MG42 aren't timeless. [/QUOTE] It's not an insane durability loss when you're stamping instead of milling. Germany isn't the only country that uses the MG-3. [editline]14th April 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=CreativeName;40283399]Why do we hate G36's now?[/QUOTE] are we going to do this for the 36th time? seriously?

[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;40283593] are we going to do this for the 36th time? seriously?[/QUOTE] I see what you did there

glorious coaxial MG-3s on Leopard 2s FTW

[QUOTE=MegaChalupa;40283478]The barrel trunnion is made of plastic and cracks under the heat of actual combat. Instead of fixing the problem, HK said to never run more than 5 magazines through it at a time. [sp]Also, please no G36 discussion, I already regret bringing it up.[/sp] [editline]wups[/editline] Have some bananas. [img_thumb]http://horobox.co.uk/u/MegaChalupa_1366045477.jpg[/img_thumb][/QUOTE] Am I really seeing Chiquita banana stickers on those magazines :v:

[img]http://www.tomcat521.com/tomcat/story/VF-84/f14a84z.jpg[/img] [img]http://www.airfighters.com/articles/afterburnerphotos/burner9.jpg[/img] Tomcats forever.

I always liked the F-14 because it's what the VF-1 was based off of [img]http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120313205150/acecombat/images/5/55/F-14D_Valkyrie.jpg[/img]

[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;40283593]It's not an insane durability loss when you're stamping instead of milling. Germany isn't the only country that uses the MG-3.[/QUOTE] I said the ROF is insane, not the loss in durability, which is worth taking not of when talking about something which undergoes as much stress as a GPMG, especially one that fires at 1200-1500 RPM like the MG42. And Germany is probably the only country with a notable military that uses the MG3 outside of mounting it on vehicles. But I didn't notice this before, the MG3 has two bolts available in different weights for different rates of fire, which is actually a pretty significant feature, and kinda destroys any arguments relating to its ROF.

[t]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b5/Japanese_Zero.jpg[/t] whoopsie i dropped a picture of a zero how silly of me o- [t]http://www.aviation-history.com/mitsubishi/a6m-7a.jpg[/t] WHOOPS i dropped another one, i'm just so clumsy today i- [IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c8/He162_color010.jpg[/IMG] lol the engine

[QUOTE=MegaChalupa;40283979]And Germany is probably the only country with a notable military that uses the MG3 outside of mounting it on vehicles. [/QUOTE] The Danes, Aussies, Italians, Finnish, Estonians, Icelandics, Turks, Swedes, Saudis, and a quite a few others aren't significant? Theres quite a few major nations in that list, quite a few are fighting in Afghaniland

[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;40284020]The Danes, Aussies, Italians, Finnish, Estonians, Icelandics, Turks, Swedes, Saudis, and a quite a few others aren't significant? Theres quite a few major nations in that list, quite a few are fighting in Afghaniland[/QUOTE] The majority of their MG3s aside from the Danes came mounted on Leopards or are mounted on vehicles. They see limited use compared to FN MAG derivatives and for good reason.

Both Denmark and Norway has been using the MG3 on infantry level for a while, I don't know about the former but the latter is phasing it out for the FN Minimi nowadays. Using MG3 on Leopards and Geländewagens as well as some new APCs.

Forgive my somewhat random thought, but does anyone else wonder what it would look like if Glock made rifles, or shotguns? (No I don't mean one of those Glock pistol-carbines, I mean a dedicated rifle design)

Probably a square polymer receiver, a bolt release that eats your thumb forcing you to just pull and let go off the charging handle, and a switchable stock buttplate.

[QUOTE=asteroidrules;40284437]Forgive my somewhat random thought, but does anyone else wonder what it would look like if Glock made rifles, or shotguns? (No I don't mean one of those Glock pistol-carbines, I mean a dedicated rifle design)[/QUOTE] I can imagine it would be a lightweight polymer design, somewhat between a G36 and an M4