• Coolest/Ugliest Weapons v7 - SHOTGUNS
    5,001 replies, posted
Ever since game Black on PS2, I loved weirdness of Walter 2000 [t]http://modernweapon.ru/images/firearms/sr/WA-2000_4.jpg[/t]
[t]http://cheaperthandirt.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/SASmaglite.jpg[/t][t]http://homepage.ntlworld.com/p.miller7/force136/images/sasrepel.jpg[/t]
The gun designs in Black were fucking atrocities, the Mac-10 had rails mounted on rails, Uzi had two charging handles, WA2000 became a straight pull bolt action with the spare mag holder becoming the actual feed location, and the fucking G36 has [i]a picatinny rail on the underside of the carry handle[/i]
[QUOTE=ColdAsRice;48937564]The gun designs in Black were fucking atrocities, the Mac-10 had rails mounted on rails, Uzi had two charging handles, WA2000 became a straight pull bolt action with the spare mag holder becoming the actual feed location, and the fucking G36 has [i]a picatinny rail on the underside of the carry handle[/i][/QUOTE] I know, but it didn't really stop it from being good game
[QUOTE=ColdAsRice;48937564]The gun designs in Black were fucking atrocities, the Mac-10 had rails mounted on rails, Uzi had two charging handles, WA2000 became a straight pull bolt action with the spare mag holder becoming the actual feed location, and the fucking G36 has [i]a picatinny rail on the underside of the carry handle[/i][/QUOTE] That's the purpose of it, it's all on purpose to be as nonsensically cool as possible.
[QUOTE=Sableye;48936188]eh not really, the idea was this thing would be so far out of enemy airspace that it was more or less occupying the same role as a missile destroyer, plus the missiles they used as an example were the short range cruise missiles compared to the later tomahawk, plus by megatons, that still wouldn't have carried as much as a single b-52, the w80 warheads deployed on the cruise missiles were only up to 150kT yield, a b-52 routinely carried over 20 MTs of ordinance, the reason you'd use this instead of a missile ship is because you could load this thing up in nevada or whereever and fly almost non-stop without refueling (because the 747 can already do that) and loiter and unload massive amounts of firepower onto almost a hundred targets, and fly back, where as a ship would take weeks to load that many missiles, steam into range, and be vulnerable to anti-ship combat[/QUOTE] You're so horribly wrong there I don't even know where to begin. The missile destroyer analogy is awful. A missile destroyer can defend itself or can rely on the ships around it defend it. A 747 has no defenses what so ever. Short ranged missiles aren't helping your argument. By the 1970s the B52 was so vulnerable to interceptors that [I]that they developed the ALCM loaded with 150kt W80 warheads for it.[/I] Each B52 carried 20 and individually carried almost a quarter of the stockpile less per plane than the 747 idea. Either way, by the 1970s ultra-high yield weapons were going out of fashion; the preference was towards smaller and more accurate weapons like the ALCM. Using 747s loaded with ALCMs has very little benefit and much more risk over the B52. A B52 with ALCMs probably carriers more [I]effective[/I] mts than a B52 with high-yield gravity bombs and can probably kill more targets anyway.
[QUOTE=CabooseRvB;48926607][img_thumb]http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/warhammer40k/images/8/80/Baneblade_of_Tallarn_409th_Heavy_Tank_Regiment.png/revision/latest?cb=20120129012157[/img_thumb][/QUOTE][quote]"still needs turrets"[/quote] [img]http://www.beastsofwar.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Solar-Auxilia-Stormhammer.jpg[/img] [quote]"by the Throne of Terra"[/quote] and that's an official model
Baneblade represent. [img]http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/warhammer40k/images/3/3d/1075667_485850068156919_394109959_n.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20131210234723[/img] [t]http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/d__/images/a/ab/Dow2r_ig_baneblade_01.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20111020090720&path-prefix=dow[/t] [t]http://www.beastsofwar.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/baneblade.jpg[/t]
i also like one of its tank/titan destroyer variants, the Shadowsword [img]http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptationsvehicles/fictionground/40ktank/bane/shadowsword.jpg[/img] the laser cannon's focusing crystals contain fragments of the souls of dead psykers due to a cataclysm that happened on the planet they're mined from every time it fires, the cannon screams with the tortured agony of a thousand dying men, driving any infantry too close to the barrel permanently insane
Jesus I thought it was just a simple up scaled lascannon that's fuckin' metal as fuck yo
It literally is a thousand mouths crying out in pain.
40k needs more weapons with wood furniture IMO the lasguns of the Krieg come pretty close - the default ones have no wood i think but other versions likely exist - and the Vostroyan hand-crafted ones are a geat example but that seems to be the extent of it, not counting custom stuff used by VIPs
[QUOTE=download;48940111]You're so horribly wrong there I don't even know where to begin. The missile destroyer analogy is awful. A missile destroyer can defend itself or can rely on the ships around it defend it. A 747 has no defenses what so ever. Short ranged missiles aren't helping your argument. By the 1970s the B52 was so vulnerable to interceptors that [I]that they developed the ALCM loaded with 150kt W80 warheads for it.[/I] Each B52 carried 20 and individually carried almost a quarter of the stockpile less per plane than the 747 idea. Either way, by the 1970s ultra-high yield weapons were going out of fashion; the preference was towards smaller and more accurate weapons like the ALCM. Using 747s loaded with ALCMs has very little benefit and much more risk over the B52. A B52 with ALCMs probably carriers more [I]effective[/I] mts than a B52 with high-yield gravity bombs and can probably kill more targets anyway.[/QUOTE] you're giving this concept too much credit though, this didn't get past a model and a few concept sketches, when boeing put this together, the 747 was in real danger of bankrupting the company, and they were only just starting to get the planes out to the customers, airlines were starting to actually retire them as air travel was dropping off in the mid 70s, they had already been successful with the 707 and other airplanes converted to military aircraft, so the move was sort of lateral the idea though of replacing the ancient airframes of the b-52 with the modern or at least semi-retired 747s isn't a bad one, there are warehouses full of parts for them, and the engines are much much more servicable than the current ones (which the airforce really needs to replace), though theres no real need to spend a bunch of cash on a bomber that probably never will be needed today, it would be an interesting idea if the airforce took the 747 they have mothballed from the laser project and figured out if it even could be converted to a bomber
This Masterkey shotgun makes me laugh. [img]http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/armyoftwo/images/1/1f/Masterkey.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20130407224804[/img] That's it. The whole thing.
That's not really laughable. It's like looking at a dismounted M203 and complaining about how impractical and stupid looking it is. What you should be laughing at is the standalone masterkey platform: [t]http://photos.imageevent.com/smglee/ss2008/huge/DSCN0140_1.JPG[/t] Because sometimes just buying a regular M870 is too sensible.
[QUOTE=FloaterTWO;48946022]That's not really laughable. It's like looking at a dismounted M203 and complaining about how impractical and stupid looking it is. What you should be laughing at is the standalone masterkey platform: [t]http://photos.imageevent.com/smglee/ss2008/huge/DSCN0140_1.JPG[/t] Because sometimes just buying a regular M870 is too sensible.[/QUOTE] but think of all the taktical stuffs you can mount on all that free space from the rails
The Masterkey has a great name, I wish more weapons were named snarky or silly things like that
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;48918778][url=http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2015/10/16/missile-out-of-a-203/]The Firearm Blog[/url] [B]magic missile[/B] I wonder how effective these would be on lightly armored transports.[/QUOTE] This is something I would've never conceived but now that I see it, it seems like such an obvious thing to develop.
[T]http://i.imgur.com/CItN8CV.jpg[/T] Traded my Makarov for an Enfield.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;48947921][T]http://i.imgur.com/CItN8CV.jpg[/T] Traded my Makarov for an Enfield.[/QUOTE] Good man
[IMG]http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b265/bytor94/F-4Dwith15mini-guns.jpg[/IMG] Sweet Jesus. I wonder what it would look like if they were all loaded with Tracer/Incendiary rounds.
[QUOTE=seba079;48947191]The Masterkey has a great name, I wish more weapons were named snarky or silly things like that[/QUOTE] The Jackhammer is a good one too.
[QUOTE=StrykerE;48950290][IMG]http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b265/bytor94/F-4Dwith15mini-guns.jpg[/IMG] Sweet Jesus. I wonder what it would look like if they were all loaded with Tracer/Incendiary rounds.[/QUOTE] [video=youtube;X-gUfx5QEmA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-gUfx5QEmA[/video]
Don't remember if this has been posted here yet but the RDB looks cool as fuck and actually improves on the RFB's flaws; color me excited [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BASgtPpYfF0[/media]
[QUOTE=StrykerE;48950290][IMG]http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b265/bytor94/F-4Dwith15mini-guns.jpg[/IMG] Sweet Jesus. I wonder what it would look like if they were all loaded with Tracer/Incendiary rounds.[/QUOTE] Pictures can't do this airplanes uglyness justice, these things are horribly deformed just to have a chance of glidin
Don't you talk shit about the Phantom. I've never seen a more aesthetically pleasing aircraft. [t]http://cdn.desktopwallpapers4.me/wallpapers/aircraft/1920x1200/2/18519-mcdonnell-douglas-f-4-phantom-ii-1920x1200-aircraft-wallpaper.jpg[/t] [t]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e0/F-4J_and_SH-3G_on_USS_America_(CVA-66)_1972-73.JPEG[/t]
[QUOTE=FloaterTWO;48952076]Don't you talk shit about the Phantom. I've never seen a more aesthetically pleasing aircraft. [/QUOTE] [t]http://i.imgur.com/gwFz2Ez.jpg[/t][t]http://www.hdwallpapers.in/walls/mcdonnell_douglas_f_4_phantom_ii-wide.jpg[/t][t]http://i.imgur.com/H4KDZcw.jpg[/t] Amen
When it comes to aesthetics. Props > Jets
My dad use to repair those in the Philippines at Clarkson Airbase, and his experience with F4 could be summed up as, "THOSE THINGS ARE FUCKING LOUDER THEN A CARGO PLANE! WHY??" He loved them though, they were without a doubt one of the the easiest things to take apart, and work with.
[QUOTE=NoNameForEvil;48951761]...Didn't the P90 eject spent casings from the bottom of the gun? This guy's acting like it's some radical new mechanism. Unless he's just referring to bullpups.[/QUOTE] the p90 is a bullpup
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.