• Coolest/Ugliest Weapons v7 - SHOTGUNS
    5,001 replies, posted
[img]http://40.media.tumblr.com/35d4bace751eaf9380323e4396b1a161/tumblr_nefwrjbttT1qdzr9to1_1280.jpg[/img] [img]http://41.media.tumblr.com/2de60d418adf63310af03e82cc09ac07/tumblr_nefwrjbttT1qdzr9to4_r1_1280.jpg[/img] [img]http://41.media.tumblr.com/7d2fc134f0d25e41cd76454d91f5fe58/tumblr_nefwrjbttT1qdzr9to6_r1_1280.jpg[/img] Paratrooper variant of the MAS-39 with an aluminum folding stock Hella neat
ww2 french arms collectors, there can't be that many of them out there
[QUOTE=Sitkero;48981532][img]http://40.media.tumblr.com/35d4bace751eaf9380323e4396b1a161/tumblr_nefwrjbttT1qdzr9to1_1280.jpg[/img] [img]http://41.media.tumblr.com/2de60d418adf63310af03e82cc09ac07/tumblr_nefwrjbttT1qdzr9to4_r1_1280.jpg[/img] [img]http://41.media.tumblr.com/7d2fc134f0d25e41cd76454d91f5fe58/tumblr_nefwrjbttT1qdzr9to6_r1_1280.jpg[/img] Paratrooper variant of the MAS-39 with an aluminum folding stock Hella neat[/QUOTE] That looks uncomfortable to shoot.
[QUOTE=Sitkero;48981532] [img]http://41.media.tumblr.com/7d2fc134f0d25e41cd76454d91f5fe58/tumblr_nefwrjbttT1qdzr9to6_r1_1280.jpg[/img] Paratrooper variant of the MAS-39 with an aluminum folding stock Hella neat[/QUOTE] That is amazing looking. Now I want one.
paratroopers get the best guns
[QUOTE=Lone_Star94;48981818]That looks uncomfortable to shoot.[/QUOTE] I figure you'd use that grip mostly for the trigger and keep a light grip, you'd use the foregrip and the butt stock more to deal with recoil and stability.
[QUOTE=Zakkin;48982047]I figure you'd use that grip mostly for the trigger and keep a light grip, you'd use the foregrip and the butt stock more to deal with recoil and stability.[/QUOTE] It's less about how you hold it and more about recoil forces. A rifle that weighs 7lbs(3.5kg) or less, and fires a full size rifle round is down right painful. There's not enough mass in that MAS to reduce the felt recoil. Follow up shots also go out the window too.
I kinda dig this Tanker Garand conversion. [t]https://40.media.tumblr.com/0a82375192b2745b84914eec08544b24/tumblr_nwsx1zYqwS1r9khx4o3_1280.jpg[/t][t]https://41.media.tumblr.com/87902689c8282f4f3443d11fe3efcc40/tumblr_nwsx1zYqwS1r9khx4o2_1280.jpg[/t][t]https://41.media.tumblr.com/073ab555b5576a5c157791eef7cb3aaf/tumblr_nwsx1zYqwS1r9khx4o4_1280.jpg[/t] [t]https://40.media.tumblr.com/ef41be7cf842aaed3de4820925a9eebb/tumblr_nwsx1zYqwS1r9khx4o5_1280.jpg[/t][t]https://41.media.tumblr.com/ff9a254e243c158d2a98aaf72cdf6483/tumblr_nwsx1zYqwS1r9khx4o1_1280.jpg[/t]
[QUOTE=StrykerE;48982570]I kinda dig this Tanker Garand conversion. [t]https://40.media.tumblr.com/0a82375192b2745b84914eec08544b24/tumblr_nwsx1zYqwS1r9khx4o3_1280.jpg[/t][t]https://41.media.tumblr.com/87902689c8282f4f3443d11fe3efcc40/tumblr_nwsx1zYqwS1r9khx4o2_1280.jpg[/t][t]https://41.media.tumblr.com/073ab555b5576a5c157791eef7cb3aaf/tumblr_nwsx1zYqwS1r9khx4o4_1280.jpg[/t] [t]https://40.media.tumblr.com/ef41be7cf842aaed3de4820925a9eebb/tumblr_nwsx1zYqwS1r9khx4o5_1280.jpg[/t][t]https://41.media.tumblr.com/ff9a254e243c158d2a98aaf72cdf6483/tumblr_nwsx1zYqwS1r9khx4o1_1280.jpg[/t][/QUOTE] I gotta imagine that tanker garands make a positively glorious fireball
[QUOTE=PrusseLusken;48982360]Would bloody hate to use that in winter... Everyone who has handled a G3 during cold weater (freezing and below) knows how dangerous the alu mags are to your fingertips[/QUOTE] i don't know of many times they've used paratroopers in the winter
[QUOTE=mecaguy03;48981408]Its supposed to block the intense light from a nuclear blast, which can burn you if you are close enough.[/QUOTE] Most aircraft just used pulldown screens. It's a far more complicated method and does seem needed. [editline]26th October 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Sableye;48981447]well tactical nuclear weapons have their own problems besides generally cooking the person deploying it[/QUOTE] Tactical nuclear weapons have parachutes and laydown fuzing options for a reason. They don't cook their users.
[QUOTE=download;48982957]Most aircraft just used pulldown screens. It's a far more complicated method and does seem needed. [editline]26th October 2015[/editline] Tactical nuclear weapons have parachutes and laydown fuzing options for a reason. They don't cook their users.[/QUOTE] eh only a few of the tactical nuclear weapons were aircraft delivered, the davy crocket is an overused example, but others like the nuclear artillery shells, the nuclear armed unguided missiles, the nuclear armed SAMs and the nuclear armed anti-ship missiles, the operator didn't exactly have the luxury of being in a speeding airplane. the nuclear anti-air missiles and anti-ship missiles could easily do as much damage to the people below them or the ships near by them, and the artillery and unguided missiles don't really need any explanation as to why they're bad, an unexpected wind shift and your rocket doesn't go as far as intended, or you're troops are being bathed in nuclear debris
This sounds familiar. I could have sworn we've already had a discussion like this where you spout shit about nuclear weapons. Like in the last few weeks? I guess I'll pick it apart again. [QUOTE=Sableye;48983068]... but others like the nuclear artillery shells ...[/quote] Were fired from standard artillery guns and had essentially the same range as conventional shells (i.e. about 30km). The 155m versions have a yield under 100 tonnes while the 8" version had a yield of just over 1kt. The injury radius of both weapons would have been 1 to 2km. That's bullshit. [quote]... the nuclear armed unguided missiles ...[/quote] Fired exclusively from aircraft. [quote]... the nuclear armed SAMs ...[/quote] Most only had a yield in the 1 to 10kt range and had a flight ceiling of 40 or 50kms. If a jet was traveling close enough to you to kill you in the explosion then it would fly over you faster than it could be tracked with radar. [quote]... and the nuclear armed anti-ship missiles ...[/quote] If you're close enough to the enemy ships to be killed because of the nuclear weapon you fired then that is the least of your problems. [quote]... the operator didn't exactly have the luxury of being in a speeding airplane... [/quote] They had the luxury of equipment that could detect enemy aircraft and ships at a hundred miles. [quote]... the nuclear anti-air missiles and anti-ship missiles could easily do as much damage to the people below them or the ships near by them ...[/quote] No they wouldn't. We passed the age of close-range broadsides hundreds of years ago. [quote]... and the artillery and unguided missiles don't really need any explanation as to why they're bad ...[/quote] Actually they do need an explanation, because all you've posted so far is bullshit. [quote]... an unexpected wind shift and your rocket doesn't go as far as intended, or you're troops are being bathed in nuclear debris[/QUOTE] Uh, no? Even the Davy Crockett which people keep throwing around as a suicide device only had a 50rem radius of 800m. In a nuclear war 50rem would be a negligible dose. Hell, even now it's a negligible dose - 50rem is 0.5Sv (sieverts) which is the maximum occupation exposure in the US per year. And even then the smaller Davy Crockett had a range of 2km and would most likely be fired from a foxhole. [editline]26th October 2015[/editline] Please do some research in future instead of talking out of your ass.
[QUOTE=FloaterTWO;48980982] [t]http://www.imfdb.org/images/d/dd/RedDawnFakeHind05a.jpg[/t] [t]http://www.imfdb.org/images/8/8c/RedD84_64.jpg[/t][/QUOTE] These two are actually pretty good [quote][t]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/9988278/tanks/tonk.jpg[/t][/quote] This one too considering it's a god damn T-34/85 dressed up as a leopard
The first two are for Red Dawn, the MI-24 is a dressed up Aerospatiale Puma (with a nose that made flying it hard as fuck), and the T-72 is an M41 Walker Bulldog. the T-34 cosplaying as a Leopard is some Eastern European equivalent of the dressed up Sheridans and M113s that the US uses for Opfor vehicles.
So about those nuclear unguided rockets [T]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/48/MGR-3_Little_John_01.jpg/440px-MGR-3_Little_John_01.jpg[/t] Little john capable of being armed with a 10KT warhead, max range, only 19 kilometers but that's maximum possible range A 10kt blast radius is about 4 miles or 6 kilometers, if fired against the wind the range of this weapon can be greatly reduced since its burn time is very short only a few seconds after launch and flies on a balistic trajectory Also it's not an exactly reliable system, with the warhead just being impact detonated or time detonated [editline]26th October 2015[/editline] Also you're not firing these from the front lines
Not a spaceship... [img]http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/joelgun02.jpg[/img] It's a water cooled, bench rest gun in 300 Ackley Improved [img]http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/joelgun01.jpg[/img] [img]http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/joelgun03a.jpg[/img] [img]http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/pender1501.jpg[/img]
Water cooled? For what purpose? Does the barrel really get that hot firing one round every half hour or whatever the usual rate of fire is for those sort of guns?
[QUOTE=FloaterTWO;48988481]Water cooled? For what purpose? Does the barrel really get that hot firing one round every half hour or whatever the usual rate of fire is for those sort of guns?[/QUOTE] I guess maybe it helps stop parts from expanding with heat and misaligning them slightly.
Oh yeah, by the way... Relating to the story of Luty, that I had posted on Page 5, I missed one small fact. It wasn't only him that was arrested at first, his entire immediate family was detained for two week to three weeks.
[QUOTE=Sableye;48985755]So about those nuclear unguided rockets [T]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/48/MGR-3_Little_John_01.jpg/440px-MGR-3_Little_John_01.jpg[/t] Little john capable of being armed with a 10KT warhead, max range, only 19 kilometers but that's maximum possible range A 10kt blast radius is about 4 miles or 6 kilometers, if fired against the wind the range of this weapon can be greatly reduced since its burn time is very short only a few seconds after launch and flies on a balistic trajectory Also it's not an exactly reliable system, with the warhead just being impact detonated or time detonated [editline]26th October 2015[/editline] Also you're not firing these from the front lines[/QUOTE] Christ, how can you continuously spew so much shit? The 5psi radius (the pressure where residential buildings collapse) for a 10kt warhead is 1.5km. The 50rem radius is 1.7km. It's not anywhere near 6km. And to claim that the wind will reduce the effective range of a missile in any appreciable way is rubbish. Even 100km/hr gale force winds wouldn't do it. That's only ~27m/s or so, against a rocket with a low aerodynamic profile, going faster than the speed of sound. Not to mention that the fact the rocket has a short hard burn is completely irrelevant here. I'm not sure how you can make a comment on its reliability from its fuzing options. As for its firing locations, this - like nearly every other Western tactical nuclear weapon of the era - was designed for a delaying retreat. They would be firing this at approaching Soviet armour before falling back to the next defensive line. They would be the front line. And amazing, out of hundreds of nuclear weapons system developed by the West I forgot one. One that is an artillery system rather that a line of sight rocket system. And your comments are still bullshit regardless.
[QUOTE=download;48984555] Even the Davy Crockett which people keep throwing around as a suicide device only had a 50rem radius of 800m. In a nuclear war 50rem would be a negligible dose. Hell, even now it's a negligible dose - 50rem is 0.5Sv (sieverts) which is the maximum occupation exposure in the US per year. And even then the smaller Davy Crockett had a range of 2km and would most likely be fired from a foxhole. [/QUOTE] Gotta remember that the radiation figure you are citing there is just for the radiation from the weapons detonation. I think a more major concern for the crew (provided they weren't firing at a close target) would be fallout from the blast cloud blowing back at them, which would almost certainly happen if there was any kind of wind blowing in the launcher's direction. It's not gonna take a very long time for a giant cloud of debris to go a few hundred meters even in a light breeze. I mean calling it a suicide weapon is obviously an exaggeration, but you're making it sound perfectly safe for the crew and thats a little silly.
[QUOTE=Timebomb575;48990570]Gotta remember that the radiation figure you are citing there is just for the radiation from the weapons detonation. I think a more major concern for the crew (provided they weren't firing at a close target) would be fallout from the blast cloud blowing back at them, which would almost certainly happen if there was any kind of wind blowing in the launcher's direction. It's not gonna take a very long time for a giant cloud of debris to go a few hundred meters even in a light breeze. I mean calling it a suicide weapon is obviously an exaggeration, but you're making it sound perfectly safe for the crew and thats a little silly.[/QUOTE] Put on an NBC mask and you'll be dandy.
[QUOTE=Timebomb575;48990570]Gotta remember that the radiation figure you are citing there is just for the radiation from the weapons detonation. I think a more major concern for the crew (provided they weren't firing at a close target) would be fallout from the blast cloud blowing back at them, which would almost certainly happen if there was any kind of wind blowing in the launcher's direction. It's not gonna take a very long time for a giant cloud of debris to go a few hundred meters even in a light breeze. I mean calling it a suicide weapon is obviously an exaggeration, but you're making it sound perfectly safe for the crew and thats a little silly.[/QUOTE] No weapon is perfectly safe for its user. There is always the chance something could go wrong. I never claimed the opposite. As for fallout, the fallout from airburst nuclear weapons is incredibly low. Low enough that I just struggled for half and hour to find hard data on the topic. Even Nukemap - made by a rabid anti-nuclear guy - lists it as negligible.
All this nuke talks makes me wish we had OPpenheimer on facepunch. Easily the most interesting poster on /k/.
[QUOTE=richard9311;48991081]All this nuke talks makes me wish we had OPpenheimer on facepunch. Easily the most interesting poster on /k/.[/QUOTE] He hardly posts any more because people got a hold of his work email.
[QUOTE=download;48990840]No weapon is perfectly safe for its user. There is always the chance something could go wrong. I never claimed the opposite. As for fallout, the fallout from airburst nuclear weapons is incredibly low. Low enough that I just struggled for half and hour to find hard data on the topic. Even Nukemap - made by a rabid anti-nuclear guy - lists it as negligible.[/QUOTE] IIRC the Davey Crockett comes very very close to (or even contacts?) the ground before it goes off, otherwise it wouldn't be generating much of a cloud. The Davey Crockett is a pretty unique animal in that it is very low yield, which makes it very dirty radiation-wise. You cant really compare it to a normal air-bursted nuclear weapon which goes off hundreds if not thousands of meters above the surface, and if it is a thermonuclear device, will be a fairly clean after it goes off. as far as tactical nuclear weapons go, the Davey Crockett is significantly more dangerous to its users than other weapons because it had shit accuracy, poor range,was intended for direct fire, and produced a dirty-as-hell result. Plus the weapon's maximum range is orders of magnitude closer to the blast radius than ANY other tactical nuclear weapons system at the time. In fact I cant think of a tactical nuclear weapon that had less of a safety envelope than this thing.
[QUOTE=Timebomb575;48991212]IIRC the Davey Crockett comes very very close to (or even contacts?) the ground before it goes off, otherwise it wouldn't be generating much of a cloud. The Davey Crockett is a pretty unique animal in that it is very low yield, which makes it very dirty radiation-wise. You cant really compare it to a normal air-bursted nuclear weapon which goes off hundreds if not thousands of meters above the surface, and if it is a thermonuclear device, will be a fairly clean after it goes off. as far as tactical nuclear weapons go, the Davey Crockett is significantly more dangerous to its users than other weapons because it had shit accuracy, poor range,was intended for direct fire, and produced a dirty-as-hell result. Plus the weapon's maximum range is orders of magnitude closer to the blast radius than ANY other tactical nuclear weapons system at the time. In fact I cant think of a tactical nuclear weapon that had less of a safety envelope than this thing.[/QUOTE] Pretty sure the Davey Crockett was not a direct fire munition.
[QUOTE=$$>MUFFIN<$$;48991233]Pretty sure the Davey Crockett was not a direct fire munition.[/QUOTE] well I mean, it had a spotting rifle, which certainly implies to me that it was intended for direct fire. [editline]e[/editline] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spotting_rifle[/url] [quote]Spotting rifles were most commonly used with recoilless rifles as anti-tank artillery, from the 1950s to the 1970s.[B] These weapons are used for direct fire with line-of-sight visibility to the target.[/B] [/quote]
[QUOTE=Timebomb575;48991238]well I mean, it had a spotting rifle, which certainly implies to me that it was intended for direct fire.[/QUOTE] Spotting rifle is actually a 37mm gun that fired something similar to a small tracer mortar.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.