• Coolest/Ugliest Weapons v7 - SHOTGUNS
    5,001 replies, posted
[QUOTE=TacticalBacon;50351093]The original Total Recall was made 9 years before the PAW-20 so I'm gonna say no. Only movies it's been in are District 9 and Chappie AFAIK. [t]http://i.imgur.com/ZdlLARv.jpg[/t] Looks even more awkward to hold from the front[/QUOTE] Ya actually they used calico m900s which sort of look like the paw-20 [editline]19th May 2016[/editline] Huh, according to imfdb that movie had a lot of interesting guns but think the most unusual is the Remington shotgun on Mars... Of all the things to bring to Mars, a 12 gauge to stick under a bar?
[QUOTE=Sableye;50352798] Of all the things to bring to Mars, a 12 gauge to stick under a bar?[/QUOTE] tbh If I had to bring ONE gun with me to any kind of lawless/wild place, it would be an 870 or an M500 shotguns are just absurdly versitile, and the 870/M500 are basically indestructible, require very minimal maintenance, and are super easy to fix if they do break.
Cylinder choke 12ga break action. Literally anything that somewhat fits in the barrel can be fired from it.
[QUOTE=Sableye;50352798]Ya actually they used calico m900s which sort of look like the paw-20[/QUOTE] [t]http://www.quarryhs.co.uk/neopup1.jpg[/t] [t]http://picturearchive.gunauction.com/3384140413/11568098/calico1.jpg[/t] I'm not seeing even a remote similarity. I guess they both have pistol grips and triggers, but that's about as far as it goes.
[QUOTE=FloaterTWO;50353488][t]http://www.quarryhs.co.uk/neopup1.jpg[/t] [t]http://picturearchive.gunauction.com/3384140413/11568098/calico1.jpg[/t] I'm not seeing even a remote similarity. I guess they both have pistol grips and triggers, but that's about as far as it goes.[/QUOTE] "Sort of look like" meaning they have loose similarities. Saying they sort of look like an AR-15 would be absurd, but I think you're being a little critical
[QUOTE=FloaterTWO;50353488][t]http://www.quarryhs.co.uk/neopup1.jpg[/t] [t]http://picturearchive.gunauction.com/3384140413/11568098/calico1.jpg[/t] I'm not seeing even a remote similarity. I guess they both have pistol grips and triggers, but that's about as far as it goes.[/QUOTE] It's not exactly like they're prominent on the middle of the screen, plus I haven't seen the movie in probably a year now. They were used by side screen guards and in the bar scene, everybody else used a mix of uzis and other guns [editline]20th May 2016[/editline] It has that boxy look of a late 80s gun that would be in a grimdark future movie from the late 80s [editline]20th May 2016[/editline] I wish we still had movies like that....all the grim dark future movies today are very shit YA shit, at least a bad Arnold action movie still was perfectly watchable and sometimes had a surprising amount of thought behind it for an over the top action movie, look at running man, it's got so much going on besides the cheesy fight scenes, a dude tries to rape someone, bomb collars, the whole prison entertainment complex... [editline]20th May 2016[/editline] Somewhere gritty replaced grim and goth replaced dark
[QUOTE=FloaterTWO;50353488][t]http://www.quarryhs.co.uk/neopup1.jpg[/t] [t]http://picturearchive.gunauction.com/3384140413/11568098/calico1.jpg[/t] I'm not seeing even a remote similarity. I guess they both have pistol grips and triggers, but that's about as far as it goes.[/QUOTE] They have a lot of similarity in that they are both very 'strange' and far from looking like anything else; which means if you only sort-of kinda remember which one it was, you'd just categorize it as 'weird-ass looking gun', and then when you later see another weird-ass looking gun, that gun reminds you of the first one.
[vid]http://s1.webmshare.com/YXNoO.webm[/vid] [editline]20th May 2016[/editline] A Moskit missile. Has the Nato reporting name of "Sunburn".
[QUOTE=download;50356578][vid]http://s1.webmshare.com/YXNoO.webm[/vid] [editline]20th May 2016[/editline] A Moskit missile. Has the Nato reporting name of "Sunburn".[/QUOTE] While that was all very impressive to look at, how much [I]actual[/I] damage did it do? Because it looks like a lot of superficial explosions and fireworks with no real structural damage. Sure, everyone on the deck would have a pretty poor day after that, but I don't see any immediate serious damage.
[QUOTE=Riller;50356602]While that was all very impressive to look at, how much [I]actual[/I] damage did it do? Because it looks like a lot of superficial explosions and fireworks with no real structural damage. Sure, everyone on the deck would have a pretty poor day after that, but I don't see any immediate serious damage.[/QUOTE] The missile went from end to end of the ship. That's sure as hell not "no real structural damage".
[QUOTE=download;50356615]The missile went from end to end of the ship. That's sure as hell not "no real structural damage".[/QUOTE] Oh, okay. It looked like an airburst followed by cluster bombs to me.
[media]http://youtu.be/CYMtX3E-Lgs[/media]
[QUOTE=proboardslol;50351433]We tolkin' bout cheppie? [img]http://vipfanauctions.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/ninjayellow.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] Wait, are D9 and Chappie in the same universe? I haven't seen Chappie but that emblem on his arm and vest is the emblem of a MNU battalion in District 9.
[QUOTE=Viper123_SWE;50356814]Wait, are D9 and Chappie in the same universe? I haven't seen Chappie but that emblem on his arm and vest is the emblem of a MNU battalion in District 9.[/QUOTE] They aren't in the same universe, but that's a cool connection.
[QUOTE=Destroyox;50346095]AC-130s are cool as shit and pretty much personify American air doctrine, but aren't they kinda useless against an enemy with actual AA?[/QUOTE] Late reply but if the enemy has emplaced AA its usually part of military doctrine to conduct SEAD operations prior to the use of CAS aircraft. Basically if there was any static threat its probably destroyed by the time CAS arrives. I imagine if there is suspected mobile SAM threat reconnaissance would be constantly underway to detect and destroy anything before it has a chance to shoot down something big like an AC-130. also wow SA-3s are intimidating. [thumb]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/EX-Iraqi_SA-3_Goa_missile_gets_scrapped.JPEG[/thumb] [img]http://www.ausairpower.net/PVO-S/5P73-Launcher-Deployed-MiroslavGyurosi-1S.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=Sitkero;50347664][img]https://67.media.tumblr.com/40d126189bad2875178bdf84d2bbd40a/tumblr_o6ieb3Cwk81uoks3ko1_1280.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] which csgo case is this
[QUOTE=seba079;50356755][media]http://youtu.be/CYMtX3E-Lgs[/media][/QUOTE] Imagine getting punked by tiny ass robot, how embarrassing!
They always came up with intimidating names for a reason for Soviet AA missiles
[QUOTE=Sableye;50357621]They always came up with intimidating names for a reason for Soviet AA missiles[/QUOTE] Mostly because the NATO reporting names had to start with G for [B]G[/B]round-to-air. [editline]20th May 2016[/editline] Which resulted in such [I]terrifying[/I] names as Guild Guideline Grumble Gopher Grinch Or the SA-3 in question, with it's name that sends chills down any spine... [I]Goa...[/I] Or maybe you mean the Russian designation of Neva or Pechora, two absolutely terrifying-... Mid-sized rivers.
At least it's not the fighter reporting names. Farmer, Fishpot, Flashlight... [t]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2d/DATANGSHAN_AVAITION_MUSEUM_BEIJING_CHINA_OCT_2012_%288643131848%29.jpg[/t] ...Fagot.
[img]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/ba/9M111_AT-4_Spigot.jpg[/img] The Fagot
Shut up, you're both posting fagot-pics.
In other news, the best MLRS of all time: [t]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/LCT%28R%29_459.png[/t] The LCT(R); or Landing Craft, Tank, Rocket. Because the brits had a few tank-landing-crafts left over before D-day, so they decided to weld the doors shut, bolt on a new deck on top of it, and just fuckin' [I]stuff[/I] it with rocket artillery. How much rocket artillery, you ask? [t]http://www.wrecksite.eu/img/wrecks/100619604.jpg[/t] 1.066 tubes. And you may be thinking "Oh, with that many tubes, it's probably just launching puny baby rockets!". But no. RP-3's. Warhead has 60 pounds, or 27 kg, of explosives in it. That's almost 29 metric tons of rocket propelled fuck-you landing three kilometers down range.
I still like the US missile ships because they had these cool autoloading turrets and this is 1944 [T]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6d/Uss_Pee_Dee_River_LSMR-517.jpg[/t] [editline]20th May 2016[/editline] They spat out an impressive amount of missiles, not quite as heavy as the big one you posted but as far as cool factor goes, it had autoloading missile launchers in the 40s on electrically driven turrets where as the other ship just shot off everything from rails
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrM-SqeWX3o[/media] Yeah. That's something I wouldn't want to be getting shot by, that's for damn sure.
Sounds pretty scary too
I love early US rocket artillery in general, it's all either overly complicated or scarily simple, like the John's missiles, they're just big dumb rockets that got progressively bigger Then on the other side we had the snarks, matadors and maces which were overly complicated, mousetrap designed rocket-jet-missile things The snark was a rocket that launched a jet that fired a nuke, how more convoluted could you get? Also none of it worked particularly well but we pressed on, whereas the Soviets focused mainly on dumb fired artillery and antiair [editline]21st May 2016[/editline] We spent an inordinate amount of time and money on strategic cruise missiles which by the mid 60s were pretty much all dumped for icbms
[QUOTE=Riller;50360073]In other news, the best MLRS of all time: [t]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/LCT%28R%29_459.png[/t] The LCT(R); or Landing Craft, Tank, Rocket. Because the brits had a few tank-landing-crafts left over before D-day, so they decided to weld the doors shut, bolt on a new deck on top of it, and just fuckin' [I]stuff[/I] it with rocket artillery. How much rocket artillery, you ask? [t]http://www.wrecksite.eu/img/wrecks/100619604.jpg[/t] 1.066 tubes. And you may be thinking "Oh, with that many tubes, it's probably just launching puny baby rockets!". But no. RP-3's. Warhead has 60 pounds, or 27 kg, of explosives in it. That's almost 29 metric tons of rocket propelled fuck-you landing three kilometers down range.[/QUOTE] [vid]https://my.mixtape.moe/ukmauk.webm[/vid] I knew saving this video would come in handy. They dropped a shit load of these babies on Okinawa.
No that's hedgehog, they used those to blow up German U-boats, the idea being you fire a 'net' of contact charges, it didn't work all that well initially, but by the end of the war they were better than depth charges because 1 or 2 hits would sink a sub vs the cumulative blasts from a depth charge [editline]21st May 2016[/editline] There was a variant used for clearing landmines on beaches though
[QUOTE=Sableye;50365047] We spent an inordinate amount of time and money on strategic cruise missiles which by the mid 60s were pretty much all dumped for icbms[/QUOTE] And then brought back a decade or two later :v:
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.