[QUOTE=download;50368264]And then brought back a decade or two later :v:[/QUOTE]
Well the tomahawk and similar cruse missiles are worlds away in terms of design from the monsters of the 1950s, they were also designed as a solution to the problem of the bomber not getting through unlike the earlier ones which were essentially ICBMs of their age
I can't be the only one that hates NATO reporting names, half of them just sound so stupid.
Fishbed, Spandrel, Sagger, Goa etc
I understand the purpose but the Russian/Soviet names sound way better
[editline]22nd May 2016[/editline]
And the fact that a lot of their self propelled guns are named after flowers which just seems funny to me.
For example
[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dianthus_caryophyllus]The 2S1 Gvozdika[/url],[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acacia]The 2S3 Akatsiya[/url], [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip]The 2S4 Tyulpan[/url] and the [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyacinth_(plant)]The 2S5 Giantsint-S[/url]
[QUOTE=Araknid;50370185]
And the fact that a lot of their self propelled guns are named after flowers which just seems funny to me.
[/QUOTE]
What about a giant ass mrls shooting thermobaric rockets, mounted on a tank chassis and named Buratino (a cartoon character and basically a russian variant of Pinocchio). Or handcuffs named "nezhnost" (tenderness). Some guys in the military industry have a really good time inventing names for our stuff.
[img]https://67.media.tumblr.com/40d126189bad2875178bdf84d2bbd40a/tumblr_o6ieb3Cwk81uoks3ko1_1280.jpg[/img]
So ugly with the 7.62x39 AR mags and the MP40 folding stock...
[t]http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/0521161007.jpg[/t]
[QUOTE=antianan;50370233]What about a giant ass mrls shooting thermobaric rockets, mounted on a tank chassis and named Buratino (a cartoon character and basically a russian variant of Pinocchio). Or handcuffs named "nezhnost" (tenderness). Some guys in the military industry have a really good time inventing names for our stuff.[/QUOTE]
And default name for all russian teargas grenades is "Сheremukha" ( bird-cherry tree). Feel our love.
[QUOTE=MAC21500;50370407]
So ugly with the 7.62x39 AR mags and the MP40 folding stock...
[t]http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/0521161007.jpg[/t][/QUOTE]
Ew :vomit:
I always thought that NATO codenames were supposed to be for the most part meaningless aside from the first letter, they are supposed to be things that are easy to memorize and that dont come up often in normal conversation.
[QUOTE=antianan;50370233]What about a giant ass mrls shooting thermobaric rockets, mounted on a tank chassis and named Buratino (a cartoon character and basically a russian variant of Pinocchio). Or handcuffs named "nezhnost" (tenderness). Some guys in the military industry have a really good time inventing names for our stuff.[/QUOTE]
I know, it's great.
[editline]22nd May 2016[/editline]
Gotta have a bit of fun in all the misery amirite
[t]http://i.imgur.com/lUo0ITr.jpg[/t]
Seeing a much more tame 'modernization/sporterized' historic gun like this is so much more refreshing after seeing sone of the tacticooled railed Mosins and SKS' and shit.
speaking of nato codenames reminded me of this
WITNESS THE FISHBED
[video]https://youtu.be/CsF4WBNXl0s[/video]
This is probably the one aircraft I am the most familiar with because of DCS.
[QUOTE=Araknid;50370185]I can't be the only one that hates NATO reporting names, half of them just sound so stupid.
Fishbed, Spandrel, Sagger, Goa etc[/QUOTE]
Phonetically distinct, alphabetically classified and easy to remember. You always know what's being reported, and you're very unlikely to mistake it for anything else. It's a pretty great system. Sure, the Russian names are 'better', but that's because they don't have to use their naming of their own stuff as an intuitive warning system; they can call 'em whatever they want.
[QUOTE=MAC21500;50370407]So ugly with the 7.62x39 AR mags and the MP40 folding stock...
[t]http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/0521161007.jpg[/t][/QUOTE]
I would almost be inclined to like this, if the MP40 (Actually AKS but we'll let that slide 'cause they're almost the same and it's clearly the aesthetic they're going for) stock looked like a natural part of the rifle and not literally bolted on to the ass of it with a MP5-esque adapter. Also the tall ACOG weirdly bolted on top of the already-raised sight block and the duckbill flash hider just look out of place. An actual para-carbine-ish period-styled StG-44 clone would be hellacool though.
[QUOTE=mecaguy03;50370491]speaking of nato codenames reminded me of this
WITNESS THE FISHBED
[video]https://youtu.be/CsF4WBNXl0s[/video]
This is probably the one aircraft I am the most familiar with because of DCS.[/QUOTE]
I always get that and the su-7 confused
[editline]22nd May 2016[/editline]
[t]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/14/Su-7.JPG[/t]
Clearly very different designs from very different eras
[t]http://i.imgur.com/KcuXy8X.jpg[/t][t]http://russianplanes.net/images/to126000/125027.jpg[/t]
A "MiG-28" painted up like a T-50 PAK-FA
[QUOTE=MAC21500;50370407]So ugly with the 7.62x39 AR mags and the MP40 folding stock...
[t]http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/0521161007.jpg[/t][/QUOTE]
They fucked up the underfolder, how disappointing. A lot of the mockups out there make it look like a much better idea.
[t]http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/bd44-folding-stock-01.jpg[/t]
[t]http://gunlab.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/scan_Page_06cs.jpg[/t]
Glad I didn't wait for it. Might still buy a full stocked one if they get good reviews though.
[QUOTE=Sableye;50368618]Well the tomahawk and similar cruse missiles are worlds away in terms of design from the monsters of the 1950s, they were also designed as a solution to the problem of the bomber not getting through unlike the earlier ones which were essentially ICBMs of their age[/QUOTE]
Case in point: the [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersonic_Low_Altitude_Missile"]Supersonic Low Altitude Missile[/URL]. An honest-to-god nuclear powered ramjet.
[QUOTE=Psychokitten;50374293]Case in point: the [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersonic_Low_Altitude_Missile"]Supersonic Low Altitude Missile[/URL]. An honest-to-god nuclear powered ramjet.[/QUOTE]
The warhead wasn't even the deadliest thing, program that thing to fly around Moscow for a bit and you've now successfully ensured nobody's having children, if they shoot it down they've just irradiated the city
These things would have made a great addition to dr strangelove
[video=youtube;JqfpxqIK8VY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqfpxqIK8VY[/video]
900-1000 rounds per minute on a clunky pistol like the cz96 is damn scary
i love how clunky this gun's action is (don't get me wrong, it has every reason to be)
[editline]23rd May 2016[/editline]
also the name
I love the literalness of the name. "Fast Fire".
I love the C96, what a beautiful and iconic little handgun.
Shame that manufacturers don't try to make semi modernized versions
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;50381075]I love the literalness of the name. "Fast Fire".
I love the C96, what a beautiful and iconic little handgun.
Shame that manufacturers don't try to make semi modernized versions[/QUOTE]
It would be way too expensive. The amount of machining needed along with the nightmarish internals of a basic C96 would put a modern repro well north of $2000. On top of that, it would not be able to mount a stock without a stamp due to it being new manufacture, in the US at least.
[QUOTE=Lone_Star94;50381087]It would be way too expensive. The amount of machining needed along with the nightmarish internals of a basic C96 would put a modern repro well north of $2000. On top of that, it would not be able to mount a stock without a stamp due to it being new manufacture, in the US at least.[/QUOTE]
1) You underestimate what people would be willing to pay for a repro gun
2) Not having it be SBR would be fine to most people
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;50381075]I love the literalness of the name. "Fast Fire".
I love the C96, what a beautiful and iconic little handgun.
Shame that manufacturers don't try to make semi modernized versions[/QUOTE]
look how wobbly that gun is, its not really a good mechanism, it just worked well enough and chinese loved it (or more accurately, they loved copying it, see his videos on c96 clones)
[QUOTE=Sableye;50381114]look how wobbly that gun is, its not really a good mechanism, it just worked well enough and chinese loved it (or more accurately, they loved copying it, see his videos on c96 clones)[/QUOTE]
Technically, neither was the STG-44. It had hilarious complexities and was a bitch to clean iirc, but people froth at the mouth to have the opportunity to have one
[editline]23rd May 2016[/editline]
Again, collectors don't give a good god damn about the wobbliness of a gun. If it gets to go pew pew and they can have their hands on one, they don't care
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;50381142]Technically, neither was the STG-44. It had hilarious complexities and was a bitch to clean iirc, but people froth at the mouth to have the opportunity to have one
[editline]23rd May 2016[/editline]
Again, collectors don't give a good god damn about the wobbliness of a gun. If it gets to go pew pew and they can have their hands on one, they don't care[/QUOTE]
Oh no I'm not saying it shouldn't be reproduced, but c96's are not really rare, there's just not much that can be done to modernize the gun, it's form is really dictated by function there's really not much that can be done to fix the wobbly mechanism or the gnashing hammer/slide on the back. Making it out of modern metals probably won't do much to fix the guns shortcomings which are mostly mechanical
What's cool is that multiaxis CNC machines are crashing in price so it's not inconceivable that you could get one made in the near future without costing tens of thousands
but they don't caaaaaaare it's a c96 it's all they care about
they don't care about its wobbliness
they don't care about the cost of machining and the intensive process of cleaning
it's a c96, that makes it worthwhile to them
I think he's commenting more on the modernized part than the C96 repro part. Modernizing a design as outdated is about as stupid as modernizing another crazy outdated design, like say, the 1911. Nobody would be dumb enough to waste time and money doing th-...
[t]http://www.springfield-armory.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/PX9110MLP.png[/t]
Oh...
[t]http://gunblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/sig-VII.jpg[/t]
Ooh...
[t]https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/0c/3f/3f/0c3f3fc3b311fe566a3329eca5abe824.jpg[/t]
Ohhh.. :c
Underwater dakka is good dakka:
[IMG]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/55/APS_underwater_rifle_REMOV.jpg[/IMG]
[video=youtube;7PaUNIbztus]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PaUNIbztus[/video]
baby dakka (this is from a few months ago, probably a repost)
[QUOTE=DaBeaver;50382360]Underwater dakka is good dakka:
[t]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/55/APS_underwater_rifle_REMOV.jpg[/t][/QUOTE]
is the magazine's shape like that at the bottom just because there's only the magazine spring there?
the Wikipedia article about the gun doesn't tell me anything about it at all.
[QUOTE=cynaraos;50388171]is the magazine's shape like that at the bottom just because there's only the magazine spring there?
the Wikipedia article about the gun doesn't tell me anything about it at all.[/QUOTE]
No, it's because you'd load the magazine up with 15 rounds of underwater harpoon ammo to dispatch of any portside sentries from under the water and counter enemy divers. The last 5 round in the magazine would then be regular cartridges, for once you exit the water and need to fight regularly above it, so you got five rounds to clear any immediate threats before reloading regular magazines.
[QUOTE=Riller;50388513]No, it's because you'd load the magazine up with 15 rounds of underwater harpoon ammo to dispatch of any portside sentries from under the water and counter enemy divers. The last 5 round in the magazine would then be regular cartridges, for once you exit the water and need to fight regularly above it, so you got five rounds to clear any immediate threats before reloading regular magazines.[/QUOTE]
I'm sceptical a normal cartridge would have enough support to reliably get from the back of the magazine to the chamber.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.