[QUOTE=PrusseluskenV2;27036775]And the fact that it is heavy, bulky, awkward to reload, uses inconvenient ammo and was in general a bitch "rifle".[/QUOTE]The rest are valid concerns, but in what way was the ammo inconvenient?
[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;27036940]The rest are valid concerns, but in what way was the ammo inconvenient?[/QUOTE]
Shit expensive
[QUOTE=PrusseluskenV2;27036775]And the fact that it is heavy, bulky, awkward to reload, uses inconvenient ammo and was in general a bitch "rifle".[/QUOTE]
I think the weight argument is wrong
[img]http://www.hkpro.com/image/g11compare.jpg[/img]
(this was before the M4 was in service)
[QUOTE=PrusseluskenV2;27037749]Oh, okay.
I still don't understand why the US chose the M4, anyone care to elaborate why they didn't pick something like the G3?
[editline]29th December 2010[/editline]
m16 and m4*[/QUOTE]
Primarily it was armalite's parent company lobbying for it.
[editline]28th December 2010[/editline]
Fairchild Engine and Airplane organization to be exact.
[QUOTE=PrusseluskenV2;27037749]Oh, okay.
I still don't understand why the US chose the M4, anyone care to elaborate why they didn't pick something like the G3?
[editline]29th December 2010[/editline]
m16 and m4*[/QUOTE]
Because at the time, it was efficient and cost effective and we needed guns, FAST.
Mostly lobbyism I bet
[QUOTE=PrusseluskenV2;27037749]Oh, okay.
I still don't understand why the US chose the M4, anyone care to elaborate why they didn't pick something like the G3?
[editline]29th December 2010[/editline]
m16 and m4*[/QUOTE]
Because intermediate assault rifles are more versatile than battle rifles.
[QUOTE=Campin Carl;27037683]I think the weight argument is wrong
[img_thumb]http://www.hkpro.com/image/g11compare.jpg[/img_thumb]
(this was before the M4 was in service)[/QUOTE]
-snip-
Edit:
Complete brain fart and misreading on my part sorry.
[QUOTE=PrusseluskenV2;27037749]Oh, okay.
I still don't understand why the US chose the M4, anyone care to elaborate why they didn't pick something like the G3?
[editline]29th December 2010[/editline]
m16 and m4*[/QUOTE]
It was actually a pretty logical progression if I recall correctly.
Basically they looked at combat throughout the two world wars and realized that there were some definite oddities between what they thought was happening on the battlefield and what was actually going on.
They assumed groups were engaging each other at long distance and that accuracy was of paramount importance. This turned out to largely be false. Squads usually surprised each other and engaged at short range. Soldiers carrying fully automatic weapons tended to not only engage more frequently (not simply shoot more bullets, but actually engage fresh targets more readily) but also generally shoot their rifles with a higher frequency compared to normal soldiers (who often never fired at all).
So based on this, they figured that soldiers needed a weapon capable of rapid accurate fire at closer ranges. This requires more bullets, obviously, and thus a smaller caliber in order to haul more of them. Since the finding showed that QUANTITY of rounds down range played a MUCH more important role than the QUALITY of the marksmanship of the squad in determining the victor of an engagement, the drop in lethality was considered acceptable.
This was all ignored and the military pursued the program which eventually produced the M14. But interestingly enough, the M14 was very much NOT the best rifle of the competition. The AR-10 was. The AR-10 bested both the FN FAL (I believe, it may have been the G3.) but had a barrel detonate during a torture test because they were testing out a new barrel design. They fixed it, but ultimately lost the competition as a result. In truth the rifle was lighter, more accurate, and ultimately sported better recoil management than the other two rifles.
When the military finally paid attention after having some trouble with the M14 during the Korean conflict and took into consideration the report made after WWI and WWII, they put out the call for a rifle capable of rapid fire with a smaller caliber. The AR-15 was entered and it flat out raped all the competition. All the things that made the AR-10 awesome worked even better with a smaller caliber.
So the AR-15 was adopted because the AR-15 met, or exceeded, the specifications called for by the military at the time.
Feel free to correct me on the details, I wrote it based on what I recalled from a book. I could walk across the room and get the book off my shelf to confirm my information, but my room is cold, so screw that.
Hey folks, Don't frequent this thread much, but I got a question for ya.
I pulled my Mosin Nagant out of its case today, and took a look at the bolt. To my shock, I saw to splotches of brown on top of the bolt itself.. I tried to wipe it off(even took a sponge to it), but nothing seems to work. It looks like it's just on the finish, as when I rub my finger over it, it feels no different and doesnt appear to gone into the metal at all. I have a feeling it may be a stain from excess cleaning fluid, but I honestly don't know. Here's a picture of each area on it.
[img]http://lh5.ggpht.com/_WLPuiaTbrZ8/TRup4YYI2UI/AAAAAAAAADw/9W84bHfOZWY/s800/2010-12-29-16.28.56.jpg[/img]
[img]http://lh3.ggpht.com/_WLPuiaTbrZ8/TRupIskJyWI/AAAAAAAAADs/5WuumC6FtgA/s800/2010-12-29-16.29.45.jpg[/img]
The last time it was out of the case was on the 11th, and it appeared to have been fine then. It doesn't seem serious, but I am a bit concerned. Any help is much appreciated, even if it's just pointing me in the direction of someone that might know.
It's probably a stain, that's what happened to my butterfly knives.
Looks like the beginnings of some surface rust to me...
My damn revolver is on backorder. Going to get them to substitute it with this:
[img]http://c1.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/111/l_ca790e8852c41ed24857bb130bac7090.jpg[/img]
Ruger Blackhawk .357 Single Action
...But they say they might have to backorder that one too. Fffffffuuu-
Any idea what I could do about removing it? If I even can?
[QUOTE=capgun;27062207]Any idea what I could do about removing it? If I even can?[/QUOTE]
Sanding it without doing to much harm, then Buff it back to shine and sparkle. That might work.
[QUOTE=Gubru;27060230]My damn revolver is on backorder. Going to get them to substitute it with this:
[img_thumb]http://c1.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/111/l_ca790e8852c41ed24857bb130bac7090.jpg[/img_thumb]
Ruger Blackhawk .357 Single Action
...But they say they might have to backorder that one too. Fffffffuuu-[/QUOTE]
Fan the hammer at the shooting range.
[editline]29th December 2010[/editline]
Wear your "Deal With It" shades.
[QUOTE=capgun;27062207]Any idea what I could do about removing it? If I even can?[/QUOTE]
Browning Oil, if you don't have that,
Rem Oil, if you don't have that,
Hoppe's Number 9.
Dip a ear cleaner in it and swab it. rub it with a cloth. Do this a few times.
[QUOTE=Gubru;27060230]My damn revolver is on backorder. Going to get them to substitute it with this:
[img_thumb]http://c1.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/111/l_ca790e8852c41ed24857bb130bac7090.jpg[/img_thumb]
Ruger Blackhawk .357 Single Action
...But they say they might have to backorder that one too. Fffffffuuu-[/QUOTE]
Something about that looks very uncomfortable.
[QUOTE=Sharp;27062979][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evr_tP9cJWY[/media][/QUOTE]
Pretty much yeah
He should do one about someone trying to buy from a gunshop
[QUOTE=EagleEye;27035454]I ended up getting the 10/22 today, haven't shot it yet, still cleaning it, but I feel like I made a pretty solid buy.[/QUOTE]
10/22's are fucking fun to shoot, if you learn to use a sling right to control recoil you can very accurately empty a 10 round mag without missing.
Tryna get my dad to buy the 10/22 conversion kit, you get two 10/22's and make this
[img]http://images.cabelas.com/is/image/cabelas/s7_227757_999_02?rgn=0,0,1228,1025&scl=3.231578947368421&fmt=jpeg&id=2gmA21Wa8rZVFQwrYuZGjK[/img]
or atleast buy some 50 round mags
[url]http://www.cabelas.com/product/Gatling-Gun-Kit/741483.uts?Ntk=AllProducts&searchPath=%2Fcatalog%2Fsearch.cmd%3Fform_state%3DsearchForm%26N%3D0%26fsch%3Dtrue%26Ntk%3DAllProducts%26Ntt%3Dgatling%26x%3D0%26y%3D0%26WTz_l%3DHeader%253BSearch-All%2BProducts&Ntt=gatling&WTz_l=Header;Search-All%20Products[/url]
[QUOTE=GunFox;27038753]It was actually a pretty logical progression if I recall correctly.
Basically they looked at combat throughout the two world wars and realized that there were some definite oddities between what they thought was happening on the battlefield and what was actually going on.
They assumed groups were engaging each other at long distance and that accuracy was of paramount importance. This turned out to largely be false. Squads usually surprised each other and engaged at short range. Soldiers carrying fully automatic weapons tended to not only engage more frequently (not simply shoot more bullets, but actually engage fresh targets more readily) but also generally shoot their rifles with a higher frequency compared to normal soldiers (who often never fired at all).
So based on this, they figured that soldiers needed a weapon capable of rapid accurate fire at closer ranges. This requires more bullets, obviously, and thus a smaller caliber in order to haul more of them. Since the finding showed that QUANTITY of rounds down range played a MUCH more important role than the QUALITY of the marksmanship of the squad in determining the victor of an engagement, the drop in lethality was considered acceptable.
This was all ignored and the military pursued the program which eventually produced the M14. But interestingly enough, the M14 was very much NOT the best rifle of the competition. The AR-10 was. The AR-10 bested both the FN FAL (I believe, it may have been the G3.) but had a barrel detonate during a torture test because they were testing out a new barrel design. They fixed it, but ultimately lost the competition as a result. In truth the rifle was lighter, more accurate, and ultimately sported better recoil management than the other two rifles.
When the military finally paid attention after having some trouble with the M14 during the Korean conflict and took into consideration the report made after WWI and WWII, they put out the call for a rifle capable of rapid fire with a smaller caliber. The AR-15 was entered and it flat out raped all the competition. All the things that made the AR-10 awesome worked even better with a smaller caliber.
So the AR-15 was adopted because the AR-15 met, or exceeded, the specifications called for by the military at the time.
Feel free to correct me on the details, I wrote it based on what I recalled from a book. I could walk across the room and get the book off my shelf to confirm my information, but my room is cold, so screw that.[/QUOTE]
Is that why the council adopted thermal clip technology after the Sovereign incident?
[img]http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100205161607/masseffect/images/4/4f/M15Vindicator.png[/img]
Can't go onto page 833. :byodood:
Edit: So That's why..
[QUOTE=c0nk3r;27097297]10/22's are fucking fun to shoot, if you learn to use a sling right to control recoil you can very accurately empty a 10 round mag without missing.
Tryna get my dad to buy the 10/22 conversion kit, you get two 10/22's and make this
[img_thumb]http://images.cabelas.com/is/image/cabelas/s7_227757_999_02?rgn=0,0,1228,1025&scl=3.231578947368421&fmt=jpeg&id=2gmA21Wa8rZVFQwrYuZGjK[/img_thumb]
or atleast buy some 50 round mags
[url]http://www.cabelas.com/product/Gatling-Gun-Kit/741483.uts?Ntk=AllProducts&searchPath=%2Fcatalog%2Fsearch.cmd%3Fform_state%3DsearchForm%26N%3D0%26fsch%3Dtrue%26Ntk%3DAllProducts%26Ntt%3Dgatling%26x%3D0%26y%3D0%26WTz_l%3DHeader%253BSearch-All%2BProducts&Ntt=gatling&WTz_l=Header;Search-All%20Products[/url][/QUOTE]
Someone should make an AR-15 version of that. Or better yet, an 7.62 x 39mm AK version so you can use drum mags.
Does anyone here own more than 35 guns?
Got about 8 hours of work put into this. I'll take better pictures when I get a few odds and ends that don't seem to come through with an imported one. Already have the correct eye piece in the mail.
[img]http://i56.tinypic.com/vy78d4.jpg[/img]
Got it a few days ago, and it's a pretty amazing rifle. Once it's finally finished up, I'd really prefer it to an SVD for quite a few reasons, especially since it uses mostly AK-47 parts which are common and easily modified to do what ever you want. It shares almost all the same internal parts with my saiga 12 so that's a double bonus. I have the trigger down to around 3 pounds and the hook angled to make for a half-assed 2 stage trigger, but it works very well. All internal contact points are either lapped together or polished with an abrasive dremel polishing bit. The action is purely butter as opposed to the stuttering mess it came out of the box in.
For those not in the know, it's a romanian PSL. It fires the same round as the mosin, but it's semi automatic and uses 10 round magazines. Has a 24" barrel and the whole gun is around 4ft long. It weighs 10 pounds even when fully loaded.
The scope is a german manufacture IOR 4x6°TIP2 in perfect condition. Absolutely beautiful glass, comparable to ACOGs I've used in the past.
Quite a rifle if you have the tools and the time to turn it into a shooter. Out of the box, for the average joe, it's not going to work out well.
[QUOTE=Lamp Shade;21152972]I cant believe that people are actually doing this but...
[img_thumb]http://www.infobarrel.com/media/image/937.jpg[/img_thumb]
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ljd_hUxCfI[/url]
what do you people think of this? a stroke of genius or a monstrosity?:iiam:[/QUOTE]
Reminds me of that gun from Gears of War. Now what was it called again?
Lancer
[QUOTE=Bigboy855;27098822]Does anyone here own more than 35 guns?[/QUOTE]
My dad owns 33.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.