Way too tacticool? Or ok?
[img]http://img253.imageshack.us/img253/6660/51046172168142c3e0bfb.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=rossmum;28380111]It gives them character. Working guns own safe queens any day of the week. :colbert:[/QUOTE]
Well it's true for WWII era stuff and I have absolutely no problems with that.
It's newer stuff made within the last 10-15 years with certain shotguns and handguns does it annoy me.
[QUOTE=shian;28382806]Way too tacticool? Or ok?
[img_thumb]http://img253.imageshack.us/img253/6660/51046172168142c3e0bfb.jpg[/img_thumb][/QUOTE]
Way too tacticool. There shall be nothing attached to an AK.
[QUOTE=jomt1234;28383059]Way too tacticool. There shall be nothing attached to an AK.[/QUOTE]
Seems like he's Special forces, from ANP. Strange seeing afghan units going tacticool. I thought all of them used unmodded guns?
Also, what's with special forces and weapon modfications? In nearly every picture of special forces, I see them with a gun with EOtech and flashlights.
[QUOTE=shian;28383083]Seems like he's Special forces, from ANP. Strange seeing afghan units going tacticool. I thought all of them used unmodded guns?
Also, what's with special forces and weapon modfications? In nearly every picture of special forces, I see them with a gun with EOtech and flashlights.[/QUOTE]
I think they choose optic sights instead of iron sights, due to slight zoom and accuracy?
And flashlight is good inside in pale light conditions.
[QUOTE=jomt1234;28383115]I think they choose optic sights instead of iron sights, due to slight zoom and accuracy?
And flashlight is good inside in pale light conditions.[/QUOTE]
But you can never see them equipped without attachments. Its seems like a must have for special forces world wide.
[QUOTE=shian;28383170]But you can never see them equipped without attachments. Its seems like a must have for special forces world wide.[/QUOTE]
It's just so their gun is a jack of all trades. EOtech optics are popular because they're easier and take less time to line up and keep on target. What few friends I have in the military love them because of the reasons I just mentioned.
it's a special forces unit, i think he knows how to use a gun and has reason to use it like this.
he's probably way more familiar with guns than any of you.
[QUOTE=Craig Willmore;28378709]Refinishing the stock on my AK. Little darker than I would like it to be, but oh well.
I'll post some pictures tomorrow.[/QUOTE]
[img]http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/8655/65664835.jpg[/img]
Shit i was wondering where the hell the thread went, was sifting through the pages of GD looking for it.
but now i found it :buddy:
Cant wait for it to be nice out (spring) so i can start going to the range and shoot the .223
[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;28380899]A worn gun is better than a new gun, apparently. Would make sense if it were something like a WW2 gun i.e. it's got a long history, but seems silly for newish weapons.[/QUOTE]
I like brand-spanking new guns too, but there's something about working guns that I just can't resist. They have actual character to them, and every little ding or scratch tells a story. As long as there's only cosmetic wear, I would happily buy a gun that looks like it's been through hell and back... because chances are, it has, and it's all the more interesting for it.
[editline]4th March 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=jomt1234;28383059]Way too tacticool. There shall be nothing attached to an AK.[/QUOTE]
Those are actually entirely practical attachments and they're attached in a smart way (i.e. not the stupid shitty dustcover mounts rednecks like, which fail to hold anything even close to a zero). It looks like he has an M4-style stock on there which is questionable, but the rest is a perfectly good, perfectly smart setup. You'll find Alfa and the other Russian SF guys doing the same thing.
[editline]4th March 2011[/editline]
Except the grip-pod. Fuck grip-pods, they're gimmicky pieces of shit. The exception is the kind that actually split all the way along, since those have a decently wide deployment space (and so offer useful stability); the ones that have two tiny little legs that split out are pointless and you'd get similar stability from just resting your hand (with the bottom of the VFG inside) on the ground.
[B]e/[/B] Hold on, that might not be a grip-pod. Disregard my previous, although they are still rubbish this guy seems to have the sense not to spend the extra on them. I'm tired and a vert fore is a vert fore is a vert fore to me; I have no interest in whatever brand makes each type. Sue me. Vert fores are fine but once more, [I]small-leg grip-pods are a gimmick.[/I]
[editline]4th March 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=shian;28383083]Seems like he's Special forces, from ANP. Strange seeing afghan units going tacticool. I thought all of them used unmodded guns?
Also, what's with special forces and weapon modfications? In nearly every picture of special forces, I see them with a gun with EOtech and flashlights.[/QUOTE]
The ANA and ANP get what they're given. Their SF get more advanced stuff than their regulars, just like any military or police force.
SF worldwide mod their weapons because they need to. They need to be able to shoot accurately, so for long range they add an optic or for short they add an EOTech or Aimpoint for rapid target acquisition and elimination of parallax error. They need flashlights that don't require them to take their hands off their weapons. They need furniture that suits them, not the one-size-supposedly-fits-all most weapons come with. What they [B]don't[/B] do is hang 15lbs of Tapco shit off of a run-of-the-mill rifle just because it 'looks cool'. Every attachment or mod you see on an SF weapon is there because it's needed.
Regular soldiers are slowly being given more latitude to customise their weapons too, so it's not like only SF do that. Plenty of guys will attach useful stuff to their rifles pre-deployment rather than just hope for the best.
[QUOTE=Gubbinz96;28370959]
I'm not so fond of the Ex-Police stuff. The ones I've seen and handled have scratched and dinged finishes galore which makes me a sad panda :frown:[/QUOTE]
It's from actually being in a holster every day, I wouldn't mind it.
I was offered a police trade-in P229 for $300, but I couldn't get it because you have to be 21 and I was 19 at the time :(
Dumped about 150 rounds from my AK, I think I'm in love.
Don't get me wrong, I love my M249 SAW. But it is such a bitch to clean.
[img]http://i52.tinypic.com/2ia966w.jpg[/img]
(Camara phone sucks)
[QUOTE=shian;28382806]Way too tacticool? Or ok?
[img_thumb]http://img253.imageshack.us/img253/6660/51046172168142c3e0bfb.jpg[/img_thumb][/QUOTE]
Billy Mays Oxycleaning up the middle east!
[QUOTE=Testabar;28411598]Don't get me wrong, I love my M249 SAW. But it is such a bitch to clean.
[img_thumb]http://i52.tinypic.com/2ia966w.jpg[/img_thumb]
(Camara phone sucks)[/QUOTE]
Oh, the heatshield comes off with the barrel? That explains a lot.
(Our F89s never have heatshields, so I was confused as to how you guys remove the barrels with them on. That makes sense, though.)
Our F89's should have them, they are fucking hot.
They're pointless unless you make a habit of sticking your hands on the barrel, which I know I don't. As far as I'm aware, barely anyone except the US uses them.
I could see it happening by accident during a firefight. You move to change your direction of fire, and you want to put your hand out farther for leverage. What's there? Oh, just some 4140 steel at around 220 degrees, just waiting to melt your flesh.
BTW how come there's a shitload of Lee Enfields used by the Taliban.
Got to play around with a bren gun today. That has a kick even when firing blanks, I can't imagine what it would be like firing live ammo. Loud as all hell too.
[QUOTE=shian;28415232]BTW how come there's a shitload of Lee Enfields used by the Taliban.[/QUOTE]Leftovers from the British Empire when they controlled that area of the Middle East. Plus, there's the Khyber Pass knock-offs that are still made.
EDIT: Wait, the Empire didn't really control it properly, but they fucked around there a lot, including 3 wars with it.
[QUOTE=shian;28415232]BTW how come there's a shitload of Lee Enfields used by the Taliban.[/QUOTE]
The No.4 was produced in pretty large numbers in Pakistan, and then they were copied by Khyber Pass. I also believe the US and UK supplied them with further Enfields during the Afghan War, although I could be wrong.
There'd probably also be at least a few old MLEs from colonial days kicking around, too.
[editline]5th March 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Asmaedus;28415437]Got to play around with a bren gun today. That has a kick even when firing blanks, I can't imagine what it would be like firing live ammo. Loud as all hell too.[/QUOTE]
It wouldn't recoil that bad, given that .303 is pretty low-pressure and the Bren weighs a fucking ton (the distribution of that weight makes it seem a lot heavier than it actually is, too). The recoil from my No.4 is pretty mild, put the same round in a gun weighing in excess of 20lbs and it would be even milder.
The bolt in a lot of machine guns is big, heavy, and under some serious spring tension. Dry firing an (empty!) F89 will cause it to jump forwards and then rock back enough (when on its bipod) that you can really feel it. I was pretty surprised the first time I noticed, but it makes sense mechanically.
[editline]5th March 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Ridge;28415217]I could see it happening by accident during a firefight. You move to change your direction of fire, and you want to put your hand out farther for leverage. What's there? Oh, just some 4140 steel at around 220 degrees, just waiting to melt your flesh.[/QUOTE]
Our Minimis have long barrels. Heatshield or not, the risk is there; all the heatshield covers is maybe half to two-thirds of the barrel length, and even then it's not especially likely that someone's going to burn themselves on that part of it unless they're really careless. The handguard comes up high enough to prevent that. Adding a heatshield to an M249 might work for the Americans, but heatshielding the F89 would be pointless as hell and just add more weight (albeit not a lot) and more time to production.
[QUOTE=rossmum;28418574]The No.4 was produced in pretty large numbers in Pakistan, and then they were copied by Khyber Pass. I also believe the US and UK supplied them with further Enfields during the Afghan War, although I could be wrong.
There'd probably also be at least a few old MLEs from colonial days kicking around, too.
[/QUOTE]
Oh btw, I saw some video of a documentary showing Pakistan's black market, with guns. Then they also show a James bond style pen gun. Anyone got the source?
sweet, going to the range tomorrow, going to shoot the .308 for the first time, and also going to shoot the .223 at the 300 yard range.
Most likley bringing the Xd and the Hi-power too.
[QUOTE=rossmum;28412693]Oh, the heatshield comes off with the barrel? That explains a lot.
(Our F89s never have heatshields, so I was confused as to how you guys remove the barrels with them on. That makes sense, though.)[/QUOTE]
The only time I ever take it off is for cleaning. I find it to be a little bit of an inconvenience, but we have to have them.
[img]http://world.guns.ru/userfiles/images/assault/as59/em2.jpg[/img]
dat grip
[img]http://world.guns.ru/userfiles/images/assault/as95/asm-dt.jpg[/img]
dat mag
[img]http://knowyourmeme.com/i/000/041/545/original/hank.JPG?1267224520[/img]
[QUOTE=shian;28418998]Oh btw, I saw some video of a documentary showing Pakistan's black market, with guns. Then they also show a James bond style pen gun. Anyone got the source?[/QUOTE]
I don't remember the pen gun, but the Vice Guide to travel had a show there. If this looks familiar than that is the one;
[img]http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/images/reviews/76/1159729632.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=Big Orca;28426146][img_thumb]http://world.guns.ru/userfiles/images/assault/as59/em2.jpg[/img_thumb][/QUOTE]
don't start me. i will forever hold a big FUCK YOU in my heart towards america for getting the most promising small arms project of the last fucking century killed off.
hurrrrrrrr fuck them weak europellets we need a full-size round nope not like battle rifles were obsolete by 1943 not at all no
*proceeds to get .280 brit and corresponding em-2 shitcanned, forces fn to upsize the fal to within an inch of its life, then chooses a glorified target rifle over the only battle rifle worth a damn in completely rigged trials (like any kind of trials run by the us military, naturally)*
*fast forward 10 years*
OH FUCK
*realises that full-size rifles are obsolete, rather than restarting .280 goes to 5.56 round, dooms everyone to once again settle for less because :patriot:*
OH FUCK
*realises 5.56 lacks range and power, searches frantically for replacement, settles on 6.8 but stops there before anything actually happens about it*
6.8 spc of course having [I]nearly fucking identical[/I] ballistics to the .280 brit. fuck.
i swear to god the american military procurement system draws from the dumbest people in the entire military and then gives them more influence on western military tech development than any one country should have
[QUOTE=shian;28415232]BTW how come there's a shitload of Lee Enfields used by the Taliban.[/QUOTE]
British ruled most of that region for a long time, only relenting power to local governments in the 1950s and later.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.