• Firearms V. Super Redneck Edition
    5,000 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Leo Leonardo;21034843]Do you have something to recommend?[/QUOTE] he's trolling you could spend that much and get one of those budget AK74s and a tin of ammo, AK74s are good fun
[QUOTE=Pvt. Ryan;21037746]he's trolling you could spend that much and get one of those budget AK74s and a tin of ammo, AK74s are good fun[/QUOTE] Yeah, you can get a Polish Tantal for like $500, and 5.45 is cheap ammo.
[QUOTE=doommarine23;21031025]I wonder why you guys care about gun looks so much; the hell does it matter?[/QUOTE] Name one thing about my MSAR that's just for looks. [editline]06:14PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Bean-O;21036179]Unless the particular model is known for rattling to pieces or getting over 3''MOA off the bench there's nothing wrong with a cheap AK. They aren't built for accuracy, they aren't built for looks, they aren't built to please people who insist that everything on their gun MUST be perfect and ideal, they're built to keep shooting no matter what. If it can do that everything else is a bonus.[/QUOTE] Except that a lot of them don't keep on shooting. WASARS are a piece of scrap metal shit. Just wait, I'll get a flood of penny pinchers breathing down my neck over that comment.
[QUOTE=doommarine23;21031025]I wonder why you guys care about gun looks so much; the hell does it matter?[/QUOTE] [IMG]http://www.hi-pointfirearms.com/images/40SW_polymer.jpg[/IMG] This made me barf the first time I saw it.
[QUOTE=DrMortician;21041938] WASARS are a piece of scrap metal shit. Just wait, I'll get a flood of penny pinchers breathing down my neck over that comment.[/QUOTE] They are pretty reliable as long as you dont get a lemon. And (cue pennypincher mode) they are durn cheap.
Anyone own a CZ-82 or have any experience with one? I'm thinking about buying one soon, mainly just for a plinker/backup, but I also like the look and history of the gun. Plus you can get em for around 200 bones. Any incite or reliable links with good deals would be nice. This is what I'm lookin' at.. [url]http://www.aimsurplus.com/product.aspx?item=F3CZ82[/url]
Dude, get the Cz-82!! They have epic reviews. [url]http://forums.gunboards.com/showthread.php?163564-CZ82[/url] The czech weapons forum at gunboards.com.
Apparently they're good but 'snappy' for a pistol that size.
[QUOTE=Timebomb757;21049460]They are pretty reliable as long as you dont get a lemon. And (cue pennypincher mode) they are durn cheap.[/QUOTE] Hundred or so dollar difference between one of those things, that have metal shavings still in the receiver, verses going with something better. Fuck, you'll be spending at least $400 on optics for anything, why not get a gun worth a shit in the 1st place? If you can't afford those kind of price tags, stop being so impatient, and wait until you can. [editline]06:10AM[/editline] Also, anyone have experience with Romak3s/PSLs? I'm thinking about getting one and having it refinished, and worked over. But there's also a mint original SVD at the local gun shop I have my eye on. I really don't want to drop $3k on something that isn't part of my primary system, so a PSL seems a little more attractive at the price point. I have no interest in "collectability." Plus I really wouldn't want to abuse an original SVD.
Who the hell is going to bother with optics on a WASR? A cheap chinese/russian red dot maybe, but they're not accurate for anything else.
Guys what's your opinions on the M82?
[QUOTE=STREWTH_99;21053954]Guys what's your opinions on the M82?[/QUOTE] Largely impractical but a good weapon. Accuracy is sacrificed for that semi-automatic function though so I'm not a fan of it as a sniper rifle and would much rather use a M90 if in the situation where I needed a rifle chambered in .50.
[QUOTE=DrMortician;21052503] Also, anyone have experience with Romak3s/PSLs? [/QUOTE] I played around with a PSL at a local range, it was quite fun, guy said that it was pretty easy to find spare mags for it as well. Though weren't you just telling us how we should save for a better weapon than going with a Romanian clone? :P
Strictly playing devils advocate here, why do you guys think it should be legal for citizens to own assault weapons if they have no "sporting or hunting use"? Edit: What the hell why didn't this post automerge.
[QUOTE=Timebomb757;21065454]Strictly playing devils advocate here, why do you guys think it should be legal for citizens to own assault weapons if they have no "sporting or hunting use"? Edit: What the hell why didn't this post automerge.[/QUOTE] Second amendment isn't for sporting or hunting.
[QUOTE=Timebomb757;21065454]Strictly playing devils advocate here, why do you guys think it should be legal for citizens to own assault weapons if they have no "sporting or hunting use"? Edit: What the hell why didn't this post automerge.[/QUOTE] Because assault weapons have no different functionality than any other weapon.
[QUOTE=mugofdoom;21065707]Second amendment isn't for sporting or hunting.[/QUOTE] Nor does it specify what kinds of weaponry should and shouldnt be owned by the average citizen. In theory, the government could ban everything but single shot rifles without infringing on our right to bear arms, since they aren't banning the ownership of weapons outright. (Again, playing devils advocate for the sake of debate. I personally believe that the second amendment should be interpreted in such a way that we should be able to own any weapon the military can have, so as to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government.)
[QUOTE=Timebomb757;21067521]Nor does it specify what kinds of weaponry should and shouldnt be owned by the average citizen. In theory, the government could ban everything but single shot rifles without infringing on our right to bear arms, since they aren't banning the ownership of weapons outright. (Again, playing devils advocate for the sake of debate. I personally believe that the second amendment should be interpenetrated in such a way that we should be able to own any weapon the military can have, so as to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government.)[/QUOTE] It implies that the people are the military (or the militia, as it is put), therefore the people should be allowed access to weapons that the military has access to.
[QUOTE=zombiefreak;21065860]Because assault weapons have no different functionality than any other weapon.[/QUOTE] Assualt weapons arent designed for hunting or sport. The AR-15, it uses smaller, easily controlled rounds in generally high-capacity mags specifically for use in combat.
[QUOTE=Timebomb757;21067569]Assualt weapons arent designed for hunting or sport. The AR-15, it uses smaller, easily controlled rounds in generally high-capacity mags specifically for use in combat.[/QUOTE] So what? Timebomb you really can't play devil's advocate with AW laws. They're fucking retarded.
[QUOTE=Timebomb757;21067569]Assualt weapons arent designed for hunting or sport. The AR-15, it uses smaller, easily controlled rounds in generally high-capacity mags specifically for use in combat.[/QUOTE] The AR-15 is a very popular hunting rifle as well as a popular rifle among sporting groups. Many variants are designed with those purposes in mind. But it doesn't matter, as stated above, the Second Amendment implies that we are the military (or atleast a part of it), so we should have access to weapons designed to be easy to use in combat.
[QUOTE=Linelor;21054310]Largely impractical but a good weapon. Accuracy is sacrificed for that semi-automatic function though so I'm not a fan of it as a sniper rifle and would much rather use a M90 if in the situation where I needed a rifle chambered in .50.[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure the M82 is used as the army's Light Tank or Anti Material Rifle used for stuff such as cars and is against Geneva convention to use on human targets.
we might need assault rifles to fend off indian attacks [editline]01:15AM[/editline] also to defend against british invaders
[QUOTE=Pvt. Ryan;21067650]we might need assault rifles to fend off indian attacks [editline]01:15AM[/editline] also to defend against british invaders[/QUOTE] God forbid some kind of terrorist attack actually does happen and we do need assault rifles. Or that the government becomes completely corrupt somehow
[QUOTE=mugofdoom;21067605]The AR-15 is a very popular hunting rifle as well as a popular rifle among sporting groups. Many variants are designed with those purposes in mind. But it doesn't matter, as stated above, the Second Amendment implies that we are the military (or atleast a part of it), so we should have access to weapons designed to be easy to use in combat.[/QUOTE] To be honest, even for the sake of argument, I cant come up with a legitimate counter for this that doesn't sound like the soccer mom "but guns kill people and cause violence and evil and people who use guns are evil" response. Its a wonder to me how anti-gun legislation gets passed. Damn lobbyists.
[QUOTE=Linelor;21054310]Largely impractical but a good weapon. Accuracy is sacrificed for that semi-automatic function though so I'm not a fan of it as a sniper rifle and would much rather use a M90 if in the situation where I needed a rifle chambered in .50.[/QUOTE] I could be wrong, but imo the accuracy issue can be circumvented, depending on the users skill.
[QUOTE=Timebomb757;21067521]Nor does it specify what kinds of weaponry should and shouldnt be owned by the average citizen. In theory, the government could ban everything but single shot rifles without infringing on our right to bear arms, since they aren't banning the ownership of weapons outright. (Again, playing devils advocate for the sake of debate. I personally believe that the second amendment should be interpreted in such a way that we should be able to own any weapon the military can have, so as to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government.)[/QUOTE] That last bit is a little too extreme. I know plenty of people who I wouldn't want to own a full automatic M60 with a Jerry-rigged silencer, fitted with an optic, firing armor piercing, shaped charged ammo. Not for personal reasons, but for the sake of humanity. My interpretation of the 2nd amendment is that any citizen can own any reasonable weapon/attachments/ect. as long as they can pass various levels of background checks (simple check for hunting rifles/shotguns, pistols, ect. and hardcore checks for aforementioned doom machine gun and the like) and in some cases, can pay for a permit that is no more difficult to obtain that the weapon itself. In the case of explosives or baby-killing ammo, a safe place to store them. This way, NEARLY anything is obtainable, but who gets it is slightly more controlled. Like I said, I know people who shouldn't own a goddamn BB gun who possess an arsenal large enough to take on every armed force in the world. It's scary, really.
[QUOTE=Pvt. Ryan;21067650]we might need assault rifles to fend off indian attacks [editline]01:15AM[/editline] also to defend against british invaders[/QUOTE] Not to mention those pesky yanks trying to take our slaves.
[QUOTE=doommarine23;21067641]I'm pretty sure the M82 is used as the army's Light Tank or Anti Material Rifle used for stuff such as cars and is against Geneva convention to use on human targets.[/QUOTE] Wrong. There is a widespread misconception that a number of treaties have banned use of the .50 BMG against human targets, and recruits have been advised by generations of drill instructors to only aim a .50 BMG at an enemy soldier's web gear or other equipment worn on his body. However, the U.S. Army Judge Advocate General's office has issued a legal opinion that the .50 BMG and even the Raufoss Mk 211 round are legal for use against enemy personnel.
[QUOTE=doommarine23;21067641]I'm pretty sure the M82 is used as the army's Light Tank or Anti Material Rifle used for stuff such as cars and is against Geneva convention to use on human targets.[/QUOTE] Then the M2's we have mounted on all those vehicles would also be illegal to engage human targets with. And from there we could extrapolate all kinds of craziness. So no, you can shoot people all day long with .50 bmg and the conventions won't be an issue.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.