It kinda reminds me of these pistols for old TV games.
it reminds me of an aborted fetus
it belongs in halo
reach
Posting from an iPAd at McArthur Mall's Apple Store.
God dammit now my headphones don't work at all :suicide:
been climbing for 4 hours at a massive indoor climbing arena called ratho and my body hurts so much
also switched to opera from mozilla firefox and its like so much nicer looking
[QUOTE=Inafinus :3;31637282]been climbing for 4 hours at a massive indoor climbing arena called ratho and my body hurts so much
also switched to opera from mozilla firefox and its like so much nicer looking[/QUOTE]
Opera is so much better than Firefox. I switched to Chrome though because I was using it on my uncle's computer and it has the good things of Firefox but the look reminds me of Opera.
chrome master race
Bi Browser master race.
I use BOTH, mother fuckers.
[QUOTE=BBOOBBYY!;31621354]i told you dawg
i told you about the stares[/QUOTE]
fix'd. Also, i was at CAP(lawlz boy scuawtz) And i overheard two Cadets talking about airsoft stuff. I heard one say: "I hate AKs because there a terrorist gun!" Being a Sergeant has its advantages, so i run into the conversation and yell "WHAT?! EXPLAIN YOUR THEORY OF WHY THE AK IS NOT AS GOOD!! WHERE IS YOUR CAPITALIST EQUATION, YOU WEAPON EINSTEIN?!" He then proceeded to list bullshit excuse after excuse, like "But M4 is better because our government uses them and not AKs!" To which every time i proceeded to facepalm and prove my point. In this case it was: "Ok, explain this. The Ak was the best weapon of this CENTURY! However, we were at WAR with Russia when they made it, so we wern't about to go and say 'Hey Russia, i know we're mortal enemies and all, but do you think you could sell us some AK-47s?'?! No, we wern't. So, we commisioned that blubbering idiot Eugene Stoner to fail 4 times and still produce a crappy weapon, BUT HEY?! AT LEAST IT WAS COMFORTABLE WHEN IT JAMMED!!" Then he moved on to say that the M4 fixed those problems, and i responded with "And also went on to create a whole set of new problems! The original CAR-15s short barrel made it WAAAAY too loud! They had to practically work a supressor into the barrel just so it would'nt deafen the shooter! And jamming was still rampant, due to design of the weapon itself!" Moved on to how the 5.56 round is better than the 7.62x39......."Yeah, except that when the AK-47 was designed, a round as small as a 5.56 was practically a SMG round! The 7.62 was a marvelous round for its time! Even now, it may be slower than a 5.56, but it packs WAY more of a punch! But lets not compare the AK-47. No, lets compare the M4 to the AK 74M. The ballistics of the 5.45 round kicks the CRAP out of the 5.56, and STILL is more deadly. Its even more reliable than the original AK-47! They took the best assault rifle ever, and IMPROVED upon it! But the M16? Nope. In Vietnam, the Viet-cong refused to pick up dead American's M16s, even if it meant more ammo, simply because its track record was terrible! Why do you think that the VC, and terrorists use it, and not the M16? Because its track record proves it to be the best rifle available!" Then he proceeds to pull out what i call the "death-stroke" argument: "Then why are the terrorists losing?" "OH MY GOD. REALLY? REALLY?! The terrorists are losing because our technology and tactics are far in advance to theirs! A gun does not win or lose a WAR, maybe a BATTLE, if it jams *cough* *cough*, but it does not influence tactics. It is a machine. Pull the trigger, a bullet fires. Nothing more. I mean, by that argument, you could blame the U.S.'s loss in Vietnam on the M16!" I won that argument. By a lot.
The other reason we don't have an AK type weapon is because unlike Russia, who wanted to arm millions of simple-minded, untrained conscripts with a cheap, simple, and reliable weapon, and couldn't give two shits about accuracy (they still believed in the human wave tactic at this point), the US values marksmanship and accuracy. Look back even before WWI. The Springfield M1903 is better suited as a target rifle than a battle rifle (people still use them for competition shooting)
In my humble opinion, the british are the kings of combining battlefield reliability with dead on accuracy. I mean just look at the Lee Enfield for example.
to be honest i prefer ar15 platform weapons. they're more ergonomically correct, not in the comfortable sense but in that all the fire controls and important functions are placed in easy to reach positions. they're very light unless you go full tactitard. they're very reliable when treated right, and by treated right I mean lubricated in all the wear spots, not picked white glove clean like the army is fond of.
[QUOTE=iFail;31641608]to be honest i prefer ar15 platform weapons. they're more ergonomically correct, not in the comfortable sense but in that all the fire controls and important functions are placed in easy to reach positions. they're very light unless you go full tactitard. they're very reliable when treated right, and by treated right I mean lubricated in all the wear spots, not picked white glove clean like the army is fond of.[/QUOTE]
Like I said, they're a very fine target rifle, but they're not well suited to combat
also
reason's for ar15:
wide availability of accessories designed for it like peq15s, muzzle brakes, or ACOGs with 5.56 bdc
light weight
bore in line with stock makes sight attachment and recoil control better
[editline]10th August 2011[/editline]
read this
[url]http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=61505[/url]
and this
[url]http://www.ar15.com/content/swat/keepitrunning.pdf[/url]
Be sure to put vagina cream on your M4, because M4s are vaginas and require way more maintenance than they're worth
[editline]10th August 2011[/editline]
Honestly, if I were in combat, I'd definitely take an AK74 over an M4. Sure you can do all the stuff described in the article to make your M4 more reliable in desert combat, but I'd rather not take the chance.
Sometimes AK74s will be in the field for 6 months without cleaning and still function 100%
uh yeah basically the article said that you lube the parts that wear, and that's good to go.
it takes like all of ten minutes.
ar15s are much more reliable than people give them credit for, aks are much more accurate than people give them credit for
[QUOTE=ossumsauce;31641453]fix'd. Also, i was at CAP(lawlz boy scuawtz) And i overheard two Cadets talking about airsoft stuff. I heard one say: "I hate AKs because there a terrorist gun!" Being a Sergeant has its advantages, so i run into the conversation and yell "WHAT?! EXPLAIN YOUR THEORY OF WHY THE AK IS NOT AS GOOD!! WHERE IS YOUR CAPITALIST EQUATION, YOU WEAPON EINSTEIN?!" He then proceeded to list bullshit excuse after excuse, like "But M4 is better because our government uses them and not AKs!" To which every time i proceeded to facepalm and prove my point. In this case it was: "Ok, explain this. The Ak was the best weapon of this CENTURY! However, we were at WAR with Russia when they made it, so we wern't about to go and say 'Hey Russia, i know we're mortal enemies and all, but do you think you could sell us some AK-47s?'?! No, we wern't. So, we commisioned that blubbering idiot Eugene Stoner to fail 4 times and still produce a crappy weapon, BUT HEY?! AT LEAST IT WAS COMFORTABLE WHEN IT JAMMED!!" Then he moved on to say that the M4 fixed those problems, and i responded with "And also went on to create a whole set of new problems! The original CAR-15s short barrel made it WAAAAY too loud! They had to practically work a supressor into the barrel just so it would'nt deafen the shooter! And jamming was still rampant, due to design of the weapon itself!" Moved on to how the 5.56 round is better than the 7.62x39......."Yeah, except that when the AK-47 was designed, a round as small as a 5.56 was practically a SMG round! The 7.62 was a marvelous round for its time! Even now, it may be slower than a 5.56, but it packs WAY more of a punch! But lets not compare the AK-47. No, lets compare the M4 to the AK 74M. The ballistics of the 5.45 round kicks the CRAP out of the 5.56, and STILL is more deadly. Its even more reliable than the original AK-47! They took the best assault rifle ever, and IMPROVED upon it! But the M16? Nope. In Vietnam, the Viet-cong refused to pick up dead American's M16s, even if it meant more ammo, simply because its track record was terrible! Why do you think that the VC, and terrorists use it, and not the M16? Because its track record proves it to be the best rifle available!" Then he proceeds to pull out what i call the "death-stroke" argument: "Then why are the terrorists losing?" "OH MY GOD. REALLY? REALLY?! The terrorists are losing because our technology and tactics are far in advance to theirs! A gun does not win or lose a WAR, maybe a BATTLE, if it jams *cough* *cough*, but it does not influence tactics. It is a machine. Pull the trigger, a bullet fires. Nothing more. I mean, by that argument, you could blame the U.S.'s loss in Vietnam on the M16!" I won that argument. By a lot.[/QUOTE]
Holy titties how do you write such stupidly large walls of text, nevermind write them. Nobody is going to read that.
i skimmed it and it seems like he did a drill sergeant impression. those are funny, but cussing people out for something of no relevance is a dick move
I can never read long wall of text like that anymore unless it is interesting, I blame television for giving me such a short attention span.
It doesn't help that Fp's font is sans-serif
i dig this font tho its p cool
It just makes it hard to read text walls
[QUOTE=ossumsauce;31641453]fix'd. Also, i was at CAP(lawlz boy scuawtz) And i overheard two Cadets talking about airsoft stuff. I heard one say: "I hate AKs because there a terrorist gun!" Being a Sergeant has its advantages, so i run into the conversation and yell "WHAT?! EXPLAIN YOUR THEORY OF WHY THE AK IS NOT AS GOOD!! WHERE IS YOUR CAPITALIST EQUATION, YOU WEAPON EINSTEIN?!" He then proceeded to list bullshit excuse after excuse, like "But M4 is better because our government uses them and not AKs!" To which every time i proceeded to facepalm and prove my point. In this case it was: "Ok, explain this. The Ak was the best weapon of this CENTURY! However, we were at WAR with Russia when they made it, so we wern't about to go and say 'Hey Russia, i know we're mortal enemies and all, but do you think you could sell us some AK-47s?'?! No, we wern't. So, we commisioned that blubbering idiot Eugene Stoner to fail 4 times and still produce a crappy weapon, BUT HEY?! AT LEAST IT WAS COMFORTABLE WHEN IT JAMMED!!" Then he moved on to say that the M4 fixed those problems, and i responded with "And also went on to create a whole set of new problems! The original CAR-15s short barrel made it WAAAAY too loud! They had to practically work a supressor into the barrel just so it would'nt deafen the shooter! And jamming was still rampant, due to design of the weapon itself!" Moved on to how the 5.56 round is better than the 7.62x39......."Yeah, except that when the AK-47 was designed, a round as small as a 5.56 was practically a SMG round! The 7.62 was a marvelous round for its time! Even now, it may be slower than a 5.56, but it packs WAY more of a punch! But lets not compare the AK-47. No, lets compare the M4 to the AK 74M. The ballistics of the 5.45 round kicks the CRAP out of the 5.56, and STILL is more deadly. Its even more reliable than the original AK-47! They took the best assault rifle ever, and IMPROVED upon it! But the M16? Nope. In Vietnam, the Viet-cong refused to pick up dead American's M16s, even if it meant more ammo, simply because its track record was terrible! Why do you think that the VC, and terrorists use it, and not the M16? Because its track record proves it to be the best rifle available!" Then he proceeds to pull out what i call the "death-stroke" argument: "Then why are the terrorists losing?" "OH MY GOD. REALLY? REALLY?! The terrorists are losing because our technology and tactics are far in advance to theirs! A gun does not win or lose a WAR, maybe a BATTLE, if it jams *cough* *cough*, but it does not influence tactics. It is a machine. Pull the trigger, a bullet fires. Nothing more. I mean, by that argument, you could blame the U.S.'s loss in Vietnam on the M16!" I won that argument. By a lot.[/QUOTE]
What is wrong with you
I like aks
I like ar15s
i'll use whatever the fuck I feel like using at the time
but i still think m14>ar15
I like guns.
me to
they come in many shapes and sizes like fishes, boats, spaceships, and boxes
[editline]9th August 2011[/editline]
i like the ones that look like a series of tubes
i like trains
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.