Gun wankery

Seff said:

That bolt handle always struck me as really, really awkward.

Click to expand...

nowhere near as sexy as the SMLE bolt

Seff said:

Let's play with our guns. I'll start with this: Direct impingement is a bad choice for service weapons, due to excessive fouling and wear due to heat expansion. Blowback or piston driven is superior for service weapons.

Click to expand...

I agree, I blowback actions pretty much lead the way. The less gas involved the better, but I realise that is difficult with most systems.

Seff said:

For those not interested in the above: What's your favorite gun, and why?

Click to expand...

Uh, wow. I'll guess I'll split into favourites of eras.
Starting with Indian Miquelets, To Napoleon's signature pistol, Italian Carcano, Garand, SKS, and ending with a UMP-45,
Sorry about that, I have trouble picking or even narrowing down favourites. Hell, I didn't touch hand-guns past Napoleon's. In general I prefer guns to have entirely wooden and metal construction, I dislike polymers, albeit I obviously make exceptions. I do love the UMP-45.

Seff said:

You will enjoy http://7.62x54r.net/MosinID/MosinHumor.htm

Click to expand...

I got a kick out of this.

Wood and steel: Yes please. Garand <3.

The problem with blowback in rifles, like the roller-delayed blowback in the G3 and MP5 is that it's more finicky and dirty than a piston gun, like the Garand or AK, where all the gas and heat/fouling from same is contained faaar away from the action. Different manufacturers of ammo can be enough to require adjustments in the aforementioned H&K weapons, which isn't ideal for a service weapon. The advantage is simplicity and a free floating barrel, of course, which the piston gun can't boast with.

The MP7 will penetrate very well for a submachine gun, so it's excellent for fighting body armor. I wouldn't use one.

The Iraqi superweapon. Because nothing says "I am compensating for my penis size" like a gun barrel measured in miles.

Although it'd be useless for most of you, I hear you only shoot blanks.

Seff said:

The problem with blowback in rifles, like the roller-delayed blowback in the G3 and MP5 is that it's more finicky and dirty than a piston gun, like the Garand or AK, where all the gas and heat/fouling from same is contained faaar away from the action. Different manufacturers of ammo can be enough to require adjustments in the aforementioned H&K weapons, which isn't ideal for a service weapon. The advantage is simplicity and a free floating barrel, of course, which the piston gun can't boast with.

Click to expand...

I know I just just said that Blowback-Actions are the path to the future, but I believe that 'Battle Rifles' would be a very acceptable devolution. The M14 was never a bad gun, Americans just got pudgy and starting complaining about how heavy it was and how much recoil it had. Boo-****ing-hoo.
I'm not really sure how a Garand could get complicated, I honestly don't know how hard it was to field strip, nor how much it would foul up. As far as I'm aware, it was pretty pristine a lot of the time? Eight rounds would be a major blow to modern training and it's focus on suppressing fire, but I think that depending on the situation, wasting less ammunition could be a good change to the doctrine.

Seff said:

The MP7 will penetrate very well for a submachine gun, so it's excellent for fighting body armor. I wouldn't use one.

Click to expand...

Yet, as a security weapon, there's a lot of things that stack to make it.. well.. Not a bad choice, but not the best choice.

As a start, the ammunition. It's been proven to penetrate very well, too well. Most aggressors to a principal (this can obviously vary) won't have modern, high-grade body armour. Meaning that the armour-piercing bullets can leave the probably fanatical target, more or less unharmed unless you hit vitals or literally shred them with bullet after bullet. Which I suppose isn't hard to do because..
It allows for a very high cyclic rate, this is partially the firearm's fault of course, but overall the MP7 fires too quickly. A lapse in discipline can lead to inaccuracy and just generally putting way too many bullets down range.
It's unique, that means that you'll be unlikely to get your hands on more in an emergency, when aside the fact that security tends to carry little to no spare ammunition, this can be very detrimental. As a plus, unique ammunition means that in the worst case scenario, your enemies can't use it against you.

And a  for Archon_sod.

RK-62.
Because I feel patriotic and  it's a perfected version of the most reliable assault rifle ever made (ridicilously easy to maintain).
Even the Israelis and South Africans  copied it (from Galil).

It's a pretty nice AK variant I'll say. With no knowledge of it's true performance, I quite like the look of the 101 and 103.

Austupaio said:

I know I just just said that Blowback-Actions are the path to the future, but I believe that 'Battle Rifles' would be a very acceptable devolution. The M14 was never a bad gun, Americans just got pudgy and starting complaining about how heavy it was and how much recoil it had. Boo-****ing-hoo.
I'm not really sure how a Garand could get complicated, I honestly don't know how hard it was to field strip, nor how much it would foul up. As far as I'm aware, it was pretty pristine a lot of the time? Eight rounds would be a major blow to modern training and it's focus on suppressing fire, but I think that depending on the situation, wasting less ammunition could be a good change to the doctrine.

Click to expand...

The M14 is more or less a Garand in 7.62x51mm and with a box mag. Put it in an EBR or MCS stock and you're ready to go. The Garand needs cleaning like every other gun, it not very much, and it'll function even when dirty.

Austupaio said:

Yet, as a security weapon, there's a lot of things that stack to make it.. well.. Not a bad choice, but not the best choice.

As a start, the ammunition. It's been proven to penetrate very well, too well. Most aggressors to a principal (this can obviously vary) won't have modern, high-grade body armour. Meaning that the armour-piercing bullets can leave the probably fanatical target, more or less unharmed unless you hit vitals or literally shred them with bullet after bullet. Which I suppose isn't hard to do because..
It allows for a very high cyclic rate, this is partially the firearm's fault of course, but overall the MP7 fires too quickly. A lapse in discipline can lead to inaccuracy and just generally putting way too many bullets down range.
It's unique, that means that you'll be unlikely to get your hands on more in an emergency, when aside the fact that security tends to carry little to no spare ammunition, this can be very detrimental. As a plus, unique ammunition means that in the worst case scenario, your enemies can't use it against you.

Click to expand...

I agree. A .45 will deliver plenty of energy to unarmored targets while not penetrating nearly as much.


The RK is awesome. I'd carry one.

I know they probably give a noticeable increase to efficiency, what with the ease of use and weight reduction, but I hate those ****ing things.

As ridiculous as it sounds, it just feels like raping a gun to take away the original, pretty wooden frame and give it that clunky-looking, jagged, plastic stock and way too many Picatinny rails.

I'm also a wanna-be old man in that I prefer a good set of aperture iron-sights for close-quarters and standard fore-grip rather than a pistol-grip type.

It's about utility and ergonomics. I don't want pretty if it gets me killed. That being said, the wood stock is indeed far sexier.

Seff said:

It's about utility and ergonomics. I don't want pretty if it gets me killed. That being said, the wood stock is indeed far sexier.

Click to expand...

On the other hand, while I see how that type of kit can give a small mark-up in efficiency, I've not quite been convinced it'll actually make all the difference in a fire fight.

Oh I would kill for a Winchester 1873. Dunno why but the lever action is just too sexy.

Austupaio said:

On the other hand, while I see how that type of kit can give a small mark-up in efficiency, I've not quite been convinced it'll actually make all the difference in a fire fight.

Click to expand...

Folding stock means you're less likely to get your gun stuck in brush, door jams, etc. Inline stock means recoil is guided backwards instead of upwards, decreasing the recovery time drastically.

For some reason, FN Scar-L.

M14.

great rifle.

Wanna buy one but i don't have a spare $2700 laying around for a national match model.

Cant go wrong with a Mauser 


Fun to shoot too.

Ssgt. Griggs said:

For some reason, FN Scar-L.

Spoiler

Click to expand...

That's ****ing ugly.

I know ****all about guns, and I've only ever fired with an RK-62 and PKM, but I'd love to shoot at **** with a garand, Sturmgewehr and a Karabiner 98K.

Nahkuri said:

Ssgt. Griggs said:

For some reason, FN Scar-L.

Spoiler

Click to expand...

That's ****ing ugly.

I know ****all about guns, and I've only ever fired with an RK-62 and PKM, but I'd love to shoot at **** with a garand, Sturmgewehr and a Karabiner 98K.

Click to expand...

Shot those at out local gun range, pretty fun, I didnt like the Garand much though..

I just have an obsession with that sound it makes when you fire all 8 rounds. Probably from HL: DOD which I used to play as a brat.

EDIT: Oh, how the **** could I forget! Of course I've also fired with an NSV. Manliest ****ing thing ever. Fired one mounted on a BTR-50, and couldn't hit **** with it.

I like the MP10 (10mm version) and the MTAR 21.