Author Topic: A gooood replacement for M-16 Rifle... (Read 1999 times)

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #15 on:** August 12, 2006, 07:52:01 PM »

I'm just not a fan of bullpups. I've shot a couple, and just the feeling of them is so unnatural.

Quote

Royalties were paid to Germany up to the first world war.

Are you sure about this? I thought springfield gave Germany the big Ole' F U right from the bat.

Quote

You're right, 40 plus years as the rifle of issue proves the M16 sucked.

After 40 years, the M16 is finally starting to become the equal of the gun it replaced, The M14.

I still hold that we should switch back to the M14.

Blooz · « **Reply #16 on:** August 12, 2006, 07:58:52 PM »

I don't see much improvement over M16 other than its size.

Maybe it would be an improvement (especially on account of it's high ROF) to chamber it in .17 caliber ammo but then again you run into the problem of feeding it with non standard ammo.

Fishu · « **Reply #17 on:** August 12, 2006, 08:26:15 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lasersailor184
Are you sure about this? I thought springfield gave Germany the big Ole' F U right from the bat.

It'd be hard to protect your own patents if you didn't

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #18 on:** August 12, 2006, 08:30:56 PM »

Yes, but under which court would the German government sue the US government? Remember, we're talking about 1900-1916.

Fishu · « **Reply #19 on:** August 12, 2006, 08:57:13 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lasersailor184
Yes, but under which court would the German government sue the US government? Remember, we're talking about 1900-1916.

Why would you need to sue a country stealing your patents? Do it yourself too. Not to talk about refusing to give any more technology to them.

Anyway, if you suddenly want to gain a technology posessed by an another country, then you would have to get the blueprints - It'd be hard to get the blueprints after you've betrayed them before. It's all about the costs, how much you're willing to invest into something. Would it be cheaper to pay royalties or invent your own technology? One thing is for sure, it could become very expensive to steal someones technology and get caught of it. It wouldn't only affect your relationship with the country you stole technology from, but other countries would become suspicious too.

Keep in mind that Germany hasn't been hostile towards US (and vice-versa) throughout the history. Normal trade relations could have existed before a war.

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #20 on:** August 12, 2006, 09:28:56 PM »

Yeah, blueprints or an actual gun. America picked up mausers from the spanish during the spanish american war.

And remember, you NEED a court to be able to sue someone. Germany couldn't sue america over it because there was no supervising court.

vorticon · « **Reply #21 on:** August 12, 2006, 09:47:56 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lasersailor184
Yeah, blueprints or an actual gun. America picked up mausers from the spanish during the spanish american war.

And remember, you NEED a court to be able to sue someone. Germany couldn't sue america over it because there was no supervising court.

you missed his point, germany wouldnt need to sue, just steal there stuff, and refuse to sell them any more new technology...

Wolfala · « **Reply #22 on:** August 12, 2006, 09:51:23 PM »

I think we need to hear Tony Williams since he is the predominant authority of firearms on this board.

Wolf

Gunslinger · « **Reply #23 on:** August 12, 2006, 09:53:14 PM »

Yes but I seem to recall America did not issue it's best weapons during WWI because of fear that it would fall into the wrong hands. IIRC Yanks used a POS french Machine gun wich was eventually considered an engineering disaster.

FUNKED1 · « **Reply #24 on:** August 12, 2006, 10:30:28 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Elfie
If it has great civilian stopping power, I'm sure it stops soldiers and terrorists just as well since all categories are humans

Women and children are smaller and easier to bring down. And a lot of times even the men are standing still or on their knees, so you get an easy head shot. Zionist arms makers leave no stone unturned in their quest for excellence.

1K3 · « **Reply #25 on:** August 12, 2006, 10:52:43 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Gunslinger
Yes but I seem to recall America did not issue it's best weapons during WWI because of fear that it would fall into the wrong hands. IIRC Yanks used a POS french Machine gun wich was eventually considered an engineering disaster.

Some of the best weapons went to gangsters (Al Capone, etc) instead of soldiers at that time

Shuckins · « **Reply #26 on:** August 12, 2006, 10:58:55 PM »

Yeah...but for cost effectiveness and lethality nothing matches a good explosives belt.

Dago · « **Reply #27 on:** August 13, 2006, 12:23:22 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by 1K3
I watched this on Discovery channel ("Future weapns" or something like that). Tavor has the effective range similar to M16, it's lighter (looks like a plastic toy you can buy at 99 cents store but it's strong!), waterproofed, flexible and easy to handle in urban fighting, and its got great accuracy thanks to advanced red-dot reflex sight.

This is something that US needs because of the situation they're in...

We have something that meets that description already, it's called the M4 Carbine.

ramzey · « **Reply #28 on:** August 13, 2006, 01:20:39 AM »

yea, but does not looks cool enough for kids,,,,,,,,,

Furball · « **Reply #29 on:** August 13, 2006, 04:55:34 AM »