Author Topic: Croatial rifle (Read 1891 times)

AquaShrimp · « **Reply #60 on:** November 27, 2007, 09:23:29 PM »

It seems like bayonetting and smashing people with the rifle butt would bend the barrel of the rifle.

There were certainly cases of the butt of the M-16 breaking in hand to hand fighting. The ones I've read about were in the Ia Drang Valley.

Viking · « **Reply #61 on:** November 28, 2007, 03:41:09 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by SIG220
If you think think that even the most modern bow today, ( much less an ancient relic of 8,000 BC ), can be fired as fast as a modern handgun, well, then you have obviously never used either weapon yourself blah blah blah

I see you like to put words in my mouth. Please don't. A spear is as effective now as it was 10,000 years ago. That modern weapons are more effective does not change this basic truth. You obviously have a problem with simple logic.

And for your information I have quite frequently used a variety of infantry weapons, including pistol and bayonet.

Excel1 · « **Reply #62 on:** November 28, 2007, 05:22:27 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Boroda
I wanted to go to bed, but now I'll think of a bayonet useful on a civilian rifle o_O

since they included a bayonet with the civilianised versian of their ak norinco must have thought its oversized tooth pick would be useful to the average recreational shooter. cant see it myself though, an extra mag would have been more useful

Quote

Originally posted by Boroda
Spike bayonets are harder to break, easier to extract, and leave bad wounds. In 1854 British soldiers with Russian bayonet wounds were brought not to a hospital, but directly to the cemetery. OTOH Russians had a very special bayonet training, hitting a little downwards and then lowering the gun before taking the bayonet out. (hard to explain)

interesting, and i think you explained it painfully well.

Boroda · « **Reply #63 on:** November 28, 2007, 10:28:04 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Excel1
since they included a bayonet with the civilianised versian of their ak norinco must have thought its oversized tooth pick would be useful to the average recreational shooter. cant see it myself though, an extra mag would have been more useful

Maybe it's because the automat is zeroed with a bayonet attached? Easer to sell it with a cheap bayonet then to change production lines.

Another thing about bayonets is that in many situations a bayonet attack is such a psychological pressure that enemy simply runs away. Seeing a crowd of people going berserk, with almost 2 meter long sharp spikes is not quite comfortable if you imagine this spike in your belly. Most of the people killed in bayonet attacks were stabbed in the back while running. There is a legend that Voroshilov wanted new bayonets made chromium-plated, shiny, so the enemy will be scared from a long distance seeing bayonets attached.

SIG220 · « **Reply #64 on:** November 28, 2007, 09:07:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Viking
I see you like to put words in my mouth. Please don't. A spear is as effective now as it was 10,000 years ago. That modern weapons are more effective does not change this basic truth. You obviously have a problem with simple logic.

And for your information I have quite frequently used a variety of infantry weapons, including pistol and bayonet.

It is you who is using absolutely no logic at all here with your claim.

To say that a spear is as effective today as it was 10,000 years ago is completely false and untrue, as one's opponents today are now armed with modern weapons.

If spears truly were still effective combat weapons today ( as you claim ), then the military would still be using them. But the truth is THEY DON"T use them, as I plainly illustrated by how the US Military is currently fighting in close quarters urban combat in Iraq.

Both spears and bayonets are relics of the PAST. They are now totally irrelevant and useless in combat. They play no role at all in modern warfare anymore, as they are now totally ineffective and obsolete in today's urban warfare.

SIG 220

SIG220 · « **Reply #65 on:** November 28, 2007, 09:15:32 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Boroda

Another thing about bayonets is that in many situations a bayonet attack is such a psychological pressure that enemy simply runs away.

Actually, such a bayonet charge now days could easily kill all of the opposing soldiers, as they would most likely die from laughing so hard.

Their internal organs would no doubt rupture from such uncontrollable laughing.

The attacking soldiers could thus then easily stick them with their bayonets, as the soldiers helplessly rolled around on the ground, writhing in agony from their intense laughter.

SIG 220

Coshy · « **Reply #66 on:** November 28, 2007, 09:59:23 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by SIG220
It is you who is using absolutely no logic at all here with your claim.

To say that a spear is as effective today as it was 10,000 years ago is completely false and untrue, as one's opponents today are now armed with modern weapons.
SIG 220

So you are saying a 10,000 year old spear design would work better than a current spear design?

Or are you just being obtuse?

I'll break it down for you, just in case you really aren't getting it. A spear 10,000 years ago will do the same damage as a spear today. A spear is a spear is a spear.

Wether the opponent has a pistol or a suit of armor is irrelevant to what Viking wrote.

AquaShrimp · « **Reply #67 on:** November 28, 2007, 10:42:33 PM »

I think bayonetts are more useful today than they were in the 20th century. With the house to house, urban fighting experienced today, enemy combatants can literally be feet away before being detected. It takes time to change a magazine, weapons jam, but a quick stab in the chest or face with a bayonett can surely be accomplished in a fraction of the time required to remedy the aforementioned problems.

wulfie-away · « **Reply #68 on:** November 29, 2007, 04:57:59 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by SIG220
Both spears and bayonets are relics of the PAST. They are now totally irrelevant and useless in combat. They play no role at all in modern warfare anymore, as they are now totally ineffective and obsolete in today's urban warfare.

SIG 220

Tell that to the Brits. I guess you didn't hear about their bayonet charge in Iraq.

Plenty of bad guys died from it, but I don't think they died of laughter. And the bad guys had SA, plenty of ammunition, and had the Brits effectively pinned before the bayonet charge was ordered.

What's your background with regards to close quarters combat? What have you been taught? Do you have any real-world experience? I ask because you seem to be of the opinion that as long as someone has a pistol, an opponent with a knife or some other type of close combat weapon is apparently a laughable threat.

-Mike/wulfie

wulfie-away · « **Reply #69 on:** November 29, 2007, 05:01:36 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by AquaShrimp
I think bayonetts are more useful today than they were in the 20th century. With the house to house, urban fighting experienced today, enemy combatants can literally be feet away before being detected. It takes time to change a magazine, weapons jam, but a quick stab in the chest or face with a bayonett can surely be accomplished in a fraction of the time required to remedy the aforementioned problems.

You aren't going to have a bayonet 'fixed' while you are planning to do any shooting.

If you had a surprise close contact, and you might want that badguy alive at a later date and/or you have a failure with your primary, one of your best options is just to muzzle strike the badguy in the face. It is a very, very effective technique/attack.

-Mike/wulfie

Viking · « **Reply #70 on:** November 29, 2007, 06:55:57 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by wulfie-away
You aren't going to have a bayonet 'fixed' while you are planning to do any shooting.

-Mike/wulfie

Why not? We did when doing house inspection/clearing duty.

Not a very good image, but it gives you an idea of the bayonet setup.

wulfie-away · « **Reply #71 on:** November 29, 2007, 07:08:01 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Viking
Why not? We did when doing house inspection/clearing duty.

Not a very good image, but it gives you an idea of the bayonet setup.

Different military, different weapon, different unit/mission, etc.

-Mike/wulfie

Viking · « **Reply #72 on:** November 29, 2007, 08:54:15 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by wulfie-away
Different military, different weapon, different unit/mission, etc.

-Mike/wulfie

Poor excuse. Again, why can you not have a bayonet fixed wile shooting?

There is no reason.

wulfie-away · « **Reply #73 on:** November 29, 2007, 09:54:18 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Viking
Poor excuse. Again, why can you not have a bayonet fixed wile shooting?

There is no reason.

It's not an excuse. I'm just telling you how it has been with me. Even in a CQC situation, with an M4, I am not going to have a bayonet fixed. That's how I've been trained, how it's been when I've been working, etc.

You may have misunderstood, I probably worded it badly as well. I wasn't trying to speak for every Soldier when I said I wouldn't have a bayonet fixed.

-Mike/wulfie

Viking · « **Reply #74 on:** November 29, 2007, 10:04:57 AM »

Ok. I still don't see any good reasons for not having a bayonet affixed, but that is your choice.

Oh and btw. you shouldn't use the word "you" when talking about yourself...

Quote

Originally posted by wulfie-away
You aren't going to have a bayonet 'fixed' while you are planning to do any shooting.

If you had a surprise close contact, and you might want that badguy alive at a later date and/or you have a failure with your primary, one of your best options is just to muzzle strike the badguy in the face. It is a very, very effective technique/attack.

-Mike/wulfie

... It tends to lead to misunderstandings.