Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Sox62 on March 16, 2007, 11:34:04 AM
-
An entertaining and interesting read.
http://www.arthurshall.com/x_2007_manly_firearms.shtml
-
"Actually, a man knows he WOULD be found dead with a 9mm, because a 9mm is a .45 set on stun, and real men do not believe in stun."
He's got some good one liners in there... ".45 set on stun" is one of them.
-
This was a hard piece to write, because guns by definition are manly, except for Berettas, gold-plated TEC9s, .25 caliber pistols or anything made by the French. To simplify things, I have limited it to modern cartridge firearms a man might, can, and should collect and shoot. There are certainly other manly weapons, and you may have a different list. As long as the list contains nothing French, gold-plated, .25 or with pearl grips (which Patton correctly observed are the mark of a New Orleans pimp), it is a good list.
:lol
-
A glock makes the list, but the gun that won WW2 does not?
OUT****INGRAGEOUS!
The people who made this list are obviously girly men and will be referred to from here on by their womanly names.
Sally, Sue and Debby.
Not to mention it listing the Ar-15 as a manly rifle, even though it's plastic and breaks in any true man's hands.
This list is defunct. Any man heretofor that refers to it in any argument will adopt the name Stephanie until a vote of 90% of all men alive clear him of that name.
-
.40S&W is a wussified 10mm that the FBI created when it found out its agents weren't manly enough for 10mm,
:lol
some funny stuff there
-
I prefer a XD over a Glock any day. There is no mention of M1 Garand. :noid
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Not to mention it listing the Ar-15 as a manly rifle, even though it's plastic and breaks in any true man's hands.
This list is defunct. Any man heretofor that refers to it in any argument will adopt the name Stephanie until a vote of 90% of all men alive clear him of that name.
Laser, please tell us your experience with the M-16?
-
Switzerland has not been invaded in 800 years, because every man and most of the women are issued guns which they keep at home. Imagine a government that not only allows but INSISTS its citizens keep military grade weapons. That's points right there. Even more, they hold quarterly Schuetzenfests, at which shooting, carousing and drinking are expected. And it's entirely possible you will have your *** handed to you by a 13 year old girl shooting a select-fire StG90 assault rifle that she carried to the range from school, slung across her back while pedaling her bicycle. Swiss GIRLS are better men than most allegedly-male American liberals.
:rofl
-
Switzerland has not been invaded in 800 years, because thats where the tyrants hid their loot, that would be like stealing your own piggy bank.
-
Originally posted by john9001
Switzerland has not been invaded in 800 years, because thats where the tyrants hid their loot, that would be like stealing your own piggy bank.
Maybe Tyrants hid their loot in Switzerland because it hasnt been invaded in 800 years
-
"tenmaliest" Thats not even a word. :huh :huh
(http://pic4.picturetrail.com/VOL767/2726312/8668097/238248867.jpg)
Even if they said "Ten Maliest", "maliest" is not a word either.:huh
-
Real men cannot be bothered to siple wurds curreckly.
-
After reading that I feel good about myself. I am the benchmark of manliness :D
-
Originally posted by Shuffler
I prefer a XD over a Glock any day. There is no mention of M1 Garand. :noid
Yep.:aok
-
Well I own 4 out of 10.
1911A1 .45
AR-15/M-4 Bushmaster
Remington 870 12 gage
AK-47
Actualy I suppose I own 5 out of 10 because I do own a 44 Magnum but it's a Ruger Blackhawk single six and not a Smith. Yeah I'll claim that one as well as a manly gun since it fits in a nice "3 finger" western holster and makes a nice carry gun when out in the woods.
I was suprised that the Remington model 700 wasn't on the list. I have one of those in 30-06. Considering that weapon is the basis of the M-24 Sniper rifle it should be on the list.
-
remington and winchester shotguns aren't manly. the manly shotgun is the mossberg 500/590/835
-
Originally posted by storch
remington and winchester shotguns aren't manly. the manly shotgun is the mossberg 500/590/835
Well considering most people couldn't tell the difference between a Remington 870, Wichester 1300, or a Mossberg 500 if they were more than 5 feet away, who cares? They are all pretty much identical in form and function. Any of them would work for me but when I went shopping for a shotgun the Remington was on sale so that's what I bought.
I suppose the artical should have just said a 12 gage pump action shotgun is manly.
-
Originally posted by Hornet33
Well considering most people couldn't tell the difference between a Remington 870, Wichester 1300, or a Mossberg 500 if they were more than 5 feet away, who cares? They are all pretty much identical in form and function. Any of them would work for me but when I went shopping for a shotgun the Remington was on sale so that's what I bought.
I suppose the artical should have just said a 12 gage pump action shotgun is manly.
well except that remington and winchester shooters hold their pinky fingers up while shooting, a clear give away at up to 100m
-
(http://www.nagelsguns.net/WinM12_102595_001.JPG)
-
Originally posted by storch
well except that remington and winchester shooters hold their pinky fingers up while shooting, a clear give away at up to 100m
:rofl I haven't shot my 500 since I got an O/U for trap shooting.
Anyway, my experience with the m16 is second hand from all the manly marines it was the direct cause of death for during the vietnam war.
-
LOL
well except that remington and winchester shooters hold their pinky fingers up while shooting, a clear give away at up to 100m
"Dabu! What's with the finger? That's not gangsta. That's not gangsta!"
-
I don't stick up no pinky finger when I shoot. Middle finger maybe....depending on who or what I'm shooting at, but that's a different story.
-
Mine.
(http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c62/Masherbrum/Gun001.jpg)
-
Funny article!
-
They have some other funny articles as well.
Check out their one on Ted Nugent.
Or the NRA.
Or skanky skinny chicks.
-
:rofl
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
:rofl
Anyway, my experience with the m16 is second hand from all the manly marines it was the direct cause of death for during the vietnam war.
Well I'm not exactly an expert on M16s, but for 20 years I got to shoot it about once or twice a year depending how lucky I was to con my way into extra range time and siging up for the occasional base competions, and then maybe 3-4 times a year for about 10 years for base exercies and medical red flag training where we used blanks and in all that time I dont recall any misfires or jams that personally happened with me and the ones I saw that other people had could be directly related to how they took care of the weapons.
IIRC a Special Forces Lt that was training us one summer told us that M16 we use now is nothing like the M16 during Vietnam
-
Well considering the early M16's didn't have a forward assist, crome lined bore, and weren't issued with a cleaning kit, not to mention that the Army Ordinance folks decided to use stick powder instead of the recomended ball powder in the ammo the rifle got a bad rap in it's early days in Vietnam.
In my 17 years in the military and with the personal AR-15 I own I've probably fired well over 100,000 rds and I remember 3 malfunctions that I've had. 1 was due to a bent lip on the magazine, 1 was a pop no kick (no powder in the round) and I had a double feed once.
-
M-16 had problems at first because of dirty ammo, that problem was solved a long time ago.
-
(http://www.childprogeny.com/opinions/minigun.jpg)
all i have to say:D
-
You should red the article on katrina. It is very educational and informative :rofl
http://www.arthurshall.com/x_katrina.shtml (http://www.arthurshall.com/x_katrina.shtml)
-
Originally posted by Xargos
M-16 had problems at first because of dirty ammo, that problem was solved a long time ago.
So...
If you discount all the problems, including jams, breakages, misfeeds, misejections, acuraccy problems and on that DIRECTLY KILLED THOUSANDS OF AMERICAN SOLDIERS...
You still have a plastic gun firing .22 caliber bullets.
And it makes the 10 manliest guns list?
-
It's ok, guys, Lasersailor is an expert on lots of stuff, especially things he doesn't know.
:D
-
Somebody's been watching the history channel too much. :lol
-
Interesting choice. I bet some day soon the Springfield XD .45 ACP will be on a lot of lists like that.
-
Laser, many of our soldiers carried 12 gauges as back-up weapons while the problem with the ammo was being sorted out. Bad ammo will cause most of the problems you stated. A .223 does more damage then you think because it tumbles once it enters the human body, do not underestimate it.
P.S. Also, plastic does not expand and contract as much as metal does so is less likely to freeze up in cold weather, plus it's lighter.
-
Millions of dead people around the world agree: the 5.56 kills.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
So...
If you discount all the problems, including jams, breakages, misfeeds, misejections, acuraccy problems and on that DIRECTLY KILLED THOUSANDS OF AMERICAN SOLDIERS...
You still have a plastic gun firing .22 caliber bullets.
And it makes the 10 manliest guns list?
A shame you know NOTHING of ballistics. I suggest you do some reading on YET ANOTHER subject you know NOTHING ABOUT.
-
Originally posted by Xargos
Laser, many of our soldiers carried 12 gauges as back-up weapons while the problem with the ammo was being sorted out. Bad ammo will cause most of the problems you stated. A .223 does more damage then you think because it tumbles once it enters the human body, do not underestimate it.
P.S. Also, plastic does not expand and contract as much as metal does so is less likely to freeze up in cold weather, plus it's lighter.
Tumbles? No. It fragments upon contact with human flesh. It sort of does a buck shot type thing in human flesh.
The problem is that this does wound, it does not incapacitate. You don't care if a bullet tickles another man into incapacitation, if he's not firing back at you, or not capable of firing back at you, you are happy.
It's embarrassing that we sent soldiers into battle with sub par weapons, and sub par ammo that couldn't even drop a stereotypical tiny vietnamese man.
Only now, some 50 odd years after it was put in place does it begin to equal the quality of weapon that it replaced.
Want me to go on Mash? Because I can go on for pages how a simple little army field trial as to the effectiveness of lighter smaller ammo vs. the larger .308 can directly be attributed to the deaths of thousands of american soldiers in vietnam. Or would that ruin your perfect little world?
-
Most battlefield wounds are from snapshot firings not aimed shots, that is the reason the .223 was chosen.
You need to look up the other reasons that round was chosen instead of looking like you are.
-
Can anyone confirm his price ranges for the Mosin-Nagant and the Swiss K31?
-
Yes, I am paying for collEge. I have yet to buy any big pieces of art though...
Anyway, all the answers about how I am right are right here: http://www.ammo-oracle.com/body.htm . But something has corrupted it since I've last visited. Most of it's still there, but some is just gobbledy gook.
But if you REALLY want to get into this discussion, I guess I can take 30 minutes from my spring break and spank you pretty bad.
-
Originally posted by aztec
Can anyone confirm his price ranges for the Mosin-Nagant and the Swiss K31?
The MN Prices are correct, but there needs to be something incredible about it for the price to go above 100-125 dollars. Like stalin once shot it himself, or used it as a dildo.
The K31 prices seem right. They were around 120-180 at the gun show last weekend.
-
LOL, you don't want no piece of me boy.
You got all your info from one place, how pathetic. I bet you also believe everything your professors say as Gods word. You need to get out into the real world.
P.S. I'm through with you. BYE
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Tumbles? No. It fragments upon contact with human flesh. It sort of does a buck shot type thing in human flesh.
The problem is that this does wound, it does not incapacitate. You don't care if a bullet tickles another man into incapacitation, if he's not firing back at you, or not capable of firing back at you, you are happy.
It's embarrassing that we sent soldiers into battle with sub par weapons, and sub par ammo that couldn't even drop a stereotypical tiny vietnamese man.
Only now, some 50 odd years after it was put in place does it begin to equal the quality of weapon that it replaced.
Want me to go on Mash? Because I can go on for pages how a simple little army field trial as to the effectiveness of lighter smaller ammo vs. the larger .308 can directly be attributed to the deaths of thousands of american soldiers in vietnam. Or would that ruin your perfect little world?
The buckshot thing seems strange, as when I was in the Air Force, one
of our brainier security police cleared his weapon in the wrong order and
managed to jack a round into the chamber.
He then fired it right through the sand filled barrel, making a nice neat
22 caliber hole through top and bottom of the clearing barrel. No fragments
just nice neat holes..admittedly at as close a range as you can get. :D
Also we lost 50,000 folks in the Vietnam War..exactly how many of those
were attributed to firing a non-308 round? What about using 750 lb bombs
rather than 1000 lbers? Curious how a field trial would be able to quantify
causes of death from a conflict that raged for over a decade on land, sea
and air though.
-
Thx Laser, at those prices I can't afford not to own at least one of them, anyone have any help on which might be a better 1st purchase, I'm leanin toward the MN.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Tumbles? No. It fragments upon contact with human flesh. It sort of does a buck shot type thing in human flesh.
Want me to go on Mash?
Wrong. My buddy is a retired Michigan State Trooper out of the Northville Crime Lab. "The .223 bullet upon entry of the human body will ricochet and NOT fragment." He was in Ballistics for 28 years. I think he is a tad bit more knowledgeable than you.
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
Wrong. My buddy is a retired Michigan State Trooper out of the Northville Crime Lab. "The .223 bullet upon entry of the human body will ricochet and NOT fragment." He was in Ballistics for 28 years. I think he is a tad bit more knowledgeable than you.
I don't know, how often was he able to catch the History Channel? :D
-
You're wasting your time, Laser ain't coming back. I've noticed how he abandons threads when he realizes that they're not going in his favor. Same thing happened on the McCain thread when he was asked to back up his 'communist apologist' statement, same thing will happen here now that he's putting his TV watching against folks who actually know better.
Back to the subject, I sure liked the article. Can't argue his rationale for the #1 position, heh.
-
Of all my WWII rifles the smelly is my least favorite.. Garand the most.
1911's are great... any 44 mag is a good 44mag...
The 870 is a good shotgun after you fix it's unfortunate tendency to short stroke and jam... I really like my model 97 winchester shotguns more... exposed hammers on shotguns are manly. as are bayonet lugs and heat shields.
don't like double action autos but my cz75 clone in .45 is not bad with the wood grips.
Love to own a barret.
lazs
-
Originally posted by aztec
Thx Laser, at those prices I can't afford not to own at least one of them, anyone have any help on which might be a better 1st purchase, I'm leanin toward the MN.
Get this package for under $80 (http://www.aimsurplus.com/acatalog/Russian_Model_91_30_7_62x54R_Mosin_Nagant.html)
(http://www.aimsurplus.com/acatalog/mosin9130spec.gif)
If you have any questions about how to buy it and get it shipped to you, just ask. They also have the M-38 carbine model.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
You're wasting your time, Laser ain't coming back. I've noticed how he abandons threads when he realizes that they're not going in his favor.
I know, just using FACT against his "website".
-
Thx VOR! Great site.
!
-
It is acceptable to wear padding to fire a Mosin.
The author is a candyass, disregard anything in that article. Hell, half the fun of shooting a Mosin-Nagant is showing off your purple shoulder to your friends.
-
"Kid" at work (24) bought a nagant... he came in after the weekend whining about how much it kicked. I sometimes forget people are like that.
lazs
-
Thx VOR! Great site.
AIM is full of goodness. A lot more goodness was around 2-3 years ago, though. I'm still pissed I waited too long on the Bulgarian Makarovs that Laz jumped on. What A deal that was.
"Kid" at work (24) bought a nagant... he came in after the weekend whining about how much it kicked. I sometimes forget people are like that.
LOL. I shot my M-38 for the first time in the fall and it is pretty brutal. Far more brutal than the Enfield No. 5 Enfield. The slightly weaker round (though probably more devestating in Ball with the tumble effect) and rubber buttpad help it out a lot. A night and day difference. It helps I have about 3000 rounds of 303 in stock, 1000 of which is pretty clean.
Charon
-
I grabbed one of the Bulgarian Maks when they had them for sale. It's an excellent little pistol that can double as a bottle opener.
I'm also a pansy when it comes to recoil. 15 years ago, I used to save my money to buy 7.62x54 and 8mm ammo and fired up as much as I could afford. I don't remember ever having an issue dealing with the recoil. Nowadays I have some problems with my shoulders and I can't tolerate much at one sitting. I ordered a PAST recoil pad so I could still enjoy my hobby without making girl faces when I pull the trigger.
I tried it on the other day when it arrived and Mrs. VOR said ,"Nice bra". :confused:
-
LOL. THE BEER PARADOX (http://www.arthurshall.com/x_2006_beer_paradox.shtml) is funny and educational.
I tried it on the other day when it arrived and Mrs. VOR said ,"Nice bra".
Yeah, I use a ***** pad with the bolt actions myself. Not an issue with the Garand or the No. 5 though (***** pad built in, and I replaced the worn out one with a new repro). I tend to try and fire 100 -200 rounds at a sitting and that makes it a necessity for me. And that M-38 was brutal even with the pad. I like to have fun and not just grit my teeth and tough it through the last 20 rounds out of pride and stubborness :)
Charon
-
Yes, I abandoned this thread. How dare I not immediately get on the computer once I woke up?!
Anyway, http://www.ammo-oracle.com/body.htm seems to be working right now. It's a very good site, explaining the differences between .223 and 5.56 and then explaining the differences between all the different kinds of military 5.56 rounds.
Xargos, the tumbling myth got started because the bullet used to tumble, but not necessarily in the body, nor on purpose. Just as much as hand loaders can adjust the bullet size and amount of powder to tune the loading to the specific gun to get a more accurate load, you can go the other way and get an inaccurate load.
Not counting the wrong type of powder used, the lack of cleaning kits, and poorly made barrels... The bullets used in early vietnam were detuned (though inadvertently) to the M16, resulting in wildly inaccurate bullets and sometimes resulting in the bullet tumbling in mid air causing them to be even more inaccurate.
Only after thousands of US troops died after their M16's failed them in multiple ways did the government issue cleaning kits, issue new m16's with better bullets, and fix the bullet.
But onto the topic of butt pads... Recoil of most fire arms hasn't been too big of a problem for me. The garand, any 12 gauge, the 91/30 and the 1903 were all relatively easy to shoot because I focus on the target and do not worry about the recoil.
However, the MN 91/38 carbine hurts like a ***** if I don't have the butt perfectly in the right place, and perfectly up against my shoulder. Even if I do have it perfect, it still hurts.
-
I was trained by the State with the .223 for when I worked in the towers. What training, if any, do you have?
-
None. But by your logic that automatically means I'm wrong and you can dismiss anything I say.
-
I prefer the .308 myself, but a .223 will put an inmate down just as fast as the .308. I just think you underestimate the .223 for use on humans.
-
Originally posted by Xargos
I prefer the .308 myself, but a .223 will put an inmate down just as fast as the .308. I just think you underestimate the .223 for use on humans.
I do not. I have history on my side. The same problem has haunted the .223 from its conception to today. It will severely wound the target, however it does not incapacitate.
Like I said before, the bullet could fly out and literally tickle the target. If the target is unable to fight back from laughing too hard, then you are happy.
Sure, it killed many vietnamese, iraqi's, somalis... However, it took 2-4 shots to incapacitate the target. That's not counting the problem that M4's would encounter due to the short barrel and lack of muzzle velocity.
But, any way you cut it, the M1 Garand / M14 were better guns and way more manly then the AR15 / M16.
-
You need to study warfare tactics. It's better to wound the enemy so he becomes a burden on the enemies resources, that is one reason among many the .223 was chosen. Other reason are that you can carry more ammo. Range is not a big issue because it was found that most soldiers would wait until the enemy was well within the range of their weapon before they opened fire anyway. Most battlefield wound are the cause of indirect fire or snap shots, not aimed shots and most are in the arms or legs so a bigger round would not have made that much of a difference. There are other reasons but I don't feel like writing a book.
And you need to figure out what the real agenda is of the people you've been getting your info from.
P.S. Weapons for the military are made by the lowest bider, a fact of LIFE that will never change. And you as a extreme right-wing republican should understand that quality is not as important as profit.
-
That wounding is preferred to killing is bull****. It ONLY applies to civilized armies.
The last time we fought a civilized army was WW2. Every single war since then has been against extremists who either did not care about their wounded, or would simply become enraged by it. And from the state of things in the world, it doesn't not seem that this fact will change any time soon.
While they could carry more rounds of .223, we've already established that 1 .223 =/= 1 .308 . So while you have more rounds, you have less fire power (assuming you are carrying less then 3x the amount of bullets you would with a .308).
-
.308 is fine if you can hit your target. Chances are your aim is going to be off a little in battle because of the amount of adrenalin pumping through your veins. You would be better off hitting your target with a small round then missing him with the bigger one.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Yes, I abandoned this thread.
Only after thousands of US troops died after their M16's failed them in multiple ways did the government issue cleaning kits, issue new m16's with better bullets, and fix the bullet.
The ONLY modification in Nam was the addition of a forward assist. "Thousands died?" You have more bullchit than a barnyard. The USAF was the first to use the M16. The Army had a few hundred in use at the start of the Vietnam War Laser. Their conclusion? "Excellent weapon (as ANY) when clean, but what is needed is a forward assist." The addition of the Forward assist in 1966 was named M16A1. That design was unchanged until 1982, with the A2. My shooting buddy used an M203, and shot Expert in the Army.
The ammo used in the "experimental stage was limited production." Supply could not meet demand. The "bullet" was not changed either. When first delivered, Colt rang out that "the M16 is almost self cleaning by design". When the cartridges were made, they used different powder quantities than the "test ammo". The new ammo loads fouled the NON-CHROMED barrel, more.
So again, "How did thousands die when only a few hundred or less M16's were used before 1966?"
Xargos, he'll keep coming back with yet another website. Forgive him, he's not that bright.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
That wounding is preferred to killing is bull****. It ONLY applies to civilized armies.
You are clueless.
-
He's either jerking or chain or he's lead a real insulated life.
-
You know, it's fine to be wrong. We've all made statements at one point that were in error that we got called on, and one measure of our character is how we responded. For the most part, at least here in the O'Club, most of us have acknowledged it, learned from them, and have been smarter going forward.
Then there are folks that choose a different path...
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
You know, it's fine to be wrong. We've all made statements at one point that were in error that we got called on, and one measure of our character is how we responded. For the most part, at least here in the O'Club, most of us have acknowledged it, learned from them, and have been smarter going forward.
Then there are folks that choose a different path...
Laser "leads the misguided on that different path".
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
The ONLY modification in Nam was the addition of a forward assist. "Thousands died?" You have more bullchit than a barnyard. The USAF was the first to use the M16. The Army had a few hundred in use at the start of the Vietnam War Laser. Their conclusion? "Excellent weapon (as ANY) when clean, but what is needed is a forward assist." The addition of the Forward assist in 1966 was named M16A1. That design was unchanged until 1982, with the A2. My shooting buddy used an M203, and shot Expert in the Army.
The ammo used in the "experimental stage was limited production." Supply could not meet demand. The "bullet" was not changed either. When first delivered, Colt rang out that "the M16 is almost self cleaning by design". When the cartridges were made, they used different powder quantities than the "test ammo". The new ammo loads fouled the NON-CHROMED barrel, more.
So again, "How did thousands die when only a few hundred or less M16's were used before 1966?"
Xargos, he'll keep coming back with yet another website. Forgive him, he's not that bright.
http://world.guns.ru/assault/as18-e.htm
I'm sorry, what was that Mash? That was the sound of me embarrassing you. It's OK though, I know that Ad Hominem attacks are your favorite when you can not top anyone in an argument. If Ad Hominem attacks don't quiet your target, you usually resort to caps to simulate yelling to try to diminish your target that way.
But we all know that Mash's destruction is not enough. So here is more:
http://www.thegunzone.com/556dw-1.html (<--Difficult to follow, mainly focuses on the 5.56 bullet and competition. )
http://www.ar15.com/content/articles/history/evolution.html
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m16-history.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m16-variants.htm
And this is my Mash Domination dance:
(http://home.nc.rr.com/whollyunholy/butt-wiggle-dance.gif)
I'm sorry, I'm not that good at dancing.
I also want to point out that demand for the bullet wasn't driven by want of it, but by necessity. I read somewhere that the Army was firing off around 10,000 bullets to every 1 hit on the enemy. I could be off on the 10,000 #, I'll have to dig it up again.
Also, from the conception of the XME16e1 through the M16A2, some 3.6 million guns were made.
Up to 1968, when the M16A1 was issued to everyone, roughly 16,550 american soldiers had died (http://www.rjsmith.com/kia_tbl.html), where as there were 409,111 american troops in vietnam. While I may be exaggerating by saying thousands, I have read reports of entire platoons that had been over run and killed. Afterwards they discovered many jammed and disassembled M16's among the dead.
-
the "X" was the experimental version. Wow, you keep posting websites. Pure facts mean more. You really are clueless. The only one you are embarrassing is yourself.
-
Wait, are you telling me that you're not smart enough to actually go onto the websites? And that I need to copy them out for you?
-
I deal in first-hand accounts and FACTS. A webpage is just that, SOMEONE'S OPINION.
-
Real men cannot be bothered to siple wurds curreckly.
I see the HiTech brainwashing is working...
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
I deal in first-hand accounts and FACTS. A webpage is just that, SOMEONE'S OPINION.
2 Marines, 3 army soldiers and 1 sailor, all who served in Vietnam, all back what I've said.
But now that I've said that, you're not going to be satisfied unless I get those 6 people to register and post in this thread.
-
ladies and gentlemen, meet Laser's 6 shade accounts.
-
Originally posted by mentalguy
ladies and gentlemen, meet Laser's 6 shade accounts.
:rofl
-
You'll know just how find and dandy the .223 is when the next battle rifle comes out. If they switch to the 6.8mm Rem that will pretty much end the argument.
-
I would not have a 223 if I could get a bigger caliber in a more accurate rifle.
I am not the best rifle shot but if I take my time I can hit out to some pretty good ranges... I have shot battle rifles against the assault carbines and I don't like the way the carbines perform at range. I also like to be able to shoot through a wall or a tree.... to stop an unarmored vehicle..
If all I wanted was to get a lot of lead into the air or never shot over a couple hundred yards and a stop/kill was not important and my enemy never wore body armor... I would go with the low powered carbine round.
For any kind of a fight I might get into I would go with a pistol/revolver (defensive) and an accurate high powered rifle (offensive). Let eveyone else burn ammo on full auto.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I would not have a 223 if I could get a bigger caliber in a more accurate rifle.
I am not the best rifle shot but if I take my time I can hit out to some pretty good ranges... I have shot battle rifles against the assault carbines and I don't like the way the carbines perform at range. I also like to be able to shoot through a wall or a tree.... to stop an unarmored vehicle..
If all I wanted was to get a lot of lead into the air or never shot over a couple hundred yards and a stop/kill was not important and my enemy never wore body armor... I would go with the low powered carbine round.
For any kind of a fight I might get into I would go with a pistol/revolver (defensive) and an accurate high powered rifle (offensive). Let eveyone else burn ammo on full auto.
lazs
I thought the entire point of going to rapid fire short ranged military
weapons was because you generally don't see your target but want to
suppress them using volume of fire?
In other words, you don't have the luxury of time to acquire targets.
I have no dog in the caliber hunt one way or the other. The current and
future nature of small arms targets may determine whether or not a
heavier caliber is needed though.
I think the developing "smart" rounds could have a major impact on
round size too. Tough to get an effective explosive round in a 5.56.
-
Originally posted by Rino
I thought the entire point of going to rapid fire short ranged military
weapons was because you generally don't see your target but want to
suppress them using volume of fire?
In other words, you don't have the luxury of time to acquire targets.
I have no dog in the caliber hunt one way or the other. The current and
future nature of small arms targets may determine whether or not a
heavier caliber is needed though.
I think the developing "smart" rounds could have a major impact on
round size too. Tough to get an effective explosive round in a 5.56.
I think the real problem came when they started to shy away from specialized infantry weapons (I.E. Issuing m1c, tommy gun, BAR, Garand, and then LMG and MMG's) in favor of issuing everyone an all around average gun that could perform averagely in all tasks.
-
saw this gun on the TV. 6.8mm
http://www.barrettrifles.com/rifle_468.aspx
-
(quote) I think the real problem came when they started to shy away from specialized infantry weapons (I.E. Issuing m1c, tommy gun, BAR, Garand, and then LMG and MMG's) in favor of issuing everyone an all around average gun that could perform averagely in all tasks. (unquote)
In addition to the average troop having more rounds and higher rate of fire, within many units isn't there still a variety of weapons and calibers, e.g., 5.56mm, 7.62mm, and 50-cal.?
-
Perhaps. But the troops were issued the M16 with the belief that it would take the place of the thompson AND the M14 (Garand) AND the M1carbine AND the BAR AND (partly) the M1917... You can make the perfect gun, but it would still have trouble covering all of those roles.
-
I would much rather shoot an enemy human with a .30 caliber round than a .22 caliber round. I remember reading in "Black Hawk Down" how one of the Delta guys had a modified M14 and any bad guy he hit with the 308 round stopped fighting immediately. Apparently many of the militants continued fighting after being hit by 5.56 rounds for several minutes, some not even aware of being hit until they bled out. I guess the round is just so damned fast that the ballistic shock value has a hard time keeping up with the round.
-
I have shot hogs with both. .30 is better than .223 but with good placement .223 does the job.
-
Yeager, remember snipers don't generally spray and waste ammo like the common foot soldier.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
I would much rather shoot an enemy human with a .30 caliber round than a .22 caliber round. I remember reading in "Black Hawk Down" how one of the Delta guys had a modified M14 and any bad guy he hit with the 308 round stopped fighting immediately. Apparently many of the militants continued fighting after being hit by 5.56 rounds for several minutes, some not even aware of being hit until they bled out. I guess the round is just so damned fast that the ballistic shock value has a hard time keeping up with the round.
If I remember correctly, that had to do with other factors. First being that the somalis were coked up just to the point where they can still barely function. Add onto that the fact that the M4's being used couldn't propel the bullet fast enough to fracture open impact. The bullets (to fracture) need to be moving at a certain speed.
Because the barrel is shorter, the bullet dropped past this point at about 50 yards, effectively making the bullet a really fast .22 .
Those two factors did not bode well with anyone wielding an M4 (during the mogadishu battle).
-
Also, I believe Delta Force snipers use hand made ammo, I could be wrong on this so I won't argue over it.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
That wounding is preferred to killing is bull****. It ONLY applies to civilized armies.
The last time we fought a civilized army was WW2. Every single war since then has been against extremists who either did not care about their wounded, or would simply become enraged by it. And from the state of things in the world, it doesn't not seem that this fact will change any time soon.
Calling nazis or Japanese Empire of the 1940s "civilized" is simply insane.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Calling nazis or Japanese Empire of the 1940s "civilized" is simply insane.
Nazis? Civilized? No.
But the germans were.
-
Standard 308 ammo for snipers is Federal Match grade manufactured with the Sierra 168 HPBT Match King bullet. In fact, if you go to FBI sniper school at Quantico, they used to provide you with a CASE of it all from one lot.
Now, I have some SEAL sniper ammo that is 300 Winchester Magnum. It is NOT "factory loaded". It is pretty much ballistically equivalent to my own very fast hot loaded ammo. What I have is the same Sierra 168 grain HPBT Match King above, over a max ( I WILL NOT reveal what the charge is) charge of 4350 with a large rifle magnum primer. In MY Winchester Model 70 with a 26" barrel, it clocks right at 3300 fps. The SEAL ammo shoots to within about 1/2" or so of the point of impact of my ammo.
The 300 Winchester Magnum ammo used by the rifle teams is also custom handloaded.
The Barrett also gets a special diet, as opposed to getting the standard ammo issued for the Ma Deuce.
Were I going to battle, I'd MUCH prefer an M1 Garand or an M14, with a 1911, to the current M-16 variant and the Beretta. I'll pass on the 5.56 and 9 stuff, thanks. I use .22 caliber stuff for varmints. Granted, my old Model 70 220 Swift was deadly accurate, and hit hard, but not like my 300 Winchester, 30-06, or my shooting buddy's various 308s, including an AR variant chambered for 308.
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
Mine.
(http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c62/Masherbrum/Gun001.jpg)
Same here along with my M1-Super90
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
A glock makes the list, but the gun that won WW2 does not?
The .303 Lee Enfield is already in there.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
If I remember correctly, that had to do with other factors. First being that the somalis were coked up just to the point where they can still barely function. Add onto that the fact that the M4's being used couldn't propel the bullet fast enough to fracture open impact. The bullets (to fracture) need to be moving at a certain speed.
Because the barrel is shorter, the bullet dropped past this point at about 50 yards, effectively making the bullet a really fast .22 .
Those two factors did not bode well with anyone wielding an M4 (during the mogadishu battle).
.223 is one of my favourite cartridges but I have always thought that it would have been better if the M-16 had been re-chambered in a larger calibre when the A2 was introduced instead of modifying the 5.56mm cartridge(M193 to ss109/m855)by making the projectile heavier, slower and a less frangible to make it more "humane" and to get it perform effectively in the SAW role (penetration body armour at 800+ yards from memory), for which I think the cartridge was never originally intended to be used for, or suited too.
Although the 1 in 14 rifling twist was a bit too slow on early AR-15s Imo Stoner's original idea for the AR-15/5.56mm combo of a light weight, slightly unstable, highly frangible projectile driven to the highest muzzle velocity possible with fast burning powder was optimum for the 5.56 round as used in a rifle like the AR-15.
-
That was frikkin hilarious
The Mosin was used by the Russians against the Finns, the Finns against the Russians, the Estonians against the Russians, the Russians against the Russians, and the Russians against the Germans. It does, in fact, have a safety, but it's quite hard to engage. But this is not a complaint one would ever voice in the Red Army. Your officer would reply, "Safety? Safety? Is gun! Meant to kill! No warrior should know he has safety on gun, because he should be killing enemies of homeland! Safety make loud click to aid enemy in locating warriors! No safety!" while pounding his fist on the table.
-
Excel, the AR-15 and the First versions of the M16 were completely different. With the exception of using the 5.56 round, the AR-15 is a pretty good gun. It's accurate, reliable, functions properly and is a pretty good gun.
However, in setting out the manufacturing plans to make the M16, they cut away all the good features of the AR-15, and even put in some bad ones to the M16.
And Pei, I know you meant to get in a zinger, however it is not up for debate that the Garand won WW2.
-
The Garand and the Mosin Nagant won WW2. The Lee Enfield just tagged along like that little dog, with the bulldog in Loony Toons.