NationStates Jolt Archive

A fan of the Kalishnakov series, yet want to use the beefier .308 winchester?

Have I got a gun for you!

http://www.cruffler.com/Features/FEB-02/review-February-02.html

Hate guns...much more into conventional weapons, like swords and so on...I should've been born into the High Middle Ages :rolleyes: :p

Hate guns...much more into conventional weapons, like swords and so on...I should've been born into the High Middle Ages :rolleyes: :p
Ah, the good old days, when men were real men, women were objects and nobles got to bang wives before the husbands did.

Ah, the good old days, when men were real men, women were objects and nobles got to bang wives before the husbands did.
Well add genderial equality into the formula, and I'd much prefer them. Nowadays the world is painfully dull.

Well add genderial equality into the formula, and I'd much prefer them. Nowadays the world is painfully dull.
I know what you mean, when was the last time that a quarter of Europe's population was wiped out by the plague? Not recent enough, I tell you!

I know what you mean, when was the last time that a quarter of Europe's population was wiped out by the plague? Not recent enough, I tell you!
Life is overrated anyway.

I know what you mean, when was the last time that a quarter of Europe's population was wiped out by the plague? Not recent enough, I tell you!
1340s??

1340s??
I was thinking more around early 16th century. Not High Middle Ages per se, but there was still the influence.

http://total.naruto.free.fr/ninja2/katana-grand.jpg

http://total.naruto.free.fr/ninja2/katana-grand.jpg
Now those are awesome ^^

only one thing i love more than guns. and that's chicks with guns.....

http://sgoinon.com/images/chicks_with_guns.jpg

No love for the .308 AK?

Hmm... All metal, so it's cheaper than the AK-47 (wood stocks tend to jack up the price of rifles)... 7.62mm ammo is pretty common for assault rifles... The thing certainly looks sturdy enough... Unfortunately, I don't know enough about individual models of assault rifles to say anything else.

While I must say that in most regards I much prefer the modern world, there is one element of medieval life that I wouldn't mind seeing more: Bodices. They don't have to be the gut-smishing anaconda kind; I just like the shape. Oh, the shape... :D

No love for the .308 AK?
And what are you going to use it for?

Can't really hunt with it, for that you have hunting rifles or shotguns. No good at defending your house, for that you have shotguns or pistols (or better still, a dog and a mobile phone).
And you won't join a militia and defeat the army with it either, for that there are a lot more effective weapons around.

So I don't really see why you would like this particular gun. And it doesn't even look very good.

> Sights look kick ass.

> Capacity: 5, 10, 20, 30 and 35 round detachable box magazines Hm, 30+ is always an upside.

> Only 7.5 lbs. Not bad at all.

Next time I have a grand lying around I'll consider getting one.:p

And what are you going to use it for?

V.V Target Practice! Any and all AR-AK style rifles are fun to shoot.

What is a gun against a good Sword ?

http://www.wolfgangkiel.de/sword.jpg

What is a gun against a good Sword ?


Distance, Accuracy, Cheap ammo; easier to stockpile.

You charge GunwielderA through a field, armed with a sword. Gunwielder would put you down.

(Couldn't Resist)

It's comparable to asking "Whats a longbow compared to a club?"

And what are you going to use it for?

Can't really hunt with it, for that you have hunting rifles or shotguns. No good at defending your house, for that you have shotguns or pistols (or better still, a dog and a mobile phone).
And you won't join a militia and defeat the army with it either, for that there are a lot more effective weapons around.

So I don't really see why you would like this particular gun. And it doesn't even look very good.

First off, this would be an incredibly militia gun. The AK series is incredibly durable and reliable. The .308 will put any enemy troops that find their way into your sights out, at 500m+. I'd take a squad of ex-american soldiers, marksmen, hunters, etc, armed with these, AR-15's, and possibly an automatic weapon to use as covering fire, over any normal chinese infantry squad.

Unlike alot of the world, our guys realize guns have sights for a reason.

V.V Target Practice! Any and all AR-AK style rifles are fun to shoot.
I don't get it.

...

What is it about guns that makes people go all silly?

Distance, Accuracy, Cheap ammo; easier to stockpile.

You charge GunwielderA through a field, armed with a sword. Gunwielder would put you down.

It's comparable to asking whats a longbow compared to a club.

Depends on the circumstances. Have the swordsman get up close without the gunman noticing and/or hitting him, and the gunman is in trouble. Why do you think guns have been armed with bayonets for the last 600 years?

First off, this would be an incredibly militia gun.
And secondly?

I'd take a squad of ex-american soldiers, marksmen, hunters, etc, armed with these, AR-15's, and possibly an automatic weapon to use as covering fire, over any normal chinese infantry squad.
:D
You buy a gun to defend yourself against a Chinese invasion? Surely not.

And while we're at it...have anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons as well?

Unlike alot of the world, our guys realize guns have sights for a reason.
Don't worry, the Chinese know that too.

...My understanding is that, for the last century or so, the US has had a really BAD reputation so far as accuracy is concerned. Especially the Navy- between the Spanish-American War and American torpedo bombers' horrible performance in pre-Pearl Harbor training exercises... Bad reputation.

And what are you going to use it for?

Can't really hunt with it, for that you have hunting rifles or shotguns. No good at defending your house, for that you have shotguns or pistols (or better still, a dog and a mobile phone).
And you won't join a militia and defeat the army with it either, for that there are a lot more effective weapons around.

So I don't really see why you would like this particular gun. And it doesn't even look very good.


raining on everyones parade are we?

some things are just cool to play with...


j/k wit you

you actually raise very valid points.

shotty for the house,long range with a hunting type rifle(.270 ty very much with a good scope)and i will stick with my ak in common round...7.63+39,cheap and in mass quantities.

however,7.62 in nato caliber(308) is also widely available,and could technically replace the hunting rifle,and still serve as a mbr.

just my 2 cents

308 is gaining popularity due to surplus ammo,and ballistically it is almost...almost the equivalent of an 06..not the longer range stuff..but for short to longer medium range it is far superiour to 7.62.39.

p.s. alot of people now hunt animals up to elk with a 308,and i would rather shoot a bear with a 308 then the standard kali round,any day,even more then my .270

it is used in a short action bolt,which is why i think nato superseded the 30-06 with it,a ballistic match shot from a short action,i may be wrong,they also had concerns over everyone using the same round in nato..but for sure,it is gaining popularity as a solid hunting cartridge...for up to elk at moderate range.

I'll just stick with my Army Issue M-16A2 when I'm in the field and when i'm home I've got my Ruger Mini-14, .223 Hollowpoints, need I say more?

Bah. When futuristic multi-plate infantry armour supported by servos comes into play, small arms will become irrelevant! Bwahahahahahaaaaa! It'll become a bit of a turret match though...

I'll just stick with my Army Issue M-16A2 when I'm in the field and when i'm home I've got my Ruger Mini-14, .223 Hollowpoints, need I say more?

you better...lol...223 is a pip sqeak,and i have had a few,yea they are accurate,with the right bullet and barrel twist and correct propellant.

i'll take my kalish or an 06 any day,i dont mind the extra ammo weight...i can shoot thru the brick wall your hiding behind and you cant.

Well for shooting through Brick Walls, I've got some 62 Grain Steel Tipped Penetrators as well.


but the point of the hollow points is that I DON'T want to shoot through my walls, I do have neighbors ya know, and with an overall length of Less than 36" my ruger isn't bad for CQB. I just bought a folding stock and Pistol grip for it.

I've also got my Sig P220 .45 with a couple of magazines of Hydrashocks laying around.


And I consider hitting a man sized target at 300 meters with Iron Sights fairly accurate (with an actuall efective range of 550 meters on a point target)

And secondly?


:D
You buy a gun to defend yourself against a Chinese invasion? Surely not.

And while we're at it...have anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons as well?


Don't worry, the Chinese know that too.


Yeah, I do that alot.
---
I buy a gun because it would be fun to shoot, and/or because it has a practical use.

This would be my SHTF gun, if I bought it.

And no, the government can protect me from any enemy airforce or armoured force in the world. However, if it went nuclear, or otherwise there was a signifigant infantry presence(civil war, flood, etc), it would serve me well.
---
My point had nothing to do with the chinese, but other militia's in places like iraq, where the insurgents often just spray and pray, even at long distance. On the contrary, americans tend to be very good with their guns, and I would trust nine or ten guys with semi-auto's over a squad of most nation's troops(barring israel, america, and western europe for the most part).

Ah, the good old days, when men were real men, women were objects and nobles got to bang wives before the husbands did.

Jus primae noctis (law of the first night) and droit du seigneur (the lord's right) appear to be a locker room legend.

detailed examinations of the available records by reputable historians have found "no evidence of its existence in law books, charters, decretals, trials, or glossaries," one scholar notes. No woman ever commented on the practice, unfavorably or otherwise, and no account ever identifies any female victim by name.

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_181.html

Depends on the circumstances. Have the swordsman get up close without the gunman noticing and/or hitting him, and the gunman is in trouble. Why do you think guns have been armed with bayonets for the last 600 years?

Modern militrary have bayonets due to tradition more than anything else. Yes, they were an effective means of turning that musket into a spear/pike once upon a time, when massed infantry was the rule.

Now, most issue bayonets serve a dual purpose as a utility knife and a morale enhancer. Bayonet training is done primarily as an exercise in aggressiveness traiining.

That's not to say that one can't use a bayonet as a weapon. It just simply is very rare to do so.

I don't get it.

...

What is it about guns that makes people go all silly?

It's mostly silly teenaged boys in the US. And I say that as US citizen and a stong advocate of owning firearms. (And I might even include those MANPADs and ATGMs.)

Think of it as another form of the love of fast sporty cars. Just pat him on his head and say "that's nice."

Depends on the circumstances. Have the swordsman get up close without the gunman noticing and/or hitting him, and the gunman is in trouble. Why do you think guns have been armed with bayonets for the last 600 years?

Soldiers use bayonets for a variety of reasons. Many of them are thankful that they had a bayonet on hand when they needed to open a can of soup or cut through barbed wire. And it's really cheap, so why not buy it?

Also, some armies (like the Marines) use them as a kind of psychological motivator to make more agressive. Bayonet training in Marine boot camps like Parris Island focuses on agression and taking the fight to the enemy. The bayonet charge represents better than anything else the spirit of attack. However, in terms of combat use, bayonets are almost never used, and in Civil War melees, at least, it was found that the rifle stock was actually a much more convenient and frequently-used weapon. And just remember that armies are very traditional, and they'll still use bayonets a long time after they're truly obsolete.


...My understanding is that, for the last century or so, the US has had a really BAD reputation so far as accuracy is concerned. Especially the Navy- between the Spanish-American War and American torpedo bombers' horrible performance in pre-Pearl Harbor training exercises... Bad reputation


In order to pass Boot Camp, US army and Marine soldiers must score 70% accuracy against man-size targets 500 meters away. In the Gulf War, 80-90% of all US precision munitions fired destroyed their targets. When it comes to producing single pieces of evidence like that, there are always a thousand different ways to refute it, and a thousand different ways to support it. Still, the US military today is one of the most accurate in the world. Notice that it prefers long-range, high accuracy rifles like the M-16 and CAR-15 over shorter-range, less accurate weapons that other nations use like the AK series.

Soldiers use bayonets for a variety of reasons. Many of them are thankful that they had a bayonet on hand when they needed to open a can of soup or cut through barbed wire. And it's really cheap, so why not buy it?

Also, some armies (like the Marines) use them as a kind of psychological motivator to make more agressive. Bayonet training in Marine boot camps like Parris Island focuses on agression and taking the fight to the enemy. The bayonet charge represents better than anything else the spirit of attack. However, in terms of combat use, bayonets are almost never used, and in Civil War melees, at least, it was found that the rifle stock was actually a much more convenient and frequently-used weapon. And just remember that armies are very traditional, and they'll still use bayonets a long time after they're truly obsolete.



In order to pass Boot Camp, US army and Marine soldiers must score 70% accuracy against man-size targets 500 meters away. In the Gulf War, 80-90% of all US precision munitions fired destroyed their targets. When it comes to producing single pieces of evidence like that, there are always a thousand different ways to refute it, and a thousand different ways to support it. Still, the US military today is one of the most accurate in the world. Notice that it prefers long-range, high accuracy rifles like the M-16 and CAR-15 over shorter-range, less accurate weapons that other nations use like the AK series.

:D Beat ya to the bayonet. And you're dead right about the accuracy issue. I understand the USMC (and probably the army as well) do a great deal of single fire training in basic, and only fire off a single magazine on auto or selective fire during basic.

army only shoots out to 300 meters


marines shoot out to 500 meters.


but your right about Automatic fire training, not a lot of that. I got a bunch when they gave me a SAW though :-D

In order to pass Boot Camp, US army and Marine soldiers must score 70% accuracy against man-size targets 500 meters away. In the Gulf War, 80-90% of all US precision munitions fired destroyed their targets. When it comes to producing single pieces of evidence like that, there are always a thousand different ways to refute it, and a thousand different ways to support it. Still, the US military today is one of the most accurate in the world. Notice that it prefers long-range, high accuracy rifles like the M-16 and CAR-15 over shorter-range, less accurate weapons that other nations use like the AK series.

Whats with this myth about inaccurate AK-series weapons?

Yes, the AK-47 and AKM(Circa 1956 or so) are "only" effectively accurate out to 300 meters. Now look at the progression.

The M4a1 has a 360m effective range, though using 5.56x45mm(will get to that in a second).

The Car-15 likely had a lower effective range, though I cant find the number.

The M-16a1 had an effective range of 450m.

The AK-74(M) has an effective range of 500m.

The M-16a2 has an effective range of 550m.

These aren't big differences. The AK-47 is within 60m of the M4a1, and 150m of the M-16a1. The AK-74M, a similar caliber, is within 50m of the M-16a2, and higher than the M-16a1.

The Russian army is using AK-74M's(50m difference in effective range), as well as a small number of AN-94's(Not an AK, but russian nonetheless... 700m effective range!).

Now, it looks like most of the AK's have a slight range problem on the M-16 series. But two points:

1. The M-16 line of guns is simply newer, compared to -47's and -74's. The M-16a1 came before the -74, but had less range. The 74 came before the a2, and has less range.

The AK-10X series look to have many improvements, and looking at things like the polish Wz. 96(with a 5.56mm bullet and higher MV than an M16a2, even in an AK design with similar size barrel), probably have better range, due to the improvements.

2. The 5.56x45mm bullet loses combat effectiveness at range. Depending on how high the muzzle velocity is, 5.56x45mm will lose effectiveness(meaning it wont tumble in the target) after 50(m4a1)-150(M16a2) meters. So at least for the AK-47, and similar caliber guns, retain their effectiveness up to or further than 300meters. You might be able to make a pin prick through and through at 400m with an M16a2, But I'd rather get one shot with the 7.62mm than three with non-tumbling 5.56mm.

5.56x45mm reputedly is also very affected by foliage, etc.

So to say the AK series of guns aren't very accurate is a misnomer. They leap-frog over each other, variable on caliber.

actually, the M-4A2 has the same Effective range as the M-16A2 on Point targets, it just has slightly less effective range on Area targets

actually, the M-4A2 has the same Effective range as the M-16A2 on Point targets, it just has slightly less effective range on Area targets

There's no such thing as an M-4A2, unless you mean the Sherman M4a2. There is nothing in the AR-15/CAR-15 line names M4a2.

If you mean the M4a1, you are wrong. The M4a1 has an effective range of 360m, while the M-16a2, having 8 more inches of barrel than the M4a1 Carbine, has an effective range of 550m.

http://www.world.guns.ru/assault/as18-e.htm

http://www.world.guns.ru/assault/as17-e.htm

::Walks over to arms room for the Provost Marshalls Office, Looks at carbine in weapons safe

Property of the United States Government,
Colt Firearms, etc

M-4A2::




the difference between the A1 and A2 is the A1 is full auto while the A2 is burst.


SPC Wayne D. Wallace MP
United States Army

I qualified on the M-16A2 Rifle in Basic in spring of `04 while I familirized with the M-4A2 during US Weapons Training.

http://www.google.com/search?hs=J9I&hl=en&lr=&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=Colt+M-4a2&btnG=Search

Too small-scale for my taste. I'm currently into lethal combinations, like catapults full of caltrops and rocket-propelled pitchforks.

sorry, no love for balistic projectiles here either.

energy weapons (of all scale and ranges) that cause instant unconsciousness (and simular USEFUL effects) with minimal, preferably no, actual risk to life.

preferable to blades as well

=^^=
.../\...

sorry, no love for balistic projectiles here either.

energy weapons (of all scale and ranges) that cause instant unconsciousness (and simular USEFUL effects) with minimal, preferably no, actual risk to life.

preferable to blades as well

=^^=
.../\...


Well there are Tazers.


and Pepper spray, which i've been sprayed before, it will definetly ruin someones day.

...that cause instant unconsciousness (and simular USEFUL effects)...

You some sort of Phaser Rapist?

Whats with this myth about inaccurate AK-series weapons?


Recent Russian designs have gotten better. The Ak-101 has longer range, better accuracy and more hitting power. The real reason so many countries use the Ak-47 is because it's cheap, reliable and easy to use, but other than that in terms of firepower it's basically a machine pistol. One of the most important things that hitting power does is that it causes the bullet to shatter on impact, sending small shrapnel through the target's insides. This difference might seem academic, but there are many combat reports of bullets that hit but, for whatever reason, didn't splinter, and it often took 6 or more hits to kill a target or cause him enough pain to stop running around and shooting back. The Ak-47 is soo weak that its bullet fractures at a range of 30 meters; the M-16 does so at 200 meters (Source: James F. Dunnigan's "Dirty Little Secrets: Military Information You're Not Supposed to Know"). This dosen't really matter if you're fighting in a very close-in environment, like a jungle, or if you get shot in the head, but it's rare that you'll get a head shot, and there are very few places, even in a city or light forrest, where you'll face off from the enemy at a range of just 30 meters away. So, AKs are good for poorer armies needing something reliable, easy to use and cheap, but the M-16 is a much better weapon if you can afford it. My personal favorite, though, is the Isreali Galil, a cross between the AK series and Western rifles, bringing out the best attributes of each. It also has a 7.62mm bullet instead of the more common 5.56mm found today, making it good for urban combat (which often involves shooting through walls, floors and doors).

While it is a nice gun, and most certainly would be fun to own/shoot, as a custom piece is is NOT my idea of a good SHTF or Militia gun.

I want interchangable parts. Most guns will be more accurate than I am anyway, so Cheap, Reliable and Reparable are my criteria.

A fan of the Kalishnakov series, yet want to use the beefier .308 winchester?

Have I got a gun for you!

http://www.cruffler.com/Features/FEB-02/review-February-02.html

Looks nice. I'd much rather have one of these though: http://www.fulton-armory.com/CA-EBR-500_50.jpg

Throw in some 20 round mags, and I'd be happy.

Oooh yeah.

I Heart Fulton Armory.

Oooh yeah.

I Heart Fulton Armory.

I just wish I could afford one. Even better, I wish I could afford an M1a with an LRB receiver (it's forged instead of cast like the Springfield and Fulton receivers).

Recent Russian designs have gotten better. The Ak-101 has longer range, better accuracy and more hitting power. The real reason so many countries use the Ak-47 is because it's cheap, reliable and easy to use, but other than that in terms of firepower it's basically a machine pistol. One of the most important things that hitting power does is that it causes the bullet to shatter on impact, sending small shrapnel through the target's insides. This difference might seem academic, but there are many combat reports of bullets that hit but, for whatever reason, didn't splinter, and it often took 6 or more hits to kill a target or cause him enough pain to stop running around and shooting back. The Ak-47 is soo weak that its bullet fractures at a range of 30 meters; the M-16 does so at 200 meters (Source: James F. Dunnigan's "Dirty Little Secrets: Military Information You're Not Supposed to Know"). This dosen't really matter if you're fighting in a very close-in environment, like a jungle, or if you get shot in the head, but it's rare that you'll get a head shot, and there are very few places, even in a city or light forrest, where you'll face off from the enemy at a range of just 30 meters away. So, AKs are good for poorer armies needing something reliable, easy to use and cheap, but the M-16 is a much better weapon if you can afford it. My personal favorite, though, is the Isreali Galil, a cross between the AK series and Western rifles, bringing out the best attributes of each. It also has a 7.62mm bullet instead of the more common 5.56mm found today, making it good for urban combat (which often involves shooting through walls, floors and doors).

If you want a Western AK, the best are probably made by Valmet of Finland and SiG. The best thing about the SiG SG55x is that you can find it in the house of any Swiss citizen!