NationStates Jolt Archive

A spinoff thread from Conservative Morality's ''Best medieval weapon''.What do you think,which is the best modern weapon?IMO the G36,manufactured by Heckler & Koch.It's very innovative design,although it ain't bullpup.it uses the venerable 5,56x45mm NATO.The standard scope consists of TWO scopes:3.5x telescopic sight below and a red dot sight below.the G36 is fed from new 30-round magazines,made from translucent plastic.the action is normal gas-piston,which is less prone to jamming than the m16,and this same action was used to improve the Delta Forces m4s:http://www.hkpro.com/hk416.htm(i feel like i'm doing a pitch:buy now and get twenty for free.and no i'm not working for HK.)http://world.guns.ru/assault/as14-e.htm

Suicide bomber

Suicide bomber
ffs that was exactly what I was about to say :(

ffs that was exactly what I was about to say :(

Sorry, my neighbour's wifi signal is actually quite good today.

A fat man.

I cast my vote for the potatoe gun, great range, very low lethality, the ability to fire a variety of ammunition types (like mud, rocks, potatoes, and even tomatoes and brussels sprouts!) easy to manufacture and a hell of a lot of fun to use!

I bet people expected LG to post this one!

Best weapon for what?
In case you don't know, I'll just pick "time". Or death.

Well, it's not exceptionally modern, but I'd say money. If you have enough economic power, you can wield it pretty effectively as a weapon and bludgeon a small country into compliance.

The Sex Bomb.

Politically Correct Induced Guilt

The stealth bomber.

Best modern weapon? How 'bout the Carrier Battle Group? Nothing like it no where, no how!

Fn-fal

The AK-47. Cheap, easy to use, almost ridiculously durable, and reasonable stopping power, unlike the 5.56 mm squirrel guns. That's my choice if we're just talking small arms, otherwise my vote goes to the Abrams Tank or the stealth bomber.

The AK-47. Cheap, easy to use, almost ridiculously durable, and reasonable stopping power, unlike the 5.56 mm squirrel guns. That's my choice if we're just talking small arms, otherwise my vote goes to the Abrams Tank or the stealth bomber.
I think you underestimate the momentum of a 62 gr projectile at 2800 fps. Especially when it can be aimed instead of sprayed.

The best weapon is not the weapon used, but the person using it.

A suicide stealth fat sex bomb.
...with an AK-47

WAIT! I changed my mind!

The Rail gun.:)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railgun#Railguns_as_weapons

Common Sense, unfortunatly it's not in production any longer

I think you underestimate the momentum of a 62 gr projectile at 2800 fps. Especially when it can be aimed instead of sprayed.

I've seen it in use. Unless you get lucky and sever someone's aorta or something you will not drop them in less than about 6-8 shots. They might die eventually, shit they probably will, and in just a few minutes, but when the guy's shooting at you that isn't fast enough.

Nuclear tipped ICBM.

Ernest Scribbler's greatest creation (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sr5HpgV42LQ).

I've seen it in use. Unless you get lucky and sever someone's aorta or something you will not drop them in less than about 6-8 shots. They might die eventually, shit they probably will, and in just a few minutes, but when the guy's shooting at you that isn't fast enough.

The whole point of the 5.6mm round is that it doesn't kill instantly. It takes far more resources to care for an injured soldier than it does to bury a dead one.

Nuclear tipped ICBM.

...with multiple suicide stealthfat sex bombs.

...with AK-47's:)

The whole point of the 5.6mm round is that it doesn't kill instantly. It takes far more resources to care for an injured soldier than it does to bury a dead one.


when it hits it will start to turn and then fragment,imagine having a lot of tiny pieces of metal in your body.you'll start to think other things like screaming:''medic!''

William Shatners toupee.

William Shatners toupee.

Nah, that WMD has been banned in every arms limitation treaty ever signed.

Even North Korea and Iran said they wouldn't conduct research into one and this time they said it without a smirk.

Nah, that WMD has been banned in every arms limitation treaty ever signed.

Even North Korea and Iran said they wouldn't conduct research into one and this time they said it without a smirk.

Damn these peacemongers...

WAIT! I changed my mind!

The Rail gun.:)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railgun#Railguns_as_weapons

Rail guns suck. Did you als read the problems on that page?

What about the buttered toast cannon?

Rail guns suck. Did you als read the problems on that page?

Yeah....

But such awesome weapons!:salute:

Weapon for which situation? Personal weapon? Concealable weapon? Quiet weapon? Long range? Crew served? Air deliverable?

They all fill niches. The question is, which niche are we talking about?

http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j96/Logicone/RocketPropelledChainsaw.jpg
[/thread]

So recently we have had a problem with rabbits getting into the garden and eating the plants my wife and I have worked on so hard (and spent a shit load of money on). Anyhow the little ones were already asleep and I spotted said rodents infiltrating our area and figured I would take care of it. 2 shots, from 40 yds. First one was a head shot, second took it length ways as he turned to run. Both went instantly and did not suffer.

The gun (I know I know its just a big pistol.....but its a blast to shoot)is a BW5 with H&K bolt as well as a KAC MP5 RAS, surefire nitorlon 6 volt, aimpoint, SWR trident 9 suppresor, viskers sling and surefire laser. Ammo was 147 win white box.

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b283/jtkwon/rabbits.jpg

Yeah, I know they're not in season - but it's them or the garden.

And they tasted very good. Of course, the neighbors didn't hear a sound.

The Вепр, no contest (well, only from Germany).

http://world.guns.ru/assault/as68-e.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vepr

Impressive gun with the rabit kills...

So recently we have had a problem with rabbits getting into the garden and eating the plants my wife and I have worked on so hard (and spent a shit load of money on). Anyhow the little ones were already asleep and I spotted said rodents infiltrating our area and figured I would take care of it. 2 shots, from 40 yds. First one was a head shot, second took it length ways as he turned to run. Both went instantly and did not suffer.

The gun (I know I know its just a big pistol.....but its a blast to shoot)is a BW5 with H&K bolt as well as a KAC MP5 RAS, surefire nitorlon 6 volt, aimpoint, SWR trident 9 suppresor, viskers sling and surefire laser. Ammo was 147 win white box.

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b283/jtkwon/rabbits.jpg

Yeah, I know they're not in season - but it's them or the garden.

And they tasted very good. Of course, the neighbors didn't hear a sound.

Nice firearm, nice shooting, and what appears to be a nice truck behind it. GMC, correct?

Impressive gun with the rabit kills...

As I said, each fills a niche. This one is just the "pistol caliber under 100 yards quiet weapon usable in semi-darkness" niche.

Depends on what you want.

For close range firefights, a P90.
:mp5:
Overall, I'd say a nuclear missle.

Less damaging, but just as much fun is the RPG.

Para Warthog, Mossberg 590, & FN-FAL w/ ACOG-type scope. the .45 can be effectively suppressed, the 12-ga. is the ultimate close-quarters weapon, and the .308 is inexpensive, effective, rugged, and plenty accurate. Of course, if I ever needed to REALLY reach out and touch someone, I'd want a Barrett .50.

Depends on what you want.

For close range firefights, a P90.
:mp5:
Overall, I'd say a nuclear missle.

Less damaging, but just as much fun is the RPG.

I don't have any faith in the P90 because of its cartridge. There have been numerous accounts now of the 5.7 (even with multiple high torso hits) having zero effect on the people being shot.

It may look cool on Stargate, but that's about it.

Any weapon you can fire without being in the country works.

Weapon for which situation? Personal weapon? Concealable weapon? Quiet weapon? Long range? Crew served? Air deliverable?

They all fill niches. The question is, which niche are we talking about?

i'm gonna limit this to small arms,as pretty much everybody says WMD

So recently we have had a problem with rabbits getting into the garden and eating the plants my wife and I have worked on so hard (and spent a shit load of money on). Anyhow the little ones were already asleep and I spotted said rodents infiltrating our area and figured I would take care of it. 2 shots, from 40 yds. First one was a head shot, second took it length ways as he turned to run. Both went instantly and did not suffer.

The gun (I know I know its just a big pistol.....but its a blast to shoot)is a BW5 with H&K bolt as well as a KAC MP5 RAS, surefire nitorlon 6 volt, aimpoint, SWR trident 9 suppresor, viskers sling and surefire laser. Ammo was 147 win white box.

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b283/jtkwon/rabbits.jpg

Yeah, I know they're not in season - but it's them or the garden.

And they tasted very good. Of course, the neighbors didn't hear a sound.

wtf, is that a suppressor? where did you get that? nice gun btw.

wtf, is that a suppressor? where did you get that? nice gun btw.

Yes, it's a suppressor. I have many. If you pay the tax and wait 90 days, you can get one in most US states.

leaflet drops with nude photos of Bea Arthur, Roseanne Barr, AND Rosie O'Donnell.

*shudder*:eek:

Hotwife, is it true that once you get it, you can't switch what firearm it is mounted on, or face fine/andor jailtime?

leaflet drops with nude photos of Bea Arthur, Roseanne Barr, AND Rosie O'Donnell.

*shudder*:eek:

And William Shatner, and his toupee...

The Вепр, no contest (well, only from Germany).

http://world.guns.ru/assault/as68-e.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vepr

vepr or the warthog is a nasty piece of shet

Hotwife, is it true that once you get it, you can't switch what firearm it is mounted on, or face fine/andor jailtime?

When you apply for the permit, specify which weapon(s). Then you're fine switching it between the multiple weapons marked on the permit.

And William Shatner, and his toupee...

AND suicide stealth fatsex bombs...

...with AK-47's.:salute:

When you apply for the permit, specify which weapon(s). Then you're fine switching it between the multiple weapons marked on the permit.

Thanks. I had heard that somewhere.

Three years and several hundred dollars until I can legally buy a gun.

Thanks. I had heard that somewhere.

Three years and several hundred dollars until I can legally buy a gun.

But Shatner's toupee is STILL banned by Geneva Convention! :)

But Shatner's toupee is STILL banned by Geneva Convention! :)

DAMN those UN hippies!

To hell with the regulations and open fire!

DAMN those UN hippies!

To hell with the regulations and open fire!

The penalty is being forced to listen to an evening of his verse!


...I'm sorry, but the price is too steep, just draw & quarter me, instead. (it's less painful)

The penalty is being forced to listen to an evening of his verse!


...I'm sorry, but the price is too steep, just draw & quarter me, instead. (it's less painful)

#I'm a Rocketman!#

The whole point of the 5.6mm round is that it doesn't kill instantly. It takes far more resources to care for an injured soldier than it does to bury a dead one.

I'm aware of this argument, but it simply doesn't hold water in the real world. It makes the mistaken assumption that a wounded man is incapable of fighting. In reality, as long as he is conscious and bullets are still coming his way, he will probably continue to shoot back, very possibly wounding or killing one or more troops on your side and therefore hurting your ability to fight. The 5.56 mm round was a mistake, and in my opinion no weapon that uses it can be in the running for "best modern weapon".

AK47 takes the cake...and your country. :D

AK-47 for the gun, mainly because it's very reliable and powerful.

Other than that, Nukes.

AK-47 for the gun, mainly because it's very reliable and powerful.

Other than that, Nukes.

The AK-47 is notoriously short ranged and inaccurate.

I could sit well outside your maximum effective range with this, and let you fire a few magazines off, and then send it.

http://img166.imageshack.us/img166/2871/hpim1549jy7.jpg

The AK-47 is notoriously short ranged and inaccurate.

I could sit well outside your maximum effective range with this, and let you fire a few magazines off, and then send it.

http://img166.imageshack.us/img166/2871/hpim1549jy7.jpg

This is true; the maximum effective range is only about 400m. However, 90% of the time this is sufficient, and the AK makes up for a lack of range with reliability.

Guns that shoot swords.

1. Smokeless Powder
2. Nuclear Weapons
3. AIP Submarines
4. AK-47 (might not have the range or accuracy, but who cares when they are dirt cheap, easy to maintain, and can be purchased by the kajillions)
5. Napalm

I've seen it in use. Unless you get lucky and sever someone's aorta or something you will not drop them in less than about 6-8 shots. They might die eventually, shit they probably will, and in just a few minutes, but when the guy's shooting at you that isn't fast enough.
I'll bow to experience. My only combat experience has been dropping 2000 bombs on targets in Desert Storm. Targets then were lots of tanks, arty, etc.

The only time I ever had to fire an M-16 in anger was at the rifle range every year. And then, only from the 500 yard line. (Or maybe 600 -- it was a long time ago).

The whole point of the 5.6mm round is that it doesn't kill instantly. It takes far more resources to care for an injured soldier than it does to bury a dead one.
But isn't his point that the wounded soldier keeps shooting at you? I flew with a .45 instead of the 9 mm that was issued for the same reason. Stopping power. I can hit my target with one shot and I wanted every bullet to count.

http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j96/Logicone/RocketPropelledChainsaw.jpg
[/thread]

epic threadwin

Suicide bomber

A computer, a DSL, and a hacker skilled enough to get into Wall Street's computers.
Failing that, rhetorics and TV.

But isn't his point that the wounded soldier keeps shooting at you?

Well, not all soldiers are John Rambo. I'd say almost none is.

Well, not all soldiers are John Rambo. I'd say almost none is.

Don't ever underestimate the human survival trait; when people are trying to kill you and you get wounded, the adrenaline really kicks in (;

A lot of people don't even notice they've been shot until the fight is over and they wonder where the blood is from.

One thing that can be certainly said for the 5.56 though, is that due to its smaller calibre, it's a lot easier to control at higher firing rates. I've tried holding on to an assault rifle shooting 7.62x55 on fully automatic, and it's only useful if the target is right infront of you, as you have no control over it.

Nice firearm, nice shooting, and what appears to be a nice truck behind it. GMC, correct?

:confused: - Nice truck? How can you tell with nothing but a wheel?

*confuzzed with big-philia, for the sake of big-philia*

-Rafe

While it's true that the AK is relatively inaccurate and the military 7.62x39 destabilizes significantly around 300 yds, it is virtually meaningless if you can force the enemy to engage at point-blank range as in an urban environment. Sniping with .223 under 600 yds is a great idea on paper, but the environments encountered often don't make that feasible. If you want a weapon for 1-shot kill at long distance, have a look at the new Barrett in .416 - it's more accurate than the Barrett in .50 BMG. However, most of us don't have that kind of money to blow, so a Remmington 700 is a more economical solution for most of us.

best modern weapon? whatever works.

Though the AK-47 deserves geat credit for its usefulness and well-deserved spread, and the HK p11 is just cool.

But what about the spud gun?

The AK-47 is notoriously short ranged and inaccurate.

I could sit well outside your maximum effective range with this, and let you fire a few magazines off, and then send it.

http://img166.imageshack.us/img166/2871/hpim1549jy7.jpg

You owe me a new keyboard. Drool seems to be bad for them......

I had the opportunity to shoot a Chinese AK (semi-auto conversion, sadly) and it was a piece of crap. 6" group at under 25 yards, and no, it wasn't my marksmanship. Of course, they'll shrug off abuse, but what good is a gun that WON'T PUT A BULLET WHERE YOU AIM IT???? I've seen better results from East Europe AKs, but I'm still not impressed. I'd rather have an SKS if I'm gonna use a soviet rifle.

HAARP is the best modern weapon.

The best modern weapon is the digital camera combined with a laptop with internet access.

Banana

:confused: - Nice truck? How can you tell with nothing but a wheel?

*confuzzed with big-philia, for the sake of big-philia*

-Rafe

It's a guess, but I'm going by tire size and center cap. If it is a GMC, it's either a pickup or SUV (hence the appropriateness of the term truck). And since I'm a fan of GM vehicles (I own a 2003 Chevy Silverado), any GM vehicle IMO has the potential to be a nice vehicle.

You owe me a new keyboard. Drool seems to be bad for them......

I had the opportunity to shoot a Chinese AK (semi-auto conversion, sadly) and it was a piece of crap. 6" group at under 25 yards, and no, it wasn't my marksmanship. Of course, they'll shrug off abuse, but what good is a gun that WON'T PUT A BULLET WHERE YOU AIM IT???? I've seen better results from East Europe AKs, but I'm still not impressed. I'd rather have an SKS if I'm gonna use a soviet rifle.

I have another in 338 Lapua (raises drool shield).

The AK-47 is notoriously short ranged and inaccurate.

I could sit well outside your maximum effective range with this, and let you fire a few magazines off, and then send it.

http://img166.imageshack.us/img166/2871/hpim1549jy7.jpg

Nice AI. Any problems with the folding part of the stock?

I'd love to have an AICS stock for a Remington M700, but I need to get a Remington M700 first.

Tut tut. Where are the FALs...

Tut tut. Where are the FALs...

Was going to say that but the Spud Gun is a far supeior weapon.

But isn't his point that the wounded soldier keeps shooting at you? I flew with a .45 instead of the 9 mm that was issued for the same reason. Stopping power. I can hit my target with one shot and I wanted every bullet to count.

A wounded soldier could keep shooting but they probably won't. They're much more likely to roll around screaming than dust themselves off and pick up their rifle.

We're not talking about a movie here.

I'm aware of this argument, but it simply doesn't hold water in the real world. It makes the mistaken assumption that a wounded man is incapable of fighting. In reality, as long as he is conscious and bullets are still coming his way, he will probably continue to shoot back, very possibly wounding or killing one or more troops on your side and therefore hurting your ability to fight. The 5.56 mm round was a mistake, and in my opinion no weapon that uses it can be in the running for "best modern weapon".

I'll take your view on board and pass it on to the multiple Western governments who disagreed with you when they made the conversion. I'm sure your compelling arguments will convince them to disregard their own experts and change their minds.

We'd win a war against Omicron, Zonama Sekot, and Ego.

Me. :)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/54/Assembled_7.62_RK_62.jpg

Valmet/Sako RK 62 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RK_62). Because it's the only weapon worth considering from those that I've personally fired.

http://ui19.gamespot.com/1874/snipercrowbar_2.jpg

The sniper crowbar, as wielded by Gordon Freeman.

Pistol - Springfield Armory XD9, what a nice gun. I'm really partial to my Mossberg 500 pistol grip too. Starship Troopers has taught me that the best modern weapon is a knife though. You can't push a button if you can't move your hand, right?

Me. :)

With a spud gun

The best modern weapon is the digital camera combined with a laptop with internet access.

Win. I'd add a photoshop editor to that list though.

A wounded soldier could keep shooting but they probably won't. They're much more likely to roll around screaming than dust themselves off and pick up their rifle.

We're not talking about a movie here.

Just out of curiosity, have you ever been shot before? I mention this because I have, and I did indeed shoot back. I did scream, not out of pain, since it took a few minutes for that to kick in, but simply out of sheer scared-shitless terror. One can scream and shoot at the same time though.

As for the movie comment, I'm afraid you're the one led astray by them. Everyone but the hero always seems to fall over and die from every slight wound after all.

Kindergarteners.

I'll take your view on board and pass it on to the multiple Western governments who disagreed with you when they made the conversion. I'm sure your compelling arguments will convince them to disregard their own experts and change their minds.

Well, if my opinion isn't good enough for you, how about all those guys from Special Forces? You know, those guys with more real-world experience than anybody. They don't like 5.56 rounds either, and a fair number of them use weapons in 7.62 caliber instead. You may also have heard of the 6.8 SPC round that came out a few years back; you know, the one designed with collaboration with SOCOM specifically to address the fact that 5.56 mm rounds suck?

the stryker apc and all its variants...

Just out of curiosity, have you ever been shot before? I mention this because I have, and I did indeed shoot back. I did scream, not out of pain, since it took a few minutes for that to kick in, but simply out of sheer scared-shitless terror. One can scream and shoot at the same time though.

As for the movie comment, I'm afraid you're the one led astray by them. Everyone but the hero always seems to fall over and die from every slight wound after all.

My dad is 5th Group SF, three tours in Iraq and A-stan, and I've never heard him complain about the 5.56's killing power.
The only thing he complains about is the fact that the military hasn't really listened to him and some others about getting a rifle that can use both 5.56 and 7.62, since SF is usually out there with no resupply or units nearby.

That's about the only reason they don't quite like using 5.56. Stopping power doesn't really matter if you get a shot to the head or a few to the body. Ammo is cheap, life is not. If in doubt, shoot.

My dad is 5th Group SF, three tours in Iraq and A-stan, and I've never heard him complain about the 5.56's killing power.
The only thing he complains about is the fact that the military hasn't really listened to him and some others about getting a rifle that can use both 5.56 and 7.62, since SF is usually out there with no resupply or units nearby.

That's about the only reason they don't quite like using 5.56. Stopping power doesn't really matter if you get a shot to the head or a few to the body. Ammo is cheap, life is not. If in doubt, shoot.

Possibly your father has had good luck with the round; such things can happen. Complaints are nevertheless widespread, though; the fact that a new round was designed to deal with the shortcomings of the 5.56 is telling, as is the adoption of the SCAR by many in the Special Operations community. You're right that stopping power doesn't matter if you hit someone in the right place or enough times, but is that something you want to count on if your life's on the line? Even a great shot misses now and then, and shooting a guy three or four times gives the enemy more of a chance to fight back than I would like. With 5.56 mm rounds, you just don't have enough room for error.

Here's a pretty good article on the subject:http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2008/05/ap_bullets_052708/

.223 is considered a 'marginal' deer caliber - it'll work, but it's not the best. Every deer hunter I know prefers at least a .270/6.5mm bullet for deer. I think that's a pretty good comparison for combat worthiness. I would use a 30-30 for deer myself, bacuse that's the best deer caliber I have access to. It's ballisticall comperable to the 7.62x39.

A spinoff thread from Conservative Morality's ''Best medieval weapon''.What do you think,which is the best modern weapon?IMO the G36,manufactured by Heckler & Koch.It's very innovative design,although it ain't bullpup.it uses the venerable 5,56x45mm NATO.The standard scope consists of TWO scopes:3.5x telescopic sight below and a red dot sight below.the G36 is fed from new 30-round magazines,made from translucent plastic.the action is normal gas-piston,which is less prone to jamming than the m16,and this same action was used to improve the Delta Forces m4s:http://www.hkpro.com/hk416.htm(i feel like i'm doing a pitch:buy now and get twenty for free.and no i'm not working for HK.)http://world.guns.ru/assault/as14-e.htm

This is a pretty vague question. We don't live in medieval times, when it was a choice between a bow, a sword, an axe or a spear (although even then it'd be a pretty vague question) - we live in an era of combined arms, where numerous different weapon systems are required for military victory.

For example, these days you can't hold the seas without a varied blue water navy - nothing beats a carrier group with proper escorts. Likewise, those carriers can't hope to occupy any ground targets without the use of infantry, but infantry need air support from said carrier groups, and they need armoured units and artillery units and etc...

In a straight shoot-out, obviously the great G36 is going to fall short of a Challenger 2, but that's not the way warfare works.

[img]

Valmet/Sako RK 62 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RK_62). Because it's the only weapon worth considering from those that I've personally fired.

true.RK 62 is afine weapon but that stock troubles me:it's so ugly!Well as you can see from my location have to use one.i wish they'd replace them with the RK 95 TP.(BTW we have conscription)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rk_95

Umm... a Troll.

AKS-74 is the only rifle I would depend on, having used it MANY times to save my ass


Almost no recoil, epic penetration of cover, easy to maintain, nearly unbreakable, good range and accuracy

AKS-74 is the only rifle I would depend on having, used it MANY times to save my ass


Almost no recoil, epic penetration of cover, easy to maintain, nearly unbreakable, good range and accuracy

Where did you serve?

Lee Enfield SMLE .303

Can be used in conditions where everything else other than the Moison Nagant has frozen soild, can be used in the sand where autos have frozen due to grit in the works, longer range than most autos, more effective round than the pipsqueek little 5.56x45 or 7.62x39, fastest bolt action made, larger magazine than the other bolt actions of the time. Can be used as a club and still work afterwards. has a REAL bayonet, not a pocket knife with studs.

I like mine :D

.223 is considered a 'marginal' deer caliber - it'll work, but it's not the best. Every deer hunter I know prefers at least a .270/6.5mm bullet for deer. I think that's a pretty good comparison for combat worthiness. I would use a 30-30 for deer myself, bacuse that's the best deer caliber I have access to. It's ballisticall comperable to the 7.62x39.

I agree. I grew up using a .25-06 and currently use a Marlin .30-30 or Enfield .303 for deer hunting. The .270 is an excellent, but underappreciated round. My dad and I have used a .270 to take our fair share of elk.

The .243 isn't a terrible round for deer. I think I've seen an article or two about it being a possible 5.56mm successor.

As far as purely sporting arms are concerned, I lust after a Thompson/Center Encore in .308 with a good Leupold scope. Now to find $1000 to cover the price of the rifle, scope, and a bit of ammo....

Where did you serve?

In and around Grozny, second time near the mountains

The best modern weapon is Gossip. Beats all the other weapons listed hands down.

best gun?

Mosen Nagant 7.62 X 54

Kicks like a mule, but one shot does the job.

My fav gun <3

I agree. I grew up using a .25-06 and currently use a Marlin .30-30 or Enfield .303 for deer hunting. The .270 is an excellent, but underappreciated round. My dad and I have used a .270 to take our fair share of elk.

The .243 isn't a terrible round for deer. I think I've seen an article or two about it being a possible 5.56mm successor.

I don't know about replacing 5.56, but the .243 is a very good round for deer, depending on the load.

a Lee-Enfield .303 and a bayonet

Possibly your father has had good luck with the round; such things can happen. Complaints are nevertheless widespread, though; the fact that a new round was designed to deal with the shortcomings of the 5.56 is telling, as is the adoption of the SCAR by many in the Special Operations community. You're right that stopping power doesn't matter if you hit someone in the right place or enough times, but is that something you want to count on if your life's on the line? Even a great shot misses now and then, and shooting a guy three or four times gives the enemy more of a chance to fight back than I would like. With 5.56 mm rounds, you just don't have enough room for error.

Here's a pretty good article on the subject:http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2008/05/ap_bullets_052708/

I just wanted to point out, they do make the SCAR in both 5.56mm and 7.62mm Nato calibers.

I don't know about replacing 5.56, but the .243 is a very good round for deer, depending on the load.

I forgot about that one. It's definitely better than .223.

I just wanted to point out, they do make the SCAR in both 5.56mm and 7.62mm Nato calibers.

And I'd want the 7.62 NATO model. Have you seen the .300 Whisper conversion upper receiver for the AR-15/M16? That's a nice caliber for urban warfare, especially since it's a subsonic load designed for silencing. I know a guy who took out a black bear with that cartridge - one shot to the 'boiler room' and Mr. Bear was on his way to the freezer.

William Shatner's toupe-tipped nuke.

as a personal weapon? the gun, probably (the electric crossbow seems to have almost completely vanished, and the rocket-propelled sword never attained the popularity of its more explosive cousins).

I think you underestimate the momentum of a 62 gr projectile at 2800 fps. Especially when it can be aimed instead of sprayed.

Don't you mean 3100fps? Anyway, at the ranges where engagements occur the AK-47 (I have no experience with any other AKs) is sufficiently accurate.

I've seen it in use. Unless you get lucky and sever someone's aorta or something you will not drop them in less than about 6-8 shots. They might die eventually, shit they probably will, and in just a few minutes, but when the guy's shooting at you that isn't fast enough.

I'm aware of this argument, but it simply doesn't hold water in the real world. It makes the mistaken assumption that a wounded man is incapable of fighting. In reality, as long as he is conscious and bullets are still coming his way, he will probably continue to shoot back, very possibly wounding or killing one or more troops on your side and therefore hurting your ability to fight. The 5.56 mm round was a mistake, and in my opinion no weapon that uses it can be in the running for "best modern weapon".

Agreed entirely. If someone is merely hurt rather than dead there is no telling what they'll do. The old "fight or flight" instinct kicks in and a wounded and desperate man is unpredictable and therefore very dangerous.

The AK-47 is notoriously short ranged and inaccurate.

I could sit well outside your maximum effective range with this, and let you fire a few magazines off, and then send it.

How often do engagements occur beyond the effective range of an AK-47? In my experience they're generally at ranges of less than 100m, at least in the Middle East.

Less damaging, but just as much fun is the RPG.

Actually, I was rather disappointed with the RPG-7 the first time I fired one. Before that I'd only fired the AT-4 (M-136) and the Javelin (only fired that once), both of which are more satisfying when they hit.

William Shatner's toupe-tipped nuke.

Except it would take forever to hit considering it would try to make everything melodramatic.

I forgot about that one. It's definitely better than .223.

Does anyone else think that the .22-250 has more kick than .223 win?

The good old infantry man with a rifle. To few on the ground, and no matter how good your tech, you'll never truely be able to say, "mission acomplished".

Does anyone else think that the .22-250 has more kick than .223 win?

Never fired a 22-250, but the Steyr AUG in 5.56 kicks less than a ruger M77/22 in .22 Magnum

How "modern" does it have to be? Do you mean in the age of gunpowder? In the last two hundred years? Best currently used weapon?

I'd honestly have to say the assault rifle. Very useful.

How "modern" does it have to be? Do you mean in the age of gunpowder? In the last two hundred years? Best currently used weapon?

I'd honestly have to say the assault rifle. Very useful.

If you're considering a firearm for best modern weapon, I'd think it would have to be shoot a cased cartridge with smokeless powder, to qualify for modern.

about late 20th century and 21st century,and a MODEL not a type of weapon

If it has to be a modern assault rifle, then the Magpul Masada.

Way better than any HK, and not nearly as expensive.

If it has to be a modern assault rifle, then the Magpul Masada.

Way better than any HK, and not nearly as expensive.

And vastly superior to a standard AR-15! Still only in .223, though, right?

The modern Western (NATO) soldier, because he's well trained, well equipped and he knows his job. It doesn't matter how much you chaps fap to a weapon - if the person possessing that weapon doesn't know how to use it properly, it doesn't matter how accurate or how good the weapon is.

Apart from the modern Western soldier, I'd say the M1911A1 for epic pwnage.

If you want autowin, modern Western soldier with a M1911A1 in a tactical hip holster. Unfortunately, you're not going to see much of that thanks to NATO banning the use of calibers bigger than 9x19mm Parabellum. Fecking politicians... :(

My mind.

My mind.

*Trembles in fear of Psychics*

Although I'm marginally sure that's not what you're referring to.

I vote the taser (http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/07/22/taser.death/index.html): Only 7 shots needed to kill a healthy, presumably innocent, person.


:mp5:

The modern Western (NATO) soldier, because he's well trained, well equipped and he knows his job. It doesn't matter how much you chaps fap to a weapon - if the person possessing that weapon doesn't know how to use it properly, it doesn't matter how accurate or how good the weapon is.

Apart from the modern Western soldier, I'd say the M1911A1 for epic pwnage.

If you want autowin, modern Western soldier with a M1911A1 in a tactical hip holster. Unfortunately, you're not going to see much of that thanks to NATO banning the use of calibers bigger than 9x19mm Parabellum. Fecking politicians... :(

The many variants of John Browning's classic design are all excellent handguns, but a soldier once told me that "A pistol is only there to give you a chance to get to the rifle you should have had in the first place." Still, any good 1911-type .45 would satisfy my needs if I ever needed to get to said rifle. I'm partial to the subcompact 10-shot Para-Ordinace Warthog. I hope my budget will allow a purchase soon. I was quite impressed with the quality of the Star Firestar .45 compact that I had the opportunity to shoot. The .45 is by no means hard to control, and the recoil is really rather mild - nowhere near the horrifying kick that legend tells. MUCH less than the popular .357 mag revolvers I've shot.

This (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUoEil40qZA) will destroy anything!

The working class.

No other weapon has been given the economic power with which they will destroy the entire existing basis for modern capitalism.

And vastly superior to a standard AR-15! Still only in .223, though, right?

You can get it in 6.8 as well, which is a much better round than 223.

The gun.

The working class.

No other weapon has been given the economic power with which they will destroy the entire existing basis for modern capitalism.

Speaking as a future exploiter, the working class makes far better fuel, commodity, and enabler for modern capitalism...

Where would capitalism be without the working class?

We are stallions, you are the grass, to be trampled, consumed, and shat upon at our will.

The .45 is by no means hard to control, and the recoil is really rather mild - nowhere near the horrifying kick that legend tells. MUCH less than the popular .357 mag revolvers I've shot.

i rather have a 9mm parabellum(also known as 9x19mm NATO)pistol for example the SIG-Sauer P226.

*Trembles in fear of Psychics*

Although I'm marginally sure that's not what you're referring to.

*makes your head explode*

Sarin gas. Try shooting me with any type of weapon while you are convulsing, screaming, and deficating yourself. That's if you don't just die of a heart attack first.

The Martini - I believe Krushchev described them as America's secret weapon. Many an agreement was made in the cold war after four martini's.

i rather have a 9mm parabellum(also known as 9x19mm NATO)pistol for example the SIG-Sauer P226.

Yay! 9mm vs. .45 threadjack! MWAHAHAHAHAHAAaaaaaa!!

9mm recoil snaps. .45 recoil pushes.

Still, if I were to buy a 9, SIG certainly would be one of my top choices.

A stick with poo on the end.

.45 APC is nothing. Just like the Desert Eagle is nothing.* Everybody says .45 APC is OMG huge recoil, but its really not the bad.**

*DE in .44 mag
**Just a note, I'm a fairly good size guy, around 6' and 200+ lbs.

Best weapon for what?
In case you don't know, I'll just pick "time". Or death.

100% efficient. No other weapon can claim that! :(

100% efficient. No other weapon can claim that! :(

You sure? The guillotine killed everybody 100% of the time.

The M4 assault rifle

The M4 assault rifle

Not really. (http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,133962,00.html?ESRC=dod.nl) This explains why. (http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,131317,00.html)

Sarin gas. Try shooting me with any type of weapon while you are convulsing, screaming, and deficating yourself. That's if you don't just die of a heart attack first.

I see your sarin and raise you Fartsniffage. :D

The Gatling gun. It might not be "modern" in the sense of airplane or GPS guided bombs and what not but it is still used today and it is still quite impressive.

Pistol: Sig-Sauer P226-Awesome stopping power, good as backup in Helmand

Rifle: Diemaco C8-Better than the weapon it came from

Tank: Challenger 2-Good on any ground

Aircraft: Eurofighter Typhoon-True multi-role

I see your sarin and raise you Fartsniffage. :D

I have never been weaponised.

The M4 assault rifle

The Canadians have built a better version-the Diemaco C8.

the AK-47...Billions of users cant be wrong...

The A-10 'Warthog.' Gotta love a plane with a 30mm anti-tank BFG in the nose and a shitload of missiles under the wings.

The A-10 'Warthog.' Gotta love a plane with a 30mm anti-tank BFG in the nose and a shitload of missiles under the wings.

Its alright but ISAF forces in Afgahnistan still prefer the Harrier as it has to actually aim instead of just firing in the general direction of the enemy

Its alright but ISAF forces in Afgahnistan still prefer the Harrier as it has to actually aim instead of just firing in the general direction of the enemy


The Harrier is a huge thermal target for even Strela-2/FIM-42...


And combining that with the fact that it has little to no armor, small arms could down it, especially if the mountain folks have a .50 cal machine gun :eek2:

Best modern weapon

Fear.
Screw you new-Jolt, with your draconian message length insanities.

The A-10 'Warthog.'

Use one on your Canadian ground support today!

Pistol: Sig-Sauer P226-Awesome stopping power, good as backup in Helmand

Rifle: Diemaco C8-Better than the weapon it came from

Tank: Challenger 2-Good on any ground

Aircraft: Eurofighter Typhoon-True multi-role

I'll correct you.

Rifle: M-14- Far better than the M-16, anyone that sevred with both, will tell you this.

Tank: Toss up between M1A2 and the latest Leapord 2 version I thinks in Leapord 2A6

Plane: Impossible to say. Planes have such varried roles that it is impossible to pick the best plane.

Also, Harrier=fail.

Ever heard the saying "Jack of all trades, master of none"?

Multirole planes will be beaten hands down by a plane built for that role.

Why do the "experts" always say the Leo2 is the best modern tank? it's never seen any real combat against enemy armor[read; very poorly maintained export tanks from the 50's, with horrid tank crews].


Personally, the Abrams has proved itself to be a better tank, with armor surpassing the T-80U in all around protection.

Hmmm...the Setulan list of best weapons.

Rifle: AKS-74. Hands down.
Pistol: Desert Eagle, but I'm also a big fan of the Colt 1911A1

Aircraft are different. Waaaay to many types, but definitely not the Harrier. It blows. Hard.

As for tanks...personally, I lean towards the Merkavah IV as the most dangerous tank out there, but the margin is slim. Frankly, the Abrams, Leopard, Leclerc, T90, and Merkavah are so similar in capablities that it would be down to the crew training as to which would survive a slugfest. On that score, I could not make an unbiased judgement, so I wont even bother.

I have never been weaponised.

...untiiiiil - Now!!!, for this one-time only low-low price of ONLY $19.95, BUT WAIT !!! - THERE'S MORE!!!...:wink:

...untiiiiil - Now!!!, for this one-time only low-low price of ONLY $19.95, BUT WAIT !!! - THERE'S MORE!!!...:wink:

Seriously, do you want Hans Blix at your door? Leave me the hell alone.

Lunatic Goofballs.

The Internet. Information can topple anything. You can know when something happens, how it happens, and who'll do it.

Why do the "experts" always say the Leo2 is the best modern tank? it's never seen any real combat against enemy armor[read; very poorly maintained export tanks from the 50's, with horrid tank crews].


Personally, the Abrams has proved itself to be a better tank, with armor surpassing the T-80U in all around protection.

And the difference between that and the Abrams is? Its fought in Iraq against older Soviet tanks twice with the same result.

And the difference between that and the Abrams is? Its fought in Iraq against older Soviet tanks twice with the same result.

During Desert Combat and the Iraq war, the Abrams did face T-72s, which was put into service only 6 years before the Abrams. Both tanks are still in use today, so comparing them in combat effectiveness is reasonable, IMO.

With modern technology, we can make a sword that contains a pen, thus being more powerful than itself and creating the PARADOX BOMB!!! You've been pwnd.

During Desert Combat and the Iraq war, the Abrams did face T-72s, which was put into service only 6 years before the Abrams. Both tanks are still in use today, so comparing them in combat effectiveness is reasonable, IMO.

But you also have to factor in that the Iraqi crews have almost no training compared to an American or Russian tank crew, and that they were using poor quality ammunition that went out of date back in the 60's. The Iraqi T-72's were also worse quality then the "Monkey Model" my country spammed everywhere, and lacked range finders and night fighting equipment.

I'll correct you.

Rifle: M-14- Far better than the M-16, anyone that sevred with both, will tell you this.

agree
Tank: Toss up between M1A2 and the latest Leapord 2 version I thinks in Leapord 2A6

M1A2 Abrams is better on the battle field depleted uranium armour and rounds gives it superior stopping power and armour.
one situation being the exception however is in an urban enviroment during a peace keeping mission.
then I would take the Leopard 2 PSO.

Plane: Impossible to say. Planes have such varried roles that it is impossible to pick the best plane.

Also, Harrier=fail.

Ever heard the saying "Jack of all trades, master of none"?

Multirole planes will be beaten hands down by a plane built for that role.

pick a roles
fighter F22 Raptor
bomber B2 stealth bomber.
other roles exist so pick those.

this would really depend on "best" for what purpose, and how broadly are we willing to define "weapon".

honesty, integrity, setting a good example, and keeping your head down at the same time, also things like foresight and good sense. none of these can prevent big holes in the ground full of unhappy dead people of course, UNLESS they get a head start, and become intigrated as dominant cultural norms.

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

Rifle: Diemaco C8-Better than the weapon it came from

Only slightly, and the newer US M4 SOPMOD is pretty much the same. Either way, slightly improved crap is still crap.

But you also have to factor in that the Iraqi crews have almost no training compared to an American or Russian tank crew, and that they were using poor quality ammunition that went out of date back in the 60's. The Iraqi T-72's were also worse quality then the "Monkey Model" my country spammed everywhere, and lacked range finders and night fighting equipment.

Agreed, the Iraqi T-72s were complete garbage. In 2003 I came across numerous Iraqi T-72s that had been penetrated by .50 cal APIT (Armor Piercing Incendiary Tracer) rounds against the sides, and had been penetrated by 25mm APFSDS through the front slope and turret. My M1117 has better protection except on the front slope.

Of course, had the Iraqis had the Russian domestic version things would have been a bit different...

Nuclear weapons are best.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magpul_Masada

agree
M1A2 Abrams is better on the battle field depleted uranium armour and rounds gives it superior stopping power and armour.
one situation being the exception however is in an urban enviroment during a peace keeping mission.
then I would take the Leopard 2 PSO.


pick a roles
fighter F22 Raptor
bomber B2 stealth bomber.
other roles exist so pick those.

B-2? Coolness doesn't = best.

and the M1A2 has a TUSK(Tank Urban Survial Kit) upgrade that gives it better chances in urban warfare.

For bomber I'd say B-52 or Tu-22.

Fighter would be the F-14 because everyone knows that F-14>all

The Orbital-fin-guided-crowbar-dropping-Sattelite

What? Someone COULD build one.

Rifles,

There have been many notable rifles of late. Personally I do like the Lee Enfeild .303, L1A1 and the SA80MK2. And having fired all 3, I think they are pretty much sound.

L96A2 and AS50 for sniping. Barrett L82 is a fine substitute.
SA80MK2, HK G36, I think are the best combat rifles around. But the Israeli Tar-21 and a few Eastern designs show promise.
In the Support role, L1A1 (has been used by the SAS for that extra punch in the support role) HK MK33. Once again, a notable rifle used in the precision support role.

I think the Americans and Russians have done well with the M16 and AK series, They are not the best weapons on the world, but for rifles needed to be produced on a scale as large as that, they aren't bad.

Take note of Enfield, FN Herstal, Accuracy International, and Hecker and Koch. Future designs all look promising.

Machine guns,

Well, The MG3 has to have it, (modernise a MG42 and you have it) The original FN Herstal M249 (Before the US modifications) is good.

Anything designed by the great John Moses Browning :hail:

(from Wikipedia)
Firearms
* M1895 Colt-Browning machine gun
* Colt Model 1897
* FN Browning M1899/M1900
* Colt Model 1900
* Colt Model 1902
* Colt Model 1903 Pocket Hammer (.38 ACP)
* Colt Model 1903 Pocket Hammerless (.32 ACP)
* Colt Model 1905, the first .45 ACP
* Remington Model 8 (1906), a long recoil semi-automatic rifle
* Colt Model 1908 Vest Pocket (.25 ACP)
* Colt Model 1908 Pocket Hammerless (.380 ACP)
* FN Model 1910
* U.S. Model 1911, the first .45 ACP military handgun
* Winchester Model 1886 lever-action repeating rifle
* Winchester Model 1887 lever-action repeating shotgun
* Winchester Model 1890 slide-action repeating rifle (.22)
* Winchester Model 1892 lever-action repeating rifle
* Winchester Model 1894 lever-action repeating rifle
* Winchester Model 1895 lever-action repeating rifle
* Winchester Model 1897 pump-action repeating shotgun
* Browning Auto-5 long recoil semi-automatic shotgun
* U.S. Model 1917 water-cooled machine gun
* Model 1919 air-cooled machine gun
* Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR) of 1917
* Browning M2 .50-caliber heavy machine gun of 1921
* The Browning Hi-Power, the last pistol that John Browning developed
* The Browning Superposed over/under shotgun was designed by John Browning in 1922 and entered production in 1931

Cartridges
* .25 ACP
* .32 ACP
* .38 ACP
* 9mm Browning Long
* .380 ACP
* .45 ACP
* .50 BMG

I'll correct you.

Rifle: M-14- Far better than the M-16, anyone that sevred with both, will tell you this.

Tank: Toss up between M1A2 and the latest Leapord 2 version I thinks in Leapord 2A6

Plane: Impossible to say. Planes have such varried roles that it is impossible to pick the best plane.

Also, Harrier=fail.

Ever heard the saying "Jack of all trades, master of none"?

Multirole planes will be beaten hands down by a plane built for that role.

Rifle: M14's only good if you want a marksman weapon. Marines in Helmand certainly thought so. Also C8 is actually a copy of the M4 with a SF version.

Tank: M1A2 has smooth bore so can't aim well and Leapord 2 has weak armour and weak firepower to counter enemy

Plane: Harriers are more requested by ISAF and Multi-national forces in Afgahnistan and Iraq than other aircraft. It works well for us and I always requested them when my platoon was in trouble-far more than the A10 or F16

Rifle: AKS-74. Hands down.


the only problem with this weapon is that, in auto, it can't hit a barn door from a foot away. it's terrible in anything other than close quarters battle, when i'd use something more modern, such as the MP5/10 or the H&K UMP

Rifles,

There have been many notable rifles of late. Personally I do like the Lee Enfeild .303, L1A1 and the SA80MK2. And having fired all 3, I think they are pretty much sound.

L96A2 and AS50 for sniping. Barrett L82 is a fine substitute.
SA80MK2, HK G36, I think are the best combat rifles around. But the Israeli Tar-21 and a few Eastern designs show promise.
In the Support role, L1A1 (has been used by the SAS for that extra punch in the support role) HK MK33. Once again, a notable rifle used in the precision support role.

I think the Americans and Russians have done well with the M16 and AK series, They are not the best weapons on the world, but for rifles needed to be produced on a scale as large as that, they aren't bad.

Take note of Enfield, FN Herstal, Accuracy International, and Hecker and Koch. Future designs all look promising.

Machine guns,

Well, The MG3 has to have it, (modernise a MG42 and you have it) The original FN Herstal M249 (Before the US modifications) is good.

totally agree, especially with FN and Accuracy International. They both produce brilliant weapons used world over

During Desert Combat and the Iraq war, the Abrams did face T-72s, which was put into service only 6 years before the Abrams. Both tanks are still in use today, so comparing them in combat effectiveness is reasonable, IMO.
T-72's are actually great tanks.

The US commander of Operation Desert Storm said that if the Iraqis had the Abrams and the Americans had the T-72's, that the result would have been largely the same. This is because Iraqi tank crews had shit training, and abandoned their tanks or surrendered when the Americans advanced. Also the fact that the T-72's didn't have nightvision installed was decisive.

People should seriously stop shitting on the T-72's, if you upgrade them with all the new stuff they are basically a 'modern' tank, the Abrams can reload quicker though.

Tank battles can be decided by the smallest of things though, like the Yom Kippur War when Egyptian tanks were destroyed because their turrets couldn't lower as far as the Israeli ones, which meant in battle they presented a much larger target while the Israeli ones could hide behind sand dunes and fire at attacking tanks.

id say aids or cigaretts. Both kill alot more than any military weapon

AK47. The best weapon evar.

T-72's are actually great tanks.

The US commander of Operation Desert Storm said that if the Iraqis had the Abrams and the Americans had the T-72's, that the result would have been largely the same. This is because Iraqi tank crews had shit training, and abandoned their tanks or surrendered when the Americans advanced. Also the fact that the T-72's didn't have nightvision installed was decisive.

People should seriously stop shitting on the T-72's, if you upgrade them with all the new stuff they are basically a 'modern' tank, the Abrams can reload quicker though.

Tank battles can be decided by the smallest of things though, like the Yom Kippur War when Egyptian tanks were destroyed because their turrets couldn't lower as far as the Israeli ones, which meant in battle they presented a much larger target while the Israeli ones could hide behind sand dunes and fire at attacking tanks.

It is a good tank yes, but the IDF proves, you can upgrade anything (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Sherman#Service_history) enough to be a 'modern' tank. What I do love about the T-72, are some of its variants. The BMPT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMPT) and the TOS-1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TOS-1).

Coal Plants.

the only problem with this weapon is that, in auto, it can't hit a barn door from a foot away.

On auto yes, but on semi it's sufficiently accurate, especially for urban combat.

Tank: M1A2 has smooth bore so can't aim well

Which is, of course, why the British are considering switching the Challenger to a smoothbore gun.

When firing APFSDS rounds a smoothbore is extremely accurate.

Rifle: M14's only good if you want a marksman weapon. Marines in Helmand certainly thought so. Also C8 is actually a copy of the M4 with a SF version.

And the M-4 is crap. When you improve crap, its still crap.

Tank: M1A2 has smooth bore so can't aim well and Leapord 2 has weak armour and weak firepower to counter enemy

Sources?

The M1A2 and Leapord 2 use the same gun....

Plane: Harriers are more requested by ISAF and Multi-national forces in Afgahnistan and Iraq than other aircraft. It works well for us and I always requested them when my platoon was in trouble-far more than the A10 or F16

Sources? I don't mean any disrespect, but anybody can claim they're in the army and say that they did something or another. [See also: Mike Sparks]

the only problem with this weapon is that, in auto, it can't hit a barn door from a foot away. it's terrible in anything other than close quarters battle, when i'd use something more modern, such as the MP5/10 or the H&K UMP

Let me guess, you're a weapons expert, right? AKS-74 has almost no recoil even in full auto due to it's cartridge and muzzle break. In close quarters, you can fold the stock and it wont be any less effective in room clearing[although in my personal experience, grenades are better for clearing rooms and cellars].

Let me guess, you're a weapons expert, right? AKS-74

Ah, my apologies, I thought he'd said AK-47. I've never fired an AKS-74 so I can't comment on it.

I’ve used a SA-80 A2 before, fairly decent weapon and much improved on the A1's. As for tanks, well I’ve been told that the challenger is the best (By Top Gear :p)

I’ve used a SA-80 A2 before, fairly decent weapon and much improved on the A1's. As for tanks, well I’ve been told that the challenger is the best (By Top Gear :p)

I never really noticed a bit difference between the A1 and A2 versions. The cocking handle was slightly more comfortable on the fingers was about all.

Republican Neocons. They have all the weapons and cant wait to use them.

I never really noticed a bit difference between the A1 and A2 versions. The cocking handle was slightly more comfortable on the fingers was about all.

I believe the A2 has a bolt that can go on either the left of the right. As left handed shooters found the the cartridge casing came out the right side of the weapon, and as it was being held in the left arm, and due to its bull pup design, the hot casing was thrown into the side of a left handed shooters head... The A2 corrected this as the bolt can be changed to go on the right side of the weapon to avoid this. Whether this is just rumour I have no idea.

The A2 also had an improved magazine catch so the magazine could not be accidentally removed while prone.

Having fired the A2 I can say its a beast. Powerful and very accurate.

I believe the A2 has a bolt that can go on either the left of the right. As left handed shooters found the the cartridge casing came out the right side of the weapon, and as it was being held in the left arm, and due to its bull pup design, the hot casing was thrown into the side of a left handed shooters head... The A2 corrected this as the bolt can be changed to go on the right side of the weapon to avoid this. Whether this is just rumour I have no idea.

The A2 also had an improved magazine catch so the magazine could not be accidentally removed while prone.

Having fired the A2 I can say its a beast. Powerful and very accurate.

The L85 A2 is still right hand only. Changing this would involve a total redesign of the weapon.

I never managed to lose a mag in prone or otherwise but I would assume that it was enough of a problem to justify the cost in changing the design.

I agree about the accuracy though. I used to be able to consistantly put a full magazine onto a man sized target at 400m through iron sights.

the Abrams can reload quicker though.

Not only is he faster than an autoloader, an 18 year old Private breaks a lot less often.

Republican Neocons. They have all the weapons and cant wait to use them.

Actually, some of us might be wanting to wing a few neocons...

hydrogen bombs. :hail:

Although not technically a weapon in and of themselves, aircraft carriers. They enable force projection around the world and can bring down unparalleled amounts of firepower very quickly, leaving enemy forces disorganized and badly damaged before they can successfully mount a defense.

The AK-47. Cheap, easy to use, almost ridiculously durable, and reasonable stopping power, unlike the 5.56 mm squirrel guns. That's my choice if we're just talking small arms, otherwise my vote goes to the Abrams Tank or the stealth bomber.

Sorry. the AK's main advantage is it's durability. It ain't accurate, and I want an accurate rifle thank-you-very-much. The FN-FAL, M-14, AR-10, or some other real battle rifle suit me better. A shotgun fixes the CQB issue.

the only problem with this weapon is that, in auto, it can't hit a barn door from a foot away. it's terrible in anything other than close quarters battle, when i'd use something more modern, such as the MP5/10 or the H&K UMP

Ya, but when it DOES hit the barn door a foot away, it goes through it, through the guy wearing the bullet vest standing behind it, and through his buddy as well.
Try that with an MP5 and it will go through the door, through the Guy with the bullet vest, and wound his buddy behind him.

Well, I guess what i'm trying to say is... Bullet proof vests aren't. Neither are helmets.
Of course, if you happen to be shot at by someone using a light combat round at better than combat range, and he accidently hits you, you may have a fair chance of maybe surviving a bullet in the chest or the head.
So using that reasoning, I would say that if someone fired off a whole clip from a thunderously loud, hammering AK47, you would keep your head down.
Unless you are inclined to just stand there and say "Ha! he's only got an AK47! Tell him to come back when he gets serious and gets an MP5!"

Er... sorry I forgot what my point was.

Sources?

The M1A2 and Leapord 2 use the same gun....



Sources? I don't mean any disrespect, but anybody can claim they're in the army and say that they did something or another. [See also: Mike Sparks]

Sources: M1A2 nad Leapord: Royal Armoured Corps nad US Army Central Command conducted trials on these tanks and proved it. The Leapord has shown itself to be an inferior tank to its NATO collegues on numerous exercises. It was designed to defeat Soviet armour, not the complexities of modern tank design

Sources: Harrier: I am a Captain in 11 EOD Regiment Royal Logistics Corps. I command an eight man EOD unit specialising in IED disposal. We were in Afghnistan for six months and in that time disabled over 50 IEDs. My unit were involved in 13 engagements with insurgents, 6 of which required air support.
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/FactSheets/OperationsFactsheets/OperationsInAfghanistanBritishForces.htm

Is that enough of a source for you?

Ya, but when it DOES hit the barn door a foot away, it goes through it, through the guy wearing the bullet vest standing behind it, and through his buddy as well.
Try that with an MP5 and it will go through the door, through the Guy with the bullet vest, and wound his buddy behind him.

Well, I guess what i'm trying to say is... Bullet proof vests aren't. Neither are helmets.
Of course, if you happen to be shot at by someone using a light combat round at better than combat range, and he accidently hits you, you may have a fair chance of maybe surviving a bullet in the chest or the head.
So using that reasoning, I would say that if someone fired off a whole clip from a thunderously loud, hammering AK47, you would keep your head down.
Unless you are inclined to just stand there and say "Ha! he's only got an AK47! Tell him to come back when he gets serious and gets an MP5!"

Er... sorry I forgot what my point was.

Good point-fair enough

Which is, of course, why the British are considering switching the Challenger to a smoothbore gun.

When firing APFSDS rounds a smoothbore is extremely accurate.

Sources for this? Last I heard, RAC were more than happy with their accurate rifled weapons

Sources for this? Last I heard, RAC were more than happy with their accurate rifled weapons

They did trial them recently.

Although I think they stuck with the rifled weapons.

As for the Harrier, its a fantastic dog fighter and ground support aircraft. The Falklands proved this, as the Argentine Mirages were shot down in droves in tight dogfights. (And the Mirage was considered the superior aircraft)

They did trial them recently.

Although I think they stuck with the rifled weapons.

As for the Harrier, its a fantastic dog fighter and ground support aircraft. The Falklands proved this, as the Argentine Mirages were shot down in droves in tight dogfights. (And the Mirage was considered the superior aircraft)

Fair enough- and thanks for the support on Harrier. At least i'm not the only one who can see it

Sources for this? Last I heard, RAC were more than happy with their accurate rifled weapons

The UK has begun a Challenger 2 main battle tank (MBT) Capability Sustainment Programme (C2 CSP), which aims to keep the vehicles viable until their projected out-of-service date in about 2035.

Part of the UK's recently formed Defence Equipment and Support organisation, the Future Systems Group (FSG), has issued an invitation to tender (ITT) for the C2 CSP to BAE Systems Land Systems, which is the design authority for the Challenger 2. The short-term aim is to continue to derisk the programme before additional funding is released.

The Challenger Lethality Improvement Programme (CLIP), which includes the replacement of the current 120 mm L30 series rifled tank gun with a 120 mm L/55 smoothbore gun, will be rolled into the C2 CSP. The FSG has been funding CLIP for several years, and the first unmanned firing of the weapon installed in a Challenger 2 MBT took place in early 2006.

http://www.janes.com/news/defence/systems/jdw/jdw070525_1_n.shtml

It sounds as though the project was still moving forward in 2007, when the article was dated.

And I'll state again that the smoothbore used by the M1A2 is not "inaccurate". I've seen on several occasions the M1A2 engage targets at 3km away with APFSDS. In fact, when using fin stabilized ammunition a smoothbore is superior as it allows greater velocity out the muzzle and spin stabilization actually degrades the accuracy of such rounds, which are currently the most effective sort of antitank round.

Of course, the whole "The smoothbore on the Abrams is highly innacurate, silly Americans!" thing came from a comment on an episode of Top Gear and for comedy's sake he'll take any shot at Americans (and pretty much everyone else) he can even if it isn't quite true.

yeah hydrogen bombs can do the most damage to an area. More than nuclear bombs (H bombs actually need nuclear bombs to work) but they havnt got the death toll behind them like disease

Chuck Norris.

Why do you think half of the United States Department of Defense's Budget goes into keeping his beer cold?

As for the Harrier, its a fantastic dog fighter and ground support aircraft. The Falklands proved this, as the Argentine Mirages were shot down in droves in tight dogfights. (And the Mirage was considered the superior aircraft)
To be fair, those Mirages were operating a lot further from their airfields than the Harriers were from their carriers or airstrips, so had much less fuel available for manouevering in those combats, and the Argentines only had an older model of air-to-air missile than the British (the main difference being in the much more restricted range of angles to the target within which its sensors would achieve a lock) too... but the Harrier is a useful design...

*VIFF!*

My Mosin-nagant which is an inch taller than me with the bayonet attached, duh.

The Death Star

Best modern weapon? hmmmm either stupid people or spam :)

But more seriously it depends...do you mean small arms or the larger weapon systems like tanks, aircraft, ballistic missiles, etc.

If small arms for general use my vote goes for the ak-107. Actualy I have heard about some ak's aceiving a MoA of 2in so it can be a much more accurate gun then you think (depends on the manufacturar though)...

Greatest This Century (small arms wise)

1. Ak-47
2. M-16
3. FN-Fal
4. Kar98k
5. M1 Garand
6. Lee Enfield SMLE
7. M14
8. Steyr AUG
9. Sturmgewehr 44
10. Mosin-Nagant

For firearms I still recomend the potatoe gun.

As for 'other weapons' I nominate SPAM, that is short for Spice Pork and Meat. SPAM is like super serum when you feed it to soldiers; if you want a historic reference then look to the battle of Leningrad or in fact the entire Soviet Counter-Attack Campaign during WWII that halted operation Barbarosa in its tracks and madeit all the way to Berlin was all thanks in a large part to SPAM. The USA airdropped millions of tons of SPAM to embattled Soviet troops, keeping them supplied throughout the duration of thier campaign and it is a top contributer to thier ability to win in WWII.

Snip
I do hope you're speaking ironically, since Barbarossa was pretty much a complete success in it's planned objectives. It wasn't until the Siege of Leningrad broke and the Germans got turned away at Stalingrad and Moscow (and later on Kursk) that the counterattack began in earnest.

Tactics aside however, I pretty much agree with Midlauthia except for throwing in the Sig 550 and G36, though those are mostly due to personal preference and admiration of their respective militaries.

I do hope you're speaking ironically, since Barbarossa was pretty much a complete success in it's planned objectives. It wasn't until the Siege of Leningrad broke and the Germans got turned away at Stalingrad and Moscow (and later on Kursk) that the counterattack began in earnest.

Tactics aside however, I pretty much agree with Midlauthia except for throwing in the Sig 550 and G36, though those are mostly due to personal preference and admiration of their respective militaries.

Who the hell could seriously say good things about SPAM that isn't the owner of the company that produces that shit? Seriously.. anyone who considers pork and meat to be two different things....

Who the hell could seriously say good things about SPAM that isn't the owner of the company that produces that shit? Seriously.. anyone who considers pork and meat to be two different things....

Introduced on July 5, 1937, the name "Spam" was chosen in the 1930s when the product, whose original name was far less memorable (Hormel Spiced Ham), began to lose market share. The name was chosen from multiple entries in a naming contest. A Hormel official once stated that the original meaning of the name Spam was "Shoulder of Pork And haM".[citation needed] According to writer Marguerite Patten in Spam – The Cookbook, the name was suggested by Kenneth Daigneau, an actor and the brother of a Hormel vice president, who was given a $100 prize for coming up with the name.[4] At one time, the official explanation may have been that the name was a syllabic abbreviation of "SPiced hAM", but on their official website, Hormel states that "Spam is just that. Spam."

Thus sayeth the Wikipedia.

Shut up. Everyone knows it means 'Stuff Posing As Meat.' :p

I still think the proper answer to the OP is 'Anything designed by John Moses Browning.'