/k/ - Weapons

>>321058

>Take a shit rifle

>Make it even more front heavy

>>321087

>Garand

>shit rifle

Why do you hate freedom Argentinafag? Don't you have some lost islands to cry over?

At first, I thought it was an M14, and I was disgusted. Then, I noticed the clips, and then the gas tube, and mere disgust faded. A word as simple as "disgust" pales in comparison to my current state. What monster, what soulless abomination, could perform such an act?

>>321229

I know. It's so horrifying to see such a magnificent piece of American engineering and design defiled in such a manner.

I know it must be difficult to understand as a Cucknadian, but by means of illustration I can say that it can only be compared to having a great national monument destroyed.

>>321224

The Garand is good because of its historical importance. It isn't a good rifle by modern standards.

>>321234

Breaking news, a nearly 80 year old firearm is not as effective as a modern firearm when held to modern standards! Who could have expected such a ground breaking development? In other news, early coal powered steam engines are less effective than modern diesel engines. Absolutely shocking!

>>321234

>>321250

Just to get your opinion, what specifically makes older, yet still semi-modern guns (M1 Garand, M14, etc) less effective than modern ones? What features do they lack?

>>321253

The M1 rifle series is not "modern".

And, it's shit because it has one of the most delicate actions and worst performance records of any military issued rifle in history. There are dozens of better rifles, even older than it.

>>321256

Then what does it being 80 years old have to do with it not being as effective as a modern firearm?

>>321250

And I never said it should be judged by that. However, the Garand is a shit rifle. It didn't use to be. It is now.

>>321253

>less effective than modern ones?

Well, to start, it's a heavy rifle, has no detachable magazines, uses a round that's too overpowered for modern use, and is actually not that reliable.

>>321229

This

I'm used to seeing beautiful M1A's all fucked up, so I didn't think much of the pic until I saw the clips

Dayum shame. There's a bald eagle crying somewhere.

>b-but garand is shit

Even if you think that, it's still a tragedy to see on an old war relic get all tacticooled like this. Whatever old firearm you really like, imagine this happening to it. Ya, you'd probably vomit too.

>>321261

>round that's too overpowered.

What would you define as the limit before a round becomes "too overpowered?" I would have thought more power = more better since it gives you more stoppin powah and better performance at range, and I would think such effects would make it better than smaller rounds like the 5.56, but what are the negative effects of such a powerful round?

Would the 7.62x51 be considered overpowered?

>modern use

What about the way modern weapons are used is different from how they were used in WW2 that makes the .30-06 overpowered?

>>321261

It was always shit, but just less shit than some other weapons during WWII

>>321253

the ability to not destroy its own op rod regularly. and take a little dirt.

also holyfuck why is capcha broken, I had to go look at page source to find the image to type it in

>>321265

> I would have thought more power = more better since it gives you more stoppin powah and better performance at range

You have to follow the principle of gud ennuf, young one. Once you get to the point where it will down an enemy reliably, making the enemy deader doesn't get you any benefit.

>I would think such effects would make it better than smaller rounds like the 5.56, but what are the negative effects of such a powerful round?

Weight and your volume of fire goes down, assuming that you have that as your main rifle.

The EBR was employed pretty well by DMRs, so don't think that a large round has absolutely no place on the battlefield. It just isn't fit to be the standard rifle carried by an infantryman anymore.

>Would the 7.62x51 be considered overpowered?

On something like an M4 analogue? Yeah, definitely. On something like an M240B or an EBR? No. Those are good tools, but they have their place. This is why we both have SAW gunners and MG teams. We don't have one or the other.

>What about the way modern weapons are used is different from how they were used in WW2 that makes the .30-06 overpowered?

Today we have learned that establishing a base of fire is key to winning a firefight. Inside the engagement areas we fight in today, 5.56 is good enough for 99.9% of everything, but 7.62 still has its place. The reason for this is that being able to put more rounds downrange is easier with smaller rounds. You have more of them, and you can control them easier, meaning that if you go cyclic on a SAW, you can still reliably get hits without issue. You couldn't do this with something that shoots 30-06, and you wouldn't want to, since your ammo is now severely limited. This means that you can compensate with a lower rate of fire, but that then means that your ability to suppress has gone down. This is one reason I disagree with the Marines and their M27. It's not just the cyclic rate that matters, the sustained rate of fire is what is truly important, and the M27 has an anemic performance.

You have to remember that a lot of the choices for weapons today comes from years of experience. There is a reason we use weapons like we do, and it's because it works. High rates of fire with light ammo make the enemy stop dead, and weapons like the M4 still reliably hit out to 500m. Anything more than that starts to look unnecessary. You can always augment with specialty items like the EBR, but making everyone carry an EBR would be very stupid. Do you get what I mean now?

>>321266

Yes, but the Garand is loved for sentimental reasons. I'd still love to have one in my collection. They're a lot of fun, and it just screams America.

I don't like to see them destroyed because they're a part of history. I don't think that the rifle's performance was somehow "ruined" by the treatment given to it in OP's pic.

It's like trying to rice a Model T.

>>321265

30-06 has enough power to put it out to ranges that the M1 has no reason to be shooting, it's inherently not accurate enough. .276 Pedersen was a much better military cartridge. today we look at 30-06 as a low end big game cartridge.

>>321269

>gud ennuf

IDK, I've heard stories before of people getting hit by 5.56 and not going down immediately. Is there any truth to those stories, and are they anything other than random occurrences? Is the 5.56 really powerful enough to reliably down an adversary at reasonable ranges?

>inside the engagement areas we fight in today

I have no military experience, so maybe I'm just talking out of my ass here, but it seems like an adversary using something like EBRs for everyday use could set up ambushes from beyond the useful range of an M4 and waste groups of infantry that couldn't reliably fire back due to the shorter range of their rifles. Is that a concern?

And why do most firefights occur within 300 yards? I could understand why that would be the case in situations like urban warfare where line of sight and engagement ranges are artificially constrained, but in open territory where visibility is measured in dozens of miles it seems like engagement ranges could be pushed out far further, especially when fighting a defending enemy (i.e. Eastern Front in WW2).

>>321273

>dozens of miles

Sorry, had a brain fart. I means to say a couple miles.

>>321224

The action is stupidly open, it is expensive to make and requires a lot of machining, the whole receiver is an engineering nightmare. The way the action sits on the stock is also shit and it tends to lose zero after cleaning it (the stupid EBR should solve that).

It was a shit rifle with an awful track record even by WW2 standards.

Rifles like the STG44 could have stayed relevant for decades if they wanted to with some minor modifications.

The M3 could have kept on going for decades as an SMG just fine for years too.

The Mauser action is still being used up to this very day by more than one manufacturer.

The 1911, with all its limitations/flaws, is still a fantastic gun in many regards (and it's two decades older).

It has historical value, it's a very pretty rifle and I actually like the round (on of the few rifle rounds that I've shot).

The M1 carbine seems to be a better rifle too, I'd have used a different round, hell, if they had found the way to chamber it on .357 magnum it would have been a terrific little gun, even the alternative round that was being considered had better ballistic performance. There is one for sale here, but since the magazine isn't welled to the receiver for obvious reasons you need a stupid permit to buy it. I was amazed by how light that shit is.

>>321273

the inconsistent wounding stories are the fault of M885 ammo, which is on the way out. because… it wounded inconsistently.

>>321277

the open action is a problem but not the problem, vz 58s and MAS 49s do fine with it. It's the exposed op rod, drag on the op rod slows the bolt or seizes up completely.

>>321250

> Moving the goalposts

>>321250

Not only that:

> Hey Anon this rifle is great, why do you think its shit?

> Anon, why are you surprised this rifle is shit?

I know you arent the same posters but are you bipolar, motherfucker?

>>321278

The op rod is part of the action and that's why I said stupidly open. The AK has a somewhat open action, the VZ is a bit more open and the MAS49 even a bit more so.

>>321331

This image makes me feel like vomiting every time I see it.

>>321273

> I've heard stories before of people getting hit by 5.56 and not going down immediately. Is there any truth to those stories, and are they anything other than random occurrences? Is the 5.56 really powerful enough to reliably down an adversary at reasonable ranges?

Of course it's true. It happens. However, the M855A1 vastly improved on the M855. 5.56, with the right load, remains a good enough cartridge.

>it seems like an adversary using something like EBRs for everyday use could set up ambushes from beyond the useful range of an M4 and waste groups of infantry that couldn't reliably fire back due to the shorter range of their rifles.

This is why we have MG teams. Of course, long-range fire is an issue, but the enemy using those EBRs won't be able to set up a base of fire as easily. It's easier to maneuver the farther you get out. Remember, one element always supports another, so while this is a danger, you still have tools to fight back. I mean, if you want to go area target with a SAW, you can get it out to 800m. This is about where the EBR gets out to. You can certainly break contact this way, not to mention a 240 will get out there even more.

>And why do most firefights occur within 300 yards?

It's mostly terrain-dependent. It's about where you can see someone and decide you want to fuck them up. In Afghanistan, engagements happened at much longer ranges, and they happened all the time.

> I could understand why that would be the case in situations like urban warfare where line of sight and engagement ranges are artificially constrained, but in open territory where visibility is measured in dozens of miles

Well, the obvious solution is not to be visible for dozens of miles. However, most terrain is not a flat field. Terrain features can only be so far apart, so that plays a role as well, not to mention that if you are in open country, that's when mechanization really comes in. Tanks will make short work of infantry out in the open, and mechanized infantry can always support for when they run into well-entrenched enemies. This was the main idea for the cold war. It was assumed it would involve a lot of armor and a lot of resources. It's not much the same in things like Afghanistan where it's a counter-insurgency. Things like civilian considerations come much farther to the forefront there. That, and you can't really take a tank up a mountain.

>>321330

kinda neat. the fore stock is made for benchrest shooting. back is for a comfortable grip and more importantly an adjustable cheek comb. is it still in .303?

>>321345

This is a SMLE, anon.

>>321353

My mistake, I remembered the thread that it was in and people kept calling it a Mauser. A shame either way.

>>321355

These is also a Mauser as part of the image set.

It was just a shitty Mitchell's though, with fake Nazi eagles just stamped on it.

>>321351

>>321330

ok, I looked a little further. for one there's a reddit thread all about shitting on this rifle, because redditors are retarded and don't know shit about shit.

second, the sights stuck out to me, those aren't normal Enfield sights. looked it up, it most likely started as a "Jungle Carbine"

if you don't know Enfields, the "Jungle Carbine" is an extremely rare varient. BUT there are a fuckload of butchered fake "Jungle Carbines", so this rifle is built off an already butchered No5. No harm, rifle improved.

now let's all have a good shared laugh at Redditors, who don't know shit about shit.

>>321350

>base of fire

What do you mean by "setting up a base of fire," and why are larger guns worse at doing it?

>>321379

Not that anon, but I believe he's referring to the principle of "bigger magazine = more frequent reloads". If you have more bullets to fire before you have to reload, you can spend less time reloading and more time covering your friends who are reloading.

Also more bullets = easier suppressing fire.

>>321375

I think he's right.

>>321379

>What do you mean by "setting up a base of fire,"

This is what you use for the supporting element. At the smallest, a fireteam can do it during a squad attack. Basically, you want to suppress the enemy effectively. This is accomplished by maintaining a superior volume of fire.

It's harder to do with a larger cartridge because you can't exactly make one SAW gunner carry 1K rounds of this shit and his weapon. This is why the M240B is used by a team of gunners. If you scale the cartridge down, you can have one guy do the entire job for that smaller scale. It's not that they're worse at doing it. They are arguably better depending on the position you find yourself in, but they have costs to them, mobility and the fact that you need two men to operate one gun would be some examples.

The alternative is to simply carry less ammo, then the job might conceivably be done by one guy, but now you don't have as much time on the gun as you would if you had simply carried smaller ammo and more of it. After all, the rate of fire required to suppress is going to be very similar for both weapons. It's actually the same for the 240 and the SAW.

>>321392

Why is it always Rainbow Dash.

I wish I had that Applejack shotgun saved. It was actually fairly well-thought-out for a background horse weapon.

>>321394

Militaryfags latched onto that one after their "Blue Angels" episode.

>>321396

To be absolutely fair, I fucking called that one. They got called in to deal with a giant dragon, of COURSE they're the military.

I also got my dad and aunt, who both went to AFA, to watch that one. Not five minutes in, Spitfire's telling everyone that they can't keep up…

>RD: "TRY ME!"

>Me, Dad, Aunt: "She's dead."

>>321391

But for a regular rifle (not an MG) is there any appreciable difference between a 5.56 rifle (say, an AR) and a 7.62 rifle (a FAL) in terms of the volume of fire they can put out, assuming both guns have magazines of the same capacity?

>>321400

His point is that even if they have the same mag capacity, the 7.62 rifle is heavier, harder to handle, has a fuckhuge magazine, and doesn't provide that big of an advantage in an urban environment. In WWII, we were fighting on beaches and in rural towns, so we needed bigger boolits to hit from further away. In Iraq, we're fighting in cities, and tanks handle the open desert–which means that a big, bulky rifle firing a big, bulky bullet is gonna be at a disadvantage compared to the smaller rifle that can be brought to bear on a target faster.

>>321401

I'd think you'd need a bigger one for that.

>>321400

Yes. Bigger bullet=heavier bullet=can't carry as many bullets=smaller volume of fire because you run out of bullets

It's also impossible to keep full auto 7.62 remotely accurate unless you are prone and using a bipod.

>>321408

>pic

You know thats a hoax right? those were just airshit guns

>>321435

But are regular infantry rifles fired full auto in combat? I thought the US decided to restrict M16s to not fire auto after soldiers ended up running out of ammunition due to spraying bullets around in Vietnam.

And even if you do fire a rifle full auto, isn't that generally done for purposes of suppression, so that accuracy isn't of critical importance?

>>321438

But nobody makes an airshit with a type 2 flat side SVD receiver.

>>321441

The M-16A2 that most of the military uses has its automatic fire setting reduced to a 3-round burst setting.

The A1 fielded in Vietnam was full auto and in this mode the direct gas impingement system combined with older ball powder in the cartridges caused the weapon to foul and jam frequently. Pair this with inexperienced conscripts being told that their weapons were self cleaning and the lack of chroming, using the auto setting was practically asking for a jam.

Eventually the military recognized these issues and rectified them with the A2 and so was born the burst firing M-16. Or so I recall

>>321468

Part of it was also because full auto doesn't get them to actively try and kill enemy combatants. Most would point it in the enemy's general direction and hold the trigger till it went click. This did not kill the enemy most of the time and wasted a lot of ammo. So putting a burst fire selector in forced the men to actively aim at the enemy. Also or so I was told

>>321471

Yeah, that's what I was referring to when I was talking about them taking away full auto due to accuracy concerns.

So if you only do 3 round burst or semi auto and you're able to carry sufficient ammunition due to not firing full auto, wouldn't 7.62 be superior to 5.56?

>>321468

three round burst has nothing to do with jamming, it was thought to conserve ammo.

>>321268

>captcha broken

I had the same problem. But m8 the whole site has been llimping along, for months. It is only a matter of time before the whole site completely crashes.

If someone had and absolutely fucked stock, would it be fine to try and salvage what you could and mad max the shit out of it?

>>321488

as long as it isn't actually falling apart I suppose you could, good luck keeping it on your shoulder if it has a point though

>>321489

I've seen things where folks would repair vases and furniture by filling in the gaps with metals like gold and what not. Wondering how that would look on a gun, it would be very very impractical, but I'm thinking in terms of it being a unique thing for the mantel or something.

>>321392

You're telling me you have a problem with custom engraved grips on a M1911? What's wrong with customizing your gun a bit like that?

Get rid of the triggers, though. Those are cancer.

>>321350

I keep seeing EBR. When I internet search, all I find are M14 links and the acronym stated as Enhanced Battle Rifle. I know Battle Rifles use full-size rifle cartridges like .308 like FAL, as opposed to Assault Rifles using intermediate (between full-power rifle and pistol) cartridges like 7.62x39 like AK.

So wtf is an EBR?

>>321375

It really exists, but it's a fake. Anon later confessed that he bought spare parts and put together a bastard Mauser

>>321400

>But for a regular rifle (not an MG) is there any appreciable difference between a 5.56 rifle (say, an AR) and a 7.62 rifle (a FAL) in terms of the volume of fire they can put out, assuming both guns have magazines of the same capacity?

There is in certain circumstances, especially at the beginning of contact. Usually you will go rapid for a few seconds with SAW cyclic, then you can transition to sustained, which means more carefully aimed single shots. Remember even auto fire needs to be aimed.

But there is still one problem with that. If the rifles were the same, the advantage would still go to 5.56. Why? Because it's still a lighter weapon with lighter ammo and it does the exact same thing as the bigger round. Sure, 7.62 is "better," but better isn't really a requirement. Good enough is good enough.

Then there's the issue of your SAW gunner. Are you going to have that go up to 7.62? Now you find yourself in a lot more complicated situation than if your rifles simply matched rounds to your SAW. Whatever your improved range from the bigger round is, the fact remains that you won't be able to establish a base of fire from that distance with a SAW using the smaller round. The supposed advantage is negated by this.

A much more efficient way to do things is to simply supplement with something like an EBR, which will allow you to employ that improved range in situations where it is actually needed. This was especially true in Afghanistan.

>>321514

The EBR is basically an improved M14, yes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mk_14_Enhanced_Battle_Rifle

I wouldn't buy one as a civilian, though. There are better rifles for the job out there if you're starting from scratch.

>>321378

>>321330

On this subject, I've been wondering what most Streloks think is the "proper way" of dealing with already butchered guns.

I would certainly prefer attempting a restoration job if possible, but even restored they'd have all mismatched parts and that might end up looking terrible. It would feel as if it was just mocked up to look like a shell of its true self. With something like a Jungle Carbine, considering how rare the real ones are and how equally rare original parts for them are, I expect that restoring it would be damn near impossible. Taking an already bubba'd piece and turning it into something tastefully and skillfully done, with respect to what it was and still is, seems like it might be a more respectful way of dealing with it. It won't end up being what it once was, but the parts it once had are either destroyed or mutilated, so you can only replace them with another butchered rifle's parts - it could never really be made whole again. Turning bubba's heresy into something beautiful seems justifiable to me.

I wouldn't say that Lee is 'beautiful', though; the wood looks newly-made instead of cut-down authentic wood, which is nice, but based on that one pic it looks like the wood itself was poorly produced and the finish looks like shit, mixing polymer and wood is fucking awful, and if you're going to add some tacticool shit, don't go with fucking ATI garbage. The owner attempting to fix an already butchered rifle is good, but god damn did he ever do a shitty looking job of fixing it.

>>321397

GATE/MLP crossover when?

>>321408

Why did you have to post that anon.

>TFW you were in that thread

>>321540

>improved

Heh!

>>321772

Improved for Army purposes. It's kind of essential to be able to mount PEQs and other shit to the rifle nowadays. I always wonder why nobody just drilled into the stocks and attached a rail that way. Apparently nutn has done it.

>>321919

>>321923

file didnt work for some reason

>>322023

Gold weighs a metric fuckton per square metre, but that doesn't look like it would be much. There would probably me more weight in the bullets.

Have you ever had the pleasure of holding a kintsugi'd piece?

One problem though: You can't kintsugi wood or polymer because the hot gold would carbonize/melt/burn it. You would have to use something more robust like ceramic and nobody makes ceramic stocks.

>>321919

>that fucking shotgun

For what purpose.

I genuinely don't understand.

What advantage does a chainsaw grip give?

For some reason I can't stotp laughing while looking at that shit. Somehow it reminds me of this.

>>322028

It's zombie apocalypse cosplaying.

>>322032

That doesn't answer my question, lardass.

>>322033

Then I dunno what you're talking about and probably no one else does, you bleached alcoholic nigger. Go squat somewhere else.

>>322035

I asked what advantage does chainsaw grip give.

You said some stupid shit about zambi apocalypse.

You either need to get off xanax or learn how to read.

>>322033

It has no purpose you dirty gypsy. It's just meant to look cool to faggots with shit taste.

You may as well pester Skallagrim about these knives.

>>322037

Cool your jets Romanon, the chainsaw grip is used in conjunction with a muzzle brake for breaching doors. The grip makes it easier to position the barrel correctly so you don't fuck up shooting the lock apparatus.

Problem is that cosplayfags either are retarded and think hip firing a shotgun is going to be just like the video games or they just think it looks cool.

>>322030 is what it should look like. See the muzzle brake.

>>322037

It must be for people that want to fire from the hip more and want a gimmick to help them do it.

>>322037

The point is that it gives no advantage, it's for looks and cool factor, you dumb motherfucker. Do you really think it helps with accuracy, cycling rate, or possibly anything at all? No, it doesn't. It's for looks and misguided cool factor, ergo in that particular image a zombie cosplay aesthetic.

I bet you think hip-firing and akimbo are legit, too, you fucking autist.

>>322048

Stop projecting, bacon-breather, I've never implied that it's useful. I asked what purpose it could serve, that's it, don't get your cheesesteak in a twist.

Should've followed other people's example of actually answering the question.

>>322050

Okay, here's what it does: you pull back on it then push it forward to cycle a round while hip-firing mode. How useful is hip-firing anything but a full-auto?

And it's not a "chainsaw grip," you tracksuit faggot.

>>322064

I don't even know what to think about bronies anymore, except that they are subhumans. First I thought it was a joke. Then I thought it was autistic trolling. Then I thought they really are that autistic. But that still doesn't explain anything.

None of it makes sense. In all my years as a professional shitposter I have never seen anything as enigmatic and disgusting as the bronies.

They are an abomination. An experiment gone horribly wrong.

>>322037

its good for door breaching but thats about it

>>322052

> Not a chainsaw grip

What is it then, you retard? a fucking condom?

>>322064

it's pretty simple. Bronies can't stand to do anything during their day that isn't about MLP, so if they have other interests, they put pony shit all over them. It's just autism.

>>322070

They identify with My Little Pony and try to make that show their "lifestyle"/

>>322325

But it's really grotesque. It reaches asian otaku levels. Some fucking bronies even fuck plushies and cuffs them to have BSDM sex. WITH A FUCKING PLUSHIE.

>>321231

>american engineering

It was designed by a French-Canadian though.

You fuckers want atrocities? I'll give you atrocities: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtFX3JBYsIg

>>322373

A French-Canadian whose family moved to USA when he was a kid. Around 5 or so, I think. He may have been born a Canuck, but he was raised and lived as an American. Besides, by this standard, we get J.P. Lee, and I'd say both the Lee family of rifles and detachable magazines are more important inventions than the Garand.

>>322064

>As far as I know the show is against violence

So am I. I am the biggest motherfucking anti-violence pacifist on the face of this Earth.

And that's exactly why I wanted to own guns.

I had some real nice /mlk/ guns on my old hd, too. Not abominations, some actually pretty mlp-themed guns. Pity I don't have them here with me anymore.

Nor/mlp/eople were surprisingly pro-gun.

>>321919

No way that Thompson isn't airshit.

>>322487

it looks like a pistol. and the magazine is resting on the bed behind it. and all the parts are thrown on for comic effect.

>>322445

I didn't know that. I thought he moved when he was older. Thanks for enlightening me.

>>322822

I've checked, I was wrong about his exact age. He was still a kid, but actually about 11 when they moved.

>>330224

>dat cut down stg

Well if I was to fight in WW2 I know what I would use now. Along with a shouldered bolt rifle and a small pistol.

>>322070

I think the people that overreact this badly to bronies might be the actual autists, or just newfags trying too hard to fit in. They're just another internet subculture, like weeaboos or furries. It is what it is.

>>321408

>>321451

>people keep posting this

>the OP of the thread came out as one of the very few SVD-owning tripfags who bought airshit to defile

>cheekrest and halfway decent finish on the wood stock disappears in the hacksaw pictures bUT NO ITS THE SAEM ONE TOTALLY GUYS

>being this fucking trolled for months on end and insisting that it's real

Get fucked, noguns, I'm sick of this shit.

>>330354

The poor lad. He invented a fantasy to shield himself from the reality that two SVDs were desecrated.

>>330237

> Being a ponyfag

> Accept us like what we are!

> Stomach everything we force to you!

>>330422

They do. RS SVD receivers are milled from steel ingot.