Good looking rifles
-
donch know. like i said, not my one.Originally posted by one-niner:is that a real PSG-1 or the airsoft version ?
-
m468 with eotech hds. suppressed. trusty surefire at 3 o clock position and a forward vertical handgrip.
*drools* -
ignore him.. a fisherman fishing for info here.
-
For spotting purpose, I would recommend a winchester rifle. A fine rifle even during the Vietnam war.
For assualt or need of great fire power, G36 any version or FN P90 any version.
-
Erm...John Ching...FN P90 is a PDW not an assault rifle.
-
Yes, its designated as a PDW but does that mean you can't use it as an assault rifle? Maybe you'll feel better if its fitted with an extended barrel & scope to consider it as an assault rifle & there is a version like that for the P90.Originally posted by SpecOps87:Erm...John Ching...FN P90 is a PDW not an assault rifle. -
..
-
Colt Commando
-
AR-15
-
-
Okay ...fankly this weapn is pretty thoughtful, its short, easy to use, the charging handle is solid, the scope, the LAD, and the 4 componets to clean ..i like that ...Originally posted by Weirdo80:
what i hate is the swtich for auto/semi and magazine catch. pretty lame and in the heat of battle that can kill quite a lot of ppl. -
It pains me to see so few lovers of the WWII guns.. They were the ones which were put to most use in making history for humanity's freedom.. For me.. It's none other than the M1 Garand used by the American forces in WWII... Although I noe i'll nv get to fire it (i hope i do!), the guns juz fascinates me.. The amt of worksmanship in a single rifle like tis is really A LOT..
[/img] -
I am a Garand lover too. Nothing turns me on more that the ping of an ejected clip from a Garand.
Fired one in the USA before, it was bloody accurate and a real beauty to fire. It is full of character, a real shooter's weapon.
It's no wonder why the US won the Pacific War, when the GIs could fire 3 or 4 rounds at the same time that the Japs could on their Arisaka rifles, at remarkable accuracy. IMHO it won the ground war. -
I'm guessing that the Garand that you fired before in USA is a late model & not an actual WW II vintage, right?Originally posted by Weirdo80:I am a Garand lover too. Nothing turns me on more that the ping of an ejected clip from a Garand.
Fired one in the USA before, it was bloody accurate and a real beauty to fire. It is full of character, a real shooter's weapon.
It's no wonder why the US won the Pacific War, when the GIs could fire 3 or 4 rounds at the same time that the Japs could on their Arisaka rifles, at remarkable accuracy. IMHO it won the ground war.
Anyway, the Japs in WW II may have used Arisaka rifles but they sure were deadly accurate with it. -
I also like WW2 gunsOriginally posted by dRaKe86:It pains me to see so few lovers of the WWII guns.. They were the ones which were put to most use in making history for humanity's freedom.. For me.. It's none other than the M1 Garand used by the American forces in WWII... Although I noe i'll nv get to fire it (i hope i do!), the guns juz fascinates me.. The amt of worksmanship in a single rifle like tis is really A LOT..[/img] -
Just give me a M16 with anyday man ..i still love the gd old M16..light. compact, easy to handle. can be used as a club as well.....the momentum of the M16 is better than a SAR21 ..i swinged the 2 rifles before by gripping the barrel...Well it was the kinda of thing that just to comfort myself if i had to go to war, and i ran out of ammo(high chance) how woud i whack the enemy with my rifle ..
-
Never swing the gun by the barrel. It's a surefire way to get burned fingers. I'm sure they did teach you how to do a buttstroke right?Originally posted by one-niner:Just give me a M16 with anyday man ..i still love the gd old M16..light. compact, easy to handle. can be used as a club as well.....the momentum of the M16 is better than a SAR21 ..i swinged the 2 rifles before by gripping the barrel...Well it was the kinda of thing that just to comfort myself if i had to go to war, and i ran out of ammo(high chance) how woud i whack the enemy with my rifle ..
-
I didn't ask for the history of that particular rifle, but I'd doubt if it were vintage (it's been 60 years already).Originally posted by John Ching:I'm guessing that the Garand that you fired before in USA is a late model & not an actual WW II vintage, right?
Anyway, the Japs in WW II may have used Arisaka rifles but they sure were deadly accurate with it.
The Japs weren't more accurate that anyone else with the Arisaka rifle. The average Jap soldier could fire no more accurately than an American with a Garand. Same thing with the Mauser 98K used by the Germans. Particularly as the war raged on, there were lesser and lesser well-trained Bushido warriors fighting for the Emperor. I don't think they would have been excellent marksmen. This has been exhibited in Tarawa, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, where the Japs were already getting desperate and resorted to bayonet charges in large numbers which were of no avail. Late in the war, the lack of availability of good quality wood and precision tools led to the gradual decrease in performance of the Mauser 98k. However, I have not found any documents mentioning this about the Arisaka (I do know for a fact that the Japanese did lower the quality of their aircraft manufacturing as the war dragged on and resources became strained - no point building a very good plane when it is destined to slam into the side of a US carrier).
With the Garand, the M1 carbine, the M3 Greasegun, the Thompson SMG, the BAR and .30 MG, that's a hell of a lot of firepower that an American platoon can dish out. Japanese tactics, like their German counterparts, relied heavily on the usage of their MGs and riflemen were used for their bayonet charges and "picking off" enemy as they scrambled for cover, and as protection for MG crew. -
The M16A1 has proven itself, but I'd rather have the A2, A3 and A4 models over our M16S1 any day. Besides having a more solid structure, they are more accurate than the M16S1. The M16A2 and its successors have been designed for the SS109 62-grain 5.56mm round rather than the M193 55 grain round. Therefore the M16A2 has a 1 in 7 twist (one rifling cycle every 7 inches of barrel) as compared to the M16A1 with a 1 in 12 twist. This translates to greater accuracy and increased penetration. SAF has tried to increase the lifespan and usability of the M16S1 by using SS109 ammunition in the 1:12 barrel of the M16S1. However, this is arguably advantageous because a heavier bullet will need more twists, and with only a 1:12 twist the M16S1 just can't propel the SS109 round with sufficient rifling. This isn't much of a problem tho coz the average SAF soldier has problems even hitting a figure 15 target at 100m with the M16S1. The lack of penetration, however, is a problem plaguing even the SS109 round. Even with the enhanced ballistic velocity, soldiers in Iraq with their M16A2/A3/A4s still find the AK-47, with its fearsome 7.62mm round, a better alternative as some soldiers found that it takes a much larger round to stop a suicidal man charging at you than what the M16 is chambered for.Originally posted by one-niner:Just give me a M16 with anyday man ..i still love the gd old M16..light. compact, easy to handle. can be used as a club as well.....the momentum of the M16 is better than a SAR21 ..i swinged the 2 rifles before by gripping the barrel...Well it was the kinda of thing that just to comfort myself if i had to go to war, and i ran out of ammo(high chance) how woud i whack the enemy with my rifle ..
The only caveat I found with the M16A2 is the lack of a fully automatic mode. This mode is sometimes needed in FIBUA/MOUT or in emergency suppressing fire. Sure, it saves ammo but sometimes in the heat of a battle, you just want to spray and pray. -
hello fig 15 @ 100 m i can hit hor hahha. Anyway i was wondering why we had ss109 rounds when our rifles were 1 in 12 (twisting)
-
our unit wear gloves during outfield ? yes i noe abt the butt stroke with the M16..how u butt stroke your enemy with the SAR21 ?? more like magazine strokeOriginally posted by RussianPower:Never swing the gun by the barrel. It's a surefire way to get burned fingers. I'm sure they did teach you how to do a buttstroke right? -
Sadly the truth is that the Japs were better in shooting then any redneck from across the Pacific. To make them even deadlier then their kruger counter-parts, was the fact that they were better at ambushing. Check the records.Originally posted by Weirdo80:The Japs weren't more accurate that anyone else with the Arisaka rifle. The average Jap soldier could fire no more accurately than an American with a Garand. Same thing with the Mauser 98K used by the Germans. Particularly as the war raged on, there were lesser and lesser well-trained Bushido warriors fighting for the Emperor. I don't think they would have been excellent marksmen. This has been exhibited in Tarawa, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, where the Japs were already getting desperate and resorted to bayonet charges in large numbers which were of no avail. Late in the war, the lack of availability of good quality wood and precision tools led to the gradual decrease in performance of the Mauser 98k. However, I have not found any documents mentioning this about the Arisaka (I do know for a fact that the Japanese did lower the quality of their aircraft manufacturing as the war dragged on and resources became strained - no point building a very good plane when it is destined to slam into the side of a US carrier).
With the Garand, the M1 carbine, the M3 Greasegun, the Thompson SMG, the BAR and .30 MG, that's a hell of a lot of firepower that an American platoon can dish out. Japanese tactics, like their German counterparts, relied heavily on the usage of their MGs and riflemen were used for their bayonet charges and "picking off" enemy as they scrambled for cover, and as protection for MG crew.
American soldiers during those year till the end of the Vietnam war, aren't known for their ability to aim proper & then shoot. They prefer the full-auto, rock & roll, shooting. The real reason the Japs lost was the fact that their supply line was cut from Japan. The Jap soldiers became confused, hungery, desparate & shortage of able-body soldiers to continue to put up a proper counter-attack.
In open ground fighting the M1 would've been a good weapon to use in battle but in Asia, during WW II, with its thick jungle & limited space for movement, maybe the M3, Thommy, etc would've been a better choice. But M3 & Thommies were short on production & the Thommy was know to jam quite offen. -
Sadly the M16 or M4 does have its faults but the problem lies not in the propellan used in the 5.56 or the number of twist in the barrel. It lies on the design concept of the weapon. M16 was designed as a rifle & not a SMG like that of the AK. The designers focus on its accuracy for shooting distance longer then 100m. The semi-auto selection was added in as an option to be used when in shit, thats why its the last click on the selection switch of the rifle. The AK was designed to give the enemy hell even if the rounds don't hit anything but if it does, the Russian wanted ensure the enemy to remember them through their 7.62 rds. Its more of a SMG then rifle with a full-auto selection on the 1st click then single shots on the last level. Its been credited that the Vietcon figthers truely knew how to use the AK to their advantage in ambushes.Originally posted by Weirdo80:The M16A1 has proven itself, but I'd rather have the A2, A3 and A4 models over our M16S1 any day. Besides having a more solid structure, they are more accurate than the M16S1. The M16A2 and its successors have been designed for the SS109 62-grain 5.56mm round rather than the M193 55 grain round. Therefore the M16A2 has a 1 in 7 twist (one rifling cycle every 7 inches of barrel) as compared to the M16A1 with a 1 in 12 twist. This translates to greater accuracy and increased penetration. SAF has tried to increase the lifespan and usability of the M16S1 by using SS109 ammunition in the 1:12 barrel of the M16S1. However, this is arguably advantageous because a heavier bullet will need more twists, and with only a 1:12 twist the M16S1 just can't propel the SS109 round with sufficient rifling. This isn't much of a problem tho coz the average SAF soldier has problems even hitting a figure 15 target at 100m with the M16S1. The lack of penetration, however, is a problem plaguing even the SS109 round. Even with the enhanced ballistic velocity, soldiers in Iraq with their M16A2/A3/A4s still find the AK-47, with its fearsome 7.62mm round, a better alternative as some soldiers found that it takes a much larger round to stop a suicidal man charging at you than what the M16 is chambered for.
The only caveat I found with the M16A2 is the lack of a fully automatic mode. This mode is sometimes needed in FIBUA/MOUT or in emergency suppressing fire. Sure, it saves ammo but sometimes in the heat of a battle, you just want to spray and pray.
The M4 with its heavy barrel, number of twist in its barrel, carbine option, is suppose to solve the problems of the M16s, still it can't resolve the problem of getting the job done. So the designers blamed it on the ammo 5.56 so as to ensure the U.S military continued to use it as its main assault rifle. So whats to be done about the 5.56? Well, the solution came in the form of the new 6.8 which designers claim with 100% confidence that if the U.S military will to use it now, the insurgent fighters will definately never going to get up after the 1st shot. However, it has yet to be proven even though unofficially some Green Beret guys are alreay using it on the reasons of testing the rounds in actual combat.
If you really need suppresive firepower, use a M249 or M240B. M16/M4 is really for the purpose of accurate shooting. -
The reasons for Japanese losses varied from time to time, and did not neccessarily stem from the Japanese' lack of supplies. On Midway, they were defeated due to superior American intelligence that managed to decipher where the Japs were going to strike next and therefore had pre-emptive capability.Originally posted by John Ching:Sadly the truth is that the Japs were better in shooting then any redneck from across the Pacific. To make them even deadlier then their kruger counter-parts, was the fact that they were better at ambushing. Check the records.
American soldiers during those year till the end of the Vietnam war, aren't known for their ability to aim proper & then shoot. They prefer the full-auto, rock & roll, shooting. The real reason the Japs lost was the fact that their supply line was cut from Japan. The Jap soldiers became confused, hungery, desparate & shortage of able-body soldiers to continue to put up a proper counter-attack.
In open ground fighting the M1 would've been a good weapon to use in battle but in Asia, during WW II, with its thick jungle & limited space for movement, maybe the M3, Thommy, etc would've been a better choice. But M3 & Thommies were short on production & the Thommy was know to jam quite offen.
In the battle for the Eastern Solomons, namely the area near Guadalcanal, the Japanese were outgunned by the 19th and 20th Marine division in the Tenura River battle, where the Marines mauled the Japs for only 35 of their own losses. At this time, it was still early in the war and the Japanese were still well supplied. Therefore, the fact that the Japs were poorly supplied is a moot point. After this, the subsequent carrier battle saw the sinking of the Jap carrier Ryujo and the Shokaku and Zuikaku carriers damaged. This convinced Yamamoto to call off the attack to capture Guadalcanal, proving that they could not have attacked without being confident of their logisitics and supply capability. It was not until the end, when the Japanese were desperate and the seas and air owned by the Americans did that supply problem severely hamper the ability of the Japs to fight.
Also, your generalisation of the Americans "aren't known for their ability to aim proper & then shoot. They prefer the full-auto, rock & roll, shooting" tells me that you watch too much TV! Have you seen actual combat? It's nothing like that! What makes you think the Japanese also did not do their combat dance on full auto as well? True, they were adept in jungle warfare (not just ambushing), but as the war wore on, so did the Allies become acclimated to the jungle settings. If you were to read up, you would find that one of the reasons for the British re-invading Burma so late in the war was that they had to redoctrinate their entire army and train their in the skills of jungle warfare, something which they had failed to do at the onset of the war. I hope to see some real, hard facts based on historical references rather than images gleaned from Hollywood! -
Once again, I have NO IDEA where you're getting your stories from. Firstly, if only SMGs have the full-auto capability, why does the M16A1/M16S1 have the full auto mode?? They were designed as "assault rifles", mind you. Also, the M4 HAS FULL AUTO! Where do you get your doctrines from?
Sadly the M16 or M4 does have its faults but the problem lies not in the propellan used in the 5.56 or the number of twist in the barrel. It lies on the design concept of the weapon. M16 was designed as a rifle & not a SMG like that of the AK. The designers focus on its accuracy for shooting distance longer then 100m. The semi-auto selection was added in as an option to be used when in shit, thats why its the last click on the selection switch of the rifle. The AK was designed to give the enemy hell even if the rounds don't hit anything but if it does, the Russian wanted ensure the enemy to remember them through their 7.62 rds. Its more of a SMG then rifle with a full-auto selection on the 1st click then single shots on the last level. Its been credited that the Vietcon figthers truely knew how to use the AK to their advantage in ambushes.
The M4 with its heavy barrel, number of twist in its barrel, carbine option, is suppose to solve the problems of the M16s, still it can't resolve the problem of getting the job done. So the designers blamed it on the ammo 5.56 so as to ensure the U.S military continued to use it as its main assault rifle. So whats to be done about the 5.56? Well, the solution came in the form of the new 6.8 which designers claim with 100% confidence that if the U.S military will to use it now, the insurgent fighters will definately never going to get up after the 1st shot. However, it has yet to be proven even though unofficially some Green Beret guys are alreay using it on the reasons of testing the rounds in actual combat.
If you really need suppresive firepower, use a M249 or M240B. M16/M4 is really for the purpose of accurate shooting.
The Ak-47 was NOT DESIGNED AS AN SMG. According to SovietArmy.com, " It was the basic individual infantry weapon of the Soviet Army until the introduction of the AKM." Do you give new recruits SMGs to fire?? Does a BMT recruit learn how to shoot terrorists in a 747 cabin on the first day of BMT? And NOBODY chambers an SMG with a 7.62 x 39 mm round, dude. The Ak-47 is 86.9cm long. At that length, it would not perform well as an SMG for FIBUA/MOUT fights in confined spaces. Your claim that the AK-47 was used in ambushes on full-auto with results is dubious. According to Jane's, "The barrel overheats quickly when the weapon fires for extended periods, making the weapon hard to handle and occasionally causing a round to explode prematurely in the chamber. " I don't think anyone in his right mind would use the AK-47 as a section/platoon support weapon lor. That's why they came up with the RPD and RPK. One more thing, the Vietcong were strapped for ammo and weapons, unlike their NVA counterparts in the North. They were using a mish-mash of AKs, SKSs, Mosin-Nagants and captured US weapons. Do you think they used ammo very freely? Also, first-hand accounts mentioned that the Vietcong were adept at SNIPING, not spraying. If you want to hit someone accurately, you do not fire on full-auto. Besides, the AK-47 DOES NOT have a bipod like the BAR, making the recoil of automatic fire something that the firer has to bear. Firing 7.62mm rounds on full auto without support? You watch too many movies......
It's true that the M249 and M240 are better for auto fire - that's what they were designed for (there isn't even a semi-auto mode for these weapons). However, according to the NATO TOE, M249s cost 2.5 times more than M16A2s, and M240s cost 3.3 times more than M16A2s. How much will it cost to field an army of machine gunners? Plus the fact that each gunner needs about a thousand rounds of ammo. Not practical. And what happens when you see a sniper in the window 100m away? Waste 20 rounds spraying into the whole building? Wouldn't a well-placed rifle shot do the trick?