GUN TALK (Favorite guns discussion thread)

[Mujahidah]

We're making fun of Pretania railing about how the M240 is bad because its Belgian.

Does that make the FN FAL bad because it's also Belgian?

Yes, presumably.

[Impaled Nazarene]

Does that make the FN FAL bad because it's also Belgian?

Yes, presumably.

All the Italian weapons too. After all the Italian military was a joke in WW2. Beretta and Benelli must be shit too.

[Monfrox]

Yes, presumably.

All the Italian weapons too. After all the Italian military was a joke in WW2. Beretta and Benelli must be shit too.

R00d.

I want a Benelli M4 Super 90, actually.

[Impaled Nazarene]

All the Italian weapons too. After all the Italian military was a joke in WW2. Beretta and Benelli must be shit too.

R00d.

I want a Benelli M4 Super 90, actually.

Scroll back a page or two we're mocking someone who said that nations that "lost" a world war can't make good weapons.

[Taihei Tengoku]

M240 is bad because its fundamentally a gun from 1926, made with 1926 techniques, in 2018

ooooo you made a zb-26 belt feed good for you

[Monfrox]

M240 is bad because its fundamentally a gun from 1926, made with 1926 techniques, in 2018

ooooo you made a zb-26 belt feed good for you

And yet the 1911 is still alive and kicking.

R00d.

I want a Benelli M4 Super 90, actually.

Scroll back a page or too we're mocking someone who said that nations that "lost" a world war can't make good weapons.

But Germany makes great weapons.

[Impaled Nazarene]

M240 is bad because its fundamentally a gun from 1926, made with 1926 techniques, in 2018

ooooo you made a zb-26 belt feed good for you

And yet the 1911 is still alive and kicking.

Scroll back a page or too we're mocking someone who said that nations that "lost" a world war can't make good weapons.

But Germany makes great weapons.

Yes, hence our immense sarcasm

[Monfrox]

And yet the 1911 is still alive and kicking.


But Germany makes great weapons.

Yes, hence our immense sarcasm

Man. I need me a G3 though.

[Hurtful Thoughts]

M240 is a bit more front-heavy, and the M60 was originally meant to be given to the "Automatic Rifleman" to replace the mag-fed M1918A2 and M14A1 rifles of smae caliber.

when the 5.56mm was being intro'd, the 7.62 was still "standard" in the 60's and the M60 was an AR up until the 90's rolled-up and told everyone the cold war was over and nobody had to worry about decimating human-wave attacks draped in soviet power-armor fueled by vodka-induced rage.

In short, the M60 was originally meant to be "one-manned" in a pucker-moment.

But as we saw with the mounted M60s they under-performed when mounted on anything heavier than a sandbag. Especially on helicopters. The rate of fire was just too low and while the M240 only shoots 200rpm faster at max its seen as the better mounted weapon.

A few steel washers added to the recoil-buffer of the 60's [and adding 50% more op-rod spring] tended to double the RoF, add duplex bullets as issued to the door-gunners, and you're talking cyclics of 900 cartridges/min and two or three bullets spewed per cartridge... Starting to approach minigun levels of dakka here...

Which is where reports of M60s self-destructing every component forwards of the gas-block starts to happen. (bipods removed [integral to barrel-cooling], flash-hiders only screwed back on finger-tight.... those insane cyclic rates...)

The introduction of proper miniguns saw the swift death of twin jacked-up 60's as door-gunner favorites.

[Impaled Nazarene]

But as we saw with the mounted M60s they under-performed when mounted on anything heavier than a sandbag. Especially on helicopters. The rate of fire was just too low and while the M240 only shoots 200rpm faster at max its seen as the better mounted weapon.

A few steel washers added to the recoil-buffer of the 60's [and adding 50% more op-rod spring] tended to double the RoF, add duplex bullets as issued to the door-gunners, and you're talking cyclics of 900 cartridges/min and two or three bullets spewed per cartridge... Starting to approach minigun levels of dakka here...

Which is where reports of M60s self-destructing every component forwards of the gas-block starts to happen. (bipods removed [integral to barrel-cooling], flash-hiders only screwed back on finger-tight.... those insane cyclic rates...)

The introduction of proper miniguns saw the swift death of twin jacked-up 60's as door-gunner favorites.

I more meant the jams and other stoppages. It barely jams more than the PKM (yes Kalashnikov patterns can jam without being subjected to abuse SHOCKING) but jamming more than the PKM is a bad thing.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

The US modified the M240 too. Doesn't mean we should've adopted it. We need a weapon made by winners, not two-world-wars-in-a-row losers.

And that's why I'm glad we cancelled the MBT70 project with the Germans.

So you're satisfied with the US Military using inferior weapons because of your ridiculous nationalism?

This is suggesting the US cannot make good weapons. It can and has and does. Thus, we don't need other countries making guns for us.

That is the dumbest position I have heard in a while. Germany makes good weapons. The US military uses a good number of them because they are good. I take it you want to kick the MP5 out of SEAL service just because you have a burning hatred of anything with a foreign manufacturers stamp on it, huh?

YES. EXACTLY.

Believe it or not the SEALs would tell you thats really friggin dumb.

Fuck the SEALs.

"Buh its foreign" isn't an argument for a gun being bad. In fact, many foreign guns are of excellent manufacture. Actually explain why its bad if you want to be taken seriously. Otherwise, shove off.

You need to explain why I should buy imports first instead of American, bucko.

Better get rid of all our mortars except for the 60s. They're British and Israeli.

You should be fine with getting rid of the Israeli ones, so I don't understand the double standard here.

Better get rid of all our mortars except for the 60s. They're British and Israeli.

And burn the remaining Garands because John Garand was born Canadian.

He was an American though, try again.

We're making fun of Pretania railing about how the M240 is bad because its Belgian.

Does that make the FN FAL bad because it's also Belgian?

Yes. "Right arm of the free world" my ass.

All the Italian weapons too. After all the Italian military was a joke in WW2. Beretta and Benelli must be shit too.

Where's the lie?

[Impaled Nazarene]

So you're satisfied with the US Military using inferior weapons because of your ridiculous nationalism?

This is suggesting the US cannot make good weapons. It can and has and does. Thus, we don't need other countries making guns for us.

That is not suggesting. You are desperate and reaching. Try harder next time.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

This is suggesting the US cannot make good weapons. It can and has and does. Thus, we don't need other countries making guns for us.

That is not suggesting. You are desperate and reaching. Try harder next time.

No, it's suggesting. It quite clearly suggests that we need foreign weapons because foreign weapons are superior. It says right there,"So you're satisfied with the US Military using inferior weapons because of your ridiculous nationalism?" as if using American weapons instead of foreign ones is equivalent to using inferior weapons.

[Valgora]

That is not suggesting. You are desperate and reaching. Try harder next time.

No, it's suggesting. It quite clearly suggests that we need foreign weapons because foreign weapons are superior. It says right there,"So you're satisfied with the US Military using inferior weapons because of your ridiculous nationalism?" as if using American weapons instead of foreign ones is equivalent to using inferior weapons.

If a foreign company has managed to design a better weapon, then that makes that weapon superior.
If an American company has managed to design a better weapon, then that makes that weapon superior.

Ignoring the fact that a foreign company can design a better gun and that the military should be equipped with an inferior gun is a bad idea.

Many foreign companies have made very, very good weapons.

[Impaled Nazarene]

No, it's suggesting. It quite clearly suggests that we need foreign weapons because foreign weapons are superior. It says right there,"So you're satisfied with the US Military using inferior weapons because of your ridiculous nationalism?" as if using American weapons instead of foreign ones is equivalent to using inferior weapons.

If a foreign company has managed to design a better weapon, then that makes that weapon superior.
If an American company has managed to design a better weapon, then that makes that weapon superior.

Ignoring the fact that a foreign company can design a better gun and that the military should be equipped with an inferior gun is a bad idea.

Many foreign companies have made very, very good weapons.

See? He get's it. You're just reaching cause you lost an argument.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

No, it's suggesting. It quite clearly suggests that we need foreign weapons because foreign weapons are superior. It says right there,"So you're satisfied with the US Military using inferior weapons because of your ridiculous nationalism?" as if using American weapons instead of foreign ones is equivalent to using inferior weapons.

If a foreign company has managed to design a better weapon, then that makes that weapon superior.
If an American company has managed to design a better weapon, then that makes that weapon superior.

Ignoring the fact that a foreign company can design a better gun and that the military should be equipped with an inferior gun is a bad idea.

Many foreign companies have made very, very good weapons.

Why should we equip inferior foreign arms when America can design better arms for themselves?

Nobody has explained why we should, especially from the country that gets knocked out first round in any world war.

See? He get's it. You're just reaching cause you lost an argument.

What argument have I lost? Nobody's explained why we should use a loser's weapons instead of designing our own.

[Valgora]

If a foreign company has managed to design a better weapon, then that makes that weapon superior.
If an American company has managed to design a better weapon, then that makes that weapon superior.

Ignoring the fact that a foreign company can design a better gun and that the military should be equipped with an inferior gun is a bad idea.

Many foreign companies have made very, very good weapons.

Why should we equip inferior foreign arms when America can design better arms for themselves?

Nobody has explained why we should, especially from the country that gets knocked out first round in any world war.

See? He get's it. You're just reaching cause you lost an argument.

What argument have I lost? Nobody's explained why we should use a loser's weapons instead of designing our own.

Because the foreign weapon was found to be superior than the comparable domestic firearm.
You should not equip your military with a domestic weapon is inferior to a foreign one.

Losing world wars is much, much more complicated than simply having the best firearms. Quit acting like it's so simple.

Why shouldn't we design our own? Cost mostly. The military costs a lot of money and you have to be efficient with it.
If the military gave a deadline to make a firearm, and the American company didn't design one that works as good as the foreign one, then the military is likely to chose the foreign firearm.

[The East Marches II]

The US modified the M240 too. Doesn't mean we should've adopted it. We need a weapon made by winners, not two-world-wars-in-a-row losers.

And that's why I'm glad we cancelled the MBT70 project with the Germans.

That is the dumbest position I have heard in a while. Germany makes good weapons. The US military uses a good number of them because they are good. I take it you want to kick the MP5 out of SEAL service just because you have a burning hatred of anything with a foreign manufacturers stamp on it, huh? Believe it or not the SEALs would tell you thats really friggin dumb. "Buh its foreign" isn't an argument for a gun being bad. In fact, many foreign guns are of excellent manufacture. Actually explain why its bad if you want to be taken seriously. Otherwise, shove off.

The MP5 succs, the British and Israelis at least know how to win! Unlike Belgium whose only real accomplishment is knowing how to be the place old Hans can march through.

[Impaled Nazarene]

If a foreign company has managed to design a better weapon, then that makes that weapon superior.
If an American company has managed to design a better weapon, then that makes that weapon superior.

Ignoring the fact that a foreign company can design a better gun and that the military should be equipped with an inferior gun is a bad idea.

Many foreign companies have made very, very good weapons.

Why should we equip inferior foreign arms when America can design better arms for themselves?

Nobody has explained why we should, especially from the country that gets knocked out first round in any world war.

See? He get's it. You're just reaching cause you lost an argument.

What argument have I lost? Nobody's explained why we should use a loser's weapons instead of designing our own.

America lost Korea and Vietnam. The British won the Falklands War. Therefore American weapons suck. That's how ridiculous your points sound.

[The East Marches II]

Why should we equip inferior foreign arms when America can design better arms for themselves?

Nobody has explained why we should, especially from the country that gets knocked out first round in any world war.


What argument have I lost? Nobody's explained why we should use a loser's weapons instead of designing our own.

America lost Korea and Vietnam. The British won the Falklands War. Therefore American weapons suck. That's how ridiculous your points sound.

>Lost Korea

Argument goes into the trash

[Impaled Nazarene]

America lost Korea and Vietnam. The British won the Falklands War. Therefore American weapons suck. That's how ridiculous your points sound.

>Lost Korea

Argument goes into the trash

North Korea still exists, and for that reason alone NATO lost the Korean War. Not convinced? North Korea was stronger economically than South Korea until the 70s, North Korea is now a nuclear power which could potentially threaten global security. It was a loss in all but name.

[The East Marches II]

>Lost Korea

Argument goes into the trash

North Korea still exists, and for that reason alone NATO lost the Korean War. Not convinced? North Korea was stronger economically than South Korea until the 70s, North Korea is now a nuclear power which could potentially threaten global security. It was a loss in all but name.

>NATO did Korea

Get gud pls.

Anyway back to back champs, don't buy from countries which don't even exist.

[Impaled Nazarene]

North Korea still exists, and for that reason alone NATO lost the Korean War. Not convinced? North Korea was stronger economically than South Korea until the 70s, North Korea is now a nuclear power which could potentially threaten global security. It was a loss in all but name.

>NATO did Korea

Get gud pls.

Anyway back to back champs, don't buy from countries which don't even exist.

Very well since you decided to be so clever.

South Korea
United States
United Kingdom
Canada
Turkey
Australia
Philippines
New Zealand
Thailand
Ethiopia
Greece
France
Colombia
Belgium
South Africa
Netherlands
Luxembourg
All lost the Korean War.

[The East Marches II]

>NATO did Korea

Get gud pls.

Anyway back to back champs, don't buy from countries which don't even exist.

Very well since you decided to be so clever.

South Korea
United States
United Kingdom
Canada
Turkey
Australia
Philippines
New Zealand
Thailand
Ethiopia
Greece
France
Colombia
Belgium
South Africa
Netherlands
Luxembourg
All lost the Korean War.

Yeah nah, that's trash and wrong. Don't buy Belgian, don't buy German. Pret is right.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Why should we equip inferior foreign arms when America can design better arms for themselves?

Nobody has explained why we should, especially from the country that gets knocked out first round in any world war.


What argument have I lost? Nobody's explained why we should use a loser's weapons instead of designing our own.

America lost Korea and Vietnam. The British won the Falklands War. Therefore American weapons suck. That's how ridiculous your points sound.

We won Korea and Vietnam though.

"B-but we pulled out!"

We pulled out after defeating North Vietnam and losing interest.

And the British won the Falklands War against Argentina, who used the FAL. Hmmmmm.