MMW MkV thread. It's been fun.

[Die Argentinische Reich]

IIRC, the FAL's operating system is similar to the Gewehr 43's operating system, so you're not too far off at all.

More like the SVT-40, since the G-43 is just a copy of F.V. Tokarev's rifle.

I know. I just edited my previous post.

[Indeos]

The AK vs. AR debate is silly; it should be AK vs. FAL. Communism vs. the glorious Right Arm of the Free World.

Socialism is best ism. But that's a debate for another thread.

Pretty much all of history disputes your claim. Whatever. Anarchism is best ism.

[Die Argentinische Reich]

How could you be such a heartless monster!? What did my eyes ever do to you?!

you havent seen our sidearm yet

Good sir, I'm afraid you have made every gun designer ever roll in his/her grave. Even if they're still alive.
And yet, I've seen worse.

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

Socialism is best ism. But that's a debate for another thread.

Pretty much all of history disputes your claim. Whatever. Anarchism is best ism.

Perhaps I should have specified which Socialism.

[Die Argentinische Reich]

IIRC, the FAL's operating system is similar to the Gewehr 43's operating system, so you're not too far off at all.

The AK vs. AR debate is silly; it should be AK vs. FAL. Communism vs. the glorious Right Arm of the Free World.

Better idea:
Krag-Jorgensen vs. Gewehr 88

[Bafuria]

It is general purpose, you do not generally have to kill the enemy at more than 300 meters. There is no reason to make all fighting soldiers carry overly powerful rifles for long range shooting. Similarly, you don't issue anti-tank rockets to every soldier.

IIRC it's inconsistent at that point. .280 British is hardly overly powerful; you're back to doing that thing where you think anyone arguing against 5.56 is arguing for an lollarge BR round. There's no disadvantage to using a round that can make every man a DM in a pinch just like there's no disadvantage to issuing scopes. They're not being forced to engage at longer ranges, they're just being given the option.

Of course there are other effective intermediates out there larger than the 5.56. The 7.62x39, the 5.8x42, 6.5 Grendel and the 6.8 SPC.
The .280 British was a very good cartridge when it was introduced and I do think NATO would have been better off adopting it. But it is a rather long cartridge considering that it's intermediate, and the 6.8 SPC has made it obsolete.

I'm simply saying that the 5.56 is adequate ( which you obviously don't think is the case) and that the .280 British is very good but not optimal.

That said, I don't think the 5.56 is optimal either, I do think it's closer to being optimal though.
The 7.62x39 or 6.8 SPC are optimal IMO.

[Indeos]

Pretty much all of history disputes your claim. Whatever. Anarchism is best ism.

Perhaps I should have specified which Socialism.

Right. The idea that power is somehow a concept that isn't innate, and that getting rid of "coercion" will help anything ever. Or be possible. Have you at least realized that it's a pipe dream because anyone who could create that system would be inherently unfit and therefore a corrupting influence?

Note: This thread is about guns. Any non-TG answers will be ignored.

IIRC it's inconsistent at that point. .280 British is hardly overly powerful; you're back to doing that thing where you think anyone arguing against 5.56 is arguing for an lollarge BR round. There's no disadvantage to using a round that can make every man a DM in a pinch just like there's no disadvantage to issuing scopes. They're not being forced to engage at longer ranges, they're just being given the option.

Of course there are other effective intermediates out there larger than the 5.56. The 7.62x39, the 5.8x42, 6.5 Grendel and the 6.8 SPC.
The .280 British was a very good cartridge when it was introduced and I do think NATO would have been better off adopting it. But it is a rather long cartridge considering that it's intermediate, and the 6.8 SPC has made it obsolete.

I'm simply saying that the 5.56 is adequate ( which you obviously don't think is the case) and that the .280 British is very good but not optimal.

That said, I don't think the 5.56 is optimal either, I do think it's closer to being optimal though.
The 7.62x39 or 6.8 SPC are optimal IMO.

.280 just has optimal performance; 6.8 SPC is close enough, though it's less made .280B obsolete and more accidentally a very similar round. I'm too lazy to do math but I can't imagine combat load difference between the two is noticeable.

[Bafuria]

Perhaps I should have specified which Socialism.

Right. The idea that power is somehow a concept that isn't innate, and that getting rid of "coercion" will help anything ever. Or be possible. Have you at least realized that it's a pipe dream because anyone who could create that system would be inherently unfit and therefore a corrupting influence?

Note: This thread is about guns. Any non-TG answers will be ignored.

Of course there are other effective intermediates out there larger than the 5.56. The 7.62x39, the 5.8x42, 6.5 Grendel and the 6.8 SPC.
The .280 British was a very good cartridge when it was introduced and I do think NATO would have been better off adopting it. But it is a rather long cartridge considering that it's intermediate, and the 6.8 SPC has made it obsolete.

I'm simply saying that the 5.56 is adequate ( which you obviously don't think is the case) and that the .280 British is very good but not optimal.

That said, I don't think the 5.56 is optimal either, I do think it's closer to being optimal though.
The 7.62x39 or 6.8 SPC are optimal IMO.

.280 just has optimal performance; 6.8 SPC is close enough, though it's less made .280B obsolete and more accidentally a very similar round. I'm too lazy to do math but I can't imagine combat load difference between the two is noticeable.

It's not the performance and combat load I'm worried about, it's the weapon. A longer cartridge will need a longer rifle.

[Die Argentinische Reich]

I have just discovered this. And now I know the perfect inspiration for a PT rifle for the late 1800s.

[Die Argentinische Reich]

Right. The idea that power is somehow a concept that isn't innate, and that getting rid of "coercion" will help anything ever. Or be possible. Have you at least realized that it's a pipe dream because anyone who could create that system would be inherently unfit and therefore a corrupting influence?

Note: This thread is about guns. Any non-TG answers will be ignored.



.280 just has optimal performance; 6.8 SPC is close enough, though it's less made .280B obsolete and more accidentally a very similar round. I'm too lazy to do math but I can't imagine combat load difference between the two is noticeable.

It's not the performance and combat load I'm worried about, it's the weapon. A longer cartridge will need a longer rifle.

MC51.
Your argument is invalid.

[Spreewerke]

I have just discovered this. And now I know the perfect inspiration for a PT rifle for the late 1800s.

Is that the one that had to use rounded bullets because spitzer rounds would slam into the primer of the round in front of it? Am I thinking of a different rifle?

[Bafuria]

It's not the performance and combat load I'm worried about, it's the weapon. A longer cartridge will need a longer rifle.

MC51.
Your argument is invalid.

Unacceptable! the MC51 sacrifices barrel length instead of receiver length.

[Die Argentinische Reich]

I have just discovered this. And now I know the perfect inspiration for a PT rifle for the late 1800s.

Is that the one that had to use rounded bullets because spitzer rounds would slam into the primer of the round in front of it? Am I thinking of a different rifle?

Yes, but that's a problem with tubular magazines of any kind using pointed bullets.

[Die Argentinische Reich]

MC51.
Your argument is invalid.

Unacceptable! the MC51 sacrifices barrel length instead of receiver length.

RFB. Or, M95, SVU, that bullpup FAL, the VSHK(I'm thinking of that 12.7x39mm sniper rifle), or any other bullpup battle rifle.

[Bafuria]

Unacceptable! the MC51 sacrifices barrel length instead of receiver length.

RFB. Or, M95, SVU, that bullpup FAL, the VSHK(I'm thinking of that 12.7x39mm sniper rifle), or any other bullpup battle rifle.

Still, all other factors being equal a 6.8 cartridge will fit into a smaller and lighter rifle while having all the power you need. But the cartridges are so similar that we're just arguing about preferences at this point.

[Spreewerke]

RFB. Or, M95, SVU, that bullpup FAL, the VSHK(I'm thinking of that 12.7x39mm sniper rifle), or any other bullpup battle rifle.

Still, all other factors being equal a 6.8 cartridge will fit into a smaller and lighter rifle while having all the power you need. But the cartridges are so similar that we're just arguing about preferences at this point.

Well, if that's what we're doing, I sure prefer the AK-103.

[Die Argentinische Reich]

RFB. Or, M95, SVU, that bullpup FAL, the VSHK(I'm thinking of that 12.7x39mm sniper rifle), or any other bullpup battle rifle.

Still, all other factors being equal a 6.8 cartridge will fit into a smaller and lighter rifle while having all the power you need. But the cartridges are so similar that we're just arguing about preferences at this point.

Exactly. It's only once you start talking about assault rifle vs. battle rifle that things matter.
When you're discussing .280 British vs. M855A1 5.56mm NATO vs. 6.8 SPC, it's, like you said, a matter of preference.
Although I'd like to say my favorite assault rifle is the FN F2000, currently.

[Alimeria II]

Edited my above post to correct the following: wasn't an Izhmash AK in 6.5G, but a MOLOT VEPR in 6.5G.

Proofs:
(Image)

Is it weird that I like the look of this? I was about to say I'm not sure that 6.5 was good enough but then I realized the 243 is 6.2.

Still .7 mm more than 223 though. And it is practically a necked down .308.

[New Corda]

Still, all other factors being equal a 6.8 cartridge will fit into a smaller and lighter rifle while having all the power you need. But the cartridges are so similar that we're just arguing about preferences at this point.

Well, if that's what we're doing, I sure prefer the AK-103.

... No shit, Sherlock

[Kouralia]

http://www.israeli-weapons.com/store/side_arm-accessories/p8.htm
Israel, wut

Okay Guys. I'll be back in a bit when I've made this in PMG...

[Immoren]

Similarly, you don't issue anti-tank rockets to every soldier.

Wat? Of course everyone who isn't MG/SAW gunner or grenadier should be carrying disposable AT-rockets. :I

[Indeos]

Right. The idea that power is somehow a concept that isn't innate, and that getting rid of "coercion" will help anything ever. Or be possible. Have you at least realized that it's a pipe dream because anyone who could create that system would be inherently unfit and therefore a corrupting influence?

Note: This thread is about guns. Any non-TG answers will be ignored.



.280 just has optimal performance; 6.8 SPC is close enough, though it's less made .280B obsolete and more accidentally a very similar round. I'm too lazy to do math but I can't imagine combat load difference between the two is noticeable.

It's not the performance and combat load I'm worried about, it's the weapon. A longer cartridge will need a longer rifle.

Probably negligibly, at that point.

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

Similarly, you don't issue anti-tank rockets to every soldier.

Wat? Of course everyone who isn't MG/SAW gunner or grenadier should be carrying disposable AT-rockets. :I

AT-4s for everyone!

[Sevvania]

http://www.israeli-weapons.com/store/side_arm-accessories/p8.htm
Israel, wut

Okay Guys. I'll be back in a bit when I've made this in PMG...

Made by Tactical Moose. He removed the stock and buffer tube to make the image smaller, considering the main point of interest is the attached MP5.

Also:

[New Corda]

Okay Guys. I'll be back in a bit when I've made this in PMG...

Made by Tactical Moose. He removed the stock and buffer tube to make the image smaller, considering the main point of interest is the attached MP5.

Also:

No! YOU BRING DISHONOR UPON GUNS!