Advertisement

by Chernobyl-Pripyat » Tue Dec 01, 2009 8:08 pm

by Uawc » Tue Dec 01, 2009 8:12 pm
Laos Refugees wrote:Good for it? Do I recall saying it was worse then the M16? No? Didn't think so. Do I look like a fool who thinks that the best gun is one that's in all my favorite video games, or if it shoots super fast? I prefer a AMP TS DSR-1, that's just me howeverUAWC wrote:Laos Refugees wrote:UAWC wrote:Laos Refugees wrote:Bavin wrote:Rancilia wrote:For your information, UAWC, the AK-47 is a crappy gun, as with all of it's variants. The only, ONLY thing it's good for is it's reliability in muddy and desert conditions. It's terribly inaccurate, and his a very small magazine. Unfortunately, my M4A1 tops your AK-47 by a long shot .
Really? I was under the impression that it was considered one of the greatest rifles ever made... silly me.
Well, that's what happens when you believe all of that spoon fed, WikaCommie bullshit. A good weapon isn't whored out to Communists and, hmpf, 'freedom fighters'.
That's right, a good weapon is made by them.
God, I posted that..What, a minute ago? Stop whoring out all of your Barnes and Noble bought information out. I'd rather have a, well, perfectly made A.R, then a crudely made, piece of plastic that's been hidden in a grimy desert, probably about to jam and get the Commie Sympathizer turned to swiss cheese(Lol orginal, mirite?)
Whether or not the AK-47 is a good rifle to you is dependent on your personal philosophies and what you like in a gun. It's not any worse than the AR-15.

by Oseato » Tue Dec 01, 2009 8:13 pm
The Grand World Order wrote:And better than both the M16 and AK47 is the M14, presuming you have a pistol grip and straight stock on it.
And if you're using a genuine M14, and not that NORINCO bullshit.

by Laos Refugees » Tue Dec 01, 2009 8:16 pm
UAWC wrote:Laos Refugees wrote:Good for it? Do I recall saying it was worse then the M16? No? Didn't think so. Do I look like a fool who thinks that the best gun is one that's in all my favorite video games, or if it shoots super fast? I prefer a AMP TS DSR-1, that's just me howeverUAWC wrote:Laos Refugees wrote:UAWC wrote:Laos Refugees wrote:Bavin wrote:Rancilia wrote:For your information, UAWC, the AK-47 is a crappy gun, as with all of it's variants. The only, ONLY thing it's good for is it's reliability in muddy and desert conditions. It's terribly inaccurate, and his a very small magazine. Unfortunately, my M4A1 tops your AK-47 by a long shot .
Really? I was under the impression that it was considered one of the greatest rifles ever made... silly me.
Well, that's what happens when you believe all of that spoon fed, WikaCommie bullshit. A good weapon isn't whored out to Communists and, hmpf, 'freedom fighters'.
That's right, a good weapon is made by them.
God, I posted that..What, a minute ago? Stop whoring out all of your Barnes and Noble bought information out. I'd rather have a, well, perfectly made A.R, then a crudely made, piece of plastic that's been hidden in a grimy desert, probably about to jam and get the Commie Sympathizer turned to swiss cheese(Lol orginal, mirite?)
Whether or not the AK-47 is a good rifle to you is dependent on your personal philosophies and what you like in a gun. It's not any worse than the AR-15.
I've seen that, it looks cool. A bit bulky for my taste, though.
Personally, my favorite AR is the UAWC CAAW-9. But that's just me. it's almost like a bullpup, but the magazine isn't smack next to your face and it's more reliable than most of them.

by Uawc » Tue Dec 01, 2009 8:19 pm
Laos Refugees wrote:UAWC wrote:Laos Refugees wrote:Good for it? Do I recall saying it was worse then the M16? No? Didn't think so. Do I look like a fool who thinks that the best gun is one that's in all my favorite video games, or if it shoots super fast? I prefer a AMP TS DSR-1, that's just me howeverUAWC wrote:Laos Refugees wrote:UAWC wrote:Laos Refugees wrote:Bavin wrote:Rancilia wrote:For your information, UAWC, the AK-47 is a crappy gun, as with all of it's variants. The only, ONLY thing it's good for is it's reliability in muddy and desert conditions. It's terribly inaccurate, and his a very small magazine. Unfortunately, my M4A1 tops your AK-47 by a long shot .
Really? I was under the impression that it was considered one of the greatest rifles ever made... silly me.
Well, that's what happens when you believe all of that spoon fed, WikaCommie bullshit. A good weapon isn't whored out to Communists and, hmpf, 'freedom fighters'.
That's right, a good weapon is made by them.
God, I posted that..What, a minute ago? Stop whoring out all of your Barnes and Noble bought information out. I'd rather have a, well, perfectly made A.R, then a crudely made, piece of plastic that's been hidden in a grimy desert, probably about to jam and get the Commie Sympathizer turned to swiss cheese(Lol orginal, mirite?)
Whether or not the AK-47 is a good rifle to you is dependent on your personal philosophies and what you like in a gun. It's not any worse than the AR-15.
I've seen that, it looks cool. A bit bulky for my taste, though.
Personally, my favorite AR is the UAWC CAAW-9. But that's just me. it's almost like a bullpup, but the magazine isn't smack next to your face and it's more reliable than most of them.
I'm guessing you made that in P.M.G yourself, pretty cool, but the magazine looks like a bat out of hell, If you compare the size of the bullet and the size of the magazine, you can see the magazine is a tad too large.

by Senestrum » Tue Dec 01, 2009 8:23 pm

by Laos Refugees » Tue Dec 01, 2009 8:25 pm

by The Anglo-Saxon Empire » Tue Dec 01, 2009 8:26 pm
UAWC wrote:Rancilia wrote:For your information, UAWC, the AK-47 is a crappy gun, as with all of it's variants. The only, ONLY thing it's good for is it's reliability in muddy and desert conditions. It's terribly inaccurate, and his a very small magazine. Unfortunately, my M4A1 tops your AK-47 by a long shot .
Last time I checked, the AK-47 fired one of the deadliest rifle rounds in the world.
...and since when is 30 rounds a small magazine...?

by Senestrum » Tue Dec 01, 2009 8:28 pm
Laos Refugees wrote:I like the first two variants, but the bayonet is going to be bothersome.

by Central Slavia » Tue Dec 01, 2009 8:28 pm
Glorious Homeland wrote:
You would be wrong. There's something wrong with the Americans, the Japanese are actually insane, the Chinese don't seem capable of free-thought and just defer judgement to the most powerful strong man, the Russians are quite like that, only more aggressive and mad, and Belarus? Hah.
Omnicracy wrote:The Soviet Union did not support pro-Soviet governments, it compleatly controled them. The U.S. did not controle the corrupt regiems it set up against the Soviet Union, it just sugested things and changed leaders if they weer not takeing enough sugestions
Great Nepal wrote:Please stick to OFFICIAL numbers. Why to go to scholars,[cut]

by Uawc » Tue Dec 01, 2009 8:30 pm

by Laos Refugees » Tue Dec 01, 2009 8:30 pm
Central Slavia wrote:you know, soviet tacticians have found most combat happens at aobut 300 meters anyway.
For the other cases there are the guys with SVD

by Senestrum » Tue Dec 01, 2009 8:32 pm


by Uawc » Tue Dec 01, 2009 8:33 pm
Senestrum wrote:
Thanks, and of course it is. How are the men supposed to use their standard-issue short sword if it's always on their gun?

by Central Slavia » Tue Dec 01, 2009 8:33 pm
Glorious Homeland wrote:
You would be wrong. There's something wrong with the Americans, the Japanese are actually insane, the Chinese don't seem capable of free-thought and just defer judgement to the most powerful strong man, the Russians are quite like that, only more aggressive and mad, and Belarus? Hah.
Omnicracy wrote:The Soviet Union did not support pro-Soviet governments, it compleatly controled them. The U.S. did not controle the corrupt regiems it set up against the Soviet Union, it just sugested things and changed leaders if they weer not takeing enough sugestions
Great Nepal wrote:Please stick to OFFICIAL numbers. Why to go to scholars,[cut]

by Laos Refugees » Tue Dec 01, 2009 8:34 pm
Central Slavia wrote:You know there is a lot more SVD guys and there are with the regular soldiers. Soviet army understanding of the role of sniper is much different to the western one.
Also the snipers might shoot a few, but overall the force will be numerous

by Uawc » Tue Dec 01, 2009 8:35 pm
Central Slavia wrote:You know there is a lot more SVD guys and there are with the regular soldiers. Soviet army understanding of the role of sniper is much different to the western one.
Also the snipers might shoot a few, but overall the force will be numerous

by Laos Refugees » Tue Dec 01, 2009 8:37 pm
I'd march into a countries capital country two if they were outnumbered and had to fight different fronts with little aid.UAWC wrote:Central Slavia wrote:You know there is a lot more SVD guys and there are with the regular soldiers. Soviet army understanding of the role of sniper is much different to the western one.
Also the snipers might shoot a few, but overall the force will be numerous
The Red Army was freaking awesome. There is no doubt about that. Those guys are the ones that marched into Berlin and kicked Hitler's ass. Russia would be even better off now in my opinion of the USSR didn't collapse, and was, you know, not a totalitarian dictatorship. But that's how the cookie crumbles, I guess.

by Auman » Tue Dec 01, 2009 8:40 pm
Laos Refugees wrote:Central Slavia wrote:You know there is a lot more SVD guys and there are with the regular soldiers. Soviet army understanding of the role of sniper is much different to the western one.
Also the snipers might shoot a few, but overall the force will be numerous
Too bad the Soviets aren't around, so their understanding is null,and I really Had trouble understanding your first sentence.

by Central Slavia » Tue Dec 01, 2009 8:43 pm
Laos Refugees wrote:I'd march into a countries capital country two if they were outnumbered and had to fight different fronts with little aid.UAWC wrote:Central Slavia wrote:You know there is a lot more SVD guys and there are with the regular soldiers. Soviet army understanding of the role of sniper is much different to the western one.
Also the snipers might shoot a few, but overall the force will be numerous
The Red Army was freaking awesome. There is no doubt about that. Those guys are the ones that marched into Berlin and kicked Hitler's ass. Russia would be even better off now in my opinion of the USSR didn't collapse, and was, you know, not a totalitarian dictatorship. But that's how the cookie crumbles, I guess.
Glorious Homeland wrote:
You would be wrong. There's something wrong with the Americans, the Japanese are actually insane, the Chinese don't seem capable of free-thought and just defer judgement to the most powerful strong man, the Russians are quite like that, only more aggressive and mad, and Belarus? Hah.
Omnicracy wrote:The Soviet Union did not support pro-Soviet governments, it compleatly controled them. The U.S. did not controle the corrupt regiems it set up against the Soviet Union, it just sugested things and changed leaders if they weer not takeing enough sugestions
Great Nepal wrote:Please stick to OFFICIAL numbers. Why to go to scholars,[cut]

by Uawc » Tue Dec 01, 2009 8:45 pm
Auman wrote:Laos Refugees wrote:Central Slavia wrote:You know there is a lot more SVD guys and there are with the regular soldiers. Soviet army understanding of the role of sniper is much different to the western one.
Also the snipers might shoot a few, but overall the force will be numerous
Too bad the Soviets aren't around, so their understanding is null,and I really Had trouble understanding your first sentence.
When your nation's prime minister used to be in the KGB before he was the president, it stinks like Soviet Union.

by Central Slavia » Tue Dec 01, 2009 8:46 pm
UAWC wrote:Auman wrote:Laos Refugees wrote:Central Slavia wrote:You know there is a lot more SVD guys and there are with the regular soldiers. Soviet army understanding of the role of sniper is much different to the western one.
Also the snipers might shoot a few, but overall the force will be numerous
Too bad the Soviets aren't around, so their understanding is null,and I really Had trouble understanding your first sentence.
When your nation's prime minister used to be in the KGB before he was the president, it stinks like Soviet Union.
I FREAKING LOVE PUTIN. He's like Rambo, but moar socialist.
Glorious Homeland wrote:
You would be wrong. There's something wrong with the Americans, the Japanese are actually insane, the Chinese don't seem capable of free-thought and just defer judgement to the most powerful strong man, the Russians are quite like that, only more aggressive and mad, and Belarus? Hah.
Omnicracy wrote:The Soviet Union did not support pro-Soviet governments, it compleatly controled them. The U.S. did not controle the corrupt regiems it set up against the Soviet Union, it just sugested things and changed leaders if they weer not takeing enough sugestions
Great Nepal wrote:Please stick to OFFICIAL numbers. Why to go to scholars,[cut]

by Chernobyl-Pripyat » Tue Dec 01, 2009 8:46 pm


by Uawc » Tue Dec 01, 2009 8:47 pm
Chernobyl-Pripyat wrote:Have any of you even used the rifles you're whining about?



by Central Slavia » Tue Dec 01, 2009 8:47 pm
Glorious Homeland wrote:
You would be wrong. There's something wrong with the Americans, the Japanese are actually insane, the Chinese don't seem capable of free-thought and just defer judgement to the most powerful strong man, the Russians are quite like that, only more aggressive and mad, and Belarus? Hah.
Omnicracy wrote:The Soviet Union did not support pro-Soviet governments, it compleatly controled them. The U.S. did not controle the corrupt regiems it set up against the Soviet Union, it just sugested things and changed leaders if they weer not takeing enough sugestions
Great Nepal wrote:Please stick to OFFICIAL numbers. Why to go to scholars,[cut]
Advertisement
Return to Factbooks and National Information
Users browsing this forum: Fenteu, Habsburg Mexico, Neo Prutenia, Slavatania, Vivida Vis Animi
Advertisement