Main Military Weapon of Your Country: Mk. VI

[The Zeonic States]

Truely?

Yes, truly. You've provided absolutely no sources whatsoever.

quote]I have no issue with presenting my counter agruments and yet it seems this is the only piece of Your own agrument you cling to;

Ahahaha. No. It's just my response to the only argument of mine you've focused on mine. It's pretty much the only thing you've responded to for a while now.

Expert Opinion on a Product with no details given, I would assume to the experts, or perhaps they were told the materials and design of these products? If so then why wasn't that information present as well?

They probably were, but in the speech, not the slides. Or maybe the company just wants to protect their product until the patent comes through?

If it was convinving enough i might actually believe it, if it made sense i would see about the product myself but the information was very undetailed and it was basically just what they were discussing with no mention of WHAT they were discussing. No detail of the Products and No detail of what the experts had to say on said product.

It's more comprehensive and convincing than your sources.

So yeah maybe they did call Bullshit on it, Maybe that just wasn't included.

And maybe puppies then floated down from the sky and a triple rainbow appeared. That's just speculation on your part.

But i would agree my sources of Wikipedia and a few other websites which provided information upon caseless and telescoped rounds which i used earlier is not the point of this.

Actually, yeah, it is. You're claiming that, according to your sources, there's no way good, military standard polymer cases can be cheaper than brass, and yet you don't cite any of your sources. I, however, offer sources, which you choose to ignore because it suits you.

The point of this is how this website has no point even being discussed due to the plain lack of information given out on it. It was like a shedule of events more then a detailed explaination of what was discussed.

It's more worthy of discussion than your sources.[/quote]

Okay i will be blunt now because i am tired of dancing around the issue.

I won't accept this due to lack of Detail and don't recognize it as any sort of support for this techology until detail is given upon what exactly they were using and who was doing the reviewing of the product.

Secondly do you want me to include a wiki link where i found what i saw on another website? Heat problems, Round fragility.

Honestly if you studied this as much as you seemed to have you must know of the drawbacks.

And finally; My source Wikipedia may be incorrect on somethings some of the time but at least it generally offers up sources and citations for its information unlike Your own source which offers nothing.

[Spreewerke]

I work part time at a gun store. It used to be "volunteer," but I guess now (as of this evening) it's been more or less agreed upon that I get $50.00 worth of store credit per working day (that actually involves a good amount of work; not just sit-around-and-touch-stuff days), so ~$100.00 of store credit per week since I have only two days with no classes.

Indeed! Great thread, albeit we've still yet to decide who the next torch-bearer shall be.

Ah; So what does your normal work day consist of?

I'm basically there to clean everything. I've broken down and/or cleaned the following, off the top of my head:

• AR-15 (S&W, DPMS, Rock River, etc.)
• 1911 (Kimber, ATI)
• Webley revolver: forget the specific model.
• Vz. 52
• AR-180
• Bulg. AK-74 (semi-auto kit build)
• StG-58 clone
• Steyr AUG A3
• M76 Valmet
• Daewoo K2
• Daewoo K5
• FN 2000
• M91/30
• M24/47
• M48
• SKS (Yugo, Chinese, and Russian: the Big Three)
• WASR
• Polish AKMS kit
• AMD-65
• Multiple Savage rifles
• GSG .22LR .22 (installed a frame rail)
• Bore-sighted and installed scopes to about a dozen or so rifles for folks
• Century C93
• SPAS-12
• SAIGA-12
• Krag-Jorgenson (someone correct this)
• Jungle Carbine
• SMLE Mk. III(?)
• SVT-40 (sort of: was in superb shape, so it just needed some oil on it)
• M1 Carbine
• 10/22
• Beretta AR-70 (I believe that's what they're called)
• Galil (two IMIs I haven't really touched since they're pre-ban and like-new; one Golani I went through thoroughly)

I've also installed slings, installed scopes as mentioned, bore-sighted, and have helped customers. Had some folks come in looking for a handgun for home-defense, they spotted our Rock River Arms AR-15 in 9mm and thought it was pretty legit. Asked what an EOTech would sit like on one, so I went ahead and installed one on an M&P-15 for them. They liked it (I also tried it out: cowitness was absolute, and was pretty neat) and seemed to enjoy our selection of handguns, as well. I've more or less become the go-to guy for anything Russian in the store (managed to sell a guy on an M91/30, explain to another fellow why you can't just put the rear sight ladder all the way back on a WASR, and installed all the aftermarket parts on one of the owners' AK-74s), as well. I've helped diagnose some problems/disassemble/repair some weapons in stock, too: did a complete strip of an FAL the other day so the owner could get to the gas port on it. Also discussed load differences in M1 Garands and such with some other folks, and have done my fair share of AR lubricating. Had a Chinese SKS come in that had been fired, but never cleaned. Ended up with a firing pin stuck forward: slam-fire machine it was. Took some punches and a hammer and reshaped the firing pin with a hand file and got it to working again. Guys who bought it brought it back after the front sight hood fell off (which is odd since it's connected to a large portion of the front sight assembly). Some other dudes bought it because, whatever, and brought it back when it wouldn't fire. Apparently, the firing pin had gotten stuck rearwards this time. I don't think it had been properly heat-treated, and the hammer was deforming it to where it wouldn't travel through the bolt. Ended up selling it as a parts-SKS to a guy for ~$200.00 and told him he could either buy a new firing pin, best case scenario, or buy a new bolt, worst case scenario. I've also got to play with some Gulf War-era night vision goggles, stock some shelves, and help sell some firearms. It has gotten to where some folks come in, have me clean their weapon, and then pay me straight cash up-front. It's pretty nice, and it makes me feel quite confident in my work.

[Galla-]

Nope. Cheaper.

Depends upon the Material used entirely; But Yeah it probably would be cheaper if not by much.

Militaries purchases Materials to make rounds by the truckload after all.

You might see the savings as a invidual consumer but i doubt governments would.

More likely the other way around.

It could have been done 20 years ago. More, if you don't mind some compromises.

Well, depending on the compromises in question...

Excus me madam we're tlaking about repeating firearms~

pew pew cla

[The Zeonic States]

Ah; So what does your normal work day consist of?

I'm basically there to clean everything. I've broken down and/or cleaned the following, off the top of my head:

• AR-15 (S&W, DPMS, Rock River, etc.)
• 1911 (Kimber, ATI)
• Webley revolver: forget the specific model.
• Vz. 52
• AR-180
• Bulg. AK-74 (semi-auto kit build)
• StG-58 clone
• Steyr AUG A3
• M76 Valmet
• Daewoo K2
• Daewoo K5
• FN 2000
• M91/30
• M24/47
• M48
• SKS (Yugo, Chinese, and Russian: the Big Three)
• WASR
• Polish AKMS kit
• AMD-65
• Multiple Savage rifles
• GSG .22LR .22 (installed a frame rail)
• Bore-sighted and installed scopes to about a dozen or so rifles for folks
• Century C93
• SPAS-12
• SAIGA-12
• Krag-Jorgenson (someone correct this)
• Jungle Carbine
• SMLE Mk. III(?)
• SVT-40 (sort of: was in superb shape, so it just needed some oil on it)
• M1 Carbine
• 10/22
• Beretta AR-70 (I believe that's what they're called)
• Galil (two IMIs I haven't really touched since they're pre-ban and like-new; one Golani I went through thoroughly)

I've also installed slings, installed scopes as mentioned, bore-sighted, and have helped customers. Had some folks come in looking for a handgun for home-defense, they spotted our Rock River Arms AR-15 in 9mm and thought it was pretty legit. Asked what an EOTech would sit like on one, so I went ahead and installed one on an M&P-15 for them. They liked it (I also tried it out: cowitness was absolute, and was pretty neat) and seemed to enjoy our selection of handguns, as well. I've more or less become the go-to guy for anything Russian in the store (managed to sell a guy on an M91/30, explain to another fellow why you can't just put the rear sight ladder all the way back on a WASR, and installed all the aftermarket parts on one of the owners' AK-74s), as well. I've helped diagnose some problems/disassemble/repair some weapons in stock, too: did a complete strip of an FAL the other day so the owner could get to the gas port on it. Also discussed load differences in M1 Garands and such with some other folks, and have done my fair share of AR lubricating. Had a Chinese SKS come in that had been fired, but never cleaned. Ended up with a firing pin stuck forward: slam-fire machine it was. Took some punches and a hammer and reshaped the firing pin with a hand file and got it to working again. Guys who bought it brought it back after the front sight hood fell off (which is odd since it's connected to a large portion of the front sight assembly). Some other dudes bought it because, whatever, and brought it back when it wouldn't fire. Apparently, the firing pin had gotten stuck rearwards this time. I don't think it had been properly heat-treated, and the hammer was deforming it to where it wouldn't travel through the bolt. Ended up selling it as a parts-SKS to a guy for ~$200.00 and told him he could either buy a new firing pin, best case scenario, or buy a new bolt, worst case scenario. I've also got to play with some Gulf War-era night vision goggles, stock some shelves, and help sell some firearms. It has gotten to where some folks come in, have me clean their weapon, and then pay me straight cash up-front. It's pretty nice, and it makes me feel quite confident in my work.

Sounds like you got a decently interesting and entertaining gig.

[Aqizithiuda]

Okay i will be blunt now because i am tired of dancing around the issue.

I won't accept this due to lack of Detail and don't recognize it as any sort of support for this techology until detail is given upon what exactly they were using and who was doing the reviewing of the product.

Secondly do you want me to include a wiki link where i found what i saw on another website? Heat problems, Round fragility.

Honestly if you studied this as much as you seemed to have you must know of the drawbacks.

Bloody hell, not only do you refuse to give any sources, but you're back to talking about caseless ammunition again.

And finally; My source Wikipedia may be incorrect on somethings some of the time but at least it generally offers up sources and citations for its information unlike Your own source which offers nothing.

My source is a primary source. Wikipedia is a secondary source. Secondary sources cite primary sources.

[The Zeonic States]

Okay i will be blunt now because i am tired of dancing around the issue.

I won't accept this due to lack of Detail and don't recognize it as any sort of support for this techology until detail is given upon what exactly they were using and who was doing the reviewing of the product.

Secondly do you want me to include a wiki link where i found what i saw on another website? Heat problems, Round fragility.

Honestly if you studied this as much as you seemed to have you must know of the drawbacks.

Bloody hell, not only do you refuse to give any sources, but you're back to talking about caseless ammunition again.

And finally; My source Wikipedia may be incorrect on somethings some of the time but at least it generally offers up sources and citations for its information unlike Your own source which offers nothing.

My source is a primary source. Wikipedia is a secondary source. Secondary sources cite primary sources.

But i just previously offered to put the link down for my source even though it would take you all of two seconds to google it Yourself but apparently people like instant links in pages here.

._. And Caseless ammo i have sources for as well.

And Your source is no source at all because it offers little in the way of information. Heck the only reason i even would consider it any sort of source was if it actually gave information to even a degree but apart from some minor business practices and apart changes they want to do nothing was given.

[Aqizithiuda]

Bloody hell, not only do you refuse to give any sources, but you're back to talking about caseless ammunition again.



My source is a primary source. Wikipedia is a secondary source. Secondary sources cite primary sources.

But i just previously offered to put the link down for my source even though it would take you all of two seconds to google it Yourself but apparently people like instant links in pages here.

Until you present the source, preferably not one which can be edited by anyone, I'm not accepting that you've posted a source. I'd be especially interested in what sources say that polymer ammunition has problems with heat and fragility.

._. And Caseless ammo i have sources for as well.

And Your source is no source at all because it offers little in the way of information. Heck the only reason i even would consider it any sort of source was if it actually gave information to even a degree but apart from some minor business practices and apart changes they want to do nothing was given.

It's a source because it contains information relevant to my argument. That it makes you want to stick your finger sin your ears and go "lalalala" is irrelevant to the debate. I've backed my argument up with evidence. Now tear it down with evidence and sources of your own or accept that I'm right.

[The Zeonic States]

But i just previously offered to put the link down for my source even though it would take you all of two seconds to google it Yourself but apparently people like instant links in pages here.

Until you present the source, preferably not one which can be edited by anyone, I'm not accepting that you've posted a source. I'd be especially interested in what sources say that polymer ammunition has problems with heat and fragility.

._. And Caseless ammo i have sources for as well.

And Your source is no source at all because it offers little in the way of information. Heck the only reason i even would consider it any sort of source was if it actually gave information to even a degree but apart from some minor business practices and apart changes they want to do nothing was given.

It's a source because it contains information relevant to my argument. That it makes you want to stick your finger sin your ears and go "lalalala" is irrelevant to the debate. I've backed my argument up with evidence. Now tear it down with evidence and sources of your own or accept that I'm right.

But the source your clinging to has no detail and really no information on the product. So i really don't see how that would count as any sort of source, Its undetailed and very brief in description i wasn't joking when i said it looked more like a shedule of events then what was actually dicussed because when you don't mention what was actually discussed thats what you get.

So Yeah i don't see the need to admit anything about that being right and that evidence again really sort of falls through on being evidence when it's basically just "Yeah this is true guys, we don't have any proof and we don't present any details but you know our company and therefore we should be trusted."

Also i will grant Polymer one benifit is vasily superior to Lacquer coated rounds.

[Spreewerke]

Ladies: can we wrap this up before the thread is archived?

[Aqizithiuda]

Until you present the source, preferably not one which can be edited by anyone, I'm not accepting that you've posted a source. I'd be especially interested in what sources say that polymer ammunition has problems with heat and fragility.



It's a source because it contains information relevant to my argument. That it makes you want to stick your finger sin your ears and go "lalalala" is irrelevant to the debate. I've backed my argument up with evidence. Now tear it down with evidence and sources of your own or accept that I'm right.

But the source your clinging to has no detail and really no information on the product. So i really don't see how that would count as any sort of source, Its undetailed and very brief in description i wasn't joking when i said it looked more like a shedule of events then what was actually dicussed because when you don't mention what was actually discussed thats what you get.

So Yeah i don't see the need to admit anything about that being right and that evidence again really sort of falls through on being evidence when it's basically just "Yeah this is true guys, we don't have any proof and we don't present any details but you know our company and therefore we should be trusted."

Also i will grant Polymer one benifit is vasily superior to Lacquer coated rounds.

It's an industry source that was presented at an industry event. How much more credible do you want? Without any sources of your own, you're doing no more than ignoring the facts because it suits you.

Also, I just found the patent. Where are your sources now?

Ladies: can we wrap this up before the thread is archived?

*flutters eyebrows*

But Spree darling, I'm having so much fun. Surely you wouldn't stop little old me from having fun, would you?

[Spreewerke]

But the source your clinging to has no detail and really no information on the product. So i really don't see how that would count as any sort of source, Its undetailed and very brief in description i wasn't joking when i said it looked more like a shedule of events then what was actually dicussed because when you don't mention what was actually discussed thats what you get.

So Yeah i don't see the need to admit anything about that being right and that evidence again really sort of falls through on being evidence when it's basically just "Yeah this is true guys, we don't have any proof and we don't present any details but you know our company and therefore we should be trusted."

Also i will grant Polymer one benifit is vasily superior to Lacquer coated rounds.

It's an industry source that was presented at an industry event. How much more credible do you want? Without any sources of your own, you're doing no more than ignoring the facts because it suits you.

Also, I just found the patent. Where are your sources now?

Ladies: can we wrap this up before the thread is archived?

*flutters eyebrows*

But Spree darling, I'm having so much fun. Surely you wouldn't stop little old me from having fun, would you?

I'll be in your bunk.

[Aqizithiuda]

It's an industry source that was presented at an industry event. How much more credible do you want? Without any sources of your own, you're doing no more than ignoring the facts because it suits you.

Also, I just found the patent. Where are your sources now?



*flutters eyebrows*

But Spree darling, I'm having so much fun. Surely you wouldn't stop little old me from having fun, would you?

I'll be in your bunk.

Whelp, Zee, it's be fun but I have to go now .

[The Zeonic States]

But the source your clinging to has no detail and really no information on the product. So i really don't see how that would count as any sort of source, Its undetailed and very brief in description i wasn't joking when i said it looked more like a shedule of events then what was actually dicussed because when you don't mention what was actually discussed thats what you get.

So Yeah i don't see the need to admit anything about that being right and that evidence again really sort of falls through on being evidence when it's basically just "Yeah this is true guys, we don't have any proof and we don't present any details but you know our company and therefore we should be trusted."

Also i will grant Polymer one benifit is vasily superior to Lacquer coated rounds.

It's an industry source that was presented at an industry event. How much more credible do you want? Without any sources of your own, you're doing no more than ignoring the facts because it suits you.

Also, I just found the patent. Where are your sources now?

Ladies: can we wrap this up before the thread is archived?

*flutters eyebrows*

But Spree darling, I'm having so much fun. Surely you wouldn't stop little old me from having fun, would you?

Finally; Something on paper granting detail.

That will certainly work oh yes; But the colt meeting i would still have to disagree with, A source has to provide a certain level of detail after all on an event and my own sources on Polymer ammo are more or less a collection of Forums as previously stated and some vague information about them granted off Wikipedia and what i could find about them on the internet.

I would still like the basic material listing for the Polymer and what it would cost to produce and shape but this will certainly work I AM assuming However that this Patent is from the Colt round mentioned Previously?

You know this whole spree of searching about for Polymer rounds i ended up learning quite a bit about Temperature Sensitive Polymers that is certainly an unpredicted side effect.

.-. But no i am not ignoring "Sources" Because i personally don't agree with them i am ignoring them because what they claim is not backed up in any way besides by what they claim. Hence why i am perfectly willing to accept that patent as a source to confirm Colt if it was from them i didn't see the company mentioned on the patent that they did produce a round and i now know a bit more about but still much less then i would prefer.

I found it humorous though that you would compare a undetailed meeting that basically had no detail what so ever given in explanation for the actual product as a "Fact" though that was worth a laugh.

[The Zeonic States]

Ladies: can we wrap this up before the thread is archived?

And i have a feeling that this is just about done anyway; Even though the source that kept being held up was little more then itinerary.

[Aqizithiuda]

Finally; Something on paper granting detail.

That will certainly work oh yes; But the colt meeting i would still have to disagree with, A source has to provide a certain level of detail after all on an event and my own sources on Polymer ammo are more or less a collection of Forums as previously stated and some vague information about them granted off Wikipedia and what i could find about them on the internet.

So, in other words, my source is better.

I would still like the basic material listing for the Polymer and what it would cost to produce and shape but this will certainly work I AM assuming However that this Patent is from the Colt round mentioned Previously?

It is. The construction and patent filling date line up with the Colt presentation too well for it to be anything but the Colt design. The materials are also listed in the patent.

You know this whole spree of searching about for Polymer rounds i ended up learning quite a bit about Temperature Sensitive Polymers that is certainly an unpredicted side effect.

.-. But no i am not ignoring "Sources" Because i personally don't agree with them i am ignoring them because what they claim is not backed up in any way besides by what they claim. Hence why i am perfectly willing to accept that patent as a source to confirm Colt if it was from them i didn't see the company mentioned on the patent that they did produce a round and i now know a bit more about but still much less then i would prefer.

I found it humorous though that you would compare a undetailed meeting that basically had no detail what so ever given in explanation for the actual product as a "Fact" though that was worth a laugh.

Well, actually, you are ignoring the source because you don't like that it backs me up. It gives plenty of information. You just don't seem to want to admit that.

[The Zeonic States]

Finally; Something on paper granting detail.

That will certainly work oh yes; But the colt meeting i would still have to disagree with, A source has to provide a certain level of detail after all on an event and my own sources on Polymer ammo are more or less a collection of Forums as previously stated and some vague information about them granted off Wikipedia and what i could find about them on the internet.

So, in other words, my source is better.

I would still like the basic material listing for the Polymer and what it would cost to produce and shape but this will certainly work I AM assuming However that this Patent is from the Colt round mentioned Previously?

It is. The construction and patent filling date line up with the Colt presentation too well for it to be anything but the Colt design. The materials are also listed in the patent.

You know this whole spree of searching about for Polymer rounds i ended up learning quite a bit about Temperature Sensitive Polymers that is certainly an unpredicted side effect.

.-. But no i am not ignoring "Sources" Because i personally don't agree with them i am ignoring them because what they claim is not backed up in any way besides by what they claim. Hence why i am perfectly willing to accept that patent as a source to confirm Colt if it was from them i didn't see the company mentioned on the patent that they did produce a round and i now know a bit more about but still much less then i would prefer.

I found it humorous though that you would compare a undetailed meeting that basically had no detail what so ever given in explanation for the actual product as a "Fact" though that was worth a laugh.

Well, actually, you are ignoring the source because you don't like that it backs me up. It gives plenty of information. You just don't seem to want to admit that.

In tandom with the Patent i guess the meeting could work but alone it was worth less then nothing and i will continue that because it was short, undetailed and offered not even a picture of the actual product.

And i just i wasn't ignoring a source, how can i acknowledge one source of yours and then suddenly ignore another? No i am disputing the validity of it and that is completely diffrent with rejecting it out of hand.

And; Well i wouldn't say better most of the people posting in the Forums had basic understanding of the Polymer rounds and a few had even used the Product but i would admit however that the Patent and experts despite them not being named as far as i could see does sort of overshadow a bunch of people who are basically agruing the same thing we are agruing.

.-. So Yeah you have more positive sources upon the product and i have less in the way of Negative although now that i have the patent number i can actually dig into the product and see if there are any flaws with the Materials myself.

[Aqizithiuda]

So, in other words, my source is better.



It is. The construction and patent filling date line up with the Colt presentation too well for it to be anything but the Colt design. The materials are also listed in the patent.



Well, actually, you are ignoring the source because you don't like that it backs me up. It gives plenty of information. You just don't seem to want to admit that.

In tandom with the Patent i guess the meeting could work but alone it was worth less then nothing and i will continue that because it was short, undetailed and offered not even a picture of the actual product.

You must have missed slides 12-14 and slide 16.

And i just i wasn't ignoring a source, how can i acknowledge one source of yours and then suddenly ignore another? No i am disputing the validity of it and that is completely diffrent with rejecting it out of hand. And; Well i wouldn't say better most of the people posting in the Forums had basic understanding of the Polymer rounds and a few had even used the Product but i would admit however that the Patent and experts despite them not being named as far as i could see does sort of overshadow a bunch of people who are basically agruing the same thing we are agruing.

.-. So Yeah you have more positive sources upon the product and i have less in the way of Negative although now that i have the patent number i can actually dig into the product and see if there are any flaws with the Materials myself.

Disputing it without any evidence that it's not valid sounds very similar to dismissing it out of hand.

[The Pasig Equestrians]

Rocket launchers.

[Ea90]

"My source Wikipedia"
lul

[Samozaryadnyastan]

You do of course realise that such operations in Africa and the Middle East involve precisely no US boots on the ground? Just advisers and special forces.

Sure.

Advisers and special forces.

Then suddenly they're activating National Guard and Reserves and sending boots.

Since when has the US cared about Africa? They've no oil, and China has monopoly on their mineral resources.
If it all backfires and Africa fails, America hasn't lost anything. Unless said SpecFor and advisers are captured.

[Anacasppia]

You do of course realise that such operations in Africa and the Middle East involve precisely no US boots on the ground? Just advisers and special forces.

Sure.

Advisers and special forces.

Then suddenly they're activating National Guard and Reserves and sending boots.

Hmm.

Fawx news.

No offense, but I'm inclined to see them as being as reliable as a fox in real life.

[Anacasppia]

Also, how important are SAW/LMGs? I believe even short bursts from rifles have a suppressing effect.
Like, would only one in a squad of eight men do?

[Ea90]

Also, how important are SAW/LMGs? I believe even short bursts from rifles have a suppressing effect.
Like, would only one in a squad of eight men do?

A SAW per 8-man squad sounds okay.
I have 2 per 6-man squad.

[Kouralia]

Also, how important are SAW/LMGs? I believe even short bursts from rifles have a suppressing effect.
Like, would only one in a squad of eight men do?

A SAW per 8-man squad sounds okay.
I have 2 per 6-man squad.

Yeah, I go for two in an 8 man section.

Charlie Fire Team:
Section IC - R1A2 Assault Rifle
Grenadier - R1A2 Assault Rifle w/ UGL
Rifleman - R1A2 Assault Rifle
Support Gunner - MG-2 LMG
Delta Fire Team:
Section 2IC - R1A2 Assault Rifle
Grenadier - R1A2 Assault Rifle w/ UGL
Rifleman - R1A2 Assault Rifle
Support Gunner - MG-2 LMG

The MG can put down a greater weight of fire in a shorter amount of time, and can proceed to hold that fire rate for longer.

[Ea90]

IFV
IFV Commander/Section Leader - AP-7 (Personal Defence Weapon)
IFV Gunner - SP-2 (Semi-Automatic Pistol)
IFV Driver - SP-2 (Semi-Automatic Pistol)
Fireteam 1
Fireteam Leader - SV-4 (Battle Rifle)
Rifleman - SV-4 (Battle Rifle)
Automatic Rifleman - AV-5 (General-Purpose Machine-Gun)
Fireteam 2
Fireteam Leader - SV-4 (Battle Rifle)
Rifleman - SV-4 (Battle Rifle)
Rifleman - AV-5 (General-Purpose Machine-Gun)