NS infantry discussion thread. Mark II

by **Bezombia** » Sat Dec 21, 2013 6:45 am

Purpelia wrote:How else would I have remained red all these years?

You aren't, you're purple
you're name's purp, you're flag's purple, etc.

by **Fordorsia** » Sat Dec 21, 2013 6:49 am

Remaking my SAR Mk.2 for a third time. Should I try and put a rifle stock on it, and if so, would it be possible without looking like shit?

by **Imperializt Russia** » Sat Dec 21, 2013 6:54 am

Fordorsia wrote:Remaking my SAR Mk.2 for a third time. Should I try and put a rifle stock on it, and if so, would it be possible without looking like shit?

When you say "rifle stock", I assume you mean full-body stock?

by **Premislyd** » Sat Dec 21, 2013 6:55 am

I can into organisation?

3 x

Platoon is transported by 3 APCs carrying 12 dismounts each, with one rifle squad and two men from either the command element or the anti-tank team in each.

by **Crookfur** » Sat Dec 21, 2013 6:56 am

Vigoureux wrote:
Vigoureux wrote:Currently we issue the FN FAL which has served the Royal Armed Forces since 1965 and in 2002 Picatinny Rail kits were issued to attack to any and if possible all FN FAL's currently used by active duty soldiers. The SCAR-H is used in small numbers by our nation special forces as well. We also issue CZ 75 as the main side arm of out Armed a Forces and replaced the Browning Hi-Power in 1997.

We also use the M249 light machine gun, Negev NG7, Heckler & Koch PSG1 (but the Remington 700 is popular too), M2 Browning with a small number of CIS 50MG's in use.

Our troops wear military gear patterned in M05 camouflage. They also are given knee and elbow pads with protective eye glasses, and a Balaclava.

So aside from the addition of of the FAL OSW what other addition or critics do you guys have?

To be honest the Negev 7 would serve you better as an LMG along side the FALs than the minimi would and would make a classy replacement for somewhat old 7.62mm LMGs you may have been using until recently (i.e. something like a bren, FALO or FN model D A1) assuming you never really went all in for the whole GPMG thing in the 60/70s with the FN MAG, which you should defintiely be using anyway, well that or the SS-77.

Of course M249.minimis would still have a palce butthis would be more likely as a tool for specialist groups than as a general issue bit of kit.

Finally your special ops guys will porbabaly have a whole host of various M16 derivatives that they have used since the 70s, most likely of the Diemaco (or from smaller well regarded americanmakers like knights, LMT etc etc)variety and with a stupid amount of custom work. They may officially be assigned brand new SCARs but they'll probably still run around with the flavour of the month AR. Such happenings seem to be endemic and unavoidable amoungst "western" sepcial forces

by **Imperializt Russia** » Sat Dec 21, 2013 6:58 am

Premislyd wrote:
Doppio Giudici wrote:Hey guys and galls....would it be a good idea to blend the AK-107 and the RPK-74M

No. BARS RPK is a silly idea.

What makes you think that?

by **Fordorsia** » Sat Dec 21, 2013 6:59 am

Imperializt Russia wrote:
Fordorsia wrote:Remaking my SAR Mk.2 for a third time. Should I try and put a rifle stock on it, and if so, would it be possible without looking like shit?

When you say "rifle stock", I assume you mean full-body stock?

Not full-body as in the M1 Garand. Shotgun stock would probably be more accurate.

I think I just discovered that the one I'm talking about is called a two-piece stock.
Example:

by **Crookfur** » Sat Dec 21, 2013 6:59 am

Fordorsia wrote:Remaking my SAR Mk.2 for a third time. Should I try and put a rifle stock on it, and if so, would it be possible without looking like shit?

should be doable although you might need to make a few mods to make it look nicer. Kind of like the mods Hk made to go from the G3 to the SL7 (which seems to mainly be squaring up and sliming down the receiver although i suspect its a bit deeper than that).

by **Imperializt Russia** » Sat Dec 21, 2013 7:00 am

I'm not a fan of conversions like that tbh.

by **Premislyd** » Sat Dec 21, 2013 7:01 am

Imperializt Russia wrote:
Premislyd wrote:
No. BARS RPK is a silly idea.

What makes you think that?

The fact that certain individuals in this thread of said it.

by **Crookfur** » Sat Dec 21, 2013 7:01 am

Fordorsia wrote:
Imperializt Russia wrote:When you say "rifle stock", I assume you mean full-body stock?

Not full-body as in the M1 Garand. Shotgun stock would probably be more accurate.

I think I just discovered that the one I'm talking about is called a two-piece stock.
Example:

a two peice might work visually but you would proabably have to put a bit more work in to make the handgaurd look as though its fits with a traditional but stock.

by **Fordorsia** » Sat Dec 21, 2013 7:02 am

Imperializt Russia wrote:I'm not a fan of conversions like that tbh.

Well, it was made in 1937, so it wouldn't be a conversion, and the stock would fit the era more than a pistol grip.

by **Premislyd** » Sat Dec 21, 2013 7:03 am

Fordorsia wrote:
Imperializt Russia wrote:I'm not a fan of conversions like that tbh.

Well, it was made in 1937, so it wouldn't be a conversion, and the stock would fit the era more than a pistol grip.

A full body Garand stock would look better in that era, tbh.

Although you could just use BAR-esque furniture for it.

by **Fordorsia** » Sat Dec 21, 2013 7:07 am

Premislyd wrote:
Fordorsia wrote:
Well, it was made in 1937, so it wouldn't be a conversion, and the stock would fit the era more than a pistol grip.

A full body Garand stock would look better in that era, tbh.

Although you could just use BAR-esque furniture for it.

I might see how it looks, although I'll have to move the safety and selector levers.

by **Ea90** » Sat Dec 21, 2013 7:15 am

Czechovelkov wrote:Men do not feel recoil.

Are you seriously trying to say that 7.62x39mm has unbearable recoil?
It's bad enough when people whine about 7.62x51mm, but seriously?
We're not even being :galla: here, it's just...

by **Spreewerke** » Sat Dec 21, 2013 7:29 am

Ea90 wrote:
Czechovelkov wrote:Men do not feel recoil.

Are you seriously trying to say that 7.62x39mm has unbearable recoil?
It's bad enough when people whine about 7.62x51mm, but seriously?
We're not even being :galla: here, it's just...

I fired my first AK at the age of... ten, I think? Don't recall it having unmanageable recoil at all. It was a Type-56 spiker.

Bezombia wrote:
New Tsavon wrote:AMD-36?

Not ringing any bells here, and google's only giving me airsoft G36's and stuff from NS.

AMD-63.

For the second time, that is an AMD-65.

by **Czechovelkov** » Sat Dec 21, 2013 8:32 am

Ea90 wrote:
Czechovelkov wrote:Men do not feel recoil.

Are you seriously trying to say that 7.62x39mm has unbearable recoil?
It's bad enough when people whine about 7.62x51mm, but seriously?
We're not even being :galla: here, it's just...

Woah don't get angry

by **Immoren** » Sat Dec 21, 2013 8:39 am

Premislyd wrote:
Gunner (Winchesthair M2 w/ MBT LAW)
Assistant (Ag m/66)

Platoon is transported by 3 APCs carrying 12 dismounts each, with one rifle squad and two men from either the command element or the anti-tank team in each.

Why not make both members of AT-team gunner/assistants, if you have MBT LAW?

by **Sevvania** » Sat Dec 21, 2013 8:44 am

Spreewerke wrote:For the second time, that is an AMD-65.

Is the only difference between the two furniture? Because both of them come up when you search for one or the other, and the URL of that one says AMD-63, which certainly doesn't help with any confusion between the two..

by **Alimeria-** » Sat Dec 21, 2013 9:08 am

Fordorsia wrote:would it be possible without looking like shit?

What do you think?

by **3 State Alliance** » Sat Dec 21, 2013 9:12 am

Spreewerke wrote:
Ea90 wrote:Are you seriously trying to say that 7.62x39mm has unbearable recoil?
It's bad enough when people whine about 7.62x51mm, but seriously?
We're not even being :galla: here, it's just...

I fired my first AK at the age of... ten, I think? Don't recall it having unmanageable recoil at all. It was a Type-56 spiker.

Given the recoil of an SKS, I could see an AK being quite easy to handle as long as you don't pop her into full-auto, but thats pretty much true of most automatic firearms. (I know that an A5 paintball gun will walk upwards if you don't keep a good grip on it)

by **Premislyd** » Sat Dec 21, 2013 9:25 am

Immoren wrote:
Premislyd wrote:
Gunner (Winchesthair M2 w/ MBT LAW)
Assistant (Ag m/66)

Platoon is transported by 3 APCs carrying 12 dismounts each, with one rifle squad and two men from either the command element or the anti-tank team in each.

Why not make both members of AT-team gunner/assistants, if you have MBT LAW?

Originally had CGs down but decided to switch it at the last second and forgot to replace the other.

by **Blackledge** » Sat Dec 21, 2013 10:54 am

Can we talk recoilless rifles? Immoren, I'd like your take on them in particular.
Having fired the Carl Gustav myself, I like it. But my familiarity was limited to training.

But having reviewed Finnish reformed doctrine, I'm wondering if scrapping the 84 and issuing many disposable AT-launchers would be better.

by **Doppio Giudici** » Sat Dec 21, 2013 11:10 am

Purpelia wrote:
Czechovelkov wrote:AEK 971 = Jesus

An ineffectual jewish reformist whose teachings have been warped and misused to found a new religion that at this point pays only token homage to his original intentions? I newer knew Russian gun design was that deep.

*Glares at you for ten, long, cold, weary seconds.*

Can we stop being all political and weird about this issue? I just wanted solid, reasonable reasons why or why not I could put BARS in an RPK-74M

by **Immoren** » Sat Dec 21, 2013 11:20 am

Blackledge wrote:Can we talk recoilless rifles? Immoren, I'd like your take on them in particular.
Having fired the Carl Gustav myself, I like it. But my familiarity was limited to training.

But having reviewed Finnish reformed doctrine, I'm wondering if scrapping the 84 and issuing many disposable AT-launchers would be better.

I guess it depends on terrain. I mean in some more open country you've more luxury operating "crew served" recoilless gun, while in more "fist fight" type terrain disposable launcher that can be easily discarded after use are probably better. It's also training issue as disposable AT-launcher are easier to learn. But I don't have any experience with recoilless rifles; 55 S 55 was before my time, and 95 S 58-61 are part of battalion level AT-companies in infantry battalions.

NS infantry discussion thread. Mark II

Who will OP the next iteration of the IDT?

Who is online