ProjectsWhat's NewDownloadsCommunitySupportCompany
Forum Index » S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Shadow of Chernobyl Forum » Gameplay & Balance
READ & LEARN: Damage, Target Neutralization, Energy, and Caliber

1 2 3 4 5 ... 12
Posted by/on
Question/AnswerMake Newest Up Sort by Descending
  21:45:43  19 December 2004
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
Zig
Ye Oulde Zigge
(Resident)

 

 
On forum: 11/21/2003
Messages: 315
READ & LEARN: Damage, Target Neutralization, Energy, and Caliber

It seems to me that many here have misconceptions about what it takes to kill or incapacitate a human being. I've seen statements that the .45 is superior to the 9mm, or that "if i had to carry a gun it would definitely be a .45 because the 9mm doesn't do shit." A lot of know-nothing bullshit like that. So I'm here to shed a little light.

Generally speaking, when you shoot a person in a combat situation, you want to get them out of the fight as soon as possible. How they go out of the fight is not important. In a combat situation you need to stop the attacker as soon as possible, before the damages you or a person you are trying to protect. The quickest way to stop them is to put a bullet in their brain. The effect of simply shooting a person might not be enough. Now not only must you put the smackdown on a person as fast as possible, you must also do it under adverse conditions. Your heart will be pumping blood at an increased rate, you will be getting swamped by adrenaline, you will be fixating on your target, you will be scared and you could be injured, basically your fine motor skills will be going to hell in a handbasket. You are moving and your target is moving. All of this adds up to it being difficult to shoot what you are aiming at. So somthing as simple as "hitting them in the head" isn't. It is generally considered a good practice to shoot the person in whats called the "center mass". This is basically from the bottom of the ribcage to the bottom of the throat. This is also a 2 sided target. While you won't turn him off as quick as a headshot, it is an easier target to hit. It is bigger than a head, and it moves less. Heads are damn quick targets. Putting a bullet in a persons "center mass" will allow you access to a large selections of possible targets. Firstly there are the lungs. A bullet wound in these can be nasty. Not only can you cause internal bleeding which will eventually dorwn your target, it can also cause a lung to collapse by inflating the chest cavity. Not nice, but it will put him out of the fight eventually. You can't think or move if you can't breathe. Then you have the heart. This will obviously work quicker than the lungs, as the heart does all the work. Putting a hole in it will cuase the blood to stop flowing where it is needed, and will cause the target to bleed out. Destroying the heart will be quicker, as the bloodflow stops almost instantly. Again, not nice, but it will keep you alive. This is the reason we are shooting remember? Then you get all the other internal organs. If you miss a bit with the "center mass" shot there is still a chance your bullet will hit somthing vital. A spine shot can immobalise your target, a hip shot can make it impossible for him to stand, a stomach/liver/kidney shot can lead to faster bleedouts. The whole idea here is to damage the person so they can't attack you any more. Not to kill them. If you shoot and miss totally and they run away, good for them. Now while you are doing all of this above, you need a firearm that will actually DAMAGE what you hit.

This is where the 9mm minimum comes in. The "9mm" will provide enough damage to proved a fairly safe margin that you can use for reliable knockdowns. It is more or less effective for one shot hits to remove the target as a threat. HOWEVER, it is once again, the MINIMUM acceptable level of energy. There have been cases of people taking multiple 9mm hits and not stopping. And infact cases where the target soaked up over 30 9mm hits and killed the person they were attacking.

The 9mm also allows fast second shots, and high magazine counts. This means iof your first shot doesn't do the trick, it is easy enough to get the gun back on target and fire again. And you can do this again and again and again.

However, there are some better tools that you can use. Which would you prefer to use to drill holes in a brick wall? A Black and Decker 800W Hammer drill or a hand cranked drill? You can do it with the hand cranked one, but there are better tools available.

Something like a 12 guage shotgun or a 5.56mm rifle will do the same job as a pistol, but will do it better. A pistols only advantage is it is easier to carry around in the street with you. When you are inside your own house, and you don't have any size restrictions, why not use a tool that isn't limited?

Each firearm has a precise application. I would use a hand cranked drill to drill through glass, not the hammer drill.

Yes the .50 Action Express will do more damage than a 9x19mm bullet, but it will also generate too much recoil for fast shooting. It doesn't matter how much damage your bullet can do if you miss. Misses only count with Thermonuclear weapons. If I miss with my Glock, I can get the sights aligned quicker and shoot again i could with a Desert Eagle.

One of the most ridiculous things I've read yet at this forum is the statement that "a bigger round is always better." The 5.56 round is .223 caliber. The 9mm and .45 are invariably MUCH larger in diameter. Yet, a FMJ (solid, non-expanding round) 5.56 hit at close range will do MUCH more damage than a 9mm or .45 hit of the same kind, at the same range. Why? Good question.

A 5.56 or .223 round is smaller than a 9mm or .45, but is traveling at 3 or 3.5 times the velocity of either round. It has MORE ENERGY. A .223 round will actually EXPLODE inside the target because it has so much energy that it will take itself apart (fragment) and cause a lot more tissue damage than a 9mm or .45 round will. Now some of you will argue that a 9mm or .45 JHP (Jacketed Hollowpoint) or JSP (Jacketed Softpoint) will do more damage. This is because these rounds are designed to squash and/or expand inside the target. If you take a .223 JHP or JSP round, it will literally obliterate a considerable amount of a target's insides because the .223's greater energy will cause a more abrupt expansion and much more trauma.

Yes, a smaller round, going faster than a big, fat pistol round, can do much, much more damage.

Now take a 7.62 x 51mm round (NATO standard). This round is .308 caliber, not much larger than .223, and still much smaller than .45. Yet, this round is still traveling SO much faster than the .45, and with its slightly larger size, it can do more damage than the .223 in certain situations. The .308's design, mass, and typical energy will cause it to "tumble" inside the target. This is to say that it will stop going straight and start turning inside. It will start to go sideways. Now you can compare it this way: you can have your friend throw a softball at your chest, or you can have a major league pitcher throw a golf ball at your chest. The smaller, faster round will do more damage.

That's all for now. I hope everyone can learn a little. If anyone has further questions about this stuff, please go ahead and ask.
  12:59:16  20 December 2004
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
Brainpr0n
(Novice)
 
On forum: 12/18/2004
Messages: 3
<-- learned something. Thanks.
  13:56:14  20 December 2004
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
x5060
Resident Nobody
(Resident)

 

 
On forum: 07/23/2003
Messages: 2015
Very comprehensive guide to intro ballistics. This is why my carry weapon is 9mm. A Springfield XD-9. Although I will say htat a .45 round tends to have a better expansion than a 9mm, but thats why i carry hydrashoks.
  18:11:16  20 December 2004
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
Doc Jones
Older than before
(Resident)

 

 
On forum: 10/09/2003
Messages: 2008

---QUOTATION---
5.56 or .223 round is smaller than a 9mm or .45, but is traveling at 3 or 3.5 times the velocity of either round. It has MORE ENERGY.
---END QUOTATION---



Yup, you can't mess with physics. F=.5mv^2
  05:34:48  21 December 2004
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
Zig
Ye Oulde Zigge
(Resident)

 

 
On forum: 11/21/2003
Messages: 315

---QUOTATION---
Very comprehensive guide to intro ballistics. This is why my carry weapon is 9mm. A Springfield XD-9. Although I will say htat a .45 round tends to have a better expansion than a 9mm, but thats why i carry hydrashoks.
---END QUOTATION---



if only we could use them in the military, we wouldn't have all this complaining about the 5.56...

here's a good example of what we SHOULD be using but are not allowed to use: [link]http://www.rifleshootermag.com/gun_accessories/RSswift_1125A.jpg[/link]
  09:42:36  21 December 2004
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
Mus
(Senior)
 
On forum: 06/13/2004
 

Message edited by:
Mus
12/21/2004 9:46:49
Messages: 100

---QUOTATION---
One of the most ridiculous things I've read yet at this forum is the statement that "a bigger round is always better."
---END QUOTATION---



That was in regard to handgun wounding factors. Absent high velocity wounding mechanisms like fragmentation or temporary cavities violent enough to do permenent damage, and provided both projectiles are capable of penetrating to the vitals, bigger IS always better.

You cant honestly compare high velocity rifle rounds to pistol rounds as a way to disprove that statement.

The statement was taken from Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness writting by Patrick Urey of the FBI Firearms Training Unit. Despite being 15 years old it remains one of the best sources for basic information on handgun wounding factors according to experts in the field of wound ballistics:

[link]http://www.firearmstactical.com/hwfe.htm[/link]
  11:55:02  21 December 2004
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
Fux0r666
resident smart-ass
(Resident)

 

 
On forum: 06/04/2003
Messages: 1927

---QUOTATION---
One of the most ridiculous things I've read yet at this forum is the statement that "a bigger round is always better."

That was in regard to handgun wounding factors. Absent high velocity wounding mechanisms like fragmentation or temporary cavities violent enough to do permenent damage, and provided both projectiles are capable of penetrating to the vitals, bigger IS always better.

You cant honestly compare high velocity rifle rounds to pistol rounds as a way to disprove that statement.

The statement was taken from Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness writting by Patrick Urey of the FBI Firearms Training Unit. Despite being 15 years old it remains one of the best sources for basic information on handgun wounding factors according to experts in the field of wound ballistics:

[link]http://www.firearmstactical.com/hwfe.htm[/link]
---END QUOTATION---



Yes, I believe that that statement was in response to a discussion on pistol ammunition, rifle ammunition notwithstanding.
  14:07:44  21 December 2004
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
x5060
Resident Nobody
(Resident)

 

 
On forum: 07/23/2003
 

Message edited by:
x5060
12/21/2004 14:09:48
Messages: 2015

---QUOTATION---

if only we could use them in the military, we wouldn't have all this complaining about the 5.56...

here's a good example of what we SHOULD be using but are not allowed to use: [link]http://www.rifleshootermag.com/gun_accessories/RSswift_1125A.jpg[/link]
---END QUOTATION---



Yeah i know, Ive been hearing stories of some hadji out in iraq taking 2-3 round to put down. This is why i would hate having to use ball. I say if your enemy isnt fighting per the Geneva Convention, we shouldent have to either. Hollowpoints, Hydrashoks, and EFMJs all around.


---QUOTATION---

That was in regard to handgun wounding factors. Absent high velocity wounding mechanisms like fragmentation or temporary cavities violent enough to do permenent damage, and provided both projectiles are capable of penetrating to the vitals, bigger IS always better.

You cant honestly compare high velocity rifle rounds to pistol rounds as a way to disprove that statement.

The statement was taken from Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness writting by Patrick Urey of the FBI Firearms Training Unit. Despite being 15 years old it remains one of the best sources for basic information on handgun wounding factors according to experts in the field of wound ballistics:

[link]http://www.firearmstactical.com/hwfe.htm[/link]
---END QUOTATION---



Rifle rounds rely on velocity for thier energy quotient.
Pistol rounds rely on weight for kinetic energy.
  22:59:51  21 December 2004
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
baff
Senior Resident
 

 
On forum: 04/16/2004
Messages: 708

---QUOTATION---
I say if your enemy isnt fighting per the Geneva Convention, we shouldent have to either. Hollowpoints, Hydrashoks, and EFMJs all around.
---END QUOTATION---



and if your enemies army is answerable to a free or democratic society, should yours be?


thats just loser talk.
how the enemy behaves shouldn't control how we behave. the opposite is true. think like a winner, act like a winner. win.
the iniative is ours.


the idea is to set the standard other societies strive to reach.

i understand that when your back is against the wall, you must do whatever it takes to win, however brutal, but my country hasn't been invaded for the last 1,000 years. my back isn't against the wall, hasn't been, and is showning no sign of being for many years to come.

when we fight, we fight as invaders.
treat people as you wish to be treated, not as they treat you.
it's not about reciprocal love, it's about personal honour.

we are strong enough to act with compassion. it's a battlefield weakness, perhaps, but if it is, it's one we can afford. the most dangerous part of modern war for a country such as my own, is not the damage that the enemy can inflict, it's the loss of humanity, and noble spirit.
we lose more soldiers from post traumatic stress disorder than ever we do from battle.


and then theres another reason.
while undefeated for 1,000 years (not exactly true, but it sounds good), is a great track record militarily, having been involved on so many fights, we have come to realise, that one day, it will be our turn to utterly, humiliatingly and totally, be crushed. it happens.
at this point, we do not want to be remembered as those guys who tortured us, broke the geneva convention against us, prosecuted our national leaders for war crimes and then hung them, etc. etc. etc.

we would like to be remembered as those guys who fought with honour and to a strict code, that minimised collateral damage, that confined the war to the enemy leadership, that did not victimise them afterwards, keep order took over with justice and sensitivity etc. etc. etc. (longer battles are exchanged for shorter wars).

in short, respect your enemies. war doesn't have to be the most depraved horror a society has to offer, it may also be it's finest hour.
a masterful demonstration of restraint, power and order in the face of absolute chaos.

i should likely feel entirely differently if i was losing to the point where my country was being invaded, and i expect those in the same circumstances to feel the same. (unless they are civilised in the extreme beyond normal human capabilities like the french perhaps)

the geneva convention is not a pact signed between enemies, it is a pact signed between "civilisations". if you wished to be considered civilised by the other signitories you must honour it.
it's a gentlemans club, you can leave at anytime. you don't have to wait until it's circumstancially unhelpful towards you.
  04:06:05  22 December 2004
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
Zig
Ye Oulde Zigge
(Resident)

 

 
On forum: 11/21/2003
 

Message edited by:
Zig
12/22/2004 4:10:58
Messages: 315

---QUOTATION---
You cant honestly compare high velocity rifle rounds to pistol rounds as a way to disprove that statement.
---END QUOTATION---



There are pistols in .223 and .17 HMR.

(also you're not the only person ever to have said bigger is better, at these forums... the Desert Eagle types need to learn too)
  07:13:20  22 December 2004
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
Fux0r666
resident smart-ass
(Resident)

 

 
On forum: 06/04/2003
Messages: 1927

---QUOTATION---
You cant honestly compare high velocity rifle rounds to pistol rounds as a way to disprove that statement.

There are pistols in .223 and .17 HMR.

(also you're not the only person ever to have said bigger is better, at these forums... the Desert Eagle types need to learn too)
---END QUOTATION---



The short barrel would certainly castrate the terminal effectiveness of the round. The m4 barrel is considered too short. I would not go out on a limb to say that the bushmaster is more effective than a sidearm. At such a short barrel the .223 would be incredibly uncomfortable to fire, uncontrollable, loud, slow and innaccurate.
  03:24:25  23 December 2004
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
Mus
(Senior)
 
On forum: 06/13/2004
 

Message edited by:
Mus
12/23/2004 3:26:34
Messages: 100

---QUOTATION---
The short barrel would certainly castrate the terminal effectiveness of the round. The m4 barrel is considered too short. I would not go out on a limb to say that the bushmaster is more effective than a sidearm. At such a short barrel the .223 would be incredibly uncomfortable to fire, uncontrollable, loud, slow and innaccurate.
---END QUOTATION---



Correct. With M193 and M855 the M4 can be below its fragmentation threshold (around 2700 fps although there is some examples of some fragmentating at lower vel and some refusing to fragment at higher velocity) past 100 yards, further for the M193 with its slightly higher velocity. Some really short barrel AR variants (11.5" arent fragmenting past 50 or so. It wouldnt suprise me to discover that if you get the barrel short enough (like the really short barrel AR15 pistols made by Bushmaster for example) that it would fail to fragment even at the muzzle. I havent read any tests to find out for certain however.

This was part of the reason for the development of the Mk262 mod 1 77 gr open tip match round for the special operations guys. They wanted something that would still fragment out to 200-300 yards and some figures I have seen show it doing just that in both 16" and 20" barrels. The testers didnt have a 14.5" barrel M4 to test with (cant afford the SBR tax stamp), but the 1.5" difference isnt as great as you might think. I have heard that out of 16" barrels M193 may fragment out to as far as 150 yards with M855 going out to about 125.
  04:17:37  23 December 2004
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
baff
Senior Resident
 

 
On forum: 04/16/2004
Messages: 708

---QUOTATION---
The short barrel would certainly castrate the terminal effectiveness of the round. The m4 barrel is considered too short. I would not go out on a limb to say that the bushmaster is more effective than a sidearm. At such a short barrel the .223 would be incredibly uncomfortable to fire, uncontrollable, loud, slow and innaccurate.

Correct. With M193 and M855 the M4 can be below its fragmentation threshold (around 2700 fps although there is some examples of some fragmentating at lower vel and some refusing to fragment at higher velocity) past 100 yards, further for the M193 with its slightly higher velocity. Some really short barrel AR variants (11.5" arent fragmenting past 50 or so. It wouldnt suprise me to discover that if you get the barrel short enough (like the really short barrel AR15 pistols made by Bushmaster for example) that it would fail to fragment even at the muzzle. I havent read any tests to find out for certain however.

This was part of the reason for the development of the Mk262 mod 1 77 gr open tip match round for the special operations guys. They wanted something that would still fragment out to 200-300 yards and some figures I have seen show it doing just that in both 16" and 20" barrels. The testers didnt have a 14.5" barrel M4 to test with (cant afford the SBR tax stamp), but the 1.5" difference isnt as great as you might think. I have heard that out of 16" barrels M193 may fragment out to as far as 150 yards with M855 going out to about 125.
---END QUOTATION---



i feel the same way about fragmenting bullets as i do about chemical weapons.
  21:49:03  23 December 2004
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
Mus
(Senior)
 
On forum: 06/13/2004
Messages: 100

---QUOTATION---
i feel the same way about fragmenting bullets as i do about chemical weapons.
---END QUOTATION---



The comparison is pretty off base. How do you feel about flamethrowers? High Explosive Dual Purpose light cannon rounds? Cluster Bombs?
  00:12:05  24 December 2004
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
Fux0r666
resident smart-ass
(Resident)

 

 
On forum: 06/04/2003
 

Message edited by:
Fux0r666
12/24/2004 0:16:58
Messages: 1927

---QUOTATION---

The short barrel would certainly castrate the terminal effectiveness of the round. The m4 barrel is considered too short. I would not go out on a limb to say that the bushmaster is more effective than a sidearm. At such a short barrel the .223 would be incredibly uncomfortable to fire, uncontrollable, loud, slow and innaccurate.

Correct. With M193 and M855 the M4 can be below its fragmentation threshold (around 2700 fps although there is some examples of some fragmentating at lower vel and some refusing to fragment at higher velocity) past 100 yards, further for the M193 with its slightly higher velocity. Some really short barrel AR variants (11.5" arent fragmenting past 50 or so. It wouldnt suprise me to discover that if you get the barrel short enough (like the really short barrel AR15 pistols made by Bushmaster for example) that it would fail to fragment even at the muzzle. I havent read any tests to find out for certain however.

This was part of the reason for the development of the Mk262 mod 1 77 gr open tip match round for the special operations guys. They wanted something that would still fragment out to 200-300 yards and some figures I have seen show it doing just that in both 16" and 20" barrels. The testers didnt have a 14.5" barrel M4 to test with (cant afford the SBR tax stamp), but the 1.5" difference isnt as great as you might think. I have heard that out of 16" barrels M193 may fragment out to as far as 150 yards with M855 going out to about 125.
---END QUOTATION---



To clarify for argumentative purposes, all of this is a rebuttle to the claim that .223 sidearms are necessarily more effective than larger, more weakly loaded bullets. The claim was a rebuttle to the argument that high velocity rounds can't be used as a way to refute the claim that larger diameter bullets are always better.

It is not meant to say that this verifies that larger diameter bullets are better. It's simply meant to illustrate that, when we are talking about pistol loads and pistol length barrels, using a rifle round as an example is not meaningful.
  13:55:38  24 December 2004
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
x5060
Resident Nobody
(Resident)

 

 
On forum: 07/23/2003
Messages: 2015

---QUOTATION---

Correct. With M193 and M855 the M4 can be below its fragmentation threshold (around 2700 fps although there is some examples of some fragmentating at lower vel and some refusing to fragment at higher velocity) past 100 yards, further for the M193 with its slightly higher velocity. Some really short barrel AR variants (11.5" arent fragmenting past 50 or so. It wouldnt suprise me to discover that if you get the barrel short enough (like the really short barrel AR15 pistols made by Bushmaster for example) that it would fail to fragment even at the muzzle. I havent read any tests to find out for certain however.

This was part of the reason for the development of the Mk262 mod 1 77 gr open tip match round for the special operations guys. They wanted something that would still fragment out to 200-300 yards and some figures I have seen show it doing just that in both 16" and 20" barrels. The testers didnt have a 14.5" barrel M4 to test with (cant afford the SBR tax stamp), but the 1.5" difference isnt as great as you might think. I have heard that out of 16" barrels M193 may fragment out to as far as 150 yards with M855 going out to about 125.
---END QUOTATION---



Thats some grade A truth right there. Good to know someone does there homework. Personally i still preffer my Q3131A though. Im thinking about getting a SBR AR-15. Or maybe a HK94.


---QUOTATION---
when we fight, we fight as invaders.
treat people as you wish to be treated, not as they treat you.
it's not about reciprocal love, it's about personal honour.
---END QUOTATION---



You can say all you want, but it isnt YOUR fellow countrymen taht are dieing, Now im not saying start killing civilians, but there are some stupid clauses in the Geniva convention that PROHIBIT soldiers from being effective in thier jobs. Such as the "No round that COULD cause unnessicary suffering" clause. This means NO Hollowpoints, NO double tapping, NO EFMJ, Hell 3 years ago it was ruled that the US is no longer allowed to use tracers or incendiary (tank or otherwise) rounds. Not to mention that our enemy is already considered an UNLAWFUL COMBATANT.
  23:52:38  26 December 2004
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
Zig
Ye Oulde Zigge
(Resident)

 

 
On forum: 11/21/2003
 

Message edited by:
Zig
12/26/2004 23:59:02
Messages: 315
My uncle owns a Thompson target pistol in .223 and it certainly treats him well.

Anyway, I think we all need to think a little bit about the value that magazine capacity has, as well as the value of a lower-recoil round.

Consider this: given the opportunity to choose JHP 9mm, JHP .40S&W, or JHP .45acp, which would you use?

I would invariably choose the JHP 9mm because the velocity, magazine capacity, and low recoil are all advantages without cons, due to the JHP factor.

X5060: is there anywhere i'd be able to find budget pricing on Q3131A? i'm on a budget and i'm planning right now to just buy a load of Federal American Eagle 55gr FMJ when i pick up my Mini 14.
  04:01:14  27 December 2004
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
Fux0r666
resident smart-ass
(Resident)

 

 
On forum: 06/04/2003
Messages: 1927

---QUOTATION---
My uncle owns a Thompson target pistol in .223 and it certainly treats him well.

---END QUOTATION---



That is a breach loaded hunting impliment with a 14 inch barrel. How is that comparable to a tactical pistol? I don't see how that is related to the discussion on tactical firearms.
  02:10:29  28 December 2004
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
Zig
Ye Oulde Zigge
(Resident)

 

 
On forum: 11/21/2003
Messages: 315
there is no discussion on tactical firearms.. the original discussion was regarding the supposed superiority of higher calibers always being superior in a combat setting.
  19:46:59  28 December 2004
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
Sil3nt-War
(Novice)
 
On forum: 07/18/2004
Messages: 25

---QUOTATION---

Hell 3 years ago it was ruled that the US is no longer allowed to use tracers or incendiary (tank or otherwise) rounds. Not to mention that our enemy is already considered an UNLAWFUL COMBATANT.
---END QUOTATION---

I might be wrong but i have a video of tracer rounds being fired from a humvee or some vehicle and incendiary rounds being fired from a helicopter in the recent iraqi war.
  00:03:36  29 December 2004
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
Fux0r666
resident smart-ass
(Resident)

 

 
On forum: 06/04/2003
Messages: 1927

---QUOTATION---
there is no discussion on tactical firearms.. the original discussion was regarding the supposed superiority of higher calibers always being superior in a combat setting.
---END QUOTATION---



Right. You are using the .223 as an example to refute the claim that a larger calibre is always superior. However, there are limits to this discussion because we were talking about pistol loads. A firearm that is loaded with .223 with a 14 inch barrel can hardly be considered a pistol. Moreover, there are premises that claim that the ability to reaquire targets and shoot rapidly gives credence to small roudns being superior (ie. the 9mm parabellum when fired from a pistol). The thompson .223 is not only not a pistol but it's breach loaded.

What I am trying to illustrate is that your examples can't be used to in that argument.
  00:33:12  29 December 2004
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
x5060
Resident Nobody
(Resident)

 

 
On forum: 07/23/2003
Messages: 2015

---QUOTATION---

I might be wrong but i have a video of tracer rounds being fired from a humvee or some vehicle and incendiary rounds being fired from a helicopter in the recent iraqi war.
---END QUOTATION---



Thats because we, as a nation, said "Fuck you" to the UN. it was only till a year ago that it got repealed.


---QUOTATION---
X5060: is there anywhere i'd be able to find budget pricing on Q3131A? i'm on a budget and i'm planning right now to just buy a load of Federal American Eagle 55gr FMJ when i pick up my Mini 14.
---END QUOTATION---



Well the last time i bought it was at the knob creek shot in kentucy. We picked up a REALLY cheap case for about 150$ but i think it normallly runs about 230-250 / per 1000. I love my winchester white box


As for the argument. I would much rather have a rifle going into combat than a pistol.
  00:05:06  5 January 2005
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
ookami
(Novice)
 
On forum: 12/11/2003
 

Message edited by:
ookami
01/05/2005 0:21:13
Messages: 30

---QUOTATION---
"if i had to carry a gun it would definitely be a .45 because the 9mm doesn't do shit."
---END QUOTATION---


And I do. It might be interesting if we could talk to those Moro warriors in the Philippines and see what they preferred being shot with. I'm pretty confident in betting the .45 would be a bit more influencial in their decision to keep going or not after being shot.

But I do see your point. Thinking a 9mm is virtually useless and anything bigger is automatically leaps and bounds above and beyond it is stupid thinking.
  07:20:42  6 January 2005
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
Harry-the-Ruskie
(Senior)
 
On forum: 10/07/2004
 

Message edited by:
Harry-the-Ruskie
01/06/2005 7:37:56
Messages: 75

---QUOTATION---


You can say all you want, but it isnt YOUR fellow countrymen taht are dieing, Now im not saying start killing civilians, but there are some stupid clauses in the Geniva convention that PROHIBIT soldiers from being effective in thier jobs. Such as the "No round that COULD cause unnessicary suffering" clause. This means NO Hollowpoints, NO double tapping, NO EFMJ, Hell 3 years ago it was ruled that the US is no longer allowed to use tracers or incendiary (tank or otherwise) rounds. Not to mention that our enemy is already considered an UNLAWFUL COMBATANT.
---END QUOTATION---



Hello x5060. With that ruling of 3 years earlier, were there changes that substantially supersede positions that were mentioned in this article by Dean Speir of the GunZone ? :-

http://www.thegunzone.com/hague.html

I'm not sure of the date of Speir's article but it looks recent.

You also mentioned earlier about your choice loads being the Hydrshok. I was wondering if I can get your opinion about the QuickShok loads for use within the home environment in tropical weather (meaning that perpetrators are not likely to wear heavy clothing....at most a T-shirt or similar apparel). I would be looking at 9mm rounds and also 22 LR. I know the latter mousegun is laughable but a friend here just would not let go of his 22 LR for a better caliber because he is only allowed one-gun and he rather like the 22 LR for recreational shooting. Self-defence it seems is not high on his list of priority.

Thanks

HTR
  07:35:59  6 January 2005
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
Harry-the-Ruskie
(Senior)
 
On forum: 10/07/2004
Messages: 75

---QUOTATION---

The statement was taken from Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness writting by Patrick Urey of the FBI Firearms Training Unit. Despite being 15 years old it remains one of the best sources for basic information on handgun wounding factors according to experts in the field of wound ballistics:

[link]http://www.firearmstactical.com/hwfe.htm[/link]
---END QUOTATION---



I might be wrong, but wasn't it the FBI who (after their Miami incident) initiated that new testing methodology which emphasized permanent crush cavity as the primary factor and ushered in a period of subsonic velocities heavyweight pistol bullets that emphasized deep penetration ?

Didn't those loads give inadequate performance with the result that most cops now go high velocity light to medium weight P bullets that expand well with adequate penetration and also good performance through heavy clothing and vehicle glass. And more importantly emphasizing the stretch cavity (instead of the permanent cavity) as the major factor for incapacitation ?

Did the FBI also subsequently gave up their position in respect of subsonic deep penetration rounds ? Anyone ?
  20:27:41  6 January 2005
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
Fux0r666
resident smart-ass
(Resident)

 

 
On forum: 06/04/2003
Messages: 1927

---QUOTATION---

The statement was taken from Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness writting by Patrick Urey of the FBI Firearms Training Unit. Despite being 15 years old it remains one of the best sources for basic information on handgun wounding factors according to experts in the field of wound ballistics:

[link]http://www.firearmstactical.com/hwfe.htm[/link]

I might be wrong, but wasn't it the FBI who (after their Miami incident) initiated that new testing methodology which emphasized permanent crush cavity as the primary factor and ushered in a period of subsonic velocities heavyweight pistol bullets that emphasized deep penetration ?

Didn't those loads give inadequate performance with the result that most cops now go high velocity light to medium weight P bullets that expand well with adequate penetration and also good performance through heavy clothing and vehicle glass. And more importantly emphasizing the stretch cavity (instead of the permanent cavity) as the major factor for incapacitation ?

Did the FBI also subsequently gave up their position in respect of subsonic deep penetration rounds ? Anyone ?
---END QUOTATION---



The essay basically says that the energy transfer from pistol loads is not the primary wounding factory. It also says that tissue distruction is not sufficient to cause much in the way of incapacitation. No way is the 9mm's temporary cavity sufficient to do anything special. The essay, as well as other sources I've encountered, says that the primary wounding factor of any handgun load is defined by what it hits, not if it its. So, you want something that penetrates deeply. This is also pertinent when discussing barrel length, as barrel length improves velocity but can also cause a premature mushrooming which reduces the bullet's ability to penetrate, thereby reducing its ability to harm the vital structures that are located to the rear of the torso. At any rate, I think you want to go with as much destruction as possible. I see nothing in the essay that says that .45s are clearly superior to the 9mm- only that you want to cut through your target but you don't want to cut down the innocent bystanders behind him.
  22:51:40  6 January 2005
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
x5060
Resident Nobody
(Resident)

 

 
On forum: 07/23/2003
Messages: 2015

---QUOTATION---

Hey x5060. With that ruling of 3 years earlier, were there changes that substantially supersede positions that were mentioned in this article by Dean Speir of the GunZone ? :-

http://www.thegunzone.com/hague.html

I'm not sure of the date of Speir's article but it looks recent.
---END QUOTATION---



Well, he has made a misconception. There is no rule in the Genevia Convention that STRICTLY says you may not use expanding jacket rounds. However there is one that says "No usage of weapons that cause excesive suffering" Which was ruled as to include hollowpoints and the like. These are also included in the Rules of Engagment in my government.


---QUOTATION---
You also mentioned earlier about your choice loads being the Hydrshok. I was wondering if I can get your opinion about the QuickShok loads for use within the home environment in tropical weather (meaning that perpetrators are not likely to wear heavy clothing....at most a T-shirt or similar apparel). I would be looking at 9mm rounds and also 22 LR. I know the latter mousegun is laughable but a friend here just would not let go of his 22 LR for a better caliber because he is only allowed one-gun and he rather like the 22 LR for recreational shooting. Self-defence it seems is not high on his list of priority.

Thanks

HTR
---END QUOTATION---



Ive never heard of any weapon loads called QuickShok. However a 22 pistol is just about worthless in a self protection situation. Ive heard first hand stories of .22s being stoped by a heavy jacket. I wouldent trust my life to anythign LESS than a .38 in that type of situation. Tell him to grow a pair and get a better calibur
  03:43:42  7 January 2005
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
Harry-the-Ruskie
(Senior)
 
On forum: 10/07/2004
Messages: 75

---QUOTATION---


The essay basically says that the energy transfer from pistol loads is not the primary wounding factory. It also says that tissue distruction is not sufficient to cause much in the way of incapacitation. No way is the 9mm's temporary cavity sufficient to do anything special. The essay, as well as other sources I've encountered, says that the primary wounding factor of any handgun load is defined by what it hits, not if it its. So, you want something that penetrates deeply. This is also pertinent when discussing barrel length, as barrel length improves velocity but can also cause a premature mushrooming which reduces the bullet's ability to penetrate.........
---END QUOTATION---



Roger that. What do you think of the series of Stopping Power books with data on actual shooting incidents published by Sanow and Marshall ?
  03:58:28  7 January 2005
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
Harry-the-Ruskie
(Senior)
 
On forum: 10/07/2004
Messages: 75

---QUOTATION---


Well, he has made a misconception. There is no rule in the Genevia Convention that STRICTLY says you may not use expanding jacket rounds. However there is one that says "No usage of weapons that cause excesive suffering" Which was ruled as to include hollowpoints and the like. These are also included in the Rules of Engagment in my government.
---END QUOTATION---



OK thanks. I still haven't been able to figure out that bit about not causing "excessive suffering". How does one define excessive suffering ? LOL



---QUOTATION---


Ive never heard of any weapon loads called QuickShok.


---END QUOTATION---



Oh sorry, hehe...I meant the line of ammo from Triton called the QuikShok (designed by the very same Tom Burczynski of Hydrashok and EFMJ fame). I always manage to spell the 'Quik' wrong.

http://www.tritonbullets.com/about.htm


---QUOTATION---



However a 22 pistol is just about worthless in a self protection situation. Ive heard first hand stories of .22s being stoped by a heavy jacket. I wouldent trust my life to anythign LESS than a .38 in that type of situation. Tell him to grow a pair and get a better calibur
---END QUOTATION---



LOL. Don't think I did not try. I have been pestering him to get a serious caliber for self-defence but he's stubborn as a mule. Not so much a case of him not having a pair (he's certainly not recoil-shy). Rather he is just so attached to that 22 LR and put more weigh on plinking and recreational shooting than self-defence. Weird, but I guess it takes all types of people to populate this world
  13:22:48  7 January 2005
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
x5060
Resident Nobody
(Resident)

 

 
On forum: 07/23/2003
Messages: 2015

---QUOTATION---

OK thanks. I still haven't been able to figure out that bit about not causing "excessive suffering". How does one define excessive suffering ? LOL
---END QUOTATION---



It was worded to be subjective, so the UN could make it say whatever they want it too. :/


---QUOTATION---

Oh sorry, hehe...I meant the line of ammo from Triton called the QuikShok (designed by the very same Tom Burczynski of Hydrashok and EFMJ fame). I always manage to spell the 'Quik' wrong.

http://www.tritonbullets.com/about.htm
---END QUOTATION---



Well looking at some rough ballistics and some range reports, its seems pretty underpowered. The penetration is very substandered even for a .22. although it is a good idea, the problem with breaking the round into 3 parts is the reduction in mass and momentum. If this is used for self defense, i suggest many center mass rounds, and i mean LOTS.



---QUOTATION---
LOL. Don't think I did not try. I have been pestering him to get a serious caliber for self-defence but he's stubborn as a mule. Not so much a case of him not having a pair (he's certainly not recoil-shy). Rather he is just so attached to that 22 LR and put more weigh on plinking and recreational shooting than self-defence. Weird, but I guess it takes all types of people to populate this world
---END QUOTATION---



Yeha, we have those kind in America too. They are the ones that are going to get all of our firearms rights taken away, Slowly.
  00:08:37  8 January 2005
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
Snakeskin
(Novice)
 
On forum: 01/08/2005
 

Message edited by:
Snakeskin
01/08/2005 0:12:02
Messages: 12
How could i guess that you were an american? Peh.. not invaded in 1000 years? America has to my knowledge only existed a few hundred years, after slaughtering the natives. Setting an example for other societies, in your dreams.. Do you want to know a country that have not been invaded for quite some time and existed for a while? Sweden.. and according to your president/dictator or wahtever we does not even have an army.. hehe.. besides having some of the worlds best survivor/special units we produce boats of equal or higher quality that those of the US..

And please dont give me that "if it werent for us you would have been speaking german now"-crap like many americans do when they feel cornered, that one is just embarassing.
  00:59:31  8 January 2005
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
ookami
(Novice)
 
On forum: 12/11/2003
Messages: 30

---QUOTATION---
Peh.. not invaded in 1000 years?
---END QUOTATION---


Seems like kind of a trick statement. Colonization was actually kind of an invasion.


---QUOTATION---
America has to my knowledge only existed a few hundred years
---END QUOTATION---


I guess the generally accepted founding for the USA is 1776. And the idea to call these continents the Americas came about around 1507.
But there is an odd logic to it. I could say that my computer has never caught on fire in 1000 years. It hasn't caught on fire for as long as it has existed and it couldn't have caught on fire before it existed.


---QUOTATION---
Do you want to know a country that have not been invaded for quite some time and existed for a while? Sweden
---END QUOTATION---


Due to lack of interest perhaps? (I kid, I kid)
  01:30:11  8 January 2005
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
Snakeskin
(Novice)
 
On forum: 01/08/2005
Messages: 12
Yeah yeah.. i agree.. who cares? I dont.. i do not requrie miliraty victories to boost my ego. Just sometimes americans and their america is too much..
  16:59:47  8 January 2005
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
x5060
Resident Nobody
(Resident)

 

 
On forum: 07/23/2003
Messages: 2015

---QUOTATION---
How could i guess that you were an american? Peh.. not invaded in 1000 years? America has to my knowledge only existed a few hundred years, after slaughtering the natives. Setting an example for other societies, in your dreams.. Do you want to know a country that have not been invaded for quite some time and existed for a while? Sweden.. and according to your president/dictator or wahtever we does not even have an army.. hehe.. besides having some of the worlds best survivor/special units we produce boats of equal or higher quality that those of the US..

And please dont give me that "if it werent for us you would have been speaking german now"-crap like many americans do when they feel cornered, that one is just embarassing.
---END QUOTATION---



Wow, im not sure if your just dilusional or what, but im not sure what brought this on. I realize your probably just some punk out looking for a fight with an American, but thats ok. Personally i own a few swedish weapons, I love my K31, but the ammunition is kind of hard to find =

Anyway, back to you being a dushbag. Please continue your rant, It reaffirms my faith that you are a completely irrational person.

Trolls arent very cleverly disguised these days i guess.
  17:10:08  8 January 2005
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
Snakeskin
(Novice)
 
On forum: 01/08/2005
Messages: 12
Oh i was so tired, i never really got around to masking it. Have to admit its nice with someone that doesnt buy it the first time, good to know there are people in america not completely brainwashed by all the patriotic stuff, "god bless america" crap and bush´s "war" on "terrorists".
Well, anyway thanks for a resourceful thread. /S
  23:11:25  8 January 2005
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
x5060
Resident Nobody
(Resident)

 

 
On forum: 07/23/2003
 

Message edited by:
x5060
01/08/2005 23:15:30
Messages: 2015

---QUOTATION---
Oh i was so tired, i never really got around to masking it. Have to admit its nice with someone that doesnt buy it the first time, good to know there are people in america not completely brainwashed by all the patriotic stuff, "god bless america" crap and bush´s "war" on "terrorists".
Well, anyway thanks for a resourceful thread. /S
---END QUOTATION---



Actually I believe that Iraq was the right thing to do. Saddam had a list of human rights violations thicker than the dictionary. Its thought that he has killed over a million of hisown people. Thats 10 times the amount from the tsunami in the indian ocean. You may believe that he is a warm, fuzzy, touchy-feely kind of guy, but he has killed 1/20th of the entire population of his country, and enjoyed it.

If you dont like my point of view then you are more than welcome to disagree.

Also, you have now genralized and stereotyped me twice, I can not recommend you do it again.

And god bless America
  02:03:17  9 January 2005
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
Snakeskin
(Novice)
 
On forum: 01/08/2005
 

Message edited by:
Snakeskin
01/09/2005 2:09:14
Messages: 12
Oh make no mistake, i do not sympatize with saddam hussein. The guy is full of crap and was one of the most oppressing dictators in our time. Although i say the same about Bush, though he is more subtle.
But as you may see, if you choose to see it, Bush´s little revenge/"go for the oil!"/find someone to blame for 911 (how the hell anyone can see a connection??) thingie has gone way out of control with the people in iraq feeling oppressed and many take arms against the oppressors.

This has not been helped by many americans acting superior and childish in iraq. As it is now no solution can be created with military power, but Bush still hasnt drawn the troops out of iraq. Why? Because he was foolish enough not to keep iraq´s police and military intact, and he cannot leave a country to riots. He has fucked up and he knows it. All the while trying to mask the money missing and dollar dropping even lower, by using the "war on terror" to scare americans into supporting him.

There are VERY few outside america that thinks the war was justified, probably because we have more space to think on our own and we are not controlled by FOX news and propaganda here and there.

I could go on about how Bush have made it possible for the already extreme crime and violence in america go up, by allowing automatic weapons, or eliminating people that are against him by making it difficult for them to vote or ever removing their voting rights if they have served time in jail (many low-class citizens and black ppl). Have you seen Michael Moores films or read his books? They are certainly angled and exaggerated aswell but they point to facts that still exist and would doom any politician here in europe. I could go on for a while about Bush and many other things, like gun-toting americans and weapons culture, how the society is controlled by religion and money, how americas leaders only cara about america by for example not signing the kyoto-convention (wtf is up with that!?) and so on.. but i choose not too. If you still want to hear them you can send me a mail. And yes.. God Bless America.. really.. your going to need it. /S

PS. If anyone feel offended by this, please mail me instead of spamming this otherwise useful thread, arguments only thanks.
  09:37:08  9 January 2005
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
baff
Senior Resident
 

 
On forum: 04/16/2004
 

Message edited by:
baff
01/09/2005 10:50:55
Messages: 708

---QUOTATION---
How could i guess that you were an american? Peh.. not invaded in 1000 years?
---END QUOTATION---



for the record. i'm english.
the last invasion here was in 1066.

so that's not strictly a thousand years, but it's pretty close.
the reason i say arguably, is that i am also british, and the last time britain was invaded was in 1982 at the falkland islands. the scottish have made a couple of incursions over the centuries also, so i'd take that thousand year record with a pinch of salt.

as for saddam? iraq's a tough country to rule.
have the coalition done it any better than he did?
is there less torture or unfair inprisonment now?
less violence?
have ordinary iraqi's stopped being spirited away in the middle of the night never to be seen again?
have the coalition killed less iraqi's than saddam?
have the iraqi's been freed to rule themselves?
do they have more civil liberties under the coalition?
what difference does it make to the iraqi's if they are killed in a civil war or a foreign invasion?
is there a moral distinction between being killed by a roadside bomb, or gunned down by a humvee gunner protecting his convoy?

laughable.



if you were to instead argue that your nations way of life was over extended, and required the control of foreign resources to maintain itself; that a military presence in the middle east was essential to preserving it's power, wealth, security and the expensive lifestyles of it's populace, i would applaud you.


i strongly doubt that in this particular instance "god" would be willing to "bless america".
here is the first of his ten commandments.

---QUOTATION---

Thou shalt not kill.

---END QUOTATION---


if i were you, i would leave god out of this completely.
  10:00:23  9 January 2005
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
baff
Senior Resident
 

 
On forum: 04/16/2004
 

Message edited by:
baff
01/09/2005 10:27:59
Messages: 708

---QUOTATION---
i feel the same way about fragmenting bullets as i do about chemical weapons.
---END QUOTATION---




---QUOTATION---

The comparison is pretty off base. How do you feel about flamethrowers? High Explosive Dual Purpose light cannon rounds? Cluster Bombs?
---END QUOTATION---


cluster bombs is very divisive issue round here.

my country has signed a treaty not to use them. i think it's part of the anti landmines treaty. due to the unexploded ordinance they leave behind after use, maybe.

as usual, i would feel completely differently about any treaties if my country had been invaded. as professional soldiers fighting on foreign soil, we can afford to behave with more restraint. the stakes are not so high. our wives and children are not at risk. we can always go home.
  10:12:20  9 January 2005
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
baff
Senior Resident
 

 
On forum: 04/16/2004
 

Message edited by:
baff
01/09/2005 10:41:50
Messages: 708

---QUOTATION---
Well, he has made a misconception. There is no rule in the Genevia Convention that STRICTLY says you may not use expanding jacket rounds.
---END QUOTATION---



rule 2 of the geneva convention explicitly refers to expanding bullets as prohibited.


---QUOTATION---
Rule 2: The use of expanding bullets or materials calculated to cause unnecessary suffering is prohibited.
---END QUOTATION---

  15:23:54  9 January 2005
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
Snakeskin
(Novice)
 
On forum: 01/08/2005
Messages: 12

---QUOTATION---

for the record, im english

---END QUOTATION---



yup saw that, sorry pal. You have the same icon as x[something] so no critics against you. Although that Blair guy can be discussed, but since i know that a majority of the english population is against the war already, i guess that the only british individual i have a problem with is him. No offense and sorry for the mistake.

as for saddam? iraq's a tough country to rule. - agreed, especially when you have no idea what to do with it..

have the coalition done it any better than he did? - well, as it is now, i would say wait and see. But i certainly dont think there has been any revolutionary changes, because Bush does not look to the population as his first priority, and he is counting on europe to help rebuild it.

is there less torture or unfair inprisonment now? - well.. probably a little less, but under saddam you could understand it. He was a ruthless dictator. Now with american youths (call them soldiers if you want) tying up, and stripping prisoners and then pissing on them, and all the hasted imprisonment of "terrorists" i would say its up for discussion. Like we have seen the american government also has a little habit of sending these "terrorists" to egypt for example, to be tortured.

less violence? - Certainly no, for the average citizen they are probably just as scared as before, having to look out for superior-acting americans, and iraqi freedom fighters.

have ordinary iraqi's stopped being spirited away in the middle of the night never to be seen again? - Not in a grand scale i guess, but what do i know? Now it seems they are abducted at daytime, accused for terrorism instead.

have the coalition killed less iraqi's than saddam? - I would guess about the same number, with all the scared-to-pieces but trigger happy "soldiers" down there i would say noone goes safe, not even other soldiers as we have seen. If we count up all the people Bush has indirectly killed, well.. we have a new saddam there.

have the iraqi's been freed to rule themselves? - Under the rule of people chosen by the american govenment to protect its oil interests? Well.. no.

do they have more civil liberties under the coalition? - I guess so, but this is also one of the wait-and-seers as the rulers will probably change. But on this point i think Bush has succeeded, but he is not exactly looking after the people as one of his first interests.

what difference does it make to the iraqi's if they are killed in a civil war or a foreign invasion? - The same shit, but feelings start to stir against the invaders instead, resulting in more freedom fighters.


is there a moral distinction between being killed by a roadside bomb, or gunned down by a humvee gunner protecting his convoy? - Well the bomb could kill anyone, civilians aswell, while the gunner should kill the ones he sees as enemies. But with all american "soldiers" down there i guess the distincion isnt all that great.


And i like to look at the american society as one of the ancient cultures they slaughtered when arriving, although they wouldnt know about that only reading american history in school. The president is acting in gods interests and is seen as a link to god. And when he needs to he uses god to summon the american patriotism to justify his deeds. /S
  15:49:00  9 January 2005
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
x5060
Resident Nobody
(Resident)

 

 
On forum: 07/23/2003
 

Message edited by:
x5060
01/09/2005 15:49:43
Messages: 2015

---QUOTATION---
Oh make no mistake, i do not sympatize with saddam hussein. The guy is full of crap and was one of the most oppressing dictators in our time. Although i say the same about Bush, though he is more subtle.
But as you may see, if you choose to see it, Bush´s little revenge/"go for the oil!"/find someone to blame for 911 (how the hell anyone can see a connection??) thingie has gone way out of control with the people in iraq feeling oppressed and many take arms against the oppressors.
---END QUOTATION---



Well this war is not for oil. if you think that your a fool. You would know that if you were to look at our oil prices we now pay 1.70$-1.80$ a gallon for gas and in several places upwards of 2.60$. at the start of the war we were paying 1.10$-1.20$ a gallon. If you say we're doing it for the oil then this make NO SENSE. You need to stop believing everything you hear.

As for your connection, just keep believing what everyone else has told you, its much easier than thinking.
[link]http://www.freewebs.com/x5060/sadamn2.JPG[/link]


---QUOTATION---
This has not been helped by many americans acting superior and childish in iraq. As it is now no solution can be created with military power, but Bush still hasnt drawn the troops out of iraq. Why? Because he was foolish enough not to keep iraq´s police and military intact, and he cannot leave a country to riots. He has fucked up and he knows it. All the while trying to mask the money missing and dollar dropping even lower, by using the "war on terror" to scare americans into supporting him.
---END QUOTATION---



Seeing as to how the so called police force and military was such a corupt orgonization that was responsible for the ATROCITIES of saddam i dont see how you could trust them to run the country and protect it. Personally i dont know anything about "missing money" but we are dumping billions of dollars into rebuilding that country so they will have a better life. what has your country done for them?


---QUOTATION---
There are VERY few outside america that thinks the war was justified, probably because we have more space to think on our own and we are not controlled by FOX news and propaganda here and there.
---END QUOTATION---



You dont think its justified becasue you ignore the problem, because YOU are not the target. Someday your country will get a turn at what happened to us, then you will cry "why did you let this happen to us!?!?!" Adn we will be blamed, like usual for anything we do and everything we dont do.


---QUOTATION---
I could go on about how Bush have made it possible for the already extreme crime and violence in america go up, by allowing automatic weapons, or eliminating people that are against him by making it difficult for them to vote or ever removing their voting rights if they have served time in jail (many low-class citizens and black ppl). Have you seen Michael Moores films or read his books? They are certainly angled and exaggerated aswell but they point to facts that still exist and would doom any politician here in europe. I could go on for a while about Bush and many other things, like gun-toting americans and weapons culture, how the society is controlled by religion and money, how americas leaders only cara about america by for example not signing the kyoto-convention (wtf is up with that!?) and so on.. but i choose not too. If you still want to hear them you can send me a mail. And yes.. God Bless America.. really.. your going to need it. /S
---END QUOTATION---



We have a comparitivly low crime rate to most other countries including but not limited to all of africa, all of south america, most of eroupe (with the few exceptions of Germany, Switzerland, denmark, and norway), and most of the southern asian countrys and china.

Americans are also not allowed to own automatic weapons in normal situations. You must pay thousands of dollars to apply for a title 2 classification, then compound that the BATFE can turn you down for no more reason than they dont like the sound of your name. then you have to wait 2 years then you have to deal with the least expensive fully automatic weapon is about 6000$.

I havent heard of anyones voting rights being TAKEN AWAY. Ive heard of people that showed up to vote that had no identification, no way of proving who they are, or who are not US citizens being turned down to vote.

I carry a weapon, i dont see exercising my right to self protection as a liability as you do.

And personally, im atheist.


---QUOTATION---

PS. If anyone feel offended by this, please mail me instead of spamming this otherwise useful thread, arguments only thanks.
---END QUOTATION---



Your the one that decided this would take place in a public forum, not i. Its convient to spout garbage then say im being childish because i defend myself in the same medium as you.


---QUOTATION---
rule 2 of the geneva convention explicitly refers to expanding bullets as prohibited.
---END QUOTATION---



Hrm, they changed the wording since i last remmember the geniva convention. Are they still on the fourth convention text or did they revise it?
  16:40:50  9 January 2005
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
Snakeskin
(Novice)
 
On forum: 01/08/2005
Messages: 12

---QUOTATION---

Well this war is not for oil. if you think that your a fool. You would know that if you were to look at our oil prices we now pay 1.70$-1.80$ a gallon for gas and in several places upwards of 2.60$. at the start of the war we were paying 1.10$-1.20$ a gallon. If you say we're doing it for the oil then this make NO SENSE. You need to stop believing everything you hear.
---END QUOTATION---



Keep telling yourself that. Ever heard of preparing for the future? The oil will be depleted in roughly 50 years, and until then Americas government is going to try to get their flotty hands on any oil they can find, so yes.. the war is about the oil, and it makes a lot of sense. If you think Bush went to war against the opinion of most of the world and on vague reasons to help a country, then you are a fool.


---QUOTATION---
As for your connection, just keep believing what everyone else has told you, its much easier than thinking.
---END QUOTATION---


Funny to hear you saying that..


---QUOTATION---

Seeing as to how the so called police force and military was such a corupt orgonization that was responsible for the ATROCITIES of saddam i dont see how you could trust them to run the country and protect it. Personally i dont know anything about "missing money" but we are dumping billions of dollars into rebuilding that country so they will have a better life. what has your country done for them?
---END QUOTATION---



The majority of policemen and soldiers were of course not corrupt. They were ordinary guys like police in Sweden or soldiers in America. If you think that every one in iraq, or any muslim is evil - a bad guy, then it is you using stereotypes. It would have sufficed to replace the authorities, the leaders. Perhaps with americans or the like but still. Then gradually leave the country while giving the new iraqi leaders something to keep teir country secure with.


---QUOTATION---

You dont think its justified becasue you ignore the problem, because YOU are not the target. Someday your country will get a turn at what happened to us, then you will cry "why did you let this happen to us!?!?!" Adn we will be blamed, like usual for anything we do and everything we dont do.
---END QUOTATION---



Yeah, perhaps someday someone will see Sweden as a suppressing nation and fly a couple of planes into something here. But we will certainly not blame George Bush or Saddam for it, because it probably was the act of an independent organization. We dont need an "evil guy" to shake our fists at.
About america being blamed, i think to some degree that it is justified. By all means you have got the resourses to stop many evils in the world, but you dont. Barricading inside your country of "freedom" spending money on the military and other useful things. If the military budget in america was used one day to research a cure for AIDS it would most likely find one. It is not all about you, and if you really want to be looked up to as an ideal for others, then act that way, help people in need instead of spurring the conflict in Jerusalem for example. Or for starters just help the population in your own country, equalize the class differences between people in america instead of helping the rich get even richer. American dream.. bah.. i would like to see a black woman as the president of the united states.


---QUOTATION---

We have a comparitivly low crime rate to most other countries including but not limited to all of africa, all of south america, most of eroupe (with the few exceptions of Germany, Switzerland, denmark, and norway), and most of the southern asian countrys and china.
---END QUOTATION---



I do not know where you got your numbers but the number of deaths in america caused by weapons is bizarre compared to other countries for example. Seen Bowling for Columbine lately? I for one would not feel safe living in a country like that.


---QUOTATION---

Americans are also not allowed to own automatic weapons in normal situations. You must pay thousands of dollars to apply for a title 2 classification, then compound that the BATFE can turn you down for no more reason than they dont like the sound of your name. then you have to wait 2 years then you have to deal with the least expensive fully automatic weapon is about 6000$.
---END QUOTATION---



I did not know that, thanks for telling me. But weapons is so much easier to get hold of in america compared to Sweden for example. Justify it if you want by calling it items of protection or wahtever, if the criminals never got a hold of firearms you would not have to either.


---QUOTATION---

I havent heard of anyones voting rights being TAKEN AWAY. Ive heard of people that showed up to vote that had no identification, no way of proving who they are, or who are not US citizens being turned down to vote.
---END QUOTATION---



Then i am telling you now, once again. People having served time in USA do not have the privilege of voting anymore. I dont know about you but here we see a prisoner as having made up for his crime when his time in jail ends. Bush´s largest amount of votes isnt exactly from former criminals and poor. By creating this law he easily eliminated some opposition.


---QUOTATION---

I carry a weapon, i dont see exercising my right to self protection as a liability as you do.
---END QUOTATION---



I do not carry a weapon, and i am proud of it. I feel safe walking the streets hours after midnight without a firearm, because i know that this country has not got nearly the amount of gun-toting lunatics as yours does.


---QUOTATION---

And personally, im atheist.
---END QUOTATION---



Good for you. Mee to.


---QUOTATION---

Your the one that decided this would take place in a public forum, not i. Its convient to spout garbage then say im being childish because i defend myself in the same medium as you.
---END QUOTATION---



Well, firstly i do not see my statements as garbage. Neither do i see yours as garbage, because in most areas you have had good arguments and valid points. I have not said you were being childish, if you consider your posts irrelevant, and childish that is entirely you. i merely wished to stop the answers that might go something like this:

"fuck you you americanhater, your just jealous cos u dont live in the best coutry of the wold and is free like us!!!!1111!!!"

Thanks for me. /S
  06:30:50  10 January 2005
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
Doc Jones
Older than before
(Resident)

 

 
On forum: 10/09/2003
 

Message edited by:
Doc Jones
01/10/2005 6:37:32
Messages: 2008
No-one who really crunches the numbers chants "blood for oil".


---QUOTATION---
---QUOTATION---

Well this war is not for oil. if you think that your a fool. You would know that if you were to look at our oil prices we now pay 1.70$-1.80$ a gallon for gas and in several places upwards of 2.60$. at the start of the war we were paying 1.10$-1.20$ a gallon. If you say we're doing it for the oil then this make NO SENSE. You need to stop believing everything you hear.
---END QUOTATION---


Keep telling yourself that. Ever heard of preparing for the future? The oil will be depleted in roughly 50 years, and until then Americas government is going to try to get their flotty hands on any oil they can find, so yes.. the war is about the oil, and it makes a lot of sense. If you think Bush went to war against the opinion of most of the world and on vague reasons to help a country, then you are a fool.
---END QUOTATION---



Yeah, a pretty typical response.

It was all on TV.

US asks UN to go in on them with a resolution against Iraq.
Iraq did not comply.
US took action because we got damn tired of waiting for UN to fulfil their end of the resolution.

Oh sure, the WORLD never had any thought that the US would take military action when they signed the resolution, right.
  18:07:06  10 January 2005
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
baff
Senior Resident
 

 
On forum: 04/16/2004
 

Message edited by:
baff
01/10/2005 18:56:51
Messages: 708

---QUOTATION---
Oh sure, the WORLD never had any thought that the US would take military action when they signed the resolution, right.
---END QUOTATION---



sorry doc but thats a gross distortion of history.

no resolution was tabled. let aloned signed.
the british wanted to propose one but realising there was no support for it, didn't bother.

the british parliament voted for war only on the premise of a u.n. resolution.
no resolution was even tabled. the brits still went to war.
democracy in action.
3 million people took to the streets in the largest protest in the history of great Briton.


there was a resolution tabled for operation desert fox or maybe desert storm i believe.
perhaps that is the one you are refering to.

in fact the members of the u.n. security council at the time promised that should a resolution be tabled they would vote against it. with the vote already unable to be won, france even went so far as to promise to use their veto. (something it has never actually done but often prevaricates).
had an attack been in the intrests of the other members of the u.n., they would have signalled their willingness to vote for action. it wasn't so they didn't.

if it makes things any clearer, the president of the u.n. described the coalitions actions as "illegal". (and, predictably, has since been demonised by the bush administration).


had it not been a key requisite of the parlimentry vote here, it would not have been an issue.
we have mounted attacks in both iraq and kosovo without u.n. sanction previous to this one.


it's too easy to blow off against either the u.s. or the u.n. on this one.
diplomatically bush is about as popular as hitler at the moment, his clear disregard for the U.N. reminds everyone of hitler and the league of nations. it's almost word for word.
he's almost daring it to bring sanctions against him. unbelieveable.
the u.n was started by the u.s. and idealistically is the closest system we have to a global democracy. 10 years ago the U.S. was seen as it's natural leader. how things change.
the u.s. people will live under a cloud of bad feeling for many years to come. and like with the germans the rest of the world won't allow them to forget.

comicaly my american friends and relatives all say they are german or canadian whilst over here these days. saves a load of abuse.

i get earbashed about iraq on the continent because i'm british, but it has yet to start bar brawls like it does here with the yanks.

funny old world.
  18:30:09  10 January 2005
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
baff
Senior Resident
 

 
On forum: 04/16/2004
 

Message edited by:
baff
01/10/2005 18:34:41
Messages: 708

---QUOTATION---
but since i know that a majority of the english population is against the war already
---END QUOTATION---


it's about half and half.

we're british. we love war.

it would take one hell of a defeat (and we've had a few), to put us off it.

most of the disatisfaction comes from the politcal storytelling we have had to put up with.

had they said, "the americans are good old boys lets go to war beside them"
or
"it's important for the (longterm) u.s. economy and we have a lot of pension funds tied up there"
or
"our army will get sloppy if it doesn't get some action"

we would have been a lot more comfortable with the current situation.

there has alway been a strong anti war lobby here, but it will never get in power. at least not until we are utterly and humiliating crushed in combat in the stlye of germany or japan in ww2.
we're too proud of our military tradition not to want a chance to demonstrate it.
the last government to refuse to go to war (1938) got promptly unelected.
  21:07:58  10 January 2005
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
Doc Jones
Older than before
(Resident)

 

 
On forum: 10/09/2003
Messages: 2008
Resolution 687
Resolution 1205
Resolution 1284

No, there was no new resoulution it would have been redundant. But we were getting a little POed that the "enforcement" of the resolutions was nada.
  22:23:22  10 January 2005
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
baff
Senior Resident
 

 
On forum: 04/16/2004
 

Message edited by:
baff
01/10/2005 22:34:02
Messages: 708

---QUOTATION---
Resolution 687
Resolution 1205
Resolution 1284

No, there was no new resoulution it would have been redundant. But we were getting a little POed that the "enforcement" of the resolutions was nada.
---END QUOTATION---




687 was enforced
1205 was enforced
1284 was enforced



saddam was in full compliance with all security resolutions.
u.n. weapons inspectors under hans blix confirmed this.
(had they not done, our generals would not have been so willing to commit our troops).

colin powel gave that great presentation showing all of saddams breaches, blix checked them and found all the intelligence to be in error.
so we invaded.

if your familiar with sun tzu's art of war, you may find that particular moment to be a masterstroke of military generalling. powells finest hour. he must have been grinning his little face off to himself back in the hotel room that night.

with the benefit of hind sight.......
history has confirmed blix and saddam as correct.
even the u.s. weapons inspector has recanted.


ultimately
it is not for america or britain to decide whether u.n. resolutions have been complied with or not, the decision rides with the security council.
thats the point of having a u.n.
to stop individual nations going off half cocked into needless wars that interefere with everyone elses intrests.
to keep the peace.

we have a "veto" to stop ludicrous mandates, but not a "carte blanche" to make them.

1441 was the resolution we were all cited in britain as our u.n. mandate. we all swore blind that even if he wasn't in breach of it, (and all the evidence said he wasn't), he wanted to be and that was good enough for us.
even though 1441 had already been enforced, we thought we might as well enforce it some more and mount our weapons inspectors on tanks this time.

there was no u.n. mandate.
but who could stop us?

as for the americans being POed.
that about sums it up. you have been since 11/9.

the big question is, are you all over it yet, or is the blood still pumping?
  20:32:20  11 January 2005
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
x5060
Resident Nobody
(Resident)

 

 
On forum: 07/23/2003
 

Message edited by:
x5060
01/11/2005 20:32:56
Messages: 2015
Ok, sorry it got kind of hectic at work and this is the first time ive gotten a chance to look at anything other than work in the past few days. A lots happened in the thread and i dont want to make this long becasue im tired and want ot go to bed.

1. We arnt sending our soilders out for oil. America is already make an effort to move to better cleaner fuel sources. with tens of billions of dollars put toword research for new fuel sources, we are leading every other country in funding for such research.

2. You were suppose to look at the picture. =

3. Every country has this thing called the "Black Market" as things become banned and outlawed other illegal markets will increase to adapt for a shortage. Basic economic principle mandates this. This only leaves all the law abiding citizens defensless.

4. Im glad you feel safe, I dont live in a very good part of town, and work will call me away to even worse areas then where i live. You may have the luxury of feeling safe everywhere you go, but not everyone does.

5. The UN hasent done anything useful in the world since October 24, 1945. They have not stoped one war, ended one famine, or even had a positive ROI. they suck up the money of all countries that could be doing some good somewhere, and the delegates have only become corrupt.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/01/11/wun311.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/01/11/ixnewstop.html
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/104ccmvi.asp
http://nypost.com/news/worldnews/38017.htm
http://washingtontimes.com/world/20050107-125919-3038r.htm

Thank you and good night.
  20:54:20  11 January 2005
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
ulukai
Senior Resident
 

 
On forum: 11/04/2004
 

Message edited by:
ulukai
01/12/2005 9:41:56
Messages: 220
A bit off-topic, but....:

Has anyone access to P90 (or other modern weapons)?
I'm modeling P90 in 3dsmax and however ridiculous it may sound, I have searched web like mad, bud could not find images from some view points (have found tons from side view).

If someone has access to p90 and could take some shots..., it would be great!

Thanks.
  01:53:00  12 January 2005
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
x5060
Resident Nobody
(Resident)

 

 
On forum: 07/23/2003
Messages: 2015

---QUOTATION---
A bit off-topic, but....:

Has anyone access to P90 (or other modern weapons)?
I'm modeling P90 in 3dsmax and however ridiculous it may sound, I have searched web like mad, bud could find images from some view points (have found tons from side view).

If someone has access to p90 and could take some shots..., it would be great!

Thanks.
---END QUOTATION---



Uh, i got some close up pics. I dont own one though, I know a few people though, what shots do you need?
  09:41:00  12 January 2005
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
ulukai
Senior Resident
 

 
On forum: 11/04/2004
 

Message edited by:
ulukai
01/12/2005 9:46:02
Messages: 220

---QUOTATION---
Uh, i got some close up pics. I dont own one though, I know a few people though, what shots do you need?
---END QUOTATION---


Well, any good (800x600) pics would help, but these especially:

1.) shots from these angles:
[link]http://test333.szm.sk/p90_01.jpg[/link]
[link]http://test333.szm.sk/p90_04.jpg[/link]
[link]http://test333.szm.sk/p90_05.jpg[/link]

2.) close-ups of these parts
[link]http://test333.szm.sk/p90_02.jpg[/link]
[link]http://test333.szm.sk/p90_03.jpg[/link]


I rendered those images from "pre-production" stage of modeling, where I try to find the basic shapes, so these by no means represent the final quality of this product


--EDIT--
In previous post I have written: ".... searched web like mad, bud could find images from some..." - but it should be: ".... mad, bud could NOT find...."
  14:31:17  12 January 2005
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
x5060
Resident Nobody
(Resident)

 

 
On forum: 07/23/2003
Messages: 2015
Ok, well i dont think i can get SPECIFIC pics of those areas but these might help. And one thing that i see is missing the most from your model is the charging handle, thats the thing that you use to rack a new round into the chamber.

[link]http://www.freewebs.com/x5060/IMG_2995.JPG[/link]
This is a P90R that i got my hands on at the Knob Creek shoot last year. The R is the rail system at the top of the mag well. the thing that my right index finger is touching is the charging handle.

[link]http://www.freewebs.com/x5060/IMG_2996.JPG[/link]
This will give you a decent view of the very front, This model has the integral laser in the front of the weapon (thats the little trapiziodal plate right below the muzzle).

[link]http://www.freewebs.com/x5060/fn_p90.JPG[/link]
This is the original P90. Notice the lack of any rail system and no integral laser. though it does have an integrated reflex sight, but it sucked.

[link]http://www.freewebs.com/x5060/laser.JPG[/link]
Again showing hte front with the laser which has become a standered feature.

[link]http://www.freewebs.com/x5060/FNP90_10.JPG[/link]
Look at that piss poor trigger disciplin. anyway, a shot from a trade show.

[link]http://www.freewebs.com/x5060/FNP90_4.JPG[/link]
David Crane shooting a newer tri-rail version (P90L) with an Aimpoint.

[link]http://www.freewebs.com/x5060/FNP90_5.JPG[/link]
From the back.

Ok the next are some interesting conversions i found. These are prototypes that were developed early in the program. I kind of like them, they are definatly interesting looking.

[link]http://www.freewebs.com/x5060/02-top.JPG[/link]
This was definatly an interesting variation. Notice that hte rear grip was broken away from the rear receiver and the lack of a front grip. that front covering looks like a rifle forward grip.

[link]http://www.freewebs.com/x5060/top.JPG[/link]
This is the line of thought that lead to the current smooth gripped approach.

[link]http://www.freewebs.com/x5060/fn_civil_p90.JPG[/link]
This is the up and comming civi version of the p90. Just to kind of show the evolutionary progression of hte P90's unique erganomics.

Open the last 3 pics in diffrent windows and flip from the first pic to the last one, its an interesting progresion.

Hope you found this slightly helpful.
  17:16:26  12 January 2005
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
ulukai
Senior Resident
 

 
On forum: 11/04/2004
 

Message edited by:
ulukai
01/12/2005 17:17:49
Messages: 220
Thank you very,very much for all those pics. I found most useful IMG_2995.JPG and IMG_2996.JPG. It's really rare to find images of that resolution on web.



---QUOTATION---
And one thing that i see is missing the most from your model is the charging handle, thats the thing that you use to rack a new round into the chamber
---END QUOTATION---

Will be there for sure.


---QUOTATION---
Ok the next are some interesting conversions i found. These are prototypes that were developed early in the program. I kind of like them, they are definatly interesting looking.
---END QUOTATION---

Never seen those pics before, thanx. I like them too. I don't know why, but they somehow remind me of some other weapon... can't remember the name..... (maybe TAR-21 or SAR-21?)


---QUOTATION---
[link]http://www.freewebs.com/x5060/top.JPG[/link]
This is the line of thought that lead to the current smooth gripped approach.
---END QUOTATION---

I like this one.

BTW that's you and your beard on IMG_2995.JPG ?

AND THANKS
  18:41:20  12 January 2005
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
doggydog
Tripping on waste
(Resident)

 

 
On forum: 03/06/2004
Messages: 1524

---QUOTATION---
BTW that's you and your beard on IMG_2995.JPG ?

AND THANKS
---END QUOTATION---



yep, that should be him.
  21:57:11  12 January 2005
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
x5060
Resident Nobody
(Resident)

 

 
On forum: 07/23/2003
Messages: 2015

---QUOTATION---

Ok the next are some interesting conversions i found. These are prototypes that were developed early in the program. I kind of like them, they are definatly interesting looking.Never seen those pics before, thanx. I like them too. I don't know why, but they somehow remind me of some other weapon... can't remember the name..... (maybe TAR-21 or SAR-21?)
---END QUOTATION---



Are you talking about hte Tavor? It was developed by Israel, its a really nifty weapon that is a mix of the Israeli made Galil, the British SA80, and the South American Vector. its a pretty nifty weapon.

[link]http://www.imi-israel.com/images/tarbig.jpg[/link]
This is the standered tavor.


[link]http://www.imi-israel.com/images/microbig.jpg[/link]
This is the Microtavor.



---QUOTATION---
BTW that's you and your beard on IMG_2995.JPG ?

AND THANKS
---END QUOTATION---



yeah thats me and my beard.
  22:33:04  12 January 2005
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
ulukai
Senior Resident
 

 
On forum: 11/04/2004
 

Message edited by:
ulukai
01/12/2005 22:33:57
Messages: 220

---QUOTATION---

Are you talking about hte Tavor? It was developed by Israel, its a really nifty weapon that is a mix of the Israeli made Galil, the British SA80, and the South American Vector. its a pretty nifty weapon.

---END QUOTATION---


Yes, I was talking about Tavor. Both Tavor and SAR-21 (by Singapore Technologies Kinetics) are nifty.

Also I have never hold any weapon (except airgun, but that doesn't count ), I somehow like some of the "cool" weapons (in similar way as you "like" a car for example). Some of my favourite weapons: Glocks, Berreta 92 FS, Desert Eagle, P90, HK MP-5N, Steyr AUG, XM8, FAMAS, Bofors AK5D.......

BTW: How do you like Beretta Cx4 Storm? Pretty gun .
[link]http://test333.szm.sk/CX4_2.gif[/link]
[link]http://test333.szm.sk/CX4_3.gif[/link]
[link]http://test333.szm.sk/CX4_10.gif[/link]
  23:13:41  12 January 2005
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
x5060
Resident Nobody
(Resident)

 

 
On forum: 07/23/2003
Messages: 2015

---QUOTATION---

Also I have never hold any weapon (except airgun, but that doesn't count ), I somehow like some of the "cool" weapons (in similar way as you "like" a car for example). Some of my favourite weapons: Glocks, Berreta 92 FS, Desert Eagle, P90, HK MP-5N, Steyr AUG, XM8, FAMAS, Bofors AK5D.......
---END QUOTATION---



Glocks = icky
Deasrt Eagle = cliche
FAMAS = PIECE OF CRAP


---QUOTATION---
BTW: How do you like Beretta Cx4 Storm? Pretty gun .
[link]http://test333.szm.sk/CX4_2.gif[/link]
[link]http://test333.szm.sk/CX4_3.gif[/link]
[link]http://test333.szm.sk/CX4_10.gif[/link]
---END QUOTATION---



Its a decent gun but there are a few draw backs.

1) no factory 30 round mags (it uses Beretta 96 mags)
2) Trigger is sloppy at best.
3) No collapsible stock and also that stock has been known to break.
  00:05:37  13 January 2005
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
ulukai
Senior Resident
 

 
On forum: 11/04/2004
 

Message edited by:
ulukai
01/13/2005 0:06:40
Messages: 220

---QUOTATION---
Glocks = icky
Deasrt Eagle = cliche
FAMAS = PIECE OF CRAP
---END QUOTATION---


Can't help myself with the glocks (17,19), they don't look somehow exceptional, but I like them.
Eagle - yes cliche, I don't like it as much as it could look from my post, it's more like I would like to try and shoot a few bullets from it (just to know how it feels).
FAMAS - is it really so bad?. I just liked it's terse design, don't like it anymore


---QUOTATION---
Its a decent gun but there are a few draw backs.
---END QUOTATION---


Well, I just like it's shape.
  03:00:31  13 January 2005
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
Doc Jones
Older than before
(Resident)

 

 
On forum: 10/09/2003
Messages: 2008

---QUOTATION---
Glocks = icky
---END QUOTATION---



Do you mean ugly?
  05:58:14  13 January 2005
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
IceShade
Tactical Ignorance
(Resident)

 

 
On forum: 04/05/2004
Messages: 1037
I like .. mm.. Bofors 40mm. I'll hire a few monkeys to ride it around with in the zone, nothing can stop me!

*Evil sinister laugh*
  08:11:10  13 January 2005
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
ulukai
Senior Resident
 

 
On forum: 11/04/2004
Messages: 220

---QUOTATION---
Glocks = icky

Do you mean ugly?
---END QUOTATION---


I think he meant "ickie".
  12:07:38  13 January 2005
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
x5060
Resident Nobody
(Resident)

 

 
On forum: 07/23/2003
Messages: 2015

---QUOTATION---

I think he meant "ickie".
---END QUOTATION---



I dont like them because its a souless weapon, and they have a higher kaboom rate than anyother weapon.
  14:19:17  13 January 2005
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
DrSbaitso
(Novice)
 
On forum: 01/11/2005
Messages: 19
Besides it's bullpup configuration and the fact that it's not American, what's wrong with the FAMAS? I've only heard good things about it.
  17:25:18  13 January 2005
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
doggydog
Tripping on waste
(Resident)

 

 
On forum: 03/06/2004
Messages: 1524

---QUOTATION---
Besides it's bullpup configuration and the fact that it's not American, what's wrong with the FAMAS? I've only heard good things about it.
---END QUOTATION---



Exactly my question too.
  20:55:08  13 January 2005
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
x5060
Resident Nobody
(Resident)

 

 
On forum: 07/23/2003
Messages: 2015

---QUOTATION---
Besides it's bullpup configuration and the fact that it's not American, what's wrong with the FAMAS? I've only heard good things about it.
---END QUOTATION---



I have nothing against foeign weapons and i have nothign against bullpup weapons. I like the SA80, P90, Styer AUG, FN2000, which are ALL foriegn and bullpup.

1) It will not accept USGI standered mags. That means they reinvented the wheel so they didnt have to rely on American made parts. The USGI magazine is considered to be the best mag in production today, it is used by the FN2000, SA80, AR-15/M-16/AR-18, and countless other weapons.

2) the Delayed lever blowback system killed its reliability. There is a reason that this bolt extration system hasent been used in 40 years.

3) No rail system what so ever. So you have to find an adapter if you want a scope and thats assuming they make one for your scope that fits the FAMAS, or if the FAMAS has on that fits your scope. This also means NO forward vertical grips, NO Flashlights, NO attachments of any kind.

4) To field strip the thing you ahve to take it ENTIRLY apart, and its also a lot more complex than it needs to be. So putting it back together is a pain.

I got to mess around with one at a gun show, it was a little bit on the heavy side, but not enough to be considered a negative aspect.
  03:25:40  14 January 2005
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
kano
resident genius
(Resident)

 

 
On forum: 11/07/2003
Messages: 284
bring on the glock 19
  10:05:26  14 January 2005
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
DrSbaitso
(Novice)
 
On forum: 01/11/2005
 

Message edited by:
DrSbaitso
01/14/2005 10:06:20
Messages: 19
[link]http://world.guns.ru/assault/as21-e.htm[/link]

The FAMAS come in many different modifications, as well as having provisions for a picatinny or weaver rail system in the handle.
  10:14:06  14 January 2005
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
DrSbaitso
(Novice)
 
On forum: 01/11/2005
Messages: 19
As for the SA-80, here's a "glowing" review from one of its users...

"...In conclusion, I cant say I know what went wrong when the SA-80 was made, the design in theory would appear to be of near kalashnikov simplicity, maybe it is all the fault of the famous British trade unions? For a modern assault rifle, the SA-80 is uncomfortable to carry (especially concerning the position of the cocking handle and its desire to slip into bruising your arm on long tabs), the rifle is too heavy for its size (it even has a weight in the forward hand guard to balance the weapon), and its reliability and general durability are sub-standard to an alarming degree. I have had the mis-pleasure of seeing people breaking off warn top covers and seeing trigger mechanism housing pins falling out near at will. On the other side of things the rifle is marvellously accurate on the range, and so long as it is kept near 100% clean and well oiled it will perform well. However everybody other than the MoD seem to realise that keeping a rifle perfectly clean when in a muddy trench for extended periods of time when it is pissing it down with rain drops the size of hamsters heads isn't exactly practical, the rifle 556 is hardly of kalashnikov quality. Back to the other hand, the various sights for the rifle are all durable and of high quality (I have never heard of a SUSAT getting broken), maybe those chaps at Enfield were making a target rifle after all? In my opinion, although the SA-80 is not as bad as some make it out to be, it is in Britains best interest to replace it with a real rifle asap, maybe keeping the SUSAT's and bayonets. The reason it has gone down so poorly with those who have to use it is probably due to comparing it with the previous issue SLR, whereas the SLR was a lion, the SA-80 is a cockroach (an annoying bugger which you cant get rid of). I would hate to think how our casualties might have looked if we had adopted the SA-80 before the Falklands conflict of 82."

http://world.guns.ru/assault/as22-e.htm
  13:07:22  14 January 2005
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
x5060
Resident Nobody
(Resident)

 

 
On forum: 07/23/2003
Messages: 2015

---QUOTATION---
http://world.guns.ru/assault/as21-e.htm

The FAMAS come in many different modifications, as well as having provisions for a picatinny or weaver rail system in the handle.
---END QUOTATION---



And that requires a COMPLETE replacement of the Upper Reciever. Have fun taking your entire firearm apart so you can put on a rail system. and that rail system is only along the top of the Reciever and is for a scope. again, no laser sights, no flashlight, no vertical grips.


---QUOTATION---
As for the SA-80, here's a "glowing" review from one of its users...

"Blah blahblah blah blah"

http://world.guns.ru/assault/as22-e.htm
---END QUOTATION---



First of all you shouldent be getting all your information from the russian world gun site. You have to watch what information you get from there because its not always 100%. Try expanding your referances to other site, or dare i say "Google".

http://www.cybershooters.org/sa80.htm
  14:22:01  14 January 2005
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
DrSbaitso
(Novice)
 
On forum: 01/11/2005
Messages: 19
You said there was no rail system whatsoever. There obviously is one, that's all I needed to say.

As for that review of the SA-80 that you provided, it's basically like the one that I read, only with a target-shooters spin put on it so that it looks more positive. Really it acknowledges much of the shortcomings of the rifle, but lauds its superior accuracy. If it's an unreliable weapon, all the accuracy in the world won't save you in the field.

Anyway, I don't want to get into a hubbub about this. Sorry if I'm coming off a bit punchy, but I felt there was another side that should be told.
  00:53:09  15 January 2005
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
x5060
Resident Nobody
(Resident)

 

 
On forum: 07/23/2003
Messages: 2015

---QUOTATION---
You said there was no rail system whatsoever. There obviously is one, that's all I needed to say.

As for that review of the SA-80 that you provided, it's basically like the one that I read, only with a target-shooters spin put on it so that it looks more positive. Really it acknowledges much of the shortcomings of the rifle, but lauds its superior accuracy. If it's an unreliable weapon, all the accuracy in the world won't save you in the field.

Anyway, I don't want to get into a hubbub about this. Sorry if I'm coming off a bit punchy, but I felt there was another side that should be told.
---END QUOTATION---



Alright, i guess i should have said "No plossibly useful rail system." As for its short commings, Im just wondering if you have nay experiance with said weapon?
  02:19:32  17 January 2005
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
Fux0r666
resident smart-ass
(Resident)

 

 
On forum: 06/04/2003
Messages: 1927

---QUOTATION---

Alright, i guess i should have said "No plossibly useful rail system." As for its short commings, Im just wondering if you have nay experiance with said weapon?
---END QUOTATION---



Personal experience should be taken with a grain of salt because anecdotal evidence that points toward a preference is subjective. The only reason why I trust what you say is because you are somewhat of a professional- and I take your preferences under advisement.

From what I've gleaned about the SA80 is that it is accurate but it's heavy and could be better. It was refurbished by H&K, I believe, and the problems were sorted. It's a shame that Enfield wasn't more consciencious about taking the evaluations of the ar-180 into account in the first place. I think there is a reason that the armalite website says that the sa80 is regarded as the world's worst contemporary assault rifle.
  21:08:18  17 January 2005
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
baff
Senior Resident
 

 
On forum: 04/16/2004
 

Message edited by:
baff
01/17/2005 21:13:02
Messages: 708

---QUOTATION---

From what I've gleaned about the SA80 is that it is accurate but it's heavy and could be better. It was refurbished by H&K, I believe, and the problems were sorted. It's a shame that Enfield wasn't more consciencious about taking the evaluations of the ar-180 into account in the first place. I think there is a reason that the armalite website says that the sa80 is regarded as the world's worst contemporary assault rifle.
---END QUOTATION---



compared to the slr, it's light as a feather.
further to this since it's a bulpup most of the weight is behind the elbow.
so it is not noticably heavy (due to leverage i suppose).
it doesn't tire the arms.
weight is something i like in a weapon. dampens the recoil and allows for a faster rate of fire.
it doesn't feel as plasticy as the ar series. but it's not as reassuring as an slr or ak. it never occoured to me that it would do someone in if i clubbed them around the head with it.

i've never tried one in the field, so i can't speak for it's reliability.
it's been used in every climate on the planet and subsequently fine tuned.
while there has been much bad press about the sa80. in particular the number of jams in afghanistan, what most reports fail to mention, is that it was tested alongside the m4 carbine, which performed substantially worse.

in operation anaconda
27 out of 54 of the 101st airborne interviewed after operation anaconda said that their m4's had jammed in combat, while 3 out of 7 minime users said that on contact with the enemy, the weapon had failed to fire completely.

compare this to the 1/3 of the sa 80 testgroup malfunctioning, and while still utterly pathetic compared to an ak, it's not quite as bad as it has been made out to be. desert enviroments have never been kind to automatic weapons.

on the otherhand
---QUOTATION---
But that was sharpshooters on a rifle range. On a dusty, hot hilltop in Afghanistan in May a group of British and U.S. Marines came under fire from suspected al Qaida militants and they returned fire. The American M-16s fired perfectly, the British Marines' SA-80 A2s didn't, suffering several stoppages
---END QUOTATION---


it's not a one sided debate. the incident this bloke refers to (excuse me but my movie has started and i've lost the right quote) is one where an 8 man squad of royal marines (i suspect) engages al quada, all the guns jam except the 2 out of 8 who are using m16's with grenade launchers. which don't.
the m203 laucher had a glowing report from afghanistan. but sinc it's not an automatic weapon, that is hardly surprising


the problem with the sa80, is that it's not the slr.
comparatively, it is either an excellently reliable weapon, or very unreliable. the opinions differ depending on what you are comparing it with.

british soldiers were not comparing the weapon with other 5.56 assault rifles on the market, but instead with the 7.62 fn rifle they were used to.
once the old timers have all moved on or adjusted to the new weapon, much of the maligning has ended.
  02:10:26  18 January 2005
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
x5060
Resident Nobody
(Resident)

 

 
On forum: 07/23/2003
Messages: 2015

---QUOTATION---

Personal experience should be taken with a grain of salt because anecdotal evidence that points toward a preference is subjective. The only reason why I trust what you say is because you are somewhat of a professional- and I take your preferences under advisement.

From what I've gleaned about the SA80 is that it is accurate but it's heavy and could be better. It was refurbished by H&K, I believe, and the problems were sorted. It's a shame that Enfield wasn't more consciencious about taking the evaluations of the ar-180 into account in the first place. I think there is a reason that the armalite website says that the sa80 is regarded as the world's worst contemporary assault rifle.
---END QUOTATION---



You are correct, anecdotal evidence isnt the best type of evidence, however, one should not jsut jump on hte bandwagon of hating for studies that are BASED on anecdotal evidence. The only reason the SA80 has a bad wrap is becasue of horror stories told about it. Just like how the M16 was vilified back in vietnam.

It is a good weapon, not the best, and somewhere i do believe that i said it was a might bit heavy, its not the perfect weapon, but its no slouch.
  04:37:02  18 January 2005
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
Harry-the-Ruskie
(Senior)
 
On forum: 10/07/2004
Messages: 75
Are there any good books on the SA80 ?? ....one that tells the story from a proper perspective, not just the negatives.

Also I like to learn more about the Kalashnikov series of weapons ? Do you have any recommended authors/titles ?

Thanks
  13:32:19  18 January 2005
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
x5060
Resident Nobody
(Resident)

 

 
On forum: 07/23/2003
Messages: 2015

---QUOTATION---
Are there any good books on the SA80 ?? ....one that tells the story from a proper perspective, not just the negatives.

Also I like to learn more about the Kalashnikov series of weapons ? Do you have any recommended authors/titles ?

Thanks
---END QUOTATION---



I dont think anyone has ever made a book about the SA80. Not exactly a great market, you might be able to find a field manual though.

As for AK's, we have a TV channel in America called "The History Channel" and they have a program called "The way of the gun" and they devoted an entire 2 hour episode to AK's. Its was VERY interesting.
  14:28:20  18 January 2005
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
baff
Senior Resident
 

 
On forum: 04/16/2004
 

Message edited by:
baff
01/18/2005 14:31:41
Messages: 708

---QUOTATION---
Are there any good books on the SA80 ?? ....one that tells the story from a proper perspective, not just the negatives.

I dont think anyone has ever made a book about the SA80. Not exactly a great market, you might be able to find a field manual though.

---END QUOTATION---


nice review here
http://www.smallarmsreview.com/pdf/sa80.pdf

also theres a good article in the guardian newspaper charting it's development.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,808713,00.html

as for being a bit heavy, i recommend vitamin pills.
  17:02:05  18 January 2005
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
Fux0r666
resident smart-ass
(Resident)

 

 
On forum: 06/04/2003
Messages: 1927

---QUOTATION---
Are there any good books on the SA80 ?? ....one that tells the story from a proper perspective, not just the negatives.

I dont think anyone has ever made a book about the SA80. Not exactly a great market, you might be able to find a field manual though.

nice review here
http://www.smallarmsreview.com/pdf/sa80.pdf

also theres a good article in the guardian newspaper charting it's development.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,808713,00.html

as for being a bit heavy, i recommend vitamin pills.
---END QUOTATION---



Lol. You'll be begging for more than vitamin pills after lugging the thing around in an 8 hour march with 60 extra lbs of gear.
  02:21:50  19 January 2005
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
x5060
Resident Nobody
(Resident)

 

 
On forum: 07/23/2003
 

Message edited by:
x5060
01/19/2005 2:22:08
Messages: 2015

---QUOTATION---

as for being a bit heavy, i recommend vitamin pills.

---END QUOTATION---



Why would i want to carry 5kgs of vitamins?
  12:44:22  19 January 2005
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
baff
Senior Resident
 

 
On forum: 04/16/2004
 

Message edited by:
baff
01/19/2005 12:56:03
Messages: 708

---QUOTATION---


Lol. You'll be begging for more than vitamin pills after lugging the thing around in an 8 hour march with 60 extra lbs of gear.
---END QUOTATION---




i used to lug the slr.
5.1 kg loaded without a sight.
and also the bren which is 10.2kg loaded.
(back when i was a (more) puny teenager).

sa80 5kg loaded with a sight. no problem.


the sa80 is alright by me.
it's a lot easier to carry, it comes with that really nifty sling,
(http://www.fightdirector.com/sa80.JPG )

it's a lot less cumbesome than the slr, as the total length is so much less. (.78 metres vs 1.1 metres) or the .986 metres of the m16. but more importantly it's not so heavy to hold out in an extended unsupported aim.

lactic acid build up and whatever is much less. due to it's bulppup configuration, most of it's weight is centred around the elbow, as opposed to an slr or ar where most of the weight is centred over the hand or even further out.

if you consider that the force exerted (leverage?) is weight times the distance from the fulcrum, you will see that, whatever your personal strength and fitness, the sa80 can be accurately aimed unsupported for many many many more minutes than an slr. (or even a plasticy little ar) .
it's almost the same actual weight as an slr, but requires a fraction of the joules (calories) to aim.

when not aimed, it's sling allows for it to be flexibly carried at arms, with most of the weight transferred to the shoulders. as previously mentioned this transfers most of the weight away from the extremeties and reduces the amount of joules/calories required to carry it.

it may be more or less similar in weight to it's predecessor, but it is a joy to carry.
it can be carried ready to use, without as much interference from undergrowth, it's lighter, and ultimately costs less muscle energy to move making it much less tiring. "ergonomics" i think they call it.


consider this compared to saving the extra 1.5 kgs, for carrying an m16 (3.4kg loaded for the ladies).
if 60 kg vs 61.5kg is really an issue for you, your probably going to join an army that never marches anywhere anyway (for fear of breaking your stillettoes).


get back into your humvee deathtrap, weakling!
  13:09:19  19 January 2005
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
x5060
Resident Nobody
(Resident)

 

 
On forum: 07/23/2003
 

Message edited by:
x5060
01/19/2005 13:09:58
Messages: 2015

---QUOTATION---
(.78 metres vs 1.1 metres) or the .986 metres of the m16.
---END QUOTATION---



Now remmember, M16's come in ALL shapes and sizes.

Everything from
[link]http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-10/849717/OLYOA93.jpg[/link]
to
[link]http://www.freewebs.com/x5060/gear.jpg[/link]
to
[link]http://www.impactguns.com/store/media/bus_24fvar9.jpg[/link]


---QUOTATION---
(or even a plasticy little ar)
---END QUOTATION---



I RESENT THAT!!@!! The AR/M16 family is entirly Forged Aluminium and Steel. There are ONLY 3 plastic parts on the entire thing, the stock (which you can get metal ones), the pistol grip, and the forward grip. Your SA80 has more plastic than an M16.


---QUOTATION---
(3.4kg loaded for the ladies)

get back into your humvee deathtrap weakling!
---END QUOTATION---



Your begging for a boot to the ass now.
  14:22:00  19 January 2005
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
baff
Senior Resident
 

 
On forum: 04/16/2004
Messages: 708
sa80 comes in different shapes and sizes too.

you can get sa80 in carbine mini and squad support also. whats your point?

bullpups provide the same barrel length in a shorter rifle.
thats the way it is. famas, steyr, groza, whatever. it's a design principle.
bullpups are shorter.


this one should fit quite nicely in my wifes handbag.
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-10/849717/OLYOA93.jpg
right next to her hand mirror and mascara.

in all honesty that one is a contender for the worlds most pointless assault rifle award. looks nice though. very pretty. it would be nice to see a painted one.

i don't find the build of sa80's especially rugged either. but ar's are truely horrible. they feel like toys.
featherweight recoil monkeys.

aluminium explains a lot.
does it bend when you bump it against things?

holding a loaded firearm instills me with a unassailable feeling of self confidence. m16 is no exception. it is however the least confident i have ever been holding a weapon.

again, like with the sa80, i would never contemplate clubbing someone around the head with one, for fear of breaking it.
  13:03:03  21 January 2005
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
x5060
Resident Nobody
(Resident)

 

 
On forum: 07/23/2003
Messages: 2015
The recievers and barrel are not aluminium, the are steel. The internals are aluminium(except the hammer). Personally i dont see how the weapon being light is a bad thing, easier to present.

As for the rest, i know bullpups are shorter, it is inherant in the design. The M16/AR15 can be just as short though (and shorter).

Anywya, im sorry that you dont like it, but it is the weapon im use too. Im sure i wouldent feel very "confident" with an SA80, which you probably know more about than i do. I know more about the M16 family, thus im more comforrtable and confident with it.
  21:53:11  22 January 2005
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
baff
Senior Resident
 

 
On forum: 04/16/2004
 

Message edited by:
baff
01/22/2005 21:57:31
Messages: 708

---QUOTATION---
The recievers and barrel are not aluminium, the are steel. The internals are aluminium(except the hammer). Personally i dont see how the weapon being light is a bad thing, easier to present.

As for the rest, i know bullpups are shorter, it is inherant in the design. The M16/AR15 can be just as short though (and shorter).

Anywya, im sorry that you dont like it, but it is the weapon im use too. Im sure i wouldent feel very "confident" with an SA80, which you probably know more about than i do. I know more about the M16 family, thus im more comforrtable and confident with it.
---END QUOTATION---



my theory is you fall in love with the one you use the most.

again the length of the rifle with same length barrel is shorter in a bulppup. clearly from that picture above an m16 can be modified to a shorter length, but then we are no longer dealing with a comparative weapon. (perhaps an ingrams or a mini uzi would be closer).

i'm not confident with either. i prefer the bulk and ergonomics of the sa80 to wield. but it's too light for me.

my reasoning for weight is simple. managable recoil for automatic fire.
the heavier the gun, the better the grouping. and something that makes for a serious club. rightly or wrongly, i associate weight with a sturdy build.
i'm used to the lee enfield, the slr (and the ak). both lee enfield and slr are pigs for a little bloke like me to present.
i'm used to heavy guns, so thats what i prefer. wood is big plus also. i like wood.

although the sa80 weighs almost the same (or more in the case of the lee enfield), it is much easier to present.
i was surprised to learn that it weighs that much. i didn't realise until i looked it up after your post. it certainly doesn't feel like that, and it is really easy to swing it about.

the bulk of the weight is behind the wrist, not infront of it. it's heavier than the ak, but "feels" lighter. despite it's extra weight (the weight of the sight), it takes less energy to present it. even though it wieghs more, it's still easier.

length,
being the aforementioned shorty, i have issues with barrels scraping on the floor. especially with heavy rifles when my weak little arms are tired. at school, we used to do some of that parade drill where you port arms by luzzing it over your shoulder and all that spinning stuff. i used to get very embarrassed when i wasn't tall enough (or strong enough) to do this without spiking the barrel on the ground. really didn't enjoy that.
anything that is physically shorter, without compromise to performance is right up my street.

i dislike the sa80 for the same reason's i dislike the m16.
but bulppup configuration is a clear step forward.
i'd like to try some more, see if i can find one with a rugged design.

are you a serviceman 5060?
you were saying leavenworth maybe?

what do they do there?
  15:08:02  23 January 2005
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
x5060
Resident Nobody
(Resident)

 

 
On forum: 07/23/2003
Messages: 2015

---QUOTATION---

i dislike the sa80 for the same reason's i dislike the m16.
but bulppup configuration is a clear step forward.
i'd like to try some more, see if i can find one with a rugged design.
---END QUOTATION---



I have no problem with bullpups, Its a good design, but there are some flaws. Such as catching brass in your teeth, and not being able to use the weapon fluidly ambidextrously. which is VERY important for tactical situations. This is why we train all branchs and soldiers to shoot ambi.


---QUOTATION---
are you a serviceman 5060?
you were saying leavenworth maybe?

what do they do there?
---END QUOTATION---



Fort leavanworth is out in kansas. Its an ARMY instilation. Its one of the Major Command Stations for the ARMY.

Im not a serviceman, im a civie, but I am a training consultant. I teach dynamic entry, weapon maintainence (M16, M203, SAW, M9, Mk23(discontinued), USP Tactical(the Mk23's replacement), and Sig P226N) marksmenship, and tactical awarness. Right now we are working with 844th Engineer Battalion, 76th Infantry, IMA graduates, and elements of the 10th Mountain (been showing those army guys what National Guard can do)
  21:20:11  30 January 2005
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
Extreme Pilot
(Novice)
 
On forum: 03/09/2004
Messages: 25
I assume that when that somebody said "The bigger the round, the better", they meant that both rounds are flying at the same speed, only the larger one will do more damage.
  12:31:23  31 January 2005
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
x5060
Resident Nobody
(Resident)

 

 
On forum: 07/23/2003
Messages: 2015

---QUOTATION---
I assume that when that somebody said "The bigger the round, the better", they meant that both rounds are flying at the same speed, only the larger one will do more damage.
---END QUOTATION---



Maybe someone saaid it, but its not true. The design of the round is more important. At anywhere less than 300 yards, the 5.56 round has a better wounding capability than a 7.62.Thats because the 7.62 tumbles through a target and a 5.56 fragments (or almost explodes). For that statement to be true, as you said, all variables would have to constent between the 2 rounds.
  22:36:37  19 April 2005
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
kingofapes21
(Novice)
 
On forum: 04/12/2005
Messages: 12
Actually in the US alot of the police services and what not are switching to the .40 calibre hollowpoint for its stopping power but still able to control and good magazine size
  18:38:42  20 April 2005
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
Fux0r666
resident smart-ass
(Resident)

 

 
On forum: 06/04/2003
Messages: 1927
I think that perhaps they're switching to the heavier hollowpoint because parabellum hollowpoints penetrate insufficient amounts of flesh to be effective and parabellum fmj rounds overpenetrate.
  13:52:24  23 April 2005
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
x5060
Resident Nobody
(Resident)

 

 
On forum: 07/23/2003
Messages: 2015

---QUOTATION---
Actually in the US alot of the police services and what not are switching to the .40 calibre hollowpoint for its stopping power but still able to control and good magazine size
---END QUOTATION---



Personally i hope they all do, 40sw is a good round. Theres also a place up in michigan that is going to 45. BTW .40 has always been on the accepted calibur lists for departmental use.
  19:08:44  16 May 2005
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
Stiletto
(Novice)
 
On forum: 05/16/2005
Messages: 10
Pet peeve:
7.62x39 isn't any better than 5.56x45, and is arguably worse.

Even with a nice long barrel (think an SKS), the round is crazy inaccurate past about 200 meters. It'll still kill someone, but it'll be damn hard to actually plink your targets on purpose. With a full-length barrel (and even with a short-ish one, like an M4), 5.56 is at least effective out to 300m; Marines train with standard M16s out to 500.

You can't do that with an SKS or AK-47.

7x62x54, now (the traditional Russian full-power round since before WWI), is another story entirely. That's what the Mosin-Nagants use (the Finns still use them as sniper rifle bases, I think), along with the SVD, SVU, and all sorts of other general-purpose rifles.
  20:38:13  16 May 2005
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
vasillij
(Novice)
 
On forum: 05/15/2005
Messages: 27
After seeing the new movie (older now though) I saw that, the stalker the goes up first takes a shot inn his left upper leg, and his @$$.

He didn't show any kinds of motion on that (maybe syntetic(?) )
But as soon as the army stalker opened full fire.. He was doomed.

Maybe not army stalker (^^)
  22:55:09  16 May 2005
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
x5060
Resident Nobody
(Resident)

 

 
On forum: 07/23/2003
Messages: 2015

---QUOTATION---
Pet peeve:
7.62x39 isn't any better than 5.56x45, and is arguably worse.

Even with a nice long barrel (think an SKS), the round is crazy inaccurate past about 200 meters. It'll still kill someone, but it'll be damn hard to actually plink your targets on purpose. With a full-length barrel (and even with a short-ish one, like an M4), 5.56 is at least effective out to 300m; Marines train with standard M16s out to 500.

You can't do that with an SKS or AK-47.

---END QUOTATION---



THe drop characteristics and the tumble of the round also dont do nearly as much permanent crush damage. using Q3131A (its a .223 load) teh effective range of an M4 can be extended to about 600M Which is well beyond what normal engagments will be at.
  00:19:28  17 May 2005
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
Stiletto
(Novice)
 
On forum: 05/16/2005
Messages: 10

---QUOTATION---
THe drop characteristics and the tumble of the round also dont do nearly as much permanent crush damage. using Q3131A (its a .223 load) teh effective range of an M4 can be extended to about 600M Which is well beyond what normal engagments will be at.
---END QUOTATION---

Well, you're not supposed to use assault rifles past about 300m anyway, that's what main battle rifles and DMRs are for.

But at 200m, where both rounds are effective, would you rather have an accurate round (5.56) or a heavy round (7.62)? Yeah, the 7.62 will thump your target a bit harder, but it'll be a lot easier to actually hit your target in the first place with 5.56.
  01:46:43  17 May 2005
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
x5060
Resident Nobody
(Resident)

 

 
On forum: 07/23/2003
Messages: 2015

---QUOTATION---
Well, you're not supposed to use assault rifles past about 300m anyway, that's what main battle rifles and DMRs are for.
---END QUOTATION---



Who the hell said that? Also assault rifles and MBR are reffered to as teh same thing. They are meaningless terms. and one mans hunting rifle is another mans DMR. Id be carful when using terminology like that. They are commonly misunderstood and misused (like in this post).


---QUOTATION---
But at 200m, where both rounds are effective, would you rather have an accurate round (5.56) or a heavy round (7.62)? Yeah, the 7.62 will thump your target a bit harder, but it'll be a lot easier to actually hit your target in the first place with 5.56.
---END QUOTATION---



Well as i said before the .223 has more wound potential than a 7.62. the XM193 and any other round are designed to fragment into a person as where the 7.62 can only create a wound channel as wide as it is tall. Again the .223 is supperior to 7.62 in every way except one. The 7.62 merely has the mass and velocity for penetration. As where the .223 can take out armoured targets, but its not as efficent.
  02:00:20  17 May 2005
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
Stiletto
(Novice)
 
On forum: 05/16/2005
Messages: 10
^^^

Near as I can tell, I used AR and MBR exactly correctly: ARs for close range operations where volume of fire is stressed, MBRs for longer-range operations where precision and individual shot power (hence heavier calibers, like 7.62x51) are stressed.

MBRs are unsuitable (or at least inappropriate) to close quarters (think Iraq), whereas ARs are unsuitable for open field (think Afghanistan).

At any rate, the terms are not interchangeable. O_o

As for body armor, I think both the 7.62x39 and 5.56 rounds do OK against personal armor, but the 7.62 does better through barriers (less likely to break up in transit).
  04:04:18  17 May 2005
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
x5060
Resident Nobody
(Resident)

 

 
On forum: 07/23/2003
 

Message edited by:
x5060
05/17/2005 4:06:44
Messages: 2015

---QUOTATION---
^^^

Near as I can tell, I used AR and MBR exactly correctly: ARs for close range operations where volume of fire is stressed, MBRs for longer-range operations where precision and individual shot power (hence heavier calibers, like 7.62x51) are stressed.
---END QUOTATION---



Not quite, seeing as to how you made the nonuniversal distinction between them. An "AR" as you put it, can easily be good out to 500M as well as some "MBR's" that are only good to 100M. And ill save the debate about the distinction between the 2 for a later time if you REALLY want to go into that.


---QUOTATION---
MBRs are unsuitable (or at least inappropriate) to close quarters (think Iraq), whereas ARs are unsuitable for open field (think Afghanistan).
---END QUOTATION---



My FAL will do JUST fine in CQB. and my AR will do just fine out to 600M . Again your putting a clearly drawn line in a murky pond.


---QUOTATION---
At any rate, the terms are not interchangeable. O_o
---END QUOTATION---



But you cant come up with a clear distintion between the 2. (not to mention the given term "Assualt Rifle" dosent actually mean anythign, neither does "Main Battle Rifle" )


---QUOTATION---
As for body armor, I think both the 7.62x39 and 5.56 rounds do OK against personal armor, but the 7.62 does better through barriers (less likely to break up in transit).
---END QUOTATION---



Thats why i said this:

---QUOTATION---
Again the .223 is supperior to 7.62 in every way except one. The 7.62 merely has the mass and velocity for penetration. As where the .223 can take out armored targets, but its not as efficent.
---END QUOTATION---



(Dont confuse armored with body armor)
(And that "breaking up in transit" is keyholing or fragmenting)

P.S. You arent the first person to make these understandable mistakes, i get scrubies comming in all the time taht think they know thier shit about weapons. Its my job, and others, to make sure they actually understand that they dont know anything. Then we tell them the reality of firearms.
  06:14:00  17 May 2005
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
Stiletto
(Novice)
 
On forum: 05/16/2005
Messages: 10
Hmm.

[url=http://anarchangel.blogspot.com/2005/03/right-weapon-for-job.html]Right Weapon for the Job[/url] - Pretty much where I'm getting my definitions.

I guess I'm a bit more nebulous in using the terms than I ought to be; I'll defer to you on that.

As for FAL being suitable to CQB, sure you can do it, but the things are a meter long. If you were going in on a house-to-house op, would you rather have a FAL or a smaller, lighter-caliber/higher-capacity (controllably full-auto) carbine?

Anyhoo, if you spawn another thread, I'll join in.
  12:59:08  17 May 2005
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
Fux0r666
resident smart-ass
(Resident)

 

 
On forum: 06/04/2003
Messages: 1927
The term assault rifle was coined by the good folks in nazi germany to refer to their new class of weapon that they were devising- the sturmgewehr. The word is essentially meaningful given the need for such a classification. I think it's losing it's relevence due to the fact that all armies are choosing assault rifles as their choice of infantry weapon- but, certainly, there is a meaningful difference between an m16 and an m14. They are so different that I believe that they are actually not the same thing, and therefore they need some kind of distinction.

But, then again, what is an assault rifle? A rifle that is capable of fully automatic fire? The M16A2 is not capable of it (although it is a factory option). Yet another shade of murk in the murky pond.
  13:41:14  17 May 2005
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
x5060
Resident Nobody
(Resident)

 

 
On forum: 07/23/2003
Messages: 2015

---QUOTATION---
Hmm.

[url=http://anarchangel.blogspot.com/2005/03/right-weapon-for-job.html]Right Weapon for the Job[/url] - Pretty much where I'm getting my definitions.
---END QUOTATION---



I read the first few lines and now know what problem you are having. He reffers to AR not as "Assualt Rifle" but as Eugene Stoners AR serise of weapons. (The AR15, M16, M4)


---QUOTATION---
I guess I'm a bit more nebulous in using the terms than I ought to be; I'll defer to you on that.

As for FAL being suitable to CQB, sure you can do it, but the things are a meter long. If you were going in on a house-to-house op, would you rather have a FAL or a smaller, lighter-caliber/higher-capacity (controllably full-auto) carbine?
---END QUOTATION---



My FAL isnt a meter long =

its 2 feet 4 inchs... Again, your trying to use generalities. You cant use them with weapons, there is too much variation between all of them. Thats like saying a every human is 5'8". Well thats not true, the average human, might be 5'8" but you cant say that every FAL is a meter long. Again, you are still trying to make a definite line, in an area that isnt definite. A lot of governments use G3's in thier arsenals for room to room.

Now, im not arguing whether one is better suited than the other. But arguing that your terms you are using are nothing more than Media generated BS. The term Assualt rifle as it is presently used was taken from the media taht used it to describe the evil killing power of scary looking weapons. Same as the term "Sniper Rifle", "Cop-killer bullets", and "Saturday night Specials". There is no clearly defined meaning behind any of these terms. Instead they are there to be used to sound scary. YOU gave them what your definition of what an "Assualt rifle" means to you. As soon as you classify somethign as an "Assualt Rifle" there is always exceptions that dont fit that criteria.

P.S. As Fux is starting to understand. There is no way of designating what an "Assualt Rifle" is.
  15:49:17  17 May 2005
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
Stiletto
(Novice)
 
On forum: 05/16/2005
 

Message edited by:
Stiletto
05/17/2005 16:01:33
Messages: 10

---QUOTATION---
My FAL isnt a meter long =

its 2 feet 4 inchs... Again, your trying to use generalities. You cant use them with weapons, there is too much variation between all of them. Thats like saying a every human is 5'8". Well thats not true, the average human, might be 5'8" but you cant say that every FAL is a meter long. Again, you are still trying to make a definite line, in an area that isnt definite. A lot of governments use G3's in thier arsenals for room to room.
---END QUOTATION---

Eh? Which model do you have? The stats I was working (World.Guns.Ru) have it at 1.1m for the original full-length rifle, and 990/736 stock extended/folded for the shortened version. So the 2'4" number only applies if you have the stock folded. (Assuming a standard rifle, it seems there are a few exotics out there)

I know fully well that the article was saying "AR" as in Stoner's AR-15 line. The article also described the "Assault Rifle" concept in depth as opposed to the "Battle Rifle" concept. Read through Part 1. Assault rifle is used as a descriptor of the tactics associated with the rifle, ditto battle rifle. If I didn't see the terms used fairly often on non-MSM sites, I would just say "automatic rifle" or "combat rifle" and keep it generic; instead I find that the two terms are defined well enough (for me) that the distinction is useful and I can save the words otherwise necessary in describing a rifle to someone who has never heard/seen of it.

The distinctions are a little fuzzy, but as described in the article, you can fit pretty much any modern combat rifle into the category of "assault rifle" or "battle rifle". As I see it, it mainly breaks down along the 5.56x45/7.62x51 line; the Russians beat us to the squad fire DMR organization when they did AKs and SVDs.

Also, what military did you serve in? (Just curious, don't shoot me) And do you have pics of your FAL?
  05:15:57  18 May 2005
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
Mark Spittle
(Senior)
 
On forum: 02/20/2005
Messages: 96

---QUOTATION---

I say if your enemy isnt fighting per the Geneva Convention, we shouldent have to either. Hollowpoints, Hydrashoks, and EFMJs all around.
---END QUOTATION---



Yeah, that's why all these macho dickheads use rifles when hunting bears.

Following that logic, I say if the bear isn't using rifles, then you shouldn't either. Use your big ass claws. And if you don't have claws, then I guess yer shit outta luck, and shouldn't be bear hunting.

That's why the US has a civilian government run the military. Left to their own devices, the military would reduce civilization to a pack of dogs, killing each other over trash.
  09:20:01  18 May 2005
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
Fux0r666
resident smart-ass
(Resident)

 

 
On forum: 06/04/2003
Messages: 1927
x5060: It is possible to create an operational definition for both. I'm not starting to understand, I've read and considered a lot of information. Things is science aren't so cut and dried, either, but this is not to say that classifications and taxonomy are useless, media hype. Furthermore, not every classification is a collection of media buzzwords. Some are actual 3d dimensional weapon concepts, as Stiletto described, and the terms are useful in so far as they are descriptive.

Take, for example, the term Squad Automatic Weapon. Those words are totally meaningless but for the use it is implying. It is a concept of warfare, and a part of military doctrine.

Shortened FAL would be FAL carbines . I think that what Stiletto was describing is standard issue.

Stiletto: I think that Eugene Stoner uses AR for Automatic Rifle, no? Or am I mistaken?
  13:46:10  18 May 2005
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
x5060
Resident Nobody
(Resident)

 

 
On forum: 07/23/2003
Messages: 2015

---QUOTATION---
x5060: It is possible to create an operational definition for both. I'm not starting to understand, I've read and considered a lot of information. Things is science aren't so cut and dried, either, but this is not to say that classifications and taxonomy are useless, media hype. Furthermore, not every classification is a collection of media buzzwords. Some are actual 3d dimensional weapon concepts, as Stiletto described, and the terms are useful in so far as they are descriptive.
---END QUOTATION---



Oi, I really hate arguing semantics. You have your beliefes in this regard, I have mine.


---QUOTATION---
Take, for example, the term Squad Automatic Weapon. Those words are totally meaningless but for the use it is implying. It is a concept of warfare, and a part of military doctrine.
---END QUOTATION---



Yes, but SAW is a weapon designation, there is only one weapon with taht designation. The M249 is the only weapon that can be called a SAW.


---QUOTATION---
Shortened FAL would be FAL carbines . I think that what Stiletto was describing is standard issue.
---END QUOTATION---



Yes, but its still an FAL, is it not? you can swap out the barrel on a SI FAL and get a carbine. (Just to make sure, the term carbine is a descripter not a part of a new designation, with1 or 2 exceptions)


---QUOTATION---
Stiletto: I think that Eugene Stoner uses AR for Automatic Rifle, no? Or am I mistaken?
---END QUOTATION---



This is true. Though most people dont know, but the first few rifles that reached vietnam where full auto only. As you can tell this changed very quickly.
  17:53:33  18 May 2005
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
Stiletto
(Novice)
 
On forum: 05/16/2005
 

Message edited by:
Stiletto
05/18/2005 17:55:38
Messages: 10
Meh. Right then, I think this is where we agree to disagree, or something.

As for SAW, I think the United States is the only country to actually call their squad LMG the "squad automatic weapon". I don't get why we don't just call the thing a Squad LMG and be done with it, other than the military obsession with TLAs.

What do you guys think about the 6.8SPC vs. 6.5 Grendel debate?
  23:43:51  18 May 2005
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
Fux0r666
resident smart-ass
(Resident)

 

 
On forum: 06/04/2003
Messages: 1927
x5060:

It wasn't really a semantic argument so much is it was a conceptual one... but this is a semantic argument right now so I'm going to shut up.

I respect your opinion, and it is a founded one and it is very convincing. I am fortunate to have people like you and Stiletto to debate with. You guys are not only smart but you're good communicators, and you don't come off like you have something to prove. It's really refreshing.

An impression about the SAW that I am under but could not cite sources for, so don't ask :

SAW superceded PIG as the squad machinegun role. It's only seen in america because it's part of the tactical american military doctrine, is it not?

I don't know much about the new rounds being considered, so I'll let you guys go off on it and just read what you write for a change.
  04:00:52  19 May 2005
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
Stiletto
(Novice)
 
On forum: 05/16/2005
Messages: 10
Eh?

What does PIG stand for?
  06:31:09  19 May 2005
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
Fux0r666
resident smart-ass
(Resident)

 

 
On forum: 06/04/2003
 

Message edited by:
Fux0r666
05/19/2005 6:41:45
Messages: 1927
Personal Infantry Gun. It applies the m60. The name itself is equally meaningless to SAW, but PIG marks an epoch in machinegun design where a machinegun could be carried and operated by one man. Asbestos mittens asside, the design was much more advanced and tailored towards a single operator. It was certainly lighter and more portable than the m1919.
  14:53:23  19 May 2005
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
doggydog
Tripping on waste
(Resident)

 

 
On forum: 03/06/2004
Messages: 1524

---QUOTATION---
m1919.
---END QUOTATION---



The BAR? (how ironic )
  22:15:29  19 May 2005
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
Fux0r666
resident smart-ass
(Resident)

 

 
On forum: 06/04/2003
Messages: 1927
The BAR is not the m1919. The BAR is the M1918. The m1919 is a belt fed .30 calibre machinegun.
  23:34:32  19 May 2005
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
x5060
Resident Nobody
(Resident)

 

 
On forum: 07/23/2003
Messages: 2015
Sorry i wasnt back earlier, but im officially an uncle now. Let me tell all you youngins out there, changeing dipers sucks.


---QUOTATION---
other than the military obsession with TLAs.
---END QUOTATION---



And that is the WORST thing ever, it took me almost 2 years to learn all the ones i needed to know.


---QUOTATION---
What do you guys think about the 6.8SPC vs. 6.5 Grendel debate?
---END QUOTATION---



Im a big supporter of the 6.8 (hate the 6.5) in the long run, but still preffer the 5.56. The guy that owns the grendel trademark has a tendancy to sue people who merchandise the name without giving him a cut. wich basically makes him the ONLY producer of the rounds.

[quote]M1919{/quote]

Ah yes, the M1919. a revolutionary weapon for its time.

[link]http://gunthings.com/1919pagetop.jpg[/link]

Though with a little conversion, this weapon could be feilded with a single man (in an upright position). But it was a pain.
 
Each word should be at least 3 characters long.
Search:    
Search conditions:    - spaces as AND    - spaces as OR   
 
Forum Index » S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Shadow of Chernobyl Forum » Gameplay & Balance
 

All short dates are in Month-Day-Year format.


 

Copyright © 1995-2020 GSC Game World. All rights reserved.
This site is best viewed in Internet Explorer 4.xx and up and Javascript enabled. Webmaster.
Opera Software products are not supported.
If any problem concerning the site functioning under Opera Software appears apply
to Opera Software technical support service.