Weapons of Choice

[Shmibli7]

First, please note that this has no intention of being political in the respect of gun rights\ control, so if anyone on either side of this argument try to make this thread political, I will do everything in my power to have their comments removed.

That being said, if you were a warrior,  spy, etc. What would your preferred weapons be?

For me, in the category of blades, I would use a kukri or a scimitar.  I loved blades with a curve. The skill demonstrated when someone uses a curved blade is beautiful.

In the way of firearms, I would use either a P64 pistol in 9mm Makarov or a CZ-70 pistol in .32 auto.

If I wad in a fictional universe, anything ray-based (laser swords, blasters.)  would be fine with me.

I'm curious to see what weapons you would prefer.

[OneUnder]

A Smith and Wesson Model 10 (both versions) would be great.  You can't beat that classic blue finish and wood grips, and the fact that there is something almost nostalgic about the humble wheelgun.  Perhaps a few speedloaders would also be in order, and while I am partial to snub-nosed barrels, I think the standard 4" will do.

Pre-Revision Model

Post-Revision Model

[Shmibli7]

8 minutes ago, OneUnder said:

A Smith and Wesson Model 10 (pre-revisioninor beautifulsion) would be appreciated.   

Smith & Wesson do have that appeal. I have not had the oppurtunity to handle one but seeing the Model 29 In the hands of Dirty Harry and James Bond shows that the people at S&W make beautiflu guns (If one should call a gun beautiful)

[That Ain't Falco]

Give me a staff and turn me loose. There's a reason why I always play a monk, and it's to hit people with a weighted stick.

[Vy'drach]

What situations are you askin' about? Because I'm the kind of guy that tailor fits my weapon choice to a situation.

[Shmibli7]

34 minutes ago, Vy'drach said:

What situations are you askin' about? Because I'm the kind of guy that tailor fits my weapon choice to a situation.

Hmm... An "Oh, God. Here they come! Get ready!" type thing.

[Vy'drach]

1 hour ago, Shmibli7 said:

Hmm... An "Oh, God. Here they come! Get ready!" type thing.

Well what's coming? What environment? Normal humans? Need to be loud or silent? In building? Long range? Anti-vehicle? Each one is a different answer, just ask a simple situation like that and I shall answer, if you want to know.

 

But I'll go ahead and answer the ones I put in there, assuming normal humans, I'd pick for:

• In building - Loud, FN P90 and FN Five-seveN with a shotgun of some form as well, maybe not my favourite one, the SPAS-12, because of its weight and the lack of needing its specialized nature (you can chamber special ammunition without needing to go through the magazine, but if you're just firing pellets no need for that or it's ability to be swapped between pump/semi). Maybe an AA-12, while relatively light for what it is, it's still got a lot of weight to it, but it is a fully automatic 12 gauge shotgun with insane recoil control.
  
  
  
  The P90 and FN Five-seveN sidearm are due to being incredibly compact but having high reliability, stopping power (you'll find I'm a stickler for this), capacity, and low recoil. P90 has a 50 round capacity with a total length of less than 20 inches, and the 5.7x28mm round it fires is known for having stopping power like a .45 ACP, recoil like a 9mm parabellum, and with military ammunition (can't get it as a civilian), armor penetrating capabilities (one of the few times military grade beats civilian). The Five-seveN is due to using the same ammunition, and as a decently compact pistol it has a 20+1 capacity. Plus it is also very reliable.
   
• In building - Quiet, an AS VAL or some other 9x39mm rifle, any of them are good, really. And a .45 ACP sidearm, probably an H&K USP or more likely Mk 23 SOCOM, which is a match grade, beefier USP .45 designed for special forces. The 9x39mm rifle is because 9x39mm ammunition is subsonic, meaning that it doesn't break the sound barrier and thus it won't make the "crack" as the bullet travels through the air, in addition to the weapon itself being suppressed, and 9x39mm also has high stopping power and low recoil, and penetrates armor rather well still. The .45 ACP sidearm is because .45 ACP is also subsonic by nature and has high stopping power, and while it lacks in penetrative power, it has been proven that it is nigh impossible for an average human to remain standing when shot with one within 20 or so feet, regardless of whether it penetrates flesh, the impact force alone knocks people down.
   
• Long range - Loud, If we're talking loooooong range, that's a toughie, because there's a lot of choices and all, basically any Barrett .50 BMG or similar works, .338 Lapua rifles work too (current record holder for longest confirmed kill), but I'd probably take a Zastava M93 "Black Arrow," can use match-grade .50 BMG ammunition (as any distance rifle would want match-grade), and utilizes the tried and true Mauser bolt action.
   
• Loooooong range - Silent, plenty of suppressed options to choose from, the ones I listed can be suppressed, but subsonic ammunition isn't good for distance shooting, but I have one very clear contender for this spot, the VSSK "Vykhlop."  Bullpup, subsonic .50 caliber, lacks the range of traditional fifties, with a 12.7x55mm cartridge instead of the traditional 12.7x99mm that is the .50 BMG, but it is subsonic so it doesn't make the crack, the rifle is suppressed so it doesn't make a loud report, it still can reach out and touch someone, and has great penetration, as in it can still pierce walls and kill light vehicles.
   
• Medium to long range - Loud, any battle rifle would do me just fine, FN FAL, H&K G3, M14, but I'd probably go with a Mk 17 MOD 0, AKA FN SCAR-Heavy, because like my other choices, it's reliable, and unlike the others, it's very modular. Fires 7.62x51mm NATO, my favourite caliber, still in use as a sniper round, but it can still be comfortably fired fully automatic with experience. Sidearm doesn't really matter because you don't use one long range, hitting at 100m with one has a high degree of luck involved.
   
• Medium to long range - Silent, see previous answer, add suppressor, no need for subsonic ammunition this time around. Lock in Mk 23 SOCOM as sidearm for reasons stated earlier.
   
• Anti-vehicle, there is no silent option here, but for man-portable, RPG-32, most recent RPG I believe, fires a 105mm projectile, not sure it's penetration capabilities against active and dynamic protection, but older version, the RPG-30  had 650mm effectiveness when hitting it, the M1A2 Abrams from the front hull has about that (determining armor efficiency is difficult due to so many variables to take into consideration) so if the newer model has better penetration, has quite the potential to pierce the front hull of an M1A2 Abrams with all of it's protection intact, definitely so if you hit it from the side/rear/top, or multiple times in the same spot (as that extra protection is gone now). For not man-portable, I have only a one word answer, brrrrrrrt.

Overall, though, any H&K will do provided you have the funds to get them, because

[Shmibli7]

52 minutes ago, Vy'drach said:

Well what's coming? What environment? Normal humans? Need to be loud or silent? In building? Long range? Anti-vehicle? Each one is a different answer, just ask a simple situation like that and I shall answer, if you want to know.

 

But I'll go ahead and answer the ones I put in there, assuming normal humans, I'd pick for:

• In building - Loud, FN P90 and FN Five-seveN with a shotgun of some form as well, maybe not my favourite one, the SPAS-12, because of its weight and the lack of needing its specialized nature (you can chamber special ammunition without needing to go through the magazine, but if you're just firing pellets no need for that or it's ability to be swapped between pump/semi). Maybe an AA-12, while relatively light for what it is, it's still got a lot of weight to it, but it is a fully automatic 12 gauge shotgun with insane recoil control.
  
  
  
  The P90 and FN Five-seveN sidearm are due to being incredibly compact but having high reliability, stopping power (you'll find I'm a stickler for this), capacity, and low recoil. P90 has a 50 round capacity with a total length of less than 20 inches, and the 5.7x28mm round it fires is known for having stopping power like a .45 ACP, recoil like a 9mm parabellum, and with military ammunition (can't get it as a civilian), armor penetrating capabilities (one of the few times military grade beats civilian). The Five-seveN is due to using the same ammunition, and as a decently compact pistol it has a 20+1 capacity. Plus it is also very reliable.
   
• In building - Quiet, an AS VAL or some other 9x39mm rifle, any of them are good, really. And a .45 ACP sidearm, probably an H&K USP or more likely Mk 23 SOCOM, which is a match grade, beefier USP .45 designed for special forces. The 9x39mm rifle is because 9x39mm ammunition is subsonic, meaning that it doesn't break the sound barrier and thus it won't make the "crack" as the bullet travels through the air, in addition to the weapon itself being suppressed, and 9x39mm also has high stopping power and low recoil, and penetrates armor rather well still. The .45 ACP sidearm is because .45 ACP is also subsonic by nature and has high stopping power, and while it lacks in penetrative power, it has been proven that it is nigh impossible for an average human to remain standing when shot with one within 20 or so feet, regardless of whether it penetrates flesh, the impact force alone knocks people down.
   
• Long range - Loud, If we're talking loooooong range, that's a toughie, because there's a lot of choices and all, basically any Barrett .50 BMG or similar works, .338 Lapua rifles work too (current record holder for longest confirmed kill), but I'd probably take a Zastava M93 "Black Arrow," can use match-grade .50 BMG ammunition (as any distance rifle would want match-grade), and utilizes the tried and true Mauser bolt action.
   
• Loooooong range - Silent, plenty of suppressed options to choose from, the ones I listed can be suppressed, but subsonic ammunition isn't good for distance shooting, but I have one very clear contender for this spot, the VSSK "Vykhlop."  Bullpup, subsonic .50 caliber, lacks the range of traditional fifties, with a 12.7x55mm cartridge instead of the traditional 12.7x99mm that is the .50 BMG, but it is subsonic so it doesn't make the crack, the rifle is suppressed so it doesn't make a loud report, it still can reach out and touch someone, and has great penetration, as in it can still pierce walls and kill light vehicles.
   
• Medium to long range - Loud, any battle rifle would do me just fine, FN FAL, H&K G3, M14, but I'd probably go with a Mk 17 MOD 0, AKA FN SCAR-Heavy, because like my other choices, it's reliable, and unlike the others, it's very modular. Fires 7.62x51mm NATO, my favourite caliber, still in use as a sniper round, but it can still be comfortably fired fully automatic with experience. Sidearm doesn't really matter because you don't use one long range, hitting at 100m with one has a high degree of luck involved.
   
• Medium to long range - Silent, see previous answer, add suppressor, no need for subsonic ammunition this time around. Lock in Mk 23 SOCOM as sidearm for reasons stated earlier.
   
• Anti-vehicle, there is no silent option here, but for man-portable, RPG-32, most recent RPG I believe, fires a 105mm projectile, not sure it's penetration capabilities against active and dynamic protection, but older version, the RPG-30  had 650mm effectiveness when hitting it, the M1A2 Abrams from the front hull has about that (determining armor efficiency is difficult due to so many variables to take into consideration) so if the newer model has better penetration, has quite the potential to pierce the front hull of an M1A2 Abrams with all of it's protection intact, definitely so if you hit it from the side/rear/top, or multiple times in the same spot (as that extra protection is gone now). For not man-portable, I have only a one word answer, brrrrrrrt.

Overall, though, any H&K will do provided you have the funds to get them, because

I am thoroughly and pleasantly surprised that you know your weaponry.

[OneUnder]

24 minutes ago, Shmibli7 said:

I am thoroughly and pleasantly surprised that you know your weaponry.

As soon as I spied this thread, I knew that either Vy'drach or Arashikage would be by shortly to impress us.

[The VGM Lover]

Not that I've ever actually had any experience with a gun, but if anything, I'd start with a semi-automatic, such as the FAL. I wanna take out my opponents quickly but efficiently, by the speed of my arms and fingers. Put a type of scope on it in which in which you can put it on and switch it out but it stays on the gun, those kinds of scopes, and I'll be set.

[Arminius H O Fiddywinks]

A wheellock musket.

For anything after 1999, a laser wheellock musket.

[Clearwater]

Sticking to realism, I play a lot of Counter-Strike, and the one weapon I ALWAYS make sure I have in my loadout is the Five-Seven, a pistol with a 20 bullet magazine. I always choose this one over the others because it has the biggest magazine size than the other pistols in the game. So I would maybe pick that as a dependable sidearm.

Spoiler

 

For non-realism though, I turn to the choice of weapons you can get for the Unreal Tournament 2004 mod: Ballistic Weapons. For this, I choose the SRS900 Battle Rifle. 20 magazine round with a scope. High recoil, but when used in three or four shot bursts at medium-to-long range through the scope, it can be rather lethal.

Spoiler

 

 

EDIT:

A wheellock musket.

For anything after 1999, a laser wheellock musket.

Someone's played Fallout 4.

[BlitzCo45]

I'll take my Zastava M-70 with an ACOG, and a 1911 in .45 ACP with a laser sight.

On ‎12‎/‎31‎/‎2015 at 8:11 PM, amcintyr9998 said:

Not that I've ever actually had any experience with a gun, but if anything, I'd start with a semi-automatic, such as the FAL. I wanna take out my opponents quickly but efficiently, by the speed of my arms and fingers. Put a type of scope on it in which in which you can put it on and switch it out but it stays on the gun, those kinds of scopes, and I'll be set.

I would recommend an AR-10 or a FN SCAR over a FAL if you want a .308 gun

[Arashikage]

On 12/30/2015 at 10:08 AM, OneUnder said:

As soon as I spied this thread, I knew that either Vy'drach or Arashikage would be by shortly to impress us.

I'M LATE!

 

So once again, it relies on the situation, but I'll throw a couple out just as Vy'drach did.  

 

We talkin zambos?  Ideally a rifle, medium calibers preferred.  Saves on weight but is just powerful enough to take out any walking dead coming my way(Probably).  If I had to choose between everything I know, I'd probably have to go with the SKS.  The SKS is a tried and true platform in service from 1945 to now believe it or not.  Most modern platforms are updated from the 1945 one, but if a gun is in service that long there has to be a reason(A sidenote: 62 countries use this gun currently).  It uses the Russian 7.62x39 round which isn't terribly uncommon, features detachable magazines as opposed to many rifles of its era, and it's very, VERY reliable.  Russian post World War II weapons are generally the most reliable weapons you'll find.

As far as pistols go, I tend to not want to use them.  I'm terrible with any pistol, but that's due to me not having one to practice with.  I'd be extremely useless if I ever were to have to use one.  It's not as easy as the video games make it look!

When it comes to melee, you might as well give up.  There aren't many weapons you can actually get your hands on that will be effective against zombies.

Let's change the scenario a bit though, let's say it's not zombies, let's say it's like, commandos or whatever you kids like to fight these days.  In that case, I'm probably going to have to break out my favorite.  The TAR 21 is probably my favorite gun in the world.  It shoots a 5.56x45mm round which is incredibly common, it's the NATO standard.  It's configured for use with STANAG magazines, which means anyone with an M4, M16, SCAR, or similar platform can share not only ammo but entire magazines, and its bullpup design makes it ultra compact.  You get an 18 inch barrel in a gun that's barely 28 inches long.  It has a built in MARS sight, because MARS sights are sexy.  It's incredibly reliable for a gun that's shell is made mostly of composite plastic.  And above all else: Just look at it.  

Yes, design is subjective, and beauty is in the eye of the beholder.  I know my compatriot Vy'drach dislikes the gun, but it is truly my top choice.  Thanks to the wonderful world of loopholes I happen to own a real steel Tavor, and I could not be happier with it.  

[BlitzCo45]

Tavors are fucking nice

[Shmibli7]

On Saturday, January 30, 2016 at 9:29 AM, Arashikage said:

Imillimeter

 

So once again, it recalipersthe situation, but I'll thr ow a couple out just as Vy'drach. did.  

 

We ad coming my way(Probably).  If I had to choose between everything I know, I'd probably have to go with the SKS.  

As far as pistols go, I tend to not want to use them.  I'm terrible with any pistol, but that's due to me not having one to practice with.  I'd be extremely useless if I ever were to have to use one.  It's not as easy as the video games make it look!

 

 

Yes, design is subjective, and beauty is in the eye of the beholder.  I know my compatriot Vy'drach dislikes the gun, but it is truly my top choice.  Thanks to the wonderful world of loopholes I happen to own a real steel Tavor, and I could not 

I have had the oppurtunity to shoot an SKS, and the gun shoots solid. Definetly a favorite.

As far a pistols go, I am a 9 millimeter parabellum and below kind of guy. Gun laws a pretty lax where I live, so I've had the oppurtunity to shoot a wide variety of calibers and I've come to the conclusion that anything above a nine milleter parabellum In a handgun Is Impractical. .45's are horrible and magnum rounds are nearly uncontrollable, at least for a guy with small arms like me.

 

Also, a Tavor 21 Is a wonderful weapon. Nice choice.

[Vy'drach]

Tavors

[Arashikage]

1 hour ago, Shmibli7 said:

As far a pistols go, I am a 9 millimeter parabellum and below kind of guy. Gun laws a pretty lax where I live, so I've had the oppurtunity to shoot a wide variety of calibers and I've come to the conclusion that anything above a nine milleter parabellum In a handgun Is Impractical. .45's are horrible and magnum rounds are nearly uncontrollable, at least for a guy with small arms like me.

So the only rounds you like to shoot from pistols are 5.7, 9mm, 380, and .22?  Seems rather limiting.  None of those rounds have the stopping power of the bigger 45, 500, 44, and various other rounds.  I would say .45 is one of the top choices for me, because it still has a good amount of speed behind it, and the stopping power is massive compared to the 9mm

[Shmibli7]

3 minutes ago, Arashikage said:

So the only rounds you like to shoot from pistols are 5.7, 9mm,  380, and .22?.

No, not just those, there Is also .25 ACP, .32 Auto, .38, and 9x18 Makarov. But I am a pistol fan, who also has twigs for arms, so I'm picky about my ammo.

lIke I said earlier, I don't see the prscticcality In magnums... Don't even get me started on .500's.

[BlitzCo45]

sounds like you had some bad experiences with magnums

[Shmibli7]

4 hours ago, BlitzCo45 said:

sounds like you had some bad experiences with magnums

As stated earlier, I have twig arms.

[Vy'drach]

On 2/11/2016 at 2:57 PM, Shmibli7 said:

No, not just those, there Is also .25 ACP, .32 Auto, .38, and 9x18 Makarov. But I am a pistol fan, who also has twigs for arms, so I'm picky about my ammo.

lIke I said earlier, I don't see the prscticcality In magnums... Don't even get me started on .500's.

Large animals are the practicality in magnums. Those rounds you listed barely work on people, let alone bears+. .500 magnum was done specifically for large game hunting and bear protection.

 

Also, .45s are horrible?

 

There's a reason why the Navy SEALS held a competition to design a new .45 ACP pistol for them, which the H&K Mk. 23 SOCOM won. 9mm has started to fall into disfavor where .40 S&W and .45 ACP are being the big choice again.

[Shmibli7]

2 hours ago, Vy'drach said:

Large animals are the practicality in magnums. Those rounds you listed barely work on people, let alone bears+. .

 

Also, .45s are horrible?

There's a reason why the Navy SEALS held a competition to design a new .45 ACP pistol for them, which the H&K Mk. 23 SOCOM won. 9mm has started to fall into disfavor where .40 S&W and .45 ACP are being the big choice again.

First off, when I say this, I have no intention of being hostile, but what you said about those rounds "barely working on people" I feel is a bit ignorant. First of all, most handguns are used domestically against an attacker with little to no armoring at all, for instance, a mugger. No street thug is going to have the time or desire to strap on Kevlar when he goes to rough you up for your change. Even .22 LR in some instances can do considerable work on a man with nothing but a shirt covering him.

Building off of this point, who said you even needed to fire the gun in the first place? A gun is a gun is a gun. Most attackers are driven away simply when a gun is drawn, they don't stop and say "Oh, he's carrying .32 auto, I can be shot with it four times before I bleed out." or "Wait, he has a .45, better not mess with him." They think, "Oh, crap, this guy has a gun!" and usually are deterred. As for those who do attack, when shot with nearly anything, the pain and shock is usually all it takes to stop the attacker in his tracks.

Also, .38 is a pretty good round, especially for personal defense. Not extremely loud, a reasonably soft kick, and a tip big enough to immobilize a hostile even if he is wearing body armor.

Yes, I think .45's are a bad round and I believe that most fans of them are merely jumping on the bandwagon. .45 has long been the "kick ass" caliber, popularized by advertisements and entertainment.  Is the round useful in some instances? Yes. Is it historically been influential? Yes. But do I, after shooting it, find it to be a caliber that I hate? Yes. To me, a .45 is the bridge between personal defense guns and magnums, which is a bridge I no longer cross. Even when held steady, the gun produces such a large recoil that I find it hard to think of a practical use stateside for it.

And, okay? So the Navy SEALS wanted a .45. Big deal. The US military doesn't always make the right decisions when it comes to firearms. Remember the atrocity that was the M-16A1? The US military also thought that an open-slide pistol would be a good investment in a desert conflict.

After all of this, I want to say that I am not trying to bash or degrade you personally.

[Vy'drach]

3 hours ago, Shmibli7 said:

First off, when I say this, I have no intention of being hostile, but what you said about those rounds "barely working on people" I feel is a bit ignorant. First of all, most handguns are used domestically against an attacker with little to no armoring at all, for instance, a mugger. No street thug is going to have the time or desire to strap on Kevlar when he goes to rough you up for your change. Even .22 LR in some instances can do considerable work on a man with nothing but a shirt covering him.

Building off of this point, who said you even needed to fire the gun in the first place? A gun is a gun is a gun. Most attackers are driven away simply when a gun is drawn, they don't stop and say "Oh, he's carrying .32 auto, I can be shot with it four times before I bleed out." or "Wait, he has a .45, better not mess with him." They think, "Oh, crap, this guy has a gun!" and usually are deterred. As for those who do attack, when shot with nearly anything, the pain and shock is usually all it takes to stop the attacker in his tracks.

Also, .38 is a pretty good round, especially for personal defense. Not extremely loud, a reasonably soft kick, and a tip big enough to immobilize a hostile even if he is wearing body armor.

Yes, I think .45's are a bad round and I believe that most fans of them are merely jumping on the bandwagon. .45 has long been the "kick ass" caliber, popularized by advertisements and entertainment.  Is the round useful in some instances? Yes. Is it historically been influential? Yes. But do I, after shooting it, find it to be a caliber that I hate? Yes. To me, a .45 is the bridge between personal defense guns and magnums, which is a bridge I no longer cross. Even when held steady, the gun produces such a large recoil that I find it hard to think of a practical use stateside for it.

And, okay? So the Navy SEALS wanted a .45. Big deal. The US military doesn't always make the right decisions when it comes to firearms. Remember the atrocity that was the M-16A1? The US military also thought that an open-slide pistol would be a good investment in a desert conflict.

After all of this, I want to say that I am not trying to bash or degrade you personally.

It's called exaggeration, mate. And .22 LR can be one of the worst rounds to be hit by, ironically, due to it's lack of power. Where most bullets would pierce bone it has a tendency to ricochet off of it inside the body and go in strange directions inside the body. However, it has almost 0 stopping power to the point it is basically purely psychological. The other rounds can be lethal, but none of them have stopping power, which is what you want in personal defense. This is what .45 ACP has in spades, as I've mentioned earlier in the topic, it is nigh impossible for an average human to remain standing after being hit with it, regardless of penetration. Kevlar with a steel plate in it, doesn't matter, within 20 feet it's going to knock you off your feet and probably crack every rib in your chest. Yes, often times just the fact they got shot stops people immediately, sometimes it doesn't.

And obviously I'm not talking about people recognizing the caliber, but actually getting shot. And know what happens when you get shot with a .32 auto? Pain, maybe because first hand accounts of people getting shot often times is described as not hurting, just a sudden impact, like a painless punch, to the point they were wondering what exactly happened. So with .32 auto, unless you hit something incredibly important, and keep in mind by that I mean that people have maintained a full sprint and gotten shot in the lungs and didn't break stride, it lacks outright stopping capability. Yes, .38 is good, if you mean .38 special as it's .357 lite. If you mean .380, it's not bad, but a massive lack of stopping power.

As for fans of .45 ACP being bandwagoners,

wat? .45 ACP is popular because it's proven effective time and time again since its invention and for the average person is very comfortable and controllable. You have twig arms, according to you. No offense, but that's where the recoil issue comes from, not the round itself. I have been quickly and accurately firing it one handed comfortably since my pre-teens. Also, don't think you know what magnums actually are. They're calibers that are either larger or upsized versions of similar calibers, you can technically make any caliber a magnum. There are .22 and .32 magnum handgun rounds, technically you could call .38 special a 9mm magnum, though no one does. As for stateside use, it is a perfect self-defense gun for someone that isn't a light frame. It's widely available, it has stopping power, it's accurate, and it has low recoil.

Yes, the military does some stupid things, but the SEALS are different. They can literally make or break a firearm line with what they approve, one of the reasons USPs are so popular because of them, and they're the reason why Mark 16 MOD 0, AKA SCAR-L, doesn't have a big military market, because they wanted the Mk 17 MOD 0s instead, the SCAR-H.

And you won't find a bigger naysayer to the AR-15 platform, outside it being a LEGO gun, than me. But the main issues with the M16A1 weren't as much the design as people make it out to be, it was more the government trying to use up their surplus of an older type of powder that was a lot dirtier, and the AR-15/M16 being marketed as "Never needing cleaning" when it meant it only needed it now and then. Soldiers thought it didn't need it ever. It, however, was the first of its kind, a high rate of fire, controllable assault rifle and holds the distinction for being the highest stopping power 5.56x45mm NATO rifle because for some bloody reason M16A1s cause the bullets to consistently tumble inside the body. The line after that, they tend to go straight through like needles and do fuck all to soft tissue. The atrocities were the A2, A3, and A4 because some idiot had the brilliant idea to remove full-auto capabilities. Also the magazines and those followed any gun that used them until people figured out the STANAG mags caused jams. Those were an issue, but that's not so much the gun.

These ain't personal attacks but... g'damn man, you're going against everything known and believed about .45 ACP. You're damn near saying the sky is green here.

 

Also, what .45 did you shoot, because don't forget how much weight and balance factor into recoil.

[Shmibli7]

19 hours ago, Vy'drach said:

 

 

 

. Also, don't think you know what magnums actually are. They're calibers that are either larger or upsized versions of similar calibers, you can technically make any caliber a magnum. There are .22 and .32 magnum handgun rounds, technically you could call .38 special a 9mm magnum, though no one does.

And you won't find a bigger naysayer to the AR-15 platform, outside it being a LEGO gun, than me.

But the main issues with the M16A1 weren't as much the design as people make it out to be, it was more the government trying to use up their surplus of an older type of powder that was a lot dirtier, and the AR-15/M16 being marketed as "Never needing cleaning" when it meant it only needed it now and then. Soldiers thought it didn't need it ever. It, however, was the first of its kind, a high rate of fire, controllable assault rifle and holds the distinction for being the highest stopping power 5.56x45mm NATO rifle because for some bloody reason M16A1s cause the bullets to consistently tumble inside the body. The line after that, they tend to go straight through like needles and do fuck all to soft tissue. The atrocities were the A2, A3, and A4 because some idiot had the brilliant idea to remove full-auto capabilities. Also the magazines and those followed any gun that used them until people figured out the STANAG mags caused jams. Those were an issue, but that's not so much the gun.

These ain't personal attacks but... g'damn man, you're going against everything known and believed about .45 ACP. You're damn near saying the sky is green here.

Also, what .45 did you shoot, because don't forget how much weight and balance factor into recoil.

Okay, first off, sorry for the late reply, sleep and school.

Second, I feel the need to clarify. Yes. I know that .22 and .32 magnum rounds exist... And I know what a magnum, by textbook definition, is. But I didn't include them for two reasons. 1.) .22 magnum is barely any more powerful than .22 LR and 2.) .32 H&R magnum is considered by most recreational shooters, as well as those who buy for defense, to be a waste of a round.

Also, when someone says "magnum", no one thinks of a .22 magnum or a .32 H&R, they think of a .357 or a .44. Images of Dirty Harry's Model 29 appear in their heads, visions of nasty wounds inflicted by high caliber rounds come to mind. I apologize if by me saying "magnum", you didn't fall into this category, because, if you didn't, I have seriously underestimated you and am pleasantly surprised that you know your firearms.

As for the .45, I feel the need to clarify once more. Every time I have said that I feel like it is a bad round, I meant by my standards and only my standards. As I have said before, it is an effective round but the point is I don't like it. It's that simple. I don't think that people should throw out their .45 weapons, I'm just saying that I would never own one.

Finally, we agree on something. I, too, hate the AR-15 body. Most of my contempt for the M-16A1 comes from my grandfather, who served in Vietnam and says that it was the most needy weapon he ever used during his time there.

The .45 I have used was a Rock Island 1911 (Obviously based off of the Colt M1911 body.) It was a pretty heavy gun for one it's size.