ARGO: Much as I am concerned about your ***fealings***, is the FN FLA C7 .556 or .762 Cal? one and the same? Or did the C7 go to the .556 NATO round? I wasn't talking about grunts versus SEALS, only about the kind of weight that can be handled on the run, GIVEN the apporopriate levels of fitness and training, meaning it's DOABLE. BTW, the M-16 was modified once, and in the light of our second little adventure by yet another one, this one major. Anyway, thanks for the sitrep, now go get in the shower, you soiled argonaut, you...
AR's or FN FAL's?
- Thread starter Tycell
- Start date
The fuck are you talking about? The C7 i was talking about is a slightly modified version of the M-16, called a DiemacoC7 (Or a Colt Canada C7)and obviously it uses NATO standards. And again, by referencing the SEALs, your trying to draw compairisons between average joes, and people who have been riggorously trained to do such in specific situations. You try to do a 100 meter run, in full gear, carrying another man in full gear, holding two FN's (Applying a general term, since canada applies different names to every fucking weapon, FN FAL 50.41/42= FN-C2= C2, or FN C1A1= C1) While some pencil neck officer is just begging to get shot. And personly, being shot at with AK's, while holding a hopelessly fucked FN, just instills respect for the AK, and makes me look down on the FN just a little.
"the FN"? dude, at least say FAL, L1A1/L2A2 or C1/C2...
besides, the FN FAL is more resistant than the M16/M4's.
and as been said before, FAL's (when decently made/copied that is) have great accuracy and power. far better than the AK or M16.
sure the FAL isn't as resilient as the AK, but the AK isn't as accurate and powerful either... sjeez. still a great gun by all accounts, even today.
and yeah, of course now you have FN SCARs, FN F2000s, HK 416s etc that are better.
besides, the FN FAL is more resistant than the M16/M4's.
and as been said before, FAL's (when decently made/copied that is) have great accuracy and power. far better than the AK or M16.
sure the FAL isn't as resilient as the AK, but the AK isn't as accurate and powerful either... sjeez. still a great gun by all accounts, even today.
and yeah, of course now you have FN SCARs, FN F2000s, HK 416s etc that are better.
Yes, but Im talking about the oldest most depraved and undercared for, finicy FN C1A1's I have ever had the displeasure of using. And thus, my experience with the C1 was very poor. The FN FAL 50.41/42 was a much better firearm, but still much to finicy for my liking. As such, as i dont like typing, I abreviated it to as was used at the time of its service in the military. But again, in personal standings, I would still choose it over an AK, despite the ammount of loathing I had for it (The whole hold it properly or break your collerbone got to me)
ARGO, I am not talking about whether an average joe can use it or not, only about whether it CAN be used. BTW, the weight issue was precisely why M-16 was picked over M-14 (ease of handling by an average GI) and why Navy SEALS still use an M-14, which they call "Battle Rifle" - supremacy of the .762 caliber over .556.
And yeah, miseries of the ful batle gear can be overcome with training. Gear will save your life. Dedicate your life to PT so that you will be comfortable living in your gear, and given a choice I'd rather suffer more and drag a heavier but more effective rifle.
Any weapon you live with will be better for you than a superior but an unfamiliar one.
And yeah, miseries of the ful batle gear can be overcome with training. Gear will save your life. Dedicate your life to PT so that you will be comfortable living in your gear, and given a choice I'd rather suffer more and drag a heavier but more effective rifle.
Any weapon you live with will be better for you than a superior but an unfamiliar one.
and how fair is that? judging a rifle by those standards, everything would suck...Argonnot said:
hell, i remember people whining about the accuracy of L1A1's, but that turned out to be because the airhead english put up the bipod and then sat on the rifle barrel as a fucking bench. wtf can you expect?
pussyArgonnot said:
and i dont get how you can abbreviate a rifle to the name of the factory. that would work if the factory made 1 decent rifle, but not for a worldclass factory like FN.
imagine if people started calling AK's "Izhmash", M4's "Colts", 870's "Remingtons". that'd make no sense at all.
dude, stop butchering calibres, ok? either get a clue or stop posting.Akudin said:
that's even worse than the "30mm" they reported in the newspaper that turned out to be a .30-30 leveraction.
The British version of the FAL was called the SLR (self loading rifle) very good weapon I would rather have the SLR over the SA80 any day.
SuAside there is a few SLR's in the armoury in my TA unit an there is not a bipod on any of them an there never was. The only time I have heard of a British squaddie using a bipod on a SLR was by marines an SBS in the Falklands war an the rifle that had the bipods where specially altered by the royal ordnance core for use as a sniper weapons system that did not go into general issue an where all destroyed at the end of 80's.
SuAside there is a few SLR's in the armoury in my TA unit an there is not a bipod on any of them an there never was. The only time I have heard of a British squaddie using a bipod on a SLR was by marines an SBS in the Falklands war an the rifle that had the bipods where specially altered by the royal ordnance core for use as a sniper weapons system that did not go into general issue an where all destroyed at the end of 80's.
they removed the bipod early after adoption (the dutchies did that as well) when it turned out too many weapons were being molested.
EvgeniBuzov
First time out of the vault
Judging from all the disagreement, Id probably choose AK-74M 
But serously, I won't argue about much of FN Fal's or M-16's stat's, but I can say that FN Fal is prolly as 3 times as reliable as the M-4's or M-16' or any of that stuff.
Donno about FN Fal's weight, but I do know that war ain't no game... Soldiers are trained to carry and use heavy weapons. Id rather prefer a heavy but reliable AKM or AK-47's than a a light, 'shiney' M16A2 which will get jammed after getting dropped in sand or mud.
But serously, I won't argue about much of FN Fal's or M-16's stat's, but I can say that FN Fal is prolly as 3 times as reliable as the M-4's or M-16' or any of that stuff.
Donno about FN Fal's weight, but I do know that war ain't no game... Soldiers are trained to carry and use heavy weapons. Id rather prefer a heavy but reliable AKM or AK-47's than a a light, 'shiney' M16A2 which will get jammed after getting dropped in sand or mud.
The SLR was only replaced by the SA80 to bring the UK into line with various NATO policies to make the supply problem less of a problem i.e. when you have 3 or 4 different army's in a combat theatre all using differing calibres i.e. 5.56 & 7.62 they cant be supplied from a allied army's ammunition store's so they chose the 5.56mm as standard and most country's in NATO now use the same magazine (the m16 30round mag) to further elevate the problem further When i was in IRAQ we had a small contingent of US army rangers in Bazra for a week (don't know why) an they could an did swap magazines with us an we had no feed issues.
But on a slightly different note the rifle the British armed forces adopted to come in line with the NATO policy i just mentioned is the SA80. This rifle is not worth breaking down for scrap it was rushed through a series of test's which proved it could work under average firing range conditions an was also designed to fight in western an eastern Europe NOT the desert where most fighting in the world happens now. Which is why the SA80 jam's under normal battlefield stresses an cost's people the lives.
But on a slightly different note the rifle the British armed forces adopted to come in line with the NATO policy i just mentioned is the SA80. This rifle is not worth breaking down for scrap it was rushed through a series of test's which proved it could work under average firing range conditions an was also designed to fight in western an eastern Europe NOT the desert where most fighting in the world happens now. Which is why the SA80 jam's under normal battlefield stresses an cost's people the lives.
Ok, Muff, for the last time, please try to write legibly. The word we are looking for here is "and", not "an". Also, some punctuation would be in order. Spellcheck feature is your friend as well. As it is, your posts are very hard to read.
In defence of the ***SHINY*** M-16, I just ***HAVE*** to say that the ***AWESOME*** thing about it is that both front and back sites are adjustable, which means total customzation of your M-16, which means that I wa able to put a round EXACTLY where I wanted it at 50, 150 and 350 yards, THAT with the iron sites. (What would THAT do to your precious Fallout game, my darling young ones?)
True, it really did jam on me once, when it fell with the ejector side hitting the sand, but if you treat your weapon like a surgeon treats his scalpel, it wouldn't fall in the dirt... right? Also, if it jams in a situation where a jammed weapon can get you killed, you got your ***SIDEARM***... yes? Granted, a 5.56 mm round is smaller than my service psitol round, but boy... that accuracy!!!!
P.S. I think that the distance elevation adjustment on the rear AK rifle site is cool, I just never spent enough trigger time on the AKs to truly appreciate it...
True, it really did jam on me once, when it fell with the ejector side hitting the sand, but if you treat your weapon like a surgeon treats his scalpel, it wouldn't fall in the dirt... right? Also, if it jams in a situation where a jammed weapon can get you killed, you got your ***SIDEARM***... yes? Granted, a 5.56 mm round is smaller than my service psitol round, but boy... that accuracy!!!!
P.S. I think that the distance elevation adjustment on the rear AK rifle site is cool, I just never spent enough trigger time on the AKs to truly appreciate it...
EvgeniBuzov
First time out of the vault
The new AK's can get nicely adjusted either, if I remember correctly. The rifle butt can be folded on them with ease, and the new AK series also use the smaller round so they are pretty accurate also.
A bit off topic, but I really find it annoying to see the automatic fire of the AK-47 in CS so inaccurate. Jeez, we all know that 5.56 mm is much more easier to shoot, but CS really overdid the whole deal. Most of the expirienced players fire 2-4 shots or more but single since automatic fire of the AK-47 is useless in that game.
A bit off topic, but I really find it annoying to see the automatic fire of the AK-47 in CS so inaccurate. Jeez, we all know that 5.56 mm is much more easier to shoot, but CS really overdid the whole deal. Most of the expirienced players fire 2-4 shots or more but single since automatic fire of the AK-47 is useless in that game.
EvgeniBuzov by AK's i assume you mean the AN94 rifle. They are very accurate, I believe it was developed around the time of the AK74 but at the time the USSR don't want to retool the weapons factory's to make a new weapon so they just modified the AK47 to take a different round but when the USSR collapsed some one remembered the AN94 project although it was called by a different name then.
The name AN94 comes from the A = (automatic) N = (initial of the designer) and the 94 refers to the year the project was started up again or when it was completed not sure which one it was an i am to lazy to do a google or a wiki.
The name AN94 comes from the A = (automatic) N = (initial of the designer) and the 94 refers to the year the project was started up again or when it was completed not sure which one it was an i am to lazy to do a google or a wiki.
EvgeniBuzov
First time out of the vault
Yes, I checked that out but also forgot most of the details about the AN-94. However, not only the AN-94 is accurate from the new Russian assault rifles. AK 101 and so on are pretty accurate too, and some other guns like AEK and OC-14.
Im guessing that modern warfare now relies on accuracy and not the stopping power..
Im guessing that modern warfare now relies on accuracy and not the stopping power..
Evgeni, I haven't fired the new AK's with the smaller rounds and compensators, nor had I fired any of the high end AK rifles manufactured in Tula. I am sure they would do nicely. Russia has a centuries old tradition of qulaity arms manufacture, too bad it was never put on industrial scale or properly marketed, though some amazing equipment from Russia regularly makes it to the internationals arms conventions. India purchased its nuclear bomber program from a Russian design bureau and China its supersonic interceptor program in 1990's. Back to the rifles, I don't like folding stocks. I prefer consistency, weight (don't like Glocks for that reason) and long trigger pulls.
and you miss the fact that nearly all production rifles can adjust rear sights from 100 to 500 meters (often further, although that's kinda useless)?Akudin said:
ye, because soldiers never duck for cover or hit the deck when fired upon. soldiers obviously would never do that...Akudin said:
you know, a handgun doesnt really help anything when shooting past 50 meters.Akudin said:
also, i might add that switching from rifle to handgun isn't instant, like in the early Counterstrike betas. just sayin'...
5.45 russian is just a crappy as the american 5.56...EvgeniBuzov said:
dude, really, learn to play... just learn the spray pattern of the AK and deal with it. easy as pie...EvgeniBuzov said:
which is why americans in Iraq are reverting to M14's? which is why americans at home are pushing for 6.8mm Rem or 6.5mm Grendel to replace the 5.54mm?EvgeniBuzov said:
which is why a lot of Russian units ask to be issued old coldwar 7.62x39's instead of the brandspanking new 5.45mm's?
Suaside, you practice switching from a rifle to a sidearm during ambush drills. I can switch From an rifle to a sidearm in a thigh holster in as fast as a pause between two shots using front sites. Yes, soldiers duck and cover, move and shoot, the timeless infantry constants, and yes, you can get in trouble with a jammed weapon, but THINK, if they are shooting at you from over fifty yards away, you OUGHT to be ducking for cover or charging the ambush. RIGHT? and behind cover or at close quarters a sidearm will suffice for self protection until you can clear that jam. Nichts???