Author Topic: Firearms and General Militaria (Read 5466 times)

Tommy Fox Stone · « **Reply #25 on:** October 15, 2011, 08:16:11 pm »

Quote from: RedneckFur on October 13, 2011, 11:34:01 pm

Not a fan of tacticool junk either. I dont understand the point in getting a nice, reliable, accureate AR-15 carbine and then hanging so much cheap plastic junk on it that it weighs as much as a garand.

I know what you mean, I don't like all that junk on my guns, the only thing I did too my new AKM-47 was too put new wood on it...

Tyrannus The Demon · « **Reply #26 on:** October 15, 2011, 08:55:13 pm »

my favorite weapon is the barret 50 caliber sniper rifle

OPERATION
The cycle of operation for the M107 Rifle is broken down into eight basic steps (more than one step may occur at the same time).
Feeding: The force of the mainspring pushes the bolt forward toward the barrel extension, stripping a cartridge from the magazine and loading it into the chamber (by hand when first loading, by semiautomatic action afterwards).

Chambering: The bolt forces the round fully into the firing chamber, and the extractor snaps over the case rim. Blockages (dirt or debris) can prevent full chambering, as can dirty, bent, dented, or otherwise faulty ammunition.

Locking: During chambering the bolt enters the barrel extension, and the bolt latch engages the bolt latch trip (inside top of the upper receiver, just behind barrel extension). The bolt latch is then depressed, allowing the bolt to retract into the bolt carrier. The bolt, in turn, rotates due to the cam slot and is locked when its three locking lugs rotate into place in the barrel extension, closing the firing chamber.

Firing: Pulling the trigger pivots it on the trigger housing pin and presses on the transfer bar, causing the bar to rise. The transfer bar engages the sear (housed in the bolt carrier), forcing it upward and out of engagement with the firing pin extension. The firing pin extension, under spring power, forces the firing pin forward to strike the primer of the cartridge.

Unlocking: When the cartridge is fired, gas pressure exerts a thrust on the bolt face via the case head. The bolt carrier carries the bolt and barrel extension to the rear until the accelerator, protruding beneath the bolt carrier, contacts a shoulder in the trigger housing area. The accelerator is then pivoted up, causing the accelerator rod to be pushed out of the bolt carrier. As it protrudes from the front of the bolt carrier, it separates the bolt carrier from the barrel extension. Because of the cam slot in the side of the bolt, the bolt rotates as it is pulled and unlocks from the barrel extension.

Cocking: As the bolt recoils to the rear, the cocking lever "rides" the transfer bar back and down, causing it to disconnect from the trigger. The transfer bar is then held down in this position by the disconnector and is not released until pressure is released from the trigger. After disconnection, the cocking lever swings on its pin and overrides the transfer bar. The other end of the cocking lever protrudes into the bolt carrier and into the firing pin extension. As the cocking lever pivots, it withdraws the firing pin and compresses the firing pin extension spring. The firing pin extension then catches the sear.

Extraction: As the bolt locking lugs rotate away from the barrel extension, the bolt withdraws from the barrel and the bolt latch locks the bolt in its extended position. The extractor, located on the bolt face and hooked over the rim of the fired case, pulls the case from the firing chamber.

Ejection: As soon as the fired case has been extracted and has cleared the rear of the barrel extension, it is expelled from the rifle by the spring-powered ejector.

WARNING: The bolt does NOT automatically remain to the rear when the rifle or magazine is empty.

This weapon is an awsome rifle!
from what ive heard from my uncle who was in the army,this weapon cna punch through tank armor :O

Metalhead_Mockingbird · « **Reply #27 on:** October 16, 2011, 11:21:52 am »

The M107 can't pierce through tank armor, at all, MAYBE some 50's Soviet truck or your average Tali'Tard technical. An M107 MIGHT be able to disable something like a BMP series APC if you tag its treads. But through a tank? No, by friend. You need a much larger caliber, like 30mm plus to get through a tank. (See also; M2 Bradley taking out a Iraqi T-72) on today's battlefield.

You might want to remove the info sheet and two pictures, though. I'm sure most of us know what the M107 is.

Gearbox · « **Reply #28 on:** October 16, 2011, 02:51:06 pm »

Quote from: Raziel The Dragon on October 15, 2011, 08:55:13 pm

my favorite weapon is the barret 50 caliber sniper rifle

See also: Awesome, but Impractical.

Seriously though, unless you're trying to get through very heavy cover, the most you'd need to take out personnel is 7.62x51 NATO/7.62x54r, if that. Especially considering how some 5.56 weapons have ranges not unlike those higher-caliber rifles. Example, glorious HK G36, effective range of 800 meters and a 3x optical sight with 2, 4, 6, and 8 hundred meter hash marks to boot.

Rocket T. Coyote · « **Reply #29 on:** October 16, 2011, 11:42:34 pm »

The M1 Garand may be single-loaded to fire, but normally an 8-round en-bloc clip is required to sustain semi-automatic fire. Match shooters may use special 2-round clips. Five-rounders are also available--A must if one wishes to hunt with the M1 in some states.

The SKS is a fun and affordable rifle to own and shoot. Perhaps the cheapest centerfire ammo in a .30 cal rifle. Lots of aftermarket accessories to trick one out. I took a beat-up Chinese SKS and modified it to resemble a Dragunov sniper rifle. Prices for an SKS have jumped above $300 now.

Metalhead_Mockingbird · « **Reply #30 on:** November 20, 2011, 01:17:34 pm »

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/new-cracks-stop-vertical-landings-on-some-f-35bs-365059/
This here proved why I hate the F-35 so much, along with various other things about it.

Varg the wanderer · « **Reply #31 on:** November 21, 2011, 08:52:38 am »

These kinds of things are found in high-performance air craft all the time, but especially during development. It's simply impossible to calculate everything accurately enough to anticipate them. They will continue to discover cracks and the like in airframe components (albeit a lot less frequently) throughout the lifetime of the airframe.

I will agree with you though, the VTOL part fo the F/A-35 is just a terrible idea.

Jacoby Quinn · « **Reply #32 on:** November 27, 2011, 06:57:09 am »

ive got an old bazooka from desert storm sittin on a shelf in my room(grandpa was in there).......saving up for ammo(gotta love ebay)

what i really want is a ar-15 modified to get maximum range

Metalhead_Mockingbird · « **Reply #33 on:** December 04, 2011, 08:16:31 pm »

Quote from: Varg the wanderer on November 21, 2011, 08:52:38 am

These kinds of things are found in high-performance air craft all the time, but especially during development. It's simply impossible to calculate everything accurately enough to anticipate them. They will continue to discover cracks and the like in airframe components (albeit a lot less frequently) throughout the lifetime of the airframe.

I will agree with you though, the VTOL part fo the F/A-35 is just a terrible idea.

Eh, not when the aircraft has gone under a >360 Billion dollar development stage. When I pay that much money for something, I imagine it to be the best thing ever existed in that time period. With the F-35? Ha. All it is is just beauocracy. Sure, airframes need to be replaced, which was why the F-22 entered into service, to replace the F-15. If one really needs to replace airframes, I'd do differing ones, just based around the same platform. Kinda how the M1 Abrams and its variants are set up. Same thing, just different models doing different things, but based around the same idea. Not one thing doing everything. A tank can't transport troops, and lay bridges. So, an air-superiority fighter should not engage ground targets. One same airframe idea, just specialized. Easier logistical footprint, and the benefits of a specialized platform.

Moving on, I recently found this video, and it provided some nice-near-future warfare for offensive operations.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2eWjFOlKyI

Gearbox · « **Reply #34 on:** December 04, 2011, 09:36:53 pm »

Makes me wonder a little bit about why we're still developing air-superiority fighters. I mean, a big problem of the F-22s was that the speed, the capabilities, and the stealth of it are unnecessary. For god's sake, the forces we fight nowadays don't even have an air force to speak of, much less one that provides a serious threat to ours.

Quote from: Metalhead_Mockingbird on December 04, 2011, 08:16:31 pm

So, an air-superiority fighter should not engage ground targets.

'Specially when we got the good ol' A-10 for that stuff.

Kobuk · « **Reply #35 on:** December 04, 2011, 09:55:23 pm »

Quote

So, an air-superiority fighter should not engage ground targets.

I disagree with this. In this time of shrinking defense budgets and no other major superpowers to contend with, Our military can't afford a separate plane for air superiority, and another one for Close air support, and another one for Interdiction, etc., etc. We need "multi-mission" capable aircraft that can go wherever and do whatever we need. Case in point: The F-16 Falcon. Granted, it's an old aircraft design from the 70's, but it's proven it's worth time after time, and has been bought and used by so many countries. It can handle just about any mission given to it. The only version that was never built and which I would have liked to have seen used was the F-16XL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16XL
.......and other varients: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-16_Fighting_Falcon_variants
.
And the F-15 has this new varient which is trying to get developed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_F-15SE_Silent_Eagle

Metalhead_Mockingbird · « **Reply #36 on:** December 04, 2011, 10:09:38 pm »

Quote from: Gearbox on December 04, 2011, 09:36:53 pm

Makes me wonder a little bit about why we're still developing air-superiority fighters. I mean, a big problem of the F-22s was that the speed, the capabilities, and the stealth of it are unnecessary. For god's sake, the forces we fight nowadays don't even have an air force to speak of, much less one that provides a serious threat to ours.

Well, there is threat from other nations. Now, are we ever going to go conventional with China? Probably not within 50 years, unless China decides to economically kill itself, sever all ties with the US, and decide to invade. That's never going to happen, unless sparked by NK or something. But thats all paranoia or something. Though, if the more... structured nations in the Geo-political sphere of the Middle east, like Iran decides to go too far, we would have a viable enemy airforce to go against. Not just some only-numbers really terrible com-bloc airforce we saw in Desert Storm one. Personally, I think we ought to go for having the high-tech stuff, but in few numbers. Stuff just to have. But have low-key COIN, or COunter INsugency aircraft to fight guys like the Taliban. Stuff like the Embraer Super Toucano to do the light work, and low-key conflicts.

Quote from: Gearbox on December 04, 2011, 09:36:53 pm

'Specially when we got the good ol' A-10 for that stuff.

BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRT
vrrrrrt.

Quote from: Kobuk on December 04, 2011, 09:55:23 pm

Quote
So, an air-superiority fighter should not engage ground targets.

I disagree with this. In this time of shrinking defense budgets and no other major superpowers to contend with, Our military can't afford a separate plane for air superiority, and another one for Close air support, and another one for Interdiction, etc., etc. We need "multi-mission" capable aircraft that can go wherever and do whatever we need. Case in point: The F-16 Falcon. Granted, it's an old aircraft design from the 70's, but it's proven it's worth time after time, and has been bought and used by so many countries. It can handle just about any mission given to it. The only version that was never built and which I would have liked to have seen used was the F-16XL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16XL
.......and other varients: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-16_Fighting_Falcon_variants
.
And the F-15 has this new varient which is trying to get developed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_F-15SE_Silent_Eagle

Its not what I meant. I mean a similar airframe to do most tasks. What the problem is with Multirole aircraft is that they only do everything so well. Don't get me wrong, I like the F-16 and F-15, but they don't do CAS work anywhere near as good as the A-10. I've been to Ft. Leoardwood, where they've done A-10 runs. I've watched them live fire irl. They're quiet as all get out. The F-16's that were also there? Not so much. Hell, when my Father was a Coastie, he got the A-10s at his base. He was working on his H-3 for some matience, and all he heard was its whine as it went overhead. Never heard it coming. But what I had suggested, was that a similar airframe be developed, but have it be specialized. So, benefits of smaller logistical footprint, and, the added benifits of a single-role aircraft. Am I saying retire the F-15/F-16? No. Not until we can do that what I had mentioned. We don't need it, but it would be nice to do after we cancel the dammed F-35.

I'm not too keen on the F-16XL. I never have on the delta-wing concept, despite what Europe is doing. (lolcanards), however, the F-15SE is a very nice stop-gap 4++ Generation fighter. And its exportable, too!

Varg the wanderer · « **Reply #37 on:** December 05, 2011, 09:44:47 pm »

All this talk about multi-functional aircraft and nobody brings up the F/A-18. What a sad, sad world this has become. The jet even had both an "A" and an "F" in it's model for pete's sake! It might not be the fastest of the fighters, but until the F-22 came along there was no Allied jet that could out-maneuver it, not to mention it's specifically designed to both protect air-superiority as well as attack targets on the ground. True, it won't top the A-10 in it's ground strike ability nor does it have the speed or radar range of the Eagle, but for a jet the does both jobs it's a bird to be reckoned with.

One of the big down falls of the A-10 is that it's slow. When your a grunt pinned down by enemy fire, those ten minutes longer you have to wait for a sluggish Wart-hog to show up might be life or death. And the F-15 might get there faster than a Hornet by a couple minutes, but almost all of it's stores are devoted to missile storage and it doesn't have the targeting systems that the Hornet has. If it can't hit the target, what's the point?

The F-16 is ok, but it's size gives limited range (because of fuel) as well as a very limited payload.

People may claim that we no longer need manned aircraft to maintain air superiority, but China and Russia continue to develop fighter aircraft for that purpose. We would be foolish to not do the same. As for UAV's, there's this handy things called "jamming" that I'm surprised hasn't rendered ours useless yet.

Metalhead_Mockingbird · « **Reply #38 on:** January 14, 2012, 04:30:34 pm »

Quote from: Varg the wanderer on December 05, 2011, 09:44:47 pm

All this talk about multi-functional aircraft and nobody brings up the F/A-18. What a sad, sad world this has become. The jet even had both an "A" and an "F" in it's model for pete's sake! It might not be the fastest of the fighters, but until the F-22 came along there was no Allied jet that could out-maneuver it, not to mention it's specifically designed to both protect air-superiority as well as attack targets on the ground. True, it won't top the A-10 in it's ground strike ability nor does it have the speed or radar range of the Eagle, but for a jet the does both jobs it's a bird to be reckoned with.

You do drive a very good point about the Hornet- I actually quite like the aircraft, just most of the airframes are ancient- they've got alot of hours on them, and its a pretty formidable fighter, and bomb truck.

Out of nowhere, here comes Lockheed Martin with its 6th Generation fighter concept picture. I personally like it- reminds me of the YF-23, the stealthier of the two ideas put up in the ATF fighter program.

Rocket T. Coyote · « **Reply #39 on:** February 21, 2012, 03:32:56 pm »

Just picked up the Sig Sauer P6 that I had on layaway since May. Former W. German BGS sidearm. Came with holster and spare mag. Now if only my backorder for additional mags would materialize on the doorstep.

Gander Mountain recently had the Hotbox target on sale, so used up my gift card to buy it and some other supplies. The Hotbox is somewhat like a sniper's cube. You hit it and it repositions as the bullet passes through. Handles .22 through .50 caliber.

SHEPARD_DOG · « **Reply #40 on:** March 20, 2012, 05:24:04 pm »

guns are silly a knife dusint need ammo and a hammer dusint need sharponing
i hav a one hadid carpindrs hamer rite next to me rite now and its never
let me down espeshly in computer repar

blue skreen of deth >!!wam!!<
computer starts rite up

victorwolf · « **Reply #41 on:** March 22, 2012, 11:02:45 am »

i'm going to try and get a .357 revolver, an m1 carbine, and a simi auto shot gun. these are my favorite guns that i can actually get unlike the thompson. if they were legal i would buy one in a heart beat, but alas if you have one the government will take it, distroy it, and you wont even get compensation.

Varg the wanderer · « **Reply #42 on:** March 22, 2012, 09:53:21 pm »

The M1 is nice rifle. If you manage to get your paws on one, you won't be sorry. As for shot-guns, I prefer pump action. There's just something so satisfying about that "SHLACK-SHLACK" sound.

typingwithpaws · « **Reply #43 on:** April 09, 2012, 03:14:34 am »

Easter festivities

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dtqzx9ZMZpM&list=UUapc4qHNYSyAYi8UcIVHsxw&index=1&feature=plpp_video

Tasmania Style.

paws

Tommy Fox Stone · « **Reply #44 on:** April 09, 2012, 06:26:28 pm »

Quote from: victorwolf on March 22, 2012, 11:02:45 am

i'm going to try and get a .357 revolver, an m1 carbine, and a simi auto shot gun. these are my favorite guns that i can actually get unlike the thompson. if they were legal i would buy one in a heart beat, but alas if you have one the government will take it, distroy it, and you wont even get compensation.

Thompsons are not legal too own, I own one A 1927A by Auto Ordnance for $990.22, I got back in February...

victorwolf · « **Reply #45 on:** April 11, 2012, 11:19:18 am »

seriously i thought they were illegal. tv lies i saw some documetery on weaponry and it said the the tompson was illegal. thanks for clearing that up

i appreciat it

furtopia02 · « **Reply #46 on:** April 11, 2012, 11:43:12 pm »

Finally got my OWN pistol so I can stop having to borrow my dad's stuff all the time. For home/personal protection, I have been wanting and trying to find for years here a gun I trusted my life to in the Navy. The Beretta M9.

My brand new Italian Beretta M9:

LOVE LOVE LOVE this gun. It gets the job done, and just FEELS right. Good to have one of these in my hands again; and this time I have a brand new one. :3 I got this one for free too since it was a long-belated gift (IOU from a couple Christmases ago) from my dad who went with me today to get it. Getting my concealed weapons license soon.

Anyone else like the M9?

Tommy Fox Stone · « **Reply #47 on:** April 29, 2012, 08:36:14 pm »

Quote from: victorwolf on April 11, 2012, 11:19:18 am

seriously i thought they were illegal. tv lies i saw some documetery on weaponry and it said the the tompson was illegal. thanks for clearing that up i appreciat it

,

Your welcome and don't believe every thing you see apon tv...

WhiteStorm · « **Reply #48 on:** May 12, 2012, 01:54:07 am »

Largely depends where you are I think, even inside America. I've known some people (I think one guy lived mostly in Alaska) who could buy all sorts of guns fairly easily (as far as laws go anyway), and others who would need to get a special permit for automatic weapons (I think it was either from a sheriff or something similar). Although, they said that all this really required was basically having a meeting with the guy and discussing it with him, and that would get you the permit easier than submitting it some other way (I assume by mail) where they had no idea who you were besides maybe a background check.

Probably the easiest thing is to find someone who owns that kind of weapon in your area, like at a firing range or gun club type thing, and ask what they had to do. Since there might be a better way than what is legally required, like for instance talking it over with the guy who later sees your application for a permit (incidentally, I think the guy who told me that lived in one of the Carolinas, although I didn't ask if that was where he was when he had to get a permit).

Rocket T. Coyote · « **Reply #49 on:** May 20, 2012, 02:49:39 pm »

Once the Iron Curtain fell, I collected as much E. German military and paramilitary items as budget and space permitted. The 4 semesters of high school German were put to good use here. First a VOPO helmet, that was overpriced IMHO. Then Uniforms and insignia of all service branches, police units, Combat Groups of the Working Class, MfS, and youth organizations.

Firearms and ammo were limited to Makarov, and T74 pistols. There was a bolt-action scope-sighted sniper rifle in 5.45 x 39mm--imported in limited numbers. Early VOPO units were equipped with Polish-made M44 Mosin Nagant carbines (I have one). SKS rifles never showed up on the market. East German 9mm Makarov ammo likewise. Tons of 7.62 x 39 ball, training, and blank was imported as was 7.62 x 54R. (Then Clinton declared the steel-core stuff to be AP and then banned importation. The Greens then had the ammo broken down into scrap and fertillizer--at great expense.)

Much of that stuff is no longer available, but it can be found if you know where to look.

_{Thanks to furry fandom, I can showcase a uniform or two at cons by doing so as a German Shepherd Dog.}