Gun Thread (AK appreciation)

Well at least we figured out that conscripted kids are bad.

Also,

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...my_soilder.jpg

Lookit dat heavy piece of belgian engineering.

Seriously,

It's so heavy even your mom is lighter.




Also americans don't have conscripts because they never got invaded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RazoR

Lookit dem stupid americans.

Russians have already established that:
4-stack magazines blow
and so do ~light machine guns~

Bow before your god:
http://army.lv/large-photos/6p41.34589.jpg

---

Nice PKP. It would probably work better if it was loaded.

-O

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ophichius

Nice PKP. It would probably work better if it was loaded.

---

Are you advocating giving children loaded weapons?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frug

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ophichius

Nice PKP. It would probably work better if it was loaded.

---

Are you advocating giving children armed weapons?

---

Like, we give the gun a gun, then give the gun with a gun to the kid? Sure!

-O

>children
>that guy

huh

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ophichius

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frug

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ophichius

Nice PKP. It would probably work better if it was loaded.

---

Are you advocating giving children armed weapons?

---

Like, we give the gun a gun, then give the gun with a gun to the kid? Sure!

-O

---

:\ Loaded, you bastard. I totally fixed that before you replied.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RazoR

>children
>that guy

huh

---

To be fair, the guy is almost certainly less than 30, and given the lack of prominent nasolabial lines likely in his early twenties at most.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frug

:\ Loaded, you bastard. I totally fixed that before you replied.

---

Nah, I caught it just barely before you finished editing.

-O

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CastleBravo

Well at least we figured out that conscripted kids are bad.

Also,

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...my_soilder.jpg

---

Looks a lot like the Stoner 63

Ponyfags are checking out men.

nbs

So I'm having an interesting problem with a shot. I'm attempting to hit a quarter sized target at 30 feet, hand steady with a 22LR bolt action. The shot is between two walls, about 50 feet apart so I'm not having to take wind into account. The shot seems simple enough, yet I've missed it three times now. I've taken the rifle to the range to account for drift, and at 25yds I can put 30-35 rounds into the size of the quarter. After doing the math, as well as testing at the range, I've realized that the issue is that the round is still on the "up" part of the arch, and that even cranking my rear sight all the way down I'm still having to eyeball the distance to drop the aim. I'm considering loading .22 short to see if that will help bring the sights more on aim.

I will admit I'm not the best standing marksman, but the shot seems so short I think I can make it work. I can't say I've ever tried to hit something so small so close. I've done long range shooting, I've hit 1000yd shots. It's this short one that's really stumping me.

Suggestions?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RazoR

Ponyfags are checking out men.

nbs

---

Says the guy fapping to pics of teenage boys with guns.

At least the rest of us fap to men with guns.

We've seen too much russian mom porn I guess.

I can fap to guns without teenagers though.

http://www.apachearms.us/resources/svd-1.JPG

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cue1*

So I'm having an interesting problem with a shot. I'm attempting to hit a quarter sized target at 30 feet, hand steady with a 22LR bolt action. The shot is between two walls, about 50 feet apart so I'm not having to take wind into account. The shot seems simple enough, yet I've missed it three times now. I've taken the rifle to the range to account for drift, and at 25yds I can put 30-35 rounds into the size of the quarter. After doing the math, as well as testing at the range, I've realized that the issue is that the round is still on the "up" part of the arch, and that even cranking my rear sight all the way down I'm still having to eyeball the distance to drop the aim. I'm considering loading .22 short to see if that will help bring the sights more on aim.

I will admit I'm not the best standing marksman, but the shot seems so short I think I can make it work. I can't say I've ever tried to hit something so small so close. I've done long range shooting, I've hit 1000yd shots. It's this short one that's really stumping me.

Suggestions?

---

Find a cheap-ish optic that sits higher than your ironsights? If you're shooting above your sights the options are pretty much either raise your sights, adjust your sights, or use a low-velocity round. You've tried the first already.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RazoR

I can fap to guns without teenagers though.

  Spoiler:

http://www.apachearms.us/resources/svd-1.JPG

---

You had to post an SVD, you magnificent bastard. You have no idea how much I want one of those.

...Any chance you can get me one? *grin*

-O

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ophichius

Find a cheap-ish optic that sits higher than your ironsights? If you're shooting above your sights the options are pretty much either raise your sights, adjust your sights, or use a low-velocity round. You've tried the first already.

---

Was afraid someone would say that. :-/ the rifle has holes to put in a screw in scope but I haven't been able to find anything that matches. Guess the .22 short is my best option.

BEST RIFEL SINCE MOISN

http://www.1zoom.ru/big2/440/281799-Sepik.jpg

DAT FUKKEN STOCK HNNNNNGGGGGGHHHH

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cue1*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ophichius

Find a cheap-ish optic that sits higher than your ironsights? If you're shooting above your sights the options are pretty much either raise your sights, adjust your sights, or use a low-velocity round. You've tried the first already.

---

Was afraid someone would say that. :-/ the rifle has holes to put in a screw in scope but I haven't been able to find anything that matches. Guess the .22 short is my best option.

---

Or just do it like a traditionaly style archer (no sights) and aim below your target. Shoot the gap.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cue1*

So I'm having an interesting problem with a shot. I'm attempting to hit a quarter sized target at 30 feet, hand steady with a 22LR bolt action. The shot is between two walls, about 50 feet apart so I'm not having to take wind into account. The shot seems simple enough, yet I've missed it three times now. I've taken the rifle to the range to account for drift, and at 25yds I can put 30-35 rounds into the size of the quarter. After doing the math, as well as testing at the range, I've realized that the issue is that the round is still on the "up" part of the arch, and that even cranking my rear sight all the way down I'm still having to eyeball the distance to drop the aim. I'm considering loading .22 short to see if that will help bring the sights more on aim.

I will admit I'm not the best standing marksman, but the shot seems so short I think I can make it work. I can't say I've ever tried to hit something so small so close. I've done long range shooting, I've hit 1000yd shots. It's this short one that's really stumping me.

Suggestions?

---

I think you're overthinking the shot. Shoot by feel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keorythe

The SAWs are old and beat up. At least they were by 2004. Has there been a product improvement on them like the M4? The Navy went and re-invented the thing into the Mk 46 starting with brand new chassis. It weighs 12-15lbs depending on the if they take the normal or heavier fluted barrel. They also got rid of the magazine well which seems to jam as often as it works. So why don't they do this with the Army and USMC?

Quote:

---

Specifications
Mk 46 Mod 0
Weight (Empty) 12.6 pounds
Weight (Barrel) 2 pounds
Length (Overall) 35.75 inches
Length (Barrel) 16 inches
Bore Diameter 5.56mm

Mk 46 Mod 1
Weight (Empty) 15.44 pounds
Weight (Barrel) 3.28 pounds
Length (Overall) 36.22 inches
Length (Barrel) 16.3 inches
Height (Overall) 9.33 inches
Bore Diameter 5.56mm
Rifling 1:7 inches
Trigger Pull 7.87-15.7 pounds

---

Better suppression chance? Why is that? I know they were feeding kool-aid to everyone about better accuracy but with a well maintained chassis on the m249, the accuracy differences were minimal at best. If they gave him an M16a4 with a happy switch before the IAR, could he have done the exact same thing? What kind of accuracy and reliability are you going to expect after 20,000 rounds have passed through it? Below is from the Marine Corps gazette - 2004, author is Eby who is the one pushing this concept. Last sentence stands out.

  Spoiler:

During Test 2 minor issues developed with each of the weapons systems. S******* repeatedly had negligent discharges with the Colt, attributable to the Marines forgetting the difference between the closed-bolt M16A2 and the open-bolt AR. The young Marines kept riding the bolt home on a live round, thereby firing the round. With the Ultimax, the s******* realized that the sights were set too low in the rear. Once they achieved stock weld the sights proved to be lower than the eye could see, forcing stock weld to be broken and causing the shooter to search for the sights. With the HK the 3.5 power magnification proved too much at 25 and 50 yards but beneficial at 100 yards. Overmagnification at shorter ranges slowed down the presentation of the weapon onto the target. For the M249 SAW, the weight and length in general made this an extremely cumbersome weapon in field firing positions. Another problem resulted from the commonality of the Colt AR and the M16A2. The familiarity led to initial accuracy, as the young Marines had not yet become familiar with the other weapons.

Test 3 was fired from the prone position, using bipods for stability, engaging popup targets ranging in distance from 50 to 300 meters, with a varied time limit (See Table 3.) A 20-target exposure using 40 rounds was fired from Field Manual 23–9 (FM 23–9), M16A1 and M16A2 Rifle Marksmanship Table I. (See Figure 1.) This evaluation determined quick reaction from a defensive position to an attacking enemy.

Test 4 occurred on the same range as Test 3, firing Table II of FM 23–14, M249 Light Machinegun in the Automatic Rifle Role (see Figure 2), the SAW transition course of fire. A shooter in the prone position with 66 rounds engaged popup targets ranging in distance from 100 to 300 meters with a varied time limit. (See Table 4.) This test again gave the M249 the benefit of the doubt by firing a course of fire designed for the light machinegun. However, the only weapon that could qualify as a light machinegun, the M249 SAW, posted the worst results.

Test 5 was fired using long-range popup targets without team leader assistance. Targets ranged from 250 to 800 meters. (See Figure 3.) Testing employed a 20-target exposure firing 100 rounds per weapon from a supported prone position with varied time exposures. (See Table 5.)

The results from Test 5 identified difficulties for a single shooter to engage targets beyond 300 meters. To effectively and accurately engage targets at these ranges, weapons systems need to be operated by a team, fired from a tripod, and assisted by team leaders using magnified optics.

Tests 6 and 7 (see Tables 6 and 7 for test results) consisted of field firing at elevated targets (simulating urban patrol engagements) placed at distances of 100 to 150 meters. The targets were automated, three-dimensional “Ivan” popup targets. A 5-target exposure was used and engaged with 15 rounds with no time limit, but total time for each shooter was recorded. S******* fired from standing and kneeling positions with and without the field protective mask.

Test 8 consisted of night fire on an automated range with targets arrayed from 75 to 300 meters. (See Figure 4.) Ambient light was less than 20 percent. All weapons were zeroed with PEQ–2s using the laser bore light prior to the range. (See Table 8.) The Ultimax 100 was not tested because there was no way to mount the PEQ–2 to the weapon.

The final evaluation of the assessment was aimed at capturing intangible characteristics and qualities of the weapons that numeric data could not capture. Marines involved in the test filled out a shooter evaluation questionnaire that attempted to capture the intangibles of each weapon. The comparison of these questionnaires with actual range performance produced some interesting results. On average, during Tests 1 through 4 the 48 s******* preferred the weapons in the following order: Ultimax 100, HK, Colt, and M249 SAW. The questions on the questionnaire focused on nine areas: (1) overall performance, (2) using system sights, (3) detecting and identifying targets, (4) adjusting windage, (5) adjusting elevation, (6) adjusting weapons zero, (7) maintaining zero, (8) malfunctions, and (9) stoppages. Even though the Colt fired the most accurately in most stages, it was next to last in shooter preference.

Recommendations for modifications were requested for each of the weapons systems. The M249 and Colt were viewed as too heavy. The HK failed to stay on target in burst fire while the Ultimax sight system did not present to the eye at all. When the shooter laid his cheek on the stock of the weapon and achieved a proper stock weld he found the sights of the weapon lay below the line of sight capability of his eye. Accuracy—although according to raw data better than the current M249 SAW in every test—was of such a limited amount as to be statistically insignificant. Only on Test 3 did any weapon outperform the SAW by more than 10 percent accuracy.

Test 3 stands out. But then these LMG courses only require you to hit a target once....anywhere. Easy to do with an M4 and optics than iron sights on a SAW. And the original tests were all iron sights and PEQ's. So other than MOUT, what is the real benefit here?

The SAW is a damn death machine if it's well maintained. The problem seems to be weight and age. Weight can be fixed. The Navy proved that. Age/wear can also be fixed but it requires giving armorers more liberties to redline an LMG when it's beat to hell but still able to chug out some rounds.

**Wait, 20rd mag? Why is he using 20rds instead of standard 30's? No 60rd quad stacks? Do those even have an NSN?

*** Are there any Brits who worked the L86 before it turned into a marksman rifle? What were your impressions?

---

Yes 20 round mag. I am not arguing with you Keorythe. When i first heard about a magazine fed LMG for the USMC, I was blown away. Any Machine gun needs 2 things to be effective long term:
1. It needs to be belt fed
2. It needs quick changing barrels.

Nice things to have:
1. common caliber with the main rifle cartridge
2. fires from an open bolt.

The M249's were old and beat up. Nobody disagrees with that.
We are talking about the DOD here though. You know what the main argument for getting rid of the M9 was/is? The MAGAZINE springs were getting so weak that rounds could slip out of the magazine with in the pouches. So buy a whole new platform, instead of buying new magazine springs....

* not that I am saying that going back to the 1911 wasn't the best weapon decision the USMC has made in decades.