Every weapon has flaws, to claim one is better than another is pointless.

I love 1911s, but the .45 is a big round and 7+1 or 8+1 is kind of a low capacity. Para-Ordnance has solved this with a 14 shot, but it is thick in the hand, and well, it isn't an original 1911.

Glocks are very nice guns. Light, accurate, reliable. But now that they can design pressureless mag springs that fit 20 9mm rounds in a mag, a Glock is just another pistol now. No external safety isn't great either.

The day they build a gun superior to all others, with notable difference, then you buy it and brag.

Agreed, it is flawed. I just find it odd that there seem to be so many SF units in the world which prefer the traditional, direct impingement M16s and M4s over anything else, even piston ARs (in the case of Norway). I've never been in the service myself, but I just have to wonder if it says something that the old ARs seem to be preferred by "the elite".

And yes, it is true that the idea of a short-stroke piston is nothing new. I remember around the time that the 416 was announced, somebody on Military Photos posted scans of an old magazine article from the early-80s for a replacement piston kit called the Rhino. Do you remember that one?

I dunno about that. I don't know too many people who think the Chauchat was a good design, for instance. :D

Eh, buying a Glock for the mag capacity has always struck me as a dumb reason. I know plenty of people who always look at the Beretta 92F and SIG P226 and say, "the Glock 17 holds two more rounds, so I'd rather have that". Here's the thing, though: the Glock 17 wasn't exactly known in the 1980s for being the highest-capacity "Wonder Nine" money could buy. The H&K VP70 and Steyr GB both held 18 rounds, and they were both introduced years before the G17 (though they're also huge, which is I suppose one important difference).

Also, many handgun manufacturers lately have been cramming the extra two rounds into their 15-round mags to compete with Glock. Taurus now sells 17-round mags as standard with the PT92/PT99, for example.

I remember the Rhino it was in SWAT magazine I think. There is nothing wrong with the AR15/M16 system it the training in standard units that's fucked up. I have been working with a Government contractor for the past couple of week on a MILES sight for the M2 Browning. They went for a test with the Marine Corp and the stupid gunny had them remove all the grease and just use CLP. The weapons needs lithium grease in certain areas but then thought that was only for Arctic conditions. Lack of proper training in the regular force now SF they know how to make there weapons function all the time no mater where they are. That's why the SF world wide use the M4 including the French.

Just a word on my comment about the gunny. I don't think all Gunny Sgts are stupid just ones that don't want to learn something new. It could save his life or one of his troopers.

Well, I mean PROVEN designs. Like comparing an AK to an M16. They both have pros and cons, and many prefer one or another. You can't really say one is better, everyone has an opinion.

The Chauchat on the other hand, is good to compare to the Nambu Type 94.

http://i43.tinypic.com/15377e1.jpg


The Chauchat was unreliable to the max while the Type 94 could back fire and kill you... hmmmm. Which would I rather not touch?

Fair enough, I forgot about the Type 94's rep!

I'm of the opinion (as an AK aficionado) that the AR is an all-around better platform.

You can fix one of the problems the Chauchat had with some tin and solder. Cover those holes in the mag would solve some jamming problems.

Yep, that was it. I wish I could find the topic where they had those scans. It was an interesting read, though nothing really came of the Rhino, so I'm guessing it had issues of its own.

And what you're saying about training makes sense.

If you want a great AK get one with a milled receiver. Early AR's are Great with the 1 in 14 twist barrel. The A2 you can throw that Marine Corp 800 meter rear sight in the trash. I like the M4 Carbine for a lightweight weapon and the FAL for a Battle Rifle with an 18" Barrel.

FYI, the T-94 isnt a Nambu, its a Kenju. Kijiro Nambu had nothing to do with it's design.

I think every weapon is designed for a very specific role, and the AK is the perfect example of that. You have to look at Soviet doctrine to understand that - at the time the rifle was introduced, they were preparing to fight a war which would essentially be them pushing through the Fulda gap into West Germany. Their doctrine was to roll up on enemy trenches in their BTRs and dismount almost on top of them.

It's short enough to fit easily in an armored vehicle, has a large (for the time) magazine, fires on automatic to clear a trench with and is reliable enough and easy enough to make to be effective in the hands of a hastily-trained conscript army. It is not designed for accuracy or ergonomics, because when used the way it was intended to be it did not require those things.

The AK is a great rifle when used within its envelope. I've used it and the M16 series, and I'm glad it's a C7 I'm taking to war.

I don't like AKs cause they jsut won't shoulder or point well for me, rock solid they are though. I don't like glocks for many reasons

1. Boring and Ugly
2. Really weird trigger, I prefer a DA/SA then SAO then DA wheelgun, DA (or HALF-double action, as glockers always correct me) comes dead last.
3. Unconfortable grip.
4. Poor factory barrels, all the accurate glocks I see have aftermarket barrels and for that money you can buy a sig.

If you had to do a WWI movie which used Chauchats, would you do this in order to make the weapons function reliably? Even if it took away from the realism?

Of course, I can't imagine there are many Chauchats in armories, or movies...

The one I own is stamped. I'm not the biggest fan of milled, even though the Bulgarians seem to like those better.

I actually don't know if the Glock's trigger is all that bad in DA. At least, I don't have a problem with it.

I do really hate the grip, though. I have yet to handle or fire a Glock with a grip I liked. Even the supposedly-better SF Glocks still suck. Right now, they're about to come out with the 4th Gen styling which has a different texture, and this is supposedly going to make the grip more comfortable. I highly doubt it; what Glock really needs to do is change the cross-section of the grip so that it's more circular and less rectangular.

As it is now (and as it's been for the last 25 years), the Glock's grip is basically not compatible with the contours of most human hands, especially mine.

Actually the French Chauchats were alot more reliable than most people think. The problems really came in with the American model in .30-06 - too much cartridge for the gun.

I think we would just at a piece of clear plastic in the opening. It would still look open but the actors would not be able to load the mag up with dirt.

There are a couple of Chauchats that I know of in the industry.

That is true on the .30-06 model as it was not reliable as the French model. Pershing took away our Lewis Guns and issued French Chauchats to make the French happy. We could have used the Lewis instead of making a .30-06 Chauchats but did not due to politics.:mad:

All firearms are recycled package from old designs. There really nothing new other then the material (cheap plastic) that is being used and the look of the new platform.

The AR15 is the best rifle in the world. It's not going to change anytime soon because firearms mechanical limitation is near or at it limit.

FN production of the SCAR started around six months ago and I really doubt they produced 100,000 SCAR rifles for SOCOM. The entire US Special Force is less then 15k IIRC. 100,000 is about half the size of the Marine Corp. 100,000 is 5 Army divisions.

If you're talking about the IAR program there are three companies that is on the finial list. Colt AR15 IAR rifle, HK416 IAR, and FN SCAR IAR version. The contract stated whoever the Marine choose, the manufacture will provided the rifles and price on the contract.

The ACR is Bushmaster entry to the future weapon program. ACR was designed by Magpul and it was originally called Masada. Bushmaster bought the rights for the Masada and renamed it ACR. Bushmaster delay the production of the rifle in order to figure out the requirements for the future weapon program. The Bushmaster ACR use an AR18 action and is not an AR15. I think HK416 will be in it. I am not sure if FN will reenter the SCAR in new competition. Colt will put their new version of the AR15.

The bullet has to weight 45 gr or less in order to stabilize at 1:14 twist. You're better off shooting .22lr at that twist rate on an AR15. The 1:7 twist allows the bullet weight to go over 80 gr. This provides better ballistic and accuracy. A2 rifles are use in long range precision shooting. Competitors using A2 iron sights hit the X mark the size of a CD disk at 600 yards over 60% of their shots.

Glock and 1911 dominate US handguns sells and completions. Glocks and 1911 are use the most in completions because of the triggers. Both are light and has less travel.

Bold statement there, Id take an FAL, m14 or in 556 even a sig 5xx series first.

You're crazy, the best rifle ever is the Colt 1911.

RIFLE...not handgun. The 1911s are one of the best handguns in the world. Right now, I'd take an XD.

AR-15 designs are pretty good.

1911s just fit in my hand well and have great triggers, I think they're a great military handgun, just not a concealed Carry/LE pistol, Id prefer DA/SA

Sorry, I've been deep in sarcasm mode all day.

I have no problem that you prefer FAL (one of the best auto loader rifle every made), M14 (all around good rifle), or 556.

However, beyond personal preference the best warriors in the world use AR. The people that put their live on the line choose AR. The tip of spear choose AR. It's not my opinion it's a fact.

This video is what made Blackwater famous. The video shows Travis Haley and few Blackwater contractors repelling hundreds of insurgents trying to overrun their position. What are they using? AR15. They could have picked the FAL or M14 or G36 or whatever, but all of them used AR15. Why? Because it is the best weapon.

The AR15 is the rifle of choice for contractors in Iraq, Afghanistan, and around the world. It's not my opinion it is a fact.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=bcf_1190074398

Travis Haley is now employed by Magpul under the division name Magpul Dynamics. He still using the AR15. The best warriors use AR15.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=segtXBwglj4

The Navy SEAL that killed the three pirates used mk-11 (SR25/AR10) which is the big brother of the AR15. The US Army is replacing their M24 with M110 (SR25/AR10/Mk-11). The M14 is being replaced by the M110 as the primary designated Marksman rifle. Why? Because the AR accuracy is superior to bolt action rifle. No other auto action rifle can do what the AR does.

US Special Force as well as other nation can use whatever weapon they like. Yet almost all Western SF units choose AR. Why because it is the best.

Or they just get the most training on the AR-15 and want weapons systems they are familiar on for training purposes. The AR-15 is good, but not all-powerful.

But it shoots bullets made of compressed death, it is 100% accurate, never runs dry and it improves gas mileage on your car by 25%, how could it not be all-powerful?

You're only addressing part of Jdun's argument. It isn't just American PMCs who carry ARs. It's the SFs of just about every Western/NATO/pro-U.S. military in the world. These are countries whose SFs would NOT be familiar with the AR because they used something else as rank-and-file infantry. The Aussies are a good example - the standard-issue for their military is the Steyr AUG, but their SF all use ARs.

Again, this is not opinion. It's fact. If you look at the weapons of most of the SFs that are pro-U.S. (or at least not overtly anti-American), you'll see all of them using M16s and M4s. Surely, you can't deny that that is significant?

BTW, I'm old enough and have been reading gun rags long enough to remember all of the new rifle platforms that came along over the years which were touted as superior to the M16 and M4, and then wound up failing to gain acceptance. Especially the ones built by H&K. People have been criticizing the AR platform for decades now, and yet at the end of the day, its popularity has endured. No other rifle platform, even "improved" ARs like the H&K 416, has yet managed to eclipse the popularity of the traditional direct gas impingement M16 and M4.

Like I said before, if you don't like the AR15 that's fine by me. However the facts remains that the best warriors in the world use the AR15. These fighter does not use junks and unproven gears. They use the best proven gears in the market and from the experience learn in real combat.

If you never took combat/small arms training or been in the military. You might want to take a look at Magpul Dynamics - Art of the Tactical Carbine, (3 DVD Set). It is inexpensive compare to going to class or buying other videos similar to it.

http://www.bravocompanyusa.com/Magpu...d%20dyn001.htm

PSYWAR1-0 did made some interesting points on the AR15 about the SCAR.
http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=6&f=2&t=276835

I have held the SCAR but never shot it or did a complete disassemble of the SCAR but PSYWAR1-0 is in the industry so his comments have weight.

Anyway the problem with FPS other then the typical bad understanding of firearms is tactics. While I don't play a lot of games, CoD 4 is bad in this regard. No objectives between the two military combatants. It's like a headless chicken running around doing the same thing over and over again without any gains.

In military and LE, they have objectives like defending or taking territories (rescuing hostages)but rarely both. In other worlds there should one attacking and one defending team. Each team have an objective. The attacking team trying to take the defending team territories, while the defending team trying to prevent it.

I don't remember how their disable bomb mission works but what I do remember is that I thought it was silly.

It's all about clear objectives. TF2 while doesn't have realistic guns it does have clear objectives and I think it is one of the best tactical FPS out there.

One FPS I recently got the chance to play was the STALKER series, including Shadow of Chernobyl and the prequel Clear Sky.

The first one handled firearms very well, with semi-realistic performance and a variety to DIE for. The second one got lost in weapon upgrades which is still believable but not perfect.

The weapons are also a mix of East-bloc surplus and mercenary imports, and include handguns with an impressive range, with no clear standouts. From a gameplay balance standpoint, it sucks, but from a gun-nerd's view it's awesome. SIG Sauer P226s, HK USP, 1911, Beretta 92FS, a weird anomalous Desert Eagle(shooting .45ACP), Walther P99, Fort MK12 etc.

Plus they portray multiple types of ammunition with different qualities and ranges.

Rifles are well varied too, but the G36K is portrayed as the end all beat all rifle. Tragically enough. Also, the only SMG is an old model MP5.

In fact, the IMFDB page on STALKER is really good!

I've said too much now I think. Suffice to say Clear Sky wasn't as good.

I think Arma was the only game to successfully capture the realism of military and shooting. The gun is even more to the right of the screen in FPS since most shooters fire from their right shoulder. And no "from the hiP" crap that every FPS has for some reason. Sniping is pretty cool too.

You think guns ejecting cartriges to the ledt are wierd? Try Battlefield Vietnam. All the guns are lefteies fired right-handed (exept for the M60 and RPD, the belt-feds). It's realywierd when you have a leftie bolt gun fireing right-handed. Truly bizzare. Also, the game has no medic class and. while slightly better than Battlefield 1942, isn't great. I bought Battlefield 2 and thought "wow, i can use the sights" and i have only killed one friendly for being stupid. good game