no accurate FPS games

[MT2008]

Originally Posted by Gunmaster45

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

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

Originally Posted by Gunmaster45

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.

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.

[Gunmaster45]

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.




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

[MT2008]

Originally Posted by Gunmaster45

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.




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.

[Phoenixent]

Originally Posted by MT2008

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.

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.

[Nyles]

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.

[k9870]

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.

[MT2008]

Originally Posted by k9870

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.

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.

[Phoenixent]

Originally Posted by Gunmaster45

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.




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

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.

[MT2008]

Originally Posted by Phoenixent

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.

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...

Originally Posted by Phoenixent

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.

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

[Phoenixent]

Originally Posted by MT2008

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...

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.