I was just wondering why the team chose to use Colt as the assault rifle of choice. Bushmaster rifles are held to a higher standard, with heavier barrels, tighter tolerances, and a MUCH higher reliability rate. I suppose it could be because of the historical significance. I don't mean to "through rocks" just curious.
Why Colt??
- Thread starter sig229
- Start date
-
Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.
Personally I do not like the colt I would rather go with the AK anyday. I find that the colt has a slower firing rate, although it is more accurate, when you use your secondary view I notice that it is much more difficult to see your surroundings.
The sights are more defined than the AK but I would rather compensate for a minor action of inaccuracy than not being able to see anything around me other than what I'm shooting at.
I feel useless, like a bored priest whose fingers have ceased to feel the immanence of the holy water...
Pacman@planetunreal.com
The sights are more defined than the AK but I would rather compensate for a minor action of inaccuracy than not being able to see anything around me other than what I'm shooting at.
I feel useless, like a bored priest whose fingers have ceased to feel the immanence of the holy water...
Pacman@planetunreal.com
Armies buy Colt, Bushmaster's are produced in much too small quantities to fill military orders, so they're used by private individuals.
The only analogy I can think of is if the Inf team put in a Colt M1911A1, and you said "Why don't we use a Kimber or a Wilson Combat?"
The only analogy I can think of is if the Inf team put in a Colt M1911A1, and you said "Why don't we use a Kimber or a Wilson Combat?"
Uh..
The reason why it's a Colt is because Colt has the contract to make rifles for the U.S. military?
The reason why it's a Colt is because Colt has the contract to make rifles for the U.S. military?
yeah, it's not so much which is better as it is which is used more. there are tons of guns that are probably better than the m-16. hell, incertain situations the berreta would be better but the fact is that here in the us the army uses the m16 and a lot of them.
what would be a better question is why the de. the gun sucks. it was a mistake and often regarded as a failure. i'd much rather have the berreta 92 or a 1911.
Lord Bunker
Ruler of The Bunkvanian Empire
"only the first shot truly matters, everything else is just a waste of paint."
what would be a better question is why the de. the gun sucks. it was a mistake and often regarded as a failure. i'd much rather have the berreta 92 or a 1911.
Lord Bunker
Ruler of The Bunkvanian Empire
"only the first shot truly matters, everything else is just a waste of paint."
Uh..
Because the U.S. military didn't have political authorization to drop a nuke on the country, that's why.
Because the U.S. military didn't have political authorization to drop a nuke on the country, that's why.
Hehe, the age old argument. Though McArther (**** me, can't remember the spelling) wanted to nuke the country, it would have been the wrong decision. He even went as far as to petition the people, and he was discharged for it.
Dropping a nuke on Vietnam would have been both unnecessary, as we could have won conventionally, and also would greatly increase tension between us and the soviets at the time. The Vietnamese were allied with the soviets, more or less, and nuking Nam would only give one more reason for the soviets to drop everything onto the US.
The real reason we lost Nam was because of the politicians not knowing jack **** about how to run the war. If the power to make strategical decisions to the field commanders or at LEAST for generals on the ground would have meant major changes in the war. Anyway, it's ancient history now.
----
-MiscMan
Titanium Wars
Dropping a nuke on Vietnam would have been both unnecessary, as we could have won conventionally, and also would greatly increase tension between us and the soviets at the time. The Vietnamese were allied with the soviets, more or less, and nuking Nam would only give one more reason for the soviets to drop everything onto the US.
The real reason we lost Nam was because of the politicians not knowing jack **** about how to run the war. If the power to make strategical decisions to the field commanders or at LEAST for generals on the ground would have meant major changes in the war. Anyway, it's ancient history now.
----
-MiscMan
Titanium Wars
Plus, all those f*cking "Flower Power" hippies back home were raising a fuss, so we had to cut the war short. I hate hippies...
-Keiichi
http://www.geocities.com/morisato_81/
-Keiichi
http://www.geocities.com/morisato_81/
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Hehe, the age old argument. Though McArther (**** me, can't remember the spelling) wanted to nuke the country, it would have been the wrong decision. He even went as far as to petition the people, and he was discharged for it. [/quote]
Wrong war, that was Korea, that maniac wanted not only to bomb Korea itself, butt also China and the USSR. Imagine what would have happened had the lunatic gotten his way.
Crosshairs are for wimps
Wrong war, that was Korea, that maniac wanted not only to bomb Korea itself, butt also China and the USSR. Imagine what would have happened had the lunatic gotten his way.
Crosshairs are for wimps
Well the US would have never won the Vietnam war because they thought they could win it by throwing money at it... Nuking Vietnam, Korea or anything else would acheive little, the Vietnam war(technically the vietnam conflict not a war as a declaration of war was never signed) was wrong, it was just another example of American neo-colonialism and imperialism. America did not just fight in Vietnam to "stop the commies" but also because of financial interests.
Vietnam was wrong because they were fighting a peasant people who had struggled against oppression for the last thousand years. The vietnamese were not allied with the soviets, they had links with communist China.
American soldiers massacred, raped and destroyed peasant's homes. Many of the soldiers were conscripted, a lot did not want to be there on the other side of the world, fighting a war against a peasant people.
How can you say that America would have won the vietnam war conventionally??? lets see...
Conscripted American vs Battle Hardened VietCong
The vietcong already overthrew the French colonialists.
The Vietnam war was not a war of weapons, it was a war of minds. America wanted to win this war of minds with guns...
Vietnam was wrong because they were fighting a peasant people who had struggled against oppression for the last thousand years. The vietnamese were not allied with the soviets, they had links with communist China.
American soldiers massacred, raped and destroyed peasant's homes. Many of the soldiers were conscripted, a lot did not want to be there on the other side of the world, fighting a war against a peasant people.
How can you say that America would have won the vietnam war conventionally??? lets see...
Conscripted American vs Battle Hardened VietCong
The vietcong already overthrew the French colonialists.
The Vietnam war was not a war of weapons, it was a war of minds. America wanted to win this war of minds with guns...
That's true...we didn't learn till the '80s....
Adam C.
--A good AMR can be
your best friend...--
Adam C.
--A good AMR can be
your best friend...--
The reason why the U.S. didn't win the Vietnam War is because it was never an option for the U.S. to consider. It wasn't an example of "neo-colonialism" or "imperialism". Don't be quoting that revisionist history bullcrap here. The U.S. had allies to keep and its own existence to defend, and the administrations during the period considered fighting the war in Vietnam was necessary in doing that. Outright victory by invading the north was never an option after the Korean War. Financial interests? Name one war that wasn't about financial interests. And, yes, the U.S. could have won the Vietnam War conventionally. Given no political boundaries, you can't tell me that the U.S. couldn't win the war if we brought to bear every resource of its two-and-half-wars military capability.
If there wouldn't have been any political boundries for the US the conflict would have expanded to the surrounding countries and perhaps eventually China or the USSR itself would have gotten actively involved, we might have had WW3 on our hands.
Crosshairs are for wimps
Crosshairs are for wimps