Post 2.9 Official Weapon Suggestions Thread

[kungpaosamuraiii]

But that's the point of training, to replace natural instincts with combat effective instincts.


It's like in martial arts and it is indeed a martial art. Most people, when kicked at, will move away but I'm taught to move into the kick.

I'd take human instincts with a grain of salt because human instincts blow.

Especially since we're not living in caves and eating raw meat gotten from clubbing an animal to death.


As much of a human he is, he's still a trained soldier. And a soldier with an assault rifle is going to want to keep his ammo. If he was hauling an MG around then he'd probably spray a little down wind.

 

[SaraP]

No matter how much training you've had Sarah, if you're getting shot at, you're going to get under cover.

I meant talk to people! You know, the living, breathing, thinking things?

Let's see. One retired L.A. County Sheriff's Department sergeant with over thirty years on the force. One Los Angeles Police Department reserve officer. Two LAPD S.W.A.T. team members. The local police chief (a Marine veteran who qualified marksman and fought in Vietnam). Three former ARVN officers who fought in Vietnam. One former Marine infantryman who fought in Gulf I. One active Marine demolitions sergeant who fought in Gulf II.

All of whom know vastly more about fighting than you do, and all of whom agree with the training manuals.

Btw, I'd take the US Army field manuals with a grain of salt because the army blows.

You are clearly an absolute moron if you think you know more about combat than the U.S. Army does.

No one ever said you have to hold down the trigger for effective suppressing fire.

You claimed the ability to lay down full automatic suppressing fire was a huge advantage for the select-fire battle rifle. Full automatic suppressing fire requires that you hold down the trigger. Don't try to weasel out of your own position and pretend you weren't saying it in the first place.

As much of a soldier that he thinks he is, he's still a Human. And a human getting shot at is going to get some cover.

Training overrides instinct. Trained soldiers do not panic and run for cover at the first sign of enemy bullets as you seem to think; they go for cover and return fire.

 

[Specter]

Hmm... I made that post about the field manuals around 3:06 AM, so I don't remember exactly what the point was. It was probably to back up the post made eariler about sniper teams, snipers not carrying automatic sidearms, and something about iron sights. It also had a link to a website with field manuals so that other people could read them and maybe learn something.

Also, itsn't it a little pointless to quote the entire post that you are replying to, especially if you are posting right after it and only responding with one sentance?

 

[Lasersailor184]

But that's the point of training, to replace natural instincts with combat effective instincts.

That's the idea of training. Does it happen? Rarely.

All of whom know vastly more about fighting than you do, and all of whom agree with the training manuals.

Training manuals are cool. I love a good laugh late at night.

You are clearly an absolute moron if you think you know more about combat than the U.S. Army does.

Sara, my *CAT* knows more about combat then the current Army does.

You claimed the ability to lay down full automatic suppressing fire was a huge advantage for the select-fire battle rifle. Full automatic suppressing fire requires that you hold down the trigger. Don't try to weasel out of your own position and pretend you weren't saying it in the first place.

Last time I checked, Auto Fire happens once you pull the trigger and ends once you release. No one ever said that Auto fire is only when you empty a mag.


But anyway, back on topic. You represent full auto Rifles as completely useless. I'd just like to point out that the BAR was one of the most effective weapons in WW2 up to Vietnam. It fired a round that was 3x more powerful then the M16.

But I guess they only used that because they didn't like it.

 

[yurch]

That's the idea of training. Does it happen? Rarely.

How the fuck would you know?

But anyway, back on topic. You represent full auto Rifles as completely useless. I'd just like to point out that the BAR was one of the most effective weapons in WW2 up to Vietnam. It fired a round that was 3x more powerful then the M16.

Haha, yeah, and a good hit from a sword does more damage than that. Wonder why they don't use those anymore.

Really man, why would an overly heavy and reletively ineffective overkill device ever be replaced with something else? The 'mouseguns' won the cartridge war for a reason.

The only thing sadder than a fanboy is when they try to justify themselves.

 

[jaunty]

Lasersailor, I'm going to treat you like Domino. A stubborn piece of shit who's so pig headed about his favourite piece of obsolete trash that he doesn't care about logic, and distorts fact to prove a pont. Here goes;

1) The M14 was obsolete the day it hit the field. The FAL and G3 both outclass it, as well as the AKs that were around at the time. Shit, even a PPSh-41 is a better alternative.

2) Battle rifles are obsolete on the modern battlefield due to their weight and smaller magazine capacity.

3) The average range at which a soldier engages his target is 300m or less. At this range, the extended range of the .308 round means precisely dick, since this is basically the optimum range for 5.56mm rounds to hit their target at. (Unless it comes from an M4, at which point even 5m is too far away for an effective hit)

4) Full auto from a 7.62mm weapon of any type is so hard to control and aim without a bipod that it is useless. Anybody who thinks they can shoulder an M14 and get off 3 rounds in automatic is either on PCP or kidding themselves, and I don't think you're on PCP (Though this might explain the reduced brain function).

Don't even try to pull the "BUT WHEN YOU GET SHOT AT YOU PANIC." No. You might, but soldiers don't. The last thing they do is panic. They get down behind something that stops bullets, and then they send accurate, aimed, precise fire back towards their attackers. (This is exactly why the auto function was stripped from the M16 when it was revised up to A2). The M14 decends from the Garand. The Garand was designed with one thing in mind: Accurate placement of rounds. The M14 is no different. It has a 20 round box because that's a better option than the 8 round clips of the Garand. A magazine is not an excuse to unleash in full auto.

Now please, for the sake of humanity, stab yourself in the eye with a coathanger. Repeatedly. I'm sure you'll find something comfortingly familiar about the feeling of coathanger on brain.

 

[spm1138]

I'd just like to point out that the BAR was one of the most effective weapons in WW2 up to Vietnam. It fired a round that was 3x more powerful then the M16.

The BAR was great - because the recoil was controllable and the weapon was accurate. It was twice as heavy as the M14 and generally had a bipod. It wasn't a spray and pray weapon. Everything I read about it lists accuracy even on automatic as one of it's strong points.

The M16 fires a weaker round so as to offer the same relatively controllable recoil in a much lighter package (less than half the weight of the BAR).

An M16 mag weighs less than half what a BAR mag weighs.

More ammo = more suppression.

More controllable recoil = better chance that the person you are suppressing knows you are shooting at them rather than just shooting in general = better suppression.

Now please, for the sake of humanity, stab yourself in the eye with a coathanger. Repeatedly. I'm sure you'll find something comfortingly familiar about the feeling of coathanger on brain.

If I say that to people, do I owe you royalties?

 

[Meplat]

The M1918's were called Automatic Rifles because that, for their time, was what they were. Properly, they were known later as "Machine Rifles". Comparing a M1918 to a M-14 is spurious logic at best. One is an open bolt 19 pound weapon, the other is a closed bolt nine pound weapon. See the immediate diffrence? One, the M1918 was designed from the start as a weapon intended for full auto fire. Note the weight diffrence as well.

I can vouch for the accuracy of the M1918 on both Semi, and Full-(Later variants were capable of only two rates of full auto fire)- although offhand, on full auto is best left to those who know how a BAR recoils, and acts.

More useless info.

Meplat-

 

[Lasersailor184]

1) The M14 was obsolete the day it hit the field. The FAL and G3 both outclass it, as well as the AKs that were around at the time. ****, even a PPSh-41 is a better alternative.

Funny how all FAL's and G3's I come across are awful pieces of ****.

Yet every M14 I come across is still a piece of artwork.

2) Battle rifles are obsolete on the modern battlefield due to their weight and smaller magazine capacity.

3) The average range at which a soldier engages his target is 300m or less. At this range, the extended range of the .308 round means precisely dick, since this is basically the optimum range for 5.56mm rounds to hit their target at. (Unless it comes from an M4, at which point even 5m is too far away for an effective hit

5.56 rounds are weak inneffective pieces of ****. It takes roughly 3-6 5.56 rounds to effectively drop a man.

Yet it takes only one 7.62 round to effectively drop a man.

So basically, one 7.62 round is worth 4 5.56 rounds. And that's giving the 5.56 round more credit then it's worth.

Haha, yeah, and a good hit from a sword does more damage than that. Wonder why they don't use those anymore.

Umm, they still do. Why do you think knives are issued?

4) Full auto from a 7.62mm weapon of any type is so hard to control and aim without a bipod that it is useless. Anybody who thinks they can shoulder an M14 and get off 3 rounds in automatic is either on PCP or kidding themselves, and I don't think you're on PCP (Though this might explain the reduced brain function).

I've done it. It's not easy, but i'm not a puny little Army soldier.

Don't even try to pull the "BUT WHEN YOU GET SHOT AT YOU PANIC." No. You might, but soldiers don't. The last thing they do is panic. They get down behind something that stops bullets, and then they send accurate, aimed, precise fire back towards their attackers.

Right. When you are getting shot at by a lot of people, I ****DARE**** you to stick up your head and try to fire back. Most people just raise their gun without raising their bodies.

(This is exactly why the auto function was stripped from the M16 when it was revised up to A2).

Actually, they took off the auto function on the M16 because it was more cost efficient to redo / make new M16's then to keep paying for the Army's 100,000 rounds to 1 hit ratio. <--- And that's not an exhaggeration either.

The M14 decends from the Garand. The Garand was designed with one thing in mind: Accurate placement of rounds. The M14 is no different. It has a 20 round box because that's a better option than the 8 round clips of the Garand. A magazine is not an excuse to unleash in full auto.

I never said that you should always use the M14 in full auto. I said that when the situation warrants you should use it.

Now please, for the sake of humanity, stab yourself in the eye with a coathanger. Repeatedly. I'm sure you'll find something comfortingly familiar about the feeling of coathanger on brain.

I would hate to deprive you of your "Deep anal itch Scratcher." Don't want you getting really testy.

The BAR was great - because the recoil was controllable and the weapon was accurate. It was twice as heavy as the M14 and generally had a bipod. It wasn't a spray and pray weapon. Everything I read about it lists accuracy even on automatic as one of it's strong points.

True, it was heavier. But it also fired a much powerful round. So the two are much closer then you would think.

More ammo = more suppression.

You got me there. But even in quantities, the 5.56 round still blows.

 

[spm1138]

True, it was heavier. But it also fired a much powerful round. So the two are much closer then you would think.

The BAR weighs twenty odd pounds.

The M14 weighs eleven odd pounds.

Surely the extra twelve milimeters of cartridge doesn't negate the extra nine pounds of weapon?

 

[yurch]

5.56 rounds are weak inneffective pieces of ****. It takes roughly 3-6 5.56 rounds to effectively drop a man.

Yet it takes only one 7.62 round to effectively drop a man.

Where do you come up with this stuff? It'd be nice to hear about a source other than a random blurb you probably heard from a news station at age nine.

Tell me, did they take you seriously in the TTR forums? You don't come across with an ounce of credibility..

 

[sublime]

I wish we hadn't lost that thread where he got shredded. I think he lost his credibility here then.

 

[Meplat]

Lasersailor, and I quote
"Funny how all FAL's and G3's I come across are awful pieces of ****.

Yet every M14 I come across is still a piece of artwork."

I will merely respond to this by saying, "You have'nt seen enough M-14's then".

Have you used a FAL? Or a G-3? (I built many L1A1 clones before the odius "assault rifle ban")
In my experience I find the FAL to be superior in sheer durability, and maintainability. The G-3 follows, with the M-14 only having the POTENTIAL to shoot more accurately. Overall, I was less than impressed with the '14 in it's field maintainability, or ease of first time instruction.

Now, you've dug the "5.56 Vs 7.62" arguement up. So just how in depth did you study this? Ever seen what a M-855 fired from an early M601 series AR-15 does?

I'd rather be livershot by a M-80 ball round. (yes, feel free to ponder, and research this combination of firearm and projectile..)

How about the terminal ballistics of all the various NATO spec 7.62MM loads? Very interesting.. Do the same with 5.56MM, and the weapons they're fired in. You might learn something.


(Never mind me. I just shoot the damn things)

Meplat-

 

[SaraP]

Sara, my *CAT* knows more about combat then the current Army does.

You have just confirmed beyond every possible doubt that you are an utter moron.

Last time I checked, Auto Fire happens once you pull the trigger and ends once you release. No one ever said that Auto fire is only when you empty a mag.

An M-14 battle rifle fires 750 rounds per minute in automatic fire mode and has a 20-round box magazine. Consequently, it will empty a full magazine in 1.6 seconds. An M-16A3 assault rifle, on the other hand, fires 700 rounds per minute in automatic fire mode and has a 30-round box magazine, which gives it just under 2.6 seconds of automatic fire.

The real difference, of course, is that the M-16 is controllable in full automatic and can send all thirty bullets in the general direction of the enemy; the M-14 isn't and will put most of those twenty rounds up into the sky.

But anyway, back on topic. You represent full auto Rifles as completely useless. I'd just like to point out that the BAR was one of the most effective weapons in WW2 up to Vietnam. It fired a round that was 3x more powerful then the M16.

But I guess they only used that because they didn't like it.

The M1918 BAR weighed eighteen to nineteen pounds unloaded depending on version, which made it heavy enough to be reasonably stable when firing in full-automatic mode. At eight to ten pounds unloaded, post-WWII select-fire battle rifles like the M-14 and G3 are simply too light to handle full-auto fire from full-power rifle ammunition.

It's important to note that, heavy as it was, the BAR had relatively poor accuracy in shouldered and hipped automatic fire due to its powerful recoil. Because of this, the Marines preferred to use the BAR in semiautomatic mode unless prone (a BAR with its bipod deployed was ludicrously accurate for an automatic weapon, routinely making 3-inch groups at a hundred yards), even going so far as to modify the newer-model M1918A2 BAR (which had a slow-auto/fast-auto trigger group instead of the semiauto/full auto group found on the M1918A1 and the original M1918) to permit semiauto fire.

In other words: ~20 lb BAR has limited effectiveness in full-auto from shoulder or hip; ~10 lb M-14 has zero effectiveness in full-auto from shoulder or hip.

 

[kungpaosamuraiii]

Ehhh, swords are NOT knives.


Let's see you try to lop off my head with a 7" knife before I plunge my 36" blade in your gut.

Or, to better fit in with the tone of INF, let us see you stab me with your 7" knife while I hold a 20" gun between us.

Of course, in order for me to hold you off I'd have to hold the barrel or stock with both hands outstretched but you will not be running around with a knife out so in the event that we're both outta ammo (to be fair) and you decide to pull out your knife, I will treat my gun as a large club and club you on the head. You're not that stupid, knives aren't useful in combat. And to top that off victims make a LOT of noise after their throat is slit.



When under suppressive fire, would it not be prudent to resort to grenades? I always carry smoke nades in INF for that reason. I don't know how militarily sound this is but I'm sure it's a lot better than sticking ANYthing out in a firestorm. But that's just civilian me.


And last thing, according to your logic, quantity>quality. Therefore, it doesn't matter what round you are using the more rounds you put on the other side is better. Therefore, 5.56>7.62 since you can always send more 5.56 down range like you put it. Actually, for that logic, they should issue .11 caliber LMGs because then a single SAW belt would fit about 400 rounds. 400 rounds blazed through even on fast ROF will give you a bit more seconds of continuous fire. And you wouldn't even need to use a fitted rifled barrel since all you need to do is make bullets go one way so overheating won't be a problem other than the expanding gas.

 

[jaymian]

Since this is official, I suggest a pump action shotgun. More specifically, a mossberg 500. Since I have fired a mossberg 500, I consider myself a pro. It has never jammed on me, and it is reliable. I was also in the military for 4 years. Therefore my opinion means more. Read all the books you want, but actually being in the military and shooting a gun means I know wtf I am talking about. SInce INF does not have a mossberg 500, it is safe to assume INF is not very realistic. Thanks for your time.

Sounds pretty stupid doesn't it?

 

[jaunty]

Actually, they took off the auto function on the M16 because it was more cost efficient to redo / make new M16's then to keep paying for the Army's 100,000 rounds to 1 hit ratio. <--- And that's not an exhaggeration either.

Thanks for proving* the total lack of worth of full auto fire in combat. Way to sink yourself. You can go fuck off now.

*You seem to think everything you say is gospel, so in this case I won't even bother to disagree. Yes, full auto is useless because it takes 100,000 rounds to get one hit. That's 5,000 M14 magazines for one hit, but only 3,333 M16 magazines for one hit. There you go, the M14 is shit. Thanks for winning the argument for me.

Also, Melpat speaks truth. The FAL soldiers on long after the M14 is coughing up carbon.


P.S For the forum vets: What's the bet that this joker is Dj Lethal?

 

[Bushwack]

KP, if they make a lot of noise once thier throats are slit, you didnt cut them deep enough severing a carotid artery doesnt leave even the hardiest of persons very long to make anything but a gurgling noise, and most well trained personel will know enough to not only sever this artery, but also the actual throat/windpipe, let alone a follow up stab between the ribs to silence any wind your victim may expell during his demise{as well as standard operating procedure regarding sentry elimination techniques consisting of grabbing your stabbee from behind clasping your free hand over mouth and nose while simultaneously slashing carotid/windpipe) {google:fairborne sykes/OSS methods}

Knives are EXTREMELY usefull in the field, not only for silent sentry elimination, cutting of B-wire, and a myriad of other uses, thats why i hazard to speculate that 99.9% of all fighting forces are issued some kind of edged weapon for thier field kits.

*side note* not defending lasersailors ludicrous claims, but i will defend the knife as a standard field issue article till bitter end*

 

[spm1138]

Ever seen what a M-855 fired from an early M601 series AR-15 does?

Was that the combo that would "take a man's head off" (etc.) but that got really unstable in certain atmospheric conditions?

I love how Lasersailor is mixing rants to the point where his arguments start cancelling each other out.

 

[Meplat]

Kungpao-
Smoke grenades can be an effective screening device. They also can give an enemy the idea that he's facing a much larger force. (This is both good, and bad, depending on the circumstances) Another consideration? Bulk. You'll see far fewer HC's than you will frags, or the M-18 colored smoke when dealing with small units. Why? They have to justify each ounce with their back.



SPM- the 1/12 twist rate, with the '855 projectile will shoot fine on the range, regardless of normal atmospheric conditions (I won't consider "Vacuum" or "under water", thanks.)

At extreme range, one MIGHT see what's going on, but within the average engangement range, the projectile performs fine. Til it hits something and all but disintegrates. Very bad for hunting, as one has to discard a lot of shredded,pulped meat.Expand this accordingly.

Meplat-