/k/ - Weapons

Why aren't there any counter-balance battle rifles around? Imagine the possibilities of an AK-107 chambered in 7,62 nato. Makes me diamonds just thinking about it.

Man, I really want to see someone argue that the M14 was still the better choice. Those are some of the most retarded people you can find, and most of the veterans that are actual veterans had never used it outside of training.

>General Moore claiming that the M16 was great for close-quarters combat

>tacticool mallninjas out there would tell you that 20" is too long for you to oper8 properly in close quarters.

Opinions change with the time, but the M16 had a really compact and lightweight design for the era. It was certainly better than any mainline rifle the US had issued before, although the M2 Carbine was close.

>>610204

>Why aren't there any counter-balance battle rifles around?

Research and development is expensive, and the people who can afford it aren't creative enough to make something that actually works and would sell.

There's also no real purpose for it since battle rifles have been phased out of normal use.

Ruger made a mini-14 chambered in 308.

>>610204

Counter-balance only balances out the recoil of the bolt carrier moving forward and backward, so in single shot the felt recoil is about the same as in a manually operated rifle of the same calibre and mass. Therefore you'd still have to apply other tricks from the book to make the felt recoil more manageable with a stronger cartridge. In full auto it's still less than in a rifle without this system, but that works so well with the AK because it fires a relatively light cartridge from a relatively heavy weapon. It would of course make full-auto more controllable with a rifle cartridge, but it's not a magic bullet that solves all of your problems. I'm personally a proponent of this autistic gas-floodgate system. Instead of counteracting the recoil of the bolt carrier you delay it, and now you don't have to add its weight to the rifle twice. Of course I'll still have to rack my brain to eventually make it sufficiently simple.

>>610239

> but that works so well with the AK because it fires a relatively light cartridge from a relatively heavy weapon.

But there's also the AK-109 which is chambered in 7.62x39. Granted it is smaller than 7,62x51 but still. but it does worry me that there isn't a single video of an AK-109 available. Is it because you're right and it actually sucks when you use a bigger or caliber, or they just didn't bother with the other variants and simply want to push for the AK-107 alone?

>>610204

Because counter balance came about long after battle rifles became obsolete. Neat idea though, it would suit a battle rifle better than an assault rifle.

>>610240

>a bunch of Western countries continue to use battle rifles.

Turkey and Greece don't count

>>610244

>Turkey and Greece don't count

t-there's also Belgium and Iceland!

>>610244

>Turkey

I don't care what the context is, you don't ever get to imply that Turks are Western.

So the MemeDR came out last year, anyone get a chance to fire one? It doesn't seem like there are too many battle rifle bullpups out there; lots of intermediate cartridge and a few precision rifles, but not battle rifles. Maybe because there's something implicitly Fudd about .30 caliber rifles and bullpups are anti-Fudd.

>>610233

My grandfather was pretty fond of his M14 in 'nam and his classified fun in neighboring laos and cambodia. Dunno if that counts for anything considering he knew of guys still using BAR's and Thompsons with drums. He bought that gun of the government in 64.

>>610240

Sounds like you want a stoner 63 in x51.

>>610280

>Sounds like you want a stoner 63 in x51.

Can you think of any particular reason that a heterosexual man wouldn't want that?

>>610281

Guys that sell Stoner LMG have been designing it in .308 when i read about it some time ago.

>>610277

Somebody sells a 6.5 CM conversion kit that's apparently top notch.

I would love to build 6.5 cm ar-10 that uses A1 ar-15 furniture to have a laser gun that shoots so flat that you could basically do point and shoot with a rifle.

>>610304

Aw yiss, retro AR-10s are the good shit. They also have the virtue of being nice and light like that Dutch variant, instead of the fat pigs most burger AR-10s are. but then can you expect differently from us?

>>610239

>>610204

Having an adjustable gas system so you can tune your rifle to constant-recoil is a better idea. You can basically do that in AKs with KNS gas pistons now.

>>610308

I believe that they were originally going to go with the equivalent of a 7mm rem mag with either the m1 garand or the m1917

>although all of the tacticool mallninjas out there would tell you that 20" is too long for you to oper8 properly in close quarters.

The typical mallninja considers anything with a barrel longer than 16" functionally equivalent to a three line musket, what's your point?

>>610322

Dont forget the weight limit of 1lb before they start calling it "cannon".

>>610243

>Is it because you're right and it actually sucks when you use a bigger or caliber

I don't say that it sucks, all I say is that it's not enough. The FG-42 has at least three ways to reduce the recoil, it has an inline stock, a compensator, and a telescopic buttplate. Now I know that there is some kind of a controversy going on about Ian and co, but that's not related to their experiences with firearms. So watch vid related and think about other possibilities too.

>>610236

That has to be amazingly loud.

>>610240

>Long-range engagements require a heavy round, and that round needs to still pack enough penetration to go through concrete and brick walls.

Pls. Even steel core Russian 7.62x54R penetrates only half of the brick and about 2-3 inches of concrete.

I am down with AR10, HK417 & modernized G3/PTR variant.

>>610380

What are you smoking? At effective range of 300m a ball x39 goes through two cinder blocks and cracks a third. A x54R is between a .308 and .30-06 in terms of energy, there's no fucking way a single brick could ever stop it, unless it's a brick of steel.

>>610412

>HK 417

If you're going to pay through the nose for a German piston AR, try the Sig 716. Same guy was the designer for both, and a few improvements made it into the latter.

>>610448

I don't think he's talking about loose material you prop up at the range, anon. A cinderblock on its own breaks if you drop it the wrong way.

>>610236

>they couldn't get the accuracy down

Of course they couldn't, it's a Mini-14.

>>610457

A x39 ball will go through a car and through an average house wall, mortared brick not drywall. A x51 goes through a house unless a bathtub or propane tank diverts it. A x54R would certainly be slightly above that. These are all ball ammo.

To say that x54R armor piercing won't go through a single brick is fucking insane, which is what this guy >>610380 is saying.

The ruger scout rifle is the closes we got to battle rifles. My only complaint is that they didn't chamber them in a few calibers such as 300 win mag or 7mm rem mag.

>>610486

The G36 is a nice gun. Only problem is the point where the sights attach to the receiver/barrel.

>>610510

Ww2/ww1 bolt action battle rifle.

>>610486

>It would be nice but we all know that it gets fucked under sporting use and H&K being shitheads as usual.

Sporting.

Idk about leafistan but getting around "sporting use" for burger sales would be easy enough to accomplish. Hk being tards is still a issue though.

>>610454

Except no fucking army adopts the 716 and I require proof.

>>610485

Can you just buy it in Germany? The semi-auto I mean.

>>610465

>A x39 ball will go through a car

That's not impressive, Anon. Just about anything can go through a car as long as it's not fired at the engine.

>To say that x54R armor piercing won't go through a single brick is fucking insane

Depends on the brick and the distance.

Generally when you're laying down suppressing fire it's from few hundred meters away, and steel core x54r isn't known for astounding ballistic capability.

>>610555

Then it'll come in with the single stack special snowflake magazine, also those things eject brass with the force of a hundred soccer moms falling from a plane.

>>610574

>Depends on the brick

Yeah I already said steel bricks aren't going to be penetrated, no need to repeat it.

>>610557

>Except no fucking army adopts the 716 and I require proof.

>all of the army's equipment doctrines are wrong and they should follow my autistic underbarrel medkit criteria instead

So which one is it?

>>610726

>>610726

Yeah if you make your house walls out of eleven layers of brick it might also not penwtratw, thats true.

>>610485

If you need her back that badly, just buy a SAR M41.

>>610454

>sig 716

>german

That's SIG USA shit made by (((Cohen)))

>>610668

PLCE fits two SLR/FAL mags in each pouch fine.

Sage for doublepost

>>610575

>Then it'll come in with the single stack special snowflake magazine

Again maybe for Canadians, but the rifle would not necessarily need to be imported into the United States considering HK already has at least one production facility in the US that is specifically for producing weapons for the civilian market that can be expanded. Then of course such a firearm would be easy for a different US manufacturer to clone. These options would make the snowflake mags unnecessary for the rifle to be sold in most states.

>>610503

OD green looks good on anything

And tbh, I love the pebblegrain furniture on the SLR, even more than the wood.

>>610733

>>610723

>brick wall penetration depth

>10-12 cm

>>611087

So it can go through a brick lengthwise

>>610496

FN-AL is sexy under any circumstances.

No exceptions.

>>611223

>Fn-al

<FN-FAL

God dammit I need to sleep more often

>>611275

Considering that a discussion on flame throwers can devolve to shitposting about Katawa Shoujo and crispy waifus, and that there is a whole board dedicated to porn featuring amputees, I'm rather sure that some Streloks will find those to be rather appealing.

>>611279

Lilly is objectively best girl tbh

>>610277

I would buy one if not for the fact that they do not sell anything larger than a 16" barrel. I might get one in 5.56, though.

>>611275

If it didn't have all the gay writing on it, number two would be pretty rad honestly.

I'm new to funs and some help on FALs, friends.

Since I'm a (former) leaf, I'd like to get a Canadian pattern FAL. After doing some research and talking to a friend, the best way to get one would be buying an inch pattern FAL and then replacing some parts to make it as close the C1 as possible.

Fortunately, I found a website that sells parts for C1s.

https://www.marstar.ca/dynamic/category.jsp?catid=77523

Anyway, my question is, would it be possible to do so?

Would inch pattern FALs be able to be modified into bootleg C1s by swapping out all the relevant parts?

>>610239

This is gonna sound nuts, but I wanna see a T20E2 built with a Farquhar-Hill gas system.

>>610508

>Only problem is the point where the sights attach to the receiver/barrel.

Did you mean to say: " the point where the sights DON'T attach to the receiver/barrel"?

Now imagine how more managable would this rifle be if it had a slower RoF, around 300 rounds/min.

>>613815

How can you get a good working CETME? I want one as well as a fr8.

>>613818

Just get a PTR, bro. It will serve you far better and it's basically the same damn rifle. I do think the FR-8 is sexy as hell, though, and they're not expensive. Actually. I'm pretty sure you could seat a G3/CETME type rifle onto a wooden stock a-la-Super Vepr given a bit of work.

bump

>>610281

Why isn't this post a banner?

>>610200

>all of the tacticool mallninjas out there would tell you that 20" is too long for you to oper8 properly in close quarters

more importantly, it adds unnecessary weight. you probably don't need a 20" barrel

>>626382

What is the obsession with carbines lately? If you're shooting a full power cartridge why wouldn't you want a full length barrel? You're using a platform deliberately designed for more powerful loads and then you chop off enough of the barrel to piss away some not insignificant fraction of the powder charge as muzzle blast. Yeah sure, it's not like a full power cartridge our of a 16" barrel isn't powerful medicine but what's the point? If you want a lighter rifle why aren't you using an intermediate cartridge rifle, or even an SMG/PCC? You can carry more ammunition, the recoil will be more controllable, the rifle itself will be intrinsically lighter, and you're less likely to go deaf if you have to fire the weapon in an enclosed space.

I guess I can see the argument for improved terminal ballistics out of a full power vs intermediate carbine but it just feels like you're trying to make it do something it really isn't intended for, especially against human targets.

>>626431

Pls gib 5.45.

>>626430

>Using 62 grain ball ammunition in any situation

>Relying on fragmentation from a 68 gr

This chart is shit and so is your opinion.

>>626430

>The M4 carbine unironically has a maximum effective range of 65 yards.

You're full of shit and don't know what you're talking about. The effective point target on an M4 is 500 meters using M855A1 ammo. Not only is your chart using the old M855 as the supposed ammo, but you don't actually understand what it says. Fragmentation threshold != effective range.

>>626529

The round is shit, Strelok, and you can't just ignore all information that conflicts with your opinion. Are you the faggot who tried claiming that air pressure was a more important variable for killing a bear than the ballistics of the bullet?

>>626533

>you can't just ignore all information that conflicts with your opinion

Then what about the fact that at 500m, the M855 still has more energy than a 9mm NATO load at the muzzle.

>>626536

What are you talking about? How is that relevant at all to the thread or to this discussion? Is this derailment? Even if you weren't shitposting (you are) and this implication was meaningful (it really isn't), that's not even factually correct unless you're cherrypicking. A standard load of 9mm Parabellum gets between 350 and 400 ft-lbs of energy at the muzzle from a 5" barrel, generally closer to 400, and 9mm NATO is Parabellum +P - meaning it is stronger. At 500 meters (you said meters, not yards), as evidenced in the chart above, having equivalent levels of energy from a 5.56 M855 is a best case scenario and only possible if using a 20" or longer barrel.

>>626536

Shit855 will punch a 22lr hole in the target at 500m, that's twice as small as 9mm and not enough to incapacitate the target even with the latter by blood loss alone.

>>626382

The original M16 weighed all of 6 pounds. With modern tech you can get that down to a little over 5, lower if you opt for a handguard without m-lok. If you have a weight problem with a 20" barrel it means you've got too much shit stuck to your gun. As >>626430 points out, 5.56 is highly velocity-dependent and works best out of a 20" barrel. Further, I can tell you from experience it's not nearly as much an impediment on TACTICOOL URBAN OPERATING as the mallninjas would have you believe, just keep aware of where your muzzle is and you won't have an issue. Finally, consider that it's far easier to make a longer gun work at short range than vice versa; you can train around the issues of a long gun at short range, but no amount of training will change the ballistics of your bullets.

>>626436

While it is an overrated meme cartridge, .224 Valkyrie is a decent example of an AR cartridge with the ballistic advantages of 5.45.

>>626543

Obviously you can't read. It's more energy than a 9mm. Compare that to other intermediate rounds like 7.62x39, or 5.45x39, and you realize that not only does 5.56 have more energy than both, but that external ballistics are also better. Congratulations, you're retarded.

>>626542

> having equivalent levels of energy from a 5.56 M855 is a best case scenario and only possible if using a 20" or longer barrel.

Obviously you don't know what you're talking about. M882, the 9mm standard used by the US does not exceed 364fpe. Even if it was the case, as previously mentioned, it outperforms other competing calibers, so I don't exactly get the complaints.

>>626551

>5.56 having more energy than 7.62x39

>9mm NATO having less energy than 9mm Parabellum

Go back to 4chan, you uneducated nigger.

>>626589

>Wikipedia is a sauce.

When will you people will learn?

>>https://8ch.net/pdfs/res/1335.html#q10584

It's page 1 of annex C.

>>626558

>And i'm saying that its energy doesn't mean shit. Learn to read you nigger subhuman.

Well, you didn't write that, and you're wrong.

>7.62x39 - 1,607 ft⋅lbf 16 INCH BARREL

>5.56x45 - 1,393 ft⋅lbf 20 INCH BARREL

At 500m, you stupid cunt.

>5.56x45 - 0.152 BC

Wrong. If we're going to talk about the M4, you have to talk in terms of M855A1, which has a bc of .304.

>Guys, i think we have found a faggot that is dumber than US military.

>tfw Russian pig can't provide proofs

kek

>>626557

>No one mentioned M855A1. Care to provide a source for your claims by the way?

FM 3-22.9

>It basically is though

It's not, as rounds still tumble inside the target, and as previously mentioned, it has more energy at that range than competing cartridges.

> it is basically as effective as high velocity .22LR at that point

No, this has double the energy of that.

>there's a reason every nation involved in Afghanistan started fielding battle rifles/DMRs again.

We've always had them, but the reason for their widespread use in A-stan is because combat ranges often exceeded even the 500m mark.

> completely shreds barrel extensions

True, fixed with new magazine.

>as a port pressure almost equal to that of a proof round

Untrue, only early testing batches. Ammo being issued is not significantly harder on rifles than standard M855.

>it also requires specific magazines to feed reliably.

No, it will feed reliably from old magazines. It will just damage the barrel extensions like this.

>It puts shit tonnes of wear on rifles for a few extra yards of effectiveness

The round has increased lethality at both close and long ranges, better barrier penetration, and is also more precise.

>which could have just been solved with Mk262.

Mk262 was never used widely by any branch. It's a specialized 77gr match bullet that would be wasted fired from an M4/M16. It's meant for marksmen's rifles. It can also kill to 700m, so again, how is 5.56 bad?

>There's a reason the USMC refused to adopt it for so long and still hasn't fully adopted it.

The USMC adopted the Mk318, which is another fine round, and the Mod 1 version seems to be even better. I haven't fired this round, so I can't tell you that it's great, but if the Marines are using it, it's probably very good.

That being said, this does not mean that 5.56 as a caliber is bad, and it's certainly better than any competing standard of its day. Even M855 was outperforming its counterparts when it came out.

>>626608

>Well, you didn't write that, and you're wrong.

I have written exactly that, you illiterate inbred nigger. 556 wont do jack shit at 500m even if it manages to fly up there, both due to fragmentation threshold and icepicking.

>At 500m

At 500m none of these rounds is capable of reliably providing any meaningful results but 5.45x39 will retain more energy due to higher BC.

>Wrong. If we're going to talk about the M4, you have to talk in terms of M855A1, which has a bc of .304.

G7 BC of m855 is 0.151 and was improved to 0.152 in m855a1. Finish school before you post, cuckchanner.

>tfw Russian pig can't provide proofs

the one whining about proofs here is you, makako.

>the retard cuckchanner is still shilling for M855A1

It's a dogshit round, bud. Accept it.

>>626543

>I have written exactly that

>Shit855 will punch a 22lr hole in the target at 500m, that's twice as small as 9mm and not enough to incapacitate the target even with the latter by blood loss alone.

At no point did you write that.

>556 wont do jack shit at 500m even if it manages to fly up there, both due to fragmentation threshold and icepicking.

All data points to you being wrong. The round is effective, more than either 7.62x39 and 5.45x39.

>At 500m none of these rounds is capable of reliably providing any meaningful results but 5.45x39 will retain more energy due to higher BC.

You're right on the BC, but wrong on the energy retained. Modern 5.45 has a lower weight than M855A1, and has less energy at long ranges.

>G7 BC of m855 is 0.151 and was improved to 0.152 in m855a1. Finish school before you post, cuckchanner.

My mistake, but you're still wrong on other points.

>the one whining about proofs here is you, makako.

Your original claim is that 5.56 is inadequate for long ranges. You are wrong and have nothing to show this is a fact. M855 was good, but did not tumble in thinner targets. M855A1 fixed this problem, yet you people will keep bitching about it as if this was still the case. It's not, and nothing you say is going to change that.

>>626629

>MY OPINION OUTWEIGHS FACTS

Reported.

>>626630

>my opinion based on shit found to be true by US military and the fact that people consistently get their shit pushed in by 5.56-wielding faggots outweighs your unsubstantiated opinion that 5.56 sucks because you say so

fix'd

>>626629

>At no point did you write that.

You don't know how to read.

>The round is effective, more than either 7.62x39 and 5.45x39

Effective at what, you mindless idiot? At poking holes it is.

>Modern 5.45 has a lower weight than M855A1

Learn what BC is and kill yourself.

>You are wrong and have nothing to show this is a fact

>A fact

You've been pointed to fragmentation threshold and you are the little bitch that can only autofellate himself by calling his cries "facts".

>M855 was good

It was not, it was the worst thing ever.

>did not tumble in thinner targets

More like didn't tumble.

>M855A1 fixed this problem

Except it didn't, as well as created 10 more.

>nothing you say is going to change that

That's the spirit. Cuckchan drone gives himself out without even realizing it.

>>626629

>All data points to you being wrong. The round is effective, more than either 7.62x39 and 5.45x39.

<5.45mm * 39mm = 212.55mm^2 bullet power

<5.56mm * 45mm = 250.20mm^2 bullet power

<7.62mm * 39mm = 297.18mm^2 bullet power

seems like 5.45 < 5.56 < 7.62, according to basic arithmetic

>>626633

>You don't know how to read.

I can't read what you didn't write.

>Effective at what, you mindless idiot? At poking holes it is.

At fucking the enemy.

>Learn what BC is and kill yourself.

Learn what energy is and stop being a faggot.

>You've been pointed to fragmentation threshold and you are the little bitch that can only autofellate himself by calling his cries "facts".

5.45x39 doesn't fragment. By your logic, it's a completely ineffective round.

>It was not, it was the worst thing ever.

It was not. See, I can do that too. M855 did the job it was supposed to do. Now that the situation has changed, so has the round. M855A1 does its job.

>More like didn't tumble.

Except we know that it does in thicker targets. This is a non-issue with M855A1.

>Except it didn't, as well as created 10 more.

Except you have no proof of this, and the aforementioned problems aren't really as big as people claim or as numerous.

>That's the spirit. Cuckchan drone gives himself out without even realizing it.

Not an argument.

>>626636

Where did you get that data from? M855A1 has more muzzle energy and has a greater weight than either 7N6 or 7N10. It's also has more energy at 500m.

Despite all the shit saying against it (heavy, unergonomic), I think the G3 really stood the test of time.

>>626660

Biased but this.

>>626717

5.56 is about as long. It's just pushed further down the neck of the casing.

>>626737

No, 5.56 is noticeably shorter. That's the reason 5.45 has a superior BC despite being approximately they same caliber and weight, it uses a longer, slimmer bullet. This gives it better energy retention and makes its less velocity-dependent, which is why it's said to have better ballistics even with a lower muzzle velocity than 5.56 And if 5.45 was recreated using modern high-quality powders its muzzle velocity would be on par with 5.56.

>>626739

>makes its less velocity-dependent

The BC doesn't really do that, it's the design of the bullet using the air pocket and steel cores to create a specific centre of gravity. Having a better BC means it retains it's velocity better though.

>>626747

BC and sectional density both affect the terminal ballistic performance of a bullet in terms of penetration, effect, etc, so he isn't wrong. BC is not a *main* factor in many mediums, though.

>>626748

>forgot where I was for a second

Forgive me for formatting like a faggot. I shouldn't post from work. N-no bully

>>626749

You're not on reddit, you phoneposting cuckchan nigger.

>>626753

I've never owned a Reddit account. That was muscle memory from my Dicksword window where I was making plans for the Iron Maiden concert in June. Shouting buzzwords like an NPC doesn't make you fit in, man.