Scott. Posted October 23, 2007 Author Share Posted October 23, 2007 Putin can fuck off. Stupid Russians and Muslims, thinking they run this world with their terrorism.. if I had my way.. there would be no religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red_91 Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 Putin can fuck off. Stupid Russians and Muslims, thinking they run this world with their terrorism.. if I had my way.. there would be no religion. What the...? Not all Russians and Muslims are terrorists you know. I think your comment was quite harsh. And terrorists know they dont run this world thats why they have attacks to disrupt peace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slayer Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 Yeah. Not all Germans are Nazis either. Not all Americans are responsible about war in Iraq. You can't say a whole nation is bad just because of a few exceptions. Most of average people don't care about war. An average person would just want peace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaz The Great Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 Russians they use the AK47 rated the best rifle in the world (its true, learn your fucking facks) and America uses there good ol M4/M16 but then you see germany, using there VHS rifle, Ummm, funny how most gun enthusiasts I talk to say the Ak47 is a piece of shit then, eh? Usually, the only people I see creaming themselves over Ak47s are little kids who play GTA and have never actually even shot a gun themselves. Looking the M4, M16, and AK47 up, the AK47 was the biggest, heaviest, and slowest shooting gun out of all three. Maybe I didn't get the right facts? Oh well, I trust most things I read on the internet before I trust your word on things. The M4 was the lightest, smallest, and fastest shooting gun out of the three. Putin can fuck off. Stupid Russians and Muslims, thinking they run this world with their terrorism.. if I had my way.. there would be no religion. Since when the hell has Russian been a religion? Yeah, just further prove your own ignorance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherman Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 Looking the M4, M16, and AK47 up, the AK47 was the biggest, heaviest, and slowest shooting gun out of all three. Maybe I didn't get the right facts? Oh well, I trust most things I read on the internet before I trust your word on things. The M4 was the lightest, smallest, and fastest shooting gun out of the three. They're the most durable of them all, tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitsune Inferno Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 As a matter of fact, I heard that the AK-47 was one of the reasons we lost in Vietnam. The M16s our troops were issued kept jamming due to the jungle environment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaz The Great Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 Looking the M4, M16, and AK47 up, the AK47 was the biggest, heaviest, and slowest shooting gun out of all three. Maybe I didn't get the right facts? Oh well, I trust most things I read on the internet before I trust your word on things. The M4 was the lightest, smallest, and fastest shooting gun out of the three. They're the most durable of them all, tbh. What are? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherman Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 Looking the M4, M16, and AK47 up, the AK47 was the biggest, heaviest, and slowest shooting gun out of all three. Maybe I didn't get the right facts? Oh well, I trust most things I read on the internet before I trust your word on things. The M4 was the lightest, smallest, and fastest shooting gun out of the three. They're the most durable of them all, tbh. What are? The AK47's.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Urbanoutlaw Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 (edited) What the HELL are you people (outside the US) reading!?!? Gerard, you can disregard that & thanks for the nod. I know there's the whole Brit/Yank rivalry thing but I can't see a foreseeable circumstance where the UK & US wouldn't be friends. Just for the record, I think overall "best" military would have to go to Israel. I don't know about you, but I'd hate to have to face down a Merkiva. I read through this & it's Bush this, Bush that, it's all Bush's fault, Bush wants to take over Canada, etc. North Korea - run by a lunatic bent on nuclear power. Iran - run by a bunch or religious lunatics bent on nuclear power. Al Qaeda - a bunch or religious lunatics bent on destroying anything not meeting their idea of a perfect "Muslim" world. When the Soviet Union fell approximately 100 suitcase sized nukes came up missing, probably stolen by the Russian mob to be sold to the highest bidder. If WWIII happens, those are going to be your main concerns. Ironically, the US decision to drop the A-bomb on Japan in 1945 came only after military experts looked at the invasion of Okinawa & decided a conventional assault on the Japanese mainland would result in at least 1 million casualties & the war lasting at least one more year. (Bush had no part in that decision.) I own an AK-47 & an AR-15 (civilian version of the M-16) If all hell brakes loose, I grab both. The AR is just a better rifle, period. I take the AK as back up because anyone who would attack American soil (they get in THIS far, we're screwed) will probably carry the AK & would be a source of free 7.62x39 ammo. The problems w/ the M-16 in Vietnam stemmed from it being a new piece of equipment in the field & them needing to be kept cleaner than the M-14 soldiers were used to. The addition of a "forward assist" (a button to push the bolt into lock position) cured this problem. AKs are reasonably reliable & cheaper, so they're the first choice of someone on a tight budget, or terrorists. Edited October 24, 2007 by Urbanoutlaw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charger Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 Where is all this U.S wants Canada coming from? And I don't think N Korea is a problem anymore, they are going to end their Nuclear Plants, by the end of the year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wheelman101 Posted October 25, 2007 Share Posted October 25, 2007 Looking the M4, M16, and AK47 up, the AK47 was the biggest, heaviest, and slowest shooting gun out of all three. Maybe I didn't get the right facts? Oh well, I trust most things I read on the internet before I trust your word on things. The M4 was the lightest, smallest, and fastest shooting gun out of the three. They're the most durable of them all, tbh. What are? The AK47's.. The Ak47, most durable rifle ever made, buried in mud, buried under sand for 10 years straight, and can be burnt in a fire, they will still work you take off the top plate(i believe, have to see a picture..) and theres the guts of the gun, take off your shoe laces and make a knot and bump the end in oil, run it threw the barrel, there you go, brand new clean. they are the best rifle in the world. fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Urbanoutlaw Posted October 25, 2007 Share Posted October 25, 2007 Just so we're clear, how many AKs have you handled?. NOT seen on discovery channel, but actually fired. Same for the M-16/AR-15. Yes, the AK is very tolerant of being exposed to mud/sand/etc, but at a cost. It's built to looser tolerances, which means it also looses accuracy. At 300 yards (close to 300 meters) the M-16 is going to be a lot more accurate because it's built to be more accurate whereas the AK will only be spraying ammo around & only randomly hitting a target. Also the M-16 has a higher muzzle velocity & rate of fire. You just have to keep it a little cleaner. Courtesy of Wikipedia - AK-47 Cartridge 7.62x39mm Action Gas-operated, rotating bolt Rate of fire 600 rounds/min Muzzle velocity 710 m/s (~2,330 ft/s) Effective range 300 m (330 yd) Feed system 30-round detachable box; compatible w/ RPK 40-round box, 75-round drum magazine. Sights Adjustable iron sights, optional mount required for optical sights M-16 Cartridge 5.56 x 45 mm NATO, .223 Remington Action Gas-operated, rotating bolt Rate of fire 750 to 900 round/min, cyclic Muzzle velocity 975 m/s (3,200 ft/s), 930 m/s (3,050 ft/s) (see Variants) Effective range 550 m (600 yd) Feed system Various STANAG Magazines. Still think the AK is the "best"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dmac Posted November 26, 2007 Share Posted November 26, 2007 Could you imagine a WW3? Nukes... Oh my! And when in the US election? Doesn't Bush have to step down next election? I hope so... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaz The Great Posted November 30, 2007 Share Posted November 30, 2007 Could you imagine a WW3? Nukes... Oh my!And when in the US election? Doesn't Bush have to step down next election? I hope so... Yeah, because you can only stay in for 2 consecutive terms. ^.^ Anyways, psh, EVERYONE knows that power, accuracy and firing speed isn't what is important in a gun. Being able to bury it in sand for ten years is what is important..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Urbanoutlaw Posted December 1, 2007 Share Posted December 1, 2007 ^^ In that case you'll want the Hakim variant of the Ljungman (pronounced young-man), usually sold as "never fired, only dropped once". Ljungman - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AG-42 Hakim - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hakim_Rifle The most important aspect of a rifle is the soldier carrying it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabin Posted December 2, 2007 Share Posted December 2, 2007 (edited) Its the US that will cuase WW3. Edited December 2, 2007 by Sabin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherman Posted December 2, 2007 Share Posted December 2, 2007 Its the US that will cuase WW3. Put supporting details or GTFO my forums, dick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabin Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 Its the US that will cuase WW3. Put supporting details or GTFO my forums, dick. Its the U.S that is going around in the middle east starting shit. Is that good enough reason? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charger Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 Its the US that will cuase WW3. Put supporting details or GTFO my forums, dick. Its the U.S that is going around in the middle east starting shit. Is that good enough reason? Theres many reasons why the U.S is in the middle east, some say they are there for Oil. The U.S says its there to stop Al Qaeda and other Terrorist Organizations, and countries that can cause the world warm with nuclear weapons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MishoM Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 Its the US that will cuase WW3. Put supporting details or GTFO my forums, dick. Its the U.S that is going around in the middle east starting shit. Is that good enough reason? Theres many reasons why the U.S is in the middle east, some say they are there for Oil. The U.S says its there to stop Al Qaeda and other Terrorist Organizations, and countries that can cause the world warm with nuclear weapons. Yeah, the problem is you can't just "stop" terrorism or terrorist organizations to be honest, just like how you can "stop" drugs. No matter what you do, they'll be there. They're fighting a never-ending war over there. Even if they completely stop Al Qaeda, another organization exactly like it will pop up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Urbanoutlaw Posted December 6, 2007 Share Posted December 6, 2007 Sabin -You mean the same Americans that tend to be on site world wide for various earthquakes, tsunamis & other natural disasters within 24 hours? The same Americans racking up over $1 billion a day just in interest paying for that ability? I suggest you put a little more thought into your next post & maybe a little research instead of just blaming Americans. In general about war on terrorism - So in the mean time what? We let jackass terrorists fly planes into our buildings & kill civilians? War for oil? Well, YES! We're at $3 a gallon (triple in last few years), do we really want to see what $5 looks like? Those aforementioned disasters are payed for out of our pockets via taxes & those efforts use a LOT of fuel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirty Harry Posted December 6, 2007 Share Posted December 6, 2007 You shouldn't blame Americans, nor George W. Bush. First of all, Americans have got nothing to do with the planning of the war and battle. And George W. Bush may be an asshole for many reasons but he is no psycho who wants to exterminate the eastern world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Urbanoutlaw Posted December 6, 2007 Share Posted December 6, 2007 Thank you, nice to know we have a few friends in the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smallpancake Posted December 11, 2007 Share Posted December 11, 2007 You shouldn't blame Americans, nor George W. Bush.First of all, Americans have got nothing to do with the planning of the war and battle. And George W. Bush may be an asshole for many reasons but he is no psycho who wants to exterminate the eastern world. Don't get me wrong here, I'm far from those tin-foil hat conspiracy theory nuts, but if you honestly believe the Bush administration does not have a hidden agenda, you need to come out of your mindless patriotism and look at the facts: -Undeclared/Illegal war -Domestic Spying -Torture -Subverting National Sovereignty (NAU) -Eliminating Habeas Corpus -Violating the Posse Comitatus Act (Our military satellites will now point inward to assist REGULAR law enforcement in REGULAR law enforcement duties.) -Apparent abuse of Executive Privilege -Using tax payer funds to pay for political propaganda -Exposing the identity of CIA operatives as a matter of political retribution -Suppressing dissent by creating off the media-radar "Free Speech Zones". (The WHOLE U.S.A. is a FREE SPEECH ZONE.) -Refusing to add the U.S. as a plaintiff in ANY and ALL war profiteering cases. -Complete incompetence in a time of national disaster/emergency -Complete and utter contempt towards the American public. ...the list goes on. And lets not forget the bill that is going to the senate, named Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act. Haven't heard of it? it is worded in a clever way that could allow the U.S. government to arrest and incarcerate any individual who speaks out against the Bush Administration, the war on Iraq, the Department of Homeland Security or any government agency (including the FDA). The law has already passed the House on a traitorous vote of 405 to 6, and it is now being considered in the Senate where a vote is imminent. All over the internet, intelligent people who care about freedom are speaking out against this extremely dangerous law: Philip Giraldi at the Huffington Post, Declan McCullagh at CNET's News.com, Kathryn Smith at OpEdNews.com, and of course Alex Jones at PrisonPlanet.com Source But I'm not pulling ALL of the blame on Bush; Some of the blame goes toward the ones who voted him into office. In general about war on terrorism - So in the mean time what? We let jackass terrorists fly planes into our buildings & killcivilians? War for oil? Well, YES! We're at $3 a gallon (triple in last few years), do we really want to see what $5 looks like? Those aforementioned disasters are payed for out of our pockets via taxes & those efforts use a LOT of fuel. This one always makes me chuckle. They don't hate our freedoms, they hate our presence in the middle east. If China were here in the US marching through our streets, I guarantee you would want to fly a plane into one of their buildings. The terrorist attack was provoked. There is absolutely NO need to invade Iran, especially after information was released declaring their nuclear program as INACTIVE. And on a side note, that $600 billion could have been spend on alternative fuel development, not satisfying our thirst for oil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antichrist Posted December 11, 2007 Share Posted December 11, 2007 Just so we're clear, how many AKs have you handled?. NOT seen on discovery channel, but actually fired. Same for the M-16/AR-15. Yes, the AK is very tolerant of being exposed to mud/sand/etc, but at a cost. It's built to looser tolerances, which means it also looses accuracy. At 300 yards (close to 300 meters) the M-16 is going to be a lot more accurate because it's built to be more accurate whereas the AK will only be spraying ammo around & only randomly hitting a target. Also the M-16 has a higher muzzle velocity & rate of fire. You just have to keep it a little cleaner. Courtesy of Wikipedia - AK-47 Cartridge 7.62x39mm Action Gas-operated, rotating bolt Rate of fire 600 rounds/min Muzzle velocity 710 m/s (~2,330 ft/s) Effective range 300 m (330 yd) Feed system 30-round detachable box; compatible w/ RPK 40-round box, 75-round drum magazine. Sights Adjustable iron sights, optional mount required for optical sights M-16 Cartridge 5.56 x 45 mm NATO, .223 Remington Action Gas-operated, rotating bolt Rate of fire 750 to 900 round/min, cyclic Muzzle velocity 975 m/s (3,200 ft/s), 930 m/s (3,050 ft/s) (see Variants) Effective range 550 m (600 yd) Feed system Various STANAG Magazines. Still think the AK is the "best"? I do mate. AK is just overall better than the M-16. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now