|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Dec 04, 2005 12:09 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 04, 2005 12:11 pm
good, because for the alst 7 minutes, i just sent the bgs.
And they just finished uploading.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 04, 2005 12:16 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 04, 2005 12:51 pm
Nospai Deathous cool. bushmaster: (probably not what you thought) http://www.smallarmsreview.com/april.htm Nothing special about it. It just uses a bullpup stock. Otherwise its the same as an AR-15 in mechanics. Heck, the bullpup design can be applied anywhere. Garunteed, you need to rearrange several things, but mostly, its just another one of those designs that people can copy on hundreds of platforms. I prefer teh Steyer AUG personally for the bullpup design.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 04, 2005 1:18 pm
how much of the article did you read? they called it one of the most reliable rifles they'd ever tested, and said it was superior to the AR 15. yes the mechanics are the same, but the way it's all actually accomplished is different.
the AUG is nice, though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 04, 2005 1:42 pm
Nospai Deathous how much of the article did you read? they called it one of the most reliable rifles they'd ever tested, and said it was superior to the AR 15. yes the mechanics are the same, but the way it's all actually accomplished is different. the AUG is nice, though. Its still a bullpup stock. The origininal design came from a man called Meyer. Hence, the name Meyer Bullpup design. Its just a stock configuration. And being superior to the AR15 is not that hard. Reliability, the AK-47 is superior than the AR by tenfold. Heck, if the AK is messing up, often times its because you've treated it too nicely. If that's the case, toss it in the river and come back three days later. But seriously, you're getting flustered over nothing. The AR is in my estimation, one of the worser rifles out there, no matter which source you read. I'd take the L1A1 or the AK or pretty much anything over an AR for reliability and simplicity. don't get so flustered. Not to mention what are you trying to say i've overlooked? I mean, Many times, i just have to look at pictures and I already know how effective its going to be. Its a bullpup. Meaning that the action is next to ones face. So, you reinforce the barrel (hopefully) to make people less scared. You make the action less reliable on grease like the M1, and viola! You've created a bullpup that is better than an AR-15. Whoopie. Am i missing somehting? I shoot the bastards, not read about them. One more thing: The author tested it. Not a standard company.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 04, 2005 2:18 pm
i was just making the point that it shouldn't be dismissed so easily. you keep making it seem like the bullpup design makes it inherently not worth one's time. just on it being a bullpup alone. i'm surprised that you're forgetting how important the internals are.
i mean, look at the HKs and the SIGs. they look utterly unremarkable, but have some of the most efficient and sophisticated internal mechanisms of any weapon. what you actually see are basically erganomics, a guesstimation of accuracy (barrel length estimation, but even that depends on the rifle), and wether the placement of things are practical. yes, with a bullpup, the mag is closer to your face, but.. so what? the catastrophic nuclear explosion of a malfunction is highly unlikely. and yes, the barrel is usually reinforced.
another big factor is materials. if they're cheap, even a great design is almost utterly useless in any kind of realistic battlefield. that's part of the reason the AK is so reliable, it's made of heavy, dense, crude materials. almost like a caveman, it's not all too sophisticated, bulky/heavy, and dense, inaccurate, etc. however, it can take a lot more of a beating and still be functional compared to a nerdy 90-lb computer geek. (not putting either denomination down).
this weapon, the M17, is made of good materials, is pretty erganomic, accurate, is unlikely to malfunction even when firing up to 200 different kinds of rounds, compact, well balanced, etc. for a compact bullpup for easy carrying and short to medium range (battlefield conveniences), it's pretty solid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 04, 2005 2:31 pm
I never said it wasn't. I thought you were trying to show me something wowbanging and bedazzling. When it turned out to be a bullpup, I simply made the remark it was.
I like bullpup designs, but its not a radical or new innovation. Its a bullpup. What more do you want me to say?
and the 200 different kinds of rounds isn't really that worrysome. So you found 200 different bullet manufacturers.
I mean, if you want me to praise upon it, why should I? Compared to an AR-15, almost everything is praiseworthy. Except perhaps a mini-14. *shudder* those things you can keep. I've yet to see something I hate worse.
but back to the point, that rifle will never take off for two reasons:
1) Its relatively unknown. Bushmaster has never been one for public advertising. Armalite and Rock River Arms easily take it on and beat it for sales and public attention. And Colt, well, that left handed son-of-a-b***h is like budweiser: good advertising, but crappy product.
2) the Army is so ingraned to use the AR that it would never switch anyways. It would take about five to ten years for it to catch on, if its lucky. but the army likes its AR, and a new weapon simply is not needed. not to mention the cost of rearming everyone is astronomical. And police won't buy into it, except perhaps a special few squad units for the job that the situation demands for.
So even if it is a good rifle, its not really worth getting your hopes up for. With nobody wanting it (except the very few), and no use for it that isn't already taken up, its not going to be seen very much.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 04, 2005 2:32 pm
On a side note:
How do you like the new Banner page I made?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 04, 2005 2:45 pm
it's much more organized... =3
and i don't mean to continue the argument, but just to make things clear... i found the site and remembered that you didn't seem to know the gun, so i posted the link. it was pretty much just to show you, since i'm basing one of my designs off of it, and i do think it's pretty competent. it's different for what is technically an american rifle.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 04, 2005 2:50 pm
no worries. True, for an american rifle, it would be odd.
But the design has been used quite a lot before.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 04, 2005 2:51 pm
the general bullpup? yeah.
btw, did you get the 4th and final BG?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 04, 2005 2:54 pm
Nospai Deathous the general bullpup? yeah. btw, did you get the 4th and final BG? I did, and i replied back with the changes i think you need to add. I forgot to add that there should prolly be presents too... I'm almost finished with the third page. As soon as I figure out how to do one more thing, i'll send it to you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 04, 2005 2:58 pm
awesome! *frolics off to make changes*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 04, 2005 3:04 pm
I could probably start working on the next page...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
