What's your unpopular firearm opinion hill that you are willing to die on? (NOTE: ENGINEERING/DESIGN ONLY)

[-]

Andropogon-Gerardii@reddit

The M14 was a fine battle rifle and is overhated for no reason

[-]

BlueSkiesOplotM@reddit

It's literally like 4MOA homie. Even into the 2000s Springfield couldn't out precision a cheap AK.

You have to do tons of black magic and parts replacement to get an okay DMR. If you clean it, it's back to 4MOA.

[-]

Andropogon-Gerardii@reddit

Cool. I said it's a good battle rifle, not a DMR. Even the M4 is only expected 4 MOA per US ARMY specs. It getting pushed into a role it wasn't designed for isn't the rifles fault.

[-]

No it's not. The company that makes the civilian M14 had to seriously change the rifle to get the MOA to be any good, and this shows up in tons of testing on video after video. The chinese copies suck at hitting things, so that's three different companies that couldn't make the rifle good.

Meanwhile, a cheap M4, straight out of the box can be 1MOA without fliers, and is closer to 2MOA with them. Even with 855 and it's problems, it still shoots good groups.

4MOA is basically the kind of quality you get from a Turkish Mauser, or a really worn out AK that has been in a few wars.

The OG AR-10 out of the box does what the M14 takes hundreds, maybe thousands of dollars to do, not to mention all the overly complicated attachments and gunwork required.

The G3 literally needs a scope and a 150 conversion kit for it's stock, and regardless of where it was made, it shoots very spot on. Sold DMR, almost sniper accuracy.

[-]

Andropogon-Gerardii@reddit

You realize that more than just springfield makes an M1A, right? And that they didn't change the design,? Just improved manufacturing? Fulton, Bula, and LRB all make excellent M14/M1As, and springfields aren't bad, despite the complaints of keyboard warriors, so there's 4 companies that make a good one. And I'm not sure where you got your info on chineese copies from, but it's also wrong. Soft bolts? Sure, but they do not have an issue with accuracy. So again, manufacturing issues are not the rifles fault.

Again, I never said 4 MOA was great, I said it was more than effective for a battle rifle and still within army regulations for the current service rifle. 4 MOA is a lot more common than you obviously think. The only one comparing the performance to an M4 here is you. And guess what? The G3 and FAL both average around 3-4 MOA depending on ammo, about the same as a stock M14.

And again, the only argument people ever have is "X rifle is better," which 1) I never disagreed with, and 2) doesn't make the M14 bad.

It's still a good rifle.

[-]

BlueSkiesOplotM@reddit

You're still wrong. Nine Hole reviews has taken gun after gun after gun and put these weapons in something close to a rest.

A lot of weapons can easily do 2 or 1 MOA. Basically every single AK they tested shot better than the M14, in terms of group size at 100 or 200 yards.

People have been using the civilian versions of the G3 in competition for years and they barely change them. The DMR version in many countries is just adding a scope. The G3 starts with one of the worst stocks ever, but again, replacing it is very very easy.

There are plenty of DMR versions of the M14 and all of them involve more work.

You can literally talk to veterans who used both weapons, and almost all of them will praise the accuracy of the G3 and say the M14 was just depressing to use unless they had nothing better.

The only semi-auto battle rifle I've seen that is known and proven to be worse, is that PSL and that's a very crude weapon that wasn't adopted by any nations as a service rifle.

[-]

Andropogon-Gerardii@reddit

Except I'm not wrong, you are. Have you ever even held an M1A/M14? Because it's pretty clear you haven't. You're basing all of your wrong opinions on YouTube videos. And apparently only 1 at that. I'm basing mine on first-hand experience from myself and numerous vets I've talked to that have carried one in multiple conflicts. Once you grow up a little bit, you'll realize that how things add up on paper isn't always how they work out in real life.

Nine hole tested every single AK? And every single M14? If not, it's an invalid test. Because most surp AKs dont shoot less than 3 moa, especially with the 7.62x39 that is available, but if you shot yourself, you'd know that. (And a lot of weapons do 4 moa, like the G3 you keep slurping)

Claiming the G3 is a more popular match rifle is actually hilarious and proves you've never been to a match. The M14 is literally one of the most common match rifles in the country. And all it takes to make an m14 a DMR is dropping it in a new chassis. Again, I'm not sure where you get your information from, but it's clearly wrong

There is not a single US veteran that has ever been issued both an M14 and a G3. Not only do you not know what you're talking about, but you're making stuff up. That's weird and just helps prove my point. And if you did talk to service members that used the M14, you'd realize they loved them, even as recently as Afghanistan. And the only real complaint you ever see in theater is weight.

The PSL is a Romanian purpose designed DMR, not a battle rifle, and was adopted and used by multiple nations (including Romania) in multiple conflicts. Everything you say just further proves you don't know what you're talking about.

The M14 is a good rifle. Point blank, period.

[-]

BlueSkiesOplotM@reddit

First, you can literally google G3 inaccuracy, then G3 accuracy. You can do the same for M14 and M1A. What you will find is praise for the accuracy of the G3 platform, and some complaining about the stock or recoil. Meanwhile, the M1A and M14 finds will be forum people listing thing after thing they do to fix the precision/accuracy.

-

I am flabbergasted you are so in the dark about all of this. I'm literally just repeating what every single source has said. Veterans, journalists, gunbloggers, Ian, contractors, ect ect ect.

But then I noticed you're constantly misreading things I said? So basically, your reading comprehension is really really bad.

Also, claiming that veterans like the M14, is ridiculous, unless these vets are from the Vietnam era. Any GWOT era veteran that has held any other "battle rifle" of any sort outside of the PSL, straight up hates the M14.

Gunsmiths who literally worked on it in the military, hate it. Historians who study how it got adopted basically chalk it all up to graft and a few generals trying to make a legacy out of adopting a bad rifle on purpose.

You are the first person I've seen under 60, who actually likes the rifle and not ironically.

You're refuting the general narrative, and acting like I'm claiming I evented some kind of laser gun or something.

[-]

BlueSkiesOplotM@reddit

"Nine hole tested every single AK? And every single M14? If not, it's an invalid test. Because most surp AKs dont shoot less than 3 moa, especially with the 7.62x39 that is available, but if you shot yourself, you'd know that. (And a lot of weapons do 4 moa, like the G3 you keep slurping)"

Except that isn't what happened there or in any of the international competitions (2 gun mostly).

Also your statement is pointless. Shooting wornout guns isn't going to tell you how precise the design is on average, at comparable price points and similar manufacturing quality. Hell, some of the best and worse AKs on the market, are both Chinese.

The only thing that matters is the weapon design. If you take all available examples of the weapon in the US you can get, and compare price point to price point, with barrels all from the US and/or imported as needed for extra data points....

And you put all of them in something close to a rest.

And you shoot a nine shot group with the same guy.

You're basically testing like vs like. You're not testing third world barrels that are 40 years old vs first world barrels that are brand new.

And in this situation, the G3 and AR-10 platforms shine through. The AK is all over the place, but generally better than the PSL and M14, accounting for trajectory.

-

"And all it takes to make an m14 a DMR is dropping it in a new chassis."

Yes, you have to take out the guts of the rifle and put it in a vice chassis basically, and if you try open it up to clean it, it completely loses point of aim. Not to mention that the MK-14 ERB is 14 pounds.

Meanwhile, the G3 just has a bad stuck with a weird hump.

Nation after nation modernized the G3 by just putting rails and a new stock on it.

Meanwhile, M14 stans say things like...

"The basics of M14 accurizing are:

Unified Gas Block to Barrel Band. (Welded)
Correct tension for lock up of Gas Cylinder Lock.
A McMillan stock (or any other that is impervious to moisture, and strong enough to overcome Barrel heat cycles) that is bedded correctly.
A "tuned" trigger."

[-]

Andropogon-Gerardii@reddit

You really are mad, huh? Thats funny.

"The only thing that matters is the weapon design" Exactly, comparing them to others is pointless. And the M14 was a good design with poor manufacturing. Thanks for supporting my point!

Again, I never made the argument the M14 is better than the G3, I'm legitimately not sure where you got that from, maybe made up with the rest of your "facts". My only argument is the M14 is a good rifle thats over hated. You can keep rambling all you want, I don't really care. Doesn't change the fact the M14 is still a good rifle.

[-]

BlueSkiesOplotM@reddit

That's a lot more reasonable.

Actually for some reason the Galil ACE had bad groups and the polytech Chinese AK was very good in terms of groups.

My only guess is the Galil ACE with all its plastic is weighing down the barrel.

My argument is more like that the FAL is better (Though not for grouping), the dragonov is better, the AR-10 is wayyyy better, ect ect.

I just can't see it as good, when it's the worst in its class.

[-]

Andropogon-Gerardii@reddit

1) I dont personally see it as the bottom of its class, but we've already done that song & dance. And 2) the worst item, in a group of good items, is still good.

At the end of the day, the M14 is a good rifle. That doesn't deserve nearly the hate it gets. Better guns existing doesn't change that. Like the post says, that's a hill im willing to die on. You're not changing my mind, nor do I have any desire to change yours.

[-]

BlueSkiesOplotM@reddit

-

"There is not a single US veteran that has ever been issued both an M14 and a G3. Not only do you not know what you're talking about, but you're making stuff up. That's weird and just helps prove my point. And if you did talk to service members that used the M14, you'd realize they loved them, even as recently as Afghanistan. And the only real complaint you ever see in theater is weight."

Either you can't read, or you're trying to win an argument for an audience that is literally just you.

What I actually was saying, is that veterans of both weapons, have completely different opinions of the weapon. G3 users don't covet the M14. People who have used the M14 and shot the G3 or HK-91, wish they had the later rifle.

You can easily find footage of veterans explaining they pressed the M14 into the DMR role during Afganistan, because adopting new weapons takes years and huge sums of money. They literally explain how it was cheaper and easier to replace almost every single part of the M14, than buy a brand new and cheaper AR-10 off the rack.

-

"The PSL is a Romanian purpose designed DMR, not a battle rifle, and was adopted and used by multiple nations (including Romania) in multiple conflicts. Everything you say just further proves you don't know what you're talking about."

The PSL is literally just an AK made bigger, with a different stock. It resembles the DMR version of the Yugo AK used by Iraq. If you look up the list of nations that use it, half of them don't exist anymore or are in the middle of civil-wars, while also being tinpot dictatorships.

[-]

Andropogon-Gerardii@reddit

So you just admitted that there were countries that used it? And it's by definition a purpose DMR, not battle rifle. Looks like I'm right again! Thanks

And yeah, the M14 isn't a great DMR. I've said that the whole time? You also said "veterans who have used both rifles," so that's what I responded to. I think you're the one that can't read

The M14 is still a good rifle. Stay mad

[-]

Andropogon-Gerardii@reddit

I'm not arguing with you anymore. It's clear you don't like the rifle, but don't actually know why other than people told you not to. (And I have Googled G3 accuracy, which is how I know they still average 3-4 MOA, the same as an M14. You can't even properly fact-check your own claims)

"Also, claiming that veterans like the M14 is ridiculous unless these vets are from the Vietnam era. Any GWOT era veteran that has held any other "battle rifle" of any sort outside of the PSL straight up hates the M14."

"You are the first person I've seen under 60, who actually likes the rifle and not ironically."

"I'm literally just repeating what every single source has said. Veterans, journalists, gunbloggers, Ian, contractors, ect ect ect."

These comments are so laughably untrue, and 100% prove you'ven't actually spoken to anyone that's ever used an M14, and just echo the opinions you hear online. Learn to think for yourself. This sub is literally full of GWOT vets that used and loved the M21. You literally couldn't have made it more obvious that you've never actually spoken to anyone who's used an M14.

"You're refuting the general narrative, and acting like I'm claiming I evented some kind of laser gun or something"

This is where you're extremely mistaken and a point I've been trying to make the whole time. M14 hate is not the general narrative. It is only the narrative among those online that have never actually used one. people in the real world love them. Hence, the reason Fulton and springfield sell a shit ton of them(Ian excluded, and he doesn't even hate the rifle. Just thinks we should've adopted something else. So even the big name example you're using to support your side doesn't hate the rifle)

Again, everything you've said has been incorrect. And claiming i have bad reading comprehension, when you keep using the same argument, with the same incorrect facts, is hilarious. Just because there are better rifles doesn't make the M14 bad. Just because some keyboard warriors dislike it doesn't make it bad. It it the best rifle in the world? No, no one claimed that. It's still a good rifle, and that's a fact. If that makes you mad, i honestly dont care. Come back when you know what you're talking about, please, and aren't just echoing empty opinions.

[-]

BlueSkiesOplotM@reddit

If everyone loves it, then it wouldn't be an overhated rifle and it wouldn't be a hot take to like it.

Are you hearing yourself?

If everything but the PSL is better, every single battle rifle from 1949 onward.... It's not good.

[-]

sandalsofsafety@reddit

Fine, yes, no one in their right mind is debating fine. No one got "killed in the streets" because they had an M14. But good, it is not. It works, and it's well made, but it was outdated the day it left the drawing board. Aside from the gas system (which was actually rather clever), and it being select fire (which turned out to be pretty worthless), it was just a mediocre rehash of the M1 Garand. But unlike the Italian program, none of the parts on it were the same, so you had an all new rifle, with all new parts, and all new accessories, which needed all new tooling to make, but with virtually no advancement over the rifle it was replacing.

[-]

Andropogon-Gerardii@reddit

Stay mad all you want. Doesn't change the fact it was a good battle rifle. There's a reason the majority of soldiers ever issued one will disagree with you. Hope this helps!

[-]

sandalsofsafety@reddit

Theres a reason a majority of service members who were issued them over the course 40+ years liked the rifle.

M14 have big boolit. M16 have small boolit.

There's also a reason why tier one guys used them well into the 90s-2000s, even when they have a choice of whatever they want.

If you wanted the firepower of a .308 battle rifle in the US armed forces, up to the GWOT era, there was really only one choice. Even if they could get something like a FAL or G3 or SCAR, those rifles are (aside from ammunition) entirely outside of US logistics and training.

What great advancements do a G3, FAL, or CETME have over the M14 or even garand for that matter? ...other than a better stock, whats outdated compared to other battler rifles of the time?

They use more modern manufacturing techniques (in other words, cheaper and quicker to make), it's significantly easier to mount optics (particularly on the G3 and AR-10), they have better magazines, they're more ergonomic and controllable, they're modular, they don't lose zero when you take the stock (or any other furniture) off, their standard muzzle devices don't ring...

And a lack interchangeable parts is a moot point, when that wouldve been the case regardless of what rifle we picked as a replacement.

True, but a big part of the pitch for the M14 was that, even if it wasn't quite as good as the competition, it would at least be cheap & easy to make since we could just reuse Garand tooling. Well, if the rifle is worse than the competition, and it needs all new tooling, then what's the point? I don't know if the Italians were open to sharing the BM-59 program, but if they were, that would've given us effectively the same gun, but with the promised manufacturing benefits, and even the ability to convert existing Garands. Plus it had better magazines.

The argument that something is bad because there's a "better" option is dumb.

Never said it was bad, just that it was not good. An old Kia Rio isn't a bad car, it works just fine, but it isn't good. It's "exceedingly average".

[-]

Andropogon-Gerardii@reddit

Tier one could have had any .308 they wanted, thats a dumb argument. That was proven time and time again by Delta, Seals, and even SOG using whatever they wanted. If Delta wanted to standardize another .308 they could've. Just like NSW did with the 226 and USP instead of the M9 and even the mp7.

Again, having spoken to many vets who carried an M14 in anger, there was alot more to it than, "big bullet" and that still doesn't disprove my point that it's a good rifle, in fact nothing you've said proves it's not a good rifle. Your only points are 1) parts interchangeability, with a phased out rifle. If you think that makes it a bad gun, then the m16 was a bad gun, as was almost every firearm ever invented, with that logic. And yeah, it didn't meet army specs of being used on garand tooling. Again, this doesn't make it a bad rifle. And 2) the G3, FAL, etc. Is better. Which is A) debateable and B) a dumb argument that doesn't make the M14 bad, like i already said. Coke is better than pepsi. it doesn't mean pepsi is bad.

You can say that the M14 isn't a good rifle (PS. Saying something isn't good means it's bad) But it doesn't make it true, despite the unwarranted internet hate. It's 1) reliable, 2) effective, and 3) more than accurate enough for a battle rifle. The only real ding to the M14 was it being pushed into roles it wasn't designed for, and slightly more complicated manufacturing that led to quality control issues early on. You can argue all day that we should've adopted a different rifle. You can say the FAL and G3 are better. You can even personally dislike the M14. But at the end of the day, it's still a good rifle. A good decision to adopt it? That's debatable, but that doesn't make the rifle bad.

[-]

sandalsofsafety@reddit

Would you please reread this conversation up to this point? Because I don't think you're fully grasping what I'm saying. But if it helps, I'll rephrase myself a few more times: On a scale of 1 to 5, relative to its peers, the M14 gets a 3. It's at par. It's neither here nor there. I don't love it, I don't hate it, it's just meh. "Cs get degrees".

[-]

Andropogon-Gerardii@reddit

Cool, and I don't think you're fully grasping what I'm saying. "Realitive to its peers" doesn't mean anything. Comparing it to others is pointless. Something I've stated multiple times. Coke is a solid 3 out of 5 compared to DR pepper. Does that mean coke is a bad drink? No, it means your logic is extremely flawed. Are there better guns? Yes. No one said there aren't. That doesn't make the M14 bad or even average. Saying the M14 is a bad gun because there were better options is legitimately a braindead take, but it doesn't really surprise me coming from an M14 hater. You can have that OPINION, all you want. But it doesn't change the FACT that it's a good rifle, not the best, but good. I'm not arguing with you about this anymore. It's clear you have a weird bias about the M14, and you're not worth my time.

[-]

PuzzleheadedPrior455@reddit

The H&K P7 is just a gimmick gun. Its a mediocre to bad handgun.

[-]

jameson3131@reddit

One of my favorite pistols. Handles great, functions great, shoots like a f’ing laser. Other than the Eurotrash heel mag release on the P7 PSP there is nothing not to like.

[-]

Sesemebun@reddit

The giant grip safety/cocking piece is pretty stupid, I found it fairly uncomfortable to shoot.

[-]

BlueSkiesOplotM@reddit

Would you prefer a New York trigger?

[-]

Sesemebun@reddit

I would just prefer any other trigger. It’s a stupid gimmick required for cops. The whole shtick is it being a good trigger but also safe, but you could just have as good of a trigger or better with a da/sa and a safety. I think a prerequisite for firing a gun being “preyed you are strangling a child” is dumb. They just moved the shitty pull of a striker fired trigger to your other fingers

[-]

BlueSkiesOplotM@reddit

And everyone bitches about DA/SA triggers, they bitch about how a safety will get you killed because it'll flick by accident or you'll forget it.

[-]

blackstar32_25@reddit

Plunger-type ejectors are superior to fixed ejectors
Most of the time, putting anything other than a mil-spec trigger in a defensive rifle is a waste of time at best, and an invitation for problems at worst
Even though I know logically that the type of polymer used in pistol frames is really difficult to break, I still feel more comforted when pistols have polymer frames that are not the serialized frame (ie Sig 320, Springfield echelon)
I find extremely aggressive stippling on pistol grips to be a hindrance, I shoot worse with them because of my hands getting ripped up
I like polymer magazines far more than metal magazines, whether pistol or rifle. In fact I just like polymer everything. I think the G36 is a fabulous design, for example.
The HK P7 deserves to be left in the past, honestly I don't understand why so many people are still so obsessed with it
I'll trust my life to a polymer frame or steel frame pistol all day long, but aluminum frame? You can miss me with that.

[-]

MlackBesa@reddit

Thanks, those are successfully unpopular opinions lol. The one that really weirds me out is the aluminum frame pistol - why ?? What about SIG P-22x pistols, the Beretta 92s, etc ?

[-]

BlueSkiesOplotM@reddit

Not to mention the Mossberg 500.

[-]

TalbotFarwell@reddit

You would hate the custom checkered rosewood grips I have on my Beretta 92, lol.

[-]

Rickenbacker69@reddit

Hey, the P7 is an awesome little oddity! It's not a very good pistol, though.

[-]

No_Farm60@reddit

Fudds must hate you like you stole their daughter lol

[-]

sandalsofsafety@reddit

Your typical gas piston system does not belong in an AR-10 / AR-15. The rifle was specifically designed so that all of the forces from the action cycling would be inline with each other, thus reducing wear. Now you have a gas piston whacking the bolt carrier an inch above the bore axis (which is also the axis of the recoil spring), putting a moment on the bolt carrier, leading to wear in places where there shouldn't be.

[-]

MlackBesa@reddit

Every single Ian/InRange AR mud test has convinced me that the exhaust ports on a DI are awesome at blowing shit away from the action. Combined with the enclosed nature of the system, it really is marvelous. Only thing I could see being a real threat to DI is the increasing prevalence of suppressors everywhere, be it civilian or military. I hate gas blowback in the face.

[-]

sandalsofsafety@reddit

Indeed, though considering virtually every NATO-adjacent rifle made since the AR-15 uses a piston system, and has no dust cover over the ejection port, I have to wonder how much of a practical difference it's making.

Gas in the face is definitely a problem, especially with suppressors. However, an adjustable gas block (Riflespeed, for example), or even just traditional fixed tuning (barrel length, gas system length, and size of the gas port) will do a lot to alleviate that problem. Also, low back-pressure suppressor designs are becoming very popular, and there's been a slow but steady push to develop completely non-toxic ammunition.

The inline forces are half the reason they got away with making the upper receiver and the buffer tube from plain aluminum, no steel rails. No wear from the bolt carrier group moving, and no stress from firing (since the bolt locks into the barrel instead of the receiver).

[-]

BlueSkiesOplotM@reddit

They need to make a version of the AK where the upper is rigid like an AR-15 and most of the gun is CNCed like an AR-15.

Also it should use Aluminum.

The AK should cost double more than the AR-15 because material and labor costs.

[-]

MlackBesa@reddit

You’re in for a treat. Check out the AKV-521. Carcinization has finally reached the AK.

[-]

PageVanDamme@reddit (OP)

M+M M10x

[-]

makoivis@reddit

Carrying more ammo is more important than having a better gun

[-]

MlackBesa@reddit

Agreed. I completely forgot the source (so yall can take it as talking out of my ass with great pleasure) but almost every single engagement is won by who is putting more firepower down range towards the enemy. I think this was pretty prevalent in Vietnam.

[-]

Quarterwit_85@reddit

Bullpups will come back.

With the proliferation of suppressors the overall length of a firearm will become more and more important. This will be highlighted by lessons from Ukraine and the very short distance of engagements occurring there.* Further to that now we've moved away from the GWOT go-fast years things like ultra-slick magazine changes will be less and less relevant (I'd argue they never were anyway) which will further cement their usefulness. So while we're moving towards the AR platform now, I think that'll change in the years to come and Bullpups will be back, baby.

*Speaking to a number of Australians who have fought in Ukraine and more than a few have said the best rifle for the conditions there would be the EF88 Austeyr. One of those guys used an AKM, AK74, AK12 and M4 in theatre and was previously a firearms instructor in the Australian Defence Force, so he knew his shit.

[-]

MlackBesa@reddit

Pretty interesting! One thing I agree though is tactical shit like tAc-rELoAdS becoming tacky and useless ; I agree but couldn’t really explain why. I try to rational it (prevalence of very close quarters combat situations when raiding buildings instead of vast fields, police-type work, …), but I’d be curious to hear more about it. I get it, just don’t know why I do.

[-]

Yance_000@reddit

The best pistol design is SAO with a safety. Everyone says "Oh, you'll forget to turn it off if you ever have to use it" and then carries a rifle with a safety. I will take the better trigger and just train the tiny bit to turn off my safety.

[-]

MlackBesa@reddit

I don’t know about this being the best pistol design, but I concur that it’s just a training issue. I see dudes manically flip AR15 safeties on and off between RELOADS, you can’t tell me it would be too hard to do the same on a pistol. The 1911 for instance, for how obsolete it is, has a fantastic safety lever placement, it’s so natural to use when drawing.

[-]

Trooper1911@reddit

H&k style paddle mag release is superior to the button mag release used on most handguns

Also, bulpups are awesome if you train with them

[-]

Im_Back_From_Hell@reddit

First one, yup! Second one, nah.

[-]

MlackBesa@reddit

I feel like a complete outcast because I can’t ever work those paddle mag-releases and at this point I’m seriously wondering if I’m retarded or something.

[-]

VelvetHippo14@reddit

Your first point is why I will not buy a CC9 and will continue asking HK when they will bring us the SFP9CC.

[-]

makoivis@reddit

Ease of operation and maintenance are the most important factors for a service weapon.

[-]

MlackBesa@reddit

Enlisted soldiers are simply artists when it comes to creating the weirdest fucking assembly errors with guns. I’ve seen dudes try to assemble AK bolt carriers backwards without stopping and thinking about what they were doing for a single second.

[-]

hoopharted@reddit

chinese AKs rifles are the best AKS rifles

[-]

Dracon1201@reddit

Roller delayed systems in rifle calibers are only cool for nostalgia and videogame larp.

Large format pistols/PDWs are terrible guns in semi only formats, and highly underwhelming to own.

[-]

belwoo00dom@reddit

?

[-]

Low-Association586@reddit

I believe he means garbage like the .44 Automag and .50 Desert Eagle...and if so, I agree.

[-]

belwoo00dom@reddit

Ah yeah makes sense

[-]

Verdha603@reddit

The 1911 is a victim of its own success.

It set the bar for what makes conventional handgun for over 100 years, but at the cost of having a hardcore fanbase that acts like any advancements beyond the A1 update is a regression of the design. It’s become the US-equivalent of “Nyet, rifle is fine!” but to a handgun instead of a rifle.

Toggle-lock barrel design? Still seen as perfect, even though it had been improved and replaced since 1935 with the toggleless link system in the Browning Hi-Power, and almost every successful handgun created since.

Grip safety? Still seen as perfect, even though its purpose for being there died in 1943 with the last US cavalry charge.

Having the feed ramp on both the frame and barrel? Again, another feature that should’ve been removed within a decade of designs changing to not having to be reliant on the frame when the BHP showed up.

.45 ACP? Been the wrong answer for at least 40 years, if not longer, with the mainstream acceptance of jacketed hollow points. Unless you are running it with a suppressor, 9x19mm is an inherently better general purpose handgun round by comparison.

Sights? About the only major update the masses seem fine with, and even now it sounds blasphemous to even consider putting a red dot on it.

It took 80 years for the 2011 to start becoming a thing, and even 30 some years after it started becoming a thing, we still have problems with trying to come up with fixing simple shit like eliminating a grip safety and using a toggle-less barrel link.

Simple fixes like eliminating the grip safety, incorporating a toggleless barrel link, improved iron sights with optics ready capability, using an external extractor, and a double stack magazine ranges from being viewed as heresy or put behind a paywall that matches custom hand fitted 1911’s, when they’re changes that arguably should’ve been accepted, embraced, and already in mass production by multiple large manufacturers before the start of the 21st century.

[-]

sandalsofsafety@reddit

I'll counter your argument with the fact that if you make all of those changes, is it even a 1911 anymore? On their own, they're mostly minor changes, and something that Colt probably would've been happy to do for a contract back in the day. But all together, you're talking substantially different barrels, frames, slides, and magazines. Have you not just made a Hi Power or CZ 75 or SIG with extra steps? What's the point of it still being a 1911?

[-]

Verdha603@reddit

The key component of what makes the 1911 a 1911 is its trigger; provided its SAO, has a thumb safety, and has a grip angle that is the same or very close to the original 1911/1911A1, I’d make the argument those four main components are what makes a 1911 a 1911.

And considering the Hi-Power, CZ-75, and Sig lack the same trigger as the 1911 is what makes them distinctly separate from it. Designs also change and evolve over time; many parts are no longer interchangeable between current production Mark III clones and the original Hi-Powers (nevermind whatever FN was thinking with their High-Power pistol). Same goes for Pre-B CZ-75’s versus CZ 75 B’s, or US-produced Sig P2XX pistols versus West German/German produced pistols.

[-]

sandalsofsafety@reddit

Valid points, especially on the trigger.

[-]

MlackBesa@reddit

They’re also ridiculously finicky. I once bought a 9mm Commander and got in the 1911 scene in my country, continents away from the US and its fanboys. The amount of cope I faced was enormous, it felt like I was back on 1911forums but with my own countrymen. People explaining that although my gun was a complete jam-o-matic (failing to eject and failing to feed every 2 rounds), it was as an easy fix as getting aftermarket extractors, then fine-tuning the claw, then fine-tuning the extractor tension. Excuse me what? Then, it was just as an easy fix as selecting extremely specific magazines from one specific US manufacturer that of course is seldom imported and always out of stock, which you then fill up with specific 9mm ammo from one select company.

I nope’d out very fast and returned the gun.

[-]

BlueSkiesOplotM@reddit

I think the quality of the trigger press does things to peoples brains. The trigger being smooth is something even haters and Glock people mention.

[-]

MlackBesa@reddit

Agree, I absolutely love them. It’s a such a shame because I really like 1911s, they’re the most comfortable gun for my hands. Oh well.

[-]

Lucaliosse@reddit

Damn, now you got me dreaming about a 9mm 1911 with double stack mags... hmm

[-]

Low-Association586@reddit

Buy a Cz75...you'll be happier, and still have money left over.

[-]

Lucaliosse@reddit

Yeah my dad bought one some years ago, in a package deal with both a 9mm slide and .22lr slide, wich is amazing for learning the trigger.

[-]

Hotrod3538@reddit

Pistol caliber carbines should not run glock mags. Colt/uzi mags are superior.

[-]

Low-Association586@reddit

Excellent point, sir. But my vote goes for Swedish K mags.

[-]

sandalsofsafety@reddit

Ehem, Suomi mags :)

[-]

Low-Association586@reddit

lol. I knew someone would nit-pick that as soon as I re-read my post.

[-]

WindstormMD@reddit

Scorpion mags are the king of the hill by a good margin, but agreed colt double stack double feed and MP5 double stack and feed are both better than DS/SF Glock mags

[-]

BrokenEight38@reddit

Came here to say this. It also fucks up the aesthetic of basically every gun they do this to.

[-]

Walker_Hale@reddit

They’re cooler but are not superior

[-]

Nihlus_Kriyk@reddit

I’ll take CZ Scorpion mags over both. But yes, colt mags>glock mags on pccs.

[-]

Dinglebutterball@reddit

But I already have like 2 dozen stupid Glock mags.

[-]

smoking_gun@reddit

The AR-15 is a better design than the AK.

[-]

Human-Fennel9579@reddit

As someone who doesn't know much about either gun, can you tell me more? I assumed the AK was designed to arm as many people as possible; quantity > quality. And the AR15 is the opposite, quality > quantity.

Is the AR15 easier to mass produce and shoot than the AK these days?

[-]

sandalsofsafety@reddit

There's a lot to unpack here, but in a nutshell, the AR-10 (and subsequent AR-15) was a forward looking design, while the AK was looking back. Armalite was trying to figure out how to use aerospace materials and manufacturing to make better firearms, and as a result of that challenge (and also, just the general insatiable appetite of engineers for perfecting systems), it incorporated a ton of clever designs (some pre-existing, like the bolt, others brand new, like the gas system). Meanwhile, the AK really was just a good amalgamation of existing designs (while it's a bit of a meme, there is a lot of truth to the notion that the AK is mechanically just an upside down Garand) and manufacturing techniques. If you handed a company like Remington the blueprints to the AK in say, the 1920s, they would've had no problem putting it into production, whereas the AR... they would understand it, but they would have a much harder time sorting out production techniques & tooling (not to mention that it would not be made from aluminum & plastic).

[-]

smoking_gun@reddit

The AR is more ergonomic, easier to shoot, and easier to reload. Just about anything you do with an AK is going to be slower.

Also, the AR is a sealed system when you have the dust cover closed. It keeps debris out of the main operating mechanism. The AK bolt carrier is always exposed.

People like to talk about legendary AK reliability. The AR is probably just as reliable while also being more user-friendly.

[-]

aieeevampire@reddit

The AK “”reliability” is probably down to it having such loose sloppy tolerances. So it will always run, and always run like crap

[-]

Worker_Ant_81730C@reddit

Nah.

The root of the AK’s reliability comes from a godawful huge mass of piston, bolt carrier and bolt moving back at Mach Jesus, powered by generous amounts of gas. It can only be stopped if the receiver is practically full of sand or ice. And in most cases you can kickstart the gun like you would kickstart a motocross bike, thanks to the charging handle.

AK actions (or close copies) built to exacting standards are pretty accurate: see Finnish Rks and SiG 550s. Picked examples of the former still serve as DMRs in the Finnish Army, despite being manufactured at least 40 years ago. With ACOGs matched to 7.62x39 Lapua, even conscripts learn to reach out and touch someone reliably up to 500-600 meters.

Where the AK design falls flat is everything else. Like others have said, it is not nearly as user friendly or upgradeable as the AR platform. And it is heavy too.

[-]

makoivis@reddit

This is exactly it. No matter how frozen an AK variant is, it will run perfectly if you can get the first shot to fire. The chunky bolt carrier does work.

Freezing doesn’t sound like a concern unless you’ve served in winter conditions. Guns don’t freeze because you leave them outside: they freeze because you’re going in and out of tents/buildings. The condensation builds up and freezes.

I’m not familiar enough with the AR platform to say what sort of variants perform the best under those conditions.

[-]

1corvidae1@reddit

Didn't the iced test by garand thumb a few years ago shows the wisdom of lever locking for mags as better for arctic conditions? Cause M4 style mag retention is more difficult to get the mag out once it's frozen.

I think that was the only good thing.

[-]

smoking_gun@reddit

AR mags have always been the weak point of the design. Especially the original spec.

Not all designs are perfect, but the AR is still a better design than the AK.

[-]

Sea_Farmer_4812@reddit

The ak reliability is largely due to looser tolerances which allows debris(especially dry, like sand) to fall out or go somewhere that doesn't interfere with operation. You forgot to mention the AR is generally easier to add accessories/force multipliers.

[-]

KeeganY_SR-UVB76@reddit

The only real innate advantage in terms of production is that the AK can have a stamped receiver. Designing a stamped AR-15 receiver would be a massive undertaking since it would be almost a complete redesign (but as the saying goes, anything is possible with enough money).

[-]

Pikiinuu@reddit

Pretty sure that’s why the AR 18 exists but I’m not an expert so probably wrong about that.

[-]

Nesayas1234@reddit

The AR-18 uses a different system, the entire point of its design was to not use any AR-15 patents since Armalite had sold the design and patents to Colt by then.

[-]

Pikiinuu@reddit

Gotcha. Thanks for the explanation! Never looked into it so I thought it was just a stamped AR 15 with a different gas system to accommodate the different construction method.

[-]

Swissgrenadier@reddit

I shoot AKs in matches against mainly ARs and I only do it because I just like them yet people defend AKs all the time. "Oh they are more reliable than an AR" no, not really. "They are cheaper" no, not really. "They are easier to use" no, not really. There is nothing objectively better about an AK compared to an AR of equal build quality. But I shoot what's fun to me.

[-]

I426Hemi@reddit

That isn't controversial though. Some people prefer AKs sure, but almost everyone who knows anything acknowledges the AR15 as superior.

[-]

L3PALADIN@reddit

its called a silencer.

other names are valid, but "silencer" is in no way incorrect.

[-]

sandalsofsafety@reddit

I vote that (in the US at least) we should all start calling them mufflers. It's virtually illegal to run a car without a muffler, but you want the eardrum-bursting gunfire to go unmuffled, even though people would be perfectly happy to do it? Seems a bit hypocritical, doesn't it?

[-]

PageVanDamme@reddit (OP)

I think a large part of it is due to PR. Silencer makes it sounds like super Ninja Assassin weapon to general public. Case in point, they are called “Moderators” in UK

[-]

L3PALADIN@reddit

yes, that's why firearms manufacturers started distancing themselves from the term to avoid any potential liability over expected performance. (early 60s-ish i think, spy movies getting popular was a big part of it)

the fact the change comes from deliberate corporate PR capitalist gaslighting is a big part of why i hate people internalising it so much.

[-]

Alexthelightnerd@reddit

H&K's bolt locking leaver (MP-5, G-3, and others) is ergonomically inefficient, slow, and cumbersome. There were better systems already in common use at the time, and H&K's resistance even to putting a bolt release on the G-36 is just obstinate.

The H&K Slap is awfully cool and fun to do. But it's also slow and dumb in a practical sense.

[-]

sandalsofsafety@reddit

I'll add to that, that if you aren't going to have a LRBHO, put the charging handle in a place where it's easy to reach and use. I do not understand what people see in putting the charging handle way out on the front of a gun (CETME & HK may have been the first, but they're far from the last).

[-]

SmoothBrainHasNoProb@reddit

The first part is true, but your point of "Better systems were in place at the time" is misleading. The contemporaries of the G3 were not the AK-47 and the M16, they were the FN-49 and the FN FAL. The M16 came into service in the late 60s, the G3 the late 50s. Likewise with the MP5, it's contemporaries were open bolt subguns.

It's ergonomics were worse than the FN FAL, for example, but the roller locked system was cheaper to make and arguably more durable. There's a reason it was ultimately adopted by more NATO countries.

[-]

belwoo00dom@reddit

I always assumed the G3 was more expensive mechanically than the FAL that’s crazy. The more you know

[-]

Ziqitseng@reddit

I am more thinking about the Mauser. Where Paul went through many iterations until getting the bolt to get stuck on the follower on the last round. In pistols, hold open goes back to around the same time, and it is something the M1 already has (Garand thumb sometimes).

[-]

Alexthelightnerd@reddit

The FAL is specifically one of the options I was thinking of. Why couldn't H&K have designed a more ergonomic system at the time if FN was doing it?

[-]

SmoothBrainHasNoProb@reddit

Because being able to reload slightly faster isn't really top priority when you need to equip 200,000+ conscripts with a reliable rifle to fight the Soviet hordes. The ergos are *fine* and that's fine enough for it's intended purpose as a standard infantry rifle.

[-]

Alexthelightnerd@reddit

But would it have cost anything to make it better? Why not do that?

Still, I mostly agree that the G-3 is a totally fine rifle. But the MP-5 was definitely not a mass market service rifle, and specifically intended for units where rapid reloads are important.

[-]

Ziqitseng@reddit

Agree, slap cool, no bolt hold-open, not so much.

Everytime someone defends HK by saying stuff like "Bolt hold open makes the gun less reliable", I have to disagree. Bolt hold open is not something new in the 1950s, I suspect HK is just lazy/or there's some sheet metal reasons why they couldn't add the function to the guns.

For the G36, I find pulling the charging handle just fine, since the handle is closer to your hand, unlike the AR.

[-]

AMRIKA-ARMORY@reddit

HK’s also have some known reliability problems lol.

Take the MP5 and its lack of feed ramp, precluding the reliable use of flat-nose or hollow-point ammo.

And for the HK defenders…I love me an HK, don’t get me wrong, but being THAT picky with ammo is unacceptable for serious firearms that were designed for serious clients

[-]

TheIroquoisPliskin@reddit

I have put a few thousand rounds through my SP5, including HPs, flat-nosed subs, and plenty of FMJs.

Never had a jam, I think the issues you describe are more of a problem with the clones.

[-]

WindstormMD@reddit

He is right, but we have had a lot of time for HK and the clone manufacturers to make incremental improvements to reduce the occurrence rate. Some non-jacketed projectiles (looking at you, federal syntech) are just impossible to use because of how the MP5 feeds. As long as you’re using something with a modern bonded jacket and not a coating or plating you should be perfectly fine

[-]

AMRIKA-ARMORY@reddit

Most of the MP5/SP5 problems are exaggerated in the clones, but they definitely still occur with a lot of the HK versions. Sounds like you got a nice one at least!

[-]

Sesemebun@reddit

Absolutely. I’ve heard people complain about mp5/10 mags having a bolt hold open. It’s the 21st century ffs last round bolt hold open is the standard

[-]

Nesayas1234@reddit

Agreed. For a pistol caliber weapon like the MP5, I think it beats pure straight blowback, but for anything higher pressure like an intermediate or full power rifle cartridge I'd rather have a proper locking system.

I still think the G36, SL8, and PSG-1 are cool as fuck though.

[-]

HowToPronounceGewehr@reddit

The Breda mod. 30 isn't as bad as fuddlores depicts it, and most of the arguments used to shit on it (parroted by Ian in his video too) are complete BS, straight out of fuddlores.

It wasn't the best gun around, it wasn't the smartest one, but it wasn't the complete pile of smokin manure people claim it was.

[-]

BlueSkiesOplotM@reddit

No good firearm has 20 rounds for an MG, takes only stripper clips, and oils every round.

The BAR is completely superior. So is the BREN, and the CZ father. Even the Japanese hopper mg is better.

The French gun with the dumb magazine is better and IAN defense it not just because it's French.

[-]

HowToPronounceGewehr@reddit

No good firearm has 20 rounds for an MG

BAR, ZB vz.26, LS/26

No good firearm takes only stripper clips and oils every round

These were actually features, not issues, definetly useful to improve reliability. A fixed sturdy magazine not prone to easy dents definetly improve a steady feeding, while oiling the round immediately before entering the chamber helps with a swift extraction and annihilates any risk of case rupturing.

The BAR is completely superior. So is the BREN, and the CZ father. Even the Japanese hopper mg is better.

As I wrote, I'm not saying it's superior to anything, just that it's not a complete pile of garbage as old fuddlores describe it

The French gun with the dumb magazine is better and IAN defense it not just because it's French.

Ian defends the Chauchat because he made actual research about it, while shits on the Breda mod.30 with silly arguments taken directly from fuddlores, since there's a severe lack of resources on the Breda 30.

He does to the Breda 30 what the average internet/range guy made about the Chauchat before Ian's videos about it.

[-]

BlueSkiesOplotM@reddit

I used commas for a reason.

If every nation including the Chinese (Who barely have boots) has better weapons, your MG is garbage.

They're not features. Every gun that uses that much oil jams like crazy and gets tons of dust or mud in the oil.

The gun has those dumb features because it's so unreliable, it has to have them or it won't work at all.

You're basically saying a car is good because it uses premium, despite it going Honda Civic speeds and having that much horsepower.

[-]

HowToPronounceGewehr@reddit

The gun has those dumb features because it's so unreliable, it has to have them or it won't work at all.

The gun has those features because the Army required them for the trials, Breda only included them because they were required

Other Breda guns work flawlessly without the need of those features, because Breda knew their shit around guns.

You're basically saying a car is good because it uses premium, despite it going Honda Civic speeds and having that much horsepower.

I'm saying that most of the shit spread around the Breda 30 is mostly BS based on nothing. As it was the shit spread around the chauchat before ian made research and videos about it.

They're not features. Every gun that uses that much oil jams like crazy and gets tons of dust or mud in the oil.

Not really, guns have more risk of being not oiled enough than being overoiled. And the Breda 30 spread a single small drop of oil for each cartridge, just enough to create a film around it, and just the instant before chambering it, so no oil flying around and gunking mechanisms as fuddlores claim.

[-]

BlueSkiesOplotM@reddit

No, because the Chauchat doesn't use tiny ass stripper clips to feed a full power machine gun, it uses magazines... Like something made by people who aren't insane.

It also doesn't oil every single cartridge, despite WW1 telling everyone and their mom that war is a place where everything is coated in dust and mud.

The early M16 is more reliable than the Breda is.

It's also not more reliable. Nothing about the action is more reliable. The parts are more complicated and the magazines for the BREN are like AK magazines, the ones people use as chairs and hammers.

Not to mention that basically nothing works correctly in desert conditions, IF YOU OIL IT. People have to run the M16 as dry as possible or seal the gun up as completely as they can.

The BREN was kept around and used after the war, for decades and decades.

The Breda's were disposed off as soon as possible, possibly as soon as the war ended.

[-]

tominlaw@reddit

Taurus makes a pretty good pistol.

[-]

Unorthdox474@reddit

Gas delayed blowback has real potential, especially for PCCs, and should be more common.

[-]

Ares4991@reddit

Gas delayed means heat buildup which was already barely acceptable in the HK P7 and really shows on the Alien if you do long strings of fire. How in the hell does that have potential on a PCC, where you expect a higher round count?

Straight blowback really is subpar, and we should be doing better, but gas delay ain't it chief, as much as I hate to admit it.

[-]

BlueSkiesOplotM@reddit

556 causes more heat than 9mm, how don't you know that?

[-]

Ares4991@reddit

Last I checked 5.56x45 isn't a pistol caliber cartridge, so not relevant to PCC's.

Well, I own an 8 inch .223 Rem Contender pistol, but that doesn't count.

[-]

Unorthdox474@reddit

It was a problem in the P7 because that was a pistol and they had to cram the delay piston directly above the trigger guard, where heat built up quickly and uncomfortably. A carbine has a lot more space to locate the piston, e.g. over the barrel rather than under it, and a lot more material to radiate it.

[-]

BlueSkiesOplotM@reddit

And the AR-15 is cheap, so people saying a delayed colt SMG would be expensive, are liars.

No idea why they don't partially reuse the AR-15 gas system or have the ability to divert gas like an FAL.

[-]

Dracon1201@reddit

To further that, direct blowback PCCs are lazy cash grabs and the only ones that are cool are retro guns.

[-]

Jigglepirate@reddit

Leave my Extar EP9 alone. It's easily the best value gun I own, and it takes Glock mags!

[-]

bozo_master@reddit

A 5.7x28 is a capable cartridge

[-]

BlueSkiesOplotM@reddit

It has less recoil than 9mm, so I doubt it. It doesn't tumble does it?

[-]

bozo_master@reddit

All the people killed by it don’t seem to dispute the assertion

[-]

Nesayas1234@reddit

.45 is obscelescant. It's not useless, it's probably one of the best cartridges for use with a suppressor, but as a general issue cartridge 9mm is better 95% if the time and .45 only gets away due to nostalgia.
On that note, the Spanish Star Model B is better than the Colt 1911A1. Not just because of 9mm plus 1 extra round well before the 80s, but also no grip safety and simpler construction. The only real downside is that it's an Eibar gun, but since Star was one of the most competent Spanish manufacturers the only downside is that you can't dry fire without a snap cap or else you'll break the firing pin.
Glocks are indeed generic, but I think people who hate on generic guns solely for being generic are missing the point. It's generic because by default it was and still is one of the best, and if that's the only reason you think they suck then you're just a contrarian. Now, if you genuinely dislike Glock for other reasons (you dislike the trigger or grip angle, you think other designs do it better, etc etc) that's a different story and perfectly valid.
En-bloc clips were fine for general use. People think that they're worse than stripper clips because they're confusing to use and early EBC guns had holes in the bottom, but 1. they're faster and smoother to reload since you're not having to remove an empty clip or fight the clip itself (just the follower), 2. EBC guns have a latch to let you eject a partial clip and it's really not hard to use. It requires more thought, but not much more than having to finagle with loose rounds. And 3, while the clip hole is objectively worse than not having said hole, just having some mud or gunk isn't going to jam up the rifle. You have to let it build up ingress to be an issue-again, slightly more thought since you have to keep that in mind when cleaning, but not nearly as much as people say.
Revolvers are obscelescant for modern use and every reason that a person can give for why they choose to use one can easily be solved with an automatic (besides pure personal preference but that's obviousl). Hard stop. I like revolvers but they are objectively worse in every practical way.

[-]

BlueSkiesOplotM@reddit

What about shooting from a pocket or with the barrel touching the person trying to kill you?

[-]

Nesayas1234@reddit

Valid, but short version: I don't think the barrel touching issue is one. I will backtrack in terms of pocket fire, but I also don't personally think pocket fire is really that good to begin with so kind of moot.

Long version: for pressing the gun onto something, the main issue here would be that the slide could be pushed back enough to put the gun out of battery. Two things: 1, most gun barrels are not perfectly flush and most slides have a tiny amount of space before the sear and striker/hammer are disconnected and the gun is out of battery, and while the extra leeway in both cases is tiny (and I do mean incremental), it's enough that the muzzle touching something or being pressed with normal force from holding the gun isn't going to stop it from firing. Two, in cases where you are pushing the slide back far enough to disable it, that just means you have a different problem to deal with (either you're not in complete control of the weapon which is bad regardless, or you're in complete control of the weapon and it's on you-just pull the gun back slightly). And I doubt there's really a legitimate exception here, so I don't consider that a plus for the revolver at all.

For shooting from a pocket, yeah I actually did forget about that one, so I'll concede there. However, then we have to ask the question of "is pocket firing even that useful?" I'm not saying it's use*less*, and there's plenty of people who've talked about it, but in my opinion-the sweet spot of self-defense scenarios where you'll have enough time to go for your gun and fire but not enough to actually draw the gun is small, and you're also not doing yourself a favor by just rawdogging that pocket with your gun over using a holster (I don't just mean hip/appendix carry, pocket holsters exist and even that would be better both for drawing specifically and carrying in general). Drawing the gun is always better if you can-even if you were firing point blank (which is the only time pocket firing would even be seriously considered), drawing and hip-firing is still better.

[-]

Giterdunn1@reddit

I'm happy they adopted 6.8 Fury because it will drive actual innovation, as in stronger actions through better design and material science. And it's not just bolt/extension strength, in a few years there'll be companies developing competing tech for reducing barrel wear, and the military will be doing studies on that.

[-]

BlueSkiesOplotM@reddit

People who shit on it, shit on M855A1 and stan the meh M855.

[-]

Zealousideal_Ad2379@reddit

The NGSW trials were absolutely idiotic by the Army’s base requirements for cartridge being insanely ridiculous.

Some in the Pentagon played too much Tarkov and started believing in the armor pen memes irl.

No joe is ever being issued tungsten ammo in a fucking a shoot war with a peer on peer. Its just too expensive and more worth for tank ammunition or any other decent asset.

They based an entire rifle around a magic expensive battle rifle bi metal jacket ammo that will be hard to supply on a strained war economy.

[-]

coldafsteel@reddit

While this is 1/2 true, the Army can always back out to 7.62x51. It is possible that was kinda the plan the entire time. It's been done before, just look at how the USMC got rid of the M249 and suddenly now all of their rifles are HKs. Budgets are focused on sexy tech, dumb rifles are hard to fund. It's possible most of this program was an elaborate play to see what's possible then downgrade to what they really wanted in the firstpalce.

The new ammo does some really cool things, but at a significant cost. That cost is both dollars and NATO compatibility. The current battlefield has fallen back in time significantly because of new aimed fires capabilities (drones, rockets, glide bombs). There is some logic in wanting to go back to a full power load for infantry, and maintain the intermediate rounds for support troops. It's what we used to do anyway, so there are some that think its okay to do again.

[-]

Skullkan6@reddit

Exactly. It seems like the idea was making a contingency in case the fabled russian body armor turned out to be true.

[-]

AbbreviationsFun5448@reddit

The cost is also going to be in logistical & maintenance costs. With the much higher pressure of the new round, barrels are going to be wearing out more quickly.

[-]

Purple_Calico@reddit

From my testing, the full brass non pissing hot 277 fury ammo 135 gr ammo in a 16in barrel is slightly superior to a 6.5 creedmoor out of a 24in barrel.

If need be, the cheap version of 277 fury would probably an adequate upgrade of 556 more so than the bi-metal cartridge version.

The spear platform sucks thou. A modified AR10 would be better at a half the cost.

[-]

coldafsteel@reddit

Not really. The high-velocity AP bullet does things that other options just can't do from a short barrel.

There are a lot of people really wrapped up about the fancy bullet and body armor. Mostly that good armor is not as prevalent on the battlefield as some people claim it is. But that misses the point of the bullet. Yes it works against modern body armor, but leadership wants it because of its ability to defeat vehicals and equipment.

Assuming the 277 ammo doesn't work out (it probably won't) and I even have one of them. The options on the table are going to be scrap the entire program, or re-barrel to 7.62 NATO.

There is also a sort of middle ground third option. It is possible the DoD loads some extra hot 7.62 AP ammo for the M7. The big danger being the ammo getting into guns not designed for the additional pressure. Some countries have done this in the past so its not out of the realm of possibilities. Israel for example made a lot of 9mm +p+ for use in the UZI and 941 that had a nasty habit of damaging/blowing-up other pistols.

[-]

Purple_Calico@reddit

I don't have the spear. I'm using a AR10 platform. ( https://www.reddit.com/r/Firearms/s/PMb49zJaUm )

What I'm saying is, even the civilian grade ammunition is superior to 5.56 & 7.62. If need be, the bi-metal case can be discontinued and the civilian loading with the military FMJ projectile can be used, not so much in the spear, which is a bit of a dud, but the M250.

[-]

coldafsteel@reddit

The logistics of doing that would be massive, not to mention 6.8x51 isn't a NATO carterage.

The M7 was designed with near-peer conflict in Europe and Asia in mind. There is no chance that the US shifts away from 5.56 when all the upcoming wars involve partners.

[-]

Purple_Calico@reddit

Not to be too political, but we'll probably fight the next war alone and it'll probably be china. I don't expect much help from the rest of NATO.

[-]

coldafsteel@reddit

There's not much of a reason for NATO to play in Asia, however, they did in Afghanistan.

But the US has other partnering agreements in place that require similar cross functional support. Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and Korea just to name some all use 5.56 and STANAG magazines. Even as an unofficial standard its massive and hard to get away from.

I think its possible there are some in the US that are hoping that if the 6.8x51 sees combat and is effective that NATO will adopt it. Briton tried and filed to get NATO to adopt their 280brit load back in the 50’s but was pushed out by the US for wanting more power. Now that the US is back on the “we need more power” train, its possible they successfully drag others into adopting their new toy. Its not impossible. The secret to any sort of success with that is the case head. As you already know, adoption of the new round can be realitily eassaly done with existing 7.62 platforms, its just a barrel swap.

[-]

WindstormMD@reddit

Alternative hill: many people incorrectly assume the requirement was written to penetrate hard armor. It was not. The requirement was written for the penetration of now-ubiquitous SOFT armor at extended distances, as 5.56 and even the intermediate 6mm offerings are not effective at doing so outside of about 250m.

That soft armor is so prevalent because the actual realistic threat on the modern battlefield is fragments and shrapnel, so most militaries have made a point of having front-line infantry be heavily protected from that, with the side effect of making small-caliber intermediate cartridges which already had a short effective range, even shorter.

It’s part of the natural pendulum swing of arms and armor, and right now armor is ascending as it becomes increasingly effective against the primary threats which ended widespread use of medieval armor.

I fully expect as armor continues to improve at rather silly rates we will start to see full-coverage frag suits with core vitals covered by some quite stupidly effective armor (we already have limited manufacture plates that can stop a 50bmg API)

[-]

mykehawksaverage@reddit

I would love to know how many soldiers are shooting enemies over 250m that that was an issues. I doubt it's very high.

[-]

WindstormMD@reddit

In Afghanistan it was enough they had to bring in squad level DMRs at minimum and it drove the creation of the Mk12, and the types of terrain likely to be encountered in a peer/near-peer engagement make it even more likely

[-]

SmoothBrainHasNoProb@reddit

The long range engagements in Afghanistan were a problem pretty much unique not just to the Afghan conflict itself but partially unique to only the Northern Part of the country. Insurgents would engage, mostly effectively, from mountainsides and from long distance to avoid close contact with Coalition forces that would pin them down, prevent escape and slaughter them at close range.

However, outside of that contact? Lamo. Iraq was room clearing all day, every day. Ukraine is trench warfare, The population parts of Taiwan are basically one big city. It's inane that in the year of our lord 2024 the Army can't accept the basic fact that 99% of engagements happen in 300 meters, and anything beyond that isn't for the rifleman to deal with, it's for a machinegunner or even higher level asset like mortars.

[-]

BrenTen0331@reddit

While I don't fully disagree you with your assessment of the M7 and I think it's a silly too I will say the long range engagements weren't just common in the north.

I was in Helmand and it was always a long range fight. My cardio grew exponentially and my knees are shot from all the buddy rushing hundreds of yards.

The PKM seemed to be the most common weapon we fought against, more common than AKs it seemed. Hell even old bolt guns were being used at longer ranges.

I deployed after POTUS Obama took office and there was this big shift in what weapons we could use so as a machine gunner they took my M240 and gave me a SAW.

Eventually, midway through the deployment we got our M240s back and the fighting basically stopped over night once we could reach out and touch targets without having to sprint a few hundred meters under fire.

[-]

SmoothBrainHasNoProb@reddit

I was mistaken then, I just remember watching documentaries about fighting in the Korengal area and assuming that's where the majority of the problems with range were.

Do you think the XM250 is a good idea then according to your experience? The machinegun part of the NGSW makes sense to me, to bridge the gap between the M240 and the M249 and make a sort of western PKM equivlant. But I'm just a keyboard larper.

[-]

BrenTen0331@reddit

I think the XM250 is a solid idea. It's lighter than the SAW and offers more range and capability. I'm also a big fan of these new .338 Norma Magnum MGs that will have .50 cal range with M240 weight.

I think the M7 would be an interesting DMR option, but a poor general issue rifle.

[-]

amd2800barton@reddit

I think trench warfare would be a good application for smash arms that can reach out further than 250m. If the enemy has 7.62x39 or 5.45x39, then you can expend a lot less ammo to keep their heads down while your guys advance. And your secondary lines can better defend the primary line, or even help suppress the enemy’s trench.

[-]

makoivis@reddit

I think it’s unlikely we see frag suits, since your average grunt hates wearing more than they absolutely have to. That’s why people wear plate carriers but take flak jackets off ASAP.

[-]

WindstormMD@reddit

It’s also why they die, and a full suit would allow it to be more conformal and include better systems to make it comfortable instead of awful

[-]

TalbotFarwell@reddit

It’d have to include some kind of cooling, either active or passive. I wear soft armor for work, and even on bitterly cold days I’m still sweating under my armor vest and my undershirt is soaked with sweat when I’m finished with a shift. On hot days I’m constantly hydrating because of how much moisture I lose from sweat.

[-]

WindstormMD@reddit

Yes, thing is we have some seriously good small heat exchanger tech that gets cheaper by the day, small cooling units are no longer the domain of energy-hungry Peltier units.

Surprisingly (or unsurprisingly) some of the biggest drivers of wearables tech including cooling are actually Fursuiters and cosplayers, who have both the resources, time, and passion to throw into making better stuff. Having seen the cost careen down along with armor getting thinner and more flexible, I think ODST style suits are more of an inevitability than a pipe dream, since we’re rapidly approaching the point where integrating the systems makes more sense than layering them and it remains cost effective

[-]

Panzerkampfpony@reddit

Do you think the optic at least has potential to live on past the Spear?

[-]

WindstormMD@reddit

Absolutely. I got to shoot one at a range day and it really is crazy how stupidly easy it makes longer range engagements. I have a feeling the running joke will not become who can hit targets out to 800, but who can do it without their ‘idiot box’

[-]

GhanjRho@reddit

Probably not as general issue. The biggest issue facing it is battery life; it was contracted for 12, but the grunts want 72. This is a problem

[-]

dwarfarchist9001@reddit

It still functions as a 1-8x variable optic even without power. The battery is only needed for the laser rangefinder and augmented reality stuff.

[-]

UserNo485929294774@reddit

The owner of Desert Tech posted some videos where he talked about the state of firearms innovation. Realistically speaking the ngsw program was political bs. The rifle they picked is pretty crappy and is honestly a very similar mistake to the m14 and if it’s allowed to progress will probably follow a similar trajectory.

That being said innovation is very difficult in the firearms industry compared to any other industry because if you released a new and improved $1000 product every year and stopped providing support for anything older than 6 years old like smartphone makers do you wouldn’t have any customers.

[-]

Quarterwit_85@reddit

It's enlightening to see him hang shit on the NGSW concept as a whole.

[-]

Ares4991@reddit

Also, all this effort to end up with 7-0.2mm Mauser (Short).

[-]

SadeceOluler_@reddit

Well while we are talking about military-Industrial complex i would like to say this

its extremely inefficient and ridiculous

[-]

Tax_this_dick_1776@reddit

Ah yes, the “unpopular opinion” shared by the majority of people with an opinion on the NGSW program.

[-]

TheSasquatch9053@reddit

I am going to take the other hill on this one. An individual US infantry soldier is already carrying nearly 50k worth of equipment, so increasing the cost of their ammunition from 50$ to 500$ isn't going to change anything.

[-]

byteminer@reddit

In a peacetime military, probably not. In a wartime military, absolutely it will. When you need to outfit hundreds of thousands of warfighters with hundreds of rounds of ammunition you do not want to have to worry about the logistical problems cramming rarer metals into their projectiles are going to cause.

[-]

IAmAHumanWhyDoYouAsk@reddit

Pretty sure my equipment was worth $3.50. My flak had a very suspicious looking hole in the gut, and my rifle was so old, the bluing had turned purple.

[-]

RogueAOV@reddit

Oh thats a rare skin! you can likely trade that for better gear.

[-]

jarrobi@reddit

The funniest part is they're breaking ground on a new ammo plant for 6.8. It is utterly insane and a huge waste of money.

[-]

Rollingzeppelin@reddit

If the Lee Action was commonly used with rimless rounds, it would be undoubtedly better than the Mauser action. Cock on close is superior, I’ll die on that hill.

[-]

BlueSkiesOplotM@reddit

I heard it's less sturdy.

[-]

Im_Back_From_Hell@reddit

Ask any Enfield fan.

[-]

Fidget11@reddit

The G36 is a fine rifle that has been unfairly maligned.

It doesn't deserve anywhere near the negativity that is thrown its way.

[-]

BlueSkiesOplotM@reddit

I think they just used a pencil barrel and then tried to use it like a M4A1 with a SOCOM barrel.

[-]

WindstormMD@reddit

The rifle is fine, it was the sub-par metallurgy that really let them down, since the new unified government wanted to throw the East German steel mills a bone and a government contract was the easiest way to do that.

I’ve shot a clone build, and it felt a bit awkward in that special early 90s sort of way, but nothing that was objectively terrible

[-]

PageVanDamme@reddit (OP)

I didn’t know about the East German Steel part until today. Wee off-topic, but is Hk using French steel for HK416 outside of French contract?

[-]

WindstormMD@reddit

Unsure, they’re close-lipped about the situation for obvious strategic reasons. I can basically guarantee any M27s or other 416 derivatives in use by the US military are US forged steel by requirement.

The metallurgy issue isn’t widely publicized because we’re still learning details about it, it mostly caught my attention because of the QA angle getting glossed over in the interests of national solidarity. Ultimately, I think quality problems aside, boosting those steel mills was a good move with how much the contribute to the current German economy

[-]

DAN3KE@reddit

Trigger safety on a striker fired gun should be standard. If not, revert to Dao exposed hammer.

[-]

PageVanDamme@reddit (OP)

I mean P320 is the only Striker fired gun without trigger safety that I know of.

[-]

DAN3KE@reddit

Correct. The shining example of what not to do imo

[-]

makoivis@reddit

In a military context, small arms aren’t that important. The vast majority of casualties are inflicted by artillery and it’s been that way since Napoleon.

FPV drones serve as artillery for my purposes here.

[-]

MlackBesa@reddit

Correct. Especially now that we are back to large-scale conventional warfare.

Imagine where that leaves pistols in a military context too.

[-]

papaya_yamama@reddit

Pistols feel like something you could argue that 99.99% of people will never need to use in anger in a war, and even if they did use them they'd probably miss

But good luck getting someone to give it up.

[-]

Low-Association586@reddit

Pistols are only necessary for military police and small, independently-operating units. Other than that, they (mistakenly) give support units the feeling they can defend themselves---and as a locater beacon "hey, enemy, im over here!!!"

[-]

byteminer@reddit

The revolver is a perfectly adequate personal protection firearm. It's simpler operation lends itself well as a self defense tool in high-stress situations for people who are not routine hobbyist shooters who will develop the muscle memory to operate a semi-automatic under stress. The ability to jam the barrel into an attacker's body and fire repeated shots without shoving a slide out of battery is ideal for someone who may need to defend themselves in a very close hand to hand struggle, like a person attempting to fend off a rape in progress. Lack of capacity and slow reload speeds are mitigated by the vast majority of gunfights involving civilians only involving one or two shots total.

They are inadequate in modern applications where a person might find themselves in a protracted gunfight, such as law enforcement or military uses, but for those of us not subjected to those risks and situations, if you feel more comfortable with a revolver as your self defense weapon, you should not feel under-gunned.

[-]

Low-Association586@reddit

Add these as well: long-term storage while fully loaded won't affect feeding anywhere near as much as autos, not cleaning often enough won't affect feeding anywhere near as often as autos, misfire drill? "just pull that trigger again" is far easier to teach and enact under pressure, and no manual safety for inexperienced shooters to fumble with in the dark or be left on under duress.

I believe anyone's first handgun should be a revolver. Get the basics down, then transition to an auto if they want.

[-]

duga404@reddit

Revolvers have been obsolete since at least as far back as the mid-20th century. They have no seal between breech and barrel (which wastes energy and makes them practically impossible to suppress unless you have complex mechanisms like on the Nagant revolver), have very limited capacity, and are more likely to catastrophically fail and literally explode in your face since there’s no reciprocating bolt/slide. Yes, they’re generally better than autos for handling very powerful cartridges, but at that point you might as well have a rifle or carbine.

[-]

Sesemebun@reddit

The portability of a revolver is still fantastic compared to a carbine. I generally agree with most of what you said, but say for big game hunting, you can carry your revolver on your hip which is really nice.

[-]

Low-Association586@reddit

Agreed.

I only ever shoulder-rig my revolver. I'm wide enough already, so hip or leg carry just gets in my way constantly.

And as for carbines? Bears don't wait, so any gun must be accessible "right-mother-fuckin-now". Long-guns are a no-brainer. but are hardly a realistic option when you're bringing in firewood, fishing mid-stream, working on the cabin, fixing random shit, etc.

[-]

duga404@reddit

Being able to carry it on your hip is basically the only benefit, and even then I don’t think having a heavy and bulky revolver on your hip would be nice.

[-]

Ares4991@reddit

Obsolete means not in use any more, not needed any more, since it has been replaced by something better.

Yes, there are a plethora of downsides to them, but they are still in use, still in production, and in some roles have not been replaced. Although I own some of the biggest wheelguns out there, they are still smaller than some PCC's, so there isn't really a replacement for them yet.

[-]

Future_Point_4570@reddit

I agree completely. Having said that, I sure love my revolvers.

[-]

duga404@reddit

There’s definitely valid reasons to own and use guns that are obsolete and historical

[-]

Snopro311@reddit

Glocks are ugly

[-]

Low-Association586@reddit

Hell yeah they're ugly.

I'll add this: there's no benefit to Glock beyond reliability.

The trigger is poor, the balance is poor, the sights are crap, the recoil impulse makes follow-up shot accuracy laughable, and no matter how many after-market parts you swap in---it's still not as shootable as a Cz75, or Sig, or Walther, or Springfield, etc. etc.

[-]

funkmachine7@reddit

They actively make movies worse, every one get a solo less black lump.

[-]

GrahminRadarin@reddit

It pains me when people use a Glock as a generic handgun, because you can say so much about a character by their choice of firearms, even if you expect the audience to know nothing about firearms, just with the shape and design language. And the Glock kills all of that by being square.

[-]

CappinTeddy@reddit

Samuel Gerard from U.S. Marshals (1998) would like a word.

"Get yourself a Glock and lose that nickel-plated sissy pistol"

[-]

SmoothBrainHasNoProb@reddit

this isn't controversial

Here's what is, I actually quite like how they look. They look so utilitarian and boring they sort of wrap their way back around to being appealing. Like a commie bloc or a Soviet diesel truck.

[-]

Snopro311@reddit

I know they function quite well personally I think it’s so boring but your comment sums it up

[-]

Jo_the_hunter@reddit

Lever action is better than bolt action

[-]

MandibleofThunder@reddit

Jurassic World holds up as a solid B-/C+ on its own without depending on the Jurassic Park IP

[-]

Random_User_1337_@reddit

What?

[-]

MandibleofThunder@reddit

You what

[-]

Random_User_1337_@reddit

Have you seen the fucking post title?

[-]

MandibleofThunder@reddit

Yes.

The question posed was explicitly about hot-takes for firearms.

I provided my own hot-take in no way related to firearms to provide a bit of levity and merriment.

[-]

linemanstud@reddit

Notch-and-post sights are better than aperture sights for anything that isn't combat

[-]

FafnerTheBear@reddit

All hammer fired pistols should have a decocking mechanism. (Looking at you 1911).

All semi-auto guns should include a bolt hold-open mechanism. (AK-47, you're guilty of this.)

[-]

Random_User_1337_@reddit

Not every gun needs those things tho

[-]

ShotgunEd1897@reddit

Winchester 97 is a better design over the Model 12.

[-]

rextrem@reddit

Certainly, if you're running on unreliable ammo (ability to recock) and know how to pump it without hurting your cheek or your right hand, nor getting crap onto the revealed action.

The external hammer hasn't been used again because better ammo have made it useless, and otherwise there would be ways to design a recocker for an enclosed action shotgun if it was necessary (which has never been).

In 1918 there would have been a debate between the 97 and the 12, nowadays not at all as the 12 is so much more user friendly (plus the safety being on the hammer and not a switch on the side of the gun like we're all used to).

[-]

ShotgunEd1897@reddit

I own and worked on both shotguns. These are some of the points I've found throughout that journey:

The Model 97 is easier to load under pressure, even to where two shells can be loaded at a time. The carrier has more than enough room and the shells are held in place by two stops. The Model 12 relies on the shell carrier to hold them inside the mag tube, which can dump the shells out if not loaded carefully. A small tab is present at the bottom of the bolt; it it was a 1/16th of an inch higher, it could keep the shells in place.

The Model 97 is easier to service, because of the various screws and pins holding the internals together. The Model 12 has many parts staked in place for ease of manufacturing, but would call for greater specialized skills to service.

Lastly, the Model 97 uses a guide rail on the left extractor, to keep the bolt running on track. If that guide breaks, the extractor can be easily replaced. The Model 12 uses a machined tab on the right side of the bolt. If it wears down too much, the bolt will drift too far towards the right; it would require welding and fitting to fix that problem.

[-]

rextrem@reddit

Oh excuse me I thought you were talking about general "external vs internal hammer shotgun" differences as the Model 12 is one of the first internal hammer shotgun I believe (alongside the Remington Pedersen Model 10).

I have no ideas about these details so thank you for having explained what you were truly talking about, it's always interesting.

[-]

ShotgunEd1897@reddit

It's all good. Keep your powder dry.

[-]

belwoo00dom@reddit

The UK deciding to make this year the end of service for the SA80 platform and begin the replacement procurement seems like a waste of the last two decades of modernisation of the platform to A2 and A3 seems like such a waste of the effort, I’m aware of the horror of the A1, but having used the A2 and very briefly the A3 I find them both, especially the A3 to be amazing weapons, with the A3 completely undeserving of the legacy of the older model, especially with the efforts to rebalance the weapon and the addition of a newer optics system. I would say they could a got plenty more years out of the weapon instead of rushing into trialing a new weapon within the next 5 years, especially since many reserve units still haven’t received the A3 upgrades yet. Seems such a waste after the upgrade and not even finishing the rollout to being thinking of scrapping them.

[-]

PageVanDamme@reddit (OP)

Is the A3 internal any different from A2? Curious.

[-]

belwoo00dom@reddit

They’re new make receivers afaik so they’re not simply reusing a2 parts with new furniture, I think the triggers were tweaked slightly on them but practically identical internally, new features were mostly rebalancing the weight which if you ever get a chance to compare makes it feel amazing, like you go from this really rear heavy rifle to one that sits weirdly perfect balance wise in your firing hand, there’s also the new handguard which is M-lock and free floated from the barrel, and the new sight system which I can’t remember the name of but it’s a 4x with a really clean sight picture, albeit somewhat the posting is somewhat thin and is hard to adjust to coming from the old SUSAT obelisk of doom sight post, and it incorporates a red dot on top which is miles above the old shitty emergency iron right from the SUSAT, it was like looking through someone’s crude attempt at a sight and trying to shoot even 50m targets was a fucking skill with it

[-]

nehibu@reddit

No firearm should have a forward assist.

[-]

paladin68@reddit

No firearm should NEED a forward assist.

[-]

belwoo00dom@reddit

Your hand serves as a forward assist, just karate chop the charging handle and your good to go

[-]

Kumirkohr@reddit

Weird for the sake of weird is good. Simple is soulless

[-]

makoivis@reddit

A wrench doesn’t need a soul; nor does a gun.

[-]

papaya_yamama@reddit

Which kind of wrench? Because their are some extremely weird and niche wrenches out there.

Secondly, shooting is a hobby for 99% of people, and like all hobbies, weird and experimental ideas should be encouraged.

Used to be that polymer rifles were weird and gimmicky, now they're ubiquitous.

[-]

makoivis@reddit

Dunno, over here like 80% of people only ever shoot what they are issued. The rest are usually either hunting, competing or doing reservist activities.

That’s where I’m coming from.

[-]

papaya_yamama@reddit

Hunting is, for most people (not all) a hobby. A productive hobby, but you'd live if you didn't do it.

Yeah, if you grouped every person who's ever shot a rifle together, a majority would be in some way ex millitary or law enforcement

But I'm talking about the hobby of shooting, not the professional kind.

I'm thinking the difference between a lead hammer vs a proper framing hammer.

Is one going to do 99% of what the other can do? Yeah! Do I get a kick out of seeing something fun and a little specialised ? Fuck yeah!

[-]

makoivis@reddit

I get what you’re saying.

Guns, like watches, can be pieces of art in their own right. We have plenty of examples of that. I appreciate those as curios. They’re neat.

Hunting and target shooting etc are ultimately about putting a projectile into an object at a distance, and you don’t need “soul” to achieve that.

In the end things like fit and finish and shape of the furniture serve both purposes.

[-]

papaya_yamama@reddit

Absolutely

[-]

elchsaaft@reddit

I disagree, as a mechanic and weaponry collector.

[-]

makoivis@reddit

See other posts in this thread for the perspective difference between military vs collectors.

[-]

CappinTeddy@reddit

Need? No. But it's awfully cool when they have some anyway. Same goes for cars.

[-]

makoivis@reddit

Understood. There’s a difference in mindset between user and enthusiast here. An old Mosin might have a lot of soul, but it’s not what I’d like to be issued.

Both are perfectly valid perspectives, as long as we apply them when and where it’s appropriate. W

e’re in the middle of trials over here and I sincerely hope “soul” isn’t a factor in the decision - but for a collector or hobbyist I’m sure how soulful a gun is matters a great deal more than any practical concerns. That’s all as it should be.

[-]

WindstormMD@reddit

I think ‘soul’ can be a factor, depending on how you want to define such things, for example aviation has an old saying “if it looks right it flies right” which with some exceptions has proven to be largely true. In a military rifle trial I think the qualities that would be judged as the ‘soul’ would be a combination of ruggedness and reliability, an ability to persevere, which I think you Finns have the perfect word for in ‘Sisu’

[-]

GrahminRadarin@reddit

The Mars automatic should have been put into production and issue to people, solely because it was funny and probably would have been really good for killing charging horses. I also think it should have gone through more field testing to see at what point they would actually start exploding rather than just looking like they were.

Second talk take, machine pistols are legitimately useful and there should be more of them.

[-]

belwoo00dom@reddit

The only reason I think militaries and other forces don’t issue automatic pistols is just the sheer headache any training in them would be, yes I could see vehicle crews using them or rear echelon troops similar the the use purpose of the skorpion machine pistol, but that at least had a semi conventional design of a miniature smg. How could you ever justify first training then strapping someone with a glock 18?

[-]

boneguru@reddit

Bullpups are more practical, better balanced, and more ergonomic...

[-]

makoivis@reddit

They’re nicer to carry, but not nicer to shoot. Most of the time with small arms in a military setting is spent carrying them.

[-]

belwoo00dom@reddit

I’ve only experience the one NOTORIOUS bull out of English fame, and I have no real complains about the shooting or the trigger, I feels good for an infantry weapon, minus the handguards and such tending to come loose over service life and rattle like fuck, or having to tape up the top to keep the gas parts hatch popping open because the retention bands get bent

[-]

papaya_yamama@reddit

Bullpups are like manual transmission cars

Europeans love them, your avergae American hates them because they "feel weird" and the Americans that do use them don't shut up about how much better they are.

[-]

WindstormMD@reddit

I hate how accurate this is and feel personally attacked as a bullpup haver and enjoyer

[-]

boneguru@reddit

I do love a stick shift...

[-]

TeamPaulie007@reddit

I really really want a L-85A2 or even a L-86 LSW

[-]

FZ1_Flanker@reddit

This is probably about as close as you can get.

[-]

belwoo00dom@reddit

Uk is looking to start phasing them out by end of the decade, there may be hopes yet for semi conversion hitting the market

[-]

TeamPaulie007@reddit

Trust me I'm on the list and already paid up.

[-]

FZ1_Flanker@reddit

Nice. I’m on the list. I tried to get one of the first batch but website wasn’t processing my payment and then they sold out lol.

[-]

A_very_kinky_lizard@reddit

I think the ar-15/m4 was outdated when it was given to the troops. we should really have moved on by now to something with a long stroke piston not the direct impingement Bs that honestly gives me so much trouble making the receiver so dirty by just shooting it's ridiculous tbh. Why design the gun so weirdly anyhow

[-]

blackstar32_25@reddit

Very hot take but I can't disagree. Especially with suppressors becoming more popular now I can easily foresee piston guns making a comeback. Getting toxic gas sprayed in my face and spending far too much effort cleaning DI upper receivers is just no fun.

[-]

Cloned_501@reddit

Finally an actual hot take. It ain't a good one but it is a hot take

[-]

A_very_kinky_lizard@reddit

Tbh I don't hate the ergonomics it's just the amount of cleaning that they need i know it's my own laziness but fuck it I'm tired of everyone preaching ars to me. I like my kel tecs and aks lol.

[-]

PageVanDamme@reddit (OP)

I LIKE the aggressive grip angle of Glock. It just feels more natural to me.

[-]

ThatNewEnglandPerson@reddit

Toggle Lock is cool as fuck

[-]

357-Magnum-CCW@reddit

Vhs2 is the Glock of bullpups

[-]

Low-Award-4886@reddit

9mm has always been better than .40.

[-]

totaltomination@reddit

But 10mm has always been one bigger

[-]

Zengineer_83@reddit

And with .357 SIG, you can have a 10mm that is also a 9mm!

[-]

elchsaaft@reddit

9x25 dillon is the .357 sig for 10mm.

[-]

makoivis@reddit

One more > one bigger

[-]

Walker_Hale@reddit

Maxim’s “Mechanism for Operating Gunlocks by Recoil” (not related to Maxim Gun recoil operation patents) had potential, and still has novel potential

Say you have a rifle caliber large format pistol. When fired like a pistol, as legally defined, it’s single shot. Shooting doesn’t open the action, no gas is tapped off, nothing. Theres nothing going on within the gun and it must be manually loaded. When it’s technically illegally fired from the shoulder, linear pressure from your shoulder unlocks the system via a free floating butt pad that pushes forward into a series of cams that unlocks the action, ejects and loads a new round, and then cocks and locks the action. It’s a weird manually operated autoloading gun.

I don’t believe this is a loophole to any current law, but it’s a novel test of the ATFs definitions and future legislation.

[-]

GrahminRadarin@reddit

... Isn't that just a bump stock with extra steps?

[-]

Ares4991@reddit

It's a bump action, kinda like a pump action, but you bump it instead of pump it.

[-]

WindstormMD@reddit

Add a pump and a cylinder with exposed hammer, a lever, and you have the boom boom bop it

[-]

Sesemebun@reddit

Having an action that functions based on it being in your shoulder sounds like it could cause a lot of irritating reliability issues

[-]

Walker_Hale@reddit

Very much so, it’d only be reliable with a hefty cartridge

[-]

OldPuebloGunfighter@reddit

What definitions is it testing? The atf doesn't say anything about semi vs single shot really in any law

[-]

Psipone@reddit

Double action handguns with hammers, decockers, and no safety are superior. You get the best of all worlds with little drawback. Honestly I think they're safer than a striker-fired handgun because you can make the first trigger pull heavier and longer without sacrificing trigger feel for every other shot.

[-]

f38stingray@reddit

B-b-but Glock PERFECTION!

Tangentially possibly on top of my firearms wishlist: Walther P5 updated for optic-readiness.

[-]

Psipone@reddit

An optic ready Sig 229 would fuck so hard.

[-]

WindstormMD@reddit

You might also enjoy the new Arex Zero 1T in addition to the Sig 229 legions that are optic ready

[-]

f38stingray@reddit

I see you and raise P239 optics-ready. Or bring back the Springfield XDe, either way hammer-fired concealed carry is missing.

[-]

OldPuebloGunfighter@reddit

Buddy I've got some great news for you...

[-]

Psipone@reddit

Haven't looked in a few years but I remember being disappointed when looking then. Something new or old?

[-]

Viper_ACR@reddit

P229 Legion is now optics-ready.

Sig sells pro-cut slides as well and they have the X5 AND the ZEV, both of which come with red dots out of the box

[-]

Psipone@reddit

Oh that's rad, yeah that wasn't around a few years ago when I was looking

[-]

Ziqitseng@reddit

How about the p99? You get the DA/SA, while being striker.

[-]

edog21@reddit

I still personally would prefer the hammer, because I can hold a hammer down while holstering and feel if the trigger starts to snag on something. Can’t say that for a striker.

[-]

PageVanDamme@reddit (OP)

How do you cock the striker on it?

[-]

Ziqitseng@reddit

You don't. Pulling the slide back cocks the striker. There's a button that safely decocks.

[-]

Psipone@reddit

Seems neat, not sure I'd take it over a hammered gun but neat

[-]

sbd104@reddit

It’s what the Canik and PDP is based on. You even get double strike.

The P99 fucks but no optic other than dovetail mounts.

[-]

Jolly-Hovercraft3777@reddit

I got rid of my decockable da/sa after doing some high stress exercises where you had to re-engage at random times during the process of re-holstering.

Every time I thought it was on safe, it was just DA, and every time I thought it was on DA, it was on safe. That was a huge wakeup call that even though I thought I had drilled it very well, it goes to shit when under pressure.

After that, I went to guns with the same trigger pull every time and no safety.

However, I have to give your idea credit that if there's no safety, then the DA wouldn't be such a big issue.

[-]

TheScribe86@reddit

r/LEMMasterRace

[-]

Psipone@reddit

A drill involving repeatedly reholstering under stress seems... rather dangerous for little actual value. Maybe I'm missing the point of the exercise though. Regardless, that's along the lines of why I don't think combat handguns should have safeties.

[-]

Jolly-Hovercraft3777@reddit

The situation was they would yell threat, and you'd draw and fire on the target. Then you'd assess, and carefully reholster. But, they might call threat again at any point and you'd re-engage the target. It wasn't speed-reholstering or anything, but you'd have to react quickly when they called threat.

It's very possibly a silly drill, but it did bring to my attention that I was losing seconds due to thinking a heavy trigger pull was the safety, or trying to pull through the safety. It was one of those "holy crap I think my gun just got me killed" moments.

But I think you are right, the safety is the main issue there, while I blamed both the safety and da/sa.

[-]

Psipone@reddit

Okay, yeah that makes more sense. Maybe silly, but not too silly.

[-]

Scared-Comparison870@reddit

This is why I’ll never not have a decocker CZ

[-]

SmoothBrainHasNoProb@reddit

Alternately, I could just not have to learn two different trigger pulls and get a modern kydex holster that covers the trigger and trigger guard entirely and makes an accidental discharge all but impossible.

[-]

Psipone@reddit

SA trigger pull go brrrrrr

[-]

SmoothBrainHasNoProb@reddit

I include hammer fired guns here too. Put it in a kydex holster cocked and locked. I'd rather have to learn to take off a safety than inhibit my first round accuracy and learn two different trigger pulls.

[-]

Psipone@reddit

I think a safety is much more of a pain in the ass than 1/15 trigger pulls being a little harder. Hell a 3 round burst M-16 has 3 distinct trigger pulls on semi and that's workable.

[-]

SmoothBrainHasNoProb@reddit

>Safety:
Flick a button off when drawing

>Trigger:
Have a different, longer trigger pull on arguably the most vital round you could fire (the first). Done for purposes of "safety" even though if you're not being an absolutely monkey you should never be touching the trigger until someone needs to die anyway.

[-]

Psipone@reddit

The safety is just an incidental benefit. The SA is worth the DA imo. Also if the first round trigger pull is fucking you up that bad you need to train more, especially if we're talking self defense training. Are you really pulling a first shot so bad that you're off target? If so that shit aint a gun problem, that's a shooter problem.

[-]

SmoothBrainHasNoProb@reddit

Or I could just eliminate that training requirement all together and just carry a cocked DA/SA or SA or Striker with a kydex holster and (optional) manual safety. Because a heavier trigger isn't safer because neither you nor anything else should be touching your trigger until you have the weapon drawn and pointed in the right direction.

The DA guns I've shot have had heavy enough secondary trigger pulls to require you to have to consciously practice around them. Why would I do that when I could just, not?

[-]

Benji_4@reddit

Everything doesn't need Glock/ar mags

Saying a PCC takes Glock mags, just makes me think it's just a Glock with extra steps.

[-]

woundedknee420@reddit

the obsesion with using ar15 components on non ar15 firearms is a leading factor in design stagnation

[-]

Rooney_83@reddit

9mm is the best defensive round.

[-]

InitialSection3637@reddit

For civilian consumer purposes, in the context of rifles and PCCs, 25 round magazines would likely make more sense than standard capacity.

Most consumer level ammunition that are not specialized cartridges like subsonic 300 Black come in boxes of 50 or 100. Having a magazine with an evenly divisible capacity per box would significantly simplify ammunition management for most people
Most rifle and PCC magazines could be shortened by about an inch going down from 30 to 25 rounds. This also enables magazines in 556, 300 blackout, and 9 mm to not have any curvature, akin to 20 round AR mags.

To be clear, this is in no way saying that 30 round mags and higher capacity should not be available. It is however to say that in a civilian context, most non-enthusiast users would likely be better suited by 25 round mags purpose built for that capacity rather than 30

[-]

MlackBesa@reddit

Someone at IMI definitely agreed with you, considering the notable prevalence of military 25rd UZI mags. Where I live, those are way more common than the 32 rounders.

[-]

Ashamed_Mix4420@reddit

The Krag Jorgensen is the most effective bolt action ever produced

[-]

ManwithaTan@reddit

I've never heard of this rifle before! Could you elaborate for me?

[-]

Ashamed_Mix4420@reddit

The smoothest of the bolt and the magazine design.

[-]

Im_Back_From_Hell@reddit

Easily a top 5, for sure.

[-]

Sinistrial_Blue@reddit

The super-carcinization of platforms is exceedingly technologically limiting. Yes, I understand the piston-driven-AR works well, but one can hardly innovate on the technology with such narrow purview.

[-]

rextrem@reddit

Tilting barrel pistol action feels simple but it forces to have a pistol larger in height, a longer feeding ramp, higher bore axis, and the need to accomodate the tilting at front end (barrel bushing).

Not talking about the supposed increase in accuracy but rotating barrel should become the norm because of how simple it is, and it hasn't because of the M1911 hype. Only one exception : tilting barrel can allow for a very slim and narrow slide which only the CZ-75 and 9mm 1911s benefit from.

[-]

Zengineer_83@reddit

Personal Hill:

I LOVE BULLPUBS AND I CANNOT LIE!

[-]

Humdrum_Blues@reddit

Pistols with trigger safeties are miserable to shoot.

[-]

paladin68@reddit

Do you mean glock style where you can't pull the trigger unless you pull the trigger?

[-]

rextrem@reddit

9mm supremacy is killing any development in pistol cartridges, even if 30 SuperC is not revolutionary it allows for a slimer, less recoily higher capacity handgun which has more benefits than an increase in stopping power.

[-]

WindstormMD@reddit

Two opinions, one accessory, one other:

1) Visible lasers are valuable and useful on any serious-use firearm, and too many people parrot the “they’re only good for zeroing NV” without stopping to think about purpose and use.

On a flat range, yes they don’t add anything. In a serious use case, the ideal is to get behind the sights, but the real world is a messy place, and sometimes you will be forced into positions where having an alternative aiming mechanism that does not involve exposing your head behind the weapon gives you a winning advantage.

2) most modern rifles are far too front heavy, with no serious thought being given by any designers except bullpup makers for how to make things better balanced

[-]

makoivis@reddit

They’re too front-heavy because they get loaded up with various accessories. In fairness, most people gave poor accuracy without a bipod so the bipod is worth the poor balance.

[-]

WindstormMD@reddit

I mean even as just a base rifle, a lot of the AR-180 style systems usually have lightweight stocks and metal handguards that pull the balance even further out

[-]

makoivis@reddit

Understood. I guess that’s the inevitable result when you make everything lighter except for the front.

[-]

Colodanman357@reddit

We need more Gyrojets and rocket projectiles.

[-]

Wannabe_Operator83@reddit

Bolter

[-]

KeeganY_SR-UVB76@reddit

Based. I love radically-different and inefficient weapons.

[-]

Colodanman357@reddit

Couldn’t agree more. We need a rifle that fires electrically ignited case-less rocket propelled projectiles fed from a helical magazine.

[-]

davewave3283@reddit

Hell yeah we do

[-]

f38stingray@reddit

Especially handguns are too often designed to adhere to the rules of competition or the idea of a "duty gun" instead of what would actually put the most rounds on target for a reasonable price. I want to see:

- Hammer-fired guns (probably not that unpopular)
- 6" long slide barrels
- Bull barrels (not sure how much of a difference they make, but I want to fight out!)
- Non-reciprocating optic mounts at a reasonable price
- Steel

[-]

OkRush9563@reddit

Bullpups are better than traditional configurations when done well (good trigger, ambidextrous friendly, etc). I don't think they are the end all, be all but I do believe that when done right they are just better in most situations.

[-]

SmallYerrow@reddit

Glock mags suck. Not in reliability but in design. They’re thicker because they’re polymer which in turn creates a mag that has lower capacity than it could have for the thickness it is. They’re actually not really any lighter and Glock introduced metal plates in them in gen2 so they dont bow out and flex causing them not to drop free from the gun. The metal mags will rust argument really isn’t that great either because when was the last time you had a metal mag rust?

[-]

ShotgunEd1897@reddit

They look hideous in AR-9 carbines. Colt mags are better for the job.

[-]

leto78@reddit

Monolithic uppers are superior to upper receivers+handguards. If Eugene Stoner was going to design today the AR-15, he would use extruded aluminum production methods to create a monolithic upper. Current examples of this construction method are the PSA JAKL, B&T APC223, FN SCAR, etc.

[-]

tennezzee88@reddit

any kind of handguard outside of quad rails for rifles are dumb and inferior.

[-]

rennfeild@reddit

Buffer tubes are ugly. I dont care if they are great for practical reasons. They still ugly.

[-]

Cultural_Back1419@reddit

Safety catches on lever actions with an exposed hammer are only there for people who are so cognitively limited they shouldn't have access to firearms in the first place.

[-]

makoivis@reddit

Accidents happen.

[-]

Working-Professor789@reddit

Basic AR’s are fine and .380 is plenty.

[-]

Dinglebutterball@reddit

Hammer fired guns are superior.

[-]

Ares4991@reddit

Not unpopular.

[-]

kaloozi@reddit

Side charging gas rifles are not awful and receive far more hate than they deserve.

[-]

SpecialPotion@reddit

I think bullpups are cool and most of the things people complain about them for are pretty silly.

[-]

rightwist@reddit

Great triggers are severely underrated by designers.

The technology has existed for a very long time and it makes for an easier learning curve for beginning shooters, and better performance in timed, realistic drills by experienced shooters.

Not sure how much safety is part of it. Or whether negligent discharges are blamed on 'hair'' triggers and whether that's deserved.

But. You would think with all the guns in USA that aren't duty guns or even carry guns, that excellent triggers would be plentiful at all price ranges. Meaning a crisp, 3.5-6lb break, barely any over travel, and a short reset.

I understand there's different ideas about length of the trigger pull but at least in SA I feel an excellent trigger is technically feasible and should be standard. I don't have the expertise to say what's a range trigger vs a carry trigger. But it's wild to me how atrocious some triggers are on some guns that have been sold in the millions. At least there should be guns that are known to be range toys that have excellent triggers.

(Mostly talking about handguns but I feel this goes for rifles as well though some of the particulars might vary. I have barely any experience with shotguns)

[-]

noblemortarman@reddit

Heel releases are superior to thumb releases

[-]

Global_Theme864@reddit

I don’t know that I’d go so far as to say better, but I definitely don’t get the hate. I’ve never had trouble operating one.

[-]

Somebodysomeone_926@reddit

The 870 is a significantly better shotgun than the 500 (not counting the express and stamped metal 870s. I'm talking about the old wing masters, pretty much any of them pre-1990s. I completely understand that the 870s produced in recent years are garbage but the mossberg isn't that much better. Save a relic from a pawn store and you won't regret it.

[-]

t850terminator@reddit

Bullpups are based and we should bullpup everything.

Also there's that one comment here on how Krags are the peak of bolt actions, and they're right.

[-]

Not everyone is an expert such as yourself; be considerate.

No Spam. No Memes.

No political posts. Save that for /r/progun or /r/politics.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.