[Godstud]

Thanks Rodion. Now I'm going to have nightmares.
I was talking SMGs not women!

[War Angel]

The OP is eerily similar to a Tavor. I wonder if it's an accident...

Not really - the SMG in the OP is not a bullpup, if you look closely. Besides, the Tavor is TEH SEX, an assault rifle, and something I'd bust a nut over.

[MB.]

Besides, the Tavor is TEH SEX, an assault rifle, and something I'd bust a nut over.

Do all Isrealis have such terrible terrible taste in weapon aesthetics?

[War Angel]

Do all Isrealis have such terrible terrible taste in weapon aesthetics?

Do all north Americans care for how weapons look, instead of how they function?

The Tavor is nearly perfect - in nearly all areas. I'd make it easier to dis-assemble with less parts, but that's about it. It looks like a rifle should, just the bare minimum, a light, efficent and effective skeleton. It's not curvy, it's not pretty, it doesn't look very futuristic - and that's why I like it so much. It's a tool.

[MB.]

Do all north Americans care for how weapons look, instead of how they function?

Strawman.

It's not curvy, it's not pretty, it doesn't look very futuristic - and that's why I like it so much

In my subjective world assault rifles all look exactly like the FAMAS 2. Rugged. Minimal. Badass.






I also like the H&K 416.



The tavor on the other hand resembles a swiss army knife mating with a nerf gun

[War Angel]

Strawman.

[]
\/

Do all Isrealis have such terrible terrible taste in weapon aesthetics?

In my subjective world

Need I point the contradiction there? Also, how much military experience do you have with these rifles (the FAMAS group)? I've none.

The tavor on the other hand resembles a swiss army nice mating with a nerf gun

Again, with the aesthetics... who gives a shit? Give me concrete criticism of the Tavor. Looks are up to taste - you don't like it, I do. It also has zero influence on the combat effectiveness of the rifle.

I see no rails on the FAMAS G2. Why?

[MB.]

My troll comment was a gross generalization, not a strawman.

Also, how much military experience do you have with these rifles (the FAMAS group)? I've none.

Me neither.

Again, with the aesthetics... who gives a shit?

I do. This thread after all is about sexy weapons and the tavor is just ugly.

Looks are up to taste - you don't like it, I do.

Are there any other rifles you consider aesthetically pleasing?

I see no rails on the FAMAS G2. Why?

The G2 uses a carrying handle instead of mod rails, it has the same effect.

The carrying handle can mount all NATO/US optics. The G2 can mount a bayonet either on top of or below the barrel, so that it can be used whether or not a grenade launcher is fitted. The ability to use most 40mm grenade launchers is also new; the F1 could only use rifle grenades. (Before the G2, there was a G1, which was an intermediate design that was essentially an F1 with the large trigger guard of the G2.)

http://www.pmulcahy.com/assault_rifles/ ... rifles.htm

[War Angel]

Are there any other rifles you consider aesthetically pleasing?

The FN F2000
The Valmet M82
The Enfield EM-2
The SAR-21
The Vektor CR-21

[MB.]

I rest my case.

[War Angel]

Why is it that every time I talk to you, I feel like I'd be better off scratching my own balls and sniffing my hand afterwards? I mean, you're intelligent - why do you do nothing but troll?

[ingliz]

Bullpups look like shit but then I am old school when it come to rifles. I like an assault rifle to be simple with big springs and big bits, something that strips easily, that in itself makes it difficult to lose something vital, unlike these new weapons which are complicated, full of piddling little springs and other fiddling bits.

[War Angel]

I agree, but bullpup doesn't automatically mean it's complex - just that it's assembled differently.

[justaguy]

Do all north Americans care for how weapons look, instead of how they function?

The Tavor is nearly perfect - in nearly all areas. I'd make it easier to dis-assemble with less parts, but that's about it. It looks like a rifle should, just the bare minimum, a light, efficent and effective skeleton. It's not curvy, it's not pretty, it doesn't look very futuristic - and that's why I like it so much. It's a tool.

You can keep any bullpup type rifle, I hate 'em.
The OP weapon would be infinitely better than any bullpup POS I have ever used.

[War Angel]

You can keep any bullpup type rifle, I hate 'em.
The OP weapon would be infinitely better than any bullpup POS I have ever used.

Okey-dokey.

And what is your reasoning, if any, behind these statements?

[ingliz]

http://www.smallarmsreview.com/pdf/sa80.pdf

Page 9

Field stripping an SA80

"Designed by the Ignorant, Built by the Incompetent, Issued to the Unfortunate"

[War Angel]

Field stripping an SA80

Doesn't look very complex.

[ingliz]

Field stripping:

As can be seen the SA80 is held together with two locking pins, which have to be removed for the gun to be dismantled and cleaned. They were designed in such a way that a soldier could easily pull them out of the gun completely, and, in trying to force them back in, puncture the thin steel the gun is made of. The gun would then have to be thrown away.

Other faults, to name a few:

The firing pins break (The firing pin has now been replaced three times: in 1985, because it wasn't "durable"; in 1991, because it wasn't "materially robust"; and in 2000, because it wasn't durable again), the magazine falls off, the bolt-release button breaks, the triggers get stuck, the cleaning kit doesn't clean, the butt plate breaks, the cheek-pad falls off, the cheek-pad melts, the cartridge cases don't eject properly, the bolt carrier doesn't fit properly, the locking pins holding the gun together are inadequate, and the safety catch isn't safe and it can't be fired from the left shoulder without turning the gas plug to 'grenade' and manually cycling the weapon after each shot. It's had 110 parts modified since 1985 and still the pistol grip, which bears the full weight of over 4kgs when the weapon is carried, causes stress along the connection line which can misalign the lower section, including the magazine, from the breech and barrel

Plus it won't work at altitude, over 10,000 feet, or in desert conditions reliably.

http://www.magnagunclub.co.uk/news_arti ... s/art2.php

And other articles

[War Angel]

Now, is it worse than an M-16?

Seriously, though. Bullpups are superior weapons the bullpup design is superior - objectively-speaking. You can take the ultra-reliable AK-47 and quite easily convert it to a bullpup design, and it shouldn't adversely affect its reliability. The SA80 may indeed suck, but that's not because it's a bullpup.

[ingliz]

They do say the A2 is more reliable than the MI6 in Afghanistan.

SA80 - L85A2:

"the weapon was difficult to strip and reassemble, containing many fiddly parts (especially in the bolt-carrier assembly). The gas plug, which needed to be removed for cleaning, would easily jam in place and then required an armourer's drill to remove;"

“They gave us a pamphlet, the existing cleaning regime, and we looked at it and went ‘Well, sorry, that’s rubbish’ – and it was now 30 pages long, which is too much."

"One interesting comment from a soldier involved in the trials, is that not all NATO 5.56 mm ammunition performs in the same way. The trials were conducted using British ammo, but some German and American types were tried. It was found that the German ammo fouled the gas ports very quickly, whereas the US ammo sometimes didn't seem to produce enough pressure to cock the gun reliably, with a stoppage occurring once every one or two magazines."

[War Angel]

The AK-47 can work on alcohol, can fire little rocks and can make strong black coffee in less than 5 minutes. It's also a wonderful conversationalist and well-learned in the sexual ways.