[MB.]

You *can* mount optics on a 103, but really this is not something that would be nescary. 'Sniping' is a very specailised skill used by an elite few to execute officers in an enemy army... I don't understand the need to incorperate that into the average battlefield unit (ie, your regular joe soldier).

As for the side mounted designator- I'd imagine if weight is not an issue that this could be easily done- though I'd be careful, keeping a grenade launcher adds some un-needed complexity to the 103LD we're talking about here...

...also, I should mention that the AK 105 has a short barrel and folding stock, for close quaters combat, it might be predunt to incorperate the folding stock into our 103LD, if not the short barrel which would no doubt sacrifice accuracy.

[Truth-a-naut]

Bill have you ever used iron sights?

Optics are the way of the future.

[Piano Red]

The ultimate infantry weapon (imho) is the minigun.

http://www.tabcbelts.homestead.com/MINIGUN005_copy.JPG

Nuff said.

[Truth-a-naut]

...and carry about 100 somewhat lbs of ammo into battle with you.

[MB.]

Optics are simply not realistic in battlefield conditions. Not only are they expensive to produce and hard to maintain- but they have a varitable plethra of problems assocaited with them. An Aim Point would be superior to Iron Sights, yet also more rugged then Optics, so I'd consider it the perfect comprimise between the two.

[naked_turk]

The ultimate weapon is *love*. When will you people realise that?

It would be the ultimate infantry weapon with a laser designator- that's my point.

Why not an AK-103 with a love designator?

You can drop $2 whores on your enemies and watch as they gladly enjoy the greatest gift of all... VD.

[Truth-a-naut]

By optics I meant everything ranging from image amplifiers to free floating scopes.

I just wanted it to be noted that iron site's are total shit.

[MB.]

Allright, we're agreed on that one- unless of course the whole thing comes down to cost, in which case the Iron Sights are gonna win it out either way.

[Truth-a-naut]

Economically sound firearms seems somewhat funny to me.

[MB.]

Not just economic but productivaley- it's far easier to build plently of Ak 103s with LDs then it is to built plenty with LDs *and* Aimpoints/optics.

Ease of construction should factor into this I think.

[Garibaldi]

The ultimate weapon is *love*. When will you people realise that?

Love can disarm even the most belligerent of foes and make them feel warm and fuzzy.

I love you, Boon.

Not true, even a simple glock could beat love on the battlefield. I'm not sure if a flower will have any better luck getting through body armor than a bullet.

[Truth-a-naut]

What if you love killing people?

What then!?

[immortallove]

Ok, so the 103-LD with a folding stock, and I think a reflex sight similar to that on Marine M16s and M4s, with the grenade launcher in the bag (useful in long-range assaults and for smokescreens).
Of course, the reflex would need to be detachable because there's every possibility that it would melt/bend/scratch and need to be removed to free up the barrel-mounted sighting notches. Unlikely though - those things are tough.

Triggerhappy Nun Wrote:

The 103 can hold drum rounds, but there's no need for a belt since only machine guns need belts anyway, and we're talking about battle-rifles here.

What if I wanted a continuous spread? That's part of an ultimate infantry weapon.

Thats what machine-gunners are for, that's support troops, not regular infantry. Of course, It's not a bad thing if a battle rifle can provide suppressing fire, and the Ak 103 can do that with the 100-round mag. Depending on range, 100 7.62mm rounds would provide effective suppressing fire for up to 40 seconds, long enough for a small-range flanking manoeuvre. The M16 can't do this.

The ultimate infantry weapon (imho) is the minigun.

http://www.tabcbelts.homestead.com/MINIGUN005_copy.JPG

Nuff said.

Don't even need ammo. I'd like to see someone keep moving or holding their weapon looking down the barrel(s) of that beast!

Impractical tho, no?

[Boondock Saint]

The ultimate infantry weapon (imho) is the minigun.

Someone mentioned the ammo, someone else mentioned the weight of the gun itself, and now I will mention ... power source?

Where are you going to stick the power source for that puppy? Or did someone think those barrels spin on their own?

Basically in order for a mini gun to make it onto the battlefield you need a vehicle ...

But I know you were joking anyway

What the hell is wrong with iron sights? Iron sights rock ...

It seems like alot of people are under the impression that the avg. soldier is a specialized rifleman ... really thats not the case. If we look at most modern militaries they are going down and down to carbines ... which are basically submachine guns using rifle ammo. We arent seeing any M-1 Garands out there ... you may see some M-1A1's (No not the tank) but only a sniper or special forces will have that.

Scopes? Detachable sights?

Pffft ... iron sights dont break. Ever. Thats all that matters. All the rest will break and be utterly useless and the soldier will be cursing the civilian contractor who sold the idea of getting rid of the iron sights ... I mean ... it worked so well on my hunting trips!!!

[fastspawn]

iron sights don't break but are a pain to zero. what i advocate is both a scope and a iron sight so that if the scope breaks you have back up. Iron sight takes up virtually zero space so it has an added advantage.

[MB.]

I'm inclined to agree with Boon on the issue of Iron sights: I still take relaibility over sighting advantage. However, an aim point *would* be useful on the battlefield, espacaily if detachable. The only question is, how unrelaibale are they, how prone to breaking, how much wieght do they add, and how much do they cost.

Ak 103 with folding stock and detachable Aimpoint with Iron Sight backup.

[Boondock Saint]

Do they need a battery? How long does the battery last?

Detachable you say? Does this mean plastic is a main component? All detachable things have plastic ... unless its screws that hold it on ... which means it will need to be properly adjusted ...

All this reminds me of the time I was in the gun shop with my brother, now some of you may already know my brother spent four years in US Army ... so we are standing there and the gunshop guy is showing us all types of AR rifles and all these gidgets and gadgets and every single one my brother said 'bah, they tried to give us that. We broke it.' That was for everything.

So special forces guys? Sure give them need gadgets. A Lt.? Sure give him a nice gidget ... but the common infantryman? Feck that. Give him a reliable rifle, plenty of ammo, a few grenades and some body armor. Thats what he needs.

And why is that AK-103 shown with a US flag background?

[MB.]

Heh, I knew you'd ask that one Boon- because I got the picture off the AK-USA web site

Anyway, you're going to have to remeber that even our Laserdesignator is going to require batteries, so there's really no way to get around that problem.

[Truth-a-naut]

Also we need a gun that is not loud. Noise is a major turn off when I'm choosing my killing tool of choice.

...and reocil too. That shit used to scare me when I was little.

[jaakko]

And why is that AK-103 shown with a US flag background?

Because it embodies the American Dream. Coming a long way from Russia... and getting gadgets it never had attached to it before.