Home    General Stuff    General Chat
#1

Which of these firearms is more deadly?

Archive: 78 posts

Just like the title says, judging ONLY from what you can gather from the pictures which one of these is more dangerous? Please, post your reasoning behind your choice.
(oh, and please imagine A is just the one gun. )

Exhibit A: http://www.randymays.com/main_image.jpg
Exhibit B: http://www.hawktecharms.com/ruger/dsp.gif		2011-09-04 20:37:00

Author:
Foofles
Posts: 2278

I voted A, but I have a feeling I've sunk right in to a trap there... I have little to no idea about guns, other than you point them at the other guys...2011-09-04 20:43:00

Author:
rialrees
Posts: 1015

I wouldn't want to be shot by either of them.2011-09-04 20:48:00

Author:
Vector-Espio-Fan
Posts: 119

I vote B. Just a hunch, is all.2011-09-04 20:55:00

Author:
FlipMeister
Posts: 631

B is probably more deadly, depending on what youre shooting, if it is big and slow, then i would trust B for a more accurate shot and better stopping power, but if it is small and fast i would trust a to do the job, specially with the silencer attatched, you dont want to startle anything else around you, might miss the 2nd kill.2011-09-04 21:05:00

Author:
Charlemagne
Posts: 513

I voted B because the obvious answer is A, and you wouldn't have posted a question like this if the obvious answer was the correct one.2011-09-04 21:16:00

Author:
RockSauron
Posts: 10882

Considering that the shooter can fire at anything under 5 km/h, I vote B.2011-09-04 21:20:00

Author:
gdn001
Posts: 5891

Just like the title says, judging ONLY from what you can gather from the pictures which one of these is more dangerous? Please, post your reasoning behind your choice.
(oh, and please imagine A is just the one gun. )

Exhibit A: http://www.randymays.com/main_image.jpg

Dam, I can't figure that one out. Looks like a Galil from the stock, but I'm not so sure about its built. It looks like an AK74 because of the barrel's style, but again, I can't figure it out. Is it a modified/custom gun?

Anywho, I'll go to this:


Exhibit B: http://www.hawktecharms.com/ruger/dsp.gif

The 10/22 is pretty good for long range accuracy, and I love that it's lightweight and has almost no kick (recoil). If I need to bet on who'll be able to win in a shoot-to-kill standoff between the guy with A and a guy with B (from long range, of course), then I put my money on B. Having a high-cap for the 10/22 helps too.

HOWEVER, I assume A can go full auto, so I give it the short-to-mid-range advantage. Although the 10/22 will win hands down in stealth (it hardly needs a suppressor like A to stay silent).

Sorry, I ramble sometimes when it comes to weapons. :blush: Seeing as I don't know which situation you're pinning these two weapons in (and I can't identity what A is), I'll stay neutral in my vote.		2011-09-04 22:05:00

Author:
CyberSora
Posts: 5551

well, here are my country boy observations
A appears to be more for close quarters combat, interior buildings and urban areas and what not and looks to be maybe a HK MP5
B appears to be a .22 and is a good starter gun. I started out with a .22 when I was 6 years old and they are really good for squirrels and shooting tin cans off the fence

danger wise, dangerous to whom? the user or the target? .22's are inherently safe, well just about any weapon is safe with the proper training, but the .22 is a simple rifle that is pretty reliable. the HK's "A" have a lot of moving parts and have to be well maintained to avoid jams and misfires but can rip a target to shreds. There are just too many variables to consider. Hmmmmm I'm going with "A"

A is my final answer. But I'm almost positive you'll say B for some reason. Can't wait to hear it.		2011-09-04 22:17:00

Author:
biorogue
Posts: 8424

I'll go B, I get the feel A is a bb gun or something2011-09-04 22:23:00

Author:
Radishlord
Posts: 706

well, here are my country boy observations
A appears to be more for close quarters combat, interior buildings and urban areas and what not and looks to be maybe a HK MP5

Nope.

I used an HK MP5, and that is not one of them. The barrel isn't shaped like it, and the built seems too... rectangle (sorry, it's hard to explain firearms sometimes). Judging by the its stock, I take back my Galil suggestion and throw in the AK74 theory (or AK47; they look almost the same).

Normally I would have called it an AK47, but the barrel is just too short. So I assume it's an AK74 (shorter barrel is a giveaway). But the fact that it looks "different" is what's throwing me off. The only thing I can think of is this:

-It's a custom built AK74 from parts (more than likely it used to be a different gun).


B appears to be a .22 and is a good starter gun. I started out with a .22 when I was 6 years old and they are really good for squirrels and shooting tin cans off the fence

danger wise, dangerous to whom? the user or the target? .22's are inherently safe, well just about any weapon is safe with the proper training, but the .22 is a simple rifle that is pretty reliable. the HK's "A" have a lot of moving parts and have to be well maintained to avoid jams and misfires but can rip a target to shreds. Hmmmmm going with "A"

A is my final answer. But I'm almost positive you'll say B for some reason. Can't wait to hear it.

I would have gone with your choice, but again there's that range factor. To be honest, I have a feeling Foofles's messing with us. Why? Well, basing this off my "it's an AK74 that was built on another gun" theory, I think A is actually a 10/22 turned into an AK74 (it's possible to "transform" firearms through parts). It has the built, and it's almost a perfect troll move way to confuse everybody! 		2011-09-04 22:29:00

Author:
CyberSora
Posts: 5551

I voted D. But if the brown one is a shotgun then Resident Evil tells me that is what you need if you want to get things done.2011-09-04 22:48:00

Author:
julesyjules
Posts: 1156

Isn't B a Rifle?
Well, I voted A, because Call of Duty tells me that it blows their heads off
(Also.. Why do you wanna know which is more powerful? 		2011-09-04 23:02:00

Author:
Unknown User

I voted D. But if the brown one is a shotgun then Resident Evil tells me that is what you need if you want to get things done.

B's a 10/22 rifle. It doesn't look anything like a shotgun; how the Hell did you come up with that?


Isn't B a Rifle?
Well, I voted A, because Call of Duty tells me that it blows their heads off
(Also.. Why do you wanna know which is more powerful?

He's either deciding on which one to buy, or he's just messing with us.		2011-09-04 23:11:00

Author:
CyberSora
Posts: 5551

I vote Cthulhu.2011-09-04 23:16:00

Author:
bonner123
Posts: 1487

Well there we go. You think I know too little about guns and I think you know way too much.2011-09-04 23:27:00

Author:
julesyjules
Posts: 1156

I think it's neither. Its the person. The way they handle the gun and their intent.2011-09-04 23:38:00

Author:
Lady_Luck__777
Posts: 3458

A is silenced, B isn't, so in certain circumstances that could be extremely useful. I doubt that B is more accurate than A but I'm guessing, as a battle rifle, is more powerful. A has a substantial mag and what looks like a grip. I'd therefore have to go with A, even though B seems to have raw power, A seems to have has more accuracy and could be used in several situations where B could be rendered obsolete.


Isn't B a Rifle?
Well, I voted A, because Call of Duty tells me that it blows their heads off
(Also.. Why do you wanna know which is more powerful?

Call of Duty taught me that Zombies exist, I ain't gonna seriously believe stuff like that am I? 		2011-09-05 00:15:00

Author:
abyssalassassin
Posts: 717

Call of Duty taught me that Zombies exist, I ain't gonna seriously believe stuff like that am I?

I meant in the actual game, where you're fighting people 		2011-09-05 00:28:00

Author:
Unknown User

I meant in the actual game, where you're fighting people

In real life, guns don't blow heads off, with the exception of RPGs and maybe shotties. An assault rifle with punch a few holes through you, but otherwise your head will be perfectly fine. 		2011-09-05 00:41:00

Author:
abyssalassassin
Posts: 717

I vote Cthulhu.

Who doesn't?


Well there we go. You think I know too little about guns and I think you know way too much.

http://i750.photobucket.com/albums/xx148/CyberSora/dealwithit.gif


I think it's neither. Its the person. The way they handle the gun and their intent.

Well, that's kind of true. Sometimes a better gun helps, particularly when it comes to increasing accuracy or range on your gun. It just depends on the experience and weapon of the person; both factors play a crucial role.


1) A is silenced, B isn't, so in certain circumstances that could be extremely useful. 2) I doubt that B is more accurate than A but I'm guessing, as a battle rifle, is more powerful. 3) A has a substantial mag and what looks like a grip. 4) I'd therefore have to go with A, even though B seems to have raw power, A seems to have has more accuracy and could be used in several situations where B could be rendered obsolete.

1) A is silenced only with a suppressor and it decreases its range; B is almost silent altogether and can still deliver a long range shot.

2) B is actually more accurate, believe it or not. It can hit targets from a longer range than A, and yes, it has more fire power to it. The drawback, however, would be this:

3) A does in fact have a better mag. 10/22s (B) usually have a 10 round mag if they're not high caps. Consider the fact that B can only go semi-auto, I say A takes the advantage in mid range combat.

4) IMO, long range goes to B; short-mid range goes to A.


Call of Duty taught me that Zombies exist, I ain't gonna seriously believe stuff like that am I?


I meant in the actual game, where you're fighting people


In real life, guns don't blow heads off, with the exception of RPGs and maybe shotties. An assault rifle with punch a few holes through you, but otherwise your head will be perfectly fine.

Actually, some firearms do "blow off" your heads. Although not completely, some due tend to blow the back part of the head most of the times. .50 caliber sniper rifles are a good example of this. However, I think you should have realized by now that nothing in FPS games are to be considered realistic. Not only that, but you shouldn't use any FPS's weapon statistics as a guide to weapons; they sometimes get it wrong.		2011-09-05 04:38:00

Author:
CyberSora
Posts: 5551

I believe exhibit A looks like a maybe um... M9 variant i may be wrong but they have good accuracy and high rpm but its not a strong gun but the fact that it shoots fast might make in deadlier

Now Exhibit B looks like a BB gun because of the diamond on the side but then again it could be a european design but its none the less a strong gun single shot some recoil.....

So theyre about the same... like most forums like this end... It all depends on the User...		2011-09-05 04:50:00

Author:
Wolf_AssasSin_X
Posts: 49

The gun that fires is the gun that kills. Whether or not the intended target is an animal or a human in entirely dependent on the user.

I've fired (and I own) both of these types of guns before. Most people would choose A as being the more dangerous of the two, since it obviously has a larger magazine and resembles more of a modern firearm due to its minimalist looks and grey tones. Most people on here chose B, since there's the whole reverse psychology method being deployed in this question and, yes, it's more than likely the more accurate of the two. However, it's nearly impossible to actually clarify which would be more "deadly"...

Exhibit A to me looks like a cheap, Chinese-made brand of one of the more popular assault/modern rifles (M4A1, AK-47, AR-15, etc.). Just by the looks alone, you can assume that they've never been fired, the material is cheap (looks too glossy for an assault rifle), and are used more as props/toys rather than conventional firearms. But consider the fact that (this applies for both exhibits) there is no additional information that clarifies what kind of gun it is, such as the actual purpose (sport, hunting, assault, collectors, etc.), the action (semi-auto, full auto, burst, etc.), the caliber (.22, .30-06, .45, etc.), and a number of other factors that always play into firearms. Without any of that information, it's very difficult to judge the actual purpose of the gun by just the looks alone (btw, the silencer on one of the rifles would definitely constrict its range and stopping power).

Exhibit B looks like a typical hunting rifle. From the looks alone, it definitely has a smaller ammo capacity, more than likely a semi-auto action (and probably magazine fed, due to the action), probably inexpensive/cheap (due to the glossy wood/plastic finish that you typically see on .22s and .27s), and overall seems to serve more as home defense/ hunting. Again, missing factors such as the caliber and actual purpose of the firearm severely limit our knowledge of the gun. However... this picture actually comes with a reference (Ruger 10/22). So with that said, if the Exhibit A had any caliber greater than .22 (which, tbh, is typical), by firepower alone, it'd be more deadly (bigger bullet = higher chance to kill).

But in the end, it doesn't matter how big the gun is or what gimmicks it has; if it can shoot, it can kill. In the hands of an experienced marksman (or even inexperienced, in terms of criminals or juveniles), both guns will kill their intended/unintended targets. Any projectile, whether it be an arrow or a bullet, will always have a probability of killing someone/something. While Exhibit A would be deadly towards people in physical terms (bigger caliber, made for combat, only outlaws/criminals would have them), Exhibit B would be deadly towards people in logistical terms (more abundant, legal under current gun laws, much cheaper ammunition). So either way, no matter which way you put it, both guns are equally as deadly.

... wow. I never knew my knowledge of guns would come in handy on LBPC. 		2011-09-05 05:39:00

Author:
Outlaw-Jack
Posts: 5757

B. too obvious.2011-09-05 05:48:00

Author:
nk827
Posts: 193

Neither are guns, a real example of a gun is an anti aircraft gun. just to be cheeky and correct 2011-09-05 13:34:00

Author:
Unknown User

I voted both because it depends on the situation. On a short-medium range with fast moving targets I guess it's A. On a long range with an unaware target, definitely B.2011-09-05 14:26:00

Author:
SnipySev
Posts: 2452

Who cares, both of them will kill you.... -__-2011-09-05 14:52:00

Author:
zzmorg82
Posts: 948

Thanks for all the replies everyone I think I'll let it run another day. Tomorrow I'll give some input on what this poll is for 2011-09-05 15:56:00

Author:
Foofles
Posts: 2278

Thanks for all the replies everyone I think I'll let it run another day. Tomorrow I'll give some input on what this poll is for

My guess is you're about to go on a rampage and just can't decide what to take.		2011-09-05 16:16:00

Author:
KILLA_TODDZILLA
Posts: 653

I assume the purpose is for determining the aesthetics to employ in making a gun look deadly in one of your projects?

I choose A, since it looks like an automatic submachine gun that can spit more bullets at you. I think wood stock rifles like B look cooler, tho.		2011-09-05 22:27:00

Author:
Ayneh
Posts: 2454

I vote A because it's cooler looking.2011-09-05 22:39:00

Author:
warlord_evil
Posts: 4193

I vote A because it's cooler looking.

I know right? 		2011-09-05 22:41:00

Author:
Unknown User

The gun that fires is the gun that kills. Whether or not the intended target is an animal or a human in entirely dependent on the user.

I've fired (and I own) both of these types of guns before. Most people would choose A as being the more dangerous of the two, since it obviously has a larger magazine and resembles more of a modern firearm due to its minimalist looks and grey tones. Most people on here chose B, since there's the whole reverse psychology method being deployed in this question and, yes, it's more than likely the more accurate of the two. However, it's nearly impossible to actually clarify which would be more "deadly"...

Exhibit A to me looks like a cheap, Chinese-made brand of one of the more popular assault/modern rifles (M4A1, AK-47, AR-15, etc.). Just by the looks alone, you can assume that they've never been fired, the material is cheap (looks too glossy for an assault rifle), and are used more as props/toys rather than conventional firearms. But consider the fact that (this applies for both exhibits) there is no additional information that clarifies what kind of gun it is, such as the actual purpose (sport, hunting, assault, collectors, etc.), the action (semi-auto, full auto, burst, etc.), the caliber (.22, .30-06, .45, etc.), and a number of other factors that always play into firearms. Without any of that information, it's very difficult to judge the actual purpose of the gun by just the looks alone (btw, the silencer on one of the rifles would definitely constrict its range and stopping power).

Wow, you almost think the same way as I do. However, if we set aside the looks factor and assume both of these guns were real firearms and were at least fired off several times, then we have the actual "which is deadlier" question.

You assumption of it being a cheap Chinese product isn't bad (mainly because a LOT of weapons are made by foreign companies), but I don't think it looks like anything you mentioned. The closest one was AK47, but the barrel is just too short, so it looks like an AK74 instead. But it's that stupid stock is what's confusing me.


Exhibit B looks like a typical hunting rifle. From the looks alone, it definitely has a smaller ammo capacity, more than likely a semi-auto action (and probably magazine fed, due to the action), probably inexpensive/cheap (due to the glossy wood/plastic finish that you typically see on .22s and .27s), and overall seems to serve more as home defense/ hunting. Again, missing factors such as the caliber and actual purpose of the firearm severely limit our knowledge of the gun. However... this picture actually comes with a reference (Ruger 10/22). So with that said, if the Exhibit A had any caliber greater than .22 (which, tbh, is typical), by firepower alone, it'd be more deadly (bigger bullet = higher chance to kill).

Exactly! But you need to consider range here to, and A doesn't have the necessary barrel length to pull off long-range "bull's eyes". Assuming A is a fully automatic assault rifle, I say accuracy is a bit off compared to B. Still, accuracy is more dependent on the person than the gun itself.


But in the end, it doesn't matter how big the gun is or what gimmicks it has; if it can shoot, it can kill. In the hands of an experienced marksman (or even inexperienced, in terms of criminals or juveniles), both guns will kill their intended/unintended targets. Any projectile, whether it be an arrow or a bullet, will always have a probability of killing someone/something. While Exhibit A would be deadly towards people in physical terms (bigger caliber, made for combat, only outlaws/criminals would have them), Exhibit B would be deadly towards people in logistical terms (more abundant, legal under current gun laws, much cheaper ammunition). So either way, no matter which way you put it, both guns are equally as deadly.

THIS

It really does payoff being the better marksman. One of my favorite shows, Deadliest Warrior, proved that by pitting the Jesse James gang against Al Conpoe (I can't spell his name, nor do I care how to spell it). Al's gang had modern day weapons (Tommy Guns, grenades) but they still lost against Jesse's gang because of their accuracy. So yeah, moral of the story: learn how to use a gun.


... wow. I never knew my knowledge of guns would come in handy on LBPC.

I can't believe there's people on here who actually know about guns. Finally, people that are awesome(er)!

http://i750.photobucket.com/albums/xx148/CyberSora/ThumbsUp.gif		2011-09-05 23:49:00

Author:
CyberSora
Posts: 5551

http://jspivey.wikispaces.com/file/view/Kar98k.jpg

Still the best.		2011-09-06 01:08:00

Author:
Unknown User

They're the same gun.


Exhibit A - Ruger 10/22 with a Krinker Plinker conversion kit (http://www.krinkerplinker.com/)
Exhibit B - Ruger 10/22, unmodified


*Rides tank into the sunset*		2011-09-06 01:18:00

Author:
Incinerator22
Posts: 3251

I wouldn't want to be shot by either of them.

Weirdly enough, that's my general response to most guns...		2011-09-06 01:37:00

Author:
rtm223
Posts: 6497

I'll go with B.

'Cause even if the person on the receiving end doesn't die, whoever is holding the gun could get a deadly splinter.		2011-09-06 01:39:00

Author:
Kog
Posts: 2358

They're the same gun.


Exhibit A - Ruger 10/22 with a Krinker Plinker conversion kit (http://www.krinkerplinker.com/)
Exhibit B - Ruger 10/22, unmodified


*Rides tank into the sunset*

I *******ing knew it!

http://img854.imageshack.us/img854/2055/highfivem.png		2011-09-06 04:12:00

Author:
CyberSora
Posts: 5551

It's not the gun that's deadly it's the person that's holding it..... >2011-09-06 16:25:00

Author:
Amigps
Posts: 564

People with a large knowledge of guns always worry me slighty, but I'm just paranoid like that. If I see either one of those in a news story about a rampage Foofles, I'll blame you 2011-09-06 18:07:00

Author:
kirbyman62
Posts: 1893

People with a large knowledge of guns always worry me slighty, but I'm just paranoid like that. If I see either one of those in a news story about a rampage Foofles, I'll blame you

It's just a culture thing mainly, over here most people would be completely freaked by the sight of one (a gun, not a Foofle).		2011-09-06 19:04:00

Author:
julesyjules
Posts: 1156

It's just a culture thing mainly, over here most people would be completely freaked by the sight of one (a gun, not a Foofle).

I'd be just as terrified to meet either.		2011-09-06 21:01:00

Author:
standby250
Posts: 1113

They're the same gun.
Ohh, that explains it.		2011-09-06 22:23:00

Author:
Ayneh
Posts: 2454

Just like the title says, judging ONLY from what you can gather from the pictures which one of these is more dangerous? Please, post your reasoning behind your choice.
(oh, and please imagine A is just the one gun. )

Exhibit A: http://www.randymays.com/main_image.jpg
Exhibit B: http://www.hawktecharms.com/ruger/dsp.gif

Tough to tell, since there's no obvious scale reference for gun 'B' - it might only be 2 inches long.

However, assuming they're about the same size, and based only on what I can see, I can't be sure either gun is loaded, but gun 'B' looks to have a solid stock, so it's probably heavier, and would thus do more damage if you clocked someone on the head with it. 		2011-09-06 22:24:00

Author:
Aya042
Posts: 2870

Alright, we got a winner! Yes. They are both the same gun. Ruger 10/22. B is the 10/22 with a wooden stock and A is modified to have the black synthetic stock. (and the longer magazine).


What was the point of this? Well, predominately the reactions were narrowed down to this:
Wooden Stock:

Single Shot
Long Range
Accurate
Powerful Shot


Black / Synthetic Stock:

Automatic Fire
Short Range
Not Accurate


Why is that? Why do we instantly link a gun's capabilities with whether it's surrounded by wood or plastic? Is that what makes a gun an assault rifle, having black synthetic furniture?

check this link out : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysf8x477c30#t=05m56s

LInked to specific time but the video is very informative:
(The part I wanna reference in particular starts at 5 minutes and 56 seconds)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysf8x477c30#t=05m56s		2011-09-06 23:29:00

Author:
Foofles
Posts: 2278

Alright, we got a winner! Yes. They are both the same gun. Ruger 10/22. B is the 10/22 with a wooden stock and A is modified to have the black synthetic stock. (and the longer magazine).


What was the point of this? Well, predominately the reactions were narrowed down to this:
Wooden Stock:

Single Shot
Long Range
Accurate
Powerful Shot


Black / Synthetic Stock:

Automatic Fire
Short Range
Not Accurate


Why is that? Why do we instantly link a gun's capabilities with whether it's surrounded by wood or plastic? Is that what makes a gun an assault rifle, having black synthetic furniture?

check this link out : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysf8x477c30#t=05m56s

LInked to specific time but the video is very informative:
(The part I wanna reference in particular starts at 5 minutes and 56 seconds)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysf8x477c30#t=05m56s

I do admit that the first thing I noticed wasn't the shape/type of the gun but the stock, I automatically have a strong dislike for using weapons with a wooden stock in any FPS I play. I don't know why, but would seem that a metal gun outperforms a wooden one. Anyone else like this? 		2011-09-06 23:52:00

Author:
abyssalassassin
Posts: 717

Well, larger magazines usually imply that the gun supports full auto firing. Also, the B photo lacks the magazine, so we can't really compare the kind of bullet in this thing.2011-09-06 23:52:00

Author:
gdn001
Posts: 5891

And more importantly, you can turn the exact same gun into one of these...

http://mydeco.com/p/flos-gun-table-lamp/GB000208XYPDRHDJIHVUOU3NNJMJQBIRTCSVCSC7/

Macho AND functional I think you'll agree.		2011-09-07 00:15:00

Author:
julesyjules
Posts: 1156

They are only as dangerous as the human handling them. Like all firearms.2011-09-07 00:20:00

Author:
Morgana25
Posts: 5983

They are only as dangerous as the human handling them. Like all firearms.

Oh really.....
http://www.sz-wholesale.com/uploadFiles/upimg2/Water-Gun-w--Tank-9902.gif		2011-09-07 00:25:00

Author:
zzmorg82
Posts: 948

Oh really.....
http://www.sz-wholesale.com/uploadFiles/upimg2/Water-Gun-w--Tank-9902.gif

That's not a firearm :/		2011-09-07 00:58:00

Author:
Morgana25
Posts: 5983

Alright, we got a winner! Yes. They are both the same gun. Ruger 10/22. B is the 10/22 with a wooden stock and A is modified to have the black synthetic stock. (and the longer magazine).


What was the point of this? Well, predominately the reactions were narrowed down to this:
Wooden Stock:

Single Shot
Long Range
Accurate
Powerful Shot


Black / Synthetic Stock:

Automatic Fire
Short Range
Not Accurate


Why is that? Why do we instantly link a gun's capabilities with whether it's surrounded by wood or plastic? Is that what makes a gun an assault rifle, having black synthetic furniture?

check this link out : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysf8x477c30#t=05m56s

LInked to specific time but the video is very informative:
(The part I wanna reference in particular starts at 5 minutes and 56 seconds)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysf8x477c30#t=05m56s

So basically me, Outlaw, and Incinerator were the closest ones? WOOT! People are now more afraid of us! 		2011-09-07 01:10:00

Author:
CyberSora
Posts: 5551

I have to say neither...it's obvious to the trained eye (that is, an eye like mine with special powers to see through things ) that the firing pins have been removed from these guns by a highly skilled ATF professional named Martin VanMarlin, so as not to leave any traces of tinkering for the unsuspecting CRIMINALS who were planning to use these MWOD thingies.

However, Gun A, if swung with enough force...		2011-09-07 01:26:00

Author:
RickRock_777
Posts: 1567

D: So they were the same gun!?

I put both both images into Google's image search thing but got confused and gave up when they came up with the same results 		2011-09-07 02:35:00

Author:
SR20DETDOG
Posts: 2431

As I said earlier, Mauser Kar98k FTW.2011-09-07 02:36:00

Author:
Unknown User

As I said earlier, Mauser Kar98k FTW.

But... but....

I like the Mosin Nagant better. ._.		2011-09-07 03:17:00

Author:
CyberSora
Posts: 5551

Wow, I had no idea. It seems to me that guns have become like barbies, they come with acessories for all situations.


That's not a firearm :/

It's a waterarm! I wouldn't want to have one of those suckers pointed at me.		2011-09-07 03:23:00

Author:
SnipySev
Posts: 2452

That's not a firearm :/

http://img501.imageshack.us/img501/96/dw05waterpistolhq6.jpg

It worked pretty well for him, even if as distraction.		2011-09-07 14:26:00

Author:
Testudini
Posts: 3262

Why do we instantly link a gun's capabilities with whether it's surrounded by wood or plastic? Is that what makes a gun an assault rifle, having black synthetic furniture?
Personally it was the huge magazine sticking out of A, the stock didn't come into it. 		2011-09-07 14:33:00

Author:
Ayneh
Posts: 2454

Personally it was the huge magazine sticking out of A, the stock didn't come into it.

Agreed. If the gun B had a huge mag in it we'd be more suspicious
I like wooden stocks though. I'm not a gun nut (the only guns I ever touched were rusty, old, unloaded and from the time of WW1) but the wood gives it a vintage feel. That's why I like the hunting rifle so much in Fallout 3, even if it's all ruined and weak.		2011-09-07 15:34:00

Author:
SnipySev
Posts: 2452

But... but....

I like the Mosin Nagant better. ._.

Either way... 		2011-09-07 16:24:00

Author:
Unknown User

Either way...

Okay, I'll admit it; the Kar98k is better. I never fired the K-98, but I used a Nagant before (hence my love for it). If I had a K-98, I would die a very happy man! 		2011-09-07 17:39:00

Author:
CyberSora
Posts: 5551

Isn't B a Rifle?


Well, they are BOTH rifles. A rifle is a gun with a "rifled" barrel, meaning the barrel has a helical groove carved inside of it that gives the bullet a spin, making it many times more accurate than a perfectly cylindrical barrel. I would say that rifle B is more deadly, because automatic weapons, though invented to carve through human bodies, are far less accurate, and more prone to jamming. Combine that with the fact that a lot of modern automatic weapons are being made of plastics, the metal rifle with a wooden stock is more sturdy.		2011-09-11 21:17:00

Author:
poorjack
Posts: 1806

I would say that rifle B is more deadly...

Didn't we (well, me ) conclude they're the same gun already?

Gun A is just Gun B with a conversion package.

- And the package doesn't affect anything other than looks.		2011-09-11 22:23:00

Author:
Incinerator22
Posts: 3251

Each weapon is better suited for different situations. I would not vote on this unless more details are specified.2011-09-11 22:52:00

Author:
xero
Posts: 2419

Didn't we (well, me ) conclude they're the same gun already?

Gun A is just Gun B with a conversion package.

- And the package doesn't affect anything other than looks.

If you read my post, being made of different materials can drastically change the performance of a gun to make it more prone to jamming, breaking, or otherwise malfunctioning.		2011-09-12 03:37:00

Author:
poorjack
Posts: 1806

the ??A?? is a AKS-74U Krinkov isnt it?
well i would say that the ??a?? its more fast more bullets and easier to use and i see myself with 1 of those in a zombie apocalypse		2011-09-12 03:51:00

Author:
Unknown User

If you read my post, being made of different materials can drastically change the performance of a gun to make it more prone to jamming, breaking, or otherwise malfunctioning.

Of course it does, but only the guts.; the wood or plastic on the outside has no bearing on the internal mechanisms of the gun. But thanks for your input! This was the main purpose of this thought experiment before it started getting derailed by K98s and whatnot.

The point is what's on the outside is always purely aesthetic. The wood and synthetic materials cover metal parts (very few guns use non-metal parts on the inside) so you can't be too quick to assume what the inside of the gun is just based on the outside.

And as far as accuracy, a well-bedded rifle will be accurate regardless of the stock material. (That means that the internal guts of the rifle should be tight against the stock and shouldn't be able to rattle around). There are many different synthetic materials and they can get at least as rigid as wood. It's not uncommon for modern rifles to have better than minute of angle accuracy with synthetic furniture - take the AR-15 / M-16 platform for instance.

It was a fair argument, just your premises aren't sound 		2011-09-12 12:59:00

Author:
Foofles
Posts: 2278

The point is what's on the outside is always purely aesthetic.

I think physics would disagree with that assertion. The mass and weight-distribution of the exterior parts can affect the amount of torque produced by recoil, which in turn can affect accuracy, particularly when firing multiple rounds in quick succession.

And a gun with infinite mass will have no recoil, although it would (theoretically) also cause the entire universe to implode. Now there's hardcore firepower for you. 		2011-09-12 15:49:00

Author:
Aya042
Posts: 2870

I think physics would disagree with that assertion. The mass and weight-distribution of the exterior parts can affect the amount of torque produced by recoil, which in turn can affect accuracy, particularly when firing multiple rounds in quick succession.

And a gun with infinite mass will have no recoil, although it would (theoretically) also cause the entire universe to implode. Now there's hardcore firepower for you.

Wow.. Now I feel a bit embarrassed.

I was going to say the pointy end is usually the most dangerous unless of course you whop someone over the head with the other end. ...then it might matter which one was heavier and more sturdy.

2011-09-12 15:54:00

Author:
jwwphotos
Posts: 11383

Wow.. Now I feel a bit embarrassed.

Just wait until Foofles tells you the truth about this gun...

http://www.hawktecharms.com/ruger/dsp.gif

...which is pictured at its actual size (about three inches in length).

It's made exclusively for pixies, and despite only costing 10 micrograms of pocket lint (the standard currency for pixies), it's very rarely purchased, since pixies are generally peace-loving creatures.

So, make sure you safely dispose of your pocket lint - if a pixie should come across it, it might destabilize their entire economy. 		2011-09-12 16:10:00

Author:
Aya042
Posts: 2870

I think physics would disagree with that assertion. The mass and weight-distribution of the exterior parts can affect the amount of torque produced by recoil, which in turn can affect accuracy, particularly when firing multiple rounds in quick succession.

You're right, the weight of a stock will affect the balance and recoil of the rifle. Synthetic stocks aren't necessarily much lighter than their wood counterparts. Even if they come too light out of the factory (eg if they're hollow inside) they can typically be filled with weight to better balance the rifle.

But I'm really talking in regards to the internal mechanisms - the action, the bullet itself, etc. will always be the same regardless of what's on the outside.		2011-09-12 16:49:00

Author:
Foofles
Posts: 2278

You're right, the weight of a stock will affect the balance and recoil of the rifle.

Well, not just the weight, and this is something I don't quite understand about the design of most rifles, including this one...

http://www.hawktecharms.com/ruger/dsp.gif

When fired, a backward force is produced along the line of the barrel, but the stock is lower than that line, so if it's resting against your shoulder, it'll cause the gun to rotate around the butt, and the barrel will tend to rise.

So, why don't they position the stock so it's along the line of the barrel? It would seem easier to maintain aim over multiple shots if the gun were less likely to rotate.

For a single shot, it's probably less of an issue, since the bullet will theoretically leave the barrel before the gun begins to rotate, although there may be some forces produced at the time the propellant is ignited.



But I'm really talking in regards to the internal mechanisms - the action, the bullet itself, etc. will always be the same regardless of what's on the outside.

Sure, and if the two guns are indeed the same on the inside, then they'll have identical power, given identical ammunition.		2011-09-12 17:24:00

Author:
Aya042
Posts: 2870

Excellent observation and question. It's because of the form involved in firing and aiming. The idea is the butt of the stock goes into the meaty part of your shoulder, and then you hug the stock tightly with your cheek. You have to hug it really tight so it doesn't roll back too much like you said. If the stock wasn't a bit lower than the rest of the gun, it'd be extremely uncomfortable or impossible to get a good view of the gun's sights so you can aim accurately. Pretend a broom is a rifle, and hold it against your shoulder - would you be able to comfortable look at a few little spokes / blades sticking out of the top to aim it? There's no way you can get a good sight picture if your eyes aren't level enough with it.

Now, you might think you can just add sighting systems that are raised much higher than the line of the barrel. But those are fine tuned to very specific ranges, as the sight offset from the barrel will cause issues.		2011-09-12 18:32:00

Author:
Foofles
Posts: 2278

Now, you might think you can just add sighting systems that are raised much higher than the line of the barrel. But those are fine tuned to very specific ranges, as the sight offset from the barrel will cause issues.

Ah. So with this M4...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a7/M4A1_ACOG.jpg

...where part of the stock is actually aligned with the barrel, are you saying that the sightline through the sight is not parallel to barrel?

If so, it would make aiming difficult at different ranges. If it were just parallel, however, and it's a known distance (say 3 inches) from the barrel, then all you'd have to do would be to aim 3 inches above the target, and you'd hit at any range (ignoring gravity and other forces imparted on the bullet after firing).

Either way, it feels as if it'd be more accurate on full auto compared to, say, this AK47...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/18/AK_47.JPG/800px-AK_47.JPG

...where the butt isn't aligned.

Still, I s'pose it doesn't matter that much. Even a short burst on full auto seems a bit pointless. If you miss with the first bullet, you're pretty unlikely to hit with any of the others, and if you hit with the first, the rest are probably unnecessary. 		2011-09-12 18:53:00

Author:
Aya042
Posts: 2870

Yeah, the M4/ M16/ etc. sights (iron sights or scope) are a couple inches higher than the barrel so at shorter ranges the bullet will strike below the point of aim. This site has a picture that shows what's going on with scopes. http://www.rawilson.net/shareware/BoreScope/ The M16 has proven to trump the AK in terms of accuracy.

All sights suffer some degree of parallax issues since the sights and the bore are not coplanar and you're trying to have them intersect at the same point downrange.		2011-09-12 19:33:00

Author:
Foofles
Posts: 2278

All sights suffer some degree of parallax issues since the sights and the bore are not coplanar and you're trying to have them intersect at the same point downrange.

Weird. Figured it would've made more sense to make them parallel, and just manually compensate, like with a laser sight, which according to WP...

...is a small, usually visible-light laser placed on a handgun or a rifle and aligned to emit a beam parallel to the barrel.		2011-09-12 20:12:00

Author:
Aya042
Posts: 2870

Weird. Figured it would've made more sense to make them parallel, and just manually compensate, like with a laser sight, which according to WP...

The reason for not making things parallel with the barrel on a rifle is that even though the barrel and sight system can go perfectly straight bullets do not. But in the case of a handgun it's kind of moot since the distances (~15 yards) don't really see trajectory come into play too much. In those cases, a completely parallel laser sight (especially one like this: http://www.tgscom.com/images/sharedimages/glockworld/guiderod%201.jpg) is a nice choice since it offers great consistency, but you can also zero laser sights on specific distances. Again at the short range with handguns it doesn't matter too much either way, either you'll constantly be off ~1 inch or you'll be off ~1 inch if you go ~5-10 yards out of your zero'd range.		2011-09-12 22:44:00

Author:
Foofles
Posts: 2278


LBPCentral Archive Statistics
Posts: 1077139    Threads: 69970    Members: 9661    Archive-Date: 2019-01-19

Datenschutz
Aus dem Archiv wurden alle persönlichen Daten wie Name, Anschrift, Email etc. - aber auch sämtliche Inhalte wie z.B. persönliche Nachrichten - entfernt.
Die Nutzung dieser Webseite erfolgt ohne Speicherung personenbezogener Daten. Es werden keinerlei Cookies, Logs, 3rd-Party-Plugins etc. verwendet.