Or for any other silly reasons like ordnance incompetence or grunts coping about their skill.
I'll start.
Weapons that have had their reputation undeservedly sullied by memes or myths
Or for any other silly reasons like ordnance incompetence or grunts coping about their skill.
I'll start.
In Hell Let Loose that thing requires 2 shots for 1 kill. Absolutely useless.
wait till you can one tap tojos
In post scriptum the iron sights are so small you can't see anything through them but if you bump the ranging out to 300m you can just fire over the top if you aim a bit low.
Absolute CQC beast in that game though.
Same in Rising Storm 1. It's a lot better in Rising Storm 2 though
It sucks in RS2 too requiring CNS or heart shots in order not to lose 1v1s immediately. Possibly realistic but idk.
The M2 is great in RS2 though because no recoil and you can just spam .30C for a kill
I remember it more for the range being better plus the 30 rounders.
It's great for the 30 round clip, just spray and you'll get a kill. It's my go to during early war campaign since the VC don't have AKs.
decent rifle just hated by non anglos
Does the A2 actually get that much hate? I thought it was pretty exclusively regulated to the actual piece of shit, A1.
Yes. The A2 fixed the reliability problems but its still a mediocre rifle even when it does work.
A2 is good enough, just its role is redundant
>designed to be a compact rifle for mounted combat
>procurement of a shit tonne of IFVs never happens
the SA80 is a relic of a pivot in British doctrine that ultimately failed to launch
it's also front heavy without any bells and whistles on it
A3 is a great rifle, but it's existence is inexcusable as the MoD wanted either the Diemaco C8 or the Steyr AUG but were overruled by the bureaucrats who wanted 1,000 years of BAE Systems domination
Too bad the A3 is the ugliest SA80
It still is an overly bulky, non-ambidexterous, uninnovative piece of shit.
Just because the Germans finally made it reliable, doesn't chance that the L85 itself is a civilian tier gun that shouldn't have been adopted by a military.
I've seen British servicemen complain about the L85. One of them pointed out that, "its the only 5.56 rifle to be heavier than the .308 rifle it replaced"
It's 'decent' if you pretend being worse than every other service rifle in NATO is decent. Like sure, it's better than a bolt action, but that doesn't make it good. Does it have any features at all that make better than any other service rifle?
No.
It's not bad but its not great. It's got a long barrel, it's accurate and sort overall length and it works just fine. You get used to the weight since it balances quite well and the manual of arms since your using it all the time.
Will I miss it when it's gone? Probably not, does it desperately need replacing? Not really.
The L22A2 needs to get more love
alright, go on then
I've known of this configuration for ages and it's still somewhat amusing to me that the only game that's officially featured it to this day is Killing Floor.
It's actually in Squad too. It was in PR but I suppose that doesn't count as official. Should have put it in Insurgency Sandstorm, frankly
It's in 7.62 High Calibre
It looks like some weird frankenstein thing, but it's barrel is only 2" shorter than an M4 Carbine but the whole package is around 10" shorter than it, actually a good little SBR.
>"decent rifle"
>t.said by homosexuals in perpetual denial who would take a bullet for a country that would throw them in jail over a silly video of your dog being racist
The A1 was such an abortion (at least the first Enfield batch) that it's inevitable the subsequent iterations get heaps of shit.
No worse than the M16, tbh.
It's fortunate that UK wasn't fighting any wars when it was introduced or it would have been worse.
The M16 was a great gun that was literally being sabotaged on purpose.
>on purpose
Magazines were the biggest problem with the initial M16. Procurement issuing shit mags is not a new phenomenon and I don't think it was on purpose.
Hell, even after they upgraded them from being COMPLETE garbage, I still wouldn't have called them "good" mags. They didn't get truly "good" until the Magpul followers.
No way. Biggest problem was that the military used a propellant Colt and Stoner both told them was unsuitable and would cause failures. It did. That was the single biggest problem.
Second problem was lack of issuing cleaning kits.
Third is lack of chrome lining.
Magazines weren't nearly as good as they are today, but they were far from the top problem. One issue is people's experience with magazines with older followers is they're all surplus and old as shit.
SA80 was a great gun that was literally being sabotaged on purpose.
It's backwards.
Anything made by CSoy I mean CZ
The only "sullied" reputation the M1/M2 Carbine has is it's performance in freezing weather. I've tested the M1 Carbine in negative 15F and it does freeze up easy.
>ask uncle about stopping power
>he just said to shoot them until they dropped
There's a lot of fudd lore about lack of stopping power in Korea. I think it was just GI's missing and blaming the gun. A tale as old as time.
The fudd lore is a combination of GI cope and the Carbine being issued more frequently than the Garand during the Korean War. So the Carbine started getting used at ranges intended for the Garand, where its essentially oversized .357 mag cartridge was gonna start struggling.
For the engagement ranges the Carbine was designed for, it was excellent. Poor performance at rifleman ranges in the Korean War stained its rep a little.
How is it an oversized .357 when it's literally .30
Oversized in length, it's got a lot more ass behind it than a .357. Its ballistics are just most comparable to .357 but with significantly more range.
The .30 Carbine as some superhot .357 Mag equivalent isn't really true.
Those were always comparing .357 from a pistol barrel to .30 carbine from a rifle.
The .357 Mag is a more powerful cartridge.
.30 Carbine is 110gr @ 2000FPS from an 18" barrel.
Almost every .357 Mag out there will push a heavier projectile the same speed or faster than that.
Total energy. The .30 Carbine is a hot .357 Magnum.
Whilst it was obviously an awful design at first that resulted in America losing the Vietnam war, it was good that they took the time and effort to resolve the issues with it and now it's just as competent as near any other rifle.
this is a really good bait post, or a really new newbie.
>that resulted in America losing the Vietnam war
You're such a moron. Yes we lost the Vietnam war but the M16A1 getting raped by the US Army Ordnance Corps wasn't the reason we lost.
moron
How did the M1 carbine lose the V-N War? The ARVN liked it.
>Whilst it was obviously an awful design at first that resulted in America losing the Vietnam war,
Jesus christ what are you trying to catch? Moby dick?
The M4 needed more time in the oven.
The carbine length gas system was a huge engineering mistake indicative of there being no real plan or preparation for the M4 going from small batch issue to full adoption by everyone. Let alone the deranged barrel profile.
Isn't she beautiful? A few problems at first, but they weren't her fault. She will always be my baby.
>still suffers the same issues decades after
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOF
the A1 fixed most of the issues with the original one
No it fricking didn't stop coping.
>reeeeeeeeeeee
Cool, now ask yourself why nobody else ever adopted or copied the design.
>No it fricking didn't stop coping.
Yes it did. And the majority of the rifle's problems weren't even from the design to begin with, but from intentional sabotage by the Ordnance department who knew they were out of a job if the rifle succeeded. They were right, the Ordnance department closed in 1968.
>Cool, now ask yourself why nobody else ever adopted
But they did. Canada, the USA, New Zealand, Denmark, the UK, Australia, Israel, and the Taliban all use the rifle extensively.
>or copied the design.
Huh? There are hundreds of companies making AR-15s. Even if we just limit to guns with major government contracts we have
>Colt
>FN
>Zbroyar
>Diemaco
>Daniel Defense
>Remington
>Bushmaster
>Smith and Wesson
>BCM
>Ruger
>SIG
>Armalite
>IWI
>Knight's Armament
>Lewis Machine and Tool
>Precision Reflex International
>Noveske
And that's not even counting the dozens of companies that just make some parts but not complete rifles.
It's the most copied rifle of all time. What you should be saying is "why isn't anybody copying other guns" and the answer is they suck. When someone wants to make a new piston rifle/AR18 they first start by redesigning the entire gun, because it's dogshit. When someone wants to make an AR-15, they just make a fricking AR-15 because it doesn't need fixed.
>Swallowing the bait THIS hard
Anon...
I'm gonna frickin deepthroat that bait and you can't stop me
>reeeee sabo-
No.
>reeeeee copied
No.
>most copied rifle of all time
>looks at AK47
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>looks at AK
>every single (very slow) evolution they copy new features from the AR
by 2050 if Russia is still around the AK will be a DI rifle
>reeeeee
>doesn't show the 9001 Ukrainian concripts killed by AK's
Lol, lamo.
>dosen't post the machine guns based on the AK
Cope.
>/k/eddit during the Veitnam
>the NorthVietnamese will lose!
>/k/eddit during Afghanistan
>the Taliban will lose!
>/k/eddit during Ukraine
>the Russians will lose!
Your track record isn't good.
Yeah bro, aren't you glad to be on the winning side?
>/k/eddit during Tet
>aReNT yOu gLaD tO bE oN tHe wInNiNG sIdE
Keep coping.
>muh tet offensive
It's crazy how thirdies think Vietnam is some major own they have against the US, when if you guys fought it, it would be the most glorious victory you ever achieved.
The Vietnamese lost more people during the Tet Offensive than America did in the entire war.
>Nooo that's a Ukrainian!
Yes, they are Russian. Here's a video of Ukraine taking the trench months later in fact. The same dead bodies are still there.
This is what winning looks like.
Frick it, ziggers need educated so I'll post the whole thing.
1:56 here we see the first drone strikes on the 'suicide hole'
https://files.catbox.moe/2fehsp.MP4
1:36 suicide hole #2, note the dead body there. He's going to be there a while.
The suicide hole webm related earning it its name. Our friend is still lying outside, his comrade inside joins him in the afterlife.
2:38 return to suicide hole. The dead are still there. The fricked up part is the guy who committed suicide in the webm, he's still there. But he's halfway out. He lived and crawled his ass halfway out the hole before succumbing.
00:32 and finally Ukrainian forces are securing the trench at least a month later. The same corpses are still there unmoved
No Russian will ever know who these men were who died crawling in mud and killed themselves. They will never care that they fought and died in a foreign land for no reason. Killing yourself after you are abandoned, knowing nobody will come to reinforce you, or help you when you are wounded. Dying surrounded by rotting corpses stacked outside of your hole. This is what winning looks like.
NTA but
>posting as an exampke a conflict where one side ultimately prevailed by being infinitely supplied by another side that didn’t risk a single soldier
Zero (0) brain activity up there m8
Like, the house is there, but there’s no lights on.
>/pol/troon during ww2
>hitler will win
>/pol/troon during cw
>soviets will win
>/pol/troon during gaza
>hamas will win
We can play like that all day, but you'll lose
>WW2
>a country smaller than Texas holding off 3/4th's of the world with 1/10th the resources for 4 years
This is not the own you think it is.
>Cold War
>thinking literal leftist commies are /misc/
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>Gaza
>a nation with no industry, no backers, and 1/5th the population utterly embarrassing its opponent
Keep going.
>This is not the own you think it is.
>man gets hit by a train
>brags it took an entire train to stop him
>man hit by train
>holds back train for 3/4ths of mile
Do you not understand scale?
>holds back train for 3/4ths of miles
more like splattered on impact
the axis had already proven incapable of defeating just the soviets, their advance was checked at moscow in 1942, and suffered major losses against them at stalingrad and kursk
the addition of the western allies ensured the germans were absolutely demolished instead merely beaten
>holding off 3/4th's of the world with 1/10th the resources for 4 years
Trust a /misc/homosexual to have no fricking idea what happened in WWII. The western allies didn't even launch an offensive in Europe until 6 June 1944. Less than a year later Hitler would already kill himself and Germany would surrender. Despite having four years to prepare, Germany barely offered even token resistance for a few on the Western Front, against properly trained and equipped first worlders, before they crumpled into a pathetic and continuous retreat.
>forgets Italy
>forgets the MASSIVE air campaign against Germany
Man /k/eddit these days.
>/misc/ now claims Italy is a legitimate part of Europe
What's next? Mediterraneans are white? At least you used to be edgy. Now you're just sad and stupid.
>Italy
>called by Churchill as the "soft underbelly of Europe"
>turns into a meat grinder
/k/eddit at it again.
>Churchill
I like him, but he made mistakes and this was one of them; Italy was a murderous slog all the way up from the boot and led to a dead end
the one good thing it did was draw every able Jagdgeschwader from the East into combat; so that the cream of the Luftwaffe died in Italy rather than at Normandy
>muh soft underbelly
the old boy had a fine turn of phrase, truly one of the icons of the English language, but he was prone to exaggeration for the purpose of galvanising the nation
every defeat was, conveyed in elegant terms, ZOMFG GAME OVER MAN THIS IS DIRE PULL TOGETHER OR DIE
every victory was HOLY SHIT LAST STAND AGAINST OVERWHELMING ODDS EPIC WIN BROOO
fine stuff, but don't take it literally
I love this German propaganda post about the Italian invasion, because it honestly wasn't even wrong.
The invasion was a meatgrinder that took forever to gain any territory. Compared to the Eastern Front where armies raged fast and over massive distances, Italy was almost WW1 level of slow advances.
By the time Germany surrendered people were still in the middle of fighting in Italy.
>it honestly wasn't even wrong
it took 2 months to get from Sword Beach to the Falaise Pocket, a distance of 45km
Berlin is 1,000km away
by that logic, the Allies would only reach Berlin in April 1948
doesn't work that way
>By the time Germany surrendered people were still in the middle of fighting in Italy
By the time Japan surrendered Malaya was still occupied, it means the Allies were thousands of miles away from the Home Islands amirite?
That is wrong though, they were around the top 1946 at the start of 1945. And I'm sure the Germans would have rather had those forces tied down in Italy to spare on another front, they had like 18 divisions tied down there. It was a massive logistical drain they couldn't maintain.
>Italy
The allies took less than three months to take Italy out of the war, secure all of the relevant airfields and ports on the Peninsula, and then leave the Italians to form a force to tie down multiple German divisions in the north of Italy. The Germans didn't hold back the Allies in Italy at all, geography did: I know you're fricking dumb, but do you really think the Allies should have tried to invade Germany over the Alps?
Less than a year from war in Western Europe starting to Germany folding. An absolutely pathetic showing.
>n-no geography!
>a few divisions of second rate troops cause the west to start destroying monuments
Pathetic.
>a few divisions of second rate troops cause the west to start destroying monuments
the italians were absolutely demolished by the allies and they were pretty much unable to stop the allies from pressing up to central italy
the only reason they stopped is because central italy is virtually all mountain easy to defend
which they were able to push through anyways
>confusing Germans with Italians
What in the frick are you babbling about Martinez Gomez?
>start a war with 3/4 of the world
>hahaha why did it take so many of you to beat me
is this the power of /misc/intellectuals
/misc/ would rather support brown muslim communists than actual Nazis nowadays.
>multicam
>Russian
Man this board is fricking moronic.
Unironically a great rifle only hampered by moronic M855 and forever shit on by neckbeard contrarians because their pet wunderwaffe memegun no. 14,638 was totally so much better.
If you want to dab on people at 800m we had a tool for that, it was called "get the designated marksman to kill it".
>Man this board is fricking moronic.
Psst, kid.
Yeah you with the Dunning-Kruger.
Want to buy some self-awareness?
A lot of it’s initial problems was the Army switching from IMR powder to ball. The ammo was shipped to V-N without prior testing. Different pressure curve and ball powder burns dirtier. Also a problem with packaging.
7/10
reciprocating top mounted charging handle for 9/10
drop .22 long for 10/10
I don't know enough to know if it's a meme so I'll ask, do G36s really have an issue with melting? I hear it almost every time the rifle's service comes up.
No, it might have happened once or twice during sustained firing in Afganistan where the background temperature was already 50 C/ 122 F and the woman in the defence ministry decided to make replacing it a flagship policy of hers because she had nothing else to do.
The barrel's mounting is polymer, resulting in it warping and affect zero.
What people neglect about this fact is that it only starts doing this after hundreds of consecutive rounds put through it within a single "session" of shooting.
To compare it to an AR, after only a hundred or so more rounds after the point a G36 will start warping, an AR's gas tube will start lighting on fire.
The grunts who said .30 Carbine couldn't penetrate winter coats during the Korean War are absolutely moronic.
That 1 tard with the bootleg grouping meme and just fools who fell for the antisemitism meme.
>Honorable mention: The FNX-45 and that moron who's trapped in 2014 thinking all of their frames just do that
Just because Israel makes good guns doesn't make I don't also want to see them burn into the sand.
I would prefer to see the entire Arabian Peninsula, in an act of the gods, with no warning, sink 500 feet under the Mediterranean Sea.
Fair, but that also means the US government wouldn't have a region that's extremely easy to incite conflict in and justify the XBOXHUEG defense budget by responding to.
I think BRIC will help out in keeping the MIC afloat.
The Tavor's accuracy is legendarily ass.
The M3 deserve better. It was a decent tank considering when, how and why it was made and used.
most of its reputation seems to be post-war, since people just heaped praise after praise on it for having a 75mm gun at a time when the british still had the 40mm 2-pdr and the germans either the 37mm or 50mm gun
it was phased out as a medium tank in favor of the M4 way before its hull-mounted gun because an issue
I just like it because it looks like it belongs in metal slug or something
This
It was the Spitfire of El Alamein, except it never got the glory of the Spit.
>it was phased out
Yes, but until it was, it held the line brilliantly.
There's no higher praise than the fact that at one point, Eighth Army's strength was measured in how many M3s were operational on that day.
Beretta M9
The only problem with it was they were worn to shit military issued ones. Also not plastic and railed up so not cool to tactical buttfrickers
i want one, one issue i could see is the open-ish action causing problems in very dirty or dusty environments.
It's an over sized pistol round jammed into a rifle sized weapon using a undersized pistol round. It'll kill someone, but that's not really the metric weapons are judged by. You can kill someone with a rock. I mean this weapon would be a rock star at killing school children. It's no where near as good as most other weapons
Tiger I. Great heavy tank that had its reputation distorted first by Wehraboos exaggarating its capabilities and then by haters denying its capabilities in response.
>homosexuals only able to think in hyperbole
A tale as old as time.
Those keyholes were practice ammo! Practice ammo!
>tfw no qt blue-top to carry off as a war trophy.
Feelsbadman.jpg
I’ll say the Mini-14. They are excellent rifle. People just frame them wrong because the inevitable comparison to the AR-15 occurs. At the time of its release in the 70s, most everyday gun owners didn’t have an AR-15. You basically had to get a Colt SP-1 and it was expensive. The Mini-14 was reliable, practical, and familiar to the majority of gun owners at the time. It was a utilitarian rifle for farmers and ranchers to have on hand for pest control, it could also double for personal defense. Back during its hey day in the 70s and 80s, “minute of pie plate” was considered perfectly acceptable for anyone but a bench shooter. What’s worse is that Ruger even fixed a lot of the criticisms, such as accuracy (tapered barrel on post-580 serial numbers) and optic mounting. Bill Ruger’s political cuckoldry notwithstanding, it was a good all around rifle that managed to survive unmolested through the AWB. Once that lifted and the market for AR-15s exploded, it quit making sense to buy a rifle that used proprietary magazines and cost 3x as much as the lowest quality AR (even if you were still getting 3x the rifle as an early 2000s poverty pony). Today it has become an oddity loved by fudds and hipster contrarians. But it doesn’t deserve the hate it gets and is really a good rifle. There are ones from the 70s, warts and all, still running. The problem is really that what we expected and consider acceptable has changed dramatically since 1973. The best thing Ruger could do to keep the model alive would be a major redesign to allow STANAG magazines. This wouldn’t be easy and financially doesn’t make sense for them, so it will continue to putter into obscurity.
>This wouldn’t be easy and financially doesn’t make sense for them
Sounds like total nonsense. Changing magazines isn't that hard and mini-14 mags aren't even that different from STANAGs. People redesign the AR-15 to take AK magazines. It's totally doable. Ruger has had 50 years to do it.
>People just frame them wrong because the inevitable comparison to the AR-15 occurs.
That's not really "framing it wrong" it's framing it the only way that is sensible.
>had to get a Colt SP-1 and it was expensive.
Now I am not an expert on vintage gun prices, but the Colt SP1 retailed for $194.50 in 1969. The Mini-14 released in 1973 for $200. Now a lot can change in 4 years but I don't think the Colt was drastically more expensive and it makes sense, steel receivers and wood stocks are more expensive especially when Colt had their lines up and running to mass produce the M16.
>the rest
Is literally cope. "ah it's not as accurate as an AR but it's good enough!" Come on man.
It's worse than an AR15 and always has been, always will be, in just about every way. But you like it anyway and that's ok.
>Ruger even fixed a lot of the criticisms, such as accuracy (tapered barrel on post-580 serial numbers)
They turned an 8 MOA gun into a 2 MOA gun and by this time we already had AR-15 cheaper than the Mini-14 (and those cheap AR-15 all had lower MOA).