Gun Porn!

As Tuffel mentioned, plenty useful. Plus there's not a wall in this world that'll withstand a TOW smacking against it. It's great for mouseholing from a distance.

Also with TOW and it's a bit not recommended but you can have fun with it jiggling it around in flight up, down, left, right, zig and zag and what not. The only caveat is you better ultimately hit what you're supposed to be shooting while you're screwing around.

The TOW Missile also has a "bunker buster" variant missile. It can hammer 8" of reinforced concrete.

^ Doesn't that version also have a thermobaric warhead?

It uses a 6 pound unitary explosive warhead. I believe it’s a special type of bonded RDX in the warhead.

Edited by archonspeaks on Nov 5th 2019 at 1:32:45 AM

It is a thermobaric or enhanced blast warhead. The missile has a penetrator in the nose and is packed with PBXN-109 which is RDX bound with a good ratio of aluminum and the rest is binder agent. Most explosives with a good portion of aluminum tend to be enhanced blast explosives as the aluminum acts as an accelerant.

Edited by TuefelHundenIV on Nov 6th 2019 at 9:37:59 AM

Wolf Ammunition is selling Taiwanese AR-15 uppers.

They are based on the T91 - short-stroke piston gas system.

Random thought.

I love guns a whole lot and I especially love big guns. So there's this one kind of scene I want to write, where a big, burly guy uses M1918 BAR like a standard, AR-15 type assault rifle.

That's kinda how it was originally designed. A "walking fire" type weapon in World War One. Despite limited service in the Meuse-Argonne Offensive, it proved rather good at doing that, sweeping clear trenches and bunkers and being an okay light machine gun.

In the interwar era it got a few improvements and a new model of bipod but otherwise was the same when World War Two showed up.

And you didn't need a burly guy to fire it. Little ol' Bonnie of Bonnie and Clyde fame used a BAR.

Edited by MajorTom on Nov 22nd 2019 at 12:58:19 PM

Automatic fire may not be accurate, but I think people don’t realize it’s fairly controllable all things considered. Most submachine guns and A Rs can be kept dead level in automatic pretty easily.

I mean arent LMG like the BAR, Bren, and Type 99 more a precursor to assault rifles then modern LMG when you look at doctrine, use, and capabilities?

Seems like the main thing missing is some weight reduction and a lighter round, they seem to have more in common then the standard service rifles did at any rate.

Edited by Imca on Nov 22nd 2019 at 1:56:31 AM

^ Not necessarily, though many LMG's were modified or equipped in ways (often ad-hoc) that they were used like or behaved like AR's and SMG's. For example, Lewis guns in World War One were sometimes modified with foregrips for use as trench assault sweeping clear enemy trenches, bunkers and other tight spaces in a torrent of sustained fire. Not the best method of employing such a weapon, but it was done.

"So, three Nazis walked into a BAR..."

You don't want the BAR for that, though. You'd want the Swedish improvement.

I think you could probably describe modified LMGs as a conceptual precursor to assault rifles, though maybe not a direct precursor so much.

Edited by archonspeaks on Nov 22nd 2019 at 2:52:48 AM

^ Two of the candidates for "first assault rifle" were originally designed to be LMG's. The 1918 Ribeyrolles machine carbine and of course the Federov Avtomat. They meet all the objective criteria for assault rifle (select-fire, rifle caliber, detachable box mags) decades before either the MKb-42H or STG-44.

In the case of the Avtomat, it was designed to be an LMG when it converted over from Federov's original self-loading rifle concept. Then became the assault rifle we know after that when it was converted to 6.5mm Arisaka.

Edited by MajorTom on Nov 22nd 2019 at 3:36:31 AM

Thats theroetical though, because IIRC in testing, the Ribeyrolles functioned more as a really complicated bolt action. >.>;

Conceptual precursors is what I mean yes, they seem to have more in common at least then SMG which are often seen as the precursor.

I would point out Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow tended to use their BAR's from a rather close range which is fine for full-auto fire. Full auto is good for short-range fighting and as long as your not being an idiot with the weapon reasonably accurate at those ranges.

There was a surprising number of variants of the BAR including the Colt R80 Monitor.

IIRC, Bonnie's SAW was also cut-down, which was a pretty common mod in civilian use.

Well, I thought it was hard to use BAR like an assault rifle because it seem a bit too big and powerful to properly shoulder-fire.

You want a BFG to shoulder fire and need a beefy guy to do it? Try some anti-tank rifles. A good 1918 T-Gewehr or PTRS-41 should do the trick.

The Swedish BARs were in 6.5mm for that reason.

Citation Needed please. I've heard or read nothing of the sorts. That the reason it was never adopted (though approved for front line use near the end of WW 1) was because the weapon was somewhat short ranged only having an effective range of 400 meters or so.

I believe they’re referring to the number of malfunctions it suffered.

I am yes, it malfunctioned more often then it fired correctly.

Are we sure we're not talking about the CSRG aka Chauchat? Which pretty much DID malfunction more often than it worked correctly.

Yes, also the Chauchat got its reputation from the Amercian version where it was rechambered, I have heard the original version tended to work better....

Though neither were really ment for the trenches what with an open mag and all.