StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Out of raw boredom (and as a distraction from daily stress) I got to work on texturing the M-14 I posted in the CG contest thread:



I still have to model the trigger, the safety switch and the rings for the straps.

Isn't that really a M-21?

If it's an M-21, it should have an adjustable cheekpiece on the stock, and if it's an M-25, the stock should be fiberglass.

From what I know, the rail mount is the same on all 3 rifles, judging from photos of the DMR M-14's used in Iraq.

ey, nice work.

Wow, you certainly know your rifles. Avid hobbiest in regards to weaponary?

Yay, M-14 pwns M-16...

Awesome job, Jul. You are proving my vote for you absolutely correct.

darthdavid wrote:Yay, M-14 pwns M-16...

And FN-FAL pwns them both.

M14 can't be fired very quickly while retaining accuracy. The M14 is a superior long range weapon but inferior at close combat compared to the M16.

http://world.guns.ru/assault/em2.jpg

And the EM-2 is better than everything else, ever.

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:http://world.guns.ru/assault/em2.jpg

And the EM-2 is better than everything else, ever.

Repeat after me DoZ. I will not steal bandwith. I will not steal bandwith.

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:http://world.guns.ru/assault/em2.jpg

And the EM-2 is better than everything else, ever.

Bullpup rifles are t3h sux0rs .

Chardok wrote:Awesome job, Jul. You are proving my vote for you absolutely correct.

Thanks. I need to redo the mapping on the stock tho, since the grain doesn't curve right, and the grain itself is too large.

Alyeska wrote:M14 can't be fired very quickly while retaining accuracy. The M14 is a superior long range weapon but inferior at close combat compared to the M16.

*ahem* At close-range you don't need great accuracy, and you never get great accuracy from rpaid fire anyway. So the M-16 being the same at close range and worse at Long range is actually the inferior weapon. Just needs a larger magazine.

Of course though the SLR (FN FAL without auto) is superior to both.

Ma Deuce wrote:

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:http://world.guns.ru/assault/em2.jpg

And the EM-2 is better than everything else, ever.

Bullpup rifles are t3h sux0rs .

When done correctly they are the better weapon compared to conventional layouts... the problem is that no ones done them correctly yet.

Redid parts of the stock and added detail to the mag, and there's also a trigger on it now \o/

Julhelm wrote:Redid parts of the stock and added detail to the mag, and there's also a trigger on it now \o/

M-14

Are you going to add a slot in the stock for the trigger to move in? It looks wrong just having it appear out of the wood like that.

Other than the petty gripe, looking good.

I'll prolly skin the slot in, likewise with the mag, since it doesn't make much sense wasting polies on an area that will never be seen ingame.

Cool gun.

Will there be a piece under the stock for additional stability?

Rob Wilson wrote:

Alyeska wrote:M14 can't be fired very quickly while retaining accuracy. The M14 is a superior long range weapon but inferior at close combat compared to the M16.

*ahem* At close-range you don't need great accuracy, and you never get great accuracy from rpaid fire anyway. So the M-16 being the same at close range and worse at Long range is actually the inferior weapon. Just needs a larger magazine.

Of course though the SLR (FN FAL without auto) is superior to both.

Accuracy is just as important in close range and the ability to rapidly fire and shift targets and aim faster is a marked advantage over the M14.

Alyeska wrote: Accuracy is just as important in close range and the ability to rapidly fire and shift targets and aim faster is a marked advantage over the M14.

And how is it less accurate at close range? With that scope added, sure (because you have to reset the range), but then that doesn't have to be there (you can add scopes to m-16's - if you want to waste the time). With iron sight there's no difference.

Also your empirical evidence for your claim that it is less accurate than an M-16 at close-range in rapid fire is? I'd love to know how your defining close-range on this, and rapid fire.

Also how can you shift targets faster with the M-16? Fired them both have you? So again lets see your evidence for your claim.

Alyeska wrote:M14 can't be fired very quickly while retaining accuracy. The M14 is a superior long range weapon but inferior at close combat compared to the M16.

And the M-16 was supposed to be the replacement for the M-1 Carbine,
while the M-14 was the Battle rifle. Unfortunately, someone saw the
US Military buying two rifles, and ordered them to buy the cheepest one.

That someone was McNamara.

7.62 NATO has better penetration and more power than 5.56, while the 5.56 is easier to control and has supposedly better tumbling characteristics, from someone who has used both the G3 and the FNC.

Alyeska wrote:Accuracy is just as important in close range and the ability to rapidly fire and shift targets and aim faster is a marked advantage over the M14.

I fail to see how the modern versions of the M16 (A2/A3/A4) can shift targets faster than the M14, seeing that they're only slightly shorter and lighter...

Um, is it legal to make a 3d computer model of a firearm?

I mean if someone were to take said mesh, and plug it into a CNC machine shop...