Get your fill of sci-fi, science, and mockery of stupid ideas
http://stardestroyer.dyndns-home.com/
Jean Paul wrote: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...
Only if you're retarded.Jean Paul wrote: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...
Recoil. The more recoil you get the longer it takes to aim. This is more important when it comes to shorter range combat.Ma Deuce wrote: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...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.
Even when it tumbles, and the SS109 SAP ammuntion everyone now stupidly uses doesn't, 5.56mm is still less much effective at stopping a man then 7.62x51mm.Julhelm wrote: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.
AHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!Jean Paul wrote: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...
Only if you are the feeblest person on the planet, and never trained with the weapon, would the difference in recoil be a problem. Believe it or not the recoil from a 5.56 weapon is a problem for people that never fired before. But practice helps them get used to it. Strangely enough the same thing happens with 7.62Alyeska wrote:Recoil. The more recoil you get the longer it takes to aim. This is more important when it comes to shorter range combat.Ma Deuce wrote: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...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 adequate training ensures that any soldier can control a 7.62 rifle as easily as a 5.56 rifle in rapid fire (as opposed to auto). From someone who's used the SLR, L85A1, L86A1, L1A1, FN MAG, M-16, FN FNC, AK-74, G3, G-53, Galil, Dragunov, PKM, and a fair few other 7.62 and 5.56 weapons.Julhelm wrote: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.
Most graphic designers have no clue about how to construct a real 3D model, although I have made real true-3D models for engineering purposes instead of this "mesh" crap, and the modeling software can easily produce a rendered image. Although I agree that it's highly unlikely that the picture in the original frame was from a real 3D model instead of a graphical mesh.Howedar wrote:AHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!Jean Paul wrote: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...
Cause, you know, even if this weren't terminally stupid to begin with, do you think 3d artists precisely model the inner workings of their subject? And even then, since precisely when is constructing a firearm illegal?
Which means the US Army would do well to adopt thisRob Wilson wrote:Only if you are the feeblest person on the planet, and never trained with the weapon, would the difference in recoil be a problem. Believe it or not the recoil from a 5.56 weapon is a problem for people that never fired before. But practice helps them get used to it. Strangely enough the same thing happens with 7.62
(rather than the XM8, which is really nothing more another generic "rabbit shooter", despite the wank the US Army and H&K are putting about about it)
The lack of armed riot squads bursting into game stores stands against this. Jeez, I remember some twit talking about drawing pictures of guns being a 'Gun crime' now. I wonder if this Jean Paul ran into that retard.Darth Wong wrote:Anyway, regarding the legal issue, you should know that Jean Paul hails from the UK. Maybe their laws are different in this regard.
Who the hell considered drawings of guns to be a crime?SirNitram wrote:The lack of armed riot squads bursting into game stores stands against this. Jeez, I remember some twit talking about drawing pictures of guns being a 'Gun crime' now. I wonder if this Jean Paul ran into that retard.Darth Wong wrote:Anyway, regarding the legal issue, you should know that Jean Paul hails from the UK. Maybe their laws are different in this regard.
I simply quote the FUQ, as it happened to have it.Alyeska wrote:Who the hell considered drawings of guns to be a crime?SirNitram wrote:The lack of armed riot squads bursting into game stores stands against this. Jeez, I remember some twit talking about drawing pictures of guns being a 'Gun crime' now. I wonder if this Jean Paul ran into that retard.Darth Wong wrote:Anyway, regarding the legal issue, you should know that Jean Paul hails from the UK. Maybe their laws are different in this regard.
There's still the weight issue. A soldier armed with a 5.56 rifle can carry more ammunition than his pal who has a 7.62 rifle. Also, 5.56 rifles themselves tend to be lighter than their 7.62 battlerifle counterparts, which is a pretty important consideration if you're going to carry it around for prolonged periods.Rob Wilson wrote:And adequate training ensures that any soldier can control a 7.62 rifle as easily as a 5.56 rifle in rapid fire (as opposed to auto). From someone who's used the SLR, L85A1, L86A1, L1A1, FN MAG, M-16, FN FNC, AK-74, G3, G-53, Galil, Dragunov, PKM, and a fair few other 7.62 and 5.56 weapons.
Yeah, but the greater weight and size of 7.62 NATO is compensated for by the fact that it's much more lethal than 5.56 NATO, considering it carries about twice the muzzle energy. Still, the ideal cartridge for an infantry rifle would probably be somewhere in between, like the 6.8x43mm SPC...Julhelm wrote:There's still the weight issue. A soldier armed with a 5.56 rifle can carry more ammunition than his pal who has a 7.62 rifle. Also, 5.56 rifles themselves tend to be lighter than their 7.62 battlerifle counterparts, which is a pretty important consideration if you're going to carry it around for prolonged periods.
Yeah, but you have to go "all or nothing" when designing 5.56mm cartridges. If you make them good manstoppers, they have very poor penetration: Despite being fairly good manstoppers, the Vietnam-era "tumbling" rounds couldn't even penetrate the windshield of a car. The later SS109 cartridges had good penetration (as they were designed to), but...well you know the rest.Alyeska wrote:5.56mm weapons CAN be lethal if armed with the right cartridges.
Wow, that would've kicked ass.MKSheppard wrote:And the M-16 was supposed to be the replacement for the M-1 Carbine,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.
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.