What's your favorite weapon?

Originally posted by dadudemon
[B]I am a Dumbass

"Kalashnikov's rifles (codenamed AK-1 and -2) proved to be reliable and the gun was accepted to second round of competition along with designs by A.A Demetev and F. Bulkin. In late 1946, as the guns were being tested, one of Kalashnikov's assistants, Aleksandr Zaytsev, suggested a major redesign of AK-1, particularly to improve reliability. At first, Kalashnikov was reluctant, given that their rifle had already fared better than its competitors; however eventually Zaytsev managed to persuade Kalashnikov. The new rifle was produced for a second round of firing tests and field trials. There, Kalashnikov assault rifle model 1947 proved to be simple and reliable, under a wide range of conditions with convenient handling characteristics. In 1949 it was therefore adopted by the Soviet Army as '7.62mm Kalashnikov assault rifle (AK)'.[11]"

In service, meaning used by soviet troops widely as the assault rifle.

Like, as in, officially. Not as in, it works. As in it's official.

In 1949, the AK-47 was officially accepted in the Red Army. Did I say that? Check.

They wouldn't have used it in world war two because ww2 ended in 1945 and they wouldn't have used it in Korea because, like I said, it wasn't widely distributed among the chinese and korean red army until 1956 due to production problems. Jesus Christ.

This still leaves ms.marvel world-history-illiterate, you wrong about what "in service" means, and me right about everything I've said.

oh man youre so0o0o0o0o0o good at this! 😱

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
oh man youre so0o0o0o0o0o good at this! 😱

just apologize to us sweety and we can all be friends and hug one another.. blushing

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
i figured it had to do more with the abundance available in the Black market arms dealing..low maintenance and easier to acquire rounds more then anything else.. 😉 🙄

Eye roll? Nothing you said conflicts with my post. The AK47 can compete with a higher-tech weapon like the M4 or M16. Just depends on the what, where and who.

Originally posted by One Free Man
The same can be said of any advance in technology.
If you don't want to have to worry about complicated things like oil changing and temperature watching, choose this:

over this:

not that I'm arguing, I think we are on the same page, but you would agree that there are times when a bike is going to be CLEARLY a better choice than a car?

Originally posted by One Free Man
"Kalashnikov's rifles (codenamed AK-1 and -2) proved to be reliable and the gun was accepted to second round of competition along with designs by A.A Demetev and F. Bulkin. In late 1946, as the guns were being tested, one of Kalashnikov's assistants, Aleksandr Zaytsev, suggested a major redesign of AK-1, particularly to improve reliability. At first, Kalashnikov was reluctant, given that their rifle had already fared better than its competitors; however eventually Zaytsev managed to persuade Kalashnikov. The new rifle was produced for a second round of firing tests and field trials. There, Kalashnikov assault rifle model 1947 proved to be simple and reliable, under a wide range of conditions with convenient handling characteristics. In 1949 it was therefore adopted by the Soviet Army as '7.62mm Kalashnikov assault rifle (AK)'.[11]"

In service, meaning used by soviet troops widely as the assault rifle.

Like, as in, officially. Not as in, it works. As in it's official.

Good for you, luckily this is what "in service" means. IN service meaning being used by the military, not tested by the military.

They wouldn't have used it in world war two because ww2 ended in 1945 and they wouldn't have used it in Korea because, like I said, it wasn't widely distributed among the chinese and korean red army until 1956 due to production problems. Jesus Christ.

This still leaves ms.marvel world-history-illiterate, you wrong about what "in service" means, and me right about everything I've said.

I ignored everything you posted, because you clearly don't get it.

You were wrong. Not only that, you proved yourself wrong, Ms. Marvel was closer to being right and she was off ONLY BY ONE DAMN YEAR! You were waaaaaaaaaay the **** off, you were clearly wrong, and now you're acting like an 8-year-old child.

Congratulations on working towards a ban.

Originally posted by inimalist
not that I'm arguing, I think we are on the same page, but you would agree that there are times when a bike is going to be CLEARLY a better choice than a car?

Which is exactly why I chose the analogy. The ak47 will tear some shit up in closer combat.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I ignored everything you posted,

You were wrong.

How in god's name is she only one year off, and I'm wrong?

You sir, are no math major.

Sure, the rifle was finished and working in 1947 like you say, but the defenition of "in service" when talking about a weapon would be "in use by the government for the purpose of combat," not "in service" like a bathroom is "in service," that is to say: "working."

THIS DEFINITION IS KEY TO MY POINT[/i] [B]BECAUSE IF A WEAPON IS NOT BEING USED BY ITS GOVERNMENT IN COMBAT THEN THAT WEAPON COULD NOT POSSIBLY "KICK ASS" IN A WAR THAT THAT GOVERNMENT IS IN. ESPECIALLY A WAR THAT HAPPENED BEFORE THE WEAPON WAS EVEN INVENTED

Now for all of that in speech you might understand. In big bright letters so you can understand it. And pink so that it's gay enough so you pay attention.
*gets high on meth*

TEH RUSSIA MEN NO USE WEAPON TILL 4 YEARZ AFTER BIG WAR WITH COOL AIRPLANES WAS OVER. IT WAS INVENTED AND FINISHED MADE 2 YEARS AFTER DAT ONE WAR WIF HITLER IN IT ENDED. SINCE WE DUN HAZ TIME MACHINEZ DIS MAKES IT IMPOSSIBLE NOT GOOD DAT DEY USE IN WAR WIF CRIPPLED PRESIDNT.

Originally posted by One Free Man
Key points. Your entire argument. Weapon was put in service in 1949, exactly what I said. Off by how much? 0 years. Ms.Marvel was off by 3 years. 6+3=9. That's the way it works. Now since we are dealing with 4 digits, it seems harder but
1946
+0003 years
=1949

How in god's name is she only one year off, and I'm wrong?

You sir, are no math major.

I didn't make any points other than Ms. Marvel being more correct that you. I simply posted correct facts.

You clearly are trolling, now. Your own "beloved" wikipedia said it saw service in 47. I didn't say anything wrong, at all. Aboslutely nothing I said was wrong.

You did, however, say things wrong. In fact, you are so inexorbly wrong that continued posting on this topic is the very definition of trolling. I've already reported you. Stop atagonizing Ms. Marvel and myself. You were wrong. It happens. There's no reason to get hostile on a message board.

Edit - lol, just for fun, I actually read your post.

"a year later the fixed stock version was introduced into service with select units of the Red Army."

1946 + 1 = 1947. That's one year later. That's from your own cited "source." Now do you see why Ms. Marvel was more correct than you?

Originally posted by dadudemon

1946 + 1 = 1947. That's one year later. That's from your own cited "source." Now do you see why Ms. Marvel was more correct than you?

NOT AS A WEAPON WIDELY USED FOR COMBAT. THIS IS STILL 2 YEARS AFTER WORLD WAR TWO.

How can I be antagonising YOU when you are WRONG?

You're both arguing over nonsense, idiots.

Also, you're going to bring Ush in here, acting all ghey. Do you really want that?

Originally posted by Robtard
You're both arguing over nonsense, idiots.

Also, you're going to bring Ush in here, acting all ghey. Do you really want that?

1. That's what the internet is for. and porn.

2. No. I didn't report anyone. I'm trying to show that I'm right and that there is no way in hell that the AK47 Could have seen ANY sort of combat in World War 2, and could have seen VERY LITTLE combat in Korea.

@ dadudemon: Here's the thing. I understand where you are coming from. Yes, they were field tested in 1947 and used "in service" to see if they were worthy of replacing the SKS.

Yes, if you are taking this as ABSOLUTE FACT and using the term "IN SERVICE" for that, then yes, they were in service in 1947. It is still IMPOSSIBLE for them to have SEEN ANY combat AT ALL in world war two.

You must also realize that it was ACCEPTED AND OFFICIALLY MADE THE MAIN WEAPON OF THE RUSSIAN ARMY WIDELY IN 1949. This is the official beginning of "In Service". This makes me equally right. Either way, Ms.Marvel was wrong in

1. The AK47 wasn't even finished until 1947. She said it was in service in 1946.

2. World War 2, especially in Russia, didn't extend past 1945, as that is when the Japanese surrendered and the Germans had surrendered before that.

i dont like one free man but i agree with him..

I can't be right or wrong. He's arguing about facts, from a website, he posted on, to support his argument. It is VERY cut and dry. I won't post on this anymore, OFD. You were wrong. Deal with it.

And, yes, I'd like Ush to come in here and lay the smack down on the troll. Ush is awesome at laying down the STFU.

Originally posted by One Free Man
I just noticed this, you moron. Ww2 ended in 1945. Ak47 was put into service in 1949. e.

You're wrong. It was 1947. It was made official in 1949. You can pretend that "field tested" somehow makes you right, but it doesn't. They were used, in an official capacity, in 1947. Sure, it was a form of testing, but that doesn't change the fact of the year in which they were ofifficially used by he Red Army.

Ms. Marvel said 1946. She was off by a year.

The end.

You said you 'wouldn't post more'; then proceeded to quote and reply. Douchey move.

You both are saying different things (DDM that it was used by the Red Army in '47 and OFM that it was first officially made the main weapon of Russia in '49), both true statements, yet you are both consistently asserting the other is WRONG.

And why the **** is DDM white knighting Ms. Marvel? 😬

Both of you stfu.

'cause im awesome 😄

dont be jealous hoe >\

Love you too, my Blaxican Princess. 131

the hell is this!

Originally posted by One Free Man
You are WRONG. THAT's SELECT UNITS for FIELD TESTING.

So then the weapons were in the field and being used. Correct?