What's your favorite weapon?

i would hate for any soldier regardless branch to be owned due to equipment failure but, on the same hand the biggest well known instance when it did happen i couldnt find a fault with the weapon. the actual personal who were not properly trained in there weapon's handling were.... and the fate they received at the hands of Iraqi soldiers was a direct result of their incompetence...

it was the Chow Personal who got lost in the desert in iraq and were ambushed b/c they drove into a city alone without a convoy...

the actual military story was they didnt fire there wpns and the female admitted their wpns didnt jam but that they were not knowledgeable in there use which is why they were killed and she was taken prisoner...but that was not the story given to reporters i think she wrote a book where she admitted the truth..

the M4 collapsible butt stock was the weapon of choice when i was in iraq i wanted it so bad that i was sad the army got one and i didnt... i had to make due with having the armory hook me up with giving me a broom handle and a m203 and scope which i would alternate depending on my mode....but it was done mostly for looks and intimidation..

😂 did it work? id be intimidated by an m203

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
😂 did it work? id be intimidated by an m203

chances are i might miss with the angle of the fire...besides i really didnt want to fill out paper work for launching a grenade at a home and killing ppl...having to try and justify why i killed the guy and if i gave them proper warning and if they used all three escalation of violence b4 i fired...

besides ppl in that country dont give two S#@$'s....

the only ppl that were more afraid were my own damn country men in the chow hall.. eyeballing my piece as if they were 50 cent....

also being harrassed my Officers asking if i was allowed to have that on my wpn and when was the last time i shaved and if i was allowed to wear scarf and beanie since the winter season was over...

felt like going postal all on their @$$ when i would only get about 4 hours of sleep for like three days and being question and corrected by a officer guy who hasnt missed a meal since he joined the marines or ever left the wire.....and me getting my 1st hot meal in three days smelling like crap trying to get chow shower and sleep for a couple of days before going back out.

the classic AK47

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_carbine - see effectiveness

from your very Wikipedia article: 90% of soldiers reported confidence in the weapon.

http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/U.S.-Army-Agrees-That-The-M-4-Sucks-12-4-2009.asp

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPbF0kKyc2c

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FXK-VRkqqM

if youre dumb enough to fight in a war you deserve that fate, best weapon is to not fight at all.

"ifs", "buts", dont matter when it actually happens. and to say "you deserve your fate" is a ridiculous statement; i dont need to explain why thats such a stupid thing to say.

only because currenly their last few attempts to find different models altogether failed. research it if you dont believe me.

i want a gun that i know i can use efficiently in as many situations as possible. if there is a 100% chance that no matter what the skies will be clear and there is no strong winds and i will definitely be shooting at targets that will always be 400 yards away, then sure give me an M4.

If I ever want to misuse my weapon, abuse it, not clean it, rub it into a puddle of mud, fight amateur targets who are going to be less than 200 yards from me, and not follow proper loading procedure, sure. Give me an AK-47.

If I ever want to take my gun and not chuck a beautiful piece of machinery into the ground, and not submerge the weapon i'm going to be clinging to for the next four hours in mud, do clean my weapon daily and do learn proper firing procedure, then yes, give me an m4.

If I want to take that weapon and effectively engage my enemy at maximum distance, give me an M4.

because obviously in a combat situation things always go in a positive manner right? if you dont end up knee deep in muddy water, if you dont end up on your belly in a sand storm, if youre beyond the range of your opponents weapons, etc. thats not how life works. the m16 is a great gun! ... as long as you you dont use it in a rain forest.

If you don't want to worry about complicated things like maintenance and cleaning, choose AK47 over M4.

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:

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel

if you want to be skilled, learn from history. the ak-47 was designed in 1946, and its been setting standards for what a good assault rifle should be for 60 years, kicking ass in the end of WW2

Originally posted by One Free Man
I just noticed this, you moron. Ww2 ended in 1945. Ak47 was put into service in 1949. The red army didn't equip enough ak47's till 1956 due to receiver production problems; the korean war was over by then, because the korean war ended in 1953. So The ak47 was not used in 2 out of the 4 conflicts you describe.

Look into the Temporal Cold War, you idiot.

Why do you think the Spartans held off a super-massive army for days on end at the battle of Thermopylae?

Spoiler:
They were armed with AK47's

Originally posted by One Free Man
I just noticed this, you moron. Ww2 ended in 1945. Ak47 was put into service in 1949. The red army didn't equip enough ak47's till 1956 due to receiver production problems; the korean war was over by then, because the korean war ended in 1953. So The ak47 was not used in 2 out of the 4 conflicts you describe.

i said it was put into active service in 1946 🙄

I have a preference for blades so in that sense I like the rapier and the basket-hilted broadsword best.

If we are talking guns the M1911 pistol and the H&K G36 assault rifle(any variation) stand out just from a design point of view. The only things I've fired are airsoft guns... I tend to think if I fired a real gun I'd snap my wrist or something!

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
i said it was put into active service in 1946 🙄

Originally posted by Robtard
Look into the Temporal Cold War, you idiot.

Why do you think the Spartans held off a super-massive army for days on end at the battle of Thermopylae?

Spoiler:
They were armed with AK47's

. Little known fact.

I also knew that in Agincourt the reason the english won was because the mud clogged the french's AR-15's.

But I never knew that the spartans were so great because of their ak-47's.

Originally posted by Lord Shadow Z
I have a preference for blades so in that sense I like the rapier and the basket-hilted broadsword best.

If we are talking guns the M1911 pistol and the H&K G36 assault rifle(any variation) stand out just from a design point of view. The only things I've fired are airsoft guns... I tend to think if I fired a real gun I'd snap my wrist or something!

It was official in 1949. It was used in service in 1947. It's predecessor, the AK46, was used...get this...in tests in 1946.

The aind.

http://vodkakalashnikov.com/history.htm

So, you're both wrong, and she was off only by a year. She wins.

either way she loses with her opinion.. she didnt factor in all probabilities but that what happens with a book worm who uses text book information rather then real hands on knowledge.

besides i doubt you will find many Service men that would trade their M16A2 or M4 for a AK47...by the way the AK47 is considered the spray and pray type weapon due to its design the rifle kick up irrc so when you shoot and aim at center mass you "might" hit the face or completely miss overshoot ur target... hopefully the rounds will pass the person's shoulder.

also for you guys, something to read and offer ur opinion.

http://www.glamour.com/magazine/2007/06/jessica-lynch

army idiots doing a Ak47 experiment.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x9d83u_accident-en-afghanistan-une-ak47-sa_webcam

not sure if it was the rifles fault or the iraqi meant to hit him..

Really depends on the battle, the battle field and your opponents. AK47 still competes in certain situations, over newer and higher-tech arms.

If I'm an African warlord and I need to supply my army for a genocide on peasants, AK47 would be the far better choice over an M4 or M16, for my army

So you're all idiots, with your dick-wavings.

For ****s sake, guys, why is this thread so long:

Originally posted by Robtard
Really depends on the battle, the battle field and your opponents. AK47 still competes in certain situations, over newer and higher-tech arms.

If I'm an African warlord and I need to supply my army for a genocide on peasants, AK47 would be the far better choice over an M4 or M16, for my army

So you're all idiots, with your dick-wavings.

Originally posted by dadudemon
It was official in 1949. It was used in service in 1947. It's predecessor, the AK46, was used...get this...in tests in 1946.

So, you're both wrong, and she was off only by a year. She wins.

Originally posted by One Free Man
I just noticed this, you moron. Ww2 ended in 1945. Ak47 was put into service in 1949. The red army didn't equip enough ak47's till 1956 due to receiver production problems; the korean war was over by then, because the korean war ended in 1953. So The ak47 was not used in 2 out of the 4 conflicts you describe.

Dumbass It was finished in 1947, Put into service in 1949 and Wasn't used by the red army widely until 1956
http://www.blurtit.com/q404039.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-47
http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-2132.html

I win.

Originally posted by One Free Man
Dumbass It was finished in 1947, Put into service in 1949 and Wasn't used by the red army widely until 1956
http://www.blurtit.com/q404039.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-47
http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-2132.html

I win.

Two of those sources are completely useless and the third requires verification with external links.

"Dumbass."

Originally posted by One Free Man
Dumbass It was finished in 1947, Put into service in 1949 and Wasn't used by the red army widely until 1956
http://www.blurtit.com/q404039.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-47
http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-2132.html

I win.

From your wikipedia:

"Design work on the AK began in 1944. In 1946 a version of the rifle, the AK-46, was presented for official military trials, and a year later the fixed stock version was introduced into service with select units of the Red Army. An early development of the design was the AKS-47 (S—Skladnoy or "folding"😉, which differed in being equipped with an underfolding metal shoulder stock. The AK-47 was officially accepted by the Soviet Armed Forces in 1949 and used by the majority of the member states of the former Warsaw Pact."

So, what did we find out from your link?

The 1946 version, the AK46, was tested. Did I say that? Check.

A year later (that'd be 1947, in case you can't do math), the fixed stock version was introduced "into service". That's service. Dude, service. Meaning, it began to be used. 😐 Did I say that? Check.

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

In other words, I'm right. Ms. Marvel was more correct that you were. And you're rather annoying and insulting.

The only thing you could have said to my post was, "You're right. My bad." You shouldn't have said anything else other than that.

Originally posted by Robtard
If I'm an African warlord and I need to supply my army for a genocide on peasants, AK47 would be the far better choice over an M4 or M16, for my army

Al Jazeera did an awesome 2 part doc on the AK and why it is arguably a greater "WMD" than nuclear weapons, pretty much because of what you are describing