ATTN: Fans of the shitty fagant
FATTY_MCFUCKFACE
Regular
Here it is in use in Afghanistan in 1983. Fucking communists. Also it looks like the stupid fucking commie broke the glass on his sniper fagant, due to the bent bolt handle.
FATTY_MCFUCKFACE
Regular
Comments
Of course it's a good rifle and at the price it's impossible to beat, however it should be called the shitty fagant anyways because it is A) communist and
True unless you get a finnish version. They killed communists:hai:
This is your gun:o
Get ready, that round is a real punisher, to both the victim and the one shooting it. haha.
Same as the Garand, Enfield, Mauser, and Akira rifle. Each slaughtered thousands of men. Each were supreme in their own right. The Garand was expensive and thus given Only to our front line troops. The Mauser was king on top of accuracy. even past the springfield. Put quality glass on the Mauser, and you had a sniper that made the springer look sad.
The long action Mauser was just a really inherently accurate rifle. I don't like the WWII sights on the K98 But I can shoot them well. Takes awhile to line the .MIL sights up, but they are much more accurate than the Garand or M14.
There is a reason all modern sniper-rifles/precision rifles are based off the mauser action. Incredibly accurate, precise, and simple. You think you have a unique 8k gun, chances are it's based off a Mauser action. Perfection at its core,.
Suck it Bitch :fap:
They cost $100 for a reason.
:facepalm::facepalm::facepalm: Are you retarded? Go back to playing call of duty. A Mosin Nagant that hasn't been counter bored and all that is far from a shitty gun. Go ahead and drag you're tacticool 5.56 through world war 2 eastern front conditions then pack it away in some wharehouse for 50 years then tell me how good it functions.
I get so tired of these kidiots who think if it's not in COD or in current military use a gun sucks. Which is how 5.56 seems to feel.
BTW 5.56 all you can get as a civilian is semi auto and WW2 showed that the bolt action gun can hold it's own against the semi auto. So please explain to me why the AR is a better rifle. And yes I've shot an AR before and I would still choose a Mosin or Mauser in a gunfight any day.
Please point out where I said anything about the AR.
In terms of WWII bolt actions, the Mauser is superior.
The Mosin Nagant is a ergonomic nightmare, the barrel is way too long and the stock is way too short. Bolt handle is too short and single stacking cartridges with such a pronounced rim into a single stack magazine with no follower is a pain in the ass.
I would say that the SMLE is the most practical out of all of them, but you can't find SMLEs too cheaply anymore.
You can get a Czech VZ24 for $150 more than a Nagant, not doing so is just a poor purchasing decision.
Also, your comments about the AR in modern usage are just :facepalm:
Picking a WWII bolt action over a modern semiautomatic carbine for any situation a civilian would ever face is just retarded and you making that statement tells me all I'll ever need to know about any input you would ever give.
Actually the same could be said about about a rifle altogether, but that's not what this conversation is about.
I guess the Mosin Nagant is cool when you are 15 and addicted to XBOX (since you are projecting your hobbies so heavily on to me), but as far as sub-$300, full power, centerfire rifles go, it is a turd.
I would rather buy a used 10/22 over a MN.
And who cares how the MN performed in WWII?
It's not WWII anymore, I'm not a solider in WWII and neither are you.
The Colt SAA was pretty effective way back when too, does that mean it is a better choice than a semiautomatic service pistol or even a S&W 686?
I have a Mauser and agree it's better than the Mosin. That still doesn't make the Mosin a shitty gun.
I never claimed the Mosin was the best bolt action out there.
How would a rifle ever be a bad choice? I don't have a concealed carry permit so it's safe to say the gun would be used at my house. I here intruder I load bolt action rifle I shoot intruder. Pretty simple really and I don't need a semi auto to do that.
I would say how a rifle performed in the bloodiest war in mans history is relevant to you saying it's a shitty gun. I suppose we should get rid of the M1911 too right because you know it's not like world war 2 and shit anymore:rolleyes:
The Mosin Nagant is not perfect and there are better choices but to say it sucks is plain retarded and tells me you probably don't know shit about guns.
What does that make you?
All about the cheap-shit bolt action?
Fucking LOL.
Please explain to me how anything about my extremely basic AR15 is "tacticool".
Don't you own a Keltec AR-15 wannabe?
Sounds to me like you are just jealous and grasping at straws to defend your terrible choice in firearms.
And, about the 1911, I wouldn't say we should get rid of it.
It's nice for gun games and competition, but 1911s in general are just not reliable.
If a pistol can't feed modern, high tech, ammunition that meets FBI specifications I don't want anything to do with it.
Sure you can get an $800 1911, take it out of the box and immediately send it out to some gunsmith along with a $400 check and have him do reliability work, then wait 6 months for it to be returned and, maybe, you'll have a pistol you can bet your life on.
But who has the time, patience, and money for that?
You could just get a GLOCK, H&K, CZ75, or even a P-Series Ruger if you are on a budget and have a handgun that will be leaps and bounds more reliable than even the most expensive 1911.
Given the choice, I would take the Winchester 1895 over any Mosin Nagant.
:facepalm::facepalm: That statement right there proves you're a moron. And yes I do own an keltec SU 16 and I believe that both my Mosin and Mauser are the much better gun.
Also what the fuck would I be jealous of?:rolleyes: As far as you having to have a pistol that meets FBI specifications give me a fucking break. That further proves that you need a tacticool gun. Most likely because you have a small penis.
What in the fuck are you talking about?
I have a pistol that meets FBI specifications?
Are you illiterate or on dope?
:facepalm:
Haha, now I see why you don't frequent the real W&C.
This was one of most retarded statements you've made. I guess the M1911 hasn't proven itself on the battlefield right?
This is how I picture you 5.56.
Explain.
Or is that a bit too "high speed" for you?
The M1911 was used in WW2 Vietnam the korean war and desert storm. That means it's proven itself on the battlefield and here you are saying it's unreliable.
Ok well.
1. You did not explain your original statement about how you believe it is stupid for me to want a pistol that reliably feeds ammunition that meets minimum specification laid out by the FBI Ballistics Laboratory.
2. Modern 1911s are not as reliable as the 1911s way back when.
1911s came out in a time when firearms were hand fitted and it was originally designed to use ball ammo.
However, the design of the 1911 does not lend itself well to modern "mass production" processes like CNC machining. The 1911 has several critical lock up points that DO have to be hand fitted and I can tell you that hand fitting is NOT being done to anything but custom 1911s.
It would be time and cost prohibitive for companies like Springfield Armory, Kimber, and even Colt to hand fit every single 1911.
Also the 1911's feed ramp and magazine follower angle means that the majority of 1911s will not reliably feed top quality defensive ammunition like Speer Gold Dots, Federal HSTs, and Winchester Rangers due to their hollow point configuration.
The majority of people do not have problems, however, because the majority of gun owners don't actually shoot their guns.
If you have a 1911 and take it out of the safe once a year to fire off 200 rounds of the cheapest ball ammo you can find, you most likely won't notice this.
When you actually start getting high rounds counts from practicing with your defensive pistol and actually running a good amount of your chosen defensive ammo through your pistol, you begin to notice how the pistol really performs.
Truth is that majority of guns owners or people who carry concealed don't test their chosen defensive load.
Mainly because they don't want to spend $1 every time they pull the trigger.
It's foolish, but it's their life not mine.
1. Muzzle velocity and foot pounds are next to meaningless when trying to determine how a handgun will perform.
2. I have a handgun in .357 Magnum, so I don't really understand what you are trying to get at.
3. Modern 9mm, .40, and .45 loadings penetrate more and expand more and generally perform much better than the old school 125gr SJHPs that made the .357 Magnum such an anecdotal "manstopper".
DirtySanchez at least has some points that could be considered valid.
However you, spazz, are way out of your league and should just stop making your terrible points as I will only continue to embarrass you.
Please point out where I said anything about bullets not being lethal.
Thank you.
Exactly. This is what i don't get about these people that pay so much for a tactical carbine or a glock. Guns are made to kill. Mosins kill therefore they do there job and can't be called a shitty gun.
If some one breaks into my house I can quickly load my Mauser or Mosin and shoot him. He dies and I didn't have to pay an assload of cash just so my gun can look cool. The only difference is my guns will last through the years unlike the synthetic stock bullshit and small parts of the AR.
My .45?
I do not own a .45, so I'm not sure what you are talking about.
Also, I repeat, I have NEVER stated that any bullet is not lethal (BB guns can be lethal, do you have a BB gun for self defense?), I have only said it is best to stick with loadings that meet or exceed FBI specs.
Why?
Because you will not always be presented with an unobstructed chest shot, a bullet may have have to pass through an arm before reaching the chest cavity. It may lose so much velocity in penetrating the arm that it will not reach the vitals of what you are shooting at, so you are still in danger (see 1986 FBI Miami Shootout).
I can tell you right now that the "famous" 125gr .357 Magnum SJHP will NOT have adequate penetration into a target's vitals if it had to pass through an arm first.
Also, older hollow point designs tend to plug up if shot into a heavy winter coat. This will cause them not to expand and will "ice pick" through the target without causing sufficient damage. It will also pose an over penetration risk in your home and may hit someone you didn't intend to shoot.
It is not about one bullet not being "lethal" it is about getting the best ammunition available and making your chances of surviving a life threatening situation (should you ever have the misfortune of encountering one) just a bit greater.
However, you have to deal with the awkward motions of bringing a 44" long bolt action rifle into play in a close environment. Nobody is at the top of their game rolling out of bed at 3AM to respond to a burglar alarm, and an ergonomic and low recoil rifle like the AR15 is much easier to use in a variety of different body states.
The full powder .30 caliber slug may also pose and over penetration risk depending on where you home is located (urban VS rural).
With the modern carbine you also have the ability to operate it one handed. Having to use a firearm one handed is a very likely scenario. Maybe opening a door or holding a door closed, or escorting one of your children to safety, or even being on the phone with 911 to get police or medial assistance.
It's not about being "cool" it's about being practical, simple, and effective.
"Grab carbine, flip off safety" is much more simple and practical than grabbing a unwieldy vintage rifle and stuffing 5 rounds into it.
You will not always have the luxury of getting another shot.
I don't hope for the best, I take all the worst case scenarios into account.
And FBI ballistics testing is not exclusive to the FBI, it is widely recognized and put into practice by every major ammunition manufacturer.
What?
When did I say anything remotely like this?
Do you just smash your fists on the keyboard and hope you can make a valid point?
Also "teflon tipped rounds"?
Not really sure what you are referring to as the KTW "metal piercing" round has been out of production for years (and probably decades).
Horseshit. 1911s have functioned fine since the 1980s, even budget shit like RIA and Taurus.
That said I prefer my 92m.
I like
That's a Geco Blitz Aktion Trauma.
The tip is plastic and they haven't made them since the early '90s.
So, shut the fuck up :thumbsup:
If they made "100's of different teflon tipped rounds" I guess it wouldn't be too hard for you to name 5 of them, would it?
And, no, the term "copkillers" was invented by the media and referenced rounds like the Winchester Black Talon because antigun organizations lied and said the Winchester Black Talon could penetrate Kevlar body armor worn by police, however it most definitely could not, as the Black Talon was no different than other JHP designs of the time.
5.56, shut up, you're an acolyte.
Sanchez, your a retard.
Should have been been you're:o
I'm an acolyte on this particular website, yes.
However, head over to Zoklet and see what I am.
I have been with TOTSE and it's various incarnations since 2004.
Cool story bro. The fact you were made a mod of W&C shows that site is stupid. You don't know shit about guns except for what you google.
Says the guy with 5 bargain basement firearms :facepalm:
Christ, I have more tied up in optics than you do your entire collection.
Way to prove my point. I'm not under the illusion that a gun needs to have high priced optics and tacticool gear or be up to FBI specs too be a good gun. The fact you said the 1911 isn't suitable for self defense made you lose all credibility. Unlike you I don't waste my money on useless accessories that serve no real purpose but to look cool.
Do you even own a 1911?
No I don't but I have shot one before and I know they've proven themselves in multiple wars so yes they are goof for defense.
Do I have to explain the difference between older 1911s and newer 1911s to you again?
Go get the highest price Kimber you can find, then go get a 1940's production 1911.
Run them side by side and I guarantee you that the Kimber will take a giant shit and the WWII 1911 will run forever.
New 1911s are shit and WWII 1911s are too expensive and collectible to carry, so that pretty much invalidates the 1911 as a carry gun for most people.
Unless you want to drop a minimum of $700 on a Colt, you probably won't get a 1911 that is reliable.
Cheap 1911s are like cheap AR15s.
They don't work.
I never said a pistol won't kill if it is cheap.
I said cheap 1911s generally aren't reliable enough to trust your life to.
There are entire websites dedicated to all kind of kinds of scientific testing of different 1911 magazines with different ammo in different brands of 1911s.
I don't have time to try 4 different pistols, 6 different mags, and dozens of different brands of ammunition to find a reliable carry gun. And I don't have the desire to tinker with a pistol or spend money on a gunsmith to make it reliable.
So I don't bother with 1911s, period.
Nobody really had any business using the 1911 after 1935 anyways as it was rendered obsolete by the best pistol ever made.
1935 should've been a hint.
And you can stab someone to death with a fork.
Doesn't mean it's as good a tool for the job as a knife.