hmm shootin deadly electrical knives ...now that is a weapon with style

-Exiled Possum

that would be cool

also would be known as a fletch gun I believe

:karma:

-Exiled Possum

I own a lot of guns and have known people to do stupid things and people to take great care. Hell, I even know one guy who shot his friend and another who shot himself. Definitely not the safest toys in the world. But that's why I'm not adverse to the government requiring safety courses before the purchase of your first gun. Granted, that's not a total solution either. And the greatest chain killing (like the Columbine kids did) was done by a guy in a mall with a knife. Lotsa people screaming and running, while the guy looked like anyone else in the crowd with a quiet weapon that doesn't need reloading.

If I grew up in a country that didn't have a 2nd Amendment, I probably wouldn't care, but since we do have a 2nd Amendment and it's driven into us since elementary that a people have to be ready to face tyranny head on, I'm totally comfortable with guns.

Gimme a Glock-18 and a chainsaw, and I'm happy.

Gimme a combat knife any day.

-Twilight Storm

meh, prefer an M-100 with its hundred round clip

http://world.guns.ru/smg/smg57-e.htm

link for those that don't believe it exists

my dad had/has (may be hidden or lost) and though it lame in many things (poor aim, high maintence, rather heavy, only .22 rounds) the hundred round clip is kind of cool

Don't care for the design, but you can't doubt it's practicality.  (Even a .22LR is lethal to something at minimum the size of a deer.  My dad used to hunt...er...protect his garden...with 1.)

-Twilight Storm

I still insist on the Garand. Fewer rounds than a magazine feed, but it can go through multiple targets and gives you a little prize sound at the end.

The Garand was an excellent weapon yes

it was the Panther of the rifles that was used in WWII

"the greatest single battle implement ever devised by man." ~General George S. Patton, Jr.

give me a 100 kg anti matter bomb

-Akin to Schrödinger's cat, unless I look in this thread again, mine is the last post as no other can be proven to exist.™

that only allows you to kill 100 kg of something, not counting free radicals afterward. Come on, go big or go home!

excellent aiming abilities (which played well into the hands of the American Soldier at that time), great stopping power, semi-automatic (the other nations standard rifles were still bolt action, though they did have semi-automatic rifles), easy to maintain and use

All those are reasons I love it. Bolt actions provided a third of the firing rate, but matched it in every other way. Sadly, the military switched to M16s and emphasized quantity over quality (I know a vet that insists that was one of the G.I.'s problems), no longer making 'firepower' true to its definition of being when a bullet hits an enemy.

And although they had semi-autos, many designed them as a response to the M1 and others just never fielded enough to catch up.

1 kg anti matter bomb is = to 50 mega tons of tnt so 100 kg anti matter bomb.. would be 5000 mega tons...

-Akin to Schrödinger's cat, unless I look in this thread again, mine is the last post as no other can be proven to exist.™

The total impact of all the nuclear weapons currently in existance is roughly 5000 megatons, and it would take 53 quadrillion megatons to actually destroy the Earth. So if you want to impress, grab some sack and invest in real firepower.

still it would wipe out all life on earth.

-Akin to Schrödinger's cat, unless I look in this thread again, mine is the last post as no other can be proven to exist.™

depends on how it is used, impacting all of that on a single area and do it in a clean manner (in other words little to no radiation released) would not

spreading it out over large scale population areas would get most and if made dirty (lots of radiation) would produce massive amounts of fallout to get the rest of the ones that are scattered about

bwahahaha how cute

-Exiled Possum

ill just stick with the planet buster from Starship Troopers 3 thanks very much

talking about WW2 weapons, im actually particularly partial to the German STG44, i mean, for back in that day, it was a truly fearsome weapon

Modern weapons? F22 Raptor? oh, small arms, right... well, the G36 is quite nice, as is the G11 (though a bit old now)

though id have to go with a popular favourite in the M-4 Carbine or the AUS Steyr Rifle, i reckon accuracy with the single shot and optional automatic fire is preferrable to going it Rambo style with a machine gun...

they made a Starship Troopers 3? the first two were bad enough (though I could stand to watch the first a couple of times, the book (written back in the early fifties and did an excellent job fleshing out the power armour suit concept) was tons better by a long shot)

yeah the German STG44 was cool, it was the bases for the AK-47 by the Russians

as for the M-16 being junk, the early versions were yes, but the designers went back and corrected a lot of features and now the M-16 is considered to be top quality now (though yes there are better)

I give you this, the Germans made amazing hardware. No question about it.

I've never really cared for the M4 casue I like a more ranged option, and find the M14 (civilian M1A1 variant) to be interesting. Never got play with one, but a vietnam vet friend of mine said it's a must to have one. Anyone got ay experience with Garand's last project?

Raptor is a pretty plane, although I've loved the F-16 Fighting Falcom since I was small. Never messed with the Gs, but I just looked up the G11. Funny ass looking weapon. Of the really short rifles, I like the FN P90, but would have to get a class 3 to avoid that annoying extended barrel.

I still see the fielding of the M16 as the beginning of the military's goof on not pressing for marksmanship. Of course, it's far from the weapon's fault.

So what if the G11 is funny looking. It still holds 135-150 rounds of caseless ammo and can fire an amazing ~2000 rpm in burst mode, or up to 600 rpm sustained semi/automatic fire.

EDIT: @Draak- why? The M-16 is a fairly accurate weapon system, capable of point target elimination at up to 600 meters.

I'm not knocking the G11 for looking funny, just saying that it does. Perfomance outweighs looks. As for the M16, it has been improved much, but when originally adopted by the military, it was not as accurate, especially at long ranges. In fact, there was a lot of 'back scratching' that went into its adoption. More to the point is that the military began to adopt a tactic of laying down heavier and heavier fire over attempting for any accuracy, this is true for all forms of assault, from infantry to air force. I also acknowledged that it is not the weapon's fault, but the military minds of its time.

Keep in mind that even though I don't care for weapons such as the M4, I know that if properly treated and in the right hands, it can be a formidable weapon. But my dad likes the SAW where my style of combat finds it cumbersome. It's a matter of preference.