Page 1 of 2

Your firearm choice stinks

Posted: Wed Dec 10, 2008 4:27 pm
by iratollah
And here's why (I did not write this):

M14/M1A: Clunky, heavy, and overpowered. Essentially a Garand tarted up with a removable magazine, in a half-baked attempt to adapt a 19th century rifle design philosophy to the mid-20th century. Most often named as favorite infantry rifle by people who never had to hump a 10-pound wood-stocked rifle with lots of sharp protrusions and no collapsible anything on a three day exercise, or try to make it through a firefight with the standard battle load of five 20-round magazines.

AK-47: Crude and inaccurate bullet thrower designed by and for illiterate peasants. Chambered in a caliber that manages to cut the ballistics of a proper .30-caliber battle rifle in half without passing on any weight savings to the grunt. Ergonomics only suitable for Russian midgets. Archaic cable trigger spring, crummy sights, no sight radius to speak of, no bolt hold-open device, and a clumsy safety. Favorite infantry rifle of Middle Eastern goat herders, guys named Abdullah, and backwoods militia types who like the fact that it shoots cheap ammo and has ballistics like their familiar .30-30.

H&K G-3/HK-91: Ergonomics of a railroad tie. No bolt release, and a locking system that requires three men and a mule to work the cocking handle. Fluted chamber that mauls brass, and violent bolt motion that dings the brass that didn’t get mauled too badly by the chamber. Stamped sheet metal construction, yet just as heavy as a milled steel M14. Safety lever that requires unnaturally long thumbs, and a trigger pull that feels like dragging a piano across a gravel road with your index finger. Favorite infantry rifle of Cold War nostalgics and third world commandos.

M-16/AR-15: Underpowered varmint rifle burdened by a crummy magazine design. Nasty direct-impingement gas system that poops where it eats. High sight line, flimsy alloy-and-plastic construction. Generally favored by range commandos, tactical disciples, military vets who have never fired anything else for comparison, and Brownells addicts who a.) enjoy spending three times the cost on the rifle on bolt-on accoutrements, and b.) never have to use their rifle away from a dry, sunny range.

G-36: Flimsy plastic rifle with non-user adjustable fair-weather optics that fog up when a gnat burps in front of them. Magazines that take up twice as much pouch space than others in the same caliber because of the "clever" coupling nubs on the magazine housing. Skeleton folding stock that is about as suitable for butt-stroking as a plastic mess spork. Twice as expensive as other rifles in its class because of the "HK" logo on the receiver. Preferred infantry rifle of SWAT cops, and soldiers whose militaries haven’t been in shooting conflicts since the 1940s.

Glock: Butt-ugly plastic shooting appliance with the ergonomics of a caulking gun. Five-pound trigger with no external safety makes it ill-suited for its target market (cops who shoot a hundred rounds a year for qualification). Favored by gangbangers because the product name is short and rhymes with other short, rap-friendly words.

Beretta 92F/M9: Clunky and overweight rip-off of a clunky and overweight German design from the 1930s. Shear-happy locking block, ergonomics that are only suited for linebackers, barely adequate sights that are partially non-replaceable, and low capacity for its size. Favored by Eighties action movie fanatics and John Woo freaks.

1911: Overweight and overly complex piece of late 19th century technology. Low capacity, useless sights in stock form, and a field-stripping procedure that requires three hands. Favored by people who are at the cutting edge of handgun technology and combat shooting…of the 1960s.

H&K P7: Wildly overpriced, heavy for its size, low capacity in most iterations, and blessed with a finish that rusts if you give the gun a moist glance. Gas tube has a tendency to roast the trigger finger after a box or two of ammo at the range. Favored by gun snobs who think that paying twice as much for half the rounds means four times the fighting skill.

SIG Sauer: Top-heavy bricks with the rust resistance of an untreated iron nail at the bottom of a bucket of saltwater. Ergonomically sound, if you have size XXL mitts. Some minor parts made in Germany, so the manufacturer can charge 75% Teutonic Gnome Magic premium. Favored by Jack Bauer fans and wannabe Sky Marshals/Secret Service agents.

S&W Revolvers: Archaic hand weapons from a bygone era, the missing link between flintlocks and autoloaders. Low capacity, and reloading requires a lunch break. Heavy for their capacity, unless you’re talking about airweight snubbies, which hurt as much on the giving end as they do on the receiving end. Rare stoppages, but few malfunctions that don’t require gunsmith services, which are hard to come by in a gunfight. Favored by crusty old farts who just now got around to trusting newfangled smokeless powder, and Dirty Harry fans with unrealistic ideas about the power of Magnum rounds vs. engine blocks.

SMLE/Enfield: Refinement of a 19th century blackpowder design. Weapon of choice for militaries who either couldn’t afford Mausers, or had ideological hangups about Kraut rifles. Rimlock-prone cartridge that only barely classifies as a battle rifle round because of blackpowder derivation and insufficient lock strength of the platform. Favored by Canadians with WWII nostalgia, and people who think that semi-auto rifles are a passing fad.

Browning HP: Fragile frame designed around a popgun round. Near-useless safety in stock form that’s only suitable for the thumbs of elementary schoolers. Strangest and most circuitous way to trip a sear ever put into a handgun. Favored by wannabe SAS commandos, wannabe mercenaries, and Anglophiles who think that hammer-down, chamber-empty carry is the most appropriate way to carry a defensive sidearm.

Benelli shotguns: Plastic boutique scatterguns made by people with the martial acumen of dairy cows. Hideously expensive, and therefore popular with police agencies that get their equipment financed by tax dollars.

FN FAL: Long and lightweight receiver that’s impossible to scope properly. Overpowered round, twenty-round magazines that run dry in a blink, and an overall weapon length that’s only suitable for Napoleonic line infantry, but utterly useless for airborne and armored infantry. Made by Belgians, a nation with a military history that is limited to waving German divisions through at the border. Favored by Falklands veterans, Commonwealth fanboys, and people who think that dial-a-recoil gas systems are the epitome of infantry technology.

Re: Your firearm choice stinks

Posted: Wed Dec 10, 2008 4:44 pm
by HighVelocity
1911: Overweight and overly complex piece of late 19th century technology. Low capacity, useless sights in stock form, and a field-stripping procedure that requires three hands. Favored by people who are at the cutting edge of handgun technology and combat shooting…of the 1960s.
Thems fightin' words.

Re: Your firearm choice stinks

Posted: Wed Dec 10, 2008 4:46 pm
by RPBrown
HighVelocity wrote:
1911: Overweight and overly complex piece of late 19th century technology. Low capacity, useless sights in stock form, and a field-stripping procedure that requires three hands. Favored by people who are at the cutting edge of handgun technology and combat shooting…of the 1960s.
Thems fightin' words.
Yep. :fire

Re: Your firearm choice stinks

Posted: Wed Dec 10, 2008 4:55 pm
by Jeremae
Why didn't you mention the author of this? It would not be the first time he wrote/posted something on the internet on his blog that wasn't properly credited but it is tacky to post it as if you wrote it yourself....

http://munchkinwrangler.wordpress.com/2 ... holy-cows/

followup piece on ammo :

http://munchkinwrangler.wordpress.com/2 ... d-serving/

Re: Your firearm choice stinks

Posted: Wed Dec 10, 2008 4:56 pm
by Keith B
HighVelocity wrote:
1911: Overweight and overly complex piece of late 19th century technology. Low capacity, useless sights in stock form, and a field-stripping procedure that requires three hands. Favored by people who are at the cutting edge of handgun technology and combat shooting…of the 1960s.
Thems fightin' words.
Now you gone and done it!! :nono:

:biggrinjester:

Re: Your firearm choice stinks

Posted: Wed Dec 10, 2008 4:59 pm
by Liko81
You didn't rip my gun. It's certainly very rippable in some respects, but apparently you like it otherwise you would have tore it a structurally superfluous new behind.

Re: Your firearm choice stinks

Posted: Wed Dec 10, 2008 5:09 pm
by bpet
Wow!

I guess my gun safe won't be quite as crowded after I dump all but my CZ. :shock:

Or, is there more?

Re: Your firearm choice stinks

Posted: Wed Dec 10, 2008 5:11 pm
by iratollah
Jeremae wrote:Why didn't you mention the author of this?
Sorry, I did not intend to claim authorship but didn't have a source to cite. It was wrong of me to presume that experienced forum surfers would realize it was anything other than a copy and paste. I apologize for any distress this may have caused you.

Re: Your firearm choice stinks

Posted: Wed Dec 10, 2008 6:05 pm
by nuparadigm
I thought it was funny. Then again, maybe that's because my main defensive arm is a Daisy Red Ryder.

Re: Your firearm choice stinks

Posted: Wed Dec 10, 2008 6:43 pm
by WarHawk-AVG
I don't think that author had much love from his parents when he was growing up

Re: Your firearm choice stinks

Posted: Wed Dec 10, 2008 6:58 pm
by longhorn_92
nuparadigm wrote:I thought it was funny. Then again, maybe that's because my main defensive arm is a Daisy Red Ryder.
Does it have a compass in the stock?....."Don't shoot your eye out!"

Re: Your firearm choice stinks

Posted: Wed Dec 10, 2008 7:03 pm
by Oldgringo
The Iratollah omitted 'sticks and stones' for some reason? :headscratch He also excluded my Springfield XD's, so I reckon I'm cool. :coolgleamA:

:fire

Re: Your firearm choice stinks

Posted: Wed Dec 10, 2008 7:36 pm
by killerfly128
Nothing about my USP compact .. I guess i am good

Re: Your firearm choice stinks

Posted: Wed Dec 10, 2008 7:44 pm
by Crossfire
Maybe we should all go buy High Points.

Re: Your firearm choice stinks

Posted: Wed Dec 10, 2008 7:48 pm
by agbullet2k1
No Walthers? :totap:


...Thought not....