Fallout Studios Forums

What's the point of having those old WW2-rifles in the list? They should have a top 10 of TODAY's best rifles instead of comparing modern-day-weapons with guns that were mainly used 60 years ago! This is just as retarded as comparing Shermans with friggin' Abrams...

I think they were based on importance, rather than modern... -ness?

nah WW2 stuff pwns....my country used MG42's,BAR's Tommy guns and PPsH's and even the Kar98....though on all of the battlefields it was either a AK or a Thompson found on the ground....which means during the war both sides used the same stuff and that there are many countries still using AKs even if they can afford new stuff

well I do agree with the list (AK-47 is GREAT)
aren't there 2 new rifles called XM8 and OICW (objective individual combat weapon)?

Those two weapons got cancelled. (cost issues)
Edited by BillyChaka, 18 November 2006 - 14:05.

AllStarZ, on 18 Nov 2006, 01:58, said:

Yea, precisely why it's such a good weapon for third world countries and terrorist organizations. They don't have firefights with us on deserts, they have it in urban combat, where the accuracy of the AK is GOOD ENOUGH, and there is enough stopping power, and they basically never have to clean it. Anyways, MDW, i understand your concern, but it' sthe top 10 rifles of their time, or else the G36 and stuff would be on there. And then also the P-51 wouldn't be on the top of the Top ten fighters, and the T-34 wouldn't be on top ten tanks etc. Anyways, do note that these top ten lists are affected by audience polls, I voted on the fighting vehicle one (humvees, APCs, troop carriers etc.), so I don't think that many people know the G3 nearly as well as they would know the Kar-98, Springfield, M-16, Ak-47 etc. Especially coming from a show based in America. Anyways, OICW was obviously canceled, WAYY too heavy, and way oto expensive. The XM8 has been 'frozen' in other words, no progress, but not totally dropped yet, although it may be the lightest combat rifle to ever make service since basically it's the receiver, bolt and the tube covered with plastic all over, while other guns still use metal stampings around them. Anyways, I'd thik the Xm8 would be rather 'brittle' as it's basically an all plastic gun. However, the SCAR looks pretty promising for thespecial forces.

If it's about their importance by time, I understand but I'd rather have 2 lists, one with today's and one with WW2's weapons since the demands for a good weapon changed over the times, so you can't really compare old and new...

Also you have to include WWI weapons lik ethe springfield. But i do agree, back in the day they cared more about accuracy and power, now we care about reliability, comfort, wweight, control under full auto etc.

The Springfield is basically a Mauser so it hardly counts. Furthermore, I think they mean modern combat weapons.

Yeah, they said so in the show, they put really low for innovation on the springfields score.

So much for being innovative. In terms of gun making, sometimes Americans get it, and sometimes they don't. Even then, they did produce two notable gun makers. Hiram Maxim and John Browning, but both left the country when the military could not realize the potential in their designs.

Don't forget Colt. They made some mad awesome guns back then.

I was listing two examples of fine gun makers. Anyways, Samuel Colt isn't the most original man, and in the early 20th century when Colt reached its prime, it was mainly through the designs of John Browning that they did so.

Colt= mostly famous fromt eh peacemaker and the 1911. Both of which are not asault rifles, they do produce the M-16/M-4 series, but that was designed by Stoner back in his Armalite days.

Point is after the Civil War, Americans weren't that innovative when it came to designing weapons, and weren't that innovative in their adoption. They were still using Springfields by the time of the war with Spain. I'm talking about the black powder Springfield used in the Civil War, not the bolt-action Mauser Springfield.
Edited by AllStarZ, 19 November 2006 - 01:59.

Alias, on 17 Nov 2006, 21:05, said:

Then you've obviously never used the M16, and you obviously know very little about the AK47.

The AK47 has a complicated, lengthy, and awkward loading sequence, whereas the M16 loading sequence takes two seconds at most. The AK is significantly heavier than the M16 (the M16 is mostly plastic, the AK is all wood and stamped steel). Also, the M16 almost never jams, the AK jams after just a few seconds of sustained firing.

The AK only would jam because of a crappy magazine spring.

Anyways I think I said it best before. The AK and M-16 each have their own strengths. The AK is extremely simple to use, and unless you're using subpar parts, it will rarely give you any trouble, even if you don't clean it. The 7.62 mm bullet would be more effective on a single round basis than the M-16's 5.56 mm round, and the AK is so solid you can bash a few heads in with it. The M-16 however, is an ergonomically more comfortable weapon, and it weighs less too. It is more accurate at longer ranges, and while it has a smaller calibre bullet, the rate of fire would more than make up for it. But the M-16 itself is a bit fragile in terms of construction. It is not advised to bash someone's brain in with the stock, and it requires regular and more intensive maintenance, because the direct gas impingment system clogs up more easily.

Each weapons possess their own strengths which do not make one distinguishably superior to another. The AK is a better weapon because it is cheap, durable and easy to use. The M-16 is a better weapon because of better combat capability. The AK is better for militias and conscripts, while the M-16 is a better weapon in the hands of a professional soldier. In the case of all-out war however, the AK would be an undeniably better weapon however.

I think the reason the top 10 list doesn't do Modern Rifles/Tanks/Airplanes... is because its usually a military propaganda station for whichever country (America in my instance). There's no way that the American military would admit that our rifle/tanks/airplanes are less affective than any other country's, regardless or not if they are or aren't.

You might be able to find a 10 modern weapons list somewhere on TV, but its def not going to be on any of the military stations~

Uh... yeah, the Ak almost never jams from what I hear of... (i'm not a researcher of Ak-47s... just the usual rumors that you can dip it in mud, run it over with a truck, and that kind of stuff and it'll still fire). While i still hear the the M-16 jams more often than wanted (it's better than in 'nam with the M-16s and M-16A1s with the terrible gunpoweder they used, but still not as great as most modern assault rifles).

m16s are far more accurate but one thing there geting phased out of the military any ways replaced by lighter but much more acurate assualt rifles i don't remember what there called tho
Edited by cryptkeeper, 08 December 2006 - 05:30.

No, the XM-29 OICW was canceled due to heavy weight and price, and the xm 8 was 'frozen', the M-16/M4 series are only being replaced in the SOCOM by the SCAR.

I know only why ak-47 better than m-16

cuz AK-47 can fire when it wet (it can be put in under the soil and dig it 3mouth late it still can firing with out cleaning

but M-16 can't to do like this

I heard a story in vietnam once
The AK-47 didn't jamed easily by water and it still can fire, that's why sometimes vietcong keep their supply stash of AK-47 hidden underwater so it won't be find by the US easily

the m-16 bullets 5.56mm can't penetrate woods of the forest easily
but the 7,62mm can easily penetrate woods of the forest, hitting anyone hiding behind the trees

Even one american once say that it's better to use AK-47 than M-16 during the vietnam war (but I forgot who said that)

AK-47 is the KING

Flying Tigers, on 9 Dec 2006, 03:16, said:

At the expense of attracting friendly fire.

The M16's 5.56mm bullet spins so fast that when it hits you, it just rips you to shreds from the inside. Literally. It's nuts.