Fn fal (aka slr,if your from oz as well)?

[Dead-Ćnd-Start 0]

fact 1) HAmmer is a W-A-N-K-A

fact 2) Fact 2, The M1 could be massivly mass-produced and is why i think 99.43210953% of american riflemen where issued them i think...wait that doesn't make it a fact does it?

and if you play DOD its the only weapon that could hit the goddamn empire state building @ 5cm. (lol)

forget that last statement.

[Hammer86 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">FFS i cam here tooking for a mod for OFP and this 16yr old yank just wants to cary on about the USA , I JUST DONT CARE HAMMER, I-ME-MYSELF, DOSE NOT LIKE THE #!@$! M14

FOR THE REASONS STATED DEAL WITH IT JUST BECAUS ITS MADE IN THE USA DONT MAKE IT THE BEST EQUIP (DEAL WITH IT ) SOME OF MY BEST MATES ARE YANKS THERE NOT #$#$ WITS<span id='postcolor'>

Hooked on Phonics

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">sory for bad spelling's hammer has pised me off by calling me a liar<span id='postcolor'>

Just stating the facts.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Fact 2, The M1 could be massivly mass-produced and is why i think 99.43210953% of american riflemen where issued them i think...wait that doesn't make it a fact does it?<span id='postcolor'>

And because it was the single greatest battle rifle of all time

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">fact 1) HAmmer is a W-A-N-K-A<span id='postcolor'>

Since you fail to argue any of the points I put forth I shall assume you agree with me 100%.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">for the record my sources in the UK army is my Dec Granfarther (step)at time of death he was a Col

the second is a curent serving Major with 6RAR

i have cheacked with all partys and I can say that much<span id='postcolor'>

Well hate to tell ya, but they/you are wrong - the M1 Garand was issued to all American riflemen.

[BIS_IS_THE_BEST 1]

lol, i think i agree with hammer,

he sounds like he knows alot more,

not to piss you off or anything,

just stating my point of view

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">the second is a curent serving Major with 6RAR <span id='postcolor'>

?? and he knows about ww2?? i doubt that!!

hes currently serving, means that hes wasnt alive during world war 2...

ROFL,

bye

[Assault (CAN) 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">and if he was in his countries armed forces than I salute him for his sacrifice to something greater than himself. <span id='postcolor'>

As a matter of fact, I am

Cant we have one debate that doesn't turn into a flame war?

I think you guys are refering to the P-14, the U.S. produced copy of the Lee-Enfield rifle. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think most of those were produced for England under the 'lend-lease' program. Since England's factories were fewer in number and were under constant threat, they needed rifles to meet demand hence, the P-14.

3.8 million Garands were produced in the U.S. in WW2 alone. Just about every GI had a Garand at his disposal. The very early Garands were quite crappy and were not very accurate when compared to the earlier Springfield '03 rifles. As time progressed those early problems were fixed and the weapon was ready for action. A run-of-the-mill WW2 Garand will not shoot as well as a modern match copy, many improvements have been made to the rifle since the end of the war.

I have never actually fired an M-1 but I have held one, let me tell you it was a work of art, it felt like an extension of my body, it is clearly a well designed rifle.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> An American made M1 Garand. <span id='postcolor'>

An American made weapon, designed by a Scotts'man living in Canada at the time.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> Last weapon I want in Vietnam would be the M16. <span id='postcolor'>

That was through no fault of the weapon. Early M-16s didn't even have a forward assist. The ammo issued used surplus 7.62 NATO powder which was slower burning, this is what caused alot of the jams, that and some of the upper/lower recievers were made at different factories to different tolerances.

The slower burning powder meant that there was still high pressure in the barrel and casing/chamber when the round was extracted. This caused the extractor to rip the round in two or skip right over the rim of the cartridge, leaving the spent cartridge stuck in the chamber. The only way to remove the jam was to use the three piece cleaning rod and shove it down the barrel. The problem here is that cleaning rods were issued on a 1:1 basis with the rifles, in the heat of action you can't expect a soldier to dissasemble the rod and pack it away, so as a result many rods were lost.

The original M-16 was not ready to be put into action when it was, it was rushed into to service by (you guessed it) ....politics. As a result, many lives of U.S. servicemen were lost needlesly, all over upper echelon politics. That pisses me off.

Oh well.......

Tyler

[Edit - thanks Placebo, please don't shut this thread down!]

[Placebo 29]

If you guys are incapable of having a discussion without arguing and resorting to name calling the thread will be closed, if you continue to act in such an immature and uncalled for way you would be best to find another forum, if you can't agree then stop posting to each other.

[Hammer86 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Cant we have one debate that doesn't turn into a flame war?<span id='postcolor'>

Who went over the top with the name calling? I don't think I did.

And 16BHRT or whatever's rant did not bother me in the least.

[USSoldier11B 0]

Geez, I didn't mean to start a war! Antichrist, I can say that a M-14 is more accurate than an FAL because I've shot both weapons. Do you want the serial number off of my FAL to prove it to you? Sure, the M-21 is out of date, now that the U.S. uses the M-24 which is based on the Remington 700 action. I own the civilian version of this also. The Remington 700 PSS. But weapons based on the Garand action are still more accurate than those based on the FAL and Kalishnikov actions.

[168GRN HPBT 0]

I also Love Remington i have the 700VS

the promo stuff on there web page said a wile back that the remington bolt was first made in 1907 and has remained all most the same evers since ?

un less i have not read the corect section

[Placebo 29]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Hammer86 @ Mar. 29 2002,05:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Who went over the top with the name calling? I don't think I did.<span id='postcolor'>

I don't care who went over the top with the name calling, I don't even care who started it, I'm stopping it.

All who use this forum should be grown ups and as such should be able to have a debate in a mature, rational way, if you want to have a debate about the positives and negatives of various weapons, knock yourselves out, but win the debate by proven fact, supporting evidence, historical accuracy etc. etc. Turning the debate into a pissing contest will only result in two things, irking me and getting the thread closed

[USSoldier11B 0]

We all have one thing in common here, we are all avid fans of OFP. I understand that we come from different countries and cultures, and tend to have different tastes in weapons. That's cool. They all have different advantages.

168GRN HPBT, I'm glad we both agree that the 700 is a good rifle. Yes, the action was developed long ago, but hey if it's not broke, don't try to fix it. A 700VS is very close to what I have, execpt mine in matte black and has a HS Precision Sniper stock that is Teflon/Fiberglass/Kevlar composite with an aluminum bedding block. I believe the VS also has the bedding block, and the PSS is based on that model. I agree with Placebo. Lets chill.

[Assault (CAN) 1]

Do either of you own a Savage? For $200 less than a Remington PSS I think it would be worth a shot.

Savage 10FP LE-2:

MSRP: $511 USD.

Tyler

[USSoldier11B 0]

That Savage is a good rifle. I almost bought one because they don't make the PSS left handed. Since I use a bipod, I can work the action with my right hand though. Just had to buy the PSS though, since Remington stopped producing them for the general population, and it's basically the same rifle we snipe with in the Army. Savage is a Canadian company am I right?

[Assault (CAN) 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Savage is a Canadian company am I right?<span id='postcolor'>

Nope, it's American but Savage owns a factory in Canada that makes all of it's .22 rim fire models.

[168GRN HPBT 0]

I was chilled until I was called a liar

My 700vs is also matte black I am about to have the barrel replaced with a M.A.D. co barrel’s (they make the accuracy int barrels for the AWP's and so on, and they are just 1hour from home ) 4000 rounds is time to change, it still holds .3MOA but it can do better.

The savages are a good hunting rifle. But they don’t reek of quality like Remington’s gear. I have a savage as well I want to sell I never use it. But I keep hanging on for sentimental reasons. (I am conflicted)

I was chilled until I was called a liar

[Placebo 29]

You're repeating yourself, must be a sign of old age

[168GRN HPBT 0]

yeah it hits you when you least expect it

one day you wake up and your pants are 2 feet higher than the day before . It's at this point you know your over 25:-(

[Placebo 29]

LOL tell me about it, I'm clinging on for dear life to these last remaining 6 months of my 20's

[Major Fubar 0]

Sorry, can't help myself...

From FAS:

M14, basically a product improved M1 Garand, performed well as a infantry rifle. The M14 had an effective range of 500 yards (460m). The M14 used a standard NATO 7.62mm cartridge in a 20-round magazine. The M14 was the standard Army infantry rifle, until replaced by the mass fielding of the M16 5.56mm rifle in 1966-1967. Some M14s were equipped with a bipod for use as a squad automatic weapons. However, the M14 displayed an erratic dispersion pattern, excessive recoil, and muzzle climb when fired as an automatic rifle.

Hammer, take note.

Oh say can you see.............

[Hammer86 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">However, the M14 displayed an erratic dispersion pattern, excessive recoil, and muzzle climb when fired as an automatic rifle.<span id='postcolor'>

Sorry I can't help myself.

Both the G3 and FN FAL suffer the same problems when fired on FULLY AUTOMATIC.

It is a .308 bullet ya know, take note of that and do a little more research next time.

(PS: What's that image have to do with anything?)

[Major Fubar 0]

If you don't know i won't bother explaining.

Perhaps you should do some more research on it  

EDIT: Sorry, that was childish. I don't want to get involved in a flame war. But if you cant listen to any criticism of the M14 without just saying "no you are wrong, do more research" then I guess there is no point debating it with you, is there? You've made up your mind and obviously nothing will change it.

Well, each to their own. You think the M14 is best, others think FN-FAL or G3 are best. Cest la vie.

[Hammer86 0]

I was correcting you, and informing you that the FN FAL and G3 suffer the same problems.

Are you so soft skinned that you think I am trying to attack you?

[Major Fubar 0]

*scratching my head, looking in my post for the part where I said you attacked me*  

You're obviously one of those last word types, so lets just agree to disagree. You like the M14, more power to you. You have "evidence" that it is better than all other .308 battle rifles, fine. Everyone elses evidence is flawed, hmmm, maybe. You wanna get in the last word and tell me I'm doing something I'm not (i.e. accusing you of attacking me), go for it. You win. Hoooray!!!!    

Take a chill pill Hammer, I'm happy to accept that different people have different favourite weapons, are you? This is my last post in this topic, as it seems all sides concerned have well and truly made up their minds (yes, me as well).

[Hammer86 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">*scratching my head, looking in my post for the part where I said you attacked me*<span id='postcolor'>

It was not an accusation, it was a question.

I asked if you are so soft skinned that you think I am attacking you, coming off a hostile, or something else?

And I kept that image, cut off the soldier with the M14 and made a signature out of it.