Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Ah, I remember when this was just a fledgling thread.

MartiniPunk wrote:

Well you've gotta point out how you think he's wrong, you can't just say THAT!

lol im new and trying not to piss off the community already.

1. he uses the term assault rifle. (assault rifle is the number one miss-used term in the history of weaponry, it was invented by u.s. government legalese. there is no such thing as an assault-rifle. assault is a verb which indicates action, not an adjective that properly indicates function or intended use. Not to sound elitist, generally speaking people in the fire-arm community do not use this term. "what are you assaulting? well I can assault that with any kind of rifle.. i can assault it with a potato.. does that mean I can go to jail for illegal assault potatoes?)

The Germans invented the title assault rifle, go ahead and translate sturmgewehr, it translate into "Storm rifle" storm being the action of rapid assault. The Germans used the term far before any other government.

2. he said an AK system does not qualify as a battle rifle.

The topic of qualifying weapons as either Battle rifles and Assault rifles has been under dispute for a decent amount of time and is subject to the observer in many cases as no "universal" standard has been set.

3. he is saying that battle rifles use a larger caliber while comparing it to an AR system. (AK anyone?)

I never mentioned caliber, anyway the round used in the AK series of rifles is completely different from the Nato 7.62, while sharing caliber, they operate at different effectiveness.

4. he is grouping two rifles and saying they dont qualify as battle rifles, then taking one of them and using it to compare to the other saying one is a battle rifle and one is not. (lolwut?)

5. he says: (let me paraphrase "5.56 and 7.62 aren't battle rifles they are assault-rifles." earlier he was talking about a M14 being a "battle-rifle" because it utilizes a 7.62 round.

I never called the m14 an assault rifle, you are misinterpreting the post.

6. he says : (again paraphrased "5.56 and 7.62 is an assault rifle. 7.62 are less versatile than 5.56 because it is larger recoil etc. 7.62 are easier to use at full-auto because lower velocity and less stopping power." (see it just doesnt make sense)

Most weapons utilizing 7.62 ammunition is more unwieldy due to either a higher recoil or a higher weight, 5.56 weapons are easier to steady on full auto.

7. he was comparing the weight of a battle-rifle to the weight of a light machine gun because they are chambered the same.

I was doing this only because they share the same ammunition, I have to agree with you here, it's my bad.

8. he doesnt realize that the 5.56 has a much higher velocity than the either of the 7.62's he was talking about earlier

You're just wrong here.

9. he says assault rifles are smaller and easier to use on full auto, when the opposite is true. A heavier weapon will have less recoil than a lighter one, same is true about barrel length, the shorter it is the greater the recoil.

The weapons utilizing smaller ammunition offset less recoil, given the AR series of rifles utilizes an extended buffer system, it has lighter recoil than any comprably-sized weapon using larger ammunition.

(*disclaimer* I realize there is a difference between 7.62x39, 7.62x51, 7.62x54(r) but for comparison's sake the difference in recoil as you were talking about is minute.)

There's a good deal of difference in recoil between AK's and M14s,

you see it just stopped making sense, and wasnt worth continuing the discussion. I concede. Since it was being made out to be an arguement, He wins, I lose.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Well for my local airsoft we have a three hits you're out thing going on, so burst is far more useful than individual shots.

ahh sorry i got confused between airsoft and other.

lol i never played airsoft, was more of a paintballer.

Sorry to sound like I flamed you, but I know a good deal about what I'm talking about, I am studying mechanical engineering and physics to enter the field of design and development (hopefully with FN Herstal)

Sorry for making such a large post as well , we should probably get back on topic at this point unless anyone has a direct response...

@Martini, the term assault rifle was actually coined in WW2, by Germans.

They created "sturm" weapons, and it was translated as assault, since assault and storm are more or less the same thing.

The U.S. created the term assault weapons, which includes but is not limited to assault rifles.

wikipedia wrote:The battle rifle's power and long-range accuracy are intended to engage targets at long distances,[2] but this comes with a trade-off of length and weight that make it relatively cumbersome in close-quarter combat. Also, the recoil of a full-size cartridge makes most battle rifles difficult to control when using full-automatic fire, though a few designs have attempted to control this tendency.[3]

In contrast, assault rifles fire smaller intermediate-size cartridges such as the 5.56x45mm NATO round used in the M16, Chinese 5.8x42mm used in the QBZ-95 or the Russian moderate-velocity 7.62x39mm and 5.45x39mm cartridges of the AK-47 and AK-74 series of rifles. However, some overlapping of rifle design and cartridge application occurs; for example a few relatively compact selective-fire rifles in 7.62x51mm NATO caliber have been produced

Battle rifles are larger, less compact, less mobile, non CQC oriented rifles.

Squidmanlolz wrote:

MartiniPunk wrote:

Well you've gotta point out how you think he's wrong, you can't just say THAT!

lol im new and trying not to piss off the community already.

1. he uses the term assault rifle. (assault rifle is the number one miss-used term in the history of weaponry, it was invented by u.s. government legalese. there is no such thing as an assault-rifle. assault is a verb which indicates action, not an adjective that properly indicates function or intended use. Not to sound elitist, generally speaking people in the fire-arm community do not use this term. "what are you assaulting? well I can assault that with any kind of rifle.. i can assault it with a potato.. does that mean I can go to jail for illegal assault potatoes?)

The Germans invented the title assault rifle, go ahead and translate sturmgewehr, it translate into "Storm rifle" storm being the action of rapid assault. The Germans used the term far before any other government.

2. he said an AK system does not qualify as a battle rifle.

The topic of qualifying weapons as either Battle rifles and Assault rifles has been under dispute for a decent amount of time and is subject to the observer in many cases as no "universal" standard has been set.

3. he is saying that battle rifles use a larger caliber while comparing it to an AR system. (AK anyone?)

I never mentioned caliber, anyway the round used in the AK series of rifles is completely different from the Nato 7.62, while sharing caliber, they operate at different effectiveness.

4. he is grouping two rifles and saying they dont qualify as battle rifles, then taking one of them and using it to compare to the other saying one is a battle rifle and one is not. (lolwut?)

5. he says: (let me paraphrase "5.56 and 7.62 aren't battle rifles they are assault-rifles." earlier he was talking about a M14 being a "battle-rifle" because it utilizes a 7.62 round.

I never called the m14 an assault rifle, you are misinterpreting the post.

6. he says : (again paraphrased "5.56 and 7.62 is an assault rifle. 7.62 are less versatile than 5.56 because it is larger recoil etc. 7.62 are easier to use at full-auto because lower velocity and less stopping power." (see it just doesnt make sense)

Most weapons utilizing 7.62 ammunition is more unwieldy due to either a higher recoil or a higher weight, 5.56 weapons are easier to steady on full auto.

7. he was comparing the weight of a battle-rifle to the weight of a light machine gun because they are chambered the same.

I was doing this only because they share the same ammunition, I have to agree with you here, it's my bad.

8. he doesnt realize that the 5.56 has a much higher velocity than the either of the 7.62's he was talking about earlier

You're just wrong here.

9. he says assault rifles are smaller and easier to use on full auto, when the opposite is true. A heavier weapon will have less recoil than a lighter one, same is true about barrel length, the shorter it is the greater the recoil.

The weapons utilizing smaller ammunition offset less recoil, given the AR series of rifles utilizes an extended buffer system, it has lighter recoil than any comprably-sized weapon using larger ammunition.

(*disclaimer* I realize there is a difference between 7.62x39, 7.62x51, 7.62x54(r) but for comparison's sake the difference in recoil as you were talking about is minute.)

There's a good deal of difference in recoil between AK's and M14s,

you see it just stopped making sense, and wasnt worth continuing the discussion. I concede. Since it was being made out to be an arguement, He wins, I lose.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Well for my local airsoft we have a three hits you're out thing going on, so burst is far more useful than individual shots.

ahh sorry i got confused between airsoft and other.

lol i never played airsoft, was more of a paintballer.

Sorry to sound like I flamed you, but I know a good deal about what I'm talking about, I am studying mechanical engineering and physics to enter the field of design and development (hopefully with FN Herstal)

Sorry for making such a large post as well , we should probably get back on topic at this point unless anyone has a direct response...

We could make a really cool looking quote pyramid with this post

Please, Lord no^

dmthomas7 wrote:

Squidmanlolz wrote:

MartiniPunk wrote:

Well you've gotta point out how you think he's wrong, you can't just say THAT!

lol im new and trying not to piss off the community already.

1. he uses the term assault rifle. (assault rifle is the number one miss-used term in the history of weaponry, it was invented by u.s. government legalese. there is no such thing as an assault-rifle. assault is a verb which indicates action, not an adjective that properly indicates function or intended use. Not to sound elitist, generally speaking people in the fire-arm community do not use this term. "what are you assaulting? well I can assault that with any kind of rifle.. i can assault it with a potato.. does that mean I can go to jail for illegal assault potatoes?)

The Germans invented the title assault rifle, go ahead and translate sturmgewehr, it translate into "Storm rifle" storm being the action of rapid assault. The Germans used the term far before any other government.

2. he said an AK system does not qualify as a battle rifle.

The topic of qualifying weapons as either Battle rifles and Assault rifles has been under dispute for a decent amount of time and is subject to the observer in many cases as no "universal" standard has been set.

3. he is saying that battle rifles use a larger caliber while comparing it to an AR system. (AK anyone?)

I never mentioned caliber, anyway the round used in the AK series of rifles is completely different from the Nato 7.62, while sharing caliber, they operate at different effectiveness.

4. he is grouping two rifles and saying they dont qualify as battle rifles, then taking one of them and using it to compare to the other saying one is a battle rifle and one is not. (lolwut?)

5. he says: (let me paraphrase "5.56 and 7.62 aren't battle rifles they are assault-rifles." earlier he was talking about a M14 being a "battle-rifle" because it utilizes a 7.62 round.

I never called the m14 an assault rifle, you are misinterpreting the post.

6. he says : (again paraphrased "5.56 and 7.62 is an assault rifle. 7.62 are less versatile than 5.56 because it is larger recoil etc. 7.62 are easier to use at full-auto because lower velocity and less stopping power." (see it just doesnt make sense)

Most weapons utilizing 7.62 ammunition is more unwieldy due to either a higher recoil or a higher weight, 5.56 weapons are easier to steady on full auto.

7. he was comparing the weight of a battle-rifle to the weight of a light machine gun because they are chambered the same.

I was doing this only because they share the same ammunition, I have to agree with you here, it's my bad.

8. he doesnt realize that the 5.56 has a much higher velocity than the either of the 7.62's he was talking about earlier

You're just wrong here.

9. he says assault rifles are smaller and easier to use on full auto, when the opposite is true. A heavier weapon will have less recoil than a lighter one, same is true about barrel length, the shorter it is the greater the recoil.

The weapons utilizing smaller ammunition offset less recoil, given the AR series of rifles utilizes an extended buffer system, it has lighter recoil than any comprably-sized weapon using larger ammunition.

(*disclaimer* I realize there is a difference between 7.62x39, 7.62x51, 7.62x54(r) but for comparison's sake the difference in recoil as you were talking about is minute.)

There's a good deal of difference in recoil between AK's and M14s,

you see it just stopped making sense, and wasnt worth continuing the discussion. I concede. Since it was being made out to be an arguement, He wins, I lose.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Well for my local airsoft we have a three hits you're out thing going on, so burst is far more useful than individual shots.

ahh sorry i got confused between airsoft and other.

lol i never played airsoft, was more of a paintballer.

Sorry to sound like I flamed you, but I know a good deal about what I'm talking about, I am studying mechanical engineering and physics to enter the field of design and development (hopefully with FN Herstal)

Sorry for making such a large post as well , we should probably get back on topic at this point unless anyone has a direct response...

We could make a really cool looking quote pyramid with this post

quote ladder? Quote ladder.

...When the quote pyramid/ladder steam-rolls you...

Squidmanlolz wrote:...When the quote pyramid/ladder steam-rolls you...

Industrialization of quotation for the win!

im2randomghgh wrote:

dmthomas7 wrote:

Squidmanlolz wrote:

MartiniPunk wrote:

Well you've gotta point out how you think he's wrong, you can't just say THAT!

lol im new and trying not to piss off the community already.

1. he uses the term assault rifle. (assault rifle is the number one miss-used term in the history of weaponry, it was invented by u.s. government legalese. there is no such thing as an assault-rifle. assault is a verb which indicates action, not an adjective that properly indicates function or intended use. Not to sound elitist, generally speaking people in the fire-arm community do not use this term. "what are you assaulting? well I can assault that with any kind of rifle.. i can assault it with a potato.. does that mean I can go to jail for illegal assault potatoes?)

The Germans invented the title assault rifle, go ahead and translate sturmgewehr, it translate into "Storm rifle" storm being the action of rapid assault. The Germans used the term far before any other government.

2. he said an AK system does not qualify as a battle rifle.

The topic of qualifying weapons as either Battle rifles and Assault rifles has been under dispute for a decent amount of time and is subject to the observer in many cases as no "universal" standard has been set.

3. he is saying that battle rifles use a larger caliber while comparing it to an AR system. (AK anyone?)

I never mentioned caliber, anyway the round used in the AK series of rifles is completely different from the Nato 7.62, while sharing caliber, they operate at different effectiveness.

4. he is grouping two rifles and saying they dont qualify as battle rifles, then taking one of them and using it to compare to the other saying one is a battle rifle and one is not. (lolwut?)

5. he says: (let me paraphrase "5.56 and 7.62 aren't battle rifles they are assault-rifles." earlier he was talking about a M14 being a "battle-rifle" because it utilizes a 7.62 round.

I never called the m14 an assault rifle, you are misinterpreting the post.

6. he says : (again paraphrased "5.56 and 7.62 is an assault rifle. 7.62 are less versatile than 5.56 because it is larger recoil etc. 7.62 are easier to use at full-auto because lower velocity and less stopping power." (see it just doesnt make sense)

Most weapons utilizing 7.62 ammunition is more unwieldy due to either a higher recoil or a higher weight, 5.56 weapons are easier to steady on full auto.

7. he was comparing the weight of a battle-rifle to the weight of a light machine gun because they are chambered the same.

I was doing this only because they share the same ammunition, I have to agree with you here, it's my bad.

8. he doesnt realize that the 5.56 has a much higher velocity than the either of the 7.62's he was talking about earlier

You're just wrong here.

9. he says assault rifles are smaller and easier to use on full auto, when the opposite is true. A heavier weapon will have less recoil than a lighter one, same is true about barrel length, the shorter it is the greater the recoil.

The weapons utilizing smaller ammunition offset less recoil, given the AR series of rifles utilizes an extended buffer system, it has lighter recoil than any comprably-sized weapon using larger ammunition.

(*disclaimer* I realize there is a difference between 7.62x39, 7.62x51, 7.62x54(r) but for comparison's sake the difference in recoil as you were talking about is minute.)

There's a good deal of difference in recoil between AK's and M14s,

you see it just stopped making sense, and wasnt worth continuing the discussion. I concede. Since it was being made out to be an arguement, He wins, I lose.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Well for my local airsoft we have a three hits you're out thing going on, so burst is far more useful than individual shots.

ahh sorry i got confused between airsoft and other.

lol i never played airsoft, was more of a paintballer.

Sorry to sound like I flamed you, but I know a good deal about what I'm talking about, I am studying mechanical engineering and physics to enter the field of design and development (hopefully with FN Herstal)

Sorry for making such a large post as well , we should probably get back on topic at this point unless anyone has a direct response...

We could make a really cool looking quote pyramid with this post

quote ladder? Quote ladder.

Toasting in epic bread.

When it's about guns and the closest you can get fire foam darts, pellets, paintballs or water.

DeadlySquirrel wrote:

im2randomghgh wrote:

dmthomas7 wrote:

Squidmanlolz wrote:

MartiniPunk wrote:

Well you've gotta point out how you think he's wrong, you can't just say THAT!

lol im new and trying not to piss off the community already.

1. he uses the term assault rifle. (assault rifle is the number one miss-used term in the history of weaponry, it was invented by u.s. government legalese. there is no such thing as an assault-rifle. assault is a verb which indicates action, not an adjective that properly indicates function or intended use. Not to sound elitist, generally speaking people in the fire-arm community do not use this term. "what are you assaulting? well I can assault that with any kind of rifle.. i can assault it with a potato.. does that mean I can go to jail for illegal assault potatoes?)

The Germans invented the title assault rifle, go ahead and translate sturmgewehr, it translate into "Storm rifle" storm being the action of rapid assault. The Germans used the term far before any other government.

2. he said an AK system does not qualify as a battle rifle.

The topic of qualifying weapons as either Battle rifles and Assault rifles has been under dispute for a decent amount of time and is subject to the observer in many cases as no "universal" standard has been set.

3. he is saying that battle rifles use a larger caliber while comparing it to an AR system. (AK anyone?)

I never mentioned caliber, anyway the round used in the AK series of rifles is completely different from the Nato 7.62, while sharing caliber, they operate at different effectiveness.

4. he is grouping two rifles and saying they dont qualify as battle rifles, then taking one of them and using it to compare to the other saying one is a battle rifle and one is not. (lolwut?)

5. he says: (let me paraphrase "5.56 and 7.62 aren't battle rifles they are assault-rifles." earlier he was talking about a M14 being a "battle-rifle" because it utilizes a 7.62 round.

I never called the m14 an assault rifle, you are misinterpreting the post.

6. he says : (again paraphrased "5.56 and 7.62 is an assault rifle. 7.62 are less versatile than 5.56 because it is larger recoil etc. 7.62 are easier to use at full-auto because lower velocity and less stopping power." (see it just doesnt make sense)

Most weapons utilizing 7.62 ammunition is more unwieldy due to either a higher recoil or a higher weight, 5.56 weapons are easier to steady on full auto.

7. he was comparing the weight of a battle-rifle to the weight of a light machine gun because they are chambered the same.

I was doing this only because they share the same ammunition, I have to agree with you here, it's my bad.

8. he doesnt realize that the 5.56 has a much higher velocity than the either of the 7.62's he was talking about earlier

You're just wrong here.

9. he says assault rifles are smaller and easier to use on full auto, when the opposite is true. A heavier weapon will have less recoil than a lighter one, same is true about barrel length, the shorter it is the greater the recoil.

The weapons utilizing smaller ammunition offset less recoil, given the AR series of rifles utilizes an extended buffer system, it has lighter recoil than any comprably-sized weapon using larger ammunition.

(*disclaimer* I realize there is a difference between 7.62x39, 7.62x51, 7.62x54(r) but for comparison's sake the difference in recoil as you were talking about is minute.)

There's a good deal of difference in recoil between AK's and M14s,

you see it just stopped making sense, and wasnt worth continuing the discussion. I concede. Since it was being made out to be an arguement, He wins, I lose.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Well for my local airsoft we have a three hits you're out thing going on, so burst is far more useful than individual shots.

ahh sorry i got confused between airsoft and other.

lol i never played airsoft, was more of a paintballer.

Sorry to sound like I flamed you, but I know a good deal about what I'm talking about, I am studying mechanical engineering and physics to enter the field of design and development (hopefully with FN Herstal)

Sorry for making such a large post as well , we should probably get back on topic at this point unless anyone has a direct response...

We could make a really cool looking quote pyramid with this post

quote ladder? Quote ladder.

Toasting in epic bread.

Feth...

Squidmanlolz wrote:

DeadlySquirrel wrote:

im2randomghgh wrote:

dmthomas7 wrote:

Squidmanlolz wrote:

MartiniPunk wrote:

Well you've gotta point out how you think he's wrong, you can't just say THAT!

lol im new and trying not to piss off the community already.

1. he uses the term assault rifle. (assault rifle is the number one miss-used term in the history of weaponry, it was invented by u.s. government legalese. there is no such thing as an assault-rifle. assault is a verb which indicates action, not an adjective that properly indicates function or intended use. Not to sound elitist, generally speaking people in the fire-arm community do not use this term. "what are you assaulting? well I can assault that with any kind of rifle.. i can assault it with a potato.. does that mean I can go to jail for illegal assault potatoes?)

The Germans invented the title assault rifle, go ahead and translate sturmgewehr, it translate into "Storm rifle" storm being the action of rapid assault. The Germans used the term far before any other government.

2. he said an AK system does not qualify as a battle rifle.

The topic of qualifying weapons as either Battle rifles and Assault rifles has been under dispute for a decent amount of time and is subject to the observer in many cases as no "universal" standard has been set.

3. he is saying that battle rifles use a larger caliber while comparing it to an AR system. (AK anyone?)

I never mentioned caliber, anyway the round used in the AK series of rifles is completely different from the Nato 7.62, while sharing caliber, they operate at different effectiveness.

4. he is grouping two rifles and saying they dont qualify as battle rifles, then taking one of them and using it to compare to the other saying one is a battle rifle and one is not. (lolwut?)

5. he says: (let me paraphrase "5.56 and 7.62 aren't battle rifles they are assault-rifles." earlier he was talking about a M14 being a "battle-rifle" because it utilizes a 7.62 round.

I never called the m14 an assault rifle, you are misinterpreting the post.

6. he says : (again paraphrased "5.56 and 7.62 is an assault rifle. 7.62 are less versatile than 5.56 because it is larger recoil etc. 7.62 are easier to use at full-auto because lower velocity and less stopping power." (see it just doesnt make sense)

Most weapons utilizing 7.62 ammunition is more unwieldy due to either a higher recoil or a higher weight, 5.56 weapons are easier to steady on full auto.

7. he was comparing the weight of a battle-rifle to the weight of a light machine gun because they are chambered the same.

I was doing this only because they share the same ammunition, I have to agree with you here, it's my bad.

8. he doesnt realize that the 5.56 has a much higher velocity than the either of the 7.62's he was talking about earlier

You're just wrong here.

9. he says assault rifles are smaller and easier to use on full auto, when the opposite is true. A heavier weapon will have less recoil than a lighter one, same is true about barrel length, the shorter it is the greater the recoil.

The weapons utilizing smaller ammunition offset less recoil, given the AR series of rifles utilizes an extended buffer system, it has lighter recoil than any comprably-sized weapon using larger ammunition.

(*disclaimer* I realize there is a difference between 7.62x39, 7.62x51, 7.62x54(r) but for comparison's sake the difference in recoil as you were talking about is minute.)

There's a good deal of difference in recoil between AK's and M14s,

you see it just stopped making sense, and wasnt worth continuing the discussion. I concede. Since it was being made out to be an arguement, He wins, I lose.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Well for my local airsoft we have a three hits you're out thing going on, so burst is far more useful than individual shots.

ahh sorry i got confused between airsoft and other.

lol i never played airsoft, was more of a paintballer.

Sorry to sound like I flamed you, but I know a good deal about what I'm talking about, I am studying mechanical engineering and physics to enter the field of design and development (hopefully with FN Herstal)

Sorry for making such a large post as well , we should probably get back on topic at this point unless anyone has a direct response...

We could make a really cool looking quote pyramid with this post

quote ladder? Quote ladder.

Toasting in epic bread.

Feth...

When you realize Squidmanlolz ACTUALLY wrote feth, and wasn't autocorrected by the filter!

im2randomghgh wrote:

Squidmanlolz wrote:

DeadlySquirrel wrote:

im2randomghgh wrote:

dmthomas7 wrote:

Squidmanlolz wrote:

MartiniPunk wrote:

Well you've gotta point out how you think he's wrong, you can't just say THAT!

lol im new and trying not to piss off the community already.

1. he uses the term assault rifle. (assault rifle is the number one miss-used term in the history of weaponry, it was invented by u.s. government legalese. there is no such thing as an assault-rifle. assault is a verb which indicates action, not an adjective that properly indicates function or intended use. Not to sound elitist, generally speaking people in the fire-arm community do not use this term. "what are you assaulting? well I can assault that with any kind of rifle.. i can assault it with a potato.. does that mean I can go to jail for illegal assault potatoes?)

The Germans invented the title assault rifle, go ahead and translate sturmgewehr, it translate into "Storm rifle" storm being the action of rapid assault. The Germans used the term far before any other government.

2. he said an AK system does not qualify as a battle rifle.

The topic of qualifying weapons as either Battle rifles and Assault rifles has been under dispute for a decent amount of time and is subject to the observer in many cases as no "universal" standard has been set.

3. he is saying that battle rifles use a larger caliber while comparing it to an AR system. (AK anyone?)

I never mentioned caliber, anyway the round used in the AK series of rifles is completely different from the Nato 7.62, while sharing caliber, they operate at different effectiveness.

4. he is grouping two rifles and saying they dont qualify as battle rifles, then taking one of them and using it to compare to the other saying one is a battle rifle and one is not. (lolwut?)

5. he says: (let me paraphrase "5.56 and 7.62 aren't battle rifles they are assault-rifles." earlier he was talking about a M14 being a "battle-rifle" because it utilizes a 7.62 round.

I never called the m14 an assault rifle, you are misinterpreting the post.

6. he says : (again paraphrased "5.56 and 7.62 is an assault rifle. 7.62 are less versatile than 5.56 because it is larger recoil etc. 7.62 are easier to use at full-auto because lower velocity and less stopping power." (see it just doesnt make sense)

Most weapons utilizing 7.62 ammunition is more unwieldy due to either a higher recoil or a higher weight, 5.56 weapons are easier to steady on full auto.

7. he was comparing the weight of a battle-rifle to the weight of a light machine gun because they are chambered the same.

I was doing this only because they share the same ammunition, I have to agree with you here, it's my bad.

8. he doesnt realize that the 5.56 has a much higher velocity than the either of the 7.62's he was talking about earlier

You're just wrong here.

9. he says assault rifles are smaller and easier to use on full auto, when the opposite is true. A heavier weapon will have less recoil than a lighter one, same is true about barrel length, the shorter it is the greater the recoil.

The weapons utilizing smaller ammunition offset less recoil, given the AR series of rifles utilizes an extended buffer system, it has lighter recoil than any comprably-sized weapon using larger ammunition.

(*disclaimer* I realize there is a difference between 7.62x39, 7.62x51, 7.62x54(r) but for comparison's sake the difference in recoil as you were talking about is minute.)

There's a good deal of difference in recoil between AK's and M14s,

you see it just stopped making sense, and wasnt worth continuing the discussion. I concede. Since it was being made out to be an arguement, He wins, I lose.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Well for my local airsoft we have a three hits you're out thing going on, so burst is far more useful than individual shots.

ahh sorry i got confused between airsoft and other.

lol i never played airsoft, was more of a paintballer.

Sorry to sound like I flamed you, but I know a good deal about what I'm talking about, I am studying mechanical engineering and physics to enter the field of design and development (hopefully with FN Herstal)

Sorry for making such a large post as well , we should probably get back on topic at this point unless anyone has a direct response...

We could make a really cool looking quote pyramid with this post

quote ladder? Quote ladder.

Toasting in epic bread.

Feth...

When you realize Squidmanlolz ACTUALLY wrote feth, and wasn't autocorrected by the filter!

When you don't know how to tell the difference.

Just quote them, I also started doing it myself about a month or two in.

If "pro" and "con" are opposites, does that mean progress is the opposite of congress?

When you are about to get dragged into one of these things . . .

MartiniPunk wrote:1. he uses the term assault rifle. (assault rifle is the number one miss-used term in the history of weaponry, it was invented by u.s. government legalese. there is no such thing as an assault-rifle. assault is a verb which indicates action, not an adjective that properly indicates function or intended use. Not to sound elitist, generally speaking people in the fire-arm community do not use this term. "what are you assaulting? well I can assault that with any kind of rifle.. gak i can assault it with a potato.. does that mean I can go to jail for illegal assault potatoes?)

Actually the term assault rifle was invented by the Germans to describe their new rifle, the Sturmgewehr 44. Sturmgewehr Translates literally as Storm Rifle, though the Germans used the term Storm to also refer to Assault. Hence the Assault Rifle was born. Henceforth the term was used to describe any selective fire rifle, though generally refers to ones that fire intermediate loadings (ie 5.45x39, 5.56x45 and 7.62x39). As an aside, int he former Soviet Union and sattelite nations, weapons of this class are often referred to as Sub-machineguns.

MartiniPunk wrote:2. he said an AK system does not qualify as a battle rifle.

The term Battle Rifle has no actual technical meaning and has never been used officially to my knowledge. It is generally used as a term to describe rifles firing full powered ammunition (ie 7.62x51, 7.62x54) and capable of either semi-automatic or selective fire. However as other terms already exist to define such weapons (ie Semi-Automatic Rifle and Assault Rifle depending on configuration) the term Battle Rifle was redundant before it was coined.

However, in the accepted definition of Battle Rifles using full-powered ammunition, the AK does not fit. Why? because the AK is typically chambered in 7.62x39 or more recently in 5.45x39 and even 5.56x45. These three cartridges are intermediate rounds, not full powered rounds like 7.62x51 and 7.62x54R

MartiniPunk wrote:3. he is saying that battle rifles use a larger caliber while comparing it to an AR system. (AK anyone?)

There are a few different applications of the term calibre at work here. In the strictest sense, it refers to the diameter of the bullet or interior of the barrel measured in a number of ways. So the 7.62x39 cartridge is definitely a larger calibre weapon than the 5.56x45. However calibre is also frequently used (though incorrectly) to refer to the overall case dimensions or to the power of a round.

Of course tying the incorrect usage of calibre to the technically inaccurate term of Battle Rifle, we end up with a terminology mess.

MartiniPunk wrote:4. he is grouping two rifles and saying they dont qualify as battle rifles, then taking one of them and using it to compare to the other saying one is a battle rifle and one is not. (lolwut?)

Again, Battle Rifles don't exist.

MartiniPunk wrote:5. he says: (let me paraphrase "5.56 and 7.62 aren't battle rifles they are assault-rifles." earlier he was talking about a M14 being a "battle-rifle" because it utilizes a 7.62 round.

Well 5.56mm and 7.62mm can both be assault rifles if they meet the primary characteristic of being selective fire rifles. The M14 was designed to be selective fire capable and some variants of the weapon were, thus meeting the criteria of Assault Rifle. However most M14s issued were done so without selective fire, instead just being regular Rifles.

As Battle Rifles don't exist, the M-14 was never a Battle Rifle.

MartiniPunk wrote:6. he says : (again paraphrased "5.56 and 7.62 is an assault rifle. 7.62 are less versatile than 5.56 because it is larger recoil etc. 7.62 are easier to use at full-auto because lower velocity and less stopping power." (see it just doesnt make sense)

Wow, there are definite issues there, I think mostly with the confusion caused by improper (but common) usage of the term calibre. Let's see if I can help here.

5.56x45 Is an intermediate powered cartridge. It has a high muzzle velocity and fires a lightweight bullet. The result is a very accurate cartridge at most combat ranges with moderate wounding ability. It produces little recoil when fired, thus imparting a fair degree of controllability to automatic weapons using it.
7.62x39 Is another intermediate powered cartridge. It has a lower muzzle velocity than the 5.56, but fires a significantly heavier bullet. The result is lower accuracy and a shorter effective range than the 5.56, but a similarly low recoil, allowing for use in fully automatic weapons fired from the shoulder.
7.62x51 This is a full powered round. It fires a heavier bullet than either the 5.56x45 or the 7.62x39 and fires that bullet at a higher muzzle velocity than the 7.62x39 (but not higher than the 5.56x45). The result is almost twice the energy of the 7.62x39 and about 25 to 50% more than the 5.56x45. This is good in that it has increased lethality, penetration and range. It's bad in that it dramatically increases recoil and most firers find it very difficult to control a fully automatic 7.62x51 weapon without a bipod or tripod.
7.62x54R An old (as in more than a century old) Russian round, it is roughly comparable with the 7.62x51, but has a better profile at long range.

MartiniPunk wrote:7. he was comparing the weight of a battle-rifle to the weight of a light machine gun because they are chambered the same.

A fair comparison in some regards. A rifle (there are no battle rifles) will feel the recoil greater due to it's lighter weight and (typically) lack of a bipod or tripod. As a result a rifle will be less controllable on automatic fire than a machinegun chambered for the same round. On the flip side the machinegun will be much heavier

MartiniPunk wrote:8. he doesnt realize that the 5.56 has a much higher velocity than the either of the 7.62's he was talking about earlier

I touched on that one above, and this is very true. Though it should be pointed out that the 7.62x51 has a higer velocity than the 7.62x39 and more energy than the 5.56x45

MartiniPunk wrote:9. he says assault rifles are smaller and easier to use on full auto, when the opposite is true. A heavier weapon will have less recoil than a lighter one, same is true about barrel length, the shorter it is the greater the recoil.

(*disclaimer* I realize there is a difference between 7.62x39, 7.62x51, 7.62x54(r) but for comparison's sake the difference in recoil as you were talking about is minute.)

Actually the difference is not minute, it is significant.

There is a reason that most nations that adopted assault rifles chambered for 7.62x51 sought to disable the automatic fire capabilities of said rifles in service. The recoil energy produced in said rifles made them extremely difficult to control when firing automatically. In addition they tended to wear out very quickly due to the added mechanical strain. These were soem of the reasons the west switched to the 5.56x54 round. The Soviets jumped over the whole process and used the 7.62x39 in their Assault Rifles from the beginning.

The crux of this situation is that we can't compare absolutes because the recoil energy generated by the different cartridges is different enough that it is possible to make a weapon that is too light to controllably fire 7.62x51 on automatic, but is so heavy that a 5.56 round's recoil is barely noticeable. For example, the M-14 was too light for full auto use when chambered in 7.62x51, but when Ruger took the design as the basis for the Mini-14, firing 5.56x45, they actually reduced the weight of the weapon by about 40% and were still able to keep controllable full automatic fire an option (of course if you watched the A-Team, their inability to hit a single person when firing their Mini-14s on full automatic may lead one to an alternate conclusion).

The same issue can be found when it comes to barrel length. A shorter barrel does produce more recoil, but again this is proportional to the cartridge being fired. This is due to 2 reasons. First up is weight. A longer barrel equals more weight, equals less felt recoil. As we established above, weight is a proportional factor. The other factor is unburnt propellent being ejected from the muzzle of the shorter barrel, which increases the mass leaving the weapon, thus increasing the felt recoil. However, as the smaller cartridges have less propellant in them, this too ends up being proportional to the cartridge.

I hope the above rant helps clear you the confusion that both of you seem to be experiencing, now back to more sinking feelings.

The sinking feeling when you realize you know way too much about guns for a civilian in a country with heavily restricted firearms ownership.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

im2randomghgh wrote:@Martini, the term assault rifle was actually coined in WW2, by Germans.

They created "sturm" weapons, and it was translated as assault, since assault and storm are more or less the same thing.

The U.S. created the term assault weapons, which includes but is not limited to assault rifles.

wikipedia wrote:The battle rifle's power and long-range accuracy are intended to engage targets at long distances,[2] but this comes with a trade-off of length and weight that make it relatively cumbersome in close-quarter combat. Also, the recoil of a full-size cartridge makes most battle rifles difficult to control when using full-automatic fire, though a few designs have attempted to control this tendency.[3]

In contrast, assault rifles fire smaller intermediate-size cartridges such as the 5.56x45mm NATO round used in the M16, Chinese 5.8x42mm used in the QBZ-95 or the Russian moderate-velocity 7.62x39mm and 5.45x39mm cartridges of the AK-47 and AK-74 series of rifles. However, some overlapping of rifle design and cartridge application occurs; for example a few relatively compact selective-fire rifles in 7.62x51mm NATO caliber have been produced

Battle rifles are larger, less compact, less mobile, non CQC oriented rifles.

When here I go again . . .

While Wikipedia may have a definition for Battle Rifle, it is not a technically correct term. Also check out the Talk for the article, seems that none involved can find the term being used officially in any way.

If the rifle has a select fire capability but isn't designed for sustained automatic fire, it is an Assault Rifle. This applies as long as it is firing rifle ammunition.

If the rifle doesn't have a select fire capability, then it's a Rifle.

*Sigh*

Mini Mod Hat on.

No more quote ladder/ pyramids please. We don't want a locked thread.

Mini-banhammer brandish to show serious.



Mess with it and it'll ask you kindly to consider perhaps stopping maybe in the form of a polite letter.

JUST START AN AIRSOFT THREAD IN THE OT FORUM GUYS!!

there hasnt been anything wargaming realted on this page! someone is going to lock this!

You know that sinking feeling when you remember that your preferred army didn't get any new or updated models with it's latest Codex release?

...and when your army didn't even get cover art on that month's White Dwarf?

:: hugs my Kuriplush :: Its okay, little Kurifox... We'll get a proper update some day. Some day. Yes, it'll come. :: starts rocking back and forth while in the fetal position with my Kuriplush hugged up to my chest ::

Then we'll see what's what. THEN we'll finally get our retribution, and they'll suffer in the gloriously cleansing flames, guided by the Emperor's hand itself! :: has gone all crazy-eyed with an insane grin on my face ::

Yes, then they'll pay... They'll all pay for what they did on that planet... And the ones who ordered it... we'll have their heads on pikes outside the cathedral! It will serve as a warning to all! AAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAA!!!!!

:: the maniacal laughter turns down into crazy giggling as I watch all the silly people suspiciously ::

When you see this:

im2randomghgh wrote:

MartiniPunk wrote:

im2randomghgh wrote:

killykavekommando wrote:

MartiniPunk wrote:

im2randomghgh wrote:

killykavekommando wrote:...When you're a conservative democrat (that's me!)
...When you have OCD towards obtaining knowledge and you're on a 2 week break. I'm not kidding, my mind goes nuts if I don't obtain large amounts of information every day. When I was in 5th grade, it got so bad that I snuck an Algebra text book out of the respective classroom and into my desk. I finished reading it in a week.

That's why I read cracked.com


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MartiniPunk wrote:

Squidmanlolz wrote:

MartiniPunk wrote:

Squidmanlolz wrote:

Samus_aran115 wrote:

killykavekommando wrote:

We don't use grenades much, probably because we both use electric guns and have no reason to buy propane. I've heard they're really cool though. If I had more time before I left home, I'd invest in one or two for fun

I'm thinking about getting like ten low-cap M4 mags (usually like twenty rounds) and playing "real" games where you have to conserve rather than just blasting away on full auto the whole game.

We use all AEGs as well, but some Army reservist was on my team temporarily for one game. I prefer super-high cap mags of about 650 rounds, and I carry 2-3 of them per game. I'm thinking of getting and airsoft M14. Does anyone know how those are? Which company makes the best for the money?.

I've fired a real m14. Holy hell it had some kick to it. Fired beautifully.

Classic army makes a real wood one that's quite nice for somewhere in the $300s. Some are cheaper, but have polymer bodies, and run about $260.

Might be able to find a springer for cheap though. Makes it feel more like a marksmanship rifle that way, haha.

http://www.evike.com/advanced_search_result.php?search_in_description=1&keywords=m14&x=0&y=0&manufacturers_id=

Love evike. They're great. So's airsoftgi.com

Haven't used any airsoft M14s, they are mostly all good quality, I've held most at my near-local store.
Yeah, the real ones are probably the most beautiful rifles imo, they are tremendously unwieldy (full-auto, mostly) due to the relative lightness (weight) of the weapon coupled with the strength of the 7.62 cartridge. The M60 fires the same exact round and has a very gentle kick compared to almost any other weapon that fires it (mostly due to the 20+ pounds of steel and aluminum)

...when you notice that you wrote more about the actual gun than the airsoft model...

M14's are pretty heavy actually, comparatively speaking

I was comparing it to other weapons that "successfully" utilize the 7.62NATO cartridge, there aren't very many battle-rifles that do so (save the FN SCAR-H and FN FAL) I find it to be more effective in LMGs rather than BRs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
When you watch the movie "Office Space" twice in a row.

Right, but how can you compare the weight of a BR to the weight of a LMG? If your comparing it to other BR's that fire the 7.62x51 such as the SCAR, the SCAR is close to half the weight of the M14. You would have to compare it to another battle-rifle most of which (generally speaking) weigh in around 7 lbs (give or take) where as the M14 weighs in at 11+.

But yeah full auto on a battle-rifle is just a terrible idea anyways. Aside from that and the weight the M14 is an excellent platform, been considering building a M1a for awhile now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
When you cant decide on a warband for your army.. everythings either red or black or doesnt fit because of cult troops.

Personally, I've found that H&K weapons have the best yield.

And I agree, full auto is useless. The only real reason to have that instead of semi-auto is that you can:

A. Fire short bursts for more severe damage on a target (not a consideration needed for airsoft)
or
B. Have a reasonable chance of hitting something even though you are on the move and don't have a chance to line up a perfect shot.

Basically, you have to understand the circumstances though.

Full auto is basically only used for suppressive fire, great for light machine guns/heavier weapon systems because thats pretty much their entire function is to provide suppressive fire. The other use is for counter charges which falls under suppressive fire again.

Battle rifles aren't designed to provide much more than limited or momentary suppressive fire, the only use a battle-rifle has for full auto is in a smaller carbine (ie: m4, configurable AK's) and the only reason that is, is because they are used by troops who need the functionality of a smg without the need to carry a smg for putting alot of rounds down a hallway or through a door into a room, suppression on the run (CQ, Urban operations, that sort of thing) however in cases like the AK's the opposite is true since they can be used in suppressive role more like a traditional LMG. So basically the idea behind full-auto on a battle rifle is versatility, however the use for this is very limited to your more elite small squad operations, and even then they usually gear specifically for whatever role.

..when you realize you have no idea how to talk without using run on sentances.

I'm looking at the Socom style one with the abs stock. I has a slightly shorter barrel and I believe 3 round burst capabilities (helpful?)

...When you cut your lip while shaving.
...When you die while holding diamond armor and diamond tools in mine craft.
...When you are addicted to Arrested Development.
...When there's six months until Prometheus comes out.

Burst fire is by far my favourite firing mode, not sure why. Once you give it a go, you'll get the hang of it.

...When there's several months until phalanx comes out.

eh burst is far overrated, its just a fill for full-auto without being legalized "full-auto"

well placed shots > burst > burst-auto > full auto

dont get me wrong putting 30 rounds down range in a couple seconds is fun once in awhile just not real practical.

Well for my local airsoft we have a three hits you're out thing going on, so burst is far more useful than individual shots.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
or this:

DeadlySquirrel wrote:

im2randomghgh wrote:

Squidmanlolz wrote:

DeadlySquirrel wrote:

im2randomghgh wrote:

dmthomas7 wrote:

Squidmanlolz wrote:

MartiniPunk wrote:

Well you've gotta point out how you think he's wrong, you can't just say THAT!

lol im new and trying not to piss off the community already.

1. he uses the term assault rifle. (assault rifle is the number one miss-used term in the history of weaponry, it was invented by u.s. government legalese. there is no such thing as an assault-rifle. assault is a verb which indicates action, not an adjective that properly indicates function or intended use. Not to sound elitist, generally speaking people in the fire-arm community do not use this term. "what are you assaulting? well I can assault that with any kind of rifle.. i can assault it with a potato.. does that mean I can go to jail for illegal assault potatoes?)

The Germans invented the title assault rifle, go ahead and translate sturmgewehr, it translate into "Storm rifle" storm being the action of rapid assault. The Germans used the term far before any other government.

2. he said an AK system does not qualify as a battle rifle.

The topic of qualifying weapons as either Battle rifles and Assault rifles has been under dispute for a decent amount of time and is subject to the observer in many cases as no "universal" standard has been set.

3. he is saying that battle rifles use a larger caliber while comparing it to an AR system. (AK anyone?)

I never mentioned caliber, anyway the round used in the AK series of rifles is completely different from the Nato 7.62, while sharing caliber, they operate at different effectiveness.

4. he is grouping two rifles and saying they dont qualify as battle rifles, then taking one of them and using it to compare to the other saying one is a battle rifle and one is not. (lolwut?)

5. he says: (let me paraphrase "5.56 and 7.62 aren't battle rifles they are assault-rifles." earlier he was talking about a M14 being a "battle-rifle" because it utilizes a 7.62 round.

I never called the m14 an assault rifle, you are misinterpreting the post.

6. he says : (again paraphrased "5.56 and 7.62 is an assault rifle. 7.62 are less versatile than 5.56 because it is larger recoil etc. 7.62 are easier to use at full-auto because lower velocity and less stopping power." (see it just doesnt make sense)

Most weapons utilizing 7.62 ammunition is more unwieldy due to either a higher recoil or a higher weight, 5.56 weapons are easier to steady on full auto.

7. he was comparing the weight of a battle-rifle to the weight of a light machine gun because they are chambered the same.

I was doing this only because they share the same ammunition, I have to agree with you here, it's my bad.

8. he doesnt realize that the 5.56 has a much higher velocity than the either of the 7.62's he was talking about earlier

You're just wrong here.

9. he says assault rifles are smaller and easier to use on full auto, when the opposite is true. A heavier weapon will have less recoil than a lighter one, same is true about barrel length, the shorter it is the greater the recoil.

The weapons utilizing smaller ammunition offset less recoil, given the AR series of rifles utilizes an extended buffer system, it has lighter recoil than any comprably-sized weapon using larger ammunition.

(*disclaimer* I realize there is a difference between 7.62x39, 7.62x51, 7.62x54(r) but for comparison's sake the difference in recoil as you were talking about is minute.)

There's a good deal of difference in recoil between AK's and M14s,

you see it just stopped making sense, and wasnt worth continuing the discussion. I concede. Since it was being made out to be an arguement, He wins, I lose.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Well for my local airsoft we have a three hits you're out thing going on, so burst is far more useful than individual shots.

ahh sorry i got confused between airsoft and other.

lol i never played airsoft, was more of a paintballer.

Sorry to sound like I flamed you, but I know a good deal about what I'm talking about, I am studying mechanical engineering and physics to enter the field of design and development (hopefully with FN Herstal)

Sorry for making such a large post as well , we should probably get back on topic at this point unless anyone has a direct response...

We could make a really cool looking quote pyramid with this post

quote ladder? Quote ladder.

Toasting in epic bread.

Feth...

When you realize Squidmanlolz ACTUALLY wrote feth, and wasn't autocorrected by the filter!

When you don't know how to tell the difference.

Pouncey wrote:You know that sinking feeling when you remember that your preferred army didn't get any new or updated models with it's latest Codex release?

...and when your army didn't even get cover art on that month's White Dwarf?

:: hugs my Kuriplush :: Its okay, little Kurifox... We'll get a proper update some day. Some day. Yes, it'll come. :: starts rocking back and forth while in the fetal position with my Kuriplush hugged up to my chest ::

Then we'll see what's what. THEN we'll finally get our retribution, and they'll suffer in the gloriously cleansing flames, guided by the Emperor's hand itself! :: has gone all crazy-eyed with an insane grin on my face ::

Yes, then they'll pay... They'll all pay for what they did on that planet... And the ones who ordered it... we'll have their heads on pikes outside the cathedral! It will serve as a warning to all! AAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAA!!!!!

:: the maniacal laughter turns down into crazy giggling as I watch all the silly people suspiciously ::

One of these days we will...
Then I'll get to use this.

n0t_u wrote:

Pouncey wrote:You know that sinking feeling when you remember that your preferred army didn't get any new or updated models with it's latest Codex release?

...and when your army didn't even get cover art on that month's White Dwarf?

:: hugs my Kuriplush :: Its okay, little Kurifox... We'll get a proper update some day. Some day. Yes, it'll come. :: starts rocking back and forth while in the fetal position with my Kuriplush hugged up to my chest ::

Then we'll see what's what. THEN we'll finally get our retribution, and they'll suffer in the gloriously cleansing flames, guided by the Emperor's hand itself! :: has gone all crazy-eyed with an insane grin on my face ::

Yes, then they'll pay... They'll all pay for what they did on that planet... And the ones who ordered it... we'll have their heads on pikes outside the cathedral! It will serve as a warning to all! AAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAA!!!!!

:: the maniacal laughter turns down into crazy giggling as I watch all the silly people suspiciously ::

One of these days we will...
Then I'll get to use this.

:: nods :: Yes, you're one of us...

We will burn the heretical filth...

Mister Fluffy will have great fun... great fun indeed. :: lifts a pink and silver flamer with Mister Fluffy written on the barrel in tie-dyed American hippie lettering, and fluffy pink fake fur on the non-burny pink parts ::

:: cackles again :: They will suffer... THEY'LL ALL SUFFER!!! AAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!!!

:: strokes Mister Fluffy's barrel until I realize that I put down my Kuriplush, then stops stroking it and picks up my Kuriplush and hugs it ::

Yep, that burning feeling when you are a heretic.

I think there may be reason for me to be worried...
and normally I'm the insane one.

...when you realise you've just been outclassed in insaneness.

When your enemy fields 3 doomsday arks

When you're fielding 3 doomsday arks and your enemy fields 9 broadsides

When you are fielding 9 broadsides and your enemy is green tide.

When you're fielding a green tide and the enemy has 3 doomsday arks...
Hey, this could go in a circle!

p_gray99 wrote:I think there may be reason for me to be worried...
and normally I'm the insane one.

...when you realise you've just been outclassed in insaneness.

Don't worry. I just like to sometimes type or say stuff like that, to be silly.

I probably shouldn't, given that it might reinforce negative stereotypes at best, or get me a visit from the doctor/police at worst.