Archived threads in /k/ - Weapons - 2026. page

you have to aim a little lower for women, since they tend to be about 6 inches shorter.

>>32947345
Easy, you just don't lead them as much

if they're pregnant you get double points

BUBBAD GUNS HAVIN

GONG HITTIN

CHICK LEANIN

File: 1485163939205.jpg (172KB, 1600x564px) Image search: [Google]

172KB, 1600x564px

>>32947089
what you posted is pretty much your best bet for an AR. It's the most comfy to wield out of those frankenstein designs, and makes the gun feel more like a traditional rifle.

People in ban-lands and even outside seem to generally like that design. Alternatives would be these more snowflake-unique rifles that are not 100% compatible with typical AR parts.

>>32947089
Thats not even that bad.
It still functions 100% like an AR doesnt it? Adjudtable stock is overrated anyway.

>>32947795
Really is a pity no one has figured out how to make a comfy compliant stock to attach over a standard buffer tube in appreciable numbers hell I just want an a2 stock without pistol grip

>>32947000
Who buys footwear without trying it on? How old are you kid?

This doesn't belong on /k/.

>>32947000
>frog posting on 4chan
>Overestimated my size

Yep, dose of reality.

>>32946957
No.

>>32946990
too poor?

I've got like 70 some, but I'm not autistic about having twelve of the same exact gun just with little tweaks or made in different countries or things like that.

But I basically only buy novelties these days because that's all that's left.

File: Mel-Brooks-Spaceballs.png (385KB, 636x510px) Image search: [Google]

385KB, 636x510px

Go for it! If anybody laughs just laugh right back at them and tell them they have no appreciation for Jewish Satire.

>>32946899
but it's 500 more than than a standard. I could get a nice eotech for my AR for that, AND get a DEagle

>>32946850
If someone laughs at it, just give them a shit-eating grin.

The problem with deagles is the internal mag makes it uncomfortable for most people to hold/shoot. If it's comfortable in your meatclaws, consider it. Otherwise, it'll be $2,000 paperweight that you never take to the range.

And it's $300 cheaper on gunbroker.

Also this came in the mail yesterday it's gonna be my second ar build

Is it gen 4?

File: chocolatedog.jpg (380KB, 1024x576px) Image search: [Google]

380KB, 1024x576px

>80% plastic glock
>not making an 80% steel glock

I meant to type peepee

Please respond

File: art1.png (28KB, 1366x606px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 1366x606px

This is the truth.

>>32946749
>not buying a CZ 2075 RAMI 9mm instead

File: canaan.jpg (166KB, 985x705px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 985x705px

>>32946749
yes?

>>32946749
Why did you buy that pile o shit??

>What does /k/ think
Grow a pair and buy what you want

>>>/asp/ergers

>>32946647
Ammo is dirty cheap and can take out most small game depending on what you're using.

>>32946520
Despite this faggot's fabricated story, I actually watched a guy inadvertently pay $350 for a hi point.

I was at a whitetails unlimited event where the gunshop my buddy worked for sponsored the auction/raffle firearms. They were doing the live auction on random shit, some of which were three duffel bags. The people were told one bag had $500 worth of raffle tickets, one had $250 worth of tickets, and the third had a gun (all that was said was "a gun"). My buddy had packed the bags, and he had packed bag #2 with said hi point. Once the bags came up, he told me not to bid on bag 2, and we watch in horror and excitement as the first bag goes for $250, and the second gets pushed up to $350 by excited fudds caught up in the action. All three "winners" go to open their bags at the same time, and the shock on #2's face was perfect. As he was opening it, the shop owner (who was busy flirting with some skank or something) asks my buddy what he paid for it. He told him and the owner just says "Fuck" and skips out towards the back laughing (he knew the guy personally).

>>32946660
mhmm

>>32946508
You are never fit enough. Start with that.

Lots of running, hill circuits and such.

Then lots of long-distance, with weight and speed over distance in mind.

>>32946508
Depends what unit, what country, and whether its active or reserve.
Should be able to do at least 50-60 pushups in 2 mins, same with sit ups, and be able to run 1.5 miles in under 9:30 realistically just to make the minimum standards for any type of elite unit, and thats reserve.
Youd probably find its a lot more about mental and physical endurance, i.e being able to tab 20 miles in 5 hours up hills with 50-70lbs of gear on you, and then do more the next day, and more the next day.

If you have to ask here, you havent done your research mate.

Yes. There are no states where guns are flat out illegal.

>>32946367
Isn't Massachusetts getting close?

>>32946367
I don't think there is a single country in the world where civilian ownership and usage of firearms is flat out illegal, maybe except North Korea but who knows.

I also don't think there are many countries where people can't shoot rented guns on firing ranges without any licenses.

>this thread again.jpg
It's under $300, just buy it and shut the fuck up

>>32946321
Good gun. Just wish I had gotten the 9mm version instead of the 7.62x25. It was one of my first handguns as well.

Tokarevs in general aren't that great. You can get a used Beretta 92S for $250 now.

>Unmanned Vessels: While the Navy is experimenting with ever-larger Unmanned Surface Vessels (USVs) and Unmanned Underwater Vessels (UUVs), it doesn’t yet count them in its proposed battle force. CSBA, by contrast, calls for 40 “extra-large” USVs and 40 “extra-large” UUVs. While not replacing manned warships, these semi-expendable craft would play crucial roles in high-risk missions such as reconnaissance, electronic warfare (jamming tends to attract attention), and mine-sweeping. The Navy’s Expeditionary Fast Transports (formerly JHSVs) would be repurposed as motherships for unmanned craft.

My heart tells me this won't work out as intended, by virtue of the fact that justifying "semi-expendable" craft to congress or the populace in large numbers won't work. The automization alone to keep something as complex as a modern warship seaworthy and combat ready would be staggering.

>>32946241
Sounds like a good way to get supercarriers cut.

No thanks.

File: CSBA-vs-Navy-Force-Structure-Assessment.jpg (38KB, 636x496px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 636x496px

>>32946282

>While both the Navy and CSBA agree the fleet needs 12 nuclear-powered aircraft carriers` (up from 11 CVNs today), CSBA also wants to supplement the super-carriers with 10 smaller, conventionally powered “light carriers” (CVL). The CVLs would evolve from and replace current “big-deck” amphibious assault ships, sacrificing the capacity for landing craft in order to accommodate more aircraft.

It's not the super carriers that would be getting cut, it would be the flat-deck amphibious ships.