Why do people defend detachable magazines? They suck dick, h

>>31835158
I see you just came back from the sporting goods store with some fresh bait.

File: 1470614713362.jpg (25KB, 286x340px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 286x340px

>>31835158
Nice try, California

>>31835158
An original idea, but the execution is lacking and lazily done. Needs significant improvement.
4/10.

>>31835158
Go away California.

File: Commando of Pak Army Legend of Pakistan.jpg (44KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 480x480px

>>31835158

But the AK pattern, the most common military rifle in the world, only has one of those cons, and all of the obvious pros of detachable magazines

>>31835158
>finicky, most can't be inserted on a closed bolt
what the fuck?

>>31835248
It's true. Try inserting a stripper clip on a closed bolt. Much easier.

>>31835158
Jesus anon, at least try to be a bit creative with your bait

>>31835286
Is that guy on akfiles still selling those?

>>31835158
3.4/10 made me think

>>31835158
Agreed.

Also they have the affect of making infantry profligate with ammunition, plus your average soldier is constantly losing them.

>>31835158
Oh my fuck turtle stew /k/ is easy to troll. I mean how does this get a single response ... HAHAHAHHAAH faggots

File: 1445295040690.gif (68KB, 120x120px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 120x120px

>>31835158
I know this is bait, but holy carp.
>Easily lost
A 5-10 round stripper clip is smaller, therefore easier to lose, than a 20/30 round magazine
>Weighs more
No shit sherlock, they're bigger and therefore not as easy to lose.
>Can't be inserted on a closed bolt
I don't know of a single magazine that can't be inserted on a closed bolt. Conversely, I don't know of a single clip that can.
>Easy to damage
>Wear out, aren't built to last
They're intended to be expendable.

>>31835158
>Why do people defend OP?
>He sucks dick, here's why:

>easily enticed, just flop a cock out anywhere near him
>weighs more than forklifts can handle
>finicky, most dicks can't be inserted in his anus
>easier to damage than a fleshlight
>wears out faster and aren't built to last

>>31835158
At first I thought this was a really bad attempt to be /k/, circa 1914. Then I realized this is 1914 /k/ and this brain-addled peasant has been in the great-yellow-shiny-thing-in-Her-Majesty's-Sky too long and is speaking in nonsensical gibberish. What foppish buffoonery, I say.