Thread replies: 13
Thread images: 3
Thread images: 3
File: fullrifleBO1-2.jpg (177KB, 1200x1200px) Image search:
[Google]
177KB, 1200x1200px
With the whole shitshow surrounding the HMG STG, I'd like to ask a general question.
The STG was a first generation model of a assault rifle and its use in combat, and was used by a faction constantly falling back with what remained of their industry and materials. Part of the design was to minimise the use of expensive and rare materials needed to build the alloys used chamber and action, that could be produced relatively quickly.
The design itself was not made to last, with the weapon having a definite lifetime. If a soldier ran the gun hard enough that it actually reached the end of the weapon’s life, good work, here’s a new one. The trigger unit was made to be ‘repaired’ by removing one rivet and replacing the unit entirely.
Due to this, one of the main appeals of having an STG and its reproductions was the fact that the STG was the first use of assault rifles in mainline combat on a large scale, as the weapon is heavy, not the most reliable or durable, with a front handguard that heat up with the barrel, and using a cartridge that was made to tone down the muzzle climb and recoil of the 8mm mauser to a manageable level when used full auto.
While changes to the design is understandable with these flaws in mind, but why make changes that make the STG-N easily visually distinct from the original STG, such as the the safety switch? While the general profile is the same, these changes and others make it clear that this is not an actual STG, one of the main points that would make a STG reproduction appealing.
A modernised version of the STG ultimately comes to be something like the M4. Using a cartridge that was controllable in full auto, changing each rifleman to a light machine gunner with a change of the selector switch, while minimising the need for expensive and hard to find alloys needed in key parts of the action and chamber.
>>
>>32954849
> Continued
This is skipping over the fact that they decided to work with four different calibers instead of just one, adding worktime and eating up resources when they could have worked with one and make changes to allow for different calibers as an added bonus.
With all this in mind, what is the appeal of having a ‘Modernised’ STG? What is the appeal of having the strange kinda lookalike, aside from the price? Why do people still want one?
>>
>With all this in mind, what is the appeal of having a ‘Modernised’ STG? What is the appeal of having the strange kinda lookalike, aside from the price? Why do people still want one?
Without putting to fine a point on it, Codfag normies.
The sort of people who only recognize the superficial outline of a gun and are happy with a rough approximation of it. The type that fall for the PSL marketed as a "Real Spetznaz SVD" or a shitty old Mosin with scope marketed as "One of a kind Russian sniper used by Zaitzev himself", pay full price, and not be bothered when you point out he got ripped off.
Ive no issue with people shelling out for these "STG repros" and enjoying them for what they are, but there's no denying they are the essential gullible goyim of the firearms-buying public.
>>
File: 1486799577139wtf.jpg (91KB, 1200x1200px) Image search:
[Google]
91KB, 1200x1200px
Off topic, but what the hell is going on here? Anyone else getting some optical illusion shit from OP's pic?
>>
>>32954982
if by optical illusion you mean it looks like shit and makes me want to puke, then yes...
>>
>>32954851
its a nifty 4 caliber ar that is historicaly revelant to collectors that cant afford a real stg. with those two things there its already more valuable than a bushmaster ACR gimmick back in the late 2000's
>>
>>32955298
So, basically, it's there to represent the idea of a STG? If so, you can get toys or non firing replicas that look more accurate for less. As for the caliber, why not just stick to a common caliber, such as the 5.56, which is practically the evolution of the 8mm Kurz. However, as a general idea of the STG that actually fires, I see your point
>>
>>32955323
not only that but also it can use many diffrent calibers. for example you want do reenactment every couple of months and use 8mm kurtz brass, but for plinking you can use 556 or 762, then even when you want to shoot with no ear pro you could put your suppressor on to it with 300 blackout and go plinking in the woods with it. it has a shit-ton of appeal to a large variety of shooters out there.
>>
>>32955298
IDK why you brought up the ACR, but it failed because it was initially overpriced and Cerberus bit off more than they could chew regarding the multi-cal features and general distribution. In light of the weird feature-creep and mismanagement of the HMG rifle (they clearly never expected or intended their project to get this big), they could have similar fates.
>>
>>32955383
forgot to mention it has 4 seperate barrels and caliber kits coming with it for a good price each. 8mm kurtzz 5.56x45, 7.62x39 and 7.62x45
>>
>>32955386
see >>32955388
acr failed to do what its main goal was of being a easy change multi caliber rifle. they never released different caliber kits for it.
>>
>>32955383
>>32955388
Why overcomplicate the design? Surely, it would be best to make a gun from the ground up designed to use a range of calibers interchangeably then to almost completely overhaul the gun to allow for this? And with a more mass appeal gun, such as something based on the extremely well known AR series?
>>
File: 1431880174495.gif (4MB, 615x346px) Image search:
[Google]
4MB, 615x346px
Thread posts: 13
Thread images: 3
Thread images: 3