Filename Thread

>>33152954
>.22 long rifle
>box full of shotgun shells
>picture on box looks like a .22-250
and you think we'll find this witty?

File: coloured Wehrmacht volunteer.jpg (26KB, 417x500px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 417x500px

>>33152954
no

File: k visits pols house.webm (2MB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 640x480px

>>33152954

File: 1911love.jpg (1MB, 1280x2880px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1280x2880px

>>33152954
>tfw someone pulls out a 1911

File: How Liberals See America.webm (3MB, 490x266px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 490x266px

>>33152954

File: planehunting.png (181KB, 1006x1964px) Image search: [Google]

181KB, 1006x1964px

>>33152954

File: 1485120227410.png (28KB, 295x311px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 295x311px

>>33153212
that fuckin dog leash

File: m-45g_quad_50.jpg (904KB, 2272x1704px) Image search: [Google]

904KB, 2272x1704px

>>33153507
so wait a second here now, I get that 30k feet is insane huge truck mounted computer fired missile area, but SURELY they put .50 calls on trucks in WW2 for a reason. I know a big thing about anti air was moral, but how hard would it be for a lower elevation?

I'm sure that they were for fending off very low strafing runs, but what about a huey chopper? max ~15k feet at 125mph. would a suped up anti air rate of fire .50 x 4 even get more round out in time for the hit window or is it just about spitting out more dakka because the window is so small?

>>33153869
7.62s, .50 cals, 13mms, were for low flying aircraft. I dont know how anyone could know they weren't... that text pic is pretty retarded, but so is most of /k/