>EM-2 is great guys! >at a time when the AK was already

>>34536136
The video wasn't about about the AK was it? Also, the AK kinda sucked until the 3rd iteration, and wasn't finalized until the AKM in 1954.

>>34536232
>AKM in 1954.
1959.

The T2 and T3 were just fine. Arsenal still makes T2s.

>>34536136

I think it's supposed to compare to a FAL.

File: 32FEF2D200000578-0-image-m-5_1460197788432.jpg (22KB, 634x307px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 634x307px

>>34536136
Why do Brits make ugliest guns in the world?

>>34536604
Ugliest guns for the ugliest people

>>34536254
1960 you mean

>>34536639
I don't, no.

>>34536658
Find me a single AKM trunnion dated 1959. Don't worry, I'll keep the thread open.

It was superior to anything in .308 you asshole.

>>34536136
I hope someone starts making reproductions in a modern caliber. I want a nice bullpup.

>>34536989
The modern offerings are a lot better than this flapper locked piece of shit.

>gun is good
>finally something workable from the brits
>Murrica : No

>>34536254
what T2s do they make?

>>34536136
>Near 70 year old rifle that as no replaced part and is hot frequently does not run reliably
Gee I Wonder why?

>>34536604
Did you just call the Sterling ugly, you fucking neanderthal?

File: teacup ok sign semen op.png (1MB, 1800x1350px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1800x1350px

>ancient prototype gun using ancient damaged ammo has issues feeding

>>34539982
>implying it is not

>>34539904
In practice .280 British was just a slightly weaker .308, people forget it went though several iterations when they combine the mutually exclusive pro's.

>>34536136
(You)

>AK is great guys!
>at a time when the StG44 was a thing

why is Kalashnikov such a hack?

>>34539982
Back to hoth imperial scum

>>34536690
The AKM final design was adopted and approved for mass production in late 1959.

Production taking place a couple months after in 1960 doesn't change the fact that it was formally accepted into official service the previous year.

>>34539953
My bad, meant T3. The AR and all their other milled guns use T3 receivers. Although the AR does have a T2 gas block. Arsenal is fucking weird.

File: 9169762_zpsisavzi8o.jpg (127KB, 547x664px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 547x664px

>>34540760
AKM's didn't start rolling off the factory floor until 1960, it wasn't around in 1959 and didn't exist outside of being blueprints on a piece of paper in 59.

>>34541075
You're seriously trying to tell me no AKM pre-production rifles were ever built? Not a single AKM was built until 1960?

>>34536136
>Ian has shot both EM-2 and AK
>I have not
>So I know he's wrong that the EM-2 is good

>>>/out/

File: 9221032.jpg (181KB, 1353x1044px) Image search: [Google]

181KB, 1353x1044px

>>34536232
>>34536254
first AKM prototype was in 1955

>>34541221
That rifle looks hella' sexy. Mix between a milled and stamped...

File: dustcover.jpg (135KB, 345x312px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 345x312px

>>34541232
yeah, AKM prototype is sexy as fuck
especialy that dust cover

File: file.png (137KB, 600x191px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 600x191px

>>34540012

the Soviet tested and compared the MKb-42(H) to the M1 carbine

the MKb-42(H) suck M1 carbine dick

>>34541115
>You're seriously trying to tell me no AKM pre-production rifles were ever built?

You fail to realize the nature of Soviet Union. Even back in the 50s original AKs were rifles that the troops trained with but only in very very secretive and controlled environment. They were order to hand their rifles back when exercises were over and were given Nuggets, ppsh-41s or SKS(s) instead. Any and all new military technologies in the Soviet Union were closely guarded state secrets.

So even if there was few pre-production rifles around how you suppose the west could've known about them? Soviets would've killed anyone on sight if they'd suspect someone is spying for the west.

According to multiple sources western powers weren't even aware of the existence of this new rifle until it suddenly popped up in Hungary when soviets marched in and crushed the popular revolution in 1956. Apparently to get their hands on them they had to wait until escalation of conflict in Vietnam to get their hands on some to study them.

>>34536136

fucking take that back you nigger

File: dat chrome.jpg (19KB, 650x212px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 650x212px

>>34541232

File: mk 1 ak.jpg (514KB, 2545x1027px) Image search: [Google]

514KB, 2545x1027px

1948 style

File: dxsRVCi.png (196KB, 296x440px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 296x440px

>>34536604
>Sterling
>ugly

>>34536604
beauty is in the eye of the beholder

>>34541730
The last AESTHETIC gun they made was the Webley and the No1 MkIII, ever since then it was going into the trash.

>>34541655
That wasn't the question though. Being a secret and physically existing don't negate each other

>>34541255
From what I can read the MKB had a 19X higher hit rate.

File: 1391353632144.jpg (171KB, 1749x1249px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 1749x1249px

>>34541075

>>34540012
Don't forget it's a trials gun, so it's already been through hell.
But from what I can tell, all the problems in that video were related to damaged/deformed rounds.

>>34540548
I like the idea of the .270 British. 100gr at 2800 ft/s would be softer shooting than the later .280 British variants.
But it was definitely not suitable as a machinegun cartridge, so we would have to have adopted something like 7.62x51 anyway.

Should've gone the same routes as the Soviets, instead trying to have a single cartridge for everything, have two cartridges.
A lighter cartridge for infantry weapons & light machineguns, and a heavier for machineguns and sniper rifles.
Soviets had 7.62x39 & 7.62x51R, we should have had .270 British (as 7mm NATO) and 7.62x51 NATO.

>>34541831
>The precision of the MKb 42(H) at ranges of 100, 300, and 500 meters is 1.5 times worse than that of the American M1 carbine.

>In automatic fire, the precision of the MKb 42 (H) is unsatisfactory (a burst can't be caught by a 1.5 x 1.5 meter target at 100 meters).

>The reliability of the automatic mechanism has not been determined.

>The design of the sample is complex, but the widespread use of stamped parts deserves attention.