/AKM/ - Guns, weapons and the art of war.

describe the ideology of the new Zealander who believes in pic related

Do you partake in the forbidden
Bullpup?

Check out your local craigslist. You'll find some good deals on Ukrainian AKs right now.

A thread dedicated to the discussion of collecting stamps, coins, weapons, military awards, etcDo not buy items from sellers on eBay if they do not have an excellent reputation. On the web-site you can find copies of coins and badges that cost $10 each but people sell them as originals, so you are not safe even when buying cheap items. There are also web 1.0 style forums for professional collectors and dealers, like this onehttps://www.wehrmacht-awards.com/forums/they are quite good and many people on them have decades of experience in collecting. These forums function like auctions and they are also very useful if you want to find out for free if your jewelry/coin/whatever is fake, or just take a look at people's collections.

cursed weapons and guilty pleasures

post 'em

i want 'em

These weapons are made for the purpose of harming a large number of people, the contradiction they have as useful weapons of war is their purpose.
In most wars an army can be expected to deploy the lowest amount of troops and supplies possible as to ensure the lives of its soldiers are safe and the government it works for has surplus army supplies it can use to maintain its security over a state and the potential success of coming out victorious n future armed conflicts. WMDs contradict this basic behaviour by their own nature, if any armed conflict ever breaks out so violent that weapons that need to kill hundreds of thousands to millions need to be mass produced that represents a problem with how 2 or more armies are fundamentally approaching war and are said armies will have their governments invest in better infrastructure and machinery that can counter the effects of WMDs along with tools to make war less lethal as to ensure surplus troops. Evidence of this can be seen in the Cold War which saw an arms race to develop tech that could detect and down a nuke before it hits or launches like the internet and satellites, hazmat suits to counter radiation damage, or ww1 which saw the development of gas masks by garret morgan as a means to counter the effects of mustard gas and bio agents etc.
In conclusion WMDs are useless in warfare as the concept of a WMD itself contradicts the policies any properly maintained army would make to ensure its longevity and security in fulfilling its tasks, for every hypersonic ICBM developed there are radars made of reflective material detecting and sending missiles towards it before it can hit its target.

It’s too fast, so fast to the point where if you were driving a car you would need to be hours away from your destination to properly land this fucking thing when it’s zipping around at hundreds to thousands of kilometres an hour l

The US tried to capture a "terrorist" in Idlib, the helicopter the special forces were using ended up getting shot down.

>ammo prices still too fucking high
>try making nitrocellulose with nitric acid and ping pong balls
>buy 500 ping pong balls
>they're all made of plastic
>now I just have a bunch of nitric acid and ping pong balls
help a poor uyghur out

As is known, the earliest example of guns, your matchlocks and percussion cap rifles were not really the most accurate things in the world, so aiming was seen as more "point in the general direction and hope for the best" more than a tool to increase accuracy. This would carry over into WW1, while the rifles were indeed much more accurate, to the point of aiming allowing soldiers to hit targets from great distances with great, well, accuracy, the military high commands of that era were sluggish to realize just how industrialization had changed warfare - it was not until the interwar period that there was serious experimentation on how to perfect the new mode of war, and to discard the old Napoleonic era of tactics in favor of what we generally recognize as modern warfare.

This stance in pic 1 being used is an old school sport shooting stance. It's actually a very accurate stance, as it puts the fulcrum of the rifle in line with the shooters center or mass. But, it's an impractical position for warfare, as it requires to be both standing upright as well as fully still. Though, at the time nations started to field snipers, the majority of them were trained by or just were hunters and sport shooters - many of the USSR's snipers were just country boys who enjoyed hunting turning their skills into tools to destroy fascism.

Another adaptation of the era was pistols - though they had existed prior, their mass utilization by infantry was entirely new, and there was very little standardization of shooting stances for accuracy. What ended up getting adopted by most nations was largely their "officer's stances", which was a position that was once used for holding aloft officer's swords, before pistols became the status symbol of the office. Pic 2 is the American army, pic 3 the Germans, and pic 4 the English. The only concern of this stance is getting the shot on target, it was popular with dueling and target shooting. If you've seen videos of people shooting like this, you'll know there's very little recoil control - making it impractical for warfare due to difficulty of follow up shots. You can see an example of these kinds of hold-over firing positions in this video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jP7J-JNSUu4
A lot of these old stances have no modern equivalents in warfare, but others are the ancestors to our modern forms.