The Best Light Machine Gun.

Site Issues 2005 Archive Room
#61

I’m already done it few times - got some battle expirience, some from army, some when i was a cop, and how you can see - still alive.
I don’t like talk about it there.
Know i better what to fight building-to-bulding than USA troops ?
I sure - USA troops are well trained. I sure - they are alive people as i’m. And i tought - we hawe some same expirience in street combat. Who’s better - this question not for me, i’m alredy grown up from age, when these ideas -who stronger, who faster, etc does matter.

Oh, i sure these M-4 and M-4A1 was tested perfectly. Maybe mine more than bad english done that - i not meand M-4 are bad or defective weapon. But… oh, shit ! I catched in ! When you shot M-4 from right shoulder - you have no problem… but i have shot M-4 as usual i do - from left shoulder… aтв got that expirience - some quantity of gas burned my face a bit from left side. It was endurable, but not comfortable…
I just forget that… left side/right side… when you lefthanded, you tought all around are lefthanded…

Nope. Just imagine russian, who wear M-65 and Justin cowboyboots, have USA Flag on wall in own apartments, have M1 helmet from Vietnam (and a bit mad about Vietnam too) and “Fritz” helmet from Iraq, never went out without Zippo lighter (gifled by USA policeman few years ago), dreamin’ about some old Chevy, and friends of that russian know - best gift is it some american ( for example US Army compass, dated 1984) because they know - that russian a bit crazy about USA…
Got this picture ? So, it was me.
And can you imagine me “prey to funny information designed to discredit a great weapon, simply because it is American.” ? Really can do it ? Bad for me if you can.
Any insultings for USA - is direct insultings for me.
So, can i hope that we clear with this point ?

Couple of pictures to begin with:

2004 - A U. S. Army soldier (HHC 3/116th Infantry) with a M14 rifle sporting ACOG and E O Tech sights somewhere in Afghanistan.

May 13, 2004 � A soldier with Comanche Company 1st Battalion, 23 Infantry Regiment, 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division Stryker Brigade Combat Team looks through his scope of a M14 sniper rifle in Mosul, Iraq. C Company was conducting a search for insurgents. U.S. Army photo by Sgt. Jeremiah Johnson

There you can find more pictures:
http://www.imageseek.com/m1a/gallery/service

Note that, plase - nor M21, but M14.
And if there in Afganistan and Iraq you can make such pictures, is meand - sometimes US troops use unofficial weapons (sure, M14 was totally replased with M16A1 during Vietnam war in US Army).
Note please scope on M-14, first pic. ACOG and EO Tech…
Your comments welcome.

Wich of my words gived to you ground for your ironistical expressions ?
Yes, english unfortunately not my native language. I can wrong put into words in english my toughts, i know it .
Few questions:
Can USA military personnel use own firearms or not ?
Can they take out from home own (not govermential ) M1A or something else in Iraq and then use it ?
If they can’t - i should ask my friend (btw US Ranger) why he kidding me. And if i’ll ask that question - i need something more, than abstact ideas or logical exercises. If you know some Army’s rule prohibited use in warzone unofficial weapon - let me look at text, please.

#62

Yes there is, the British government.

#63

Yes there is, the British government.[/quote]

:lol: Oh, i forget about that funny Enfield L85A1/SA80…

#64

Well, you seem to intelligent to me to do such a thing. Lucky you.

Oh! So from…

…to:

So instead of implying that the M4 has a design flaw whereby it frequently burns the face of the shooter, you mean that with a left-handed shooter (like myself) that it COULD cause “endurable, but not comfortable” heat on the face??? Geez Preatorian. That’s quite a trun-around. Wouldn’t it have been better to state what you REALLY meant the first time, instead of implying the weapon had a serious design flaw such as that, one so great that it would virtually render the weapon unworthy of use? Hmmm. Now I like you Preatorian, I really do. But great googly boogly!

I don’t know, but I doubt it.

In the US, the it is illegal to posess fully automatic weapons, so having one in your home, soldier or not, would be a crime. There was a law passed called the Brady Bill that made fully-automatic weapons illegal. It also created the requirement that people must wait 10 days while a criminal record check is made by the FBI (Federal Beureau of Investigation) to see if you have a felony record. Those who have a record of a crime against the US (felony) cannot ever legally possess a firearm ever again for the rest of their lives. If they have only a record of a state crime (one which is not considered a crime against the nation), they are allowed to posess a firearm. So, I would say no. It’s not like in Switzerland where males are required to be in the military and keep their weapon at home, or at least, that is what I have heard. I’m not sure if it’s true about the Swiss.

If your “friend” says he gets to take his US military issued fully-automatic weapon home, he is full of bullpie. That would be illegal in the US. Don’t believe anything else that one says. : )

#65

IRONMAN

Uh fully automatic machine guns are illegal in the US…thats funny. What about the infamous Michigan Militia. Hell there are ppl here in BFE Indiana with M-16’s. And if they are … uh what about Columbine or Waco…there were a few fully auto’s there. Guess thats kinda like saying jaywalking is illegel.

#66

Definitely it’s true for Swiss.

#67

I should have been more specific. Fully automatic weapons are illegal in the US if they are manufactured after May 19, 1986 or obtained without special liscence. There is a special liscence available for antique fully-automatic weapons only. You cannot simply go buy an UZI, as owning a modern fully-auto weapon is illegal in the US.

However, a special class of “licensed collectors” provides for the purchase and sale of firearms designated by the BATFE as “curios and relics.” Class III dealers may sell fully-automatic firearms manufactured prior to May 19, 1986, and other federally registered firearms and devices restricted under Title II of the Gun Control Act, to individuals who obtain approval from the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury after payment of a tax and clearance following a criminal background check.

In the case of a US soldier taking his military issued weapon home, that would be illegal.

#68

I should have been more specific. Fully automatic weapons are illegal in the US if they are manufactured after May 19, 1986 or obtained without special liscence. There is a special liscence available for antique fully-automatic weapons only. You cannot simply go buy an UZI, as owning a modern fully-auto weapon is illegal in the US.

However, a special class of “licensed collectors” provides for the purchase and sale of firearms designated by the BATFE as “curios and relics.” Class III dealers may sell fully-automatic firearms manufactured prior to May 19, 1986, and other federally registered firearms and devices restricted under Title II of the Gun Control Act, to individuals who obtain approval from the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury after payment of a tax and clearance following a criminal background check.

In the case of a US soldier taking his military issued weapon home, that would be illegal.[/quote]

So owning a full or selective fire weapon is not illegal.
Glad that’s cleared up.

#69

“Fully automatic weapons are illegal in the US if they are manufactured after May 19, 1986 or obtained without special liscence.”

If this special licence is obtained can an American citizen then hold an automatic weapon maufactured after 1986? a yes or no answer should suffice, but an elaboration would be more useful

#70

No it didn’t.

#71

IRONMAN running out of road - again!

#72

Yes there is, the British government.[/quote]

:lol: Oh, i forget about that funny Enfield L85A1/SA80…[/quote]

Funny strange ? Yes.
Funny ha-ha ? No - it’s a bloody tragedy !
:cry:

#73

There were some (nominally) sixty rd magazines produced for some of the BREN AA mounts.

#74

Yes there is, the British government.[/quote]

:lol: Oh, i forget about that funny Enfield L85A1/SA80…[/quote]

Funny strange ? Yes.
Funny ha-ha ? No - it’s a bloody tragedy !
:cry:[/quote]
For Great Britan ? Yes, is it tragedy.
When i first time saw that L85 - i tought “What a great looking weapon !” I respect brittish weapons as well as brittish cars - part of my life i just was mad about Jaguars… :wink:
But after time i got know - something went wrong with GB… and something wrong with L85 as result.
Generally idea of L85 seems damn good, but execution of this idea going wrong. Prototipe of L85 - Armalite AR-18 (or M18) - good, reliable weapon, not exellent but good enough. For first look L85 - just “bullpuped” M18. But whole construction - just tragedy, right, Cuts, ureliable, weak, just grimase of damned Plastic Age… something went wrong with GB, i guess.
Germans HK have used AR-18 as prototipe of G-36 - and they make all well, and i never hawe heard somebody, who can say after test - G-36 bad weapon… but why Royal Ordance don’t make this rifle well ?
I don’t know.
Both, HK and RO started from one piont, RO even got a fora in a lot of yeas… and finally famous shovel-maker HK made G 36 and famous Royal Ordance made shoting (sometimes) headache L85A1…
Sorry for offtop.

#75

Yes there is, the British government.[/quote]

:lol: Oh, i forget about that funny Enfield L85A1/SA80…[/quote]

Funny strange ? Yes.
Funny ha-ha ? No - it’s a bloody tragedy !
:cry:[/quote]
For Great Britan ? Yes, is it tragedy.
When i first time saw that L85 - i tought “What a great looking weapon !” I respect brittish weapons as well as brittish cars - part of my life i just was mad about Jaguars… :wink:
But after time i got know - something went wrong with GB… and something wrong with L85 as result.
Generally idea of L85 seems damn good, but execution of this idea going wrong. Prototipe of L85 - Armalite AR-18 (or M18) - good, reliable weapon, not exellent but good enough. For first look L85 - just “bullpuped” M18. But whole construction - just tragedy, right, Cuts, ureliable, weak, just grimase of damned Plastic Age… something went wrong with GB, i guess.
Germans HK have used AR-18 as prototipe of G-36 - and they make all well, and i never hawe heard somebody, who can say after test - G-36 bad weapon… but why Royal Ordance don’t make this rifle well ?
I don’t know.
Both, HK and RO started from one piont, RO even got a fora in a lot of yeas… and finally famous shovel-maker HK made G 36 and famous Royal Ordance made shoting (sometimes) headache L85A1…
Sorry for offtop.[/quote]

Most of GB dont care about its military much, very little funding is going through, and about half a year ago they where making major cuts in their military, I think if GB had got enough money maybe they can make something out of the L85. Usually Britain is known for its quality and reliabilty etc. Mostly becasue they have a small country and fewer soldiers so they try make the most of it.

#76

I know it already about 15 years.
But M1A if you know - just semi-auto rifle. As well as AR15 and etc.
And i meand “own weapon from home to Iraq NOT from Iraq to home”. Is it bigs difference, isn’t it ?

My friend. NOT “friend” (you try insulting my friend or try insulting me with “” ?).
And he don’t sayd “he gets to take his US military issued fully-automatic weapon home” and i never sayd it as well. He got in he’s home enough legal weapons already.
No need to steal something from US Goverment, especially M4A1, especially if you have customised AR-15 … :lol:
And i better belive to real man, who fight in Iraq at USA side, especially after a lot of time that i have spended in he’s home about 5 years ago and and a lot of rounds shoted from he’s rifles. He are my friend. He are US soldier. He are honest man.

#77

It’s a typo. They must be manufactured prior to 1986. Did you not sumize that? However, since you have to have permission from the Secretary of the Treasury himself, I think that means that unless you can prove that you are a sincere collector of antique firearms with a sizable collection of non-automatic weapons already, you will surely get a negative response. Good luck getting yours. You’ll need it, especially in these times.

No sh*t. It’s a good thing.

Kiddo, I have yet to see you post anything that is wholly factual and you always need to be corrected, so if you’re feeling that little joyful, giddy, lightheaded feeling that you mistakenly perceive as richeousness, it’s probably all that sugar in your Captain Whamo Puffy Pops. :wink:

It has nothing to do with that. It’s just the way the British are as a people. They put forth the effort to try to make everything as high in quality as they can. The British simply think in terms of quality.

#78

I misunderstood you because your English is not good, but no offense meant by that. My mistake - truly. But I think US soldiers cannot take their own weapons to war. I have never seen a US soldier using any weapon except a US military weapon in any photograph or video footage. Have you? Can’t say that I have ever seen anyone from any nation doing that, myself.

My brother had an AR-15. But if you mean modified to be fully-automatic, that would be dangerous, since if it were discovered you could go to prison for that. That would not be a smart thing to do.

#79

Short of the Sugar on my cereals, I suggest that it is you who has not managed to mount a significant response to your claims that we hide behind gurkha blood. I do take it as an afront to the british military the Ghorka tribes of Nepal and the blood of those that have died fighting for HM forces that you accuse these men of being our Lackeys.

I also find it patronising that you will not accept your nation also has foreign troops in US Uniform. I do not want a “moral” Victory I jsut want some admission on your part that your initial statement made so boldly was not Factually correct.

http://www.voanews.com/english/2005-03-11-voa67.cfm.
Former President George Bush was on hand Friday at his presidential library in College Station, Texas as a federal judge conferred citizenship on 47 immigrants who are currently serving in the U.S. military.

The new citizens hail from 27 nations and currently serve in the US Army, Navy and Air Force. More than half have served in Iraq or other combat areas. Former President George Bush assisted in presenting them with their citizenship papers and praised their dedication to their new country.

Does the Existence of this ceremony contradict your earlier statement?

"

there are tens of thousands of US soldiers. None of those wearing a US uniform are foreigners. Not one." found at this location
http://www.ww2incolor.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=126&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=90

or this claim;- "

US law requires that you must be a citizen of the US or a citizen applicant imigrant to be allowed to join the US military"

I believe that this is a supported analytical response to you claim that I am not substantiating my claims.

a YES or NO answer will suffice, were your earlier comments mistaken?

Final words will be left to the orator himself George Dubya.
Please respond in a civil manner with references, just so that we shant have accusations of lying.

http://images.radcity.net/5781/985381.wmv

Thankyou for your time.

#80

It has nothing to do with that. It’s just the way the British are as a people. They put forth the effort to try to make everything as high in quality as they can. The British simply think in terms of quality.[/quote]

In the case of the SA80 it is unfortunately untrue.

From the design through the manufacture and to the tactical doctrine changes it is a long story of politics, ignorance, ineptitude and corruption.

The sooner it is binned the better for all concerned.