70
this post was submitted on 29 Apr 2024
70 points (82.4% liked)
NonCredibleDefense
6788 readers
520 users here now
A community for your defence shitposting needs
Rules
1. Be nice
Do not make personal attacks against each other, call for violence against anyone, or intentionally antagonize people in the comment sections.
2. Explain incorrect defense articles and takes
If you want to post a non-credible take, it must be from a "credible" source (news article, politician, or military leader) and must have a comment laying out exactly why it's non-credible. Low-hanging fruit such as random Twitter and YouTube comments belong in the Matrix chat.
3. Content must be relevant
Posts must be about military hardware or international security/defense. This is not the page to fawn over Youtube personalities, simp over political leaders, or discuss other areas of international policy.
4. No racism / hatespeech
No slurs. No advocating for the killing of people or insulting them based on physical, religious, or ideological traits.
5. No politics
We don't care if you're Republican, Democrat, Socialist, Stalinist, Baathist, or some other hot mess. Leave it at the door. This applies to comments as well.
6. No seriousposting
We don't want your uncut war footage, fundraisers, credible news articles, or other such things. The world is already serious enough as it is.
7. No classified material
Classified ‘western’ information is off limits regardless of how "open source" and "easy to find" it is.
8. Source artwork
If you use somebody's art in your post or as your post, the OP must provide a direct link to the art's source in the comment section, or a good reason why this was not possible (such as the artist deleting their account). The source should be a place that the artist themselves uploaded the art. A booru is not a source. A watermark is not a source.
9. No low-effort posts
No egregiously low effort posts. E.g. screenshots, recent reposts, simple reaction & template memes, and images with the punchline in the title. Put these in weekly Matrix chat instead.
10. Don't get us banned
No brigading or harassing other communities. Do not post memes with a "haha people that I hate died… haha" punchline or violating the sh.itjust.works rules (below). This includes content illegal in Canada.
11. No misinformation
NCD exists to make fun of misinformation, not to spread it. Make outlandish claims, but if your take doesn’t show signs of satire or exaggeration it will be removed. Misleading content may result in a ban. Regardless of source, don’t post obvious propaganda or fake news. Double-check facts and don't be an idiot.
Join our Matrix chatroom
Other communities you may be interested in
Banner made by u/Fertility18
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I just like any gun that doesn't look like an AR, AK (with the exception of the SVD and VSS), or other common firearm.
Imo, space guns and experimental-looking weapons are proven to have superior penetration, lower spread and bullet drop, higher fire rate and magazine capacity, and radically improved durability and repairability over their mentally stunted, dime-a-dozen, snoozefest cousins. Weapons like the H&K G11, FAMAS, FN F2000, and Mateba Model-6 Unica are objectively superior to weapons like the M16, AK-19, and M17/M18. The reason why most modern militaries choose AR or AK platforms for their weapons is a result of successful lobbying by global military contractors. They're objectively worse than cool-looking guns, but there's too much money involved and so small companies like H&K can't compete.
The XM29 OICW and XM25 should have never been cancelled. Alas, H&K was obviously, once again, out-lobbied by Big AR.
You do know that AR references the singular company Armalite, right?
Also it makes no sense to say in my opinion x is objectively better than y. If it was objectively better then it's not just your opinion...
And you've completely ignored the history of the advanced combat rifle program which showed that advanced "space weapons" like the G11 had little improvement over the m16 and culminated in a 300 million dollar cost to figure out that putting a scope on any rifle was the best way to improve that rifles accuracy leading to development of the acog scope?
Sorry, but I don't listen to pro-AR propaganda.
The 45~50 round magazine, caseless ammunition and delayed-recoil 3-round burst of the G11 are just objectively better than some piddly M16.
The magazine for a standard issue M16 can only hold 30 rounds max, and US troops don't even usually load the full 30 rounds as a result of Vietnam-era superstition. That means the G11 has at least 66% more bullet per magazine than the inferior M16.
Furthermore, the fact that the G11's recoil is delayed on 3-round bursts means it has the pinpoint accuracy needed to efficiently dispatch hostile forces with extreme prejudice. Meanwhile, the M16 is gonna recoil for each one of those shots, throwing off your aim and making the burst-fire mode useless. Using a G11? Show those terrorists who's boss. Using an M16? You might as well get on your knees and suck their dicks.
Finally, the 4.73x33mm caseless munitions used by the G11 are better in every way. They don't tumble upon impact with a target, making your kills cleaner and more compliant with internation conventions, resulting in them being more humane than the brutal 5.56x45mm NATO rounds employed by M16s. Additionally, the caseless nature of the rounds makes them more environmentally friendly than traditional munitions as you won't leave spent brass everywhere when using them. Less trash = more good for the environment. To top things off, while the tendency for the G11's caseless ammunition to cook-off under heavy usage might seem like a design flaw, it is actually a work of genius engineering as it allows troops to readily turn their rifles into improvised explosives while under heavy fire. This allows them to throw the rifle in the direction of surpressing fire and take advantage of the full 45-50 round magazine without ever leaving defensive cover. I bet your weak-ass M16 can't do that, can it?
As you can see, the G11 is highly superior to the standard M16 and should have been fielded. However, Big AR got in the way by reunifying East and West Germany, thereby causing Germany's political climate to change and the G11 to become unnecessary; while also spreading rumors about how the tendency for the G11's superior caseless ammo to cook off under heavy use was a design flaw and not, in fact, an obviously intentional design feature.
Edit: improved some phrasing.
It's not a bug, it's a feature. Got it..