You only need one gun

I don't understand gun hoarders. For what purpose? In the army we got one assault rifle for entire year and that's it. Then we had to learn to cope with it in every situation. It's not like when shit hits the fan and you go on prolonged guerrilla campaign that you will lug along multiple weapons anyways. Carrying one assault rifle for a week in woods is enough to make me want to throw it away, shitty heavy cold hunk of metal getting stuck on everything, especially naves. Can't imagine lugging around hunting rifle, assault rifle, pistol and shotgun even for a day.

Which gun would you have? For me, FN FAL non-tripod version. Caliber is sufficient for hunting if need be, can double as sniper rifle, that carrying handle looks comfy, served as standard rifle in many armies with great success.

Attached: FN FAL.jpg (1280x960, 621.97K)

Other urls found in this thread:

Attached: 1519938865306.jpg (960x636, 209.89K)

If it breaks and parts are unavailable? Gets stolen?
What about the investment value?

Fuck off you don't have obsessive compulsive disorder like some of us do.

Attached: 610d93fadd9a0da8c2ce64b08e99b362e52d182e45c9b26da80a81be317480c7.png (469x480, 117.46K)

If it breaks I'm in deep shit anyways without weapon smith skills. Not that it's likely when maintained every day. Military uses service rifles for decades year round.

You sleep with it, it's never outside your reach. You need compulsory service back it seems, svenskajävel.

Least of concerns on societal breakdown scenario. I'd rather carry more bullets for one weapon than another caliber incompatible weapon.

It's something almost every other country and people will never understand, its part of America itself.

Attached: 7cd6680e9da6b6dbdc2d4d683eb40778bdf773cbe5c85bb09f56509530d0f318.jpg (1284x2204, 724.09K)

So if it breaks, you're without a gun? Damn, if only you could have had a little foresight and owned more than one rifle…

make Finland sweden again

I get minimizing your loadout, but show me your toolbox and tell me you don't need different types and sizes of tools. Also, some people like having a personal museum of nice historical rifles. Ain't my gig, but I get why, same reason HEMA-fags have walls of different swords.

I disagree, get as many guns as you can. They are precious resources who's value only goes up.

A rhodie fal. But ammo is expensive and FAL quality is all over the place.

My good old AK. She isn't much, but she'll always perform. I like to spoil her and dress her up, but she seems happiest with a 74 style break, which does wonders on the recoil, it was surprising. Not that AK recoil is too bad, but this made it feel like an AR. She's got some options, but I've found while the wood fore-grip is neat, it isn't very good. I switched to bulgarian ak-74 polymer, but the upper handguard didn't fit. Not that it mattered I like my cheese grater. I put the wood stock on because it make it rear heavy, but most importantly it has sling mounting hardware while the bulgarian stock did not and wouldn't take the one on my wood stock. She looks mixed and matched, maybe a bit autistic, but she works really well and I like her how she is. She doesn't need to be all fancy for me, I love her for who she is, and I feel guilty looking at other rifles. She was also made in 1973, so she has some years.

My Romy Ara-47 > Any other rifle.

Attached: ARA74 (2)

Just because you are a poor loser autist doesn't mean the rest of us is.

btw, pay back your debts

for me, its the colt 45

Attached: Singer-m1911-sz.jpg (970x546, 166.42K)

AK-types are solid choice. 7.62x39 just has bad ballistics and power over 300m. RK95 sights can't be even set beyond that. I'd like my rifle scoped most of the time and effective while doing so. I'd take Russia's 5.45x39 AK variant service rifle as a third choice if scope, FN FAL and H&K G3 were off table.

The only thing you need is at least one gun.
Anyway, if I wanted a all in one gun, i'd want a stoner 63 with all the conversion parts.

Shooting at targets at farther than that is a waste of ammo. Even with an AR. The furthest target for army qualification is 300m. I know my AK well, and it's sweet spot is 250m. Any further you loose accuracy. However where I am, that isn't an issue. Either the shitty urban Ohio, or thick sloped mountain woods of Montana. The range is no issue. If I could have found a 74 when I was shopping for an AK I would have gone for that, 5.45 is an ebin round with excellent wounding capability. The only let-down is having to buy the ammo online.

Attached: stalkerwave.webm (700x584 5.44 MB, 133.12K)

t.never owned a gun

For purposes of patrolling/guerrilla operations, yes, I’m only carrying one long gun. So is everyone else with me.

Muh murcan AR-15, o' course

Do you even understand the concept of fun?


Attached: Mcchicken_b6c982_6019341.jpg (900x721, 104.83K)


We all do.

Attached: 6582466e68b3b6719755212b7cf9fb0c49667480dc35b8be3d94586e78c10ed8.jpeg (442x509, 28.28K)

Interesting subject, on one hand having different rifles in your arsenal allows you to train on various weapons in the off chance that you might have to pick one up in an almost impossible SHTF scenario. Then again if something happens perhaps you would choose one of your other than primary rifles for a specific task instead of your usual go to, for any number of reasons. It means you have options. Its also awesome to own a bunch of great firearms for the sake of owning and shooting them.

I'd say there are other weaknesses to consider, the guy who has five of the same exact rifle will look like he's arming a militia and will garner negative attention, he at least has the same copy of rifles for parts cannabilism or back ups in case his rifle gets damaged. Redundant, but then again sometimes redunancy is the best. Owning a diverse arsenal means having more guns to potentially store parts for, more guns to learn how to fix and clean, no cannibalism. As my arsenal fills up with what I've wanted, I myself sit and think about buying an extra copy of some of the ones I might want an extra for in extreme conditions.

The biggest problem with a diverse arsenal is that it splits up ammunition/budget/time. The guy who only owns one specific rifle, even if he owns 2 ore more, trains on the same rifle/series. ALL of his practice is towards maximizing his skills on one rifle/series, making him more proficient. I'm currently having this issue, I own G3/M1a/FAL and split my 308/7.62 ammunition amongst them, even if my PTR is shot far more because it is currently my primary choice. Fortunately my C93 is cheaper to shoot and the H&K triggers are so similar it is close enough to gain something in general training; but here again 5.56/223 is being split between my M-16ar and my C93.

Don't like the AK too much, but I own one and shoot it to practice, coming across one in an emergency is too likely a scenario as they have become so popular in the US and the entire world. But then again, even with cheap steel case 7.62short, that's money that could have bought ammunition for primary rifle/s. Time at the range spent on a nice, but not primary AK47. Fun, good practice in general, good to stay capable with the platform? Yes. But one could argue you could have become even better with your main rifle.

As for shotguns, they are a different breed altogether. I'm a firm, strong believer that clay shooting makes you a better combat shooter, it teaches to shoot moving objects and to move with the target. Good practice. Also, even though that FAL is a great choice friend, its a messy goose shooter, if you want to eat that goose when you're finished.

Reasonable post by OP, lots to think about for all of us. If only we had unlimited ammunition this would not be a problem; but since it is we should consider what we spend on and how we spend it.

Because guns have more uses than just being survival tools.
There's this thing called "recreation". You may have heard of it.

Re-creation? Re-creating something? So people have a stash of guns because they made them themselves? Actually yeah, that makes sense.


Excuse me Finland, I do not hoard guns. I save them from terrible fates and when the day comes they may be lent out to fuck shit up.

Because I like guns, eurocucked faggot

Because I like guns?

Attached: 1464521047719.jpg (399x468, 28.61K)

That's eight right there. And who cares about "need"? More funs the merrier!

also, valid arguments could be made for a scoped bolt action rifle suitable for extreme long range applications and a flamethrower (not a firearm, but for the purposes of this exercise let's call it one to make it 10)

I'd call flamethrowers firearms. They're arms that shoot fire.

So you didn't have sidearms, SAWs, AT4s or grenades?

Fuck off Aussie.

Attached: RK62.jpg (1610x520, 231.75K)

How else am I supposed to form my own nigger-killing militia? If we had only one gun, we'd have to take turns.

Attached: 1470789401998.jpg (1200x854, 217.17K)

Get 3 copies of your primary & secondary. 1. Main 1. backup, and 1. for spare parts. Then speciality guns. Shotguns for load variety. Bolt guns for precision. Pistol carbines for hearing safety/fog of war simulator.

No one expects you to carry more than primary+secondary at once faggot.

I want this meme to die, modern machining is more than accurate enough for semi-autos to be more accurate than 99.99% of shooters. Hell the M14 is still used as a DMR

If you don't spent your range time cuddling a bolt gun while feeding her hand loads, this board isn't for you.

Look up the cost of a precision gas gun that does .5 moa and then look up the price of a bolt gun that does .5 moa.
Cycling actions are inherently more inaccurate and need a lot more fine tuning and fitting than a bolt gun. Look up what snipers in vietnam had to do to prevent their accuratized M14 variants (terrible choice for a precision gun, especially at the time, just too fragile) from loosing zero for examples. Now as a DMR, a 1 MOA gun in .308 is fine. It is well within the performance envelope needed and can still hit man sized targets at 600 yards with reliability. Now add in that sniper rounds are in the .300 win mag range, a very violent recoiling range of bullets, and you have a situation where yes you can get a semi auto in those calibers to be accurate, but it will be considerably cheaper to get a bolt gun. And at long ranges, a second shot isn't as needed as you think. Now within the 400-700 yard range, a precision gas gun is a very different beast but offers diminishing returns in most situations.

Precision gas guns fill one niche really fucking well but beyond that, its more economical and simple to use a bolt gun or a DMR.


Focus on making Sweden sovereign again before turning the colonialism back on.

underrated post

Attached: pepe wood full moon version.png (901x667, 187.72K)

1 bolt action rifle (30-06, etc.)
1 .22 LR for plinking, pest control, general fun, etc.
1 shotgun for hunting birds, general fun etc.
1 semi-auto pistol for concealed carry
1 bad ass revolver for open carry (side arm when bow hunting)
1 semi-auto for ass salting and BTFO purposes

I could understand having 2 similar weapons for self defense (handguns in multiple locations) for safety/defense. But above that it's gun autism not meaning that in a negative way

nigger, did you just manage to confuse finland with greece???

Im going to go full sperg. But that's not colonialism. Colonialism is when you transport your society somewhere else if you conquer another place it is imperialism. Think about it a colony of penguins is where penguins live. And if a lion came and conquered the penguins it would still be a penguin colony and a lion dominion/imperial possion. It annoys me when people talk about European colonialism in China or India where there were no colonys when what they mean is imperialism and probably have no problem with actual colonialism. When was the last time you heard someone say colonising mars was immoral

this is why I'm glad the AK is still around
t. AR husband

reminder that 5.56 isn't good beyond 300, or even at 300 yards depending on what you're shooting. It and 7.62x39 truly are "intermediate."
If you're shooting further than that, time to step on up to the magnums.

my theory is that Finland is Sweden's balls and that ever since Sweden lost Finland, Sweden lost its balls. thus, the only way to uncuck Sweden is for Sweden to annex Finland, thus getting back its balls. then we could have a Swedish Hitler that would save Europe

Attached: spurd.jpg (922x960, 118.22K)

get out boomer, you don't belong here

Found the anti-gunner.

Don't put your dick in the McChicken.

Yo I need at least three (kinds) of guns.

One long rifle for open carry.

And one pistol for conceal carry.

And a shotgun for fun.

fug that makes sense

Attached: thankspol.png (447x378, 11.27K)

And balls without the benis:DDD are just meatballs full of gum:D without a way to shoot it.

So you only have one cup in your kitchen cupboard?
Good for you.

M27 which is approximately a SAW, M4, and a DMR all in one.
A fully suppressed AK variant with subsonic ammo. You might have to lob shots, but flushing with shit without making more shit is essential.


You can open carry in Vietnam?

Who would care in the jungle? Even if someone notices him, he will be long gone by the time the authorities are notified.

And even if authorities do catch him, he can claim that he was possessed by the spirit of Ho-Chi Mihn, and therefore it is vital for him to do Zig Forums things innawoods.


it's not a fucking 300+ yard round


Not understanding is a really bad thing to base a decision on. Understanding is a GREAT thing to base a decision on, whether you agree with the thing or not.
Your first step, OP, is to gain understanding. Find out what the rationale is, and what the criteria being used to support the position are. Whether they are compelling or not, at least you will have understanding upon which to base a rational judgment.

Here's a (You) for (((You))), since you made me laugh.

…pure pottery.

Attached: laughing elves.gif (384x239, 353.98K)

Attached: 608-5607-9005.JPG (361x414, 82.88K)

LOL! Capped for infamy.

saging, as I'm not giving you a (you).

Attached: 556_cant_go_beyond_300yds.png (428x85, 9.74K)

You know, he's basically correct. The 5.56mm NATO with standard 55 grain and 62 grain ball is dogshit past 300 yards, a very poor performer, all the talk of it being effective up to 500 some plus yards is propaganda to defend the poor decision of making it the "one and only" cartridge for everything. Not only is 7.62x51 the only real choice in general ball ammunition to be effective at 600+yards, its a better cartridge at 400, hell even 300 yards/meters. 5.56 standard has shit BC and low energy retention, is easily destabilized by wind, its a poor performer.

Now add in newer heavy weight bullets for caliber. Sure they perform better than the 62 and 55 grainers, but are they really that great? Not really. by the time you up the bullet weight it is not longer the 'sooper fast" flat shooter it was with the lighter bullets that it takes so much pride in even with a 20 inch barrel, now stick those heavy bullets in the shorter barrels of modern carbines its not that impressive. Long range performance is improved over lighter ball, but is still inferior to larger caliber. Its BC isn't that great, its just good enough to try to get it to limp on in at longer ranges accurately. Other considerations beyond maximum range is how effective the bullet can be at those extended ranges, battle rifles can hit decent hard at longer ranges while the long range 5.56 doesnt' have nearly the remaining energy or capability against minor cover or certain armor at extended ranges. Its still inferior in every way against purpose built long range 7.62 or other considerations at long range.

In normal ball, yes, 300 yards is where the 5.56 really is at its best, 400 starts to stretch, 500 is pushing your luck and hoping. Compare this to .30 caliber ball that in the right rifles the cartridge itself can be used in battle rifles out to 600 yards/meters with iron sights and in tighter guns 800 yards or even some more. Regular ball ain't the most ideal choice, but in a bolt gun what can it do at 1,000 yards in combat consideration? All things considered, the 7.62 NATO is well at home at 500 yards where the 5.56 is struggling to make an effort. In truth 7.62 NATO ball is better than 5.56 NATO ball at 400 yards/meters even. He's right in that regard without argument.

The issue is with 5.56 NATO heavy weight match bullets, still inferior to 7.62 NATO match, but we must entertain the 5.56 NATO because it is the magical moonbeam cannon from the space age to save humanity with its miracles. Yes, with correct loads it can extend the range of the caliber. No, it is not equal to or better than the 7.62 match. No, they aren't getting ready to scrap .308 for 1,000 yard shooting because of the improvements in heavy weight 5.56 match bullets. Yes, it helps it shoot further, no, it is not the best choice or even a good choice for long range DMR. Someone is putting heavy duty springs in their half ton shit kicker pick up truck to pretend its a medium duty commercial truck. Better, but adequate?

I think its mostly gimmick on behalf of those defending 5.56 NATO for everything for logistical purposes. The argument is like the 9mm Luger guy who brags about his caliber citing the specs of some Underwood +p+ load while he only carries a non +p load, he's citing possibilities of the best case scenarios he himself does not use to defend his choice in caliber. Assholes are now screaming about how great .224 Valkyrie is with 80 grain match bullets out of 24 inch barrles in order to convince people that we don't have to change anything about our choice of 14.5 inch barrel carbines shooting 62 grain ball out of a 5.56 NATO chambering.

6.5mm is a competitor to 7.62, but long range 5.56 is a bunch of overblown fluff.

Attached: the violence has escalated 2.png (397x258, 199.23K)

Marksmanship is a negligible aspect of warfare. What counts is fire volume and speed.

Marksmanship is a good way to keep your target pinned long enough for artillery to fuck them up.

Bingo, bingo, we have the case made in totality now. I'm a bit old fashioned and ancient, look at things from the old way. The line infantry weren't marksman ready to accurately throw musket balls with 100% hit rates into the enemy, they were spearmen with smoothbore muskets who killed through sheer volume of accurate kinda accurate gunfire en masse. You weren't counting on 1:1 hit ratios for shots fired, you were relying on the shock effect of firepower and the casualties that would occur from somewhat accurate fire hitting the enemy. Things ended up being decided by bayonet anyway, but fire played a roll, and it was based on general effect that can be made better by improvements.

Nothing has changed in a certain way, I suppose. There is such a high rate of fire today that nobody can hardly get their heads up to fight back and shoot straight, most killing is artillery, mortar, heavy machine gun medium machine gun, ect, air support, big gun power. The rifleman now uses his general rifle fire to suppress, intimidate, force back, cause some casualties and in some cases actually fight the way an infantryman can with is rifle in rare circumstances, but again we're back to generally effective mass fire to attack the enemy through suppression, shock of firepower, and some direct killing of the rifle. We are back to square one.

The issues come down to problems of ineffective fire and its inability to suppress and shock, then finally its inability to hit enemies at all. Green peasants thrown into a war they don't like might run from the sound of gunfire being fired into the air by the enemy; however we can see that experienced and elite troopers eventually become hardened by battle and will become less easy to shock and sometimes to even suppress. Sometimes hardened soldiers can tell where the gunfire is coming from and how close it is, how effective it is, how potentially lethal. If the suppressive fire is too far away, if its too weak, if its took ineffective, the impacts are far enough away sometimes the effective solider can take advantage of this and actually try to fight back against poor grade volume of fire. Simply put, if the bullet impacts are too far away, some soldiers will know the enemy cannot see or more likely, cannot effectively hit them, making them bold enough to try to use effective fire to shoot back. That was seen in some of the hardened boys in Afganistan now wasn't it? Some of those guys knew they were being shot at and didn't panic. When the more competent ones knew the enemy was out of effective range they might hold themselves together to take pot shots at the soldiers instead of panic and throw shots. While 5.56 might rain randomly, lightly, inaccurately around them, they might realize how poor the fire is an actually hold and shoot accurately back.

This is the general argument of the battle rifle squad and the DMR at the least. The whole point is a squad of men with M-14's, not special ones just general off the rack rifles, FN FAL's, G3's, can lay far superior effective fire at 600 yards, 700, 800 yards/meters and the cartridge itself combined with the modern line infantry firing it half accurately enough means the general suppressive fire is more generally accurate and thus better suppressive fire to pin the enemy down. The battle rifle squad is going to be better at letting the enemy know you're rounds are in the vicinity and the fire is accurate enough to be a threat, moreso than floundering smaller rounds that can't hardly hit the general vicinity. The squad can at least hit the general area enough to pin down even hardened enemies, this might not be true for the smaller cartridge.

Elite and high end soldiers can use this to extreme effect. A whole squad of battle rifles engaging a carbine equipped enemy at 600 yards puts the battle rifles at one hell of an advantage, they can direct fire halfways accurate enough to pin the enemy that can't truly respond in kind nearly as well. The battle rifles will be more likely to cause casualties with their general en mass fire at that range, can take better shots if they can get the upper hand in firepower suppression, help attack the enemey and force him out, surround him, or best yet, hold the advantage in fire till you wipe him down with big gun fire.

You end up with situations where machine guns and DMR's are effective enough to have the kinds of fire that can respond in kind enough to keep the enemy from gaining this edge. One or two guys with battle rifles/DMR's can put some parity back into the fight, the machine guns are the only other thing that can help keep long range use of en masse infantry fire from becoming an unwanted enemy advantage.

What's your opinion of the 7x46mm UIAC? The graphs show that it actually retains a higher amount of energy at distances over 300 meters than a .308, and it's lighter recoiling than a .308 as well.

You don't need any guns if you turn your body into a weapon.

Attached: Bruce Lee.jpg (500x212 68.48 KB, 499.82K)

I never asked for this


Are you sure you aren't a swede?

Attached: fnb0oj.jpg (720x960, 68.64K)

I'm right there with you: I'm actually considering selling a lot of my guns in order to buy duplicates of what I consider my "core" collection - my FAL, Mossberg 590, CZ SP01 Phantom, and Glock 43 - as well as a fuckton of spare parts, accessories, magazines, and tools for those specific guns.

Rather than wasting my range time basically just playing around (we all have those fun range days where we just want to shoot some old SA revolvers, clear jams all day because that 1911 looked so pretty, or waste a bunch of ammo working on our 50 yard accuracy with pocket pistols) I'll just double down on training with those 4 guns.

All sound analysis however
Which is why I'd carry the M27 shooting 5.56 since it would need to cope with everything from CQB through to sniping - which is where the dispute about 5.56 started from.
The M27 will be FAR from perfect for EVERY situation, but that is the limitation of having the one rifle. Ammo stocks would be more readily available for a 5.56 rifle than a .308 rifle that would better handle longer distances, the loadout capacity would be higher for the 5.56 rifle too. So compromise.

Attached: ayy.jpg (680x750, 357.25K)

The worst part is it's in English. If we didn't win WWII then the entire world wouldn't have had this Germanic-Romance mulatto language shoved down their throats.

Its an old topic and old subject and I think there has always been some validity in all of this. The Scandinavians, Japan, others went with e 6.5mm offering back in the 1890's. The American gun designers went through this with the Garand, the British with e 280, later we've got the 6.8 SPC and now a whole slough of new and interesting considerations.

We reach the point in general ballistic terms that its a hard pick because of the vast similarities. How many American deer rifle cartridges withered away because the companies released so fucking many in so short a time? Many of them were so similar there was zero point in pushing new cartridges on the public. In the terms of the military we can only pick one, but how different are all these potential choices, really?

All of these 6.5-7mm cartridges tend to have the same advantages of weight saving, better long range potential with smaller bore, similar bullets and concepts, a lot of similar stuff. The same problems still exist, staying with the same exact platform and being limited by it, keeping case length and OAL down to keep weapons shorter and lighter, which exact case shape in this world is the best for feeding in a magazine into a chamber, are we going to stick to as much old stuff in terms of design and magazines as possible, what are cost and weight savings, ect. I hate to comment too much because there is so much ongoing development and too many ways decisions can be because there is a final "We changed our mind and X is staying the same or Y must change" and the frontrunner might just get run over for another decision.

The 6.5mm shows a lot of promise because it can do more with less bullet weight, weight always being the biggest issue it seems nowadays. 7mm has always been "perfect" but I think the threat to it is by the time you get to 130 grains you are a hop and a skip away from 147 grain 308. 6.5 can claim big enough to outdo .224 but still small enough to justify going under 7.62. Americans seem intent on 6.5, and you will never convince the boys back home shooting all those moose for all these years that its a bad cartridge. The Scandinavians swear by it and I even saw some Czech company developing a rifle for it, the original Swede Mauser. There's enough debate among the calibers even to spend time to evaluate them all that this will take a while for any type of adoption.

As for your cartridge, I'm sure those sticking to AR-15 lowers and parts will bitch to high hell about OAL. Performance of loaded cartridge seems to be par for the course, good but in league with other considerations. Without further development or data its hard to see how it is going to leap in front of the pack. I'll keep it on my radar I suppose.

One of the thoughts I've had is that there will come a time when you may want to trade extra guns for things you really need or in fact, loan them to extra bodies for survival purposes. A group of people is more effective than a single person or even a single family. More guns means more hands on deck in case of a bad situation and it also means less likely that people are going to fuck with you.

Your other points are well taken too.

Why are 5.56 and 7.62x39 the same length?

I'm going to concentrate my practice, not sell my weapons. A well disciplined man is not distracted by things if he does not let him. Also selling shit tends to be a poor way to get money to buy things and do things. A rifle is forever, yes that ammo is useful but selling a gun for $1,000 and shooting that money up means you have nothing but the experience of its use, a good thing, but you've lost a tangible thing forever.

Never sold a weapon, never will. If that means I have to save up money to buy more ammunition, so be it. Something might never happen and having a large fun arsenal is its own thing, especially AFTER you've made those purchases.

Multiple guns are a good thing potentially, arming your friends and family is a great thing. Here again the call for a standard rifle within one's own house makes a case for itself, same magazines, ammunition, parts. All depends, high upkept weapons, living in a place where combat is less likely or less frequent means a more diverse arsenal's problems may not be any issue at all, or a negligible one. At some point there is a balance where you can still collect a diverse array of weapons, take the negative of not pure commonality, and still arm the people you care about during an emergency.

The other thing about having tons of guns in a bad scenario is that if you are in a gun scarce area someone may do something as stupid as try to life a few of your weapons off of you (probably not, but people are stupid sometimes) but in gun country I think there would be an excess of extra weapons, not free hands, and nobody is going to fight over something so common and easy to come by.

And, you are right, if you are the kind of person who sells/trades guns, they are going to be far, far, far, far more valuable during a crisis than today. I'm a bigger fan of keeping them around, even the ones you don't use much, for collecting, but they would be helpful arming my good friends. And others are primarily planning on selling during an emergency, sure as fuck.

All intermediate calibers are the same length, inbetween small and long :^)

Africa would've been shitholized liberated from apartheid/decolonized faster if israel was on madagascar like Hitler planned.
>implying you and not (((international communists and capitalists))) won the war

Man at least you have only one thing. I have to use Assault Rifle + RPG7.
But I get your point. I think that mostly civilians are hoarding military stuff.

I probably shouldn't have burned bridges with a former buddy who has land.

Attached: 0c45e1ef4236fd1ba41226a201e418e269138cfee555caf41a3c4b2d8a80abae.png (657x527, 30.9K)

You must breathe the gun inside of you, let it become a part of you. So that when you speak, you speak with the authority of fully automatic gunfire.

Are you an immigrant from Yugoslavia or a member of Union of Ukrainians in Poland? (^:

No. Cavalry.

Why are FALs so heavy? How can you lighten the guns up?

I didn't expect a serious answer.

This is my shit ready for running in a military competition. Take a look for a moment. A competition for airborne platoons.
Run in full uniform, backpack with standard EQ and at every few kms we had a stop for 1 competition.
So stop sellin me I'm not serious civilian nigger.

Attached: IMG_20180406_090129.jpg (3120x4160, 4.12M)


I meant that "I wasn't expecting a serious answer, yet I've gotten one", excuse my grammatical mistake

This does not describe me. The extent of my discipline will be getting rid of my distractions.

That being said, many of my guns are fun, but not necessarily the most practical self-defense tools. So I look at it this way:

There's no way I'm selling my favorites, but my arsenal could definitely use some pruning.

Also, note that I didn't say I'd be spending the proceeds on ammo; I'll be spending it on spare parts, accessories, magazines, and tools for the core arsenal. A rifle is not forever unless you can replace broken parts, and you may need tools to do that.

Why did you burn bridges with him?
pic unrelated.

Attached: d8cf4c49565dad2f7538e09d4fb8f271f7ff7196ddd6a722ec830f2d1872008c.jpeg (1920x1200, 618.26K)

Tbh, that's why people hoard guns. Also, how the fuck do people know you have 20 ARs/AKs in your safe if you haven't already been caught?