My kitsune hunter can't be this FREAKING cute!Previous thread: >>64648216>image limit reachedhttps://github.com/rcc11/4chan-sounds-player>if you install this the fox girl might sing songs to you or something
I LOVE FOXU!
If you don't have plates there is no excuse.https://surplus.botach.com/gh-armor-systems-4400-series-10x12-lvl-iv-plate-set-police-trade/
Do you think Wapaper will dry some Christmas art for her?I hope soBECAUSE I FRICKIN' LOVE CHRISTMAS
>>64656621Hey buddy the gear queer club is 2 blocks down!
I love this dork
I need to get a m1a immediately
>>64656625Plates are mission essential and it's a hundred bucks broski
>>64656642No you really don't
guppies on bikes
i've found a new bike artist that i'm interested in...
>>64656642yeah, me too.
>>64656642get yourself an actually good battle rifle
>>64656691all battle rifles are bad, so why not get one you think is cool?
>>64656691You’re right should get a hakim
>>64656691I unironically think mine is better than a PTR or DSA FAL. Ironically a lot of M1A/M14 hate comes from the contrarianism resulting from the M14 being a bit overrated by boomers.
>>64656729And it not being particularly accurate, poorly designed for jungle warfare, and regular maintenance further degrading accuracy.
>PTRI have a G3 and CETME and I don't trust either of them. I would worry about it functioning if I tripped and fell on it or accidently bashed it against a wall or something. Its really easy to bend the magwell or worst of all the cocking tube. Never had a FAL or M14.
>>64656618Friendly reminder the Firefox's new CEO announced they would focus on being an "AI focused browser," time to look for a fork if you're a FF user.
Do women like this exist in real life?
I need RPK to force me to apologize to her after she beat me in to a sobbing pulp
FAT ASS SLUTTY FOX
>>64656842Too much shit (normie business shit) breaks outside chromium. >Oh it's not working? Try it in Chrome maybe?I hate it, but it's the way it is.I use Brave.
Comfy surplus
>>64656857STOPCEASE
>>64656867AHHH A WILD BEAST *BANG BANG BANG* IT HAS RABIES GET DOWN *BANG BANG BANG* *EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEeeee*
>>64656879
>tfw you will never playfully grope your tall dork wife
>>64656885UOHHH TUMMY KISSES
>>64656902
>>64656696Wrong. SCAR good.>>64656729M1a is dog shit.
>>64656885Groping or otherwise sexually harassing your gf while she's trying to do stuff is funny.
>>64656425I haven't been able to buy a gumball in over a year because they've gotten too popular and now every dingdong with an instagram account sees their ads and snipes the whole supply within 3 hours of a drop. Thankfully Venture can hold a stock of usable GI surp but my main squeeze for random euro shit is now squeezed dry by redditord and casuals. Hope you got a good prize anon, I still wear my polizei parka I got from my first balls years ago.
>>64656618Reminder.
Missionary?
>>64656966and that's a good thing
>>64656732Yeah, I know you read the wikipedia article for the three points. >not particular accuratemore accurate to the FAL, can be accurized like the HK91/G3, just not as easily/efficiently >Poorly designed for jungle warfareIt was designed for European battlefields. It's a product improved Garand, and a product of it's time. >regular maintenance without further degrading accuracyRegular maintenance is cleaning the bore with a bore punch, and applying a little bit of oil on the rotating parts. You grease it like once a lifetime, maybe once a year if you're in the shit. Also that's not even true. IF the rifle is bedded and you fuck it up then yes you'll degrade accuracy, but a properly bedded rifle shouldn't be degraded by removing the action from the stock. With the EBR chassis, you will have to rezero it though. It's admittedly inefficient. But it's fundamentally a rifle from 1936 that's had a gas rework, and detachable magazine.>inb4 its long or heavy At least you didn't say that since it's lighter and shorter than the FAL. I've owned 4 FALs (three of which I built), 3 HK91s or PTRs and 2 M1As. M1As, and by extension the M14 is a fine rifle (as long as they're properly built). I wouldn't use a C308 or a century receiver FAL as a metric to compare those rifles. >>64656909And yet the SCAR has been discontinued, while the M1A has stood the test of time
>>64657025KINETIC SEX WITH REVVY
>>64657066>It was designed for European battlefields. It's a product improved Garand, and a product of it's time.Ah right, it was designed for the same battlefields as the Garand! You know, tropical pacific islands, mexico, and a good quarter of the USA, because those are all places the US has fought in far more frequently than Europe, and before Europe.>whining about wikiLiterally have never looked at the wikipedia article for the M14. What is even your point? >noooo don't look into complaints about the weapon, the shortest serving US service rifle is good!it's not. It was a terrible gun even for its time. It is directly responsible for the Springfield Armory closing down permanently. It is the Concord of battle rifles.
>>64657066>while the M1A has stood the test of time...what test of time?>shortest serving service rifle in US history>caused the organization that made it to fail>knockoffs made by some company that imports Croatian pistols pretend to be M14s but aren'tWhat a legacy of success.
>>64657069 how does kinetic sex differ from other sex is it like a kinetic visual novel
>>64657076>implying the U.S. planned to fight the Soviets in tropical pacific islands, mexico or "a good quarter of the USA">whining about wikiYet all of your points are the parroted just the same>Shortest serving rifleIt served in line units for (uninterrupted) decades until the 2010s. The M16 mogs it, there's no doubt, but that says more about the changes of warfare, and not a fault of the rifle. >>64657087Nobody makes the SCAR. Springfield, Bula, JRA and Norinco still make M14 clones. I'm mostly just teasing... mostly. >>64657092Lots of plapping, sweaty, scratches and potentially bruising
>>64656850Any type of person out there exists but its like finding le needle in a haystack depending on what you're looking for
>>64657103>Yet all of your points are the parroted just the sameWhen facts are stated they rarely differ, that's the thing about them. What, you want me to come up with some brand new, never before heard of reason why the failure failed, that hasn't been hashed out for decades?>>implying the U.S. planned to fight the Soviets in tropical pacific islands, mexico or "a good quarter of the USA">have a global empire that has fought in every climate literally in the very last war you fought>hmmm, this will never be relevant again, we're definitely only going to be fighting only one country, ever, probably in Germany, maybe Poland, and nowhere elseMost retarded argument I've ever seen in my life, so fucking stupid it might just be true and why the M14 sucked. You may be a reincarnated Springfield engineer.
>>64657066>SCAR has been discontinuedThe SCAR gen 1 has been d/c. SCAR will be back in gen 2 and better than ever.
>>64657120>failure failed, that hasn't been hashed out for decades?No, it just reads as someone who's never handled one when comparing it to it's contemporaries. Its the whole - the rifle is immediately shit position. M1As and M14s are outdated, they are inefficient, but what people get wrong is that they're just fine when compared to their contemporaries. >have a global empire that has fought in every climate literally in the very last war you foughtYou're missing the point where fighting in jungles is an EXCEPTION to the norm. Vietnam was in part DEFINED by the close quarter humidity of the jungles. Terrain that makes OPEN battlefields impossible. I think this explains my point in a way a SCAR fan can understand. Its a real reach to think imply that WWIII would have been fought on subtropical islands. As a small caveat, its odd how people cite the stocks swelling on M14s was a problem in Vietnam, but you don't hear the same thing about M1s in the Pacific. Probably because basically everyone had wood furniture then and there wasn't anything with polymer furniture in that war.
>>64656642Get one and make the nerds who download their opinions from Youtube and Reddit seethe eternal. Look at how much these autists shit their pants over someone liking it.
>>64657147>nerds who download their opinions from Youtube and RedditYou're a fucking idiot dude
>>64657158why should anyone care what you think?
>>64657103>Lots of plapping, sweaty, scratches and potentially bruisingGood. I wanna be choked
>>64657142>they're just fine when compared to their contemporaries.Sorry bro, I am not going to let you tell me the M14 is just fine compared to the G3 and AKM, it's not.>You're missing the point where fighting in jungles is an EXCEPTION to the normHaha yeah the US has never had to do that except>Mexico>Cuba>Nicaragua>Mexico again>Haiti>Dominican Republic>Philippines>Iwo Jima>Wake Island>Peleliu>Mariana Islands>Marshal Islands>Solomon Islands>New Guinea>Guam>Okinawa>ChinaAnd those are just ones in the 20th century before the adoption of the M14. No, Jungle fighting is not the exception and the US has fought more wars and battles in jungles than we have in Europe.
I love the M14
>>64657158Sounds like I was on target.
>>64657186nta but are you implying the M1 garand was a bad idea as well?
sexy rifle
>>64657209>Caffeine withdrawalsIKTF
>>64657203No, for several major reasons. 1>The Garand was better designed and was actually able to be mass produced.The final and ultimate reason the AR-15 was crammed down the throat of the army in spite of all the objections by the lying weasels running that shit show, is because they physically could not make enough M14s to equip the army.2>The Garand was not an outdated rifle upon releaseThe Garand was arguably the most advanced service rifle in the entire world when it was adopted. The M14 was decidedly not. The FAL was a better rifle but also had flaws. The G3 was a better rifle. The AKM was an incredibly superior rifle. It's not much of a stretch to call the AR-15 a contemporary of the M14, it's a vastly superior rifle. The AR-10 was likewise definitively a contemporary of the M14 and was a better rifle.3>The Garand did what it was supposed to. The M14 didn't.Do I really need to expand on this? The Garand did exactly what it was designed to do. The M14 did absolutely nothing it was designed to. Universal? Fuck no. Interchangeable/reusable parts and tooling? Fuck no. Economical? Fuck no.4>The Garand didn't kill Springfield Armory and pave the way for Springfield Armory Inc.Worst sin ever committed by the M14 was the fact it is directly responsible for some random machine shop in Texas trademarking the name Springfield Armory despite having zero relation or affiliation with the actual Springfield Armory, after they were closed down by government order. Those grifting skinwalking fucks are still doing everything in their power to make people believe they are the same organization that produced classic American military firearms, despite the fact the original Springfield Armory wasn't even a company, but a government run arsenal.
>>64657187If you love it so much then why don't you marry it
>>64657186You're denser than a bowl of oatmeal my friend. The pacific was a sideshow in that war. The War effort focused on Europe. In WWIII none of the USSR's strategic objectives would have focused in fucking south America or SEA. Also a bunch of those places have only relatively sparse amounts of jungle.Like Mexico, Iwo Jima (really?? its volcanic sand and rock), Wake island is an airstrip on a sand bar, Peleliu is an island made of dead coral, barely anything grows there, nothing grows in Haiti, Okinawa is mostly temperate forest (I've spent a lot of time there) and I'm not even going to address *all of fucking china*. In any case, that would be some crazy ass war that the Soviets decided NOT to fight in Europe, and focus on a bunch of volcanic islands in the pacific for... reasons? and also beeline to the caribbean/south america. Your point is so dumb... your rationale is. Oh we enforced Monroe doctrine and fought in low intensity South American conflicts, so we should also make that our major planning factor for dealing with a field army in continental Europe.
>>64657236>Hmm, I'm right because we focused (supposedly) on a war that never happened, in a place we have rarely fought, vs places the US has fought repeatedly over the centuries in numerous conflicts and wars you even listening to your drivel? You're blinded by>muh soviets muh soviets muh sovietsAs if that's the only people on earth and their only move was moving through Europe. News flash retard, the real world already happened and you were wrong, the Soviets did wind up involved in innumerable proxy wars against the US and our allies in tropical climates.>*all of fucking china*. The parts US troops were deployed in the 20th century were humid, subtropical climates.>reee that's not a jungle!It has all the same problems for the M14.
>>64657224>>The Garand was better designed and was actually able to be mass produced.no. it was worse and had the same problems (and more) as the M14. and a lot of wartime production garands were pretty rough.>>The Garand was not an outdated rifle upon releasetrue, but it was outdated by WW2. the only reason it preformed so well was because it was the ONLY standard issue battle rifle of the war.>>The Garand did what it was supposed to. The M14 didn't.yeah. the whole universal weapon system idea was stupid. that's why they almost immediately stopped that and developed proper LMGs. they also did use some of the same tooling.>>The Garand didn't kill Springfield Armory and pave the way for Springfield Armory Inc.no. the government realized it was more efficient and cost effective to have guns built be private companies.but in the end, the M14 is just a garand, and that is it's biggest flaw. the garand was fundamentally outclassed by the 50s.
Every battle rifle was obsolete the moment intermediate cartridge rifles hit the scene. >Would you like to shoot the enemy 30 times or 20 times?They're still fun and you should buy the one that speaks to you.
>>64657283>muh junglethat's wasn't the plan. we thought we would be fighting in Europe again, and built a rifle for that. try to think about it without using hindsight.>>64657315this. the M14 wasn't replaced because it was so bad they couldn't use it. it was replaced because the M16 is so much better in every way that using anything else would be retarded.
>>64657330Sure, without using hindsight, China was taken over by the communists and half of the US's global interests are in tropical, humid environments.>b-but the only thing I learned about in history class was the European theater! Conveniently for you I posted a list of places the US fought in the 1900s in such environments. Anyone who didn't realize that we might fight in tropics when we had constantly and frequently done so would be a colossal retard.>the M14 wasn't replaced because it was so bad they couldn't use it. it was replaced because the M16 is so much better in every way that using anything else would be retarded.Not really. The Army was finally forced to adopt the M16 when they could not produce enough M14s to equip the army. That's bad. A rifle you can't actually make is a pretty big design flaw.
>>64657336>the M14 bed because humid places!so it was a bad idea to adopt the garand? because that was adopted before we ever even planned on fighting in Europe. and after WW2 the US military was hyper focused on fighting the Soviets in Europe. that's why we had so many problems when we didn't fight there.
>>64657352bad*
>>64657352No, because there was no rifle in existence which did a better job than the Garand when it was adopted. It is hard to name a service rifle released in the same decade that was worse than the M14.
>>64657359the M14 is an upgraded garand
>>64657330>it was replaced because the M16 is so much better in every wayThe M14 still had the power of 7.62x51 NATO on its side and was pretty solid in a marksman capacity when upgraded into the M21. It's just that situations in which you need the higher powered round are so niche battle rifles don't make sense as a primary service rifle anymore. Other nations kept their battle rifles because they already had them and don't have the US defense budget to swap out their service rifles the moment we do. >>64657336>A rifle you can't actually make is a pretty big design flaw.Poor manufacturing played a part in the M14's downfall too. This is why civilian owners of M1As usually swear up and down about the rifle they own, but when you hear guys who were in the service they have mixed reception to it. Some had a great time, some had a bad time, depends on how well they were put together. OG M16s also had issues at first, but the rifle was actually what we needed so it was worth sticking with over trying to work out the teething issues of an obsolete platform>>64657352>so it was a bad idea to adopt the garand?Well the marines WERE bringing M1 carbines to the islands in addition to garands...
>>64657367That's great anon. The Garand was adopted in the 1930s. The M14 wasn't. How would you feel if you didn't have breakfast this morning fucker?
>>64657315I have those boots. they work surprisingly well in the snow.
>>64657377we're saying the same thing. my point is that it doesn't make it a bad rifle.
The M16 was adopted in 1960. The M7 wasn't.
