How do you like that rifle/set up? Worth what they cost these days?
I actually just put it in an Archangel stock the other day. I haven't been able to shoot it yet considering all ranged are closed.
I actually just put it in an Archangel stock the other day. I haven't been able to shoot it yet considering all ranged are closed.
Turns out there was no reason to worry. I spent a relatively tiny amount of currency and made a few "permanent modifications" and here is the end result of my VEPR 7.62X39. Had it out for a test drive and I can say that the NYLAK is every bit as comfortable and controllable as a Free Man's pistol grip. So... The Un-Safe act is an utter failure again. Absolutely no compromise to my ability to fire the standard semi-automatic weapon. I popped for the UTC low profile sight rail - it's brilliant. Stable, solid, no movement whatsoever, and picked up the SightMark red dot as well. All in all, a great package.


How do you like that rifle/set up? Worth what they cost these days?
No no. They can call it an assault rifle, but assault "weapon" is a fluffy bullshit term!
Assault is an action, as in doing something... well you understand. inanimate things can not assault anyone or anything. But, no point telling that to a liberal, he/she will just yell.
And yet Assault rifle is an actual term..
Guess what things can be a noun and a verb
Yes, to a certain branch of politicians.
Assault is an action, as in doing something... well you understand. inanimate things can not assault anyone or anything. But, no point telling that to a liberal, he/she will just yell.
And yet Assault rifle is an actual term..
Guess what things can be a noun and a verb
Yes, to a certain branch of politicians.
The rifle in question was a select fire carbine chambered in an intermediate cartridge feeding from a detachable box magazine.To a certain branch of politicians????
No its called the English language
The rifle in question was a select fire carbine chambered in an intermediate cartridge feeding from a detachable box magazine.
The informal term "Assualt RIFLE" is defined by the above description. It is distinct from "Assault WEAPON" which is a political term.
Verb: If you assault someone, you will be arrested.No i know I just hate HATE when people use that stupid ass "argument" "assault is an action" guess what it can be a noun as well.
Sorry that shit piss me off when people don't actually know history or actual terms but try and shout out dumb ass NRA talking points to sound like they know
Verb: If you assault someone, you will be arrested.
Noun: The latest session of the state Senate was an assault on our 2nd Amendment rights.
Adjective: The M4 is an example of an assault rifle.
(Though, technically, the last one's a noun being used as an adjective, so kinda both.)
And 'Assault Weapon', though since corrupted by politicians, was an industry/writers' term first.
she purtyLooks alot like this one.....
View attachment 81787
No i know I just hate HATE when people use that stupid ass "argument" "assault is an action" guess what it can be a noun as well.
Sorry that shit piss me off when people don't actually know history or actual terms but try and shout out dumb ass NRA talking points to sound like they know
No, @SeaKayaker is correct: "Assault" weapon, or rifle, is not a term used in modern military parlance, at least not within the US military.
We have full auto m4/m16's (and various derivatives), crew-served machineguns, semi-auto DMR's...none of them are referred to as "assault" anything.
Back in the day, when bolt-action rifles were still common, "assault" was used to distinguish those full-auto weapons used by the maneuver elements (Thompson submachine gun, Sturmgewehr 44, ect).
Nowadays, every element, down to the fireteam, has full auto capabilities, so any distinction of which rifle is an "assault" type is meaningless.
Using the term "assault rifle" in the modern military is only going to get weird looks. A M4, or AR-15 derivative, is not an assault weapon...it's a carbine or rifle, plain and simple. The only reason the term has picked up any momentum in recent years is because of the politicking around it.
No, @SeaKayaker is correct: "Assault" weapon, or rifle, is not a term used in modern military parlance, at least not within the US military.
We have full auto m4/m16's (and various derivatives), crew-served machineguns, semi-auto DMR's...none of them are referred to as "assault" anything.
Back in the day, when bolt-action rifles were still common, "assault" was used to distinguish those full-auto weapons used by the maneuver elements (Thompson submachine gun, Sturmgewehr 44, ect).
Nowadays, every element, down to the fireteam, has full auto capabilities, so any distinction of which rifle is an "assault" type is meaningless.
Using the term "assault rifle" in the modern military is only going to get weird looks. A M4, or AR-15 derivative, is not an assault weapon...it's a carbine or rifle, plain and simple. The only reason the term has picked up any momentum in recent years is because of the politicking around it.
nygunforum.com