HOME | DD
Ruthie420 — Modular Rifle Design
Published: 2012-01-22 05:20:36 +0000 UTC; Views: 2156; Favourites: 30; Downloads: 47
Redirect to original
Description
all weapons Ammo: 8x57mm.all weapons retain semi-auto capabilities.
weapon upgrade kits can be air-droped in depeneding on circumstances.
TOP: Standard issue AR-92 - the standard front line rifle. Can quickly be converted into several variations. Due to its modular layout major components can be switched and mixed to achieve the desired role , standard rate of fire is 500-600rpm.
Center: C.Q.B - AR-92qc short barrel (a.k.a. shorty) used in urban areas also by many officers and by vehicle crew and paratroopers as well as by special froces (used as a high power s.m.g). has a higher rate of fire (850-900rpm) due to a lighter bolt.
Bottom: Marksman AR-90 Recon - issued to the best shot in a company also used by "black ops". fitted with match grade barrel, 8X digital scope(can also be used as a hi-res camera with abilitly to be linked to forward comand network for real time view and target identification ect.) , custom scilencer, match grade subsonic ammo.
all models can also be fitted with a 37mm air-burst grenade luancher.
Related content
Comments: 29
Hmm. . . That supressor looks a bit small, even allowing for subsonic ammunition. . .
Other suggestions/accessories/neat stuff. . . Given the vertical ejection; Flipable (L/R) case deflector for the CQB variant, to stop you getting a facefull of hot brass at inconvenient moments.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I realy like the idea of the case deflector......as for the supressor i had the idea its internal layout was similar that of the De lisle carbine witch basically formed a continuous Archimedes screw
here is an interesting link about it:
[link]
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
top and to the left right above the mag.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Still not seeing it, but if you say so
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
its on the top in front of the rear sight. its ejection is the same as th M1 garand!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The M1's ejection was notoriously bad, Marines in the Pacific prefered their old Springfield rifles because the M1 didnt eject if covered in mud and the Springfield did.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
kool did not know that! good ol'springfield makes one hell of a sniper rifle too!.....and i ment its the same as M1 as in it lies on top of and not to the side of the weapon! obviously the mechanism would be modernized and refined into a more reliable configuration!!!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Actually, the Springfield does eject sideways, it's a bolt action rifle too, so even if it did eject from the top it's a much more reliable design. And "modernization into a more reliable configuration" is the reason all rifles nowadays eject to the side.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
yes i know its a bolt action rifle(using the Mauser-Principle bolt action) and yes i know it ejects sideways. I ment i didnt know marines did not like the M1 in the pacific, also didnt know a marine had any say to what he was isseued in wartime!!!...i wounder if you could tell me who manufactured the M1903A3 model since you have an answer for EVERTHING!..... but im sure you will find it on google!
and not all rifles nowdays eject to the side the FN-2000
has a forward ejection system!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well, duh, Springfield Armory. Why do you think it's called a Springfield?
True, and so does the RFB from Kel-Tec, but both of those are notoriously unreliable as well.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
sorry man but the M1903A3 was a Remington redesign in 1942 to facilitate wartime production......and even the AK was unreliable in its first forms...it takes time to iron out the bugs of a weapons system, hence breech to muzzel loading - paper to brass cartridges(one day caseless im sure).
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Eh, i think you're wrong there, you asked who produced it, right? Well Springfield Armory manufactured allmost all M1903s during both word wars. And the AK facts, although true, are irrelevent. And as for your evolution: Top-Eject to Side- Eject.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
incorect sir! the 1903A3 model like i said was made at the various remington plants for ww2 production not made at the springfield armory witch was in massachusetts!
just some info i dug up for ya!:
In 1940, the U.S. Army became worried about its ammunition capacity, and asked Remington to collaborate in a plan for national expansion. With the aid of DuPont, Remington built the Lake City Arsenal and Denver Ordnance ammunition plants, and three more plants later on. Though the plants belonged to the U.S. government, Remington was asked to oversee their operation. Among the weapons Remington manufactured for the government during World War II was the famous M1903A3 Springfield bolt-action rifle.
see you can learn something new every day!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Ok, now that I look more closely on sources I trust, the A3 was a shittier version with simpler and cheaper parts manufactured by Remmington, but the weapon was designed and first produced by Springfield.
Also, for the record, this discussion is extremely irrelevent and obvious topic shifting because you know you're wrong.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
#1 "the A3 was a shittier version with simpler and cheaper parts" yes that is the idea of wartime prduction = less quality control this is obvious to anyone thus I felt no need to bring it up!+ i never said it was better! #2 I never stated that I thought the original was not made by springfield this was implied by YOU! #3 YOU answered my question as to who made the A3 model wrong!
and as far as topic shifting what what was i wrong about in the first place? it seems to me you are the one with the real problem with being shown to be wrong.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
that depends a lot on your definition of Made: I could say that the gun was actually "made" by Springfield, because they designed it. Alternately, you could say that the gun was "made" by Springfield because they actually manufactured it. In the end, the language you used wasn't specific enough and was obviously designed to trick me.
you're wrong about the way you use the top ejecting system, as soon as I started proving that that kind of system is retarded, you started fooling around with stuff about the Springfield. I have no problem with being wrong, the thing is is that I'm right here. You on the other hand are extremely angry, whereas I'm pretty calm and pragmatic about the whole deal, which would tend towards the " " situation.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
c'mon now hommie, the original language in witch the question was asked was quit clear!
Q:who manufactured the M1903A3 model since you have an answer for EVERTHING.
A:Well, duh, Springfield Armory. Why do you think it's called a Springfield?
and show me where i stated anything about the way in witch the top ejection system is used and where i went wrong.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
whatever man, the question is still obviously a trick, even if it was stupid of me to fail to spot such an obvious one.
You said "The ejection port is on the top just like the M1 Garand"
I explained why that's extremely unreliable
You didn't offer any counter evidence, instead started talking about Springfields which was an example I brought out to prove that the M1 system was faulty and distrusted by troops.
Then you didn't respond to it, and if you do like a good debate according to the rules of debate that's called "droping" which essentially means that from the judge's point of view you concede the argument and any attempts to pick up that argument again once you dropped it are to be considered "new arguments" and invalid.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
well you gave a slight example of one theater in witch the M1 did not preform well but you failed to include that it was mostly on the beaches and creek-beds that jams would sometimes occur(Volcanic sand witch was rare was the real problem to the m1 as was it to many other systems witch proved successful in all other theaters).....you went of about springfields dude i was just trying to agree on how relible they are to end the topic in a peaceful way but motherfucker had to be a hard head!
you: The M1's ejection was notoriously bad, Marines in the Pacific prefered their old Springfield rifles because the M1 didnt eject if covered in mud and the Springfield did.
me: kool did not know that! good ol'springfield makes one hell of a sniper rifle too!.....
then you insult my intelligence with this!
:Actually, the Springfield does eject sideways, it's a bolt action rifle too, so even if it did eject from the top it's a much more reliable design
anywho i have much better thing to do and this has gone on far to long ...I SAY GOOD DAY TO YOU SIR!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Ah, the good old "I have much better things to do" wriggle out tactic! I haven't seen that one sense that homophobic douce Diceman!
And it seems you've been very busy on Wikipedia! Regardless of volcanic sand or whatever, the inherent flaw with this system is that it's way too easy for mud and so forth to get into it, plus it majorly screws up your sighting. I've fired a few M1's, and although I wasn't permitted to rub mud and so forth into them because they were antique, I did notice that the cartridges ejecting right in front of my sights was extremely distracting, and made it very hard to switch targets quickly. Also makes mounting a scope huge pain.
And another thing to note, there's a reason every modern gun has some kind of trigger guard.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
no really man this is getting boring
......ah the good old find an annoying response to everything tactic...dude you must go venture forth and find this wounderful thing they call pussy....out in the real world fuck you are annoying ...oh and you misspelled douch.... you douch
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
give me the basic one with an Acog and im good to go
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The one with the short barrel, and the one with the scope are my fav.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
yea i love the short barrel i call her "shorty"
thanks man!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"Be cool Shorty, don't be playin so rough with the nice man."
👍: 0 ⏩: 0