Kamp Kuzma: The Operators' Campgrounds (For Operating)

No particular reason but I quite like the name.

Ahh.

Ok.

*munches on a sandwich and then hides from Heavy*

you didnt see me.

No point, unless Mr. Schwartz has the means to board my ship, and even then have clearance, I don't think you'd need to worry 'bout him.

*Stares at his laptop* They sell Nikon D100 for 147$... *stares at his F70* Damn film is expensive.
Helsinky is a nice city :)

I imagine so, must have nice scenery as well. I can imagine the cities laden with snow during winter, a beautiful sight. The country is also one that managed to hold it's own against the USSR so I have great respect for their military history and a ulterior reason is to see the old remnants of their war.

Although mainly because of poor military structure and weakening of manpower due to Stalin's poor leadership, they're a respectful force nonetheless. I also enjoy the weapons made by Valmet and Sako, specifically the Rk. 95 their Kalashnikova derivative.

Yeak SAKO make really interesting things. :)
I really like TRG-42 especially because it's chambered for Lapua Magnum

Indeed, their TRG line is probably their best line(and only known one for some) of firearms. I've never tried one myself but it is one on my list. . . after quite a few.

^I can imagine you have a long list. Maybe we could compare it sometimes. :)

I would not be lying if I said every single firearm in existence was on my list. The order of preference and priority are all that matters mostly.

Hmmm I see. We think alike too much sometimes.

*naps in the engine room*

Hey guys have you heard that some media classified that IED from Boston as WMD? O.O
I'm shocked and amazed what kind of bullshit is that? How powerful was that stuff? It couldn't have been much more than a satchel charge or something of similar magnitude.
And the best part? In US legal system even a grenade might be considered a WMD because of this connection:

18 U.S.C. 2332a
(2) the term "weapon of mass destruction" means—
(A) any destructive device as defined in section 921 of this title;
(B) any weapon that is designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals, or their precursors;
(C) any weapon involving a biological agent, toxin, or vector (as those terms are defined in section 178 of this title); or
(D) any weapon that is designed to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life;

... So far so good. Sounds fairly reasonable in fact. ... But

18 U.S.C. 921
(4) The term "destructive device" means—
(A) any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas—
(i) bomb,
(ii) grenade,
(iii) rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces,
(iv) missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce,
(v) mine, or
(vi) device similar to any of the devices described in the preceding clauses;
(B) any type of weapon (other than a shotgun or a shotgun shell which the Attorney General finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes) by whatever name known which will, or which may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, and which has any barrel with a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter; and
(C) any combination of parts either designed or intended for use in converting any device into any destructive device described in subparagraph (A) or (B) and from which a destructive device may be readily assembled.

(Thanks to durvalamarth for writing those laws down)

Wow, media ignorance at it's finest. The Boston Marathon IED was a pressure cooker stuffed with gun powder, nails and ball bearings, set with a timer. I could barely classify that as a WMD much less a proper IED. But then again, I shouldn't be surprised by their exaggeration, the media does it all the times with firearms. To them, an AR15 is a machinegun, the M4 is an AK47 and every rocket launcher or grenade launcher is an RPG.

Yeah it's as good as in one translation of a book they say "7,62 sub-machine-gun M60"... -.-

Seriously?

I may not be a gun nut (Perk in FO 3 and FO:NV say otherwise) but even i wont make that mistake.

I knew what AK47 was when i was 5

^When I was a kiddo I wondered what was the difference between Kalashnikov and AK-47. Didn't knew they were the same. T'was before the internet. :D

Lol. Same here.

Took me a while to dig these up again.



EDIT: On topic of Machine guns, what do you think about the changing designation from Squad Automatic Weapon to Infantry Automatic Rifle?

The whole debate of this comes from the military's further need of an automatic weapon that was more lightweight and reliable than the standard belt-fed. Long before this, ARES tried solving the weight issue by developing the Shrike 5.56 which was essentially a belt-fed AR-15 capable of feeding standard STANAG magazines or SAW Belts. It also had the advantage of using an AR lower which soldiers were more familiar with.

Personally, I don't understand why this weapon wasn't introduced into military when it was first developed.

Now you got the H&K developed M27 IAR, which is in essence a reconfigured HK416, designed for the USMC. Coincidentally and funnily given the same designation as the 5.56mm belt links that it does NOT use because it is magazine fed.

I would've liked if the USMC had gone with the Ultimax Mk. 4 as their IAR but it's understandable that they took the M27 over it seeing as it's functions are that of an M16/M4/AR-15, thus saving time on weapons training as soldiers are already familiar with it. However, it lacks the ability to switch between standard magazines and high capacity belts like the Shrike can.

I see no change.

Maybe im an idiot in guns and as long as it eliminates the target and does its job i dont care if it is called pew pew machine.



I woulde picked Ultimax over M27 IAR. Or used the HK416 not M27. I like HK416.



They Might have taken M27 for the reasons in the video.

Familiar M4 and very reliable.

If the video is correct.

If familiarity with the M4 was a winner for M27, the Shrike has the same advantage. Reliability, I cannot judge, having not fired either weapon but I would think the M27 is somewhat more reliable as it wouldn't have to worry much about easily changing between belt-feeding and mag-feeding.

As for the designation, it defines a difference between the two. Much like an SMG is not a PDW or an Assault Rifle is not a Battle Rifle but in this case the main difference is weight. An IAR is naturally more lighter and compact then a standard SAW, making it less cumbersome and more easy to handle for CQB, something the USMC have been bugging for in a long while. In essence, the IAR is a compromise between the Assault Rifle and Light Machine Gun, much like a PDW can be considered a compromise between an SMG and AR.

Personal preference, I like Utimax over the Shrike and Shrike over the M27.