FA+
Shop
312
Views
Views
3
Favorites
Favorites
Category
All / All
Species Scorpion
Size 714 x 345
File Size 209.8 kB
Report this content
More from Cassandra Fortuna
A custom-built unique design by Dee. Subcompact assault rifles (SARs) are intended to put down the same volume of fire as a full-sized assault rifle at extremely close ranges and with only marginal loss of accuracy. While they blur the lines between submachineguns and short-barreled rifles, their intended purpose and firing mechanism are those of an assault rifle and they have as such been given a similar designation.
Dee's design uses the now-obsolete 7.62x39R "AK-47" cartridge, but is built entirely off of the M4 CQC platform. Given the gun's short intended range and relatively low accuracy, the older and more powerful cartridge was considered a perfect match. The XM-38 has standard-issue Picatinny-style accessory rails and an integrated suppressor.
Dee's design uses the now-obsolete 7.62x39R "AK-47" cartridge, but is built entirely off of the M4 CQC platform. Given the gun's short intended range and relatively low accuracy, the older and more powerful cartridge was considered a perfect match. The XM-38 has standard-issue Picatinny-style accessory rails and an integrated suppressor.
Category All / All
Species Scorpion
Size 714 x 345px
File Size 209.8 kB
I love the thick, stocky look of it.
It is true though, that short-barrel rifles are making sub-machine guns obsolete.
Personally, I'm fascinated by the idea of the bullpup design rifles (what with the magazine and firing mechanisms back in the stock).
Do you know much about the pros and cons of a bullpup design? All I know about it is the obvious advantages (shorter length).
It is true though, that short-barrel rifles are making sub-machine guns obsolete.
Personally, I'm fascinated by the idea of the bullpup design rifles (what with the magazine and firing mechanisms back in the stock).
Do you know much about the pros and cons of a bullpup design? All I know about it is the obvious advantages (shorter length).
Submachineguns are actually still pretty relevant. They're pistol-caliber, making them better than rifles for security and hostage rescue operations (less chance of overpenetration, for example), and they usually have a better control factor because the weight of the gun compensates more effectively for the relatively lower muzzle velocity. At least, in the heavier designs. 9mm, 10mm and .45 Auto are also generally cheaper than intermediary (5.45, 5.56, 7.62, etc.) rounds.
As for bullpup pros and cons, they're mainly just pros. Aside from greater felt recoil in some models and inherent differences in design that make them awkward for some people to use (a lot of shooters have learned to compensate for the weight of a frontal magazine and long barrel and tend to overshoot with bullpup weapons), well. They're not really my field of expertise.
As for bullpup pros and cons, they're mainly just pros. Aside from greater felt recoil in some models and inherent differences in design that make them awkward for some people to use (a lot of shooters have learned to compensate for the weight of a frontal magazine and long barrel and tend to overshoot with bullpup weapons), well. They're not really my field of expertise.
Ah, I see, I see. I'm hardly an expert on...anything XD, but it's what I've heard.
I hear it's also why shotguns are still used in police forces; lack of penetrating power (which is also why the assault rifle replaced the shotgun on the battlefield; the 3 round burst effectively did what shotguns did, but with penetrating power).
Better control though? I figured that rifles were more precise in general, unless they were the stuff like squad automatic weapons.
This reminds me of another discussion I was having once about weaponized lasers. The common impression is that it would make a beam of light that puts holes in things, but really, a laser strong enough to use as a weapon would cause an explosion on contact, since the spot would be turned into expanding plasma. And it would be bright enough to permanently blind anyone looking at the beam.
I hear it's also why shotguns are still used in police forces; lack of penetrating power (which is also why the assault rifle replaced the shotgun on the battlefield; the 3 round burst effectively did what shotguns did, but with penetrating power).
Better control though? I figured that rifles were more precise in general, unless they were the stuff like squad automatic weapons.
This reminds me of another discussion I was having once about weaponized lasers. The common impression is that it would make a beam of light that puts holes in things, but really, a laser strong enough to use as a weapon would cause an explosion on contact, since the spot would be turned into expanding plasma. And it would be bright enough to permanently blind anyone looking at the beam.
Comments