Firearm Platforms That Never Made Any Sense To You...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoshNC

The folding Glock frame doohickey, Full Conceal. W....T....actual...F?

---

Oh man that’s a great one right there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sgtrock82

My gunsmith from back in my ft bragg days had one lurking around his shop, but we never did take it out back and shoot it to see if it was worth a hoot. I dont recall if it was busted, a project, or even his or a customers, . All I can remember is the long ass barrel and thumbhole stock.

More recently a semi auto collector friend of mine turned up an older chinese scope he thinks was part of the package or an additional accessory to it. Woohoo lol. I havent heard if he found a rifle for it yet. However if he does Im getting a box of 7.62x39, a pair of clown shoes, my trusty reflective belt, and dragging him to the range

Sent from my SM-J727T using Tapatalk

---

Ours had this weird side mount, sort of a dovetail thing, with a couple screws through it holding it on.
No scope or mount.
No thumbhole, standard AK stock and pg, wood.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheChunkNorris

I chuckled after reading this because you’re 100% spot on. The first time I saw a MSG I wondered the same thing.

---

The MSG90 was never meant to be full-auto. The lower push-pin is long since a casualty of US regulatory bull**** and not exclusive to select fire function. The push pin itself actually holds the lower in place and prevents some of the slop you you will find on 91/93/94 commercial lowers. In that case, it's a victim of circustance...and gets lumped in with the "bad kids".

Think of the G3SG1 and the 33SG1's like the an early parallel to an M27IAR. It's mostly a DMR with a fun switch. In that respect, the G3SG1 wouldn't seem to be getting as much out of the auto function as its 5.56 little brother. A lighter more cost effective option to those that can't swing a scoped 21/21a1/21E perhaps...?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doc Safari

The M14 as a "sniper" rifle. If I understand the weapon's quirks correctly, it takes constant attention to keep the thing to any accuracy standard better than "several" MOA. It just wasn't made to be anything but a grunt's battle rifle and trying to turn it into a sniper rifle is like trying to turn an AK into a sniper rifle.

---

I tend to agree. I went through a sniper/countersniper course at the USAMU in the late 80's. We shot the M21 system and I plumb enjoyed shooting the rifle.

One of the things that I remember was routinely getting hits on the steel Ivan in the commander's cupola of the BMP mockup they had at 1,000. At the time that was the furthest I'd ever shot.

We weren't allowed to do anything but lock the bolt to the rear and pull patches to clean the bore due to the glass bedding. No doubt the armorers were busy tuning them back up after a class like ours.

I've always had a soft spot for the M-14, the Marines were still using them in boot camp and at the barracks I was stationed at the last couple years before I ETS'd. I only fired the M16 for qual one time during my Marine Corps time.

I believe that both the G3SG1 and the MSG90 were intended as marksman's rifles, so having components that could be swapped out with standard G3 parts would have been a concern.

The M110's upper couldn't be put on an M4 lower... however, there are some Mk12 SPR variants that use a carbine receiver extension, often with with a SOPMOD stock. Why? Because the A1 or A2 stocks the fixed stock SPR variants come with are less than ideal to use with armor under certain conditions. Tying into the first bit, the first Mk12s were made with M16A1 lowers - partially because they were available and partially because, IIRC, the full-auto trigger had a more consistent trigger pull than the burst triggers in M16A2/4s and M4s.

Someone else mentioned the HK33 - at the time it came out, there weren't many options for 5.56mm. You had the M16, the FN CAL, the Stoner 63, the AR-18, and the HK33. The M16 was pretty much at the height of its teething/QC issues. Nobody was making the AR-18 (and frankly, the gun wasn't that good). The Stoner 63 is super cool, but also ridiculously complicated. And the FN CAL was ridiculously expensive. Given the alternatives, I cannot fault anyone for choosing an HK33 over the competition at the time. And if I were buying a 5.56mm rifle in 1970, while I know now that the M16A1's teething issues were behind it, I don't know that I'd know that then. So I'd personally probably have chosen an HK33. In 1970, without the benefit of hindsight. (With the benefit of hindsight, I'd take the M16A1 if money was no object - and the HK33 if it was.)

As for what gun doesn't make sense to me: The Mini-14. Ruger took the worst US service rifle of the 20th Century, shrunk it down for 5.56mm, simplified it, cheaped it up, and actually expected to get military sales for it. Even more insanely, there were some militaries that bought the damned things! In a world where you could get M16A1s, AR-18s, FNCs, AUGs, HK33s, Galils, why anyone would think a dwarf M14 was a good idea is beyond me - and whoever thought it was a good idea to buy them for their military probably should have been made to take a piss test.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MountainRaven

I believe that both the G3SG1 and the MSG90 were intended as marksman's rifles, so having components that could be swapped out with standard G3 parts would have been a concern.

---

Look again, the SG1 trigger group already has a F setting and pretty sure the first MSG90s did as well.

SA80 aka L85A1.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MorphCross

SA80 aka L85A1.

---

Much as they suck, if you look at the EM-1/EM-2 in .280 they really were onto something before we forced all NATO countries to go with the 7.62x51. Granted that gave us the FAL / L1A1, but the original concept was decades ahead of everyone else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SteyrAUG

You have to think of that thing like the Borchardt 93 which led to the Luger. The Mk23 was the first gun with accessory rails for a mounted light, lasers and all that crap. It led to the USP and I think they were both the first ambi mag release handguns and a lot of other firsts.

---

The CZ 82 and 83 have ambi mag releases (and safeties) and pre-date the Mk23.

Large blowback .380 (or .32 ACP) pistols never made sense to me.

Andy

I think Steyr meant the Mk 12 upper with a regular M4 lower as in no fixed stock, two stage deal