Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 21

Thread: ventless carriers?

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    141
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by sinlessorrow View Post
    So I was browing pictures online of the Mk18 and one popped up that caught my attention. It was from TOS in one of their picture threads.

    What caught my eye was the Mk18 and M4A1 on the end, both have carrier without any vent holes. Does anyone have an idea as to what is going on? I would ask over there, but alas I cannot.

    I am the one that posted those pictures that everyone has been so curious about. I can't say with 100% certainty but my guess is that it's some kind of simulation/airsoft conversion for training use. That picture was taken from a training compound that routinely trains SF units, LEO, etc… There have been many other pics posted from the same class and other classes with very clear simunition conversions (the typical blue carriers, etc…), so it's pretty clear that this particular class does a lot of that type of training where they're shooting at each other using training rounds. So, if I had to bet money on it, it'd be some kind of simunition/airsoft/blank conversion for training purposes.

    But they are real rifles and the picture is legitimate.

    Quote Originally Posted by sandsunsurf View Post
    They also all appear to be machine guns. So now there's either a ton of money sitting right there or they're airsoft. I think the source thread would be where I'd start looking to see the context in which the picture was posted.
    They are indeed machine guns, specifically they're issued M4A1s.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eurodriver View Post
    They are airsoft. 100% would put money on it.

    The PEQ15 adjustment turrets are not correct, but match the stuff you find on EBay from Hong Kong.
    Negative. First off, there's usually a couple very obvious tells with fake PEQ-15s and those units have none of those tells. Secondly, those are not PEQ-15s. Those are LA-5s, which is the current standard ATPIAL issued to SF as part of the SOPMOD program (Block II).

    Quote Originally Posted by JulyAZ View Post
    I thought I went in and destroyed that thread to the point where they shut it down and locked it? Or is the a new MK18 thread there now? Oh well leave it to TOS to post airsoft and claim them to be real FA MK18s.

    This gun ruined the OG MK18 thread
    That wasn't the "OG" Mk 18 thread, there had been 2 before that one. I believe the current one is the 4th one.

    I don't know why I'm even responding to this, as it seems to be just dragging garbage from one forum to another, but I'll try and hopefully it doesn't spin out of control. The point is, the current military issued CQBR is a pretty interesting rifle as it relates to US small military arms, and their history. Some people (including myself) find them interesting and enjoy discussing them. The Mk 18 thread is specifically dedicated to that purpose. The people that do find them interesting also sometimes like to "build" ones as close as they can and enjoy it. Your rifle is clearly not attempting that in any way. Besides being cerakoted, it really doesn't have a single related part (other than the rail) that would qualify. So while being a super badass SBR in its own right, it's relatively off topic for that particular thread. Some people get annoyed when people come in and post OT rifles … and really, nobody understands the compulsion of why they do it. There are many theme-specific picture threads across gun forums, including on M4C, and most people would find it weird to go in and post a picture of a 8.5" Krink in a long range precision AR thread. It just makes no sense.

    Your criticism of people's color-filled pirate filled lowers is just as valid, but sometimes people have to use whatever parts they have available while their build is "in process". If someone is in the process of building a military clone, but they only have 1 NFA lower to use until another gets approved, or one suppressor that's "wrong", for instance, then it's usually acceptable to say "Hey guys, I know there's some glaringly wrong things on this, but I'm in the process of building a CQBR and am limited to these incorrect parts until my correct ones get approved. In the meantime, here's a pic of how the build stands right now." That's much different than "Hey guys, I know you're discussing one specific thing, but here's a pic of something completely unrelated just because".

    It's hard to tell, but it almost seems like you take pride in derailing the thread? I'm probably just reading that wrong. But if that's the case, that's a bummer. Because these military rifles really are a pretty interesting topic and the forums make it pretty neat that a bunch of people with similar interest can discuss some of the aspects of them. I certainly did not mean offense with anything in my post, I'm just hoping to add a little bit of context and offer an opinion as to why your SBR could have caused so much drama.
    Last edited by TinyCrumb; 02-15-15 at 04:12.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    GA
    Posts
    3,704
    Feedback Score
    43 (100%)
    Let me get this straight, if someone bought a factory complete Daniel Defense Mk18 and changed out the furniture, optic, weapon light, etc, then there are other people that would then strongly argue that it was not a Mk 18 because it didn't match their idea of how it should be configured?

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    E. Tennessee
    Posts
    2,124
    Feedback Score
    6 (100%)
    So where is this mysterious training facility? Who is it run by? Wait...it is in a top secret, NDA non-disclosed Area 51 location, right?


    "That picture was taken from a training compound that routinely trains SF units, LEO, etc… There have been many other pics posted from the same class and other classes with very clear simunition conversions (the typical blue carriers, etc…)"
    ETC (SW/AW), USN (1998-2008)
    CVN-65, USS Enterprise

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    141
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by mtdawg169 View Post
    Let me get this straight, if someone bought a factory complete Daniel Defense Mk18 and changed out the furniture, optic, weapon light, etc, then there are other people that would then strongly argue that it was not a Mk 18 because it didn't match their idea of how it should be configured?
    You're really talking about two different things. There's a "Daniel Defense Mk 18" and then there's the "Military Mk 18" (which really isn't a Mk 18 at all either, but whatever). They're really two totally different things (other than they share the same rail interface). Have you seen the "Daniel Defense Mk 12"? It's the same exact thing but on an even more exaggerated scale.

    Quote Originally Posted by hotrodder636 View Post
    So where is this mysterious training facility? Who is it run by? Wait...it is in a top secret, NDA non-disclosed Area 51 location, right?


    "That picture was taken from a training compound that routinely trains SF units, LEO, etc… There have been many other pics posted from the same class and other classes with very clear simunition conversions (the typical blue carriers, etc…)"
    Geeze, what's with the hostility? As far as I know, no, it's not top secret, and I believe their headquarters are in Pennsylvania, not Nevada. http://www.rockwelltactical.com Their logo is also pretty plainly watermarked on the photo itself lol.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,303
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)

    ventless carriers?

    Quote Originally Posted by TinyCrumb View Post
    It's hard to tell, but it almost seems like you take pride in derailing the thread? I'm probably just reading that wrong. But if that's the case, that's a bummer. Because these military rifles really are a pretty interesting topic and the forums make it pretty neat that a bunch of people with similar interest can discuss some of the aspects of them. I certainly did not mean offense with anything in my post, I'm just hoping to add a little bit of context and offer an opinion as to why your SBR could have caused so much drama.

    I would also like to leave the drama over there. I don't take pride in in, I'm just still pissed about it. I just can't help but point out that my rifle, a variant of my own on the MK18 caused so much drama there, when that thread was filled with people that did the same and it was acceptable yet mine was not. Others variants the were wildly off base than my was(I've since changed it) were/are accepted.

    I just am willingly and loudly wanting to vocalize the hypocritical nature of that site. When that thread from the OP own words wasn't a cloner thread to begin with. I looked at the new thread today, that is a die hard cloner thread.

    So proud, no, but absolutely vocal, yes.
    Last edited by JulyAZ; 02-15-15 at 11:13.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    141
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by JulyAZ View Post
    I would also like to leave the drama over there. I don't take pride in in, I'm just still pissed about it. I just can't help but point out that my rifle, a variant of my own on the MK18 caused so much drama there, when that thread was filled with people that did the same and it was acceptable yet mine was not. Others variants the were wildly off base than my was(I've since changed it) were/are accepted.

    I just am willingly and loudly wanting to vocalize the hypocritical nature of that site. When that thread from the OP own words wasn't a cloner thread to begin with. I looked at the new thread today, that is a die hard cloner thread.

    So proud, no, but absolutely vocal, yes.
    Cool. I totally hear you and share your frustration much of the time.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    E. Tennessee
    Posts
    2,124
    Feedback Score
    6 (100%)
    No hostility intended. Just with all of the discussion and questions about the guns, I thought having a pedigreed training facility with a known name and location would go a long ways in the credibility arena. Thank you for the information and the contribution.
    ETC (SW/AW), USN (1998-2008)
    CVN-65, USS Enterprise

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    141
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by hotrodder636 View Post
    No hostility intended. Just with all of the discussion and questions about the guns, I thought having a pedigreed training facility with a known name and location would go a long ways in the credibility arena. Thank you for the information and the contribution.
    No problem. I probably should have linked to it in my first post … sorry about that.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    E. Tennessee
    Posts
    2,124
    Feedback Score
    6 (100%)
    All is good!
    ETC (SW/AW), USN (1998-2008)
    CVN-65, USS Enterprise

  10. #20
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    3,095
    Feedback Score
    7 (89%)
    Thanks tiny for chimung in. I got banned from TOS years ago but I love to browse the pic threads still, so without any way to ask you I posted here.

    I am very happy to see you here, and thanks for the info.
    Quote Originally Posted by C4IGrant View Post
    Colt builds War Horses, not show ponies.
    Quote Originally Posted by Iraqgunz View Post
    This is 2012. The world is going to end this December and people are still trying to debate the merits of piece of shit, cost cutting crap AR's. Really?

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •