Nemesis Phaser Rifles.

corporial · Post by **corporial** » 2002-07-26 11:30am

VF5SS wrote:A maglight is certianly going to do more damage than that phaser rifle. Those lights are pretty heavy...

I can see it now....... "Set your phaser to strobe"

Isolder74 · Post by **Isolder74** » 2002-07-26 12:41pm

Master of Ossus wrote:To be fair, the M16 has been modified several times since its inception, but it has been around for a very long period of time, and the working parts have not changed since Vietnam.

the only real modification involved making the interieor parts less prone to jamming, the chassie never changed much

Grand Admiral Thrawn · Post by **Grand Admiral Thrawn** » 2002-07-26 12:47pm

Ak-101? What is that? haven't heard about it?

IRG CommandoJoe · Post by **IRG CommandoJoe** » 2002-07-26 03:28pm

Is there any difference between the effectiveness of the M-16 and the M-4? All I know is that the M-4 is just a more compact version of an M-16...which makes you wonder why they just don't replace the M-16 with M-4's...unless there is a difference in effectiveness...so is there?

Post by **NecronLord** » 2002-07-26 03:56pm

GAT go to http://www.rusarm.ru and they will give you the AK-101 sales pitch

Post by **NecronLord** » 2002-07-26 03:59pm

The M-16 may be not be brilliant but at least it works

Compare that with British SA-80

They spend 90+ million £ (i think, give or take) getting Heckler and Kock to re-tool the thing and it's still the worst gun in the world.

Oberleutnant · Post by **Oberleutnant** » 2002-07-26 05:52pm

This is going way off-topic! :p

According to a guy I know (he is a Royal Navy officer) the bugs with the SA-80 have been worked out. If it was still prone to its earlier problems I doubt that the Royal Marines would've been carrying them in Afganistan.

AK-101 as well as all the other 100-series AKs are meant for foreign markets only and will never see service in the Russian army, which will start using AN-94. As someone pointed out earlier, it is currently in use by the MVD troops and Army's special forces in Chechnya. This is from Russian sources.

The first prototypes of the M-16s were created in mid fifties and came to use in early sixties.

While most of the Israeli troops use M-16s and CAR-15s, their combat divers carry Galils and many of their deep penetration units AKs. The new IMI assault rifle, Tavor TAR-21, is expected to become the standard weapon of their special forces.

While M-16A2 is undoubtedly a good weapon, why is it that no European army uses it as their standard issue rifle? They are all Hecklers, Enfields, Steyrs, FNs and Sakos. On the other hand, the Canadian C7, which is an improved model of M-16, is widely used -- by Danish and Norwegian special forces for example.

I'm a amateur gun enthusiast as well and my knowledge is mostly based on what I've read and heard.

Oberleutnant · Post by **Oberleutnant** » 2002-07-26 05:56pm

I wonder why no one has said anything about that Starfleet jeep!

I can imagine how some Trekkies who call Star Wars technology outdated because they don't use ridicilous touch screens on their ships, are now sad because their high-tech jeep has tires instead of some kind of funky hover technology.

Post by **Vympel** » 2002-07-27 01:41am

CommandoJoe, the M4 is the carbine version of the M16; it has a shorter barrel than the M16 and hence less range/ less lethality (complained about in Mogadishu and now in Afghanistan too apparently); interestingly there is a case being made in the USMC at least for replacing the M16 with the M4; but I've only heard very little about that so far (strategypage.com is ok for such issues- though take what it says with a grain of salt- often has errors.)

AK-101 and the carbine AK-102 version have been ordered in the hundreds by Indonesian police forces- they're also releasing a light machine gun RPK-101 version (in 5.56mm).

Typhonis 1 · Post by **Typhonis 1** » 2002-07-27 02:01am

The problems the M-16 suffered from was the Army got a hold of it and moddified it a bit for there use origionally,in fact they replaced the poweder it was designed to use with a different ,dirtier kind which caused some jamming problems

Cpt_Frank · Post by **Cpt_Frank** » 2002-07-27 05:00am

If you wanna debate M-16 vs AK-101 vs SA-80 why not open a different thread in the off-topic forum?
I thought this place here was reserved to bash the laughable new phaser rifle.

His Divine Shadow · Post by **His Divine Shadow** » 2002-07-27 09:05am

Master of Ossus wrote:The M16, though, is probably a better weapon in ideal conditions than the Kalashnikov. Its accuracy, firepower, and light weight are unmatched. In spite of its reliability issues in poor conditions, I believe it is one of the best weapons money can buy. Why else would the Israelis be snapping them up? They have access to any weapon they want from anywhere in the world.

The finnish made STG-95 is the best allround weapon, an AK clone ofcourse, but improve and can mount laser-sights, nightvision and grenade launcher, with the same reliability as an AK-47/74.

Man, I dunno how many I dragged my STG through mud/snow/dirt in the army, it worked though.
Worst was definitly sand though, you want to watch out with sand.

His Divine Shadow · Post by **His Divine Shadow** » 2002-07-27 09:08am

OH yes, the finnish STG is 7.62mm ofcourse, accept no subsitutes.

Oberleutnant · Post by **Oberleutnant** » 2002-07-27 10:45am

In any case the design of Starfleet weapons has fortunately gone through the worst times (TNG) and they are once again starting to look like real weapons. However, phasers (and fantastic uniforms) of Trek II-VI movies are still unsurpassed. It's been a while since I saw the Nemesis trailer, but I seem to recall that the Starfleet jeep had a mounted gun. Could anyone confirm this?

BTW, I think that comparing Frakes to Arnie isn't justified!

Most of the men in their late forties/early fities don't look as young as Arnie today, which is hardly surprising. When I saw Arnie without an extensive makeup in one interview, he certainly looked old to me.

STG-95? That's the designation for Sako RK-95 in Swedish-speaking units of the Finnish Defence Forces, isn't it? I think it would be better here to call it Sako M/95 which is more understandable for foreigners, but also just as correct. After all RK and STG abbreviations are only used in FDF. Correct me if I'm wrong about the meaning of "STG" and sorry for nitpicking.

If I may ask, where did you serve? Nylands brigade?

Post by **Vympel** » 2002-07-27 10:51am

Sorry ppl I'm responsible for this OT lurch-

back to the new phaser rifle... erm

a- why bother making a new model when the old one was perfectly serviceable (i.e. they had the prop at their disposal- presumably)
b- flashlight? honestly this is RIDICULOUS- why right now any world class military has night vision goggles, heck it'll only be a matter of time before we make thermal imagers small enough to fit over our heads! Brilliant Starfleet- just brilliant

c- no iron sights. again.
d- whats with the phallic tip? like- WHY!?!!?

Oberleutnant · Post by **Oberleutnant** » 2002-07-27 11:03am

Honestly I don't think that having a flashlight is such a bad thing in Trek. If you look at pics about various realworld SWAT teams, you'll notice that many of them have flashlights added to their weapons.

Cpt_Frank · Post by **Cpt_Frank** » 2002-07-27 11:33am

Today's special units still use flashlights because the nightvision visors we have today are relatively clumsy and heavy. In ST, they can make already eye implants. What would keep them from simply building nightvision googles which can be worn like sunglasses? No, they have to take ye olde flashlight.

Isolder74 · Post by **Isolder74** » 2002-07-27 11:41am

Cpt_Frank wrote:Today's special units still use flashlights because the nightvision visors we have today are relatively clumsy and heavy. In ST, they can make already eye implants. What would keep them from simply building nightvision googles which can be worn like sunglasses? No, they have to take ye olde flashlight.

true if they can replace georti's eyes why can't they make a simple pair of night goggles. Are they so caught up with their flashy tricorders that they can't think of any other option!

Cpt_Frank · Post by **Cpt_Frank** » 2002-07-27 11:45am

As for the phallic appearance of the phaser:
You don't know what extra functions they implemented in their phasers, regarding Starfleet's swiss-army-knife design philosophy, it's possible a phaser with such a.... suggesting look has more functions than only shooting, a tricorder and a flashlight....

Post by **Vympel** » 2002-07-27 11:47am

Good point Cptn Frank, forgot about Geordi- if they can make such advanced implants for his eyes a simple set of lightweight light amp or infrared visor should be a TRIVIAL task.

Also, does anyone remember that in Season 1 of TNG, in Heart of Glory, we see the view from Geordis perspective? An absolute mess- you could barely see anything. Then, in Generations, the Klingons are watching Geordi thanks to Malcom McDowell (underrated actor if you ask me- he was even good in WING COMMANDER IMO) they have a perfect view- and can read the shield modulation?! WTF? Didn't Geordi say you need to 'learn' how to see through them? Pretty contrived way to get rid of the Enterprise-D if you ask me- after a mere 7 years of service they got rid of it in such a PISS-ANT way. Ploy to make the Trekkers buy new models? Perhaps. I'll never forgive them for that- first TNG movie- I was still high from the good ride that was ST6- and they foist that on us.

The original NCC-1701 'died' a glorious 'death'- that scene is the best part in that awful movie purely for the effects- the Enterprise-D gets taken out by a pair of Klingon chicks in a BOP thanks to a method that is dubious if we remember canon.

Rant mode off. Back to the phasers.

Isolder74 · Post by **Isolder74** » 2002-07-27 11:52am

Cpt_Frank wrote:As for the phallic appearance of the phaser:
You don't know what extra functions they implemented in their phasers, regarding Starfleet's swiss-army-knife design philosophy, it's possible a phaser with such a.... suggesting look has more functions than only shooting, a tricorder and a flashlight....

the problem with a Swiss-Army-Knife style design philosophy is that none of the included equiptment can be the best at what it does due to space requirements. I own a Swiss-Army-Knife and except for the screwwdrivers the tools are a compermise to a single dedicated tool because of size.

Post by **NecronLord** » 2002-07-27 02:06pm

According to a guy I know (he is a Royal Navy officer) the bugs with the SA-80 have been worked out. If it was still prone to its earlier problems I doubt that the Royal Marines would've been carrying them in Afganistan.

Well it was on the UK national news that the marines had complained to the MoD that it was still unreliable and useless.

Somewhat like starfleet

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2002-07-27 02:11pm

Oberleutnant wrote:I wonder why no one has said anything about that Starfleet jeep! I can imagine how some Trekkies who call Star Wars technology outdated because they don't use ridicilous touch screens on their ships, are now sad because their high-tech jeep has tires instead of some kind of funky hover technology.

Be careful! They're Firestones!

Cpt_Frank · Post by **Cpt_Frank** » 2002-07-27 02:28pm

Isolder74 wrote:
Cpt_Frank wrote:As for the phallic appearance of the phaser:
You don't know what extra functions they implemented in their phasers, regarding Starfleet's swiss-army-knife design philosophy, it's possible a phaser with such a.... suggesting look has more functions than only shooting, a tricorder and a flashlight....
the problem with a Swiss-Army-Knife style design philosophy is that none of the included equiptment can be the best at what it does due to space requirements. I own a Swiss-Army-Knife and except for the screwwdrivers the tools are a compermise to a single dedicated tool because of size.

Yeah I know that. But I just wanted to come up with an explanation for the phaser's look, not how good it performs in this secondary role.....

Isolder74 · Post by **Isolder74** » 2002-07-27 02:30pm

Cpt_Frank wrote:
Isolder74 wrote:
Cpt_Frank wrote:As for the phallic appearance of the phaser:
You don't know what extra functions they implemented in their phasers, regarding Starfleet's swiss-army-knife design philosophy, it's possible a phaser with such a.... suggesting look has more functions than only shooting, a tricorder and a flashlight....
the problem with a Swiss-Army-Knife style design philosophy is that none of the included equiptment can be the best at what it does due to space requirements. I own a Swiss-Army-Knife and except for the screwwdrivers the tools are a compermise to a single dedicated tool because of size.
Yeah I know that. But I just wanted to come up with an explanation for the phaser's look, not how good it performs in this secondary role.....

not to mention it also reduces the effectivness of the primary functions as well