Would older weapons still be effective against modern ones, even if modernised?
>>28423416
Are we shooting weapons at weapons?
Of course the would still be effective in a gunfight. The shoot deadly bullets just the same. They are just a pain in the ass to operate comparatively
>>28423416
how old? WW1 and up would probably still be fine in terms of killing people, can't really say against vehicles or anything
Define modernized.
>>28423416
Yeah. The MG42 and the Stg are fine rifles, even comparable to modern weapons. The MG3 is a modernized version of the MG42 still in use with militaries today.
>>28423416
>pick up Mauser 98
>throw it across room at AR
>miss
According to scientific testing, no.
>>28423416
Depends on whose operating the firearm.
>>28423442
>WW1 and up would probably still be fine in terms of killing people
There's still plenty of WW1 rifles and far more from WW2 in use in current conflicts.
>>28423416
Thousands of insurgents in the Middle East have been using shit spanning from the First World War through the Cold War to pretty good effect on a "modernized" US military for over 10 years now.
The only thing that matters is if a weapon functions reliably and shoots straight. As long as the person using it can use it well, they're just as dangerous as someone with an M4 or another more contemporary weapon.
A modernized Mosin Nagant, with high quality handloads, could probably accurately hit target's within the engagement ranges of other DMR rifles.
>>28423495
They still use Jezails and Martini-Henrys. Pretty much anything they can get their hands on.
>>28423495
This. Specifically the mujahideen wrecked the soviets in afghanistan with enfield rifles
>>28423416
Yes. Their decrease in effectiness is only relative to new weapons, they'd still work just as well as they always did.
>tfw no Madsen M47 in either .308 Win or 6.5X55mm
>>28423575
No, they wrecked them with stinger missiles.
>>28423604
That too
Ma deuce
Weapons technology hasn't really changed since WWII.
The STG-44 was the grandfather of all the roller-delayed H&K rifles which are still used today. Most modern bolt-action rifles use a version of the Mauser action. Many of the rifles today have mechanisms originating in old Lewis guns, FG-42s, and MG-34 and 42 machineguns.
Many designs piggy-back on older designs. While the guns of old may not have the same ballistics or reliability, they still kill people dead.
Shit, all around the world insurgencies and wars are being fought with Martini-Henrys, Enfields, Mausers, STG-44s, and more.
>>28423495
Except mostly they've just been hiding bombs in shit and blowing them up when US troops come around.
Small arms weren't used to any effect to speak of, teebeeaitch.
That said, I don't think you're wrong. Especially when you consider that older guns tend to be a lot more powerful, and more likely to defeat body armor than more modern guns.
otoh, the REASON for the shift to more, smaller bullets is because the side who hides behind better cover and puts the most lead in the air tends to win, and it's easier to carry more boolets when they're littler.
However those older guns are 100% being used in more conventional conflicts and they're certainly effective, but I don't think your average third world warlord's militiaman is gonna take a Mosin over an M4.
>>28423443
Not OP, but probably made with modern materials plus railings. Possibly even a refit to use common modern ammunition?
While we're in the topic, what older weapon would you bring to a modern gunfight? At least until you decide to pick up a better gun.
MP44 for me.
>>28423707
You pretty much answered your own question. But just to be different, can I mount an MG34 on a humvee please?
>>28423707
>what older weapon would you bring to a modern gunfight?
AKM
>>28423707
Define older.
>>28423707
STG/MP-44
No question. The round is very similar to modern .300 blk, it handles recoil like a champ, and is pretty reliable. Anything else, I'd go with an SKS.
>>28423707
Mle Type D (or the FN Type D BAR) chambered in 7.92x57 Belgian Mauser.
>>28423723
Historical or decomissioned rifles and any non-modernised versions of any pre-1960 rifles.
>>28423766
Oh, right. Doesn't need to be a rifle.
>>28423766
Well shit then I'd take an FN FAL. Many "modern" guns started out in the fifties and disregarding rails not that much has changed design wise.
>>28423766
>Pre-1960s rifles
A lot of more modern guns were made around the 1950s as >>28423782 said.
Make the limit earlier. Anything pre-1945.
Old guns aren't any less deadly to get shot by, and can still be used to great effect.
They will just tend to be heavier, less reliable, more annoying to maintain, less flexible, and potentially less accurate than their modern counterparts
>>28423766
The AR-10 was designed before 1960.
...and the FAL... and the CETME... and the UZI... and the AK-47.
>>28423416
Prepare yur angus.
>>28423829
>StG-44 chambered in 7.62x39
Why does this idea make my dick so hard
>>28423707
Shit, I'm stuck between the Ping, the Ljungman, or a MAS 49.
I'd probably go with the MAS.
>>28423604
Something old, something new, something borrowed, something blue.
>>28423841
Second the Ljungman.
That'd be a anoosewrecker, Sveljorgaborga.
>>28423829
I'm surprised they're making it in 8mm Kurz. Is that even manufactured anymore?
>>28423829
>>28423839
I thought people would be more psyched for the 300BLK or the fact it can use STANAG mags.
>>28423916
.300 BLK confuses me.
We've been told for years that 7.62x39 is this antiquated round outpaced by 5.56 and 5.45 in nearly every way as an intermediate caliber.
Now suddenly we need a NATO round that has 7.62x39 ballistics and behavior?
It's pretty cool that it uses STANAG mags though.
>>28423658
Littler
>>28424094
it's for subsonic reasons thats really the only time .300 blk is superior
>>28423707
Sterling SMG
>>28423599
It'll be ok, buddy.
>>28423829
>kurtz
how hard is it to look it up?
