Author Topic: Weapon Photos Discussion  (Read 572662 times)

Offline studdermonkey

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Brigadier General
  • *****
  • Posts: 1733
    • View Profile
Re: Weapon Photos Discussion
« Reply #165 on: April 10, 2006, 04:59:36 PM »
Quote from: "azsarge"
You ruined that gun, Matt.


Plus a fuckin' billion.

Just paint over it with some tan there. ;)
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by studdermonkey »
كافر
Nate!

Offline Raith

  • Wait, what?
  • Global Moderator
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Major General
  • *****
  • Posts: 2289
    • View Profile
Re: Weapon Photos Discussion
« Reply #166 on: April 10, 2006, 05:45:05 PM »
It looks fine, Hav.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by Raith »
Live free or die: Death is not the worst of evils.


Offline Farslayer

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Major General
  • *****
  • Posts: 2103
    • View Profile
    • http://www.amsog.com
Re: Weapon Photos Discussion
« Reply #167 on: April 10, 2006, 05:54:39 PM »
I'd take the time and give it a really good base coat.  Either OD or Khaki.  It will get rid of that spotty look.  After that, you can spray it any other color you want....just my opinion.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by Farslayer »
Benn

Offline -MAD- SARGE

  • Global Moderator
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Lieutenant General
  • *****
  • Posts: 3279
    • View Profile
Re: Weapon Photos Discussion
« Reply #168 on: April 10, 2006, 07:50:22 PM »
Dont forget the buffer tube : )   A nice puke color, somehow I feel that the picture doesn't do it justice. Its your gun Hav, paint it how you like it.  Some time I will paint my new gun...........
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by -MAD- SARGE »


Don't be an Escalefter.

Offline azsarge

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • General
  • *****
  • Posts: 9999
    • View Profile
Re: Weapon Photos Discussion
« Reply #169 on: April 10, 2006, 08:42:39 PM »
It had fucking battle wear from tuning Tan Charlie pussies at LC3, LC4, and numerous AA games.  It was the gun Anthony held when he helped capture Col. McKnight at LC3, and was the gun I used at my first game back from Active Duty.

It's your heater, you do what you want.  It had character, that's all.

Cheers.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by azsarge »

Offline Farslayer

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Major General
  • *****
  • Posts: 2103
    • View Profile
    • http://www.amsog.com
Re: Weapon Photos Discussion
« Reply #170 on: April 10, 2006, 08:48:24 PM »
Quote from: "azsarge"
It had fucking battle wear from tuning Tan Charlie pussies at LC3, LC4, and numerous AA games.  It was the gun Anthony held when he helped capture Col. McKnight at LC3, and was the gun I used at my first game back from Active Duty.

It's your heater, you do what you want.  It had character, that's all.

Cheers.


Christian's bitterness is just his way of dealing with pain.  He's been through a lot with that gun and it's like losing a brother...
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by Farslayer »
Benn

Offline azsarge

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • General
  • *****
  • Posts: 9999
    • View Profile
Re: Weapon Photos Discussion
« Reply #171 on: April 10, 2006, 09:00:37 PM »
Quote from: "Farslayer"
Quote from: "azsarge"
It had fucking battle wear from tuning Tan Charlie pussies at LC3, LC4, and numerous AA games.  It was the gun Anthony held when he helped capture Col. McKnight at LC3, and was the gun I used at my first game back from Active Duty.

It's your heater, you do what you want.  It had character, that's all.

Cheers.

Christian's bitterness is just his way of dealing with pain.  He's been through a lot with that gun and it's like losing a brother...

 

Only you could get away with saying something like that, brother!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by azsarge »

Offline Irish-Sniper

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Staff Sergeant
  • *****
  • Posts: 208
    • View Profile
Re: Weapon Photos Discussion
« Reply #172 on: April 14, 2006, 10:49:29 AM »
i was thinking of getting a Tm M14. Just wanted to know if its worth the price, or if i should buy something eles.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by Irish-Sniper »
You have not lived till you have died.

Offline Farslayer

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Major General
  • *****
  • Posts: 2103
    • View Profile
    • http://www.amsog.com
Re: Weapon Photos Discussion
« Reply #173 on: April 16, 2006, 07:53:56 AM »
Dust,

How about a pic of all of your classics?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by Farslayer »
Benn

Offline Firehead

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Major General
  • *****
  • Posts: 2441
    • View Profile
Re: Weapon Photos Discussion
« Reply #174 on: April 16, 2006, 09:09:31 PM »
I'd keep the light, it looks really cool with a short barrel. Only ditch it if its really heavy. Supressor has gotta go though.

I'm curious as to why you went with a RAS 2 versus going with a regular RAS. All that RAS2 did was get in your way from having a long solid rail(you could have put a rail sleeve on there, which woulda been way cooler, I think), and limit where you can put optics(you could also argue that it gives you a specific spot for optics, but in my opinion it won't be the best for the invidual shooter).
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by Firehead »

Offline MicrowvbleTurtle

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Master Sergeant
  • *****
  • Posts: 429
    • View Profile
Re: Weapon Photos Discussion
« Reply #175 on: April 16, 2006, 09:26:15 PM »
No doubt, the light looks cool.  But I'd rather remove it because it's dead weight during most day skirmishes.  

It's bright as fuck though.  I flashed it in my friend's eyes last night... he couldn't see shit for like five seconds.


As for the RAS II.  I suppose it's just personal opinion.  I think it looks awesome... far better than any rail sleeve.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by MicrowvbleTurtle »

Offline Vince

  • Global Moderator
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • General
  • *****
  • Posts: 5230
    • View Profile
Re: Weapon Photos Discussion
« Reply #176 on: April 16, 2006, 09:32:26 PM »
Rail sleeves are extra gay, they change the mount height of optics, and they just suck.

Also, I dunno about that little RAS fix unit. There's no wobble to begin with, and it restricts the amount of options you have with which to use your devices. I'm not down with restriction of options with no visible benefit.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by Vince »


"I was having dinner with Andrew Ho, and he said I should have COL McKnight lead airsofters in mock combat. I said, "That is the gayest idea I have ever heard." - John Lu

Offline MicrowvbleTurtle

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Master Sergeant
  • *****
  • Posts: 429
    • View Profile
Re: Weapon Photos Discussion
« Reply #177 on: April 16, 2006, 09:44:24 PM »
That's the reason I was looking at the EOTech that uses the N batteries instead of the AA.  

I get both of your points.  It certainly does restrict the amount of RAS I have to mount an optic but nevertheless, I like the look of it.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by MicrowvbleTurtle »

Offline gixser13

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Major General
  • *****
  • Posts: 2221
    • View Profile
Re: Weapon Photos Discussion
« Reply #178 on: April 16, 2006, 09:49:36 PM »
Quote from: "MicrowvbleTurtle"
, I like the look of it.




 ;) That's all that matters
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by gixser13 »

Offline Gantaliano Hoff

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Brigadier General
  • *****
  • Posts: 1531
    • View Profile
    • http://www.amsog.com
Re: Weapon Photos Discussion
« Reply #179 on: April 17, 2006, 08:08:54 AM »
Nice kit man. [smilie=armata_pdt_34.gif]

Is this gonna be your primary weapon? I remember you said it would be a backup, but a G&P seems kinda pricey for a backup weapon.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by Gantaliano Hoff »