Loading ...
Pause for a moment for a sponsor!
The Tiki Web Group
Disclaimer: Unless specifically mentioned in the post, we have no clue where this picture came from. Know where it came from? Post the link in the comments, and reap the glory! All comments are the sole possesion of the commenters and do not reflect the opinions or values of MCS. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
-700x437.png "Wallpaper_ (6).jpg")
June 17, 2011 at 11:02 am
Also known as the Ugliest Sniper Rifle Ever Invented.
June 17, 2011 at 1:15 pm
So guns are created for good-looking?
June 17, 2011 at 2:21 pm
Yes. Guns are designed with visual psychological effects in mind. All military guns and gear and vehicles are designed to look a very specific way.
June 17, 2011 at 3:00 pm
What psychological effects? Link source.
June 17, 2011 at 4:56 pm
My department is very close to industrial design.
You are all familiar with the idea that everything you see (that’s man made) is designed by someone. Well same goes for guns and all other military gear and vehicles.
Soldiers and vehicles especially must be both practical as well give a psychological effect on the enemy.
If you look at SWAT officers, there’s a good example. The all black/dark blues isn’t for camouflage. It’s psychological warfare. It looks scary. It looks aggressive. You can’t make a human connection to them because of their balaclavas that hide their face. More often than not just the seeing a group of SWAT officers up close and personal will startle the perpetrator for several crucial seconds or scare him into surrendering.
Same goes with military vehicles. They have to be a mix of both practicality as well as an memorable visual icon of aggressiveness. Think of German Shepherd police dogs. They have a very distinctive type of aggressiveness and an willingness to give chase. That feeling is kept in mind when designing the military Humvee, the Apache, the Abrams tank, as well as the soldier.
So in the same way, the guns are designed with that in mind. Black, rigid, and all business. Now imagine how much differently the enemy would see our soldier’s if they had goofy looking but practical weapons. Not quite the same effect.
This is a small but important part of psychological warfare mixed with industrial design.
June 17, 2011 at 8:43 pm
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
June 19, 2011 at 7:31 am
A tank that you cant see and kills you from 3000m at night was designed to be a visual icon of aggressiveness? Same for a sniper rifle. You never see the sniper. Thats the point.
And as for signs of aggressiveness: what does an MRAP connote? If I’m a terrorist, I’m laughing that GI Joe has to drive that behemoth just to do a supply run across town.
Your theory is interesting and SWAT teams obviously dont wear pink for a reason. I’d respect your argument more if you’d stated that the industrial design was butched up for the _adoption_ phase of the weapon, when its being marketed to the military brass. That would make alot more sense.
June 17, 2011 at 9:48 pm
A lot of them are designed with looks in mind- but many also have no concern whatsoever about looks- just function. Since they functioned so well, the fear and intimidation natuarally came along with them. Some guns look kick-ass, but they don’t work for shit. So, they become synonymous with the piece of garbage that they are.
but, I must say, in the past 20-30 years, a lot of emphasis has been placed on making guns look kick ass. And I am good with that!
Here’s a site that I go to often:
www.imfdb.org/index.php?title=Main_Page
Enjoy.
June 17, 2011 at 11:43 am
I like bullpup guns, but yep, it’s fucking ugly.
June 17, 2011 at 12:49 pm
Wa2000, i dont mind the look but as far as acuracy goes they are shocking. standard is a 18 or 20inch barrel and .308 (7.62mm) cal. the short barrel makes it useless for more than roughly 600 meters. which is hardly a sniper shot. prefer my .338 edge with a 23inch comp barrel. acurate for 1600meters
June 17, 2011 at 4:19 pm
You sir need to recheck your facts…. primary cambering was 300 win mag, with a 25 in barrel. With only 176 ever made and costing about 40,000 to start, I don’t expect to ever see one anyway.
June 17, 2011 at 6:19 pm
Price at the time was around $9000. I suspect the $40,000 figure is either adjusted for inflation (a Civic in the same year cost around $4000) or is an auction estimate. But yea, they were reputedly extremely accurate (sub MOA) and had a free floated 25.6in barrel. I -so- wanted one. That would have been a lot of allowance… Heck, I still would love having one, though I would be afraid to shoot it. I actually rather like the look of them. It speaks of being “purpose built” rather than simply being a tuned up version of Billy-Bob’s elk gun. Besides, even though they had more reach than most anyone could actually use they were designed for urban sniping. That is the point of the bull-pup configuration, that it was maneuverable in an urban environment and didn’t have a barrel sticking out half a yard out in front of the bipod fot the bad guy to notice.
June 17, 2011 at 10:31 pm
I never looked at the specific specs, i was sure it was 308? but it certainly doesn’t look a 25 inch barrel. and yeah iv never seen one for sale or seen anybody who owns one. regardless the 300 win mag still inst a brilliant sniper cal. i own 2 win mags and all you can get out of them is 1200m on an average day. not great. i personally call a gun a “sniper” if it is accurate for more like 1600+
Shooting my first time at 2km soon. wish me luck hey.
December 18, 2011 at 2:18 am
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walther_WA_2000
Primary was .300 WM, but it was also made in 7.62 Nato (.308) and 7.65 Swiss
www.snipercentral.com/wa2000.htm
June 17, 2011 at 1:11 pm
I actually think it looks nice but it’s no sniper rifle with that range… could be awesome for varmint hunting and I understand it can receive a suppressor that adds range and removes some noise making it suitable for hunting varmints in the urban environment
June 17, 2011 at 10:34 pm
a suppressor doesn’t add range under any circumstance. in fact for the suppressor to be most effective it will loose range. for a suppressor to work 100% it needs low velocity rounds (under 1000feet per sec) 300 win mag as this is chambered in? is around 3300fps depending on loads. you wont have any gunshot sound. but people will hear a sonic boom as it fly’s near them.
June 17, 2011 at 3:02 pm
I like how it looks. Lots of guns seem to go for basically the same look (in a very general sense).
I bet you can buy this one at IKEA.
June 17, 2011 at 6:28 pm
The HEDSCHODT rifle, new from Ikea! Sophisticated modular design to meet the demands of modern urban living.
June 17, 2011 at 6:30 pm
I think it looks awesome.
June 18, 2011 at 2:24 am
For when you can’t decide if you want a gun or a coffee table.
June 18, 2011 at 6:35 am
bull-pup sucks, having the casing eject right next to your ear is loud and painful.
June 29, 2012 at 9:10 am
I’ve seen a few people on the interwebs make the claim that a bullpup is louder, but I’m guessing that none of them have ever fired one. I’ve fired plenty in many calibres and have never noticed any difference in sound levels. Almost all of a firearm’s noise comes out of the barrel, so given that a bullpup typically as a longer barrel than most carbine type weapons, they actually tend to be quieter.
An ejection port doesn’t open until pressure in the barrel has dropped to a safe level, which is after all of the noise has stopped coming out anyway.
June 21, 2011 at 5:46 am
The whole point of a bullpup designe is 2 fold. First size and second the visual field. The first makes the weapon both more manuverable and as in the case of the P-90 in particular easier to cary for a specific roll. The second while the noise of the ejection port right by the ear may seam to be a problem it is not as the sound will travel through your cheek bone anyway from a normal style weapon. The ejection port being this far back however means that there is no shell cases flying into view and therefor distracting your aim. And yes I am aware that while using a scope you have only one eye open and looking straight down it but the distraction of something shiny and moving in your perferial vision can still ruin a second shot.
December 18, 2011 at 2:31 am
James Bond had one in The Living Daylights… looked HUGE