Well, the F2000 is light and can serve as an assault rifle, scope rifle, grenade launcher and even a shotgun I've heard. But whereas the P90 was a success (also partly made out of plastic) the F2000 seems to fail.
daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaam straight. Except the m4. you stay the hell away from my m4 if you know whats good for you.
Higher RoF isn't "good" per se. You can always use lighter components to make a weapon fire faster .. but usually the inverse is intended. Mechanical parts are actually weighted up to make the weapon fire slower, high rate of fire is a smg problem (since they're small and light). Furthermore, the barrel is way shorter, so accuracy is worse than both M16 and M4 (which fires the same ammos as the P90 I think, or at least same caliber, idk. about casing length, propellant etc. and I don't care enough to look.) F-2000 possibly is rarely used becaause most armies already have a proven rifle to use. Or do you have some *** million dollars for spare to equip a whole army with a new rifle just for fun? And don't forget training. Armies usually use a type of rifle for more than 25 years. And it doesn't matter if it can be configured as a sniper rifle, smg, whatever. This can be done to virtually every modern rifle. DJ Die "nothing M16 was crap 50years ago and still is.... hell even our old Sa.58 works better and same with any AK variant" AK47 is "similar" to the M16, but M16 beats the hell out of it in EVERY CATEGORY. AK74 is "similar" to the M4, and yet again, the M4 beats the holy fucking crap out of the AK. In shooting performance, but most importantly in ergonomics and design. AK is inferior in every fact based way. The only reason ppl use it is because it is cheap like dirt .. actually cheaper than dirt.
Yes, the M16 and M4 are so shitty that nobody uses them, or designs new guns based off of them. And GSH is right about pretty much everything (except the ammo, M16/M4 use 5.56NATO, the P90's cartride is the same caliber, but barely over half the length). I seriously doubt any Submachine gun would be more accurate than any rifle, unless the rifle is completely fucked up.
Wasn't the M16 a FN FAL ripoff? Created for the sole purpose of centering the gun's balance point so it would recoil back against the shoulder instead of pushing the barrel upwards?
It doesn't matter.. every action / layout / whatever had to be developed sometime.. afterwards it's all about reusing. Ever heard of the MG42 or StG/MP 44? And you can trace those to WW1 weapons, those to pre WW1 weapons, those to muskets .. All that matters is the result if you look for results. There's no weapon that doesn't use some mechanism that has already been used somewhere else. And why reinvent the wheel if you can improve on available technology?
Except that I've met countless Americans boasting about the M16, how the whole thing is their concept, their idea, their great invention. That it's a flawless Muslim slayer and such.
LOL I just noticed Slith's custom rank. oooooooh, that made me rofl. Back on task! what the hell, how does this guy have a better bullet-proofing system then current armor? Hm... if the military testing approves it, I guess it could work.
not sure so far only Slovenian army and Belgian special forces use FN2000 but because its quite new but promising gun id say others are waiting to see how will rifle fare with those 2 P90 is very accurate because of its ammo possibly more than M4 but cant say for sure ive never fired it it may spin around thanks to its high ROF but its made to have low recoil when fired from hands after all you dont fire guns on ground... AK is NOT inferior in any way to M16 it was because it was because of poor manufacture which made it inaccurate(especialy Chinese copies) M16 is crappy too light some version didnt even have fully automatic fire and whats worse its unreliable and you dont want that in combat gun ah yes good old americans claiming everything as theirs but their M60 is just copy o MG42/FG42 and very very bad might i add
GSH: the AK-47 beats the M4 in damage. the M4 round either splinters on impact or does nothing. the AK-47 round enters a chaotic spiral that makes the entry wound a bit bigger, and the following wound into the body bigger the deeper it goes.
Yes, basicly the AK47 is more lethal (because of it's bigger caliber). However, its armor penetration performance is inferior, and since literally every infantryman nowadays wears armor I'll say they're equally effective (5.56mm has GREAT armor penetration). However, the 5.56 is lighter, cheaper and smaller (bigger clip).. and works against armor. Its stopping power however isn't exactly awesome. I somehow had the impression M16 fired 7.62mm (like M14), but it doesn't, just like Arklansman said. The biggest drawback on the Ak47/74 are it's mechanics. Reliably, yes, but not user friendly. A trained M16 user will beat a similarily tained AK user simply because he can utilize his weapon more effectively. Did you ever reload an AK and a M16 afterwards? Just an example. Killx, most modern rifle ammos "tumble" (the chaotic spiral) once inside flesh. Tumbling ammo doesn't do more damage, actually less because it doesn't penetrate as deep. The reason they did that is to reduce overpenetration. Non tumbling Ammo shoots through like 3 chests. Ball btw. doesn't splinter on soft targets ever. No military grade ammo is allowed to splinter actually. And I don't say FN weapons are bad, they are very good actually. But you can't compare SMGs to rifles or carbines.
