Firearm & Gun Forum -

Firearm & Gun Forum - (
-   General Rifle Discussion (
-   -   Modernized Rifles:How really effective are they? (

theeuropeangoth 09-04-2012 12:24 PM

Modernized Rifles:How really effective are they?
While surfing through the internet, I saw and read several articles concerning the modernization of old firearms.
Could be they efficiently/successfully used in modern warfare/real combat situation?

Here you have some examples:


Classic(M14 EBR):
Bullpup(Bulldog 762):


Classic(Not AK 103/104):

mountainman13 09-04-2012 12:39 PM

They are great for cqb.

jpattersonnh 09-04-2012 09:23 PM

Looking at the rifles, I'm confused as to how you came up w/ the classes.

Both SKS's are not the standard
That EBR is not a classic
The Classic FN folding stock, you have w/ the bull pup
That AK is an abomination. Bull pup pic not visible, but a POS when you access the pic

Seems like tacticool is your thing, but not wood and steel.

TLuker 09-04-2012 11:20 PM

Those guns are modern and they don't need to be modernized. The basic design of rifles really hasn't changed. An AR is slightly different all though I wouldn't necessarily say an improvement. I would say an AR is equal to those others with its own special purpose, but not an improvement. Just another tool.

Adding black plastic and a rail for toys doesn't make a gun better or improved. I guess you could call it modernized but that's not saying much since that's more of fashion statement than anything. :)

Just my .02

CA357 09-05-2012 12:11 AM

The SKS is the forerunner of the AK. They are both used all over the world today without the addition of anything but ammunition.

The FAL is the same. "The right arm of the free world". Still being used and actually fought against itself in the Falklands War.

The M1A is in the field as I write this and is still one of the greatest battle rifles ever designed. It was based on the M1 Garand, the rifle that won WWII.

They are modern rifles and don't need any tacticool additions to "improve" them.

AleksiR 09-06-2012 01:16 AM

Also that bullpup "FAL" is actually a Kel-Tec RFB. Only things in common with the FAL are the caliber and the magazine.

Old_Crow 09-06-2012 04:24 AM

I am not an AK fan. I have owned SkS's in the past. In open sight range they are more accurate than a Remington Woodsmaster with modern hunting ammo. I have won some small bets off people that were shooting nice A-bolt 300mags with a scope. But that was more of an opportunity thing. The 300 had already beat the shooter down to the point they were shooting with their eyes closed.

Chainfire 09-06-2012 09:41 AM

I question whether "modernizing" improves the firearm, or if it just makes it look tacticool.

Old_Crow 09-06-2012 11:48 AM

I have to vote tacticool. All you need on a rifle is a light. People have been mounting lights on rifles since the invention of the D cell battery. The little short barrel just robs an already under powered weapon of much needed velocity. The tripod just makes the weapon look good in a photo. We have had forked sticks since the beginning of time. For practical purposes a shooting stick works just as well as a tripod and you can use it kneeling.

Rick1967 09-06-2012 12:38 PM

I have an SKS. I also have an AR. I would not have a problem defending myself with either. The only upgrade that the SKS really needs to compete is a detachable magazine.

All times are GMT. The time now is 11:13 AM.

Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.