No i ment shooting it.
It just was easier for me to kill with it when compared to the mp40.
It just was easier for me to kill with it when compared to the mp40.
Upvote
0
You wouldn't say that if you used one inr eality, the metal stock on the MP40 inmmy humble opinionation a piece of ****eTheres something russian about having a wooden stock on your SMG, that just disturbs me. The aryan race should not rely on such primitive rescources.
You wouldn't say that if you used one inr eality, the metal stock on the MP40 inmmy humble opinionation a piece of ****e
So, based on that, the practical side of this is as follows:
MP40:
- Pros -- lightweight, quick to aim in free-aim/hip shooting. Likely a bit better for close quarters hipshots.
- Cons -- higher recoil, less useful for unsupported iron-sight shooting.
MP41:
- Pros -- heavier, easier to hit at longer (for SMG) ranges while using iron sights.
- Cons -- slower to move in free-aim, slightly less useful for close quarters hipshooting.
So, if you figure you're gonna be doing more long range (IE: >50m) shooting, take the MP41. If you'll be doing a lot of point-blank or <50m shooting, take the MP40.
lol thanks. just a couple of harmless dogs worshipping tree symbols. lol
lol thanks. just a couple of harmless dogs worshipping tree symbols. lol
and remember. the MP40 is recoil absorbed through your arm making you jerk more.
the MP41 has recoil absorbed into the Gun so less is pushed against you.
that's why the MG42 has relatively low recoil. cuz it weighs frickin 65 pounds!
Theres something russian about having a wooden stock on your SMG, that just disturbs me. The aryan race should not rely on such primitive rescources.