Is this true?

Is this true?

Attached: c4dwvdktrfx21.png (960x633, 383K)

Yeah.

Should be replaced with the CHADPIG

Attached: 57E67B8C-2434-43A2-82B1-FA0002E7A8BF.jpg (1024x443, 86K)

Yeah.

Attached: image0-3.png (893x667, 1.38M)

No.

Battle rifles are pure kino.

Attached: zach thumbs up.jpg (446x535, 30K)

Completely and entirely true, ARs and intermediate calibers are the weak willed centrists of the firearms world

A man of culture I see

NICE!

Not true. After world war II they figured out that full powered rifle cartridges were incredibly overpowered for the actual engagement distances. The average rank and file doesn't need that kind of power, that's why designated marksmen exist, and with the new emphasis on combined arms warfare, there's absolutely no reason to issue the average footslogger a heavier, more expensive rifle with far less ammunition.

Stop posting this shit

Battlerifles make both males and females wet beyond compare where as Assault rifles are for subhuman larpers.

Attached: image(6).jpg (1183x1640, 208K)

Sounds like weak manlet excuses

Get your pussy ass facts and logic outta here, bet you think 9mm is best because "muh weight" or "muh capacity" when. 45-70 is the best handgun cartridge because it's for only the biggest of irons

Based rallyposter

Just ignore him.

Yes

Attached: 011F4F80-49BF-4A0A-B268-BE6316F6268E.jpg (4032x3024, 2.66M)

Based yeahposter

Damn, now I really want to get a battlerifle. Seems cool for defense or just use at the range

Should I sell my SAR 1 and get a PTR?

What are some good, durable, modern battle rifles someone looking into buying one should look at?