My peeve: Incorrect usage of the term "chain gun."

[D_Hall]

I'm actually surprised that (as of the moment) 73% of ya'll got it right (item A in the poll).

@Biopyro (and the masses)....

The term "chain gun" actually describes the inner workings of a family of guns. If you open up a chain gun what you'll find is....a chain! It looks very similar to a motorcycle's chain. One link of that chain will have a cog on it that engages the gun's bolt and physically moves it forward and backward and fires the gun. The chain is driven by a (typically) electric motor (although a hydraulic motor could be used too) and the gun's rate of fire can be adjusted simply by speeding up or slowing down the motor (and thereby the speed at which the chain is moving).

Now, if you REALLY want to get picky, "chain gun" is also a trademark of Alliant Tech (as mentioned earlier in the thread). So while other companies may make chain guns, they can not actually call them that as it violates ATK's trademark. Still, I would never fault somebody for calling a chain-driven gun a "chain gun" regardless of who manufactured it.

What chain guns are NOT, is gatling guns (option B in the poll) although for some odd reason this is very common usage (and it bugs the crap out of me!).

[Insomniac]

I'm actually surprised that (as of the moment) 73% of ya'll got it right (item A in the poll).

@Biopyro (and the masses)....

The term "chain gun" actually describes the inner workings of a family of guns. If you open up a chain gun what you'll find is....a chain! It looks very similar to a motorcycle's chain. One link of that chain will have a cog on it that engages the gun's bolt and physically moves it forward and backward and fires the gun. The chain is driven by a (typically) electric motor (although a hydraulic motor could be used too) and the gun's rate of fire can be adjusted simply by speeding up or slowing down the motor (and thereby the speed at which the chain is moving).

Now, if you REALLY want to get picky, "chain gun" is also a trademark of Alliant Tech (as mentioned earlier in the thread). So while other companies may make chain guns, they can not actually call them that as it violates ATK's trademark. Still, I would never fault somebody for calling a chain-driven gun a "chain gun" regardless of who manufactured it.

What chain guns are NOT, is gatling guns (option B in the poll) although for some odd reason this is very common usage (and it bugs the crap out of me!).

I must confess, I did take a quick browse of the topic before voting, I probably would have gotten it wrong otherwise.

I know that some gatling guns are drivin by an electric motor... Are there any gatling guns driven by a form of chain, rather than a set of gears? If so, would it be acceptable to refer to these as a 'chain gun', or is that term only used for guns in which the chain is used in a very specific way?

[D_Hall]

that term only used for guns in which the chain is used in a very specific way?

This.

[jackssmirkingrevenge]

It had a double row roller chain actuating what looked like an M16 bolt on steroids.

Hence the name

D_Hall, what would this be then

(we share some interests)

[McCoytheGreater]

D_Hall, what would this be then

Bling Moniker

tee hee.

[kenbo0422]

The 'chain' reference that most people mistake for a chain gun is the belt part of a vulcan style gatlin gun. The belt of rounds is not a chain, although they are linked, hence the mistake.

We had a saying, simply enough, "There's nothing like a belt fed weapon".

Especially when you can mow down a grove of trees in under a minute.

[jackssmirkingrevenge]

We had a saying, simply enough, "There's nothing like a belt fed weapon"

Are you sure

[inonickname]

What? There were factual inaccuracies in a video game?!

Blasphemous! Now who's gonna raise the next generation of young, innocent children?

I think it's already happening with Medal of Honor and Call of Duty. Luckily the weapons on there are fairly accurate.

Accurate? As the original question in the thread has been slightly exhausted we may as well start in this.

Here's how it rolls if you play COD:
1. The MP40 is the best bolt action rifle, no question.
2. Your gun will instantly deal more damage if you put a scope on it.
3. Adversely, if you put a red dot sight on an ak-47 it suddenly becomes less powerful
4. You can take a direct hit to the chest (assuming you are using the imaginary power juggernaut) from any high powered rifle and not fall over, bleed out or barely even flinch. Includes .50 bmg chambered guns.
5. You can pick up a 15+ kg gun which is 2 meters long, walk around, jump with it, fire while you are in the air and so on. This is a gun that produces 25,000 ft/lbs of muzzle energy.
6. A ptrs-41 cannot penetrate completely through a human body, no matter what.
7. Skorpions are stupidly powerful, moreso than any other assault rifle or sub machine gun.
8. If you crouch for a while without being shot, it doesn't matter how many bullets you get hit by.
9. In "Modern Warfare" you use guns dating back to World War 2 (which are now discontinued, very expensive and inferior). In the sequel which takes place even further in the future you get a shotgun which is what, over a century old? This shotgun (VERY REALISTICALLY OF COURSE) has the longest range, even though it's a 100+ year old sawn off shotgun.
10. You come back to life immediately after death.
11. Guns are named to an absolute degree of shit. It's a Barrett .50 cal, even though Barrett makes a multitude of .50 bmg rifles.
12. When you die, you shit a grenade (feasibly possible with some work), or pull out your pistol, becoming invincible just long enough to headshot them.
13. Even if a "sniper rifle" has a bipod, you never use it, even if you have plenty of room to lye down, plenty of cover, a ghillie suit and your target is an extremely long way away. How unrealistic would it be to use a bipod.
14. You get magical perks, which somehow make you take twice as many shots to kill, let you crawl around bleeding on the ground when you're dead, let you aim while running and jumping with a gun with extreme recoil..and so on.
15. The knife is ALWAYS a one hit kill. No matter what, even if you get hit in the toe, it will kill you immediately. You have no chance to fight back. You will die instantly.
16. Rifle grenades and RPGs are suitable for close quarters combat
17. Shotguns have an effective range of about 5 meters.
18. If you kill 25 people, the army gives you a tactical nuke.
19. Dogs kill you in two bites, and are substantially more resilient than any human opponent.
20. When you die, you occupy someone's conscience and view an exact replay of how they killed you. You then come back to life.
21. Putting a light on the ground lets you respawn anywhere you wish.
22. Anti tank rifles are now suitable for shooting at humans with, and extremely practical for the purpose.
23. Helicopters do not require pilots in multi player mode.
24. 20+ marines will be allowed to land their helicopter, rescue someone who's just about dead anyway (and, as far as they know, probably dead) while only kilometers from a nuclear bomb in the hands of a psychotic terrorist.
25. Nuclear missiles have no safety features, and can be fired by one person in a submarine without any equipment at all.
26. Helicopters carry minutes of fuel. In multiplayer, this becomes 1-2 minutes of fuel.
27. And last of all, NO RUSSIAN.

[kenbo0422]

If the actual abilities of the weapons were used, the 'easy' mode would have to be the advanced game mode. I really doubt my squad would have liked it if I used a friggin' grenade launcher, or grenade in a closed room while we still occupied it. The .50 cal was used for anti materiel purposes only, unless your target was at extreme range. In many cases, I used an AK instead of US weapons: Even the dumbest of enemies knows the different sound and will know there are strangers in the area, so we tended to blend in. A big plus is that you can use their ammo. My preferred sniper rifle was a .30 cal, specifically a 30-06. You almost always rested a sniper rifle on something to get the best shot. More than one shot can get you killed.

If a squad played those levels like they do in the game, we'd all be dead, especially the way I see some people 'go heroic'. OK, its just a game.

[Biopyro]

Thanks, now I know. I too was mislead by thinking that the chain part of a chain gun was the belt fed ammunition. I blame popular cluture!

It's a computer game, at the end of the day it's designed to be more entertaining than realistic. I like games where the disc doesn't self destruct when I die!
Stay frosty marines.
Ramirez - do everything.

[Crna Legija]

hay you forgot that a riot shield will stop infinity .50 bmg rounds

[Ragnarok]

Okay, can we now drop the whole "games aren't very accurate to real life" thing?
If we don't, we'll be drenched in people listing flaws in every game going and we'll get the thread locked as a result.

In the end, computer games are designed for entertainment value, rather than as serious simulations.
Some of them are serious simulations, but most just aren't. Judging those that aren't trying to be simulations as if they were is just outright stupid.

hay you forgot that a riot shield will stop infinity .50 bmg rounds

Really? I wasn't aware Infinity manufactured ammunition. Have you tried ammunition from other suppliers instead? Does it fare any better?

And yes, I am being sarcastic - however did you notice?
Anyway, congratulations. It must have taken a very long time to check that a riot shield would stop an infinite number of bullets.

[jrrdw]

there is no chain on either gun. there is no chain gun!

Your kidding...right?

@Rag. Simulation games need tons of copywrite permissions to portray accurite "simulations" of machines. Anybody can copy a event that happens such as a war, earthquake, etc... you get the idea.

[jackssmirkingrevenge]

beat me to it

[Ragnarok]

Simulation games need tons of copyright permissions to portray accurate "simulations" of machines.

Not necessarily. A simulation doesn't need to be of anything that exists in the real world. (After all, we do just that regularly with GGDT, simulating launchers that don't exist.)

A game like Live for Speed (NOT Need for Speed), while it has some licensed real world cars in it, is largely occupied by fictional cars that fit your typical archetypes.
It doesn't really matter that they're not simulations of a specific real car in the long run - they still behave pretty much like real cars would.

Either way, the point is moot. It's an obvious fact that games are not perfect representations of the real world - we gain nothing from listing each individual difference that exists between the two.
The fact that some games will have less differences is equally irrelevant to this conversation.