Comments by "geodkyt" (@geodkyt) on "Ian's Customs: WWSD Commando" video.

  1. 41
  2. 5
  3. 3
  4. AR15 and AR10 platforms aren't well suited to bullpup configurations because of the buffer tube behind the receiver. Basically, if you take a standard M4, and collapse the stock all the way, that's as short as you can make the mechanism, even in a bullpup - and it is still usable (albeit cramped for most folks who aren't wearing bulky armor) in "standard" layout at that length, so why bother? The very first "shorty" AR15s were made by using what we now know of as the "carbine" length buffer tube, and making a fixed stock that was magically that long - these were the prototype "survival" rifles. (While usable in that length, they developed the telescoping stocks to allow shooters to lengthen the gun from this configuration, to make it more comfortable). Making it a bullpup would only permit shortening it less than 4" overall compared to extending the collapsing stock to its longest setting, while giving you a lousy trigger, ridicupously long length of pull, and adding in all the other problems bullpups bring. Or, you can just cram the stock all the way closed, and shoot it that way, which is cramped for your head position, but otherwise has none of the shortcomings of a bullpup. You don't gain as much length reduction as an AK or AR18, where the back of the lower reciever is basically the end of the reciprocating bits. Those guns can basically add a buttplate right on the back of the reciver (with no actual "stock" to speak of), and add a trigger bar long enough to permit moving the grip and trigger forward of the magazine.
    2
  5. 2
  6. 2
  7. 2
  8. 2
  9. I have practical reasons for diving into .300 BLK. Those reasons are different than Ian's situation, which is why it makes sense for me and not him (and quite likely, you). Primarily, I can get a 10.5" barrelled light and handy gun, that has great ballistics (far better terminal performance from a short gun than 5.56 yields), higher reliability (compared to a 10.5" 5.56), and even without a suppressor, it will cause less (albeit still significant) hearing loss and disorientation than even a 16" 5.56 if fired indoors without ear pro in a home defense situation. However, my .300 BLK is used ONLY with dedicated magazines that are clearly marked with thick, bright red silicone mag bands prominently stamped and contrast inked "300 BLACKOUT" that identify them as .300 BLK mags in a way that are unmistakable visual and tactile indicators. My 5.56 mags likewise have NO wraps on them (not even the slip on pull loops), so I cannot mix them up. Nor do I have any 5.56mm weapons that are remotely similar in configuration to my .300 BLK. I don't own (nor want to) any super short 5.56mm ARs, and all of the AR15s I own (except the M16A1 clone in USGI configuration) have any color furniture except black , while my .300 BLK gun is nothing but black . So, with the exception of my M16A1 clone and my AR10, if it is black, it is a Blackout. If it is "not black", it is not Blackout. Nor do I load up 5.56 and .300 BLK mags at the same time, lest I "pull a stupid" and insert a .300 BLK round into a 5.56 mag. If I (for whatever reason) am shooting a 5.56 at the same session I am shooting a .300 BLK, I don't bring any .300 BLK ammo that isn't loaded into a magazine, so I won't be handling loose .300 BLK rounds around a 5.56 magazine. Since my .300 BLK is a special purpose gun, and not one I do a large volume of casual shooting with (in part due to the higher cost of the ammo), maintaining segregation isn't any more difficult than maintaining the ammo segregation between my .308, .30-06, 7x57mm, and 7.92x57mm rifles. (If anything, it's easier, as .300 BLK is very visually distinct from 5.56, compared to the various ".30-ish" rimless "full power" military rifle cartridges.)
    2
  10. 2
  11. 1
  12. 1
  13.  @randomnobodovsky3692  The Russian ammo ban doesn't really change the decision cycle on Blackout, except to remove the cheap plinking ammo (which isn't why i have a Blackout gun, nor what it was designed for). I'm not using the cheap Russian steel case for the gun's intended role anyway, I'm using top shelf US produced ammo with excellent expanding bullets that perform exactly the way I want them to at the impact velocities that gun will deliver at the credible ranges i would be using the gun. Thats a very different niche than the "cheapest blaster grade ammo available". So the impact of the ban is no different than if I was using any other common caliber - higher prices and lower availability, especially for casual practice ammo - i use the Wolf steel case (which i still have most of a case of) for function testing and occasional trigger time; the gun isn't even zeroed for that round. I selected it for a specific role for the ballistic performance from a very short barrel, with reduced high frequency sound pressure when fired from that short barrel compared to other options (such as 5.56), even when firing supersonic loads unsuppressed - it is still going to cause instant hearing damage if fired without suppressor or hearing protection, especially indoors, but it will cause less of it (and be less disorienting to the shooter) than an equivalent length 5.56x45mm. I've fired a 20" M16 inside a confined space with an earplug that had fallen out - it was extremely disorienting, and the higher uncorking pressure and higher frequency sounds of the 5.56 were part of what made it so bad. Firing that same round through a short barrel in the same circumstances? Uh, I'd prefer not to.
    1