Comments by "" (@neutronalchemist3241) on "Forgotten Weapons" channel.

  1. 8
  2. 8
  3. 8
  4. 8
  5. 8
  6. 8
  7.  @henochparks  Had you really read that report, you would have known the wound had been measured on the scalp, the skin that cover the skull bones, not the bones. but obviously, other than not knowing what you are talking about, you read only conspiracy sites. And buy anything. So, again, there's no limit to your idiocy. I asked " With what kind of instrument the diameter of this hole thad been measured?" (not what kind of super-duper-best-in-the-world instruments you THINK the Bethesda hospital owned), because, obviously, to measure a fraction of millimeter, you need an instrument capable to measure a fraction of millimeter. The hole in the scalp (not the bone, the skin over it) had been described at being 6X13mm (not 6.1X12.9mm, or 5.9X13.1mm, but 6x13mm) so, if the killing didn't happen in a bubble of improbability where bullets leave holes of only exactly round numbers, it's evident they were not measuring fractions of millimeters (despite the super-duper-best-in-the-world-oh-my-god-how-fantastic instruments you THINK the Bethesda hospital owned). But, further: "As for the wounds caused by rifled weapons, the size of the wound is not always helpful in determining the caliber or type of weapon (pistol, revolver, rifle). In fact, the size of the wound can be misleading (Fig. 8-2). The diameter of the wound may be smaller, greater or equal to the diameter of the bullet. Therefore, one must give a guarded opinion about the caliber of the bullet from the examination of the wound (Fig. 8-3)." (Abdullah Fatteh "Medicolegal Investigation of Gunshot Wounds", Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1976, p. 84) So, if you know nothing about forensic, as it's evidently the case, why are you typing like an idiot, again in capitals like an idiot? (easy answer)
    8
  8. 8
  9. 8
  10. 8
  11. 8
  12. 8
  13. 8
  14. 8
  15. 8
  16. 8
  17. 8
  18. 8
  19. 8
  20. 7
  21. 7
  22. 7
  23. 7
  24. 7
  25. 7
  26. 7
  27. 7
  28. 7
  29. 7
  30. 7
  31. 7
  32. 7
  33. 7
  34. 7
  35. 7
  36. 7
  37. 7
  38. 7
  39.  @Paladin1873  Maybe you mean "I have never heard a right-handed shooter praise a right-side charging handle, but I have heard many complain about it." Obviously those that speaks are those that complain. Those that are fine with it take it for granted.IE the Beretta ARX100 has switchable charging handle. How many right handed shooters have switched it to the left side to you? On military rifles, made thinking to right-hand shooters, the charging handle is on the right side for two reasons: 1) A right hand shooter mantains the alignment of the rifle with the left (forward) hand, so better mantain the alignment of the rifle, and use the most able hand to reload. 2) If the right hand is reloading, there is no risk of the shooter pulling the trigger until the operation is complete. Infact, when you say "forward for fire, rearward for safe" you are not talking of "intuition", you are talking of what you are used to. For someone that don't practice regularly, "forward for fire, rearward for safe" and "forward for safe, rearward for fire" are completely indifferent. Motion memory are formed through practice, and soldiers practice with their weapons. For someone used to the AK-47, the AR-15 controls are awkward at first, and the AR15 was not a thing in 1957 anyway. The safety on the M1 Garand and on the M14 is "forward for fire, rearward for safe", but at the same time is easy to engage, but not easy to disengage (to push forward that little lever with the trigger finger is really not natural). Many shotguns have a cross-bolt safety but, when a cross-bolt safety shows up on rifles or pistols, many complains about it, not because it doesn't work as well as a lever safety, but because it's not what they are used to.
    7
  40. 7
  41. 7
  42. 7
  43. 7
  44. 7
  45. 7
  46. 7
  47. 7
  48. 7
  49. 7
  50. 6