Comments by "Regis" (@Timbo5000) on "Forgotten Weapons" channel.

  1. You keep saying it's ugly, but I absolutely love the looks of this gun!
    274
  2. +Konrad Ford It's not "catering to the will", it's picking the best rifle. This is the exact kind of mindset that creates these toxic political dick measuring contests that stand in the way of tangible progress and results. It was very simple: the EM-2 and FN FAL were objectively better than the M14, both when firing the .308 round and the .280 round. And you profited from both world wars by selling arms and entering late. You milked the UK dry to the point of near bankruptcy. You turned the richest country of the world into a bankrupt state in the scope of 5 years. "Coincidentally" you turned into the richest state somewhere around the same time. What a sacrifice, they owed you so much back then for your noble service... Truth is, you almost bankrupted the British after WW2 and kicked them when they were down with shenanigans like the .308 and M14 rifle that just had to be American, even though the round and rifle were the worst candidates for standardisation. There was no need for that and it was certainly not justified. They owed you nothing apart from money. This would be the equivalent of the UK refusing to adopt the FN FAL on the sole grounds of it not being British and the fact that they co-freed Belgium during both WW1 and WW2 so "shouldn't be catering to the will of Belgium", but no they went for the best rifle instead. Sounds crazy, right?
    48
  3. +Konrad Ford In WW1 the triple entente was beating the central powers hard. The last chance at success and last major offensive of the Germans happened before the US joined and was held off by British and French forces. After that, it was just a clean up job of a practically beat opponent. The US joined just in time to take part in that clean up job. Besides, I'm not British so "we" weren't losing. I'm Dutch, we were neutral during that war (the only sensible thing to do in that unnecessary war). We were strong allies with both the UK and Germany, so it wouldn't make sense for us to join. Besides, IF we joined there would've probably been a slight preferrence for joining Germany, so we dodged a bullet there (a lot of bullets, in fact). Anyway, back to the point. I don't blame America for doing what it did in especially WW2. It's how imperialism works and you had the perfect opportunity to stick it to the world superpower of that time. You did a fine job taking advantage of the situation and built a nice superpower of your own. You beat Great Britain at their own game, hell, you beat all of western Europe in a way. We screwed eachother over all the time, just like that or worse and to this day we laugh about our victories and defeats over one another. I don't have a problem with what you did, just that you afterwards have the guts to claim you "helped" the UK and even worse: that they "owe" you. You played your cards very nicely during WW2, but being a dick afterwards is just uncalled for. You should always stay respectable, my point is. About the .280 and the British screwing up the L85, it could never be worse than being dumb enough to adopt .308 in an era where everyone and their mother knows intermediary is the winner. Hell, today you want to move to 6.5, which is very close to .280 British. If you hadn't have been a dick about it and chose the objectively better round/gun, we'd have had the perfect round from the 50's straight up until today and the foreseeable future.
    30
  4. At least our police doesn't shoot unarmed civilians. We can afford to have 2 warning rounds in our weapons because we actually control the streets, unlike police in America. So scared that they shot an Australian woman who called them in the first place, among many other incidents with innocent deaths... Also keep in mind that regular police officers in Britain don't have gun at all and they keep order excellently. Not being able to afford having a blank round in the first chamber says more about the crime situation and general safety in your country than it says about countries that can. It prevents unnecessary deaths and you calling it a 'nanny' gun won't change that fact. Today we instead train our police to not shoot unless under extreme circumstances, with good results.
    10
  5. He takes a look at guns, why would he be demonitised? No controversial subjects, no swearing, no filming of dead bodies as I heard one channel did...
    3
  6. Yeah, if the French took the government-in-exile route instead of splitting up between a collaborator government and resistance, I think they could have been a significant ally. North Africa would've been easier to capture, we'd have had another colonial power fighting the Japanese in the Pacific and more. Just imagine that the rest of the French army was evacuated to French colonies in North Africa and continued the fight. And that the entire French fleet would join up with the British. Such a shame that they didn't do that. The Free French were important in North Africa, but the French could've meant so much more. Damned Vichy government
    1
  7. That must be why you switched to 5.56 a few years later... Hell, today you're thinking of moving to 6.5mm, which is a lot like .280 British. This was disgusting and toxic politics, ot something that gave anyone an "edge".
    1
  8. 2:18
    1
  9. The magazine is so long yet it holds only 6 shells
    1
  10.  @singularkakapo  No, I'm surprised by the apparent size of them. I'd have guessed it could hold about 8 shells
    1