Comments by "Solo Renegade" (@SoloRenegade) on "Garand Thumb"
channel.
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@tuomasnurmi7353 Often times guys use night visions when natural light is more than adequate. this gives them a false sense of stealth when they are using them, thinking the enemy can't see them. There are secondary means of detection at night too, such as sound. I used this to great effect in Iraq, and my unit actually ended up changing lots of other units' night ops too as a result.
When training guys in urban ops, I'd play tricks on them to teach them what might happen. Lots of guys run their NVGs too bright, and I'd use white light to blind them temporarily, but long enough to get the advantage and destroy them. I also taught them tricks about how I personally ran my NVGs to combat/counter my own tricks. But I was turning their NVGs to My advantage, sometimes while using NVGs myself, sometimes not. People think NVGs are an automatic advantage.
I have tricks for the proper use of lights when driving, including internal lights. But to understand these, one needs to appreciate how the human eye works.
I also taught guys about night adaptation techniques.
But you have to understand the pros and cons of natural vision, how our vision works, and how the technology works and its limitations.
You can also extend this to things like weapon lights and such. They can be useful, but many people don't realize they can get you killed just as easily. Also, the type of light matters. I never used the ones we were issued because they were terrible. and had far too many drawbacks with limited to no useful applications for our mission.
Then there are thermals....
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
@rsr3959 I can work with that. 5min seems a reasonable rule of thumb. I can easily sit for much longer than that, but I see where you're coming from. Yes, weather conditions dependent. sometimes I can listen in to a group of people's conversations from across the street in town, or from 1/4mile down the trail outdoors depending upon conditions. But other times it's them who can hear me and I can't hear them. When sound is an issue, I also focus Heavily on moving slowly and deliberately (you can learn a lot from watching how deer move in the woods). I also try to mask any noise with background sounds (moving along a noisy river, although that is a double edge sword), time my movements with intermittent sounds, etc. I also wear minimalist shoes all the time too, as they are much quieter than stiff soled boots/shoes, and better for your feet, balance, and other aspects of physical fitness. But they allow me to move much more quietly and make me far more mindful of what is beneath my feet and where I am stepping (becomes subconscious).
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@scrotor189 exactly. some of us still prefer 20in at times. and in a purely scientific study, they are OBLIGATED to test a 20in, regardless of personal feelings on the matter.
Everyone is arguing over what is "standard" or not, when most barrel lengths tested aren't standard anywhere. Some say military standard, but the military uses exclusively 14.5" and 20", not 16". And civilians rarely use 14.5" compared to 16" or even something like 10.5" these days. But 20" barrels are still really easy to find and purchase, let alone longer barrels. what would have been proper is testing each length (say 9"-24") with the same round, and a barrel twist at that length optimized for that round. then try the same thing again with a different common round (55gr?) in barrels from 9"-24" with optimized twists.
People say, "other videos test those barrels". but you have different parameters, target placement, field conditions (temp, elevation, etc), different twists, different ammo, etc. and so data from one set of tests cannot be combined nor correlated to another wholly different study/comparison in a meaningful way.
This video had the opportunity to be THE comparison video, and failed.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@kirkchurchil8216 "grand thumbs vid on freezing rifles along with many other people testing this showed Al’s are way more reliable. They also look way better lol! I have no problem with AR’s but you elites are so cringe."
we're cringe? For citing facts and case examples from actual combat? For stating the Exact same things you just said?
I think you're just jealous that you don't have real world experience to back up your opinions with. Not that a person can't make an objective analysis based upon facts and scientific data. There is also bias in experience, something I strive to eliminate and form an objective final opinion without bias. But the facts are, the AK-47 is deadly (but so is a Ruger 22 pistol), but loses in so many areas to the M4 that it's not even close. M4 is far and away teh better rifle, and so many militaries use it, while few modern militaries remain who still use the AK-47.The evidence is there for any who are logical. But we have so many weak and emotional people these days, can't separate emotion from reason.
In war, to win, to survive, you have to master your craft, objectively. War doesn't give a shit what your opinions and feelings are. Win, adapt, survive. Failure to adapt your way of thinking to what works, what wins, gets you killed. No room for weak emotional fanboys in combat, they either die or man up.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2