Comments by "Solo Renegade" (@SoloRenegade) on "Forgotten Weapons" channel.

  1. Infantryman: "ounces are pounds" US Pentagon: "make it bigger and heavier"
    517
  2.  @micahj9828  The US military already produces some awesome soldiers (despite all of the politics, would be even better without all that crap). But you can only make soldiers so good. Then, ounces are pounds. Weight will never stop being a factor.
    55
  3.  @benningsniper9516  Job description: kill people Requirements: sensitivity training ridiculousness at its finest
    35
  4.  @bubba200874426  and there are many reasons we still don't have an operational combat ready exosuit. and until then.....
    28
  5. Speaking as a Mechanical Engineer, these changes are clearly the result of lessons learned and incremental improvements. The engineers who made the changes were intelligent enough not to fix things that weren't broken as well, and made only truly beneficial changes for improved reliability, flexibility, and ease of use. You don't see that as much these days unfortunately.
    27
  6. One thing I really miss about my time in the military was the M2. A couple of us working together got so good at swapping barrels we could swap and check headspace and timing in less than 15 sec.
    22
  7.  @benningsniper9516  I served with a few women overseas. What a disaster that was. the rare few women that might be able to do some of these combat jobs are literal unicorns, extremely rare exceptions to the rule, and I've never yet met such a woman in the military. I'm not against women pursuing their goals. But if they want combat roles they have to meet the standards and put the job first before themselves.
    15
  8.  @bubba200874426  Raising standards absolutely leads to better soldiers, but yes, also fewer of them. Lowering standards gets you cannon fodder.
    14
  9.  @richardn7  Not paying an unconstitutional Poll Tax is a victimless crime. Punishment is not justified. The person being punished is the victim. 10yrs in prison for exercising your constitutional rights is a travesty and the greatest crime on this list. Breaking into a car is a crime with a victim, so punishment is justified. Drug possession is a victimless crime. Punishment doesn't make sense, especially considering the War on Drugs and the criminalization of drugs was created as a racist ploy to target certain minorities. And considering the DEA's own study after their initial formation determined decriminalization, rehabilitation, and education was the single most effective, and cheapest way to deal with drug use.
    12
  10. yes, as a Mechanical Engineer myself, and a combat veteran, this video proves as a Perfect example of skilled engineers understanding their role and not ruining something by changing things that didn't need to be changed. All of their changes were well thought out. Far too rare these days.
    11
  11. "I think their casual handling of firearms is a result of their daily familiarity with weapons and just handling them day in and day out as part of their normal routine to the point that they lose sensitivity and awareness." BS theory. guys in the military do this too, and I never had an issue getting complacent. I've been complemented on my weapons handling over a decade after getting out of the military, for doing things I don't even think consciously about doing anymore, it's just normal and automatic to me, yet people are impressed by it enough to say something. I learned this from years in the military and years in combat. Yes, some guys in teh military are bad with guns too, and my personal experience doesn't make the rule, but the point is that lots of years of daily weapons handling and comfort with weapons and taking for granted we're carrying weapons, itself does not result in incompetence.
    9
  12. he gets a LOT wrong in this video. An engineer and manufacturing expert he is not. And he compares obsolete technology to modern technology. He knows his guns, but don't take manufacturing/logistical advice from him.
    8
  13.  @RookieOne35  "the vast majority of people in any uniformed army have never killed anyone and that’s actually a good thing." and...... what's you're point and what relevance does it have here? citing facts any child could know out of context is pointless.
    5
  14. The Brits came up with Aluminum, then changed their minds. Just like how they came up with the English units and then switched to metric. Or how Brits came up with Soccer. Then they complain because we actually use English terms and units.
    4
  15. for a victimless crime
    4
  16. and then Sterling becomes a Blaster
    2
  17. he who brings more ammo to the fight wins Ukraine is doing just fine with AR platforms and 5.56
    2
  18. there is nothing correct about it. in reality the term "assault rifle" as he defined it is BS and false, arbitrary. As it includes things that are not "assault rifles" (10/22, M1 carbine, etc.), and also dis-includes things that really ARE "assault rifles" (AR10 select chambered in .338, M1/M1A, etc.).
    2
  19.  @cmck472  oh, the incoming has been coming for days. Not one of them has been able to prove me wrong though. no one is right all of the time, including Ian.
    2
  20. there is nothing correct about it. in reality the term "assault rifle" as he defined it is BS and false, arbitrary. As it includes things that are not "assault rifles" (10/22, M1 carbine, etc.), and also dis-includes things that really ARE "assault rifles" (AR10 select chambered in .338, M1/M1A, etc.).
    2
  21. M2 = anti-everything gun
    2
  22. there is nothing correct about it. in reality the term "assault rifle" as he defined it is BS and false, arbitrary. As it includes things that are not "assault rifles" (10/22, M1 carbine, etc.), and also dis-includes things that really ARE "assault rifles" (AR10 select chambered in .338, M1/M1A, etc.).
    2
  23. there is nothing correct about it. in reality the term "assault rifle" as he defined it is BS and false, arbitrary. As it includes things that are not "assault rifles" (10/22, M1 carbine, etc.), and also dis-includes things that really ARE "assault rifles" (AR10 select chambered in .338, M1/M1A, etc.).
    2
  24. exactly. Ian is wrong here. there is nothing correct about it. in reality the term "assault rifle" as he defined it is BS and false, arbitrary. As it includes things that are not "assault rifles" (10/22, M1 carbine, etc.), and also dis-includes things that really ARE "assault rifles" (AR10 select chambered in .338, M1/M1A, etc.).
    2
  25. many near peer adversaries don't issue body armor to their troops...... so sick and tired of this argument. And 5.56 can shoot out to 600-1200m (videos on youtube of guys doing it, I've personally hit at 500m with ease in Afghanistan). and at closer ranges can penetrate body armor (a few guys in my unit shot their level 3 body armor overseas in Iraq and it went through). Body armor covers a very small percentage of the human target, and only from certain angles. And even if they are issued it, not all body armor is quality either. I'd rather have a rifle like the 5.56 M4 with plenty of ammo, lightweight, easy to shoot accurately, etc. Give me that new optic on an M4 in 5.56, and give me a suppressor and I'd be happy. You could also apply some tweaks to teh M4 like the longer locking lugs and such to improve overall reliability and durability.
    2
  26.  @BaritoneMonkey  Some are select fire, just as some AR15 are. M249 isn't select fire either. Doesn't matter how many are. Seems youre admitting the definition requires more clarification if you're making this claim, proving the 3 criteria are insufficient if you need to add more qualifiers. "As for AR10s and M1 Garands, where in the world did you get the idea that they "really are" assault rifles?" they serve the same function as an assault rifle and are even more lethal. and have been made select fire. Just like the SCAR and M110, M14, FAL, and more.
    2
  27. The MG42 family and the US M2 are the best sounding machine guns of all time in my opinion.
    1
  28. there is nothing correct about it. in reality the term "assault rifle" as he defined it is BS and false, arbitrary. As it includes things that are not "assault rifles" (10/22, M1 carbine, etc.), and also dis-includes things that really ARE "assault rifles" (AR10 select chambered in .338, M1/M1A, etc.).
    1
  29. ......paint.....is always an option too
    1
  30. anything will stop if you get it dirty enough. it did much better than I honestly expected.
    1
  31. US doesn't have to simplify since we have the 2A and US citizens can just bring their own gear. We did it in OIF and OEF. We brought our own gear and modified our M16/M4 rifles heavily, and just returned them to issued state before turning them back in. Most guys I fought overseas with were better armed/equipped at home than in the Army. We swapped grips, handguards, mags, triggers, selectors, mag releases, bolt catches, buttstocks, slings, sling mounts, optics, bipods, lights, and more.
    1
  32.  @johnswoboda9809  "using the examples you've given, none of those firearms meet the criteria for an "assault rifle" as Ian defined it though." Proving my whole point. "The 10/22 yes can be made to operate as a select fire weapon although that is not a stock option from Ruger. " nor does armalite sell select fire AR15, yet tons of select fire AR15 exist today none the less. Who manufactured it is not part of the definition. Do try to keep up. " Also, the 10/22 was designed to be used as a sporting arm for small game and as an affordable, reliable, all-around farm/truck/camp etc gun. It was not designed for military use. " use intent is ALSO Not part of the definition. INTENT doesn't apply, and you damned well know that. stop making up lame excuses. you're like a wok feminist, trying to justify her actions. "Some states DO include the 10/22 under State level bans." further proving me right, that the "definition" is arbitrary and not valid. "It should also be noted that even though that even the original AR-10 design, in 7.62x51 NATO, is also not an assault rifle because of that full power cartridge. " .308 is an intermediate cartridge. If you don't beleive me compare its size and effective range to teh .30-06, .338, .50, .416, .300, 7mm, and more. The fact you can't even identify an intermediate cartridge further proves the definition is ARBITRAY and invalid. The rest of your comment just further validates that I am right. The defintion is invalid, subjective, arbitrary, and nobody can agree what is what, and we can also point to weapons that are not assault rifles yet have all teh definition features, and rifles that are LITERALLY assault rifles, yet aren't considered assault rifles. And if lethality is what they are seeking to control, then an assault rifle limitaion that doesn't apply to large caliber rifles is BS nonsense and proves the defintion is invalid and has nothing to do with safety or anything else.
    1
  33.  @MrCmon113  "If an assault rifle isn't a thing than neither is a "sword" or "knife"." that's an invalid argument. doesn't prove anything. If it's so easy to define, then explain it to me. make it clear.
    1
  34.  @MotorcycleWrites  So, if I build an AR10 chambered in .30-06, with select fire, then I will be able to avoid any "assault rifle" bans and buy one without ATF knocking at my door, is that what you're saying? You do know the .30-06 was the standard infantry rifle round in semi auto and full auto rifles for many years, right? M1 and BAR for example. What makes .223/5.56 "intermediate"? if anything it's the smallest of the rifle rounds. Any smaller and you're into the 22LR and 17HMR or pistol rounds. It's so small that many state ban them for deer hunting due to their small size. A great many "assault rifles" in history used the .308 or similar/larger rounds. But you're claiming select fire rifles are legal, so long as they aren't some arbitrary "intermediate" round, whatever that means. So you're saying a select fire 10/22 is 100% legal, and that if I converted one, it would be legal?
    1
  35.  @Candlemancer  and then those places have equally bad, false, invalid, arbitrary, subjective, defintions and laws. I am not challenging gun control laws specifically. I'm challenging any and all claimed "definitions' of the term "assault rifle", as not one thus far is adequate for defining the claimed object objectively nor logically consistently. But I get it, illiteracy is on the rise these days, and reading comprehension is hard for many people.
    1
  36.  @johnswoboda9809  No, I just felt like insulting you for your attitude, regardless of my argument. " I was saying to try (and fail) to generate some sort of support for your position when you're comparing apples to oranges." yes, you did fail, and no I wasn't comparing apples to oranges. "You went on this bizarre tangent that compared .22LR to .338 Federal" no I didn't, I never said anything of the sort liar. 1st, quote me where you claim I did. 2nd, I never said anything about .338 Federal even once, until just now. .308, .338, .30-06, and more ARE considered intermediate cartridges. Do some research. Here is a quote, "An intermediate cartridge is a rifle/carbine cartridge that has significantly greater power than a pistol cartridge but still has a reduced muzzle energy compared to fully powered cartridges (such as the .303 British, 7.62×54mmR, 7.65×53mm Mauser, 7.92×57mm Mauser, 7.7×58mm Arisaka, .30-06 Springfield, or 7.62×51mm NATO), and therefore is regarded as being "intermediate" between traditional rifle and handgun cartridges." So stop making up your own irrelevant opinions on things. your opinion carries zero weight in court of law. "and the fact that it's the parent cartridge to the .338 Federal that you yourself argued shouldn't be an "assault rifle" chambering in a hypothetical select-fire AR-10" no, I'm proving that YOUR BS claims means no AR10 can be an assault rifle, even though that will never hold up in court. Again, I never once mentioned .338 Federal in any of my previoous comments. stop lying. "You're just not making sense and above all you're missing my primary point in my initial response, which was that I was congratulating Ian on addressing a very touchy subject both within and without the shooting community without getting into the political more." Just becasue you're too dumb to understand the logic, doesn't mean I'm not making sense, you're just not smart enough to follow the logic. Ian was WRONG, his claimed definition of assault rifle is invalid, no matter if I agree with it or disagree with it. If I agree with it, it doesn't include many very real assault rifle type weapons many which are in active military service. If I disagree with it, then we can't agree on an actual objective definition that properly describes all "assault rifles". You have to add too many qualifiers that then applies to non-assault rifles. do try to keep up.
    1
  37.  @johnswoboda9809  "Congress can pass a federal law that expands or limits the governments authority. In the case of the ATF, Congress conferred on the executive branch the ability to enforce federal firearms regulations. " that's not true, at least one was made, just not as common. the point was that larger caliber AR10s of many calibers exist. But go ahead, keep cherry picking and see how that works out for you. "It IS available in .338 Federal, but as far as I've found, only in semi auto." and all you have to do is swap out the selector lever and ad a part or two and it's converted. Or you could just run full auto with even less effort. Fact is, the M110 exists, and the SCAR, and others like it. And now we have the new Reaper from Ohio Ordnance. "Insofar as your "I decided to argue with you because of your attitude" comment lol well buddy, congratulations, you've lowered yourself to the level of my ex-wife and her "I'm the victim! " you're an idiot. the only one acting like a victim here is you. you whine and complain, cherry pick like a woke Democrat. You love making invalid comparisons. "Everybody else is the jerk! You're wrong because I want everybody to see me as the victim!"" Oh no, I'm definitely being a jerk to you. If you want to be an a$$hole, I have no problem treating you like one. but this childish false accusation of me being a victim is you projecting your insecurities onto me. you're the one playing victim, and so you accuse me fo it. "Everybody else is the jerk! You're wrong because I want everybody to see me as the victim!"" I know, but I like doing it for entertainment anyways. I love watching you idiots thrash around unable to engage in factual and logical debates. And it helps me to understand idiots like you.
    1
  38. reminds me of a Thompson
    1
  39. Wait, I thought ARs were "Assault Rifles"? (sarcasm)
    1
  40. Assault rifle is not a recognized term as it is subjective and inconsistent
    1
  41.  @ForgottenWeapons  yes, I called out the issues there, and you failed to addres them.
    1
  42. The US civilian militia has tens of millions of AR15s. There will NEVER BE A SHORTAGE of high quality guns and optics in the US in ANY WAR.
    1
  43. origin, yes, but the defintion he uses is BS. there is nothing correct about it. in reality the term "assault rifle" as he defined it is BS and false, arbitrary. As it includes things that are not "assault rifles" (10/22, M1 carbine, etc.), and also dis-includes things that really ARE "assault rifles" (AR10 select chambered in .338, M1/M1A, etc.).
    1
  44.  @cmck472  yes, I knew what I was stirring up. but if people want to defeat the ATF, NFA, etc. and truly understand firearms and defend the 2A, then they need to understand the realities and facts.
    1
  45.  @emberfist8347  Even Ian made a whole video explaining the term Battle Rifle has no formally accepted definition, so that's invalid. And A 10/22 can easily meet the definition of an assault rifle. Intermediate cartridge is arbitrary concept. Define it if you think it exists.
    1
  46.  @emberfist8347  Not arbitrary you claim? "it means any round that is less powerful and smaller than a full-size rifle round but larger and more powerful than a pistol round." 1) where did you get this definition from? 2) what is a "full-size" rifle round? 2) define a "pistol round", because lots of rifle rounds are also used in pistols. and lots of pistol rounds are used in rifles. ".22LR is a pistol round ergo a 10/22 isn’t an assault rifle." actually, .22LR is/was a rifle round first, albeit a small one. 22LR pistols are more of a modern thing.
    1
  47.  @emberfist8347  No goalposts were moved. you claimed the "definition" to not be arbitrary, now you must prove it. You used terms in your defintiion that are also equally subjective and arbitrary. "I got the definition from the literal mechanical definition of Assault Rifle starting with the original Sturmgewher which fired a 7.92x33mm Kurz cartridge." so, what is that definition, word for word, and what dictionary can I find it in? " If you don’t know what a full power rifle round is you need to watch the video again as Ian explains." because there is no such thing, and no such objective nonarbitrary definition exists, otherwise you could cite it. "If you can’t figure out if a round is a pistol round, you need to really to start doing more research as it is self-explanatory." "it is what it is", is not a valid argument nor a valid definition. So, you have failed to provide a citable source for your definitions, and you have more importantly failed to provide a valid nonarbitrary definition for any of the critical criteria you cling to.
    1
  48.  @emberfist8347  No, a Youtube video is not an acceptable source for definitions of terms. If the definition exists and is valid, you should be able to find it easily. state the definition, verbatim, and cite where a person can find that exact same definition. If you cannot do this basic task that is a basic skill expected of children, then you are accepting that you cannot objectively define the term, as I have repeatedly stated. Not One person in teh comments of this video has yet been able to provide me with a single valid definition. you're just another who has failed to provide one.
    1
  49.  @emberfist8347  Appeal to Authority is a logical fallacy and not accepted in the scientific community, nor in law. It is an invalid argument. The only acceptable source for a definition is a dictionary, such as a legal dictionary, Websters, Oxford, etc. This is childishly simple, why don't you understand such things? Did you not graduate high school? "I gave a valid definition but you choose to ignore it." no you did not. You gave your own made up definition, your own opinion. that is not a valid definition. And everything about it was arbitrary and subjective. You couldn't even define the terms you used in your made up definition, and you can't explain what valid source that definition came from.
    1
  50.  @emberfist8347  No, the appeal to authority is you citing Ian as an "expert" to support your claims. But you can't cite the exact definition word for word, nor where to find it. if it exists, you should be able to tell me where you got it from so I can go read/verify it myself (that's what per review in science means), and copy/paste the exact definition in the comments to support your claim. Again, a childishly basic task, which you prove incapable of. You make the claim, and it is therefore your responsibility to provide evidence and arguments to prove your claims, which you have utterly failed to do.
    1