Comments by "kokofan50" (@kokofan50) on "Forgotten Weapons" channel.

  1. So this is what you get when a shotgun and a pepperbox have a baby.
    149
  2. It’s nice knowing it’s an exchange rather than pretending it’s not.
    35
  3.  @5000rgb  it’s hard to get a shot at more than 100m in the Finnish forests.
    29
  4.  Ellen Hayden  the Soviet Union was basically just a revamped Russian empire
    20
  5. I always thought of these as more of a curiosity than a real weapon, but having learned more about them, I see they are real and useful weapons.
    19
  6. This is a cross over I never thought I would see. Good job boys!
    18
  7. Sirees333 That sounds dubious, at best.
    15
  8.  @harbl99  where’s the trench-coat?
    13
  9.  @onyhow  thanks for ruining the joke
    11
  10. No, he taught us that lots of bullets just big enough to do the job are preferable to a couple oversized ones.
    11
  11. Those internals are beautiful.
    9
  12. I don't like either gun. To me adding engravings doesn't make a gun art; it makes a gun with art on it. To me any gun can be art for the beauty of its form and the martials used to make it.
    9
  13. Sirees333 Bullets don't have that much kinetic energy. People can punch and kick with more force than bullets. What makes bullets so dangerous is that the energy is concentrated into a small area. 
    9
  14. We’re more at the hand-cannon phase.
    5
  15.  @benoitbergeron8858  DARPA use fin stabilized rounds when testing their rail guns. This would even have the advantage of not needing a sabot.
    4
  16. It launches a projectile from a barrel. It’s a gun.
    3
  17. Can launch Poland car into space.
    3
  18. +Brett Sanfilippo As pitiful excuse for not answering my question. If you're so smart then give me your reasoning, and leave me in shock and awe.
    2
  19.  @FIREBRAND38  the facts being wrong is part of the joke.
    2
  20. It depends on how much power you’re putting into each shot.
    2
  21. This still fallows the laws of motion (the third in the case of recoil). This is more efficient and shots are a much lower speed, so the recoil is much lower.
    2
  22. I forgot to add that this thing is heavy, so that helps dampen the recoil.
    2
  23. +Arno Schmidt This is a very close range weapon for it's type.
    1
  24. I always wondered what those nipple on the Stahlhelm were for.
    1
  25. elseñor di señor I called them nipples, not Ian. If they were just vent holes, then why are so robust and stick out?
    1
  26. +Brett Sanfilippo How so?
    1
  27. +Brett Sanfilippo How about you give a real answer instead of an excuse and using ad hominems?
    1
  28. +Brett Sanfilippo Show don't tell
    1
  29. +mds s So long as it doesn't have too many plastic parts, I'm sure they'll design what ever gun you want if you have the money.
    1
  30. It probably won’t even break the skin. Although, would be dangerous to get hit in the head or face.
    1
  31. As long as it fits in the barrel and has enough ferris metal, it should be fine.
    1
  32. I’m not sure how well that would work. The general theory would work, but the differences in technology would require some major adaptations to tactics.
    1
  33.  @devildog1989  you clearly didn’t understand me the first time, so I guess I’ll have to say it again: they can’t use modern tactics. Close-air-support requires at least radios to coordinate. During WW1 neither planes nor radios were advanced enough for planes to carry one. Some basics of tank tactics wouldn’t be a problem, but again stuff like radios would limit them.
    1
  34.  @devildog1989  Those planes were little more the powered kites. They were made out of wood to save weight. The engines weren’t nearly powerful enough to power a radio and have the performance to not be shot down. The radios weren’t just big; they were heavy and inefficient. Batteries were even worse. A car battery would be advanced technology back then. Don’t get me started on the antenna. It wasn’t until the 1930s that tanks were able to fit radios in them. Again the planes were little more than powered kites, not stukas. Dive bombing was completely out, and relatively precise attacks on strong points is the point of CAS. Furthermore, artillery was far superior for saturation bombardment. Combined arms came into it own when it did because that’s when technology allowed for it.
    1
  35.  @devildog1989  I never said it would be completely useless. I just questioned how much could be used. Also, the early and late stages of the Western front and the whole of the Eastern front were maneuver war. Flanking and double envelopment have been used for thousands of years. Many classic formations were designed to either use those or prevent them.
    1
  36.  @devildog1989  you would have to invent the tank. Maybe it would have made tanks more effective in the first couple of battles they were used in as people were learning the fundamentals of armor war.
    1
  37. No, it’s just not worth the effort of replacing everything for minor improvements. That’s a lot of guns to be replacing, a lot of people to retain, and logistics problems you have to deal with. There’s a reason the military has been upgrading some equipment for the better part of century.
    1
  38.  @ChadZLumenarcus  phasing out equipment is just a form of replacement. While minor improvements stack, problems replacing stuff stacks too. To get an institution, particularly ones as large as the military, to change things requires major improvements.
    1
  39. Baldwin is a producer on the movie. He’s one of the people who hired the armorer, and even after safety concerns were brought up, including a walkout the day of the shooting, he did nothing to address them.
    1
  40. The magnets need something big to have enough of a magnetic field to push.
    1