Comments by "bakters" (@bakters) on "Forgotten Weapons"
channel.
-
32
-
29
-
@VT-mw2zb "land wars have a tendency of screeching to a halt" - Have you seen the map of Poland? If you speed up a bicycle, you can coast through half of it. And not because it's so small, it's just so flat. ;-)
"That's when guerrillas become effective." - We do have traditions in underground resistance. You guys probably bested us, but we weren't half bad. I mean it.
"High school students are taught basic things like first aid, how to crawl, field strip of an AK, how to throw a grenade, etc ..." - I went through all of that in high school, except stripping an AK. Now it's out of fashion. I think we need to come back to it. Europe will weaken, the only question is how much and how quickly. Then it's time for Russia to lay their claims once again.
Damn, it's going to be difficult to do this in current climate of offended pussies everywhere... But without it we may fall again, so not much of a choice, really.
At least patriotism is on the rise. Upwards of 250k people marched on 100th anniversary of Independence. We have the will and we still have the time. We'll survive, like we always do.
Best to you guys too. Keep your country safe.
18
-
10
-
8
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
@lukas1392 "DeserTech MDR. They look almost identical (on the outside)"
The basic idea of a 7.62 bullpup makes them look similar, but MDR looks like a "quick hack" and a clever prototype in comparison to Grot. That's only my not particularly qualified opinion, but MDR has so many, tiny, little, bolts holding it together, that it's hard to not go there. You don't expect to need several different allen keys in order to disassemble a rifle any more...
Also, the ejection system in MDR falls dangerously close toward "too clever" engineering fallacy. A bunch of tiny little parts, which need to fit each other just right in order to work, for not that much gain. Switching Grot from left to right ejection is very quick. You could do it out in the field, no need to go to the armory. Making the operation slightly smoother at the cost of complex, experimental design seems like a risky bet.
The action itself differs. Grot is based on AR18, MDR on a modified AR15. Modified quite a lot. Again, a risky bet, but I suspect that in this case it's a winner. Meaning, it could be made to work in military environment, despite containing more tiny, easy to lose parts, but it's still no advantage over Grot, which does already work in the military environment. (Also, the bolt on MDR seems rather light for what it's asked to do. Chambering a round in addition to "chambering" an empty case and such a low mass thing to do it all? Maybe. I'm not an engineer. Who knows?)
Six settings on the gas system, easy to adjust with the tip of the round, after you take off the handguard, which requires an allen key...
Sorry, I stop here. MDR is not a military rifle, MSBS Grot is. Compare like with like. MDR to some other civilian rifles in similar price range, Grot to some other military rifles which serve the same purpose.
5
-
4
-
3
-
@domenik8339 " AKM is by far the more reliable weapon day to day "
I shoot a bit, and the only rifle which jams almost every time I see it, is the AR15.
It's usually squeaky clean, then drenched in oil. AKs look neglected in comparison. They never jam.
What I actually heard: "ARs don't jam if you clean them. Americans are so lazy, that they have a spray-on butter. That's why their ARs jam."
And I've seen this very guy carefully disassembling an AR that jammed!
" Maybe in the mud test the AR would win "
That depends on the design of the test. If you just drop a rifle in the mud, pick it up and even think you could safely shoot it, AKs do just fine. They shoot. If they initially cycle slowly, they clean themselves after a few shots.
Yes, ARs do better on the tests which totally cover every moving part in mud, while keeping the muzzle clear !. That rarely happens in the wild, though.
BTW - Obviously, AKs are much easier to clean after the test.
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Tryputo404 " there is only Germanic (Western) Europe [and no, Czechia isn't Western], Slavic (Eastern) Europe, Latin (Southern) Europe and Balkans. "
If you divide by ethnic background that does make some sense, but that's not the only valid way. You could also divide by cultural background, where Western Europe was Roman Catholic while Eastern Europe was Orthodox.
And if we go further that way, it makes sense to separate Central Europe from the rest, because we stayed Catholic even during the Reformation. Then Central Europe would consist of Austria, Hungary, Czechia, Slovakia and Poland.
It all depends how you want to go about it.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@shepardpolska There are (largely extinct) dialects, which still use dual form, apart from singular and plural. A separate set of grammar tools, which allow you to distinguish between a pair of something and a larger number. Rękoma - rękami, oczyma - oczami, końmi - koniami, chodźwa - chodźmy, zrobiwa - zrobimy itd.
Are there no dialects which use different vowel qualities for ó and u? That's hard to know, because even if I heard them, I'd most likely think that they do not distinguish, simply because I can't, which means my ear is not trained to hear the difference.
It's similar to when the Japanese learn Polish and have trouble hearing the difference between z and dz, which in their language sound the same.
Basically, only a linguist will know for sure.
But it's true, that in standard modern Polish those vowels sound exactly the same.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Regardless of the cartridge, I'm not in love with this rifle.
First of all, it's not fully ambidextrous, because you can't switch the ejection side easily. 10%-ish of men are left-handed, 30% are cross-dominant. All of them will get hot brass in the face, or down the collar. Why? It's a huge redesign, after all.
Then, it's long, it's heavy, it's front-heavy, yet it's not well suited to being converted into a bullpup. Also, the stock folds badly and on the wrong side. It's gonna catch on equipment and be a nuisance in any IFV.
I compare it to the only other modern design I'm familiar with, that is MSBS Grot. I prefer Grot. If this 6.5 Fury will take off, I'm sure they will make a version which can shoot it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Panzer-Geomancer I don't know how the deal was sealed. The wife of our president is Jewish, from an influential family I think, so maybe this had something to do with it? I just don't know. Though president in Poland does not hold much of real power.
Anyway, we are definitely not allied with Israel. Our relations even have been strained recently. They ask for money on behalf of Polish citizens murdered by Germans, who have left their possessions without an heir, which customarily goes to the state everywhere in the world.
But they still want money, just because of their religion. We consider that claim outrageous, they think they can pressure us by guilt-tripping if they lie enough about it, so it's not all roses, that for sure.
Not an enmity either, though. More or less neutral-to-positive relations.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@zackzittel7683 Okay, let's call it "survivor bias". A bunch of guys have average shooting ARs and they rarely say anything about it. Those few who own a bad shooter will surely keep quiet about it, so in the end we have skewed expectations. Like 3 MOA shooter might be considered bad, while it's possibly good.
Of course, it goes the same way when reporting groups. Almost nobody will report groups with "fliers" in them, or excuse them somehow, yet they do matter. The end result is that just because somebody said something, we can't know how close to the truth he is, even if the report is perfectly honest.
It's just, humans are human and act accordingly.
" it was built for accuracy and I got lucky "
How lucky do you have to get, to shoot an 0.5 MOA group, though?
I mean, I'm just watching a pro builder testing his own creation. The first two groups turned out to be 0.3 MOA. So it surely is an 0.5 MOA gun, not? Well, his third group was 0.8... (And the first two were stringing in different directions, so it was likely luck.)
Well, the guy surely knows his craft, so he claimed subMOA. Maybe you are just like him and consistently shoot holes touching at 100, and that's why you can claim 0.5MOA, but I honestly doubt it.
1
-
@zackzittel7683 " I don’t blame you for doubting the word of someone on YouTube "
Actually, I believe your word. I don't trust your understanding of the issue at hand, though.
Let me put it this way. Recently I'm trying to improve my pistol shooting skills, so I bought a CO2 pneumatic. The other day I managed to hit the string my target was hanging on, oh, I don't exactly remember, but maybe 10 times in a row? Definitely more than 5.
Is it a true statement? Yes, it did happen.
Does it reflect my shooting skills? No! Not even close!
For a true assessment I would have to at least mention those days, when I'm struggling to hit a palm sized target at the very same distance. And I don't know what I'm doing wrong, but I'm just not hitting. I check the sights and they are fine. I check my pistol and it's working correctly.
It's just that it's not my day.
So the true assessment of my skill level would have to include the bad days together with the good days, but I"m very unlikely to brag about my bad days. Actually, I did brag to my friends about my good day and obviously did not mention my bad days, so I truly do it!
It's the same story with reporting groups. People tend to "explain away" bad groups, while at the same time they tend to overvalue good groups, while it's just a luck of the draw.
You may think I'm wrong on this, but I'm not. There is a guy on YT, who analyzed what would it take to reliably detect an even quite sizable effect, and it takes a lot of shots. Practically impossible amount of shots for any high pressure cartridge.
The video is titled: "Science agrees: 5-shot groups are pointless"
It is a "sciency" video, with software simulating dispersion, but they also shot 100 shot groups with a bunch of rifles too, so "It's just computer magik!" crowd has no leg to stand on.
I'd try my best at summarizing the indisputable findings of the video:
1. The "statistical analysis" we often use to assess the significance of the group sizes we shoot is based on a wrong model.
Our model assumes that shot dispersion has a normal distribution, where the center is the most likely to be hit. That's incorrect. If you ever shot bottlecaps, you know from experience that it almost never happens that you hit the middle, it's always the rim.
That's because guns hit a doughnut shape around the center, which never gets hit. They confirmed it in practice too.
2. What are the chances that a five shot group would tell you the truth? Minuscule! The effect size would have to be huge for it to really show anything.
It becomes clearer when you see the blob of a 100 shot group and realize that any five hole group has equal chance of happening.
In other words: "Fliers are not fliers". They are usually legit shots, that simply happen a bit less often.
For example, they shot a 100 shot group with a 10-22 and there were literally 2 fliers there. Two shots which hit outside of the main blob. Every other "flier" you could chance upon was well within the main blob. Just less likely to happen, is all.
3. You mentioned tuning the load to the harmonics of the gun.
Oh my, I've no time. I gotta go.
The take home message is that it's all about luck. If your 5shot groups truly reflect reality, stay away from lotteries , because you likely already used up all your luck for a few years.
No disrespect intended, none at all. I believe your words! I'm convinced your shooting ability is easily twice better than mine and your guns are not even comparable to the best stuff I ever shot (okay, maybe comparable, still much better).
Best regards. Sorry for the misspells. I've no time to check and I'm mildly dyslectic. I gotta go.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@randomnobodovsky3692 I never claimed that out-of-battery detonation is not a problem, only that it's not a serious problem. You seemed to argue, that trying to dial it in with trial&error is dangerous.
No, it isn't. And once you get it right, there is very little which can go wrong.
On the other hand, a hammer-fired gun can and does detonate OOB at times. All it takes is maybe a tiny burr on the firing pin, or even a bit of dirt.
I don't see how it's any safer, considering the conditions in which those guns were expected to be made. Then likely handed out to people who couldn't be well trained in the use of them.
Accidentally, I spoke to a dude who served back then, as a teen. So he survived, because when he wanted to shoot, he'd go deep into the forest. His two friends, who were less cautious or lucky, were captured, executed and dropped on the street for everybody to see.
In conditions like this, the simpler the gun is, the safer it is.
1
-
1