Comments by "Edward Cullen" (@edwardcullen1739) on "Garand Thumb" channel.

  1. ​ @CabbageBloke  He didn't say that, he said that two minor changes made a big difference. They also changed the bolt, firing pin, barrel, reinforced the frame and replaced the furniture. Basically, there wasn't much left of the original by the time they were done...
    27
  2. ​ @mackemforever  Plus, as a mate put it when comparing to the M4: "it doesn't feel like it will fall apart when you're smashing someone's head in with it." (He had some "full contact" moments in Afghanistan, so I treat him as a authority on the subject... 😅)
    13
  3. He has an A1, so yeah, but the A2 is basically a different weapon. Both my best friend and one of my brothers did their basic with A1s, but deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan with A2s. They both swear by the night-and-day difference between the A1 and A2. Both had significant time in contact with the enemy; neither was a REMF who only shot 30 rounds a year, FWIW.
    12
  4. ​ @rzr2ffe325  No, the A1 itself is utter garbage. Ian @ForgottenWeapons did a breakdown of the mechanics showing why the A1 was so bad. There is some truth to the MOD using cheaper powder, but it was still within NATO spec - a case of a bad weapon made worse by cheap ammo, not the other way around.
    8
  5.  @CabbageBloke  And, of course, the magazine release 😂
    4
  6. ​ @rzr2ffe325  Because it the numbers were correct. The £ numbers, the only thing the modern MOD seems to understand...
    4
  7. He didn't just exercise his rights, he did his duty as a citizen.
    2
  8. Wait, wait, you got 700 rounds through an A1?!?! How many firing pins did that take???
    2
  9.  @saravind13  😅
    1
  10.  @sunjayroytube  I don't agree. There was a reason for switching to bullpup, a reason that hasn't gone away. Bullpups maintain a full length barrel while retaining most of the handiness of a subgun for CQB. (A bullpup without a fun switch is missing the point...) The fact that the new US rifle is going for a larger round at higher velocities only reinforces the case for staying bullpup. Longer barrel is the easiest way to get higher velocities. A short-barrel M4 may work for commandos, but for line infantry the case is way less compelling. The US military is NOT a good yardstick for small arms - it took 20 years for the US to adopt something that was close to the StG44. The EM-2 (~1950) was originally chambered in .280, which the US is NOW planning to adopt (going to 6.8mm; .280 is ~7mm)
    1
  11.  @fergusmason5426  Yeah, I'm gonna have to hit X to doubt on the A1 reliability stats. When you've met multiple ex-users saying things like "A1 goes through firing pins faster than magazines"... It's hard to take claims that the A1 beat other NATO weapons seriously. Given the timeframe of the A2, the nature of the changes, the fact that it's an AR-18 internally, can I believe it beat the competition by a country mile? Yes, yes I can.
    1
  12. There were and he does indeed. Gives a really good comparison between A1 and A2 IIRC, really highlights the "this was designed by an engineer vs. this was designed by an experienced gunsmith".
    1