Youtube comments of GunFun ZS (@GunFunZS).
-
1400
-
867
-
807
-
474
-
471
-
464
-
299
-
231
-
221
-
209
-
178
-
170
-
145
-
139
-
135
-
130
-
120
-
116
-
104
-
96
-
92
-
85
-
I'd go one further. A lot of being Soviet in general was looking soviet. You needed to not stand out and conform to the memes generated by the state. Anything which contrasted was possibly subversive. If you look at art or clothes or trains or anything from those regimes, they all had to conform to a consistent look, which fit the propaganda model of the state. Simultaneously trying to convey uniformity, modernity, and a simple practical style. "we are making progress together, but not decadent progress. Universal, everyday simple and solid progress."... Weapons and trains were actually key propaganda statements about what the state was doing, so anything associated with them was carefully stylized to fit the image. -- Look up soviet art, and particularly soviet train stations/ trains themselves, and you will see the images that they are pushing. weapons show up a lot in that art- and not evil lend-lease or captured German weapons, but weapons of "the people"....
82
-
82
-
81
-
78
-
78
-
73
-
71
-
71
-
69
-
68
-
61
-
59
-
56
-
55
-
53
-
52
-
51
-
51
-
50
-
47
-
46
-
45
-
45
-
44
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
41
-
39
-
38
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
35
-
35
-
34
-
34
-
MrAgentd About other stuff yes, but not about that time very much any more. He's 90 now. He really only started talking about this kind of thing in the last 10 or so years, and then not very much. I'd get a lot more details about things when say a news story would criticize a modern soldier's judgment call. Oddly he was more likely to tell strangers about this stuff than family, so a lot more of the details came up when overhearing what he was telling other people. Now he seems to be more comfortable talking about things, but he is getting old enough that he gets events mixed up. So for about the last two years, I wouldn't consider a story to be very reliable unless it matched in detail something I have heard him talk about years ago too. There's a window in the day that is best for conversation, and it tends to coincide with working hours. You know how that is.
To him combat and war were not "cool" so he didn't often talk about them directly. i.e. In a conversation about pastoring (his main profession), the civil rights movement might come up. That would lead to his disgust about how the navy failed to give as good training to the black people that were assigned as replacements for his deck guns, (.30 cal machine guns vs aircraft in this case, and some thing bigger too.) which lead to him having to do training on some people more or less in battle. From this, I can infer that he had gun crew people under him die, since they needed replacements, but he has never talked about that directly. I try not to ask him things he doesn't seem to want to talk about. I assume there's a good reason.
33
-
@fuNaN89 * not exactly. Few scientists sit down over morning coffee with the new journals. They might research for topical studies to a task they are working on, but really journals exist so that people can get published and therefore maintain their jobs. Journals are a way of keeping your job, and are much more printed than read. Same way doctoral theses are written, but not read as a rule.
For most teaching positions the requirements are to be regularly published, and the same goes for research fellowships. Peer review sounds great, but in practice it is often a circular incentive loop. I find a group of people who agree with my ideas. They validate my ideas, I validate theirs, we all keep our jobs, grants, etc. If someone finds information that might contradict our ideas, we all gang up on him and make sure he loses his job and platform to threaten our livelihoods. Plus, we really believe our ideas and have invested decades of our identities in them, so you know- burn the heretic.
33
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
31
-
30
-
30
-
29
-
29
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
[eye roll]
"Knowing your gun inside and out" would imply for instance that you knew operating force came from the gas tube, and that your issued gun was not a piston driven AR. Both of which I recently had two active duty marines claim. That's a long ways short of being a "weapons designer or an expert in ballistics" and also of "knowing their weapons inside and out."
The truth is, that in any group, the people who care about guns know how they work and how to run them, and the rest of the people know only as much as they are required to know. Marines, Army, Cops, etc. They do enough to qualify. The ones who care do enough to be proficient, and an exceptional few work to become masters.
-- You seem eager to condescend and to willfully misunderstand.
You say you don't have time to argue, but the evidence shows that to be false. You've insulted me a few times now, but at least you fairly did the same when you chose your screen name.
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
nowthisis2stupid
1, I don't just go off of my grandfather's stories. I knew a few other people who fought in WWII, and have worked with a lot of veterans of more recent conflicts. I have good friends and family, and coworkers in each branch. I read history, including military. I am not an expert, but I am informed.
2) who said we were talking about the beginning of the war? I think we both agree that most of our servicemen at the beginning of the war were thoroughly trained. (In the tactics of WWI)
From every discussion I have had with military people, I have found a couple consistent themes.
First, every branch and every unit has screw-ups. Men that no one respects, who are sloppy, stupid and dangerous. BAR dragger might have been that guy. Who knows? Maybe the next day his Sgt. bawled him out and made him clean that gun flawlessly. We weren't there, but there is little reason to doubt the account. It was memorable because it was unusual, after all.
Second, almost all of them find that they actually want to change their issued kit shortly after getting into their actual field role. (Which is often not the one they were trained for... For all we know, BAR dragger was trained to wrench on jeeps for the marines.) Once they are in their non-practice role, they tend to get more leeway and opportunity to swap stuff out. For instance, my combat medic friend from the army ended up leaving most of his med kit in the armored ambulance so that he could carry more "israelis" and more ammo. People could claim" army medics don't shoot, and they carry the following items...." but the real world isn't like that.
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
American lawyer: Why do all the state and local concealed weapons laws talk about "concealed dirks" and "nun-chaku-sticks"? Who was even afraid of scottish kilt daggers, and concealed sticks with chains? Why did they spell it that way? Does any law define "Dirk?" -- American lawyer after research:-- Reverend Lovejoy's wife in ~1960 saw some movies and got scared. All the states and cities did Ctrl+C/ Ctrl+V. Also Dirk doesn't seem to have a clear definition even in court cases, but those that i found, aren't talking about dirks, but actually basically prison shank style weapons on the street. meanwhile, most of those states allow carrying a gun, possibly only with a permit though. In my state, CCW permit is easy, but it does not cover knives. You can own a sword, but a knife that springs open or opens by reciprocal force is a no-no. You can own those, but not carry them. Oh, and every folding knife can open by reciprocal force, so it's really a question of how violently do you have to fling it to open, and there is no legal definition for that.
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
@alienwizard9765 Argh. Typed up a reply and it just glitched away. The AEK-971 isn't enough better to replace the inventory that Russia has. MK was mostly a mascot in his final years, but even if he were the brilliant leader that they needed..... Well no amount of brilliance and foresight in design can overcome the economic realities. KK had no shortage of innovative improvements, though which ones they offered for adoption is a bit of a head scratcher sometimes. Their company had IIRC 3 bankruptcies this century, as well as partial mergers and un mergers with MOLOT, with leadership coming and going constantly. Often with the petty cash while the floor workers were unpaid for months. The Izhevsk arsenal is immense and the maintenance costs alone must be crushing to profits. Probably they are letting most of it rot. But the real problem is market saturation. Russia has stockpiles of AK variants that are insane. I have seen and forgotten numbers, but it is possible that they have more AKs than people right now. Any gun offered as a replacement has to be enough better to be worth throwing all that stockpile on the scrap pile and replacing it. Instead, Russia, which is still fairly broke buys just enough of the new fancy toys for their elite troops, and keeps the rest using the guns they have. They order enough rifles to just barely keep KK in business, and they discourage major exports. The company is being kept on life support, but not really allowed to thrive. It's not about lack of brilliant designs.
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
1) The thief or persons who held it as stolen property mistreated it. It is a 6" SS revolver. It was so thoroughly black with gunsmoke and ??? that it almost appeared to have worn blueing everywhere but under the grips. Bore was good though and lockwork in fine condition. The rear sight was half broken off. I soaked it for a week in a ziploc full of CLP mostly dissembled. Then scrubbed it all with very fine steel wool for a long time, until it looked like any other SS revolver with a normal life. I was able to find the correct sight parts after looking for a while. At the time the fine picture rear leaf was very hard to find, and generally very expensive.
2) Uncle. Background that is relevant. --- My uncle is not tactful, and that makes his life harder than it could be. He had a long standing property fight with his neighbor. The neighbor was in the wrong and made a situation that involved police. Police came and arrested my uncle for theft, and issued orders outside their authority. The law and facts were completely in my uncle's favor. (I'm an attorney, and know what I'm talking about here). The cop just went with a hunch and picked a side. He chose wrongly, and was badly embarrased and reprimanded by the judge. This lead to a grudge against my brusque uncle and the cop.
Uncle a couple years later: Renter's on his rural property feed some strays intermittently. My uncle is a rough man, but with a soft spot for his cats and chickens. One of the strays sometimes fed by his renters was a large mean tom cat, which killed several of my uncle's cats, maimed the others, and killed all but two of the chickens. My uncle came up for lunch in time to see this cat stalking his favorite and last surviving cat, an older tom. He ran inside, grabbed a shotgun and shot the feral cat, and threw it's corpse off an embankment. Apparently the renter saw this, and called the cops. All this is completely legal, and reasonable. I'd have done the same. Uncle said something smartass to the renter, and similar to the cop, which was the same cop. The cop chose to charge him with cruelty to animals. Because my uncle is who he is, the prosecuting attorney was another person who had a grudge against him. I forget the reason for that one. (Life lesson. Don't be an ass.) Anyway, my uncle didn't take the thing seriously and used his business attorney short notice to mount a very crude defense to a felony charge, and came in to court looking scruffy. The jury were animal people, and my uncle looked like a jerk during the trial. The prosecutor made a big play about how many birdshot pellets were in the cat, and as though more pellets equaled more cruelty, rather than a quicker more humane death. That got him a conviction for felony cruelty to animals, and all the life hassles that go along with a felony conviction. -- and that is now off his record, and he can legally own firearms again. - Don't be an ass to people and life goes better for you.
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
@Мармеладов ТВ He licensed it to the company around 2009 or 2010. He also licensed his name to a vodka brand before that. MK was paid for these, and had a lifetime figurehead position at IZH, and a lovely little country estate.
Izhevisk machine works was renamed KK during the process of resolving the latest bankruptcy, with MK's permission. Then they formed a contractual agreement with an american company to be their stateside importer and manufacturer, giving them name rights and some technical data. That company is Kalashnikov USA. In the middle of that process, following the Ukraine situation, Obama issued an executive order that prevented united states companies from doing business with certain named Russian companies, including KK. This meant that K-USA as a legally distinct entity could keep doing business and using the name, but couldn't send money back to KK, or recieve the rest of the tooling and tecnical data from KK. At the time KK threatened to sue for some breach, which was not named. However, the trade executive order that prevented them from doing business together, also prevents lawsuits based on their contracts. Trump renewed that executive order, and expanded it to include Molot. It seems unlikely that future presidents will lift the executive order, so this situation will exist in stasis indefinitely.
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
Yeah. Siaga 12 and Vepr mags do this just fine. 3" mag or shorter. The S12 has a better gas system for adjusting to greatly varying power. I have modified autoplugs in mine, which enable them to run rougly 2.75 dram eqivalent through max 3"mag loads without any adjustments, flawlessly. The adkal 1919 mags are okay too, but the quality of some of the mechanical parts of the gun means that it will wear quickly with full power magnums. Aftermarket parts made from better materials mitigate that somewhat. There's room for improvment in all the current designs, but they are whole generations of development simpler than typical pump guns. They kinda got a bad rap, because a significant minority of the earlier imports had improper gas ports, or other minor assembly problems. Easy enough to fix, but most people throw down a gun in disgust rather than fix it in the American market. If it has the right number and size of unobstructed gas ports, a saiga or vepr will basically run anything in it's wide window of function extremely reliably. If one of those things is wrong, it is wrong pretty much all the time. No lurking defects. If your gun has issues you know it. If it doesn't, it doesn't.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
Yep, but in context when 2 of twelve had them, he said that was enough. He was mostly making the point there that he was laying his life down freely, not from inability to resist. Also, given the realities of swords and Peter's personality, Jesus had to be aware that those guys already had them, which he must also have been fine with, since he didn't stop it. It's a packed little passage. From it we can reasonably infer that Jesus supports a right to be armed, but not a requirement, that those arms should be on par with military, and that it wasn't his main point, since he apparently never brought it up before. It puts down those who claim christians can never use violence, and those who think you are a bad husband who doesn't love his family if you don't spend all your free time and income on tactical training in the same moment.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
To be honest it's fairly rare for an American to have a reason to say Oxfordshire in either way. (edit, I accidentally posted at this point, which might come across as impolite.) The point I was going to make is that if you get to general American recognition of Oxford, the shire isn't part of it at all. In general, I think most of us would know there's an Oxford university somewhere or other, and that it is prestigious. We also probably know of Oxford as being a basic type of shirt for office workers at the bottom of the professional queue. If you asked the man on the street what "shire" meant, he'd probably say, " I dunno, where hobbits are from?" A couple decades ago, it would have been "where Robin Hood is from, I guess?"
This is because most of us have no more reason to be aware of it than you would have the need to know the correct way to pronounce Willamette, or Oregon. In general, people from the UK put a lot more pride and emphasis on their regionalisms, than is done here. Americans do have pride of place, but not to the degree that is generally caricatured in EU media. Alaskans and Hawiians are a lot more likely to make it part of their identity. Texans to a lesser extent, though they talk of it more. For them, it is more of a shared running joke with an element of truth. We alaskans love to make fun of the people from little texas...
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
"Psychopath" (& "high functioning sociopath")is a clinical derogatory term for people whose emotional make up suits them to function usefully for others under harsh conditions. IMO the definition tells you more about the values and personality types of the people that tend to make up the mental health professions than it does about the relative normalcy (or mental health) of those few who can defer or suppress emotions during extreme conditions.
What it shows is that the mental health attitudes of the last century is very prescriptive. They made a value judgement about what the "right kind of person" is, then gave it a whitewash of science. It's applied philosophy, with some measurement to justify what are intrinsically subjective opinions. A lot of that developed in reaction to societal values of men who were emotionally durable, but not emotionally engaged. The mental health profession rejected this value and substituted its opposite. Obviously, the ability to suppress emotions and behave rationally is valuable, as is "vulnerability". It doesn't need to be an either/or choice. However, lack of ability to suppress emotions is a severe handicap for any job that deals with crisis or decisions which should run contrary to the default emotional drives.
If you've read "On Killing" or similar works, you find that very small numbers of troops in any branch of military service are actually willing to kill without extreme circumstantial pressure. Those few who either lack such inhibitions or are able to set them aside more easily account for more kills than hundreds of their peers. Many of the critical military positions actively seek out those who have this attribute. i.e. special forces, fighter pilots, snipers, machine gunners. Basically, knowing that most people won't kill when they objectively should, the few who do are a very valuable resource and are carefully allocated.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
+1 These books are a guilty pleasure. While they are certainly cheesy schlock ticking all the cliche boxes, they still end up being very fun. I will buy them as often as he writes them.
Larry Correa used to run a gun store, and still teaches CCW classes, and LE training courses. He is a 3 gun competitor, and wrote one of the most persuasive articles on gun control for the average person I have ever read. (It's good for something other than choir preaching.) See here:http://1389blog.com/2012/12/23/larry-correia-refutes-the-gun-controllers-once-and-for-all/
I was introduced to him, because I spend too much time on the saiga forums, and lots of MHI fans come periodically to see what they can do to get a legal version of the protagonist's custom Saiga 12, "abomination." Minus the happy switch and SBS chop, most of us are actually playing with nicer guns than that now, but when MHI came out, the parts described were daydreams for most saiga owners. Now they are off the shelf parts. Well, maybe not the silver inlaid spring loaded bayonet...
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
While some stupidly assembled 300 BO loads can chamber in a .223 gun, 1) this usually requires stupid levels of force AND a weak crimp. (This isn't the high tech kind of telescoping ammo, it's the shoddily made kind) 2) these are only due to cartridges loaded with projectiles not intended for the caliber, most notably 30 carbine bullets, and the 147 grainers intended for 7.62 nato. For both of those projectiles, the ogive of the bullet can mimic the shoulder of a .223/556 case but generally very over length.
Simply using appropriate projectiles completely alleviates this potential risk. With the right projectiles, the bullet would hit the lands with the bold a good quarter inch out of battery. I always make a point of comparing any load side by side with a .223 and making sure there is no way to chamber it incorrectly.
IMO, this is worth being careful about but the risk is largely overblown. There is far more real world risk of people putting 20 ga in a 12, and 9mm in a 40 S&W, both of which happen quite frequently. I practice having distinct magazines for 300 BO and avoid storing the guns & accessories in the same places. I also avoid mix and matching on a single range trip, at least without a little effort at keeping them separate.
Gear that has room for human error has room for improvement. But that said, I can't help but think that the people who get this wrong would tend to get other stuff wrong too, and will hurt themselves one way or another.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
I had a neighbor who was like 20% of this. He was a guy in his mid-forties who had a painting business and a bunch of mastiffs. The dogs were in a general fairly friendly. Property had assured easement access road with all of the neighbors in a line. I was about 3/4 the way down the road was several neighbors past me. I was early twenties, and had a car with really low ground clearance. This guy assumed because he was older than me He was my boss. I was always respectful but not submitted to that.
The neighbors that were passed me had suburbans and similar vehicles and would drive up the road at frankly unsafe speeds of like 35 or 40 miles an hour. Unsafe because there were several kids in the house past me and bushes obscured the view so you would not have time to stop. I would drive down that road at about 15 miles an hour. But the problem neighbor insisted that nobody could drive on the road faster than five because he said so. Several times he confronted me quite angrily and I told him that I would drive it a reasonable speed and that he had no legal ability to dictate his opinion on me. one night at close to midnight when my brother was staying over for the night, The other neighbors as usual zoomed past my house at approximately 35 or 40 mph. A few minutes later the problem neighbor knocked on my door. I anticipated it was actually the elderly gentleman who lived in between us- a good neighbor. I was wrong it was the problem neighbor and he'd clearly been drinking a little bit although I did not realize that until later. He brought one of his Mastiffs with him. He was doing all the classic pre-fight body language, means on his neck flushed face, Right I had a right eye eye eye contact, raising volume of voice lean forward bladed stance, and he kept making half steps into my doorway, He also kept clenching and unclenching his hands into fists at his side and I doubt he was where he was doing that. The whole time I was far less concerned with him then with his dog which was trying to push past him into my apartment. my read on the situation was probably that he would throw one punch feel that he was the big man and go home and then I would call the cops, but that dog would not stop because it was keying off of his aggression. In my mind the entire time I was thinking through my plan of how I would feed the dog my left forearm while I got out my pocket knife which I can do one handed and take out its throat. I had a pistol in a drawer that was right next to that door and it isn't normally where I keep it, but in that situation a step and a half away was too far away. That was a learning experience.
The good neighbor who lived between us would never believe anything bad about Mike. This is in about a month later on one of the several times he tried to block the driveway to keep me from coming past I steered around him and he screamed and obscenity and punched my rear window as I drove by. I'm sure he was trying to take out the glass. Me neighbor in between witness the whole event and would continually express his surprise. I told him I couldn't understand why he would be surprised since I had repeatedly told him beforehand about Mike's behavior. but you know Mike had done him some favors like helped him carry a dryer so he obviously couldn't be a bad guy... So the lessons learned? A gun in a drawer isn't much good. People have a hard time overcoming preconceptions, and I am unsure that that neighbor would have been a reliable witness, If it came to court. and it also pays to visualize what you would do in advance. I had visualized that if I ever had a problem I would not let them cross my doorway and where I would stand to be a barrier, That's what I did and I think if I had not done that the dog would have been in my house and would have attacked me.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
It comes from the french term which rhymes with bean. But don't take my word for it, take it from some other guy on the internoodle: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vg2fSD2Vl58 Language isn't static, however much we would like it to be. Unfortunately for you, if you take the position that it is static, then you are still claiming to be wrong, as you are asserting that the intermediate pronunciation is the correct one, not the original or the more recently predominant version, and not both pronunciations. Additionally, you are in the geopolitical minority, as your version is popular with the least number of nations, and not even the majority of English speakers. So, you might want to get off the high pony, and climb onto a horse.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Todd Gillespie The rifles of that day would easily penetrate half an inch of MILD steel. Imagine trying to walk over mud, roots and barbed wire, etc. All while holding 200 lbs in front of you at arms' length. Yeah. You couldn't. Not consistently anyway. Especially with heavy machine guns, cannons, mortars, grenades, and even normal rifles penetrating it, going over or around it. Even if you could make a shield a man could carry, that somehow provided adequate coverage while moving, they couldn't make mild steel fast enough, let alone armor plate grade steel. Also even grading steel was a very new art. Quality metal was a very scarce commodity and most of that went to making artillery barrels or battleship armor.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Agreed, except for your fist sentence. .40 is considered a high pressure round, but it is not "considered +p by default." +p is a definded term, meaning that the cartridge is within official designated pressure range, that is higher than the standard designated pressure range. .40 S&W is a high pressure round whose range is standardized as such. The guns are built by default to those pressure levels. (Though some of the early flavors were engineered up from 9mm pistols and were a stretch.)
However, If you are talking about those hotrod cartridges and the firearms built for them, you aren't talking about 45 ACP anymore. Much of what you said applies to 9mm Major, which can be loaded up to energy levels bordering on .357 mag, using standard 9mm brass. As with the 45ACP +P+ variants, there is a real risk of ammo mixup with common firearms which can't handle the hot ammo. Considering that there are now so many good performing cartridges in standard calibers and pressure ranges, it is hard to justify either outside of novelty or competition.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The QC has improved, and there is no longer any ties to Robinson arms. I think they are about as nice an AK format weapon as you can get, but there are a few on par. I'd also be happy with some cheaper ones too. (Which often makes me the devil's advocate as a moderator on the vepr forum.)
BTW Currently the Vepr12 is selling in the nicest configuration for about $400 less than it should. $699 w/ folding stock (tacked open). I expect the market to correct soon on that. I am a Saiga 12 fan, but right now it would be silly to buy an S12 when a V12 with all the options ticked is within $200. If you are interested in a fully modern shotgun, I don't see a better choice, and I doubt that deal will last. It is exciting to see how many decent mag fed shotgun models are cropping up. (A handful of poor ones too.) I know you are a fan of innovation, and these developments are long overdue. There are presently 4-5 brands available for sale that are better than the USAS 12 and the silly AA12 for under $1100. Bozor BR99, Adkal 1919, (and fully metal firebird clone), Saiga 12 and variants, Vepr 12, Catamount Fury (not as good quality), and possible import of a Norinco related product called the Jianshe Annihilator. Soon, I won't have to use your videos to prove my S12 isn't an "illegal streetsweeper."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I did a lot of fabrication. I've killed a few red tools over the years. I had a brand new sawszall die about a half hour into use. It was the heaviest duty model they made circa 2003. I know better than to overheat a tool and didn't see that coming. We used up grinders on the boat, and used the old makita model for the small model, the milwaukee for the medium and skill for the big beast, since for years those were the best in class. All of them eventually wore out, and we had enough to caniballize. Then we got a metabo small size grinder. It outlasted 5 of the milwaukees we had, while being smaller, having more rpm, more torque and a clutch. It also got submerged in oily salt water a couple times. It was so much nicer to use, people would complain if they had to use the milwaukee tools instead of the metabo. IIRC, the company recently got abosrbed into some conglomerate, so who knows if they are as good now.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ah. Dismissing an entire nation as a homogeneous block because you can't point to evidence. You can't answer your arguments so you just say that I don't count. A brilliant strategy. I'd suggest calling us all homosexuals as part of name calling to further bolster your argument, but you already did that, sir. Why not keep it stereotypical, and add that you'll have sex with my mother, or cut my face?
On the other hand, if you are open to addressing points via logic and rhetoric, please read and respond to the following:
You still haven't said which residents of the UK speak real English. Or what time period. I'll assume you can't, which is why you dodged that issue, since it is the biggest hole in your whole perspective.
You say American's don't count, I'll one-up you then. People in the UK don't speak "proper English" anymore either. If we don't count, I don't think you can make a good case that Britons should count. U wot m8? Probably the only groups in the UK known for speaking clear English are immigrants. The Germans speak better English, your Pakistani and Indian residents speak intelligible English because they put effort into it.
The truth is that English is the 'lingua franca' of the modern world, and most of the modern world is getting their colloquial English from the worst of American sitcoms: "friends", and from training related to American software. The youth in the UK are as likely to call thin fried pieces of potato "chips" as "crisps" and say "TV" rather than "telly". If you continue to think of this as culturally winning or losing, then your only conclusions can be denial or loss. On the other hand, you could realize that English like all languages is inherently mutable, and is homogenizing due to mass media, which mostly comes from the USA, but is also adapting to fit the linguistic habits of other languages. i.e. my own personal pet peeve of bad usage. "Show me how _ feels like." It should be either "how that feels" or "what __ feels like" but not a combination. However the language is changing and that appears to be the new dominant usage. I can grow up or spend my life being petty and bitter about trivialities. I choose to be interested, rather than bitter. I invite you to join me in that perspective.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I think your best point is the one at the 18 minute mark. That's my professional field of expertise. Even in areas where we want the government making rules, the quick and dirty emergency fix is to dictate HOW things are done, not what result you want to get. This is bad lawmaking, and stifles innovation and is most open to exploit. Instead, IF you want a state to make rules, you usually want the rule to dictate the Result, but leave the method open to choice.
(easy example. In the 1950s they decided that we needed to see on roads, and dictated round sealed bulb halogen headlights with parabolic reflectors as the method. Those were the best tech at the time. Almost immediately, better headlights were developed in other shapes and using other methods of generating the light. We couldn't sell them here for a decade or two. It would have been better to dictate that drivers must at least be able to see a particular range. Or even dictating lumens at a particular distance in a particular wavelength.)
Regulators are most responsive to the needs and considerations of large organizations, because they can pay to staff lawyers and techs to study the issues. They are terrible at responding to the input of large groups of small institutions and individuals. You can pretty much guarantee that if the state makes a law about social media, the law will be designed from the standpoint and interests of the big companies, not their customers. It's a structural thing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
A valid point. I was not thinking so much about volume of sustained fire as about seizing with mud or rainwater induced rust. It seems like a lot of the problems were during the numerous stretches of miserable conditions, which didn't give any down time for service. A gun like the Chauchat would have needed a lot of downtime, and a location where you would feel safe to not lose parts. I expect that neglect was the rule and proper service the exception. I am sure that like AR variants in deserts today, the field advice would have been: Keep a bottle of light oil on hand. If there isn't time to do a proper field strip, at least get a bunch of oil down the barrel jacket, and you'll probably be fine. That and if pressed into a sustained fire role, reliability could probably be achieved fairly well with simply a wet rag hung over the barrel jacket. That speeds up cooling substantially, and everyone has the materials on hand.
I wouldn't expect you to modify it given your collector motives, but if someone did want to get more shooting out of one, and were making a spare barrel from a blank to rack up the round count, it still seems like a no-brainer to keep the radiator at diameter at the ends, and shave a couple thou off down the length. You get the tracking maintained, but a lot less friction surface.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Alternate theory based on personal experience as an attorney. I get things like this from time to time, and it comes from not shutting the would be client down hard
. -- Pla's attorney is new and hungry. Pla is family friend. Pla has this whole thing written out on 3 reams of paper. She says, "sure, I want to help you uncle Jed-Bob." Then she sees the huge mess, but doesn't have the nerve to shut him down. She says, " that's way too long to file, I would have to rewrite it from scratch." Pla says "Naw. You are just trying to run up the bill. It should be more affordable because I did all the work for you. All's I need is for you to make this all legal- like and put the end bits on there, and file it in the right place...." And then she knows she should say, "No." but she's too nice, and too broke. So she commits a rule 11 violation, and puts her name on the end of some ramblings written by her client..
People used to try to do that with me all the time, and now maybe only every 6 months or so. I tell them cash up front, and I am rewriting everything, to only include legally relevant statements which I can document as provable. I also explain that shorter documents are more persuasive. We just need enough good arguments, not everything that ever happened. They counter that it's all true. I say that I sympathize, but I have to prove things with documents made at the time of the event, and will have to leave out everything else. Also that if they pay me to start this, and we can't find provable evidence, then I will end the project and they won't get cash back. That either causes them to take me seriously and listen, or leave. Either works. If we work together, I write out the skeleton of the case, with what legally relevant facts I need to prove, then give the client a shopping list. i.e. Find me a receipt for when you had the well put in, or a bank statement.
1
-
1
-
1
-
FYI, "Manstopper" was all but the official name for the second version of the Webley service bullet in 454. It was just an HP, but after Hague, it became bad PR so they just reverted to the prior bullet. It was kind of an embarrassment for the British Army. They had bullet type 1 which they replaced because it didn't work all that well, and they had evidence. So they developed Bullet 2 which they said, 'hey this won't get you killed, it's a manstopper.' It worked alright-for a handgun round. Then they re-issued bullet #1, and said, "~hey this one is great, perfectly adequate, totally won't get you killed, stop whining." (See SA80 for a slightly funnier development cycle.)
It's all absurd, because the point of any bullet is to induce a grievous wound which rapidly incapacitates the guy who is trying to kill you. All the various small arms conventions did was force other types of bullets which would make equivalent wounds. Big slow bullet= big ugly hole. Medium slow bullet +HP = big ugly hole. Fast small bullet = big ugly hole. Faster smaller bullet = big ugly hole. Fastish smaller bullet turning sideways on impact= ___________. It would be useless to carry any bullet which doesn't do that, so they all do, and Hague convention is futile.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I could not agree more with the point at 1:03 about impostor syndrome.
Malcom Gladwell points out in David and Goliath, that people tend to excel at a level where they are challenged but stand a bit ahead of their peers. A feeling of success builds momentum and a feeling of inadequacy or being overwhelmed does the same in the other direction.
I went to Gonzaga School of Law, which is prestigious based on how people react to it. (Others may point out that it is easier to get into than some other schools.)
The point was though, I was an "easy A", and am a generally bright guy. In a small pond it is easy to be a big fish. However, in a pond made of the biggest fish from several other ponds, one feels very small and overwhelmed most of the time. IIRC The law school population by academic standards were the top 3% of undergraduate students, many of whom were at the top of their high school classes. We had over achievers called "gunners" who had calculated out projections for class rankings and chose which classes they attend by spreadsheet analysis of which class would preserve their individual ranking. These guys all wanted the jobs that have a track record of burn out and ruined lives and divorce. Some of them were at the top of the class while working as interns, doing law review and moot court. I was not. Prior to law school, acing my undergrad while working 52 hours a week was natural for me. In law school, I was sick with stress just managing to keep "acceptably behind" on the coursework and reading. They knowingly assigned a reading list which required more hours than there are in a day. I think this was either unthinkingly on the part of the professors, or over some notion of stress inoculation. People who made it through basically learned to perform a triage on what stuff they could risk not reading, and looked several years older.
It was a very stressful experience for me. I have no doubt that I rose to the level of professional competence, but I think the curve system forces many to fail who have crossed the threshold of adequacy, simply by saying that there are others who were a half percent more adequate, and an arbitrary number of passing grades. The bar exam is another redundant filter also set on a curve, which is made harder each successive year by intent. I think all of this creates a very high cost without an apparent benefit. -- And I can say that last point because both the LSAC and the various Bar Associations routinely brag about how they have studied performance in the entrance exams, law school performance, and Bar Exam performance, and each of these correlates negatively with professional success as attorneys. (Even more negatively with general life success indicators.) Only an insane system would study this, recognize the perverse incentive and decide to continue in the same direction more rigorously.
If you read this far, thank you, and I welcome your thoughts.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The AR and SA80 have theoretically the same effective range, but the AR's handling characteristics and ease of mounting good optics make it easier to hit with. The weakest link in the system is the user. I haven't been in army or combat either, but the effective range is a pretty well known thing. I can say from a lot of paintball, that someone who doesn't want to be seen or shot at from 20 meters away is pretty hard to see or shoot, and it gets exponentially harder with distance. Particularly with uneven light, or when the target is small, moving, and colored similarly to the background. I used to do pest control out to about 350 meters having a target which was pretty close to the size of a human head. At that range, getting a hit on 1 out of 20 or so attempts was doing good, because you never have much time to notice the pest, drop what you are doing, grab a gun, and take a perfect shot. What people can do easily from a nice rest at a clear range on a clear day, with high contrast target, and lots of time tends to give an exaggerated expectation for what is doable under more practical conditions. That said, I've made more hits than I would believe if another guy were telling the story, so there's something for practice and familiarity for getting quick estimations of range and wind and a clean trigger break. After a while you can make shots that you don't deserve to make. Not all the time, but enough to motivate me to keep trying. The overwhelming data of combat indicates that people's effective range is ~3-400m, so having a gun that shoots well much further is kinda wasted.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1